The Truth About Canada by Mel Hurtig Page A
Authors: Mel Hurtig
Tags: General, Political Science
Ads: Link
$4.2-billion. By2000/2001, federal program spending as a share of GDP had fallen to 11.6 percent, the lowest level in 50 years! 2 Back in 1989, social spending accounted for 59 percent of total federal government spending. By 2007, it was down to only 49 percent.
Of course, as Ottawa chopped transfers to the provinces, the provinces, led by Ontario’s Mike Harris and B.C.’s Gordon Campbell, slashed their own social spending. One result has been the pitiful levels of welfare payments we have had in this country for many years, as we shall see shortly.
The race-to-the-bottom impact of both the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement (FTA) and North American free-trade agreement (NAFTA) is an important factor in all of this. And for the future, provisions in these “trade” agreements and Jean Chrétien’s and Paul Martin’s foolish promises to Quebec will combine to make important and desirable new national social programs such as a national pharmaceutical plan almost impossible.
As we’ve seen, in continental Europe, poverty has been reduced by 40 percent through enlightened social spending. In the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, the impact has been even greater. As for Canada, the United Nations Committee on Economic and Cultural Rights called it right when it released its third highly critical report about Canadian social policies in 2006. It made clear that “governments in Canada have not really committed to the recognition of social and economic rights as fundamental human rights.” The UN committee complained about the fact that it was obliged to raise exactly the same points it highlighted in its 1993 and 1998 reports, and lamented the Canadian failure to implement its earlier recommendations. The Canadian NGO human-rights advocates who made submissions to the UN committee in Geneva argued, “In light of Canada’s unrivalled economic and fiscal health, it is clear that Canada has chosen to permit the poorest people in the country to live at a level of misery that undermines their human dignity and violates their fundamental human rights.” 3
How could this have happened? As many of us had warned, the level playing field required by the FTA and NAFTA inevitably brought usdown much closer to the uncaring American model. For as long as I can remember, Canadians have always taken for granted that social policy in our country has been, and will continue to be, very different from that of the United States. But this said, it is undeniable that thanks to the FTA and NAFTA, Canadian social policy today has moved closer to American standards and away from the more compassionate policies of most European OECD countries.
Next time you hear some Neanderthal describing Canada as a socialist welfare state, refer them to the pages you’ve just read. Next time you hear someone say that we don’t have enough money for health care or education or social spending to help lift families out of poverty, tell them they should spend some time studying what almost all other developed countries do in terms of their social responsibility.
Let’s compare what has been the situation in Canada for far too many years with what has recently happened in France, where a 2007 law makes housing an enforceable right, like health care and education. Beginning in 2008, the law will apply to the homeless, to single mothers, and to poor workers. By 2011, it will include all those living in poor-quality or unhealthy homes. And in Scotland, there is now a legally enforceable right to housing, committing government to supply housing for those who require it by 2012.
The excellent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) paper on tax revenues points out that
Every just society must protect the vulnerable: children, the elderly and those with disabilities.
In the Nordic countries, pensions replace 66.6% of the salaries of pensioners. In Canada it’s 57.1%. In the United States it’s 51%. 4
Compare this with Finland, where it’s 78.8%.
Of course, as Ottawa chopped transfers to the provinces, the provinces, led by Ontario’s Mike Harris and B.C.’s Gordon Campbell, slashed their own social spending. One result has been the pitiful levels of welfare payments we have had in this country for many years, as we shall see shortly.
The race-to-the-bottom impact of both the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement (FTA) and North American free-trade agreement (NAFTA) is an important factor in all of this. And for the future, provisions in these “trade” agreements and Jean Chrétien’s and Paul Martin’s foolish promises to Quebec will combine to make important and desirable new national social programs such as a national pharmaceutical plan almost impossible.
As we’ve seen, in continental Europe, poverty has been reduced by 40 percent through enlightened social spending. In the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, the impact has been even greater. As for Canada, the United Nations Committee on Economic and Cultural Rights called it right when it released its third highly critical report about Canadian social policies in 2006. It made clear that “governments in Canada have not really committed to the recognition of social and economic rights as fundamental human rights.” The UN committee complained about the fact that it was obliged to raise exactly the same points it highlighted in its 1993 and 1998 reports, and lamented the Canadian failure to implement its earlier recommendations. The Canadian NGO human-rights advocates who made submissions to the UN committee in Geneva argued, “In light of Canada’s unrivalled economic and fiscal health, it is clear that Canada has chosen to permit the poorest people in the country to live at a level of misery that undermines their human dignity and violates their fundamental human rights.” 3
How could this have happened? As many of us had warned, the level playing field required by the FTA and NAFTA inevitably brought usdown much closer to the uncaring American model. For as long as I can remember, Canadians have always taken for granted that social policy in our country has been, and will continue to be, very different from that of the United States. But this said, it is undeniable that thanks to the FTA and NAFTA, Canadian social policy today has moved closer to American standards and away from the more compassionate policies of most European OECD countries.
Next time you hear some Neanderthal describing Canada as a socialist welfare state, refer them to the pages you’ve just read. Next time you hear someone say that we don’t have enough money for health care or education or social spending to help lift families out of poverty, tell them they should spend some time studying what almost all other developed countries do in terms of their social responsibility.
Let’s compare what has been the situation in Canada for far too many years with what has recently happened in France, where a 2007 law makes housing an enforceable right, like health care and education. Beginning in 2008, the law will apply to the homeless, to single mothers, and to poor workers. By 2011, it will include all those living in poor-quality or unhealthy homes. And in Scotland, there is now a legally enforceable right to housing, committing government to supply housing for those who require it by 2012.
The excellent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) paper on tax revenues points out that
Every just society must protect the vulnerable: children, the elderly and those with disabilities.
In the Nordic countries, pensions replace 66.6% of the salaries of pensioners. In Canada it’s 57.1%. In the United States it’s 51%. 4
Compare this with Finland, where it’s 78.8%.
Similar Books
