Deborah Coyne2013-05-23T04:07:43-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=deborah-coyneCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Deborah CoyneGood old fashioned elbow grease.Citizen Engagement: Power from the Peopletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32407022013-05-09T16:59:23-04:002013-05-09T17:26:13-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/
It is not that politicians and governments are untouched by our world of instantaneous communications and so-called big data. It is just that, all too often, they do not understand the fundamental nature of the change, let alone how to respond or, most critically, how to lead it.
This revolution is altering the nature of political power and democracy itself. Control and influence is returning to the hands of the people, where it should rest, and away from established elites. And that is a good thing. But it raises the question, how do we get things done for our common good? Working with citizens to unleash this power as a force for good is both a challenge and crucial responsibility of all our national leaders.
It will not be easy. The unprecedented dispersal of information and flood of data has caused an equally unprecedented decline in traditional elite/hierarchical political power structures -- a corrosion of the moral authority and legitimacy of government, professions and public institutions. (This is a theme of Moisés Naím's timely and brilliant book, "The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being In Charge Isn't what It Used to Be.")
The consequence is a troubling paradox: Just when we have more information and data than ever about the critical challenges we face -- financial crises, pandemics, unemployment, poverty, climate change, sustainable resource development, cyber crime, terrorism and nuclear proliferation -- we have less public confidence than ever in our politicians to provide the steady, trustworthy and visionary leadership to tackle the challenges. This means less ability to undertake much-needed long-term collective action. Instead, we are governed more and more by short-term incentives and fears.
Meanwhile, as trust in political power has declined, trust in NGOs has grown -- members of a huge array of civil society groups generally feel that their efforts have a direct impact on the activity of the group and that the leadership is accountable and transparent, in a way that no longer exists in the political sphere and political parties.
NGOs have adapted to the networked, non-hierarchical world much better than our politicians, and provide the opportunities for social engagement that citizens need in a dynamic democracy.
But no matter how successful and positive NGO activity may be, citizens need to have confidence that the national government has both legitimacy and the ability to coordinate effective responses to the challenges we face both nationally and internationally. We need to empower our leaders with the capacity to make decisions that involve action that extends over-the-horizon, from reducing climate change and developing resources sustainably to establishing the solid foundations for our social economy.
How will our leaders regain this capacity to lead with legitimacy? It is about restoring trust, which in turn depends on popular, grassroots mobilization. But popular mobilization that, unlike Occupy Wall Street or even Idle No More, is able to convert the political energy into effective political power.
This is where the choice of Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has the potential to be a game changer. His most important contribution right now is to dispel the cynicism with politics that has led to such a debilitating degree of citizen disengagement.
If this can be achieved through resisting a response in kind to the ill-advised Conservative attack ads, through making himself as available as possible to Canadians, to simply letting Canadians see that he is a decent, caring person who has genuinely dedicated himself to public service and the national interest, he will do for the Liberal Party what neither Mr. Mulcair nor Mr. Harper can do for the NDP or the Conservative Party.
The next step will be to prepare for an election in which Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party request a clear mandate for action from Canadians in a way that engages citizens and shows that our particular concerns and interests, which we may have been pursuing through civil society groups, can equally be pursued through national politics.
This means obtaining a clear mandate for all those democratic reforms which Canadians call for -- electoral reforms, changes to reduce the bloated powers of the PMO, new forums that will ensure we are part of the change, a referendum on electoral reform, and Parliamentary reforms such as the encouragement of free votes.
It also means obtaining a clear mandate from Canadians to bring together the leaders of other levels of government - whether provincial, municipal or Aboriginal - to undertake wide-ranging changes in a collaborative way so that we stop the depressing cycle perfected by the current government of unilateral change in Ottawa that starts a negative cycle of counter-productive responses at other levels, or triggers expensive wasteful court challenges.
In our intensively networked 21st century world, Ottawa's role is to firmly lead change but through collaboration and engagement across a much more level playing field. Nothing is more important than government's role in bringing all the players together - businesses, industry, labour unions, the educational institutions, the front-line community and social services organizations - to redefine the role of government itself, and provide a long-term roadmap to take us forward together.
If Mr. Trudeau can engage Canadians in a continuing search for practical and effective ways of bringing about necessary change to respond to the challenges of today and anticipate those of the coming decades, the Liberal Party of Canada should be in a good position to demonstrate that politics and government can still be effective vehicle]]>For Canada's Poor, Working Can Be a Disincentivetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31773392013-04-29T08:46:58-04:002013-04-30T13:04:09-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/
It would be great if slashing poverty rates and improving outcomes in health and education were as easy as introducing something like a new streamlined government cash payment, as proposed by proponents of a guaranteed annual income or negative income tax. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.
Overcoming poverty requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses all the sources of poverty in addition to low income -- a lack of affordable housing and childcare, the need for accommodations for disabilities, and accessible training, practical education and apprenticeships. It requires both public and private action that reflects a strong collective commitment to build an economy and society that protects the dignity of the weakest among us so that we protect the dignity of us all -- a commitment to ask as much of ourselves as we do of our governments. We are only as strong as our weakest link, and we cannot stand by while a growing number of under- and un-employed are pushed to the margins and left to struggle alone.
Our 21st century world combines both unprecedented transparency and instant communications, with unprecedented cynicism about politics and governance. We require a significant modernization of our federal structure to guarantee sustained coordinated, collaborative and accountable action across all levels of government -- federal, provincial, municipal and aboriginal -- and the establishment of new mechanisms to empower Canadians directly in the process of determining effective private and public measures.
Indeed, nothing is more important than government's role in bringing all the players together -- businesses, industry, labour unions, the educational institutions, the front-line community and social services organizations -- to redefine the role of government itself. No government program, no matter how well designed, can substitute for Canadians working together from community to community in such forums as Workplace Development Boards to strengthen a skilled engaged workforce, produce higher-value goods and services, and boost innovation, prosperity, and greater opportunities for us all.
Only when we are able to restore public trust in our political leadership and our collective capacity to act effectively, will we be able to undertake crucial reforms that will allow us to respond successfully to the challenges of poverty and unemployment. These include such steps as an overhaul of Employment Insurance so that the majority of workers who are in non-standard work or just starting out, and not even eligible for EI in its current form, can get the transitional support and training they need to find work; national health care standards to assure comparable quality and level of services across the country; and a significant improvement in and strengthening of our existing mechanisms that establish minimum income levels -- a floor below which no Canadian should fall -- such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for elderly Canadians, the National Child Benefit (NCB), and the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB).
Take, for example, the WITB, which is supposed to help Canadians in low-paying jobs keep more of their employment income. A single person working at a fast-food outlet for minimum wage and making $343 a week, or less than $18,000 a year, earns too much to be eligible for the WITB. But if she reduces her hours by half, she not only gets the WITB but also retains provincial benefits for the working poor such as prescription drug coverage. Essentially, the program is a disincentive for her to work.
The national government should systematically remove disincentives from the tax system, and work with the provinces to get rid of counterproductive rules in the welfare system that discourage recipients from making the transition to employment. And any federal efforts to establish and maintain realistic and effective income floors, must be coordinated on an ongoing basis with the whole range of related provincial efforts, including the consolidation of the hodge-podge of tax credits -- sales, property, energy -- into a more effective monthly payment. Ontario's Trillium Benefit and Québec's Solidarity Tax Credit provide the model that other provinces should be encouraged to follow.
All of this is possible with firm political will and a clear, constructive policy platform during the next national election that will gain the support of Canadians who care about where we are going as a nation, and desperately want principles and policy to guide our collective efforts to build a better future.
]]>The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Turns 31tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31172482013-04-22T08:31:08-04:002013-04-21T23:00:23-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/What makes us Canadian:
When we look for a unifying symbol with which all Canadians identify, it is certainly not the monarchy, despite the wishful thinking of our Conservative government. It is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter, signed into law in 1982, spells out the fundamental rights and freedoms that we can assert as individuals against all levels of government. It guarantees the equality of citizens -- the cornerstone of any liberal democracy -- ensuring that regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability, all Canadians have the same basic rights and can expect equal respect for their human dignity and self-worth.
The Charter is now viewed as a model for other nations. A new American study concludes that Canada is a constitutional trendsetter in several respects. First, section 1 states that rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society," which provides a way of weaving compromise and dialogue into rights debates. It offers a structure for working through the competing interests found in any multicultural nation seeking a balance between the decisions of judges (who must uphold the Charter) and the actions of legislators (who make laws that may limit rights).
Second, equality rights are listed in section 15, and the text has proved flexible; the courts have extended its protections to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and permit gay marriage. And the American study notes that the Charter contains a notwithstanding clause in section 33 that permits a government to bring in certain laws even if a court finds that they are contrary to the Charter. Fortunately this clause has rarely been used.
Indeed, Canada's courts often play an important role on behalf of the people of Canada, for example in taking the edge off the current government's ideological and blinkered approach to law and order and criminal justice. Judgments based on the Charter have cancelled the government's decision to shut down facilities that help those suffering from addiction and related conditions; provided greater protection for those engaged in prostitution; and held mandatory minimum sentences to be unconstitutional in some circumstances. Unfortunately, rather than complying with the fundamental law of the land, the present national government prefers to govern as if the courts are adversaries to be ignored as much as possible.
The Charter blends the emphasis on individual rights with respect for community values. For example, it requires us to take into account cultural, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal communities in interpreting the rights guaranteed to individuals. This allows for the protection of minorities while not diminishing the ideal of the equality of all citizens under the law.
The Charter remains a concrete expression of our shared values, the rights we can expect to have respected, and the responsibilities we owe each other. It is a crucial part of what binds us together in our diversity. It is sad that our current government remains unable to rise above petty partisanship in order to celebrate the Charter with all Canadians.
]]>Quebec's Signature on the Constitution Is Symbolic But Idealtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29205522013-03-22T17:53:34-04:002013-05-22T05:12:01-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/Philippe Couillard on his election as leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, and I note with interest his openness to engaging in constitutional discussions that could lead to a vote in the National Assembly in Quebec endorsing the 1982 Constitution Act. I find it refreshing, but I have several notes of caution that must be raised.
Mr. Couillard proposes that a future Quebec government would undertake conversations with the other governments in Canada to determine how to proceed forward. He suggests that this could include other subjects, such as Senate reform, and could be concluded during the "symbolic window" of the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017.
In moving forward, it is important to remember a couple of lessons from the debates over the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. First, it can be confusing to undertake multiple constitutional reforms at the same time. Linking different reforms can be unprincipled and deprive people of a chance to decide each on its own merits. Second, the Constitution belongs to the people of Canada, who must be consulted directly with respect to all significant reforms by way of referendum. If discussions proceed simultaneously on different subjects, there should be a separate referendum question on each.
In this light, discussions could proceed simultaneously on both Senate reform and what is the very important and serious step of drafting a modern and inclusive preamble to our Constitution. But whatever proposed reforms to the Senate and the preamble ultimately emerge must be put to Canadians in separate referendum questions.
By way of brief background, it must be noted that Quebec is not excluded from the Constitution of 1982.
The Constitution of 1982 is the fundamental law of the land everywhere in Canada, including Quebec, notwithstanding the regrettable fact that the then sovereigntist premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, refused to sign the final document. Seventy-two of 75 Quebec MPs in Parliament voted in favour of the changes and, since 1982, Quebecers have not hesitated to rely on the Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the courts and elsewhere.
However, although not legally necessary, it is nevertheless desirable that the National Assembly of Quebec formally endorse the 1982 constitutional changes.
Mr. Couillard and most federalists in Quebec point to the need to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness in some way in the Constitution. Certainly the time is overdue to enact an inspiring preamble to our Constitution that accurately describes our great and diverse nation. The current preamble refers only to Canada being founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
It is possible, for example, that Quebec could be recognized as a distinct, free and democratic society in accordance with the principles of both the Canadian and the Quebec Charters and with a unique contribution to Canada's constitutional identity. This would be accomplished at the same time as engaging all Canadians in drafting a preamble that would accurately reflect how all parts of Canada contribute to a country much bigger than the sum of its parts. This approach would ensure that the effort at constitutional change would be a unifying force, not a divisive one.
Finally, any new preamble to the constitution should be submitted to a national referendum. The Charlottetown referendum established a constitutional convention that the Canadian people must be directly consulted on all serious constitutional reforms. As at Charlottetown, Quebec and any other province can conduct the referendum under provincial legislation.
While I have raised some specific concerns with Mr. Couillard's proposals, I welcome his genuine desire to engage Canadians on issues of such fundamental importance to Canada's future. The challenges of the 21st century will take both engaged citizenry and bold national leadership that rallies us all to work together, in the national interest.
]]>One Canada: Building a Stronger and More Inclusive Federationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28082772013-03-05T16:12:39-05:002013-05-05T05:12:01-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/Bâtir une fédération plus forte et inclusive - Un Canada)
At the heart of my vision of One Canada for All Canadians is a more inclusive Canada. It is a Canada where citizens, communities, governments come together to build a better union.
I believe Canadians want a strong federal government to take the leadership role that Stephen Harper has deliberately abandoned. Not to dictate to Canadians, but to inspire us, guide us and bring us together. The federal government, as the only level of government elected by -- and answering to -- all Canadians, has a unique mandate to serve the national interest, and rally the nation in service of shared challenges and common ideals.
Bold national leadership thrives on the demands and realities of our times -- a world where the old ideological polarities make little sense and the traditional tug-of-war between provincial and federal jurisdiction is a dangerous distraction from the nation's urgent business -- whether combating climate change or maintaining competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global economy. National leadership is not about imposing blueprints or micromanaging matters better left to other levels of government and organizations. It is about articulating vision and principles that bring citizens and governments together to work in the national interest.
Some things, like health care standards, a national price on carbon, or an Infrastructure Financing Authority, can only be pursued in national forums. All Canadians benefit when we all cooperate to lower drug prices, share best practices in health, and establish national environmental standards that ensure the competition for investment and jobs in Canada is won by a race to the top, not the bottom. And greater national coherence will support the international coherence we need to permit Canada to play once again a significant role in the global community.
Canadians want to see an end to the most top-down, insular and elitist government in Canada's history led by Mr. Harper operating directly out of the PMO. A government that -- from science to healthcare, to the environment, to infrastructure, to our relations with Aboriginal Canadians -- is deliberately letting us drift apart, conditioning us to expect less and less of our national government and of ourselves.
There has never been a better time to give Canadians a clear choice between a Canada where we all work together in the national interest, and the Canada of Mr. Harper where everyone fends for themselves.
]]>Rolling Up My Sleeves for One Canadatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27623392013-02-26T12:52:40-05:002013-04-28T05:12:01-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/I have made a number of proposals that would reduce the power of the Prime Minister's Office, empower individual members of parliament, and allow them to work together on issues of common interest in service of the Canadian people.
I have said clearly in this campaign that the Liberal Party needs to stand for something clear and distinctive in the minds of Canadians once more. I want us to be the party of One Canada, of bold national leadership. A Canada where we can access the same quality of health care in St. John's as we can in Toronto. Where our abundant natural resources are developed sustainably based on the best science and the most advanced environmental standards, and we tackle boldly the critical infrastructure deficit in our towns and cities. Where skilled citizens can go where the jobs are and take their certifications with them.
I stand ready and willing to work with anyone who shares this vision of Canada, whether it is in Parliament, or in our communities, because it is going to take all of us working together to address the challenges our nation is facing. Canadians are sending us a clear message -- that they want straight talk, clear goals, and reasonable, principled compromises.
Let us be clear, though -- cooperation to promote a shared vision of Canada should not be confused with non-compete clauses, joint nominations or other tactical political schemes designed to bend the will of the electorate. These are two separate issues. Cooperation must be based on principle, not short-term considerations of power above all else.
Immediate political gain is an alluring temptation. But the risk is that we compromise our vision of Canada, which is our raison d'être. That is exactly what our party did in supporting the Meech Lake Accord in Parliament, or the NDP did when in 2006 in defeating a government that shared many of its goals, and instead brought Mr. Harper to power. Short-term thinking has led us to where we are today.
We can, and must, work constructively across party lines and other divides, but always remembering that what we uniquely bring to the table is the Liberal vision of One Canada. Constructive engagement means civility and respect for the other. Pandering and petty partisanship should have no place in national politics.
I understand the attraction of a scheme that might lead to the defeat of specific Conservative candidates and, above all, the end of Stephen Harper's reign. The end goal is right -- but the proposed road to get there just will not work. For example, who would vote in a run-off election to choose a single candidate to oppose the Conservative? Members of the participating parties restricting the choices of Canadians would be undemocratic and lead to charges of opportunism by even sympathetic Canadians who strongly dislike Mr. Harper, but do not share a pathological determination to defeat him. And it is certainly not as easy as adding votes together -- without a Liberal candidate, some voters may choose to vote Conservative, strengthening the Harper majority.
As long as Liberals look for short-cuts, we are doomed to wander in the wilderness. Our seat count and support has not eroded in successive elections because the progressive vote is divided. We are the third place party today because, in constantly looking for the easy answer, Canadians have lost sense of just what we stand for, of what we bring to the table that is distinct from any other party.
I believe that the way to defeat the Conservatives and elect a truly progressive government is to rebuild the Liberal Party of Canada as the distinctive, clear and principled voice of One Canada. I recognize this is not the easy road. But it is the right one. The only way forward is through hard work. I am ready to roll up my sleeves, and I hope you will join me.
]]>My Top Three Priorities: The Economy, the Economy, and the Economytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27087382013-02-18T17:25:09-05:002013-04-20T05:12:01-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/
Why do I say this? Because I believe the need for a sound economy underpins all aspects of our lives.
We face a crippling infrastructure deficit in our towns and cities. If this infrastructure deficit is left unaddressed, our economy will lack the solid foundation it needs to grow and prosper in the future.
We need to overhaul employment insurance because, right now, it's not there when so many Canadians need it.
In government, I would make sure Canadians have access to the skills and training they need to get good jobs. As one initiative, I would merge the various workforce development programs into a single transfer to the provinces, funded from general revenues, and allocated according to the provincial share of unemployed workers.
A government under my leadership would provide the transparency and predictability that the Harper government has not. We would welcome foreign investment based on reciprocal rights of investment for Canadian businesses.
We need to help students get a quality education that leads to good jobs without crippling debt.
I propose a plan to have the federal government take the lead through a national strategy on post-secondary education that fosters creativity and ingenuity, ensuring greater access and removing lack of income as a barrier for qualified students.
We need to overhaul an exemption-riddled tax system that provides some individuals and many businesses with breaks they do not need, while low-income people who want to get ahead are held back by counter-productive rules and regulations.
I would move forward with a reformed taxation system for the 21st century, focused on financing good public services for all Canadians, helping the most vulnerable to achieve more fulfilling lives, and operating with fairness and transparency.
It would be a priority of a Liberal government I lead to provide vigorous national support for an effective economic union, including more modern and practical standards that will help generate opportunities in the national and global economies.
And we must develop our natural resources for the long-term, guided by independent science and stringent environmental standards. When we refer to energy and the environment as separate issues, we set up a false dichotomy and justify unprincipled public policy.
I propose a sustainable approach to resource development. This means not taking risks that we do not know how to mitigate. I would put a price on carbon, with the revenue raised going to the provinces in which it was generated. I would support necessary regulation to oversee the lifecycle of natural resource projects.
All of that goes into building a more competitive and sustainable economy, and that's why it is such a key priority for me.
But there is so much more we have to do.
Equally important for me is strengthening the ties that bind the citizens of Canada together from coast to coast to coast.
We need Canadians to re-engage in building our great nation, and it begins with the federal government resuming the mantle of leadership that Stephen Harper has deliberately abandoned.
We need a federal government that works in the national interest, for all Canadians. That brings everyone to the table to work together, whether it is on national health standards, or environmental leadership, pension reform, or on all those crucial economic issues.
