Category Archives: Federalism

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 04: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during an event at the Roosevelt Room of ... [+] the White House on May 4, 2022 in Washington, DC. President Biden delivered remarks on economic growth, jobs, and deficit reduction. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

New data show that inflation remains highup 9.1% over the last 12 monthsand economic growth is slowing, so naturally talk of recession is filling the air. The ups and downs of the business cycle have real consequences, so concerns about a looming recession are understandable. But over decades, economic growth, not the business cycle, determines living standards. Unfortunately, economic growth is slowing in America, but our federalist system can help us grow again if we do not destroy it.

Economic growth makes countries richer and richer countries are better able to cope with the fluctuations of the business cycle. Sadly, U.S. economic growth is waning. From 1960 to 1999, U.S. per capita GDP growth was 2.4% per year, meaning living standards doubled roughly each generation. Since 2000, per capita growth has averaged 1.3% per year. Projections from the Congressional Budget Office predict more slow growth, with real GDP growth rates below 2% for the next 10 years.

Reversing this trend and increasing economic growth should be the priority of every U.S. policymaker. Fortunately, Americas federalist system gives us a built-in advantage for generating sustained growth.

Federalism Fosters the Technological Progress That Drives Growth

Economists often divide economic growth into two categories: Smithian growth and Schumpeterian growth. Smithian growth, named after economist Adam Smith, is the result of increased worker specialization and market expansion.

Schumpeterian growth, named after economist Joseph Schumpeter, is the result of innovations that transform industries or create entirely new ones. Schumpeterian growth is what most people think of when they think of technological progressnew products and services that fundamentally change how people live.

Henry Fords assembly line generated Smithian growth: It made cars cheaper and more reliable without fundamentally changing them. The invention of the steam engine and later the internal combustion engine that enabled the seismic shift from horse-powered transportation to trains and then cars is an example of Schumpeterian growth.

Both types of growth are important, but Schumpeterian growth is responsible for the largest increases in living standards. Without big, life-altering innovations, smaller improvements would eventually wane.

Schumpeterian growth is also the hardest to maintain. In his book The Lever of Riches, economic historian Joel Mokyr writes that if there is one lesson to be drawn from this search for the causes of technological progress, it is that [technological progress] should not be taken for granted.

Mokyr goes on to say that the biggest enemy of progress is not a lack of useful new ideas, but the variety of specials interests and social forces that act to inhibit new innovations despite their usefulness. These include unions that oppose new labor-saving technology, politicians that protect favored industries, and established firms that lobby government to secure their market share. Each of these groups regularly oppose new technologies that disrupt the present order.

One way to overcome the forces hostile to progress is interjurisdictional competition. Technological progress in the West leading up to and during the Industrial Revolution was in part fostered by the many kingdoms and empires seeking to outdo one another. If a beneficial innovation was rejected by one society, it was usually able to find a home nearby where it flourished.

Americas federalist system, in which each state is free to enact most of its own regulations and laws, is thus a key reason for Americas technological progress. If one state is antagonistic towards new technology, another can welcome it with open arms.

Take drone technology. A study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the 50 states according to how friendly they are to the commercial use of drones. North Dakota, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are the three states most friendly to drones, while Iowa, Mississippi, and Kentucky are the most antagonistic. Entrepreneurs who want to experiment with drones or use them in their businesses can set up shop in drone-friendly states.

Without federalism, there would be only one legal regimeand one choke pointfor drone technology in the United States. With federalism, America can still be a leader in drone technology even though some states are not on board.

The Hubs of Americas Growth and Innovation are Shifting

Federalism also means that the impact a state has on Americas economic growth can change over time. For several decades, two states have been especially important drivers of Americas growth: New York, home of Americas financial industry, and California, the center of the tech world. Now, the hubs of growth and innovation are shifting.

Eleven years ago, Texas overtook New York as the countrys second largest economy. California remains the largest, but unlike California, Texas is still growing: Over 300,000 people moved there from 2020 to 2021 and it is closing in on 30 million people. Dozens of companies have also relocated to Texas, including Caterpillar and tech giants Oracle ORCL and Hewlett Packard. Texass modest taxes, low level of regulation, and relatively affordable housing are turning the Lonestar state into the driver of Americas economic growth.

Meanwhile, Californias and New Yorks regulatory environments are notoriously unfriendly to businesses of all sizes. People and companies are fleeing both states to escape their high taxes, onerous regulations, expensive housing, and deteriorating public services. Californias population declined by 182,000 people from 2020 to 2021, while New Yorks declined by 319,000. Since 2018, over 260 companies have relocated from California to more business-friendly states.

New York and California powered much of Americas growth in the past, but today neither are friendly to markets or innovation. Captured by unions and other special interests, their politicians erect barriers to entrepreneurship at every opportunity.

The growing gig economy is a great example. For years, California Democrats tried to make it harder for gig-economy companies such as Uber UBER to operate in the state by changing the classification rules for independent contractors. They finally succeeded with the passage of AB5, though Uber and a few other companies were able to get voters to exempt them. Other independent contractors, however, are now prohibited from setting the terms of their own employment and are essentially forced to become employees.

U.S. Federalism Is Under Attack

California is also trying to undermine federalism by imposing its tax policy on residents who leave the state. A proposed tax would impact wealthy individuals who move out of California for up to 10 years after they leave. If states are allowed to tax people who leave, often because of high taxes, it will be more difficult for pro-growth states to differentiate themselves from anti-growth states such as California.

Federalism is also under attack by both Democrats and Republicans at the federal level. Many on the left have long opposed states being free to set policies inconsistent with their progressive worldview. The PRO Actpassed by the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote in 2021would ban state right-to-work laws that benefit workers and employers alike. It would also impose restrictive independent contracting rules like Californias AB5 on all 50 states.

Another bill, Senator Elizabeth Warrens Accountable Capitalism Act, would undermine state corporate charters and force large businesses to get a federal corporate charter before they could operate. It would also give the federal government the power to revoke corporate charters.

If enacted, companies would be forced to adopt one-size-fits-all federal rules for corporate governance or cease operations. The creation of a single chokepoint for incorporation is the type of top-down regulation that reduces the experimentation that makes technological progress more likely.

On the right, Republican lawmakers such as Senator Josh Hawley want to use the federal administrative state to break up businesses they do not like, most notably Big Tech. Attacking businesses for being big is more likely to slow economic growth than promote it.

