Canada West Foundation Blog

Last Friday Prime Minister Harper appointed Salma Ataullahjan to fill the last Senate vacancy. Ms. Ataullahjan is a former Conservative candidate and has pledged to support the Conservative government’s efforts to reform the Senate. Considering the fact that with this appointment, the Conservatives have the same number of voting members in the Upper Chamber as the Liberals and independents combined, the possibility of Senate reform is greater now than ever! But, as the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson noted, Senate reform is “a subject that animates a few Canadians and bores the rest.”

This does not mean that the Senate is not an important issue. The Canadian Senate needs reforming— it is undemocratic and, although intended to be a regional balance to the House of Commons, it is not an effective regional voice in Ottawa. Reform has the potential to make the Senate more representative and to improve the functioning of the Canadian political machine.

Yet, as a young(ish) person concerned with issues of public policy—a self proclaimed policy wonk wannabe—even I struggle to care about Senate reform.

Why?

For one, Senate reform is not a “sexy” issue like climate change or animal rights. Therefore, you do not see protestors out scaling the walls of parliament to hang giant banners demanding that the Canadian Senate be reformed.

But it is more than that.

Senate reform does not address the issues that really matter. There are much more pressing issues in Canadian politics, like citizen disillusionment with government and politics. Only 58.8% of eligible Canadians voted in the 2008 federal election. The issue is even more prominent among young Canadians as only 37.4% of this sector of the population voted in the same election! Voter apathy is often attributed to increased identification requirements, people being too busy to vote and even “lazy, incompetent young people.” But, perhaps the most common reason given is that people increasingly just do not care about politics.

However, according to Statistics Canada, the reality is that people (particularly youth), “are interested in political issues,” and “committed to the tenets of democracy,” but they are, “wary of politicians.”  So, what the voting statistics really are is a symptom of Canadian politics lacking: 1) trust in politicians, and 2) long-term vision on the part of our policymakers. What our politicians are selling, Canadians just aren’t buying!

This should not be a surprise. To the first point, the question has been asked in countless polls: whom do you trust? The answer is usually the same. Doctors and nurses tend to come first, the police are near the top, and journalists and politicians rank at the very bottom.

To the second point, we see a government that tends to launch attacks at people rather than policy. Our political leaders seem most concerned about how their actions are going to play out in public opinion polls rather than thinking about how they will impact Canada’s future. They are not rock stars whose job it is to entertain. Politicians should be thinking about what Canada can and should be and what needs to be done to get us there.  They should be thinking about the next five or ten years, not just the next five or ten minutes.

That is what matters. If you want people to care, you need to address the issues that matter. Citizen disillusionment with politicians and the political system is one major issue, one not addressed by the current Senate reform proposals. Again, it is not that the issue of Senate reform does not have merit.  However, tinkering with the mechanics of the Senate when people are increasingly apathetic about democracy is a little bit like a pilot fiddling with his headset when the plane is crashing—it really just misses the point. People do not care— and they won’t—at least not until the bigger fish are fried.

Posted by: Candice Powley

On Wednesday, the Canada West Foundation in conjunction with The Centre for Public Policy and Law at York University, hosted a forum on Senate reform. From across Canada academics, policy analysts, a few former Senators and even a Senator elect were brought together to re-invigorate the Senate reform debate.

Watch Senate Reform Forum archived webcasts

The question at hand was not whether or not to reform Senate but, to what ends should the Senate be reformed?

As we at the Canada West Foundation have previously noted, discussion of Senate reform tends to become bogged down by the details such that we have lost the forest for the trees. This forum took a step back and examined at what the fundamental purpose of the Senate is, or at least what it should be.

Before going any further, you may notice from the list of participants that not only the usual suspects were involved in this debate. This alone is important to note. For too long the Senate reform debate has occurred only amongst individuals living west of Winnipeg and has been equated with “the West wanting in.” HOWEVER, the reality is that there are important reasons why Senate reform is necessary—reasons which concern ALL Canadians.

So what are those reasons?

A Senate – For Whom? For What?
After a lot of good discussion there was consensus on a few things the Senate should be:

#1 – The Senate should be a place of “sober second thought.”

#2 – The Senate should be a place where public policy is improved.

#3 – The Senate should be representative of Canadians ways that the House of Commons is not.