Because once we are all working together, for One Canada, that is when we can do great things, and so much more is possible.]]>Unscripted: A Life Devoted to Building a Better Canada (EXCERPT)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24743822013-01-14T16:30:47-05:002013-03-16T05:12:02-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/As the race for the leadership of Canada's federal Liberal Party heats up, candidate Deborah Coyne has written Unscripted, a memoir that weaves her life-long dedication to seeking bold directions for the Canadian nation with her 15-year relationship with the late former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau. Lawyer, university professor, constitutional activist, public servant, writer and mother of two children, Coyne is a woman whose skills and hard work have placed her at the centre of some of the great public debates of our times. Unscripted candidly lays out her plan for a more inclusive style of government that will inspire Canadians to fully embrace what they can do with their ideas, talents and drive. What follows is an excerpt from the book.
When I returned to Canada in the late summer of 1982, Blake, Cassels had, as promised, held a job for me. They agreed to finance my bar admission course (which would run until February 1983) if I started working for the firm the following spring. I accepted the offer, but once I began my studies, I discovered that my interest in law had evaporated during my time away. I found the bar admission course excruciatingly boring, and for the first time in my academic life, I settled for mediocre exam results.
With the exams behind me, I spent a few weeks in Paris, billeted with a lovely French family while taking another French course and immersing myself in French politics, before returning to Toronto to start a litigation practice with Blake, Cassels. At that time, the firm was benefiting from a flood of wrongful dismissal suits in the wake of the recession of the early '80s.
Settling back into life in Canada after two years in England, I began to feel that my country was losing its sense of direction and momentum. This had a lot to do with a belated understanding on the part of politicians that our national debt was unsustainable, as well as with increasing federal-provincial tensions, especially with respect to energy and natural resources. The federal government seemed frequently adrift, struggling to come to grips with the forces buffeting the country.
Early in 1983, I attended my first Liberal Party event, accompanied by my old Osgoode friend, Paul Torrie, and his friend, Alf Apps (who later became president of the Liberal Party of Canada when Michael Ignatieff became leader.) Alf had been involved in launching the reform movement within the Liberal Party at its national biennial convention the year before and, that night, a committee was being struck. On a whim, I decided to put my name forward and gave a two-minute speech. Later, I learned that I'd been elected, along with Alf, as one of two Ontario representatives on the Liberal Party Reform Committee.
Reformers believed that the Liberal Party's base had become disillusioned, largely ignored because too much power was concentrated in the hands of "backroom boys," most notably the legendary Keith Davey. Liberal Party president Iona Campagnolo also knew there were problems. She wanted to know why the grassroots felt so alienated. How could things be changed?
Over the next couple of years, I worked in my spare time with, among others, dedicated and knowledgeable Liberals such as Newfoundland's Ed Roberts and BC's Gordon Gibson, while participating in cross-country discussions that eventually led to a series of recommended draft amendments to the party's constitution in our final report three years later. One key recommendation was to create a council of riding presidents, which was finally implemented 20 years later, just in time to be made obsolete by the age of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The Liberal Party's weaknesses had been entrenched long before that and it would take more than our committee to shake things up.
Despite Pierre's having led the Liberals to another majority in 1980, early 1984 opinion polls suggested that the Liberal Party would be defeated if he remained its leader. In late February, after his famous "long walk in the snow," he announced that he would retire on June 30, 1984. When the leadership race was called, Blake, Cassels allowed me to take a leave of absence to join John Turner's campaign team. In my mind, though, I knew I was using the opportunity as a bridge to exit the predictable world of a law and to move into the unpredictable but exhilarating world of politics and public policy. It reflected what I know to be one of my character traits: following my heart while disregarding what would be financially far more remunerative, and what might be considered a more sensible and safe course of action.
As the Ontario policy chair for the Turner leadership campaign, I soon discovered how marginalized policy ideas were from the political process. I organized regular open policy meetings around what I thought were topical issues, which were attended by guests like business tycoon Frank Stronach (then promoting a new industrial strategy), and Michael Marzolini, a pollster and strategist with fresh ideas who ran Insight Canada Research (later to be rebranded as Pollara). I prepared sets of what I believed were novel policy proposals, each coordinated to the subjects of the all-candidate debates. I felt envious of the campaign being run by another leadership hopeful, Donald Johnston, because he had his team issuing a stream of innovative policy statements.
As a relatively lowly member of what I saw as a dysfunctional Turner team, I felt that my efforts to advance substantial policy ideas were not taken seriously. I even wrote a letter to Turner outlining areas I thought were being ignored and dropped it off at his house.
Looking back, I now know that there were some tensions developing. The great John de B. Payne, a long-time senior advisor to the Liberals who, for three decades, had known every cabinet minister from the prime minister down, had been the éminence grise behind Turner. I had come to his attention and one evening, he and his wife, Wilissa, took me out to dinner. John, who had my letter to Turner with him, said he thought the ideas were good and didn't understand why they weren't being taken seriously. I felt better hearing that. When Turner easily defeated his closest rival, Jean Chrétien, at the June 16, 1984, Liberal leadership convention and was sworn in as prime minister two weeks later, John arranged for me to be offered a position in Turner's PMO, which I accepted.
I most certainly did not anticipate that, only ten days later, in the costliest gamble of his career, Turner would ask Governor General Jeanne Sauvé to dissolve Parliament and call an election for September.
As it turned out, the Turner PMO was no less dysfunctional than the leadership team had been. The expectations for Turner's leadership were unrealistically high. A corporate lawyer and one-time golden boy of the Liberal Party, Turner had served in various posts under Prime Minister Lester Pearson, including a high-profile period as minister of consumer and corporate affairs. He ran for the leadership in 1968 but lost to Pierre. In the Trudeau government, Turner was first minister of justice and later minister of finance, from 1972 to 1975, when he grappled with the big, global financial issues of the time: skyrocketing oil prices, slow economic growth, rising inflation, and bigger and bigger deficits. Citing personality conflicts with Pierre, he quit in 1975 and resumed his law practice, returning for the '84 leadership convention. Seen by many in the party as a saviour (a weakness the Liberal Party suffers from to this day), he soon seemed more like a liability.
It was British Prime Minister Harold Wilson who is credited with saying, "A week is a long time in politics." Which would suggest that nine years is an eternity. Turner, once considered a youthful figure comparable to John F. Kennedy, appeared out-of-touch, his political instincts no longer sharp. He failed to heal rifts within the party following the leadership campaign and, despite having called a snap election, hadn't prepared a coherent platform. Among his first actions was to make 17 patronage appointments, even though the Canadian public had been outraged by patronage appointments made by Pierre when he retired. At one point he referred to "make-work programs," a patronizing phrase from the '70s that had been replaced by the term "job-creation programs." He appeared incompetent when he accused the new Progressive Conservative leader, Brian Mulroney, of planning to fire 600,000 civil servants when the federal government only employed a total of 500,000. Worse, he was seen patting the bottom of Liberal Party president Iona Campagnolo, a sharp contrast with Pierre's courtly style, and he found himself labeled sexist. (To her credit, Iona, caught off-guard, nonetheless was quick-witted enough to pat Turner's bum right back.)
I arrived for my new job as a lowly policy advisor in the PMO to find that the premature election call meant that there was no time to organize a smoothly running operation. Turner loyalists were in disarray. The party had virtually no support in the west and no plan to turn that around. Meanwhile, there was discontent in the Liberal stronghold of Quebec over the patriation of the Constitution. Turner's campaign manager was fired; Keith Davey returned. The Liberals once again relied on a saviour.
Turner held his own during the first of the televised debates, "Encounter '84," but many believe that the knockout blow came in the second debate, when he told Mulroney that he had "no option" but to approve the patronage appointments Pierre had left him during the transition. Pointing a finger at Turner, Mulroney forcefully pounced. "You had an option, sir," Mulroney said. "You could have said, 'I'm not going to do it, this is wrong for Canada, and I'm not going to ask Canadians to pay the price' . . . " A clearly rattled Turner simply repeated, "I had no option."
On September 4, just 79 days after taking office as prime minister, Turner suffered the worst defeat by a governing party since Progressive Conservative Arthur Meighen lost to Mackenzie King's Liberals in 1921. And, three months after quitting Blake, Cassels, I found myself out of work.
Excerpted from Unscripted: A Life Building a better Canada by Deborah Coyne, published by the Canadian Writers Group. Available as an e-book through Kobo, Kindle and as a downloadable PDF file.
]]>One Canada for All Canadianstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21286842012-11-14T07:54:40-05:002013-01-14T05:12:01-05:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/To mark the official start of the federal Liberal leadership race, The Huffington Post Canada asked all the declared candidate to tell us, in their words, why they decided to run. Deborah Coyne, a lawyer and former professor, announced her bid for the Liberal leadership on June 27, 2012."
A couple of years ago, the brilliant political satirists, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert pinpointed the polarization and utter irrelevance of today's politics in the U.S. with their Rally for Sanity in Washington, DC. It is a sentiment shared by most Canadians, but it should not just be comedians giving voice to our collective frustration.
The fact is there are too many Canadians on the sidelines today. We're disconnected from one another, in a Canada that is more and more just a fragmented collection of provinces and territories.
Canada is becoming a nation in name only. Canadians are disengaging from national politics and a political process that too many of us see as irrelevant and outdated. We are tired of the polarized politics and the winner-take-all mentality of the left and the right.
And just when we need more than ever to renew our sense of national purpose, pull together to overcome economic uncertainty, and repair the broken social contract, our federal government is increasingly shrinking from the mantle of leadership.
We have a Conservative prime minister who is steadily and systematically weakening the national government and our nation. From health care, to science, to the environment, to infrastructure, we are now dangerously close to a tipping point -- beyond which the unprecedented degree of national disengagement could become irreversible.
Just when we need more than ever to strengthen the mutual sense of fairness and respect that's essential to building a prosperous future together, our federal government tells us to look elsewhere for answers to the challenges we face.
Ottawa is the only government that's elected by, and answers to, ALL Canadians. Our national government has a unique mandate to act in the national interest and to inspire us to work together as Canadians.
We need a national government that stops wasting our time with pandering and pettiness, and delivers real results for the Canadian people. We need a national government that will sit in the same room with the other levels of government and take the lead in working collectively to strengthen Canada.
Canadians urgently need the Liberal Party to step up to the plate, and provide the bold national leadership so glaringly absent today. All my life I have believed in a strong Canada, strong national purpose, strong national leadership -- to inspire us to work together and to build a better country and a better world.
It's an ambitious vision, but I have never been one to back away from a challenge. I have seen first-hand the power Canadians can have when we come together for One Canada.
What does this One Canada look like? It's a Canada where we can access the same quality of health care in St. John's as we can in Toronto. Where our abundant natural resources are developed sustainably based on the highest scientific and environmental standards, and we eliminate the critical infrastructure deficit in our towns and cities. Where skilled citizens can go where the jobs are and take their certifications with them, and where everyone who needs it can get the transitional support and training to help them find new work.
We are privileged to live in freedom in one of the greatest countries in the world. But with that privilege comes great responsibility. A responsibility we must all share. We must look over the horizon, and build a country much bigger than the sum of its parts.
It is time for all Canadians to get off the sidelines. Democracy will not work if you sit back and let things happen. Complacency is dangerous.
Join me in building a better Canada. One Canada, for all Canadians.
To learn more, please visit deborahcoyne.ca]]>Hey Harper, Take the PQ Win as a Chance to Step it Uptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18613572012-09-06T16:42:18-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/the violence this week that marred the Quebec election results. Such violence has no place in our country and in our democratic process, where millions of Canadians exercised their democratic rights by casting their ballots in peace and freedom. My thoughts are with the victims and their families.
I would like to congratulate Pauline Marois on becoming the first female premier of Quebec. This is an achievement that is celebrated by everyone committed to gender equality and the advancement of women in politics. I also thank Jean Charest for his service to his province and his country for so many years.
The results of the Quebec election are positive for Canada and the strength of our federation. Over 70 per cent of Quebecers participated in the vote. While Quebecers achieved a change in provincial government led by the pro-sovereignty Parti Québécois, it's a restrained minority government. A strong majority of Quebecers voted for candidates committed to strengthening Quebec's place within a united Canada.
Quebec has and will continue to forcefully promote the strength of the French language and culture in Quebec. Canadians everywhere should support this effort. And the federal government must demonstrate to Quebecers that a strong Canada is pivotal in buttressing the French language in Quebec and indeed, across the country.
The advent of a PQ government in Quebec is both a challenge and an opportunity for Canada. This is a time for renewed national leadership that reaches out to Canadians to offers an overarching vision for Canada in the 21st century -- one where a strong federal government works with the provinces, with the municipalities, with aboriginal leaders in the national interest. A strong national vision and the specific policy proposals to make it real -- whether the environment, EI, equalization, language and immigration.
This is not the time for Stephen Harper's continued abdication of national leadership, his deliberate weakening of the federal role, and his consistent refusal to establish a meaningful national agenda that speaks to our collective challenges. Harper's absentee federalism threatens our ability to achieve effective national action far more than the election of a PQ government in Quebec. So does Thomas Mulcair's declarations about the responsibility of the prime minister to promote the nation of Québécois, with no comment on his responsibility to promote the nation of Canada and the national interest.
