Because the federal government, in essence, takes most of the revenues and then gives them back under a formula that is theoretically designed to give all Canadians in all regions relatively equal access to services, this gives the federal government a lot of power over provincial areas of jurisdiction; at the same time, the constant negotiations over both transfer payments and the mechanisms of administering "equivalent" services in areas which are vastly different - physically, demographically, culturally and politically - give the provinces more influence than one would expect over areas of federal jurisdiction.
This pretty much sums up the situation in Australia, except that the constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. The Federal government collects most of the revenue through its constitutional monopoly on excise and sales taxes and its acquired (since 1942) one on income tax. The Commonwealth Grants Commission hands the money over to the states based upon some complex formulae on (as the Constitution says) "such terms and conditions as it may see fit".
But "physically, demographically, culturally and politically" the states are not as different from each other as the Canadian provinces and as a result there is a general dislike of anything that differs from state to state.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me? The war in East Timor led to a policy of more direct involvement in the affairs of our neighbours. The stated policy is now that they have to keep everything under control or we will move in and do it for them. As a result, Australian troops are currently active in East Timor, Papua-New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
The Prime Minister referred to Australia's new role in the region as that of the "Deputy Sheriff". And, true to this concept, Australia has joined the US in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to curry favour with the US but in line with our own peculiar world view.
So when Canada says it wants an expanded peacekeeping role and more say in world affairs, the response of Australia is enthusiastic support for the idea of Canada fighting bad guys in our region. When Canada calls for action in the Sudan, the response is: "You're putting a posse together? Count us in mate!"
I believe that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada.
no subject
This pretty much sums up the situation in Australia, except that the constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. The Federal government collects most of the revenue through its constitutional monopoly on excise and sales taxes and its acquired (since 1942) one on income tax. The Commonwealth Grants Commission hands the money over to the states based upon some complex formulae on (as the Constitution says) "such terms and conditions as it may see fit".
But "physically, demographically, culturally and politically" the states are not as different from each other as the Canadian provinces and as a result there is a general dislike of anything that differs from state to state.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me?
The war in East Timor led to a policy of more direct involvement in the affairs of our neighbours. The stated policy is now that they have to keep everything under control or we will move in and do it for them. As a result, Australian troops are currently active in East Timor, Papua-New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
The Prime Minister referred to Australia's new role in the region as that of the "Deputy Sheriff". And, true to this concept, Australia has joined the US in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to curry favour with the US but in line with our own peculiar world view.
So when Canada says it wants an expanded peacekeeping role and more say in world affairs, the response of Australia is enthusiastic support for the idea of Canada fighting bad guys in our region. When Canada calls for action in the Sudan, the response is: "You're putting a posse together? Count us in mate!"
I believe that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada.