Federal Spending Power

The society one lives in today is controlled by the flow of money. The use of wealth dictates the entire world, and as a result, power, success, and improvement come with the logical and thoughtful control of money. So why does Canada strive for success if the government can’t cut funds towards useless motions? The Canadian government should fund the military less. As of 2016, the Canadian government spent $19 billion, roughly 1.35% of Canada’s total GDP funding the military. Recent political debate has run into this topic: is spending $19 billion on the Canadian military logical? The disposition of this argument held in this essay believes it is not, and subsequently believes significant cuts in the military’s budget need to be made. The reason

Definition: Money granted by the federal government to state and local governments, with strict limitations on how it is to be spent.

The relationship between the Canadian government and Quebec has been in constant turmoil for years. This paper will discuss and critique Quebec’s five demands made in 1986 by the Liberal government and their current implications. Reasonable demands are ones in which a limited amount of asymmetrical federalism grants provincial sovereignty. Currently all provinces have certain guaranteed rights, however Quebec’s rights provide more autonomy. Quebec, though home to the largest population of French speaking Canadians, have asked too much of the Government of Canada. This is evident Quebec’s increased control over immigration, Supreme Court Justices appointment, and their veto on future constitutional negotiations. Conversely, the demand of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is however reasonable and has been accommodated into Canadian society, and the ability to restrict federal spending power keeps the federal power in check. In this essay, I will discuss each demand, and argue whether or not it is reasonable.

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

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has made some controversial decisions in key cases in Canada’s past. When looking at the Canadian Founders intent for Canadian Federalism, many scholars argue that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has done a bad job following the founders’ intentions and intentionally decentralized Canada. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did fail in keeping in line with what the founders intended for Canada and may have even intentionally set out to decentralize the Canadian government, but this does not mean it had a negative impact on Canada. There are a number of cases that were seen by the JCPC that played a vital role in the decentralization of the Canadian government, yet

Short Essay – Policy-making in the Federal System. The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the great diversity of interests across the U.S. to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of federalism, e.g., what limits on national power can be derived from the 10th Amendment?

The Federal government is responsible for insuring equal distribution and accessibility of health care services to citizens though they are not the only party that shape the policies of Canada’s healthcare but also the influence of doctors, health professionals, political parties, and businesses are also used (Canadian Stakeholders, n.d., para 2). The 1984 Canada Health Act outlines the requirements that provincial governments must meet. However; since there is not a descriptive list mentioning insurance services in the Act, the insured services in provinces vary creating a power shift (The Canada Health Act, 2005). Provinces also control the licensing of hospitals as well as doctors,

Fred Cutler and Matthew Mendelsohn’s article “Unnatural Loyalists or Naive Collaborationists? The governments and Citizens of Canadian Federalism”, delved into a compelling analysis of Canadian citizens and federalism. In a country of much diversity, as discussed in lecture, it is difficult for citizens to hold the ‘right’ government accountable because of the blame shifting each level of government does. To give an illustration, this article briefly touches upon the propaganda the provincial and federal government use to shift blame on one another for policies such as healthcare and education. However Cutler and Mendelsohn go one step further and analyze if Canadian citizens are able to judge policies without allowing their provincial status

Yet the strings on the public purse continue to tighten. Transfer payments from the federal government continue to decrease as provincial debt loads increase. And, although the minister of health and the premier assured them that the costs of health care were doubling or even tripling, Albertans have witnessed a steady decline in government spending on health care. The proportion of gross domestic product, (GDP), which Alberta allocates to health care is ranked last among the ten provinces, (Taft, 1997). Albertans now find themselves with a struggling health care system and a waiting list.

The conservatives ran on making the government less inscrutable to the public and ensuring a greater degree of liability to the public (para. 6). However, the conservatives soon began implementing contradictory policies and legislation, and in some instances non-legislation (para. 7). The author states the creation of the “Parliamentary Budget office” (para. 7) was laudable, but the subsequent obstruction that occurred countered any benefits from its creation (para. 7). The author goes on to describe several other instances of contradictory legislation in regards to electoral reform, violations of “citizens privacy” (para.7), disregard of “science” (para.7), etc. (para. 7). Furthermore the conservative’s steadfastness in relation to the scope of government was a detriment in some instances such as the “Canada Pension Plan” (para. 9), which had wide support amongst the populace (para. 9). Despite the contradictory nature of the legislation it too was merely one of many reasons for the conservative

Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers.

The Canadian constitution divides power between the provincial and federal levels. Division of power is used in a democracy society and has resulted division of responsibilities. For an example, provinces have jurisdiction over non-renewable resources, oil, electricity generation and forestry, however the federal government responsibilities include fisheries, navigation and international waters. This division of power may have been helpful for certain environmental issues however not, when it comes to regulation of the water. This is because, there are multiple levels of government that control the water (Olive, 2016). Division of powers, instead of a national policy

A second cause is the disunity among Canadian national and provincial jurisdictions which have made reforms very difficult. This disunity has been encouraged by neo-liberalism which in turn has moved Canada away from a “more universal, social-insurance, rights-based approach, toward a more targeted, welfare, individualist needs-tested approach” (Albanese 81). This breakdown of shared goals means the National and Provincial Governments do not always see eye to eye. Provinces, in particular, are given most of the power to create and enforce most social welfare programs. The biggest losers in this case are the poor families and children within these families. Co-operative federalism once existed in Canada but is now replaced with individualism

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

Fiscal federalism is a sub-field of public economics that focus on understanding the instruments and functions that are best centralized and effectively placed in the domain of decentralized governmental levels. In other words, this concept can be described as the study of how expenditures or competencies and revenues or financial instruments are distributed across various vertical layers of administration. As a result, this concept consists of a set of guidelines that are helpful in developing financial relations between the national and sub-national governmental levels. Notably, the notions of the concept of fiscal federalism are associated with both the vertical and horizontal financial relations.