"Do-Over" needed on Proposed Riding Map

Sometimes, best intentions are not enough. And, despite the best intentions of the six commissioners tasked with redrawing the New Brunswick electoral map, they need to return to the drawing board and significantly revise their proposed boundary map of New Brunswick.

While some parts of their proposal have merit, as in the urban core of Saint John or in Madawaska County, other parts of this proposal, especially in Central New Brunswick, dramatically fail in providing ridings that adequately represent residents.

Determining riding boundaries is a complex and challenging task. Not only do riding boundaries need to contain the relatively same number of voters (a five percent variance), they also need to meet various tests to ensure that the resulting ridings are representative of their communities of interest. In New Brunswick, this means that both urban and rural voters and our linguistic communities are represented fairly. Further, ridings should be as geographically compact as possible and have strong internal ties, usually based on social, economic and transportation links.   

This already daunting task is further complicated by the decision to reduce the number of ridings from 55 to 49, meaning that every region of the Province will lose representation regardless of the population differences from the last census. 

While the commissioners may have succeeded in providing numerical equality, they have (mostly) failed at ensuring that rural and urban voters are fairly represented. This is failing is most profound in the Capital Region, where large parts of urban Fredericton are being spliced off and attached to nearby rural areas. The result is that there are only two urban ridings, one rural riding and five mixed urban/rural ridings. Such a proposal disrespects the right of both urban and rural residents to have boundaries that reflect their communities of interest.

I had the opportunity to participate in a riding redistricting process that examined how the nine provincial ridings in York, Sunbury and West Queens counties could be reduced to the eight ridings that would be allocated under the new electoral quotient. In addition to respecting urban and rural differences, we took into account that the Saint John River acted as a natural dividing line within these counties.

Even though we lacked the resources available to the Commissioners, we were able to come up a proposal that contained four urban ridings (Fredericton and the Village of New Maryland, one mixed riding (the Town of Oromocto, the Village of Lincoln and surrounding rural areas), and three rural ridings (York, York North and Grand Lake). Each of these ridings in our proposal met the requirement for numerical equality.

The failing of the Commissioners to consider the urban and rural differences are also repeated in Bathurst, where a single urban riding is being split into a mixed riding.

It is also important that any proposal on riding boundaries meet a test of "face validity." This technical term means that, on first viewing, the proposed boundaries should make sense to a knowledgeable observer. While not a firm rule, this approach relies on common sense and an assessment of the reasonableness of the decisions made to determine riding boundaries.

For example, since the Town of Woodstock is the central market area for that part of the Saint John River Valley, what is the logic in having this town at the southern extremity of proposed riding of Carleton and half surrounded by the proposed riding of York?

This error is compounded in the neighbouring riding of Carleton-Victoria, where the communities of Florenceville-Bristol and Centreville find themselves on the edge, rather than in the centre of a provincial riding.

There are many other proposed ridings that fail the test of face validity, either because they combine distinct and unconnected communities in large unwieldy ridings or ignore historic physical and administrative boundaries.

While I would argue that all New Brunswickers share common values and viewpoints, and that we are committed to working through our problems together, there is also a need to respect the voices of our rural and linguistic communities in structuring the body that is intended to represent their interests in our democratic institutions.

 

In her comments to the media on the release of the proposed riding map, Commission Co-Chair Annise Hollies expressed her view that "all of New Brunswick is rural." With this attitude in mind, it is not surprising that due care has not been taken to ensure that both rural and urban voices are adequately represented in these proposed riding boundaries.

 

In their boundary proposal, the Commissioners do not provide an analysis of the proposed ridings by the urban and rural populations. This breakdown of population is important for New Brunswickers to understand the electoral impact of the differences within these ridings.

 

In a riding that is two-thirds urban and one-third rural, for example, the potential for voters in the rural part of this riding to feel disenfranchised is very high. The same would be true in a riding that was two-thirds rural and one-third urban.

The Commissioners will be travelling the Province to receive feedback on their proposal. These meetings are likely to be both well-attended and heated, especially in those regions where the Commissioners have erred in their judgement.

 

Rather than preparing to make incremental changes to their proposal, it would be my recommendation that the Commissioner prepare for a significant overhaul of their proposal. Not only do they need to take local feedback into consideration, they also need to be more respectful of urban and rural differences. By committing to a more thorough process, which may necessitate further consultation, the Commissioners should be prepared to resubmit a better proposal to the people. Representation matters.

 

-   30 -

This article was originally published in the January 19, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.

 

A New Riding Map for New Brunswick

COMMENTARY

20 SEP 2012 05:41PM

Editor’s Note: The following is the transcription of a presentation given by Chris Baker to the Federal Riding Boundaries Commission in Fredericton on Sept. 13, 2012.

I want to thank the Commissioners for the opportunity to comment on their proposal for the revised federal riding boundaries in New Brunswick. This is a challenging and complex task, and public comment on your work will strengthen the final proposal.

It is a benefit to this process to have distinguished jurists take on the task of determining riding boundaries. Your patience and experience, especially in weighing various points of view and reconciling conflicting position, will serve New Brunswickers and the democratic process well.

My name is Chris Baker and I am a resident of Fredericton. This will be the fourth boundary commission that I have appeared before and my second experience at the federal level.

My profession is public opinion research with an emphasis on public policy. I work with numbers and with information, both of which are crucial to the exercise that we are participating in today.

Our system of representative democracy has very deep and ancient roots. Even before the time of the Norman Conquest, the rulers in that ancient time required the consent of the governed, which was granted through the gathering of local leaders and representatives. Even though our current parliamentary system is more formal and more modern, the importance of community representation is still important in the days of universal franchise and representation by population.

While we often speak of numeric equality as an important factor in the representation that is provided at the local level, we also need to speak to the quality of the representation that can be affected, positively and negatively, by riding boundaries. It is for this reason that the Commissioners have the discretion, within limits, to create ridings that are not strictly equal in population.

In addition to the ability to reflect the community of interest, there are a number of important factors that need to be taken into consideration when determining the riding boundaries.

As much as possible, ridings should be geographically compact. Further, there should be strong links – economic, social and physical – between all parts of the proposed riding.

The demographic and social composition of the riding should be balanced and fair, especially when minority communities are involved. I should state that this factor does not refer exclusively to language and includes factors such as economic activity and socio-economic status.

Which future demographic trends cannot be considered in your deliberations, there is no question that the demographic changes identified in the 2011 Census will have a profound impact on the way ridings are determined. We have seen a dramatic growth of urban, suburban and satellite communities in the South. There are areas in rural New Brunswick that are losing population, more so in the North than in the South.

I believe that the time has come to consider some new options in the way that riding boundaries are constituted in our Province.

I would like to present the Commission with an alternate version of how the ridings in our province should be constructed. To the best of my ability, I have reviewed the new census information and, using what I know about the various regions and communities in New Brunswick, have prepared a new riding map for the Province.

This proposal provides stability for the ridings in the northern and central parts of New Brunswick. It also takes a fresh approach to the traditional riding boundaries in the South.

Let’s start with the South and the most critical failing of the current (and proposed) boundaries. I propose that the City of Saint John, currently represented by one riding adhering to the city boundaries, be split between two ridings – Saint John-Charlotte and Saint John-Central Kings.

The greater Saint John region extends far beyond the Saint John City boundaries. To the west, the region extends to the growing communities of Grand Bay-Westfield, Lorneville and Lepreau. To the North, the region includes Quispamsis, Rothesay, the Kingston Peninsula. To the East, St., Martins and parts of the Fundy region are closely tied to the urban area.

To have one riding that is only the City of Saint John severs these other closely bound communities from their central core. Further, putting the suburban and bedroom communities of the Saint John region into largely rural ridings marginalizes their community of interest, which would be better served by two urban-rural ridings centered on Saint John.

