00166-allmand

8/14/2019 00166-allmand

1/5

Is There a Future for

Progressive Policies in Canada?The Honourable Warren Allmand

President, International Centre for Human Rightsand Democratic Development

James R. Mallory Annual Lecture in Canadian Studies

November 13, 1997

I first of all want to thank the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and those r esponsible for the Mallory lectures for their

kind invitation to be part of this series named after an outstanding Canadian scholar in the field of public administration. The

subject suggested and agreed to for this evening is Is there a future for progressive policies in Canada? The implication in the

title is that progressive policies are either in decline in Canada or they have been seriously wounded.

If we define progressive policies as ones that contribute to the increased well-being of the general population, then I agree.

Such progressive policies have been in decline in Canada since approximately 1984, and have been under serious attack since

1975. Following the second World War until 1975, progressive policies were in ascendency. Aprogressive society was being

built.

McGill Institute for

the Study of Canada

LInstitut dtudes

canadiennes de McGill

3463 Peel, Montral,

Qubec H3A1W7

tel: (514) 398-8346

fax: ( 514) 398-7336

General

1941 Unemployment Insurance

1944 Family Allowance

1945 White Paper on Full Employment

1951 Universal Old Age Security1957 Hospitalization

1960 Bill of Rights

1966 Medicare

1966 Canada Assistance Plan

1966 Canada Pension Plan

1966 Guaranteed Income Supplement

1967 Department of Consumer Affairs

1968 Canadian International Development Agency

1968 Divorce Reform

1968 Criminal Code amendments (Pierre Elliott Trudeau):

guns, homosexuals, abortion, contraceptives, lotteries

1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women and

policies for gender equality

1973 Recognition of aboriginal land claims

1973 Foreign Investment Review Act

1976 Abolition of capital punishment

1977 Canadian Human Rights Commission

1977 Established Programmes Financing

1982 Repatriation, Amendment formula and charter of

rights

1982 Equality Rights: S.15

1982 Aboriginal Rights: S.35

Culture

1950 National Film Board1957 Canada Council

1967 Film Development Corporation

1968 Canadian Radio & Television Commission

Energy

1959 National Energy Board

1975 PetroCan

Environment

1970 Environment Department

1960-70 Ten new national parks

Independence/Nationhood

1947 Citizenship Act

1949 Supreme Court of Canada

1952 Canadian Governor General

1956 Peacekeeping1965 Flag

1969 Official Languages Act

1971 Multiculturalism policy

8/14/2019 00166-allmand

2/5

This was indeed the golden age of progressive policies in Canada and, having been elected in 1965, I was proud to have been a

party to many of these policies, to have had the opportunity to promote, defend, and to vote for such policies until 1984.

However, around 1975, the world and Canada started to change. It is not entirely clear what triggered the change, but suddenly

there was growing opposition and even hostility to these same policies. There are several possible explanations:

-- the impact of the (4) OPEC price increases in oil between 1973 and 1979;

-- increasing deficits after 1975 (some think linked to the energy situation);

-- perceived abuses in the welfare system (no mention of tax abuses);-- the increasing intellectualization and organization of the political right.

i.e.: the emergence of Milton Friedman and his disciples (Free to Choose, 1980), and the establishment of big business fi-

nanced think tanks, such as the Fraser Institute. At the same time we had the election of Margaret Thatcher (1979) and Ronald

Reagan (1980). We also had a new generation active in politics who had not experienced the dirty thirties and/or forgot why

these social policies were there. With the election of the Conservative government in 1984, the reversal of policies was quickly

put into motion, although the Liberal and NDP opposition in Parliament still put up a strong defence. There were cuts to U.I.,

clawbacks on O.A.S., the elimination of F.I.R.A., deregulation, privatization, and proposals for free trade. We were told that these

cuts, policies, were in fact progressive and good for the general population, that there would be more jobs, a better life, less

tax, more disposable income, that wealth in an expanding economy would trickle down to almost everyone. No need for

government intervention.

At the time several of us attacked these policies as pure rhetoric, false, misleading, and lacking in substance. We said that such

policies would reduce jobs and purchasing power, push more people into poverty, create unrest and polarization in Canadian

society, and add a social deficit to an unresolved financial deficit. We said that these attacks on the social safety net and national

cultural institutions would undermine national unity by in effect stripping away the national glue which for years bonded our

country together. Not only did these arguments make no impact on the Conservative government pr ior to 1993, but they were

abandoned by the Liberal government after 1993, which made a total about-face. The answer given by the government and by

my colleagues was affordability. They said that, with the deficit as high as it was, we could no longer afford these programmes

at the same level. This was despite the fact that in the 1993 election and platform (the Red Book), the Liberal party attacked the

Conservatives for such policies, saying that the deficit must be addressed, but principally by growth and jobs; in other words, by

generating more revenue.

