Spending Power of the Canadian Federal Government

Spending Power of the Canadian Federal Government

The politics of Canada are based on a parliamentary democracy. The parliamentary government of Canada functions as a federal system and is governed by strict political traditions. Constitutionally, the government of Canada is monarchical, and the monarch is the accepted head of state. The government of Canada has qualified to receive credit on the efficient application of social justice in the governing and utilization of government resources. The making of policies is also well-organized, and inclusivity is maintained to incorporate the requirements of all stakeholders. The fact that the Canadian government is formed on a multiparty system ensures that decisions affecting issues of national interest are only made through consensus and no cases of dictatorship can be allowed to thrive in the political environment. The Canadian government spending power is governed by liberalism and egalitarian ideologies where the equality of every single Canadian is advocated. The spending power of the government takes into consideration the impact of the decisions made on the lives of individual Canadians. The federal government is tasked with managing the expenditure of Canada’s resources, but the pattern of spending and the power of spending are limited by the views and demands concerning the needs of Canadians. The spending power of the government is the level of payments that can be made by the government according to the legislation made by the legislative body, which involves the parliament and other minor legislative bodies in the government of Canada. However, the spending power has presently impacted negatively the promotion of national unity.

The Canadian constitutional context defines spending power as the ability of the government to make payments to people or institutions without the necessity of the parliament to legislate the process. The authority given by the spending power of the Canadian government allows the government to fund federal-provincial projects without requiring the approval of the parliament for the payments. The projects that the government of Canada has the authority of financing without requiring the approval of the parliament are classified into four categories. The first category involves the programs that allow for the equalization of the opportunities available to individual Canadians. The equalization programs include the provision of family allowances as well as social assistance incentives. The second category involves programs that ensure equal delivery of provincial public services. The provincial public services include equalization grants, higher education, hospital, and health insurance and the development of the Trans-Canada highway. The other category covered under the spending power of the government is the funding of regional economic development programs. The regional development programs include the Fund for Rural Economic Development, the development activities of the agricultural sector, the grants given to facilitate agricultural rehabilitation and development, as well as the Regional Economic Expansion grants. Finally, the government has the power to fund specific projects, which can be identified as being of particular interest to the government. The projects that could be of special interest to the government include the Expo 67, Roads to Resources, as well as the South Saskatchewan River Development project. The spending power of the government has played a significant role in the institutionalization of conditional grants that have different uses among Canadians.

The Canadian federations are unique in spelling out the conditions that may necessitate the spending by the government. Several federations in other countries always have strict clauses specifying the only conditions under which the government is allowed to spend public funds. However, the case of federations is different in Canada with only a few federations developing clause to specify the spending patterns of the government. In 1867, a constitutional act was passed to give the federal government the power to spend from the cooperative revenue fund on any purpose. Several courts in Canada have interpreted the act to imply that the government is only limited from spending if the legislation governing the spending amounts to a spending scheme that would otherwise fall under the provincial powers. The authority given by the spending power provides the government with the ability to impose taxes to collect revenues to be spent on different projects as the government would wish. The government is given the powers to invade civil rights within several provinces if circumstances necessitate. The uniqueness in the federations has acted to impact the Canadians in different ways. Several Canadians have been on the advantageous side of the spending power whereas a few have been caught by the disadvantages that come with authority presented by the spending power. For example, the producers of different commodities have been hit by several taxation attempts from the government. However, the price regulators have been on the forefront in ensuring that producers do not exploit consumers, and thus the producers end up paying for the taxes solely. On the positive side, the government has been able to give grants to individuals and institutions without requiring the approval of the parliament. The authority in the spending power has worked efficiently in ensuring that the government spends on ventures that promise to improve the economy of the nation.

The definition of spending power has created differences among different institutions. The differences have been caused by the widespread disagreements that occur due to the meaning given by the different institutions. For example, the centralists define the spending power as the ability of the government to make payments on grants, either conditional or unconditional, for any purpose. The centralists go further to claim that the falling of a project under the provincial jurisdiction does not limit the government the power to make spending as long as the involved program does not involve legislation or regulation. Most centralists associated with the above definition are chief justices who have served in the judicial services for several years. Among the centralists supporting the idea is Bora Laskin, who has served as the chief justice of the Canadian Supreme court.

