From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Social programs: Manning vs Redick: who's correct?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:03:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct03.151352.11175@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>CBC Radio reported this morning that Preston Manning, in his speech to
>a group of Sasketchewen farmers, said that the constitutional proposals
>will increase spending on universal social programs forever.
>
>I thought Judy Redick of the NAC said the proposals will lead to the
>disintegration of universal social programs and that was the number one
>reason the NAC came out on the No side.
>
>Here I am, unable to understand (let alone even recognize all the
>words) anything in my VCR owner's manual, do not understand the
>Consensus Report, don't know who to believe, Mulroney or Trudeau, and
>I'm being fed even more contradictory comments. So I appeal to the net
>for guidance.  Please couch your explanation in pedestrian language so
>that those of us who have to walk rather than drive can understand.
>And, oh, speak slowly, since I need time to distinguish between
>platitudes vs. analysis, propaganda vs. facts, and conjectures vs.
>extrapolations.
>
>One simple question: how will social programs be affected if the
>                     proposals are adopted into our constitution?
>

In my opinion, in this case, Judy Rebick (and NAC) or Deborah Coyne's group
are closer to the truth.  The federal spending power, the instrument
that created pensions and health insurance has been gutted...under
Charlottetown, the federal government still may spend in areas of
provinicial jurisdiction, (this is what is commonly meant by the
federal spending power), but provinces may opt out and take the
money if they have a program which has similar objectives...(the
key word here is "objectives" and not "standards".)  Any new social
programs and increasingly the old ones will become like a patchwork
quilt...good social programs in rich provinces and poor social programs
in poor provinces...with much less involvement by the federal
government, and much more whining from the rich provinces about
the funds necessary for equalization.  

The only mechanism the federal
government will have left to equalize the quality of social programs
will be through equalization transfers rather than direct transfers
for a particular program, but even here the federal government has
increased the provincial control over the mechanism of determining
equalization (Section 5)...and as with the obstinacy of premiers in maintaining
trade barriers, I see no reason why a person in a poor province should
expect a premier of a rich province to be more generous to a poor 
province than a prime minister...the prime minister at least has to
try to get votes in the poor province...the premiers of rich provinces
don't.  

The problem of "objectives" over "standards" will be critically
important when it comes to training, which the federal government is
is vacating and making an exclusively provincial power in Charlottetown...
...the quality of training programs in poor provinces compared to
rich provinces will almost be totally dependent on equalization because
of the restrictions on the federal spending power...and premiers from
rich provinces will have a greater say over equalization.

...and it leaves
open the possibility that provinces will not recognize the training in
other provinces on the basis of incompatible standards or quality, 
and thus inhibit labour mobility...the premiers have
been obstinate against the common market for free movement of goods,
services, people, and capital, and obstinate in wanting to maintain
a whole list of trade barriers.  So the gutting of the federal spending
power, with opting out for "objectives" rather than "standards", and
the increased input of premiers from the rich provinces over
equalization, means poorer social and training programs in poor provinces,
and perhaps a lack of portability and mobility for citizens of the
poor provinces especially with respect to training.


The thing Manning may be alluding to...is that we are not told how
the third order of government, aboriginal governments, are to be
funded...this is completely open-ended, but to raise the issue directly
risks one being called a racist...

Also, Manning may be referring to two new tribunals,
...a massive bureaucracy to monitor the
social charter, and another massive bureaucracy to maintain the
premiers' vision of an economic union...i.e. with plenty of trade
barriers....these are hidden in two of those asterisks (political
accords)

Also, the provisions for unrestricted interdelegation of powers, i.e.
multilateral and bilateral consitutionally protected agreements between
first ministers (government by decree instead of by law...section26)
will probably massively increase the size of the bureaucracy in
Intergovernmental Affairs departments across the country, and
create massive headaches for business in deciding whom is responsible
for what...since these agreements can be on anything, on any federal
power, and be with one, two, or all the provinces...       
...section 26 means the proliferation and not the elimination of
duplication and overlap...plus it add general chaos.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics