Category Archives: Federalism

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Publishing date:

His Royal Highness King Charles III and family,

It is with a heavy heart and sorrow that I learned of the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. On behalf of Kingston and the Islands, please accept our sincerest condolences on this sorrowful loss.

During her 70 years as monarch of Canada, Britain and the Commonwealth, Her Majesty saw many great accomplishments.

Aside from being a loved figure globally, she is best known for injecting vitality and vigour into the lives of many during some of the darkest times we faced. Her strength, resilience and ability to empower those around her will be aspects of her legacy that will live on and be remembered by all.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As a nation, we mourn the loss of such a strong figure.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will seldom be forgotten. Please know that you are in our thoughts during this difficult time.

Mark Gerretsen

Kingston and the Islands MP

Marshall McLuhan famously said the medium is the message. By that he meant that we often take more from the way we communicate than the content of our communications. Queen Elizabeth II was a master of both. Her iconic wave may have signified her regal splendour, but it was her radio broadcasts early in her reign that came to symbolize her tone and her communication style.

As Princess Elizabeth, her first radio broadcast was in October 1940 to the children of the Commonwealth. As would be familiar in the decades of her communications, the princess discussed her family and provided a reliably sombre and thoughtful view on the state of the world. Later as Queen, her Christmas messages beginning in 1957 would become a tradition as important as any other on that day. These serve as markers for the year that passed and optimism for the year that is to begin. Not all addresses were marked by such undiluted pleasure as Her Majesty said in 1992 on the 40th anniversary of her accession. This was the speech that marked annus horribilis in our popular imagination. Even when she was marking the breakup of three of her children and a fire that ravaged her home, the Queen still managed to do so with such restraint and litotes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Decades later in 2014, the Queen would take the next leap in technology and use Twitter. It was as important that she was on this platform (you could reply to her!) as it was the content of her messages. Her Twitter account has been used to express concerns over the floods in B.C. or gently take a shot at Justin Trudeau. Marshall McLuhan would be proud.

Jonathan Rose

Head, Department of Political Studies, Queens University

Sadly, the role of Queen Elizabeth II in preserving the Canadian union and strengthening federalism is often overlooked today.

In 1867, the innovative founders of our great nation combined parliamentary democracy with a federal system of government. Cartier, Aime Dorion, McGee and others understood the need for a common bond among Canadians from all provinces and territories to hold this vast country together over time.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

They believed that the Crown at the apex of government would foster a sense of political nationalism that would transcend partisanship and differences based on place, race, ethnicity and religion. A Crown with a team of governors, as Frank McKenna later called the Governor General and lieutenant-governors in the provinces, would preside above the fray of politics and social and economic divisions, providing a focus of loyalty among citizens.

The importance of Queen Elizabeth serving as this non-political, apolitical institution to sustain the Canadian federation is no more evident than during the constitutional wars (1970s to 1990s).

The Pierre Trudeau federal government responded to the 1970s rise of separatism in Quebec by proposing legislation to replace the Queen with the Governor General as Head of State. All of the provincial premiers, including the separatist Quebec Premier Levesque, immediately and vociferously opposed this move because federal appointment of the Head of State would pave the way to John A. Macdonalds vision of a centralized state.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Throughout the constitutional battles, the premiers opposed abolishing the monarchy because it would undermine the principle of federalism and empower Ottawa at provincial expense.

Throughout these debates, First Nations leaders appealed to the Crown as the signatory to their treaties to protect their rights, thus recognizing treaty federalism as a constitutional relationship.

The Queen calmly presided over these frays, never intervening publicly but standing as a powerful reminder of the founding principle of federalism and the equal sovereign authority of federal, provincial and Indigenous governments. Her gracious and authoritative demeanour was a silent admonishment to all politicians to honour the Crown by playing by the constitutional rules with respect for all citizens.

Prof. Kathy Brock

MPA Director, School of Policy Studies, Queens University

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Go here to see the original:

Letters to the Editor: Queen injected vitality, vigour into lives of many - The Kingston Whig-Standard

The idea that Pakistan shall be a federation wherein provinces shall be autonomous was contained in the Objectives Resolution of 1949. The framers of the 1973 constitution had also contemplated Pakistan to be a federation with autonomous provinces. Any doubts thereto stood displaced by inserting Article 2-A which made the Objectives Resolution part and parcel of the 1973 constitution.

Unfortunately, through political and bureaucratic engineering, the emergence of a federation in its true sense was delayed. This was because those at the center of the federation were disgusted with the idea of dissolution and devolution of powers to the provinces. Political scientists and sociologists alike agree that the most appropriate method to prevent abuse of power is to distribute powers across all tiers of government devolve powers across the centre, the provinces and local governments. Let us call it decentralization.

The passage of the 18th Amendment aimed at the widespread distribution and devolution of powers between the centre and provinces and further devolution thereof to the local governments. This meant that decentralization made the provinces constitutionally autonomous. It is ironic that ever since the passage of the 18th Amendment, chessboard moves are being made to undo it.

Hurdles have been created, from time to time, to hamper the operationalization of the 18th Amendment in letter and spirit. To this day, a strong centre is being maintained at the expense of provinces despite the stark fact that there is a constitutional obligation to devolve functions, powers, resources and responsibilities to the provinces. The post-18th Amendment era presents a paradoxical situation. On paper and in theory, provinces are autonomous but in practice there still exists a very strong center. This amounts to a fraud on the 1973 constitution and nothing less.

A bare reading of the constitution, as it is, clearly mirrors a concept of administrative federalism based upon a theoretical model guaranteeing provincial autonomy. But one finds an understandable endeavour from one side which is reluctant to abdicate power despite constitutional obligation. An all-powerful federal civil service is unhappy with the constitutionally prescribed system of a functional provincial civil service administering the provinces. The 1973 constitution does not support the federal civil service at the expense of the provincial civil services.

To this date, personnel of the federal civil service especially those belonging to the all-powerful District Management Group (now renamed as Pakistan Administrative Service Group) are appointed as secretaries and chief secretaries of provinces. Along with the police service of Pakistan, the Pakistan Administrative Service Group runs the districts and manages law and order across the board.

The idea of an all-powerful federal civil service as existing today owes its origin to the British colonial regime that ruled the Indian subcontinent which posited central civil servants (their own trusted and recruited Indians of the subcontinent) at top positions across the board in order to retain the strings of control and power at the center.

Seventy-five years after independence, Pakistan is still maintaining an all-powerful federal civil service and the strong strings of control and power are retained by the Islamabad Capital Territory. Is it not a clear affront to the system described in the supreme law of the land? Connected therewith is another poser as to who will bell the cat?

A plain reading of the Objectives Resolution, the 1973 constitution and the 18th Amendment unveils that there is no room whatsoever for the federal civil service to retain administrative control and power over the provinces. This opinion stands further substantiated by a conjunctive reading of Articles 240 and 242 of the constitution which provide for enacting distinct civil service laws and establishing distinct public service commissions at the federal and provincial levels. In a nutshell, every provincial government ought to have its own provincial civil service independent of the federal civil service and such provincial civil service being made under law enacted by the provincial assembly.

It has been a little over 75 years since Pakistan attained independence from the British colonial regime. A strong federal civil service a remnant of the past legacy of the British colonial era exists to this date to exercise administrative control and power over the provinces in spite of constitutional position to the contrary. The existence of this administrative control of federal civil service over the provinces is alien to the constitution. Yet another big question to be answered by policymakers is: who will put an end to such flagrant abuse of constitutional obligation?

The Objectives Resolution, the 1973 constitution and the 18th Amendment were passed to strengthen provincial autonomy, deconstruct the strong administrative control of the federal civil service over provinces and posit a provincial civil service for each province. This is an unholy intrusion into constitutional provisions. This paradox requires immediate surgery. An all-powerful class has virtually made the constitution subordinate. It is strange that the authorities at the helm of affairs at the federal as well as provincial levels are not serious about redeeming the constitutional pledge. As a result, provincial autonomy is being compromised constantly with impunity.

Consistently and constantly, by political engineering, efforts have been made to have a strong centre at the expense of the provinces. Tactics are being employed to reverse the 18th Amendment to the constitution curtailing provincial autonomy by clipping the wings of autonomous provinces in utter violation of the constitution. An example of such engineering is an exponential increase in the number of federal civil servants through vertical and horizontal entries to run the administration of provinces in order to retain and strengthen federal control and power over administration of provinces. This is being done through amending the rules especially CSP (Composition and Cadre) Rules 1954 including other connected and allied orders.

A recurring fraud is being committed against the 1973 constitution and the all-important purpose of provincial autonomy, a hallmark for a federation based upon the constitutionally prescribed theory of administrative federalism ensuring provincial autonomy and decentralization of power. This is being consistently trampled and the very aims and objectives sought to be achieved by the 1973 constitution and the 18th Amendment are being defeated.

The writer is a lawyer and partner at a law firm based in Islamabad and Peshawar.

Read the original post:

The spirit of federalism - The News International

The outcome of the Grand Challenge 1, a tender for electric buses, is an innovative model for India and the world

The outcome of the Grand Challenge 1, a tender for electric buses, is an innovative model for India and the world

Indias procurement of 5,450 electric buses and subsequent increase in ambition to have 50,000 e-buses on the countrys roads by 2030 represent the immense potential for progress on climate and development goals through close collaboration between the Union and State governments. With the shared aim to rapidly electrify a key pillar of Indias public transportation, recent governance efforts have created a new business model for e-buses. If this sector is further developed, it can reduce air pollution in cities and fuel import bills, improve the balance sheets of State transport companies, and spur domestic manufacturing and job creation.

There are currently around 1,40,000 registered public buses on Indias roads, with large numbers of them having sputtering engines that spew planet-warming fumes into the atmosphere. At least 40,000 of these buses are at the end of their lifespan and must be taken off the roads immediately.

However, most buses are owned and operated by State transport undertakings, which are in poor financial health. In part, they incur large losses because they play an important social function by providing subsidised fares to crores of Indians each day. With a few exceptions such as Mumbais Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) of the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, when State transport undertakings go to the market to buy buses, they face problems of fragmented demand and high prices. Furthermore, there are limitations to nation-wide action on this issue as State governments control issues such as transit, urban governance and pollution control.

Until recently, there had never been a unified tender to address some of these challenges. Cooperative federalism can easily become a fraught issue. However, in the case of the Grand Challenge 1, a tender for 5,450 buses (across five major Indian cities Kolkata, Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Surat), the opposite happened. Instead of a race to the bottom, the respective expertise, strengths and needs of Union Ministries and States informed the process and the successful outcomes.

Convergence Energy Services Limited (CESL), a nodal agency of the Union government, acted as the programme manager in this effort at centralised procurement in concert, with State-led demand and customisation. Coordination between a range of Union government Ministries and State governments standardised demand conditions across these five cities and discovered prices that beat the increasingly outmoded internal combustion engines.

On a cost-per-kilometre basis, the prices discovered were 40% lower than diesel and 34% less than CNG (without factoring in the subsidy through FAME-II). A note on FAME: the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles in India (FAME-India) Scheme was launched under the National Mission on Electric Mobility in 2011/National Electric Mobility Mission Plan 2020, and unveiled in 2013. The scheme encourages the progressive induction of reliable, affordable and efficient electric and hybrid vehicles.

With high fuel prices and energy security challenges in the wake of the war in Ukraine, the switch to electric vehicles appears even more sensible and lucrative.

This inflection point in unit economics was enabled by three key factors: collaboration, pace and transparency. First, the tender itself was a fully consultative process and varied contributions by participants already influenced the design of future tenders. Second, there was a shared sense of urgency that shaped this collaboration, which leveraged the bureaucracys power when working on time-bound and measurable schemes and increased receptivity to creative and new ideas. Finally, transparency was the most resilient quality of a public process. From the outset, there was clarity about the intention to engender trust and build a publicly available process and tender that invited bids from automakers and operators.

In the wake of the first tender, it was incredibly gratifying to share a feeling of success with five States, five Transport Ministers, five State Secretaries and the heads of a range of State transport undertakings, each of whom had played a part in the process.

To be clear, excessive centralisation can have limitations and contradict the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution. For instance, Indias States and districts vary vastly in their vulnerability to climate impacts, and decentralised decision-making and locally-led adaptation will help reduce potential damage to lives and livelihoods. Urban local bodies and gram panchayats can be the heart of climate action.

However, in certain areas where India must move the needle quickly or where States lack size and financial clout, such as the electrification of mass mobility, centralised procurement and programme management can deliver architectural transformations rather than just incremental transitions.

Although a good start has been made, much work remains to be done to enable the electrification of mass mobility in India. The countrys shift to clean public transportation will require a suite of efforts, from ramping up manufacturing capacity to domestic battery production to building out charging infrastructure (ideally plugged in to a grid powered by renewables) to capacity building of State transport undertakings to developing financial instruments and structures.

Nonetheless, the progress we have made on electric bus tendering is a harbinger of climate action made possible by cooperative federalism. As India now ramps up its demand to deploy 50,000 buses across 40 cities, it will need to continue the spirit of true inter-ministerial and Union-State collaboration to fulfil its ambitious targets for green and inclusive economic development. The combined clout and strength of the federal compact can enable large strides being made towards innovative models that not only improve transit, the quality of life in cities and progress towards national climate goals but also build models for the rest of the world to emulate.

Mahua Acharya is Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Convergence Energy Services Limited, Government of India. The views expressed are personal

Original post:

Climate action that runs on cooperative federalism - The Hindu

TheWilliam Anderson Awardis presented annually bythe American Political Science Association (APSA)to honorthe best dissertation in the general field of federalism or intergovernmental relations, state, and local politics.

Javier Perez Sandoval holds a DPhil from the University of Oxford. He is passionate about regime change, subnational politics, presidentialism, and the dynamics linking socio-economic development and politics. While his doctoral thesis explored the origins of subnational democracy, his new research project focuses on its consequences for security, representation, and redistribution. Javier is currently a Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Pembroke College and a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Manchester.

Citation from the Award Committee:

The committee selected Javier Perez Sandovals dissertation, The Origins of Subnational Democracy: How Colonial Legacies and Labor Incorporation Shaped Regime Heterogeneity within Latin American Countries, for the 2022 William Anderson Award.

Research on subnational politics often highlights variation in the level of subnational democracy, with some scholars noting the presence of subnational authoritarian regimes within nationally democratic systems. Most research to date explaining such regime juxtaposition highlights a variety of contemporary (proximal) political and economic factors that contribute to it. In a novel contribution to current research, Javier focuses on the role of prior (distal) factors in explaining variation in subnational democracy. Specifically, he argues that variation in the nature of economic development under colonial rule that is, in whether colonial empires relied on liberal or mercantilist relationships with their colonies determined the timing and strength of organized labor, thereby shaping the role local political leaders and their relationship with national authorities. Those local leaders mediating labor-elite conflict during colonial rule were more likely to develop the capacity to support local democratic systems, especially compared to those local leaders that never developed such roles and who were thus usurped by colonial powers and national governments later on. Javier tests his argument using a range of qualitative and quantitative evidence and methods. Notably, he also carefully considers an exhaustive list of potential alternative mechanisms and provides empirical evidence to dismiss them. It is this effort that goes a long way to providing crucial support for his argument.

In making this argument, Javier shows how antecedent, colonial-era economic conditions fundamentally shape the evolution of subnational political arenas, leaving a legacy for subnational democracy that affects it even today. Impressive in its theoretical reach and empirical support, this research will force scholars of subnational politics to redefine the role of contemporary economic and political factors in explaining variation of subnational democracy and autocracy within nations.

APSA thanksthe committee membersfor their service: Dr. Allyson L. Benton (chair) of the University of Essex, Gwen Arnold of the University of California, Davis, and Dr. Philip B. Rocco of Marquette University.

Read the original here:

Javier Perez Sandoval Receives the 2022 William Anderson Award - - Political Science Now

Many scholars fear it might go far beyond tinkering. Who knows what forces would be unleashed? The rewrite might change the rules for ratification.

William Lyons| Guest columnist

Enjoy exclusive content and premium perks with a Knox News subscription

This year is important, and so is subscribing. Take advantage of our latest offer and enjoy premium content by visiting knoxnews.com/subscribe.

Knoxville News Sentinel

Yes, as many gratuitously say, the Constitution is not perfect. One wonders what a perfect document to outline and limit the role of government would look like. Perfection isnt an option. But disaster is.

Its flaws to some are its strengths to others. Its system of checks and balances slows things down, often to the point ofgridlock. But it does a lot to prevent a runaway executive or an out-of-control Congress. Its basis in federalism ensures state sovereignty that serves as a buffer against centralized national power. It also provides outsized influence to smaller states in the Senate and Electoral College.

Constitution Day was is Sept.17. This is the year to pay more attention. The founding document has been recognized, celebratedand ignored for decades. Now it's not so much ignored as misunderstood.

It is getting a lot more attention lately. Yes, thats good news and bad news. It's both in that more people than ever have opinions. Whats not so good is that many strong opinions on all sides are not grounded in history. Or an understanding of what a constitution can do, and cant do.

The Founding Fathersrecognized the inherent imperfection of any governing document. They provided for amending it. The idea wasn't to make change too difficult, but difficult enough to avoid the immediate passions of the moment. There have been only 27 amendments, and only five since 1960.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The second method has never been used. Some are talking about using it now.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states). The process mitigates against any wholesale, systemic change in favor of a series of focused, limited adjustments.

Hear more Tennessee voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

But these adjustments matter a lot. The post-Civil War 14th Amendment removes the ability of any state to deny equal protection or due process to individuals. Yes, it took until 1954 and Brown v. Board of Education, but states were no longer free to segregate their schools. States had to provide attorneys for those charged with serious crimes. Federalism, sure, but the national Constitution makes clear that it trumps state Constitutions and state laws.

A smallbut growing number of politicians and critics are making the case that it's time for a new Constitution. They see the amendment process as slow and piecemeal at best. As with so much that has gone astray, the constitutional mischief-makers live on the extremes of the political spectrum.

Some Republicans have been concerned for years and want a chance for a rewrite that limits the national government. Now progressives are singing from the same hymn book. They want to go in the other direction, most notablyto get rid of the Electoral College system that gives smaller states disproportionate influence. The verses differ dramatically, but the chorus is the same. Our Constitution is flawed and needs a full rewrite.

So whats so bad about calling for a new Constitutional Convention? Many scholars fear it might go far beyond tinkering. Thats basically what happened when the founders gathered to revise the existing Articles of Confederation. The revision turned into a total rewrite.

Of course, any total rewrite would have to get the approval of 38 states. That would seem to rule out anything too drastic in either direction. But who knows what forces would beunleashed?The rewrite might change the rules for ratification. This is not solid ground.

Imagine the social media flood of venom. Imagine the CNN, FOX, MSNBC talking-head exhortations. The Hippocratic oath merits an expansion to government. First, do no harm. Going down this road might do great damage.

William Lyons is Director of Policy Partnerships for the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tennessee. He also served as Chief Policy Officer for Knoxville Mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown and Madeline Rogero.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy or the University of Tennessee.

Read more:

A new Constitutional Convention is a very bad idea | Opinion - Knoxville News Sentinel

TheBarbara Sinclair Lecture Awardis presented annually to honor achievement in promoting understanding of the U.S. Congress and legislative politics.

Rodney Herois the Raul Yzaguirre Chair in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University, and is also Director of the Center for Latina/os and American Politics Research (CLAPR) at ASU.

His research and teaching focus on American democracy and politics, especially as viewed through the analytical lenses of Latino Politics, Racial/Ethnic Politics, State and Urban Politics, Federalism, and Institutions. He has (co)authored ten books. His 2013 co-authored book, Black-Latino Relations in U.S. National Politics: Beyond Conflictor Cooperation,was chosen for the 2014 Best Book on Latino Politics Award from the Latino Caucus of the APSA. He has also authored and co-authored a number of articles in scholarly journals, and chapters in edited books, including in two of the recent editions of Congress Reconsidered (by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer). Among other of his books are: Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-tiered Pluralism (1992); Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics (which was selected for the APSAs Woodrow Wilson Award in 1999); and co-author of Multi-Ethnic Moments: The Politics of Urban Education Reform (2006). He was a co-principal investigator on the Latino National Survey (completed in 2006).

He has also served on the editorial board of a number of major political science journals, as well as president of the APSA (2014-15) and of other professional associations.

Citation from the Award Committee:

Professor Rodney Herois this years selection for the Barbara Sinclair Lecture, given to a preeminent scholar who promotes the understanding of the U.S. Congress and legislative politics. The selection committee noted that Professor Hero has done this in a wide variety of ways. Hero is considered one of the most esteemed scholars of racial and ethnic politics, and has devoted a good deal of his scholarship to the representation of racial groups and interests in congressional governance in ways that have served to bridge the study of citizens and the study of political institutions. His work on substantive and descriptive representation of Blacks and Latinos in Congress is nothing short of path breaking. As well, his work contributed immensely to our understanding of the role that inequality plays in social and welfare policy making at the federal level. These represent only a small portion of his immense research that spans other areas, including urban and state politics, political behavior, and elections.

Rodney is currently Raul Yzaguirre Chair in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University. He previously held faculty positions as professor of political science and the Haas Chair in Diversity and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley (2010-17);the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy in the Department of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame (2000-10); at the University of Colorado at Boulder (1989-2000); and at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (1980-87). Hero is the recipient of many best book and paper awards, including the Ralph J. Bunche Award, the Latino Politics Best Book Award, and the Woodrow Wilson book award. In 2007-08, Rodney served as President of the Midwest Political Science Association, and in 2014-15 he served as President of the American Political Science Association.

APSA thanks the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at the American University School of Public Affairs for its support of the award and the committee members for their service:Dr. David C. Barker, American University (Co-Chair); Megan McConaughey (Co-Chair); Dr. Scott Adler of theUniversity of Colorado, Boulder; Dr. Ashley English of the University of North Texas; and Dr. Kristin Kanthak of the University of Pittsburgh.

View original post here:

Rodney Hero Receives the 2022 Barbara Sinclair Lecture Award - - Political Science Now

B-334574

September 7, 2022

The Honorable Thomas R. CarperChairmanThe Honorable Shelley Moore CapitoRanking MemberCommittee on Environment and Public WorksUnited States Senate

The Honorable Ral M. GrijalvaChairmanThe Honorable Bruce WestermanRanking MemberCommittee on Natural ResourcesHouse of Representatives

Subject: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Hunting; 20222023 Seasons for Certain Migratory Game Birds

Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a major rule promulgated by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) titled Migratory Bird Hunting; 20222023 Seasons for Certain Migratory Game Birds (RIN: 1018-BF07). We received the rule on August 26, 2022. It was published in the Federal Register as a final rule on August 19, 2022. 87 Fed. Reg. 50965. The effective date is August 19, 2022.

According to FWS, this rule prescribes the seasons, hours, areas, and daily bag and possession limits for hunting migratory birds. FWS stated that taking of migratory birds is prohibited unless specifically provided for by annual regulations. FWS also stated that this rule permits the taking of designated species during the 20222023 season.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires a 60-day delay in the effective date of a major rule from the date of publication in the Federal Register or receipt of the rule by Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). The 60-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, for any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping. 5 U.S.C. 808(1). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(1), FWS stated that it did not defer the effective date of this final rule because the rule establishes regulations for hunting.

