Note
Studied by 35 people
Multiple Choice Section Only
Unit 9
Unit 9 Content notes
Topics covered in this unit include:
Indigenous policies
Policies: Pre-Confederation to 1960
Policies: 1960 to present
Truth and Reconciliation
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
Identify various indigenous policies from different eras in order to properly critique its policies;
Identify the challenges that both indigenous communities and the government face when initiating policies on indigenous issues; and
Identify key agreements, policies and principles in relation to Indigenous issues and peoples of Canada.
a specific area of policy-making
policy issues with indigenous policies and discuss the historic breakdown and chronology of indigenous policies throughout the years in Canada (pre-Confederation to present).
Indigenous policies span many different elements, including policies dealing with First Nation, Metis, Inuit, land claim agreements, sovereignty issues, residential school systems, truth and reconciliation reports and numerous other policies in the form of legal, political and social policies.
When thinking about these specific issues, consider these questions:
What is the issue in question?
What are the challenges that are associated with issues-based policies, specifically indigenous policies?
Who are the key players in determining the success of these issues based public policy?
What type of impact does public policy have on the public?
What type of legal implications are involved with indigenous policies?
Indigenous people (or Aboriginal people as they are referred to in the Constitution) are defined as a descendant of any of the indigenous peoples who inhabited Canada before the arrival of European Settlers
Constitutionally speaking, the word "aboriginal" includes three different groups that make up the term, and they are” The First Nations/Indians, The Inuit, and the Metis.
In recent years, the word aboriginal has been changed to indigenous to reflect a more comprehensive term that includes all groups.
This is also reflected in the two new departments created for indigenous people in Canada: Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
History of Indigenous policies
Royal Commission of Aboriginal People
The Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) was set up in 1996 and reported back to the federal government
This commission proposed new and better solutions to solve some of the major issues that have plagued the indigenous communities, including a proposal to recognize self-government
Many sub committees and plans were created in response to the Royal Commission of Aboriginal peoples, including the Aboriginal Action Plan created in 1997 to strengthen aboriginal governance and renew partnerships with other fellow Canadians and groups
Other proposals to find better solutions for indigenous people include: Creation of third order of government: an aboriginal/indigenous parliament, independent tribunals to handle land claims, more money for housing, health, education, and employment, establishment of an indigenous university and an immediate infusion of cash for the various indigenous groups.
Creation of Nunavut
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created the territory of Nunavut in 1999.
This was a land claim agreement that included some self-governing powers.
There are two main things that are significant to the agreement; firstly, the government is part of the public political system (as opposed to an ethnic Inuit government).
Although the Inuit people wanted to have an ethnically based government to ensure that the Inuit tradition is carried on, the federal government opposed this idea and decided to replace it with a public system to incorporate the Canadian political tradition as a whole.
This also means that all residents, regardless of their ethnicity may run for office and that the political system is not merely based on Inuit traditions.
Secondly, Nunavut is considered a territory and not a province which gives the federal government access to enter into provincial affairs in territories.
Nisga’s Treaty
This treaty was part of a series of self-government agreements, giving the Nisga’a community money, land, resource rights and some powers of self-government.
The self-governing powers go beyond municipalities and are secured by federal-provincial and indigenous agreements (Dyck, 2006).
Lecture video:
Indigenous is not used legally
First nations, Inuit, Metis are recognized legally (aboriginal)
First Nations= Indians
Southern indigenous
Inuit
Northern indigenous
Metis
indigenous/europeans descent
Western canada
The readings focus on the origins and evolution of indigenous policies in Canada.
The author discusses challenges with indigenous policies, including the Indian Act and treaty policies.
The term "indigenous" is not used in the Canadian constitution; instead, "aboriginal" is used.
The constitution recognizes three groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.
First Nations make up the largest indigenous group in Canada, followed by Métis and Inuit.
Métis are a mix of Indigenous and European descent, primarily in Western Canada.
Inuit live in the northern parts, with Nunavut being their designated territory.
Around 10-15% of indigenous people are non-registered and mostly live in urban areas.
The Indian Act governs First Nations people, but policies focus more on them than on Métis or Inuit.
Metis = assimilated through neglect
4-5% of population in is indigenous
Majority is FN, the metis, then inuit
Youngest and fastest growing segment of the population
The history of indigenous policies is complex, with periods of assimilation and neglect.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 initially protected Indigenous people from exploitation, but over time, this protection eroded as settlers took more land.
Colonial government; assimilate indigenous peoples and strip them of their rights and land
Enfranchisement, introduced in 1857, allowed Indigenous people to surrender their status for full citizenship, which had little appeal for them.
The British North America Act of 1867 transferred responsibility for Indigenous people to Canada’s federal and provincial governments.
A compulsory law (compulsory enfranchisement) in 1869 stripped Indian status from women who married non-status men, not overturned until the 1950s.
Indigenous policies historically focused on assimilation, often neglecting the Métis and Inuit.
Treaties between First Nations and European settlers aimed at peace and trade but often resulted in exploitation.
Treaties of peace of neutrality (1701-1760)
Early treaties like the 1701 Albany Deed and 1760 Huron-British Treaty focused on military alliances and trade, marking a period of neutrality.
The Robinson and Douglas Treaties in 1850-1854 provided reserved lands, annuities, and hunting/fishing rights but led to land surrender and exploitation.
Policies toward Indigenous groups have shifted, with the government now making more efforts to improve their economic, health, and educational outcomes.
The purchase of Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1869 led to the creation of Manitoba in 1870.
From 1871 to 1921, Canada negotiated 11 numbered treaties to secure Indigenous land rights and facilitate settlement expansion, agriculture, and the building of the transcontinental railway.
The treaties were beneficial for Canada's development but displaced many Indigenous peoples, especially with the construction of the railway and prairie development.
Indigenous relations in Canada date back to the 1700s with treaties established based on diplomatic traditions, facilitating peaceful interactions and trade between European colonizers and First Nations.
Notable treaties before 1867 include the Treaties of Peace and Neutrality (1701–1760) and several others up to the Williams Treaty of 1923.
The British North America Act of 1867 established Canadian confederation and federal responsibility for Indigenous affairs, including land claims and reservations.
The Indian Act of 1876 created a system defining who was considered an "Indian" and established the reservation system, with legal rights and disabilities for registered Indians.
Between 1876 and 1969, few significant policy changes were made concerning Indigenous peoples, except for some treaties and inquiries.
In 1969, Pierre Trudeau introduced the White Paper, aiming to assimilate Indigenous peoples by eliminating special treatment under the Indian Act and promoting equality.
The White Paper was controversial, as it ignored the wishes of Indigenous leaders and failed to consult them meaningfully.
Indigenous leaders rejected the White Paper, advocating for "citizen plus," which sought recognition of their historical mistreatment and special entitlements.
The White Paper was ultimately withdrawn due to widespread opposition from Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.
In the 1970s, indigenous leaders became more self-confident and critical of the government due to poor public relations and lack of consultation.
In 1970, indigenous leaders drafted the Citizen Plus paper, accusing the federal government of worsening the situation by removing benefits.
The 1969 White Paper proposed ending the reservation system, terminating the legal status of indigenous people, and eliminating benefits, which was seen as a policy of forced assimilation.
The White Paper was withdrawn in 1970 due to strong indigenous opposition, as it was too sudden and harmful to indigenous communities.
Positive steps followed, such as the 1975 James Bay Agreement, which was the first major land claim agreement approved by both Cree and Inuit communities and included clauses for land settlements and social development.
In 1977, the McKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry by Justice Berger recommended a 10-year moratorium on pipeline construction due to its negative effects on indigenous communities, a decision that favored indigenous interests.
The 1982 Constitution Act included sections 25 and 35, providing stronger protection for indigenous rights under the Charter.
The Oka Crisis of 1990 occurred when the Mohawks opposed a golf course expansion on their ancestral land, leading to a standoff with the police, the death of a police officer, and escalation of tensions.
In 1991, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) was established to address indigenous issues and propose solutions like self-government, improved partnerships, and economic support.
The RCAP's proposals included strengthening indigenous governance, better fiscal relationships, and specific programs for housing, health, education, and reconciliation.
The Royal Commission served as a foundation for future indigenous policy changes and highlighted the need for better negotiations with the Canadian government.
In 1995, Dudley George, an indigenous protester, was shot by police after setting up barricades at Ipperwash Provincial Park, a situation similar to the Oka Crisis but with indigenous casualties.
Indigenous groups protested to protect their land claim and burial ground from destruction, similar to the Oka Crisis where a golf course was being built on sacred land.
The government had plans to destroy the park and build a military camp on the land, leading to a barricade and confrontation between protesters and police.
Dudley George, the protest leader, was killed by police, but the government did not pursue an inquiry, unlike in the Oka Crisis where the death of a police officer led to military intervention and an inquiry.
In 1998, the federal government issued a formal apology for past wrongdoings, especially regarding residential schools, in response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples' recommendations.
In 1999, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was created, granting self-governing powers and land claims protections for the Inuit community.
The Nunavut government was made public, not ethnically Inuit, allowing non-Inuit to run for office, and Nunavut was considered a territory under federal control, not a province.
In 2000, the Nisga'a Treaty was established, providing land, resources, and limited self-governance for the Nisga'a community.
Between 2000 and today, there have been more positive moves for Indigenous communities, such as the 2001 Communities First meeting, aiming to replace the Indian Act with provisions by First Nations communities.
The Caledonia land dispute (2002-2003) involved protests over land claims by the Six Nations of the Grand River, creating tensions with non-Indigenous residents and the developer.
In 2004, the government declared a state of emergency in Ottawa-Piscata due to deplorable living conditions, with inadequate sanitation and water, prompting the Canadian Armed Forces' involvement.
In 2005, the government introduced the Common Experience Payment, allocating nearly $2 billion for residential school survivors, compensating them for past abuse.
In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) report found that 150,000 Indigenous children attended residential schools, with almost 3,000 deaths due to abuse, issuing 94 calls to action to address child welfare, education, health, and justice.
Employment policies like the Civil Service Act (1918) and Public Service Employment Act (1967) aimed to improve merit-based hiring and eliminate discrimination.
Employment equity, which includes Indigenous people, aims to ensure fair representation in government jobs for disadvantaged groups.
The 2003 Public Service Employment Act emphasized fairness, transparency, and merit-based qualifications, benefiting both Indigenous and Francophone communities.
Pay equity ensures equal pay for work of equal value, addressing gender-based pay disparities, such as between 9-1-1 operators (dominated by women) and truck drivers (dominated by men).
Neeganagwedgin
Author and Background
Dr. Erica Neeganagwedgin
Assistant Professor at the Centre for World Indigenous Knowledge and Research, Athabasca University.
Of Taino ancestry from the Caribbean.
Graduate research focused on Indigenous Education in Canada.
Research interests: Indigenous Knowledge systems, Decolonizing pedagogy, Indigenous Research Methods, Sociological theories, History of Indigenous Education in North America, Comparative race/cultural relations.
Overview of the Residential School System
Purpose: Assimilation of Indigenous peoples through "education" by government and churches.
Duration: Over 150 years of forced removal of Indigenous children from homes, families, and communities.
Survivor Narratives: Many survivors described their experience as similar to incarceration.
Resilience of Indigenous Peoples
Despite systematic attempts to suppress Indigenous cultures, the resilience of Indigenous peoples is evident.
Indigenous communities continue to speak their truths and work towards revitalization of their knowledge systems.
Historical Context
Indigenous Education Prior to European Contact
Indigenous peoples had established knowledge systems and educational philosophies before European arrival.
Societies were largely self-governing, determining their cultural, economic, religious, and educational practices.
Origin of Residential Schools
Early Initiatives: Extension of residential schools can be traced back to the 1600s with Christian missionary work aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples.
Bagot Commission (1842-1844): Recommended agricultural boarding schools to eradicate Indigenous culture, advocating for separation from parental influence.
Influential Figures: Egerton Ryerson and T.G. Anderson promoted sending Indigenous children away from home to ensure forgetting of Indigenous habits.
Experiences of Indigenous Children
Forceful removals: Children taken under legal threats, often with the assistance of authorities.
Life in Schools: Children separated from siblings, subjected to abuse, and prevented from speaking their languages.
Physical Conditions: Overcrowded schools with neglectful living conditions leading to abuse and high mortality rates.
Assimilation Policies and Legislative Framework
Indian Act (1876): Promoted assimilation and disallowed Indigenous cultural practices.
Mandatory Attendance at Residential Schools (1920): Enforced children's attendance, further severing familial and cultural ties.
Davin Report (1879): Validated a systematic approach to Indigenous education emphasizing early intervention for assimilation.
Legacy and Impact of Residential Schools
Current Misconceptions: The physical closure of residential schools does not equate to the end of their impacts; their legacy persists in contemporary systems.
Intergenerational Trauma: Many Indigenous families continue to experience trauma as a result of the residential school system, affecting multiple generations.
Systemic Influence: Ongoing disparities in justice, child welfare, and education systems rooted in past policies.
Conclusion
Cultural Resilience: Despite efforts aimed at cultural erasure, Indigenous peoples have maintained a connection to their heritage, emphasizing the importance of remembering and acknowledging history.
Call to Action: Need for understanding and addressing the impact of historical injustices while fostering respect for Indigenous identities and rights.
Contemporary Issues: Continued challenges regarding child welfare and the legacy of removal, with many more Indigenous children currently in care than during the residential school era.
Henderon, R., Montesanti, S., Crowshoe, L., et al.
Indigenous Primary Health Care Reform in Canada
Introduction
Primary Health Care (PHC) reform in Canada began in the 1980s, focusing on improving the health system through interdisciplinary team-based care.
Compared to other Commonwealth nations like Australia, Canada has lagged in PHC reforms.
Early Canadian reforms involved small pilot projects aimed at enhancing health promotion, disease prevention, and chronic disease management.
The Primary Health Care Transition Fund (PHCTF) allocated $800 million CAD over six years to connect PHC to community support and address social determinants of health.
Indigenous populations in Canada, constituting 4.3% of the population, are among the most medically underserved.
Historical Context
Indigenous health care in Canada faces institutional inequities and jurisdictional barriers, complicating access to healthcare.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada highlighted the impacts of historical policies such as Indian residential schools that assimilated Indigenous children and created lasting health disparities.
The TRC issued 94 calls to action, urging health systems to integrate Indigenous perspectives into health care delivery.
Approaches to PHC Reform
International Examples
Australia established Aboriginal Community- Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) in 1971, focusing on comprehensive, culturally appropriate care that bolsters community resilience.
Canada’s Health Transfer Policy (HTP) promotes community-driven health service models, reflecting a commitment to Indigenous leadership in health reform.
Funding initiatives like the Aboriginal Health Transition Fund (AHTF) aimed to address historical health disparities and support community-based health service planning.
Challenges and Innovations
The diversity of Indigenous contexts in Canada presents challenges for scaling health innovations effectively.
Innovations since the 1980s have been isolated, with some successful models emerging in Ontario (Aboriginal Health Access Centres) and British Columbia (First Nations Health Authority), supporting Indigenous control over health services.
These agencies emphasize chronic disease management, traditional healing, and addressing jurisdictional disputes in health service delivery.
Mobilizing Stakeholders
A collaborative gathering in Alberta gathered Indigenous and health leaders to share innovations and propose a collective forward for Indigenous PHC.
The approach centered on respect for Indigenous self-determination and strategic partnerships between health providers and Indigenous communities.
Key Insights from Stakeholder Gatherings
Engagement Strategies
Building relationships through outreach to Indigenous communities is essential for effective health service delivery.
The involvement of Elders in health care practices has emerged as a successful model in innovations across different jurisdictions.
Facilitation Process
Three rounds of presentations focused on acknowledging successes in PHC from other jurisdictions, supplemented by facilitated discussions for contextual adaptation in Alberta.
Synthesis and Results
Stakeholders identified commonalities in successful approaches, emphasizing the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems, holistic health perspectives, and community-driven engagement.
The findings from this stakeholder engagement highlight pathways toward more integrated and culturally competent PHC systems.
Actionable Changes for Future Reform
Implementation Priorities
Stakeholders recognized the need for governance reforms, including the inclusion of Indigenous representation in health leadership roles.
Financial allocation and flexible funding agreements are emphasized to support sustainable health services in Indigenous communities.
Community ownership and control over health data are vital for addressing inequities in health services.
Conclusion
The path forward involves collaborative efforts toward structural transformation in Indigenous PHC, emphasizing community-centered approaches and sustained dialogues.
Further investment in facilitating partnerships will potentially drive systemic change. Key to this is fostering baseline capacities for continued innovation in service delivery.
Merrit, J., Fenge, T
Legal Framework of the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement
Date and Source:
Content downloaded on Mar 10, 2025, from HeinOnline.
Citation: John Merritt & Terry Fenge, "The Nunavut Land Claims Settlement: Emerging Issues in Law and Public Administration," 15 QUEEN's L.J. 255 (Fall 1990).
Key Management of the Settlement
Negotiations Overview:
Began in mid-1970s for comprehensive land claims settlement in Nunavut, part of Northwest Territories (NWT).
Inuit rights extend over 700,000 square miles of land and 800,000 square miles offshore, based on a land use and occupancy study (1973).
Inuit Population
Current Estimates:
Approximately 17,500 Inuit reside in Nunavut, experiencing rapid growth.
Government Position
Negotiation Dynamics:
Government characterized its position through published policy statements and confidential instructions.
Chief negotiators from outside federal ranks since 1980; Inuit negotiators directed by Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (est. 1982).
Historical Negotiation Challenges
Court Cases & Constitutional Amendments:
The Baker Lake court case (1970s) impacted negotiations significantly.
Ongoing issues regarding defining Aboriginal rights in light of constitutional changes.
Agreement-in-Principle Highlights
Key Elements:
Nearly 400 pages long, outlining rights and benefits in exchange for Aboriginal title.
Includes:
Fee simple title to approximately 135,000 square miles of land
$580 million in cash over 14 years.
Economic rights regarding royalties from resources on Crown land.
Rights to harvest wildlife and establish related ventures.
Resource Management Bodies
New Administrative Structure:
Establishment of management bodies (e.g., Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Surface Rights Tribunal).
These boards ensure equal representation and effective public administration.
Legal Background
Historical Context:
Scepticism concerning Aboriginal land rights based on European law's treatment of Indigenous claims.
Many territories in Canada remain uncovered by treaties, typically acquired through cession.
British colonial practices often involved making cessions in exchange for rights.
Resurgence in Indigenous Rights
Emergence of Inuit Political Entities:
New Inuit organizations emerged in the 1970s advocating for land rights.
Technological advancements in resource exploration heightened awareness of Indigenous claims.
Calder's Case (1973) affirmed Aboriginal rights to land.
Modern Frameworks for Negotiation
Changes in Federal Policies:
1973 policies established comprehensive claims negotiations, evolving to adapt to political changes.
The 1981 policy criticized for ambiguity; revised in 1986 after the Coolican Report.
Goals of the New Policy
Comprehensive and Cooperative Objectives:
Define the relationship with Aboriginal peoples.
Establish frameworks for viability and preserve cultural integrity.
Foster opportunities in economic development and self-governance.
Challenges to Legal Structure
Surrender of Title Issues:
Concerns regarding the constitutional validity of surrendering Aboriginal titles within the framework of Section 35 of the Charter.
The potential for dissension among Inuit communities about agreements made.
Rights Protection under Section 35
Varied Interpretations:
Debate over what constitutes 'rights' under Section 35 — whether all provisions in agreements are protected.
Governance and Administration Issues
Integration of Management Systems:
New governance structures aim to achieve integrated resource management, linking Inuit organizations with governmental bodies.
Key to the functionality of these boards depends on establishing independent legacies and operational frameworks.
Future Implications
Concerns of Evolution and Division:
Potential division of NWT to create Nunavut could impact governance dynamics significantly.
The land claims settlement promises a significant shift in resource management processes and Indigenous rights.
Concluding Thoughts
Broader Implications for Indigenous Rights:
Ongoing negotiations and experiences in Nunavut could influence future policies and settlements across Canada, demonstrating a commitment to resolving Indigenous land rights issues.
Moulton, M.
FRAMING ABORIGINAL TITLE AS THE (MIS)RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS LAW
ABSTRACT
Current Canadian political and legal frameworks struggle to fully recognize the plurality of law, including Indigenous law.
The doctrine of Aboriginal title illustrates barriers preventing Indigenous law recognition.
Some scholars advocate for incorporating Indigenous concepts into common law (weak legal pluralism), yet this approach has inherent limitations.
The author critiques the ideologies of Canadian legal institutions that perpetuate the erasure of Indigenous legal meanings.
The paper argues for a strong legal pluralist model that respects Indigenous agency, decentering state law.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recognition is crucial for equality-seeking groups in political struggles.
Justice for marginalized groups requires recognition as equals by those in power.
Historical struggles (feminists, cultural minorities) illustrate the importance of recognition.
The connection to Indigenous law lies in legal pluralism, the existence of multiple legal systems in one area.
Legal Pluralism
The paper examines Canadian state law versus Indigenous law, recognizing tensions and miscommunications arising from colonial claims.
Calls for Indigenous law incorporation into Canadian law must confront institutional biases and a lack of meaningful recognition.
Emphasizes the importance of transforming conventional legal frameworks to respect Indigenous perspectives.
II. THE DOCTRINE OF ABORIGINAL TITLE AND COLONIAL DISMISSALS OF INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY
The doctrine of Aboriginal title emerges from Indigenous occupation of territory before colonial rule.
Courts often rely on colonial interpretations that privilege Crown sovereignty, presenting significant barriers for Indigenous claims.
Aboriginal title should recognize exclusive rights based on historical occupation versus state-sanctioned definitions.
The Supreme Court's evolving recognition reflects a complex relationship between Canadian legal standards and Indigenous traditions.
Legal Characteristics and Requirements
Claimants must demonstrate sufficient, continuous, and exclusive occupation of land to establish Aboriginal title.
Legal requirements often force Indigenous claims to conform to common law concepts, undermining Indigenous legal identities.
Courts exhibit reluctance to fully engage with Indigenous laws without framing them in Western legal terms.
III. RECOGNITION: POLITICAL THEORY, RESPECT FOR CULTURAL DIFFERENCE, AND PERPETUAL COLONIALISM
Recognition is essential for Indigenous identity and cultural survival in Canada.
Political recognition can perpetuate systems of dominance instead of serving justice.
Taylor's theory of recognition emphasizes the link between identity formation and state acknowledgment of difference.
Critiques of Recognition
Critics argue that recognition is often exploitative, reinforcing power inequalities.
Conflation of legal and political recognition can lead to misrecognition of Indigenous legal systems.
Fanon's work illustrates how colonized identities are shaped by asymmetric power dynamics, with implications for recognition.
IV. STATE IDEOLOGY: THE "LEGAL-REPUBLICAN CONSENSUS" OF LAW IN CANADA
Canadian legal institutions maintain a monopoly on defining law through a normative, state-centric lens.
This legal-republican consensus excludes Indigenous laws from consideration as legitimate legal orders.
Calls for recognition of Indigenous laws necessitate framing claims within state-defined parameters, limiting genuine acknowledgment of Indigenous legal systems.
Impediments to Legal Pluralism
Current legal frameworks do not enable Indigenous legal systems to coexist or compete with state law.
Recognition remains superficial if Indigenous laws are treated solely as evidentiary components in legal proceedings.
Aboriginal title demonstrates the limitations of Canadian jurisprudence in understanding and engaging with Indigenous law.
V. COMPETING VISIONS, DIVERGENT PATHS
The paper emphasizes the need for legal pluralism and recognizing Indigenous law as wholly authoritative.
A critical reassessment of existing legal frameworks is necessary to alleviate colonial biases.
Calls for a symbiotic relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous legal systems, supporting plurality in law without rendering Indigenous law as secondary.
The ultimate goal is achieving a legal framework that values Indigenous laws in their own right and fosters equitable frameworks for coexistence.
Chapter 11 notes
Matthew Coon Come, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, criticized Canada's human rights record at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism.
He highlighted the ongoing oppression, marginalization, and dispossession of Indigenous peoples in Canada, comparing their conditions to those in Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil.
Chief Coon Come described Canada's Indigenous policy as one of dispossession, systemic discrimination, state-sanctioned violence, and human rights denial, pushing Indigenous peoples to the brink of extinction.
As the leader of the Assembly of First Nations (2000-2003), Coon Come's speech sparked controversy, though similar points had been made earlier by Indigenous leaders and intellectuals.
His speech occurred at a major UN conference where Canada sought to showcase its stance on human rights, forcing the government to defend its policies against accusations of global racism.
Chief Coon Come called for greater recognition of Indigenous rights, autonomy, control over land, and more financial support from the government, aligning with the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples' recommendations.
Despite limited progress from the Royal Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) led by Justice Murray Sinclair has catalyzed changes in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian government.
The chapter will explore the history and current circumstances of Indigenous peoples, covering topics like Indigenous status, population size, the reserve system, the legacy of residential schools, land sovereignty, and Indigenous policy principles.
The term "Indian" is increasingly seen as outdated and impolite when referring to Indigenous peoples in North America.
Alternatives like "Amerindian," "Aboriginal peoples," "Native peoples," "First Nations," and "Indigenous" are commonly used.
The Canadian federal government adopted "Indigenous" in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, renaming the Ministry to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
Despite this, the term "Indian" remains necessary for discussing legal policies due to the Indian Act, which has been in place since 1876 and defines entitlements for those categorized as "Indians."
Under the Indian Act, a "status Indian" is anyone registered or entitled to be registered under the law, with biological and social characteristics defining the status.
The Indian Act initially defined an Indian as a male person of Indian blood belonging to a recognized band; women married to non-Indians lost their status.
In 1985, the Indian Act was amended to allow women and their children to retain or regain status, addressing gender-based discrimination.
Non-Indigenous spouses of Indigenous individuals can also acquire Indian status, showing that legal status is not based solely on blood but also on associations and community ties.
The courts have long struggled with defining how much Indigenous blood or community association is required for legal status.
The Constitution Act recognizes Métis and Inuit as Indigenous categories in Canada, though they are treated differently from "Indians" under the Indian Act.
The Inuit were recognized as "Indians" by a 1939 Supreme Court decision but are not governed by the Indian Act.
Métis, descendants of Indigenous women and European settlers, can be considered "Indians" under the law if they were part of treaty-covered communities but are excluded if they received land or scrip.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms that the rights of Métis, Inuit, and Indians are protected as part of the "aboriginal peoples of Canada."
The size of Canada's Indigenous population is controversial, with 2016 data showing over 1.6 million people, or 4.6% of the population, reporting Indigenous ancestry.
744,855 individuals were recognized as having Registered or Treaty Indian Status.
Discrepancies in population estimates arise, with demographers favoring the lower figure while Indigenous leaders support the higher one.
The debate matters for practical, financial, and political reasons, as Indian status comes with entitlements and can affect the influence of Indigenous demands.
Many of the population increase is due to rule changes allowing individuals to regain status, reconnect with communities, and be buried with their ancestors.
The Indian Registry and band membership were separated by Bill C-31, complicating status restoration.
The 2016 census provides these figures:
1,673,785 Indigenous people (4.6% of the population) with North American Indian, Métis, Inuit, or mixed ancestry.
595,140 status Indians (2.0% of the population) covered by the Indian Act.
227,095 Indigenous people (less than 1%) living on reserves or Indigenous settlements.
Most of the Indigenous population is in northern parts of provinces.
From the 1981 census, status Indians numbered 335,475 (1.4% of the population), growing by 60% by 1991, partly due to changes in the Indian Act.
Despite growth, the Indigenous population remains a small portion of Canada’s total population.
Language is a key cultural element, and in 2011, 260,550 Indigenous people (about 25%) could speak an Indigenous language, a decrease from 359,640 in 1971.
Only 213,230 Indigenous people had Indigenous languages as their mother tongue, outnumbered by Mandarin and Punjabi speakers.
The Indian reserve system is sometimes compared to apartheid due to income and life expectancy disparities, and higher rates of suicide, alcoholism, and violence on reserves.
The system created physical and social segregation, with many First Nations people unable to leave reserves or non-Indigenous people unable to enter.
In 1969, the Trudeau government proposed the White Paper to abolish reserves, but Indigenous leaders rejected it, calling it assimilation and cultural genocide.
The reserve system persists because it has historical roots and some Indigenous leaders resist its abolition.
The Indian Act (1876) defined reserves as lands set apart for bands with legal title held by the Crown, but they are managed in trust for the band's benefit.
Band members need government permission for most transactions on reserve land, reflecting the paternalistic nature of the Indian Act.
There are 625 reserves in Canada, covering 2.6 million hectares, with about one-third in British Columbia.
Most reserves are in rural and remote areas, which limits job opportunities, access to education, and integration with mainstream society.
Many Indigenous people view reserves as a symbol of their original presence and a place that nurtures cultural identity and unity.
Despite poverty and lack of services, reserves help maintain traditional values, kinship, and ethnic identity.
On-reserve First Nations have lower education levels, higher unemployment, and fractured families compared to off-reserve Indigenous people, who are more likely to finish school and have higher-paying jobs.
Education improvements have been limited by historical underfunding and the effects of colonialism.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established in 2008 as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
The TRC aimed to document the history and legacy of church-run residential schools and to guide the process of truth, healing, and reconciliation.
The final TRC report, published in December 2015, included 99 "calls to action" to address the consequences of the residential school system.
These calls to action cover areas such as child welfare, education, language and culture, health, and justice.
The first 42 calls focus on policy reforms to address the impacts on Indigenous families.
Some later recommendations focus on governance and constitutional changes that may be harder to implement.
The TRC calls for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a framework for reconciliation.
The government is urged to develop a new Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation to reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown.
The TRC’s recommendations gained momentum as the Liberal government pledged to adopt them, starting with implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In 2016, Canada officially adopted the UN declaration, reversing previous objections raised by the Harper government.
The Trudeau government faces challenges in fully implementing the recommendations, and some targets, like removing boil water advisories from reserves, have not been met.
The TRC commissioners emphasized that resolving the issues of residential schools required addressing deeper issues related to sovereignty and land ownership.
Indigenous leaders assert that land was given to them by God, and they believe no one can take their title away except God.
Disputes over land ownership and sovereignty are major issues for Indigenous Peoples, especially concerning lands that were never lawfully surrendered.
Treaties were often seen as unfair or as swindles, and land was central to Indigenous cultures, including hunting and fishing rights.
The issue is complicated when European-imported economic activities, like resource extraction, come into play, which were not part of traditional Indigenous cultures.
British Columbia is under land claims by Indigenous groups, with some asserting rights even over urban areas like Vancouver.
Sovereignty involves more than land ownership; it includes the authority to govern within a territory.
Many Indigenous leaders reject Canadian sovereignty over their lands, asserting their own jurisdiction.
Governance structures imposed during colonization complicate Indigenous self-government efforts.
There are four main ways of selecting Indigenous leadership: through the Indian Act, First Nations Elections Act, community constitution, or band custom.
Disputes over which leadership has the authority to make decisions became evident during the Coastal GasLink pipeline construction, with elected leaders agreeing and hereditary chiefs opposing.
The hereditary chiefs' opposition led to blockades and protests, ultimately resulting in a memorandum of understanding with the federal government.
Sovereignty and landownership are intertwined, with the idea that a sovereign people own the land within their territory.
Indigenous sovereignty has developed incrementally, starting with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which stated that unsurrendered lands belong to Indigenous peoples and must be bought from them by the Crown.
The Royal Proclamation restricted land purchases from Indigenous groups to avoid fraud and abuses, asserting their right to maintain control over unceded land.
Indigenous leaders view the Royal Proclamation as affirming their existing rights to land, with some seeing it as recognition of their sovereignty.
The Proclamation speaks of the Crown's sovereignty, protection, and dominion, while acknowledging Indigenous rights.
The Canadian government disputes that the Proclamation recognizes Indigenous sovereignty.
In St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), the Proclamation was interpreted as granting Indigenous people rights dependent on the Crown's sovereignty.
The Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia decision rejected the concept of terra nullius and interpreted the Proclamation as recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, especially regarding land rights.
The Proclamation is now seen as a nation-to-nation agreement, reserving certain lands for Indigenous use and requiring the Crown to purchase them.
Some legal scholars argue that Indigenous title should be seen as equivalent to a fee simple estate, meaning Indigenous peoples own the land outright.
Indigenous sovereignty is linked to the question of land title and their relationship with the Canadian state.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Worcester v. Georgia (1832) decision, though not binding in Canada, has influenced Canadian cases on Indigenous rights, distinguishing between European discovery and Indigenous prior occupancy.
Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling supported Indigenous land claims, asserting that European discovery did not annul Indigenous occupancy rights.
Marshall acknowledged Indigenous rights to retain possession but argued their sovereignty was diminished by the discovery principle, limiting their power to dispose of land.
Worcester v. Georgia: Indigenous land rights are limited by European discovery, with ownership belonging to the discovering nation.
Indigenous Peoples have a right of occupancy and land use predating European arrival, but this is restricted by European sovereignty.
Ownership of Indigenous land can only be transferred to the state, with title extinguishable by conquest or legal purchase.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 set similar terms for Indigenous land ownership.
St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888) defined Indigenous land interests as a "mere burden" on Crown's title.
Calder et al. v. Attorney General of British Columbia (1973) rejected unfettered Indigenous title but acknowledged the concept of Indigenous title, leading to the modern claims process.
The Calder ruling created the Office of Native Claims and was seen as a victory for Indigenous title advocates.
Justice Emmett Hall emphasized that Indigenous title exists unless explicitly extinguished by legislation.
Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2000) rejected terra nullius and moved toward recognizing historic injustices and Indigenous sovereignty.
Hamlet of Baker Lake (1980) accepted Indigenous title as a common law right, continuing until explicitly extinguished.
R. v. Sparrow (1990) affirmed Indigenous rights are pre-existing and cannot be extinguished by Crown policy without clear intention.
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1993) addressed Indigenous land title, where the Supreme Court recognized Indigenous ownership if title hasn’t been extinguished by treaties.
The court's decision led to questions about non-Indigenous land ownership and compensation for land.
Delgamuukw strengthened Indigenous groups' negotiation power but did not grant a right to self-government.
International law, including UN declarations, suggests Indigenous self-determination rights, which Canada is a signatory to.
The UN declaration on self-determination does not define "people," leaving ambiguity about which groups are considered “peoples” under its terms.
The declaration's reference to colonized peoples may not apply to Indigenous populations in liberal democratic societies like Canada.
The declaration emphasizes national unity and territorial integrity, suggesting disruption is incompatible with UN principles.
Treaties between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown are sometimes argued to be international treaties, recognizing Indigenous Peoples as sovereign nations.
Historically, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the idea of treaties as international treaties, and the government considered Indigenous Peoples as subjects of the Queen at the time of treaty-making.
Recent rulings, like Tsilhqot’in Nation, rejected terra nullius and recognized Indigenous land interests as independent legal interests.
Some Indigenous leaders argue treaties are nation-to-nation agreements, not real estate transactions, and should not extinguish Indigenous land rights.
Courts have interpreted Indian treaties as contractual agreements with mutual obligations, often favoring Indigenous rights when treaty terms are ambiguous.
The courts ruled that treaties should be understood as Indigenous Peoples would naturally interpret them, rather than based on technical legal terms.
Indigenous Peoples did not recognize trading companies like the Hudson's Bay Company as having jurisdiction over their lands.
The question of whether treaties extinguish Indigenous property rights remains controversial, with treaties traditionally interpreted by governments as ending Indigenous land title in exchange for promises.
The Indian Act of 1876 envisioned Indigenous assimilation, offering enfranchisement for those relinquishing their status to gain citizenship and legal rights.
Where land treaties exist, courts have viewed Indigenous claims to land as extinguished, but in areas without treaties, Indigenous Peoples are recognized as the rightful landowners.
An argument exists that treaties could be set aside if evidence shows one party was coerced or did not understand the consequences, though courts have not invalidated treaties on these grounds.
Courts do, however, interpret treaties and statutes relating to Indigenous Peoples liberally, considering oral testimony and historical evidence.
Since 1973, federal policy distinguishes between specific and comprehensive Indigenous claims.
Specific claims involve alleged non-fulfillment of treaty terms, misappropriation of money, or misuse of land under the Indian Act, including treaty land entitlements (discrepancies between promised and provided land).
Comprehensive claims are based on Indigenous title to land not covered by treaties.
Many Indigenous leaders reject the "specific-comprehensive" distinction and the term "claim," as it suggests they are asking for something they no longer own.
Specific claims are numerous and often involve land misappropriation; cash settlements are made if claims are validated.
Some argue that the cost of settling specific claims is minimal compared to losses experienced by Indigenous Peoples.
Pierre Trudeau believed treaties should not last forever and that Indigenous Peoples should integrate into Canadian society; Indigenous leaders like Ovide Mercredi disagreed.
Specific claims highlight a tension between Indigenous autonomy and Trudeau's vision of one integrated Canadian society.
Comprehensive claims, like Nunavut, provide landownership, self-government, and ongoing Indigenous participation in decision-making, in exchange for extinguishing other Indigenous claims in the territory.
The push for comprehensive claims was fueled by increasing resource development in the North and the Calder decision (1973), which recognized the need for compensation for "loss of traditional interest in land."
Non-Indigenous elites now generally support Indigenous control over land, self-government, and sovereignty, shifting away from earlier integrationist views.
Comprehensive claims are large in scale and often raise issues of self-government and the relationship of Indigenous communities to Canada’s political system.
The 1986 federal report recommended comprehensive claims be seen as "living agreements" that promote self-sufficiency and governance for Indigenous communities.
Despite this, all comprehensive claims agreements between 1975 and 1993 contained extinguishment clauses, removing Indigenous claims, rights, and title in exchange for compensation.
The extinguishment clause was removed in 2015, but rights related to Indian status or Canadian citizenship were unaffected.
Critics question whether comprehensive claims are justified if they do not fully promote self-sufficiency for Indigenous Peoples.
Pre-Confederation, French colonial rule did not recognize Indigenous land rights, focusing on assimilation and conversion to Christianity.
French policy considered Indigenous people redeemable, granting converted individuals rights equivalent to French citizens.
Under British rule, Indigenous land rights were acknowledged within British sovereignty, and treaties were made to compensate for land alienation.
British assimilation efforts were less rigorous than French policies, aiming to avoid interference with colonial growth, leading to the reserve system.
The British North America Act (1867) granted Ottawa exclusive authority over "Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians."
The Indian Act (1876) consolidated a dependency relationship, placing Indigenous people under strict control by federal officials, limiting self-governance.
Reserve residents were largely dependent on the Indian agent for decisions, including money management and economic activities.
The Indian Act imposed European democratic practices, replacing traditional Indigenous governance, and introduced enfranchisement for Canadian citizenship.
The prevailing policy until the mid-20th century aimed for Indigenous assimilation into Euro-Canadian society, gradually erasing Indigenous languages, customs, and lifestyles.
Sir John A. Macdonald (1880) and Walter Harris (1950) both advocated for gradual integration, with special treatment in the transition period.
Assimilation policies were slow despite efforts like banning Indigenous ceremonies and rewarding compliant bands with more autonomy.
The 1951 Indian Act revisions kept paternalistic policies, but the extension of voting rights in 1960 brought Indigenous people closer to non-Indigenous Canadians politically.
Despite political changes, legal and social distinctions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians remained.
The 1968 Liberal government, under Pierre Trudeau, set the stage for a significant shift in Indigenous policy, moving away from previous assimilation efforts.
The 1969 White Paper proposed dismantling Indian Affairs, ending the reserve system, and transferring responsibility for Indigenous services to provinces.
It aimed to integrate Indigenous Peoples into Canadian society with equal legal and social treatment, replacing special provisions for Indigenous Peoples.
The White Paper was criticized by Indigenous leaders, who viewed it as cultural genocide and forced assimilation.
The paper reflected a broader 1960s integrationist philosophy, inspired by civil rights movements, aiming for equality without erasing cultures.
It called for positive recognition of Indigenous cultures and proposed federal support for educational and cultural programs.
The White Paper emphasized equality before the law but acknowledged that equal treatment doesn’t guarantee equal social or economic outcomes.
Critics focused on its stance on treaties and land claims, seeing it as an attempt to phase out these agreements and dissolve special rights.
The paper argued treaties' promises were minimal and outdated, proposing their eventual review and termination as Indigenous lands were transferred to communities.
Indigenous leaders opposed this view, advocating for self-governance and ongoing recognition of their distinct status and treaty rights.
Trudeau’s vision rejected the idea of Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination as a separate nation, arguing for individual rights over collective national identities.
While supportive of collective identity in some forms (like multiculturalism), Trudeau believed that dignity and equality were based on individual rights, not ethnic or cultural collectivity.
The White Paper's integrationist approach remains a minority perspective in Canadian political discourse today.
The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report emphasized recognizing Indigenous Peoples' sovereignty and land rights.
It proposed an Indigenous third order of government, with dual citizenship for Indigenous Peoples: Canadian and First Nations.
The report suggested a new Royal Proclamation acknowledging past wrongs and establishing a new relationship with Indigenous Peoples.
It called for an independent tribunal for land claims, a dedicated Indigenous relations department, and an Indigenous parliament.
Indigenous self-government should be recognized as a constitutional treaty right, with a focus on land control and resource development.
The report proposed additional funding for Indigenous programs, $30 billion over 15 years, beyond the existing budget.
It argued that Indigenous policies have failed due to lack of autonomy and financial resources for self-governance, perpetuating dependency.
The government was not supportive of the commission's vision, citing financial constraints and differing views on self-government.
Ottawa proposed changes to the Indian Act, including land ownership and the ability for bands to borrow money, which some Indigenous leaders opposed.
The commission’s idea of self-government went beyond Ottawa's vision, advocating for powers similar to those held by provinces.
Indigenous leaders like Georges Erasmus supported a model with distinct sovereignty for First Nations alongside federal and provincial powers.
Ottawa has been open to more ambitious self-government models for specific regions, like Nunavut and Yukon, but prefers individual negotiations over a uniform approach.
It remains unclear how the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action will impact future negotiations on Indigenous governance.
In 2000, Thomas Flanagan’s First Nations? Second Thoughts presented a conservative perspective on Indigenous policy, opposing the idea of a distinct status for Indigenous Peoples and advocating for an integrationist approach similar to the 1969 White Paper.
Flanagan’s integrationist stance emphasized universalism, equality before the law, and removing barriers for marginalized groups to join mainstream society.
Alan Cairns, in Citizens Plus, countered Flanagan’s views, supporting the recognition of Indigenous Peoples as First Nations with dual citizenship, but rejecting full sovereignty outside Canada’s constitutional framework.
Cairns’ approach, called “citizens plus,” aims to acknowledge Indigenous Peoples' rights and dignity while maintaining their status as both Canadian citizens and members of their Indigenous communities.
The debate between Flanagan’s integrationism and Cairns’ dual-citizenship approach highlights the divide in Canada’s Indigenous policy, reflecting the rejection of the 1969 White Paper.
Cairns criticizes the assimilationist integrationist model, emphasizing the need for policies that recognize Indigenous self-government and their distinct rights.
Cairns argues for a moderate compromise, supporting Indigenous self-governance and constitutional recognition but rejecting full sovereignty outside Canada’s legal framework.
He bases his position on historical injustices, such as the dispossession of Indigenous lands and the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples, as well as current realities.
Cairns points to examples of "positive recognition of difference" in Canadian law and society, including state funding for Indigenous organizations, legal recognition of Indigenous land rights, entrenched Indigenous rights in the Constitution, and the creation of Nunavut.
Cairns’ view aligns more with institutionalized parallelism, recognizing Indigenous Peoples as distinct communities within Canada, compared to Flanagan’s integrationist model.
Cairns argues that Indigenous Peoples are already “citizens plus,” balancing Canadian citizenship with recognition of their distinct status.
He emphasizes that the key is not to forget the “citizen” aspect while addressing their demands for recognition of difference.
Cairns notes that self-government experiments in Indigenous communities are shaping the concrete meaning of "citizens plus."
Flanagan agrees that Indigenous Peoples have a distinct status but believes that they now live similarly to other Canadians, making the distinction unnecessary.
Flanagan argues that recognition of difference is more about the politicization of Indigenous identity than inherent distinctiveness.
Cairns’ “positive recognition of difference” is seen by Flanagan as “government-mandated preferences for designated groups.”
Flanagan believes that “citizens plus” will lead to:
Increased public money for Indigenous communities.
More funds for reserves, keeping remote communities dependent on government support.
An increased government presence, reinforcing dependency rather than autonomy.
Flanagan argues that this would foster state dependence, with Indigenous elites benefiting from government programs while most people remain in poverty.
Cairns and Flanagan differ in their views on Indigenous policy, with Cairns supporting recognition of distinctiveness within Canadian citizenship and Flanagan advocating for integration.
Both agree that Indigenous sovereignty should not overshadow Canadian citizenship, but their broader analyses and solutions differ greatly.
The existence of these differing views ensures that Indigenous policy will remain politically contentious in Canada.
Indigenous policy is an area of deep concern for many Canadians.
That Indigenous Peoples have been poorly served by the Canadian government is not in dispute.
The issues that continue to face the nation are how a country that prides itself on its human rights record and self-identifies as a fair and just nation can still have fellow citizens living in abject poverty?
Although much progress has been made in rectifying past mistakes such as the residential school system and beginning the process of land claims, much still remains to be done, especially when one considers the poverty, poor health, and limited prospects of many First Nations people living on reserves.
Unit 10
Unit 10 Content (Environmental Policy)
When thinking about these specific issues, consider these questions:
What is the issue in question?
What are the challenges that are associated with issues-based policies, specifically environmental policies?
Who are the key players in determining the success of these issues based public policy?
What type of impact does public policy have on the public?
What type of legal implications are involved with indigenous policie
The policies
Sean is a volunteer with the Rotary Club and has played a significant role in the political scene, including as the campaign manager for Mike Schreiner, the first Green Party member of Parliament in Ontario.
The lecture will focus on challenges in campaigning and public policy, particularly environmental issues.
Sean shares that he is from Indonesia, where many languages are spoken, but he will be speaking in English for the interview.
Sean's background includes an undergraduate and MA degree from the University of Guelph and significant experience in teaching and guest lecturing.
His political involvement began in the 2015 Guelph municipal election, where he was campaign manager for Karen Farbridge, although they did not win.
He worked on several campaigns, notably for Mike Schreiner's Green Party campaign, which elected the first Green Party MPP in Ontario in 2018.
Sean was also involved in Annamie Paul's leadership campaign for the Federal Green Party of Canada and managed her campaign for the Toronto Centre by-election.
The Toronto Centre by-election had historic results, with the Green Party securing a strong second place despite the area being a Liberal stronghold. The campaign involved building a large team, raising significant funds, and making thousands of phone calls in a short time.
Sean discusses the challenges political parties face when developing public policy, particularly environmental policies.
First challenge: aligning policy goals with public perception. Even the best policy can fail if it doesn't resonate with the public. He mentions the Betamax vs. VHS example, where the better technology (Betamax) didn’t win because it wasn’t widely accepted.
Second challenge: balancing good policy with well-received policy. Popular policies may not always be effective, and vice versa. Effective environmental policies may not be well-liked, and public resistance can be an issue.
The Overton window concept: Public perception of what is considered reasonable or acceptable changes over time. For example, climate change was once a fringe issue but is now widely accepted, making it easier to implement policy.
Third challenge: internal politics within political parties can also complicate the development of public policy.
Sean discusses the behind-the-scenes process of making policies, particularly focusing on how realistic it is to get a policy passed into law.
The feasibility of policy involves considering the quality of the policy, its acceptance, and its viability to be enacted into legislation.
Sometimes, policies are pursued not for immediate adoption but to create political impact or expose weaknesses in opposing parties, such as the NDP's strategy with the PharmaCare vote.
Sean emphasizes that political discourse often involves calculated decisions about whether a policy will be pursued, even if it isn’t viable at the moment.
The third question focuses on the requirements for proposing a specific type of policy.
Sean clarifies that the answer will focus on policies intended to become legislation and on good faith efforts for public policy rather than political theater.
Three key requirements for proposing a policy intended to become legislation:
Evidence: Policies should be based on solid, evidence-based decision-making. The abundance of data and information today should be used to create the best policies, even though evidence can be ambiguous and context-sensitive.
Equity: Policies should be designed considering how they will affect different sectors of society, including businesses, organizations, and individuals. Public expectations now demand that policies consider the impacts on all members of society and do not leave people behind.
Unintended consequences: It’s crucial to thoroughly consider the potential unintended consequences of a policy. Many laws have had unforeseen effects, so policies must be carefully crafted to avoid negative outcomes in the real world.
Sean uses the example of prescription drugs and off-label use to illustrate how laws can be misused or have unintended purposes.
He also mentions a famous quote by von Clausewitz: "No plan will survive contact with the enemy," emphasizing that policies often face unexpected challenges once they are implemented.
A policy should always be rigorously thought through, considering its real-world implications and striving to make the world a better place, with an emphasis on altruism and reaching as many people as possible.
Environmental policies are often ranked highly in importance by the public, but they are not typically decisive factors in voter behavior.
While voters may view environmental issues as important, these policies rarely become a "ballot question" that strongly motivates large groups of voters to determine their vote.
The Green Party, despite being perceived as a single-issue party, has a broad policy agenda, which Sean highlights through an example of his podcast reading the party's policy book.
Environmental issues are important, but they are abstract and typically involve long-term consequences, making them harder to prioritize compared to issues like economy, healthcare, education, and crime, which are more immediate.
Environmental policies are less likely to influence those with precarious livelihoods, as people struggling with basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare are less likely to prioritize environmental issues.
Successes in environmental policy include tackling issues like acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT pesticides, and leaded gasoline, where society made significant changes to address specific, narrow problems.
The failures in environmental policy, such as the climate crisis and the transition to a post-carbon economy, involve broader, more complex issues, particularly the collective action problem and the resistance from powerful entities.
Climate change is difficult to address because it challenges the economic and social power structures that benefit the rich and powerful, who have actively resisted change.
The friction in tackling climate change is less about the environment itself and more about the economic and societal consequences of serious action.
Looking to the future, Sean suggests that the solution lies in new economic models, such as the circular economy or the doughnut economy, which offer innovative, multidisciplinary approaches to addressing environmental challenges.
Future environmental policies should take an integrative approach, merging multiple disciplines (environmental, economic, health) into cohesive public policy.
Modern political parties are generally not single-issue; they tend to address a broad range of social issues and bring them together through public policy.
Environmental policies impact and intertwine with economic, health, and social issues, influencing various aspects of public life.
The Green Party of Canada has been the first to propose several major policies, including PharmaCare, marriage equality, electoral reform, cannabis legalization, climate crisis action, and carbon border adjustments, although other parties have since taken credit for them.
Public perceptions and public input are crucial in running a successful election campaign and maintaining a sustainable political party.
Successful political parties must focus on great policy, strong people, effective communication, and feedback loops that incorporate public input into policy decisions, supported by strong leadership.
A cynical perspective suggests that public perception is all that matters, with the public's role being to follow the policies dictated by the party’s leadership.
Leadership qualities are essential, as the leader personifies the party and influences public perception, which can go beyond rational evaluations of performance.
The leader is seen as the brand of the party, and their statements shape the party's direction and policy.
Social media and media play significant roles in modern politics, changing how policy is formed, executed, and evaluated.
The future of environmental policies in Canada is closely tied to equity, with both being central to political narratives.
The challenges ahead will be difficult and long-lasting, but the process of change, like historical movements such as civil rights and women's suffrage, requires persistence and time.
Future leaders should observe and learn from past movements, understanding that change is a collective process, not something that can be easily controlled or mobilized at will.
With the advancement of tools and technologies, movements like climate strikes, Black Lives Matter, and Me Too show how societal change can be organized and mobilized more effectively.
W.J. Couch, J.F. Herity, R.E. Munn Environmental Assessment in Canada
1. INTRODUCTION
Examination of Canadian approaches to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) begins.
Discussion includes:
Historical context from late 1960s leading to EM process adoption in Canada (1973).
Understanding Canada's nature and government structures influencing EIA evolution.
Key features of Canadian EIA processes:
Project screening
Formal public review
Relationship of EIA to planning and regulatory activity
Scientific methodology in sociology and public participation.
2. HISTORICAL REVIEW
EIA, as a term, recognized in the 1970s; prior assessments existed for 50+ years in Canada.
Notable historical instances include:
Trail Smelter Investigation (1930s): First Canadian EIA incident due to international concern over SO2 pollution.
1960s investigations for industrial site establishments: Lake Erie complex and New Brunswick power station.
Canadian nuclear power assessments required baseline studies since late 1950s; however, public hearings were lacking.
3. FACTORS LEADING TO EIA INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Influences in late 1960s that motivated EIA overview:
Environmental Literature: Works like "Silent Spring" raised alarm on environmental future.
UN Stockholm Conference (1972): Public engagement and media coverage increased awareness.
Public Distrust in Technology: Emergence of a skeptical generation amid social upheaval.
Environmental Accidents: Events like the Torry Canyon oil spill heightened concern.
Large-Scale Development Projects: Massive projects necessitated balanced environmental considerations.
Economic Growth: Increased funds for pollution control fueled public demands.
Emergence of Environmental Organizations: Groups like Sierra Club emerged, raising public environmental issue awareness.
4. DIVERSITY IN CANADA
Canada as a diverse nation:
Different legal systems: British Common Law vs. civil law system in Quebec.
Population distribution: Significant concentration in a 1,100 km corridor (Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City).
Geographical variety affecting EIA approaches: From rich resources in northern territories to agricultural bases in the prairies.
Federal and provincial EIA responsibilities defined by a history of decentralized powers
Need for cooperation across jurisdictions highlighted through intergovernmental communications.
5. GENERAL VIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Common characteristics across Canadian EIA processes:
Notable similarities in philosophy and methodology despite variations.
Stress on public consultation and involvement in assessments.
EIA ideally should not result in legal disputes.
6. SCREENING IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Developers’ responsibility to screen for potential significant adverse environmental impacts:
Different screening laws and requirements vary across provinces.
Quebec: Specific regulations for major industries (pulp, petrochemical).
Ontario: Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Act merits screening.
7. INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF EIA
Establishment of special offices and agencies for EIA at federal and provincial levels:
Alberta: Developers seek EIA guidance from the Environmental Assessment Division.
Nova Scotia: Screens projects and advises the Environment Minister based on potential environmental impacts.
Federal Level: Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) coordinates EIA amongst federal departments.
8. FORMAL PUBLIC REVIEWS
Independent reviews of projects with significant public concern:
Boards derive their authority from legislation; operate under quasi-judicial procedures.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) must encompass detailed project descriptions, potential impacts, and mitigation.
9. EIA AND LAND/RESOURCE PLANNING
EIA is evolving to become integrated into resource planning:
Shift from project-specific assessments to comprehensive regional planning.
Late reviews minimized by planning frameworks initiated before specific developments.
10. REGULATORY PROCESSES IN EIA
EIA often precedes regulatory approvals, ensuring environmental concerns addressed beforehand:
New Brunswick and Alberta examples showcase coordination across DEAs and regulatory agencies.
11. SCIENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Scientific rigor essential for predicting ecological effects:
Environmental assessments must rely on government agencies staffed with scientists.
12. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SIA)
Social impacts garner public interest and engagement:
Evolving definitions and frameworks to address social dimensions within EIAs.
13. FUNDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Discussions evolving on funding mechanisms for public intervention:
Grant practices have emerged in some reviews, but the overall necessity remains debated.
14. CONCLUSIONS
Environmental assessment principles applied variably across Canada:
Developers typically oversee screening; administering agencies coordinate EIA.
Public participation is integral, with elected officials retaining ultimate decision-making powers.
Gibson, R., Benevides, H., Doelle, M., Kirchhoff, D Journal of Environmental Law and Practice. Strengthening strategic environmental assessment in Canada: an evaluation of three basic options
Introduction
Canada has a history of integrating environmental considerations into policies and plans, albeit disappointingly.
For over 25 years, there has been a policy-based Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process at the federal level.
In 2003, the deficiencies of this process led to recommendations for a legislated framework for mandatory SEA before the 2010 Parliamentary review.
Current governments have failed to enact this recommendation despite promises to strengthen federal SEA.
This paper evaluates three options for strengthening federal SEA:
Law-based approach
Policy-guided approach
Combined approach (most promising for Canada).
Background on SEA in Canada
Canada has been committed to environmental assessment of significant policy, plan, and program proposals since 1984.
The Cabinet Directive has undergone several updates (1990, 1993, 1999, 2004) but lacks transparency and effective implementation.
Commissioner of Environment Reports:
The reports from 1998-2008 show compliance audits but still reveal uneven application and weak accountability in SEA.
Insufficient commitment to the Cabinet Directive has been noted.
Recommendations from the House of Commons Standing Committee
The Committee's 2003 report recommended establishing a mandatory SEA framework, but implementation has stagnated.
The government has promised stronger assessment at the strategic level.
Experience with SEA in Canada
SEA processes have generally been ad hoc and not well-coordinated among different jurisdictions (federal, provincial, Aboriginal).
Several past examples of SEA and SEA-like applications demonstrate both the potential and the challenges within the Canadian context.
Purpose of SEA
SEA aims to integrate environmental considerations early in the process of developing significant policies, plans, and programs (PPPs).
The practice is increasing globally, focusing on cumulative effects, broad objectives, underlying policy conflicts, and long-term options.
Project-level assessments have limitations that SEA aims to overcome, providing earlier and more reliable guidance for planning and approvals.
Key Components of an Effective SEA Regime
Effective SEA must be applied early and proactively.
It should integrate biophysical, social, and economic aspects into assessments.
Must consider multiple levels of strategic decision-making and provide clear guidance for project-level assessments.
Must be guided by regulatory, policy, or other direct mechanisms for consistent application.
Requires flexibility and adaptability to accommodate different contexts and decision-making environments.
Must include opportunities for public involvement and ensure transparency.
Monitoring and enforcement must follow assessments to compare actual effects with predictions.
Mechanisms for Strengthening SEA
Option A: Legal Instruments
Establish core requirements in legislation.
Provides certainty and independent enforceability but may lack flexibility.
Option B: Policy Instruments
Current Cabinet Directive can be enhanced; policy instruments are generally more flexible but less reliable for implementation.
Option C: Combined Law and Policy
Utilize legal provisions for core requirements, supplemented by flexible policy guidelines for SEA in less significant cases.
This combination allows for a robust framework while accommodating various applications.
Evaluation Criteria for SEA Regime Options
Clarity of process purposes centered on sustainable development.
Rules should ensure significant cases are covered and informed by sustainability assessments early in the process.
Defined linkages between strategic assessments and project planning.
Opportunities for meaningful participation throughout assessment processes.
Transparent, accountable decision-making.
Effective appeals and reviews of SEA decisions.
Conclusion
A combined law and policy approach is recommended for Canada to effectively integrate sustainability into SEA.
Implementation issues, including the need for public openness and the perception of SEA as a regulatory hurdle, pose major challenges.
Ensuring a positive SEA framework could help Canada address environmental and sustainability concerns more effectively.
Harrison, K. Review of Policy Research. Tale of two taxes: The fate of environmental tax reform in Canada
Abstract
Policymakers exhibit a preference for emissions trading over carbon taxes due to political advantages.
The article analyzes surprising proposals for carbon taxes from British Columbia (BC) and the federal Liberal Party.
BC tax succeeded due to government support and economic recession; federal proposal failed due to lack of electoral backing.
Introduction
Policymakers shifting towards market-based environmental regulation.
