Abstract: This paper examines why the Canadian policy architecture has had so little impact on racial economic disparities, which continue despite a social safety net and a model of diversity governance that many assume are far more robust, redistributive, and egalitarian than those which exist south of the 49th parallel. Why have policy regimes in welfare, immigration, equality rights, multiculturalism, and Aboriginal policy not have greater success in alleviating racial economic inequality? We argue these policy regimes largely failed to eliminate racial inequality in Canada because, simply put, that was not their original purpose. The policies were put in place during an era when Canada was not as racially diverse as it is now. In 1961, over 96 percent of Canadians traced their ancestry to Europe; and Aboriginal people, who represented less than 2 percent of the population, were not politically mobilized. As a result, the postwar policy regimes were shaped primarily by the concerns of a white European population divided primarily by ethnicity, language and culture rather than race. Canadian society and politics did become more racially complex in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of changing immigration flows and the political mobilization of the Aboriginal peoples. However, path dependency in the form of established ways of thinking about difference and growing constraints on state activism have ensured that the inherited policy architecture has not been retooled explicitly to address racial economic inequality. Moreover, current policy drivers point to the prospect of continuing policy drift.

Abstract: When are elected governments willing to pursue major changes to tax policy? Scholars have long stressed the political risks associated with the curtailment of social expenditures (Pierson 1996). Less is understood, however, about governments' willingness to make changes to the revenue side of the equation. Taxation is inherently political, yet there is a paucity of literature on the subject. Moreover, the literature that does exist is ill equipped to explain empirical variation. This paper seeks to address this gap through a study of tax policy decision making. The paper proposes an analytical framework that stresses the role of uncertainty, policy experts, policy and political learning. The paper uses the case of the Ontario's Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) to illustrate the value of the framework. Empirically, the paper offers a rich description and analysis of the Ontario government's decision to bring in the HST. It relies on elite interviews conducted with former elected officials, political advisors, policy experts, civil servants, and journalists. Beyond these accounts, the paper draws on primary documents, secondary literature, and print media analysis. The study has important implications for the role of expertise in policy decision making.

Abstract: How have adoption policies and practices evolved across the Canadian provinces in light of changing family structures? Since the late 1960s, gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women have become increasingly visible in society. Along with this visibility have come numerous legal and political battles for rights and privileges that heterosexuals have long enjoyed. Scholars of gay and lesbian politics in Canada have often focused their attention on significant battles and victories: the decriminalization of homosexuality; the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; other high profile court battles; and the federal Bill C-51 legalizing same-sex marriage nation-wide, to name a few. Far less attention has been paid to the development of provincial adoption policies as they pertain to same-sex parented families. Curiously, there is an alarming dearth in the political science and public policy literature regarding adoption in Canada at all. This paper attempts to address this gap. In doing so, it hopes to accomplish a number of things. First, it brings adoption policy into the substantive body of Canadian social and welfare state policy literature. Second, the creation of an adoption policy typology allows us to test existing welfare regime typologies that typically include child welfare policies, but largely fail to adequately address or even include adoption within this broader group.