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

Plenary 2: Governing Social Development in the 21^st Century

Chair: Geneviève Bouchard, Ministère de l'Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille

Philippe Pochet, Observatoire social européen

In the European Union (EU) there is emphasis on the duty of limiting spending, said Philippe Pochet, while in Canada the focus is on the right to spend. Financial transfers are few in the EU, and member states are seen as protagonists.

The open coordination method involves four steps—the setting of objectives; the use of indicators to measure attainment of objectives; the reporting and participation of stakeholders at a national level; audits by peers and states—and, when objectives are not met, recommendations are made. The innovative elements in this process are its use of indicators, bench marking, a learning process through an analysis of best practices, peer pressure, and participation.

"How do you choose best practices from one state to the next?" asked Pochet. Can benchmarking be consistent across the board when definitions of terms such as "unemployed" may vary? Regarding peer pressure, is one minister likely to criticize another? The "naming and shaming" process must impose a particular philosophy. More experimentation is needed; the process must run its course. The challenge is to maintain an all-encompassing level of participation.

Judith Maxwell, Canadian Policy Research Networks

Referring to the "well-being diamond" of family, state, market, and community, Judith Maxwell said that the contributions of communities, employers in the marketplace, and families must be recognized. Families and communities are under pressure, and are asked to fill in too many gaps in the social network.

Government needs new tools for problem solving and bridge building. Cities have outgrown their powers, a new level of Aboriginal government is working in isolation, and there is not enough communication between business and government, and between the provinces and territories and the federal government. There is a lack of public space for national and local problem solving. This space is needed to develop partnerships among all actors.

The urban agreements in Vancouver and Winnipeg indicate that progress is possible. They are unique in that they are long term, involve three levels of government and communities, provide flexibility in use of funds, include evaluations, and are highly participatory.

At present, there is a need for productive conversations among legislators, political leaders, businesses, and public officials. "Governments have made place-based policies in the past," she said. "They just have to decide to do it again."

Theodore R. Marmor, Yale University

The new century is facing old risks, said Theodore Marmor. The central issues of the welfare state—unemployment, medical care, disabling working conditions, child allowance—are at risk with the current US administration. "What we find in the US is an effort to return to pre-welfare-state thinking." The current philosophy is that individuals should save for medical expenses and potential loss of employment.

Marmor reminded the audience that the purpose of the welfare state is to cushion against the negative effects of capitalism and the business cycle. In his estimation, the 21^st century did not present any new risks except in one key area: the family. New risks stem from a shift in the structure of the family. Where there was once a single, male breadwinner supporting a wife and children, there are now, for example, ex-spouses. Social security policies have not taken that into account.

"Should we take the recent [US] election as an indication that there is a new mandate?" asked Marmor. Social programs are not necessarily at risk. But the extent to which President Bush does not accept the fundamental raison d'être of the welfare state is evident in a number of his proposals. The greatest danger, Marmor said, "is a lack of understanding of why we have a welfare state in the first place. Is it to provide income security or, promote a broader concept of well-being?" He cautioned that there are some things—such as community initiatives—that governments do not necessarily do well.

Provocateur: Keith Banting, Queen's University

Banting introduced two themes: the central importance of multiple levels of government, and the spread of ideas internationally and within Canada. When the government "seems to break out" (as in the case of the 1995 budget) "there is a sense of illegitimacy, of rupture," he said. "Are we able to learn from ourselves?" There is a danger that taking solutions from abroad may not suit the Canadian situation.

Although Canada's multilevel, decentralized government is responsive to different communities, and provides opportunities to learn from different parts of the country, there are three types of limitation to it. The federal-provincial system is "okay for day-today issues... but... it doesn't encourage (long-term) vision." It is a closed world unto itself, and "generates public mystification." It does not facilitate Canadians' learning from themselves.

There have been attempts to use the Health Council as "a tool of convergence." But this creates an underlying worry that it is a form of "soft federal power." This can undercut efforts to create the space Maxwell spoke of, where a national conversation can take place. "If we don't learn from ourselves," he said, "we may learn from abroad to take ideas that won't fit."

Discussion

Referring to Maxwell's presentation, a participant commented that communities should be trusted to look after themselves. More funding is needed. "I liked the idea of public servant as facilitator in communities," he said. He invited Maxwell to comment on whether these elements are required to "get social development off the ground." Maxwell responded that facilitators are required. "I agree profoundly that there's underfunding, or that money is not used wisely." An equivalent to core funding has to be found, "given that it's become a bad word."

While agreeing with the points raised with the well-being diamond, a participant said he was disappointed that Québec's social economy was not raised. They have produced 60,000 jobs, created social capital, and provided early daycare centres.

A participant asked Maxwell about balance of power between community groups. "In Ontario," she said, "with the downsizing of housing, we've seen bad things. Councils may want to serve seniors only. The agencies who serve the most marginalized (i.e., the homeless) tend to be marginalized." Maxwell responded that in an ideal world, there would be intermediaries within communities to reach into neighbourhoods, and do the capacity building.

Asked if he was drawing a priority on one type of policies, Marmor said "I only meant to distinguish between the two. Well-being is not workable as a category—it doesn't distinguish between those acts that governments are good at dealing with, and those that they aren't.... I'm not opposed to consideration of well-being...but I worry about opening up the scope and losing focus on essential programs."

A participant asked Banting if he thought a shift to open coordination could overcome the coordination problems in the federal system, or whether Canadians are doomed to coordinating that looks like political control. He said he found Pochet's comment, that there was higher participation from community groups than from unions, surprising. Banting responded that he was reflecting more on the kind of debate in Canada after 1995. "The more we talk about this as federal coordination," he said, "the more it will be seen as federal soft power. We should ban the word 'coordination.' Then it would carry less baggage and distrust."

"Associations dealing with people living under the poverty line...use this window of opportunity to propose or suggest ideas," said Pochet. They can act on two levels: informing and coordinating. It is easier for unions to pressure employers directly.