Strong preference for cap and trade, which offers a financial advantage to polluters and minimizes visible costs for consumers.
BC implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008 amidst public opposition; the federal proposal for a national carbon tax was abandoned after the 2008 election loss.
Two primary questions: 1) Why support carbon taxation despite cap and trade's advantages? 2) Why did BC’s tax succeed compared to the federal proposal?
Economic and Political Context
Economic recession shifted focus from environmental measures to economic stability during the 2008 election.
Voters favored the BC Liberals, who managed to maintain the carbon tax, reflecting the importance of economic issues over environmental ones.
In Canadian politics, concentrated costs or benefits are politically the most noticeable, making taxes challenging to implement.
Policy Instrument Choices
Good Policy vs. Good Politics
Politicians' preferences influenced by normative commitments (good policy) versus electoral incentives (good politics).
Market-based approaches to environmental regulation were first theorized by Arthur Pigou.
Two key viewpoints:
Good Policy: Demonstrates how carbon taxes reduce compliance costs and encourage innovation.
Good Politics: Policymakers need to secure electoral support, which often favors indirect costs of cap and trade over clear tax increases.
Canadian Climate Policy History
Canada's high per capita greenhouse gas emissions necessitated a variety of ambitious plans that were ultimately ineffective.
A history peppered with failure to adopt carbon taxes in favor of voluntary programs and subsidies.
The brief discussion of carbon taxes in the 1990s was shot down due to public and business resistance.
Adoption of the BC Carbon Tax
Surprising emergence of a carbon tax in BC in 2007 driven by Premier Gordon Campbell, responding to public concern and external influences such as California's leadership on climate policy.
Introduced as the government aimed for a significant emission reduction target by 2020, inspired by environmental concerns exacerbated by observable climate impacts.
The BC government committed to presenting a comprehensive climate policy, culminating in a revenue-neutral carbon tax proposal in February 2008 with phased increases.
Challenges Faced by the BC Carbon Tax
Initial support for the carbon tax was met with backlash from rural communities, exacerbated by rising gasoline prices coinciding with the tax’s inception.
The NDP's political campaign against the tax, branding it as unfair, gained traction despite misleading claims.
Voter anxiety over direct and perceived costs overshadowed potential benefits.
The Federal Green Shift Proposal
Within a context of increasing climate concerns, the federal Liberal Party under Stéphane Dion proposed a similar carbon tax shift.
Despite receiving early support within the party, the Green Shift was soon framed negatively in the media and by opponents, alongside widespread political fallout from the BC tax experience.
Election Outcomes and Aftermath
The Green Shift proved unpopular, culminating in the Liberal Party's historic loss in the 2008 federal elections.
Lack of public understanding regarding carbon pricing and the direct visibility of taxes led to a substantial electoral backlash.
The experience led to reflections on the viability of introducing carbon taxes in future political contexts.
Comparing the Cases
Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberal Party successfully implemented a carbon tax while the federal Liberals failed.
Key differences include the government being in power for BC and a lack of preparation for electoral opposition from Dion in the federal election.
The economic climate dictated voters’ priorities, overshadowing the environmental agenda and leading to the collapse of the Green Shift.
Conclusion
Effective environmental policies rely heavily on the intersection of public perception, economic pressures, and political will.
Policymakers should consider alternative strategies when facing potential backlash against taxes, like cap and trade or more gradual tax reforms that may provide more politically palatable shortcuts to environmental goals.
Chapter 12 Environmental Policy
Governments have historically been involved in defense, infrastructure, taxation, and the regulation of social issues but have only recently engaged in environmental matters.
The modern environmental movement is often traced back to the 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which highlighted the dangers of agricultural chemicals to wildlife and human health.
Carson’s book led to the establishment of a U.S. presidential commission, which resulted in the eventual ban of the pesticide DDT and brought the concept of the environment into the political spotlight.
Since Silent Spring, public concern and governmental actions regarding environmental issues have fluctuated, but there is no returning to the era of ignorance regarding environmental impacts.
Human activities’ effects on the environment are now significant, and public awareness of these issues is widespread, although often not fully informed.
Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in laws and programs to address the environmental consequences of human activities.
In Canada, environmental policy-making is not confined to a single department or agency and involves multiple levels of government—federal, provincial, and municipal.
The chapter will further explore the current state of environmental policies in Canada, focusing on the evolution of the environment concept and its political significance globally.
The word "environment" can evoke different images: natural, unspoiled places like forests and wildlife, or the negative impact of human activity like pollution and environmental damage.
A broader view of the environment includes all conditions that make human life possible and shape its character, such as overcrowded living conditions, noise, traffic, and weapons build-up.
This perspective sees the environment as both the natural world and human-made world, affecting human life quality.
Some criticize this view as anthropocentric, as it places humans at the center of environmental concern.
Advocates of deep ecology reject this human-centered view and argue that all parts of the environment, including all life forms, are of equal value.
Modern environmental movement gained momentum after the 1962 publication of Silent Spring, but concern for the environment existed prior to that, primarily focused on wildlife and wilderness conservation.
Early conservation efforts included national parks like Yellowstone (1872) and Banff (1885), which were meant to benefit humans, with less emphasis on protecting non-human life.
Over time, our understanding of the environment shifted to recognize the need for protecting both natural areas and non-human life.
Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" (1968) illustrates how individuals acting in their self-interest can harm the environment (e.g., overgrazing a pasture, pollution).
Environmental problems arise when the market system fails to account for externalities (costs not reflected in the price of goods, like pollution).
Market-based environmentalists argue that individual ownership, rather than common ownership, would reduce environmental degradation (e.g., waste disposal).
Prices in the market are set by buyers and sellers, often ignoring future generations and environmental impact.
If market prices included the future costs of environmental harm (e.g., gasoline emissions), they would be much higher.
The failure to account for long-term environmental costs reflects ideological and ethical assumptions in pricing.
Some individuals and cultures are more attuned to long-term and global environmental impacts, and some governments have introduced policies like taxation and regulation to address these issues.
Environmental policy shares many characteristics with other public policy areas, such as technical complexity, intergenerational impacts, and interjurisdictional issues.
Environmental issues often overlap with other policy areas like energy, urbanization, and industrial production.
The 1987 Brundtland Commission identified key global environmental challenges, including population growth, food supplies, species preservation, energy, and nuclear conflict.
The broad scope of environmental issues makes it difficult to address them due to:
Fragmented and weak political constituencies, with different groups focusing on local concerns rather than global environmental issues.
The challenge of addressing issues like ozone depletion versus local concerns such as drinking water quality.
Environmental problems often do not align with existing political institutions, creating institutional gaps:
Gap 1: Local/national governance struggles with transnational environmental problems, as nations tend to prioritize local issues over global cooperation.
Gap 2: Existing government structures are focused on established policy areas, making it difficult for environmental issues to find a proper fit, leading to resistance from traditional departments.
New environmental agencies, like the Department of the Environment, often face opposition from established government bodies that protect existing interests.
Canada’s environmental policy has evolved in three periods: pre-regulation private common-law era, public-law era, and market-based, co-operative instruments.
In the Common-Law Period, Canadians used common law, including trespass, nuisance, and riparian rights, to protect against environmental harm.
Trespass law allowed property owners to address pollution like sawdust, smoke, or chemicals from industrial activities.
Nuisance law covered indirect pollution like smoke or fumes affecting property enjoyment.
Riparian rights protected landowners along rivers and lakes from water pollution, even before damage occurred.
Despite these legal tools, environmental protection was weak due to eroded property rights and government support for industrial interests.
Industrialization led to government interference, prioritizing economic activity over environmental protection, weakening pollution control.
Early cases, like Groat v. Edmonton (1928), established that pollution was unlawful and a nuisance.
As industries moved to avoid nuisance laws, pollution persisted due to economic considerations and leniency towards industries.
The Ontario 1885 law limited courts from protecting riparian rights in favor of the lumber trade.
Government reluctance to enforce pollution abatement measures led to a double standard, where profitable industries were allowed to pollute more freely.
Example: The Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Company in 1944 polluted the Spanish River, affecting local water quality, fishery, and tourism.
Even when individuals won lawsuits against polluters, governments intervened to protect industries like kvp, amending laws to prioritize economic importance over environmental harm.
The Public-Law Era marked a shift towards greater government regulatory involvement in environmental protection.
Ontario government supported industrial interests (e.g., kvp) over environmental concerns, influenced by political lobbying and economic pressures.
The government defined the "common good" in terms of employment, rather than environmental health, favoring jobs over clean water.
Governments often favor industries that pollute due to job creation, prioritizing votes over environmental protection.
Political and economic pressures led to policies that transferred the costs of pollution to affected communities rather than the polluting industries.
Government actions often lack effective enforcement, with environmental laws being symbolic rather than properly enforced.
Public expectations and awareness influence the enforcement of environmental laws, with society demanding change when pollution becomes a direct threat.
In the 1980s, the International Joint Commission identified pollution concerns in the Great Lakes, including the Spanish River.
Governments and agencies collaborated on remedial action plans (raps) to clean up polluted areas, including the Spanish River, making it suitable for recreational activities again.
As societies become wealthier, attitudes shift, and pollution becomes less acceptable, even to industries involved.
Getting and staying on the agenda components
Problems
Policies
Politics
In 1990, 25% of Canadians identified the environment as the top issue, but this dropped below 5% after the economic recession.
Public concern for the environment is often temporary and tied to ecological disasters; economic concerns typically dominate, especially during downturns.
Environmental groups have differing views: some focus on responsible resource management, while others prioritize wilderness preservation.
Early environmentalism was focused on human impacts like species preservation and resource exploitation, ignoring issues like pollution, climate change, and industrial practices.
Environmentalism gained political visibility in the 1960s due to key events and the framework from John Kingdon's agenda-setting theory (problems, policies, and politics).
Major environmental crises like oil spills, polluted rivers, and mercury accumulation raised public awareness in the 1960s.
The rise in global population fears, particularly over Malthusian predictions and the Population Bomb, contributed to concerns over environmental and social collapse.
These concerns pushed environmental issues onto the political agenda, shifting focus from conservation to addressing the broader physical and social costs of industrial society.
Before environmental concerns gained public attention, specialized knowledge on pollution, population growth, and industrial chemicals had already accumulated.
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring highlighted the environmental damage caused by chemicals, drawing attention to existing scientific studies and government research.
Environmental issues became more prominent due to key events, political changes, and books like Silent Spring and The Population Bomb, though they were not the sole catalyst.
Environmental issues were sustained by public institutions and organizations created during the first wave of environmentalism.
In the U.S., the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were established in 1970, leading to the creation of legally enforceable environmental regulations.
The U.S. passed laws like the Clean Air Act (1970), Federal Environment Pesticide Control Act (1972), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (1972), with the EPA overseeing enforcement.
In Canada, the Department of the Environment was established in 1970, overseeing resource management, pollution control, and environmental impact assessments.
Key Canadian environmental laws passed in the 1970s included the Canada Water Act, Arctic Waters Pollution Act, and the Clean Air Act.
The environmentalism of the 1960s challenged previously accepted values, such as economic prosperity linked to pollution and industrial progress.
Post-war affluence fostered “post-materialist” values, emphasizing quality of life and environmental beauty over material wealth.
The rise of the environmental movement in the 1960s was linked to these shifting values, helping to push environmental issues onto the political agenda.
Public concern for the environment waned in the mid-1970s due to economic insecurity, oil crises, inflation, and unemployment.
Environmental predictions like the “population bomb” were proven inaccurate, leading to reduced urgency around environmental issues.
The Reagan administration (1980) in the U.S. attacked environmental regulations as excessive government interference.
Despite low political profile in the 1970s-80s, key ecological disasters (e.g., Love Canal, Three Mile Island) kept environmental issues on the agenda.
Environmentalism evolved from conservation to broader concerns about pollution, industrial chemicals, and sustainability.
Exponential growth of environmental problems, like pollution and population, emphasized the urgency of action.
By the 1980s, awareness of environmental deterioration was unavoidable (e.g., landfills, global warming, ozone depletion).
Eco-events in the 1980s refocused global attention on environmental vulnerability (e.g., Bhopal disaster, Chernobyl, Amazon deforestation).
The 1987 UN report on sustainable development and the Montreal Protocol marked key international environmental milestones.
In Canada, environmentalism grew in the 1980s, with policies like recycling programs and a Green Plan in 1990.
The 1990–91 economic recession dampened public concern for the environment, pushing it back below economic issues on the public agenda.
Despite temporary setbacks, environmental issues surged again in the 2000s with climate change discussions, driven by media, politicians, and protests.
However, public concern fluctuated with economic crises, as seen in the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which overshadowed environmental issues.
Environmental policies in Canada:
1985 federal Task Force on Program Review identified 34 environmental programs under Minister of the Environment, including parks, air quality, toxic chemicals, water programs, and wildlife conservation.
These programs cost $766.5 million, less than 1% of the federal budget.
By 1992, Environment Canada's budget rose to $1.14 billion, still under 1% of the total budget, despite Green Plan promises of $3 billion over five years.
Since 2000, Environment Canada’s budget increased to 2.6% of total federal expenditure.
Trudeau government placed environment high on the agenda, committing Canada to a low-carbon economy, renaming Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
2016 budget outlined initiatives like investing in clean technology, restoring ecosystems, and strengthening environmental assessments.
$1.6 billion spent on these initiatives in Trudeau’s first three years; total Environment Canada spending reached $1.96 billion in 2018-19.
Environmental programs span other departments (e.g., Fisheries, Natural Resources, Transport Canada), totaling $5 billion in 2018-19, expected to rise to $6.4 billion in 2020-21.
Federal policy decentralizes environmental responsibilities across multiple departments, seen as a strength by some but a potential bureaucratic challenge by others.
Critics argue decentralization means environmental issues often take a back seat to other departmental priorities.
Government emphasized environment in its core mandate under Trudeau, influencing all departments’ decision-making.
Centralizing environmental policy in one agency, like the U.S. EPA, doesn’t always lead to greater environmental priority, as seen with budget cuts and policy changes under Reagan.
Environmental policy in Canada involves all three levels of government, with provinces and local governments handling key issues like waste management, forest management, and pollution.
Key recent issues include environmental assessments, pollution, and transboundary environmental problems.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental assessment identifies potential consequences of developments on the environment, including social and cultural effects.
Local level: Zoning bylaws and land-use regulations are a form of environmental assessment, requiring public hearings for exemptions.
Provincial laws vary on environmental assessment; some require it by law for specific projects (e.g., dams, pipelines, landfills), while others only respond to political pressures.
Ontario requires consideration of social, cultural, and environmental impacts, but critics say economic and political interests often override environmental concerns.
Federal environmental assessment process began in 1973 with Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP), initially not legally binding but later confirmed as law by the Federal Court in 1991 and Supreme Court in 1992.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) was passed in 1994 and amended in 2003, with further amendments in 2012 by the Conservative government.
Trudeau government criticized 2012 amendments, particularly delays in pipeline approvals, and introduced the Impact Assessment Act in 2019 for a more holistic approach, focusing on early public engagement and Indigenous consultations.
Environmentalists argue assessments are often ineffective, citing the Rafferty and Alameda dams project as an example of flawed assessment and approval processes.
Even with reforms, environmentalists and First Nations remain critical, as seen with the Trans Mountain pipeline project, which involved protests, legal battles, and delays.
The government added conditions to Trans Mountain's approval, including environmental protections, carbon pricing, and Indigenous consultations.
Despite support from some political leaders, opposition and legal challenges led Kinder Morgan to sell the pipeline to the federal government.
Environmental assessments may not stop harmful projects but can increase costs and cause delays, as seen in Canada and globally.
Pollution
First wave of environmentalism focused on pollution, including oil spills, toxic chemicals, and hazardous waste.
Canadian laws to control pollution include the Clean Air Act, Canada Water Act, Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, and others.
Federal government sets pollution standards for federally controlled areas, while provinces manage most air and land pollution through permits and regulations.
Inco’s Copper Cliff smelting operation was a major source of acid rain; pollution targets were often lenient but technology was used to reduce emissions over time.
Pollution fines, like the $16,000 fine for Dow Chemical in 1985, are often too low to deter companies from polluting.
Governments also contribute significantly to pollution, with sewage discharges from municipalities and provincial electricity plants causing environmental harm.
Montreal temporarily discharged 8 billion liters of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River to upgrade aging infrastructure.
Hydroelectric power has pollution effects, such as increased lead levels in fish and greenhouse gas emissions from flooded vegetation.
Despite challenges, federal policies have reduced pollution; lead in gasoline has dropped 99%, and sulphur dioxide levels decreased by 96% from 1970 to 2008.
Particulate matter and volatile organic compounds have also seen reductions over the past four decades.
The percentage of Canadians living in areas with outdoor air pollutant concentrations below 2020 standards increased to 77%.
Transboundary Environmental Problems
The second wave of environmentalism (1980s) focused on global issues like acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, and hazardous waste trade.
Transboundary problems require international cooperation, which is difficult due to countries benefiting from harmful activities without bearing all costs.
The crisis-driven nature of international environmental issues often delays action until consequences are severe.
Acid rain became a recognized problem by the 1970s, but efforts to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions were slow, especially from the U.S., which contributed 50% of the pollution in Canada.
Cooperation on environmental issues requires overcoming conflicting national interests, inadequate enforcement mechanisms, and reliance on voluntary compliance.
International agreements have addressed various transboundary issues
Montreal Protocol (1987) on ozone depletion.
Kyoto Protocol (1997) on global warming emissions reduction.
Helsinki Protocol (1985) on acid rain.
International efforts to protect species, preserve habitats, and reduce water pollution.
Many international environmental institutions are limited due to countries' reluctance to relinquish sovereignty.
The challenge of enforcing international environmental agreements is significant, as compliance is often voluntary.
Countries like China and India resisted agreements on CFCs and greenhouse gas emissions due to concerns over economic costs and fairness.
Sanctions and inducements often flow from developed to developing countries, but compliance depends on goodwill from wealthier nations.
Canada's environmental policy-making is complicated by federalism, with provinces holding significant power over environmental regulations.
The Supreme Court's 1997 ruling on Hydro-Québec expanded Ottawa's constitutional authority over environmental matters, though political challenges remain.
A Non-Malthusian Case for Environmentally Friendly Policies
Environmental deterioration is often framed as a problem of overconsumption, with wealthier countries consuming disproportionately.
Developed countries, about one-fifth of the world’s population, account for four-fifths of global consumption.
The idea that global economic growth will raise developing countries to developed world consumption standards is unrealistic due to the earth's finite resources.
Books like The End of Affluence and The Limits to Growth predicted scarcity and rising resource prices would halt constant growth.
However, raw material stocks have increased, and prices have fallen, as pointed out by Bjørn Lomborg.
Lomborg and others argue that technology has helped avoid shortages and improved living conditions, including reduced pollution and increased life expectancy.
Technology has prevented critical shortages despite overconsumption claims, especially in energy, food, and timber.
Sagoff believes that resource depletion is less of an issue than controlling pollutants, and new energy technologies could help manage growth.
While technology allows continued consumption, Sagoff and Lomborg argue it shouldn't be the goal—economic growth doesn't justify unlimited resource consumption.
Sagoff questions whether economics is the right framework for environmental policy, suggesting that moral and aesthetic values should guide environmental thinking.
Sagoff emphasizes that the focus should be on the quality of life, not the standard of living.
Ethical challenges to high-consumption lifestyles are visible in movements like the McDonald's court battle and forestry protests in British Columbia.
Climate change protests and government inaction have raised environmental awareness, but it's uncertain if policies will align with the rhetoric.
The environment has had a profound impact on Canadians' lives, with climate change leading to extreme weather disasters like floods and fires.
The costs of these disasters are significant, both emotionally and financially, as people lose homes, property, and livelihoods.
Governments face additional burdens, needing to organize emergency relief efforts and support affected communities.
While there is consensus on the existence of the climate problem, debates continue on the best solutions.
Key issues include whether reducing carbon emissions to below 2005 levels will slow climate change, the effectiveness of a price on fossil fuels, and the best approach for transitioning to a greener economy.
Canadian politicians face difficulty in shaping environmental policy, partly due to fluctuating environmental policies in the United States.
Changes in U.S. leadership, such as the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Climate Agreement under Donald Trump, have complicated Canada's efforts.
Trump's refusal to reduce emissions jeopardized Canadian economic interests.
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. has reaffirmed its commitment to reducing emissions, aligning with Canada's environmental goals.
However, Biden's reversal of the Trump-era Keystone XL pipeline decision impacts Canada's ability to transport Alberta bitumen in a low-carbon manner.
Canadian policymakers must navigate the challenge of moving toward greener solutions while maintaining the high standard of living tied to a carbon-based economy.
Unit 11
Unit 11 Content notes:
immigration and multiculturalism, welfare state and social needs such as income security.
What is the issue in question?
What are the challenges that are associated with issues-based policies, specifically social policies?
Who are the key players in determining the success of these issues based public policy?
What type of impact does public policy have on the public?
What type of legal implications are involved with social policies?
Multicultural Policies
Royal Commission of Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1960s)
Official Languages Act
First Official Multiculturalism Policy (1971)
Canadian Consultative Council of Multiculturalism
Constitution Act 1982
Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1988
Immigration Policies
1869 Immigration Act
The Chinese Immigration Acts (1885, 1900, 1903)
The Immigration Act (1906)
The Immigration Act (1910)
The 1923 Chinese Immigration Act
The Immigration Act (1952)
“Favoured Nations” list
The Immigration Act (1967)
The Immigration Act (1976)
Bill C-86
2002 Immigration and Refugees Act
2014 - Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act
Refugee Policies
The Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program
The In-Canada Asylum Program
Private Sponsors
Blended Visa
Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) – One year financial assistance and immediate and essential service
Social and Welfare Policies
Employment Insurance Benefits
Old Age Pension
Canadian Pension Plan
Worker’s Compensation
Canada Child Benefit
Child Disability Benefit
Subsidized Housing Programs
Ontario Student Assistance Program
Canada Student Grants
Lecture video:
Social Policies Overview:
Social policies are an umbrella term addressing various aspects that help disadvantaged groups and communities.
Covers areas like education, immigration, multiculturalism, healthcare, and integration.
Aims to help communities adapt to governmental changes, ensuring social cohesion.
Definitions of Social Policy:
Defined in multiple ways, often from perspectives like redistribution, income security, or healthcare.
Generally refers to public policies addressing sociopolitical, sociocultural, and socioeconomic conditions of a nation's citizens.
Focus in Canada:
Canada's social policies focus on issues like:
Minority status
Income inequality
Labor market attachment
Housing, child care, immigration, multiculturalism
Healthcare systems
Historically addresses marginalized groups like Indigenous people, visible minorities, women, and the disabled.
Historical Context:
Canada's social policy framework evolved to address the rights of marginalized groups.
Includes community programs for immigrants, refugees, and disabled people.
Economic support like unemployment insurance and family allowances is more impactful on marginalized groups.
Stages of Social Policies:
Michael Shear and John Graham describe social policies evolving in four periods:
Residual Period
Emerging Institutional Period
Institutional Period
Post-Institutional Period
This shows patterns of change in social policies at both federal and provincial levels.
Impact of Colonial History on Social Policy:
Canada's colonial history influenced the development of social policies, particularly around diversity and equality.
Early Canadian history included large numbers of immigrants, which influenced social policy development.
Immigration Patterns:
Early immigration waves were from France, England, and the U.S.
Pre-WWI and WWII immigrants were primarily from European countries like Ukraine, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.
Post-1970s, most new immigrants came from Asian countries (China, India), creating a multicultural society in Canada.
Multiculturalism and National Social Policy:
The diverse immigration patterns called for a national social policy focused on multiculturalism.
This included issues like ethnoracial minority status, Indigenous rights, language rights, and women’s rights.
Economic Conditions and Social Policy:
Economic factors greatly influenced Canada's social policies and welfare development.
Like other industrialized nations, Canada’s economy follows a capitalistic system and has been impacted by recessions and depressions.
Impact of Social Policies on Vulnerable Citizens:
Social policies focus on both immediate and long-term effects, particularly on vulnerable populations.
Emphasizes support for marginalized or minority groups.
Aims to:
Improve income distribution.
Increase reliance on community-based organizations.
Develop civil society actors for thriving social policies.
Welfare State Transition Waves:
Social policy in Canada underwent waves during the welfare state transition.
Focus on understanding different periods and their effects on Canadian social policy.
Residual Period of Canadian Social Policy (Pre-Confederation to 1860s):
Prior to European colonization, Indigenous communities practiced reciprocal social welfare based on family and kinship.
Social welfare was managed individually, with reliance on the immediate family first, then extended family, local communities, or religious organizations.
Limited state intervention during this period; social welfare was informal and local.
Early social welfare laws were insufficient and poorly designed, and mobility issues in a vast country made national programs difficult.
Provincial social welfare systems were distinct, lacking a national framework.
This period is historically important but not very successful in addressing social needs.
Emerging Institutional Period (1867–1943):
Started after the formation of Canada in 1867 and lasted until World War II.
Canada began transitioning from a small resource-based economy to an industrialized nation.
The period saw rapid urbanization and population growth, prompting institutionalized social welfare programs.
Key social issues during this period:
Poverty, working conditions, religious and moral order.
Increased public involvement through social movements, with citizens actively pursuing better social conditions.
The creation of social service organizations led to more formal institutionalized welfare systems.
This period had long-lasting effects on future social welfare development in Canada.
The tradition of local community-based activism was critical, influencing movements like the independent living movement in the 1970s.
Community Engagement and Social Work Advancements:
Community-based organizations and city engagement brought attention to people in negative social conditions.
Social work became more professionalized during this period.
Key social policies:
Increased workers' compensation and unemployment benefits.
More institutionalized social welfare systems.
Federal programs created, like the Old Age Pension Act and Unemployment Insurance Act (1940), to help citizens during unemployment.
Provincial programs, such as the Mother Allowance Program, supported single mothers (widowed or divorced).
Institutional Period of Social Policy (World War II to Mid-1970s):
A period of centralization in social policy and welfare programming in Canada.
Reinforced societal constructions of race, sexual orientation, and gender, leading to critiques about income security focus.
Notable developments:
Introduction of the Canada Pension Plan (national program).
Creation of more specific welfare programs tailored to gender and income security.
Government-funded programs included:
Affordable housing development.
Immigrant resettlement programs.
Community organizations working with developmentally challenged adults.
Child protection and family services.
Provinces began instituting their own social assistance programs in addition to federal ones.
Post-Institutional Period (After 1970s):
A shift towards more targeted spending on social programs, particularly after the 1970s.
By the 1990s, federal-provincial transfer payments increased, including programs like:
Canada Assistance Plan and Canada Health and Social Transfer.
Emphasis on equalization payments.
Shift in public perception from universal programs to more selective programs, e.g.,:
Old Age Security became non-universal, with benefits reduced for higher-income Canadians.
Unemployment Insurance renamed to Employment Insurance (1996), focusing on the number of days worked rather than days unemployed.
Cuts and adjustments made across income security programs.
Creation of new programs in the late 1990s:
Resettlement Assistance Program for refugees.
Canada Child Tax Benefit replacing the family allowance, showing a shift in childcare benefits.
Decreased social rights programs and greater selectivity in government benefits.
Multiculturalism and Immigration:
Canada's population growth continued with increasing immigration.
In response, the federal government officially adopted multiculturalism through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act during the institutional period.
Multiculturalism became institutionalized in Canadian social policy.
Post-Institutional Period Changes:
Same-Sex Marriage: Legalization of same-sex marriages through the Civil Marriage Act, extending equal rights to same-sex couples.
Post-institutional period focused on updating social policies to reflect contemporary needs in the early 21st century.
Decentralization of Social Policy:
The post-institutional period saw a shift from centralized (institutional) to decentralized social policies.
Social welfare and related issues began to be addressed more locally, with emphasis on community-basedsolutions and non-profit/voluntary sectors.
Provincial governments became more involved in decisions related to immigration, refugees, and social welfare.
Focus on Minority Groups:
Increased attention to minority groups such as same-sex couples and refugees.
Emphasis on empowering provinces to manage social welfare issues more independently.
Key Social Policies in Canada:
High-Quality Education Policies:
Canada’s education system, including post-secondary, is globally competitive.
Teachers are well-paid and highly educated.
Policies promote equity in education, ensuring access for all students, regardless of background.
Efforts to remove barriers to post-secondary education, with financial support systems like OSAP.
Social Inclusion and Redistributive Policies:
Social policies focus on labor force participation (especially for women and children), crime reduction, and social inclusion.
Policies designed to assist marginalized groups (e.g., Indigenous women).
Key areas of focus include child benefits, pension systems, and education.
Education and Social Equity:
Educational Equity: Policies aim to provide educational opportunities for youth from various socioeconomic backgrounds, promoting second chances for disadvantaged groups.
The federal government contributes through grants and funding, especially for low and middle-income students.
Indigenous vs. Non-Indigenous Education Gap: A key challenge remains the disparity in educational attainment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.
Indigenous Education Challenges:
Low Enrollment: Indigenous communities have had historically low enrollment in post-secondary education since the 1960s.
Gap in Educational Opportunities: Schools on reserves are federally funded, but educational opportunities are not comparable to those off-reserve.
Government Response: In the 2019 federal budget, almost $800 million was allocated over 10 years to improve post-secondary education strategies for Indigenous communities.
Social Inclusion Policies:
Income Transfers: Includes programs like child benefits and pensions.
Educational Policies for Societal Inclusion: Focus on equal opportunity and supporting marginalized groups like Indigenous Canadians and immigrants.
Poverty Reduction: The Poverty Reduction Act (2009) set targets for poverty reduction, aiming to include marginalized populations in social welfare.
Healthcare Policy:
Provincial Responsibility: Healthcare is managed by provinces, but the federal government supports through funding.
Challenges: Key issue is timely access to care, with long waiting times for surgeries and emergency care, especially compared to other OECD countries.
Accessibility for Marginalized Groups: Some groups, particularly those in remote areas, still lack proper healthcare access.
COVID-19 Impact: The pandemic highlighted healthcare system weaknesses, especially in terms of access and timely care.
Policy Focus: Efforts to improve access, especially in rural areas, and reduce wait times.
Family Policies:
Labor Force Participation for Women: Family policies often focus on supporting working parents, especially single mothers.
Childcare Support: While Canada lacks a universal childcare system, provinces have varying forms of childcare support.
Federal Support: The federal government funds programs to assist with childcare and family planning.
Gender Equity in Labor: The 2018 federal budget emphasized gender equity, aiming to increase female participation in the labor force.
Employment and Childcare Benefits: Policies to support single mothers include parental leave benefits, employment insurance, and childcare benefits.
Focus on Marginalized Families: Ensuring marginalized groups have access to childcare and employment opportunities
Canadian Public Pension System:
Key Components: Includes Canadian Pension Plan (CPP), Old Age Security (OAS), Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP).
Focus: Aimed at providing retirement income for older individuals, especially those 65 and older.
Support Mechanisms:
Encourages saving through programs like Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) and tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs).
Effectiveness:
The system has reduced poverty among seniors and helps 60-70% of retired individuals maintain their lifestyle.
Challenge: Some seniors still live below the poverty line, highlighting gaps in the system.
Focus on Senior Poverty: Policies are directed at alleviating poverty rates among older populations.
Immigrant Integration Policies:
Support for Immigrants:
Aims to help immigrants settle into Canadian society, beyond just arrival.
Includes language training, orientation courses, cultural integration, and financial management support.
Increased Immigration:
Canada admits 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants annually, one of the highest immigration-to-population ratios globally.
Short Residency Requirement: Immigrants can apply for citizenship after 3 years of residency, one of the shortest requirements worldwide.
Key Focus Areas:
Language skills (English or French) for job readiness and societal integration.
Cultural adaptation while preserving immigrant culture.
Cultural & Social Policies: Ensure immigrants can integrate without losing their cultural identity.
Overall Social Policy Integration:
Social Integration & Accommodation: The combination of various policies is aimed at integrating marginalized groups into the broader social fabric.
Impact on Marginalized Groups: Social policies focus on supporting various disadvantaged or marginalized groups, ensuring they are included in Canadian society.
Essence of Social Policy: These individual policies together form the core of Canadian social policy, working towards equality and inclusivity.
Immigration Department Focus:
Why Chosen: Highlighted as one of the few departments with minimal changes during COVID-19.
Historical Immigration Practices (Pre-1950s):
Racist and Exclusionary: Immigration policies were discriminatory, especially toward certain ethnic groups.
Chinese Exclusion Act: Specifically banned Chinese individuals from entering Canada due to perceived overpopulation.
1901 Head Tax Act: Imposed a tax on Chinese immigrants, specifically targeting them.
Continuous Journey Act (1910): Restricted Indian immigration by requiring a direct journey to Canada, which was nearly impossible in the '30s and '40s. Many Indians died on the journey due to ill-prepared conditions.
Shift in Immigration Policy (1950s-1960s):
More Accommodating Immigration: Changes toward a more inclusive and comprehensive immigration system began.
1960 Immigration Reform: Prime Minister Pearson introduced the Point System:
Points awarded based on factors like age (19-49 years), language proficiency (English/French), and pre-arranged employment.
Focus shifted to selecting immigrants based on their potential contribution to the labor market and economy.
1976 Immigration Act:
Quota System: Introduced a system to set annual quotas for immigration, ranging from 70,000 to 200,000 immigrants per year.
Quota Flexibility: The number of immigrants admitted varies each year based on labor market needs.
Quota Achievement: Quotas are not always met, and immigrants still have to meet the set requirements.
Clear Objectives: The 1976 Act outlined specific goals for immigration, emphasizing the economic contribution of new arrivals.
Categories of Immigrants (1976 Immigration Act):
Independent:
Individuals who come to Canada alone.
Skilled laborers, aged 19-49, who wish to contribute economically or physically to the labor market.
Humanitarian:
Refers to refugees, typically from war-torn countries.
Comes to Canada on humanitarian grounds.
Assisted Relative:
Allows immigrants to sponsor immediate family members (spouse, children, parents, and recently, grandparents).
Aimed at reunifying families when the initial immigrant cannot afford to bring their family members at first.
International Adoption:
For Canadian couples wishing to adopt children from outside Canada.
Allows adoption of children from other countries.
Key Changes in Immigration System:
Separation of Refugees and Immigrants:
The 1976 Act formally distinguished refugees from other immigrants.
Previously, refugees and immigrants were treated under the same category, but now refugees have their own distinct process.
Change in Terminology:
Replaced the term "prohibited" with "inadmissible".
Immigrants are no longer rejected based on race; they are inadmissible if they don't meet the point system criteria.
Federal Government’s Role:
Annual Immigration Plan:
The government develops an annual immigration policy plan.
This helps assess needs for the year, including how many immigrants or refugees are required (e.g., more refugees from a specific country in a given year).
Provincial Agreements:
Federal government can enter agreements with provinces to address specific regional labor needs.
Example: Ontario may need manufacturing workers, BC needs forestry workers, and Eastern provinces may need fishing industry labor.
Transparency:
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must present a report on the annual immigration plan to ensure transparency and public understanding of immigration goals.
Financial Transparency:
Immigration policies and refugee programs are funded by taxpayer money, so transparency is crucial.
Public is interested in how tax dollars are being spent on immigration and refugee support.
Refugee Support and Transparency:
Immigration minister tables an annual report on refugee and immigration status.
Report provides transparency on the allocation of funds for refugees and the public's understanding of immigration policies.
Key Changes in 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:
Response to 9/11:
Post-9/11, the U.S. pressured Canada to tighten immigration and border security.
The act was updated to increase security measures in response to terrorist threats.
Skilled Worker Needs:
The update was necessary due to the need for skilled workers as baby boomers retired.
There was also increasing pressure due to rising refugee numbers after various global conflicts (Sri Lankan Civil War, Bosnian War, Rwandan War).
Changes in Immigration Process:
Streamlining Process:
Inadmissible foreign nationals no longer have the right to appeal their entry decision.
Permanent Resident Card:
New immigrants are issued a Permanent Resident Card, allowing free travel without being citizens.
Security Certificates:
Introduced the ability for police and immigration officials to arrest individuals deemed a national security threat without a warrant.
Detainees could be held for up to 3 days without explanation.
Temporary Resident Permits:
Individuals requiring a visa can apply for a Temporary Resident Permit, allowing a stay of up to 6 months.
Refinement of Selection Criteria:
The act broadened criteria to prioritize skilled workers due to the labor shortage caused by retiring baby boomers.
Changes to the point system emphasized skills, language proficiency, and experience for immigrants in the skilled worker class.
Clarification of Residency Requirements:
Defined who qualifies as a dependent, including individuals in same-sex unions or marriages.
Clarified the rights of permanent residents versus foreign nationals.
Permanent Resident Rights:
Permanent residents in Canada have almost the same rights as Canadian citizens.
They cannot vote or hold high-level government jobs.
New Citizenship Act (2014):
The act was updated under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It aimed to prevent people from acquiring citizenship through illegal means.
At that time, 300-400 people had Canadian citizenship without ever having set foot in the country.
The new requirements for citizenship became more stringent in 2014.
Difference Between Citizenship and Immigration:
The Trudeau Government changed the department's name from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to include refugees.
Responsibilities of IRCC:
Immigration and Refugees: Develop policies, set annual immigration levels (quotas), and assist with the resettlement of new immigrants.
Resettlement Program: Helps immigrants find jobs, housing, learn English/French, and secure sponsors during their first year in Canada.
Deportation: IRCC also deals with immigrants who lose their status and are required to leave the country.
Sanctuary: Immigrants who lose status sometimes seek sanctuary in churches. Although police can intervene, there's mutual respect between church and state regarding the deportation of these individuals.
Citizenship Process:
Physical Presence: Permanent residents must be in Canada for 2 out of 3 years or 3 out of 4 years before applying for citizenship.
Requirements: Applicants must not have committed any crimes.
Automatic Citizenship: Individuals born in Canada are automatically Canadian citizens.
Naturalization Process:
Naturalized citizens must pass a test on Canadian history and politics (around 20 questions).
A passing grade of around 60% is required to pass the test.
After passing the test, individuals take an oath in front of a judge, officially becoming Canadian citizens.
They receive a citizenship card upon successful completion of the process.
Naturalization Eligibility: Only permanent residents or refugees can apply for Canadian citizenship through naturalization.
Proof of Citizenship:
Birth Certificate: For those born in Canada.
Citizenship Certificate/Card: For those who become citizens through naturalization.
Reluctance to Become Canadian Citizens:
Some permanent residents do not want Canadian citizenship due to:
Dual Citizenship: They may lose citizenship from their home country, especially if their home country doesn't allow dual citizenship.
Business or Property: Immigrants might have assets in their home country, making it complicated to travel or manage those assets after becoming Canadian citizens.
IRCC Promotion of Citizenship:
National Citizenship Week: A program to encourage permanent residents to become citizens.
Expanded Immigration Categories:
Canadian Experience Class: For international students who have completed their degree and worked in Canada for a couple of years.
Provincial Nominee Program (PNP): Provinces nominate individuals who fit their specific labor needs (e.g., manufacturing in Ontario).
Caregivers: Special category for nannies and personal support workers.
Faster Permanent Resident Process: These categories allow quicker immigration pathways.
Benefits of Immigration for Canada:
Compensating for Declining Birth Rate:
Maternity Benefits: Extended from 12 to 18 months.
Childcare Support: Higher compensation for childcare services.
Immigration helps counter the low birth rate despite government incentives.
Addressing Aging Population's Impact on Workforce:
Retirement Age Flexibility: People are working longer, sometimes up to 70-75, due to improved standard of living.
Real Estate Profits: Older generations are selling their homes, using the profits for retirement or travel, reducing their workforce participation.
Immigration compensates for the gap left by retirees.
Filling Skilled Labor Shortages:
Skilled Labor Gaps: Canada faces a shortage in trades (e.g., electricians, plumbers) as Canadians prefer professional/management roles.
Immigration helps quickly address these shortages by filling labor quotas.
Diversity and Cultural Enrichment:
Canada has one of the most inclusive and diverse immigration policies in the world.
Immigrants enrich Canadian culture, providing a wide variety of cultural perspectives.
Comparison with Other Countries:
Countries like Japan and Iceland historically had restrictive immigration policies, focusing on a single culture or ideology.
Many countries, including Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., now rely on immigration to diversify their populations and address labor shortages.
This unit discusses social policies from three different perspectives. It covers social policies such as multiculturalism, immigration, social and social welfare policies. The readings in this unit also discusses some of the challenges faced when passing policies relating to the social policies discussed.
Whats next for canadian policy Maytree video:
Jamison Steeve's Opening Remarks:
Congratulated Maytree for organizing the event, which he compared to a public policy forum dinner.
Acknowledged the Caledon Institute for its inspirational work in public policy.
Thanked the Caledon Institute for its values-based leadership, highlighting how it shows that "good guys can win."
Introduced the panel discussion, where he would moderate a discussion on policy challenges and opportunities in the next 25 years.
Lightheartedly mentioned his age and joked about being on the cusp of being considered an older generation.
André Côté's Response:
Expressed pleasure in being on the panel and thanked Caledon for its impactful work.
Noted Caledon’s significant role in advancing public policy ideas and supporting advocacy that led to practical policies like the Working Income Tax Benefit.
Highlighted Caledon’s progressive values and commitment to robust, credible research and policy advice, which even garnered support from conservative governments.
Mentioned his experience working on the future of learning and workforce development, particularly with the Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development.
Emphasized the need to rethink the educational and workforce development systems:
Traditional systems train people primarily for long-term careers by age 21, but the landscape has changed, and lifelong learning must be supported.
Proposed a shift towards more proactive workforce development, focusing on aligning training with supply-demand trends in the economy and creating stronger partnerships between employers and learning institutions.
Kyla Scott's Introduction:
Acknowledged Caledon’s work, as she had relied on its resources in her role as Senior Advisor of Antipoverty for the government of Northwest Territories.
Her background was in community development, but she recently shifted to poverty reduction, leading her to focus on policies related to that area.
Kyla Scott's Response:
Big Issue: Bridging the gap between Canada, Indigenous populations, and the Northern regions.
Challenges:
Increasing attention to these areas both nationally and internationally, with a focus on climate change, poverty, reconciliation, and Indigenous rights.
These are areas of social policy that are critical and will need to be addressed in the next 25 years.
Opportunities:
There’s a potential for positive change by developing better relationships with Indigenous communities.
Shifting perspectives on how we understand Canada and how we approach problem-solving will be key.
Indigenous Population Growth: By 25 years, the Indigenous population will be significantly larger, and with personal life changes (grandchildren, etc.), the urgency of addressing these issues becomes clear.
Mindset for Future:
Emphasized the importance of thinking long-term but also acting urgently, as these issues cannot be delayed and must be confronted daily.
Saeed Selvam's Response:
Challenges:
Inequality: The divide between rich and poor, urban and rural, is growing and presents a serious policy dilemma.
Attention: The ability of public policy professionals to effectively engage with the public is being affected by the rise of digital and social media, where voices and perspectives that were previously unheard are now amplified.
Key Issues:
The divide in representation, where underrepresented populations feel excluded, can lead to major social issues.
These inequalities and lack of representation can influence electoral outcomes.
Solutions:
Public policy professionals need to step out of their comfort zones, engage directly with communities, and listen to understand, not just to respond.
Jamison Steeve's Commentary:
Reinforced the importance of being "relentlessly useful" in the policy field.
Stressed that think tanks and leadership should not expect immediate results; policy change often takes 10-15 years of sustained effort.
Kaylie Tiessen's Opening:
Expressed appreciation for the room and acknowledged the impressive nature of the gathering.
Kaylie Tiessen's Input:
Focus Areas:
Emphasized the importance of strong social provisions, good jobs, employment standards, labor legislation, and education.
Also highlighted the need for adequate funding and resources to ensure the success of policies.
Noted that we have sufficient funding but aren't always using it effectively for strong social supports.
Challenges:
Lack of follow-through in social policy initiatives, where momentum is often lost partway through.
Referenced a blog post from CCP Ontario about Ontario's first poverty reduction strategy, noting the need to complete policy efforts fully.
Key Takeaway: Any policies or focuses need to be strong, adequately funded, and followed through to completion.
Jamison Steeve's Commentary:
Concern about Political Division:
Raised concern about political attraction to forming coalitions based on reinforcing views rather than governing for the majority.
Mentioned the temptation to cater to 47% of the population, leaving out the other 53%, which can be damaging to society.
Question about Structural Change:
Questioned whether the structure of government or the nature of citizenship will need to adapt due to increasing political division and the reinforcing of individual views.
Kaylie Tiessen's Response to Jamison's Question:
Suggested that governments need to rethink how they engage with and communicate to the electorate.
Improved Information Sharing:
Advocated for providing better, more informed information to the public, using technology and algorithms to counter siloed, biased information.
Called for raising the expectations of the tech sector to improve the quality of information provided to voters to help them make more informed decisions.
Saeed Selvam's Input:
Public Attention and Communication:
Noted the short attention spans of younger generations (Gen Y and Gen Z) and the importance of how information is communicated to them.
Urged a more intentional approach to communication and marketing, highlighting the need for government and organizations to adapt their communication strategies.
Innovation in Communication:
Suggested adopting faster, more adaptable strategies similar to the private sector, which changes quickly due to profit-driven motivations.
Advocated for the creation of mini innovation labs within organizations to develop digital media strategies and other adaptive communication strategies, such as TV or advertising, based on audience needs.
Saeed Selvam's Input:
Social Media as a Tool:
Emphasized the importance of utilizing social media platforms like Instagram Live and Snapchat to communicate organizational goals, especially because that’s where engagement is most likely.
Encouraged being more intentional with social media, as it’s the future of communication.
Engagement and Storytelling:
Noted the power of narratives in shaping public opinion and combating negative stories.
Highlighted the necessity for public sector organizations to leverage storytelling to create positive change.
Kyla Scott's Input:
Communication Gaps:
Not just about improving communication but understanding existing communication gaps.
Shared her experience working on defining poverty in the Northwest Territories, highlighting the difficulty of framing poverty in ways that resonate with indigenous communities due to cultural and linguistic differences.
Poverty and Cultural Context:
In indigenous communities, poverty isn’t just about lacking material resources, but about the disruption of relationships and community functions caused by historical factors.
Emphasized that the solutions to poverty are often framed from an economic or social policy perspective, focusing on job access, housing, and food security.
Disconnect Between Policy and Community Needs:
In consultations with northern communities, the desire to connect with land, culture, and language is more pressing than addressing education or employment.
Noted the disconnect in priorities when government policies are developed without understanding the fundamental cultural importance of land and community connections.
Understanding of the Land and Community Support:
Stressed that access to land and connection to culture are at the heart of resolving issues in northern and indigenous communities.
Described her personal experience of living in an area where access to food and resources from the land is critical, compared to the urban environment where people may be less reliant on those connections.
Shared Responsibility:
Argued that responsibility for getting people back on the land should be shared between individuals, communities, and governments.
Cited the On the Land Collaborative initiative in the Northwest Territories, which involves multiple governments, businesses, foundations, and communities working together to pool resources and address these issues collectively.
Making Funding Access Easier:
Emphasis on simplifying the process of accessing funding for programs to help organizations focus on their work rather than dealing with complex funding agreements.
André Côté's Perspective:
Government Transparency and Digital Services:
Worked on Ontario’s digital service strategy and open government initiatives to increase transparency and public access.
Believes that people, especially younger generations, are more educated and connected to information than ever before, but this doesn’t always translate into effective political or governmental engagement.
Engagement of Young People:
Despite claims that younger generations are disengaged, studies suggest they seek meaningful participation and want to be more involved in politics.
The disconnect comes from government and political structures not adapting to how people want to engage, particularly between elections.
Challenges in Political Engagement:
Political parties, while making efforts to engage with the public, are still behind in finding innovative ways to connect with people beyond just transactional voting.
Digital tools like Common Ground are an example of efforts to integrate more public input into the political process.
Open Government as a 'Nice to Have' vs. 'Need to Have':
Open government is seen as a nice-to-have initiative, but it should be an essential part of government modernization, with a focus on transparency and public participation.
Encourages greater efforts to push for systemic changes that make government operations more open and engaging.
Kaylie Tiessen's Input:
Challenges with Technology:
Acknowledged that while social media and technology can make communication easier, developing the right technology that serves its intended purpose is challenging and costly.
Emphasized that although it's difficult and expensive, getting technology right is essential for achieving long-term goals.
Jamison Steeve's Thoughts:
Peace, Order, and Good Government:
Suggested that the traditional concept of "peace, order, and good government" might not just be a slogan but could offer a strategic advantage moving forward, particularly in terms of governance and infrastructure.
Discussion on Progressive Economic Agenda:
Economic Development and Fiscal Policy:
The traditional divide between left and right on economic policies seems less relevant now, and there is an opportunity to redefine progressive economic policies.
Focus on areas like good jobs, the future of work, and the roles of individuals, the state, and private sectors in training and workforce development. This suggests the need for a comprehensive and collaborative economic agenda.
Communicating Economic Impacts:
When discussing minimum wage increases, it's important to address potential economic fallout, such as impacts on small businesses, inflation, and rising living costs (e.g., rent and mortgages).
It’s essential to articulate the fiscal and financial aspects of policies, especially regarding income inequality, as the most vulnerable groups are often hit hardest by lack of detailed planning.
Ensuring that funding is allocated properly, and that the people who need it can access it effectively.
Kaylie Tiessen’s Vision for an Inclusive Economy:
Inclusive Economy: Proposes a system where everyone has an opportunity to prosper, rather than a winner-takes-all model.
Social assistance should be adequate, allowing people to pay bills, provide for their families, and access education/training for new work opportunities.
A robust tax system is necessary to ensure everyone contributes fairly, preventing loopholes like offshore tax havens.
Creating a floor for decent work, rather than relying on businesses to provide it voluntarily. Even businesses with strong financials often fail to provide decent working conditions.
The goal is to create a strong shared prosperity across Canada.
Kyla Scott’s Focus on Canadian Strengths:
Invest in Uniquely Canadian Assets: Emphasizes the importance of expanding Canada's strengths, particularly in education, and ensuring its benefits are accessible both locally and globally.
Focus on providing people with the skills and flexibility to transition between careers, as the workforce will likely undergo multiple career shifts over time.
Canada should avoid streaming youth into narrow, stagnant job tracks with limited mobility or advancement.
André Côté on Training Millennials:
Challenges with Private Sector Investment in Training:
Acknowledges the frustration from employers about investing in training employees who may leave soon after.
Argues that a pay-it-forward mentality is necessary for a healthy job market, where companies should accept that employees will transition between jobs.
Underinvestment in Training: The private sector has historically underinvested in training its workforce, which is a big challenge that needs to be addressed.
Skills Gaps and Workforce Readiness:
Skills Gaps: There's a common belief that young people aren't prepared for specific jobs on day one. The question is whether public institutions (education systems) should fully prepare them or if employers should fill in the remaining gap.
Education's Role: Public education systems (K-12 and post-secondary) might only provide 75-80% of the training, with employers expected to handle the rest through on-the-job training.
Employer Responsibility: Employers need to recognize their role in addressing skills gaps and be willing to invest in training new hires.
Kaylie Tiessen’s Perspective:
Decline in On-the-Job Training: Over the last 20 years, investment in on-the-job training has decreased, leading to complaints that workers are unprepared. This was less of an issue in previous decades.
Workforce Development: Emphasizes the need for a collaborative approach to workforce development, involving employers, government, and educational institutions working together.
Fear of Investing in Training: Many businesses are hesitant to invest in employee training because they fear that other firms won’t do the same and will poach their trained employees. One business needs to lead the way to create an ecosystem where training is standard.
Industry Partnerships: Successful examples, such as Waterloo University's engineering program, show the benefits of partnerships between industry, government, and academia.
Rewriting the Social Contract:
Training and Retraining: Reexamining the role of training, including whether it’s the responsibility of the state, private sector, or individuals to provide retraining.
Key Elements of the Social Contract:
Education and Training: Foundational to ensuring equal opportunity and addressing skills gaps.
Employment Standards: Recent labor law changes (e.g., Bill 148) are important steps in recalibrating existing employment standards, but the future should look at further reforms.
Future of Labor Law: There's a need to think about what the next frontier of labor law should look like, beyond just recalibrating existing standards.
Critical Social Policy Challenges:
Ontario's basic minimum income pilot shows potential, but there are ongoing struggles with evolving Ontario's welfare model.
Support for people with disabilities facing barriers to employment needs more attention.
Retirement income remains a key challenge that needs to be addressed.
Ongoing social policy challenges require a renewed commitment.
Looking Ahead to 25 Years:
Kyla Scott's Vision:
Envisioning a shift away from silos towards a collaborative approach between sectors (public, private, nonprofit) to address big issues.
Workforce Diversity: Greater collaboration across sectors to tackle issues together, acknowledging strengths and working in the same direction.
Personal experience: Having worked across different sectors has improved ability to bring stakeholders together and solve problems effectively.
Saeed Selvam's Vision:
Focus on People: People drive everything, including those outside your organization.
Rising Inequality: Addressing inequality, conversations about race, poverty, and systemic disenfranchisement should be intentional.
Action: Organizations must not just discuss these issues but take intentional action to contribute to solutions, moving beyond silos.
Kaylie Tiessen's Vision:
Economic Communication: Economists need to improve in measuring and communicating the benefits of social policies like minimum wage increases and elder care.
Inclusive Economy: Shift towards balancing business and social interests, understanding that both can align in creating an inclusive economy.
Key Takeaways for the Next 25 Years:
Kyla Scott: Emphasizes the importance of collaboration and working together across sectors to address shared challenges.
Saeed Selvam: Stresses the importance of intentional, actionable plans to address inequality, race, poverty, and systemic disenfranchisement.
Kaylie Tiessen: Focuses on the need for economists to better quantify and communicate the benefits of social policies and the movement towards an inclusive economy.
Final Thought from André Côté: Agrees with the panelists' sentiments and appreciates their insights on addressing key social and economic issues.
Chapter 11 notes:
Social policy includes a broad suite of programs and issues that deal with the services and supports that Canadians receive from government. As was noted in the introduction, these policies affect individuals from cradle to grave. Some social programs are administered during one’s stage in life such as education or oas, while other programs act as a safety net when there is a job loss or crisis such as ei or social assistance. This chapter drew attention to two of the pillars of social policy: income security and redistribution. In the next chapter, health care is examined.
The welfare state encompasses functions related to social policy such as public education, healthcare, housing, and income support for vulnerable groups (unemployed, elderly, disabled).
It involves state intervention to protect or promote individuals' well-being based on fairness, compassion, or justice.
Despite these values, the term “welfare state” often carries negative connotations due to individualistic cultural values that emphasize self-reliance and a reluctance to support those capable of working.
In Canada, the term “welfare state” is avoided in favor of alternatives like “social justice” or “caring society” due to its negative associations, despite the state’s significant role in social services.
Social programs in Canada account for over 40% of federal spending and 60% of program expenditures, with welfare-state spending at 17.3% of GDP, lower than the OECD average of 20.1%.
Social spending levels in Western European countries are higher than in North America, partly due to their older populations. For working-age populations, spending varies widely between countries.
Government transfers to seniors in Canada are substantial, representing a large proportion of their income, with 32.8% of elderly family income in 2017 coming from government transfers.
The growth in social spending is widely accepted, but its causes and significance are debated.
The conventional view attributes welfare-state emergence to socioeconomic pressures and political demands arising from industrialization and urbanization.
Political mobilization through universal voting rights, unionization, mass political parties, and interest groups leads to greater government responsiveness to popular demands.
Societal structures and cultural values influence the specific response of each government to welfare-state reforms.
An alternative interpretation, influenced by Marxist thought, argues that welfare-state reforms serve to reduce social tensions and protect the interests of capital by legitimizing the existing economic system.
Welfare spending can smooth over social frictions generated by capitalism without suggesting that the state’s intent is solely to protect capitalist interests.
Policy-makers must balance popular demands with the preferences of the business community, often favoring popular demands, but within the constraints of maintaining business confidence and minimizing costs to businesses.
The welfare state results from the tension between democratic pressures and the limits imposed by capitalism, not solely from either one.
Defenders of welfare-state spending argue it is society’s obligation to alleviate financial hardship and reduce wealth inequalities.
To assess the need for social expenditures, it is essential to consider the extent of economic hardship and income distribution in Canada.
International comparisons are useful but should not be the sole basis for assessing social needs, as individuals experiencing hardship compare their situation to others within the same society.
Canada is often portrayed as having a lower standard of living than countries like Austria, the Netherlands, and Ireland; however, real purchasing power parity (PPP) shows Canada still ranks among the wealthiest countries.
Despite recent declines, Canada’s average real purchasing power remains high, with only the U.S. surpassing it for decades.
The distribution of income in Canada is more equal than in the U.S. and France, but less equal than in Japan, Sweden, or Norway.
A society’s well-being goes beyond purchasing power and income distribution; quality of life (QoL) should also be considered, though it is difficult to measure directly.
Canada ranked first on the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) for several years, reflecting high living standards, but dropped to sixteenth in 2020 as other countries improved.
The UN cautioned that Canada's ranking drop reflects global improvements rather than a decline in Canada’s conditions.
Canada performs worse in the UN’s rankings when gender equality and income inequality are considered, though it still ranks high in human development.
The HDI is controversial, but it indicates that Canada remains a great place to live for most people.
Canadian governments spend less on welfare than many Western European countries, but comparisons don't consider demographic differences or the efficiency of spending.
The "right" level of welfare spending is subjective and depends on ideological preferences regarding wealth inequality, taxation, and public spending.
Canada's slower welfare state development compared to Western Europe likely results from political factors, such as a weaker labor movement, the absence of a strong left-wing national party, and Canada's political structure.
Political agendas in Canada often focus on issues like language and region rather than class, delaying significant social reform.
Social policy is a response to inequality, with welfare state payments aimed at addressing financial need, which may be temporary (e.g., maternity leave) or chronic (e.g., unemployment due to illness or insufficient income).
Redistribution of wealth through social security aims to transfer resources from those who can afford to pay to those in need, but income inequality has persisted despite social security programs.
In 1951, the top 20% of income earners in Canada held 42.8% of total income, while the bottom 20% held 4.4%. By 2017, the top quintile held 30.3%, and the bottom quintile held 1.3%.
Income distribution alone doesn’t fully measure social well-being; poverty, defined as relative deprivation, must also be considered.
Poverty in Canada, compared to developing countries, is relative, and is defined by organizations like Statistics Canada in terms of household income spent on essentials like food, shelter, and clothing.
The definition of poverty is debated, as shown by recent controversy over poverty measurement methods. These discussions impact how poverty statistics are used in policy and media.
In 2018, Canada set an official poverty line, defining poverty as a lack of sufficient funds to purchase a specific basket of goods and services for a modest standard of living.
Canada’s poverty reduction strategy set targets to reduce poverty by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2030, based on the official poverty line.
Poverty reduction progress is measured using 12 indicators, with some showing improvement (e.g., reducing deep poverty) while others, like unmet housing needs, have worsened.
Canada’s official poverty rate in 2019 was 10.1%, down from 14.5% in 2015. Specific indicators of poverty include:
Deep poverty (5.0% in 2019, down from 5.4% in 2018).
Unmet housing needs (12.7% in 2016, up from 12.5% in 2011).
Food insecurity (8.7% in 2017/2018, up from 8.3% in 2011/2012).
Low income (12.7% in 2019, down from 12.3% in 2018).
Youth engagement (11.7% in 2020, up from 9.5% in 2019).
Other indicators show a positive trend in median hourly wages for both men and women, and an increase in asset resilience (67.1% had sufficient savings to maintain well-being for three months in 2019).
The entry rate into poverty for all Canadians was 3.9% in 2017/18, and the exit rate for low-income Canadians was 28.1%.
Statistics Canada also uses different poverty measures like low-income measures and low-income cut-offs, showing that the number of people living in poverty varies depending on the measurement method.
In 2017, 9.5% of Canadians, or approximately 3.4 million people, were considered to be living in poverty, based on these different measurements.
The number of people living in poverty in Canada varies significantly depending on the measurement method used
In 2017, 9.5% (3.4 million) of Canadians were living in poverty by after-tax income or the market basket measure.
Using the low-income cut-off (LICO), the number drops to 7.8% (2.8 million).
Despite the variation in measures, poverty levels have improved significantly over the decades:
In 1969, 23.1% of Canadians were below the LICO.
In 2007, the lowest-ever rate of low-income was recorded at 13.9%.
Since then, the poverty rate has consistently declined.
The rate at which Canadians fall into low-income situations has also decreased:
Between 1992 and 2001, 4.8% of tax filers aged 18 and over fell into low-income annually.
By 2013, this entry rate into low income had decreased to 4.1%.
Poverty is not equally distributed, with certain groups being more likely to experience poverty
Families led by women, elderly single women, and single people aged 25 or younger are more likely to be poor.
The "feminization of poverty" highlights that women account for a larger share of poverty across most age and family status categories.
The economic impacts of COVID-19 were felt most by marginalized groups, especially women.
Despite these trends, the poverty rate among female-led single-parent families has decreased over time:
In 1981, 44.2% of female-led single-parent families were below the LICO.
By 1996, this had risen to 52.9%.
In the last decade, it dropped to 16.7%.
The poverty rate for children in female lone-parent families also decreased:
In 1996, 56% of children in female lone-parent families lived in poverty.
By 2005, this rate fell to 33%.
In 2018, the rate was further reduced to 23.5%.
For individuals and families without employment or private income, social assistance benefits typically leave them below the LICO:
Provincial differences in eligibility and benefit levels affect the extent of this shortfall across the country.
Welfare income in 2018 was compared to LICO in various provinces for single employable persons, persons with disabilities, and couples with children.
After adding child tax benefits, GST rebates, and in-kind transfers like subsidized housing, welfare levels increase by about 20%, but they still remain below the LICO in most provinces.
Three pillars of Canadian social policy:
Income security
Health care
Redistribution (focus of this chapter is on income security and redistribution, with health care in the next chapter).
Income Security System:
Designed to protect or supplement incomes of individuals and families.
Includes direct money transfers (e.g., Old Age Security (OAS), Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), Employment Insurance (EI), and social assistance).
Also involves benefits through the tax system (e.g., RRSP deductions, marital, child, and age exemptions).
Accounts for 35% of federal spending and over 60% of program spending by Ottawa.
The demand for income security is expected to rise due to various factors.
Factors Increasing Demand on Income Security:
Aging Population:
The national median age rose from 37.6 years in 2001 to 40.8 years in 2019.
Seniors make up 17.5% of the population, leading to more demand on OAS, CPP/QPP, and the healthcare system.
Family Changes:
The number of single-parent families, especially female-led households, has increased since the 1968 Divorce Act reform.
Female-led single-parent families face higher poverty rates, around five times more than male-led families.
In 2018, single-parent mothers with children represented 3% of households but 23.5% of those below LICO.
Despite this, the proportion of such families below LICO has been decreasing over the years, even after the 2008 recession.
Economic Change:
While job creation in Canada has been strong, many new jobs are low-paying, part-time positions (e.g., “McJobs”).
The number of “working poor” has increased but reversed in recent years, with no growth in low-paying jobs since the 1990s.
Debates on Eligibility for Social Benefits:
Debate between universal eligibility (benefits for all citizens) vs. selective eligibility (based on income).
Left-leaning views advocate for universal benefits as entitlements, while right-leaning views argue for targeted benefits to increase efficiency.
OAS is a universal program but is income-tested for tax purposes, reducing benefits for higher-income recipients.
Programs for Older Canadians:
Federal spending on OAS, GIS, and similar programs was about $56.3 billion in 2019–20.
Provinces also have income supplements and other benefits for older adults (e.g., housing subsidies, tax credits).
Equity Concerns:
Older Canadians with higher private income benefit more from tax system deductions (e.g., RRSPs, occupational pensions).
These benefits tend to favor wealthier seniors, making the system regressive despite progressive OAS benefits.
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Issues:
n the mid-1980s, the CPP faced a funding crisis, with benefits exceeding contributions for the first time in 1985.
A 200% increase in contribution rates would have been needed by 2040 to maintain the CPP at its current level of benefits.
In 1997, the CPP was reformed to ensure sustainability for the next 75 years.
Ongoing reforms and negotiations, including an enhanced CPP, aim to address concerns about Canadians not saving enough for retirement.
Ontario pushed for increased CPP contributions to make up for a decline in workplace pension plan participation.
Recent Changes in Pension Programs:
The federal government reformed OAS eligibility age, gradually increasing it from 65 to 67 (planned full implementation by 2023).
The Ontario government proposed a provincial retirement program to address gaps in retirement savings.
The enhanced CPP began increasing contribution rates in January 2019, with a planned rise from 4.95% in 2018 to 5.95% in 2023.
Unemployment and Employment Insurance (EI):
Canada's unemployment rate has been declining since the 2000s, but changes in the workforce composition have influenced EI programs.
The increase in women in the labor force has expanded EI to include maternity and parental leave benefits.
As of 2020, around 20% of EI recipients are on maternity or parental leave, though the majority remain in the regular program.
Employment insurance (EI) is funded through employee and employer contributions, along with federal government funding.
EI provides benefits equaling 55% of a claimant's income up to $50,800 for a period of up to 45 weeks, depending on regional unemployment rates.
Unlike social assistance, EI is not targeted at the poor but has redistributive effects by transferring income between regions and sectors of the economy.
High-unemployment provinces benefit more from EI as they receive more transfers than their contributions, and the employment period needed to collect EI is shorter.
EI is a normal part of annual income for many, especially in Atlantic provinces, and its benefits help subsidize seasonal industries like fishing, forestry, and construction.
The contribution rate for EI is the same across sectors, regardless of varying unemployment risks.
In provinces with strong economies, EI contributions help fund benefits in economically weaker regions.
Seasonal industries in high-unemployment provinces like Atlantic Canada are heavily subsidized by EI.
As of 2016, a temporary measure increased benefits for workers in provinces affected by declining oil prices.
Unemployment insurance was historically criticized for reducing labor mobility and work incentives.
Both the Macdonald and Forget Commissions recommended reforms to EI, focusing on increasing work incentives and mobility.
The Macdonald Commission suggested raising eligibility requirements, reducing benefits, and adjusting contributions based on industry risk.
The Forget Commission recommended automatic full benefits for 50 weeks and based benefits on annual earnings.
The 1994 "Green Book" argued that unemployment insurance caused labor market rigidity and hindered economic adjustment.
Reforms in the 1990s, led by the Liberal government, lowered benefits, raised eligibility requirements, and redirected funds to job training.
The 1996 reforms significantly reduced the number of people receiving EI benefits, from 83% in 1990 to 44% in 2004, and further to 12% by 2019.
Employment insurance was crucial in the 2008 recession, with the government introducing measures like extra benefits, work-sharing, and extended benefits for long-tenured workers.
Social assistance (welfare) has shifted from a 50-50 funding split between Ottawa and provinces to a capped federal contribution starting in 1990.
The Canada Health and Social Transfer replaced the previous cost-sharing formula in 1995.
Welfare eligibility is means-tested and varies significantly across provinces.
Social assistance costs have increased significantly since the Canada Assistance Plan, mainly due to the increased demand during recessions.
The number of welfare recipients often exceeds the number of EI recipients, reflecting a rise in the "employable unemployed."
Despite a decline in unemployment, many still rely on welfare, and some reforms have made it harder to qualify for assistance.
The welfare system is criticized for discouraging work, as low-income earners face high marginal tax rates when transitioning from welfare to work.
The "poverty trap" results in many welfare recipients finding it economically unfeasible to leave the system and accept low-paying jobs.
Despite the challenges, job growth has led to a decrease in both the general poverty rate and the number of "working poor."
A study showed that 27.9% of people in poverty moved out of it between 2016-2017, although a significant portion remains trapped in low income.
Provinces allow welfare recipients to earn some income without affecting benefits, which aims to reduce disincentives to work.
Some studies indicate that this approach may increase the welfare rolls, as more people enter the system without strong incentives to leave.
The welfare state is often viewed as redistributing income from wealthier individuals to those in need through taxation and income security programs.
However, not all taxes are progressive; taxes like sales, property taxes, and health premiums are regressive, affecting lower-income earners more heavily.
Lower-income individuals pay a larger share of their income in taxes compared to higher-income individuals due to the structure of certain taxes like sales taxes and the GST/HST.
Governments favor consumption or property taxes over income taxes due to concerns that high income taxes can harm economic growth.
Public spending, including income security, education, health, housing, and other social services, benefits the poor more than the wealthy, contributing to income redistribution.
Studies show that public spending, not just taxation, plays a significant role in reducing income inequality, with income transfers contributing more to redistribution than taxes.
Tax revenues from personal income taxes have grown since the 1950s, while corporate tax revenues have declined, placing more of the burden on middle-income earners.
While higher corporate taxes can reduce economic investment and job creation, governments have largely moved away from this approach.
The federal government addresses regional income inequality through equalization payments, income transfers, and industrial assistance programs for economically weaker provinces.
Critics argue that these regional redistributive programs reduce incentives for people to move to more prosperous regions, which can hinder economic efficiency.
Supporters of regional redistribution argue that these programs ensure fairness and national unity, offering equitable access to services like education and healthcare regardless of region.
Equalization payments are intended to address fiscal disparities between provinces, ensuring that all provinces can provide comparable levels of social services.
Equalization payments are an unconditional transfer, meaning recipient provinces decide how to spend the funds.
The federal government allocates approximately $20.5 billion annually to equalization, and this amount has increased over the years, supporting the financial capacity of less affluent provinces.
Federal transfers to provinces, including the Canada Health and Social Transfers and equalization payments, have risen significantly over recent years.
Critics of trade liberalization argue it negatively impacts social programs, with concerns about wage cuts, job losses, and the erosion of labor standards due to increased competition with less-developed countries.
In 1993, Ontario’s NDP Premier Bob Rae warned that NAFTA would pressure Ontario companies to lower wages or relocate to Mexico, where labor standards were lax.
Critics claimed NAFTA would harmonize labor laws to the lowest standards and cause increased unemployment, leading to higher demand for unemployment insurance and social assistance.
Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians argued that globalization and trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO caused a decline in social welfare programs and exacerbated income inequality in Canada, making it resemble the U.S.
Despite these concerns, the actual effect of trade liberalization on social programs has been largely benign.
Research on NAFTA’s impact shows small, positive employment gains in both Canada and the U.S., with no significant job losses due to competition with Mexico.
NAFTA did not erode labor standards in Canada and the U.S.; in fact, it led to improvements in labor rights protection and increased cooperation on labor practices in the region.
A comparison of welfare policies between Canada and the U.S. shows Canada’s policies remained more generous, with 4.6% of Canada’s GDP spent on income and means-tested benefits, compared to only 1.9% in the U.S.
Cuts to social programs were not due to trade liberalization, but rather economic policies of provincial governments in Canada, with Conservative provinces reducing welfare and left-wing provinces like British Columbia and Quebec increasing it.
Social welfare policies in Northern Europe, such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark, expanded during periods of free trade in the 1950s and 1960s, supporting the idea that trade liberalization can coincide with stronger social welfare systems.
The Hoover Institute concluded that free trade actually helps fund social welfare programs by increasing national wealth, which can be allocated to services like healthcare, education, and social security.
Contrary to predictions of job losses, free trade led to modest job gains in the U.S. and significant employment gains in Mexico.
Trade liberalization in Mexico also triggered political liberalization, with the fall of the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s 71-year dominance following NAFTA.
Globalization pressures governments positively, with benefits including increased job opportunities, political freedom in less-developed countries, and better labor standards in developed countries, all supported by larger markets.
KEY TERMS
legitimization The purpose (according to some Marxist critics) of social reforms and welfare spending in capitalist societies.
low-income cut-off (lico) Income levels used by Statistics Canada not as “poverty lines” but to qualify the numbers and characteristics of individuals and families falling into the lowest level of income category—defined in relative terms and taking into account current overall standards of living.
progressive taxes Forms of taxation, such as personal income tax, in which the tax rate increases with one’s income.
redistributive payments The transfer of money from those who can afford to pay to those who are in need.
regressive taxes Taxes, such as sales and property taxes and the gst/hst, that weigh more heavily on those with lower incomes because the amount of tax paid is not determined by income.
TABLE 8.2 Evolution of the Unemployment Insurance System since 1971
Main changes
1971 The 1971 ui Act is passed. Coverage is extended to virtually all employees, the replacement rate is increased to 67%, and benefit durations are increased and made a function of local and national unemployment rates.
1977 The minimum weeks of work needed to claim ui (the entrance requirement) is increased from 8 weeks to 10–14 weeks, depending on the local unemployment rate.
1979 The replacement rate is lowered to 60%. New entrants to the labour market and repeat claimants are required to have extra weeks of work to qualify for benefits.
1990 Entrance requirements are increased to 10–20 weeks, depending on the local unemployment rate. Benefit durations are reduced.
1993 The replacement rate is lowered to 57%. Those who quit their jobs are made ineligible for ui.
1994 The minimum entrance requirement rate is raised to 12 weeks. Benefit durations are reduced so that a claimant in a low-employment region can receive a maximum of 36 weeks of benefits. The replacement rate is lowered to 55%, except for low-income claimants with dependants, for whom the replacement rate is raised to 60%.
1996 Repeat users face a lower replacement rate, and those with high incomes will have part of their benefits clawed back by the income tax system. Claimants with relatively few hours in their qualifying periods receive lower benefits. Low-income claimants with children receive an additional supplement. Maximum duration of benefits is capped at 45 weeks.
2000 Parental leave is extended to 50 weeks. A deferral of the waiting period for claimants making another claim for benefits in the same year is given. The waiting period for individuals laid off and parental claims are eliminated.
2012 Clarifications are made regarding “suitable employment” and “reasonable job search.” The Variable Best Weeks approach is applied across Canada, with all claimants having their ei benefit amount calculated on the highest weeks of earnings over the previous year. The working while on claim pilot project is introduced.
2016 Maximum number of weeks of compassionate care benefits is increased from 6 to 26. Extra weeks of benefits are provided to workers in regions affected by the downturn in global oil prices (a temporary measure). Rules for people newly entering or re-entering the job market are eliminated. Job search requirements are simplified.
2017 Waiting period for ei is reduced from two weeks to one week. Parents are provided with two options for receiving parental benefits. New family caregiver benefits are introduced. Both medical doctors and nurse practitioners are allowed to sign medical certificates for caregiver benefits. More flexible maternity benefits are introduced.
2018 The Skills Boost program is introduced to support people who want to return to school and upgrade their skills. Enhanced working while on claim provisions are set: The “50 cents for every dollar earned” rule becomes a permanent part of the ei program. It also applies to sickness and maternity benefits. A pilot project is introduced to provide up to five additional weeks to eligible seasonal claimants in 13 targeted ei regions (for claims established between August 2018 and May 2020).
2019 The parental sharing benefit is introduced, providing additional weeks of parental benefits to parents—including adoptive and same-sex parents—who share parental benefits.
2020 The Canada Training Benefit was announced in Budget 2019 to help people plan for and get the training they need. This measure includes a new Canada Training Credit to help with the cost of training fees, and a new ei Training Support Benefit to provide income support starting in late 2020.
Unit 12
Unit 12 Content
Topics covered in this unit include:
Legalization of marijuana
Safe injection sites
Comparative drug policies
When thinking about these specific issues, consider these questions:
What is the issue in question?
What are the challenges that are associated with issues-based policies, specifically drug related policies?
Who are the key players in determining the success of these issues based public policy?
What type of impact does public policy have on the public?
What type of legal implications are involved with drug related policies, such as the legalization of marijuana?
Topic Introduction:
Focus on drug policy in Canada, starting with the early 1900s.
Aim to explore the history of drug policies and strategic directions the Canadian government has taken into the 21st century.
Early Legal Framework (1900s):
The legal foundation for drug control in Canada was established in the early 20th century.
By 1908, medications, tobacco, and alcohol were beginning to be regulated.
Other significant policies such as the Opium Act also contributed to the development of drug prohibition laws.
Reactive Approach to Drug Policies:
As drug use became more widespread, the government adopted a reactive approach to drug policy.
By the 1960s and 1970s, there was a noticeable rise in illicit drug use.
The increase in illicit drug use led to heightened criminalization, bringing significant social and individual costs.
The Costs of Criminalization:
The federal government allocated significant resources to curb drug use, yet illicit drug use continued to rise in the 1970s.
Drug possession penalties were severe, with sentences of up to seven years in prison, one of the highest in North America.
Despite these severe penalties, illicit drug use surged.
Decade-Specific Drug Policies:
Drug policies shifted in response to the demand for specific drugs during different decades.
By the 1990s and 2000s, views on drugs began to evolve, and the distinction between illicit and non-illicit drugs became clearer.
Medical Use and Policy Shifts:
With some drugs being used for medical purposes, Canadian drug policy evolved to address this new aspect of drug use.
Alcohol and Tobacco:
Alcohol and tobacco are the most widely used psychoactive drugs in Canada, causing the greatest harm to the population.
These substances are legal but have high associated health risks.
Marijuana (Pre-Cannabis Act):
Marijuana was the most widely used illicit drug in Canada before the Cannabis Act was passed in 2008.
Despite its illegal status, marijuana caused fewer harms than alcohol and tobacco, prompting a reassessment of its legal status.
Drug Policy Overview (Early 1900s to 2018):
Policies began in the early 1900s and evolved through to 2018, when the Cannabis Act was passed.
Indirect harms and costs of illicit drugs outweighed the direct harms, affecting populations more than the drugs themselves.
High-Risk Populations:
The most direct harms from drug use were observed in high-risk groups, including:
Injecting drug users.
Street youth, often adolescents fleeing from abuse or neglect.
Indigenous Canadians, who face significant health and social challenges related to drug use.
Government Recognition of High-Risk Groups:
The Canadian government specifically acknowledges the vulnerability of these high-risk groups in its drug policies, particularly the issues faced by Indigenous communities.
Vancouver Health Emergency (Injection Drug Use):
There was a health emergency declared in Vancouver due to the rapid rise in injection drug use among teenagers and adolescents.
Injection drug use carries significant risks, as people may use drugs through non-oral methods or illicit substances.
Federal Action Plan (1997):
In response to the rising drug issues, the Canadian federal government released an action plan in 1997 focused on substance abuse and control.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA):
The most important statute concerning illicit drugs is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).
The CDSA governs offenses like possession, trafficking, cultivation, importing, exporting, and prescription shopping.
Historical Context of Drug Policy:
Canada’s drug policy began with the Opium Act of 1908.
Criminalization of drug use, including cannabis, heroin, and cocaine, started in the early 1900s, driven by moral judgments and racist ideas about specific groups of people.
Racism and Drug Laws (1900s):
The Opium Act of 1908 targeted Chinese immigrants who used opium.
This was in alignment with the broader Immigration Act at the time, reflecting anti-Asian sentiments.
Socioeconomic and Demographic Influence on Drug Laws:
Decisions regarding the legal status of drugs, like alcohol, were not always based on scientific assessments but also on socioeconomic and demographic factors.
Despite evidence that tobacco and alcohol caused more harm, the Opium Act was passed in 1908, with a focus on opium, making it one of Canada’s most racist policies.
Opium Act and Narcotic Drug Act (1911):
The Opium Act laid the foundation for the first drug prohibition, focusing heavily on opium, despite greater harms from alcohol and tobacco.
The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1911 introduced harsher penalties, including imprisonment for those using opium and other narcotic drugs.
Narcotic Control Act (1961):
In 1961, the Narcotic Drug Act was amended and renamed to the Narcotic Control Act, shifting focus from purely punitive measures to a more controlled approach.
The term "control" reflected a shift toward attempting to manage drug use rather than just punish it.
Emerging Public Health Concerns:
The Narcotic Control Act of 1961 continued to criminalize drug use but also introduced measures to control distribution and possession of drugs.
By this time, there was an emerging connection between drug use and public health issues, especially in the 1960s.
Shift in Policy Approach (1990s to 2000s):
Drug policies evolved from sanctioning to controlling situations, with an emphasis on prevention.
This shift mirrors broader societal changes, such as immigration and multiculturalism policies.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA):
The CDSA is Canada's main federal statute regarding illicit drugs, covering offenses like possession, trafficking, cultivation, importing, exporting, and prescription shopping.
The CDSA consolidates previous drug laws, modernizing Canada's approach to drug control.
It also fulfills international obligations and addresses issues related to property and proceeds from drug offenses.
Cannabis Specific Legal Changes:
The CDSA initially set harsher punishments for cannabis possession and distribution compared to alcohol and tobacco.
This changed in 2018, when cannabis laws were reversed and cannabis possession/distribution penalties were adjusted.
Criticism of the CDSA:
Critics argue that while the CDSA targets large-scale traffickers, it previously focused on small-scale cannabis possession.
There is criticism that the scheduling of drugs under the CDSA doesn't rationalize the harm caused by the drugs versus the punishments imposed.
The CDSA's emphasis on compliance with international treaties may exacerbate violence related to the drug trade and perpetuate harmful enforcement practices.
The Act focused on punishment and enforcement (e.g., search and seizure) without addressing root causes or prevention methods effectively.
Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (2017):
The opioid overdose crisis became a national public health issue in Canada, prompting the government to focus on health and safety rather than punishment.
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (2017) was introduced to encourage individuals to intervene in overdose situations without fear of legal repercussions.
This Act was part of a broader public health strategy, complementing the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy.
Key Features of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act:
The Act provides legal protection to individuals who seek emergency help during an overdose (e.g., calling 911) for themselves or others.
It protects from charges related to simple possession of controlled substances during overdose emergencies.
The Act aims to reduce the fear of police involvement, encouraging people to help save lives during overdose situations.
Protection extends to anyone at the overdose scene, ensuring that no legal penalties are imposed on those seeking help.
This reflects a harm reduction approach, focusing on prevention, treatment, enforcement, and minimizing the fear of legal consequences in overdose situations.
Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act Limitations:
Does not protect individuals from serious offenses (e.g., outstanding warrants or serious drug possession).
Provides protection only in overdose situations, not for other crimes.
The Act helps encourage people to stay at overdose scenes by reducing fear of legal consequences.
Cannabis Legalization Context:
The Cannabis Act was introduced after the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, aiming to address cannabis use more effectively.
Passed in 2018 by the federal government, the Cannabis Act legalized cannabis but allowed provinces to set their own restrictions and frameworks.
Goals of the Cannabis Act:
Control youth access: Prevent cannabis from getting into the hands of minors.
Combat the black market: Redirect cannabis profits away from criminals.
Public health and safety: Regulate the line between medical and recreational cannabis use.
Legal Framework for Cannabis:
Possession: Individuals can possess up to 30 grams of legal cannabis.
Sharing: Legal to share up to 30 grams with other adults.
Retail: Cannabis must be purchased from provincially licensed retailers, and each province is responsible for setting up retail systems.
Cultivation: Allowed to grow up to 4 cannabis plants per household from licensed seeds.
Cannabis Products: Legal to make cannabis-infused products like food and drinks within legal limits.
Medical Cannabis:
Continues to be available for individuals with healthcare provider authorization.
Age Restrictions:
Minimum age: No person under 18 may receive or purchase cannabis.
Harsh penalties: Up to 14 years in prison for providing cannabis to minors or involving them in cannabis-related offenses.
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Collaboration:
Shared responsibility: The federal, provincial, and territorial governments all share the responsibility of regulating cannabis production, distribution, and consumption.
This collaboration has contributed to the success of the Cannabis Act.
Public Education Campaign:
The government allocated $50 million for public education on cannabis, especially targeting youth and educating adults about health and safety risks.
Overall Success:
The Cannabis Act has established a distinct legal framework for cannabis regulation and has shown to be successful so far in controlling cannabis use and distribution.
Cannabis Act's Success and Critiques:
Despite some issues, the Cannabis Act has been largely successful over the past three years, according to many critics.
1987: A Key Year for Drug Policy in Canada:
In 1987, Canada began addressing rising drug-related issues, coinciding with broader North American concerns about drug problems, including the War on Drugs.
Drug trafficking between the U.S. and Central American countries exacerbated the issue, posing a long-term threat to public health in Canada.
The Canadian federal government decided to tackle the issue systematically.
Canada’s Drug Strategy (1987):
Strategy vs. Policy: The drug strategy of 1987 was a strategic approach rather than an immediate policy, aiming to create goals and objectives for future legislative actions.
The strategy sought to balance supply restriction and demand reduction for drugs.
Health Focus: Unlike previous policies focusing on punishment, the 1987 strategy shifted the focus to viewing substance abuse as a health issue rather than just an enforcement issue.
Key Elements of the Canada Drug Strategy (1987):
Involved 14 federal departments, including the Correctional Service of Canada, unified under the leadership of Health Canada.
Health Approach: Promoted rehabilitation and prevention instead of punishment.
Long-term Goals: Focused on reducing the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs, particularly for individuals, families, and communities.
Objectives of the Strategy:
Public Awareness & Education: Raise awareness about substance abuse problems.
Treatment & Rehabilitation: Enhance the accessibility and availability of treatment and rehabilitation services.
Coordination: Collaborate nationally with provinces and territories, marking the first time that drug strategy was a coordinated national and provincial issue.
International Cooperation: Work with international organizations, including the U.S., to address the global drug problem with a balanced approach.
Key Principles of Canada's Drug Strategy:
Balanced Supply & Demand Reduction: Ensuring the supply of drugs is countered by reducing demand to balance the situation.
Prevention Focus: Emphasized prevention as the most cost-effective approach to combat drug problems and reduce future costs.
Multi-Sectoral Partnership: Collaboration across federal, provincial, and territorial governments, addiction agencies, NGOs, law enforcement, and community groups.
Inclusive Programs: Programs designed to include diverse groups by gender, culture, age, and socioeconomic status.
Targeted Research & Program Planning: Focus on research, program development, and delivery to support communities facing drug-related issues.
Prevention, Treatment & Rehabilitation: Emphasis on developing prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services.
Legislative Framework: Creation of a comprehensive legislative framework at both the national and provincial levels.
Targeting Criminal Organizations: Focused on dismantling criminal organizations involved in domestic and international drug trafficking, in collaboration with international agencies like the FBI, CIA, CSIS, and RCMP.
Success of the 1987 Strategy:
The 1987 strategy was effective, laying the foundation for future drug strategies, including the 2007 National Anti-Drug Strategy.
National Anti-Drug Strategy (2007):
Launch: The National Anti-Drug Strategy was introduced in October 2007, 20 years after the 1987 strategy.
Goals: Aimed to contribute to safer, healthier communities by preventing drug use, treating drug dependency, and reducing the production/distribution of illicit drugs.
Led by Department of Justice: Unlike the 1987 strategy led by Health Canada, this strategy was spearheaded by the Department of Justice, in collaboration with 11 federal partners.
Three Action Plans:
Prevention: Aimed at reducing illicit drug use, with initiatives like community-based interventions, school awareness programs, and parental involvement.
Treatment: Focused on treating individuals with drug dependencies.
Enforcement: Focused on combating the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
Short-Term Goals: Compared to the 1987 strategy, the 2007 plan had shorter, more specific goals, with the focus on prevention, treatment, and enforcement.
Treatment Action Plan (2007 National Anti-Drug Strategy):
Support Programs: Focused on providing more rehabilitation programs, especially in high-needs areas.
One-on-One Consultation: Emphasized personalized support, not just center-based programs, for illicit drug users.
Target Communities: Increased focus on First Nations, Inuit, and rural communities, providing much-needed support in these areas.
Research on Treatment Models: The government conducted extensive research to evaluate treatment models and decide on the best course of action for dealing with illicit drug use.
Enforcement Action Plan:
Funding for Law Enforcement: Provided significant funding to law enforcement, particularly the RCMP, to target and shut down illicit drug production organizations.
Public Prosecution Support: Allocated funds to public prosecution services, lawyers, and Health Canada inspectors to assist in enforcement efforts.
Border Services Enhancement: Increased funding and capacity for Canada Border Services Agency to combat the importation of illicit drugs.
Canadian Drugs and Substance Strategy (2016):
Updated Strategy: An updated version of the 2007 National Anti-Drug Strategy, led by the Minister of Health, focusing on public health as a primary concern.
Addition of Harm Reduction: Introduced a fourth pillar of action—Harm Reduction—to better address the opioid crisis and prevent new drug-related crises.
Focus on Opioid Crisis: The strategy aimed to tackle the opioid crisis and the rise in drug issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Harm Reduction Policies: Included policies for supervised consumption sites, increased access to Naloxone, and other harm reduction initiatives.
Evidence-Based Approach: The CDSS emphasized the use of evidence-based interventions, impact assessments, and decisions to guide drug policies.
Four Pillars Approach (2016):
Comprehensive, Collaborative, Compassionate, Evidence-Based: The strategy included a multi-faceted approach to drug policy, integrating evidence-based practices, and collaborative efforts across sectors.
Prevention:
Focus: Preventing drug and substance abuse problems before they occur.
Pandemic Response: Prevention programs targeted vulnerable groups (teens and adults) during the pandemic to prevent addiction, particularly by offering online consultations and keeping rehab centers open.
Goal: Reduce the potential for drug dependency caused by mental and physical health struggles during challenging times.
Treatment:
Support for Innovation: Encouraged innovative approaches to rehabilitation and intervention.
Specific Programs: Developed rehab centers focused on specific drug usage, moving away from generalized treatment models.
Enforcement:
Objective: Address illicit drug production, supply, and distribution.
Funding: Significant investments were made into law enforcement agencies (RCMP, CSIS, Canada Border Services) to disrupt drug supply chains at borders and public spaces.
Harm Reduction:
Goal: Minimize the negative consequences of drug and substance abuse.
Measures: Supported safe injection sites, shelters for people affected by addiction, and educational resources on the dangers of long-term drug use.
Opioid Crisis Context:
Timeline: The opioid crisis worsened in 2016, peaking around 2018.
Deaths: Between January 2016 and 2018, there were approximately 12,000 opioid-related deaths, making it a major public health and safety concern.
Post-Pandemic Debate: Experts disagree on whether the crisis decreased or worsened during the pandemic, with some arguing it worsened due to the lockdown and other pandemic-related factors.
Opioid Use Statistics:
Problematic Use: Around 10% of Canadian adults using opioids in 2008 reported problematic use, such as taking more than prescribed or using opioids recreationally.
Health and Social Impact: Understanding the impacts of opioid use helps reduce stigma and inform better public health strategies.
Reducing Risk and Harm:
Critical Goals: Aim to reduce risks and harms associated with opioids and control access for therapeutic use.
Collaborative Efforts: Agencies like the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction and the Canadian Drug Policy Networks are working together to address the opioid crisis.
Opioids Overview:
Types: Opioids exist in both licit (prescription) and illicit forms, such as codeine, fentanyl, morphine, and oxycodone.
Purpose: Primarily used for pain management, opioids are consumed for both medical and non-medical reasons.
Problematic Use: Opioids can produce a euphoric feeling, leading to misuse and potential addiction.
Fentanyl: The presence of fentanyl in other substances greatly increases overdose risk, contributing to the opioid crisis.
Policy Changes:
Current Focus: The Canadian government recognizes the worsening opioid crisis, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increasing opioid-related deaths and hospitalizations across Canada.
Policy Adjustments: Efforts are underway to address drug policies, focusing on ending stigma, improving access to help, and preventing overdoses.
Contamination and Overdose Risk:
Illicit Drugs: Fentanyl is contaminating the illegal drug supply, making other drugs more lethal and causing high overdose rates.
Naloxone: Promoted as a life-saving intervention to reverse opioid overdose, with efforts to make it more accessible in shelters and other areas.
Pandemic Impact:
Lockdowns and Stress: COVID-19 lockdowns are increasing stress levels, leading to higher drug dependency, particularly opioids.
Challenges for the Government: Balancing public health measures for COVID-19 with providing adequate support for those dependent on drugs is difficult during the pandemic.
Future Planning:
Separate Strategy: Experts suggest developing a separate strategy for addressing drug crises during national emergencies (like pandemics or recessions) to better manage the opioid crisis during such times.
Long-Term Strategy: A targeted action plan for troubled times could help control the opioid crisis more effectively.
Challenges Associated with Passing Legislation or Initiating Public Policy on Controversial Issues (e.g., Cannabis Legalization or Other Drug Policies)
Public Perception and Stigma:
A major challenge in initiating public policy on controversial drug issues, such as cannabis legalization, is dealing with public perception and stigma. Many people hold negative views towards drug use and drug users, which can affect how policies are framed and implemented.
For instance, there is still significant resistance from certain communities or political groups who believe that drug use, even for medicinal purposes, can lead to social harm or moral decline.
Balancing Public Health and Safety:
Policymakers face the difficulty of balancing the potential public health benefits (e.g., reducing criminalization, managing addiction, etc.) with concerns over public safety, especially in areas related to law enforcement and controlling illegal drug trafficking.
The risk of escalating drug-related harm, especially when new drugs are introduced or when policies like legalization might lead to increased usage or abuse, is a constant concern.
Legal and Regulatory Complexity:
Creating laws that address drug usage often requires highly detailed and sometimes conflicting regulations, such as setting up frameworks for medicinal use, decriminalization, or legalization, while still ensuring public safety and preventing misuse.
The complexity of regulating cannabis or other drugs (e.g., controlled access, sales, and distribution) poses challenges for both local and national governments.
Economic and Social Impact:
The economic impact of legalizing drugs (e.g., cannabis) on industries, law enforcement, and public health services must be carefully considered.
Additionally, there are concerns about how legalization may disproportionately affect marginalized communities or vulnerable populations, even as new tax revenue or employment opportunities may emerge.
Public Perception and Public Opinion in Drug Policy
Influence of Public Sentiment: Public perception can drive lawmakers to take action or change their approach to drug issues. When public opinion is in favor of reform (e.g., legalization or harm reduction), policymakers are more likely to introduce new laws or modify existing ones.
Political Sensitivity: Public opinion can also influence how political leaders approach controversial drug policies, especially when the policies have strong support or opposition from significant voter groups.
The video emphasizes that political leaders and governments need to align policies with public demand, but they must also ensure the broader social and economic consequences are considered, not just the public sentiment.
Similarities and Differences Between the Drug Policy Debate in Canada and the United States (Specifically Colorado)
Similarities:
Focus on Public Health and Safety:
Both Canada and Colorado have been focused on striking a balance between public health concerns (like addiction prevention and treatment) and public safety (like preventing illegal drug distribution and usage).
Both regions have faced debates about how to handle drug use in society, especially cannabis, and how it can be regulated to ensure public safety without exacerbating health issues.
Social and Economic Impact:
Both Canada and Colorado considered the potential economic benefits (e.g., taxation revenue) from legalizing cannabis, alongside concerns about the social consequences such as possible increases in drug dependency or access to illicit substances.
Addressing Public Opinion:
In both cases, public opinion played a significant role in the push toward legalization. As cannabis use became more normalized, both regions responded by reevaluating their policies.
Differences:
Canada’s Comprehensive Strategy vs. Colorado's State-Level Approach:
Canada took a national approach to drug policies, especially with the 2016 Canadian Drug and Substance Strategy (CDSS), which included prevention, treatment, enforcement, and harm reduction. This four-pillar approach was highly coordinated and evidence-based, involving a broad range of stakeholders.
Colorado, on the other hand, took a state-level approach to cannabis legalization, which allowed for regional variation in how laws were implemented. While the state focused on public health and safety, the approach could vary from one city to another in terms of enforcement and public health resources.
Canada’s Emphasis on Harm Reduction:
Canada integrated harm reduction as a fourth pillar in its approach to drug policy, emphasizing measures such as supervised consumption sites and increasing access to Naloxone. This focus was intended to reduce the negative consequences of drug use, particularly during the opioid crisis.
In Colorado, the conversation around harm reduction has been present but was more focused on regulating cannabis rather than addressing the broader opioid crisis. The Colorado debate is more centered on managing cannabis legalization and its economic benefits, whereas Canada's national drug strategy included broader social issues around drug abuse and addiction treatment.
Federal vs. State-Level Policy in the U.S.:
A major difference is that while Canada’s policies are federally regulated, meaning there’s a unified national approach to drug policy, Colorado's legalization exists within the framework of the U.S. federal system where cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. This creates ongoing conflicts between state and federal law, complicating law enforcement and policy enforcement in the U.S.
Opioid Crisis Focus:
In the transcript, Canada’s opioid crisis is highlighted, with particular attention to the rise in fentanyl overdoses. The Canadian government is focusing on harm reduction and public health measures to address this issue.
Colorado, while addressing the opioid crisis to some extent, primarily focuses on cannabis and the effects of its legalization on public health and crime rates, rather than the broader drug epidemic that Canada is facing.
Supplementary reading: Canada opposes harm reduction policies for drug users – Webster
Overview of Canada's Position on Drug Policy
Current Stance: Canada is opposing harm reduction policies for drug users in significant international negotiations on UN drug control.
Comparative Allies: Aligning with countries like China, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, Canada has taken a critical stance against European initiatives focusing on health-oriented policies aimed at reducing harm, including HIV transmission.
Key Negotiations and Developments
Vienna Negotiations: Canada participated in negotiations in Vienna, which are aimed at drafting new principles to replace the 2009 UN drug control framework that favored traditional "war on drugs" policies.
Upcoming Draft Statement: A new set of UN principles is expected to be outlined by March 2014, preparing for discussions at the UN General Assembly in 2016.
Regulatory Changes: The drafts aim to introduce more emphasis on harm reduction, particularly encouraged by European negotiators, contrasting Canada's opposition to these terms.
Canada's Active Opposition
Harm Reduction Terms: During the latest session on January 14, Canada notably led objections against the term “harm reduction,” according to reports from the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC).
NGO Participation: Canada also expressed opposition to including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in future UN drug policy-making sessions. This marks a shift from previous practices which encouraged civil society engagement.
Claims by Officials: Beatrice Fenelon from Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs stated that preventing drug use is the best public health approach, maintaining Canada's hesitance to discuss negotiation strategies publicly.
Criticism and Reactions
Remarks from Experts: Rick Lines from Harm Reduction International criticized Canada for opposing harm reduction at international forums despite domestic programs supporting it, highlighting hypocrisy in their approach.
Comparison with Russia: Critics argue that Canada’s current stance mirrors Russia's position, which tends to support the status quo over progressive reform.
Implications for Global Health: The alignment with countries having high HIV rates among drug users, such as Russia, raises concerns that Canada is inadvertently endorsing ineffective drug policies and hindering global health improvements.
International Response: Observers express hope that other nations will continue to advocate for harm reduction language, emphasizing international support for progressive approaches to drug use and public health.
Summary of Conflicting Positions
Canada: Focus on prevention over harm reduction; opposition to NGO engagement; aligns with conservative drug policies.
European Union/NGOs: Advocating for harm reduction, emphasizing public health initiatives and the importance of civil society involvement in drug policy discussions.
US Position: Supports certain interventions but opposes the comprehensive term "harm reduction."
Conclusion and Next Steps
Future Negotiations: Attention will be on how negotiations evolve leading up to the UN General Assembly in 2016, especially considering the contentious divide regarding harm reduction policies.
Global Health Strategies: The outcome will affect international strategies on drug control and public health responses to drug use globally, highlighting the critical nature of these upcoming discussions in fostering effective health policies.