加拿大 in 20 years?
My friend Riley Hennessey came up with a brilliant question over at his blog: what would we want Canada to look like in 20 years?
(Of course, by 'look' we mean strictly policy-wise looks... although it would be interesting if Canada became entirely turquoise by 2020...)
His list:
Compelled as always by my startling lack of originality, I thought I would offer my own list. Rather than trying to outdo Riley's list, I thought it would be useful to be complimentary and tackle issues not mentioned in his post. Most of them are foreign policy-related. And keep in mind that, despite the length, this list is by no means exhaustive. Here goes... In 20 years, I would like to see a Canada that...
-Has met its 0.7 per cent GDP commitment to aid. The last official line from the government was that it would make an effort to pull its aid commitments out of the current rut -- we sit at about 0.28 per cent of our GDP, or about USD $2.9 billion -- and move it up to the magic 0.7 percentage that’s been promised for decades. If we did so, we should also limit the number of countries that receive our aid, giving more dollars to fewer countries instead of a few dollars to many countries. We can compensate nations cut out of our aid roster by coordinating aid efforts with other OECD nations — we'll cover their half of one nation if they cover our half of another, for example — so that worldwide aid efforts are more focussed, streamlined, and effective;
-Has reworked the post-secondary education funding formula so that PSE grants to the provinces go through a dedicated transfer that is separate from the CST lump transfer. This transfer would furthermore be based on the student population in a province, not the province's overall population (changing this formula would more than double the amount of money Nova Scotia would have to spend on PSE — we're the hardest hit province in the country in terms of funding education because we have the highest proportion of out-of-province PSE students in Canada... nor would such a change totally aversely effect the province now benefiting from the formula, namely British Columbia);
-Has offered major tax-incentives to clean businesses and car manufacturers/sellers who pursue green-friendly business models (this should be coupled with major tax incentives for consumers to purchase things such organic foods and hybrid cars);
-HAs overhauled its military so that it can better react, independently, to nation-building situations such as Afghanistan. While this might spell the need for larger defence budgets, it is important we specialize our military so that it is best suited for Canada's specific foreign policy mandate: nation-building, peacekeeping, and post-conflict policing. There won't be another conventional World War, but there will be more Afghanistans, Haitis, and Sudans, and we need to be able to react to them effectively and on our own. No more piggybacking with the Americans. No more waiting for NATO or UNSC go-aheads over genocides that will be over before these institutions lift a finger. And no more trying to cover every base — we should concern the Canadian forces only with nation-building enterprises, natural disaster relief, and the monitoring of our oceans;
-Has reformed all provincial electoral systems so that they follow a facsimile of the PR system now being considered in British Columbia (taken from N. Ireland). Other good models for effective PR include Germany and Japan, where Canada's FPP single-member plurality system is mixed with regional proportional voting to produce a more proportional legislature. This sort of reform won't solve the democratic deficit, but it will help reduce 'wasted votes' and the widespread distrust in the effectiveness and fairness of our electoral system;
-Has recognized the increasing importance of cities by politically separating Canada's five major urban conurbations from their surrounding provinces. This would include Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and possibly Ottawa-Gatineau. This is a major political undertaking that has worked wonders to increase rural-urban awareness and allow the sharp differences in policy needs between either to be properly addressed;
-Has made great attempts to become more involved in Asian political forums. Canada has tried to lessen its economic and political dependence on the U.S. for decades. The burgeoning economies of China, South Korea, India, and a reborn Japan present Canada with a vital opportunity to diversify its trading portfolio beyond its neighbour to the south. These four countries collectively represent nearly half of the world’s population. By 2025, they will comprise at least half of itm China and India both reaching 1.5 billion residents each. All four countries do not have the natural resources they require to maintain even a marginal level of economic modernization. As a result, China has become the world's largest importer of coal, steel, cement, oil, even grain. All of these are found in abundance in Canada. We’ve so far made attempts to court Chinese and Indian business with fairly good results. But Asia's need for oil and water and Canada's willingness to supply it may hit an impasse when the increasingly unsustainable life enjoyed in the Western portion of the U.S. suddenly goes belly-up and requires resources from abroad — namely, Canadian water and oil. We must take steps to integrate ourselves into the growing Asian political dialogue so that we are not left alone to fend off the world's only two superpowers when these scarcities become a reality. And political integration in a cooperative Asia-Pacific can also work toward fostering a better U.S.-China relationship: by tapping mutual concerns and interests, Canada can ensure that U.S.-China-Japan communication lines stay open, and that a "new cold war" over the Pacific remains a distant fantasy enjoyed only by neo-realists and Pentagon kooks;
-Has secured itself against terrorism by participating fully with international terrorist watchdogs, dedicating itself to promoting aid and human rights legislation abroad, and maintaining some neutrality when it comes to Israel-Palestine-Lebanon-Syria relations;
And a Canada that has...
-made sure that it stands the forefront of international social liberalism. Decades from now, human rights historians will look to Canada as having paved the way for future norms: women's rights, black rights, gay rights, minority rights, and a working model of immigration and integration. We must make sure that it keeps 'working.' Part of this will come about when more political power is given to cities, where most immigrants reside. Another part must come from redeveloping our immigration policies themselves. Reducing the barriers to professions now faced by immigrants will be key as our domestic population shrinks and the demand for licensed practitioners increases.
* * *
Overall, I see a Canada that has recognized the need for an international leadership that is based on promoting consensus and cooperation but that is not afraid to take charge and make committments. I see a Canada that has gone into its past looking for a lesson it can use in the future: the functional principle as a pillar of Foreign Policy. Canada is a middle power that has lost a lot of ground in international spheres since its maxim in the 1950s. It can regain that ground — and be taken seriously — by combining focussed political efforts with a dedicated stream of resources. Instead of trying to be everything to everyone and doing so without putting any money up front, Canada should focus on what it does best: playing sober second thought to sometimes-brash Western policies, and being a voice of progress in the testy international spectrum. Instead of simply talking about Darfur, we should do something about it. Instead of simply talking about human rights, we should make sure we are at the forefront of international human rights initiatives. We should limit our scattershot foreign aid to fewer countries in consultation with other OECD countries (who will do the same) so that no developing nation is “left behind,” and we should challenge our military to re-envision itself as post-conflict force that can do the job better than anyone else. Even more importantly, we should take steps to ensure that our cities do not become breeding grounds for cross-cultural violence and antagonistic socioeconomic disparities. In 20 years, Canada can regain its once relevant international voice — but it should speak only when and where, to use the colloquial, it can “put its money where its mouth is.”
(Of course, by 'look' we mean strictly policy-wise looks... although it would be interesting if Canada became entirely turquoise by 2020...)
His list:
- Fully or greatly subsidized post secondary education to the equivalent of one undergraduate degree for all Canadian citizens.
- 20 new medical research and treatment facilities around the country
- full prescription pharmaceutical plans for every Canadian citizen
- clean transportation technology (ie new fuel cells, high biofuel engines in all government vehicles and federal transportation jurisdictions)
- every city able to fully treat all its sewage and drainage systems so that our rivers, lakes and oceans are no longer plagued by waste
- a complete national energy grid providing secure, clean energy access to every part of the country providing for more free and balanced energy trading between provinces.
- federal and provincially partnered low income housing projects built to run on renewable energy in every capital city across the country.
Compelled as always by my startling lack of originality, I thought I would offer my own list. Rather than trying to outdo Riley's list, I thought it would be useful to be complimentary and tackle issues not mentioned in his post. Most of them are foreign policy-related. And keep in mind that, despite the length, this list is by no means exhaustive. Here goes... In 20 years, I would like to see a Canada that...
