What Is The Federal Fiscal Framework Unifying Or Divisive Force

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

idea of turning Canada back to its original roots. He compares Harper's government system with Pierre Trudeau’s. Arguing about the struggles and failures of

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

David E. Smith’s book, The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government, contends that studies pertaining to the Crown should be revived because the Crown is the least understood institution in Canada. He claims the crown to be a structuring principle of government. While arguing the Crown’s centrality in Canadian politics, he posits that the Crown and its prerogatives empower the political executive and make it efficient, to the extent that it can produce an effect (x-xi).

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

Opposing the belief that a dominating leader is running Canada, Barker brings up several key realities of the Canadian government. He gives examples of several “… instances of other ministers taking action that reveal the limits prime-ministerial power,” (Barker 178). Barker conveys the fact that Canada is not bound by a dictatorial government, “…it seems that the prime minister cannot really control his individual ministers. At times, they will pursue agendas that are inconsistent with the prime minister’s actions,” (Barker 181). Both inside and outside government are a part of Canada and they can remind the prime minister that “…politics is a game of survival for all players,” (Barker 188). Barker refutes the misinterpretation of the Canadian government by acknowledging that a prime-ministerial government existing in Canada is an overstatement.

Smith argues that the Prime minister can “coerce legislators into supporting his proposals” (Smith 22), which shows that in Canada most of the power lies in the hands of one person. Moreover, Smith discusses how the Canadian government allows its leader to ratify its chosen policy because the “Prime minister’s words carry especially great weight” (smith 22). For example, the Canadian military spent $21.8 billion per year in it’s military under Harper’s domain (Smith 23). This demonstrates that Harper has always “sought a leadership role in its military mission abroad” (Smith 23) showing the power the Prime minister of Canada has in controlling financial and military

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 second cause is economic differences between different areas of the country, which lead to negative consequences. For example, M. Dewing and M. Leman (2006) draw our attention to the subject that economic differences between Québec and the rest of Canada often lead the way to the instability in interdependent economy and politics

Stephen Harper was the first Prime Minister of Canada to come from the Conservative Party, and served the country for nine years. In October 2015, Harper called an early election because he believed it would give the Conservatives the added advantage they needed to win. Harper’s incentive for calling an early election was mainly to procure more funds for his election campaign, which, considering his past wins, made him believe that the same degree of support will be continued into this election as well. This essay will argue how the institutional constraints such as the first-past-the-post electoral system adopted by Canada and facets of the parliamentary system benefitted Harper’s campaign, while the structural constraints such as the financial budget for the election campaign and the demographics of the voters resulted in his loss to the Liberal Party.

The lack of flexibility within government, however, as Armstrong articulates that “opposition now comes not only from the big provinces but also from forces such as doctors’ organizations […] those seeking for profit” (Armstrong, p153). Governments’ are influenced from behind the scenes in the form of private investment and wealthy investors such as lobbyists. I do believe that if the government becomes more flexible, it would under these conditions - eliminate public funding across the board and implement a free market due to the persuasion of partisan funding. With the electoral system Canadians have in place, bipartisan voting and four or five-year electoral schedule, it differs political parties from imposing such changes, as they are confined to public opinions (Malcolmson, p227). In comparison, Armstrong defines our ‘rigidity’ as praise for resistance of private corporations and lobbyists, avoiding “pressuring individual legislators” (Armstrong, p21). The for-profit industry is heavily funded, therefore, can offer significantly more public persuasion. Furthermore, as discussed by our guest lecturer, we are geographically linked to the largest for-profit regime on the globe – our television is directly influenced by American advertisements, enticing our population to believing that we are restrained in choice of care by our government.

Fiscal Federalism is federal funding that is allocated to states which specific conditions attached to it. By giving states the money the federal government is able to control the states government. In short, the federal government is the one who decides how much money is given to the state, the conditions the money will be given and what the state is allowed to do with the money. This means that the federal and state government responsibilities are at times entwined, rather than distinct. The states nowadays rely on federal money, and the national government relies on the states to administer some federal programs and policies. The federal government is currently in involved matters like health care, education, and transportation. Fiscal

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.

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.

“Analysis on main advantages and disadvantages of devolution and fiscal federalism: is a hybrid solution the cure?”