Daily Commercial news on the Cardus report calling for an end to the Ontario College of Trades. Quote: "Renkema hopes the Liberals will give some attention to the reports that have been conducted on the College of Trades, like the Cardus report entitled “College of Trades: An impossible institution”, which has many construction employers calling for the abolition or complete overhaul of the institution." Read the whole article here.

Since the dawn of civilization, the physical and social architecture of great cities and societies have been defined by their institutions of faith. From the ancient pyramids of Giza and Teotihuacan, Malta’s Hagar Qim, Greece’s Temple of Afea, King Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, Medina’s Quba Mosque, Petra, Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar, Delhi’s Chhatarpur Temple, Wat Arun in Bangkok, Notre Dame in Paris, St. Paul’s in London, St. Peter’s in Rome, St. Basil’s in Moscow, St. Patrick’s in New York, Marie Reine du Monde in Montreal through to the Salt Lake Temple, institutions of faith have been at the physical, social and metaphorical hearts of our cities. The goal of sacred architecture, according to architect Norman Koonce, is to make “transparent the boundary between matter and mind, flesh and the spirit.” The question posed by the results of the Calgary City Soul Phase 2 study being released today by Cardus — a think-tank dedicated to the study of social architecture — is whether that tradition will be relegated to the city’s suburbs or whether it will have the opportunity to evolve within the city’s heart. Further, unless the city amends the Centre City Plan, it appears unlikely that the increasingly large numbers of new Calgarians who subscribe to faiths other than Christianity will have the opportunity to establish their communities within the civic core. Undertaken through a contract with the Arlington Group — an established urban consultancy — the Calgary City Soul project was conceived following a one-day Cardus seminar in September 2008. At that time, it was noticed that the City of Calgary’s Centre City Plan — a comprehensive and visionary planning document designed to attract an additional 40,000 to 70,000 residents into the civic core — had overlooked any current or future role for institutions of faith. It was then, and remains our belief, that this was not done through intention, but through oversight, perhaps due to the extent to which faith has been — incorrectly — privatized. Beliefs may, indeed, be private or personal matters, but the institutions that nurture them have long been and remain public and part of, not apart from, a secular society. The benefits of faith cannot be contained by the physical walls of worship spaces. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that faith communities serve an important role as a catalyst for volunteering, charity and caring for neighbours. The marginalization of faith institutions is not about how we treat those who frequent them, which includes incidentally a growing minority of religiously observant minorities who are not being served by any worship spaces of their tradition within the city core. It also bruises the very soul of the city and lessens our capacity in matters as diverse as implementing an emergency plan (for which worship facilities and volunteer networks have historically proved critical) to the range of arts and cultural events that Calgarians enjoy. In an address to the Yale University School of Architecture, Toronto’s former poet laureate, Pier Giorgio di Cicco, put it this way: “The principles of sacred space are: the elicitation of wonder; the imperative of stillness; the benevolent connotation of forces that nurture, gentle and release.” “The onus in the 21st century will not be diversity of culture,” but “diversity of spirituality. . . . It will behoove the architect, the planner to design public space that mediates the spiritual instinct to communality and transcendence. The communing of streetscape, landscape, building, skyline enjoins the citizen to commune with projects and entities and re-establishes trust with others. . . . The effect of architecture and space on the entire person, in the advent and presence of other persons is universal. It gentles the civic creature. It can gentle disparate cultures and peoples by the vocabulary of the sublime, bringing them to the point of awe, gratitude and mutuality by shared space, making such space sacred.” These are the structures that nurture people’s most deeply held beliefs, sanctify their lives’ most vital relationships and comfort their deepest pains and most profound sorrows. And, even for those who do not share their faith, they act, as the Arlington Group’s report for Cardus articulates, as incubators of commonly held social virtues. Similar to the esthetic influence of the arts on a community, their impact on the culture that surrounds them is felt and is of benefit to even those who never, or rarely, enter them. The full report, available on the Cardus website, confirms that, as C.S. Lewis said, “the church is the only organization that exists for the benefit of non-members.” We at Cardus are, therefore, recommending that city council amend the Centre City Plan to reflect our civic leaders’ understanding that institutions of faith exists as part of – not apart from – a truly secular society.