It has always been understood that in a dynamic federation, provincial governments will demand greater powers from the federal government from time to time. What is unprecedented is the degree to which Harper refuses to stand up for the national government and an acceptable balance of power.
Under cover of a steady stream of portentous pronouncements full of empty rhetoric from both the Conservatives and the NDP, Canada becomes more and more a disconnected collection of provinces -- a nation in name only in which we expect less and less from our fellow Canadians. We're losing the mutual sense of fairness and respect that is essential to building a prosperous future together as citizens of one of the most dynamic and diverse countries in the world.
I look forward to working with Quebecers and all Canadians to build a 21st century Canada -- one Canada, for all Canadians.]]>Harper's Made Alphabet Soup of our Tax Systemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17538612012-08-10T17:01:07-04:002012-10-10T05:12:15-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) have become yet another tax break that favours high-income Canadians should come as no surprise.
Canada's tax system is riddled with exceptions, special cases and limited exemptions that are at best inconsistent and at worst profoundly unfair. This didn't start with Stephen Harper but has been systematically exacerbated by his Conservatives, and steadily diminishes our collective ability to finance good public services for all Canadians and to help the most vulnerable to achieve more fulfilling lives.
Only wealthier Canadians are able to take advantage of making contributions of up to $5,000 a year to their TFSA. Sheltering assets of this magnitude over time will result in "a noticeable decline in the federal tax base and an even bigger impact on federal revenues," according to the study's authors. And yet, in the last election, Harper promised to double the contribution limit on TFSAs to $10,000 a year once the federal government returns to balanced budgets.
Sadly, the Harper government has mastered the art of unprincipled tax policy in pursuit of an ideological predilection for a weak national government and a determination to stay in power at all costs. Since 2006, the Harper government has worsened the alphabet soup of exemptions and tax credits that passes for our tax system, by essentially bribing certain segments of the population.
The boutique micro tax credits introduced for everything from transit passes to children's music classes to workers' tools benefit only those with incomes over $50,000 that would buy these items anyway. Similarly, the proposed income splitting between parents of children under 18 that the Conservatives promise to implement once the deficit is eliminated, would most benefit a single-earner family earning over $125,000.
The time is overdue to restore a fair and progressive tax regime that benefits the economy and society and the national interest, not simply the partisan interests of the Conservative government.
The Conference Board of Canada reports that over the past 20 years, only the top 20 per cent of income earners have increased their share of the nation's wealth. They're not the ones who need a break.
We pay taxes so that governments can fund public services -- services that individual Canadians and the private sector can't or won't provide efficiently. Taxes pay for roads and sewers, police and the military, health care and education, and many other benefits we take for granted.
Taxation in Canada is progressive, meaning that those who are more successful and earning more income are expected to shoulder more of the burden of paying for public services. In a progressive system, revenue from taxes also directly or indirectly helps lower-income Canadians and gives them the opportunity to get ahead themselves. We expect taxation to be fair, efficient, and effective.]]>Hey Ottawa -- There's Nothing National About the Pipeline Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17224662012-08-01T05:09:00-04:002012-09-30T05:12:04-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/recently debated by the provincial premiers is going nowhere fast, not least because the "national" part is completely meaningless.
According to the premiers, there are no national interests that require Ottawa to be involved except to ensure that specific infrastructure such as pipelines gets built at the request of the provinces. They contend that because provinces own their natural resources -- whether hydro or oil and gas -- there are only separate provincial, not national, interests in energy matters.
If one province needs the cooperation of another province, for example, to export power or resources across provincial boundaries -- pipelines from Alberta, hydro power from Newfoundland -- this is a matter to be resolved by the affected provinces, not Ottawa.
That Stephen Harper's national government plays a supporting role in this charade, cheering on the premiers from the sidelines, demonstrates how diminished Canada has become as a nation. For Harper's incredibly shrinking Canada, the national interest is defined narrowly as "building pipelines" -- consistent with keeping Canadians' expectations of their national government at the lowest possible level, the more easily to be manipulated and fine-tuned as the next national election approaches.
In Harper's world, there is no need for much national attention to climate change or environmental protection. Even long overdue oil sands monitoring is still emerging at a glacial pace.
This isn't good enough. In order to build a prosperous, sustainable economy that fairly benefits all Canadians, Ottawa must play the lead role in strengthening Canadian economic fundamentals, and this includes setting out clearly and precisely Canada's national interests with respect to related issues of energy and the environment.
We can develop our natural resources in a way that balances economic development and environmental protection. But we need strong and consistent national leadership that acknowledges and addresses the genuine threat of climate change and that actively promotes sustainability in all areas: on the supply side, by reducing dependence on carbon-based energy sources; on the demand side, by encouraging greater efficiency and energy conservation at the community level; and on the science side, by boosting Canada's capacity for scientific research and innovation.
As leader of a Liberal government I would therefore focus, not on the now-meaningless concept of a national energy strategy, but on the specific fundamentals that Ottawa must establish to build a sustainable national economy over the long-term. Most notably, this includes establishing a national price for carbon that realistically reflects the environmental cost of economic activity, through a national carbon tax on all producers and consumers.
The majority of economists and leaders in the energy industry advocate the carbon tax over "carbon trading" as the most effective signal to producers and consumers to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. It will yield substantial revenues to reduce other taxes or fund energy-related technologies. Any national carbon pricing system has to be fully coordinated with provincial programs like those already in place in B.C. and Quebec.
Like the GST, the tax would have a single structure and single rate. The revenue raised would be sent back to the province in which it is generated, to be used for whatever purpose it chooses, such as assistance to vulnerable consumers and industries. A national carbon pricing system is essential if we want to get anywhere near acceptable targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases by mid-century, and ensure that Canada is an effective player in global climate change forums, not an obstacle to progress.
While a national carbon tax is central to meaningful national action on energy and the environment, my proposed program as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada sets out other fundamentals requiring firm national leadership to help Canadians build a sustainable and prosperous economy:
* Assure free internal trade across Canada to maximize economic opportunity and meaningful jobs for Canadians. This means not just reducing interprovincial barriers but also maintaining efficient, effective national environmental protection and employment standards to prevent destructive economic competition for investment and jobs across the country won by the provinces with the weakest environmental standards and employment protections.
* Reduce the growing inequality of access to education and skills that underlies too much debilitating unemployment, and introducing workable labour market policies which include the transformation of Employment Insurance into easily accessible transitional support that provides all Canadians with the experience, skills and mobility necessary to find fulfilling work without suffering devastating impacts in-between jobs.
