Canadian Review of Social Policy (CRSP) / Revue canadienne de politique sociale (RCSP)

Editorial/Éditorial

Mullaly, Bob

Worker Cooperatives in Theory and Practice, by Mary Mellor, Janet Hannah and John Stirling

Soulet, Marc-Henry

Le rôle des politiques sociales dans un stratégie de changements socioéconomiques

Pulkingham, Jane

Community Development in Action: Reality or Rhetoric?

Tudiver, Neil

Employee Assistance Plans: Who Benefits?

Special Editorial/Éditorial spéciale: From the Conservative Ill-Fare State to a Renewed Welfare State

Clarke, John

The Rae Government and The Poor: 
Dashed Hopes and Broken Promises 
John Clarke 
Provincial Organizer, 
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty 
A short while ago, Premier Bob Rae made a speech at the Ontario Institute 
for Studies in Education that marked a pivotal moment in his conversion to 
neoconservatism. In a particularly candid frame of mind, he addressed the 
question of 'welfare reform'. His comments have sent shock waves through 
the ranks of his supporters and former supporters. Doing his best Archie 
Bunker impersonation, the NDP Premier of Ontario told his audience that, 
when it comes to the 1.2 million Ontarians on welfare, "we can't continue to 
pay people to sit at  home." When pressed on the thoughts of Bill Clinton 
around cutting recipients off after two years, Rae suggested that the new 
President's notions were "not a million miles away from what we are looking 
at." 
Of course, we're not shocked to know that politicians have such views. 
Ontario Tory Leader, Mike Harris, says this kind of thing on a routine 
basis. Local county reeves say infinitely more inflammatory things all the 
time. But these rednecked musings came from a New Democrat and an 
individual who has had no lack of experience in allying himself with the 
demands and aspirations of the poor. What lies behind this devastating 
transformation? The systematic abandonment of the NDP's 'social justice 
agenda' can't be explained at the level of a clinical examination of their 
social policy orientation. To get to the root of the Government's backsliding, 
it's necessary to place the matter in its political context. During the last 
election, I attended a rally in St. Thomas, Ontario of unemployed auto 
workers. Then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae addressed the crowd and 
outlined a very definite perspective with regard to defending the needs of 
the vulnerable in the face of the economic recession that was , at that time 
starting to develop. Rae made it very clear that he was not out for any 
radical confrontations with the rich and powerful, but, at the same time, he 
stressed that an NDP Government, if it couldn't eliminate the suffering or 
prevent job loss, would at least 'stand up to the vested interests.' That, I 
would argue is exactly what Rae and his Government have failed to do. 
It's quite clear to those of us in the anti-poverty movement that a very 
definite 'corporate agenda' is at work in this Province and throughout North 
America. All barriers to capital mobility and 'competitiveness' are being 
74 No. 31, 1993 
Canadian Review of Social Policy 
removed and social programs, especially those relating to income mainte- 
nance, are being targeted for destruction. The economic depression has 
advanced the speed of this process, but at the same time, we are dealing 
with an ongoing process of 'structural adjustment' that will not be halted 
by whatever economic recovery starts to emerge. Mass unemployment and 
a mounting need for social assistance support has become a fact of life for 
the foreseeable future and just as surely U1 and welfare are on the chopping 
block. The major business lobbies demand the knife for Unemployment 
Insurance and welfare with mounting insistence. They know well that the 
ability of t,he unemployed to collect benefits of even the most modest kind 
limits the capacity of employers to drive down wages and compete with the 
Mexican maquilladoras. They know that the option of single parents or the 
disabled to withdraw from the labour market on long term 'family benefits' 
programs undermines the overall vigour of the low wage ghetto. They are 
demanding cuts to  and the eventual destruction of these programs, and any 
government that might resist is in for a rough ride. 
Into this political crucible came Bob Rae and his fellow advocates of a 
kinder, gentler social contract. At the beginning of the decade, Rae would 
often insert into his speeches a line about 'the love we owe each other." 
When, as Premier, he tried this out on Bay Street, they informed him that 
they had given at the office and had no intention of letting the Government 
of the largest province in the country take a stand against their blueprint 
for international success. When the NDP's first budget, in 1991 tried in 
a thoroughly timid way to 'fight the recession not the deficit,' the corpo- 
rate lobby went wild. In addition to their conventional pressure methods 
lilie downgrading credit ratings and moving out investment, we saw actual 
'bluesuit' demonstrations of business leaders and stockbrokers on the lawn 
at Queen's Park. (When they all assemble in one place, they can actually 
make a crowd!) Early on in its mandate, then, the NDP was confronted 
with a choice between fighting for its 'Agenda for People' or caving in to 
precisely the 'vested intersts' it had vowed to stand up to. Being a parlia- 
mentary shadow boxer, Rae has never entertained a serious social struggle 
of this kind. Abject surrender to the 'vested interests' was an option he 
preferred and that's just what we have seen from his Government. 
The scale of the political capitulation has been breathtaking. Even 
though t,he Ontario debt load is far less daunting than that of many other 
provinces, the NDP Government has gone over to straight Tory rhetoric 
in the area of 'fiscal restraint.' We are 'mortgaging our future' and 'bor- 
rowing from our Mastercard to pay off our Visa card,' the Premier never 
tires of telling us. It's striking that the resulting austerity measures are 
invariably directed towards those who have the least to sacrifice. The pre 
election platform of the NDP advocated tax reforms that would have seen 
No. 31, 1993 75 
Revue canadienne de politique sociale 
minimum corporate taxes, speculation taxes and wealth taxes. Some esti- 
mates put the revenue that might have been generated in this way at about 
$7 billion (a  nice dent in the $12 billion 'out of control' deficit). None of 
these measures, however, have been taken. Instead, we have seen drastic 
cuts to health and social services. Transfer payments to municipalities, 
universities, schools and hospitals have been hacked. This has had an espe- 
cially sharp effect on poor people and welfare recipients. The local welfare 
administrations, having to partly fund social services, under the Ontario ar- 
rangement, have unceremoniously slashed discretionary programs covering 
anything from medical and dental needs to rental and hydro payments for 
recipients. 
Nowadays, if the poor seek the education that Bob Rae tells them is 
the key to their rehabilitation in society, they will find the institutions of 
learning cash strapped and will suffer as a result of the NDP's decision to 
eliminate student grants in favour of a loans system. If they are sick, a 
chunk of the Ontario Drug Plan has been cut and their options are reduced. 
If they check into a hospital, they will find bed closings and staff cuts will 
hit them hard. With mass layoffs in the public sector on the horizon, this 
undermining of services can only be expected to worsen. 
It's probably in the area of social assistance reform, though, that the 
NDP has opted for a course of action that most completely contradicts the 
promises and philosophy of their past. The pre-election 'Agenda for People' 
spoke of the need to provide decent and adequate income for those on social 
assistance. That has gone out of the window. In Metro Toronto alone, 
160,000 people line up at food banks each and every month. Yet this year, 
the Government chose to increase welfare payments by only a miserly one 
percent. With inflation reckoned in the 2.5 percent range, this is a cut in 
spending power. It will be a matter of historical record that it was a New 
Democratic Party Government that actually began the job of cutting the 
adequacy of welfare in Ontario, a truly staggering development. 
It's not, however, simply a matter of some trimming of the cheques, as 
vile as such a move is in and of itself. The NDP is moving in the direction of 
an overtly right wing or corporate model of welfare reform. It is lining up 
with the 'workfare' direction being followed by many other North American 
jurisdictions. The anti-poverty movement recently obtained and leaked a 
Government document that offered us an inkling of what Rae and his co- 
horts mean by 'welfare reform.' The document lays out plans to "ensure 
that social assistance is transformed into an active labour market strategy." 
The Social Assistance Review Committee's original idea of a system of vol- 
untary 'opportunity planning' is rehashed and steered in a most unsavoury 
direction. Training schemes, counselling services and direct job placements 
would be forced upon welfare recipients. Those who spurn their share of 
76 No. 31, 1993 
Canadian Review of Social Policy 
the 'mutual responsibility' would have their benefits reduced. It tales very 
little imagination to realize that we are dealing here with precisely the kind 
of indentured servitude that has been sanctioned by Quebec's infamous Law 
37. It's not just that some new expectation of looking for worlr would be 
created for the unemployed on welfare. Section 3 of the General Welfare 
Assistance Act is already most clear on the obligations it imposes on recip- 
ients to look for worlr. No, what we are dealing with here is a category of 
sub-employee who has been handed over to the employer and who, should 
he or she earn that individual's displeasure, faces a return to welfare at an 
even lower rate of benefits than previously. 
For some recipients, however, job seeking is a new issue in this docu- 
ment. It suggests that single parents should be forced to talce employment 
once their children reach a certain age. A suggestion of twelve years old as 
the cut-off point is floated. This is highly interesting, since under the State 
of Georgia's Bill 85, single parents refusing to take low paying jobs would 
face the loss of their Aid to Families of Dependent Children benefits if their 
kids were twelve or older. 
The document is also anxious not to let the disabled off the hook. It 
talres issue with the recommendation of the Government's own Advisory 
Group that there be "two categories of beneficiaries . . . persons with dis- 
abilities and everyone else." The authors contend that such an outlooli can't 
be tolerated "if social assistance is to be an active labour market strategy 
and . . . a more inclusive approach may be more suitable." This sounds 
ominous but somewhat vague. Clarification, however, comes soon. The 
authors pose the question, "should mutual responsibility expectations be 
structured to respond to the degree to which a person's disability creates a 
vocational impairment?" In other words, many disabled people would be 
forced to take a place in the low wage ghetto. At the moment, if you call 
the Pizza Pizza company in Toronto and place an order, you will actually 
be put through to someone working for a less than handsome reward out of 
their home. These homeworker dispatchers are often disabled. This is but 
one example of the brave new world of 'mutual responsibility' that Bob Rae 
and his friends are developing. 
Of course, this kind of response to government debt, the pressure from 
business and the realities of the 'jobless recovery' of the '90's is not unique to 
the Rae regime. But it's significant that this social democratic Government 
has been shown to offer no protection to the poor. At street demonstrations 
these days, the chant is often taken up of "Hey, Rae, what's the story - 
You've been acting like a Tory!" That rather says it all. The Federal To- 
ries are slashing provincial transfers and Unemployment Insurance. Rae 
contributes to  the process by cutting social services and refashioning the 
Ontario welfare system into a direct conduit into the cheap labour ghetto. 
No. 31, 1993 77 
Revue canadienne de ~o l i t i aue  sociale 
He and his Government are laying the groundwork for the even more vigor- 
ous attacks that we can expect from the Liberals or Tories who will inherit 
his job. The sharp reality, in fact, is that poor people in Ontario are already 
dealing with a Tory Premier (though we hope that his Party's rank and file 
have not yet had their final say on this). 
I don't want to present the situation as hopeless. If the history of 
social legislation and policy is examined, it's fairly readily apparent that 
providing assistance to the unemployed and poor has never hinged on the 
kind-heartedness of those in political power. Unemployment relief was 
forced out of governments in the '30's by restive social movements. Welfare 
has always been as adequate as it had to be to prevent social unrest and as 
inadequate as those in power felt they could get away with. Today in On- 
tario, people are again taking to the streets to defend social services, UI, and 
welfare. As this occurs, it's a sad comment on the real value of Bob Rae's 
'social justice agenda' that the poor people and their allies find themselves 
on a collision course with his wretched excuse for an NDP Government. 
No. 31, 1993 


English

The Rae Government and the Poor: Dashed Hopes and Broken Promises

Jennisen, Theresa

Farewell to Welfare? 
A review of Benoit Bouchard's 
Speech to the OECD 
Therese Jennissen 
School of Social Work 
Carle ton University 
Introduction 
The gradual erosion of Canada's social security system is not a recent 
development. For years governments have been cutting back on social pro- 
grams - social assistance, pensions, unemployment insurance and family 
allowances benefits, to name a few. Only recently however, has the federal 
government begun to publicly acknowledge its plans to fundamentally re- 
structure the welfare state. With the public's concern focused anxiously on 
the national debt and the threats posed by globalization and international 
competitiveness, the Tory government may see this as an opportune time 
to embark on a public debate over "modernizing" Canada's social welfare 
system. 
For the past few months we have known that a white paper proposing 
major changes to the direction of social policy was being prepared jointly by 
the Ministers of Health and Welfare (Benoit Bouchard) and Employment 
and Immigration (Bernard Valcourt). Although the White Paper has yet 
to be released,l Minister Bouchard spoke about the "new orientations for 
social policy" in a speech to the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) last December 1992.~ This speech provides us 
with some idea of what would likely form the basis of the White Paper. 
The "new" directions for social policy outlined in the Bouchard speech are 
discussed below. 
Minister Bouchard's Speech 
Context  of proposed changes 
The minister cast his speech in the context of a rapidly changing world. 
Canada's integration into the global economy, for example, has added stress 
to our small-scale industrial production and resource-based industries. Cur- 
rently Canada and other industrialized nations are plagued with high rates 
of unemployment, slow economic growth, slow productivity, and high levels 
of consumer and government debt. Combined with these economic changes 
are transformations in the socio-demographic structure of Canada. Over 
84 No. 31, 1993 
Canadian Review of Social Policy 
the past two decades three major socio-demographic trends have developed 
in Canada and are expected to continue for some time. These trends are: a 
large increase in lone-parent families, a large increase in women's participa- 
tion in the paid work force, and the gradual aging of the population as the 
birth rate declines and life expectancy  increase^.^ The economic and socio- 
demographic changes have put tremendous pressure on our social security 
system, which, the Minister argues, needs to be adjusted accordingly. 
Future policy directions 
What are the future directions for social policy that are being proposed? 
The speech outlines three broad areas for policy reform that have been 
identified by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. They include: 
breaking the spiral of dependence by providing people with the means 
to participate more fully in the workforce; 
making programs more flexible so that they can be tailored to meet 
individual needs; 
maintaining and strengthening income support for those who are not 
able to work.4 
To attain these objectives, the Health and Welfare Minister argues, 
Canada must "vigorously pursue new orientations to its social and labour 
market p ~ l i c i e s . " ~  To begin the process of public discussion a (white) paper 
is being prepared which will focus on the following eight central concepts. 
l. Social investment: 
This refers to strategies that prevent dependence on the state for finan- 
cial support. For example, training and retraining programs that prepare 
people adequately for the labour market can prevent future dependence on 
unemployment insurance and social assistance. 
While "social investment'' appears to be a positive notion, we need to 
Itnow more about how it will be operationalized. What happens to people 
who cannot work - people who are disabled or elderly? How does self deter- 
mination for Aboriginal peoples fit with this concept? How does the social 
investment principle work for people who are discriminated against on the 
basis of race or gender or both? Who will get the training/retraining and 
how will these programs promote equality for women, the visible minority 
population, Aboriginal Canadians in the labour force? How will language 
training or retraining of immigrants be accommodated? 
2. Fiscal sustainability: 
Fiscal sustainability means that social programs must operate within exist- 
ing fiscal constraints. The best way to do this, Minister Bouchard argues, 
No. 31, 1993 85 
Revue canadienne de politique sociale 
is to put resources toward social investments that reduce long-term depen- 
dency. 
Although fiscal sustainability is defined by the Minister as a corollary to 
social investment, it is likely to operate against the idea of social investment. 
If programs are driven primarily by fiscal considerations how can we be 
assured that even the most basic programs and services will endure? 
3. Greater coherence and integration: 
Bouchard argues that greater coherence and integration between policies 
and programs is "essential in assuring the best possible results from the 
use of scarce resources, and that what is required is a flexible system of 
programs that is people-~riented."~ The problem with this is that it can 
easily be used to continue cutting back and "streamlining" social programs 
and services. 
4.  Partnershzp: 
This refers to partnership of governments, the private and public sectors and 
between the individual and the state. Bouchard states that "no partner can 
be accorded the status of omniscient provider. The contributions of each 
partner - be it government or employer - needs to be focused on the issue 
a t  hand in a collective and coordinated e f f ~ r t . " ~  
The idea of partnership means a reduced role for the state in the pro- 
vision of social policies and an increased role for the private sector. Most 
of the improvements in the economic and social status of equality-seeking 
groups, however, have been achieved in the public arena (i.e., through leg- 
islative changes), and not through private sector initiatives. 
5. Greater individual responsibility: 
The Bouchard speech states that "[tlhere are mutual obligations and re- 
sponsibilities implicit in relations between the state and the individual. As 
a two-way relationship government should provide support with the under- 
standing that individuals should take advantage of the opportunities such 
support provides. However, this does not mean that the state relinquishes 
itself of responsibility to provide support for those who cannot support 
themselves, such as the severely d i ~ a b l e d . " ~  
This policy direction has serious implications for underprivileged Cana- 
dians. We know that many groups (e.g., women, visible minorities, Abo- 
riginal Canadians, people with disabilities, the elderly, people living in 
depressed regions in Canada) are disadvantaged economically and socially, 
and as a result are more dependent on the social welfare system in order 
to survive. Greater individual responsibility is not a solution to  structural 
social problems and it stands in contradiction to the concept of social in- 
vestment. 
86 No. 31, 1993 
Canadian Review of Social PoIicv 
6. Equality of opportunity: 
An important focus of the new directions for social policy is on equality 
of opportunity as opposed to equality of income. It is unclear, however, 
how the new direction will improve equality of opportunity given the gen- 
eral direction of the policy reorientation. A key barrier to equal labour 
force participation for women, for example, is the lack of affordable, reliable 
child care yet it is unlikely that this will be part of the new social policy 
orientation. 
7. Forward looking: 
The new orientation to social policy, Bouchard states, should be forward 
looking and "not be caught in a debate on yesterday's solutions to yester- 
day's problems."g It is unclear from the speech, however, precisely where 
the innovative ideas lie. 
8. Gradual implementation of reform: 
The final issue that the Minister addresses is that reforms should be imple- 
mented gradually. 
Conclusion 
The fundamental message in Benoit Bouchard's speech is that we can no 
longer afford our social security system and we have to move people off of 
it. State support will be replaced with increased self-reliance, individual 
initiative, and private sector involvement. It is clear that we are witnessing 
a shift from the philosophic base that has established the welfare state over 
the past century. Although the policy directions are framed in terms of 
"modernization" and "new orientations" this direction is anything but new; 
rather it harkens back to the last century. In social policy terminology, it 
represents a move away from an institutional form of welfare to a residual 
one. The speech provides some general guidelines for how social policy in 
Canada will be reoriented but it is not clear how exactly this will be done. 
T4Je will have to see what the White Paper proposes. 
1. It is unclear when/if the White Paper will be released in this session of Par- 
liament given the impending Conservative Party leadership convention, the 
federal election, and Bouchard's recent decision not to run in the next federal 
election. 
2. "Canadian Paper on New Orientations for Social Policy," Speech given by 
the Minister of Health and Welfare, Benoit Bouchard, at the Meeting of the 
Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Committee at the Ministerial Level 
A U 
on Social Policy, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
Paris, France, December 8-9, 1992. 
No. 31, 1993 87 
Revue canadienne de politique sociale 
3. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 3. 
4. "New Orientations for Social Policy," pp. 8-9. 
5. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 9. 
6. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 9. 
7. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 9. 
8. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 10. 
9. "New Orientations for Social Policy," p. 10. 
No. 31, 1993 


Farewell to Welfare? A Review of Benoît Bouchard's Speech to the OECD

Csiernik, Richard Paul

The Value of Employee Assistance Programming

Swanson, Jean

B.C.: How has the NDP government 
treated people who are poor? 
Jean Swansnn 
End Legislated Poverty 
Vancouver, British Columbia 
Since the NDP was elected in B.C. in the fall of 1991, there has been good 
news and bad news for people who are poor. On the positive side, the 
government has done the following things: 
a It funded universal, non stigmatizing lunch programs for schools in low 
income areas; 
a It ended forced employment for single parents on welfare (before this 
change single parents were forced to look for work or training regardless 
of the number and ages of their children. Now the operative word is 
"choice". Single parents on welfare are not forced to look for work or 
train; 
a The earnings exemption for people on welfare was increased to $100 a 
month for single people and $200 for families. After that, people on 
welfare can keep 25% of what they earn; 
a The three year time limit for people on welfare to attend university or 
college and be able to stay on welfare has been ended for single parents 
and handicapped people; 
a The Ministry of Social Services allocated $1 million dollars for welfare 
advocacy groups to apply for. Many have received grants to help them 
function; 
a The Ministry of Social Services funded End Legislated Poverty, the 
B.C. coalition that has been constantly pushing the government to raise 
welfare rates to the poverty line and minimum wages to at least $9.05 
an hour. 
a The asset exemption for people on welfare has increased from as low as 
$5 for transients to $2,500 and to over $5,000 for people with children. 
This means that people don't have to exhaust virtually every penny 
before applying for welfare; 
a Unlike Ministers in previous governments, the Minister of Social Ser- 
vices, Joan Smallwood, is not badmouthing poor people; 
a The Ministry is making an effort to improve the treatment of people 
on welfare when they go to welfare offices. Training programs that bring 
No. 31, 1993 
Canadian Review of Social Policy 
people on welfare together with front line worlrers and supervisors have 
started. 
It is possible to talk to government about small changes that are needed 
and be listened to. For example, the government made a rule that 
all staff and volunteers of non profit groups who accepted Ministry 
volunteers for the Community Volunteer Program had to have criminal 
records checks. This proved to be a disaster because many felt that it 
was an invasion of privacy and also because many groups had volunteers 
working with them who were sentenced to do community work. The 
community groups hollered, the Ministry heard, and the policy was 
changed. 
These changes have been made at a time when the unemployment rate 
in B.C. is 10 to 11 percent, when federal cuts to U1 have put even more 
people on welfare, and when the welfare case load is higher than it has ever 
been. In December, 1992, over 300,000 people in B.C. were dependent on 
welfare, over 100,000 of them children. B.C. is also operating within the 
"cap on CAP". The federal government has limited increases in payments 
to provinces for welfare by 5 percent, in spite of the huge caseload increase, 
and in spite of the fact that people on welfare have incomes that are about 
50 percent of the poverty line. 
Partly because of these pressures, there's also bad news in the B.C. 
NDP's treatment of the poor. The bad news is: 
Welfare rate increases have been barely noticeable, and in some cases 
don't even meet the cost of living. This is the major item that would 
improve the lives of the 300,000 people on welfare; 
The minimum wage is going up too slowly to make a dent in poverty. 
Labour Minister Moe Sihota told End Legislated Poverty that he would 
like to get the minimum wage up to 125 percent of the poverty line (over 
$9.00 an hour) within the government's term. So far he raised it from 
$5 to $5.50 and has announced an increase to $6.00 to take effect on 
April 1st. At this rate, the minimum wage will only reach $7.00 or $7.50 
within the government's term. Increasing minimum wage is a way to 
reduce poverty without costing taxpayers a cent; 
The government has done nothing to deal with a housing crisis for low 
income people, not only in the cities, but throughout the province. 
Rent control is another way for governments to reduce poverty without 
costing taxpayers a cent. While some legislation regarding tenants is 
expected in the next session, rent control is not expected. 
The focus of the Ministry of Social Services seems to be trying to 
do what they can to make things humane "within exisitng resources," 
No. 31, 1993 65 
Revue canadienne de volitiaue sociale 
rather than working to develop public support for policies, like taxing 
the rich and corporations, that would increase the resources they have 
to  work with. 
The government doesn't seem to understand that the free trade deals 
will make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to implement an eco- 
nomic strategy that will create jobs and maintain and improve the 
public services that we need. Or, if they do understand this, it isn't 
coming across loud and clear. Smallwood is an exception. She chaired 
a forum on the North American Free Trade Agreement in March and did 
explain that the deal would make poverty worse and reduce the means 
government had of coping with it. The government is publicly opposed 
to  NAFTA, but hasn't voiced similar opposition to the Canada-U.S. 
deal. While they have set up an all-party committee to hear briefs on 
NAFTA, it is extremely low profile. Groups active in the BC branch of 
Action Canada Network have been pushing the government to examine 
ways in which free trade will limit their powers to create employment 
and deal with increasing welfare caseloads, among other things. It's 
possible that they are slowly becoming more aware of the need to  chal- 
lenge free trade. We'll see in the coming months. 
It  is gratifying to  have a government that even makes small positive 
changes. But some of us keep hoping that this government would be more 
than that-a government that sees the need to challenge the corporate 
agenda of low welfare, low wages, free trade, deficit hysteria, public service 
cuts, competitiveness, and low taxes on the rich; a government that would 
make powerful allies with the other NDP provinces to challenge this agenda, 
not use its language. 
With jobless growth the buzzword of the future, with the Canada Assis- 
tance Plan rumoured to be on the chopping block, with Bill C-69 about to 
end provincial funds for health and post-secondary education, with U1 cuts 
forcing more people onto welfare, and with free trade giving transnational 
corporations most of the control over investment, job creation, andservices, 
there won't be much left that elected governments, accountable to  us, can 
do to reduce and end poverty. 
Thousands of Canadians are trying to  build a social movement that 
will end these corporate agenda policies and replace them with co-operative 
policies that redistribute wealth a ~ ~ d  power more equally. It would be nice 
to  have some governments help out. 
No. 31, 1993 


B.C.: How has the NDP Government Treated People Who Are Poor?

Not a member yet