On the other hand, the autonomists hold a position that is different from the centralists. The argument given by the autonomists is that the parliament is not authorized to make any grants in areas that are excluded by provincial jurisdiction, even for the unconditional grants. However, a disagreement occurs between the autonomists with some autonomists claiming that the federal government is authorized to make unconditional grants even in areas excluded by provincial jurisdiction. The disagreements have continued to exist concerning the issue of spending power since governments have not been willing to seek court clarification concerning the matter. The provincial governments have always been advocating for more consultation to be done concerning the spending power although the issue has remained pending with the government enjoying the authority assumed to have been given according to the spending power.

The spending power of the federal government has proven to be a stumbling block to the achievement of national unity. The extent to which the government is allowed to go in terms of spending public resources has left many Canadians rising concerns on the efficiency of the laws governing the spending power (Kasdin, Stuart, and Federica, p.249). Also, the Canadians have shown signs of losing trust in the government due to the government’s invasion of human civil rights when a spending need arises. The Canadians have been criticizing the government based on several actions. First, the government and parliament have been making crucial decisions without involving the provinces even when federal-provincial programs are involved. The federal government has been arguing that the provinces have the freedom to choose between being involved in the projects, or not. However, the government has been ensuring that the provinces receive significant pressure from the inside to force them into participating in the decisions that are made without consultation. The provinces have been raising concerns that the government has an advantage in terms of the information available to help in determining whether the provinces should be involved in a certain program. Also, the provincial governments are forced into sharing the cost of programs that are imposed without prior consultation. The government has been basing its argument on the claim that the Canada-wide priorities could not be compared with the priorities of the provinces. The government seems to forget that national unity is a task that requires equal input of the various institutions tasked with bringing the campaign to success, and the provincial governments play a crucial role in the development of national unity. The government needs to understand that Canada-wide priorities are obtained from provincial priorities. The government has been in the position of receiving blame for hindering national unity for misusing the powers granted by the spending power. The government should seek further clarification on the authorities given by the spending power in a bid to support the quest for promoting national unity.

The spending powers of the government have created a feeling of selection among different regions. The government has been blamed for using the spending powers to benefit specific regions; probably the regions that are seen as politically beneficial to the government. Several concerns have been raised concerning the taxation powers given to the government. Canadians from specific regions have argued that the government has been collecting revenues through taxes of some areas only to spend the revenues on some selected regions (Morgan, Steven, and Katherine, p.248). The situation has been branded as “taxation without benefits” by several Canadians whenever the government has been taxing provinces that are not willing to participate in the government’s projects. The government has been forcing provinces to pay taxes to support cost-shared programs offered to other provinces. The “taxation for nothing” idea has not been going down well with several residents, and the unity between different provinces has been declining significantly. The government has been arguing that the provinces are presented in the parliament by the respective members of parliament and thus the by-passing of the consultation process can be justified altogether. The government should aim at creating, or rather promoting national unity and cohesion instead of spending in projects that only lead to divisions among the citizens since divisions will disadvantage the government in the long run. The unity can be promoted by ensuring that inclusivity is assured before making any decision that affects national politics. For example, the government should ensure that the provinces are consulted before being forced into participating in projects funded by the federal government. Also, the taxation process should ensure that the regions are sufficiently represented to avoid the divisions that could occur with the feeling of selection by the government towards specific regions.

The power of spending further hinders the promotion of national unity due to the several misinterpretations by the federal government. The government has been ignoring the requirement by the constitution that conditional grants should amount to the take-over by the federal government to the fields of jurisdiction (Janigan, p.207). The extents of conditional grants have been well-spelled in the constitutional acts, but the government has been overlooking the specifications of the law due to the benefits that come along with the spending power. The fact that the government has failed consistently in ensuring successful consultations with the provinces has led to the feeling of division between the divisions that are favored by the spending powers of the government, and those that are on the receiving end of the negative consequences of the powers. The continuing programs have led to an increase in taxation by the government. The increase in the taxation ability by the government has left little “room of taxation” for the provinces. The lack of revenue in the provinces has led to the inability to pay for provincial programs, which has led to the loss of trust by the residents to the provincial leaders. The federal spending power can, therefore, be seen to have spoilt the unity that had existed between the provincial leaders and the residents. Also, the role of the provinces has been reduced into supervisors. The provinces are no longer consulted on matters to do with the lives of the citizens of the various provinces. The federal government can be said to have assumed the responsibilities that should be left to the provincial governments. The provincial governments are closer to the citizens and spoiling the relationship between the governments and the residents, acts to spoil the desire of the government to promote national unity.

The Canadians desire that Canada continues to exist as a federation. The success of the federation will depend on the ability of the citizens to champion for the promotion of national unity. National unity, however, cannot be promoted easily without considering the impacts of the spending power of the federal government. The Canadians have to be vigilant in expressing their concerns on the impact of the government’s spending power to the journey of promoting national unity. However, the objectives of the government towards unity could be affected by the current situation of calmness in Canada (Flood et al. p.235). The objectives of unity tend to differ depending on the situation at hand among different institutions. For example, the government is expected to be vigilant in advocating for strong national unity during times of unrest. The vigilance is also expected to go down with the settling of issues the case currently. However, the government should consider the impacts that could be witnessed in the event things get out of control. The government should reconsider its role in preventing events that could lead to civil unrests in the future by engaging in activities that strengthen national unity. The period of calmness is always the best time to improve the relationship between groups since the government only needs to spend little resources to strengthen the already existing national unity. However, the government could be forced to employ more resources just in case things get out of hand and national unity is put at a test (Cochrane, Christopher, Dyck, and Blidook, p.34). The responsibility of the Canadians is to push the government into directing its efforts to issues affecting national unity instead of misusing the spending power to weaken the already existing unity among the Canadians. The Canadians need to know that the impacts of the government’s activities might come back to haunt them if national unity is left for destruction. The governments need to take advantage of the calmness in the whole nation as well as the powers given concerning spending to work on improving the economy to avoid regretting if hard times appear in the future.

The powers of spending by the government need to be curtailed, or a more precise interpretation is given concerning the roles to be played by the government. The boundaries need to be drawn clearly between the interaction of the federal government as well as the provincial governments. Several methods can be used to curtail the spending powers of the federal government and reduced its impact on national unity. First, the federal can be restricted to use its spending powers only on matters that happen within the federal jurisdiction, and to work towards giving unconditional subsidies to the provinces. Alternatively, the federal government can be limited by constitutional acts into the extent of forcing the provincial governments into participating in programs without prior consultations. The provinces should be given the freedom to opt out of programs that do not appear beneficial to the provinces without restrictions by the federal government.

The spending power of the federal government receives different definitions among different institutions. In Canada, the spending power of the federal government refers to the ability of the government to make payments to individuals or institutions without the need for approval by the parliament. The power allows the government to spend revenues from the cooperative fund on programs of the government’s interest. However, the government appears to have misused the power of spending and is impacting the national unity of Canada negatively. The lack of inclusivity in the process of applying the spending power is causing divisions among the provinces of Canada. Several measures need to be taken to curtail the spending powers of the federal government to ensure that the promotion of national unity is not put into test.

Works Cited

Cochrane, Christopher, Perry Rand Dyck, and Kelly Blidook. Canadian politics: Critical approaches. Nelson Education, 2015.

Flood, Colleen M., et al. Universal pharmacare and federalism: policy options for Canada.           Canada’s Changing Federal Community, 2018.

Janigan, Mary Louise. “The Art of Sharing: The Richer Provinces Versus the Poorer Provinces      Since Confederation.” (2017).

Kasdin, Stuart, and Federica Iorio. “The Political Economy of Program Design: Overcoming         Principal–Agent Goal Disparities Between Congress and the Executive Using Grants to       States.” American Politics Research 45.3 (2017): 457-493.

Morgan, Steven G., and Katherine Boothe. “Universal prescription drug coverage in Canada:        long-promised yet undelivered.” Healthcare management forum. Vol. 29. No. 6. Sage             CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2016.

Russell, Peter H. Canada’s odyssey: A country based on incomplete conquests. University of         Toronto Press, 2017.