The triptych of articles on nation-building in Canada in your June issue by Roy Romanow, Alan Broadbent, and Mark Kingwell reminded me that cultures are splintering in similar ways in the US and other countries. What’s different is Canada’s unique federalism and national identity, built on tolerance, civility, and community responsibility.
Roy Romanow prescribes more socialism for Canada (“A House Half Built,” June). I don’t say this disparagingly. While reading Romanow I was struck by the issues on which the Left has lost ground in America as government has shed its responsibilities to its citizens. However, I think Romanow places too much faith in government and politics—and in nation-states. Governments are less cohesive partly because countries are less relevant than they used to be. Unlimited access to travel, communications, and money causes individuals to feel less dependent on local communities. Increasing economic efficiency leads to fewer rural and factory jobs. Technology and demography are driving globalization, expanding free markets and the demand for new services. These forces can’t be contained, only managed, and increased government spending probably won’t be able to address tomorrow’s social needs by itself.
Several years ago I was in Canada when Ottawa was debating the idea of jump-starting the genomics research industry. The debate turned on whether the money would be shared among all the provinces or invested in one megacentre. If I remember correctly, Parliament decided that there would be five genomics research centres, spread across Canada. While this kind of “fairness” is standard politics, it’s not great investment strategy. Canada’s cities are its economic engines and, as Broadbent writes, the only source of new revenues for rural projects. One may lament what has happened to second-tier cities such as Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, but Canada is fortunate to have three world-class cities. The effort to create a renaissance in second-tier cities and rural areas should not overshadow addressing the real needs of megacities, for they are the source of future growth and cultural and political influence.
Phil Hood
San Jose, California
Parochialism and individual fulfillment seem to be the guiding themes of our current debates on federalism. Roy Romanow’s piece is a refreshing reminder that there is a different vision of what it means to be Canadian. I believe that this caring national sensibility may be a truer reflection of what most Canadians value than what is suggested by our current political leaders. As Canadians, we believe in strengthening our national health-care and social programs, reasserting our role in the international arena as peace-builders, and creating a workable federalism that recognizes provincial rights and responsibilities within a national framework that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Shauna Sylvester
Vancouver, BC
Comments