In the June issue of The Walrus, Roy J. Romanow - former (and long-time) premier of Saskatchewan and the commissioner on the Future of Health Care in Canada - argues for a return to Canadian values, and to a strong national identity.
A House Half BuiltRomanow then outlines several related, and, to him, disturbing trends: unchecked decentralization, individualism and privatization, a climate where "unbridled competition appears to be the new orthodoxy. ... The result is a bizarre redefinition of Canadian federalism from one based on greater co-operation to one of greater compartmentalization. The delicate Canadian balance between nation and enterprise, between the individual and community, is imperiled, all under the pretext of building national unity."
by Roy J. Romanow
There have been two moments in my life when I have felt truly concerned about the future of Canada. Then and now.
On the night of the 1995 Quebec referendum, I participated in a live television panel in Montreal. As the results poured in and the nation swept back and forth between apprehension and hope, I tried to suppress a gut-wrenching feeling that all might be lost. The final tally, narrow as it was, meant that Canada could renew its commitment to federalism and national unity. That was then.
Now, my anxiety is occasioned not by the drama of one critical evening, nor by the potential loss of a province that contributes so much to what makes Canada unique and distinct, but by the erosion of this country's legacy and values, and by the growing assault on policies based on that legacy. We are again at a pivotal moment in our history and, frankly, many more of us need to stand up for a country based on fairness, opportunity, respect, and balance between the individual and society. The current political culture militates against visionary leadership and active citizen participation, but if Canada is to remain progressive, united, and strong enough to meet tomorrow's challenges, it must change course.
At stake is the legacy of a century of nation-builders and the cornerstone of the Canadian idea: that our social contract is one of shared destiny.
The disturbing trends he enumerates are all found in greater quantities in the US, in a sense marking the difference between the two countries as one of degree, not kind. However, Romanow doesn't concern himself with the US - that's my own editorial comment.
According to Romanow, these trends are a relatively recent development, not supported by history, and they can and should be reversed.
An agenda for a renewed national purpose requires a return to co-operative federalism as the vehicle to solve Canada's major problems. Our leaders - governmental, corporate, and community - must be guided by the overarching principle of what the national good demands, and solutions to challenging issues must be openly debated.Set aside a half hour of your day and read the whole essay here. Then let's talk.
This agenda could also encompass a made-in-Canada economic strategy that provides short-term financial opportunity and longer-term prosperity, and that lessens our dependence on the US by boldly developing new markets. At the same time, we must dramatically increase the size and vigour of Canadian businesses and, partly to protect the country from global recessions, expand Canada's internal markets. And this must be done in the context of advancing workers' rights,ensuring that a forty-hour workweek provides a decent wage, improving our natural environment, and demanding that the political rights of those who live in the lands of our trading partners are respected.
The income-security system, one of Canada's social-justice hallmarks, is in trouble. We must modernize it and reinvest in it. Similarly, the country can afford a national affordable-housing program and universal child care, and to at last honour the rights of aboriginal peoples to healthy lives, equal opportunity, and a share in the country's bounty. A renaissance in education and research and increasing access to university and college by lessening the financial burden would spur economic development and innovation.
In health care, the provinces need to do the heavy lifting involved in properly re-engineering the universal system: using new money to buy real change, developing effective programs on disease prevention and well-being, providing for independent auditing, and telling their electorates that it will take seven years to achieve these goals, not seven months. Playing around with private-delivery health-care options is the default position of those governments that have not had the courage to innovate within the public model.
Similarly, supporting Canada's unique cultural identity through what we see on television, hear on radio, and read in newspapers, magazines, and books, will produce genuine dividends. It's time to restore our cultural sovereignty over the airwaves through generous investments in the arts and in broadcasting; and it is time to affirm the democratic commons and bring legislative remedy to the unacceptable concentration of media in the hands of a few.
International prominence comes not just from enterprising businesses. Canada should recapture its reputation as a world leader in building peace and sharing prosperity through our international objectives. It is unimaginable how far we have slipped. Canada's foreign-aid spending, for example, is a national embarrassment. And imagine a bold and dramatic national environmental initiative to restore our damaged biosphere. Imagine corporate- and government-sponsored research dedicated to making Canada a world leader in environmentally sensitive new technologies.
I can hear the protests and rebuttals to this modest down payment on a better Canada: "Cost. What would all this cost?" It is a reasonable, albeit predictable, question, but the fiscal capacity necessary to achieve our shared destiny is well within our reach. Just look at accumulated federal surpluses; just look at the rising trend in corporate tax benefits. We must demand investment. After all, isn't it a fact that a progressive society is shouldered on the foundations of a progressive tax system and progressive social policies?
8 comments:
You're right: it's easy to get complacent (not to mention that it'a also very Canadian) when you compare what is happening here with the more dramatic and disturbing events south of the 49th. However, it reminds me of that experiment where a frog (or whatever it is) gets boiled to death by gradually heating water. He adapts his body temperature to the slow process and doesn't notice until it's too late.
That's one of the reasons often given for Americans' complacency, for their seeming acceptance of such a terrible status quo: the slowly boiled frog.
On the other hand, I am always arguing that Canada is so very different than the US. But we can't let it fall down the slippery slope.
Thank you so much for posting this Laura! That pretty much sums up every uneasy feeling I've had about the direction this country is going in over the last 10 years.
You've always seemed confident that Canada will not become more like the US. But I think we've already gone too far down that road. I mean 10 years ago, just talking about private health-care was akin to political suicide. Nowadays, we've got people on all sides of the political spectrum acting like universal healthcare is a huge failure and a broken system.
Here's hoping that Romanow decides to run for liberal leadership. I'd vote for him in heartbeat.
You've always seemed confident that Canada will not become more like the US.
I know what you're saying, but that's not quite it. I'm confident that Canada will not become the US - that no matter how much Canada heads in that direction, it will never be as bad.
I think a lot of Canadians don't realize just how bad it is in the US, so when they say "like the US," they're coming from a place of relative ignorance. (See the recent post about the fraudulent presidential election, for example.)
But I think we've already gone too far down that road.
Right - and that's a separate issue. Thanks for reading the article! I hope many people do.
Here's hoping that Romanow decides to run for liberal leadership. I'd vote for him in heartbeat.
I also wanted to note that most of these changes happened under Liberal leadership. So unless the Liberals change their tune, they're not the answer.
I also wanted to note that most of these changes happened under Liberal leadership. So unless the Liberals change their tune, they're not the answer.
Agreed. That's why they need someone like Romanow. Someone from outside the party, with good ideas and experience.
The harsh reality is that the NDP aren't going to form government (or even official opposition) in the next 5 years. Not when people like my father, who agrees with 90% of their platform, still won't vote for them. For the simple reason that they're "NDP" and can't be trusted with the country's finances. Yet if you package the same policies as "Liberal", he suddenly trusts them to be more responsible.
The only solution is to bring some NDP blood into the liberal party.
The harsh reality is that the NDP aren't going to form government (or even official opposition) in the next 5 years.
I know the NDP won't form a government, but I don't bank on the Liberals becoming more liberal. It would go against all trends. It would be great to see, tho.
But I also wouldn't be so sure that the NDP won't form an official opposition.
But I also wouldn't be so sure that the NDP won't form an official opposition.
Oops, I didn't mean that. I meant hold the balance of power. This system's still new to me - I got my terminology mixed up!
Post a Comment