#4 – The Senate should provide a check on the powers of the Prime Minister.

Do these seem like reasonable conclusions about what the Senate should be doing? Even if you are not convinced that we should bother reforming the Senate for those reasons, let’s flip the question around: why shouldn’t we reform the Senate? Why should we maintain the status quo when the majority of Canadians are not sold on the importance of the Senate? Why does the burden of proof always seem to lie with those who want change?

Overall, this forum allowed for a lot of good discussion and I think it would be safe to say it was a good start to answering some of the fundamental questions that need to be answered before getting to the nitty gritty of Senate reform.

But, one thing I was left uncertain about was whether these reasons capture the imagination of Canadians… Are you convinced?

Related:
Forum on Senate reform seeks to ignite national debate
What’s an elected Senate for?
Watch Senate Reform Forum archived webcasts

Posted By: Candice Powley

The recent presentation of Canada at the Vancouver Olympics was full of images of open fields, vast spaces of ice and ocean, and plenty of wildlife from Orcas to beavers. Much of the Olympic clothing was plaid—the traditional fabric print of choice for lumberjacks. Our coinage supports this image with pictures of a maple leaf, a beaver, a polar bear and a boat. To quote George Elliot Clarke, “Our national self-image has been so indelibly constructed by the iconic Group of Seven painters and Emily Carr… we imagine ourselves as a wilderness people…” This perception is particularly true of western Canada with its fields and mountains.

However, the reality is we are NOT a wilderness nation, we ARE an urbanized one. Over 80% of western Canadians reside in an urban area of some kind. Yes, we are home to vast amounts of wilderness but, for most people, life is not intimately linked to the sights and sounds of Mother Nature. The closest many get to ‘nature’ is references to them living in an urban jungle (or because this is Canada we are referring to, perhaps a more apt reference is to an urban forest?).

Speaking of urban jungles…
Recently, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) released a report looking at the challenge of a growing reliance by many vulnerable groups on urban municipal social services.

Environics also released a report highlighting Aboriginal peoples’ increasingly significant presence in Canadian cities and the challenges they face. This report, among other things, notes that many aboriginals living in urban centers are underrepresented in municipal organizations.

This is but a couple of examples issues facing cities. Increasing social division, infrastructure development and environmental degradation are chief among other challenges. None of which are small feats to tackle.

However, municipal governments are afforded little in the way of resources to take on such a large role. According to FCM’s report, cities are doing what they can to fill the gaps created by inefficiencies in federal and provincial programs with the mere 8 cents of every tax dollar they receive. Consequently, as cities suffer from a lack of policy and fiscal tools necessary to address their economic and social needs, there have been difficult trade-offs made.

Steps, commendable ones, have been taken by the federal government over the past few years with increased funding for municipalities. In the last budget the federal gas tax fund was doubled from $1 to $2 billion a year and funding was budgeted for various infrastructure and transit funds. However, this funding continues to be ad-hoc in nature and limited primarily to supporting the development of infrastructure.

What to do…
Change needs to be made to balance of power and taxation capabilities between provinces and cities. Leaders of urban centers need to be empowered with appropriate tax tools and policy capabilities as they are the ones with ‘front line’ knowledge of cities’ needs. With better funding mechanisms in place, cities would be in a better position to address their most pressing needs—needs that cover the large majority of the population in our highly urbanized region. The onus lies with the provincial governments to initiate these changes as cities are essentially their wards.

And, it needs to be done before these troubling urban issues become even more pronounced. Failing to do so could undermine the long-term development of cities, and negatively impact western Canada as a whole.

It seems to me none of this is going to happen if we keep thinking of ourselves as a wilderness nation.

Posted By: Candice Powley

This past month I have had the opportunity to attend various panel discussions and participated in numerous dinner conversations regarding environmental policy. It never fails that there are questions raised about the science of climate change:

Is global warming really happening? And even if it is, are human emissions contributing to the problem or is it a natural development?

The implication of asking such question seems to be that if you are unconvinced by the science behind climate change, then environmental policies or green trends are somehow less relevant, but I do not think that’s the case.

Why? Because the public perceptions on climate change are having profound impacts individual behaviours, regardless of existing science and statistics. You do not need to look far to see plenty of evidence of this.

For example, this week the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), along with nine other industry associations, launched a PR blitz dubbed “Alberta is Energy” to promote the role of oil and gas in the province’s economy. This is in response to the recent heat the industry has received over concerns regarding its environmental impact, and is an obvious proactive move to try to influence public perceptions and attitudes towards oil and gas.

There are numerous other examples of how the ‘green movement’ has shifted our economic and political agendas.

In the Economy…

Entire new industries have been built around environmental products, which economists now refer to as the ‘green collar’ sector of the economy. Additionally, existing companies are increasingly ‘greening’ their products (or at least the marketing of their products).

According to Statistics Canada, Canadian industries earned approximately $18.5 billion in revenue from sales of environmental goods and services in 2004. The World Watch Institute estimates that globally, the market for environmental goods and services is around US $1,370 billion per year and will double that by 2020.

In Politics…

The fact that there is a Green Party in Canadian politics is telling. AND, the party held enough clout to deserve a spot at the table in the last election’s leadership debate.

Federal and provincial governments have also allocated increasingly large portions of their budgets to green initiatives.

Over the past year, worldwide green investments were estimated to be about 15% of the $3.1 trillion in global economic stimulus investments.

Some may wonder why people have chosen to go green despite continued questions about the science of climate change. We may do so to err on the side of caution, or in response to a green marketing gimmick or just to simply feel good to be doing something for the environment and our children’s future.

Regardless, the future is going green—that is the reality forged by these patterns of behaviour. Those that argue over the technicalities of whether or not climate change can be prevented miss the point that a public mindset change has already happened.

We need to stop seeing red over the debate about going green because right or wrong green is here and now.

Posted By: Candice Powley

As noted by the Canada West Foundation CEO, Roger Gibbins, “(Prime Minister) Stephen Harper has floated the notion of Canada as a clean-energy super-power. That has a nice ring to it, but it implies there is a policy to get us there, but we don’t have that policy!”

Why don’t we have such a policy? Getting public policy just right is a tricky task at the best of times and with climate change it is particularly challenging.  Policy makers need the right tools and good information to help them tackle the issues and develop good policies that will realistically work.  Trying to formulate good policy without good research is like trying to build a house without a hammer.

Finding the Right Tools

On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion that took a closer look at climate change policy.  An event co-hosted by the Canada West Foundation (CWF), the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) and the Haskayne School of Business entitled: “The Economic Impact of Reducing CO2 Emissions: Regional Disparities and How To Mitigate Them”.  Reports were presented from the Pembina Institute, Canada West Foundation and IRPP on the issue of climate change and then the floor was opened up for Q&A.

I was encouraged to learn that there is good research going on to find the right tools that will help build climate change policy that might work for all regions in Canada.   In particular IRPP report by Tracy Snodden and Randall Wigle, “Clearing the Air on Federal and Provincial Climate Change Policy in Canada,” starts a good discussion of how a regional beneficial climate change policy could work.

Nuts and Bolts

The IRPP report considers that: a) in Canada both the federal and provincial governments share a responsibility for the environment but that current system of climate change in Canada is fragmented; b) while the environmental impact of each unit of reduced emissions is the same everywhere, the economic impact per unit is not consistent and; c) the US and its policies are an influencing factor.

Their proposal is a federal carbon tax with provincial revenue sharing of that tax revenue as an incentive to mitigate and offset the economic impact.

The idea has some merit, a federal carbon tax is:

• easily implementable;
• generates revenue which could go back to the provinces to reduce burden-sharing concerns tied to emissions reduction;
• increases efficiency; and
• is NOT off-putting to the US, helping Canadian industry to avoid border adjustments while having the ability to co-exist with a US cap and trade system.

Real World Planning

I believe the value in this report is twofold.  First, it presents a real plan to reduce emissions while considering the regional economic AND political impacts on the West.   It addresses issues of inequity which are often overlooked and makes a real attempt at mitigating potential disproportional harm.  It also takes into consideration the influence of our neighbour to the south and offers way which allows us to step up to the plate while not shooting ourselves in the foot in the process.  And second, this piece demonstrates good policy research.

If our policy-makers are going to develop good policy, they need nuanced research like this to help guide them.

Posted By: Candice Powley