Introduction Let me begin on a personal note. I live between the realm of ideas and the frontline of action. I spend just enough time with ideas to be periodically dangerous and just enough time with actions to never cut a perfect mitre in my home renovations. Maybe this explains my fascination with the architect - the person who steals ideas from musicians and philosophers but knows he or she can't be a master carpenter. I love architects. Most days, I am better suited to a marketing meeting than reading Augustine's Confessions. But other days, I would rather pour a concrete floor than read the auditor's report. I was born with too many interests. Finding beauty in art and ideas has me taken, and so does the pleasure of building the back shed. For this, the folks at Cardus have given me two straightforward tasks: first, to seek out the public intellectuals that will together paint the picture of our new social architecture. Second, seek out the resources, money, networks, community, other ideas, and people - that will give movement to our ideas. Why is this project called Cardus needed at this moment? Here lies my central argument. Civic, social, cultural and economic flourishing requires a new and different arrangement of our social institutions. This can only happen with a different understanding of culture-change and a new openness to public exchange which allows the sharing of our most deeply held convictions. Surely, these are not only my ideas or my arguments. They are the arguments of the staff and senior fellows at Cardus and they are the ideas of a broader community of thinkers and doers. At Cardus we live in a tradition - a tradition of Jewish and Christian public intellectuals who have established powerful foundations upon which we build and nuance the ideas of tomorrow. Social Architecture - A Structural Argument Let's think about the first argument: that civic, social, cultural and economic flourishing requires a new and different arrangement of social institutions. The last two generations have increasingly built an undifferentiated society. What do I mean by this? Simply put, we naturally default to fewer and fewer institutions to solve the problems of the day. Today our default is toward the government or the markets. The coinage of our contemporary debate is the left or the right - what governments should do and what they shouldn't do. The result of this debate has produced the pan Canadian consensus of the last few decades in Canada. This conversation has run its course. These deep assumptions about the possibility of governments and the markets are simply unable to tackle the challenges we face. There are a multitude of examples of this, but let me note two of them. The first is the challenge of demographics and future economic growth. Jonathan Wellum, Chief executive of AIC and also a Cardus Senior Fellow, makes this argument in his most recent lecture on short-termism: the demographic trends of some of our major global economies cannot sustain economic growth into the future. Countries including Japan, Russia and even China do not have the cultural fortitude to reproduce themselves, to create new producers, consumers, GDP creators, or knowledge workers, - all economic terms for our children. The majority of our economic measurements are premised on the assumption of growth. But what really is behind this assumption? The next big economic question is, problematically, not an economic question and I am not sure that we even know how to converse about this as a society. Let me add a practical example. I recently observed a roundtable consultation with a number of government officials, related social agencies and many seniors. Two conversations struck me with their sadness. The first was the difficult challenge of unethical telemarketers selling to vulnerable seniors. The second was the troubling recognition that the community service vans could not even come close to meeting the needs seniors had to get to the doctor, buy medicine and visit Tim Horton's. The default for this conversation landed on two public policy fronts: one being the consumer protection legislation and the other being increased funding to municipalities and the problems of downloading. The essential problem was never mentioned. Who could have imagined that loneliness and family breakup would create difficult public policy issues such as consumer protection and municipal mobility for seniors? These are only case study examples of the limits of both the markets and the state. A recent Globe and Mail article poignantly illustrates the broader habits we have cultivated around who the next saviour will be. The headline read, "Market Meltdown: the Buck Starts Here." The article was an interesting book review of the just-published Chain of Blame. It stated, Most of us turning to this book would hope to find a single culprit. But the authors argue, in their book's title, that it is a chain of blame. They give full-fledged portraits, not villainous caricatures. People who meant well. People who didn't mean well. People who sensed something was wrong. People oblivious to the coming storm. All tied together in a chain of profit. Our blame-game has largely led us to tackle two instititutions: the office of the CEO and the government. To be sure, there is much blame to be distributed. Additionally, it will now require much wisdom on the part of our business and government leaders to bring us through this tangled web of international finance, regulated environments and highly complicated relationships. However, our default of blame has ironically overlooked two other major players. The first is the institutional and governance infrastructure of the very companies that have so dramatically come upon this trouble. They are the thousands of directors across this world who approve the paycheques of CEOs and the credit risk policies of their corporations. They are the hundreds of thousands of shareholders who dutifully attend the shareholder meetings and carefully steward their investments. The second gets closer to home. It is you and me and our shared cultural, social and economic assumptions about life. Might our cultural values of consumerism and short-termism have contributed to the situation we are in? Might the social lessons we learn in our families, received from our parents and given to our children, have anything to do with credit trends and stewardship? Have our faith institutions and our educational institutions taught us the basic virtues of thrift, of thinking long-term and of the fundamental principles of loving our neighbour when we are making business transactions? And let me probe deeper yet: can the principles of the market driving our economic sphere sustain themselves without the key social, cultural and religious values that we hold so deeply? My point is that this kind of questioning changes the default blame or responsibility. It differentiates the architecture of our economy beyond the market, the individual and the government, to other spheres, social, cultural, and spiritual. And this is the very mission of Cardus. What then of the new social architecture? Canada's new social architecture must come with a commitment to the distribution of authority and responsibility within a re-invigorated civil society and throughout the old and new institutions that form the foundations of that society. Institutions are not the sum of individual rational choice for reward or for association. They have meaning and purpose and order in their own right. The free association of individuals in a place of worship does not make a church. The grouping of people in a single detached home does not make a family. Canada's new social architecture is the recovery or discovery that institutions can play a vital role in mediating between government and the individual, between business and labour associations, volunteer associations, cultural institutions, families, faith communities and educational institutions. Unfortunately, many of these spheres of society have deferred their authority and public space to the state, the market, or the individual. It is relatively easy to speak at the level of principle and broad ideas. What might this new social architecture actually look like in practice? Let me illustrate this new social architecture through the questions we are exploring and cultivating at Cardus, and expressions of the notions we have about the possibility of Canada's new social architecture that we plan to explore. Idea: We think trade associations will find new life and authority – leveraging a knowledge network economy, cross-fertilizing ideas in a market economy, setting standards to live by. Not long ago, I spent a day consulting with a construction trade association. Even in this rough and tumble frontier, industry ideas of competition are changing dramatically. The idea of building communities of competitors in the construction industry was a completely foreign idea 10 years ago. Today, not so. The future of institutions like the Chamber of Commerce is bright. It is not that the Chamber needs go back to its job of keeping the integrity of weights and measures as it did a century ago, but rather that this very principle must again come alive in a more complicated and global economy. Idea: We think families will be a new unit of the economy. Can you recall in the last three decades a Finance Minister of the government of Canada in a federal budget presentation selling the idea of having babies? Welcome to Minister Flaherty's 2008 budget. The young growing family will become the new creative class, creating new and innovative pools of intellectual capital and know-how. Idea: Labour Groups will get over their ideological fantasies and realize that work is more social than ever, creating economies of scale for training and benefits, building communities in non-traditional employment and devising alternative work arrangements for the provision of social benefits. Idea: The public school system will be challenged by diverse educational models creating space for alternative educational philosophies, for charter schools, arts schools and faith-based schools. The argument will be a business argument and not just a religious one. Idea: Is it really churches and other faith institutions that build the richly textured and diverse communities so eloquently described in official plans and city-building documents? How do we create the new urbanism ideal where the rich talk with the poor, the single mom with the local business leader, the academic with the house framer and the grade seven boy with the elderly couple seeking to share in the vitality of life? What institution will be best suited to deliver this dream? Idea: Will church minivans be the public mobility bus expansion strategy? Idea: As government capacity creates limits for community services, what will be the increasing effect of philanthropic choices in shaping community? Will the next philanthropists become the new policy makers? All of these questions engage the possibilities of civic society and of non-state institutions. Would this kind of civic vitality create cultural flourishing? Cultural Change, Cultural Flourishing Against Politics First The second part of my argument is that re-thinking, researching and renewing Canada's social architecture requires a different perspective on cultural change. Peter Menzies, a Cardus Senior Fellow and CRTC Commissioner, gets at this question by contrasting what he calls a "cultural flourishing approach" to a "politics-first" approach. He says, "Politics is rarely capable of guiding culture. More typically it responds to it. Culture, or shared community spirit, cannot be (politically) manufactured." Politics follows culture, not the reverse. This is a deep irony here in Canada. Scan the Canadian government ministries and you will see how deeply embedded politics are in much of our civil society. On the culture and arts front, Robert Fulford, would still characterize this investment of money and administration as following the creative spirit rather than leading the various expressions of Canadian culture and art. If you want to get close to the production of culture, the real frontlines of cultural change that will paint our future reality, you might want to consider the National Art Gallery in addition to Parliament Hill. The American evangelical Christian political right failed for this very reason. Its over-optimistic belief in political power and service to change culture is an experiment with troubled results. What sustaining cultural change can now be attributed to the largest political movement in the history of North America? Ironically, it is this very community that has deep in its character the stuff of culture making, namely, strong and vibrant families, active faith institutions increasingly committed to community, a music and arts realm that is able to dream of a new reality, an international passion for relief and education and a culture of donation-giving unrivalled in the world. If these are not the basics of cultural production and culture making, then what is? Do not mistake me. Political responsibility is deeply important. Our democratic impulse is the spark plug. Protecting a civil society and political engagement is the energy to strengthen that impulse. I hold this as fundamentally true and can prove it with political scars. Cardus is not, however, a primarily political project but is instead committed to the entirety of our social architecture. Deep Convictions This leads me directly to the third piece of my thesis tonight; that new arrangements of our social institutions with a different understanding of culture change require new openness to public exchange which allows the sharing of our most deeply held convictions. Listen to Jeffrey Simpson explain the seat of our deepest convictions. In commentary on the multi-cultural character of Ontario he says, Multiculturalism is Ontario's creed; integration is Ontario's practice. Politics is supposed to assist that integration and, in fact, it does rather wonderfully. True, the province has not yet had a visible minority premier or party leader, but that day will come. When political (or administrative or judicial) decisions are deemed to thwart integration, the public will react against them. In their private spheres of family and religion, or even in their own communities, people can practise their own creeds and exercise their own cultural preferences. Bring these into the public domain and insist that it be changed, and the reaction will be overwhelmingly negative. (The Globe and Mail, Oct 11, 2007) Simpson here presents the view that not only must the public square be secular, but only the secular must be brought into it. His argument, at least as presented here, insists that personal views on matters relating to family and religion, the defining structures of cultural belief, do not belong (or more accurately will be rejected as inappropriate) in the public square. It is true that the cultural flourishing model requires some necessary distinctions between the public and the political (i.e. public is much more than political) and between the public and the private. The mistaken, though popularly-held pan Canadian consensus approach so aptly described by Simpson is that belief is private and therefore publicly inappropriate or irrelevant and that public issues can always be resolved with neutrality and process. This unwillingness to engage in or even talk publicly about our deepest convictions has widespread effects in community groups, churches, foreign aid, immigration, social services, the arts, racial issues, community services and the like. Pieces of the debate are missing. Official plans are made without reference to faith institutions and corporations are hesitant to donate to charities with a religious foundation. Global corporations understand little about the strengths and weaknesses of religious commitment and passion, a missing piece of their risk management strategies. Superficial political dialogue is plagued by the fear of media contempt. And the list could go on. Is this what you make of the world today? Cardus does not. Canada's new debate and that of the world will be one of faith and belief. It will be one of a religious character. Tony Blair's discovery as he left the political arena that religion is public is, I imagine, a discovery that many of you have always known to be true. And this is good. Within our religious traditions are to be found the building blocks of productivity, of exchange, of creating and building good things. These are the makings of great economies and civil society. Surely this kind of public dialogue is no easy task. Pluralistic engagement needs to be affirmed, and the capacity for non-state institutions to make public contributions needs to be celebrated and released. You and I both know that history stores many shameful examples of the end of dialogue and of our collective failures to dialogue with humility and grace. Yet this is the task to which we are all called. In conclusion let me go back to where I began. The Cardus project is cultivating civic, economic and cultural flourishing with new and different arrangements of our social institutions. This can only happen with a different understanding of culture-change and a new openness to public exchange which allows the sharing of our deepest held convictions. For myself, I know what will get me up tomorrow morning (God willing) and set me to work. My place is at Cardus, yours, somewhere else in Canada's beautiful social architecture. May we steward our time and place well.

Christian voters should not become a political interest group defined by particular key issues. We ought to be concerned and think Christianly about all issues. Our faith impacts aboriginal issues as well as abortion, security as well as social justice, fishery and family policy. Instead of a checklist of issue orthodoxy, I will follow the campaign paying particular attention to competence, character and conviction. Competence is important because I know that God is more glorified through a job well done than poorly done, and effective government is a blessing for a nation. Also, change that is lasting (which is quite different than headlinegrabbing) requires competence to implement. While I am not interested in the gossipy details of candidates? private lives, evaluating their character is crucial. Leadership requires courage and the fortitude to resist the particular temptations of public office. Closely tied to character is conviction, the core beliefs that animate us. All of us, including all political candidates, are believers of one sort or another. What we believe about the big questions of life shapes what we think is important and what will drive our passions, also our political passions. After 25 years of political engagement, I?ve grown more cynical about election platform promises. While the political junkie in me watches with fascination the campaign games of defining the ballot question and wedge issues, history shows that parties usually govern differently than they campaign. Elections are important because they decide winners and losers. The importance of who is in government pertains to much more than the legislation that may be passed. It includes appointments to key positions that the governing party gets to make, the ability to draft regulations that shape how legislation is implemented and the appointment of cabinet ministers who make day-to-day departmental decisions regarding spending and priorities that impact everyday life. In short, the impact of the government we elect on our lives will be more felt in areas that never make the news than in the issues drawing our attention during the five weeks of a campaign. This is just another reason why competence, character and conviction mean more than a checklist of positions and issues mainly designed to win my vote.

There has been a great deal written and even more spoken over the past months about why we don't vote, yet the answers are less likely to be found in current behaviours than they are in the subtleties of post-modern thinking. We live in a consumer society; one in which the dominant although not exclusive trend is to assess the value the products we purchase and the activities we engage in by the benefits they bring to us as individuals. This articulates itself in the reasons for low voter turnout that I hear in the course of my studies and travels across the country. The most frequent is that "I don't know if I'll vote because I don't agree with everything any of the candidates has to say" or, in other words, there is no single party or candidate that affirms us individually - at least not at the level required to inspire us to return the favour by going to the polls. When we don't see ourselves fully represented in the choices placed before us as consumers, we fail to see sufficient value in the exchange of goods or services and choose not to buy into or participate in the process. Further degrading the value of this exchange is that the nature of our parliamentary democracy dictates that most of us will be dissatisfied with the outcome of any given election. With four or more candidates in each of our ridings or wards, the majority of us will typically not vote for the person, or party, who wins. In fact, if current polls are any indication federally, at least 6 out of 10 Canadians will vote for a party or candidate other than the one that forms government Oct. 14. The vast majority of us are therefore asked to participate in a process in which we will - so long as we only value it in terms of the satisfaction we gain from it - feel as if we have "lost." Hence the popularity of reforms that would attribute seats in the House of Commons based on a percentage of popular vote, a process that would allow more of us to see "ourselves" reflected in the parliamentary pot pouris. To a great extent, there is nothing particularly new about this. Canadian society has, however, always defined itself in terms of the balance of the tension between collective and individual rights, - the right of the majority to define the sort of community we will share versus the rights of each us individually to determine the course of our own lives. There is little doubt that the baby boom's powerful cultural influence and desire to lead lives of self-affirmation has shifted the balance in favour of individualism. Rightly or wrongly, that was a driving force behind the installation and interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has made many changes in our society. All of this has consequently combined to reinforce the tendency to assess political and other behaviours in terms of the satisfaction it offers to us as individuals. Not only do we have a right to vote, growing numbers of us are inclined to feel entitled to see our individualism affirmed by the process. This tendency to take a consumer approach to life is also reflected in other ways. The most common cause cited for irregular church attendance, for instance, is not lack of faith in God, it is the churches' inability to meet our individual needs. So, while we once went to church in order to serve and praise God, we are now more inclined to assess the value of church attendance based on the service it provides us. We shouldn't be surprised that we would take the same approach to politics. It's not as if we don't believe in it anymore, it's just that we are more interested in what it can do for us than what we can do for it. Having established a reputation for excellence in promoting the value of individual rights and freedoms, our leaders, media and educators may, if they value high levels of political engagement, consider also promoting the idea that with each right comes an obligation and with each freedom comes a responsibility. That won't solve the entire issue of low voter turnout, but it's as good a place as any to begin.

