Yup, more schoolwork. Last time, I swear.

1) Explain how Canada transitioned into the welfare state during the 20th century. Be sure to identify and explain the significance of key moments,

Ironically. Canada’s transition into a modern welfare state was largely fueled by the Red Scare and fears of communism and socialism. In that, it was, from one way of looking at it, a conservative (not Conservative) process. It was thought at the time that the only way to keep Canada free of communist tyranny was to take their most popular idea and implement them gradually. Thus, the CCF had a great deal of influence not by being in power, but by being the place where the Liberals got all their best ideas.

Canadian like far-left ideas, but trust the center-left party, the Liberals, to implement them without going crazy.

Thus, the leftward shift towards a modern welfare state was gradual, and not part of any central plan but rather the result of a long series of political battles between the CCF/NDP and the Liberals.

The movement, however, had it roots not in the beatnik intellectual movement but in the trenches of World War I. The model for the movement came from highly organized and effective veteran’s rights groups that formed after the end of WWI. These men were extremely successful in turning the previous model of how you treat veterans – a lump sum payout based on how injured you were – into something very much like a modern welfare state for themselves.

The public quickly picked up on these idea, and wanted the same for themselves. This first emerged in 1932, when the Regina Manifesto was issued as the founding document by what was then known as the CCF (became the NDP in 1967). While its ideals of wiping out capitalism and replacing it with a state run economy never came to fruition (thank goodness), a lot of its ideas would be the ones that the Liberals would crib in order to win elections in the future.

Even more influential was the Marsh Report, issued by the Committee on Post-War Reconstruction after a lengthy deliberation and taking its name (colloquially) from its author, Leonard Marsh. It recommended things like unemployment insurance, children’s allowances, maternity leave, and government funded health care, and while it was largely ignored when it was issued, it is hard to argue with its legacy.

To wit : Universal old age pension (CCP) passed in 1951.
Unemployment insurance was passed in 1956.
And medicare, our crowning jewel and go-to response when people ask what the difference is between us and Americans, was enacted with the Medical Care Act of 1966.

Worth noting is the fact that the building of this welfare state was not a subject of political debate. Everyone, Conservatives included, agreed that it had to be built. All they disagreed upon was how best to do it. Thus, this era is known as the Era of Liberal Consensus.

Also worth noting is that at the end of World War II, we were far behind the Americans in terms of social progress of this type. We had to catch up pretty fast, and of course, in multitudinous ways, we have vastly exceeded them.

To sum up : How did we transition into a welfare state? Gradually, piece by piece, and via the highly Canadian processes of politicians trying to score points off one another, royal commissions nobody pays the slightest attention to at the time, and above all, the most Canadian virtue of them all : compromise.

2) In the post Second World War period culture became more important than ever before in Canada. Explain why and how this happened.

Before WWII, Canada operated in the British sphere of influence. We were, after all, still technically part of the Empire, and seeing as we had developed as a colony of said Empire, all our economic ties, trade deals, and so forth were to the Empire. We traded with the Americans as well, but they were no match for British power and influence.

But World War II decimated the British, while leaving the USA largely alone. Coming out of the war, the United States was the new superpower due to their economic clout and large population, and the explosion of mass media, especially movies and television, that emerged from the USA after the war only furthered their reach and their influence.

Canada, then, had little choice but to join their sphere of influence instead. Canada needed markets for its products and movies for its theaters, and the UK could provide neither. We could no longer afford to see the USA as simply our wacky neighbour to the South.

Now we had to do business, serious business, with the USA.

But that created a serious problem : how to preserve Canadian culture when it is under attack from American products on every level? Social commentators raised the alarm, and the Canadian government listened, and enacted an aggressive program of protectionist policies aimed at saving Canada from those damned Yankees.

Economically, the solution was straightforward : high tariff walls protected Canadian business by making American products more expensive. This gave Canadian businesses the breathing room they needed to compete with American mass produced goods.

Cultural protectionism, however, was a trickier business. After the war, the Canadian government was desperate to shore up Canadian culture by all possible means, as recommended in the report issued by the Massey Commission. This included but is not limited to :

* Creating the Canadian Council for the Arts, enacted in 1957 by the Laurent government, which is a grant issuing organization that funds Canadian arts on all media and throughout the country.
* Canadian Content rules in Canadian media, which state that a percentage of all television programming and music radio programming must be Canadian, as the government defines it
* Adopting the Maple Leaf, sans Union Jack, as our official flag
* Creating and maintaining the Canadian Film Board to promote the Canadian film industry
* and many, many more

These measures remain largely intact to this day, and while it is hard to definitively determine exactly what long term effects this policy of Canadian cultural protectionism has had, I can say for certain that Canadian culture remains as a vibrant, active, artistically productive entity that is distinct and unique, and that we have our own voice that is no less valid or important than anyone else’s, no matter how hard it can be to hear it over the din from our noisy neighbours to the South.

Whether this is do to government support or simply the fact that in order to deal with the deluge from the South, Canadian culture has learned to float, is up to you.

I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.