OUR CANADIAN SOCIETY
Aboriginal Canadians: Time for Justice
We need to implement the Kelowna Accord or something similar to enhance social and economic justice for aboriginal Canadians. We must once and for all devote all the attention and resources necessary to put an end to third world conditions among aboriginal Canadians, and make a real commitment to improving accountability, delivery of better health care and housing, education and planning.
Aboriginal lands claims should be settled by a tribunal of aboriginal and non-aboriginal members, not the courts. The same arms-length body could advise on how to avoid more Kashechewans, eliminate the third-world conditions on many of our reserves, and focus on the education and other deficits behind the tragically high suicide levels. Ensuring respect for the fundamental value of equality of rights and opportunities for aboriginal men and women must also be a top priority. (Note that proposed federal legislation – Bill C-30 – will establish a new specific claims tribunal. The new tribunal would have the power to make $250 million in settlement payments every year for 10 years, with the aim of reducing the roughly 800 claim backlog. This may be a good step).
It is essential that federal and provincial governments cooperate effectively to improve outcomes especially given the fact that a growing proportion of aboriginal Canadians now live in urban areas (54%), and that aboriginal Canadians are much younger on average than the rest of the population. The recent Harper government 75% funding cut to the very successful First Nations Technical Institute (FNTI) on the grounds that native post-secondary instruction should be delivered through the band councils, and the subsequent response of the Ontario government that there could be no increase in provincial funding because only the federal government is responsible for “on-reserve native education”, illustrates perfectly the serious conundrum faced by those dealing with the two levels of government. Fortunately, on April 1, 2008, the Ontario government has now stepped in to fill the gap left by the federal government with a $1.5 million grant.
Abortion is a procedure rooted in religious, moral and ethical judgment. At the same time, it is a matter of choice for the individual woman. No woman undertakes such a procedure without serious thought of the moral consequences, and a great deal of sadness. It is never a snap decision.
We must of course put as much energy as possible into minimizing unwanted pregnancies. But to have a meaningful right to choose, women must have assured access to safe and legal abortions in a timely manner. Recent reports that indicate that abortions are less accessible in Canada than in 2003 and that only 15.9% of hospitals provide abortion services, compared to 17.8% in 2003, are disturbing and need corrective action.
We should have a meaningful sustainable national housing strategy that provides stable long-term funding for new affordable housing initiatives and their ongoing operating costs, as well as the delivery of new rent supplements. We should recognize once and for all that the social housing sector is a critical component of economic development and a major contributor to a more sustainable social economy. For example, housing projects should be viewed, as they are in Britain and the U.S., as a significant driver of community renewal.
Note that in January 2008, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities called for a National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness with an annual strategic investment of $3.35 billion in annual strategic investments.
Anti-Poverty Strategies and the Minimum Wage
Canada’s current poverty levels are unacceptable. We have too many working poor, too many hungry children, and too many Aboriginal Canadians live in third-world conditions. Poverty is the greatest threat to political stability, social cohesion and the environmental health of the planet.
We need to be fair to low income Canadians, by instituting a federal minimum wage together with tax provisions that significantly assist the working poor. We must once and for all establish a standard of fundamental decency for low-income Canadians.
We must always remember that the Canadian constitution imposes important responsibilities on the federal government to act with the provinces to ensure equality of opportunity for all individuals and a reasonable level of public services for all Canadians. Stephen Harper is determined to ignore the federal government’s responsibility and appears to believe that inequality is acceptable and that his government is not obliged to help the most vulnerable in society.
On the anti-poverty front, Harper has effectively ended the long term plan to expand the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and introduced an ad hoc out-of-the-blue regressive non-refundable child tax credit. He has undermined other anti-poverty strategies, with boutique tax credits for sports equipment here and municipal transit passes there, and introduced an inadequate working income tax benefit (WITB) that does little to help the poorest of the working poor. Harper’s regressive universal child care benefit (UCCB) has done nothing to establish the kind of national child care initiative that is essential to a strong Canadian social economy, and to supporting working families.
Harper’s Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) in the 2007 Budget is one positive development, but we need to do much more than assist those Canadians who already have money to help their children with disabilities through a new registered plan. Among other things, we need to bring coherence to the hodge-podge of disability assistance available through CPP and EI sickness benefits, better coordinate with provincial social assistance and workers’ compensation benefits, and ensure truly meaningful support for Canadians with disabilities. (Note that the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) in the 2008 Budget is another measure that could be a constructive anti-poverty measure).
The Ontario Child Benefit to be introduced by the Ontario government by 2008 is a positive step toward eliminating child poverty, but as provincial initiatives multiply in the absence of coherent federal leadership and action, Canadians need an objective assessment of the impact and interaction of federal and provincial programs. It is important to establish an accountability mechanism at the federal level, to determine exactly how the federal and provincial programs and initiatives interact and to recommend changes and improvements to advance the goal of eliminating poverty and protecting vulnerable Canadians.
