Conservative Strategy for Social Justice

Last Friday at the Manning Center Conference in Ottawa, I was on a panel with former Cabinet Minister Monte Solberg, Heritage Foundation staffer Jennifer Marshall, and Institute of Marriage and the Family Executive Director Dave Quist talking about a conservative strategy for social justice. The following is my opening statement.

Notes for Remarks – Social Justice Strategy for Conservatives
Manning Center Conference – March 12, 2010

Thank you to the Manning Center for including this important topic on your conference program.

I will focus my remarks this afternoon around three simple propositions:
1. Conservatives really do care about the needs of our neighbours.
2. There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution.
3. Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent.

First then, Conservatives care. This is an important place to start. The conservative brand is usually not associated with social justice issues. This is seen to be the purview of the left and given that public debate around these matters has generally been shaped about government programs dealing with social issues – with the left usually being for them and their expansion and the right opposed – there is a popular perception that Conservatives hard-edged and uncaring.

Canadians generally like to think of themselves as caring. And on the face of it, there is evidence to back up this claim.
• Eighty-five percent of adults tell surveyors that they donate some money to a charity every year.
• Sixty-one percent of us belong to at least one social group or organization.
• Somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of us volunteer with many young people reportedly volunteering more than their grandparents.

In our study A Canadian Culture of Generosity based on an analysis of Statistics Canada data, Cardus has pointed out that in reality, less than 30% of Canadians account for 85% of total hours volunteered; 78% of total dollars donated; and 71% of all civic participation. We dig a little further and discover that there is a primary civic core of about 6% of the population who are doing about five times their proportionate share; a secondary group of 23% of the population that does about double their share, and the remaining 71% of the population who carry less than one-third of their proportionate share. What I find most telling is the fact that the median charitable receipt claim in 2007 for a taxpayer earning $100,000 was $217.

What’s the point of these numbers? The Canadian self-identity and rhetoric about caring does not totally match our individual behavior. Truth be told, insofar as caring is measured by charitable giving, volunteering, and belonging to organizations, some Canadians care.

Now Stats Canada data obviously cannot be sorted with political or ideological leanings as a category but when we did do further research on what distinguishes this group, we were surprised that the key factors were not the sort of demographic or life-cycle characteristics which will “automatically” take care of replenishing themselves. Rather, to quote the sociologists, it is “certain habits of the heart that incline them to the common good. Members of the civic core have an “otherness” syndrome that causes them to do what they do out of deep convictions. They share a set of beliefs and a worldview that stresses responsibility, connectedness and cultural renewal. They are committed to improving their communities and culture through exercising and promoting personal and corporate responsibility. These citizens are often (but not always) older, religious, and well educated.”

I would suggest to you that this group of Canadians – that civic core composing the six per cent of Canadians who are doing five times their proportionate share and the 23% doing double their share – are broadly speaking conservative or conservative accessible voters. Yes, I think it safe to assert and I would be quite prepared to defend the proposition, Conservatives care.

Which sets up my second proposition, There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution. Two points here.

First, in politics if you want to engage people, you need to connect to their passions. I would suggest that conservatives have ignored an opportunity to realize their full political potential because they are often not seen to be engaged in these issues. We can take this on both a principled and pragmatic level. There are voters who are engaged every day in their personal lives in helping address the needs and challenges of their neighbours around them, who when they hear a platform defined only in economic terms, fail to resonate. Fully committed to individual dignity and responsibility, they see first-hand the failure of existing programs and solutions but the language of cuts without a credible alternative is not compelling. It is quite right to point out the failures of welfare state solutions but if that is heard as “washing our hands” of the challenges, we lose credibility. These voters are not looking for new government programs – they are busy on the front lines and realize they can do a better job than do bureaucrats at working on these challenging issues. But they are looking for a genuine expression of caring and a framework within which these real social needs are addressed. It is fair to say the conservative movement has not always provided this.

The second point I want to make regards the increasing urgency of this challenge. As I noted in a National Post column last week – and if you want the numbers, check there -- Demographics, immigration and urbanization will combine to put upward pressure on what is expected from charitable organizations. It does not take a degree in economics to understand the impact of decreasing supply and increasing demand. But given that the subject involves social services, the price that will be paid is more than a future increased tax bill.

Which really leads me to my third and primary proposition: Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent. Talking about a Conservative strategy for social justice does not mean advocating that more public resources be directed to this sector.

Frankly, there are others --and I would argue more meaningful ways -- to begin addressing this. Let me quickly cite three tangible examples.

Targeted tax cuts. Over the past few months, Cardus has been leading a campaign to increase the charitable tax credit from 29 to 42%. Our argument is straightforward. Most Canadians are not doing their proportionate share and in fact, are civic slackers when it comes to keeping alive the vital non-governmental civil society institutions that are so much a part of our social safety net. The effect of increasing the charitable tax credit would be to provide these institutions with further means to raise additional resources to address these growing needs, lowering the demand on government. It would provide the tools to individual taxpayers to support charities that can demonstrate the delivery of value for the dollars raised and would allow a certain marketplace of competition and choice to operate at work.

Second, a new type of hybrid corporation that crosses the profit and for-profit worlds. Presently we have for profit and not-for-profit corporations and I can say – involved with and sitting as I do on various charitable boards – the regulatory environment for charities to raise capital or engage in profit-making business in the context of delivering their charitable objects is complex and challenging. Here is not the place to get into technical detail – just to point out that recognizing that the not-for-profit and the for-profit world do not need to have the sharp dividing line between them that our present legal systems require. The status quo of delivery is not sustainable given the upcoming demographic shift and encouraging the innovation that comes with the market realities can help find solutions that fiddling with government programs are not likely to discover.

This leads to a third component of government action, which both of my previous two examples contribute to, but I want to make the argument more generally. Government needs to invest in the social infrastructure that can provide the means for the social challenges facing Canadians to be addressed. Let me illustrate – and with this I will conclude – with the commendable example of the Canadian response to the January catastrophe in Haiti. Within hours of the tragedy, Canada’s recently purchased CF-17 heavy lift aircraft were airborne carrying two helicopters with ground crew and equipment. This stood in stark contrast to Canada’s response to the Indonesian tsunami in 2004. Canada’s military transport capacity had not yet been updated and it took several days before the Canadian Forces could lease cargo space from a civilian charter company in order to get aid to where it was needed. The government worked with various charities and humanitarian organizations and Canadians responded with generosity.

The point of this illustration is that to make all of this possible, there was an investment in infrastructure. Conservatives understand when it comes to economic policy that our infrastructure in transportation, energy, and taxation policies and frameworks are a necessary part of the market functioning well. Government has a task and conservatives embrace it diligently, recognizing that this task done well will allow individuals and businesses to prosper in the market. I would like to contend this afternoon that Conservatives need to apply a similar devotion to understanding and implementing the necessary infrastructure for delivering social services well. That too will allow the generosity of Canadians to come to full and vibrant expression and go a long way to advancing social justice in Canada.

Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.