* Build up our scientific capacity in all areas, but especially with respect to energy science and clean energy technologies, with substantial and unfettered federal support such as through the establishment of an independent National Academy of Sciences. Enable and require scientifically-sound and evidence-based assessments of human and environmental risks of economic development to anticipate and prevent pipeline leaks, or incidents such as a BP or Fukoshima.
Building a sustainable national economy in our fast-moving, hyper-connected world is a challenge and a responsibility of all Canadians. We're entitled to expect our national government, on our behalf, to act in the national interest and help establish the long-term structural and regulatory fundamentals that will benefit us all. If Harper's Conservatives are unwilling to provide such bold national leadership, then Canadians are equally entitled to replace them at the earliest opportunity.]]>How Harper Is Turning Canada into a Watered Down EUtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17073142012-07-26T16:00:31-04:002012-09-25T05:12:06-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/Council of the Federation (COF) opened on July 25, the 13 provincial premiers and territorial leaders will announce the results of two working groups, one on health care innovation, and the other on fiscal arrangements. They'll also address a national energy strategy. What should we expect? The answer is not much.
These are national issues that cannot be adequately addressed without the leadership of the one government that speaks for all Canadians -- the federal government. No matter how much some provinces may wish it otherwise, we cannot have an effective national energy strategy, including credible action on greenhouse gas emissions, without Ottawa.
Even with the able input of national stakeholder groups like the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association, provincial premiers will not be able to implement effective national health care standards. And with respect to fiscal arrangements, the premiers' mandate is so vague as to be virtually meaningless.
This year's annual COF meeting will likely highlight how much the federal government is missing in action in the national life of our country. But of course this is deliberate on Stephen Harper's part. The Prime Minister continues to follow a carefully controlled path of shrinking the federal government, turning Canadians' cynicism with the ability of government to find practical solutions to the big national issues, such as inadequate healthcare and climate change, into a virtue.
His endgame is simple: remake Canada with a diminished federal government, regardless of the impact on our national economic and social fabric. Focus on things that Canadians can get without much focus: more police to make our streets safe, money in our pockets from pipelines to get oil to international markets (whether from construction or clean-up operations), a new bridge after it has past the best-before date.
Harper is creating a weak Canadian version of the European Union by reverse osmosis -- concentrating executive power around him, consolidating federal power in fewer areas and spinning off the tricky inconvenient parts, like maintaining comparable public services across the country and the national economic union, to the provinces.
Harper believes that by abandoning federal responsibilities and creating a vacuum, the provinces will be forced to try to assume responsibility for matters of national interest and national standards, in much the same way that he believes that the private sector will eventually step into the breach to save any worthwhile environmental initiative that lost essential federal funding in the latest budget. And he is calculating that by the next national election, Canadians will be settling into the new normal of limited national government, and will be blaming provinces for any shortcomings in public services and environmental protection.
In the meantime, interprovincial conflict will escalate and lead to destructive economic competition for investment and jobs across the country that is won by a race to the bottom instead of the top -- the provinces with the weakest environmental standards and employment protections.
But Harper is miscalculating the acquiescence of Canadians. Canadians know that national leadership is needed to provide all citizens, regardless of our provincial or territorial residence, with comparable levels of public services and maximum economic opportunities in a fair, efficient and sustainable way. Provincial premiers cannot collaborate well enough on their own or as members of the interprovincial Council of the Federation to maintain equity and economic opportunities across the country. The premiers are first and foremost responsible for provincial interests that are not necessarily compatible. They are not naturally wired to think national.
But Canadians have to be convinced that practical national leadership can produce results and get things done: coherent national action is possible that can have an impact on our lives. For example, long-term investment, not short-term spending, for building and strengthening our infrastructure -- not just bridges, water systems, public transit and broadband networks, but also the human networks that make us a great nation -- not just enough doctors, nurses, teachers and scientists, but also enough community centre workers, teacher assistants and tutors, apprenticeship and skills trainers, childcare and homecare workers.
It's urgent for Canadians to demand that Ottawa step up to the plate with down-to-earth plans and achievable goals, and lead a more cooperative and collegial federation. This is why, as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and as Prime Minister, I would create a Council of Canadian Governments and provide the national leadership that Harper has abdicated, and convince Canadians that all their governments can competently work together in the national interest to build tomorrow's Canada -- a powerhouse of prosperity, sustainable living and social justice.]]>Why I Should Lead the Liberal Party of Canadatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16491722012-07-05T07:34:50-04:002012-09-04T05:12:15-04:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/
Too many Canadians are sitting on the sidelines of national politics. Many of us have lost any sense that the federal government can make a difference in our lives. We increasingly believe that there are only local answers to our challenges.
From the Occupy movement to the streets of Quebec, one thing is clear: Canadian citizens are disengaged not from society or political action, but from the usual political institutions that produce neither inspiring leadership nor effective governance. The message to political parties is that they must listen and respond to all the people, not only their core supporters, and not just at election time.
I see growing public unease with the degree of inequality within our society. Canadians recognize the intrinsic unfairness of CEOs and professional athletes earning astronomical multiples of the average incomes of their workers and fans; of politicians holding on to gold-plated pensions that most of us can only dream of while lecturing us about austerity; of high youth unemployment rates while long-term investment in education and training receives scant attention compared with retirement security.
Citizens are frustrated when our various governments pass the buck to one another. Ask the parents of children with autism, who need greater comparability in relevant health services across Canada. Ask low-income families and individuals living on the margin, who find that when they earn more at work, clashing program rules can trigger devastating cuts in essential housing or other benefits. Many Aboriginal citizens live in shameful conditions while governments argue about who's at fault.
The centralized control practised so skillfully by the Conservative government depends on maintaining Canadians' low expectations of national government, and on our willingness to remain indifferent. So we are played for fools while it is decreed from Ottawa that we shall have oil pipelines and F-35 aircraft, with little or no debate in Parliament and inadequate disclosure of inconvenient information. All the while, an increasing number of national responsibilities, from environmental assessments to pensions, are quietly and unilaterally transferred to the provinces, and the federal government withdraws from any meaningful role in health care beyond sending out cheques.
We are subjected to manipulative politics that pits west against east, rural against urban, resource-rich against resource-poor. But we are not the divided country that our political elites like to claim -- our diversity of geography and population is a source of dynamism, not difficulty. We are ready for a more principled politics that neither clings to ideology nor simply brokers the interests of those with the power to sit at the table.
We need a national government that speaks for Canada as a whole and sees itself as an instrument of the people. We want a better-functioning federation that fosters and requires the open collaboration of all levels of government -- federal, provincial, municipal, Aboriginal -- so that government can actually help Canadians meet the real challenges that we all face on a daily basis: finding and keeping a decent job with decent pay, raising children in a safe and clean environment, caring for elderly parents and disabled relatives, ensuring enough food is on the table.
