On nation building

As promised, let's take a closer look at Jack Layton's economic vision speech to the Toronto Rotary Club, with a particular focus on how it frames the role of government.

The first noteworthy point is the extensive use of "infrastructure" as the main priority for government - with the term then expanded to include policies which normally aren't thought of as fitting the definition:

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.

Now, it's not hard to see some path-of-least-resistance value in treating what might otherwise be thought of as a separate class of social programs as being part of "infrastructure". After all, while the Harper Cons never hesitate to attack anything that's labeled as social spending (or even social policy at this point), they'll happily brag about flinging tens of billions of dollars around under the "infrastructure" heading. And to the extent it's possible to put aside a dispute over descriptors to compare the relative value of, say, housing and retirement income as opposed to lawn-bowling greens, there's plenty of opportunity to set up positive comparisons between the NDP's vision and the Cons'.

But it is worth asking whether the phrasing concedes more ground than it should. If the NDP isn't able to transform the public's view of the term "infrastructure" (which will be a difficult task when the Cons have spent so much time and money promoting their pork-based vision), then its framing will result in all sides talking about a term perceived to refer to things rather than people. And that could make it more difficult to build associations between valuable social programs and their human impact in the long term.

On the bright side, though, Layton's message also includes a strong statement that the government's role isn't simply to be a passive observer of the economy:

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.
...
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.

The legislative examples listed by Layton go more toward policies than the values which have to define what goals we should aim for - and hopefully we'll see some stronger links between the two as Layton's message evolves. But the underlying message is a vital one: that "collective capacities" matter, and that our democratic system should serve as a forum to discuss and decide exactly what goals we want to pursue as those capacities are harnessed.

Of course, there's still plenty of need to define exactly what collective capacities we should focus on, and I wouldn't take Layton's list as definitive. But it's nonetheless a huge plus to see a wholehearted defence of the role of the federal government in formulating and reaching national goals, particularly in contrast to Harper's determination to demolish it and Ignatieff's willingness to throw it under the bus when it seems convenient. And the more politicians and voters alike start to think about what Ottawa can and should do for the country as a whole rather than defining politics solely in terms of partisan jabs, the better the chances of actually reaching some of our national goals in the longer term.