Renewing democracy for the 21st century

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

At a time when we have an unnecessary provincial election and when there are polarizing forces all around, it is hardly surprising that many people feel that our democratic system is under threat and that we need to consider how to improve it.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

11 October 2026

701 words

In 1947 Winston Churchill famously remarked “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. He was also clear that “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise”, meaning it could be improved.

At a time when we have an unnecessary provincial election, when municipal elections are ignored by two-thirds of the electorate, when we see the craziness south of the border, when social media and AI are disruptive and sometimes polarising forces, it is hardly surprising that many people feel that our democratic system is under threat, that we need to consider how democracy could be improved.

But are we even clear what democracy is? The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines it as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”. But that is a somewhat narrow, electorally-based vision; show up once every four years and vote, and you are done.

A broader vision of democracy would be that it should try to involve as many people as possible in the choices and decisions that shape their lives. People Powered, a global hub for participatory democracy, defines it as a process that “enables community members to make the decisions that affect their lives, together with government.”

Note, ‘together with government’ – not by government, on your behalf.  This is the process of governance, how we make decisions together, which can occur at all levels from streets to the whole society and involves all the players, of which government is but one.

So it is noteworthy that just this past couple of weeks I have attended two local meetings focused on the challenge of improving democracy and governance. The first, launching an initiative called ‘Turning Down the Heat’, was focused on deliberative democracy. It asked ‘how do we turn down the heat and create conditions for more respectful, thoughtful, and productive public conversations?’

Organised by the External Affairs Committee of the Baha’is of Victoria, with the support of the Greater Victoria Peace School and the Victoria Multifaith Society, the meeting brought together a group of 20 or so local leaders from various walks of life to discuss the issue. You can learn more at the initiative’s website.

The second was a public meeting organised by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) Victoria Regional Group on ‘Citizens’ Assemblies & Democratic Renewal’, which explored how this approach could navigate contested policy questions and rebuild public trust.

In my view, a system designed largely in the 18th and 19th centuries and brought to maturity in the 20th century is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. Nobody back then anticipated the ways in which our present political system and associated media system would create fragmentation, polarisation and alienation.

If every system is perfectly designed to achieve the results it gets, as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement puts it, then clearly we need to change the system.  What does a system look like that delivers cohesion, collaboration and engagement?

I spent much of the 1980s and ‘90s working to create healthier communities across Canada and around the world. One of the lessons I learned can be applied to democracy: a healthy community (or, in this case, democracy) is built one home at a time, one street at a time, one block at a time and one neighbourhood at a time. So we need to start there. How do we engage people in conversations locally about their immediate concerns and how do we link that to local governance?

Implicit in this approach is the principle of subsidiarity, which begins with an assumption that every decision should be made at a block or neighbourhood level (e.g. removing fences from backyards), then decides what cannot be decided there (e.g. a regional transportation system, although some aspects might still be decided at a neighbourhood level, such as the best location for a bike rental station).

Following the municipal elections, I suggest we need to start a process of conversations in neighbourhoods throughout the region about what a participatory, deliberative democracy looks like at that local level, and how to get there.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Carney’s ecocidal agenda offers short-term gain for long-term pain

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Focusing on energy, trade, critical minerals, transport and data projects has already brought us to the brink of the ecological precipice.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 September 2026

698 words

Everyone is applauding Mark Carney for standing up for Canada in the face of Donald Trump’s assault on us. And of course we need to do that. But Carney’s strategy – doubling down on “a series of nation-building projects in energy, in trade, critical minerals, transport, data, and beyond”, as he noted in an April 2026 address – is simply an acceleration of ‘business-as-usual’, a model of resource extraction and industrial development firmly rooted in 19th and 20th century thinking about the economy and nature.

However, it is ‘business-as-usual’ over the past century that has brought us to the brink of the ecological precipice. The latest Planetary Health Check report, just out this week, confirms we have already crossed planetary boundaries for seven of nine vital natural systems and the trends for all seven are headed in the wrong direction.

So the last thing we need is an approach that says we can keep growing our economy, our use of resources, our creation of pollution and wastes and our impacts on the Earth’s natural systems within the finite system that is our planet.

That is an approach that led Kenneth Boulding, a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as far back as 1973, to remark to the US Senate that “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”. Well, our Prime Minister is an economist.

So it is disturbing to see the consistent pattern of environmental ‘ignore-ance’ in the Carney government’s agenda. The Throne Speech 15 months ago, titled “Building Canada Strong: A bold, ambitious plan for our future”, made no reference at all to sustainable development. It mentioned the environment only once, in a throw-away line about “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards” – which the government has since been systematically undermining.

We have seen the government roll back action on climate change by getting rid of the consumer carbon tax and the EV sales mandate, while at the same time supporting increased tar sands and LNG extraction and promising public funding (i.e. subsidies) for new pipelines. Carney has said he wants Canada to be an energy superpower in both conventional and alternative energy, but as Dr. Courtney Howard, Chair of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, remarked in her opening plenary talk at the Victoria Forum last month, it’s not enough to be an energy superpower, we should be a GOOD energy superpower, and doubling down on fossil fuels is the wrong approach.

Meanwhile the government is proposing to relax other environmental safeguards in the interest of major projects of national importance. Noting “the Building Canada Strong Act amends five federal laws, including the Impact Assessment Act, Species at Risk Act, and Fisheries Act”, Lisa Gue, national policy manager at the David Suzuki Foundation, said this past week: “Ottawa’s move to streamline regulations is code for steamrolling nature protections.”

So yet again I point to the deep truth underlying the 2014 statement from the World Wide Fund for Nature statement – a deep truth Carney and his supporters either do not, cannot or will not understand: “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.” So sadly, but also disastrously, Carney’s real legacy will not be a stronger Canada but a dangerously weakened Canadian and global ecological system. Fundamentally, the government’s approach is ecocidal.

In 2021 a panel of legal experts from around the world defined ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”. Who can doubt that the wanton and deliberate act of expanding fossil fuel use, or any of the other policies that contribute to further transgression of planetary boundaries, is ecocidal.

The Carney government needs to re-think its entire approach to building a Canada fit for the 21st century. We need a Canada that – in the interests of current young people and future generations – pivots to put the planet ahead of economic growth, that commits to living within planetary boundaries and to equitably sharing our already immense wealth.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Wicked problems, virtuous solutions

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

  • Published as “Wicked, entangled problems call for virtuous solutions”

Complex issues interweaving climate change, widening inequalities, pandemics, political unrest and more, were very much on the agenda this past week at the Victoria Forum.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

25 August 2026

703 words

We live in an era of polycrisis, which the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University defines as a situation in which “crises in multiple global systems become causally entangled in ways that cause major human harm.”  The Institute identifies a set of fourteen global systemic stresses that create systemic risk, including “climate change, biodiversity loss, widening inequalities, pandemics, financial instability, political unrest — all influenced by long-running demographic trends.”  

These stresses constitute wicked problems, defined by Rittel and Webber in 1973 as a “complex issue that defies complete definition, for which there can be no final solution, since any resolution generates further issues, and where solutions are not true or false or good or bad, but the best that can be done at the time.”

These wicked problems were very much on the agenda this past week at the Victoria Forum, an annual gathering jointly hosted by the Senate of Canada, the University of Victoria and Royal Roads University. The Forum “brings people together from across Canada and around the world to . . . explore the complex tapestry of challenges facing our world and search for solutions to them.”

Monday’s opening plenary featured Thomas Homer-Dixon, Founder and Executive Director of the Cascade Institute, and Dr. Courtney Howard, Chair of the Global Climate and Health Alliance and a leading advocate in Canada for a Wellbeing society.

