How you are represented How Parliament works Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. Members of Parliament MPs sit in the House of Commons to represent their local communities, known as electoral districts, also commonly referred to as constituencies or ridings. Platforms can indicate what Governments will do when they are in power, for example, what types of laws they will introduce and how they will handle certain issues. Canadian MPs who do not have a political affiliation are referred to as independents.
The full text, with detailed policy proposals, can be found at www. Lola Landekic for the Toronto Star Our unusually decentralized federalism creates a distinctively Canadian obstacle to social democracy.
The delivery of services crucial to it — notably health care, education, social assistance — is, for most recipients, in exclusively provincial jurisdiction. That is why we were laggards in the postwar development of the welfare state.
It was not until the s that we contrived the instruments of cooperative federalism required to catch up with more centralized political systems.
They were effective instruments, for their time. But that time was short.
Our social transformation of the s has been followed by decades of little further advance. The political cooperation essential for it has been replaced by confused conflict in the relations between Ottawa and the provinces.
This paper suggests a new initiative that could break the deadlock. The consequence of betrayal Article Continued Below In the s Ottawa undertook to reimburse 50 per cent of provincial spending on physician and hospital health care, on postsecondary institutions, on social services and assistance, provided only that the program expenditures conformed to broadly defined principles.
Some provinces grumbled about being pressured, but took and used the money. Outstanding social reforms quickly resulted. But the very success of the device was soon its undoing. The federal popularity of the programs made the cost-sharing device politically flawed because increasingly it was the provinces that got the credit.
Finally, in the budget, all pretence of commitment was abandoned.
The federal contribution to provincial programs became whatever Ottawa declared it could afford. In it was not 50 but 15 per cent.
The rhetoric of conflict became the dominant, indeed almost the only, relationship between provincial and federal governments. The results have been little more than trifling. Conservatives commonly claim that opinion has shifted to the right, that people want less government.
The evidence is rather that they have lost faith in the capacity of our political system to deliver the kind of government most Canadians want. That is reflected both in the low turnout at elections and the recent strength, among those who did go to the polls, of the party that had long gathered little more than a protest vote.
There will be no reforming government, however, until either the NDP or a revitalized Liberal party has developed, and taken to the electorate, a realistic agenda for social democracy.
After cost-sharing A major obstacle to that is that cost-sharing is still deeply revered, 40 years too late, as the necessary instrument of social action in our federalism.
But, as often, delusion is rooted partly in confusion.
There are two kinds of cost-sharing, for programs and for projects. The second remains a clear necessity. We will not clean up our environment unless Ottawa supports provinces and municipalities in the extensive modernization of many infrastructures.
Recent experience has also underlined the role of speed in such projects as one way to fend off unemployment; and cost-sharing of projects has the massive political appeal that when the money is spent, the building done, federal MPs can share also in the glory of photo-op ribbon cutting.
Article Continued Below Indefinitely continuing finance for continuing programs is utterly different politics. For Ottawa its dividend in popularity proved to fade while the cost went on, and for the provinces it consequently turned into a cheat.
This does not prevent well-meaning reformers demanding cost-sharing because they know no other way to make their concerns seem realistic. It may not prevent a party in opposition talking of a cost-shared program.
But any idea that it can be implemented by politicians in office is idle fantasy; and until that idea is finally broken, social democracy will have no future. There are precedents for what will work now.Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.
Canada’s Parliament consists of three parts: the Queen, represented by the governor general; the Senate; and the House of Commons. The House of Commons plays an important role in Canada.
In a social democracy, similar to those in Scandinavian countries, with elements of both capitalism and socialism intact, the worst abuses of a winner-take-all corporate-ruled system are avoided. The result is a land of opportunity. What Is the Mises Daily.
The Mises Daily articles are short and relevant and written from the perspective of an unfettered free market and Austrian economics. Written for a broad audience of laymen and students, the Mises Daily features a wide variety of topics including everything from the history of the state, to international trade, to drug prohibition, and business cycles.
Canada’s wealth, respect for legal, human and civil rights almost promises that this country has the potential to uphold a legitimate democracy. Reading headlines today concerning the state of democracy in Canada we can see how our political system is slipping.
Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action.
Meyer’s The Theory of Social Democracy (written with Lewis Hinchman) is an attempt to organise a theory of social democracy which will speak to the new concerns over globalisation and the threats it poses to social democratic practice.