Southwest New Brunswick, as proposed, is a large and disparate riding that runs from the City of Fredericton to the Fundy Isles. While it can be argued that the disparity of distance is not fully resolved by creating a riding that includes part of the City of Saint John, the western part of Saint John County and Charlotte County, the riding is both more geographically compact and better represents the interests of residents than the current riding.

Fundy–Quispamsis is highly problematic, taking in the suburban areas of the Moncton CMA and the Saint John region, with all the rural parts in between. A new riding, Saint John-Central Kings, would combine the City of Saint John with the surrounding urban, suburban and rural areas east of the Saint John River Valley, again resulting in a riding that is more compact and more representative of the communities it intends to serve.

Moving east, I am proposing that a new riding, Sussex-Riverview, take the place of the current riding of Fundy Royal. This new riding, which includes the Towns of Sussex and Riverview, would be a urban-rural mix that is more compact and more homogenous from a socio-economic point of view. While Riverview is part of the Moncton CMA, it has string ties to the surrounding rural areas and almost exclusively Anglophone.

By moving Riverview into this riding, we also help repair the linguistic balance of the new Moncton riding that was altered when the Commissioners decided to move Dieppe into the riding of Beausejour. The City of Moncton has enough population to be represented by one riding.

I would suggest that part of Moncton Parish be added to Sussex-Riverview with the portion on the east side of Dieppe retained by Dieppe-Beausejour. This would reduce the population of Dieppe Beausejour which, at 92,000 people, is the largest riding in terms of population.

With regard to Miramichi, the Commissioners have moved the North Shore communities of Belldune, Durham and Colburne to the riding of Madawaska-Restigouche. Although this is a geographic anomaly, I would recommend that these communities be restored to the Miramichi riding, which would also increase its population to better respect the principle of representation by population. The stability of representation would also be maintained.

Of course, if Madawaska-Restigouche loses population in the east, it should take up more population in the west. Therefore, I recommend that Saint Andre, Drummond and Grand Falls become part of the this riding in the North West.

With changes in the south, the riding of Tobique-Saint John Valley has an opportunity to include the valley communities that were previously in Southwest N.B. This provides a more homogenous, compact and populated riding.

As for the Fredericton riding, there is no question in my mind that the communities of Chipman and Minto are part of the community of interest that should be represented in this riding.

Overall, this proposal provides a more coherent presentation of the communities of interest that should be represented in the new riding boundaries. Further, it mitigates the extremes of population represented by Dieppe-Beausejour at one end and Miramichi at the other.

I will provide a copy of this proposed riding map, as well as the Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the riding populations, to the Commission for their reference.

Thank you.

-30 -

Chris Baker is President of Continuum Research, a New Brunswick-based public opinion research firm specializing in public affairs and public policy. The assistance of William Blanchette in the preparation of the map and demographic analysis is gratefully appreciated.

Words to politic by

I have always had a special place in my heart (or is that brain?) for quotes, maxims and epigrams that define or condense complex political thoughts into easy-to-understand statements. They become handy reminders to prompt better actions or decisions - always a challenge in this crazy, mixed-up world.

The sayings that "a stitch in time saves nine" or "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" really does remind me that timely action is better than acting after-the-fact. I believe that every decision-maker should take this principle to heart, especially at budget time.

But here are a few sayings that I believe are very pertinent to the world of politics. Not surprisingly, they were made by politicians.

"I try to keep my words soft and tender. I never know which ones I will have to eat." - Lyndon Baines Johnson

Also by LBJ:

 "I never got into trouble for something I never said."

Some other favourites:

"The hardest thing about politics is winning without proving yourself unworthy of victory." - Adlai Stephenson

"We do not need leaders who will serve, but servants who will lead." - Anon. 

"The past is less important than the future." - Pierre Elliott Trudeau

"I've been called worse things by better people." - Trudeau

"It's not a crisis until I say so." - Jean Chretien.

"Governing a state is like frying a small fish; it should be done with a light touch." - Chinese proverb

Of course, no writer on political sayings can ignore Winston Churchill.

"A fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the topic."

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occassionally look at the results."

Planning for Disaster

As the various investigations continue, there has been an incredible amount of hyperbole and partisan axe grinding regarding the federal government’s Sponsorship Program. While the magnitude of the monies involved certainly demand our attention and concern, this is not the first time that a well intended government concept or plan resulted in disaster.  

Over thirty years ago, an American political scientist by the name of Irving Janis was reading the insider accounts of the decision-making process that led the administration of John F. Kennedy to support the disastrous invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs. The men involved in this process were supposedly “the Best and the Brightest” of American society, each known for their intelligence, achievement and judgement. Yet together, they were responsible for one of the low points of American foreign policy. Janis was rightly curious as to how these talented individuals could create such a major crisis within the first three months of the Kennedy presidency.

Although the handling of the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis redeemed their reputations, a few years later many of these same individuals were advising President Johnston on American military intervention in Vietnam. As Janis began investigating further, he found similar situations regarding American military planning prior to Pearl Harbour and during the Korean War – situations that involved none of the individuals involved in the prior two examples. The process, however, of a tightly-knit and highly motivated group of individuals pursuing high stakes goals was remarkably the same. His research into this area yielded the term groupthink, which he describes as “a mode of thinking…when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Further, Janis states that “the more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink.” In the pressure-cooker of this process, individual members suppress their own doubts, discount the doubts of others, develop feelings of invulnerability and operate under an illusion of group consensus. Loyalty and belonging to the group inadvertently becomes the focus of their activities and the original policy goals of the group often become lost or obscured.

In the lead up to the vote in 1995 Quebec Referendum and in the months afterward, there was a strong outcry across the country that the federal government had to do something, do anything, to avert the potential break-up of the country. Many of the loudest calls for this “do what it takes” approach came from the opposition parties, columnists and the pundits. Certainly, a narrow victory for federalism in Quebec required that action be taken.

In response, the federal government passed The Clarity Act, the controversial legislation setting out a federal government mandate in secession referenda, and provided a veto on constitutional change to the five regions of Canada (which evolved to a requirement for near unanimity among the provinces) among other structural changes in the operation of the federation. As well, the Canada Information Office, later Communication Canada, was created to increase the presence of Canada among the people of Quebec and, hopefully, increase their attachment to the country. It is, of course, the actions of Communication Canada, specifically the Sponsorship Program, that have recently become the focus of so much political and media attention.

As the examples cited above suggest, those involved with the operation and execution of the Sponsorship Program succumbed to groupthink. No doubt they thought that they were motivated by the highest goals, the unity of the country, but they became blind to their responsibility to ensure that the money set aside for the promotion of Canada in Quebec was effectively used and that value would be received for the funds spent. Their approach to “saving Canada at any cost” was not what was intended by the Sponsorship Program.

As we consider the actions of these individuals and the commentary of the Auditor General, it is important to point out that many Canadians across the country agree with the need to promote Canada within Quebec (and elsewhere in the country). While there are those who believe that government should not be using taxpayer money for advertising or public education programs, and this view has surfaced as part of the critique of the current government on this issue, there are many others who believe that governments have an obligation to inform citizens of its actions and services and that the federal government has a responsibility to promote attachment to, and identification with, our country.

The better judgement of the individuals involved in the execution of this program became victim to the “SWAT Team” mentality that is sadly typical of groupthink. An overwhelming loyalty to the group, combined with feelings of invulnerability and a heightened need to “do or die”, results in unaccountability and irresponsibility. This is not only true with regard to the way that groupthinkers manage their affairs, but also to their obligation to their superiors in the public service. They were operating under a misapprehension of their duty, much like the four knights who interpreted King Henry’s rhetorical complaint “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” as direct orders to assassinate Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury. They thought they were following the commands of the King, but the result of their ill-considered action caused great turmoil within their country and almost cost Henry his crown.

While the current situation regarding the Sponsorship Program holds a mirror up to some of these past events, we need to be reminded that governments, regardless of how well organized or supervised they are, are composed of human beings, with all their strengths and weaknesses. Like all those who are affected by their actions, those involved are also victims of groupthink.

- 30 -

Originally published in The Winnipeg Free Press

On Leadership

You may be familiar with the story from 1840s Paris, when a fashionably dressed young man in a café, witnessing a riotous crowd heading down the street, rushed to pay his bill. “That’s my mob”, he said to the waiter, “I have to be at their head.”[1]

This mode of leadership was best put by Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, “I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?”

In contrast, Mahatma Ghandi, the founder of the world’s largest democracy – modern India, saw leadership differently. “I must lead the people. Am I not their servant?”

To me, there is a world of difference in these two models of leadership. One model panders to populist sentiment and indulges hearsay, prejudice and fear. It offers an easy route to success but leaders who follow this path are trapped in a perpetual popularity contest. These leaders exhaust themselves trying to stay one step ahead of the crowd.

The other route is more difficult. It means putting the interests of the people ahead of temporary political advantage. It means setting out a plan in front of the people, even when times are challenging, and working through the issues with them. It means having the courage to set goals and to take the necessary steps to achieve them.

This is public service and it is at the heart of everything we, as voters and as political activists, have been able to achieve. As citizens, we are not be best served by a government without ambition, without a goal. Federally or provincially, a Government that sees the status quo as the best possible outcome will not deliver prosperity, build our economic infrastructure, or stimulate job growth.

Leadership is more than standing in front of cheering crowd of supporters to celebrate a victory. It is about governing. It is about leading a team. It is about serving the people.

---

[1] Attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin (2 February 1807 – 31 December 1874)

Green Lights on the Information Highway

by Chris Baker, Krista Downey and Gary Stairs

We are living through the information revolution. Whether it is smart phones, tablet computers, social media or new user-friendly software, new information and communications technologies (ICT) are having a profound effect on our lives, our workplaces and our future. When it comes to a “green” perspective, there is a debate whether ICT will save or bake our planet.

According to Open Text CEO Tom Jenkins, one of Canada’s leading ICT innovators, the total amount of electronic data across the globe will double every two months. In one year, the amount of data that will need to be stored on servers or other storage devices will double and double again six times this year.

With this dramatic increase in storage needs, it is not surprising that data centers in the global ICT industry are due to hit the wall in 2012. Not only are we racing to keep place with this geometric explosion in data storage needs, the spiralling demand for high level computing and escalating energy costs for power and cooling converge. In some jurisdictions, power costs are exceeding the costs of hardware where the absolute energy consumption is increasing by ten percent a year. Few, if any, new power plants being commissioned in North America in the short term.

By improving energy efficiency, we decrease the need for electricity and, subsequently, have a reduced requirement for cooling capacity.  Making use of the guidance provided by the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) can help us aggressively manage consumption and promote best practices. While the Energy Star rating has been a useful guide for consumers, procurement needs to move beyond these standards. 

Certainly, there are opportunities to help curb data center energy demand while meeting operational requirements and fuelling the development of new applications and innovation. And, as the saying goes, there is nothing like an impending execution to focus the mind.

There is a retrenchment in the data centre sector in the US and across Europe, driven both by environmental concerns and operating costs. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge to New Brunswick. We could pursue the good jobs and investment that come with these centres. However, if we follow the same path as the others we will wind up in the same place – less than required capacity with escalating energy costs.

The Smart 2020 report uses the acronym SMART – Standardize (systems), Monitor (power consumption), Accountability (for cost and energy savings), Rethink (operations) and Transform (culture and systems) to prescribe how efficient ICT can make the economy more efficient. The low hanging fruit here is to look at the motor systems and logistics as well as the buildings and grids that house and supply these systems.

Smart buildings are being designed in a manner to allow for the monitoring of electrical demand, efficiency and integrated renewable energy generation. Completely programmable automation systems are being incorporated into the built environment from large scale commercial buildings right down to residential construction. Smart buildings can now be managed and manipulated from multiple locations to minimize energy consumption and maximize efficiency and performance.

On the macro level, coalitions such as the Climate Savers Computing initiative have set a goal  of cutting greenhouse gases by 32 million metric tons and are aggressively promoting smart grid development and effective building management, as well as promoting innovative new measures for Power Usage Effectiveness.

Given both our geography and our climate, not to mention technological acumen, we know a lot about innovation in ICT and building smart infrastructure for sustainable mobility. In a country of our size, or in a province with large rural and remote areas, we are crossing barriers by utilizing video conferencing and implementing e-learning solutions.

ICT allows us to rethink the workplace. Travelling from home to work adds to our carbon footprint. Companies like Virtual Agent Systems use ICT to allow their employees to work from their homes – a major advantage for the many rural New Brunswickers who work for VAS. It not only saves a commute from their communities to a central location, it reduces the carbon footprint of the overall operation.  

We also need to take a hard look at how we recycle, reuse and manage the toxic components and by-products in our digital telephones, computers and other devices. In 2002 alone, Canadians disposed of 140,000 tonnes of “e-waste” - the equivalent of 28,000 adult African elephants.

The industry is taking steps to provide for the “final phase” of cell phones and computers, which contain toxic substances such as PVCs, BFRs and mercury, among others. Just as we would not send half-empty paint cans or waste oil products to the landfill, we need to provide a safe way to dispose of, and recycle, electronic products.

Seven Canadian provinces have established regulations and/or partnerships to deal with this issue. Nova Scotia has implemented Atlantic Canadian Electronics Stewardship or ACES and there is regulatory provision in New Brunswick for a “Multi-Material Stewardship Board.” 

However, if we look at Green ICT as a whole, the solution is not just finding efficient ways to deal with waste or to be more energy (and cost) efficient. We need a shift in philosophy – from disposable to scalable. We need to create products and systems that can adapt to these changing times and get out of the cycle of tossing products that no longer satisfy our need to be on the “bleeding edge” into the waste bin.

Sustainable ICT awareness will support the smart procurement of Energy Star or Gold EPEAT LCD monitors and LED lamps for offices. But we must also look at the opportunities to “virtualize” ICT by running multiple computer configurations on one piece of hardware. Rather than letting brute computing power try to solve our problems (which it won’t), we need to be more effective and strategic in building the infrastructure that will support Cloud Computing and practicing Software as a Service.

On these latter to items, policy and regulation needs to catch up to the possibilities that these ICT approaches offer. But we also need the workforce. We need to take stock of the fact that New Brunswick has lost the leadership position we held on ICT a short 15 years ago. While we see local ICT companies grow and new out-of-province investment, we are not preparing a skilled workforce that is needed to support these initiatives. New Brunswick needs a new generation of ICT workers, especially those with skills that are scalable rather than disposable, if we are to get the economic and environmental benefits ICT offers.

The global market for ICT will hit $1.58 trillion in 2010 and surge to $1.71 trillion in 2011. Opportunity is there or NB ICT workers, product developers and consulting companies but, as mentioned in earlier articles, this requires planning, preparation and foresight from all the stakeholders. The new software development “sweet spot” may be the development of enterprise carbon and energy management software, as well as the rise of a whole new sustainable consulting industry, but we will not get there by wishing.

- 30 -

Originally pubished in the Telegraph Journal, August 27, 2010

Social Innovation – Saint John’s Hidden Strength

By Chris Baker and Gary Stairs

Sometimes you do not know what you are looking for until you find it.

In our case, we were conducting a research project in November 2009 on the resilience of the greater Saint John area following the announcements that several major projects for the area would not be moving forward. To obtain the information for this project, we convened three sessions with community leaders representing the private and non-profit sectors across Saint John. In addition to testing the overall mood, we were keen to understand how these leaders saw their community and its prospect for the future.

Across all these sessions, participants wanted a new emphasis on the future of Saint John rather than dwelling on the past. While there might be some fond nostalgia associated with being the home of the foghorn, the screw propeller or SCUBA gear, none of these past accomplishments had the resonance and power of more recent actions.

When the discussion turned to these recent achievements, it was interesting to note that most participants did not identify a new business, a new product line, or a scientific or academic achievement. Instead, they talked about the way that Saint John residents were collaborating to achieve economic and social progress.

It was the collaborative process, and the organizations that support this process, that was seen as the most promising achievement associated with the Saint John area. They pointed out the extensive consultation process that arrived at the Benefits Blueprint, the community plan to assist the region in coping with rapid economic growth. They talked about the True Growth Initiative, which integrated social and cultural elements with regional economic development. Other collaborative networks, such as PropelICT, or the Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative (BCAPI), were identified as strengths within the community.

It was interesting to note that many of these collaborative organizations cut across sectoral, economic or social lines. Further, these organizations were disposed to working together rather than competing with each other. As the discussion progressed, it became clear that social innovation – new ways of doing things to achieve societal goals – was an area where the Saint John community excels.

Innovation is about ideas, and new ways of doing and approaching problems and challenges. Innovation connotes change, creativity, putting ideas into action and implies a novel twist or new way of doing things.

Although it does not have the same profile as a new wireless device or emerging economic sector, social innovation can deliver similar concrete results. The main differences are that social innovation tends to emerge from a collaborative process and that both the process and the results are widely shared.

If Saint John is a hub for social innovation, and that this unique capacity for social innovation is a hidden strength of the region, it would be good to understand its origins.  

According to the participants, Saint John’s capacity for social innovation had its genesis in the early 1980s. At that time, there was strong concern about the ongoing deterioration of the downtown core. The decline of the heritage buildings in the area was a visible sign of the neglect and despair associated with this part of the region.  

Rather than accepting the deterioration of the urban core as part of a broader trend, the community mobilized to make positive change. In addition to actions taken by the City to strengthen planning and by-law enforcement, other community partners stepped forward to improve both the physical infrastructure and living conditions in this area.

Ultimately, Saint John gained national attention for the preservation of the built heritage in the Trinity Royal neighbourhood. The refurbishment and vitality of the City Market is a source of pride to many residents, as well as being a favoured destination for tourists and locals alike. The popularity of Saint John as a cruise ship destination is due, in large part, to the ongoing revitalization of this neighbourhood.  

Just as the community mobilized to preserve the unique architecture of the downtown core, there was also the need to mobilize around social goals, namely poverty reduction. And this collaborative effort would not be confined to one neighbourhood or to one part of the poverty dilemma.

We were told how a general consensus emerged that comprehensive, community-based action was needed to reduce the portion of Saint John residents who were living in poverty. Just as thought often precedes action, defining the goal of poverty reduction gave a focus and an impetus to members of the business community, the non-profit sector and decision-makers in the municipal and provincial governments.

The ability of the Saint John community to rally behind the poverty reduction goal, and to achieve a significant net reduction in poverty levels, is an excellent example of social innovation in action. There was no magic bullet or miracle program. Instead, there was committed and persistent community-based activity to revitalize neighbourhoods, to address the needs of single parents, youth and children living in poverty, and to strengthen opportunities for training and employment readiness. By working with people with first-hand experience of living in poverty, we were able to help them find their voice.

Although the Saint John region still has a poverty rate higher than the national average, the ability of the region to make progress against this intractable and difficult problem has created confidence that further progress can be made.

Innovation is a pragmatic activity that includes problem‐solving by people, individually and collectively. An individual may be led by their passion to develop an idea or concept but it only truly comes to life when it is embraced by a larger group or community. The ability of the Saint John region to innovate in the social sphere is an unrecognized strength of our community.

With a Social Innovation Forum taking place at the UNBSJ Grand Hall on January 20^th, this may a good opportunity to learn more about how Saint John is leading the country on finding innovative solutions to achieve significant and sustainable poverty reduction.

- 30 -

Originally published in the Telegraph Journal, January 19, 2012