Other Republican senators want the federal government to play a larger role in the economy through industrial policy that would tilt the economic playing field in favor of key industries such as semiconductors, steel, medical supplies, and rare earths. Channeling taxpayer resources toward key industries may seem like a good way to promote growth and innovation, but it is likely to fail for two reasons.

First, governments are notoriously bad at predicting which industries will matter in the future. Semiconductors seem essential for economic success now, but rapidly rising production costs signal that the industry is reaching its limit as a driver of technological progress. As tech scholar Milton Mueller recently put it If people think dumping big government subsidies into the chip industry is an innovation policy that will win the future, they are going to be deeply disappointed.

Second, governments often turn against technological progress. If they are the primary promoters of innovation when they do, progress may stop altogether, or at least slow dramatically. In his analysis of why technological progress slowed in China around 1400, Mokyr writes:

technological change that is generated in large part by public officials and the central government has the nasty weakness of depending on the governments approval. As long as the regime supports progress, progress can proceed. But the government can flip the switch offBecause most entrenched bureaucracies tend to develop a strong aversion to changing the status quo, state-run technological progress is not likely to be sustained over long periods.

The long-term result of U.S. industrial policy will be economic sclerosis, not economic progress. Instead of making America stronger, it will make America weaker. A robust private sector that enables entrepreneurs to bring new ideas to market is the real driver of innovation.

America Must Lead

Technological progress is the most important cause of economic growth. Without it, living standards in developed countries would stagnate and billions of people in developing countries would never attain the living standards enjoyed by Americans today.

Maintaining technological progress is not easy, but Americas federalist system gives us an advantage that we must not squander. As Mokyr notes multiplying the number of societies in which the experiment is carried out and allowing some measure of competition between them improves the chances for continued progress. As long as some societies remain creative, others will eventually be dragged along. For America to retain its position as leader of the free world, some states must remain creative. Otherwise, instead of doing the dragging, we will be dragged.

See the article here:

Recession Fears Are Top Of Mind, But We Should Be More Worried About America's Weak Economic Growth - Forbes

President, Leadership, Peace and Cultural Development Initiative (LPCDI), Pastor Reuben Wilson, in this interview with OBIRE ONAKEMU, said that Nigeria is not making the expected political development due to lack of patriotism within the political class. The former Niger Delta militant is of the opinion that Nigerian leader should be more patriotic and selfless in their activities and action.

Whats your take on the political situation in Nigeria today?WE are not making the expected political development, because of lack of patriotism in the political class.

Do you entertain any fears over Nigerias unity and existence as a corporate entity, as insecurity continues to gain momentum?Yes, the level of insecurity experienced now can lead to the disintegration of this country if not properly tackled or handled.

Do you think theres need to sit down and re-plan Nigeria ahead of 2023 general elections?There is need to sit down and re-plan Nigeria, but I think such is not possible before the 2023 general elections, because of lack of the needed time and logistics to make such discussion fruitful.

Many Nigerians are calling for true Federalism, do you thin that would solve the problem? I support the clamour for true Federalism and I believe its the solution to our problems as a Nation. True Federalism will solve all these security challenges posed by agitations for self-determination and it will create viable opportunities for real development in the various States and provide employment opportunities for our teeming youths, which will certainly curtail the level of insecurity in the country.

It will make various States to look inward for economic potentials and utilise it for their economic development and productivity, thereby advancing the economic development of the entire country.

Do you really think the Federal Government is doing enough to end insecurity in the country?No, I dont think so. I think the Federal Government needs to do more.

Do you support the idea of hiring foreign mercenaries to fight insecurity in Nigeria?Im not in support of such idea, because it may backfire and make us vulnerable to external attacks and exploitations. Our military has the capacity to neutralise any form of insurgency. All they need is equipment and proper motivation.

Whats your message to the political class on New Nigeria?They should be more patriotic and selfless in their utterances, activities and actions.

Whats your take on the plan by the government to scrap the Presidential Amnesty Programme?It is ill advised and will be counter productive. The Federal government needs to holistically implement the Presidential Amnesty Programme as was designed by the Late President Umaru Yar Adua before it can be effectively scrapped, otherwise, such move to scrap it will create more problems and will cause insecurity in the Niger Delta Region.

Is the government at the centre doing enough to improve the Niger Delta Region?No. There is no real commitment geared towards the development of the Niger Delta region. This is eloquently evident in its handling of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the lip service it pays to the issue of relocation of the headquarters of the multinational oil and gas companies to the Niger Delta region.

What is your general assessment of governance in Bayelsa State?Its on the average. We need to do more to enthrone the needed accelerated development of our dear state.

What are the qualities you expect from the next governor of Bayelsa State and what should be his priorities?And what about the next President? I would like the next Governor of Bayelsa to be visionary, patriotic, pragmatic, altruistic and empathetic to the plight of Bayelsans. He should focus on industrialisation and human capital development as his priorities.

I expect the next President to be a nationalist, detribalised, visionary, pragmatic and highlyknowledgeable about the economy. He should also give priority attention to merit and capacity, with respect to sensitive appointments.

What your message to Nigerians?I would like to end this interview by calling on all Nigerians to promote justice and equity through their actions. Justice and equity are the panaceas to peace in every society. It is the promotion of justice and equity that will drastically reduce insecurity and the various agitations for self-determination in the country.

Let the political class also lace their actions and activities with patriotism and selflessness, so that the Nigeria of our dreams will be a reality.

Read the original here:

'True federalism is the solution to our problem as a nation' - Guardian Nigeria

It was a strange coincidence that Justice Stephen Breyer's last day on the court, the final day of the term, was also the day the Court dealt a potentially devastating blow to the regulatory system that Breyer has written about, taught about, worked in, and reformed for his entire career.

The supposed ground for the Court blocking climate change regulation was separation of powers. Like federalism, separation of powers is a basic constitutional concept that on its face deals not with what is decided, but who is doing the deciding. In the case of federalism, the question is whether it should be the state or the federal government that has authority. In the case of separation of powers, it is what branch of government executive, congressional, or judicial should be deciding.

So the question was not, at least technically, whether the Environmental Protection Agency was right in adopting regulations to encourage the shift from coal to natural gas, solar, and wind, but whether it should have been Congress and not an executive agency that made the decision. The dissenters focused, understandably enough, on the threat of global climate disaster, the majority saw the case as one involving fundamental constitutional divisions of power.

Ruling that the regulation was the equivalent of new legislation, Chief Justice John Roberts said that Congress, and not the EPA, must be the one to decide on what he termed the "major question" of our response to climate change.

Concurring, Justice Neil Gorsuch expanded on that theme: "The major questions doctrine ... protect(s) the Constitution's separation of powers ... In Article I, 'the People' vested 'all' federal 'legislative powers ... in Congress.'" They did not create "a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.' ... Under our Constitution, the people's elected representatives in Congress are the decisionmakers here."

The demeaning view of "unaccountable ministers" matches the usual conservative rhetoric about government bureaucrats. It is totally at odds with the view that Breyer has repeatedly taken on expert agencies and the critical role they play in a complex regulatory state. Breyer has long been a champion of the view that, while Congress sets the agenda passing broad laws to regulate the environment and protect consumers, workers, and the investing public, for instance it is up to the agencies to make those laws effective and give meaning to their promise.

Or to put it more starkly, as Gorsuch must surely know, demanding that Congress do it is another way of saying it won't be done and shouldn't be.

It's not simply about the process. It never is. States' rights as an answer to civil rights was never really about federalism, any more than opposition to the New Deal was really about states' rights to regulate contracts.

Gorsuch criticizes the "explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970"; his theory leaves no place for substantial regulatory action.

Breyer was my professor in law school, and then I was his special assistant when he was chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The project I worked most on was a follow-up to his pioneering work on airline deregulation; our next focus was trucking deregulation. The point was that his focus on the regulatory state did not mean he favored more regulation. The question was always better regulation, and in that, sometimes less was more. But never?

Is the air too clean? Is the water too pure? Have we left our children a planet that can survive us?

Breyer did all he could. It's up to the rest of us now.

Susan Estrich is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.

See original here:

COLUMN: Separation of powers and the regulatory state - Tahlequah Daily Press

The unified Goods and Services Tax (GST), lauded as a historic and game-changing reform, completed five years of its successful implementation on June 30, 2022. Considered one of the biggest reforms in Indias tax history, GST is seen as a shining example of cooperative federalism aimed at taking the country towards a one-nation, one-tax, and one-market regime by streamlining the tax administration and reducing the taxpayers compliance burden.

The GST subsumed over 17 central and state taxes and 13 cesses and aligned India with global tax regimes. It also brought down tax slabs from around 20 before the introduction of GST to four at present.

The journey was, no doubt, beset with multifarious challenges. This included achieving a consensus between stakeholders under the federal structure, facilitating a smooth and orderly migration of the existing taxpayers to the new regime and ensuring that the new system resonates with the diverse aspirations of the citizens.

Nevertheless, the proactive and consultative approach between the Centre and the states helped overcome the initial glitches and resulted in the successful implementation of the landmark reform.

The government must be complimented for accommodating the diverse interests of stakeholders. The initiatives to make the regime more acceptable to taxpayers include continuous consultations, issues of clarifications wherever needed, and many mid-way changes such as fine-tuning rates, raising the threshold exemptions, deferring certain provisions, and issuing simplified formats for return filing, among others.

The government also ensured that the implementation of GST did not unduly burden the MSMEs. Hence, steps were taken to facilitate ease of complianceenhanced threshold exemptions from GST registration, quarterly filing of GST returns for taxpayers with an annual turnover of Rs 5 crore, exemption from GST payment at the time of receipt of advances on account of the supply of goods, and a composition levy scheme, among others. Similarly, to facilitate small taxpayers, the number of return filings stands reduced to quarterly or annual depending on the scheme the taxpayer opts for.

The consensus-building efforts made by the government made a far-reaching impact in terms of reducing the cascading impact of taxation and unifying the Indian market by enabling seamless cross-border input tax credit. Besides, the tax transformation brought mass awareness about the indirect tax system and built an assessment-friendly tax administration. Moreover, the integration of GSTN with other systems could promote digitisation of the economy, going forward.

The GST regime also enhanced productivity and efficiency among businesses. It resulted in formalisation of the Indian economy, facilitated ease of doing business and, by removing inter-state barriers, brought about logistics and warehousing efficiencies for industry.

Anti-profiteering measures hold a special place in the GST regime and are meant to protect the consumer from unfair profiteering. This ensures that the benefits of input tax credit or reduction in tax rates are passed on to the consumers. The advance ruling process under GST is effectively providing clarity.

The GST regime demonstrated resilience despite the devastation caused by the pandemic. Its performance in terms of revenue collection is impressive. While revenues were impacted during the brief lockdown phase, collections crossed the one-lakh-crore-rupee mark since October 2020.

The latest data indicates that tax collections went up by 56% year-on-year to touch `1.44 lakh crore in June, the second-highest since April 2022. The revenue would remain buoyant as economic activity gains traction, compliance improves, and the services sector growth picks up pace.

GST registration data shows a rise of 50% in the number of indirect taxpayers. The number of voluntary registrations increased a lot, especially by small enterprises that buy from large enterprises and want to avail of Input Tax Credits (ITC). Filing of tax returns witnessed significant improvement.

Hopefully, the work towards designing a flawless GST system would continue apace. The process of filing taxes should be simplified to expand the tax base. Besides, the rationalisation of the GST tax structure by moving towards a three-slab structure, to begin with, should be hastened.

The government may like to further simplify the complexities of input tax credit and classification. Single centralised registration and review of the inverted duty structure are also crucial. The setting up of GST Appellate Tribunals may be expedited to further reduce the delay in filing of appeals.

Major items such as electricity, alcohol, petroleum goods and real estate are still outside the ambit of GST, preventing the seamless flow of input tax credit. To begin with, the government may like to consider including petroleum products, especially ATF, under GST. This would be especially beneficial for the aviation industry which is hugely impacted by high and rising fuel costs. Similarly, LNG which is used as feedstock in the production process of many industries could also be brought under the purview of GST and input tax credit be made available.

It is hoped that the journey of fine-tuning the system to make the country a national market continues, and our tax system will be in sync with the best practices prevailing across the globe.

Chandrajit BanerjeeDirector General, Confederation of Indian Industry(cb@cii.in)

Visit link:

Five years of GST and the way forward - The New Indian Express

On July 12 last year, the Supreme Court issued a verdict that was quite expected, yet unusual. It overturned then KP Sharma Oli governments decision to dissolve the House, just as it directed the Presidents Office to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as the countrys prime minister within 24 hours.

The very next day, President Bidya Devi Bhandari administered Deuba the oath of office and secrecy.

The ground for the order to appoint Deuba as the prime minister, however, was laid by Oli himself. Congress and other parties had vehemently opposed Olis move of dissolving the House twice, his way of running the country through ordinances and the rise of political corruption under his watch.

Even the leaders from his party CPN-UML, who later formed the CPN (Unified Socialist), had taken to the streets demanding Olis ouster.

This was the first time in Nepals history that a prime minister was being appointed as per a court order.

Deuba returned to power for the fifth time, a feat no one has achieved in Nepal.

On Wednesday, he will complete his one year in office, leading a coalition government of five parties.

Theres hardly anything to mention when it comes to governance in Deubas tenure; instead, he has followed in Olis footsteps in earnest, experts and observers say.

We didnt have much expectation from the Deuba government but we were hopeful that he wont be a repeat of Oli, Achyut Wagle, a professor at Kathmandu University who writes on political economy, told the Post. Sadly, he has done exactly what Oli did.

Oli was hugely criticised for his actions which observers said were a direct threat to the constitution, democracy and rule of law.

Deuba may not be as aggressive as Oli in flouting the constitutional spirit and democratic principles, but he has fared poorly on all the fronts, including governance, according to experts.

As the opposition party, Deubas Congress was fierce in criticising the Oli government for issuing ordinances one after another, saying that such moves undermined the dignity of the Parliament.

On July 18, when Deuba was seeking the vote of confidence, Congress leader Minendra Rijal said that they would show how the government should be run.

After winning the vote of confidence from the House of Representatives on July 18 last year, Deuba government prorogued the Parliaments session.

Within a month, on August 17, the Deuba government issued an ordinance to amend the Political Parties Act so as to ease a split of parties. He had prorogued the House session on August 16.

Revising an earlier provision which required the backing of at least 40 percent of Central Committee and Parliamentary Party members to register a new party, the ordinance lowered the ceiling. After the amendment, any group having support of over 20 percent of Central Committee or Parliamentary Party members could register a new party at the Election Commission.

The ordinance was issued to ease the split of the CPN-UML.

Deubas party had once lashed out at the Oli government for issuing a similar ordinance in April 2020.

Again in December 2020, Congress denounced Olis move of issuing an ordinance to amend the Constitutional Council Act (Functions, Duties and Procedures) 2010. But on Friday, the Deuba government registered a bill at the National Assembly retaining most of the provisions in the ordinance brought by Oli.

Just like Oli turned a blind eye to his ministers shenanigans and even defended Gokul Baskota, then communications minister, who was embroiled in a corruption controversy, Deuba maintained silence when political chicanery of his ministers Prem Ale and Janardan Sharma were reported.

Ale resigned after his party, the CPN (Unified Socialist), recalled him, while Sharma stepped down following the formation of a parliamentary committee to investigate allegations that he had committed financial crime.

Other than playing a constructive role in endorsing the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact, holding local elections and keeping the ruling alliance intact, this government has failed on all other fronts, Puranjan Acharya, a political analyst with a leaning to the Congress, told the Post. He has disappeared from leadership. It seems somebody else, not Deuba, is running the government.

Acharya said corruption is rampant, inflation has gone up, governance is poor and the foreign policy is unstable while Deuba is openly seen siding with the Americans.

When Deuba succeeded Oli, ruling parties claimed that protecting the constitution, strengthening federalism and controlling corruption would be the governments priorities.

Experts say the incumbent government had an opportunity to ensure good governance, consolidate federalism and give due focus to the countrys economy.

However, on the contrary, the government has failed miserably in public service delivery and seems to be working at the behest of some interest groups, according to them.

And Deuba is least bothered about criticism, said Wagle.

The country has adopted a cooperative model of federalism where the federal government has a role of facilitation, says Wagle. And in addition to delaying the promulgation of the laws needed to implement federalism, the present government has never taken any step for its facilitation, according to him.

The Inter-Provincial Council led by the prime minister is a platform to resolve differences between the federal and provincial governments. However, Deuba hasnt held a single meeting of the council yet.

According to Wagle, Deuba had taken some good policy decisions like forming women and Dalit commissions in his first and second tenures as a prime minister but over the years he has grown as a self-centred politician who is least bothered about performance and only concerned about being in power.

He wants to govern every sector by the people of his choice, he said. He doesnt mind keeping the positions vacant if he doesnt get the people he wants. His rule is simple, either my people or no one.

Congress leaders say the present government had two major tasks to perform: first, bringing the constitution on track and holding the elections. They claim the government has performed its job effectively while also has kept the international relations balanced which was not the case earlier.

Despite that, its a fact that the government hasnt fared well in governance and service delivery, Gagan Thapa, Congress general secretary, admitted. Similarly, some of the moves of the Oli government which we criticised as the opposition have been repeated. This is wrong. The government must be sensitive to such issues.

Some political experts agree that the incumbent government has brought diplomatic relations on track.

Nepals relations with India and the Western world have become cordial after Deuba came to power, according to them.

I appreciate Deuba governments effective vaccine diplomacy and efforts in bringing Nepals diplomatic relationship with different countries in order, said Vijay Kant Karna, a professor of Political Science at Tribhuvan University. However, Deuba has failed in correcting the constitutional order which was derailed by the Oli government. He has also failed on the governance and service delivery fronts.

The problem with Deuba is that he only gives space to the people from his faction and not to the competent people which is the reason for his poor performance, according to Karna.

He might be a clever politician but his governance has always been poor because he promotes just a small group of people, he said.

Deuba is leading a coalition government of five parties. Any of the parties, except for the Rastriya Janamorcha, pulling out the support might result in the fall of his government.

Being a person who always wants to be in power, Deubas entire focus is in keeping the coalition intact at any cost, according to experts.

Deubas entire focus is on keeping the coalition alive as it ensures his longevity in power. Therefore, he has little time to pay attention to governance, said senior advocate Shree Hari Aryal, former chief of Transparency International Nepal, an anti-corruption institution.

Wagle, the professor, says elections are approaching and its the time when people give their verdict.

Lets see if people will punish or reward him, he said.

