From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Social programs: Manning vs Redick: who's correct?
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:16:46 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

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.
  [ ... ]
>One simple question: how will social programs be affected if the
>                     proposals are adopted into our constitution?
>Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada

  As usual, both are perfectly right, and equally wrong ... how you might
ask?

  The Accord does little to impede or enhance any social program. Most
direct references are 'not justiciable' which means you can't go to the
courts with a slick lawyer and get something the next day like for example
the extension of married benefits to alternative living partners that used
the Charter and Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently.

  It may change slightly the rules under which it comes about, but no
particular set of rules has ever stopped a concerted drive to achieve a
particular goal that enough people wanted.

  In paricular, it will be easier to get certain programs started in
provincial jurisdictions, say if Saskatchewan suddenly decides something
would be a good thing. If it could convince enough other provinces to
go along with it, or as usual, as governments of similar persuasion come
to power in other provinces they start to borrow ideas. At some point
there is enough critical mass, the provinces with programs try to get
enough on side to have the program declared a national (7/50) item and
get the federal government to pay for it.

  On the otherhand, it will be far harder to get a single government of
a particular persuasion to create a federal program from scratch and
have it quickly implemented and imposed on the provinces. It can do it
just as quickly and effectively as now if everyone is in agreement
however.

  Bottom line, things are easier to do locally, and with a bit of time
good or even mediocre ideas will probably spread into national programs
at a rate that might astound the naive and unsuspecting electorate. But
the big instant top down programs will become like constitutional deals 
to get pushed through.

  In short, the popular will of the electorate will drive the process
but either the time, or the concerted need will probably result in a
slightly more efficient (tried and true) or necessary program.

  Note the same can be said for economic programs, but here the need to
deal internationally rather than internally, and consequently the need
for a greater role of the federal government in initiating programs may 
lose by the failure to clarify or enhance federal powers. My wish here
would have been to give the feds more power, but use the 7/50 first
ministers conferences or Senate to provide the check and balance.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics