three times that of non-aboriginal youth.
But then again, it seems many of us just don’t give a damn.
4
CANADIAN SOCIAL POLICY
COMPARED TO MOST OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, WE ARE A DISGRACE, OUR POLICY “AN UTTER DISASTER”
“A ppalling” is the only way to describe Canada’s social spending to assist children, low-income households, the needy elderly, the sick and disabled, the unemployed, and other disadvantaged persons who need help. Compared to most other developed countries, we are a disgrace. The National Council of Welfare has described social policy in Canada as “an utter disaster.”
When all federal, provincial, and municipal social spending is added up, Canada is way down in 25th place among the 30 OECD countries in terms of social spending as a percentage of GDP. (The Unites States, the world’s wealthiest nation, is in 26th place, beating out only Ireland, Turkey, Mexico, and Korea). 1
In May 2007, Save the Children also put Canada down in 25th place in terms of how our society treats children, and we’re at the very bottom of another list of OECD nations when it comes to our investing in early learning.
Heading the list in overall social spending as a percentage of GDP is Sweden, at just over 31 percent, followed by France at 28.7 percent, and Denmark and Germany at 27.6 percent. Canada, the world’s ninth largest economy, fell from almost 21.3 percent of GDP in 1992 (before Paul Martin as finance minister began his massive cutbacks) all the way down to 17.3 percent of GDP in 2003. This 4 percent drop amounted to about $57.85-billion in 2006. If Canada’s social spending rose to match just theaverage spent by the 15 countries of the European Union, our increase in spending on education, health care, child care, the alleviation of poverty, labour training, public housing, etc., would be more than $95-billion.
While Canada’s social spending fell, all the following countries increased their social spending: France to 28.7 percent of GDP; Germany to 27.6 percent; Austria to 26.1 percent; Portugal to 23.5 percent; Poland to 22.9 percent; Greece to 21.3 percent; the Czech Republic to 21.1 percent; Switzerland to 20.5 percent; the United Kingdom to 20.1 percent; Iceland to 18.7 percent; and Australia to 17.9 percent.
Slightly down from their previous levels of social spending, but still well ahead of Canada, were Sweden at 31.3 percent, Norway at 25.1 percent, Luxembourg at 22.2 percent, and the Netherlands at 20.7 percent. Bringing up the rear in social spending were the United States at 16.2 percent of GDP, Ireland at 15.9 percent, Turkey at 13.2 percent, Mexico at 6.8 percent, and 5.7 percent for Korea.
During the period 1990 to 2002, only six OECD countries decreased their social spending as a percentage of GDP, and Canada was one of them. And in a 2006 updated OECD report on social spending, most countries with a lower per-capita GDP than Canada were devoting more to social spending as a percentage of the economy than we were.
So, good old compassionate Canada is near the bottom of the list in social spending. What a bunch of hypocrites we’ve had in Ottawa. All of the above comparisons must be considered in relation to the steady stream of public opinion polls that clearly show most Canadians put social programs near the top of their list of priorities, far ahead of tax cuts, debt repayment, defence spending, and the economy. Just before the 2007 Conservative budget, a Strategic Counsel poll showed 50 percent of Canadians believed that increased government spending on social programs should be the most important priority, while only 19 percent supported tax cuts. Yet what we got were tax cuts, and later in the year even more tax cuts, with paltry benefits going to individual taxpayers.
It’s worth noting that in the three years after Paul Martin became minister of finance, federal transfers to the provinces fell by $8.2-billion and federal social spending dropped by another
But then again, it seems many of us just don’t give a damn.
4
CANADIAN SOCIAL POLICY
COMPARED TO MOST OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, WE ARE A DISGRACE, OUR POLICY “AN UTTER DISASTER”
“A ppalling” is the only way to describe Canada’s social spending to assist children, low-income households, the needy elderly, the sick and disabled, the unemployed, and other disadvantaged persons who need help. Compared to most other developed countries, we are a disgrace. The National Council of Welfare has described social policy in Canada as “an utter disaster.”
When all federal, provincial, and municipal social spending is added up, Canada is way down in 25th place among the 30 OECD countries in terms of social spending as a percentage of GDP. (The Unites States, the world’s wealthiest nation, is in 26th place, beating out only Ireland, Turkey, Mexico, and Korea). 1
In May 2007, Save the Children also put Canada down in 25th place in terms of how our society treats children, and we’re at the very bottom of another list of OECD nations when it comes to our investing in early learning.
Heading the list in overall social spending as a percentage of GDP is Sweden, at just over 31 percent, followed by France at 28.7 percent, and Denmark and Germany at 27.6 percent. Canada, the world’s ninth largest economy, fell from almost 21.3 percent of GDP in 1992 (before Paul Martin as finance minister began his massive cutbacks) all the way down to 17.3 percent of GDP in 2003. This 4 percent drop amounted to about $57.85-billion in 2006. If Canada’s social spending rose to match just theaverage spent by the 15 countries of the European Union, our increase in spending on education, health care, child care, the alleviation of poverty, labour training, public housing, etc., would be more than $95-billion.
While Canada’s social spending fell, all the following countries increased their social spending: France to 28.7 percent of GDP; Germany to 27.6 percent; Austria to 26.1 percent; Portugal to 23.5 percent; Poland to 22.9 percent; Greece to 21.3 percent; the Czech Republic to 21.1 percent; Switzerland to 20.5 percent; the United Kingdom to 20.1 percent; Iceland to 18.7 percent; and Australia to 17.9 percent.
Slightly down from their previous levels of social spending, but still well ahead of Canada, were Sweden at 31.3 percent, Norway at 25.1 percent, Luxembourg at 22.2 percent, and the Netherlands at 20.7 percent. Bringing up the rear in social spending were the United States at 16.2 percent of GDP, Ireland at 15.9 percent, Turkey at 13.2 percent, Mexico at 6.8 percent, and 5.7 percent for Korea.
During the period 1990 to 2002, only six OECD countries decreased their social spending as a percentage of GDP, and Canada was one of them. And in a 2006 updated OECD report on social spending, most countries with a lower per-capita GDP than Canada were devoting more to social spending as a percentage of the economy than we were.
So, good old compassionate Canada is near the bottom of the list in social spending. What a bunch of hypocrites we’ve had in Ottawa. All of the above comparisons must be considered in relation to the steady stream of public opinion polls that clearly show most Canadians put social programs near the top of their list of priorities, far ahead of tax cuts, debt repayment, defence spending, and the economy. Just before the 2007 Conservative budget, a Strategic Counsel poll showed 50 percent of Canadians believed that increased government spending on social programs should be the most important priority, while only 19 percent supported tax cuts. Yet what we got were tax cuts, and later in the year even more tax cuts, with paltry benefits going to individual taxpayers.
It’s worth noting that in the three years after Paul Martin became minister of finance, federal transfers to the provinces fell by $8.2-billion and federal social spending dropped by another
Similar Books