Link:

Deuba's one year in office marked by misrule and tactic from Oli's playbook - The Kathmandu Post

WASHINGTONU.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), member of the Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee, penned an essay for the Harvard Journal of Law &Public Policy on restoring states rights and adhering to cooperativefederalism in environmental policy. In the essay, Senator Cramer examines theClean Air Act, specifically Section 111(d), the Clean Water Act, Waters of theUnited States, and the Water Supply Rule.

Inmy ten years as a state regulator, six years as a U.S. House member, and nowthree years as a U.S. Senator, I have seen time and again the imposition of thefederal governments mediocrity on North Dakotas excellence,wroteSenator Cramer.

Overthe years, cooperative federalism has been understood as the relationshipbetween the states and the federal government, with heavy deference towards thelatter. Common sense would infer this to mean states should cooperate with thefederal government when in reality the foundation of federalism is the exactopposite. In theory, cooperative federalism and environmental policy shouldpeacefully and easily coexist,continued Senator Cramer.

Environmentalstatutes have been repeatedly used by administrations to federalize naturalresources policy. This enables not-so-thinly-veiled federal power grabs underthe guise of protecting the environment. Restoring the rightful place ofcooperative federalism requires a major re-prioritization of responsibilitiesof the Legislative and Executive Branches. Legislators must be tasked with moreprescriptive lawmaking to precisely define congressional intent. This, in turn,will provide better direction to Executive Branch agencies to execute theirmission in the absence of an emboldened bureaucracy,concluded SenatorCramer.

SenatorCramer dedicated the essay to late North Dakota Attorney General WayneStenehjem.

Clickheretoreadthe pre-publication version of theessay.

See the article here:

Restoring States' Rights & Adhering to Cooperative Federalism in Environmental Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy -...

WELSH Labour leader Mark Drakeford has suggested that the UK Labour Party should promote local identities as part of its work to engage with the public.

The connection between geographic identities and political affiliation had perhaps been noticed a bit earlier in Wales, Drakeford said at an event marking 100 years since Labour won the popular vote in Wales.

He also suggested Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham was making progress in linking peoples identification with Manchester with Labour values.

I welcome his comments generally and think these topics are well worth exploring.

The public identify with communities, localities, regions and nations, and with concepts such as sovereignty and control.

Conversations about geographic issues can lead to conversations about power, decision-making and class politics.

Geographic, territorial justice requires class and economic justice. Britains north-south divide has illustrated this for decades.

Morning Star editor Ben Chacko reported on June 18how progressive federalism and regional questions have been raised at recent AGMs of the Peoples Press Printing Society, the co-op which runs the newspaper. Hopefully the Star can help develop the conversation on ideas for a future federal Britain.

Discussions on British regional and national issues are also under way in the Communist Party of Britains new progressive federalism commission.

It was launched to develop ideas and public support for a federal Britain with new democratic arrangements between England, Scotland and Wales.

It followed the publication of a party pamphlet on post-Brexit Britain, entitled Johnsons Post-EU Britain or Progressive Federalism?

By coincidence, members of the Spanish Communist Party, the PCE, living in Britain have recently been promoting a similar discussion about a future plurinational federal arrangement between Spain, Catalonia and the Basque country, based on consent and democracy rather than outdated, unfair systems and force.

Likewise, the aim of Communist Party of Britains new progressive federalism commission is to build a fairer, federal Britain where sovereignty democratic decision-making and economic powers to intervene on the publics behalf genuinely lies with the people and is distributed fairly nationally and regionally for the benefit of ordinary people.

There have been many developments in Britain Scotland, Wales and England in recent years which illustrate important regional and national questions.

Examples include Brexit, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments which include some elements of proportional representation and votes for 16-year-olds, English devolution deals, regional combined authorities and regional elected mayors. We also seeing reform of English district and county councils, such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire.

However, these many developments have been inconsistent and there are various democratic deficits.

Different governments, left and right, and different movements have shaped these events at different times. And the change is ongoing.

In Westminster regional development changes, we have seen the ending of the old regional development agencies, the comings and goings of regional development corporations, the launch of local enterprise partnerships, the Northern Powerhouse project, freeports, town deals, levellingup etc.

But one of the common characteristics of these has been the lack of public participation. Overwhelmingly, these have been projects focused on regional business communities and some regional politicians.

The general public may have been aware of the big landmark ideas or developments successes or failures but the public have been spectators rather than participants and decision-makers.

Some developments over the past 20 or 30 years may seem profound. Others may seem trivial, constitutionally dry, bureaucratic, undemocratic or a distraction to the urgent issues.

But I believe everyone interested in progressive politics needs to understand what has happened, regardless of whether they agree or not, so they can then engage the public to explore better solutions.

In particular, I believe the English left needs to be wellaware of all these developments and to engage with them confidently.

Importantly, the left needs to link these sometimes confusing developments to peoples everyday lives, experiences and struggles, to community, geographic and class identities.

Hope and optimism are needed too. How can progressive federalism boost political participation and help put decision-making powers into localities and regions?

If the mainstream English left doesnt enter this conversation, other movements will. Recent years have seen the rise of new regional political parties and movements, such as the Yorkshire Party and North-East Party.

In the West Yorkshire mayor elections of 2021, the Yorkshire Party gained 58,000 votes. There are also a number of smaller ultra-local parties in north-west England across Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Cumbria.

By not promoting local, regional and national democratic, economic intervention and sovereignty discussions and proposals, the English left risks allowing the political right to set the agenda about post-Brexit Britain and the right to be perceived as being innovative in regional change.

The current Westminster government is regularly making headlines about levelling-up, town fund deals, devolution deals and regional freeports. But what does the left propose?

The left needs to promote positive ideas about national and regional change which can engage with peoples community and geographic identitiesand connect with the politicallydisillusioned.

National and regional characteristics and identities are not set in stone. These change over time, reflecting the dominant political, economic and social forces of different eras.

Progressives in England need to get to grips with these developments and also create engaging new proposals for a federal Britain.

Go here to read the rest:

How to boost the message of progressive federalism? - Morning Star Online

MANILA, Philippines Actor Robin Padilla's electionto the Senate and his potential assignment as chair of the committee on constitutional amendments may revive a push for federalism that lost steam during the Duterte administration.

In an interviewafter the May 9 election, Padilla said he believes that Filipinos voted for him because his platform geared towardcharter change and federalism."Iyan siguro ang yakap ng ating taumbayan kaya siguro ako nangunguna (I think that is what the people want, that is why I am leading)," Padilla, who received the most votes in the senatorial race, said.

While it is good to discuss options about reforms and changes, University of the Philippines (UP) political scientist Maria Ela Atienza says that more ground work should be done to help the public understand the current system of governance.

She said the country might notbe ready for the shift to federalism, which would involvethe sharing of powers between two levels of government national or federal, and the states or regional.

In a unitary system the system in place in the Philippines the central government makes nearly all of the policies and decisions. In a federal system, the central government has limited powers, as state governments can handle local affairs based on the political desires of their constituents, according to German political foundation Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS).

Some powers have been devolved to local government units under the Local Government Code.

"It is always good to discuss options for institutional reforms and changes. However, there is a need to have massive information drive to discuss with the public the current institutional setup and evaluate it comprehensively before discussing the possible changes," Atienza told Philstar.com.

Surveys conducted during the first three years of President Rodrigo Duterte's term showed that less than half of the population understood the 1987 Constitution, she said.

Meanwhile, aMarch 2018 survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations showed that only one in four Filipino adultsknew about the federal system, while the remaining 75% said they only learned of it during the course of the survey.

Atienza also pointed out charter change, which would have to happen for that shift to a federal Philippines, may not be the first priority of the Philippine government as the country continues to recover from the impacts of the pandemic.

Although he is chair of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, president-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did not mention charter change or a shift to federalism during the campaign.In a DZRH radio interview in January, Marcos Jr. said he believed that the federal system "fits" the Philippines, but admitted that pursuing charter change may be difficult as the public has historically seen these as attempts by incumbents to stay in power.

"At the same time, 2022 is the beginning of the implementation of the Mandanas-Garcia ruling of the Supreme Court and [Executive Order]138 which promotes full devolution," Atienza said.

"Many local government units as well as national agencies are in the process of adjusting to these. [Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao]is still on its first few years as an autonomous regional government," she also said. "It may be premature to advocate for a shift to federalism immediately."

Padilla is a vocaladvocate offederalism, which he believes is what the public wants.Hours after the vote counting of the 2022 polls began, he said in a radio interview that the people wanted power to be given to different regions, which would be able to craft laws based on their culture and traditions.

Federalism may be ideal for places where groups with diverse traditions and populations are present, Atienza said in an interview in 2018. In a way, federalism might be able to help them preserve their identities, she said.

The shift to federalism was among President Rodrigo Duterte's campaign promisesbut lack of public interest relegated charter change from the government's priorities. In 2019, an interagency task force on federalism and constitutional reformpushed instead for "surgical amendments" to the Constitution.

RELATED:Mocha stirs fresh outrage over vulgar 'federalism' dance

Policymakers in Manila the capital, and sometimes referred to as Imperial Manila have historically been making decisions for the entire country, to the frustration of those in provinces who feel that they have little say, according to Bob Herrera-Lim, the managing director of Teneo, a global consulting and advisory firm.

"People in the provinces feel that is unfair. They have their own problems but sometimes or a lot of times, they are limited by the fact that many of...the decisions, the policies coming are based from a Manila perspective,so I think that's where [the clamor for] federalism comes from," Lim, who specializes in political and business risk in the Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia, told Philstar.com.

Issues related to education, real estate taxes, health and transportation are influenced by local conditions, which may not be addressed by decision makers based in Manila, he said.

Asked if there is a chance that federalism can happen under the incoming Marcos administration, Lim said he expects economic managers to resist moves towardscharter change because of potential losses in efficiency if the shift is not done properly.

Former socioeconomic planning secretary Ernesto Pernia previously said he is "not keen" about federalism, as development across regions has been slow and unequal.

In a recent interview on OneNewsPH, he indicated that the presence of federal states or regions will not help solve the problem of unequal growth and resources.

"I'm not an advocate for federalism," he said, echoing his earlier sentiments.

While federalism might balancerelations and powers between the central government and peripheral areas, it will not necessarily solve issues of inequality.

"It will not solve the political dynasties, the existence of political parties that are in name only. It will not prevent turncoatism. It will not prevent inequality and poverty," UP's Atienza said.

She said giving power to local governments that may bepoorly equipped to wield them may cause more problems. Corruption can also still take place in a federal system and the unitary style of governance if the laws are not firmly applied, Atienza added.

READ:Incoming admin must prioritize economic growth over federalism

Independent policy analyst and constitutionalist Michael Henry Yusingco saidhe is not sure about the chances of federalism in the incoming adminstration, because it is not clear what political system should replace the current one.

"If you want to push for a federal system, my suggestion is, do it the right way.Go down to the communities. Ask them, what structure do you want?"

"What are the powers that are going to be shared? What is the extent of autonomy and then what are the mechanisms for cooperation and coordination between the different levels of government?" he said in an interview with Philstar.com.

Yusingco said the government should take"bottom-up" approach in charter change because attempts to change the constitution would need the trust of the citizens and the engagement of civil society organization who could advocate on their behalf.

He explained those who push for charter change have historically employed the "top-down" approach which only strengthens inherent distrust in political elites.

"Constitutional reform might work, but it's very important to make sure that the citizens are onboard first and foremost," he said.

For Teneo's Lim, opening up the process of constitutional change will likely open up other proposals unrelated to federalism, such as the shift to a parliamentary system and removing economic restrictions among others.

"If you are Bongbong Marcos, you know it will be a very noisy, difficult and heavy lift. Do you do it first, when you are looking at problems such as inflation, geopolitics, getting as fully out of the pandemic, having an economic recovery, [and] dealing with all your critics? It's not going to be easy," he said.

Originally posted here:

With Padilla's election to Senate, is it time to talk about federalism again? - Philstar.com

The first version of the Swiss constitution was a breakthrough on the road to democratisation. It gave the cantons more autonomy and paved the way for creating one of the greatest democracies in Europe. However, it was far from perfect. It triggered numerous crises and failed to put an end to injustice.

The filmmaker from Italy, who was raised in Africa, calls Switzerland home now. Carlo studied film directing at the Italian National Film School, worked as a documentary editor and director/producer in Berlin and Vienna. He crafts multimedia into engaging narratives.