The 2001 Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA) did provide for a reporting template and guidance package to enhance accountability, but SUFA has never lived up to its potential. The National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) process was supposed to be a model of what SUFA could achieve., but the five poorest jurisdictions in the country – the three territories, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island – have been unable to complete the NCB process, thanks to Harper’s abandonment of the long-term development of the NTB, in favour of a regressive UCCB and a non-refundable child tax credit. As a result, the inequities across the country are greatly magnified.
The Liberal Party of Canada 30-50 plan to cut poverty levels in Canada by 30% in 5 years (and by 50% among children) is an excellent initiative. Among other things, this will restore the focus on implementing a substantial refundable Child Tax Benefit and abolish the regressive Harper child care allowance and non-refundable tax credit. It will also increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors.
At the same time, we need to find a uniform poverty measure, not simply Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut Offs (LICOs). Innovative approaches include Ireland’s Deprivation Index which also exists in a different form in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Austria. A person is considered “poor” if they earn less than 60% of the median income and fail to meet 2 of 11 indicators on the Deprivation Index. These indicators include: buy new, not second-hand clothes, keep their home adequately warm, eat meals with meat, chicken, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day.
To really reduce what is known as the “marginal effective tax rates” (METRs), governments need to make more case-sensitive assessments and approve a particular plan for an individual or family in transition to work or further education. For example, a time-out for eligible young adults up to age 24 should be considered involving a four year moratorium on all charges, and a subsidy toward rent increases while the person begins to receive earned income.
We also need a new government responsibility centre created from existing ministries tasked with resolving multiple barriers resulting from program overlap and duplication.
Turning to EI, a huge surplus continues to accumulate in the employment insurance fund while fewer and fewer Canadians are able to access the benefits. Coverage of EI has dropped dramatically from 82.9% of unemployed Canadians in 1989 to about 44% in 2004, and now excludes recent immigrants, new entrants to the labour market, non-standard workers and youth. EI currently only benefits 22% of those working in Toronto who lose their jobs.
Non-standard work – part-time work, self-employment and multiple jobholders typically with low incomes – now involves one third of the work force! This would most certainly be the time, for example, to end variable entrance requirements (while addressing the underlying need in another way), expand EI coverage and strengthen the earning replacement rate from 55% to 70-75% of average weekly earnings.
Budget 2008 creates a Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board which will report to Parliament through the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. The Board will run the Employment Insurance Fund as a new crown corporation, and will improve the management and governance of the EI fund and ensure it is managed on a truly break-even basis over time. At first glance, this appears like a tepid first step in the right direction.
Our cultural institutions and achievements are among the most important assets uniting us as a people. Ensuring that they remain vital and excellent is critical to our national unity and national identity, as well as being of considerable economic importance. The opportunities we provide through our arts and cultural institutions to individual Canadians are essential to our quality of life.
Canadians are well ahead of our current leadership in recognizing that a vibrant artistic sector and vibrant cultural industries are essential elements of both a sustainable social economy and our Canadian identity. Canadian consumers spent $25.1 billion on cultural goods and services in 2005, an amount that is 5 per cent higher than the combined consumer spending on household furniture, appliances and tools ($24.0 billion). The $25.1 billion in consumer spending is over three times larger than the $7.7 billion spent on culture in Canada by all levels of government in 2003/04.
The Harper government rejects the national importance of arts and culture. Harper has placed our arts and cultural communities under siege. Essential long term funding for the Canada Council, CBC, our museums, cultural spaces and heritage facilities that require improvement and repair, will not be forthcoming and even current funding is at serious risk.
Concern is also mounting over the proposed undermining of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF). A proposal to divide the Fund into two separate pools is now under consideration. The CBC’s guaranteed envelope will henceforth be restricted to the smaller pool of $100 million available to TV projects that have full (10) Canadian content points. The second and larger pool of some $130 million from the Broadcast Distribution Undertakings (BDUs) will be available to the more flexible, market oriented private sector stream in which only 8 out of 10 Canadian content points are required.
In 2008 most of the world’s population is now living in cities. Canada is no exception and the increasingly diverse Canadian urban population is placing huge demands on infrastructure (repair and maintenance, let alone expansion), public transit, home care, child care, housing etc.
We need a strong national presence in the funding of the huge investments required in our public transit and municipal infrastructure. We should focus on light rapid transit more than subways. We need to articulate a national vision of the kind of sustainable livable cities we want to build, in the spirit of Toronto mayor David Miller’s One Cent Solution, where one per cent of GST revenues are dedicated to municipal transport and infrastructure across Canada.
We must also develop a national strategy and a clear statement of the very important federal role in assisting our cities to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation as well as develop integrated energy systems involving on-site renewable energy, district energy and combined heat and power. Cities are where at least 50% of energy is used in Canada and require our urgent attention.
Early Child Development & Child Care
We need a national child care and early childhood education program.
The renowned head of the Council for Early Child Development, Dr. Fraser Mustard, has been consistent in his call for much greater national spending on early childhood education. Currently Canada ranks last in such spending among developed nations with a paltry 0.25 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Two per cent of GDP should be our goal and an expenditure of some eight to 10 billion dollars. Dr. Mustard also suggests eliminating the “chaotic mess” of programs and assistance that exists now. We need to establish a system of community hubs, ideally located in schools, that would offer play-based pre-school activities, help for parents, social services referrals and child care.
A vigorous national child care program and system of early childhood education is long overdue. Indeed, we should establish a national goal of ensuring that all children have access to good public education, combined with child care, from the age of three. At the same time, through expanding such benefits as parental leave to self-employed parents, we must ensure that one parent can choose to stay home without financial stress for at least the early years of a child’s life (or have access to good quality publicly-funded child care if they choose). The Ontario government’s 2007 commitment to implementing full day junior and senior kindergarten is a very good step forward and should be pursued nationally.
Shortly after its election, the Harper government cancelled the Liberal Early Learning and Child Care initiative. This was a huge step backward. A national child care program will be the first major national program in decades and can certainly be said to be as essential to Canadians as Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and other universal programs such as unemployment insurance, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for our needy seniors.
Planetary survival is now the most important concern of the early 21st century. The greatest consumer generation in history now has to confront its excesses and learn how to live intelligently and frugally, not wastefully, and to learn this very quickly.
Reputable scientists around the world agree that we are now in a race between environmental destruction on a global scale, and sustainable solutions. The alarming evidence of rising global temperatures, the rapidly accelerating loss of polar ice, and the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, now at 378 parts per million and rising exponentially (while for 650,000 years the CO2 concentration never went above 250-300 ppm), confirm the urgency of the situation. Philosopher Ronald Wright argues that “we are logging everywhere, building everywhere and no corner of the biosphere escapes our hemorrhage of waste… Our ‘system’ is a suicide machine, in no one’s interests.” The evidence continues to pile up – coral reefs off Australia extinct by 2050; bogs of west Siberia melting, alone containing as much carbon as 73 years of man-made emissions; serious impacts on food production and water availability; and more extreme weather events.
At the very least, we must have a Minister of the Environment on a par with the Minister of Finance, so that ecological principles are integrated every step of the way into our budget, investment and planning processes.
We must also impose a carbon tax that is strong enough to influence behaviour, for example, a carbon levy on the end user of fuels and electricity the proceeds of which can be used to create a fund to reduce other taxes and/or support initiatives to reduce waste, increase efficiency and promote low emission technologies.
In March 2008, the 11 largest environmental groups issued a joint blueprint, among other things, calling for “realistic pricing” of greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.tomorrowtodaycanada.ca). Carbon taxes of $30 per tonne starting in 2009 were recommended, rising to $75 a tonne by 2020 (by 2020 it would add about 18 cents to the price of a litre of gas). This is twice what Harper will impose only on large industrial greenhouse gas emitters. The tax burden should be shifted away from taxes on income, savings and investment, and towards environmentally harmful activities such as oil and gas or mining projects. Finally, the 11 groups called for an end to direct and indirect subsidies to the nuclear industry, stopping short of calling for an end to all nuclear power.
The February 2008 British Columbia budget now leads the way in establishing a “revenue neutral” carbon tax of $10 a tonne rising to $30 a tonne by 2012. This amounts to 2.4 cents per litre of gas at the pump. Personal income taxes for incomes under $70,000 are reduced by 2% and business taxes are reduced by 1% for corporations and by 3.5% for small business. A $1 billion fund over 3 years is created for home energy audits, biodiesel production, fuel efficient cars and energy efficient appliances.
In addition to a carbon tax, we must:
- Implement energy conscious building codes, fuel efficiency regulations for new cars and trucks, good urban planning and public transit, “green taxes” and tough near-term, regulated emission-reduction targets for industry, together with a cap-and-trade system;
- Make incentives available to persuade both individuals and businesses to proceed with potentially costly renovations and a wide range of efficiency improvements;
- Implement a clear unequivocal national water policy for Canada and a national strategy to protect water from both bulk exports and large scale diversions. This must involve federal legislation preventing the bulk removal of water from Canada’s drainage basins in the event that any province is unable or unwilling to do so. Mapping of the underground aquifers is also urgently required. Despite the fact that Canada has 7% of the world’s renewable freshwater, we are facing huge challenges in terms of increasing pollutants and, for example, a 70% decline in the wetlands of southern Ontario;
- Ensure full compliance with the Species at Risk Act – as of June 2007 the Canadian government had only established 55 of the required 228 recovery strategies;
- Establish practical straightforward targets on everything from retrofitting houses to new efficiency standards for light bulbs;
- Encourage much faster action to remove toxic chemicals from our environment and stop tacitly accepting chemical pollution as a price of progress. For example, implement a national ban on pesticides, and a ban on the sale of all products containing the dangerous contaminant polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polycarbonate plastic made of bisphenol A;
- Impose stronger fuel-efficiency standards on the auto manufacturers in North America, and ensure their commitment to hybrid;
- Move vigorously toward a national electricity grid;
- Establish national parks in each of the country’s 39 natural regions pursuant to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that we signed in 1992;
- Ensure that we do not confine our national action to “aspirational goals” (Harper’s Sydney Declaration at the meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership) or “intensity-based targets” for cutting greenhouse emissions. Canadians expect much more concrete action to reduce greenhouses gases and our dependence on fossil fuels.