It is interesting to note that on February 21, 1995, Paul Martin admitted in the House of Commons that social programmes were

not the cause of the deficit, and in fact were the same percent of GDP as 20 years ago. I must say, to be fair, that in this respect

my Liberal friends were different from the Reform Party in Canada and the Newt Gingrich Republicans in the U.S. My Liberal

colleagues believed that these social programmes were right and good, but for the moment, not affordable. The Reformers and

others would cut them or eliminate them, because they thought they were wrong, that they were wasteful, that they required too

much government, that we should be self-reliant. I make this distinction, because for Liberals we do not have to prove that

these programmes are desirable, simply that they are still affordable.

This has not been an easy task, because most of the country was conned into believing otherwise. It is evident that major

interests systematically waged a successful campaign to convince Canadians, Americans, and others, that these cuts, thesechanges, were necessary. Unfortunately, that belief became so entrenched in our collective thinking that very few people even

challenged it. Our argument in response was that these programmes in health, education, and social services were not only

affordable, but essential to increased growth, stability, and economic prudence over the long-term. We pointed out that Canadi-

ans were spending billions on liquor, cigarettes, cosmetics, diets, pet food, fashions, holidays, swimming pools, jacuzzis, lawn

furniture, boats and skidoos, and on and on. There was nothing wrong with any of these products, but when you consider the

millions spent on them, it is difficult to argue that we could not afford health care, education, day-care and pensions. Busi-

nesses certainly believed that we could afford those products just mentioned, because they were continually hammering us with

ads, on radio, television, in newspaper s, magazine, in subways, on the highway, to buy, buy, buy and if you are shor t of cash,

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada | LInstitut dtudes canadiennes de McGill 2

8/14/2019 00166-allmand

3/5

borrow or use credit. They do not question the affordability of these items by Canadians.

So the real issue is one of priorities. What is more important for Canadian society - lawn furniture or day-care, Club Med or

Medicare, skidoos or pensions? Furthermore, how long can you sustain private consumption without healthy, well trained

workers and consumers? And without an efficient public infrastructure?

What has been the result of this lean-mean approach? It is correct that GDP has increased, there is greater productivity, moreexports, more wealth, but the equitable distribution of that wealth has declined. The gap between rich and poor has widened,

child poverty has increased dramatically, more people live on the street, hospitals are closing, and the most of the new jobs are

minimum wage, part-time, temporary, no benefits. The trickle-down theory has not worked as promised. In 1993, the National

Council of Welfare repor ted that an additional 500,000 Canadians fell under the poverty level, even though the economy was

expanding. This trend has continued since 1993. In 1996, Canada spent less on social programmes than any western country

except the U.S., Greece and Switzerland. In 1995, John McCallum, Chief Economist for the Royal Bank, pointed out that between

1966 and 1989, over a per iod of 23 years, real per capita income increased every year, because more people were working,

and real wages were rising. But in the next five years, from 1989 to 1994, per capita income fell, the percentage of those

employed fell, and the income of those with jobs fell.

Michael Lind, writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, attributed the growing gap between rich and poor to the growth of theglobal economy and free trade, especially to the globalization of the labour pool which resulted in downward pressure on

wages and social programmes. He pointed out that in the U.S. in 1994, while 20% made gains in the economy, 80% lost. We

had a similar picture in Canada, that is with respect to wages and income support programmes. What about our tax system?

Between 1990 and 1994, personal income taxes in Canada rose to become 70% of federal revenues, while corporate taxes

decreased from 25% of federal revenues in 1955 to 7% in 1992. By 1996, Canada had the lowest corporate taxes of all G7

countries. Recently, 62,000 Canadian corporations which made over $12 billion paid no tax. In 1996 Canada ranked 14th of 24

OECD countries in terms of total taxes paid. This ominous trend has not stopped. In a report released this month by the Cana-

dian department of Human Resources Development, it was indicated that there was a growing gap between the health of the

economy and the well-being of Canadians. The Report stated that since the late 70s, improvements in the economy have not

been matched by increases in the social well-being of Canadians. In fact, it shows that as the economy has grown, Canadians

social health has declined. In terms of social well-being, Canada experienced its best years in the later 1970s.

During the Free Trade debate of 1988, many of us argued that the agreement as drafted would result in pressure to harmonize

social, labour, and environmental programmes with those of the United States, to reduce them to the lowest common denomi-

nator, and that in fact is what has happened and what has been happening. With globalized trade, more Canadian firms are

out-sourcing their manufacturing and supplies to escape labour and environment standards, and to make larger profits, and

they are downsizing at home for the same reasons. Very often they can do abroad what they cant do at home. They cooperate

with governments which ignore the Inter national Bill of Rights, including the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Next week the APEC heads of government will meet in Vancouver. This international trade association of 18 countries describes

itself as a grouping of economies, not states and by this fiction pretends to have no obligations under international labour

and human rights treaties, and maintains that these items have no place on their agenda. As a result the International Centre forHuman Rights and Democratic Development with the Canadian Labour Congress and Amnesty International is or ganizing a

parallel peoples summit and a labour forum, just before the official summit where we hope to hear the views of unions, NGOs

and civil society from many of these same countries. We have already had some interesting reactions from the leaders of some

of these countries, such as Indonesia and China.

So the alarm bells have begun to sound. Important statements are being made by workers and commentators. The public is

beginning to see the damaging results in their own neighbourhoods. The results of a new poll by EKOS Research indicates that

Canadians are upset with the widening gap between rich and poor and almost three-quarters believe the situation has deterio-


8/14/2019 00166-allmand

4/5

rated in the last five years. Seventy-two percent said it is time for Ottawa to patch up a social safety net stretched by cuts and

still-high poverty and unemployment. The r esults differ from a similar poll in February 1994, shortly after the Chrtien govern-

ment was first elected. Then, debt and deficit reduction was Canadians top priority and there was a higher demand for tax cuts.

It is interesting to note that in this years federal election, Atlantic voters finally rebelled against these non-progressive policies

which hurt them more than others. The government lost every seat in Nova Scotia and endured considerable losses in New

Brunswick and Newfoundland where key ministers were defeated. As I stated earlier there have been new proposals, ideas and

solutions put on the policy table. The Tobin tax, the ILO draft declaration on the r ights of labour, the draft declaration on therights of the indigenous peoples, codes of international business conduct, and expanding global networks of civil society, labour

and NGOs.

But what is the future for these progressive ideas in terms of public policy? Can and will these ideas be translated into popular

programmes for political action? This remains to be seen. We certainly cant expect the culture of greed and the quick buck

to roll over and surrender without a fight. Although even businesses are beginning to complain about corruption, favouritism,

and the absence of the rule of law in some of the global markets.

The recent crash in Asian finance markets and the BRE-Xscandal are also leading to some rethinking. For the moment there

doesnt seem to be much response in the Canadian Parliament (nor for that matter in any western parliament). Unfortunately in

the last three parliaments there was a decline in the power of MPs in the Canadian system and too much power, too much

control has been centralized in the Prime Ministers Office. Dissidents, or those who would take a different approach were nottolerated. This has come about as a result of several changes.

1. Amendments to the Elections Act which gives the leader the r ight to veto any nomination.

2. The speakers cooperation with whips and leaders in accepting lists of members who will ask questions, debate, make

statements, and the screening of questions.

3. Power of the whip to change committee membership at will.

4. Reduced time for statements in the House ( 90 to 60 seconds) .

5. Closure and the allocation of time.

6. The Caucus research bureaus serving the Parties and not the member s.

The claims that Parliament has been seriously reformed are grossly exaggerated. As I just pointed out, the opposite is the case.

The only item where some progress has been made is with respect to private members bills. In this case some bills can now

come to a vote, and they are dealt with on a free vote basis. But even here, the whip and the House Leader intervene when they

dont like the bills content. In the last parliament I was able to get a bill (liability of nuclear power plants for risk of accident,

meltdown) accepted as votable by the special committee and by the House at second reading. It was sent to committee but died

there when the election was called. The most notable such bill in the last parliament was one by Roger Galloway (Sarnia) who

got his bill through all stages in the House, but it was sidetracked in the Senate and never got through.

Whether the present parliament will have more power remains to be seen. In Parliaments where the government is a minority

or only a small majority, MPs generally have mor e power. I saw this in 1965, 1972 and 1979. If governments dont listen to their

backbenchers they might stay away or vote against. However, as I said above, it is too early to assess whether or not backbench-

ers and opposition members will use this clout in this parliament. I referred to this situation in parliament simply to indicatethat it may not be easy to get a hearing, a debate, on the new ideas, the new policies, the new demands, which are rising to the

surface from critical writing and grass-roots discontent.

The question is whether governments and power elites will be flexible enough to modify and change direction, to alleviate the

increasing misery of growing numbers of people, or will they be forced to do so by strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience,

and even violence? Will the mainline political parties take up these causes, or will they be left to more extreme, radical parties

as happened in the past in certain other countries?

My own conclusion is that there will be a change; that there is a future for progressive policies in Canada, but it wont happen


8/14/2019 00166-allmand

5/5

without a struggle, without organization, without a strategy and especially without global partners in a global political forum.

The struggles for economic and social justice which took place within states in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries will now

have to take place in a global arena with world-wide solidarity in unions, NGOs and civil society. This is the only way in which

the new millennium will mean real progress for all of mankind.


The Honourable Warren Allmand, P.C., was called to the bar of Quebec in 1958, and was firstelected to the House of Commons in the riding of Montreal-N.D.G. in 1965, retaining his seat in

Parliament until 1993. As a member of the Liberal governmnet, he was minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (1977-1979) and of Indian and Northern Affairs (1976-1977), and was the

Solicitor General of Canada (1972-1976). He is currently the president of the International Centre

for Human Rights and Democratic Development, an independent, non-partisan Canadian institu-

tion with an international mandate to initiate, encourage and support the promotion, development

and strengthening of democratic and human rights and programs as defined in the International

Bill of Human Rights.

00166-allmand

Documents