Studied history and politics at University of Bern. Worked at Reuters, the newspapers Der Bund and Berner Zeitung, and the Frderband radio station. I am concerned with the Swiss practice of modern direct democracy in all its aspects and at all levels, my constant focus being the citizen.

Claude Longchamp (text), Carlo Pisani (video), Renat Kuenzi (concept)

On September 12, 1848, the Federal Diet, a legislative assembly bringing together the Swiss cantons, adopted the first federal constitution. The cantons representatives drafted it in less than 50 days during their regular meetings at a Bern restaurant which is now known as Zum Aeusseren Stand. These were the first steps towards a modern state.

The first parliamentary elections to select the cantons representatives for the two chambers the House of Representatives and the Senate were called only two days after the constitution was adopted. The House of Representatives and the Senate worked quickly to elect the members of the Federal Council, which in turn formed the national government. The speed of these endeavors sent a clear message to the world: a new democracy was born.

This series in several parts is tailored for our author: Claude Longchamps expertise makes him the man who can bring alive the places where important things happened.

Longchamp was a founder of the research institute gfs.bern and is the most experienced political analyst in Switzerland. He is also a historian. Combining these disciplines, Longchamp has for many years given highly acclaimed historic tours of Bern and other sites.

Longchamp performs democracy, was one journalists headline on a report about a city tour.

This multimedia series, which the author is producing exclusively for SWIswissinfo.ch, doesnt concentrate on cities instead its focus is on important places.

He also posts regular contributions onFacebookExternal link,InstagramExternal linkandTwitterExternal link.

This was the third attempt to establish a modern democracy. The first attempt was triggered by the French invasion of Switzerland in 1798, but it failed dismally after five years. The second attempt came in 1830-31, when the autonomous cantons wanted to introduce a new federal constitution. It was met with huge resistance by the Conservatives and Radicals and never got off the ground.

"The third attempt succeeded by striking the right balance between principles of pure democracy and federalism."

The third attempt succeeded by striking the right balance between principles of pure democracy and federalism. It created the largest possible domestic market for the emerging industrial economies and had the support of Britain on a political and diplomatic level. None of this would have happened had Switzerland not gone through a civil war ten months prior to the founding of the state.

While Switzerland succeeded in establishing a democracy, neighbouring countries tried and failed to do so. Bourgeois revolutions took place in Paris, Munich, Berlin, Vienna, Palermo and Venice, but they did not manage to establish a lasting democratic state. Their monarchs always regained power.

The leap into a modern democratic world carried some risks for Switzerland. The Alpine nation could not quit the federal treaty which was adopted by the Congress of Vienna in March 1815 on its own. It was in place and that was that.

After the Liberals and Radicals reunited to become the Radical-Liberal party, they emerged as the biggest winner of the 1848 parliamentary elections achieving a 70% majority in the federal assembly. This gave them the freedom to allocate the seats of the Federal Council to their liking.

The cantons of Bern, Zurich and Vaud were each allocated a permanent seat while the remaining four seats were divided between the other cantons. The French and Italian speaking minorities received one representative each, the Catholics got two.

On November 16, 1848, seven members of the Radical-Liberal party were elected to the Federal Council which was clear sign for the new beginning. The seven ministers represented the different political perspectives of the moderate Liberals and the assertive Radicals which gave them sufficient sovereignty enough to abrogate the old federal treaty. At the end of 1848, Bern became the seat of the government making it a federal city, but not the capital.

Even though Switzerlands government structure was based on the US model, the composition of parliament and the election of the Federal Council were two major bones of contention in the democratisation process.

In the end, it was decided that parliament should be composed of two chambers with equal powers; the cantons should retain their sovereignty unless national matters were concerned; and, mirroring the US, the seven members of the Federal Council should not be elected by the people but by parliament.

The governing Radical-Liberals agreed that all elected ministers had to step down at the end of their three-year term and run for the House of Representatives if they wanted to be re-elected into the government.

Even though it was not laid down in the constitution, this two-tier system survived until the 1890s when it was finally abolished as it did not concur with the separation of powers.

The adoption of the new constitution turned out to be tricky as the Swiss did not vote on a national but on a cantonal level. In the end, 15 cantons voted in favour of the new constitution and 6 and a halfrejected it, which was sufficient for the Federal Diet to adopt it.

The cantons that voted against the constitution had to decide whether they wanted to accept the overall ruling, which was their democratic right, or not. But in the end, they were all forced to adopt it. This was a turning point for modern Swiss politics.

Switzerlands democracy was far from perfect. Women were not allowed to vote and the male-dominated society, which was strengthened by the civil war, did not even think about entertaining womens suffrage. Nationwide voting was only introduced in 1874; there was no permanent federal court; and criminal law was under the jurisdiction of the Federal Council.

Switzerland has a hybrid system of government unlike other nations that either use a parliamentary or a presidential system.

Even though the government is not directly elected by the people, there is no provision for a parliamentary no-confidence motion for an individual minister or for the dissolution of parliament before it has finished its four-year-term.

Parliament has declined to re-elect a sitting cabinet minister only four times in Swiss history. The first was in 1854 when the Radical Partys Ulrich Ochsenbein was voted out of office, and the last time was in 2007 when Christoph Blocher was ousted in his bid for re-election.

This is typical for directorial systems which allow parliament to elect a government but not to oust it. Collective governments like Switzerland, South Africa or Botswana use such directorial systems which was instituted in France in 1795, but has since been abolished.

The Swiss constitution stated that Switzerland was a Christian state which was a serious mistake as it soon led to a constitutional crisis. It was not inclusive of its Jewish population.

France, the US and the Netherlands threatened to impose economic sanctions on Switzerland unless the non-Swiss Jewish were given the same rights as Swiss Christians. This required an amendment of the constitution which had not been envisaged. Hence in 1866, the first small constitutional reform was carried out with referendums on nine individual articles. Members of the Jewish community were eventually granted freedom of domicile, but only obtained the freedom to practise their religion in 1874.

Ueli Ochsenbein, military leader and head of the Radicals of Bern, was a tragic figure during the formation of the young federal state. After serving his two terms as minister, the actual founding father of the 1848 constitution was voted out of office. The ruling Radicals turned their backs on him because he had supported the Radicals, Liberals and Conservatives in forming a political party in canton Bern.

After being dismissed from his post as military leader, Ochsenbein joined the French army where he was promoted to the rank of general. Joining a foreign army would be inconceivable in modern times, however, it was only prohibited in Switzerland in 1874.

