Your kind of engagement matters a great deal, at this time when so many people are disengaging — from politics, in particular. 41% of registered voters didn’t even cast a ballot in the 2008 election. “A pox on all their houses!”

We hear that from many Canadians. We hear them lamenting what Parliament has become — the antics, the nastiness. It’s not just declining decorum.

When citizens look to Ottawa nowadays, I think many see a place that feels disconnected from their lives. Why vote? Why bother?” We hear it a lot.

For a generation, the overwhelming message has been that citizens cannot—should not—do substantial things together through their national government.

I think 1995 is when this idea slipped into the dominant position in Canada. That year’s federal budget undermined many of the post-war programs and ideas that defined us as Canadians. From health care to welfare. Housing to employment insurance. Those cuts drove wedges between people’s lived experience on one hand ... and their national government on the other.

Those cuts eroded the very idea of our government as the embodiment of our collective capacities as citizens. Those cuts were packaged as a national war on a deficit. And I suspect many people tolerated the cuts because of their inclination to band together to get things done.

But that deficit was slain in three years. And no government since has used its surpluses to reassert federal leadership. Instead, the M.O. has been to spend any surplus capacity on tax cuts — mostly for those with little need for them. That only makes sense if you accept that Ottawa’s job isn’t to lead, but to get out of the way. And I think it’s fair to say this idea has found its most enthusiastic standard-bearer in our current prime minister. The clearest illustration of that, surely, is Mr. Harper’s response to the recession. First he insisted there was no crisis worthy of a response. He was forced into action. And 19 months later, he couldn’t be more eager to pull out of stimulus activities.

This seems to be his default position:
Getting government off the playing field, onto the sidelines of the economy. If I have one message to convey today, it is this: It’s time to lead, not retreat. If we want the kind of recovery that comes with jobs and lasting benefits, we need some national leadership.

Time to lead, not retreat

Certainly, Mr. Harper shouldn’t be rushing to declare “mission accomplished.” Unemployment is 8 per cent. It’s 9.9 per cent in the GTA. And we were all dismayed by July’s figures: 139,000 full-time jobs lost.

This is the most consistently concerning story — this steady slide from family-supporting jobs into precarious ones. One worker in five now works part-time. That’s the worst level on record. Among jobless Canadians, 22.6 per cent now stay jobless for at least 6 months.
Mr. Flaherty seems heartened by upticking inflation, but it’s likely all driven by the HST. John Andras spoke to me about a troubling trend: Banks aren’t lending to firms with fewer than 50 employees, where the real job creation happens.

We do see cash surpluses among larger companies that laid off heavily. But they’re not using those funds to re-hire and grow. They’re using them to lever capital from the banks to take each other over. That’s unproductive activity whose inevitable consequence is more layoffs. So we can’t count on a recovery driven by business or consumer spending.

Without leadership, leading minds say a double-dip recession looms large: Stiglitz, Krugman, Rosenberg.

If Mr. Harper sees a recovery taking hold, could it be because he wants to see that? To return to his default position?

Here’s what I believe. I believe there’s no recovery worthy of that term until Canadians are back working.
I believe it’s time to act together, through government, to build a stronger foundation for growth and good jobs.

Building the fundamentals

Certainly, this is no time to arbitrarily end stimulus measures. But I’m not calling for a straight continuation of Mr. Harper’s program, either. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that program has been uneven, politically suspect, and without vision. I’ve said the same for months. But what would I do differently?

First, I’d treat municipalities as partners, not jurisdictional adversaries. Mr. Harper gave too little credence to advice coming out of our cities and communities — from public servants and business people who are closest to real needs and projects.

He ignored their well-considered warnings against requiring matching funds and project-by-project approvals.

The result? Regional disparities. Fewer projects. And that first summer’s construction season went largely wasted. Now Mr. Harper’s arbitrary March deadline could leave projects unfinished — or leave cities holding the bag for completion costs. We need to see some flexibility there. But this really comes down to vision.

My vision is for a federal government that listens to cities and entrepreneurs, a federal government that understands that they’re the engine, not the enemy. And that national leadership means empowering them to drive growth.

The second thing I’d do differently is take a longer view of infrastructure.

Instead of treating stimulus as a one-off, I’d make it the foundation for a lasting project of nation-building. Increasingly, building this country means building stronger communities. Increasingly, it’s our cities that attract investment, jobs and immigration. It’s about world-class infrastructure — roadways, harbours, transit, recreation, energy systems.

But our cities are struggling with a 100-billion-dollar-plus infrastructure deficit. And they can’t afford to upgrade what’s crumbling. Not without raising property taxes — that most regressive of fiscal foundations.

Here’s my vision. Ottawa has a vital stake in the quality of our communities — as part of the foundation of our Canadian economy! So I’d enshrine the partnership with municipalities in law — making infrastructure development a permanent national goal. I’d build on models like the gas tax transfer for infrastructure. It was always supposed to be a first step. Let’s scale up stable funding streams, keeping budgets balanced.

It’s about leadership, not just raw dollars, In fact, some of the most promising models are revenue-neutral — like the FCM’s Green Municipal Funds. With the vision and commitment, Ottawa can spark mass-scale infrastructure projects. Building retrofits, co-generation with zero impact on taxpayers.

Thirdly, I’d take not just a longer view of infrastructure but a wider one too.

If physical infrastructure is a foundation for economic growth, so is social infrastructure. This century, probably more so. Public health care helps Canada compete for investment and jobs. Affordable child care opens doors for parents to work or to study. Education & training, quality & accessible, is how we’ll build that 21st-century workforce. More affordable housing means a more secure population of workers and consumers.

We need to talk about retirement security. Settlement services. Seniors care. But it’s been years since we’ve seen substantial national leadership to strengthen our social infrastructure. One-off deals with provinces, yes — a little homelessness funding in a crisis, or child care deals that can be axed at a whim. My vision for Ottawa includes a renewed focus on building that social infrastructure — as a matter of sound economic policy.

Let’s build those programs that we know attract new investment, jobs and immigration into our communities. Let’s build those programs that support a more secure, skilled, healthy population — the next generation of workers, consumers, innovators, leaders. Let’s build them strategically, one practical step at a time.

Finally, implicit in all I’ve said, I’d use infrastructure investment as a means to achieve Pan-Canadian goals. Fuller employment, higher productivity, lower carbon emissions, less gridlock outside... You see that approach embodied in legislation we’ve brought to the House:

• Like our bill launching a 10-year housing strategy
• Another one phasing in a pan-Canadian child care program
• Our bill — now passed in the House! — holding Ottawa accountable to rolling carbon-reduction targets.

For me, the deepest lack in Ottawa’s stimulus program has been its failure to invest in tomorrow’s economy. This was our best chance yet to start positioning Canada as a renewable energy and conservation leader. Instead, we’ve lost more ground to our competitors and trading partners.

Less than 9 per cent of Canada’s stimulus was green stimulus. Obama’s US did nearly twice as well. Countries like France, Norway, Australia did three and four times as well.

Ottawa’s stimulus framework left tremendous innovation potential untapped — at the municipal level, among entrepreneurs. With leadership, with vision, we can do so much more to build the foundations for the new economy. To jumpstart co-generation projects and building retrofits. To get Canada working as a green technology leader.

MAKING BETTER CHOICES

But if you believe Ottawa’s real job is to get out of the way, then meeting pan-Canadian goals will never be your priority. Do any of you believe that? I certainly don’t.

I believe our national government has vital a role to play — as the embodiment of our collective capacities as Canadians. I believe sound economic management should be about achieving national goals — like full-time job creation. But here’s how we won’t get that done.

We won’t get it done by spending billions on new prisons when crime rates are falling. We won’t get it done by spending $16-billion on fighter jets when we haven't even discussed our next military needs yet. We won’t get it done by spending $15-billion annually on more corporate tax cuts.

Not when these cuts aren’t doing a thing to boost productivity or innovation. When all they do is squander our federal government’s capacity to invest and to lead. We can do so much better than that.

We can build a stronger, greener Canada. For ourselves and the generation behind us. I feel that so strongly whenever I get to experience the bubbling joy of my granddaughter Beatrice. We can get started now, working one practical step at time. That’s the New Democrat vision.

As you may or may not know, across all levels of government, NDP administrations have balanced the books more often than any other party. That’s according to Finance Department data to 1980 ... so it doesn’t even count Tommy Douglas’ 17 balanced budgets in row — when he successfully brought in medicare and rural electrification.

That’s what we need to be thinking about — doing good things together in a financially responsible fashion. I think that’s what most Canadians want. I think they want to be making better choices together, especially through their government, to build a better country.

And I believe this:
If Ottawa can channel these aspirations, we’ll see more Canadians taking back ownership of their federal government not just voting, but actively making it a tool to build a better world.