Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 18 - Evidence, October 21, 1998
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 21, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 3:30 p.m. to consider the dimensions of social cohesion in Canada in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces that influence trust and reciprocity among Canadians.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, we are continuing our study of social cohesion in Canada. Before I introduce today's witnesses, let me take 60 seconds of your time to give you a bit of background.
In 1996, the Privy Council appointed a policy research committee from across the government, an inter-departmental committee, with the view of understanding the policy environment over the medium term and to begin planning for the next decade. The committee's mandate was to prepare, for deputy ministers, a report on the pressure points that are likely to arise in Canadian society by the year 2005, as a result of economic, demographic and social trends, and to make recommendations regarding an inter-departmental research agenda and work program to address gaps in knowledge.
By October 1996, the policy research committee had produced this interim report entitled "Growth, Human Development, Social Cohesion," which is in the public domain and is available to you and which I commend to you to read. Reading some of the work that they were doing early on, as a matter of fact, was one of the factors that led me and some colleagues to suggest to the Senate that we do this study on social cohesion.
The policy research initiative has a number of elements to it, one of which is social cohesion, and our witnesses today are the co-chairs of the subcommittee on social cohesion.
Michael Wernick, whom you see at the witness table, who in his day job is Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of Canadian Heritage, is here in his capacity of co-chair of the subcommittee on social cohesion. He is not here to discuss the policies of the Department of Canadian Heritage as such.
Thea Herman is, in her day job, Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice. She is the other co-chair of the subcommittee on social cohesion. I see that she is joined by Doug Williams, Special Advisor, Research and Statistics Division, Justice Canada.
These witnesses will have a deck that has been distributed to you and they will take us through it briefly, after which I will open the floor for questions and discussion. Please proceed.
Mr. Michael Wernick, Co-Chair, Subcommittee on Social Cohesion of the Policy Research Committee, Department of Canadian Heritage: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honourable senators, for the invitation and the opportunity to meet with you this afternoon. We hope that we can be of assistance to you in this very important undertaking the committee has set itself. I think you have set out very nicely some of the antecedents of the policy research initiative, so I can move very quickly through that early part of the presentation.
As you said, the initiative stemmed from a desire to re-energize the policy research capacity of the federal public service. The goal was to establish a forward-looking agenda, to look beyond the urgent and day-to-day issues to a medium- and longer-term set of issues. It also included making sure that the work was being organized and done so that advice could be brought forward to political decision makers in a timely way to deal with those issues that had been identified. It was also about building capacity and putting resources to the best use, and partnership, breaking down some of the stovepipes within the federal public service and encouraging people to work together in a multi-departmental and multi-disciplinary way -- and social cohesion is one of those issues that certainly lends itself to that.
The broader network involves some 30 federal departments and agencies, and we have sifted ourselves out basically into the networks that you will see on the third page of the deck. Under the overall steering committee of about eight or nine members, the four networks pursue their work. As you noted, the main themes that emerge from the diagnostic of 1996 and 1997 were human development, global challenges and opportunities, growth, and social cohesion.
Our network has a large pool of departments that are involved. Unfortunately, because Ms Herman and I have volunteered to be co-chairs of the committee, much of the work falls on the staffs of the Department of Justice and the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have made quite a contribution to the network but there are many federal departments and agencies involved in the work.
We have been pursuing a work plan, which was set up in the spring of 1997. The work plan identified, as you described them, knowledge gaps and identified questions and organized them into a kind of architecture. The work has been underway ever since. We have started to harvest some of the results of that and we will continue to do so over the next few years.
As to the starting part of the work, we wrestled, as I am sure your committee will, with the conceptual framework and definitions of social cohesion. We spent some time agreeing upon a working definition -- which I am sure you will want to discuss when we get to the questions -- and finding an architecture, a framework, to organize the work within, and to build the networks within and outside the federal government. That meant reaching out to the academic community, to the think-tanks, to international organizations, to people working in other countries, and there has been a great deal of contact and networking over the last year.
Of course, we also tried to ensure that we kept bridges open to the other networks. As the networks worked on issues of growth or human development, we would often find ourselves coming into problems and issues perhaps from a slightly different angle or slightly different perspective, but we all benefited from keeping the lines of communication open.
One thing we realized very quickly -- and I am sure you have as well -- is that social cohesion is not just an issue for Canada; it has become a preoccupation in many countries around the world. The deck cites a few authorities: Tony Blair from Great Britain, reports from the OECD, the Club of Rome, to name a few. We could go on with a long list of citations from people involved in public policy around the world in the last few years and using slightly different vocabularies and terminologies. Social cohesion has become part of the public-policy agenda around the world.
Hence, social cohesion certainly has some Canadian aspects to it, some Canadian uniqueness, which you and ourselves will be wrestling with, but it is also an issue that has come up in Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world.
The definition of "social cohesion" that we worked with, which I think Jane Jenson set out for you when she appeared, is on page 6 of the deck. We will start by sort of parsing what we were not talking about. We would not define social cohesion in a way that makes it synonymous or congruent with national unity or the standard of living of the society or the social union, in the sense of the programs of the social safety net, or even social capital, which is another phrase which is used. The definition that we have been working under is set out on page 6. The network's working definition of "social cohesion" is as follows:
...the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians.
As you can see on page 7, we have held that definition up to scrutiny. It has been much debated, There are alternative versions around -- I think Jane Jenson took you through some of those -- but it has held up reasonably well as a way of organizing some of the policy research agenda.
In debating the definition and hearing views from the think-tanks and the international community, we have, we would assert, learned a few things about social cohesion. From our point of view, we see it as an ongoing process and not as an end in itself. There is no end point to which you get to in social cohesion. It is not that there is a 100-point score, where cohesion goes up from 70 to 80 or down from 80 to 70; it is a process. A society that is cohesive is dynamic and adapts. It is flexible and adjusts to change.
Cohesion is not about homogeneity. It is not about stamping everybody the same way, like a cookie-cutter. A society that is overly homogeneous may, in fact, exclude people, not be cohesive.
Cohesion is not about eliminating conflict. It is not that a cohesive society has no conflicts within it but how those conflicts are played out and resolved. If a society has processes for conflicts to be arbitrated, mediated, and resolved in the political and social arenas, then there will be a greater degree of cohesion. If you do not have those kinds of things, then you will get into other kinds of social pathologies.
We try to define at a fairly high societal level or a national level rather than at a community level. That is not to say that there are not community-level aspects to social cohesion, and cohesion is manifested certainly at the community level, but we are talking about something more at a societal level. The example I would use is that you could have a society full of gated communities, where people live within their enclaves, each of which is very cohesive and peaceful, but it does not add up to a cohesive society.
As we have bandied about values and identities, we have definitely come to the view that the concept of social cohesion is inclusive of multiple identities and diverse values. Again, it is not about homogeneity and it is not about uniformity.
Various forces affect social cohesion. We clearly see that economic, technological and cultural globalization forces have an effect on social cohesion. Social cohesion is also affected by the increased mobility of the Canadian population both within Canada and around the world. It is also affected by the changing demographics of Canada and by the deeper, longer-term economic restructuring that is underway. It is affected by the increasing diversity of Canadian society, and it is certainly affected by information technology and what that does to communications among Canadians and between Canadians and the rest of the world.
Changes in social cohesion, for better or for worse, will be reflected in certain things. For example, it will be reflected in the strength of Canadian identity and in income distribution. Using some of the indicators that Jane Jenson identified, it will be reflected in the sense of inclusion or exclusion felt by Canadians, their sense of pessimism versus hope, their civic engagement, their civic knowledge, their participation in the political, social, cultural life of the country, in diversity and in the kinds of issues that are often described as civil society.
At this point, I will turn to my colleague, who can take you through some of the questions as we have phrased them and how we have organized the work to answer them.
Ms Thea Herman, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice: On page 9 of the deck, you will find an outline of our research plan. We have organized our plan around three major themes, including 11 issues that we have identified as areas in which there are significant gaps in knowledge. The first theme is called "Faultlines," which includes the following questions that we are asking each other and ourselves: Are multiple fault lines opening in Canadian society? If so, what are the most important ones and what are their consequences? What are the factors that exacerbate or bridge these fault lines?
Some of the research issues under this theme include questions such as: What is the impact of contemporary diversity on social cohesion issues such as gender, age, regional issues, the rural-urban split in the country, and ethnic fault lines. Another question we ask ourselves is: What are the effects of economic polarization on social cohesion, of income distribution, long-term unemployment, and dropouts?
The second research theme that we have identified is "Axes of Community Identification." Under this theme, the following questions are asked: What are the axes for community identification and are they changing? What is the nature of membership in the community? Is this membership becoming more complex and do people now have multiple community attachments? Is the intensity of people's attachment to their community or to multiple communities changing and how is it changing?
Some of the research issues under the second theme include: What is the role of national symbols and institutions in promoting social cohesion? What is the impact of the emergence of the information society? What is the level and impact of civic education and knowledge of Canada? What are evolving Canadian values? What is the level of civil participation and why does it matter? Similarly, what is Canadian cultural construction and what is the relationship between that and social cohesion?
The final research theme is "Implications of Changes in Social Cohesion." The questions are: Why should the federal government and Canadians care about social cohesion? What are the social, economic, cultural and governance implications of changes in social cohesion within the Canadian community?
Some of the research issues that we are looking at are the following: What is the relationship between social cohesion and economic development, between social cohesion and Canadian identity? What are the roles of the private and voluntary sectors? What are evolving government institutions and policies, and what is the impact of that on social cohesion?
I lead you now to page 10, to some of the early findings. I emphasize the word "early." We are just in the early days in the social cohesion network. We have begun to explore some of the key issues that I have outlined. There are some preliminary conclusions and inferences that can be drawn. I will just discuss those with you briefly.
First, social cohesion and economic growth are not contradictory policy objectives; they are complementary policy objectives. We have long accepted that economic conditions affect society, but what is new is a more recent acceptance that the way in which society is organized can contribute to growth and prosperity. In fact, preliminary evidence suggests that the negative impacts and economic penalties for diminished social cohesion are significant, if difficult to measure. Speaking from the point of view of my day job in Justice, if one looks at criminal issues as being part of a measure of social cohesion, certainly that relates to issues of economic growth and prosperity in terms of how we deal with that. Therefore, social cohesion in its many faces can have significant implications for growth and prosperity.
The second early finding is that Canadians are still proud of being Canadians, but their ties to each other may be weakening. A recent international comparative study has shown that Canadians score very high on national pride, third among 23 countries on measures of pride in national achievements. Canadians have also traditionally been among the most generous of peoples throughout the world. However, while levels of giving and volunteering are stable, the number of hours volunteered by the core volunteers, that is the one-third if Canadians who are actively engaged in voluntary activities, is falling. Combined with other trends, hopes for greater civic engagement on the part of Canadians may run into time barriers and motivation barriers. I think we are all familiar with the very real time barriers that impact on the ability of Canadians to volunteer.
The third preliminary finding is that civil society is becoming less civil. Uncertainty about the future, the danger of economic polarization, and declining confidence in government are causing widespread anxiety amongst Canadians. Economic forces can only partially explain this anxiety and cynicism. The root causes, in fact, appear to be far more complex, including such other factors as social exclusion, cultural and environmental insecurity, and a growing distrust of many of society's major institutions. Survey research suggests, for example, a growing rift between what I might call the "young and the restless" and the "mature and secure," and that while there has been a notable decline of deference to most forms of authority, Canadians still want to see more civility in their society.
The fourth early finding is that regaining citizens' trust and confidence in our public institutions and in the political process is critical to strengthening the social fabric in our country. Research shows us that while Canadians rank number one in terms of pride in our democracy, at the same time we score low on tests of civic knowledge. In order to increase confidence in public institutions, we need more informed public judgment amongst Canadians and more meaningful citizen involvement in the policy process at the earliest stages.
The fifth preliminary finding is that a cohesive society is not one where conflict is absent; rather, cohesive societies find ways to reinforce a sense of community through the constructive management and resolution of conflicts. At this time, it is virtually impossible to anticipate the medium- to long-term structural impacts and interactions among the various fault lines that we mentioned in our society. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that a large measure of their impact on the future health, security, and sense of well-being of Canadians will be determined by the ability of the governance structures, formal governance structures, informal, domestic, international, public, private, non-government and voluntary, to manage those conflicts. We are a society in which we have to accept diversity and conflicts and learn how to manage those.
Sixth, there are a number of important questions to which we still obviously do not have an answer, including: Is a sense of national identity necessary for social cohesion? The sense that we are all in this together may be the root of social cohesion, but we are far from understanding just what promotes this feeling and what may hinder it. It appears that inclusiveness may be key to a healthy sense of national belonging. There are some hints in the material looked at so far that cohesive societies are those that are adept at reconciling multiple identities, but we are far from understanding the means by which this occurs. It would also appear that the federal government, as an instrument of Canadian values, might have played a stronger role than we had previously thought in reinforcing a sense of identity and belonging.
Seventh, this is no time for complacency. Social cohesion issues, as I am sure you realize, are complex and require sophisticated data analysis. However, money and research resources remain scarce. We currently lack enough information to predict whether demographic and social changes will reinforce and compound one another, but the potential for doing so is clearly evident.
In this context, some of the issues we think we need to look at are the following: the emerging generational rift that may compound the already existing gender inequality with respect to income inequality; family issues; and a wide range of social and health problems. Another issue that obviously needs to be understood and examined is the plight of aboriginal peoples. That will require concerted attention on a number of fronts -- health, social welfare, education, housing, the local economy, justice, in a variety of urban and rural settings. Finally, there is the plight of the economically and socially marginalized, a plight that appears to be intensifying and is only partially masked by overall growth in the economy. Our statistics on things like homelessness are incomplete, but we are beginning to understand the enormous impact that homelessness is having in our cities.
On page 11, we have outlined some of the current research challenges that we as a network have identified. First, we want to test and expand upon the conceptual framework for social cohesion research. You will have heard from Jane Jenson already about some of the work that we have done with CPRN on the whole notion of mapping social cohesion. We want to look at the interlinkages between age, gender, ethnicity, geographical location, and other elements, to understand how they interrelate with each other.
We also want to look at our working definition of "social cohesion." As my colleague noted, it is a working definition. The definition of social cohesion is much debated. Had we decided to wait and come up with a good final definition, we would still be debating the definition in the network. We would never have done any of our work. So we decided to come up with a working definition that we thought would satisfy ourselves for purposes of doing the research and getting on with the work. However, I think it is something that we need to come back to, and I hope that the work done by this committee will be able to help us as well and add to some of our thinking on that issue.
We need to deepen our understanding of social cohesion issues. There are many data gaps that still exist, particularly with regard to better and more up-to-date statistics and indicators on social cohesion. As I am sure you all know, social statistics are a lot harder to come by than economic statistics. We need to increase our understanding of the measures that other countries and international institutions are taking to address issues related to social cohesion. There is an enormous amount of work going on in social cohesion, particularly in Europe. We believe that we can benefit from a lot of the work that the Europeans are doing, and they believe that they can work with us, that we can learn from each other.
We need to understand the impediments to higher levels of civic engagement, understand the issue of linkages between access to information, particularly information about Canada, and social, economic and cultural well-being. We want to explore the nature and distribution of the linkages between cultural policy, citizenship, and social cohesion and the role of institutions within a civil society, including the role of national associations in representing and mediating differences and conflicts.
The third thing we want to do in terms of our challenges is intensify the research on the third theme that we identified, the implications of changes in social cohesion. Of the three themes, this is the theme on which the network has the most left to do. We need to investigate the determinants of national identity and attachment, publish and disseminate results on our research between economic development and social cohesion, explore how the nature of political community in our country relates to issues of social cohesion, and investigate how changes in social cohesion affect governance in this country.
Finally, we want to strengthen our partnerships. We have many data gaps, and we in the network are working with Statistics Canada. I believe the role of Statistics Canada is key in trying to get at this whole issue of statistics and social indicators. The social cohesion indicators project is developing a set of preliminary social cohesion indicators, so we will be working with Statistics Canada at that and also exploring new data sources.
We are working, and will continue to work, with the academic community. Heritage Canada, for example, has commissioned a series of papers on the relationship between economic growth and social cohesion. Dalhousie University is looking at the relationship between social cohesion and the economy, and SSHRC is planning quite an ambitious program of research on social cohesion over the next five years. We have mentioned, I think, that we have a partnership with CPRN in the think-tank community, and Jane Jenson has appeared before you to talk about the work that she has done with us on a conceptual framework for social cohesion.
Finally, regional consultations are just beginning. Some meetings have been held between the Policy Research Secretariat and the federal research councils. We know there is a lot more to be done and a lot more information to be tapped outside of Ottawa and in the regions.
To close, we all appreciate the opportunity you have given us to tell you what we are doing at the Social Cohesion Network, and we particularly are encouraged by the fact that you are looking at this topic. Many people, as you know, when you mention social cohesion, scratch their heads and think of it as a very bizarre concept. They have a much easier time understanding why people would want to look at economic issues as opposed to social cohesion. We very much appreciate your deliberations on this. We look forward to your work and to the contribution that that will make to better understanding social cohesion.
The Chairman: Actually, one of the things that we are interested in is the impact of economic developments on social cohesion, particularly, of course, globalization and technology. Economic policies over the past 10 or 15 years have successfully stimulated economic growth. The past 10 or 15 years have not been bad in terms of economic growth. Has your group considered the question of why this economic growth does not seem to have been translated into higher levels of social well-being?
Mr. Wernick: There are a couple of things buried in that question. I guess the first thing I would say is that we do not really know whether social cohesion is getting better or worse at this point, because of the lack of a clear conceptual framework and data. I am not sure that we would say with any confidence that cohesion is better or worse than it was ten years ago, so that makes it a little difficult.
What we would say with some confidence is that we are convinced that the relationship between economic development and social cohesion is a two-way street. It is not as simple as some people would have argued ten years ago, that if you build a strong economy and economic fundamentals, then social policies and social cohesions are something that you can afford. Economic relationships also work in the other way. If you want to attract investment and economic activity to your part of the world or your part of the country, safe communities, decent schools, decent health care, quality of life, among others, are most powerful ways of attracting economic activity and making sure that it is sustained. As the world economy moves increasingly to knowledge-based jobs and very mobile jobs, then in fact the fabric of communities is one of the real assets or liabilities that you can have and working on the social side in fact may be a very successful economic strategy as well.
The Chairman: In the draft interim report of October 1996, you say:
The growing inequality of earnings in Canada, outlined in the preceding section, runs against "reducing disparities in wealth and income," one of the components of the definition of social cohesion. This is compounded by evidence that is becoming more difficult for those at the bottom of the income scale to move up. The negative effect of the marginalization, or exclusion, of individuals from the mainstream of society on the prospects for social cohesion seem obvious; exclusion will breed resentment and disaffection, add to the potential for hostility and crime...
These are things that Ms Herman was mentioning.
A little further on, under "Conclusion," it goes on to say:
The potential medium-term economic growth path under current assumptions is not sufficient to make a dramatic reduction in the jobless nor return us to a situation of steadily rising income for most Canadians. This may well compound the already troublesome shift towards more inequality in opportunities for Canadians and aggravate the unsettling fault lines in social cohesion which are becoming more and more evident.
What do you say to a group of political people about that? In the last two years, have you seen any reason to change that comment about the medium-term economic path? I would not think so.
Ms Herman: I do not think so, but in terms of the work we are looking at, I think to look at the economic statistics generally and say that there is growth is not enough. There are many questions within that: Who is benefiting? Who is not benefiting? Within the "who is not" question, there are issues such as age, gender, aboriginal people, issues of ethnicity, regional issues, urban versus rural. There are, it seems to me, a multitude of things that are hidden within those statistics.
To try to understand the impact on particular issues and, in particular, on social cohesion, which is not just a question of whether people have jobs or not -- although, obviously, whether people have jobs or not is an essential component of social cohesion -- involves many other factors. For example, the various fault lines we talked about, to try to get at those economic issues and their impact on social cohesion.
Mr. Wernick: The only thing I would add is that as the networks struggled in 1996-97 to define the issues, one of the issues that did develop and which has its own network is growth. Real income growth and productivity in Canada have been fairly stagnant for quite a long time. The challenge was to identify the reasons for that and to come up with policy research leading the policy advice on how to move Canada to a higher growth track and make the pie bigger. What emerged for us was the impact of that kind of stagnation and the issues my colleague alluded to, which are distribution inequity and people's sense of being members of the community.
The Chairman: I may come back to this later.
Senator Butts: I will start with a question about your definition. We could quibble all night about definitions. It bothers me slightly to talk about it as an ongoing process of developing. I do not think it is ongoing or developing. In fact, I think some of it is "de-developing." You convey that in other parts of your paper. On page 9 you use the phrase: "fault lines," and that indicates, to me, a breakdown. Do you see my point? I am worried about defining it as an ongoing process of developing something when, in fact, I think it is going downhill.
Mr. Wernick: As I said, we are trying not to pass judgment on whether things are getting better or worse.
Senator Butts: I am not asking you to make a judgment. I am saying that is the reality.
Mr. Wernick: All we are trying to convey is that we do not see it as a state that you either get into or slip out of. We will not achieve cohesion. We will be moving in a certain direction.
Senator Butts: In the past, we had more cohesion.
Mr. Wernick: I agree with you, senator. We can either move in a direction where the ties among Canadians will strengthen; or we can move in a direction where they will weaken.
Senator Butts: On page 12, under "Research Current Challenges," the first bullet, under number 3, you refer to: "national identity and attachment." Is that social cohesion?
Ms Herman: That is one of the questions we are asking. We do not know to what extent social cohesion means a sense of national identity. Is it a sense of national identity? Is it a sense of regional identity? Is it a sense of identity within a community? That is one of the issues we want to address.
Senator Butts: Current evidence indicates that, although national cohesion is breaking down, we have small community cohesions. In a sense, this has been fostered by the federal government. I have worked in three or four different departments and in every one of them we were told to delegate the authority to the communities so that they could make decisions about all sorts of issues. Decisions were left to be made by a region or a municipality. In that sense, I think national cohesion is breaking down and it is being substituted by the cohesion found in the smaller group, the smaller community. Whether they are both social cohesion is irrelevant to me.
Mr. Wernick: We had some discussions with people in France earlier in year. The French have a very high sense of national identity and self-esteem. The country has a cohesive and centralized government, and they are agonizing about social cohesions. Many issues such as integration, immigration, crime, alienation which are dealt with in Marseille or Paris, are the same issues we deal with in any Canadian city. This brought us up short in that it was striking, in talking to people in France, that it is not a simple relationship between a strong national pride and identity and social cohesion.
Senator Butts: Some say that part of the difficulty is that, as the federal government declines in influence in all these communities, power is increasingly being given over to provinces. There is little social cohesion from province to province. They differ in how they vote, their social programs, what interests them, and what they sit down and argue about.
I spent a few hours today discussing child poverty. The issue of child poverty is completely different from province to province. There is no one policy about child poverty in Canada. That is the result of the devolution of power to the provinces.
The Chairman: If the problem is different from province to province, then the approach must be different, and thus the federal government is limited in what it can do. Our witnesses will be able to tell you more than I can about that. I do know that when the National Child Benefit, for example, was introduced, all the provinces joined in and they are now able to tailor it to their own needs.
Senator Butts: They may be able to tailor that, but that does not apply to child poverty, and that is the problem. If the federal government sends the provinces so many millions of dollars to combat child poverty, there is no guarantee that the money will go to child poverty.
The Chairman: It is a tax benefit that gives room to the provinces, provided they put the money into that area.
Senator Butts: Provided the money goes to where it was intended to go. This illustrates the problem of social cohesion.
Mr. Wernick: I am not going to presume to tell you anything about federal relations, senator. I know your background in the area. One of the arguments for having a federal system is that you do not have to take all the decisions at the national level, and you can experiment and apply different policies to deal with different problems, so that there may be a problem in British Columbia that gets a "made in British Columbia" solution. It raises the kind of issues, of course, that you just mentioned, senator. However, sometimes a federation can be more agile and easier to steer than a very unified state.
Senator Butts: The problem is that the provinces are just not equal. For generations the poorer provinces were helped by the richer provinces through the centre. Now that is gone, or it is going really fast. Now you may have a provincial premier who says that he does not want to be a part of that because he does not believe in it. There is a whole new dynamic. If you are a rich province, you are fine, but if you are a poor province which was helped by the equalization payments from the centre and, suddenly, that no longer exists, there is not much social cohesion except in their poverty. That is my point. There is no national cohesion about that.
Ms Herman: Again, without attempting to deal with the federal-provincial issue, in terms of social cohesion, the notion of reciprocity is part of our definition in the sense of people, provinces, regions, whatever, reciprocating and feeling an obligation towards each other. Part of the notion of a loss of civility in our society, again not attaching it to the federal-provincial issue, is the sense that, as Canadian citizens, we no longer have that sense towards each other of mutual obligations. Whether that is the case, I do not know, but there is a perception that people are more selfish than they used to be, whether it be regions, provinces or individuals, and that there is not the sense of community and giving to each other and being obligated towards each other that a socially cohesive society should have.
Senator Butts: There is lot of empirical evidence out there.
The Chairman: On this point perhaps I should just put one sentence on the record. In the policy research committee report, page 51, it states that there is a --
...need for assuring that federal and provincial policies are complementary. At present, Canada lacks both the institutions and the culture that would make more intense collaboration workable. Failure to achieve greater federal-provincial collaboration would make it difficult to deal effectively with the pressure points highlighted in this paper.
Senator LeBreton: My question follows on what Senator Butts has just said about the devolution of power, and the fact that our national institutions are seen to contribute to the various regions less and less. Is that what contributes to the cynicism and the public attitude towards national institutions? I do not know whether it is backed up with data, but 15 or 20 years ago, people had a certain perception of Parliament. They also had a certain perception of the police, the RCMP, and the military. That perception seem to be changing a little with the devolution of power. I was just in Nova Scotia over the weekend and it struck me how irrelevant Ottawa was to the people to whom I talked. Ottawa only comes to their minds when they think of the post office and see a few frigates in the harbour.
The Chairman: Approximately 40 per cent of their provincial budget comes from Ottawa.
Senator LeBreton: However, the perception is that it does not.
The Chairman: Then you have a problem, senator.
Senator LeBreton: That is right. What is behind that?
Mr. Wernick: I think you would have to draw a distinction between attachment to your country and attachment to your federal government. The evidence seems to be that those are two different things. Survey evidence is that pride in Canada is as high as it has ever been, perhaps a little stronger because we keep testing it. Canadians are incredibly proud of their country, and that statement would apply to every part of the country, notwithstanding all the changes in the roles of the federal and provincial governments that you describe. Our attitudes toward government -- and we are careful to be generic -- relates to politics and government at every level, federal, provincial and municipal. It is manifested in other countries as well. You probably heard Michael Adams talk about the decline of deference and the attitude that people have towards their governments. It is not just simply related to federal governments, although those are, obviously, in many ways the easiest and most visible governments to talk about. One of the programs from which Canadians draw their sense of Canadian identity is the health care system. You would not be aware of the federal role in sustaining the health care system if you simply used the services of the Canadian health care system but it is very much part now, after 30 years of national health insurance, of people's sense of themselves as Canadians and what makes them different from their neighbours.
Senator LeBreton: That is a perfect lead-in to my next question about national identity and the globalization of our economy. Do you have any data which indicates that being different from the United States in some ways strengthens our national identity? Do you find that, because we are a population of 30 million, 90 per cent of us living within a hundred miles of the U.S. border, Canadians' sense of identity becomes confused because we are so interlinked with the United States with communications and trade? I grant you that health care is probably a defining difference, but do you find that, because of the proximity of our borders, Canadians are confused about their identity?
Mr. Wernick: "No" would be the short answer. At the risk of getting into issues about cultural policy, Canadians are very adept at juggling multiple identities and at being avid consumers of information and culture from our neighbours and other parts of the world. Your life is enriched by exposure to European, American and Asian cultural products. You can enjoy them, participate in them and, at the same time, be strongly attached to your community and to your country. The evidence is that Canadians are very good at moving from their participation at the local level to participation at the international level, and there may be other axes of identification that have nothing to do with geography. People's sense of themselves may come from their gender, from ethnicity, or even from being avid gardeners, bowlers, bird watchers or whatever. You can easily move around within those identities.
Senator LeBreton: On the economic side, can you make that same statement about the Generation Xers who may feel that they are on their own? Do they have that same sense of identity and attachment to Canada?
Mr. Wernick: Yes, the evidence is that people labelled "Generation X" are attached to Canada. Where they feel perhaps differently from preceding generations -- and again I think Michael Adams talked about this a bit -- is in their sense of wondering if the rest of the community or the state is going to look after them. Those of us in our generation planned our lives on the assumption of a certain degree of reciprocity from the rest of the community, of safety nets, of public pensions and all that sort of thing. The evidence we have seen indicates that the generations that have followed us are a little distrustful and skeptical of that concept, and are more inclined to take matters into their own hands and ensure that they can look after themselves and their immediate families.
Senator LeBreton: Perhaps it is a myth that our national institutions are suffering and that we do not have as strong a national identity as we had formerly. Is that a result of the attitudes of Generation X and because they are more vocal? Is it more related to the economies?
Ms Herman: I am not sure. I think the issues as they relate to Generation X and the generations that follow should be looked at. They are a generation that is growing up with a very different reality from the generations before them. They have far more insecurity as young people than our generation had as young people, right or wrong. They know they will have more jobs in their lifetime than we thought we would have. Perhaps, as young people, we should have been feeling more insecure than we did.
Senator LeBreton: We always considered that we would have one or, perhaps, two careers. They must contemplate having multiple careers.
Ms Herman: Yes, they probably will have multiple careers. Many of them know they may have to leave the communities they grew up in, whereas older generations thought they might have to leave those communities or might have multiple jobs but, at least, they did not have those anxieties when they were young.
Senator LeBreton: They did not have to anticipate it.
Ms Herman: That is correct.
When you consider who are the winners and the losers in our period of economic growth, you must be concerned about the impact on that generation waiting at the door while the baby-boomer generation occupies all the good jobs and has all the goodies, and what will happen when they come along. In the work we are doing, we will examine that generation and the reality of the ageing population in the country. We will also keep in mind that our ageing population will live longer.
Senator LeBreton: People are living longer.
Ms Herman: Yes, and that is a new reality for Canada, as it is for many western countries. A large elderly population will also very much change the dynamics surrounding social issues. We need to look at a very different society from what we are used to.
Senator LeBreton: The responsibility of Generation X to an ageing population is a major challenge to social cohesion.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: In your brief, you define social cohesion in Canada as the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians.
We are a multi-ethnic society, with a wide variety of problems. We are a mosaic of people from all parts of the world. When you mention a European country like Italy, for example, you will find many groups of immigrants or refugees of Italian origin, who have been here for several generations. The same thing goes for France. In Canada, our heritage is the heritage we received from our countries of origin. Our roots are very varied.
I am struck by the fact that 9.5 per cent of Canadians are on welfare. Some of them have things easy because they get welfare cheques. How can we encourage these people to become part of the labour force? How can we motivate them to participate once more in working to improve their country as full citizens? They have to be provided with appropriate work, work that is commensurate with their abilities, and pays better than the welfare cheques they already get -- otherwise, we'll never get them back to work.
We know that government institutions have an important role to play in working towards better social cohesion. First, let me ask you what sort of partnerships we should establish among governments, the private sector and the volunteer sector to work towards an atmosphere of social cohesion that would counteract feelings of social exclusion?
Secondly, how can the government encourage all Canadians to feel a sense of national identity, to have confidence in their government institutions, and to work towards social cohesion, in spite of the forces of global economic competitiveness? What are the root causes of the social exclusion, or the lack of social cohesion, that you have identified in your research?
Thirdly, what role could the government play in bringing about social cohesion in our society?
Fourthly, are the governments of European Union countries and the US as interested in social cohesion as the Canadian government? What concrete initiatives have they introduced?
Mr. Wernick: If we may, we will take your questions under advisement and submit written answers at a later date. We have a great deal of documentation from European countries, and a quick answer would be yes. The European Commission and the governments of a number of European Union states are doing a great deal of work on social cohesion. We could let your clerk have a list of relevant studies and their sources.
You were quite right in saying that one of Canada's strengths is our ability to absorb and integrate people from all over the world. Europeans -- French people, Germans and others -- are very impressed when they see how many people, say in Vancouver or Toronto, who were born in foreign countries are now genuinely Canadians and participate fully in Canadian economic and cultural life.
In France, we found that integration of immigrants was almost taboo as a subject. They did not want to talk about it, but they were quite happy to discuss the issues Canada has been dealing with for some years.
Senator Ferretti Barth: How can our government ensure that all Canadians have a genuine sense of Canadian identity, have confidence in our government institutions, and work towards social cohesion in spite of the forces of global economic competitiveness? With the Free Trade Agreement, we opened the doors to foreign companies, who now settle here to the disadvantage of smaller domestic companies. I wonder whether those people still consider themselves Canadian, or whether they consider themselves part of the U.S.
[English]
Mr. Wernick: I must put in a word for the Department of Canadian Heritage. One of the ways that the government has acknowledged that there is a role for public policy in promoting identity is to establish a department, the purpose of which is precisely that. Our cultural policies, our identity policies, multiculturalism, official languages, and some of our Canadian identity programming with which you are, perhaps, familiar -- all of that is precisely aimed at strengthening the sense of community among Canadians. We can certainly debate in some other forum how well some of those policies and programs work, but there is a recognition that there is a will and public policy aimed at doing that sort of thing.
As I said earlier, our integration economically and technologically into North America and the rest of the world is a challenge which forces us to constantly rethink our instruments, the way we go about regulating broadcasting, or how we deal with the magazine industry. Any number of instruments has to be renewed, adjusted and adapted but there is a constancy about the public policy objectives through governments of many stripes which have pursued strengthening our sense of cultural identity.
You asked which public policy instruments contribute to cohesion. We will have to duck the question a little bit. Until we know whether things are getting better or worse, what are the dynamics, what are the forces that strengthen or weaken, it is very difficult to say that a certain policy contributes this much or another policy contributes that much. The tool kit would include the social safety net, the health care system, the equalization and sharing across provinces, the criminal justice system, and human rights legislation. There are many tools that have a bearing on people's sense of inclusion and whether they believe they are part of the community or not. Some of those tools are federal and some are provincial. However, we are a long way from being able to tell what policy prescriptions flow from our research.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: On page 10 of your brief, entitled "The Social Cohesion Network," you state that regaining citizens' trust and confidence in public institutions and in the political process is critical to strengthening the social fabric in Canada. You also mention this elsewhere in your brief. Can you suggest ways in which that confidence could be regained?
There has been a progressive deterioration in the way people view by all levels of government -- federal, provincial, and so on. What can be done to win back people's trust? Do you have any suggestions along these lines?
[English]
Ms Herman: I have a few suggestions. One is for Canadians to know more and understand more about their public institutions and to participate in them and feel more of a sense of ownership, that those public institutions belong to them. Again speaking from my experience in my day job, confidence in the justice system is an issue. That is one institution where we are concerned about a lack of confidence. There is a sense that, if people understand more about those institutions and if they can participate more in them, their confidence in them would increase.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Do you think politicians have a responsibility to increase people's trust in them and in institutions? If politicians continue to display somewhat deplorable attitudes, I don't think they will increase people's trust in public institutions or the political process.
Mr. Wernick: Yes, our political leaders have a role to play. The danger is that a significant group of Canadians may feel left out or treated unjustly. This problem could probably be solved if everyone felt they belonged to the community.
[English]
In looking at other countries, one thing we have noticed is that these things can go up and down. You tread into the area of social psychology here, and I am not an expert, but countries do go through mood swings. Britain, France, Germany, United States and Canada have all passed through periods of being collectively angry, depressed, optimistic or euphoric, and sometimes in rapid succession. I am not sure that it is easy to isolate the sort of ups and downs of political life from the longer trend attitudes of citizens towards their governments which do seem to be more common across countries.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: It is all very well for us to say that we are going to get people involved in the community, hold information or education meetings and so on, but it is up to people to actually get involved. This process must start at the top as well. If it doesn't happen, they will not be motivated to get involved. We will have to think more about the role that should be played. Without criticizing governments of whatever stripe, I think it is extremely important that politicians become more aware of the role they should be playing. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.
Mr. Wernick: There is no doubt that feelings of optimism, confidence, or pessimism and despair about the future are most important. The messages conveyed by political leaders, the media and colleagues are very important.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: People feel depressed about the public service. Shouldn't we do something in that regard? In the past two years, I have heard people complain that trying to get anything from the public service was like trying to go to the moon. Major corrective action is required in my view if people are to feel that the public service is there to serve them as well, not just the political apparatus.
You see no problems with the public service, since you are part of it.
Mr. Wernick: It can be said, however, that the public service is one of the most important Canada-wide institutions we have for creating a feeling of belonging to the community. It is one of the most visible institutions for Canadians throughout the country. The services people get from their federal or provincial public service are very important. This is discussed a number of times in the Clerk of the Privy Council's recent report to the Prime Minister, in which she spoke about the state of the public service and the steps to renew it. The report states that the interaction between Canadians, the public service and the government services provided are very important.
[English]
The Chairman: We have a problem in Canada of the growing inequality of earnings which runs against social cohesion, and it does not seem to be getting better. As Mr. Wernick observed, real incomes have been flat for a long time, notwithstanding the fact that there has been pretty good economic growth over a 10- or 15-year period. When we spoke about this earlier, you mentioned the research on the growth side, that is, how to create a bigger pie. Surely, the research goes beyond that question, does it not? It is not clear to me that a bigger pie is necessarily going to reduce disparities in wealth and income in the country. Can you assist me to better understand the research work that is being done on this very topic in terms of the economy? Are you looking at the tax system, for example? Are you looking at other fiscal policies?
Mr. Wernick: I cannot speak for the growth network and what they are doing. I would certainly be pleased to ask my colleagues if they have material we can provide to you, or you may wish to invite them to appear before your committee to describe the determinants of economic growth. I did not wish to leave you with the impression that economic growth would be the only way to get to sound social policies or social cohesion. There is a relationship between the creation of economic activity and opportunity, the ability of people to find meaningful employment and income from that. There is also the whole set of public instruments such as taxation and social transfers that lead to an evening-out of income. They include the income tax system, the provision of health insurance, and all those sorts of things.
The Chairman: I would be interested to know whether there are some assumptions that are constraining the policy research in this area, without putting too fine a point on it. The Department of Finance, as we all know, has a view of the world, what can and cannot be done. I am not contesting it today or for these purposes, but we are told that, when we discuss the tax system, whether it is personal income tax or corporate income tax, our competitive position vis-à-vis the United States is a major factor to be taken into consideration, and that, therefore, we can contemplate this but we cannot contemplate that, and so on and so forth. I am sure that the research is not limitless, but how wide-ranging is it on the economic side?
How is the research on social policy addressing the questions of reducing disparity in wealth and income and the problems of social cohesion that arise from that and which, it appears, will be exacerbated over a period of time? Judith Maxwell did not go into it in great detail when she was here yesterday but she has written elsewhere that the social safety net that was constructed post-war is really quite inadequate to the problems and the situation of the 1990s and beyond. That is an important statement and it challenges many safe political, and other, assumptions that many of us have made for a long time. Dare we put everything on the table and look at it? I realize this is a political question as well as a research question but, as a research question, are you putting everything on the table in terms of social policy and really looking at it, its adequacy or otherwise, relative to the world of globalization, technology and so forth?
Ms Herman: We do not have the capacity to look at all the social policy that is going on in government, for example, and examining all the social policy. We are trying to narrow the lens and look at it from the perspective of social cohesion, and as a concept that is fairly new in terms of research and analysis. We are taking a multidisciplinarian approach and trying to work across the traditional government silos social policy and social cohesion. We are looking collectively at some of these issues.
The Chairman: Leonard Marsh published his post-war report entitled Report on Social Security for Canada, and I believe Beveridge prepared an equivalent report in the United Kingdom. Do we need to repeat that kind of examination of the social security structure in order to develop a new social charter for Canadians?
Ms Herman: I do not know.
The Chairman: Perhaps it is unfair to ask you what we need. Tell us about the research that is being done.
Ms Herman: There is no question but that the reality of today, the 1990s and into the next century, is very different from the reality of the post-war period. The kinds of problems, issues and the social policy responses that are required are very different kinds of responses. They must recognize the impacts of a number of factors such as globalization and information technology. These are relatively recent developments, if not new, and their impacts are new. They are taking on very different manifestations. The whole impact of haves and have-nots in terms of information technology, for example, is something that we are only beginning to think about. There are all sorts of new questions that clearly need to be addressed.
The Chairman: In the public domain is there a successor document to this draft report which is dated October 4, 1996?
Mr. Wernick: Yes, there is quite a bit of documentation, senator. It is all on the Web site for the committee. We can get you a list of what is available. The 1996 document was really the one that framed the questions.
The Chairman: Is there a successor document to this?
Mr. Wernick: Yes. There is a 1997 report on the work that had been done the following year. That report is in the public domain. In fact, there will be a 1998 report in the next few months. It will be a rolling progress report to respond to questions that were asked in 1996. We can easily provide you with a list of the documentation. It is easily downloaded from the Web site. If you have any further questions about it, we would be happy to assist you.
The Chairman: On the question of social cohesion, are you looking seriously at the role of other institutions? We will be talking to people from the corporate sector. How do we persuade them that social cohesion is important, or are they persuaded already?
What about unions, which in some ways seem to be playing a declining role in society? What about political parties? What about churches? Is your research going in that direction at all?
Mr. Wernick: Yes, I think we alluded to that. People find their attachments in many ways. It may be through unions or associations. One of the questions we are considering is: What is happening to the fabric of those kinds of associations, many of which used to be organized on pan-Canadian lines? Now some of them seem to be breaking into more regional or linguistic variations. We are not limiting the kinds of questions we are asking.
To return to your earlier question about inequality, we are looking at the relationships that inequality or poverty may have on any number of things, whether it is criminality, health outcomes, or all sorts of indicators. We are not limiting our field of research. You are raising a somewhat higher order, policy question about the priority that income redistribution should play. That is a political question.
The Chairman: No, but it is a subject for research.
Mr. Wernick: Yes.
The Chairman: Your colleagues are not limiting themselves to try to figure out how to make a bigger pie.
Mr. Wernick: No, not at all. In fact, at the large policy research conference that was held a couple of weeks ago, the subject was very open. Some fascinating work was unveiled about the relationship between income inequality and health incomes. It was quite an eye opener for a number of people.
The Chairman: Yes. It also touched on productivity and some other matters. Some of us were there.
Ms Herman: As to the role of institutions other than government, the issue is not restricted to identity with other associations, the issue is: What is their role? As the role of government is evolving, the question is raised as to what is the role of the other institutions in governance. We talked a bit about resolving conflicts and mediating conflicts. What is the role of the education system?
The voluntary sector is going through an enormous process of examination of its role and what it should be. The role of the voluntary sector in this area is crucial, and one that we will be studying. I am sure others will be considering this, and I know the voluntary sector itself is looking at its role.
The Chairman: In the information that we can retrieve from the Web site, is there an index to the research studies that have been commissioned?
Mr. Wernick: Yes, there is. I do not know how complete it is, but there has been an attempt to put most of the studies on the Web site. You can download the studies themselves or at least summaries of most of them.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: You spoke about income, education, crime and health. Are the respective departments prepared to amend the legislation? Will a consensus about social cohesion emerge from your research?
As you know, the fact is that we have a major problem with the Department of Immigration. We welcome people to this country without telling them what they can expect to find here. It is really a type of moral cruelty. People come full of hope, and then look for a job and are unable to find one. As a result, they have to turn to welfare, and be dependent on old-stock Canadians. I would call on departments to revise their programs as well.
If you start putting the brakes on all programs in all the different departments, maybe with that case you might have an easier scenario to set up. As for the new arrivals, the Department of Immigration has something to do about that. It is not their fault if they have to go on welfare as soon as they set foot in the country. It is our own system that's allowing those people to come here. Why have them come here if we have nothing to give them?
There is your exclusion. Those people will never feel Canadian. You have to review many of those situations we have here in Canada. And I think that with everyone showing good will, we will manage to do something.
[English]
The Chairman: It remains only for me to thank Mr. Wernick and Ms Herman for being here today and leading us through a very interesting and informative discussion. Perhaps we will see you again before we conclude these hearings.
The committee adjourned.