New Century, New Risks: Challenges for Social Development in Canada - November 18-19 2004

Breakout Session 2B: The Role of Citizens

Moderator: Nicole Charron, Public and Ministerial Affairs Branch,
Social Development Canada

Susan D. Phillips, Carleton University

Susan Philips suggested a road map for the changing role of citizens, as individuals and in a collective context. The architecture of citizen involvement includes citizens themselves, the organizations created by them, and government. Citizens want to be involved in social policy, but there is declining trust, a lack of time, and both too much and too little information. Being a "good citizen" requires involvement at the municipal, provincial or territorial, and federal levels.

Both community organizations and government face new risks. Community organizations face a lack of policy-making capacity, vulnerable project funding, accountability requirements that produce high levels of caution, liability that makes it difficult to attract leaders, and inhibiting federal regulations. The government has to deal with the fact that MPs now have a stronger role in relation to the public service. The current accountability scare leaves no room for risk.

Developing a new architecture will involve building new community infrastructures, and creating meaningful opportunities for policy development and new meeting places.

Pearl Eliadis, The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation

The role that is being proposed for citizens, said Pearl Eliadis, hinges on two levels of engagement: as individuals and as community members. Citizens can be seen as targets of public action and as architects of public communities. How does this affect democracy? She said politicians speak of how threatening it is to them that citizens want to take control of policy at ground level.

In the US, citizens' groups are mushrooming, in response to the "death of debate" in the political forum. They want to provide dialogue. Community level action—citizen juries, panels, assemblies, planning cells, referenda, polling, and surveys—has come to replace what was once a democratic dialogue. These actions offer dialogue in the absence of public debate, input, and space for citizens (as opposed to private interest groups), and the notion of personal transformation. But there are risks: accountability, legitimacy, major value shifts, and the strangling of formal democracy. These processes "step aside from the democratic process," said Eliadis.

With the debate over Sharia law in Ontario, one sees how citizens feel there is no public space for the discussion of particular issues. The challenge is to be innovative and flexible.

Discussion

A student researcher commented that the issue of a collaborative sense of justice applies to Aboriginal communities. Will this put Canada in the Netherlands' situation, where there is a growing, underutilized community? Asked whether she thought this was a threat or risk, economically and politically, Eliadis responded, "When you read the two sides of the debate, they position their arguments within the context of Canadian freedom.... The answer is to not react superficially, but to look at what is at stake." In Québec the solution was to make it so that nothing can be solved in private arbitration. Ontario may take a different option.

Asked about the connection between community agendas and emerging citizens' agendas, Phillips said, "We spent more than a decade undermining organizations, we've left citizens hanging on their own. I think we have to start thinking about how we build support for citizens, and how to develop citizen-to-citizen communication."

Commenting that it was a shame the audience had to choose between two workshops, a participant said participatory democracy and the issues it brings up—citizen contribution within local development projects, accountability—require new spaces. In Québec, there are problems in the local and regional development processes, with the role of city councilors on one hand, and the role of community leaders on the other.

Eliadis asked how the various forums and groups could start to interact to have a transparent accountable system. "I don't have the answer," she said, "but I have noticed new systems, new names, and terminology that have come as a reaction to the perception that the spheres have started to be reduced, so new spheres have to be raised."

Phillips noted a "scary" thing about forums: "They tend to make you feel good about yourself, but you don't necessarily see that it has any effect on social policy." That could breed frustration and a downward spiral.

A participant asked about risks faced by community groups. Given the involvement of players on the local, provincial, and federal levels, in Québec there are questions about how a sense of legitimacy and accountability can be maintained. Eliadis suggested that mechanisms have emerged on local levels. When higher levels of government become involved, it becomes a question of governmental efforts. "When are we going to find that all these mechanisms finally are interconnected?" she asked. "The question is still pending and the answer is unclear."

An audience member argued that there are forums that represent different sectors of society. "There's also the kind of consultation process that Québec and Canada used to do very well by." In Québec, the premier has had council on a regional level, then a national forum for discussion. This process is well engrained. But in one case, he insisted that he consult with individual citizens, who have less time and fewer resources to participate than groups. Each individual was given only a minute or two to speak. A few blocks away, an alternative forum was held, gathering more people. She concluded this showed that citizens' groups and government are still separated.

A participant pointed out that, now that national organizations like the National Action Committee on the Status of Women have had their funding cut, women's issues are rarely heard of in the media. Women's groups have set up a foundation to fund this kind of activity, but they still need government money. With issues such as housing in Toronto, not only do groups have to be formed to lobby government to fund projects, they have to educate other citizens' groups that it is a waste to leave money unspent. Eliadis responded, "There is discussion amongst foundations about funding core expenses in part because it's going to be the only way to achieve the national impact some of these organizations used to have." Phillips said, "If we had connected this with government, we would talk about how you gauge learning." Among citizens and communities, that happens through umbrella groups. "If we're going to talk about policy learning, to think that citizens can do that on their own is fiction," she said.

A participant referred to a study he had worked on examining how Aboriginal communities had achieved a self-government that reflected the communities' values. Ultimately, legitimate interaction between individuals and government contributed to well-being. Regardless of the mechanics used in achieving that, citizens were constrained by the information they had access to. Citizens have a role and obligation to participate but they have a right to be well served by media and government. Eliadis responded, "There's a big difference between the types of mechanics used by government, and ground-up involvement where citizens see themselves as actors."

An audience member commented that there are two parts to deliberative democracy. There is the critical role: reacting to policy. The government finds that challenging—it is competition. "Anti-conferences" are more popular and get more coverage. There is the advisory role. "We normally talk about education in government," she said. "It's also lacking in community." Governments do not legitimize citizens unless they fund groups. "Government's main legitimate role is that it solves the collective action problem."

Another participant argued that there were two separate discussions to be had: about the consultation process, and about how citizens become architects of social policy. In the latter case, "Is it an empirical or an ideological issue?" he asked. He suggested that in Québec the best social policy reforms (e.g., daycare) were co-produced by proactive contributions of users of social policy, he said. "If you only have a state or government initiative, something is missing in the social policy. In some cases there is conflict between social and political society." Eliadis responded, "I don't think the empirical issue matters. I think how it happens and the extent to which it gets integrated is really the question." Phillips added, "Does it matter where the public and private intertwine? That's the point.... How can you influence policy when you are looking at outcomes?"