-Has met its 0.7 per cent GDP commitment to aid. The last official line from the government was that it would make an effort to pull its aid commitments out of the current rut -- we sit at about 0.28 per cent of our GDP, or about USD $2.9 billion -- and move it up to the magic 0.7 percentage that’s been promised for decades. If we did so, we should also limit the number of countries that receive our aid, giving more dollars to fewer countries instead of a few dollars to many countries. We can compensate nations cut out of our aid roster by coordinating aid efforts with other OECD nations — we'll cover their half of one nation if they cover our half of another, for example — so that worldwide aid efforts are more focussed, streamlined, and effective;
-Has reworked the post-secondary education funding formula so that PSE grants to the provinces go through a dedicated transfer that is separate from the CST lump transfer. This transfer would furthermore be based on the student population in a province, not the province's overall population (changing this formula would more than double the amount of money Nova Scotia would have to spend on PSE — we're the hardest hit province in the country in terms of funding education because we have the highest proportion of out-of-province PSE students in Canada... nor would such a change totally aversely effect the province now benefiting from the formula, namely British Columbia);
-Has offered major tax-incentives to clean businesses and car manufacturers/sellers who pursue green-friendly business models (this should be coupled with major tax incentives for consumers to purchase things such organic foods and hybrid cars);
-HAs overhauled its military so that it can better react, independently, to nation-building situations such as Afghanistan. While this might spell the need for larger defence budgets, it is important we specialize our military so that it is best suited for Canada's specific foreign policy mandate: nation-building, peacekeeping, and post-conflict policing. There won't be another conventional World War, but there will be more Afghanistans, Haitis, and Sudans, and we need to be able to react to them effectively and on our own. No more piggybacking with the Americans. No more waiting for NATO or UNSC go-aheads over genocides that will be over before these institutions lift a finger. And no more trying to cover every base — we should concern the Canadian forces only with nation-building enterprises, natural disaster relief, and the monitoring of our oceans;
-Has reformed all provincial electoral systems so that they follow a facsimile of the PR system now being considered in British Columbia (taken from N. Ireland). Other good models for effective PR include Germany and Japan, where Canada's FPP single-member plurality system is mixed with regional proportional voting to produce a more proportional legislature. This sort of reform won't solve the democratic deficit, but it will help reduce 'wasted votes' and the widespread distrust in the effectiveness and fairness of our electoral system;
-Has recognized the increasing importance of cities by politically separating Canada's five major urban conurbations from their surrounding provinces. This would include Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and possibly Ottawa-Gatineau. This is a major political undertaking that has worked wonders to increase rural-urban awareness and allow the sharp differences in policy needs between either to be properly addressed;
-Has made great attempts to become more involved in Asian political forums. Canada has tried to lessen its economic and political dependence on the U.S. for decades. The burgeoning economies of China, South Korea, India, and a reborn Japan present Canada with a vital opportunity to diversify its trading portfolio beyond its neighbour to the south. These four countries collectively represent nearly half of the world’s population. By 2025, they will comprise at least half of itm China and India both reaching 1.5 billion residents each. All four countries do not have the natural resources they require to maintain even a marginal level of economic modernization. As a result, China has become the world's largest importer of coal, steel, cement, oil, even grain. All of these are found in abundance in Canada. We’ve so far made attempts to court Chinese and Indian business with fairly good results. But Asia's need for oil and water and Canada's willingness to supply it may hit an impasse when the increasingly unsustainable life enjoyed in the Western portion of the U.S. suddenly goes belly-up and requires resources from abroad — namely, Canadian water and oil. We must take steps to integrate ourselves into the growing Asian political dialogue so that we are not left alone to fend off the world's only two superpowers when these scarcities become a reality. And political integration in a cooperative Asia-Pacific can also work toward fostering a better U.S.-China relationship: by tapping mutual concerns and interests, Canada can ensure that U.S.-China-Japan communication lines stay open, and that a "new cold war" over the Pacific remains a distant fantasy enjoyed only by neo-realists and Pentagon kooks;
-Has secured itself against terrorism by participating fully with international terrorist watchdogs, dedicating itself to promoting aid and human rights legislation abroad, and maintaining some neutrality when it comes to Israel-Palestine-Lebanon-Syria relations;
And a Canada that has...
-made sure that it stands the forefront of international social liberalism. Decades from now, human rights historians will look to Canada as having paved the way for future norms: women's rights, black rights, gay rights, minority rights, and a working model of immigration and integration. We must make sure that it keeps 'working.' Part of this will come about when more political power is given to cities, where most immigrants reside. Another part must come from redeveloping our immigration policies themselves. Reducing the barriers to professions now faced by immigrants will be key as our domestic population shrinks and the demand for licensed practitioners increases.
