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

Breakout Session 3A: New Social Architecture

Moderator: Naomi Alboim, Queen's University

Cynthia Williams, Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Policy Research Network

Williams began by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the successes—not just the faults—of the current social architecture of Canada. Using vivid imagery by comparing Canada to a "tree with a few damaged limbs," Williams went on to say that the postwar social architecture has proven to be highly flexible and responsive to change and, at the same time, has been partially responsible for shaping current social issues. These issues, as Williams pointed out, have not changed since the Marsh Report of 60 years ago where the current social architecture was born. While the three biggest issues facing Canada today—income, family, and health—were all cited as pressing issues 60 years ago, the dimensions have changed. Williams focused on two of these issues: income/poverty and family.

Insofar as income is concerned, Williams acknowledged two different groups: the working poor and the "persistently poor." She claimed that current programs such as minimum wage and wage supplement are adequate in addressing working poor if working wages are at the heart of the matter for this group. However, if labour market and services are at the heart, she asserted, current programs are weak in their ability to combine income and services. For at least three of the five groups of "persistently poor," the answer to curbing poverty lies not in income but in social practices and policies. Here she emphasized the importance of the link between social exclusion and poverty.

Williams moved on to address family issues and contended that the current welfare system is based on a life cycle that no longer exists. When it came into being in the 1940s, the welfare system assumed a life cycle with neat compartments where, for example, 99 per cent of children grew up with one parent staying at home with them. Today, Williams explained, families operate in different ways (i.e., many families have two working parents). The challenge for the future, Williams asserted, must be a welfare system that addresses these changes.

In conclusion, Williams contended that some tools currently being used are reasonably reliable (i.e., income support) and that other tools work fine because they have been flexible enough to change over the years (i.e., family benefit program or pensions). There are several issues that need fixing including the ability to create comprehensive social policy and the creation of new risk models that take into account federal/provincial relations that have become frayed in recent years. Williams admitted that there was still much work to be done in issues surrounding social partnerships and accountability.

Katherine Scott, Vice-President Research, Canadian Council on Social Development

Scott admitted that one of the most pressing challenges facing Canadians today is to increase society's consciousness of vulnerable poor. She said that focusing solely on new jobs will result in failure because poverty runs deeper than employment. Other issues that need to be addressed include lifelong learning and issues around caring. In the past, women were assumed to take on the responsibility of caring for children, elderly, etc., but that has changed (or should) because more women are now working and cannot/should not be expected to take on caring needs as well.

Scott contended that Canada must focus on innovation and solidarity within the country rather than outside its borders. Looking to the future, Scott posed several questions that must be addressed:

• What are appropriate roles of partners around the issue of welfare?
• What is meant by "community"? The definition needs to be made clearer.
• Should the same tools (i.e., tax system for income security) be continued or should new tools be employed?
• Is it more important to invest in children (thus, a focus on the future) and, in doing so, accept trade-offs in equality now?
• How can Canadians best be engaged in these matters?

The time allotted for audience participation was far less than originally anticipated and, thus, comments varied and did not prompt a greater discussion around any one subject as had initially been hoped. Nevertheless, many in the audience were eager to express opinions.

A participant brought up the need to include cities in talks about federalism. She contended that too often such talks revolve around federal/provincial relations and ignore the important roles that cities play in shaping social policies and frameworks. Relations between cities and provinces, as well as relations between cities and the federal government, need to be strengthened. She also pointed out that one change yet to be mentioned was the diversity of communities. "Multiculturalism is a social experiment in Canada," she said. If diversity is mainstream, why separate it out as a unique issue?

Another audience member expressed concern about affordable housing, and said that this was a major issue facing the country currently. Homelessness is costly and debilitating and the effects of it widespread. The participant explained that in 1993 the federal housing program that matched provincial input amounts was cut and only two provinces—British Columbia and Québec—kept their provincial housing programs. Now that the federal matching program is being reimplemented, it will be important for all provinces to reinstate their provincial programs and to focus on increasing the amount of affordable housing available to the poor.

A participant said that the environment dilemma is usually left out of discussions about social structures. He went on to state that most people live with the belief that technology will get Canadians out of any problems they create for themselves, but that this belief may not be true. Furthermore, most models for future social constructs decrease the amount of money allotted for research, decreasing the likelihood that—even if it is possible—technology will not be able to keep up with the environmental degradation that takes place as more people must be accommodated with finite resources. New social programs and structures can be fashioned, but if there is not a healthy natural environment for people to live in, these programs and structures will be pointless. More of a focus on environmental restoration and future conservation must be taken if any of the proposed new social constructs are to be successful.

Several other audience members addressed the issue of poverty. One stated that it was "unbelievable that Canada doesn't have a national poverty strategy." Another pointed out that the Marsh Report had as goals living wages and full employment. Based on these two goals, in looking ahead, Canadians need to decide what type of economy they want to have—either low wages and poor quality jobs (but lots of them) or high wages and high quality jobs (but fewer of them). Trade-offs are associated with both options and people must decide if and how they are going to live with these. The participant went on to champion rebuilding a national training program and moving towards a living wage at the bottom end (i.e., the poor).

The last two participants to speak focused on the involvement of the public and of communities. The first pushed for a clearer definition of community and questioned whether social services, funding, and programs will ever adequately address poverty if blocks within Canadian communities (i.e., social exclusion, lack of consensus) are not first addressed. The second made the point (resonating with many in the crowd) that there remains a severe disconnect between conferences such as this one and issues being faced by communities "on the ground." She questioned how communities could be better mobilized and engaged in discussions, given ever changing provincial-federal relations.