In my campaign, I want to engage Canadians in strengthening a sense of national purpose. I believe we can rebuild the Liberal Party to be the party of principle and bold national leadership that stands for a Canada that is more than the sum of its parts. The polarized politics of left versus right is not what ordinary Canadians want; it is a creation of an outdated mindset that values winning at any cost, while Canadians are interested in getting things done.
Canada is a land of vast opportunity with a vibrant, globally connected population and extraordinary and expanding human energy and potential. It is time to fully embrace what we can do as a country and as a people, to unleash this tremendous energy -- the ideas, the talents, and the drive. Join me in my vision of tomorrow's Canada: a powerhouse of prosperity, sustainable living, and social justice.
Originally published in the Toronto Star.]]>Governing For The People: The Changing Role Of Political Parties And Civil Societytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10865802011-11-12T09:00:32-05:002012-01-12T05:12:01-05:00Deborah Coynehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-coyne/This is the final part of a three-part series that discusses Canadian citizens' dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Part one dealt with the importance of refocusing on public services in the midst of government dysfunction. Part two proposed the creation of an accountable and dynamic council that facilitates coordinated action between all levels of government. This final part discusses the changing role political parties and civil society must play if we are to truly solve the democratic deficit in this country.
To reverse the public disengagement from our political institutions, political parties and civil-society groups must take dramatic steps to rethink their roles, structures, and operations, taking responsibility for promoting the concerns and aspirations of Canadians.
Canadian politics will continue to be organized around political parties for the foreseeable future. Political parties are still necessary as vehicles for addressing societal conflict and reconciling competing interests into differing but coherent visions for society. It would be wrong to think that we can give up on political parties altogether and rely only on issue-specific engagement in civil society. But the old ideological divisions among Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats -- the old 20th century conflicts between the state and markets, big or small government -- no longer define the political landscape. Twenty-first century politics are much less ideological, and much more idiosyncratic and dependent on character, leadership, and the ability to project a long-term vision that resonates with the electorate.
Political parties can no longer rely on a dedicated grassroots base to mobilize voters. Between elections, political parties and their agendas no longer find any resonance with the public, which is inundated with far more interesting and fulfilling opportunities to participate in building their communities or world through their social networks. Our age of instant communications and social media demands that political parties become accessible to everyone.
Each party will live or die by its ability to project principle and purpose -- a coherent vision of the kind of country and society we are building together -- and to respond to the aspirations of Canadians by establishing over-the-horizon goals. To this end, the party must continually develop practical policy positions that are accessible (see, for example, U.S. President Barack Obama's online platform). At the same time, the party must actively reach out to the disparate civil-society coalitions on an ongoing basis and then, during an election, attempt to persuade them to mobilize their respective followers to support a particular party's candidates.
In the past decade, some positive steps have been taken toward building more open and inclusive political parties. All major parties at the federal level have now embraced a universal vote of the membership to choose their leaders -- a vast improvement over the old convention system that excluded the majority of party members, to say nothing of those outside the party. Corporations and unions can no longer dictate terms to the parties through their superior-donor clout. But parties have a long way to go if they wish to halt their precipitous decline in relevance.
One area that needs urgent improvement is the party's ability to present authentic and committed candidates during an election. Parties must reform their nomination procedures to present candidates who are accepted by the electorate in individual ridings, rather than just the choice of a party machine. Riding associations would establish mechanisms to vet all potential candidates for basic suitability only. Their primary responsibility then consists in establishing as widespread a debate as possible among potential candidates, in as many local venues as possible -- from coffee houses to pubs to community centres. Every voting resident of the riding should then be able to cast a mail-in ballot for the candidate of his or her choice via a transferable vote (wherein voters rank their top three choices). The result will be a candidate who is not only known to the electorate, but who also owes allegiance to the people who elected him or her, and not to a party machine or an unrepresentative group of paid-up party members. These reforms that promote open and unrestricted community engagement in the nominations of national candidates must be complemented by reforms at the parliamentary level that reign in the excessive power of the office of the prime minister and party leader that has allowed a small clique of party loyalists to sidestep legislative oversight and reduce members of Parliament to little more than parliamentary eunuchs.
In tandem with this transformation of political parties, the role and operations of civil-society groups will also fundamentally change. In moving to the centre of the political process, the role of civil-society groups during elections should no longer be restricted to sending predictable questionnaires to party members and candidates, and getting back equally-predictable responses. Civil-society groups now have potential to influence the direction of politics and shape the public agenda. They must expand their activism to encompass everything from the nomination of candidates by political parties, to the identification of key election issues, to endorsing appropriate candidates during an election. The changing role of civil-society groups will require a relaxation of severe restrictions on the advocacy of organizations that are entitled to charitable tax status. Dr. David Suzuki's decision to endorse Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's green energy initiatives is an excellent example of civil-society leaders asserting their power more effectively to influence the political process.
At the national level, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative party are currently much closer than any other party to mastering party politics in the 21st century. The Conservative party is able to rely on narrowly-based groups -- anti-gun control, anti-immigration abuse, anti-tax, pro-monarchy -- to mobilize a critical base of voters, whose membership is also a dependable source of revenue, on election day.
What wins elections in this cynical era of disengagement is the ability to deliver votes at the margin. The main political party positions and platforms are so similar that election campaigns become very character-focused, and in these races, the ability to mobilize narrow coalitions determines the outcome.
With almost 40 per cent of the electorate sitting out the recent federal vote, the Conservatives mobilized supporting coalitions to achieve a decisive majority, while neither the Liberals nor New Democrats could similarly mobilize the far greater number of progressive Canadians involved in a wide-range of civil-society groups.
Canada is at a critical juncture. Our environmental, economic, and social challenges require nothing less than a rewriting of the social contract that has sustained our democracy since the Second World War, and a transformation of our political institutions to restore representative democracy, and principled, responsive government at all levels. The increasing number of both aging Canadians who have contributed to the debt, infrastructure, and sustainability crises we now face, and younger, under- and un-employed Canadians struggling to believe that a better quality of life is still possible, must work together to restore a shared sense of justice, fairness and balance, and to assure a world of expanded opportunities for all Canadians. A revamping of political parties and a more engaged role for civil society could go a long way to bring the focus of political life back to long-term rather than the short-term manipulation of power by those who view Canadians as simply self-absorbed taxpayers and consumers.
Over and over, Canadians have demonstrated the ability, far better than our leaders, to pull together to protest injustice and seek ways to strengthen our social fabric and collective commitment to build what can be one of the great nations of the 21st century. The time is long overdue for bold and imaginative leadership, committed to restoring our confidence in our ability to manage change, and ensuring all Canadians are fully engaged in building an exciting sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.
This post was originally published by The Mark News.
]]>