Forum Participants called for a model of cooperative federalism based upon a clear expression of the social, cultural and economic rights of all Canadians. We were told that our governments’ primary objective must be to build a healthy, compassionate society, one which ensures the well-being of all Canadians.

Many participants felt that Canadians need a formal articulation of their social and economic rights, to complement our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For many, the Canadian identity is intertwined with our history of compassionate and mutually supportive social policies, such as Medicare. But, for the past two decades, these rights have been threatened by neo-liberal policies of austerity.

One of the most significant casualties of the Liberal government’s overhaul of its spending for social programs through the creation of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) was the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP). When CAP was replaced by the CHST in 1995, Canadians lost their mechanism for holding governments accountable to meet certain standards in social welfare. This loss was compounded by the fact that the amount of federal funding for social assistance and other programs was dramatically reduced.

In 1998, Canada received sharp criticism from a United Nations committee for its poor performance in adhering to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The UN committee cited a number of violations, referring in particular to Canada’s record on poverty, the treatment of Aboriginal Peoples and women, the reform of UI and the elimination of CAP. Their report states that "by according virtually unfettered discretion in relation to social rights to provincial Governments, the Government of Canada has created a situation in which Covenant standards can be undermined and effective accountability has been radically reduced".

Faced with the continued and relentless attacks on our social safety net by successive federal governments and most provincial governments, Canadians are seeking ways to defend collective rights and advance a program of effective social policy. We must find a way to ensure that all levels of government live up to their legal obligations under international agreements to which Canada is a signatory, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the UN Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. Governments must be accountable, and rights must be enforceable - no matter which government has jurisdiction over a particular social program.

The concept of a social charter was raised repeatedly at Forum discussions as a possible avenue for governmental accountability. Although many participants liked the concept in theory, they were divided about whether a constitutional statement of Canadians’ social rights would be workable in practice.

Some participants supported a mechanism where citizens could seek formal redress when their social rights were violated. For instance, Shalom Schachter offered a model for political enforcement:

Others expressed concerns about establishing a mechanism where social rights of individual citizens would be justiciable. Allan Blakeney warns of the dangers of putting in place a

While our Forum was considering this issue, the provinces, territories, and federal government were engaged in negotiations on what has become known as the Social Union. The negotiations arose from a variety of developments in intergovernmental relations. For example, decades of reduced federal funding for social programs has reduced the federal government’s share of health spending to 15% of the total costs of Medicare. This is down from the original 50%. By its own negligence, the Liberal government has threatened the legitimacy of the role of the federal government in determining standards for social programs, or for creating new Canada-wide programs like pharmacare or homecare. Federal governments have not lived up to their responsibility for maintaining stable funding for social programs. Clearly, we cannot rely solely on the federal spending power to set and enforce standards.

Even when the Chrétien government has undertaken new social spending, it has taken the form of an unrepentant unilateralism, as illustrated by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation announced in 1997. This has only added weight to the case for a thoroughgoing reform of the fiscal and administrative relationship between provincial, territorial and federal governments.

The provinces entered into negotiations with the federal government as a united force, having agreed on their proposals at a 1998 meeting in Saskatoon. That all provincial and territorial governments - including Quebec - had agreed to a common position was remarkable. They called for a clarification of roles and responsibilities, for a way for the various levels of government to work together to create new programs and maintain old ones, to set standards and to settle disputes. Andrew Petter, BC’s Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations, described their proposals as

But the process was not without its problems. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, and the lack of transparency raised concerns that this agreement would just be another example of Executive Federalism -- the future of the country being negotiated in secret by an elite group of white men. There was little by way of public discussion. Many progressive Canadians saw the potential for further erosion of the federal role in social programs, further decentralization, and less hope for preserving and expanding our social safety net.

After months of closed-door negotiations, the First Ministers agreed to a Social Union Framework on February 4, 1999. The agreement was accompanied by a promise from the Prime Minister of more funding for health care. As well, there was a reaffirmation of the principles of the Canada Health Act by all parties.

The agreement contained victories and compromises by both levels of government. But Québec did not sign. Premier Bouchard expressed his view that the other provinces had given up too much in the pursuit of more federal funding for health care. The abandonment of the demand for opting-out with full compensation was one of the compromises Bouchard could not accept.

The agreement was met with profound indifference by the broader public. The few that paid attention had different approaches to the deal. Some saw it as a dangerous development, an abandonment of the federal role in setting social policy. Others saw it as a vindication of the federal spending power. It was praised by some as a positive step toward the acceptance of asymmetrical federalism, while others interpreted it as evidence of English Canada’s inability to accept Québec’s role in the federation. Many commentators agreed that the framework would not necessarily address the crisis in health care, poverty or other social issues.

The debate over whether the Social Union is a good or a bad thing only demonstrates the inadequacy of the deal. The language is vague, opening it up to multiple interpretations. The framework is largely administrative, but carries few mechanisms to bind governments to promote the well-being of all Canadians or to ensure we are meeting our international obligations.

Essentially, the Social Union Framework is an agreement between federal, provincial and territorial governments to cooperate on social policy. It sets out mechanisms for creating and funding social programs. In many ways, it reflects the spirit of the kind of cooperative federalism the New Democratic Party has been advocating for decades.

In many other ways, it does not address the serious erosion of our social safety net, including chronic underfunding and the lack of enforceable standards. Also, the lack of transparency in the Social Union negotiations does little to inspire confidence in governments’ sincerity about promises to develop mechanisms for accountability and transparency. The Social Union Framework’s biggest shortcoming is the lack of any reference to social rights.

While the Framework makes reference to the many ways in which Canada is diverse, there are few provisions that take into account the particular needs of Aboriginal peoples or Quebecers. The agreement does declare that nothing in the framework will take away from Aboriginal rights, and governments do commit themselves to work with Aboriginal Peoples "to find practical solutions to their pressing needs". There are no real guarantees, however, that these consultations will be meaningful or will result in concrete action.

The Social Union will not be complete until all the provinces are a part of it. The government of Québec has not signed the agreement. There is a temptation to see this as a form of asymmetrical federalism by default. At the moment, however, it only contains the potential for asymmetrical federalism. If followed up in the right way, perhaps it could lead to the negotiation of a different agreement which Québec would be able to sign.

Early in the process, premiers described the Social Union negotiations as an opportunity to create a new unity in the federation. This has not occurred. Is the deal salvageable in this respect? Can we build upon the work the first ministers began, and shape the Social Union into a truly cooperative process of decision-making that is driven by a commitment to the well-being of all Canadians?

Our vision of Responsive Federalism, initially released shortly before the provincial, territorial and federal governments met in Ottawa to agree on a final deal, includes our model of a Social Union based on the principle of co-decision. Our approach has some elements in common with the Social Union Framework. But there are also some fundamental differences. New Democrats must take every opportunity to work to improve the governments’ Framework and make the Social Union truly responsive to citizens.

We agree with Ed Broadbent that "social rights should be part of Canadians’ sense of themselves and their country. New Democrats should be leading this agenda".

Canada should also live up to its responsibilities as a global citizen by making sure that we can deliver on our commitments as a signatory to international human rights instruments, whether the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, or the various agreements on environmental protection. Our rights and responsibilities are clearly laid out in these agreements - governments must develop structures and mechanisms that allow us to meet these obligations to the international community and, above all, to Canadian citizens. These principles must be the bedrock of Canada’s Social Union.

The Liberal government’s fiscal betrayal has exposed the dangers of relying solely on the federal spending power as the guarantor of Canada-wide social programs. We have already demonstrated that neither federal unilateralism nor complete decentralization will guarantee Canadians access to a wide array of quality social programs. New Democrats must advocate an approach that puts the well-being of Canadians first by encouraging governments to work together to maintain and create programs which meet Canada-wide standards.

The greatest achievements of Canadian society in the decades that followed the Second World War were the creation of our social programs, in particular Medicare. A new Social Union offers the possibility of breaking through the impasse that has prevented the development of new social programs since Medicare was introduced in 1967. New Democrats should make full use of the Social Union arrangements to build upon the achievements of Medicare and existing cost-shared programs and advance Canada-wide social policies that enable us to fully realize the social rights of all Canadians, especially in areas of urgent need such as income security, child care, and housing.

We believe the best opportunity for achieving this goal lies in the creation of a Social Union based on the principle of co-decision and the recognition of the Canadian diversity. Co-decision is a process by which governments work cooperatively to develop priorities for social policy and to set Canada-wide standards for social programs.

It is important to define clearly what we mean by standards. At the moment, the only real standards we have for any social program are those relating to Medicare: the five principles of the Canada Health Act, as well as additional standards that are enforced punitively, namely the prohibition of extra billing and user fees. The principles of public administration, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and accessibility are an excellent model for the development of standards for other programs, because they set out clear governing principles for any program without dictating the specific design or delivery of that program in a particular province or territory.

Co-decision recognizes that governments have an equal stake in the social, economic and cultural well-being of Canadians, while ensuring equal access to a broad range of social programs. If the costs of running a particular program are to be shared, then it makes sense that the responsibility for developing and meeting standards be shared as well. The federal government has a distinct responsibility as a signatory to international agreements; a Social Union based on co-decision would provide a mechanism by which all levels of government work together to ensure that we are meeting our international obligations.

Co-decision balances the need for Canada-wide standards with the reality that programs must be delivered to Canadians in a manner that recognizes the different needs and circumstances facing Canadians in different parts of the country. In particular, co-decision must address the pressing needs of Aboriginal communities, and must involve Aboriginal governments and representatives.

Co-decided standards must be binding on all governments. A government may choose to opt out of a new cost-shared program, but the standards must still apply. That being said, however, a truly responsive Social Union must also recognize the unique role of Québec within the federation. In order to accomplish this, we believe that the principle of asymmetry should be combined with the process of co-decision. That is, Québec should be able to opt out, with full compensation, if it chooses not to participate in the co-decision process for a particular program.

A Social Union based on co-decision would foster a climate of mutual respect and cooperation and would enable governments to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. One of the benefits of a responsive Social Union based on co-decision would be that the federal government would no longer be able to use the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial/territorial jurisdiction in complete disregard of the priorities and needs of provinces and territories, as in the case of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. The Social Union Framework’s promise of "Reciprocal Notice and Consultation" is not adequate. A promise to give notice and to consult before proceeding with a policy change does not necessarily mean the other governments’ advice will be heeded or their concerns addressed. We believe that governments must be committed to making decisions together; that who does what is less important than what governments can do to ensure the well-being of Canadians.

Canadians must also be assured that their social programs are adequately funded, and that this funding will remain stable over time. Unilateral changes in funding arrangements are not acceptable. The Federal government does have a unique fiscal responsibility, not only in funding cost-shared programs but in ensuring that disadvantaged provinces and territories have the resources they need to deliver quality social programs. New Democrats must reaffirm their commitment to the principle of equalization as an important part of a responsive Social Union.

The process of co-decision must be transparent and inclusive. Canadians should be aware of and involved in the setting of priorities for social policy and in the development of standards. Citizens are central to the process that should keep the governments accountable to their obligations under the Social Union as well as our international obligations.

A more inclusive, cooperative mechanism for decision-making will ultimately result in a stronger federation. The development of a responsive Social Union based on co-decision would have lasting effects, not just in social policy, but in other areas, including environmental policy.

Recommendation #2: That the New Democratic Party advocates Social Union arrangements that would develop and maintain Canada-wide social policy by co-decision. A responsive Social Union would act as a covenant between governments and citizens. It would guarantee Canadians equal access to a wide range of quality social programs, recognize and respond to the diversity of our federation and its citizens, and ensure that we meet our obligations under international human rights agreements. Co-decision, a process by which governments work cooperatively to develop priorities for social policy and to set Canada-wide standards for social programs, would foster a sense of collective responsibility and cooperation.

A Social Union based on co-decision would operate according to the following principles:

Canadians have only just begun to grapple with the many challenges facing Aboriginal Peoples and First Nations in Canada. There is an urgent need for action to raise awareness of the historical reality and legacy of Canada’s colonial origins, the current social and economic conditions of Canada’s Aboriginal population, the numerous outstanding treaties and land claim negotiations, and the vast numbers of Aboriginal Peoples living off reserve who may not benefit from federal programs and do not have access to governance structures. Notwithstanding these stark realities, the federal Liberal government has, to date, implemented only a few of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

New Democrats understand and share the immense frustration of Aboriginal groups about the lack of meaningful progress toward implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. In recent years, New Democratic governments have made great strides towards settling outstanding claims and finding new ways to work with Aboriginal governments. Recent land agreements, such as those reached with the Nisga’a and Sechelt peoples, are particularly significant, but there are many other achievements that should be acknowledged. Participants in our Yukon roundtable, for example, were proud of the partnerships that Aboriginal, municipal and territorial governments have developed. And the panel was reminded that the 1982 Constitutional package recognized Aboriginal rights only because the federal NDP Caucus succeeded in their fight to have Aboriginal rights included.

In our meeting with the Assembly of First Nations, National Chief Phil Fontaine emphasized that First Nations see themselves as "unique", as another government. Like the provinces, they want to exercise some jurisdictional control over programs and services. But the restoration of jurisdiction from the federal and provincial governments must still take place. First Nations don’t want to see offloading. Instead, they want clear definitions of responsibilities. The AFN wants the federal government to come forward with a policy statement recognizing First Nations as a legitimate form of government, with clearly defined responsibilities. A new fiscal relationship between the three levels of government also needs to be established.

Harry Daniels of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples pointed out some of the inequities in constitutional language regarding Aboriginal Peoples. Many Aboriginal People do not fall under the category of "First Nations"; they fall through the cracks in current constitutional language, despite what were thought to be gains made in previous constitutional negotiations. Another key problem that both Chief Fontaine and Harry Daniels identified is the refusal of federal and provincial governments to take responsibility for dealing with Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve. The federal government insists that they are a provincial responsibility. The provinces resist this, particularly as they are already suffering from massive cuts to transfer payments. Meanwhile, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed, especially in urban centres. "Our place in Canada is very fragile", said Daniels. "We’re caught up in the whims of governments". Despite this uncertainty, many First Nations and Aboriginal organizations are making significant efforts to address the many challenges facing Aboriginal Peoples living off reserve and in urban centres.

The New Democratic Party must work closely with Aboriginal groups to develop more comprehensive policies on Aboriginal issues, and to determine the best avenues for securing justice for Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. In this respect, our dialogue has just begun.

Participants in the Forum overwhelmingly expressed a desire to find a way to recognize Quebecers as a people. Most Forum participants were supportive of accommodations which would allow Québec an opportunity to opt out of Canada-wide social programs with compensation, largely because they see a great commitment to social democratic principles in Québec - a spirit of collective responsibility that stands as an example to the rest of Canada. There was a clear consensus supporting the NDP’s long-standing policy that Quebecers must determine their own future. As well, many participants agreed that English Canada has a responsibility to "accept the ways in which Québec enriches the rest of Canada" (Saanich-Gulf Islands Submission). One participant remarked, "the probability that cooperative federalism will ‘stick’ depends upon the protections offered by a social charter, and the unequivocal respect and sensitivity needed by other Canadians and their representatives." Prince Edward Island participants stated that

In Alberta, participants pointed out that English Canadians need to educate themselves about the importance of language to Quebecers - to break the barriers between provinces and between cultures in order to understand each other better.

Responsive Federalism must include a recognition, enshrined in the Constitution, of Quebecers as a people. Canada as a society has not yet found a form of words that would express this recognition in a meaningful way. We believe that these words must be found.

Canada is diverse in four distinct ways: Aboriginal Peoples; multiculturalism; two official languages; and the two immigrant societies that converge around each of these languages. The first three are already recognized in the Constitution. We are determined to find the best way of recognizing the fourth - that is, the reality of Canada as a dual immigrant society is at the heart of Quebecers’ existence as a people.

We call for a new understanding of what constitutes a people - one not based on the narrow confines of ethnicity but on the recognition that a community is united by shared values and common goals. Contemporary Québec society is dynamic and diverse, shaped and enriched by several waves of immigration from all corners of the globe as well as by the contribution of Aboriginal Peoples. As the centre of one of two linguistic societies to which immigrants to Canada have come to belong, Québec has a role in the federation that is different from that of all other provinces. Responsive federalism recognizes this, for example, by applying the principle of asymmetry to the development of a Social Union.

Forum participants overwhelmingly affirmed the New Democratic Party’s policy that the people of Québec have the right to decide, democratically, their own future. Although the NDP opposed the reference to the Supreme Court, the panel notes that the court’s judgement did in fact reinforce the long-standing NDP view that the future of Quebec within Canada is ultimately a political question and not a legal one.

Francophone communities outside Québec also face tremendous challenges in trying to preserve their culture. Cutbacks in the federal public service, the cancellation of federal programs and downloading to provinces and territories have meant a significant reduction in services to Francophones outside of Québec. These minority communities, however, have shown impressive determination to fight for their survival. As proof we offer the remarkable show of solidarity displayed by Ontarians - both Francophone and non-Francophone - as they rallied in convincing numbers last year to save the province’s only French-language teaching hospital.

The New Democratic Party has a proud history of defending linguistic minorities in Canada, both in Parliament and in provincial legislatures. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and British Columbia, NDP governments have adopted important legislation to protect and promote French language minority institutions: in some cases establishing French language school boards, in others setting up or expanding French language services.

NDP members of provincial legislatures have also fought tough battles to defend rights of French-speaking citizens in provinces where we have not yet formed government, such as Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We are proud to say that no other Canadian political party has such a consistent record of commitment to Francophone minority rights at the provincial, territorial and the federal level.

It is clear from Forum discussions that Canadians feel detached from the democratic process and from governments in general. There is a tremendous amount of cynicism about governments’ role in our society, and about governments’ ability to make Canadians’ lives better. Many feel that their vote does not make a difference, that citizens have no voice between elections, that politicians in general are untrustworthy. Participants of all ages expressed a great deal of concern about the lack of hope among young Canadians in particular.

This is a disturbing and destructive trend - particularly for New Democrats, who believe strongly in the democratic process and in the role of government. In democratic societies, electoral politics is the main avenue for building public institutions and programs that cradle the equality of citizens. With a weakening of these institutions and of the democratic culture that sustains them, individuals face a world of even greater inequality of power than exists now.

Many Forum participants commented on the important role of grassroots community organizations, advocacy groups, NGOs and coalitions - in other words, social movements - to enhance democracy and foster a commitment to the public good. The New Democratic Party is in a unique position to recognize and embrace this fact, given the Party’s formal recognition and relationship with the trade union movement, as well as the active participation of many members in community-based, provincial and national organizations. The NDP has elaborated on this issue in the report of the 1995 Renewal Process.

The growing cynicism about electoral politics has been exploited and fueled by powerful interests on the right, which have a clear motive in discrediting public institutions. Tragically, some of those active in advocacy groups that share our progressive goals have also grown cynical about electoral democracy. It is therefore an urgent task for all Canadians to work towards the revitalization of our democratic culture and institutions.

The task of revitalizing democracy in Canada is made all the more challenging by the threats posed to democratic institutions by international trade agreements. With trade rules that allow unaccountable tribunals to override the legitimate decisions of elected governments, and procedures that allow corporations to challenge governments as equals under trade rules, public institutions are losing ground to powerful private interests. The recent success of the campaign to stop the MAI, waged in Parliament by the NDP and in civil society by citizens’ organizations, shows that, together, we can fight back.

Panel members agree that Responsive Federalism must include a commitment to

make our federal institutions more democratic and responsive to the realities of Canada’s federal character and its geographic and cultural communities. This reform would encompass the following four areas.

Electoral Reform: Many participants were firmly committed to implementing some form of proportional representation. Many advantages to some form of PR were suggested. In the present system, a majority of Canadians almost always vote for unsuccessful candidates. As a result, many feel they have "lost" their vote and are not represented in Parliament. This contributes to the sense of estrangement many Canadians have regarding Ottawa. A system of PR would increase the percentage of Canadians with someone in Ottawa who represented both their region and their political perspective. This would not only contribute to Canadians' sense that the House of Commons belonged to them, it would also reduce regional frictions. Most participants agreed that proportional representation would result in a more dynamic and equitable democracy in Canada.

While few participants were specific about which model of PR they favoured, there was clear consensus that the New Democratic Party should take this on as a major campaign. The Forum notes that a discussion paper has already been prepared and distributed within the New Democratic Party, and we look forward to a comprehensive policy proposal coming from the Sub-committee on Proportional Representation.

Senate: There was clear consensus that the current undemocratic Senate is unacceptable. Participants reaffirmed the Party’s traditional position that the current Senate must be abolished. There was no agreement, however, on whether it should be replaced. Bob Rae told the Forum that there is no federation in the world that does not have a second chamber. Many Forum participants felt that a house of sober second thought is important to keep the federal government accountable - it just shouldn’t be the second chamber we have now. Some participants advocated learning from the German , Indian or Irish examples.

Howard Pawley suggested that abolishing the Senate and electing 60 additional members to the House of Commons through proportional representation would be more appropriate than Senate reform. Some participants thought a constituent assembly might be a good alternative. It is significant that there were no advocates of the triple-E senate at Forum events.

Strengthening social movements: The importance of advocacy groups to protect and invigorate democracy in Canada and provide a voice for the voiceless has recently been demonstrated in Geneva, where advocacy groups presented an alternative report on Canada’s human rights record to a UN committee assessing our compliance with the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. As a result of the intervention of those groups, the committee condemned Canada for several violations of human rights by the federal Liberal government and by some provincial governments.

The Chrétien government has made it difficult for many groups to function. Changes to the funding mechanisms for social movement groups have put the future of many valuable organizations into question. Some provincial governments are also making changes that are stifling the voice of this important sector of our society. At a meeting with several advocacy groups (including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the National Farmer’s Union, the Canadian Federation of Students, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization) we heard a great deal about the impacts of the loss of core funding upon some organizations, and the effects that threats of changes have had on others. Participants in that meeting stated that, by undermining democratic organizations fighting for social and economic rights, the government was undermining democracy.

The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, an umbrella organization that includes about 30 national ethnocultural groups, pointed out that there must be a place for groups to participate as part of a civil society. It’s a way of leveling the playing field. The Council expressed concern about the increasingly narrow definition of equality and its impact on their communities. Equality shouldn’t mean treating everyone the same. According to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, it should mean ensuring that everyone is able to participate in a democratic society

Head of State: Somewhat surprisingly, the question of the future of the head of state resonated with many participants - although most feel that this is not a priority for Canadians at this time. A significant number of respondents suggested that Canada should begin the process of Canadianizing the head of state. But they advocated a cautious approach; one that, for example, involves keeping a close eye on Australia as that country undertakes its process of becoming a republic.

• a form of proportional representation that is appropriate for Canada - a system of proportional representation would contribute to Canadians' sense that the House of Commons belonged to them and would reduce regional frictions, resulting in a more dynamic and equitable democracy in Canada.
• the abolition of the existing undemocratic Senate - New Democrats maintain that the existing undemocatic Senate is unacceptable and must be abolished.
• strengthening the independent social movements - independent social movements protect and invigorate democracy in Canada. We must ensure that these groups are able to pursue their important role in building a better Canada.
• canadianizing the head of state -- Canada should begin to explore the possibility of Canadianizing the head of state. However, this is not a priority for Canadians at this time. We advocate a cautious approach, one that involves, for example, keeping a close eye on Australia as that country undertakes its process of becoming a republic.
• A system of state-funded campaign financing, possibly modeled after the system currently being used in Quebec, must be implemented to curb that influence that business and the rich have over the democratic and electoral process.

These democratic reforms should provide for an array of democratic institutions that are responsive to particular traits of the Canadian reality. New Democrats look forward to a future where Canadians will have a greater sense of control over their lives because they have greater confidence in an enhanced Canadian democracy.