Explain Why Might Federalism In Canada Make Protecting The Environment Difficult

At this point in time a new proposition has been offered by those within Upper Canada, a new idea meant to divide Canada even further. Upper Canada has gone on to show their intentions to divide the government according to the areas of Upper and Lower Canada. A government should be a unifying presence, yet many wouldn’t be too opposed to this as a government meant to focus on the affairs of the different conditions would sound rather beneficial, yet, this is where the problem lies.

Through my research I found that Canada’s provinces and territories act in a similar way to the individual states within the United States. The provinces enact government responsibilities, properties, and task. Some of their responsibilities include establishing healthcare and educational system for their residents. All provinces are unicameral, utilize a parliamentary, and have officials who are elected using first-past-the-post electoral system. The provinces include: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Labrador, Prince Edward Islands, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. There are three territories which are the Northwest territories, Nunavut and Yukon which all include their own legislatures but

government is not the only government that has power; provincial governments have a role in

Their powers are authorized by the provincial government. Provinces and territories restrict municipalities in many ways and provide them with rules and regulations to set a basic framework for them. The amount of money spent, and strategies used are monitored through their intergovernmental relations. Their main concern is to provide the adequate services that individuals within their community need and use on a daily basis. These include emergency services (ambulance, fire services, etc.), child care (daycares), environmental services (recycling,

The need for government reform in Upper and Lower Canada was created because of the incompetent way the government managed the country, a lack of representation in the government, a lack of understanding of the colonist's in Upper and Lower Canada, and discrimination towards the French in Lower Canada. Numerous colonists arrived to Upper and Lower Canada to begin a new life with a proper government however, the government in Canada did not satisfy their needs.

There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not

The BNA act had to determine what the federal and provincial government would be in charge of in the new country. The federal government passes laws that will be followed by the entire country, while the provincial government passes laws for their specific province only. The federal government is in charge of: the Public Debt and Property, the Regulation of Trade and Commerce, the Raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation, postal Service, militia, military, naval service, defense, navigation and shipping, currency and Coinage, banking, Incorporation of Banks, the Issue of Paper Money, bankruptcy and Insolvency, Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians, naturalization and Aliens, marriage and Divorce, and the Criminal Law. The provincial Government is in charge of; direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes, The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon, The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licenses in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purpose The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province, Property and Civil Rights within the Province, The Administration of Justice in the Province, Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province. If one party does pass a law that intrudes on the

As the United States have set federal water and sanitation in Canada these are set in provincial/territorial jurisdiction (CWWA 2012). Within the Constitution Act, 1867, the provinces have the right to any water resources that fall within their boundaries and must manage the water efficiently (Victora 1876). Each province has its own legislation related to water resources, water supply and the environment. Within each provinces and territories they are charged for developing and enforcing all legislation pertaining to municipal and public water supplies while the Canadian governs navigable water and marine waters mostly (CWWA 2012) Pertaining to the legislation for water, the provinces have a public utility commission or board

It has been argued that Canadian environmentalism occurred in a series of waves throughout the countries growth and development. Upon colonization the Canadian landscape was abundant in resources, the opportunities limitless. Over the course of a century industrialization had swept the nation. The rapid depletion of resources initiated the development of numerous private organizations that sought to control, maintain, and ensure longevity of such resources. This force would continue to reshape along with the industrial demands and ever-changing landscape. It is imperative to provide context regarding the evolution of the environmental movement that took place in Canada, in order to comprehend the role non-governmental organizations played

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.

Government: Ontario has a different type of government than us. To start that they have a different “headquarters” than us. Their ‘headquarters’ is in Toronto. As if ours is in Washington, D.C, as we all know is in the white house. They started their government in 1867 or before. We started ours in 1776-1789. 1789 was when the USA came together as an independent country. That is when we started creating a new constitution, and establishing its national government. In order to start their traditional rights, American Patriots took control of the colonies and started a war for independence.

The power struggle has always been a fight within Canada, due to the vast size of the country. Over the years the government has done a good job of satisfying/subsiding certain regions concerns, and/or issues. Obviously the government cannot please everyone, thus resulting in the constant debate of Centralist VS. Decentralist. Centralists believe that a majority of the power, strength, and control should remain in Ontario, and Quebec; where as, Decentralists believe that the power should strengthen all the provinces, and ripple down to the other periphery regions. The National Policy implemented in 1879 by the Conservative Federal Government was brought in to help the Canadian economy; however, there were a couple of downsides for many Canadians.

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

The difference between the division and separation of powers is small. The Division of power is one of the most important aspects of the Constitution. This role is dividing power between the state and Commonwealth parliaments. This division is separated into three powers, Residual, Concurrent, and Exclusive. Residual powers are those powers that the states have in areas such as, health, transport and policing, concurrent powers are those shared between the commonwealth government and state governments. Areas such as Medicare funding .The Exclusive powers are those powers granted only to the Commonwealth of Australia parliament. . Example in the Commonwealth of Australia Vs. The state of Tasmania (1983) the commonwealth blocked the state from constructing a hydroelectric dam in the world heritage listed Gordon river. The state claimed it was unconstitutional for the commonwealth to block the dam because power generation was an area of state responsibility. The commonwealth then argued that it did have power to block construction because Australia was signatory to the convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (1972) it argued that because this international agreement stipulated

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.