# data[].attributes.body
An important idea that has changed over time and shaped Canadian public policy is multiculturalism.

In the past, Canada expected immigrants to adapt mainly to British or French culture. Over time, this idea shifted toward recognizing diversity as a strength. According to the Government of Canada, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988) officially made multiculturalism a defining part of Canadian identity. The Act recognizes and preserves Canada’s multicultural heritage, promotes full and equal participation in society, and aims to remove barriers that prevent individuals from contributing.

The Act also requires federal institutions to promote equal opportunity, encourage respect and intercultural understanding, collect research to improve policy, and reflect Canada’s diversity in their programs and services (Government of Canada, 2024).

Overall, the shift from assimilation to multiculturalism shows how changing ideas about diversity and inclusion have shaped Canadian laws and policies, making equality and respect central to public policy.

Reference

Government of Canada. (2024, June 3). About the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Canadian Heritage.https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/about-multiculturalism-anti-racism/about-act.html

# data[].attributes.body
One of the ideas of Canadian public policy that have changed that I would say is highly significant is the concept of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. it represents a shift from the norm catering to assimilationalist policies to policies that highlight human rights and recognition. In the past, public policy was driven by the belief that Indigenous peoples should be absorbed into society in Canada (we can see this in the Indian Act and the residential school systems). However, this was changed in 1982 in Section 35 of the Constitution Act which shifted policy toward recognizing Indigenous inherent rights and the need for reconciliation. This section protects treaty rights and provides a legal framework for modern treaties AND self governance agreements. This reflects a shift in policy from forced assimilation to Indigenous self-determination.

Referenced:

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

# data[].attributes.body
One idea that has fundamentally reshaped contemporary Canadian public policy is the conceptual shift from assimilation to reconciliation in the relationship with Indigenous peoples. For over a century, state policy was explicitly directed through the Indian Act, residential schools, and the dissolution of rights, aiming to absorb Indigenous communities into the Canadian body politic and erase distinct identities. This was predicated on the colonial idea of European superiority. The modern shift began with the recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the 1982 Constitution Act, gained profound moral force with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and was given legal imperative through the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The core idea is now that Canada’s legitimacy and future depend on confronting this history, recognizing Indigenous self-determination as an inherent right, and rebuilding the relationship on a nation-to-nation basis. It drives reforms in child welfare, criminal justice, and healthcare, aiming to address systemic inequities and support Indigenous-led solutions. The creation of permanent bilateral mechanisms between the federal government and Indigenous leadership institutionalizes this new relationship.

a direct summary of the foundational calls to action that policy now strives to address: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060525

# data[].attributes.body
Although today it is legal to posses, grow, and consume Cannabis in Canada, this was not always the case.

Cannabis indica, also known Hashish, was first listed as a prohibited drug when it was added to the Act to Prohibit the Improper Use of Opium and Other Drugs in 1923 during Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King's time in office. Around the same time it had been prohibited in ten US states. It was almost 15 years later when the first criminal offences in connection with Cannabis occurred with only 270 possession offences by 1965. In the 1960s there was an increased number of marijuana use and criminal possession offences. This prompted the federal government to begin a study of marijuana use called Le Dain Commission. In 1972 the results of the study found that the prohibition of cannabis was expensive for the offenders and the country because of this it was recommended that possession of marijuana be decriminalized. Two decades later the question of marijuana use came back to spot light but this time it was in regards to medical use. The constitutionality of the prohibition of marijuana use was challenged. It was found that its prohibition was unconstitutional because there was no exemption for medical use. Between 2015 and 2016 there were a series of court challenges that resulted in Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR) which resulted in marijuana being available to individuals for medical purposes. In 2015 Justin Trudeau took this step further when he proposed the legalization of marijuana for recreational use and the regulation for its sale. The Cannabis Act was introduced in 2017 which included age restrictions, limits on possession including the number of plants, as well as packaging requirements. It became legal on October 17, 2018 when bill C-45 was passed (Wallace-Lynch, 2018). The goal for legalizing marijuana was to see benefits to the health and well being of Canadians, especially youth. In the years since it has been legalized criminal arrests for marijuana have decreased and more people purchase it from legal sources. while there have been some positive results from its legalization there have also been some serious problems that have occurred. Child poisoning increased in provinces that had legalized edibles. there was also an increase in hospitalizations in connection with cannabis use. (Zafar, 2023). Today it is not uncommon to drive down any road in Saskatoon and pass by a number of cannabis shops. While marijuana is now legal, there are a number of more serous and dangerous that are posing concerns in Saskatoon and other cities across Canada. Public policy maker needs to find ways to address in the near future.

Sources:

Wallace-Lynch, Laurie. “History of the Legalization of Cannabis in Canada.” Toronto Star, www.thestar.com/sponsored-sections/cannabis/supported/history-of-the-legalization-of-cannabis-in-canada/article_9b8c2792-cccd-5a98-91cc-bd292222f05e.html.

Zafar, Amina. “5 Years of Legal Cannabis: Fewer Charges, Many Hospitalizations and More Than a Few Questions.” CBC News, 10 Oct. 2023, www.cbc.ca/news/health/cannabis-5-year-1.6989993.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alcohol Prohibition and The Temperance Movement

# data[].attributes.subject
Alcohol Prohibition and The Temperance Movement

# data[].attributes.body
Canada experienced a somewhat successful temperance movement in the late 19th century, hardening attitudes against alcohol consumption, and shifting ideas surrounding moral behaviour. Prior to federal action in March 1918 to limit alcohol manufacture and import, several provinces and jurisdictions already had prohibition laws, dating back further than Confederation, as the temperance movement shifted attitudes away from alcohol (Hallowell, 2013). The temperance movement was tied closely to the suffrage movement, which both saw victories not coincidentally during the First World War, with prohibition adopted across Canada in part as a rationing measure, and women gaining the right to vote federally shortly after.

However, unlike the now over a century of women having the vote, prohibition in law in Canada was quite short lived, with most provinces having done away with it by 1925 (Hallowell, 2013). Though the temperance movement was successful, along with selling prohibition as a wartime rationing measure, in the following years, the zeal for prohibition waned. The idea of abstaining from alcohol on moral grounds was contrasted by the reality of speakeasies and rum-running, and the British and French traditions of individual liberty (and drinking) that the country was founded on (Hallowell, 2013). In this way, this example saw two idea shifts, both to and back away from the temperance movement’s view of alcohol. This can be seen to mirror, in some ways, contemporary attitudes on other prohibitions, with drugs being a clear example.

References

Howell, Colin D. 2013. “Prohibition in Canada.” The Canadian Encyclopedia.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/prohibition

# data[].attributes.body
The Idea and Its Origins
Harm reduction is an important idea that has evolved over time and significantly shaped contemporary Canadian public policy. Historically, substance use was framed as a criminal or moral failure, leading governments to rely on prohibition, policing, and punishment. This approach often marginalized people who use drugs and failed to address the underlying social and health related causes of substance use. Over time, evidence from public health research and advocacy from medical professionals and community organizations challenged this framing. Harm reduction emerged as a response that prioritizes minimizing negative consequences rather than enforcing abstinence.

The Shift in Policy Thinking
The rise of harm reduction reflects a broader shift in how policymakers understand responsibility, health, and state intervention. Instead of viewing substance use solely as an individual failure, harm reduction recognizes structural factors such as poverty, trauma, mental health, and inequality. This shift has influenced Canadian public policy through initiatives like needle exchange programs, supervised consumption sites, and access to opioid agonist therapies. These policies aim to reduce overdose deaths, prevent the spread of disease, and connect individuals to health and social services. In this sense, harm reduction represents a move toward evidence based and compassionate policymaking.

Contemporary Significance
Today, harm reduction continues to shape debates about public health, criminal justice, and social equity in Canada, particularly in the context of the ongoing overdose crisis. While the approach remains politically disputed, it has become a central component of Canada’s public health response to substance use. Harm reduction also challenges traditional ideas about what successful policy looks like, emphasizing harm prevention and dignity over moral judgment. As such, it illustrates how changing ideas can transform not only specific policies but also the values that underpin public policy more broadly.

# data[].attributes.body
An idea that has shaped Canadian public policy over time is immigration. Immigration has been evolving in Canada since the 1800s, and it continues to date and influences policies in Canada. The early immigration in Canada sought to invite people into the country for nation building in the time of 1869; however, this immigration act was rooted in racial hierarchy and controlled groups. Only white people from Europe were wanted in Canada. Subsequently, the Chinese Immigration Act came into effect in 1885, and Chinese people were allowed into Canada, although many of them still faced racial segregation. Later, immigration evolved as a tool for economic contribution; therefore, the point‑based system was created, and people from different countries, regardless of skin colour and ethnicity, could apply and move to Canada. From the 2000s to the present, immigration has been for the purpose of economic growth and humanitarian duty. Select skilled workers are invited to Canada through various programs and provinces, and refugee settlement is granted to people from troubled countries like Sudan, Iraq, and Ukraine. Currently, immigration is gradually evolving again due to the population in the country, unemployment, and the high cost of living. At the moment, immigration is mostly favoured towards healthcare and tech workers.

References

Schwinghamer, S. (2022, January 13). Kinship, inclusion, and exclusion in Canadian immigration history. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/kinship-inclusion-and-exclusion-in-canadian-immigration-history (pier21.ca in Bing)

# data[].attributes.body
One important idea that has evolved over time and shaped contemporary Canadian public policy is Indigenous rights and reconciliation. Historically, Canadian policy treated Indigenous peoples through a colonial lens focused on assimilation, land dispossession and control, most clearly seen in the Indian Act and the residential school system. Over time, this idea has shifted toward recognition of Indigenous sovereignty, treaty relationships and self-determination. Today, this evolution influences policies around land claims, resource development, child welfare, education and governance, as well as commitments to recognition through measures like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and the adoption of UNDRIP. While progress remains uneven, this changing understanding of Indigenous rights continues to reshape how Canada approaches justice, governance and nation-to-nation relationships.

References:

Government of Canada. “Indigenous Peoples and human rights.” Canada.ca, September 6, 2024. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-indigenous-peoples.html

# data[].attributes.body
To understand how ideas filter our appreciation of facts and reality, one need look no further than the heavy shift in Canadian public policy regarding drug use. As the module notes, ideas are not merely individual biases but “collective ideational frameworks” that help policy actors make sense of the world (Holroyd 2026, Module 3). For decades, the dominant ideational framework governing Canadian drug policy was the “War on Drugs,” a paradigm rooted in the belief that drug use was a moral failing and a criminal act requiring punishment. However, over the last two decades, this entrenched idea has clashed violently with, and slowly yielded to, a new public health and harm reduction framework. This shift offers a stark example of how ideas act as both constraints and resources in the policy process; the “old” idea of criminalization acted as a constraint that blinded policymakers to scientific evidence, while the “new” idea of harm reduction provided the resource necessary to reimagine the state’s relationship with its citizens.

The resistance to this ideational shift illustrates how deeply buried assumptions can be within political institutions. As Hyshka argues, even as evidence mounted that enforcement-based approaches were failing to reduce supply or demand, Canada initially “moved backwards,” intensifying the War on Drugs under the Conservative government of the late 2000s (Hyshka et al. 2012, 125). This period exemplified a “clash of the policy process” mentioned in the module, where the government actively opposed harm reduction sites like Insite. Hyshka notes that this policy direction was “motivated by ideological principles of punishment and retribution towards drug users” rather than empirical efficacy (Hyshka et al. 2012, 126). This demonstrates that when an “idea,” such as the belief that punishment creates deterrence, is taken for granted, it filters out contrary facts, such as the public health benefits of supervised consumption. The policy actors were not simply ignoring data; they were operating within an ideational framework that defined drug use exclusively as a crime, rendering health-based solutions invisible or morally unacceptable.

The eventual breakthrough of the “new” idea is best exemplified by the legalization of cannabis, which represented a fundamental restructuring of reality for Canadian public policy. Fischer et al. describe this move not just as a legal change, but as a “social experiment” following “a century of control of cannabis by means of criminal law” (Fischer et al. 2018, 412). The shift here was ideational before it was legislative; the government had to first accept the idea that the “public health burden of cannabis is smaller than that for licit drugs,” and that regulation, rather than prohibition, was the superior method for protecting public safety (Fischer et al. 2018, 412). This transition required policy analysts to abandon the “abstinence-only” mindset and adopt a public health index approach, measuring success not by arrests made, but by indicators like “cannabis use disorder” or “impaired driving” stats (Fischer et al. 2018, 416). This validates the module’s assertion that ideas are constitutive elements of policy; the policy design of the Cannabis Act could not exist until the collective idea of the drug user shifted from criminal to consumer/patient.

Furthermore, the concept of “ideas” helps explain the ongoing struggle to reconcile these competing frameworks in the realm of addiction recovery. Bartram provides an analysis of this by utilizing the “3-i framework” (interests, ideas, and institutions), noting that a coherent vision is required to challenge “entrenched policy paradigms” (Bartram 2020, 1499). There remains a conceptual disconnection between the “old” idea of recovery, which views abstinence as the only success, and the “new” idea of harm reduction, which accepts ongoing substance use to preserve life. Bartram argues that to bridge this gap, policy actors are now mobilizing a third idea: well-being. By framing the goal as well-being rather than sobriety, policymakers can integrate harm reduction without alienating those holding onto traditional views of addiction (Bartram 2020, 1506). This illustrates the dynamic nature of comparative public policy; when two fundamental ideas clash (abstinence vs. harm reduction), new ideational frameworks must be constructed to facilitate cooperation and implementation.

Reflecting on this topic reveals that public policy is rarely just about what works in a technical sense; it is about what we believe. The shift from criminalizing drug users to providing safe supply and legal cannabis was not inevitable; it required a dismantling of the “taken for granted” assumption that the state’s role is to police morality. As a student of public policy, this highlights that to explain behaviour, we must look beyond institutions and economic interests to the invisible architecture of ideas. The transition from the War on Drugs to Harm Reduction in Canada is a powerful testament to the module’s lesson: ideas define the problem, and therefore, ideas determine the solution. Until the “idea” of the drug user changed from a deviant to a citizen deserving of health care, the policy landscape remained frozen. Thus, studying ideas is essential for understanding how radical policy change, like the legalization of cannabis, becomes possible.

References

Bartram, Mary. 2020. "‘It’s Really About Wellbeing’: A Canadian Investigation of Harm Reduction as a Bridge Between Mental Health and Addiction Recovery." International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 19: 1497–1510.

Fischer, Benedikt, Cayley Russell, Jürgen Rehm, and Pamela Leece. 2018. "Assessing the Public Health Impact of Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Core Outcome Indicators Towards an ‘Index’ for Monitoring and Evaluation." Journal of Public Health 41, no. 2: 412–421.

Holroyd, Carin. 2026. "Module 3: Ideas and Public Policy." Class notes for POLS 326, University of Saskatchewan.

Hyshka, Elaine, Janet Butler-McPhee, Richard Elliott, Evan Wood, and Thomas Kerr. 2012. "Canada Moving Backwards on Illegal Drugs." Canadian Journal of Public Health 103, no. 2: 125–127.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not from Canada, so I do not know a lot about how an important idea has changed over time and shaped public policy. I know not a lot about Canadian history. The one I do know has changed is Indigenous rights since that is heavily involved in the classes I have taken for my major of political studies. I know that for much of Canada's history Indigenous peoples were forcfully restricted and put into residential school. Compare that history to the current and the difference is staggering. Today reconciliation has allowed Indigenous communities to receive recompense from what the government did to the communities.

Reference

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples

# data[].attributes.body
1. The concept of assimilation served as the foundation for public policy in Canada for a large portion of its history. The Indian Act, residential schools, and the repression of Indigenous languages and governance were all justified by the belief that Indigenous peoples should be assimilated into settler society. This notion was contested over time, particularly starting in the late 20th century by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) which was created through a legal settlement between Residential School Survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and the parties responsible for creation and operation of the schools: the federal government and the church bodies (National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, 2026). In this context, a change in perspective was brought about by Indigenous activism, court rulings that acknowledged Aboriginal and treaty rights, and public awareness of the negative effects of colonial policies. With its emphasis on acknowledging historical wrongs, upholding Indigenous rights, and mending ties between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian government, reconciliation emerged as a novel concept.

The TRC has mandated the government of Canada to being committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through a renewed, nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change (Government of Canada, 2025). The following are the principles that are shaping contemporary Canadian public policy on behalf of a renewed relationship and recognizing and affirming the identities of Indigenous peoples across Canada: The Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government, recognizes that reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes that the honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown in all of its dealings with Indigenous peoples, recognizes that Indigenous self-government is part of Canada’s evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct orders of government, recognizes that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect, etc., (2025).

The idea in discussion is that Indigenous peoples inherent and treaty rights have been an ever-evolving part of Canada and the government. It is on the efforts to address land claims and self-government agreements, the educational system and child welfare, and recognize the inherent Indigenous and treaty rights in law and policymaking. In the process of this, the notion has reformed how legitimacy, justice, and inclusion are appreciated in Canadian public policy today.

Resources:

National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. 2026. "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada." https://nctr.ca/about/history-of-the-trc/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-of-canada/

Government of Canada. 2025. "Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples." https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Eugenics: social burdens, lobotomies and sterilization

# data[].attributes.subject
Eugenics: social burdens, lobotomies and sterilization

# data[].attributes.body
The dark chapters of Canadian history are bloody, messy, racist, sexist, and fascist to name but a few prolific titles. One of the more disturbing and questionable qualities of Canadian history is how those deemed "unfit" were dealt with.

Looking at the Albertan Mental Defectives Act of 1922, in section 2 and section 6 it is clear that disabled people were treated as subhuman, were detained, and given treatments without consent (Mental Defectives Act, RSA 1922, c. 224). During these times, it was also normal to undergo horrible procedures, such as lobotomies, shock therapy, and forced sterilization rendering these patients unable to function on their own (Braslow, 1999). One of the main purposes to eliminate their chances to reproduce, thus reducing the public burden and the last known documented case took place in 1972, when Canada repealed Albertas Sexual Sterilization act (Grekul et al, 2004).

It's hard to believe that these horrors were occurring 53 years ago, and were not only legal, but encouraged. That Doctors who took the Hippocratic Oath were performing procedures on human beings and believing they were doing the right thing. That society was encourages the relieve themselves of the burden of humans that were considered unfit for society.

Alberta. Mental Defectives Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1922, c. 224.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/hstat/rsa-1922-c-224/latest/rsa-1922-c-224.html.

Braslow, Joel T. “History and Evidence-Based Medicine: Lessons from the History of Somatic Psychiatric Treatments.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20, no. 2 (1999): 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325508430.

Grekul, Jana, Harvey Krahn, and Dave Odynak. “Sterilizing the ‘Feeble-Minded’: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929–1972.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 29, no. 3 (2004): 358–384.

# data[].attributes.body
Seatbelts laws may be routine and normalized now but they aren’t that old in Canada, as Ontario was the first province to require all drivers and passengers wear seatbelts in cars (Government of Ontario, 2010). These laws started as ideas that stemmed from the risks of car accidents and the role of seatbelts in preventing them. The old dominant idea around driving framed it as a personal endeavor that made accidents a personal responsibility. Policy didn’t change because people viewed seatbelt usage as a personal choice (The Rheumatologist, 2021). The framing only changed when car crashes were shown to be preventable and that the lack of seatbelt use would increase collective costs on healthcare. The evidence showed that use of seatbelts reduced the fatality rate of car accidents (Science Direct, 1984). Medical evidence and data supported the new idea and the framing rebranded the subject as a policy problem which led to provinces adopting seatbelt laws. Today, seatbelts are automatic in our daily routines and the seatbelt laws also impact other driving laws and regulations.

References:

Government of Ontario. 2010. “Seatbelts: Saving Lives in Ontario for 35 Years.” News Release, Government of Ontario. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/16064/seatbelts-saving-lives-in-ontario-for-35-years

CanLII. 1977. “Commentary on Seatbelt Case.” CanLII. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/1977CanLIIDocs193#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA

Seo, Philip. 2021. “Revisionist History: Seat Belts and Resistance to Public Health Measures.” The Rheumatologist. https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-history-seat-belts-resistance-to-public-health-measures/

Jonah, Brian A., and John J. Lawson. 1984. “The Effectiveness of the Canadian Mandatory Seat Belt Use Laws.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 16 (5–6): 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(84)90056-3

# data[].attributes.body
In the past women were only allowed to be in the work force up until marriage which then they were expected to leave their job and take care of the household and the children. However, while women had a small period in which they were allowed to work they would only receive a few cents an hour working up to 60 hour a week, making less than a dollar on each paycheck. though women were allowed to work, they only had certain jobs that they could work. some of these jobs were servants, educators, and other household tasks like laundry, housekeeping and seamstresses. during WW1 women replaced men who joined the army, though due to lack of employment there were very few jobs for women to fill. though during WW2 there was a much higher need for women to fill jobs which allowed married women to join the work force. though women were still being paid much less than their male counterparts. In the 1960's would become more aware of their rights in and out of the workplaces, this was due to a women's movement. this movement helped women gain a control of their lives and independence, furthering women to join unions. with a newfound need within the home of two-incomes to provide, this draws more women into the work force taking on part-time roles. since then, we have gained a better equal pay though this has not fully been solved we have a much smaller pay gap then in earlier years of women in the work force.

Connelly, M.P.. "Women in the Labour Force." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published February 07, 2006; Last Edited March 04, 2015.

Women in the Labour Force | The Canadian Encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.body
In the late 1800s, social welfare in Canada was limited and inequitable. Early government involvement focused on poor relief and was often motivated by social control rather a belief in collective responsibility (Wallace 1950). It was also stigmatized and largely left to local governments or charities. This showed that poverty was viewed as an individual failure than a structural problem.

This began to shift in the 1930s and 1940s as economic instability and industrialization exposed the limits of private and local supports. The idea emerged that the federal government had a role in protecting citizens from risks. The expansion of social programs after the Second World War displayed a broader rethinking, where social security became linked to democratic participation in social stability (Finkel 2004).

While pressures for retrenchment would follow decades later, the welfare state was not dismantled. Canadian public policy continues to be shaped by this idea that the government has responsibility for social well-being, even though the scope and approaches are contested.

Finkel, Alvin. “The State of Writing on the Canadian Welfare State: What’s Class Got to Do with It?” Labour / Le Travail 54 (2004): 151. https://doi.org/10.2307/25149508.

Wallace, Elisabeth. “The Origin of the Social Welfare State in Canada, 1867-1900.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 16, no. 3 (August 1950): 383–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/137811.

# data[].attributes.body
Although slavery was abolished in Canada in 1834, the segregation of Black and people of colour continued years afterward in the country (Henry 2021). While the level and type of racial segregation varied by province and territory, black people were often segregated in schools and universities across the country (Natasha 2021). Alongside many Canadian anti-segregation activists’ efforts and the broader Civil Rights movement in the United States, the idea of segregation was finally legally abolished with the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Government of Canada 2023). This legal and constitutional framework led to the closure of the last segregated school in Canada in 1983 (Government of Canada 2023). One of the many ideas forwarded by the Charter reflected a societal shift towards of tolerance and integration of different racial groups. While there still exists many instances of racism in Canada and many institutions are still embedded with racist and colonialist ideals, the policy around the Charter that protects the rights of all people has certainly helped to advance toleration and move Canadian society towards a more just and inclusive culture than in the past.

Government of Canada, Department of Justice. 2023. “Fact Sheet: Key Historical Facts about Anti-Black Racism and Discrimination in Canada.” Canada’s Black Justice Strategy. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cbjs-scjn/fact2-fait2.html

Henry, Natasha. 2021. "Racial Segregation of Black People in Canada." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published May 27, 2019; Last Edited September 08, 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
On May 1, 1849, what was called the Province of Canada which is now Quebec and Ontario passed a law to restrict women from voting (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d). Throughout many years there were many female activists that fought to gain women’s rights to vote. Many Canadian women were granted to vote in federal elections in 1918. The reason this is an important change is that this was the start of women getting a voice in politics and society in general. The shift in the way society thinks of women has changed a lot, since at one time it was illegal to vote. I am a woman that is working towards a business degree with a major in accounting, this would not have happened in the early 1900’s. There is still progress to be made with societal expectations of women (to be married, to have children, to do most of the house duties).

Source:

The Canadian Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Women’s Suffrage . Thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/timeline/womens-suffrage

# data[].attributes.body
One important idea that has changed over time and shaped contemporary Canadian public policy is how the state understands Indigenous peoples and their rights. For much of Canada's history, Indigenous communities were viewed through a colonial lens that justified assimilation, residential schools, and strict government control. This idea treated Indigenous cultures as something to be managed or erased. Over time, that thinking has been challenged by Indigenous activism, court rulings, and broader shifts in social values. Today, ideas like reconciliation, self-determination, and nation to nation relationships play a much bigger role in policy discussions. While the work is far from complete, this shift in ideas has influenced policies around land claims, education, and recognition of Indigenous rights in Canada.

Reference

Government of Canada. (2021, September 1). Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples. Justice.gc.ca. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles-principes.html

# data[].attributes.body
BC Ferries was once owned by the provincial government of British Colombia. It is the only method of transportation when it comes to getting off Vancouver Island. At the time of it being a Crown Company, when there was less demand for the service and Vancouver Island wasn't as developed as it is today, you could drive across the ferry for as little as $40. That number is adjusted for inflation. However, since it was semi-privatized in 2002, the costs of driving across the ferry have continued to spike, and it now costs $110 at the same time of year to drive across. Generally, Crown Corporations are created to fill in the needs that cannot be met by the public sector. So, for instance, it is completely ludicrous for someone to have created boats between the Island and the Mainland, especially at its time of founding in the 60s when the Island was a speck of rock that had only that of dirt roads lest you were in Victoria. The ferries were a Political Policy tool created to develop Vancouver Island, to more easily transport things to and from the capital of Victoria, and to access our resources of lumber, mineral deposits in our mountains, and our fishing industry (especially in Port Alberni). At the time of its creation by the provincial government, people looked at the Crown corporation as something that was a positive Political Policy tool used for nation-building and the betterment of public good. The idea behind public ownership was centred round ensuring universal access, developing key industries or underdeveloped parts of Canada, being legitimate and trustworthy, and a necessary part of equity. Other Crown corporation examples are Canada Post, CBC, and Petro-Canada. However, as the United States evolved with their capitalistic and neoliberalist ideologies through the 1980s and onward; gripping this uneducated idea of communism in their sweaty hands. The dominant idea turned to the markets being seen as more efficient, and more innovative. Canada became more capitalistic centred and the Crown Corporation became an inefficient manager who should get out of the way. They morphed from something used to expand our country, into bureaucratic, costly, barriers to competition that shouldn't be used or created.

This resulted in the privatization/restructuring of Petro-Can, Air Canada, BC Ferries, and many more. Forcing them to justify their existence economically, and not in the name of Public Policy. Yet, that's what we want, right?