Great post. And exactly why I do what I do. Sides are chosen without information, and that is by design. Somewhere down the line emotion became profitable, and civic participation became a threat. Knowledge is power. Empowering people through honest, unbiased civic education and understanding is what I believe/hope is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this community is part of the change that is so desperately needed.
The loss of instruction is the hinge for me as well. When people are pushed to choose sides without shared information, participation becomes easier to manipulate and harder to sustain. Rebuilding civic understanding is slower work, but it’s the only thing that actually holds.
Political marketing strategies have evolved. Education is essential to challenging all-or-nothing thinking and getting beyond the idea that personal identity must be defined by a political party.
I think you’re right — and I suspect we’re working from a very similar place. A belief that citizens are better served by context than by certainty, and by understanding than by alignment.
What I appreciate about the work you’re doing is that it resists the pull toward all-or-nothing framing. When identity becomes fused to party or position, the space for learning collapses. Fact-grounded, balanced presentation doesn’t eliminate disagreement, but it does make disagreement more honest — and more humane.
In that sense, this kind of work isn’t about persuading people what to think, but about restoring the conditions that make thinking together possible in the first place. That’s slow, often unglamorous work — but it’s essential.
I agree. It's not about making anyone agree or disagree—it's about providing reliable and honest information to spark discussion or form a decision. Facts remain facts regardless of political affiliation and personal identity transcends any political party. Slow and steady. And glamorous if you're brave enough to do a podcast! =)
I agree with you completely: it’s not about persuading people toward a position, but about creating space where decisions are made with information rather than identity doing all the work.
And yes, maybe one day I’ll be brave enough for a podcast 😉 For now, I’m content working in the slower, quieter lanes — wherever the medium lets context breathe and facts stay intact.
I appreciate the work you’re doing, and the ethic behind it. We’re clearly rowing in the same direction.
Yes, again, you've identified a huge issue. Given the digital times we live in, perhaps your idea of 'kitchen table' discussions should be a 'digital' kitchen table - to accommodate greater numbers - like a banquet hall - multiple tables? A digital Civics quick reference? Perhaps a video series posted on YT or a podcast? A Civics website? But, there is a need for Q&A and discussions ...
Kathleen, I think you’re absolutely right about the need — and I appreciate how clearly you’re sketching out the range of possibilities. The appetite for civic learning hasn’t disappeared; if anything, it’s growing, especially outside formal classrooms.
The obstacle, as I see it, isn’t ideas or platforms so much as mandate. Right now, there’s no institution in Canada whose primary responsibility is to provide accessible, unbiased, pan-Canadian civic education for adults across regions and political cultures. Post-secondary institutions, provincial education systems, and even Elections Canada all touch pieces of the puzzle — but none are positioned, or incentivized, to take on that comprehensive role.
As you note, people who are already motivated can find excellent resources. What’s missing is the connective tissue: something that reaches beyond the already-engaged and treats civic literacy as shared infrastructure rather than niche interest.
I suspect any real progress would require an unusual coalition — perhaps philanthropic or corporate sponsorship tied to long-term institutional credibility, rather than short-term messaging. Something closer to a public-interest investment than a traditional program rollout. That’s not easy terrain, but it may be where movement is most plausible right now.
In the meantime, I’m trying to think carefully about scale — how to create spaces that invite learning without pretending one project can solve what is, at root, a structural gap. Your comment is a helpful reminder of why that question matters.
This has got me wondering if the "civic literacy gap" could partly be addressed through a single book, sort of like the user manual your referred to? Or how about a TV reality show? There's some good way to spend CBC taxpayer money.
I agree with Glen — short, accessible civic tutorials delivered through public media, including social platforms and television, could make a real difference. We’ve done this before with historical vignettes, and the model still works.
It’s also worth being clear about limits. In Canada, education up to and including K–12 is entirely a provincial responsibility, so the federal government has very little ability to mandate civic education in schools. That said, canada.ca already hosts clear information explaining which tier of government is responsible for what. The gap isn’t content so much as reach and repetition. Public-facing civic education is one area where the federal government can act — without crossing jurisdictional lines.
The loss of orientation is visible when reading the daily Hansard. MPs are increasingly using their "Statements by Members" time to discuss strictly municipal issues like local road maintenance or school board decisions. It suggests that because constituents have lost the map of who is responsible for what, federal representatives feel forced to act like city councillors just to show they are listening.
Yes — and this is where the civic literacy gap becomes actively consequential. When people lose a clear sense of which level of government is responsible for what, that confusion doesn’t just surface organically — it gets used.
MPs can safely perform concern over municipal or provincial issues because they know constituents won’t always distinguish jurisdiction. Provinces and municipalities, in turn, are quick to point at Ottawa for everything from development fees to taxes. Each tier benefits from the blur when accountability becomes portable.
That’s what makes the loss of orientation so damaging. It doesn’t just confuse citizens — it reshapes political behaviour itself.
Another great post. I've found the same issue with my own grown children. Their shakey understanding of the differing responsibilities between the municipal, provincial and federal gov't.
Yes — that’s exactly it. Seeing the misalignment show up in our own homes and communities is hard enough. What’s more troubling is how widespread it is.
One of the most sobering takeaways from the Electoral Reform Committee’s cross-country consultations was just how deep the civic literacy gap runs in Canada. What they heard wasn’t apathy, but confusion about who is responsible for what — a loss of orientation that now shows up everywhere, even in Parliament itse
This is an excellent post. There is a deep need for us to be civically literate, because we are citizens. Not just taxpayers. Not just stakeholders. Not just consumers of education, consumers of healthcare. We are citizens. Above all. That brings responsibilities AND rights. We very much need to be fully aware of both: our responsibilities to be alert and informed, to vote, to make sure justice abounds for every citizen including us, because the fabric of our city and province and nation ( civitas) will otherwise unravel. We have rights, as citizens, to equality under the law, to security of person, to freedom of religion, and on and on. And we want to be as large and complex in our identity as we can be: not just a consumer of education, for example, but a student, learner, and citizen. Not just a taxpayer, but someone alert for how those taxes are allocated, entitled to that information— a citizen. Thank you Leni!
Such a great and vital post Leni! There was a great interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice (retired) Souter back in 2012 at a Civics Conference at UNH. He predicted the arrival of a Trump-like figure, which was really prophetic. But the key was his concern of the loss of civics education, having peaked in the U.S. in the 70's and implications of it's decline. I think it's instructive and adds to your post in that he suggested that when people don't know how government works, they don't feel they have any agency to change it.
That mindset provides an opening for an authoritarian figure to arrive and say "I alone can fix it", which gets them elected. You can see this reflected in the election of people like Trump, Pollievre's popularity, UPC actions in Alberta, etc. While STEM is definitely important, our education system fails to prepare our young folks for core life skills like emotional intelligence, personal finance and, above all, how our governments are structured and their span of control.
I really enjoyed this post Leni. Read it earlier today while my daughter was swimming at a swim meet. I think I have work to do to make sure she understands how our government works.
Great post. And exactly why I do what I do. Sides are chosen without information, and that is by design. Somewhere down the line emotion became profitable, and civic participation became a threat. Knowledge is power. Empowering people through honest, unbiased civic education and understanding is what I believe/hope is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this community is part of the change that is so desperately needed.
The loss of instruction is the hinge for me as well. When people are pushed to choose sides without shared information, participation becomes easier to manipulate and harder to sustain. Rebuilding civic understanding is slower work, but it’s the only thing that actually holds.
Political marketing strategies have evolved. Education is essential to challenging all-or-nothing thinking and getting beyond the idea that personal identity must be defined by a political party.
I think you’re right — and I suspect we’re working from a very similar place. A belief that citizens are better served by context than by certainty, and by understanding than by alignment.
What I appreciate about the work you’re doing is that it resists the pull toward all-or-nothing framing. When identity becomes fused to party or position, the space for learning collapses. Fact-grounded, balanced presentation doesn’t eliminate disagreement, but it does make disagreement more honest — and more humane.
In that sense, this kind of work isn’t about persuading people what to think, but about restoring the conditions that make thinking together possible in the first place. That’s slow, often unglamorous work — but it’s essential.
I agree. It's not about making anyone agree or disagree—it's about providing reliable and honest information to spark discussion or form a decision. Facts remain facts regardless of political affiliation and personal identity transcends any political party. Slow and steady. And glamorous if you're brave enough to do a podcast! =)
Ha — slow and steady is exactly it.
I agree with you completely: it’s not about persuading people toward a position, but about creating space where decisions are made with information rather than identity doing all the work.
And yes, maybe one day I’ll be brave enough for a podcast 😉 For now, I’m content working in the slower, quieter lanes — wherever the medium lets context breathe and facts stay intact.
I appreciate the work you’re doing, and the ethic behind it. We’re clearly rowing in the same direction.
Yes, again, you've identified a huge issue. Given the digital times we live in, perhaps your idea of 'kitchen table' discussions should be a 'digital' kitchen table - to accommodate greater numbers - like a banquet hall - multiple tables? A digital Civics quick reference? Perhaps a video series posted on YT or a podcast? A Civics website? But, there is a need for Q&A and discussions ...
Kathleen, I think you’re absolutely right about the need — and I appreciate how clearly you’re sketching out the range of possibilities. The appetite for civic learning hasn’t disappeared; if anything, it’s growing, especially outside formal classrooms.
The obstacle, as I see it, isn’t ideas or platforms so much as mandate. Right now, there’s no institution in Canada whose primary responsibility is to provide accessible, unbiased, pan-Canadian civic education for adults across regions and political cultures. Post-secondary institutions, provincial education systems, and even Elections Canada all touch pieces of the puzzle — but none are positioned, or incentivized, to take on that comprehensive role.
As you note, people who are already motivated can find excellent resources. What’s missing is the connective tissue: something that reaches beyond the already-engaged and treats civic literacy as shared infrastructure rather than niche interest.
I suspect any real progress would require an unusual coalition — perhaps philanthropic or corporate sponsorship tied to long-term institutional credibility, rather than short-term messaging. Something closer to a public-interest investment than a traditional program rollout. That’s not easy terrain, but it may be where movement is most plausible right now.
In the meantime, I’m trying to think carefully about scale — how to create spaces that invite learning without pretending one project can solve what is, at root, a structural gap. Your comment is a helpful reminder of why that question matters.
This has got me wondering if the "civic literacy gap" could partly be addressed through a single book, sort of like the user manual your referred to? Or how about a TV reality show? There's some good way to spend CBC taxpayer money.
I agree with Glen — short, accessible civic tutorials delivered through public media, including social platforms and television, could make a real difference. We’ve done this before with historical vignettes, and the model still works.
It’s also worth being clear about limits. In Canada, education up to and including K–12 is entirely a provincial responsibility, so the federal government has very little ability to mandate civic education in schools. That said, canada.ca already hosts clear information explaining which tier of government is responsible for what. The gap isn’t content so much as reach and repetition. Public-facing civic education is one area where the federal government can act — without crossing jurisdictional lines.
The loss of orientation is visible when reading the daily Hansard. MPs are increasingly using their "Statements by Members" time to discuss strictly municipal issues like local road maintenance or school board decisions. It suggests that because constituents have lost the map of who is responsible for what, federal representatives feel forced to act like city councillors just to show they are listening.
Yes — and this is where the civic literacy gap becomes actively consequential. When people lose a clear sense of which level of government is responsible for what, that confusion doesn’t just surface organically — it gets used.
MPs can safely perform concern over municipal or provincial issues because they know constituents won’t always distinguish jurisdiction. Provinces and municipalities, in turn, are quick to point at Ottawa for everything from development fees to taxes. Each tier benefits from the blur when accountability becomes portable.
That’s what makes the loss of orientation so damaging. It doesn’t just confuse citizens — it reshapes political behaviour itself.
Another great post. I've found the same issue with my own grown children. Their shakey understanding of the differing responsibilities between the municipal, provincial and federal gov't.
Yes — that’s exactly it. Seeing the misalignment show up in our own homes and communities is hard enough. What’s more troubling is how widespread it is.
One of the most sobering takeaways from the Electoral Reform Committee’s cross-country consultations was just how deep the civic literacy gap runs in Canada. What they heard wasn’t apathy, but confusion about who is responsible for what — a loss of orientation that now shows up everywhere, even in Parliament itse
This is an excellent post. There is a deep need for us to be civically literate, because we are citizens. Not just taxpayers. Not just stakeholders. Not just consumers of education, consumers of healthcare. We are citizens. Above all. That brings responsibilities AND rights. We very much need to be fully aware of both: our responsibilities to be alert and informed, to vote, to make sure justice abounds for every citizen including us, because the fabric of our city and province and nation ( civitas) will otherwise unravel. We have rights, as citizens, to equality under the law, to security of person, to freedom of religion, and on and on. And we want to be as large and complex in our identity as we can be: not just a consumer of education, for example, but a student, learner, and citizen. Not just a taxpayer, but someone alert for how those taxes are allocated, entitled to that information— a citizen. Thank you Leni!
Such a great and vital post Leni! There was a great interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice (retired) Souter back in 2012 at a Civics Conference at UNH. He predicted the arrival of a Trump-like figure, which was really prophetic. But the key was his concern of the loss of civics education, having peaked in the U.S. in the 70's and implications of it's decline. I think it's instructive and adds to your post in that he suggested that when people don't know how government works, they don't feel they have any agency to change it.
That mindset provides an opening for an authoritarian figure to arrive and say "I alone can fix it", which gets them elected. You can see this reflected in the election of people like Trump, Pollievre's popularity, UPC actions in Alberta, etc. While STEM is definitely important, our education system fails to prepare our young folks for core life skills like emotional intelligence, personal finance and, above all, how our governments are structured and their span of control.
If you have 90 mins and are feeling nerdy, I highly recommend watching the interview. It's as applicable to Canada as it is to the U.S. https://youtu.be/yVJhXQB1TAk?si=_SMpt0OUAHshcKCW
Keep up the great work! Really enjoy your thoughtful posts.
I really enjoyed this post Leni. Read it earlier today while my daughter was swimming at a swim meet. I think I have work to do to make sure she understands how our government works.