Diagonal Accountability
#9Key Findings
Canada falls into the upper-middle ranks (rank 9) with respect to diagonal accountability.
No significant barriers to media reporting exist apart from libel and slander laws. Criticism of the government is common. Foreign ownership of Canadian media is restricted, and media concentration in certain areas limits competition.
The traditional media sector, which is largely controlled by large corporations, is in decline. Canadians are increasingly turning to online sources and social media for diverse political opinions. Misinformation here remains a challenge.
Freedom of assembly is generally protected, with some restrictions on hate groups and banned organizations. The government provides little direct funding for interest groups, but often favors business over labor interests. CSOs tend to lack direct access to policymakers, but can produce strong research and influence public opinion.
No significant barriers to media reporting exist apart from libel and slander laws. Criticism of the government is common. Foreign ownership of Canadian media is restricted, and media concentration in certain areas limits competition.
The traditional media sector, which is largely controlled by large corporations, is in decline. Canadians are increasingly turning to online sources and social media for diverse political opinions. Misinformation here remains a challenge.
Freedom of assembly is generally protected, with some restrictions on hate groups and banned organizations. The government provides little direct funding for interest groups, but often favors business over labor interests. CSOs tend to lack direct access to policymakers, but can produce strong research and influence public opinion.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent are the media free from government influence and able to act independently?
10
9
9
There are no disincentives, by law or in practice, for the media to criticize the government and public officials.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
2
1
1
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
In Canada, there are no barriers to traditional or social media reporting outside of traditional libel and slander laws, and criticism of the government is very common.
However, foreign companies are prevented from owning controlling stakes in Canadian media companies. Outside the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and its French-language counterpart, Radio Canada, traditional media ownership in Canada is concentrated in the hands of a small number of Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled media conglomerates. There is also particularly strong media concentration in some parts of the country, such as the Irving newspapers in New Brunswick. This makes it difficult for new companies to break into Canadian media markets and limits competition (Murray 2007).
This trend accelerated following the shutdown of several dozen local newspapers, which occurred after a 2017 deal between two national newspaper corporations, Torstar and Postmedia Group, and the earlier demise of the Canwest-Global company.
The influence of mainstream newspapers has waned considerably in the last decade or so in favor of online sources of information and social media, where Canadians can find a greater diversity of opinions and political perspectives.
Citations:
Murray, Catherine. 2007. “The Media.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 286–97. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
However, foreign companies are prevented from owning controlling stakes in Canadian media companies. Outside the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and its French-language counterpart, Radio Canada, traditional media ownership in Canada is concentrated in the hands of a small number of Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled media conglomerates. There is also particularly strong media concentration in some parts of the country, such as the Irving newspapers in New Brunswick. This makes it difficult for new companies to break into Canadian media markets and limits competition (Murray 2007).
This trend accelerated following the shutdown of several dozen local newspapers, which occurred after a 2017 deal between two national newspaper corporations, Torstar and Postmedia Group, and the earlier demise of the Canwest-Global company.
The influence of mainstream newspapers has waned considerably in the last decade or so in favor of online sources of information and social media, where Canadians can find a greater diversity of opinions and political perspectives.
Citations:
Murray, Catherine. 2007. “The Media.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 286–97. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
To what extent is a plurality of opinions in the media ensured?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to a pluralistic media landscape that represents all existing political perspectives in society.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
Canada is widely recognized as a country with a high degree of press freedom, often ranking prominently in global indices. For instance, the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders consistently ranks Canada among the leading nations for press freedom.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act of 1982, guarantees freedom of the press as a fundamental right. Canada has a diverse media landscape with a mix of public and private broadcasters, newspapers, and online news outlets. This diversity contributes to a plurality of voices and perspectives.
Traditional media are expensive to establish and operate and are controlled by large communication conglomerates. This results in very limited perspectives in national media. Local media, though more competitive, still exhibit a pro-business perspective on public affairs. Moreover, Canada has recently witnessed a series of local newspaper closures and layoffs within large media corporations, negatively affecting both local and national news coverage.
A strong case can be made that a lack of competition in the media industry has led to a lack of diversity in views and positions, as mainstream media companies tend to align with existing political parties and, for example, rarely support social-democratic or regional parties. The mainstream print media generally express a centrist to center-right political orientation but some, such as the Globe and Mail and La Presse, make an effort to bring in other perspectives to provide balanced coverage of issues. The CBC is very Central Canada–centric, and Radio Canada exists mainly for the French-language population in Quebec (Taylor and O’Hagen 2017).
Social media, on the other hand, is wide open and has no barriers to entry.
Like many other countries, Canada faces challenges related to the impact of digital media on traditional journalism, including issues such as misinformation, disinformation, and the business model of online news, especially in terms of the provision and promotion of Canadian content.
The protection of journalistic sources is recognized as an important aspect of press freedom in Canada. Journalists may be protected from compelled disclosure of their sources under certain circumstances. Additional mechanisms also protect media activity, such as press councils and self-regulatory bodies like the National NewsMedia Council. These entities aim to maintain high journalistic standards and address public concerns about media practices. They operate independently of the government and the media organizations they oversee.
Citations:
Taylor, Lisa and Cara-Marie O’Hagan, eds. 2017. The Unfulfilled Promise of Press Freedom in Canada. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act of 1982, guarantees freedom of the press as a fundamental right. Canada has a diverse media landscape with a mix of public and private broadcasters, newspapers, and online news outlets. This diversity contributes to a plurality of voices and perspectives.
Traditional media are expensive to establish and operate and are controlled by large communication conglomerates. This results in very limited perspectives in national media. Local media, though more competitive, still exhibit a pro-business perspective on public affairs. Moreover, Canada has recently witnessed a series of local newspaper closures and layoffs within large media corporations, negatively affecting both local and national news coverage.
A strong case can be made that a lack of competition in the media industry has led to a lack of diversity in views and positions, as mainstream media companies tend to align with existing political parties and, for example, rarely support social-democratic or regional parties. The mainstream print media generally express a centrist to center-right political orientation but some, such as the Globe and Mail and La Presse, make an effort to bring in other perspectives to provide balanced coverage of issues. The CBC is very Central Canada–centric, and Radio Canada exists mainly for the French-language population in Quebec (Taylor and O’Hagen 2017).
Social media, on the other hand, is wide open and has no barriers to entry.
Like many other countries, Canada faces challenges related to the impact of digital media on traditional journalism, including issues such as misinformation, disinformation, and the business model of online news, especially in terms of the provision and promotion of Canadian content.
The protection of journalistic sources is recognized as an important aspect of press freedom in Canada. Journalists may be protected from compelled disclosure of their sources under certain circumstances. Additional mechanisms also protect media activity, such as press councils and self-regulatory bodies like the National NewsMedia Council. These entities aim to maintain high journalistic standards and address public concerns about media practices. They operate independently of the government and the media organizations they oversee.
Citations:
Taylor, Lisa and Cara-Marie O’Hagan, eds. 2017. The Unfulfilled Promise of Press Freedom in Canada. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press.
Graph View
To what extent are citizens able to freely form or join independent political and civic groups, openly raise and discuss political issues, and assemble without restrictions?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose very few or no significant obstacles to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
Canada has a legal framework that generally supports freedom of assembly as a fundamental right. This freedom is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution Act of 1982. This includes the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Freedom of assembly, like all other rights enumerated in the Charter, is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable limitations that can be justified “in a free and democratic society.” This allows governments to impose certain restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assemblies to balance individual rights with the broader public interest.
There are, however, very few barriers to assembly and protest in Canada with the exception of hate groups and banned organizations, which are very few (Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression). In many cases, local authorities may require organizers to obtain permits for certain types of assemblies, especially large gatherings or events that may impact public safety or traffic. These permit requirements are typically meant to balance the right to assembly with the need for public order.
Law enforcement agencies are responsible for managing public events and ensuring public safety. However, interventions by law enforcement must comply with the law and should not unduly restrict the right to peaceful assembly.
Citations:
Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada
Background Paper – Julian Walker, Legal and Social Affairs Division, Parliament of Canada
Publication No. 2018-25-E
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E
Freedom of assembly, like all other rights enumerated in the Charter, is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable limitations that can be justified “in a free and democratic society.” This allows governments to impose certain restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assemblies to balance individual rights with the broader public interest.
There are, however, very few barriers to assembly and protest in Canada with the exception of hate groups and banned organizations, which are very few (Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression). In many cases, local authorities may require organizers to obtain permits for certain types of assemblies, especially large gatherings or events that may impact public safety or traffic. These permit requirements are typically meant to balance the right to assembly with the need for public order.
Law enforcement agencies are responsible for managing public events and ensuring public safety. However, interventions by law enforcement must comply with the law and should not unduly restrict the right to peaceful assembly.
Citations:
Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada
Background Paper – Julian Walker, Legal and Social Affairs Division, Parliament of Canada
Publication No. 2018-25-E
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
Canada has a free associational system with very limited direct funding for interest groups and civil society organizations. This applies to both business and labor.
Overall, larger, well-resourced CSOs that prioritize policy work tend to have the most capacity. This is true of business associations and, to a lesser extent, trade union centrals. The unionization rate in Canada is currently slightly below 30%, a figure that should not obscure variations over time, between men and women, and among employment sectors. For example, “Over the last four decades, unionization rates fell by 16 percentage points among men but remained stable among women” (Statistics Canada, 2022). Moreover, the unionization rate is much higher in the public sector than in the private sector, where the labor movement is less represented now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
The party in power can also be more or less open to CSO input in policymaking. Shutting groups out is always possible. At the federal level, pro-business governments are the norm, which has enhanced the influence of business associations while undermining the influence of trade unions. This has been true throughout Canadian history and continues to the present day.
Citations:
Brooks, S., and A. Stritch. 1991. Business and Government in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.
Stritch, Andrew. 2007. “Business Associations and Policy Analysis in Canada.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 242–59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stritch, Andrew. 2018. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Canadian Business Associations.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, 297–317. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0014
Jackson, Andrew, and Bob Baldwin. 2007. “Policy Analysis by the Labour Movement in a Hostile Environment.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 260–72. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Statistics Canada. 2022. “Unionization in Canada, 1981 to 2022.” https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2022011/article/00001-eng.htm
Overall, larger, well-resourced CSOs that prioritize policy work tend to have the most capacity. This is true of business associations and, to a lesser extent, trade union centrals. The unionization rate in Canada is currently slightly below 30%, a figure that should not obscure variations over time, between men and women, and among employment sectors. For example, “Over the last four decades, unionization rates fell by 16 percentage points among men but remained stable among women” (Statistics Canada, 2022). Moreover, the unionization rate is much higher in the public sector than in the private sector, where the labor movement is less represented now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
The party in power can also be more or less open to CSO input in policymaking. Shutting groups out is always possible. At the federal level, pro-business governments are the norm, which has enhanced the influence of business associations while undermining the influence of trade unions. This has been true throughout Canadian history and continues to the present day.
Citations:
Brooks, S., and A. Stritch. 1991. Business and Government in Canada. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.
Stritch, Andrew. 2007. “Business Associations and Policy Analysis in Canada.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 242–59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stritch, Andrew. 2018. “Policy Analytical Capacity and Canadian Business Associations.” In Policy Analysis in Canada, 297–317. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447334910.003.0014
Jackson, Andrew, and Bob Baldwin. 2007. “Policy Analysis by the Labour Movement in a Hostile Environment.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 260–72. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Statistics Canada. 2022. “Unionization in Canada, 1981 to 2022.” https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2022011/article/00001-eng.htm
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
As stated previously, Canada has a free associational system, but in the social welfare sector as elsewhere, interest groups and civil society organizations have access to limited public funding.
