Policy debates deteriorating
An online petition that opposes the development of an observation deck and interpretive pathway on the Columbia Icefields in Jasper National Park has evolved into an international movement.
Unfortunately, it is also the latest example of a worrying trend that has seen a steep deterioration in the quality of public discourse on economic and social issues in Canada.
To advance their positions, those who involve themselves in important public policy debates seem to be increasingly eschewing critical thought, persuasive argument and evidence-based decisionmaking.
They resort instead to fear, ideology, intentional misrepresentation and pejorative language to mobilize a preexisting support base against perceived opponents.
The result is that important discussions about how we move forward as a society consist not of people with different views trying to work together to find common ground, but of opponents retreating to entrenched positions, surrounding themselves with like-minded individuals, and refusing to consider alternative points of view.
This trend is threatening our ability to form sound, broadly-supported public policy in Canada.
Those on the left of the political spectrum tend to see this as a problem afflicting those on the right. And they have plenty of examples to support that position.
Falling crime rates and research on the ineffectiveness of long prison sentences are ignored, while “unreported” crimes are used to justify tough-on-crime legislation. Unequivocal evidence that increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is contributing to climate change is dismissed. And claims that Canadian environmental groups are under the influence of “foreign money” overlook the efforts of Canadian governments and businesses to change domestic policy in the United States.
The left is often just as guilty as the right, however, when it comes to selectively ignoring evidence or intentionally misrepresenting facts. The only difference is that the target of their biases differs.
Mistrust of science and public institutions is replaced by mistrust of corporations. Suspicion of socialist conspiracies is replaced with a penchant for seeing dia- bolical neo-conservative plots around every corner. A smug sense of intellectual superiority replaces the conceit of being in touch with the needs and values of the common man.
These biases are all on display in the petition to stop the years-old proposal to expand the interpretive centre at the Columbia Icefields. Rather than focus on the specific drawbacks of the development (environmental degradation, unattractiveness, etc.), the petition chooses to provoke alarm through misleading statements and half-truths.
It implies the existence of a neo-conservative plot to privatize our national parks and sell them to American interests, who will be given the right to charge Canadians for access to their own natural wonders. That is, if there are any wonders left once the Americans are finished.
As it turns out, nothing in the Icefields walkway proposal is a significant departure from the kind of development that has regularly taken place in our national parks. The Banff Gondola and the Jasper Tramway are just two examples of private initiatives that charge the public for access to certain areas within park boundaries.
On top of that, anyone who has stayed at a hotel, eaten at a restaurant or gone downhill skiing in a national park has already contributed to the profits of (possibly foreignowned) private companies while so doing.
This is not to say that just because past commercial developments have increased tourism and accessibility in our national parks that all future projects should automatically be rubber-stamped. Rather, we need to debate these proposals on their actual merits and drawbacks, and not base our arguments on false premises.
The problem is that interest in a respectful exchange of well-reasoned arguments seems to be on the wane in Canada. Instead, there is a growing tendency for people to rush to support any argument that fits with their inherent biases, no matter how feeble that argument (or those biases) might be.
No matter where they sit on the ideological spectrum, Canadians owe it to themselves to rise above grandstanding and cheap Machiavellian tactics in policy debates. We need to re-discover the discipline required to make informed, constructive arguments, the open-mindedness to seriously consider differing viewpoints and the intellectual courage to alter our thinking when proven wrong.
Without these, there is no way to build policy consensus.