The City of Calgary will exclude new ethnic and faith communities from growing and prospering within the civic core unless the Centre City Plan is amended, according to a study released today by Cardus, a think tank dedicated to the study of social architecture. The Calgary City Soul project, Phase Two of which is released today, was conceived in September 2008 when we at Cardus noticed the Centre City Plan — a comprehensive, visionary planning document designed to attract up to 70,000 more residents into the civic core — had overlooked the city-building role that institutions of faith play. It remains our belief this was not done through intention, but through simple oversight. Beliefs may be private or personal matters, but the institutions that nurture them have long been and remain public and part of, not apart from, the secular society government represents Phase One of our study indicated that within the boundaries of the Centre City Plan (which redefined “downtown” Calgary), there are 25 spaces devoted to worship, mostly Christian churches and one Buddhist Temple. There are no synagogues, mosques, Latter Day Saints, Sikh or Hindu temples now within the civic core. Nor, as stated, did the Centre City Plan specify room for any of these or for new Christian institutions to serve those whom the plan hoped to entice into a revitalized core. Phase Two examined whether or not the current plan created the unintended consequence of social exclusion. Its conclusions indicate institutions of faith play a strong and vital role within the city’s social architecture not only for persons of faith but for all citizens. Further, the demographic makeup of the civic core is significantly different from the city’s overall demographics and bears more resemblance to the “old” Calgary than the “new” Calgary. The changing nature of our society is vividly outlined in census data showing that prior to 1961, 83% of immigrants to Calgary were of a defined Christian background. Of these, 44% were Protestant and 33% Catholic; 1% were Jewish; 1% Buddhist; and the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu immigration numbers were so negligible they were recorded as 0%. The latest census data available in terms of faith affiliation (2001) outlines a dramatic shift that has fundamentally altered the nature of our city and its cultural influencers. Muslims now represent the second largest immigrant faith group (14%), trailing only Catholics at 26%. Protestant numbers have plummeted to 12%, ahead of Sikhs at 7%, Buddhists at 5% and Hindus at 3%. Jewish immigration remains at 1%. The percentage of Christians immigrating to Calgary has dropped in 40 years from 83% to 49%. Should this trend continue for the next 20 years, only 32% of new immigrants to Calgary will be Christian while as many as one in four may be Muslim and one in 10 Sikh. It is not unreasonable to anticipate new numbers will show a continuation of these trends. While the nature of Calgary’s faith affiliation has changed significantly, faith continues to be an identifying cultural characteristic in the lives of 8 in 10 Calgarians. The one-in-four of the city’s citizens who attend an institution of faith on a weekly basis — a considerable commitment — represent roughly nine unique sold-out crowds at McMahon Stadium or two unique sell-outs a day, seven days a week at the Saddledome. We recommend, therefore, that the city amend the Centre City Plan to recognize the vital role that institutions of faith play in the social architecture of a great city.

Senior Researcher Brian Dijkema responds to union criticisms of the Cardus study on the Ontario College of Trades. He writes: It appears union leaders defending the College of Trades think (“Proponents Stand Up for College of Trades,” Oct. 3 ) the recent Cardus research (“College of Trades: An Impossible Institution”) is “political” and lacking objectivity. The IBEW’s John Grimshaw goes so far as suggesting that since Cardus “didn’t ask us, they certainly didn’t ask our employers, so I don’t know where they figure they got their research.” Their defence actually makes our point. Our April 2011 study of the College (“Where is the Research?”) highlighted that no publicly available data has been produced to support basic premises of the legislation. It would seem that Mr. Dillon et al have either not read the report, or that they are deliberately ignoring its methodology and content. Read the rest of his Letter to the Editor here.

Ray Pennings talks about Calgary City Soul on Calgary CBC, Tuesday morning, arguing that Calgary's inner-city faith communities actually shape much of the city's social fabric. Listen to his interview here .

A broad coalition of small, medium, and large construction employers across Ontario is calling on the next provincial government to take immediate action to either overhaul or abolish the Ontario College of Trades. The call comes in response to a major study of the College completed by Hamilton, Ont.-based think tank Cardus. Read the entire coverage at Building.ca.

The change that the 2011 election brought to the Liberal and NDP parties is only a small part of a fundamental reshaping of the Canadian political landscape. Ray Pennings and Michael Van Pelt argue that the stability expected from this election will not materialize. Instead there will be power struggles within the Conservative party regarding the upcoming health care battle, military debates, and Arctic sovereignty, struggles that will coincide with a resurgent NDP and Liberal partnership. While appearances suggest the coming decade will be one of political stability, the reality will be a decade of dissensus. Si l’élection fédérale de mai 2011 a sensiblement changé la donne pour les libéraux et les néodémocrates, cet aspect reste mineur par rapport à l’ample restructuration en cours du paysage politique canadien. Contrairement aux apparences, estiment en effet Ray Pennings et Michael Van Pelt, ce scrutin ne produira pas la stabilité attendee mais lancera plutôt au sein même du Parti conservateur une lutte de pouvoir à propos de questions sur les soins de santé, les projets militaires et la souveraineté dans l’Arctique, une lutte qui coïncidera avec la résurgence du partenariat entre le PLC et le NPD. Si bien que la décennie de stabilité politique qu’on croit avoir inaugurée se caractérisera en fait par de vives dissensions.Much has been made of the significant changes that the Liberal and New Democratic parties will need to make as they adjust to their new realities after Election 2011. This noise masks the fact that these adjustments are only a small part of a more fundamental reshaping of the Canadian political landscape. All of our political institutions need to adapt to the emerging Canadian identity that will replace the now officially defunct pan-Canadian consensus. Starting in the 1960s, all Canadian political institutions operated within a mainstream consensus. Peacekeeping, multiculturalism, strong central government programs, the primacy of the Charter of Rights—these were not the purview of the left or right of the spectrum but the consensus within which all respectable political debate took place. The difference between red and blue was about how fast we should drive and when we might take risks and pass—not about which road we should be on. There is some debate about whether this consensus was deep-rooted or whether it was an elite illusion, but both sides acknowledge that it began to erode in the 1980s. The Progressive Conservatives divided themselves while holding power, with both the Reform and Bloc Québécois parties, not to mention several smaller splinter groups, all expressing their discontent with how Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was managing this consensus. The resulting discord allowed the Liberals and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to extend the life of the consensus for another decade or so, but its ultimate demise was certain and with the election of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority government in 2006, the consensus officially went into palliative care. In a Policy Options piece published in March 2006, we opined that this likely marked the death of the pan-Canadian consensus; however, since no other consensus had yet developed to replace it, the politics of the decade to come would belong to the skilled managers of coalitions, as opposed to visionaries. The Conservative Party contained six distinct groups, whose interests converged on only a few issues. A reorganization on the left of the political spectrum to match that which had already occurred on the right would be an inevitable consequence. With the election, in Stephen Harper’s words—spoken at nearly every campaign stop—of a “strong, stable, majority national government” on May 2, it is easy to be fooled into thinking that the next decade will be one of stability. Politically speaking, at least in the executive branch of government, this is likely to be the case. The Conservative majority is secure for four and a half years, until the fixed election date of October 2015, and, barring outrageous scandal or incompetence, another four beyond that. It would seem extremely unlikely that either the Liberals or the New Democrats will present a realistic alternative government to Canadians in 2015. So on the face of it, we are facing the better part of a decade of stability. But don’t be fooled. Beneath the surface, in every political party, but most fiercely among Conservatives, a debate will rage regarding how a new consensus might be shaped. A decade from now, many Canadians will be voting for a party that they cannot imagine voting for today. So what will the contours of this debate look like? The words will be about what constitutes fundamental Canadian values, but values debates are rarely argued in such esoteric terms. Instead, we will fight about health care, with all sides realizing that the current model is unsustainable in light of our demographics, and therefore some other model than a single national health care model will take its place. We will debate what our military is for and how we will survive in a world where Canada has an ally in the world’s dominant power, the United States, as we have had with Britain for all of our history. Are we really serious about defending the Arctic, when interests not as friendly to our interests start drilling for oil and claiming it is theirs over our objections? We will be rethinking our institutions, realizing that the silliness of our current Senate debates is hardly an answer to providing the necessary regional voices (and voices for cities in an increasingly urban society). That debate will continue to be complicated by the Quebec question, as well as by the trading partners whose importance is different depending on the regions. We will be dealing with the challenges of demographics, trying to figure out how 2.5 workers are going to be able to provide for each retiree, especially considering that the current 4.7 workers are already finding it a pretty heavy burden to bear. For each of these problems, there will be answers from the left and the right, just as there are today. But the spectrum on which we place these left-right answers will be fundamentally different. And the process of getting there is much more fundamental than who will become the permanent leader of the Liberal Party or whether the 59 Quebec NDP MPs will learn to represent Quebec interests in an effective federalist manner. For the Liberals and the NDP, there will be soul-searching and a messy period of discontent. Their battles are too recent and hostilities too deep, just as were those of the Conservative and Reform parties in the 1990s, for clearer heads to prevail and a quick adjustment to be made to the new realities. Within the Conservative Party, the perks of power will mask the rather fierce debate that will occur behind closed doors on the competing visions of libertarians (who think the market will solve most everything), Burkean conservatives (who believe that institutions other than government, such as families, community groups and faith communities, need to have an increased role) and fiscal conservatives (who seem to think that as long as you balance the books, we can live as we please). At about the same time as the current Liberal and NDP members decide once again to work together (alienating about a third of their group who cannot stomach working alongside bitter enemies, in the same way Joe Clark can’t stand Stephen Harper), the Conservative infighting is likely to burst into a more public feud. The coincidence of these events will see a significant political restructuring around a decade from now. We expect that to shape Canadian politics for a long time to come. In the meantime, however, Prime Minister Harper has firm control of the levers of power. Most significant among these powers is the power of appointments, and the Supreme Court in 2020 will be one that is far more likely to give preference to an interpretation of the Constitution based on a federalist division of powers interpretation (sections 91/93) than to defer to the Charter. Federal programs will be cut in order to maintain a few central social programs that seem politically sacrosanct, more leniency will be given to the provinces to experiment in their areas of jurisdiction, and the host of federal agencies will have more conservative-minded boards and senior staffers. What difference this will make is unclear, as they will be just as vulnerable to the allures and perks of power as their more liberal-minded predecessors were. The rhetoric of “stable national majority government” sounds alluring, and if the theatrics of Parliament and confidence votes is the measure, Canadians have certainly voted for a reprieve. The reality, however, is that the coming decade will be characterized more by dissensus than by stability, in spite of outward appearances to the contrary.

The task of keeping the torch of Canada's most dominant political dynasty aflame has suddenly become more daunting. One of the unabashed "progressives“ Gary Mar, Alison Redford or Doug Horner “will be chosen by those with Progressive Conservative memberships on Oct. 1 to replace Ed Stelmach as Alberta's premier. None, in their search for the province's ultimate prize, will be burdened by the need to pander to or even negotiate with the province's conservative constituency. That's because not a single "conservative" leadership contender “most notably Ted Morton“ made the cut in the first round of voting on Sept. 17 “an event noteworthy for a turnout that declined by close to 40 per cent. This is catastrophic for conservatives still within the PC tent. Simultaneously, it's a dream outcome for those on the centre-right who've moved to Danielle Smith's Wildrose Alliance and for whom the worst-case scenario was a Morton victory. Finishing fourth on Sept. 17, Mr. Morton had placed second in the first round of leadership balloting in 2006 with a platform that mirrors the one developed by Wildrose. It was Mr. Morton, too, who, as finance minister, dug in his heels last winter and precipitated the crisis that led to Mr. Stelmach's retirement. Mere months ago, he was seen as the man most capable of reuniting Alberta's conservatives. One of the idiosyncratic legacies of four decades of uninterrupted PC power in Alberta is the process used to select its leaders. Candidates may sell memberships right up to within two weeks of leadership ballots, and voting occurs at polling stations within each constituency. Reminiscent of the “the party is the people; the people are the party” justification of one-party states, this process gives people from all political backgrounds the opportunity to select their premier. Many Liberals, New Democrats and others have taken the approach that, if their movements can't gain power in elections, they can at least exercise their influence by selecting their opponent's leader. It's this that makes them into two-night-stand Conservatives and convenient, if temporary, allies for leadership candidates. Unable to win power from without, they gain it from within, and there's certainly no shortage of conservative thinkers who suspect the PCs have been the victim of a bloodless, albeit democratic, coup. The fact that long-time Liberal heavyweight Daryl Fridhandler is associated with the Mar campaign has done little to dispel these suspicions. It's impossible to track the extent to which this strategic voting takes place, but there's no question it's a feature unique to Alberta PC leadership campaigns. (As a for instance, I was told last week of a left-of-centre Alberta Party supporter who purchased a Tory membership in order to vote for Mr. Morton, hoping that a Morton victory would clearly position the Tories on the right and thus leave more room for the Alberta Party to win votes on the left in the next election.) In the midst of all this, long-time conservative activist Ken Boessenkool and a small but influential Blue Committee are searching for a way to reunite the now defeated conservative wing of the PCs with Wildrose in order to avoid the split-right scenario that guaranteed three consecutive federal majority governments for Jean Chrétien's Liberals. The fear, as Mr. Boessenkool puts it, is that such a split could lead to Alberta's being governed by a centre-left party. Many would argue that, as of the final PC vote on Oct. 1, that horse will have left the barn. The PC dynasty lives on, but 40 years of conservative rule in Alberta may have come to an end.

Peter Stockland from the Cardus Centre for Cultural Renewal joins Brian Lilley with the story of a group of people who were practicing Catholic mass in Quebec and subsequently fined for partaking in a “cultic event”. Watch online here.