Is There a Future for

McGill Institute for Progressive Policies in Canada?

the Study of Canada
L’Institut d’études
The Honourable Warren Allmand
canadiennes de McGill President, International Centre for Human Rights
and Democratic Development
3463 Peel, Montréal,
Québec H3A 1W7
tel: (514) 398-8346 James R. Mallory Annual Lecture in Canadian Studies
fax: (514) 398-7336
November 13, 1997

I first of all want to thank the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and those responsible 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. A progressive society was being
built.
General 1982 Equality Rights: S.15
1941 Unemployment Insurance 1982 Aboriginal Rights: S.35
1944 Family Allowance
1945 White Paper on Full Employment Culture
1951 Universal Old Age Security 1950 National Film Board
1957 Hospitalization 1957 Canada Council
1960 Bill of Rights 1967 Film Development Corporation
1966 Medicare 1968 Canadian Radio & Television Commission
1966 Canada Assistance Plan
1966 Canada Pension Plan Energy
1966 Guaranteed Income Supplement 1959 National Energy Board
1967 Department of Consumer Affairs 1975 PetroCan
1968 Canadian International Development Agency
1968 Divorce Reform Environment
1968 Criminal Code amendments (Pierre Elliott Trudeau): 1970 Environment Department
guns, homosexuals, abortion, contraceptives, lotteries 1960-70 Ten new national parks
1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women and
policies for gender equality Independence/Nationhood
1973 Recognition of aboriginal land claims 1947 Citizenship Act
1973 Foreign Investment Review Act 1949 Supreme Court of Canada
1976 Abolition of capital punishment 1952 Canadian Governor General
1977 Canadian Human Rights Commission 1956 Peacekeeping1965 Flag
1977 Established Programmes Financing 1969 Official Languages Act
1982 Repatriation, Amendment formula and charter of 1971 Multiculturalism policy
rights
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 prior 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, these
changes, 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 newspapers, magazine, in subways, on the highway, to buy, buy, buy and if you are short of cash,

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada | L’Institut d’études canadiennes de McGill 2
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, more
exports, 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 reported 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 period 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 Harper’s Magazine in 1995, attributed the growing gap between rich and poor to the growth of the
global 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 can’t do at home. They cooperate
with governments which ignore the International 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 for
Human Rights and Democratic Development with the Canadian Labour Congress and Amnesty International is organizing a
parallel people’s 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-

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada | L’Institut d’études canadiennes de McGill 3
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 results differ from a similar poll in February 1994, shortly after the Chrétien 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 year’s 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 rights of labour, the draft declaration on the
rights 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 can’t 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-X scandal are also leading to some rethinking. For the moment there
doesn’t 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 Minister’s Office. Dissidents, or those who would take a different approach were not
tolerated. This has come about as a result of several changes.

1. Amendments to the Elections Act which gives the leader the right to veto any nomination.
2. The speaker’s 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 members.
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 member’s 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
don’t like the bill’s 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 more power. I saw this in 1965, 1972 and 1979. If governments don’t 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 indicate
that 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 won’t happen

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada | L’Institut d’études canadiennes de McGill 4
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 first
elected 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.

McGill Institute for the Study of Canada | L’Institut d’études canadiennes de McGill 5