H. Pawley speech

"The Choice We Face as Canadians: Is Survival Running From Our Friends"

Howard Pawley
Stanley Knowles Visiting Professor
of Canadian Studies
October 26, 2000

Thank you very much for that very fine introduction. I want to especially thank Christl because she is heading up the Association for Canadian Studies in Canada and as such she is doing a wonderful job re-organizing and re-vitalizing Canadian Studies from one end of Canada to the next.

I want to particularly think St Paulís College and Robert Needham for giving me the opportunity to be the Stanley Knowles Visiting Professor for the Fall Semester.

It has been a wonderful experience for me to be able to exchange ideas and thoughts with students in my class. I really appreciate that.

I want also to say I have a particular affinity for the University of Waterloo because in my cabinet there were two graduates of the University of Waterloo, both of whom were born and raised in Waterloo County. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, who is current Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre graduated in Political Science from the University of Waterloo. Andy Anstett also served in my cabinet. Some of you will no doubt know these individuals and I was certainly very fortunate to have those two University of Waterloo graduates within my government.

When I was invited to be the Stanley Knowles Professor there was no way that I could turn down the invitation because Stanley Knowles was very much a part of my life and also of my wife Adele, over a thirty year period.

Our, and I am going to speak candidly about some of our experiences, at the very beginning this evening. Perhaps Stanley Knowles more so than any one caused me to join the then CCF. I attended a tea in 1954, I was only 19 years of age at the time and there was Stanley raising a few funds. I ended up joining the party at that time.

In 1958 I was present at his campaign committee room when Stanley was defeated along with so many others in the Diefenbaker sweep of that year. I remember Stanley for his courage and his words to those that were present: ìThere will be another time.î And I remember Stanley getting up the next morning, at 5:00am or 6:00am, and being down to meet the railway workers, thanking them for having supported him, even though he had been defeated. That was the only time that Stanley had been defeated in Winnipeg North Centre.

In 1961 Stanley and I had some disagreements as it happens from time to time in political parties, it was re the organization of the New Democratic Party and the Manitoba Party. Stanley and I were on opposite side of a particular issue regarding the structure of the NDP. I say that because 25 years after that Stanley attended, we were so delighted to see him there, the 25^th wedding anniversary for Adele and I. I remember greeting him and thanking him for coming. (by the way we are celebrating our 40^th wedding anniversary next month). And Stanley said to me, without batting an eye: ìPawley, you turned out better than I thought you would have.î So Stanley and I certainly go back a long, long way.

Before commencing my remarks, we are in the middle of an election campaign. As mentioned by Christl in her introduction, I went through five of those. Generally they are unpredictable. You donít know what is going to happen until election night.

There is a story involving a Prime Minister who was in grave difficulty at the polls and was defeated. Leaving Parliament he handed three marked envelopes to the incoming Prime Minister to whom he offered the advice: ìEvery time you are in political trouble, open one of the envelopes.î ìI will do so,î said the incoming Prime Minister. After a few months the polls showed that the new government was in trouble. The new Prime Minister opened envelope #1, it read: ìBlame the previous government.î

That worked for a period of time, but not for too long ó further trouble and difficulty. He ripped open envelope #2, it read: ìBlame the provincial governments.î That too, of course, worked in a federal system such as Canada and he did quite well politically for a while. But on the eve of the election the Prime Minister found he was down to about 20-25% in the polls. In desperation he ripped open envelope #3. ó it simply read: ìPrepare 3 envelopes.î

Stanley Knowles was one that always weighed the consequences of policies for the longer term: What would be their legacy?

When I was Premier of Manitoba representing the riding of Selkirk, I used to tell my Winnipeg colleagues, including Stanley, that Selkirk really should have been the capital of the province. They thought I was joking. I wasn't. Those who settled in Selkirk chose their spot very wisely. They were close to the water, the vital stuff of life and transportation in the West. The town was nestled behind high protective riverbanks. Nevertheless, in the scramble for settlement in the 1880s, in the freewheeling, no holds-barred days of unfettered unplanned development, Selkirk "lost" to Winnipeg. Winnipeg's canny politicians, with the help of their friends in the federal government of the day, convinced the Canadian Pacific Railway to run its tracks through their town. Driven by development fever, and convinced they could " beat" Selkirk's growth, the politicians granted the CPR tax-free status for all-time.

Selkirk didn't enter the bidding war for the CPR's attention. Winnipeg was named the provincial capital, and a mighty City grew up around the railway. The CPR didn't have to pay -- through either taxes or zoning requirements -- even one penny for the growth of Winnipeg. However, Winnipeg doesn't have high, protective River banks. There is no natural wall against the river flooding.

The people of Winnipeg, of Manitoba, indeed of all Canada, have paid a steep price for the choices Winnipeg's founders made. They have paid year after year for costly flood damage, the constant efforts to hold back the water surrounding Winnipeg. Nearly a century later I had my revenge when as Attorney -General for the Schreyer government I played some role in bringing about an end to the tax holiday that had been given so generously to the CPR by Winnipeg's early fathers.

There is a saying ìwhat evil men do, live long after them while the good is often interred with their bonesî. The decisions that we make to-day will dictate the kind of society our children will inherit from us ten, twenty or more years from now. Stanley was always conscious of this!

Much of the time that Stanley Knowles served in parliament was an era of high growth rates, low interest-rates, balanced government budgets and most importantly full employment. It's years stand in sharp contrast to the high unemployment that characterized the 1930s and the stagnant incomes most Canadians experienced in the '90s.

The unprecedented co-operation between capital and labor was in many ways the driving force behind many of the substantial gains achieved during the Knowles era. These successes encouraged Canadians, like Americans south of the border, to believe "good times" would continue forever. Kenneth Galbraith in his esteemed work The Affluent Society wrote enthusiastically of this new era. It appeared that a fundamental shift had finally taken place where the state would at last be able to treat its citizens with benefits that would keep pace with their growing expectations. With economic needs fulfilled, the attention of many was now turning to social rather than economic discontent, and the welfare state emerged with a broad range of initiatives to enhance social justice.

It was also the time where the major segments of the political community, including the left, believed the dynamic inherent within Canada's national institutions could successfully force changes. There was unlimited confidence in government's capacity to bring about the "good society". A consensus gradually evolved about the prospects for the social gains that would be delivered by capitalism within the nation state. The affluent class itself appeared to be adjusting to the changing situation in order to retain its economic privileges. Two characteristics of this era distinguish it from today's: the first was the ever present threat from the Soviet world, and the second, related to a rapid economic growth rate which appeared to permit a more equitable distribution of the material gains of the economy. The result was a substantial increase in better schools and universities, the expansion of the health sector, the organization of more recreation areas, the provision of better security for the aged, the vulnerable in society and the construction of more decent housing for all citizens.

Political scientists and historians explain how this post-industrial society introduced a fundamentally different politics. While in past politics, conflict dominated over issues of material distribution; they now revolved around value conflicts. According to academics this change came about because the postwar generation growing up during a period of affluence, free of wars and depression, was now taking material needs for granted and was finally moving on to meet post materialist needs. These forces were now introducing a wide range of new social and human rights initiatives.

Moreover, such times produced strong leaders; Prime ministers like Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau. Indeed, it was at the Federal level of government where most of the changes were taking place. Their imprint on the Canadian political landscape would be deep and long lasting. Moreover, it must be remembered that the changes were only possible because of the public mood that was dominating the times.

Power lost by the provincial governments during the war was largely recaptured, and provincial revenues and activities were expanding rapidly. Governments were beginning to learn how they could co-operate together to better the lot of those they represented. The national fabric was healthy. As Canadians, before the Free Trade Agreement, our primary focus was to maintain the traditional east-west relationship. This developed from the post-war era where we recognized we were all members of one Canadian family. Indeed this reality was reflected by the inclusion in the 1982 Constitution Act of a provision, however inadequate it later proved to be, pledging comparable social services at comparable taxation rates to Canadians wherever they lived. It was realized that some Canadians, such as those in Ontario, enjoy the very strategic advantage of having either corporate head office locations or industries born out of high tariff walls, the compliments of Sir John A. Macdonald's National Policy. Alberta residents prospered because of their good fortune in possessing rich oil and gas resources discovered during the 1940s. Nevertheless, other Canadians were not as fortunate and national programs reflected the fact that in Canada unlike the U.S.A. there would be no second class citizens because of their place of residence and work. These policies arose from a community that was caring as opposed to one that patterned itself after the " Darwinian survival of the fittest society" represented by our powerful neighbor.