Professor Homer-Dixon began by laying out his Institute’s latest thinking on the polycrisis. The Institute is developing “a new, complexity-informed approach to policymaking: one that anticipates cascading failures across interconnected systems and integrates the best available knowledge about both known and emerging risks.”

Their work has enabled them to explore plausible futures for the planet in 2040. The bad news is that of the ten stable global scenarios they found, eight are as bad as or worse than today, with the most likely outcome being deterioration – which is where ‘business as usual’ is headed – and the second most likely being collapse. Of the two more positive futures, one is not so attractive because it would be a high-tech autocracy.

But the good news is that there is one plausible outcome they call the Hope Scenario.  This is not simply a speculative or aspirational future, said Homer-Dixon, but “a scientifically grounded basis for honest hope.” Such a future would involve a cleantech breakthrough in energy and in the agri-food sector, a managed roll out of AI, ‘guided’ pro-social and pro-environmental economic growth and a strong democracy, and would result in a low burden of disease. 

So how do we get there? In a speech at an international conference on urban health in 2014, I suggested wicked problems need virtuous solutions. By virtuous, I meant solutions that move us towards a more sustainable, just and healthy world, solutions that are rooted in a commitment to the public good. Dr. Howard’s presentation focused on that.

Her key message was that we have focused on money as the measurement of progress and success, but people and communities understand that wellbeing is about much more than that. They know it is about our level of human capability, our social relationships and the quality of our environment, as well as the quality of our institutions and our financial status.

But by focusing on the last of these, we have actually destabilized the other key elements of our wellbeing. So we need to measure these societal foundations and manage them to optimise for wellbeing. In the words of the World Health Organization, we need to become a Wellbeing society, “committed to achieving equitable health now and for future generations without breaching ecological limits”.

In the following plenary, Dr. James Orbinski, a highly respected leader of the humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders and now Master of Massey College, put it very simply: “We have choice . . . We must make the right choice”, while Lord John Alderdice stressed we solve problems by coming together and by committing to a positive future.

In short, to address the wicked problems of the polycrisis we need to commit to working together to find virtuous solutions rooted in the common good. In my next column I will discuss some of the solutions discussed at the Victoria Forum.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Ottawa needs to wake up to the planetary health crisis

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

·      Published as “When it comes to sustainability, Ottawa ignores an inconvenient truth”

The federal government’s draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy somehow fails to mention planetary boundaries or our ecological footprint, or to recognize ecological limits.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

13 April 2026

699 words

Last week I began an analysis of the federal government’s draft Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, which somehow manages to ignore planet Earth, fails to mention planetary boundaries or our ecological footprint or to recognise ecological limits and the need to invest in restoring our ecosystems and natural capital as a matter of national security.

So the question is – are these omissions a case of ignorance – have the federal scientists and others involved in developing this strategy never heard of planetary boundaries and ecological footprints? That seems pretty unlikely. How about their political masters – have they never heard of any of this?  That also seems pretty unlikely, they only have to follow the news, and presumably they do that, so they can’t be entirely ignorant.

It’s much more likely that this is a case of ‘ignore-ance’, the political and corporate act of knowing but ignoring what Al Gore many years ago called an inconvenient truth. When the  government’s priority is to grow the economy, “build an enormous amount of new infrastructure at speeds not seen in generations” and be a conventional energy superpower that exports fossil fuels, concern for the environment is an inconvenient truth that might get in the way.

That ‘ignore-ance’ is on full display in Prime Minister Carney’s Mandate letter to his Cabinet last May. Not only is the environment not one of the government’s seven priorities, the words ‘environment’ and ‘planet’ are not even mentioned, although the mandate letter says the Cabinet “must meet a series of unprecedented challenges”.  In what possible way can an ecological footprint equivalent to using five planets worth of biocapacity and the ongoing transgression of seven of nine planetary boundaries not be considered an unprecedented challenge?

The harsh truth is that we are exceeding the Earth’s limits, transgressing the boundaries of multiple Earth systems, and that this poses an existential risk to our society, our communities, our families, future generations and many of the millions of species with whom we share the Earth.

So a real sustainable development strategy would begin there, with a commitment to move swiftly towards a ‘One Planet’ Canada that operates within planetary boundaries. That would mean spelling out:

  • The extent to which Canada currently operates beyond planetary boundaries and takes more than its fair share of the Earth’s biocapacity and resources.
  • The environmental, social, health and economic implications of this in Canada and globally.
  • The transformation needed in our way of life and our economy in order to become a ‘One Planet’ Canada that not only does not transgress planetary boundaries but restores the damage we have done to the natural systems, in Canada and globally, that underpin our societies and our wellbeing.
  • The environmental, social, health and economic benefits and costs of doing so.

The strategy would also need to lay out broad initiatives needed to get us there, as well as specific sectoral policies consistent with creating a ‘One Planet’ Canada. The broad initiatives might include:

  • An ongoing process of nation-wide, community-based conversations about the situation we face and the future we want for our descendants, a process I have previously described as a People’s Commission on Wellbeing (24 August 2025).
  • A Parliamentary Standing Committee on a ‘One Planet’ Canada to hear and make public the evidence on the challenges we face and the progress we are making on an ongoing basis, and a Cabinet Committee on a ‘One Planet’ Canada to guide us there.
  • Follow the lead of Wales in passing a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act that establishes “a legally-binding common purpose – the seven well-being goals – for national government, local government, local health boards and other specified public bodies” and a Future Generations Commissioner ““to act as a guardian for the interests of future generations “(see my 18 August 2024 column).

Specific sectoral policies would need to be prioritised based on the contribution of the sector to planetary boundary transgressions, but would include at least the energy, agriculture, fisheries and food, built environment and transportation and the chemicals and extractive industries sectors.

Moreover, as a federation, all of these initiatives would need to be replicated at a provincial level and supported and implemented locally. Our descendants will thank us.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Hello Ottawa, please recognise we live on planet Earth

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

  • Published as “Draft Sustainable Development Strategy misses the mark”

In the entire 74-page, 22,000-word document, the word “Earth” does not appear once and the word “planet” appears just a single time.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

6 April 2026

706 words

Thirty-nine years ago, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway and Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development, presented their report to the United Nations. The Commission’s report, Our Common Future, widely referred to as the Brundtland Report, proposed the concept of sustainable development, which it defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The Commission’s title and mandate was clearly and explicitly to link environment and development and the Commissioners shared “a common concern for the planet and the interlocked ecological and economic threats with which its people, institutions, and governments now grapple”; remember, this was four decades ago.

So you would think that the federal government, in advancing its draft Sustainable Development Strategy, would provide a clear analysis of the state of the planet today and the challenges of sustainable development in the 21st century. And you would be completely wrong.

If you want a sense of just how out of touch this draft strategy is, consider this: In the entire 74-page, 22,000-word document, the word ‘Earth’ does not appear once – not once! – and the word ‘planet’ appears just once, and that only in a reference to the purpose of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Hello Ottawa! – it’s the 21st century out here, we live on planet Earth, sustainability is all about living within the limits of the Earth.

Oh, and you won’t find the word ‘limit’ used in reference to natural systems, only in reference to limited access and/or opportunity for people, and a brief reference to limiting global warming. This despite the fact that The Limits to Growth was published by the Club of Rome 54 years ago, warning of ecological and social decline or collapse by the mid-21st century – just 24 years or one generation away – and that the Brundtland Report identified “the idea of limitations” as one of two key concepts, adding  later that “ultimate limits there are”.

You also might have thought that one quarter of the way through the 21st century, and almost 20 years after the concept was first launched, there would be some reference to planetary boundaries. Earth system scientists have identified “nine Earth system processes essential for maintaining global stability, resilience and life-support functions” and have identified boundaries for each, “thresholds that keep life on Earth within a safe operating zone”, boundaries which we should not transgress.

As of 2025, we have crossed seven of those nine boundaries, one of which is climate change – and for all seven, the trend is worsening. But search the Strategy and you will find no reference whatsoever to planetary boundaries. Yes, climate change is a focus of attention, as is biodiversity loss, as too is pollution. But the latter is restricted to broad and conventional references to air, water and waste pollution; there is no reference to ‘novel entities’ such as nano-particles of plastic or food-chain contaminants. And don’t look for a reference to other key Earth systems of concern; ozone layer depletion, biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and ocean acidification are not mentioned at all.

How about the ecological footprint, which measures “the ecological resource use and resource capacity of nations over time”? Globally, we are now using the equivalent of 1.7 planet’s worth of biocapacity every year; in Canada, we use around 5 planet’s worth. In other words, if everyone lives the way we live, we would need four more planets, but there is no Planet B, never mind Planets C, D and E. Again, you would think the Strategy would say something about this: Guess again – not a single mention.

Then there is national security – or rather, there isn’t!

In a notable speech in October 2025, Defence Minister David McGuinty explicitly linked Canada’s national security to what he called our ‘natural security’: “Investing in and restoring our ecosystems and natural capital is strategic preparedness”, while the government’s own report, ‘Disruptions on the Horizon 2024’, identified biodiversity loss and ecosystems collapse as the second most likely and second most impactful of 35disruptions for which Canada may need to prepare.

More on this, and on what the strategy should say, next week.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

What does it mean that “environmentalists have lost, big time”?

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, so if they’ve lost, humanity has lost.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

22 March 2026

702 words

In an interview in the Times Colonist (21 March 2026) marking his approaching 90th birthday, David Suzuki said “we’ve lost, environmentalists have lost, big time”. But what does it mean that environmentalists have lost? Who is we? What have we lost? And if we have lost, who has won, and what does winning mean?

First, let’s be clear what business environmentalists are in. We – and I count myself an environmentalist – are in the business of protecting and restoring nature, both for the protection of nature itself as something with inherent worth and for the protection of both human and non-human life on Earth. That is to say, environmentalists are both bio- or eco-centric and – for the most part – anthropocentric.

In being bio- or eco-centric, we are saying that nature is of value in its own right. As far as we know, we are the only planet in the universe that has life, which makes it precious beyond measure. (I agree there could be life elsewhere, but we have yet to find it, and it’s probably too far away, in other solar systems or other galaxies, for us to have meaningful interaction with it.)

That also means that the myriad of other species with whom we share this one small planet have inherent worth (although as a public health physician I might draw the line at the smallpox, Ebola, Covid and other deadly viruses). That is why we seek to protect ecosystems and different species from harm.

Now admittedly, there are some, known as deep ecologists, at the edges of eco-centric philosophy and ecology, who might argue that the Earth would be better off without humans, or with a much smaller and less technologically powerful population of humans.

But while I can sort of understand that viewpoint – well, here we are! And as a physician, I am of course interested in the wellbeing of people, of humanity as a whole. So I guess you could call me eco-anthropocentric.

What brings these viewpoints together is that humanity springs from nature, is part of and entirely embedded within nature, and completely dependent upon nature for our very survival, never mind our health and wellbeing. Every breath we take, every drop we drink, every mouthful we eat comes from nature; all the materials and fuels we use and depend upon come from nature.

Nature removes, decontaminates and recycles many of our wastes, protects us from UV solar radiation and, for the past 12,000 years, has provided a generally benign, warm and stable climate that has enabled the development of agriculture and civilisations around the world.

In a very profound sense, then, environmentalists are in the business of human survival and wellbeing, in balance with nature.  We should all be environmentalists!

So if we say environmentalists have lost, we are really saying humanity has lost. Now we haven’t quite lost yet, but we are in serious danger of undermining the most fundamental systems that are essential for life on Earth – all life, not just humanity. As I have repeatedly stressed in this column, we have crossed planetary boundaries for seven of nine key Earth systems, just one of which is global over-heating.

Now I don’t think we need worry about the planet, it’s been around 4.5 billion years. Nor do we need to worry about saving life on Earth; although we are creating a sixth great extinction, life has survived five previous extinction events. I am not even sure we need to worry about humanity; we are a tough, resilient and highly adaptable species, able to survive in some form almost anywhere.

But society – well, that is much more vulnerable. In 2014 the Worldwide Fund for Nature observed that “ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work any other way round.” So when ecosystems decline or collapse so too do the societies that depend upon them and the economic systems they have created.

Then who exactly can be said to be the winners here? The wealthy corporations and people who are inflicting damage on nature and trying to defeat environmentalists? And what exactly have they ‘won’? Short-term gain for long-term devastation? Think their grandchildren will be thanking them?

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the

University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Zero-based governance for the CRD

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock

o   Published as “How would we reinvent local government from scratch?”

What decisions should be made at the municipal level? The regional level? By the province? Federally?

Dr. Trevor Hancock

26 Jan 2026

700 words

This year the Capital Regional District marks its Diamond Jubilee. It was created in 1966 as a federation of seven municipalities and five electoral areas to provide coordination of regional issues and local government in the Greater Victoria region. At the time, it had a population of under 200,000. Back then nobody knew about climate change, the famous Club of Rome report on the limits to growth was still six years in the future, there was no internet, no social media and robots were firmly in the realm of science fiction.

Well, today, the CRD is 13 municipalities and 460,000 people and all those issues are today’s reality. So what is the system of governance we need to address the realities of the 21st century? Just amalgamating some or all of the CRD is not going to cut it, that’s a 20th century solution to 21st century problems.

So here’s an idea: Why don’t we mark the Diamond Jubilee by engaging the CRD’s residents in a participatory democracy exercise of zero-based governance design. It’s an idea inspired by my work in the 1990s on zero-based health planning, which was based on the concept of zero-based budgeting. The idea, popular for a while in the 1970s and thereafter, was very simple: Start with a clean sheet (zero base) every year and build the budget you need, rather than just taking last year’s budget allocation and tweaking it.

“Part of the problem that we face in health care planning”, I wrote in a 1991 article, “is that we are starting where we are now; our present system and all its facilities have evolved over decades, and as such all of the errors that we unwittingly made in the past are incorporated into the system. Only too often, attempts to improve the system begin with the existing system and figure out ways to change it without having a clear sense of what the system ultimately should look like.” (Does that sound a bit like the CRD today?)

So I proposed a thought experiment: Imagine the entire health care system disappeared overnight and we had to re-invent it from scratch.  The result of that thinking literally turned the health system on its head. We would begin with everything needed to keep people healthy and only at the end would we need specialty care and hospitals.

This wasn’t just an empty exercise. At the time I was part of a team of urban planners, architects, social planners and others developing a proposal for a planned new community, Seaton, northeast of Toronto. But our team was not just designing the hard infrastructure of mains and drains, roads and housing, but a complete community, including the ‘soft’ infrastructure of its social systems – health, education, social services and governance.

However, it’s not often that we get an empty slate on which to develop a new system, so in practice, we need to envision the system we need, then ensure all our system decisions move us in that direction. 

So now imagine the entire system of local government disappeared overnight and we had to re-invent it from scratch; what would we create? I suggest we start with a principle in governance called subsidiarity, which begins with an assumption that all decisions are local (how local, we might ask – street, block, neighbourhood?) and then asks which decisions does it not make sense to make at that level? (As an admittedly extreme example, we don’t want decisions about whether we should have capital punishment made at that level, I suggest.)