The Alberta tar sands represent a particular challenge to Canada’s ability to reduce greenhouse gases. The Alberta premier seems unconcerned and content only to require a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2050. In contrast, other major oil producers such as Britain, Norway and Australia are committed to 50-80%! Norway in particular is preparing for the future non-oil economy and is investing no less than $1 billion a week in stabilizing investments outside the country. Norwegians pay high taxes and $2.30 a litre for gas, but are now well prepared for the future with one of the most flexible labour law systems in the world, and huge investment in R and D.
It is disconcerting that an astounding 60% of Alberta voters refused to participate in the March 2008 provincial election and allowed the Alberta premier to claim that his minimalist environmental protection policies were broadly acceptable to most voters. Surely most Canadians who live in Alberta are just as concerned as all other Canadians about reducing our environmental footprint. Surely Ottawa’s role cannot be restricted to meekly requesting from Washington, on Alberta’s behalf, a temporary exemption from the new American energy legislation that will prevent the U.S. government from purchasing fuel originating in the Alberta tar sands because its production spews more GHG into the atmosphere than conventional oil.
—–
Unless we can preserve the quality of life on our planet, everything else is secondary.
But what do we have in Ottawa? One of the most divisive governments in Canadian history that appears incapable of taking any serious action on the environment.
A government that for partisan political purposes reduces the one tax that is capable of having an influence on our over-consumption – the GST, and then transfers much needed national revenues to provincial coffers via the ecoTrust and the Community Development Trust, with little or no accountability for the expenditures,
One of the best authors/commentators on the environment and the future of the planet is Jared Diamond (Collapse, and Guns, Germs and Steel). He has calculated that the average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metal, and produce waste like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America than in the developing world. If the entire world achieved North American-level consumption rates, it would be as if the world population ballooned up to 72 billion from the current 6.5 billion. Only the most optimistic among us think that our planet can eventually manage 9 billion!
We must lower our consumption rates – they are unsustainable. Much of our consumption is unrelated to our living standards and is plainly wasteful. Western Europe per capita oil consumption is half the U.S. and yet the standard of living is higher, measured by life expectancy, health, infant mortality, access to medical care, financial security after retirement, vacation time, quality of public schools, support for the arts etc. Fortunately many individual Canadians now seem prepared to do the right thing – it is time our leaders did the same!
All Canadians must have real equality of opportunity, especially new Canadians. The evidence is clear that the latest wave of immigrants, while perhaps better educated than their predecessors, face more difficulties with respect to employment, reuniting their families, proper housing and health services. There is no room in Canadian society for latent and not-so-latent discrimination, prejudice or racism and anti-Semitism.
The huge mismatch between the skills of new Canadians and what they are actually employed to do here is jaw dropping. It seems that newcomers are now seen as a source of low-income workers, not as a solution to the much-needed upgrading of skills in both the manufacturing and knowledge sectors, and as much-needed new professionals.
No less than 41% of immigrants with university degrees are now in chronic low-income categories, compared to only 13% in 1993, before the immigration laws were changed to encourage more educated immigrants to come to Canada. Especially among the young there is a real sense of exclusion as the disaffected lash out against a society that fails to give them equal opportunity in practice. Canadians, particularly employers in Canada, must identify what barriers are preventing many new Canadians from advancing their careers, and then address those barriers with positive action. According to a recent report of the Conference Board of Canada, “although Canadian organizations say they value diversity, they have not yet fully committed their policies, practices and resources to embedding diversity in their operations.”
Canadians must identify what barriers are preventing visible minorities from advancing their careers, and then address those barriers with positive action. We need to solve the foreign credential problems once and for all, and provide adequate infrastructure to help new Canadians maximize their potential.
We have to inspire and demand from ourselves the discipline to understand, celebrate, and protect what makes each of us unique. Preserving the dignity of our neighbours preserves the dignity of us all.
We need to stop being passively polled ad nauseam on our current needs, and instead actively engage in the public policies that will affect future generations. We need to demand more of those we elect and challenge them to see the big picture and tackle the big issues. And we need our elected officials to serve in the best interests of our citizens, and to equate their public office with public service.
We need to take firm action to reign in the excesses of lobbying. The new public registry under the Lobbying Act will have only a very limited impact since it covers only “arranged communications” – a mere fraction of the range of communications between ministers and senior government officials and those in the lobbying business. One step would be to ban all financial contributions or political activity by anyone in any jurisdiction in which they are registered to lobby.
Faith-Based Education and Arbitration
A harmonious cosmopolitan society on the scale of Canada depends on the pursuit of positive initiatives that encourage people of all faiths and backgrounds to come together, to work towards common goals. Public education is of course among the most important means to this end. There should be no public funding for faith-based schools, and the standard curriculum must include serious study of religions of the world. Faith-based initiatives, including private faith-based schools, must be carefully monitored to ensure that they contribute to greater mutual understanding and harmony and a respect for our core values of justice, equality and diversity.
The Ontario government was correct to refuse to allow faith-based arbitration in family law, something that would have led to increasing divisions within Canadian society. Faith-based arbitration is not consistent with our goals of ensuring that our diversity remains our strength, and respecting the fundamental value of equality of men and women.
Religion must not be a weapon to express prejudice and incite hatred and discrimination against those of different beliefs. It should be a positive force that helps us explain our mortality, our significance in the universe, how to distinguish between right and wrong, how to establish a peaceful community life and discharge our responsibility for our fellow human beings.
Around the world, the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others, all believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, and the fundamental values of democracy, liberty, and equality. But there are religious extremists of all backgrounds who pose an ongoing serious threat to world peace.
We must make it perfectly clear that all persons must respect the universal principle of the sanctity of human life, whatever their religious, ethnic or national background. We must go beyond the condemnation of violators of human sanctity, to action. We must especially appeal to the moderate members of all religions.
As Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka of Nigeria suggests, all Muslim leaders all over the world must pronounce a fatwa against those who kill in the name of their faith. As Soyinka argues, “who is responsible for bringing disrepute to the religion of Islam – those who butcher in the name of the Prophet, or a cartoonist or atheist?” How can Muslims be so silent in the face of massacres of innocent people in Iraq, in Darfur, in Lebanon, in Israel? Yet there is little or no communal reaction, compared to the rage whipped up by the Danish cartoons, or comments in a Papal speech. Too often it then appears that Islamic clerics sanction or at least tolerate violence and murder in the name of religion. And Christians in Muslim countries certainly do not have the same religious freedom enjoyed by most Muslims in the west.
In many parts of the globe, civil societies must evolve to displace the tribal mentalities that still rule today. In Afghanistan, for example, this means effectively asking people to give up their tribal identity. This will be difficult. But until civil societies are firmly established, clan loyalties and tribal identities are often strengthened by extreme religious sentiment which fuels conflicts.
The day that author Salman Rushdie can freely lecture in Tehran, will be a milestone in our progress towards greater peace and humanity.
The responsibility of citizenship in a strong multiethnic democracy also requires that we respect some civic limits to free speech. The purpose of freedom of expression is to broaden public discourse, and encourage citizens to talk with each other. Its purpose is not to increase misunderstanding and mistrust. If freedom of expression serves to produce unnecessary conflict, then it is our responsibility to figure out the civic limits to such freedom.
The restraint among Canadians with respect to the discussion and publication of the cartoons of Mohammed, regarded as blasphemous by most Muslims, should be applauded. This was an instance where the publication of the cartoons did not serve to broaden public discourse and civil debate.
Gender Equality and Same-Sex Marriage
We have a responsibility to ensure that the fundamental values of equality of men and women, and non-discrimination, are never dismantled under the guise of “less government”, or through misguided accommodation of outdated cultural norms.
This requires a refusal to pander to prejudice and parochialism. This requires moral leadership.
In this I am proud of the fact that Canada has not only defended same-sex marriage as a legal requirement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also as a logical extension of the basic ideals of equality and diversity that underpin our inclusive society.
Good citizenship is the essential counterpart of good government.
Bold and visionary national leadership must provide the essentials of Canadian citizenship–clean air, clean water, safe streets, our parks, healthcare, child care, parental leave, public education, equality of opportunity, and adequate income and other supports–and ensure that our diversity remains our strength.
We must ask at least as much of ourselves as we do of our governments: As citizens of a country with so many resources and opportunities, we all need to be responsible and contribute, as volunteers and concerned and engaged citizens.
To better prepare ourselves for a future of possible environmental catastrophes, acts of terrorism, a pandemic, we must put the brakes on the extreme and unchecked consumption that has driven globalization. Our national leadership must start now to promote a cultural transformation that redefines wealth as well-being, not well-having. This will encourage us to live intelligently and frugally, not wastefully – and measure our achievements by our commitment and responsibility to our fellow citizens, not by our level of consumption.
It will foster a society that is based on the principles of responsibility, our duty to each other and our respect of one another. The responsibilities of citizenship will finally emerge on a par with the rights of citizenship.
Health Care for the 21st Century
It is time to bring Medicare into the twenty-first century. We must establish, at the national level, the services and medical treatments that should be available to all Canadians under Medicare. Canadians in all provinces must have equal access to, for example, extensive services for children on the autistic spectrum, physiotherapy, adequate cancer treatments, or MRIs.
The Harper government is wrong to claim that there is a constitutional barrier to such a step. Medicare funding decisions must be made in a coherent fashion in a national framework given that we invest no less than $160 billion annually, of which $113 billion is from the public purse. (See the analysis in the early 2008 publication of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation by Colleen Flood, Mark Stabile, and Carolyn Tuohy – “Defining the Medicare Basket.”)
Fortunately, individual Canadians are filling in the vacuum and promoting change from below. One British Columbia-based group ¬ Medicare for Autism Now ¬ has been busy building up an effective political lobby and a national coalition to convince our national politicians to support universal access to the necessary medical services for children on the autistic spectrum across Canada. This is a multi-partisan coalition of frustrated but determined Canadians who are tired and cynical about having to fight for equity and justice in the national interest in a country that is supposed to be one of the best in the world.
The real issue is the lack of political will and determination among our elected representatives to bring coherence, consistency and accountability to the current mess of federal-provincial financial transfers, of which health care is a significant component. To begin with, we should implement an independent institutional mechanism to deal with issues of fiscal federalism and fiscal balance, and thereby ensure rational cooperative action. This is a far better alternative to ill-considered politicized steps serving some short-term objective ¬ witness the Harper 2007 Budget which included confused and confusing multiple equalization formulas and a massive transfer to the provinces to eliminate a mythical fiscal imbalance, which then (unsurprisingly) reemerged a short time later.
There are precedents for such a mechanism in other federations. Australia has a Commonwealth Grants Commission which deals with both horizontal and vertical transfers between the federal government and the states, and facilitates cooperative equitable outcomes. South Africa has a similar Financial and Fiscal Commission.
We should have an arms-length national health commission, overseen by a non-partisan board of outstanding citizens, to tackle issues such as:
- national standards in terms of coverage,
- how to ensure that Canadians do not have to leave the country for essential medical treatments or take governments to court to pay for essential medications or treatments,
- what is the acceptable degree of private delivery of publicly insured health services,
- how to ensure the portability of Medicare across the country.
If we have, as we do, a national body the Common Drug Review (CDR) that makes recommendations to provincial governments as to which drugs should be covered by all provincial drug plans, then we most certainly should be able to find the political will to cooperate and establish something analogous such as the national commission suggested above, to ensure the provision of essential medical treatments and health care services across Canada.
The Commission would also examine levels of health care funding as a percentage of GDP and propose changes to ensure that Health care does not swamp our federal and provincial government budgets to the detriment of the environment, education and emergency preparedness. Already health care budgets consume 40% of all provincial spending and 10.6% of GDP (compared to 33% in 1993, and 7% of GDP in the 1970s and 8.9% in 1997). For example, informed observers are concerned about the excessively large component of health care expenditures absorbed by pharmaceutical research and development. A medical journal published a study a few years ago that suggested that some $4 billion dollars currently spent on pharmaceutical R & D could be freed up for more productive use in the health care system. How many variations of cold and cough medicines and pain killers do we really need? It is confusing to enter a drugstore these days for certain items and in the case of some children’s medications and pain killers, the number of recalls and reviews in recent years have been significant.
One final note: we must at all times ensure that our health care system serves the patients, not the other way around. Just as parents of ASD children are insisting on more case-sensitive human intervention, some hospitals are successfully experimenting with patient advocates whose job is to help the individual to deal with the array of options and possibilities for treatment available following a complex diagnosis such as cancer.
We must strongly support all initiatives encouraging the production and availability of locally-grown organic foods that do not require energy-intensive fertilizers or pesticides.
Much of the stress on our environment is a result of our consumption patterns in a wide range of areas. Our consumption of foods from distant suppliers, from Chile to China, has a huge impact on emissions of greenhouse gases and our footprint on the planet. It is time to factor in the CO2 cost of our food to promote more sustainable food consumption and production.
A 2005 study called Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer’s Market noted that long-distance food trade doubled between 1968 and 1998. Huge amounts of GHG are generated by the extensive packaging, refrigeration, and trucking involved in bringing foods to Canada from faraway markets. Air transport is even worse than trucking. Great amounts of petroleum are required to make the synthetic fertilizer and the machinery used in food production. Wayne Roberts, coordinator for Toronto’s Food Policy Council, argues that our food distribution system is irrational when much of the food trucked or flown into Canada could be produce locally.
We should applaud the recent initiatives of such restaurants as Il Fornello on the Danforth which has agreed to only use local produce while in season, and try to follow suit. In addition, during the winter we must try to buy as locally as possible, for example, from British Columbia or Southern U.S. We must also try to buy fruits and vegetables from cold storage of locally grown food, or winter greens grown in hothouses using solar or other environmentally friendly production methods.
There continues to be a tension between pressures to prolong childhood and pressures to accelerate adulthood. There is no single beginning to adulthood or end to childhood. You can drive at 16, school is optional at 16, but you have to wait until you are 18 to vote.
We try as a society to protect our children and their childhood from alcohol, drugs, violence and employment. But the evidence is mounting that our efforts may be failing. For example, there appears to be an increase in serious violence committed by and against teenagers, and many young people are involved in significant drinking and drugs.
Accelerating the arrival of adulthood with respect to voting and positive civic engagement might be a good step. Young people must take mandatory civic classes in school around age 15. Being able to vote at 16 might increase civic awareness and raise the pathetically low turnout we now have among young Canadians with a voting age of 18, not to mention among older Canadians as well. It is certainly worth a try.
There is no single issue called “national unity” because every issue is about what unites us. Every issue concerning people in our community is about what unites us.
National unity is about a creative, compassionate Canada, about how to advance our fascinating, diverse, cosmopolitan society, and promote greater peace and humanity. It is about building up our strength and unity as Canadians so that Canada can make a contribution we can be proud of in our global village.
National unity is all about Canadians working together to make Canada and the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.
National unity is about building a Canada where achievement is measured by our commitment and responsibility to our fellow citizens, not by our level of consumption.
National unity is about building a Canada which is the greenest country on the planet, in which the minister of the environment is on a par with the minister of finance.
National unity in a free and diverse country such as ours is not something that is imposed from the top. Nor is it a vote in a referendum every 5, 10, or 15 years.
National unity is the act of Canadians working together, keeping faith with those who have come before us, to build a country that matches our brightest dreams for the future.
It is about ensuring that we have the tools needed to advance our goals as a nation – institutions that reflect our shared values and that are able to project those values to the world.
We must focus on what we share, and stand up to those who would focus only on our differences. In the inspiring words of our Governor General, Michaelle Jean: “The narrow notion of ‘every person for himself’ does not belong in today’s world, which demands we learn to see beyond our wounds, beyond our differences for the good of all.”
We require a bold and visionary national government to guarantee social and economic justice for all Canadians.
We need a bold and visionary national government to establish the essentials of Canadian citizenship – clean air, clean water, our parks, healthcare, child care, parental leave, public education, equality of opportunity for everyone.
We need a bold and visionary national government to continue to rebuild our international reputation and enhance our influence in our increasingly shrinking world.
Post-Secondary Education
Canada has no national coherence in post-secondary education. The annual education report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in October 2007 noted that Canada was unable to report figures for two-thirds of the information gathered by the other 39 countries covered in the survey (57 out of 96 indicators). Dr. Paul Cappon, president of the Canadian Council of Learning, a non-partisan think-tank on education created by the federal Liberals a few years ago, decries the fact that we do not know where the substantial amount of money transferred for PSE purposes is going.
It is absolutely critical to develop a national strategy to ensure that our colleges and universities are up to the challenge and to be able to measure how we stack up against the competition. We must have a national discussion about what we want from our colleges and universities. The EU, Australia, Germany, Britain, New Zealand, all establish nation-wide goals and objectives for their PSE institutions and align funding with national priorities. Why can’t Canada?
We must develop an effective national strategy to assure access to the full-range of post-secondary options to all qualified students. David Johnston, President of the University of Waterloo, proposes a Canada Learning and Innovation Act which creates a federal-provincial framework to encourage our nation’s talent and implement an integrated system of grants, loans and credits aimed at the 30% plus of families with financial difficulties.
In the 2008 federal budget, the PSE provisions simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Millennium Scholarships are phased out and replaced by a Canada Student Grant Program that may or may not pay out less to somewhat more students, this time on an income-basis, not a needs-basis, through Human Resources Social Development Canada.
Twenty years ago, Canadian universities received $2000 more per student than their U.S. counterparts. Now, Canadian students receive $2000 less. Canada has only won 3 Nobel prizes since 1993, compared to 18 since 1995 in California alone. Budget 2008 does attempt to address the situation: $28 million over 2 years to the Canada Graduate Scholarships Program to support 500 doctoral students. And a further $80 million per year allocated to the 3 granting councils (NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC), as well as some modernization and streamlining of the Canada Students Loans Program. But so much more remains to be done.
Regulation of Payday Loans
Payday loan companies such as MoneyMart and Rentcash frequently charge outrageous borrowing rates to their desperate clients and engage in questionable disclosure and collection practices. It is time for an effective national initiative to ensure adequate regulation of these activities.
Instead, the Harper government, further diminishing the relevance of the federal government, chose only to repeal the relevant section of the Criminal Code dealing with criminal rates of interest in favour of allowing provinces to regulate the activities as part of their consumer protection regimes. Provinces and territories can set limits on the cost of borrowing and regulate the business practices of payday lenders. Admittedly the Criminal Code provision was a clumsy consumer protection tool, having been designed for loan-sharking connected to organized crime. But the provincial regulation, with the obvious exception of Manitoba, is less than adequate. Ontario, for example, has so far only chosen to require additional written disclosure of borrowing costs.
The federal government should, at the very least, draft uniform legislative provisions perhaps modeled on the Manitoba legislation, and persuade provinces to adopt substantially similar legislation. This would require reinvigorating the anemic federal Office of Consumer Affairs which currently does very little. Clear federal guidelines are another option, as is exercising the federal jurisdiction over banking and financial services to (1) encourage our banks to get back into the business of providing this kind of credit and/or (2) support microlending by non-profit financial services centres in low-income neighborhoods. In the meantime, it is absolutely unacceptable that the Royal Bank of Canada and the Toronto Dominion bank have apparently invested in payday loan companies!
Toxic chemicals
We need much more than isolated chemical bans and endless calls for more research. We must insist on much faster action to remove toxic chemicals from our environment and stop tacitly accepting chemical pollution as a price of progress. We need a national ban on the use and sale of pesticides and, for example, a ban on the sale of all products containing the dangerous contaminant, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), whether produced in Canada or imported. We also need right to know legislation to mandate much greater transparency and accountability with respect to releases of toxic substances by businesses.
We must also be cautious in concluding international agreements such as those signed under the Strategic Partnership Plan (SPP) with the U.S. and Mexico in Montebello this summer. We must ensure that the SPP goal of harmonizing chemical regulations in testing, research, information-gathering, assessment and risk management as much as possible by 2012, permits a significant strengthening of the existing Canadian regulatory system.
Trans Fats in Foods and Animal Feed
It is now well-known that trans fats are highly damaging to human health and development, as well as contributing to the obesity challenge we face today. The time is long overdue for a national ban on artificial trans fats in foods as soon as possible. This includes all hydrogenated, partially hydrogenated, modified and shortening oils.
Equally we should remove such artificial “plastic” fats from animal feed, which means that the feeding of trans fats to animals must be banned as well.
It is unacceptable that the federal government has not yet acted on the summer 2006 federal Task Force Report calling for limits on trans fats in foods. The Task Force recommended that trans fats in vegetable oils and margarines be limited to no more than 2% total fat and no more than 5% in other foods. The limits would also cover all foods Canadians consume, from the raw food stage to the finished product, and take effect July 2008 after a one year phase-in period.
While these Task Force recommendations are an encouraging first step, even stronger limits are required to provide consumers with the safest foods possible, beginning with a tightening of the definition of “zero trans fats”. For example, many products we buy today already state that they are trans fats free. However, local activists, who are working with the City of Toronto to ensure trans fats free food for our children in city-run establishments, note with concern that some producers are changing their serving sizes to give only the appearance of a food being trans fat free. Current and recommended regulations allow a producer to label something “trans fat free” if there is less than 0.2 grams trans fats in a serving size. If the serving size is set at a very low level, significantly below what a normal person or child might consume, then a consumer would be mislead into thinking that they are not eating trans fats when in fact they are. For example, a child consuming ten “no trans fats” biscuits with just under 0.2 grams per biscuit serving size, would in fact consume 2 grams of trans fats.
Women in Politics
I strongly believe that we need more women in politics. I share the aims of such groups as Equal Voice which has demanded that all political parties prove their commitment to women’s equality and take action to ensure the nomination and election of more women. Despite constituting over 50 per cent of the population, women now make up only 20.8 per cent of the House of Commons. The United Nations estimates that a critical mass of 30 per cent of female legislators is required to ensure that public policy reflects the needs of women. Equal Voice notes that Canada now ranks 47th in the world and behind Mauritania, Uganda, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of women elected to its national parliament.
Youth in Crisis
We have a responsibility as citizens to help pull our communities together to figure out how some of our young people are so marginalized to the point that they have no empathy, no compassion, no conscience.
How do we repair this tear in our social fabric? Is it because we have turned our backs on critical social programs? Do we lack community centres, schools open into the evenings, places where young people can meet and come together without getting into trouble? Do we attach too high a value to materialism? Do we lack good citizenship, social solidarity, strangers helping strangers, friends responsible for friends? Have we spent too much time talking about our differences, instead of what unites us?
We must find the answers with an urgency and determination unparalleled in recent times.