Governments developed programs to improve the human condition. Universal, comprehensive and publicly administered health care and affordable and quality education were born out of the social solidarity of the sixties and seventies. After World War II and the catastrophe of the depression, our parents and grand-parents believed they could construct a state that would buffer them from any repetition of the conditions that had caused so much pain.

Since this era of progress, Canada, like other nations of the world, has started to move toward a more Neo-Liberal economy. We have passed through the gates of the 21st century and entered a new era. Changes are taking place, at an accelerating pace sweeping aside old political and economic certainties. A scientific and technological revolution is rapidly transforming society. It is happening with a speed faster than any other time in world history. Unbelievable strides will transpire in the next ten years. Exponential changes will transform the World beyond the wildest fantasies of our parents and grandparents. Our grandchildren will observe changes beyond our grasp and understanding.

Admittedly, there have been some enormous strides. Amazing discoveries are unfolding in medical science. We live longer. Infant mortality is declining. Aggregate global income has risen. The speculative boom of the past seven years has created a new financial aristocracy. Canada is enjoying record trade surpluses. In this new era, massive fortunes are made by corporations and by some individuals. New knowledge based industries are being developed. Technology stocks are booming. The economic expansion in North America is now into its eighth year and even in Canada, it is gaining real strength. Unemployment is down. The federal deficit is gone and the government finds itself with an unanticipated fiscal surplus. Major parties are competing to offer the largest tax cuts for high-income earners. Most importantly, there is now the means to radically enhance the quality of life of all Canadians. The potential now exists to eliminate poverty and want from the face of Canada and the world.

However, we are all in one form or other also experiencing the down side of to-day's so- called progress. The swift pace of technological advance and the advent of globalization are making this modern era unique. Today, we are being caught up in some kind of whirlpool, tossed this way and that by forces we no longer control and indeed no one appears to control. Canadians are finding themselves increasingly vulnerable -- more so than in any previous era in history. Today, with the click of a mouse after entering a few numbers into the computer, bond markets and transnational corporations can change the course of any nation's development. Responding to the pressure of financial markets, corporations are moving production to wherever labour and environmental protection laws are weak or nonexistent. Speculative transactions are funneled to numerous offshore banking enclaves. Taxes for corporations are constantly being reduced. The subsequent drain of billions of dollars is sapping state revenues and the tragic outcome is the continued weakening of the social infrastructure and the national state itself. Any public policy seen as working against these increases is seen as detrimental to the public interest. Political parties are increasingly seen as alike and an increasing number of Canadians see themselves as powerless to influence change. In Canada, it is in response to these global pressures that that Stephen McBride and John Shields in their excellent book described as the Dismantling of the National State. Global Corporations exercise more power to change our lives than do weakened national states. Governments defend themselves from the fall out of unpopular policies by mouthing the excuse "there is no alternative".

Yes a new set of values is emerging in government, and I fear, in the hearts and minds of some Canadians. It's about granting the race to the so-called strong and running from those considered weak. It is the "frontier mentality." A story I heard recently illustrates this well:

One morning two friends are day-hiking in the woods in of one of our national parks. The stronger of the two carries a daypack containing lunch and water for both. It is a beautiful day, and the friends are having a pleasant conversation. As they pass a thicket of wild blueberry bushes, the two friends surprise a black mother bear and her cubs, foraging among the bushes for the remnants of last autumn's blueberry crop. The mother-bear charges toward them. The friends run as fast as they can. In a few moments, the bear comes closer, and closer, angry jaws snapping, so close they can smell the Bear's awful breath. The first man drops his pack and pulls ahead. The bear comes closer, cubs behind her, growling and snapping. The second person can almost feel the mother bears breath and shouts, "wait, its no use, the bear is faster than we are, we can't outrun the bear, we need another plan!" The first friend yells back, "get your own plan -- mine works! I don't have to run faster than the bear -- I only have to run faster than you do!"

The new economy favouring some is tragically not benefiting all. The rising tide is failing to lift all the boats. The challenge facing us as we begin the new century is to ensure that all will participate in the abundant benefits of the new economy. Today, tragically, inequality is becoming politically correct. Major corporations and the banks are urging the government to dedicate much of its fiscal surplus to major tax cuts. The scare campaign grows steadily. Daily the media run stories about the "brain drain". It is blamed on "Canada's high tax rates" and its stronger safety net. In some influential circles, inequality is increasingly cited as a positive force in society. The National Post's Peter Foster [3] on April 7/20/00 writes: "[income] gap theory is ultimately based in masquerading under the name of social or economic "Justice."

Later on August 22nd, The National Post editorial [4] entitled "In Praise of Wealth" proclaimed that there was good reason to worry about uniformity of incomes, saying, "when nations have attempted to eliminate income inequality through confiscatory tax policies, the result has always been a lack of innovation, investment and economic optimism."

Francis Russell in the Winnipeg Free Press, Sept. 1, 2000, [5] details how Canadian society is more unequal than in any other time since before the Second World War, adding "inequality is rising steeply." She refers to a Statistics Canada report on 1998 incomes released this past June, which shows that "in 1989, the top 20 percent received $18 for every dollar earned by low income Canadians. By 1998, this had widened to $27 to $1 and in 1998, the Toronto Center for Social Justice reported that the middle class -- those earning between $24,500 and $65,000, in 1996 dollars had shrunk from 60 percent of all Canadian families in 1973 to just 44 percent in 1996.

A vivid portrait of the human impact of poverty upon families is painted in Mel Hurtig's recent book. Its title describes the stark choices facing Canada's average mother of poor children: Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids. Poverty has sharply grown in the 1990s. Remember how in the 1980s, the advent of food banks and the presence of homeless people was such a shock to Canadians. Now, there is no longer this shock about hunger in our community. In 1989, the Canadian government with the support of the opposition parties solemnly resolved to abolish child poverty by 2000. Notwithstanding this province's economic recovery, one in five Ontario children now live in poverty. The number of poor children in Ontario has more than doubled from 248,000 in 1989 to 538,000 in 1997, marking Ontario as having the highest increase at 118% in child poverty among the provinces.

Too frequently, those in power blame the poor themselves. We repeatedly hear to-day the echoes of former Prime Minister's Bennett's pledge uttered during the worst days of the Depression when nearly half the work force were unemployed "we will not put a premium on idleness," he assured Canadians.

There are many today and some even in the name of religion, that widely condemn evil social behavior as the cause of poverty. Just like abortion and euthanasia among other alleged sins, it is singled out. Indeed the causes of poverty are often seen as some form of immorality. Frequently the virtues of family values are stressed as central to a civilized society. Many evoke them in the name of Christian or some other religious values; they usually insist on the need for mothers to spend more time with their young children. Ironically, they are often themselves the most zealous champions of sharp welfare cuts to the poorest of families. Has our society, in the interests of tax cuts for personal gain, forsaken the healthy development of future generations? If so, it speaks volumes for the shortsighted hypocrisy of those who argue for less crime and richer family values.

The answer to this increase in poverty should be clear. Why do we allow poverty to rise during boom times? Why not attack Canada's poverty rate among children, in the same way as we successfully launched the war against the deficit at both the federal and provincial levels? In Ontario, Premier Harris slashed millions from Children Aid Societies, cut social housing, reduced funding for women's shelters--took 21% from the parents of Ontario's poorest children and ignored his campaign commitment to legislate a new Disabilities Act for the province's 1.5 million disabled. Polling doesn't show help to the disabled as much of a concern. Despite Parliament's declaration pledging more than a decade ago to eradicate child poverty, it has soared. Widespread homelessness, unheard of 15 years ago, is now a national disgrace. Recent reductions in the deficit both federally and provincially were at the expense of a Canadian social-safety net designed to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a decent basic income.

In this global era, the most explosive issue confronting us is whether we can successfully reduce the appalling level of poverty throughout the world. [1.2] One point two billion people live on less than $1.50 a day and [2.8] two point eight billion people, nearly half the world's population, live on less than $3 a day. According to the CCPAóMonitor, "The United Nations estimates that world hunger would be eliminated with the expenditure of about $60 billion a year.î Such an amount could easily be raised from the proceeds of a Tobin tax supported last year by a majority in Canada's parliament; such a tax would be levied against the gains in international currency speculation. For that amount, the world's most impoverished people could be provided with the food, clean water, clothes, education, healthcare and sanitation to give them a decent standard of living. This rapidly escalating inequality is unsustainable in the long run. Unless globalization halts the trend to ever-higher levels of world poverty, it will be surely an abject failure.

Politics in Canada has historically been committed to a just world -- and not just one where the accumulation of wealth and personal comfort is limited to a few. Today, we see the steady Americanization of Canadian politics characterized by American conservatism. As an individualistic and entrepreneurial culture, it is gradually replacing the Canadian traditional social culture, which has influenced the course of Canadian politics. In this new global era, we are returning to the classical economics of the 19th century variety. Traditional Canadian conservatism with its belief in a continued legitimate role for the state is in rapid decline.

These trends cause many to doubt whether we can any longer build a national community that ensures all citizens including the less fortunate will participate and share fairly in the great abundance of this land? Can we guarantee that moral and social values advance at the same speed, as technological and scientific advances? Are we capable as a nation of remaining unique and independent from our mighty friend and neighbor to the south?

Those very tough questions will have very tough consequences if we fail to answer them sufficiently. If we fail, then our future World may tragically be the one envisioned by Ian Angell, a Professor of Information Systems at the London School of Economics, one of the leading proponents of the new order. Angell has written extensively about the future. ìHis titles [articles] give the game away: ìThe Information Revolution and the Death of the Nation-State: For Life, Liberty and Property,î ìThe Signs are Clear: The Future is Inequality,î and ìWinners and Losers in the Information Age.î

Consistently, Angellís latest book is titled, The Barbarian Manifesto. In this work Angell espouses a view that "politics is bad for business." He writes: ... "governments chosen by the majority are governments chosen by losers. Ö[and]Ö Western politicians are pandering to the masses. But the masses will not win in the natural selection for dominance of an increasingly elitist world. Information technology Ö has increasingly liberating the talented few from the restrictions of the three dimensions of physical space and the tyranny of the masses." Ö Knowledge workers, he argues, will meet the needs of the global Corporation.

Are we moving closer toward Angell's blueprint of the " Barbarian Society"? There are signs of it, all around us. A place where the rule of law serves only the most powerful? Where misapplied and misunderstood Darwinian principles dominate us? Where national assets are sold off for a song? Where nation-building programs are abolished and many of the government's powers to better peopleís lives are given to the market? Where we take unemployment premiums from workers and use it to pay off the debt? Where money is taken from the educational system and teachers are blamed for the resulting crisis? Where we suffer from the reality of emergency room delays and contaminated water systems? Where survival means taking from our friends? I am not here, to tell you what to believe. You remember Pandora's box. Hope remained; hope remained to assist humankind in returning all those escaped evils to the locked box. We wonder, though, can we stop this?

To stop it we must restore confidence in the very essence of democracy. Daily, we hear concerns about the state of democracy. In a recent Editorial in the University of Waterloo student newspaper [The Imprint, October 14, 2000] Scott Gordon eloquently describes how difficult it is for some to make themselves heard within the democratic system. He condemns all political parties for their arrogance when in government. Perhaps this explains the decline of 8% since 1988 in voter turnout in federal elections. It is common to hear that politicians are either crooked or irrelevant. Such complaints were also heard during Stanley Knowles' time. Stanley answered such criticism by contending: "disillusionment about parliament ÖPrompts Canadians to the realization that something must be done about it -------- where there's a will there's a way."

The way is found in more democracy, not less. However, there is much room for improvement. Increasingly, regionalism is creating fragmentation in Canadian politics. To-day's political parties are more representative of regional interests [than national]. In the last federal election, the liberals winning a little less than 50% of the vote in Ontario succeeded in winning 101 of its 103 seats. The Reform party with 2.5 million votes took 60; the Tories on the other hand won roughly the same number of votes but took only 20 seats. A little over 1. 4 million people voted N.D.P, good for twenty seats. Yet, fewer then 1.4 million votes handed the Bloc Quebecois 44 seats. In effect, it took four times as many votes to elect a Conservative than it took to elect a Bloc member; twice as many to elect a Conservative member as it took to elect a Reform member. Regional fragmentation of our politics has resulted in the decline of national parties that can speak legitimately for the entire country. Canada needs an alternative to the first past the post system.

There is a growing perception that todayís political parties are clients of big money. Although parliament enacted legislation, limiting spending and requiring disclosure of donations, public alienation still grows. Nearly two million dollars raised in Toronto at one recent fundraising event fueled even more distrust about big money influencing politics. Joe Clark attacked the Alliance party, charging that their program is "designed to appeal to millionaires and they will need the support of many millionaires to pay for their ads." Unfortunately, for Mr. Clark and also for Canadians, the identical allegation can also be applied to most of the other parties. Moreover, make no mistake the old phrase, "those who pay the piper will play the tune" is still true. This past summer, legislation in Manitoba prohibiting large contributions to political parties was enacted after fierce opposition; it may be a beacon of light elsewhere.

Other measures to lesson alienation could help; lessening the enormous power of the Prime Minister, and more parliamentary free votes. These could instill more meaning into the MPsí role reducing some of the arrogance historically seen around the Prime Minister's office. Today, well-paid lobbyists enjoy more political clout than do back bench M.Ps. Each day as parliament sits, Television routinely highlights rowdy question periods and the public understandably concludes that its MPs are ignoring the vital issues of the day. What can be done about the patronage riddled senate?

The fracturing of Canadian federalism makes the task of helping our friends and neighbours more difficult, yet it is still possible. It is essential to have a federal government able and willing to co-operate and consult with their provincial partners to identify common goals for the entire nation. A government that rejects patchwork federalism and ensures that all Canadians are treated fairly.

Sadly, the past decade has been federalism's darkest hour. Although the federal government had budget difficulties of its own, in relative terms, they were less serious than the deficits faced by the provinces, municipalities and school boards. Yet, the federal deficit was wiped out by shifting billions of dollars to them. Not a big surprise to anyone, the lower levels of government also got into the act by shifting their deficits onto the users of the health care system, to students dependent upon the post-secondary education, to the unemployed with a cut of $6.5 billion to the Employment Insurance Fund and the poor through heavy cuts to social housing and social welfare.

Nowhere has the human cost been more severe than in the Canadian health care sector. Those with already fat wallets demand more and bigger tax cuts while patients wait for care in hospital corridors. Although government surpluses are back in style, privatization of the healthcare system continues to undermine one of the most fundamental aspects of Canadian citizenship, namely the provision of equitable access to health care for all Canadians. Social Conservatives may disagree but this is the ingredient that makes Canada's plan unique in contrast to that in the United States. Canadian Medicare is clearly one of the most unifying factors in keeping our nation together. Remember how the 1995 referendum was won by a ìsqueakerî in Quebec in an environment of severe unrest caused by the federal government's sharp cuts to health care.

Education is also under daily siege. Increasingly, universities are compelled to operate in the market like private corporations, appealing for money to replace the funding they are losing from government. The burden is heaviest upon students. Students go thousands of dollars into debt to take courses at universities where there are fewer monies every day for libraries and professors. Accessibility to post-secondary education is increasingly limited. Fewer families of modest income are able to afford post-secondary education. We can do better. Unless we guarantee everyone has equal opportunity to an education, future generations will be the big losers.

Of course the provinces must bear their share of the responsibility too; they are never shy about blaming Ottawa. Look at the expensive ad campaign that was run by Premier Harris decrying the federal cuts. Sadly, the only solution advocated by some provincial premiers is for more devolution of power to provincial governments in what is one of the most decentralized nations in the world.

Canadians in smaller and less populated provinces deserve protection from the politically corrupt and opportunistic practices sometimes pursued by federal governments, sometimes favouring larger provinces, for political expediency. While I was Premier, Manitobans suffered injustice during the Mulroney government's time in office with the awarding of the multi-billion dollar CF-18 contract to Quebec rather than Manitoba, contrary to the advice of its technical advisors and solemn promises to keep politics out of the decision making process. Throughout the west, the outrage was so intense that it triggered the birth of the then called Western Reform party, the predecessor to the Reform party and the Alliance party of to-day. Turf wars usually hurt the least powerful.

This evening's address would be incomplete without a discussion of the status of the environment in the world and its relationship to us. No longer are Canadians as an island onto themselves. It is crucial that mechanisms be implemented to combat the developing ecology crisis at both the national and international levels.

The thinning of the ozone layer threatens both human health and agricultural production. Increased layers of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ó the greenhouse effect ó can precipitate calamitous changes in the world's climate. The destruction of tropical forests in many developing countries threatens the future of many living species, the supply of water, and the availability of useful agricultural land. Acid rain, toxic wastes, excessive pressures on environmental systems from over population are among other environmental concerns. A toxic soup of chemicals in the water, soil and air have triggered a dramatic rise in childhood cancers, asthma sudden infant syndrome and behavior problems.

We are being alerted to an approaching water shortage, driven by a combination of population growth and excessive overuses of the earth's freshwater for agriculture, industry and all sorts of other uses, constantly turning good water bad. The Walkerton, Ontario, E-coli outbreak provides us with a sharp lesson about the importance of safeguarding our water supply.

The real test of our capacity to survive rests with our ability to respond to the fast approaching crisis in the world's ecology. Economist Herman Daly writes that the approaching crisis, will not be from "the lack of homemade capital, but a lack of social capital. Limits to increased fish harvests are not boats, but productive fisheries; the limits to irrigation are not pumps or electricity but viable aquifers. The limits of pulp and lumber are not sawmills, but plentiful forests." Urgent global measures are necessary in the 21st century to avoid a world crisis in the earth's ecology.

Our very survival is at stake. Renowned physicist, Albert A. Bartlett, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado, in Boulder, tells this story to demonstrate the precarious state of our planet, even in a time of wealth.

As a Canadian I am more optimistic than Bartlett. Human beings unlike bacteria can exercise reason and compassion. They will avoid the ugly consequences of non-action. If all fails, it may be the very necessity to survive that will demand dramatic change. It was the European statesman Jean Monet who said, "people only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and they only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them".

Parliaments are being replaced by NAFTA, the W.T.O, the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies as the most important decision-makers of modern times; they lack accountability to democratic institutions. Nevertheless, we can regain control of our destinies. Meaningful public discourse must be re-invigorated. To enhance democracy decisions must be made by citizens. In this Millennium, we must be prepared to demonstrate the foresight, courage and vision that were displayed by the Fathers of Confederation. Responding to the political, economic and social imperatives of their time they created the federal state called Canada. One hundred and thirty-three years later, similar vision and courage are essential to successfully meet the new global economic and social challenges. Kingwell declares that the global world is a fact of life but a fact that " we can bend to our desires and needs. Sometimes the national level will be the appropriate place to demand accountability. Sometimes it will be municipal government. Often we will have to find wholly new forums and strategies to influence the existing structures of world governance, [which are not yet structures of world government]."

The future quality of life for humankind depends upon the type of decisions that we make as Canadians and most importantly as members of the world community. Kenneth Boulding points out in his 1968 classic essay The Economics of Coming Spacecraft Earth, that today's woes are rooted in acting like cowboys on a limitless open frontier. Cowboys lived in sparsely populated expanses, in which opportunity and resources appeared limitless. The presumption that the gain of one person wiped out opportunity for another was regarded as nonsense. In a wild frontier, a sense of community was not necessary, and the culture itself honored the individual, rewarded those who plundered most with the greatest riches. However, we've learned that we are no longer in an endless frontier.

The better model today is the spacecraft. We're all members of the human crew, hurtling through space with limited supplies. Everything must be shared, recycled and nothing can be wasted. Surely, the test of survival is not how fast the crew consumes its limited stores but how effective they are in maintaining and sharing their supplies with their neighbors in the ship. Nobody is left behind. Survival is no longer achieved by outrunning our friends; we survive as a community.

As we enter the new Millennium, the answers to the questions that I posed earlier can be each answered with an emphatic "Yes."

Despite the gigantic social and economic changes we are not, powerless. We can survive. For the first time, the less well off can be lifted to new heights. Human beings are capable in this new global age of advancing socially and morally at a pace equal to the scientific and technological revolution and we can build a world that reflects social and moral values. To do so humankind must build those institutions that will enjoy the power to exercise the values of sharing, compassion and caring that flow from political commitment to each other, and to future generations.

If we have the courage we can build the just society, envisioned by the late Prime Minister Trudeau and can create the brave new world our friend Stanley Knowles worked so hard to achieve.