OK, so now what decisions should be made at the municipal level? The regional level? By the province? Federally? A related question for all of those levels is HOW the decisions should be made. Who should be involved, and how? – remembering that we now have social media and the internet, and increasingly, AI.

I don’t have a blueprint, I don’t know what the answers would be, but I think this would be a much more useful exercise than carrying on with business as usual and wrangling about various forms of amalgamation. Does the CRD have the political will and imagination to do something like this? Time will tell.

© Trevor Hancock, 2026

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the                                            University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy

Building community capital

Posted on by Dr. Trevor Hancock
  • Published as “We can’t grow our way out of problems created by growth”

The challenges we face are a product of the economic and other societal systems we have created

Dr. Trevor Hancock

21 July 2025

700 words

Mark Carney may not have called his Bill C-5 – now the Building Canada Act – a big, beautiful bill, but it does come out of much the same mould as Trump’s bill. Essentially, it says we can and must grow our way out of our problems. But the problem is that growth itself IS the problem, as I wrote last month.

Our current economic system has taken us past seven of the nine planetary boundaries identified by Earth scientists, and has triggered a wide variety of other problems, constituting together a polycrisis. The cliff edge looms, and governments across Canada and around the world are hitting the accelerator!

But all is not lost. You know something important is up when Saul Klein, a former Dean of the School of Business at UVic and now CEO of the Victoria Forum, is co-author of an article in the Times Colonist (July 11th) that states: 

“For a long time, we believed that our systems just needed fixing, that they were broken or outdated. But we’ve come to realize something more unsettling.

These systems are not broken. Their negative outcomes are not bugs. They are features of the way they were designed. And they are producing exactly what they were incentivized to produce — environmental degradation, exclusion, concentration of wealth, and structural inequality.”

If the challenges we face are a product of the economic and other societal systems we have created then – as Einstein reportedly said – we can‘t solve problems by using the samekind of thinking we used when we created them. We cannot grow our way out of the problems created by growth. Nor can we just tinker with these systems, hoping we can make some reforms without changing the underlying systems. We need at the very least to transform them, we need revolutionary change.

A place to begin is to recognise that what we call capitalism is not true capitalism. It seems to have escaped the attention of mainstream economists, and the business and government leaders that embrace them, that there are four forms of capital. In addition to the economic capital that we are familiar with (basically, money and ‘stuff’, from widgets to large infrastructure) there is human capital – the attributes, abilities and wellbeing of individuals.

Then there is social capital – the ties that connect, through informal social networks to the publicly funded programs of the social contract to the underlying legal, political and constitutional systems that regulate our peaceful interactions.

Lastly, but by no means least, there is natural capital, the underlying bedrock of nature from which comes the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the source of all the materials and fuels that underpin our societies and economies.

As the Worldwide Fund for Nature so wisely put it a decade ago, “Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies. It does not work the other way around.” And yet, what Carney and all the world’s conventional capitalists are trying to do is to make it work the other way around – a fool’s errand if ever there was one.

Real capitalists are those who work to build what I call community capital, by building all four forms of capital at the same time – and there aren’t many of them. But we need to transition as quickly as possible to – at the very least – a broader system of capitalism. Indeed, we really need to move to an entirely different economic system, one rooted in nature and society, one that puts people and planet first, what many now call a wellbeing economy, part of a wellbeing society.

In their July 11th article, Saul Klein and his co-author, Arti Freeman, president and CEO of Definity Foundation, went on to write:

“To build a better future, it’s not enough to bridge divides, we must also re-imagine the systems themselves. That takes more than policy reform. It takes collective imagination as a strategy to envision new ways of organizing our economies, our democracies, and our relationships with one another and the planet.”

Undertaking this process of collective imagination is an important task everywhere, including here in the Greater Victoria Region. More on that, and on how to initiate this transition, next month.  

© Trevor Hancock, 2025

thancock@uvic.ca

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the                                            University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy