Search results

The caselaw has found healthcare systems firmly subject to Article 49, yet education systems not so. Both are important public services, and subsidised from the public purse, but in the cases decided they were organised differently. One was provided through a market-like mechanism, the other directly from the State. It is not the social importance of the service, nor the motives or character of the provider or recipient or payer that determines when Article 49 applies. It is the nature of these parties' behaviour. As States use market behaviour ever more in public services, we may therefore expect an expansion of the application of Article 49 to welfare. Many restrictions will be found, because of the essentially national nature of welfare, but many will be justified and irremovable by the Court. In the end only legislation can create cross-border markets for welfare.

During the mid-1960s, the governments of the United States and Canada each declared "war" on poverty. The former venture has received far greater scholarly attention, and for obvious reasons: its high-profile inception, the broader spirit of Great Society liberalism that it embodied, the profound crisis of American society and politics within which it soon became embroiled, the rapidity with which its prescriptions and hopes were extinguished. By comparison, the Canadian War on Poverty seems an unimportant venture, and one that lacks the stuff of which drama is made. It has, accordingly, been neglected by scholars on both sides of the 49th parallel.

Compares the respective "wars" on poverty declared by the US (the New Frontier-Great Society) & the Canadian government (Canadian liberalism) during the mid-1960s, & discusses the roles of federalism & public sensibilities concerning welfare. The effect of US policy, publicized by media coverage, on the Canadian movement is given particular attention. It is argued that the policies of both countries were driven largely by factors other than poverty -- in the US, by racial strife, changing party alignments, & the increasing power of the federal government; & in Canada, by the effects of minority government, reactions to policy in the US, & the upheaval in Quebec. 1 Table. W. Mills

Access to children orders are an expression of hope for the future, conditional upon events and relationships over which the law can have little control. 'Enforcement' is likely to be clumsy, unproductive and not in the child's best interests.