* * *
Overall, I see a Canada that has recognized the need for an international leadership that is based on promoting consensus and cooperation but that is not afraid to take charge and make committments. I see a Canada that has gone into its past looking for a lesson it can use in the future: the functional principle as a pillar of Foreign Policy. Canada is a middle power that has lost a lot of ground in international spheres since its maxim in the 1950s. It can regain that ground — and be taken seriously — by combining focussed political efforts with a dedicated stream of resources. Instead of trying to be everything to everyone and doing so without putting any money up front, Canada should focus on what it does best: playing sober second thought to sometimes-brash Western policies, and being a voice of progress in the testy international spectrum. Instead of simply talking about Darfur, we should do something about it. Instead of simply talking about human rights, we should make sure we are at the forefront of international human rights initiatives. We should limit our scattershot foreign aid to fewer countries in consultation with other OECD countries (who will do the same) so that no developing nation is “left behind,” and we should challenge our military to re-envision itself as post-conflict force that can do the job better than anyone else. Even more importantly, we should take steps to ensure that our cities do not become breeding grounds for cross-cultural violence and antagonistic socioeconomic disparities. In 20 years, Canada can regain its once relevant international voice — but it should speak only when and where, to use the colloquial, it can “put its money where its mouth is.”
posted by C. LaRoche at
17:28
4...thoughts from my fellow Saturnalians:
Chris,
I like most of your ideas. I don't know about making major cities politically seperate from their provinces, though. I think it may do more to exacerbate the rural/urban divide, at least in the Canadian setting.
You're spot on in regards to the military. Problem is that any time the words "military spending" are uttered, people get up in arms. Generally, they are the same people who then cry bloody murder when we don't do enough in Darfur...go figure.
Mixed Member Plurality has to happen. It just does.
By
Anonymous, at Tue Aug 01, 10:12:00 p.m. ADT
From what I've been told, the military transformation is underway -- this doesn't mean I'm going to leave it off my list, though.
The city-province idea is not a unique one -- it's been done in most European and Asian countries -- but it's still quite out on the fringes in the Canadian political landscape. The key here is not to try and adjust the rural-urban divide, but to realize there is one. In the provincial unit, cities have very little power. They have no taxing powers to speak of, and no real voice within federalism. Statistically, this is absurd, considering Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are all BIGGER than the maritimes EACH. More people live in Toronto and Montreal each than do in Alberta. And, at the end of the day, Alberta has almost infinite say over what it does with its money while Toronto, a much more important economic hub with more people and more jobs, has none.
Where I am really concerned isn't so much in powers of spending, but where urban agendas should have more of a say in national ones -- powergrids, immigration policies, social welfare, etc. Cities have very little interest in a wealth of Canadian policies (agriculture, etc.) and I believe carving them out of their surrounding provinces would help provide urban-specific legislation and additional political opportunity for the cities. It would also allow provinces to focus on rural issues. I don't mean creating a province of Toronto -- Toronto would remain in Ontario -- but I do mean giving Toronto more spending responsibilities and more taxing powers at the provincial level.
I agree with you on PR. It is a must. I've done a few studies on electoral reform, however, and I feel we should also stick to our FPP system. Something like what BC is doing is probably too complex and wild. Something more like Japan, where they have the same system as us but elect half of the house on a PR basis, would be ideal. NDP would gain seats, bloc would lose some, and the major political parties -- conservatives and liberals, who usually haven't been that far off of their popular percentages -- wouldn't fluctuate wildly.
By
C. LaRoche, at Tue Aug 01, 10:38:00 p.m. ADT
Chris,
This is an interesting subject; one I know little about but have heard about. There is a guy doing his MA on that at Dal on a part-time basis, or maybe he's done.
My first reaction is to be opposed but I'm not so sure. A few questions though - you say that Toronto would still be part of Ontario, so how exactly is it seperate? Would giving the cities a seat at the table during provincial-federal meetings, Council of the federation meetings, etc suffice? What cities might qualify? Those over 1 million people?
Also, couldn't the different policy needs of rural and urban people be solved without this measure? I think that such a move would go further to ensure that the concerns of urban Canada were addressed than it would to address the "sharp" differences between urban and rural Canadians
By
Saskatory, at Thu Aug 10, 11:36:00 p.m. ADT
Hey Kevin. I'm not an expert on the subject, but there seem to be a few models out there we can look at. The problem is that at a certain point cities either become so large geographically or so important monetarily that they either dominate the agendas of the province they're in (let's say GTA in Ontario), or they get snubbed as a means of promoting rural agendas (Halifax in N.S., for example). Political representation in both the U.S. and Canada is heavily skewed in favour of rural areas; urban areas, on the other hand, are growing. One solution to the growth factor was the idea of amalgamation, which hasn't worked in many cases because of the diverse needs of various communities within a city (Montreal has partially de-amalgamated, for example). Still, some urban affairs analysts feel that the cities would be able to do a lot better if their particular agendas didn't have to compete with rural ones in the provincial landscape. A lot of this comes down to a city's ability to raise taxes and spend it how it wants; at the moment, most cities are extremely limited in this respect and need federal or provincial funding to take on major projects. Take the commonwealth games in Halifax, for example. Such an event would need a lot of provincial dollars, which partially come from all the other areas in N.S. — on that issue, MLAs from rural areas in Nova Scotia, which are overrepresented in the house, could vote against funding a Halifax-only initiative.
Another major issue is cities' ability to lobby federal immigration policies. Cities are absorbing the vast amount of Canada's immigrants, but they have no real say on who gets in and where. Considering immigrant integration is ultimately going to fall to city reponsibility, this seems a bit bizarre.
Finally, there is the matter of economics. This is a bit more of a controversial issue since separating cities from provinces economically would skew Canada's political landscape quite a bit. To give you an idea, if Toronto had the taxing powers of Alberta, it would produce larger surpluses and be a much larger economy overall. In fact, GTA is the largest single economic unit in Canada outside of Ontario (which it is counted in, obviously; if cut out, it eclipses Ontario). Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and the Edmonton-Calgary corridor produce the bulk of Canada's GDP. This is serious stuff -- yet politically Toronto is barely any better off than N.S.
Quite a bit of money generated in our cities in siphoned off through things like income tax, property tax, etc., and spread about rural areas. This has been vital to keeping Canada's rural areas alive, but has also limited what our cities can do to attract international business, expand, build projects, and generally plan themselves in a better, but more expensive, fashion. Giving the cities additional taxing and spending powers, while making up the difference by increasing Federal and Provincial attention and funds going to rural areas, would likely end up benefitting all in the end. So would a federal immigration program that gives immigrants major incentives to move to rural areas, and separating immigration approaches between cities and rural areas. A clearer distinction of what makes a city -- where its boundaries are and what it is allowed to control -- would also help solve the "sprawl" problem that is making a lot of growing Canadian cities absolutely unsustainable. There was a good article in the Walrus on the growth of Missausaga a while ago, I can find it if you like; there's also a good ditty in last month's Canadian Geographic detailing how Vancouver is attempting to cope with sprawl problems and develop a more compact downtown core.
A LOT of these problems have to do with how city development councils deal with the fact that the baby boomer sprawl is leading to problems as our suburbs grow and our downtowns shrink. Toronto and Vancouver are doing a lot to encourage residential development in downtown cores, but they can't seem to keep up with the sprawl growth. Montreal has dealt with its problem by building the country's best public transportation system (and, of course, Montreal isn't growing much). Still, other cities like Halifax are almost entirely unwilling to build condos or high-density housing anywhere near the city-centre. This creates a lot of unecessary traffic, makes downtown areas dangerous places to wander around (because no one sticks around past dusk), and contributes to energy consumption.
One extreme would be to simply designate Toronto a special administrative zone that has a governor/premier equivalent who deals directy with the federal government. This has given cities in China, Japan, and other unitary/federalist states better control of their city development. But its far too radical an idea for Canada. Instead, I would propose simply setting out cities so that they have more control over their destiny by increasing their tax flow, and stepping up new federal funding to rural development initiatives. I think these sorts of issues will really hit the wall if Toronto or elsewhere experiences something similar to Paris last summer.
By
C. LaRoche, at Fri Aug 11, 09:41:00 p.m. ADT
Post a Comment
<< Home