My interest in writing this paper was to combine my understanding of Canadian law and its economic systems to discuss unsustainable practices in current government policies and develop suggestions for future improvements. Over the last decade I have been attracted to a variety of topics of academic research including, financial engineering and portfolio development, Canadian education policies, and foreign investment procedures.
My previous research and writing has examined the development of the Canadian economy alongside the development of the Canadian Constitution; noting the economic solidification of the primary-resource gathering provinces, for the benefit of resource-consuming centre’s economic elite. The solution for which requires a constitutional amendment to the division of powers.
“Non-Indigenous legal traditions exert violence on Indigenous legal traditions by insisting that its interpretation of law is authoritative and excluding alternate interpretations.”
“We must ensure that the order we seek to dismantle, and it must be dismantled, is reconstituted with a sustained vision of respectable relations that does not deny their genealogy. It is necessary for all of us to move beyond any crippling sense of finality in our relations, and any despairing of colonial power as totalizing. It must be asserted that a decolonized future is possible. Yet, I maintain the ultimate meaning of decolonization, liberated spaces of living and identification for Indigenous peoples, is for them to decide.”
Canada Needs a Universal Right to a Minimum Income
Table of Contents
Historical Development of Public-Assistance Programs______________________________
The Scope of the Definition of Poverty____________________________________________
Poverty and Negative Social Implications_________________________________________
Is Financial Security a Part of Human Dignity?____________________________________
The Economics of Poverty: It’s Just Not Working…_________________________________
Canadian Trends: Even A Dual-Income Household Doesn’t Preclude Poverty______
Canadian Welfare: The Last Door to Knock on_____________________________________
A Framework for Forwarding Progress____________________________________________
A Case for Human Rights Discrimination__________________________________________
“Failure to tackle the poverty and exclusion facing millions of families and their children is not only socially reprehensible, but will also weigh heavily on countries’ capacity to sustain economic growth in the future.”
This paper will examine the legal, political, and economic implications of the Canadian government’s use of the foreign investment national security review powers provided to the Governor in Council (federal cabinet), and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety.
Beginning with a quick overview of the paired foreign investment review tests, an examination of domestic financial policies, as well as international trade and economics are followed to offer deeper perspective on the development of Canadian policies. A breakdown of the national security review powers is read in the light of Canada’s position in the global economy, to reveal flaws in the embodiment of the Investment Canada Act (ICA) which could be putting Canada’s national economic security and sovereignty at risk.
Recommendations are made to include a more weighted consideration of sovereignty and economic independence, and formalize review behaviour, under the ICA’s national security review powers. The goal of this paper is to broadly examine perspectives related to integrating elements of economic security into Canada’s definition of ‘national security’.
This paper will identify how the development of the legal system in Canada, specifically the Constitution, has influenced Canada’s economy. This theory was developed in response to a general misunderstanding behind the fundamental reasons for the division of powers, and their subsequent influence on Canada’s economy. By examining Canada’s economic history through the “Staples Thesis” developed by Harold Innis, and extending the analysis through the complimentary paradigm of critical legal geography using “nomospheric” perspectives, we discover areas of inequality which have been created and maintained due to the unequal power relationships entrenched in Canada’s constitutions. In its entirety, the paper will demonstrate how Canada as a geographically-bound country, cannot be separated from Canada as a legal authority, which cannot be separated from Canada as an international capitalist economy. In application, Canada’s legal system continues to increase inequality amongst its citizens due to the socio-economic rigidities created through inefficient economic policymaking as constrained by the legal-spatial provisions in the constitution.
The first article in this series outlined the big picture view of our current education system in Canada. The second examined various methods in which to view the value of higher education. This final article will further expand on higher education in Canada, and offer an analysis of the future.
Following the post-WW2 expansion, in the 1990s we experienced political parties who have stuck with some policies while eliminating others due to the influence of the ebbs and flows of our economy’s surpluses and deficits (or whichever lobbying group had the most influence at the time). Canadians elected leaders, both liberal and conservative, that drove neoliberal policy down our throats; they were simply following in the “success” of our neighbours and allies. Neoliberalism is a term used to describe the ideology that a government is better off by reducing its expenses by privatizing its services and allowing the private sector to exist with only minimal government restrictions. This ideology has resulted in such ‘achievements’ as the most recent banking sector collapse, the destruction of the automotive manufacturing sector, increased health and education expenses, the mess of transportation infrastructure that we see today, and so much more. By reducing the government’s expenses – i.e. by firing all of the people who were in charge of running a certain “unnecessary” department, citizens run the risk of falling into a trap. A citizen/voter is now unable to request certain immediate changes regarding an area of concern, or maybe our officials are unable to rectify a decision that will affect thousands of workers to lose their jobs. By allowing our government to relinquish their control, we (as citizens) benefit by reducing the taxes we have to spend, however we are allowing profit makers to have free reign over their consumers, which blurs the distinction of who is really making the important decisions for our country. Read More