Enclosed is our assessment of FWSs compliance with the procedural steps required by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. If you have any questions about this report or wish to contact GAO officials responsible for the evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule, please contact Shari Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-6398.

Shirley A. JonesManaging Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Gregory W. FlemingWildlife BiologistFish and Wildlife Service

ENCLOSURE

REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULEISSUED BY THEDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICETITLEDMIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING; 20222023 SEASONSFOR CERTAIN MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS(RIN: 1018-BF07)

(i) Cost-benefit analysis

The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prepared an economic analysis for the 20222023 migratory bird hunting season. FWS estimated the consumer surplus of three alternatives for duck hunting regulations (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). FWS noted that the duck hunting regulatory alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 20212022 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations similar to the regulations in the 20212022 season. FWS stated that for the 20222023 season, it chose alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $329 million. FWS also stated that it chose alternative 3 for the 20092010 through 20212022 seasons.

(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603605, 607, and 609

According to FWS, this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA. FWS estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $2.2 billion at small businesses in 2022.

(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 15321535

FWS determined and certified that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or state government, or private entities. Therefore, FWS stated, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Act.

(iv) Other relevant information or requirements under acts and executive orders

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

On August 31, 2021, FWS published a proposed rule to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 20. 86 Fed. Reg. 48649. Additionally, FWS stated that it conducted an open meeting with Flyway Council Consultants on September 2829, 2021, at which participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 20222023 regulations. On February 2, 2022, FWS published the proposed frameworks for the 20222023 season migratory bird hunting regulations. 87 Fed. Reg. 5946. On July 15, 2022, FWS published the final frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations, from which state wildlife conservation agency officials selected seasons, hours, areas, and limits for hunting migratory birds during the 20222023 season. 87 Fed. Reg. 42598 (July 15, 2022 Final Rule). FWS stated that this final rule is the culmination of the annual rulemaking process allowing migratory game bird hunting, which started with the August 31, 2021, proposed rule. Lastly, FWS stated that this final rule sets the migratory game bird hunting seasons based on the input from the states and that it previously addressed all comments in the July 15, 2022 Final Rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 35013520

According to FWS, this rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under PRA. FWS stated that OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB Control Numbers: 1018-0019, North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires Feb. 29, 2024); 10180023, Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20 (expires Apr. 30, 2023); and 1018-0171, Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR Part 20 (expires Oct. 31, 2024).

Statutory authorization for the rule

FWS promulgated this final rule pursuant to sections 703712, and 742aj of title 16, United States Code.

Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

According to FWS, OMBs Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is economically significant under the Order.

Executive Order No. 13132 (Federalism)

FWS stated that this final rule will not impose significant federalism effects and will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Read the original:

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Hunting; 20222023 Seasons for Certain Migratory Game Birds - Government...

Letter to the Chief Ministers

Respected Chief Ministers,

Subject:-Increasing threat to federalism from Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) Need to form a Federal Front of the States to persuade the Centre not to proliferate CSSs, instead transfer existing CSSs with the associated fund allocations to the States

I invite your attention to my letter dated March 2, 2022 addressed to Shri M K Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, with copies marked to the other State Chief Ministers, on the need to form a Federal Front of the States. A copy of that letter may be readily accessed from the following web link.

https://countercurrents.org/2022/03/help-set-up-a-federal-front-to-thwart-central-leaderships-onslaught-on-federalism/

This is a part of a series of letters I have written to the State Chief Ministers on the need to set up a common platform for the States to come together and discuss issues relevant to federalism.

In particular, in recent times, there has been a steep increase in budgetary allocations earmarked for the CSSs and other schemes covered under Article 282 of the Constitution.

While the allocations made under Articles 270 and 275 are strictly as per the pattern determined by the Finance Commission (FC) in consultation with the States, the allocations made under Article 282 are beyond the FCs scope. The latter is the provision that has enabled the successive governments at the Centre to formulate many CSSs, several of them intruding into areas that legitimately belong to the States.

While such CSSs that facilitate transfer of indigenous know-how and technological inputs needed for capacity building, which lie outside the domain of the States, are necessary, the Centre should, as envisaged in the Constitution, view the provision in Article 282 more as an exception rather than a rule and use it selectively.

The erstwhile Planning Commission (PC), which the present government discontinued in 2015, adopted a formula (adjusted Gadgil formula) for inter se allocation of Plan funds among the States. As far as the CSSs were concerned, the PC was in close touch with the States, took their concerns against proliferation of the CSSs into account and tried to reduce their number and rationalise them, though without any significant reduction either in the number of schemes or in the amounts transferred through them. This is largely attributable to the Centres reluctance to reduce its domain of authority.

The dominance of the CSSs as a vehicle for transferring funds to the States has increased rapidly over the last eight years. In many sectors important from the point of view of the States, the present government at the Centre has introduced CSSs which could distort the States priorities, diminish their role and weaken them politically.

In 2014-15, the CSS fund releases under Article 282 constituted only 7.5% of the gross fund transfers to the States in that year. In contrast, in the Budget estimates for 2022-23, the corresponding proportion is around 47%. If this trend is to continue, the day is not far off when discretionary grants from the Centre to the States will eclipse rule-based transfers, eroding the role of the FC. If this happens, very little political space will remain for the States, with the governance system becoming more unitary than federal.

The 15thFinance Commission has referred to resource-expenditure asymmetry between the Union and the States. While the shares of the Union and the States in resources are around 63% and 37% respectively, the corresponding shares in expenditure are around 38% and 62%. There is a need to correct this asymmetry by increasing the States share in resources, a concern that is addressed by the successive Finance Commissions (FCs).

As already pointed out, the CSS-related funds provided by the Centre to the States under Article 282, from out of the Unions tax revenues, are over and above the rule-based allocations made under Articles 270 and 275, in line with the pattern recommended by the FC. To that extent, though they may imply an additionality to the resources of the States, since they do not allow any flexibility to the States to adapt them to suit their requirements, they are often out of tune with the States own priorities. Since they come with the pre-condition that the States should also provide funds to meet their share of expenditure to qualify for each scheme, the States are forced to earmark their own resources, distorting their own budgetary priorities. The FC allocates the States share in the Unions tax resources in accordance with a formula that takes into account various factors such as their respective needs,inter seequity considerations and relative indices of performance, whereas the pattern of allocation of CSS-related funds among the States neither conforms to those norms nor it leaves any flexibility to the States to align the schemes in tune with their own needs and priorities.

It is against this background, the Fifteenth Finance Commission (FFC) has observed, Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) co-financed by the Government of India should be flexible enough to allow States to adapt and innovate. Top-down mandates and strictures on programme implementation are the antithesis of an open-source model

On the otherhand, the different Central Ministries releasing CSS funds have been insisting on branding the schemes with Central logos, as if the funds belong to the Centre. Such branding of a scheme with a Central logo, giving credit to the Centre, runs against the grain of cooperative federalism.

To cite one specific example, the guidelines issued on the CSSs and other non-FC special assistance from time to time since 2017 by the Union Ministry of Finance make it difficult for the States to innovate and adapt them to suit their requirements. Those guidelines insist on the States to propagate the all-India character of the schemes, branded appropriately, with the credit given exclusively to the Central leadership, a fact that betrays the intentions underlying those schemes. The CSSs have thus become a convenient instrument for the political leadership at the Centre to use public resources for gaining private political advantage, a prospect that the framers of the Constitution would never have visualised, when they inserted Article 282.

The recent unsavoury wrangle between a Central Minister and the Telangana leadership on whose picture should be displayed at a remotely located PDS ration shop in the State (https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/fm-nirmala-question-missing-pm-photo-telangana-ration-ship-trs-min-hits-back-167478) makes a mockery of the idea of co-partnership that is the hallmark of federalism, as explained by Dr B R Ambedkar in his historic address to the Constituent Assembly when he presented the draft of the Constitution onNovember 25, 1949,

Cooperative federalism is a concept based on complementarity and mutualrespect between the Union and the States, not on an adversarialrelationship.

On the intent underlying Article 282 as perceived by the framers of the Constitution and its potential danger to States identity, I have attempted an article, a copyof which I have attached here (http://eassarma.in/sites/default/files/public/CSSs-a-threat-to-Federalism.pdf).In that article, I have tried to raise the following aspects.

I feel that the threat hiding in Article 282 can become a reality soon, which does not augur well for the future of the nation,unless the States collectivelyneutralise that threat and restore their legitimate space as provided in the Constitution.

I request you to consider the line of action proposed by me and act in time to safeguardfederalism.

Regards,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to Government of India

Visakhapatnam

Follow this link:

Increasing Threat To Federalism From Centrally Sponsored Schemes- Need To Form A Federal Front - Countercurrents.org

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Publishing date:

In January 2020, in the aftermath of a significant court ruling in support of the Coastal GasLink pipeline, B.C. Premier John Horgan (of all people) declared, this project is proceeding and the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline is a crucial component of the massive LNG Canada project. And indeed, without the rule of law, there are no such mega-projects.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Calgary Herald, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Calgary Herald Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

The recent Canadian visit by Germanys chancellor has once again put the spotlight on the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian natural gas and the need for Canada to be a global player when it comes to liquefied natural gas exports.

While the LNG Canada project helps us tap into the tremendous global demand, it is the only such project under construction in this country. The current global situation represents a missed opportunity for this country and, hopefully, we wont make the same mistake again.

So at this important crossroad, does it really make sense for Alberta to be an obstacle? Do we really want to undermine the very constitutional and legal order necessary for such mega-projects to proceed? If one of Albertas chief complaints is the lack of energy infrastructure in this country, it hardly helps our cause or our credibility to be a part of the problem.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Alberta obviously does not and cannot export LNG. Our vast supplies of natural gas are a huge advantage, but the liquefaction, storage, loading and shipping must happen elsewhere. We need partners and we need to be a partner.

Politicians, policies and red tape are to blame for our status quo, not the Constitution or federalism itself. Yet, Alberta seems poised to take a blowtorch to the one part of this whole mess that hasnt let us down.

In the case of Coastal GasLink, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled against an attempt to reject federal law and jurisdiction. That decision much like the court decision upholding federal jurisdiction over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was rightly celebrated here in Alberta. Its certainly not in our interests to legitimize or normalize the notion that such laws or jurisdiction can be nullified.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Canada isnt broken; its just suffering from an absence of vision and smart policy. Case in point was the prime ministers bizarre comment last week about a lack of a business case for East Coast LNG exports, which flies in the face of the numerous attempts by industry to proceed with such projects.

Its not just a business case, either. As outgoing Premier Jason Kenney recently noted, Canada can help the world reduce CO2 emissions by expanding (LNG) exports, helping the rest of the world move away from coal power. And we can help Europe end its addiction to Putins energy exports.

Too many in Alberta have mistakenly conflated the failures of our current federal government into an indictment of federalism or the Constitution. Mind you, if a snap fall election produced a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre, most of this talk about nullification and constitutional upheaval would quickly fall by the wayside. In the meantime, though, were treading on potentially dangerous and harmful ground.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A recent report from the Public Policy Forum makes a strong case for decisive action, declaring that There is no reason for Canadians to feel tentative or apologetic about our gas if it helps solve global problems on the way to a net-zero world and beyond This is truly one of those times when the world does need more Canada.

More Canada first requires a shift in federal policy, but its a dead end if we allow the rule of law and constitutional order to be undermined.

So which is actually in Albertas best interests: decisive federal leadership or jurisdictional and constitutional uncertainty and chaos? We cannot have it both ways.

Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge airs weekdays 12:30-3 p.m. on 770CHQR and 2-3 p.m. on 630CHED rob.breakenridge@corusent.com Twitter: @RobBreakenridge

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

View post:

Breakenridge: Supporting federalism is the only way Alberta can be a partner in LNG exports - Calgary Herald

The 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), particularly the flexible dollars it made available to state and local governments through State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), marked a generational experiment in fiscal federalism. Not since the late 1980s has Washington engaged in general revenue sharing with state and local governments. And this time, the scale of investment$350 billion distributed over two yearswas far greater.

The context for ARPA was also far different. Congress appropriated substantial aid to help counteract potentially devastating fiscal, economic, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic at the state and local levels. Under the regulations implementing SLFRF, recipient governments must report information to the Treasury Department on how they are planning to use these funds, consistent with a set of broad categories of eligible spending under ARPA. However, much of that information varies in quality, consistency, coverage, and comparability, hampering efforts to understand spending priorities and better coordinate investment across places and time in support of a broad-based economic recovery.

These factors motivated our respective organizationsBrookings Metro and GREATER MSPto create tools that gather, summarize, and visualize how local governments are putting SLFRF dollars to work. Brookings Metro partnered with the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties to produce the Local Government ARPA Investment Tracker, which tracks data on SLFRF-supported projects in more than 300 large cities and counties around the country. And as part of its MSP Federal Funding Hub project, GREATER MSP partnered with 12 cities and 17 counties in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region to generate the MSP ARPA Tracker, which tracks those jurisdictions spending plans using the same categories as the Local Government ARPA Investment Tracker. Our organizations have used these tools to assess the rate at which local governments are committing SLFRF dollars to specific projects, the broad spending priorities they are identifying, and how these vary across cities and counties and by jurisdiction size.

We see three common benefits to sharing these unique data through our respective Trackers:

Brookings Metro and its partners and GREATER MSP will continue to update our Trackers with new data as it becomes available. In both the Twin Cities region and other cities and counties across the country, local decisionmakers still have significant SLFRF resources they have yet to budget and spend. By shining a spotlight on their efforts, we hope to inform their decisions in ways that increase the programs impacts and broaden awareness of opportunities to support equitable growth and prosperity in the pandemics wake.

Go here to read the rest:

Two tools for tracking the American Rescue Plans local and national impacts - Brookings Institution