Ochsenbein, who sunk into oblivion in Swiss history, has recently been rehabilitated thanks to a comprehensive biography. He is due to regain his place in history during the official celebrations of the 175th anniversary of the federal constitution in 2023.

Translated by Billi Bierling, edited by Dominique Soguel

Read more:

The Swiss constitution a mix of democracy and federalism - SWI swissinfo.ch in English

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently assessed the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act [1] and Physical Activities Regulations [2] (collectively the Assessment Regime). The case is summarized here. The majority, led by Chief Justice Fraser, found the Assessment Regime to be unconstitutional [3]. Justice Greckol, writing in dissent, found the Assessment Regime to be constitutionally valid. Although the respective approaches of the Justices do not follow identical paths, both decisions contain a thorough division of powers analysis, and it is those analyses that we will explore in this post.

The reference question

The question referred to the Court by the Government of Alberta was:

Analytical framework

Despite arriving at different conclusions, both the majority and dissent utilized the same framework in analyzing the jurisdictional validity of the IAA the long-established pith and substance test, first characterizing the matter of the impugned law (considering both purpose of the law and its effects), and then classifying that matter under one (or more) of the established heads of legislative power. Both the majority and the dissent considered the Physical Activities Regulations to be an integral part of the statutory scheme, such that the Assessment Regime had to be considered as a whole.

The analyses

The majority found that the purpose of the Assessment Regime was to establish a federal regime to review and regulate all effects of designated projects [4], both federal and intra-provincial, noting that this regime applies even in cases where the intra-provincial designated projects otherwise fell within exclusive provincial jurisdiction and despite all effects of such projects not being within federal heads of power. Moving to the effects of the Assessment Regime, the majority found that its legal and practical effect was to, in essence, authorize the federal executive to regulate all intra-provincial designated projects from inception to completion. As such, the majority concluded that the pith and substance of the Assessment Regime was the establishment of a federal impact assessment and regulatory regime that subjects all activities designated by the federal executive to an assessment of all their effects and federal oversight and approval [5].

At the classification stage, the majority concluded that the subject matter of the Assessment Regime, when applied to intra-provincial designated projects, fell clearly within provincial jurisdiction, including the provinces powers over development and management of natural resources; proprietary rights as owners of public lands; local works and undertakings; management of public lands; property and civil rights; and local or private matters. Here, the majority noted that, if upheld, the unavoidable effect of the Assessment Regime would be the centralization of governance to the point that Canada would no longer be recognized as a true federation [6].

The majority further noted that while the environment is not a head of power assigned to either Parliament or provincial Legislatures, when either level of government legislates for purposes relating to the environment, that legislation must be linked to a specific head of power within its jurisdiction. A meritorious motive protection of the environment does not by itself found constitutional jurisdiction for either level of government. Accordingly, Parliament was not entitled to require federal oversight and approval of intra-provincial activities otherwise within provincial jurisdiction on the basis that the environmental effects of those projects affected a federal head of power.

Dissent

Justice Greckol concluded that the Assessment Regime is a valid exercise of Parliaments authority to legislate on the matter of the environment. This conclusion was largely based on her interpretation of the Assessment Regime as the regulation of effects. She concluded that the purpose of the IAA is to foster sustainability by establishing a federal project-based impact assessment regime that seeks to limit adverse effects on identified areas of claimed federal jurisdiction by subjecting certain projects to review to determine whether said effects are in the public interest [7]. The effects of the law are simply the requirement for affected projects to comply with the Assessment regime, the time and resource costs to do so, and the penalties and permit rejections that might result from not doing so. As such, she concluded that the pith and substance of the Assessment Regime is to establish a federal environmental assessment regime that facilitates planning and information gathering with respect to specific projects to inform decision-making, cooperatively with other jurisdictions, as to whether the project should be authorized to proceed on the basis that identified adverse environmental effects purported to be within federal jurisdiction are in the public interest (emphasis added) [8]. In other words, the Assessment Regime targets effects in federal jurisdiction.

At the classification stage, Justice Greckol found that the language used in [the IAA] is jurisdiction-limiting [9]. Some designated projects, such as those within national parks and offshore oil and gas facilities were not controversial, as they clearly fell within areas of federal jurisdiction. However, the controversial set of designated projects (i.e. those that are intra-provincial and prima facie within provincial jurisdiction, such as mines and metal mills and oil and gas facilities), may still have effects on areas of federal jurisdiction, such as fish habitat, federal lands, or Indigenous peoples. She found that the Assessment Regime therefore fell within many federal heads of power.

Justice Greckol further supported her decision with the principles of the presumption of constitutionality, double aspect doctrine, and cooperative federalism. She noted that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the environment is a diffuse subject that cuts across both provincial and federal jurisdiction and that governments should work cooperatively on issues of overlapping jurisdictions such as this [10]. As provincial resources and environments do not exist in isolation, effects from provincial projects will necessarily have impacts across the country [11].

Conclusion

It will come as no surprise to anyone that there is a continued push-and-pull between the Federal and Provincial governments when it comes to jurisdiction over the environment. There is no disagreement that environmental protection is critically important, or that there is a role for both the Federal and Provincial governments in effecting this goal. The contentious point is where the limits of cooperative federalism lie.

It is noteworthy that when the majority of the Court assessed the matter (pith and substance) of the IAA, the emphasis was on the activities being regulated, while Greckol, JA, focused on the effects of those activities. It is therefore not entirely surprising that, despite using a similar analytic approach, the opinions diverged significantly on the ultimate constitutionality of the IAA. Evidently, each approach is underpinned by a distinctly different philosophy, with the majority warning that [t]he concept is cooperative, not coercive, federalism [12], and Greckol, JA noting that [w]e in this country are all in the same boat. The division of powers provides multiple oars and in many instances no assurance that we will all row in the same direction. But constitutional interpretation can and should at least allow for such cooperation, where feasible [13].

This case is sure to draw parallels between the dissenting judgments in References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (both in the Supreme Court of Canada [14] and the Courts of Appeal below [15]) and given the Federal Governments pledge to appeal the present case to the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be interesting to see which approach to federalism prevails.

More:

What's the matter with the IAA? Taking a Closer Look at the Alberta Court of Appeal's Constitutional Analysis - Lexology