Canada's public life as reflected through its commonly held beliefs is, like that of most countries, rife with misconceptions. For instance, people frequently think that Alberta, the province that privatized liquor stores, is rife with private health clinics. Not so. Ontario is the province with the private hospitals - the Shouldice Hospital in Thornhill being the best known - while B.C. and Quebec are the provinces with the most active private clinics. Alberta actually has the nation's most restrictive legislation when it comes to private health facilities. Another view widely held is that religious adherence is in morbid decline. Canada, for many practical historical reasons going back to franco-catholicism and anglo-protestantism, certainly has a strong tradition of separating politics from religion. But that doesn't mean faith here has been abandoned. The facts, again, tell a different story. According to research outlined in Dr. Reginald Bibby's book The Boomer Factor, 29% of Canadians have full memberships in a religious group. It might not be what it was but that's more than sports groups (22%), hobby groups (16%) and service clubs (12%). It's also much more - four times - than political groups which have only 7% of the population engaged as members. Of the 10 membership group categories listed in the research, religion is number one. But religions, unlike sports stadia, recreation centres, libraries and arts centres, have never depended or asked for public money to build their structures and their profile tends to slip beneath most public life radar. They may be the largest institution in which people have memberships but they also - for many good reasons no doubt including their status as poor sources of tax revenue - remain the most independent. Some might argue that this has disconnected the role of faith in Canadian life and, for instance, the civic planning in our increasingly dominant cities. There is no question that faith groups continue to build significant structures, but the major faith buildings continue sprouting up deep in the suburbs. Calgary's recently completed and massive Ahmadiyya's Baitun Nur mosque, the largest in the country, is an eloquent structure but is placed far from what we know as an 'urban core' area. Metaphorically and practically, we have placed institutions that are actually at the core of people's lives on the physical fringes of society. This is the practical outcome of subscription to the notion that religious interest in Canada is dead or dying. No one has compiled more comprehensive data in this field than the University of Lethbridge's Bibby. His Project Canada research over 30 years clearly shows a decline in regular church attendance compared with 1975. But it also shows that decline levelled out in about 1990, dipped at the 2000 mark and since then has grown back to levels roughly equivalent to and in some instances better than the norm in 1985-1990. The facts are that religions constitute the largest single common activity shared by Canadians and their interest in this area is the same today as it was a generation ago. If Quebec, where the decline in religious attendance has continued unabated, is taken out of the picture, the numbers speak even more in favour of faith as a major and growing part of Canadian's lives. (It should be added, however, that most Quebeckers continue to identify as Catholic and Statistics Canada's religiosity index, which measure private religious practice and not just church attendance, indicates little overall difference between Quebeckers and Ontarians. This and other data leads to speculation that the issues in Quebec have more to do with the institution of the church than with God). As Bibby concludes: "Contrary to ideas propagated by many Boomer academics and journalists in particular, the inclination of Canadians to reach beyond themselves continues to extend to the gods . . . . The extent of participation in organized religion has been grossly underestimated and patterns of involvement badly misunderstood." The point here is not to promote the imposition of faith. It is, however, to raise the notion that we may have forgotten, or risk overlooking, the need to include institutions of the soul in our civic visions. Given their contribution as incubators of preferred social values - a topic for future commentary - leaving them out would be a terrible mistake.

Graeme Morton of the Calgary Herald covers the Cardus consultation, Planning in Good Faith in the September 21, Calgary Herald: CALGARY - With a Calgary skyline dominated by construction cranes and glistening towers of commerce, what room and role is there for our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques? That was the question which brought together local faith leaders, civic politicians, designers and architects earlier this week for the Living in Good Faith forum. The session, sponsored by the Hamilton-based Work Research Foundation, was not designed to generate quick answers but to start the dialogue flowing on the future of spirituality and city life -- stained glassed urbanism if you will. The local conference follows on the heels of the foundation's in-depth report on the role of faith in society in Toronto. "Religious communities are interwoven into the culture of our cities, so it begs the question what can they add to the urban experience," said Michael Van Pelt, the foundation's president. "You rarely see churches being recognized as a social pillar of society these days," he added. "But in just about every volunteer, cultural or social agency in this city, you'll find an undeniable contribution from Calgary's faith community." Van Pelt noted research by University of Lethbridge sociologist Reg Bibby which showed more Canadians (30 per cent) were involved in a religious organization as compared to similar groups representing sports, unions and professions, culture, education or politics. And yet the popular perception remains that faith has been badly eclipsed in this secular, individualistic and materialistic new world. One of the forum speakers, Rev. Eric Jacobsen, a Presbyterian pastor from Tacoma, Wash., said faith communities have created a network of relationships which makes them prime candidates to advocate for the homeless and marginalized. However, Jacobsen admitted that a collective belief in the Biblical instruction to be keepers of our brothers and sisters can be difficult in this disengaged age. "Does public life exist today, or are we just out there to shop or get something to eat?" asked Jacobsen. Panelist Dr. Terry Downey, president of St. Mary's University College, cautioned Calgary has a long way to go before it arrives at any urban version of the promised land. "This city has incredible wealth, but there's not much beauty for the homeless and mentally ill who are on the streets," said Downey. The pressures of a rapidly growing city are creating scenarios where the self-centred face of human nature comes to the surface. "In the last 50 years, the whole theme of urban life has often been one of segregation of people, not of integration," said Ald. Brian Pincott. "We need to discover and ultimately embrace 'the other' in our society, whether it's in financial or faith circles, and right now we're not very good at that," he added, challenging church communities to "show us the way." Nestled among the office towers and condos, Calgary's downtown core still contains a number of vibrant, historic churches, faith communities such as St. Mary's Cathedral, First Baptist, Grace Presbyterian and Knox United. Others, such as the former Wesley United, have succumbed to dwindling attendance and found new purpose -- in Wesley's case as Calgary Opera's headquarters. David Down, the city's senior architect/urban designer, said many churches remain iconic buildings, instantly recognizable in their communities. He notes a predicted dramatic increase in the number of people living downtown could revitalize existing churches and create demand for new ones. However, Down admits the Centre City plan for the future of the Beltline and the core, "deals with faith organizations only in a cursory way." Down said that large religious buildings opened in recent years, such as Centre Street and First Alliance churches and the Baitun Nur mosque, have all been located in light industrial or commercial areas, not residential neighbourhoods. Peter Burgener, a well-known city architect, told the forum churches continue to stand out as landmarks in a congested urban environment. "Church is all about community building; it's a place to go when no one else will care for you," said Burgener. "The spires of churches continue to reach up to the heavens. They serve as a vertical punctuation mark on our skylines."

A Submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Introduction The issue of whether it is "discriminatory" for a physician to refuse to refer a patient for a procedure that the physician does not wish to perform or be associated with is once again on the front burner. We are aware that there has been wide-spread concern about whether (and to what extent) the conscience and beliefs of physicians are being taken into consideration by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (COPSO). The Ontario Medical Association (to name but one group) has expressed concerns with the way in which COPSO is responding to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) letter of earlier this year in its Draft1. Because there have been concerns and because the issue is one of wide-spread importance to all citizens in Ontario (and other provinces) it is a good thing that the time both for making submissions and for their consideration has been extended by COPSO and I thank you in advance for this opportunity to do so. The Issue Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has written a letter to the National Post (September 7, 2008 "Doctors Must not Discriminate") outlining her view that there is a requirement to refer. She is not a medical physician; neither is she a philosopher or capable, apparently, of the kind of thinking that is necessary in this area, as her letter shows: Like other professionals, doctors are entitled to make decisions about the services they offer based on their clinical competence. And, doctors, like patients, are also entitled to accommodation of their religious beliefs as much as possible. In some situations, like a medical clinic, it might be appropriate to refer a patient on to another professional who will help them. But patients should not have to shop around for medical treatment they were denied for non-clinical discriminatory reasons. (emphasis added). For "non-clinical discriminatory reasons", read: the exercise of conscience or religion. In fact, there are many technically "non-clinical" reasons in medicine why people cannot always get what they want. For example, an older person may well not get the transplant over a younger patient who is more likely to benefit—a discrimination or distinction based upon "age" yet one that we justify. There are many such examples. The accommodation of differing beliefs is just one more area in which there may be something that comes between what a patient wants and can reasonably expect. But the point here is that Chief Commissioner Hall thinks it is acceptable, as a general principle, to discriminate against those who have one set of conscientiously held or religious beliefs on behalf of others who have a different set of beliefs. In addition she asserts that such conscientious or religiously based reasons for action are discriminatory. Human Rights, it seems, now entails monitoring conflicting beliefs in society, turning them into one half of a human rights issue, and then, by eradicating the possibility of dissent (for that is what a physician's ability to refuse to refer amounts to) forcing some citizens to effectively implicate themselves in the beliefs of other citizens. Under the Canadian Constitution all rights must be consistent with the concept of a "free and democratic society" so one must wonder how Chief Commissioner Hall's conception of the truncation of these freedoms can survive scrutiny. On this interpretation of the Chief Commissioner and as represented in the Draft there is the real spectre of no meaningful public freedom of conscience or religious belief for doctors. Such a radical truncation is intolerable in a free and democratic society. The right of citizens to express their consciences and beliefs is not something that must be "parked in the waiting room." If society wishes to have conscientious physicians, it cannot at large dictate how those consciences are free to operate about matters that raise deeply personal beliefs. To remove the capacity to refuse to refer, in the manner suggested by Chief Commissioner Hall, Dr. Zuliani in his letter and in the Draft is a gross interference with the proper scope of a physician's rights. This direction of non-referral is the drift of recent communications and direction from the OHRC to the COPSO and the College's Draft Response and the reason why the Centre for Cultural Renewal felt it necessary to make this submission. Here is how your College responded, through its current President, to an article by Lorne Gunter and an editorial in the National Post last August: All services that doctors provide—including decisions to accept or refuse individuals as patients, decisions about providing treatment or granting referrals to existing patients and decisions to end a doctor-patient relationship—are subject to the obligations of the Human Rights Code. Contrary to your editorial, the college does not expect physicians to provide medical services that are against their moral or religious beliefs. If physicians feel they cannot provide a service for these reasons, the draft policy does expect physicians to communicate clearly, treat patients with respect and provide information about accessing care. (See: "Doctors' Hands Not Being Forced," National Post, August 22, 2008 by Dr. Preston Zuliani, president, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Toronto.) Analysis and Submission It would appear that, for "provide information about accessing care" Dr. Zuliani, on behalf of COPSO means, like Chief Commissioner Hall, "refer." If that was not what was meant and something like a neutral phone referral information service was what was anticipated, then the College should say so more clearly. To agree with the blunt approach of Chief Commissioner Hall, as the Draft appears to, is not sustainable or advisable. With respect the policy of other bodies, such as the Canadian Medical Association and certain provincial medical associations, which clearly state that there is no duty to refer, are superior in so far as they strike a better balance between the needs of patients and the beliefs and consciences of physicians. (I cite the relevant policy from the CMA showing this later on in this Submission). If the College is genuinely concerned about the provision of information regarding care there are other less intrusive and destructive ways of accomplishing this goal. For example, the College could extend what it already has in place; namely to create a "physician's referral service" that would direct inquiries from the public to physicians and surgeons who work in the relevant areas. This number could be provided in a handy form (flyers, posters etc.) for physicians to have available in ways that are not issue specific for the physician thereby creating the moral problem which exists with referral. This number and listing (akin to that established by some Bar Associations for lawyers) could assist patients in finding information about how to "access information about health care." This way the individual physician who has an objection to this kind of referral in specific circumstances would not find him or herself in a difficult situation and the concerns about access to medical care (the purported reason for the concerns in relation to "ending the physician-client relationship") would be addressed.2 Availability of alternative sources for information about physicians and their areas of practice would then be coming from a central source and not from a physician who finds him or herself in a position of conflict in relation to the specific issue. The central point here may be framed as a question. If I am a physician with a conscientious or religious objection to something that a person wishes me to do, must I help the person find someone who will do that thing? The Draft seems to assume the answer to this is "yes" but there is no principled reason why that answer is the right one and strong arguments that it is wrong. A better way of balancing the "conflict" can be reached and that is what we should strive for. There is something deeply political about the approach being taken by the Draft and by Chief Commissioner Hall in her public pronouncements. While the suggestion is that the requirement of referral is driven by concerns about non-discrimination this does not stand up to scrutiny when it is realized that there are other means available (as set out above) to protect both interests as much as possible. One cannot escape the sense, in reading the Draft, that religion or conscience objections are a "suspect category" that COPSO (following similar suspicions at the OHRC) wishes to have minimized as much as possible in order to obtain other health care outcomes—such as easier and wider access to controversial practices. One of the central policies of non-discrimination and a free and open society is a proper recognition of modus vivendi—how to organize around divergent beliefs, not create spurious rank-orderings to make one persons beliefs (in this case the concerned physician's) effectively disappear. The issue in this area is how to provide maximum respect for differences related to beliefs that it is legal to hold. Issues such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, whether a man should be in the physician's office when a pap smear is done, reproductive technology, capital punishment etc.—are all belief conflicts and are deeply involved in what we believe or do not believe, and physicians can be implicated in them all unless the right to dissent is recognized and protected. That you think something is just fine and unobjectionable while I think it is monstrous does not mean that your "all's right with the world" or "I have a right to demand what I want" view can force me to make what you want happen. That is what underlies this current debate. The Draft currently under consideration subordinates the rights of a physician to those of a patient under the idea that "putting the patient first" requires obviating personal beliefs or conscience. There is no sound basis for such an understanding. Nothing in the patient/physician relationship requires such a wholesale subordination of the physician's beliefs. Here is the troublesome passage from the Draft. ii) Moral or Religious Beliefs If physicians have moral or religious beliefs which affect or may affect the provision of medical services, the College advises physicians to proceed cautiously. Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician's responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and services they require. Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered, to accept individuals as patients or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.3 It is important not to lose sight of a basic principle here. Canada endorses accommodation for conscience and religion (the co-joined right "conscience and religion" is what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to at Section 2 (a)). This is a right all citizens have regardless of their occupations. Perhaps the Draft could say something positive about conscience and religion being important rather than casting a "chill" across the whole area. No amount of demanding, pushing, complaining, cajoling, gossip, innuendo, begging or punishment can take away the right every Canadian has to act according to their consciences and religion. Whether a person can always be accommodated in such an exercise of conscience or belief is another matter—the employer (if it is an employment situation) must accommodate up to the level of "undue hardship." A physician must show that he/she acted responsibly in making it clear in a courteous way to the patient what the limits are of his/her medical practice. Citizens Owe Each Other a Measure of Respect as Well The patient, like every other citizen, has duties as well as rights. Part of the duty of one citizen is not to force another citizen (in this case a physician) to abandon his/her beliefs or act in breach of them. That is what Commissioner Hall, the letter from Dr. Zuliani and the Draft all fail to consider. Ethics and accommodation constitute a two-way street. They are not, in how the conflicts are set up, a one-way superhighway marked "what patient wants patient gets"—medicine does not and should not work that way. Yet that seems to be the assumption underlying the current Draft. Where the principles are properly applied, physicians do not lose their right to dissent, to disapproval and to non-involvement just because of the doctor-patient relationship. To allow that would be to give a "trump right" to patients. Yet no such "trump" exists. Patients have the right to good medical care, but they do not have the right to demand that any given physician perform services to which that person may have an ethical or religious objection. There is no duty to "put one's religious or conscientious views to one side" in the manner suggested by the Draft. In fact, it would be equally accurate to put the matter this way: "if you don't like the scope of your physician's practice go somewhere else." All the physician has a duty to do is be clear with the patient that he or she will not do certain things—things the doctor has every right as a free and autonomous citizen to refuse to do. Physicians can be required not to discriminate against patients on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or what have you. They can also be required not to proselytize or to act in inappropriate ways with patients. Equally, they cannot be required to place themselves in the chain of causation of procedures or practices they are opposed to for reasons of conscience under some supposed "second-order" ranking of their own beliefs.4 Maybe something else underlies this tightening up of the instruments of the administrative State? Might there be a growing concern that many physicians don't want to do certain things that other citizens want? Could this be part of how "politics" in the widest sense works out in societies? I think so, and would assert further that that is why some people fear the freedom of free physicians. But it should not be the role of COPSO to act against the diverse interests of the Members of the College no matter how strident some of the voices within it are for their own beliefs to be advanced. Dissent and debate are how society (and its associations) should work. The fine line that is being completely erased by those like Chief Commissioner Hall who wish to make physicians into the pull-strings of patients is that the patient can only require that physicians act on their best clinical and personal basis honestly and openly. It should be perfectly acceptable for a doctor to say "I do not do X,Y & Z in my medical practice, if you wish X.Y and Z you must find a physician who does this. I can also not refer you for this to another physician, you are free to find such a person on your own." If I believe euthanasia is immoral because, according to my beliefs and analysis the intentional taking of a human life is wrong, then it is pretty clear that if I am required, as Chief Commissioner Hall says I am (and Dr. Zuliani and the Draft suggests), to ensure that it happens anyway by writing down the address of the doctor whom I know does it and giving this to the patient, I am directly involved in doing it. The death of the patient, if it follows from my referral, happens, in part, because of my referral. As I am in the chain of causation I am implicated, I am supporting it by my actions and my ability to refuse is nullified. This is why the "right of non-referral" is such an important right. Hiding the moral conflict behind the terms "referral" "discrimination" or "providing information" or avoiding the fact that there can be deep moral disputes behind such things as "providing information on accessing health care" the way COPSO in its Draft and Chief Commissioner Hall in her letter suggests, is just a way of saying "your conscientious scruples are irrelevant—make the sought for outcomes happen in all cases whether you are opposed or not." On the other hand, it can be seen that if I have no involvement in something I am not in any way implicated in what happens nor am I interfering in a person getting what they seek; it is the only neutral position. Required referral, on the other hand, is not neutral. The Canadian Medical Association has been around this issue before: they do not require referrals. On what possible basis other than brute power of an over-weaning administrative force could Chief Commission Hall and the OHRC think they know better than the doctors themselves? Answer: they have the power, or think they do. They also appear to have some allies in COPSO. This attitude, however, is not the friend of diversity and amounts to an egregious discrimination against a genuine pluralism of beliefs as well as an attack on the independence of professional bodies such as COPSO. The CMA policy on abortion states as follows: A physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician. (CMA, Policy on Induced Abortion, December 1988) Note, in this policy, how the physician's responsibility ends, as it should, with simply informing the patient of the doctor's "moral or religious" objection and it is up to the patient to consult another physician, not the doctor to refer her to one. It is this approach that the Draft over-rides. Conclusion: A Right of non-referral is mandated by sound Ethics and Law A recent article in the Student BMJ captures the correct approach on the question of the accommodation of conscience and belief in a medical context: Conscientious objection in medicine is rarely an easy way out. It may add to paper work, complicate relationships with colleagues, and leave the doctor feeling vulnerable and isolated. However, history shows that rapid changes of law is reason enough to uphold the doctor's right to raise conscientious objection. We may never all agree on what is the right thing to do in difficult clinical and moral situations. But we need more doctors, not fewer, who are willing to defend what they think is right.5 Based on the foregoing analysis, it is submitted that your College should as a matter of sound ethics and law endorse a policy that respects the rights of conscience and religion guaranteed to every Canadian (including physicians and surgeons) under our Constitution including the right of non-referral. Such a failure to respect rights is not the best basis for a profession to operate—particularly at a time when there is a shortage of physicians, many of whom have a choice of where they might want to settle and practice and for many of whom the practical aspects of conscientious beliefs accommodation (or its absence) may be an important consideration. If we want conscientious physicians we must respect the exercise of conscience, not attempt to drive it into irrelevance as is being suggested by the OHRC and the Draft under consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Iain T. Benson Barrister & Solicitor Executive Director Centre for Cultural Renewal, Ottawa,Canada Notes 1 See Draft; Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code, undated, http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies/consultation/HumanRightsDRAFT_08.pdf last accessed September 11, 2008. For the OMA concerns see: Charles Wells "OMA fears intrusion into MD's Beliefs", National Post, Saturday, August 23, 2008 at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=743272 (last accessed September 10, 2008). 2 The approach taken in the existing College "Sample Notification Letter" strikes a good balance here. That language is as follows: For assistance in locating another physician, you may wish to contact the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (416-967-2626 or toll free 1-800-268-7096 ext. 626) or visit the College website at www.cpso.on.ca and access the Doctor Search service. (see: http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/ending.htm last accessed Sept 11, 2008) 3 http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies/consultation/HumanRightsDRAFT_08.pdf last accessed September 11, 2008 Emphasis added. 4 One of the ironies of the existing Draft is that it purports to recognize the Dagenais principle that rights under the Charter are not "rank-ordered" yet in the way the entire Draft is oriented, the physician's beliefs count as nothing against the demands of the patient. This cannot be correct and the existence of a blatant rank-ordering while purporting not to is a significant example of what would amount to institutional duplicity should this carry into practice. 5 Charles Williams "Conscientious Objection" Student BMJ 2008;16:235 /18, available at: http://student.bmj.com/issues/08/07/life/264.php (last accessed September 12, 2008).

The recent Work Research Foundation report, Toronto the Good, goes a long way toward redeeming that rusty and increasingly ironic old sobriquet. Once it was a description of the city's embrace of a grey and graceless religious morality, and then long a snickering diss—everything from the perennial haplessness of the Leafs, to the lack of a night life, to rigidly controlled liquor sales—in a phrase, our collective clumsiness as we tried to dance. The report's reclamation of the term 'good' is, I think, very helpful. This 'goodness' is not the application of a specific or doctrinaire moral code, but the kind of thing we mean when we say, on a hot summer day, "This ice cream is really good." Strange to think that the church could afford to take a lesson about such goodness from the City's official plan, which sets out values of diversity and opportunity, beauty and connectivity, and leadership and stewardship. I can't remember the last time I heard any of those first four terms used in a conventional church context, but they are surely core spiritual values. Back when the phrase 'Toronto the Good' was first coined, the church was a substantial power and power broker in city life and politics. That kind of power has long since dissipated, and is perhaps not to be lamented. And now we seem to be—finally!—emerging from a lengthy period in which spiritual communities have been relegated to the margins of civic life, distrusted by business and city leaders, and operating out of their own sense of inferiority and exclusivism. Ironically, the deplorable rise of poverty and homelessness may be the reason for the new, fruitful relationship between city and spiritual communities described in the report: it's largely in seeking to care for the poor and excluded that those communities have re-discovered their social raison d'etre, and in the process, have proven themselves not only worthy partners to secular and government initiatives, but also as creative initiators in their own right. And when spiritual communities reclaim this historical ground, it seems the arts (beauty and connectivity!) begin also to burgeon again among them. I've been using the term 'spiritual' rather than 'faith' communities because our city is so diverse that even the latter term, as generic as it may seem to Christians, does not apply to all people of deep spiritual conviction who live here. Many Buddhists, for example, feel that the term 'faith' does not exactly apply to their approach to life. People of Christian faith have not often, in the past, taken much time to try to understand such subtle differences. One of the great gifts of working together on common, neutral ground (often with the City as the facilitator) is that we do begin to recognize the nature of both our differences and similarities; as a Christian, every such contact convinces me more and more deeply that all truth is God's truth, and that His grace and mercy cannot be contained by the church or anything else. Not even the City. "Seek the peace [health, wholeness, prosperity] of the city," God instructed the Hebrew people long ago during their exile in pagan Babylon. "For in its peace you will find your own." We are beginning to do this together, I believe—the City, the church, and other spiritual communities. I can hardly wait to see what good thing will spring to life next.

Toronto the Good addresses the critical issue of partnership between the City and faith communities. This issue is going to grow in importance as the diversity of our population and of our faith communities intensifies. Fortunately, the faith communities have shown how a little can go a long way. The Out of the Cold programs and the many food and clothing banks operated by the Christian congregations add up to a tremendous contribution to the City's welfare. Add in the efforts of all sorts of Christian missions—mainly supported by relatively small annual contributions by many thousands of donors—and you have an irreplaceable contribution to the war on poverty. As I read through Toronto the Good, the image of a multi-faceted jewel came to mind. The jewel is the just and prosperous community we all desire. But it is a jewel with many facets. It's not just the religions that are different. Within religions, there are denominations. Within denominations, there are different congregations. And within congregations, different priorities compete constantly for attention. We face these tensions and trade-offs at The Scott Mission all the time. With a budget of $8 million per year, 100 full-time staff, 4,000 volunteers each year, and 14 major programs in three municipalities, we still long to do more. In our men's and family services alone, we welcome over 8,000 different individuals every year. Many of these come to us monthly, weekly or even daily. Where City government and faith communities intersect best is in the provision of social services within the different neighbourhoods. The propagation of religious belief for the benefit of others is the province of the faith communities alone. For us at The Scott Mission—and this will sound old-fashioned to some—the best and highest good that we can give to a struggling person is the inner resources of a public profession of God's love. This, for us, is the pathway to a new life that will spill over into generosity, kindness and compassion for others. Recently, we completed a governance review in which revisited all of the beliefs that the Mission has held since it was founded in 1941. We came up with three main objectives for our service of love to the City. First, we re-emphasized our commitment to providing basic necessities, social services and emergency relief services, including food, hot meals, clothing, first aid, shelter, child care, youth services, counseling and advocacy. Second, we strengthened our commitment to develop housing and residential facilities that will give at-risk people a chance to make a significant break with the vicious cycles of addiction, mental illness and low self-esteem that have held them back. Third, we recommitted ourselves to our long-standing evangelical Christian faith basis. Our Bible study groups, prayer groups and multi-lingual Christian fellowships have recently seen a surprising growth. This is not because we obligate the poor to believe what we do. On the contrary, we encourage them to be who they are in their own way. No, the groups grew because of the deep spiritual hunger that is as severe as any shortage of food or housing. I suppose my prayer for our multi-faceted jewel of a City would go something like this: Lord, help us faith communities to support our political leadership in the incredibly complex task with which they have been assigned; Lord, help our City leadership to continue to allow all faith communities to gently and peacefully preach and practice our various professions of faith without this being held against us as a form of discrimination; And, dare I say it . . . Lord, let Toronto home and property owners not begrudge the relatively minor increases in property taxes that would enable the City to reduce the public debt and build up the social services and housing that the poor need. I know I won't get elected any time soon on a platform of property tax increases. But if we aren't prepared to donate our unused clothing, if we can't find a way to provide a few cans of food a week to our local food bank, if we can't donate the price of a cup of coffee per day (tax deductible!), if we can't visit an elderly person, and if we won't pay the taxes necessary to support this jewel of a City, then we'll get the City we deserve: a City that is increasingly difficult to govern, a growing number of disgruntled and dispirited poor, and city services and faith communities that are overwhelmed with demands. Partnership between the City and faith communities? Toronto the Good is right, that's a key issue. But it has to begin in our hearts first.

What is education for? The development of character? Or, the acquisition of a marketable skill? These are not new questions. In 'Against the Sophists,' the ancient Greek philosopher Isocrates argued that character should be king in education. Isocrates believed that education is primarily about the development of the learner's character. Isocrates did not oppose the development of technical skill. But he argued that skills should always be in the service of character. For Isocrates, the learner should refine and develop her skills not primarily for material gain, but for the public good, to encourage and to foster the development of character in the public domain. Character, too, was the concern of Jewish and Christian education over technique or skills acquisition: 'Train up a child in the way he should go,' wrote the Sage. Education might well give its holder an enhanced ability to earn a living. But his education was in the service not of himself, but of God, family, church, and of the public community. 'Character' and 'service' were the watchwords of the professions. Guilds were formed to support and protect journeymen, but also to school apprentices in workmanship of the highest quality, in the service of their communities. Sometime in the 1800s, however, there was a shift in understanding of what education was for. Instead of education's being in the service of character, education was put in the service of 'the utility principle,' also known as 'the greatest happiness principle.' As the 19th-c. philosopher John Stuart Mill argued, 'actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure' (Utilitarianism, 1863). Instead of education's being about character, now education was to lead to pleasure, for both the person and the public. It didn't happen overnight. It took some time for the commitment to character to be overtaken by the utilitarian commitment to pleasure. But where once teachers collaborated with parents in the development of children's character, now many parents primary concern is that their children acquire a marketable diploma or degree that will get them a good job, one that pays well. Where once a failing grade may have indicated a child lacking in a work ethic, failing a learning disability or problems at home, now, a poor grade is taken as a teacher's being too tough in her grading of a child's work. And when a parent goes to bat with a teacher, without good reason, to insist that his child deserves a higher grade, how might that affect the character of the child concerned? How might the threat of recriminations from a principal or a parent over grades affect a teacher?s ability to hold students accountable, let alone grading practices? The shift has affected parents whose primary concern is their children's character. Instead of teachers and parents, collaborating, some teachers undermine parents hard work of cultivating the virtues in their children. Instead of its being celebrated as God's gift for marriage and the responsibility called for, all too often children are taught that 'sex' is merely a source of pleasure. Does education encourage a work ethic? Does education call for reflection on what is good, true, and beautiful? Does education instill the virtues? Does education direct toward a life of service? Does education call for teachers to collaborate with parents, or to undermine them? Does education elevate the calling and profession of teaching? Or, demean it? Does education suggest to students that they are commodities in a job market? Or, does it ennoble them toward the Image of their Creator? Education is surely more than the acquisition of skills. Learning to read can be a wondrous, almost magical, gift. By it, one can think the thoughts of the great essayists and novelists and playwrights and poets and philosophers and scientists and mathematicians, with them. Learning to write is to discover the delight of organizing one's thoughts, making them coherent to others. To be schooled in the fine arts as a competent artist or an intelligent appreciator is to be transported by a musical phrase, brush strokes on a canvas, or an 'impossible' dance move! To play organized sports is to challenge the mind and body, and learn the ethos of teamwork. The world needs more bankers, journeymen, professionals, and, yes, teachers for whom 'character is king.' Whose technical prowess serves character and the public good, and whose understandings of these are directed toward the Image of God.