In general, civil society organizations (CSOs) in Canada working in the social welfare sector do not have direct and continuous access to government officials and policymakers for effective advocacy and input. The degree of access, however, can vary. Larger, more established CSOs often have better connections. CSOs also need knowledge and expertise on the specific policy issues they seek to influence, which some possess to varying degrees. While larger CSOs may have specialized policy staff, smaller ones often lack dedicated expertise. Participating in consultations, advocacy campaigns, and similar activities also requires time and money. Larger CSOs have more resources to devote to policy work, whereas many smaller CSOs are underfunded (Phillips and Orsini 2002).
Connections with other CSOs and academics can help amplify influence and access expertise. While some CSOs collaborate effectively with each other, others operate in silos. There are opportunities to enhance CSO capacity through funding, partnerships, and government commitment to consultation. Some CSOs receive grants to provide services, such as refugee settlement or women’s shelters, and can use those funds to support their lobbying activities (Pal 1993). However, resource limitations and unequal access will persist to some degree.
Due to these constraints, the policy capacity of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the area of social policy in Canada can vary widely depending on the size, focus, and resources of each organization. “Policy capacity” refers to an organization’s ability to effectively engage in policy analysis, advocacy, and influence decision-making processes. Adequate funding and resources are crucial for civil society organizations (CSOs) and NGOs to build and maintain policy capacity. Funding sources may include grants, donations, and partnerships. Financial stability enables organizations to invest in staff training, research initiatives, and advocacy campaigns. Larger NGOs with significant resources, staffing, and expertise may have greater policy capacity. These organizations often have dedicated policy teams, researchers, and advocacy specialists.
NGOs with strong research capacity and subject-matter expertise are better equipped to analyze policy issues, propose solutions, and engage in evidence-based advocacy than those with weaker capabilities. Some NGOs may collaborate with academic institutions or experts to enhance their research capabilities. The ability to collaborate in this way and form strategic alliances with other NGOs, civil society groups, and stakeholders can enhance an organization’s policy influence. Networking allows NGOs to share resources, information, and amplify their collective voice.
NGOs with effective access to government officials, policymakers, and key decision-makers can have a greater impact on policy development than those without such access. Establishing relationships with government agencies and officials often allows NGOs to present their perspectives and recommendations directly (Brock 2020).
NGOs that effectively communicate their messages to the public and garner public support can influence policy debates and decisions. Public awareness campaigns, media outreach, and social media engagement contribute to an organization’s policy advocacy efforts. Issues that resonate with the public, policymakers, or specific interest groups may attract more attention and support.
The effectiveness of an NGO’s advocacy strategies – including its ability to engage in constructive dialogue, propose viable solutions, and mobilize public support – contributes to its policy capacity. NGOs that are adaptable and open to learning from their experiences are better positioned to navigate changing policy landscapes. This adaptability includes staying informed about policy developments, assessing the impact of their advocacy efforts, and adjusting strategies accordingly.
Citations:
Brock, Kathy L. 2020. “Government and Non-Profit Collaboration in Times of Deliverology, Policy Innovation Laboratories and Hubs, and New Public Governance.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 31 (2): 257–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00145-0Pal, Leslie A. 1993. Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism, and Feminism in Canada. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Phillips, Susan D. 2007. “Policy Analysis and the Voluntary Sector: Evolving Policy Styles.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 272–84. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Phillips, Susan, and Tessa Hebb. 2010. “Financing the Third Sector: Introduction.” Policy and Society 29 (3): 181–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.001
Phillips, Susan, and Michael Orsini. 2002. Mapping the Links: Citizen Involvement in Policy Processes. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Discussion Paper.
In general, civil society organizations (CSOs) in Canada working in the social welfare sector do not have direct and continuous access to government officials and policymakers for effective advocacy and input. The degree of access, however, can vary. Larger, more established CSOs often have better connections. CSOs also need knowledge and expertise on the specific policy issues they seek to influence, which some possess to varying degrees. While larger CSOs may have specialized policy staff, smaller ones often lack dedicated expertise. Participating in consultations, advocacy campaigns, and similar activities also requires time and money. Larger CSOs have more resources to devote to policy work, whereas many smaller CSOs are underfunded (Phillips and Orsini 2002).
Connections with other CSOs and academics can help amplify influence and access expertise. While some CSOs collaborate effectively with each other, others operate in silos. There are opportunities to enhance CSO capacity through funding, partnerships, and government commitment to consultation. Some CSOs receive grants to provide services, such as refugee settlement or women’s shelters, and can use those funds to support their lobbying activities (Pal 1993). However, resource limitations and unequal access will persist to some degree.
Due to these constraints, the policy capacity of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the area of social policy in Canada can vary widely depending on the size, focus, and resources of each organization. “Policy capacity” refers to an organization’s ability to effectively engage in policy analysis, advocacy, and influence decision-making processes. Adequate funding and resources are crucial for civil society organizations (CSOs) and NGOs to build and maintain policy capacity. Funding sources may include grants, donations, and partnerships. Financial stability enables organizations to invest in staff training, research initiatives, and advocacy campaigns. Larger NGOs with significant resources, staffing, and expertise may have greater policy capacity. These organizations often have dedicated policy teams, researchers, and advocacy specialists.
NGOs with strong research capacity and subject-matter expertise are better equipped to analyze policy issues, propose solutions, and engage in evidence-based advocacy than those with weaker capabilities. Some NGOs may collaborate with academic institutions or experts to enhance their research capabilities. The ability to collaborate in this way and form strategic alliances with other NGOs, civil society groups, and stakeholders can enhance an organization’s policy influence. Networking allows NGOs to share resources, information, and amplify their collective voice.
NGOs with effective access to government officials, policymakers, and key decision-makers can have a greater impact on policy development than those without such access. Establishing relationships with government agencies and officials often allows NGOs to present their perspectives and recommendations directly (Brock 2020).
NGOs that effectively communicate their messages to the public and garner public support can influence policy debates and decisions. Public awareness campaigns, media outreach, and social media engagement contribute to an organization’s policy advocacy efforts. Issues that resonate with the public, policymakers, or specific interest groups may attract more attention and support.
The effectiveness of an NGO’s advocacy strategies – including its ability to engage in constructive dialogue, propose viable solutions, and mobilize public support – contributes to its policy capacity. NGOs that are adaptable and open to learning from their experiences are better positioned to navigate changing policy landscapes. This adaptability includes staying informed about policy developments, assessing the impact of their advocacy efforts, and adjusting strategies accordingly.
Citations:
Brock, Kathy L. 2020. “Government and Non-Profit Collaboration in Times of Deliverology, Policy Innovation Laboratories and Hubs, and New Public Governance.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 31 (2): 257–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00145-0Pal, Leslie A. 1993. Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism, and Feminism in Canada. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Phillips, Susan D. 2007. “Policy Analysis and the Voluntary Sector: Evolving Policy Styles.” In Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, and D. Laycock, 272–84. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Phillips, Susan, and Tessa Hebb. 2010. “Financing the Third Sector: Introduction.” Policy and Society 29 (3): 181–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.001
Phillips, Susan, and Michael Orsini. 2002. Mapping the Links: Citizen Involvement in Policy Processes. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Discussion Paper.
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
The policy capacity of non-governmental (NGO) or civil society organizations (CSOs) in any area of policymaking can vary widely depending on the size, focus, and resources of each organization. Adequate funding and resources are crucial for NGO/CSOs to build and maintain their ability to influence policy. Larger NGOs with significant resources, staffing, and expertise may have greater policy capacity. Financial stability, in particular, enables organizations to invest in staff training, research initiatives, and advocacy campaigns. Funding sources may include grants, donations, and partnerships. These organizations often have dedicated policy teams, researchers, and advocacy specialists.
CSOs with strong research capacity and subject-matter expertise are better equipped to analyze policy issues, propose solutions, and engage in evidence-based advocacy than those with weaker capabilities. Some NGOs may collaborate with academic institutions or experts to enhance their research capabilities. The ability to collaborate in this way and form strategic alliances with other NGOs, civil society groups, and stakeholders can enhance an organization’s policy influence. Networking allows these organizations to share resources and information and amplify their collective voice. Issues that resonate with the public, policymakers, or specific interest groups may attract more attention and support. Public awareness campaigns, media outreach, and social media engagement are all part of such organizations’ policy advocacy efforts.
In the environmental sphere, Canada has several large, influential, and effective civil society organizations, including some with a global reach. Major national environmental organizations in Canada include Greenpeace Canada, part of the global Greenpeace network founded in Vancouver after protests surrounding a U.S. nuclear test in Amchitka, Alaska, in 1971. It is one of the country’s most prominent environmental advocacy groups, campaigning on issues like climate change, protecting oceans and forests, and promoting renewable energy.
Other prominent and well-resourced civil society organizations include the Sierra Club Canada, a branch of the U.S.-based Sierra Club. This organization focuses on protecting wilderness areas and ecosystems and works on issues related to national parks, endangered species, and sustainable development. Similarly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Canada is the Canadian arm of the Swiss-based global conservation organization, concentrating on wildlife protection, sustainable food sources, and curbing threats from habitat loss and climate change.
Based in Quebec, Equiterre is another prominent organization promoting environmental and social justice issues, with campaigns around sustainable agriculture, transportation, and consumption habits. Its former director is now the federal Minister of the Environment. Smaller organizations, like the David Suzuki Foundation – named after a renowned Canadian environmentalist and TV host – have a significant media presence despite their size.
These large national groups often work with more regionally focused environmental organizations across Canada’s provinces and territories. They play an important role in shaping environmental policies and raising public awareness on key ecological issues facing the country.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
CSOs with strong research capacity and subject-matter expertise are better equipped to analyze policy issues, propose solutions, and engage in evidence-based advocacy than those with weaker capabilities. Some NGOs may collaborate with academic institutions or experts to enhance their research capabilities. The ability to collaborate in this way and form strategic alliances with other NGOs, civil society groups, and stakeholders can enhance an organization’s policy influence. Networking allows these organizations to share resources and information and amplify their collective voice. Issues that resonate with the public, policymakers, or specific interest groups may attract more attention and support. Public awareness campaigns, media outreach, and social media engagement are all part of such organizations’ policy advocacy efforts.
In the environmental sphere, Canada has several large, influential, and effective civil society organizations, including some with a global reach. Major national environmental organizations in Canada include Greenpeace Canada, part of the global Greenpeace network founded in Vancouver after protests surrounding a U.S. nuclear test in Amchitka, Alaska, in 1971. It is one of the country’s most prominent environmental advocacy groups, campaigning on issues like climate change, protecting oceans and forests, and promoting renewable energy.
Other prominent and well-resourced civil society organizations include the Sierra Club Canada, a branch of the U.S.-based Sierra Club. This organization focuses on protecting wilderness areas and ecosystems and works on issues related to national parks, endangered species, and sustainable development. Similarly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Canada is the Canadian arm of the Swiss-based global conservation organization, concentrating on wildlife protection, sustainable food sources, and curbing threats from habitat loss and climate change.
Based in Quebec, Equiterre is another prominent organization promoting environmental and social justice issues, with campaigns around sustainable agriculture, transportation, and consumption habits. Its former director is now the federal Minister of the Environment. Smaller organizations, like the David Suzuki Foundation – named after a renowned Canadian environmentalist and TV host – have a significant media presence despite their size.
These large national groups often work with more regionally focused environmental organizations across Canada’s provinces and territories. They play an important role in shaping environmental policies and raising public awareness on key ecological issues facing the country.
Citations:
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.