Competitive Federalism: The New Thought for Sustainable Growth - Research Paper

Introduction

In the 21st century, the new thought concerning growth has swayed the upper levels of governments to move far from misleading plans intended to promote sensible growth across their states, and instead put more effort on endogenous projects, grounded on local dimensions, and geared on the competition. The developments have opened a way for competitive federalism, where decentralized components strive to attract development, thus reinforcing the propensity to compete at the lowest level, as the interest of specific individuals is prioritized. Competitive federalism has elevated the salience of regional transfer and equity, where a majority of citizens from affluent regions, are unwilling to redistribute their taxes to help their competitors. However, the countries commitment to federalism has faced considerable challenges, passing through a controversial period of constitutional reforms, experiencing failure in efforts to reform the constitution, and surviving a secessionist challenge. Given the distinctive nature of the Canadian system of government and its recent troubling history, it seems that the Canadian constitutional story offers a prism through which to examine its challenges.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Historical Development of Federalism in Canada

Federalism is a governance system with a section of power and authority and functions between a state and national government. The independence and powers of the federal government is restricted by the partly reserved autonomy of the state, thus making the federalist system a fusion between unitary rule and coalition. Federalism enriches policy choices at the state level, amplifies representation through the abundance of electoral offices, and stimulates national economic engine as commercial interests benefit from wider market opportunities. Federalism solves a variety of problems using the government's design. The first issue involves the acknowledgment of nationwide multiplicity in plurinational states, where numerous state demand recognition. In Canada, the application of this system is seen as a bargaining chip amongst two nations, that is, the French and British, but lately between Canada, Quebec, and English combined with the demands of recognition and self-government from aboriginal peoples, and emphasis on multicultural diversity. Canadian federalism has evolved since the year 1867. However, this system faces institutional and policy challenges in the Western part of the country, particularly regarding the status of Aboriginal peoples. Currently, Canada is a complex multi-level state, despite its constitutional lawyers arguing that devolution is primarily different from federalism. The separation of controls is legally rooted and constitutionally enforceable. Since the inception of federalism, Canada has undergone various changes through numerous stages of enhancing the abilities of federal authorities and intrusions into regional capabilities. Nonetheless, its structure can be subjected to interpretation.

Whereas federalism creates two levels of administration, the standard impression is that there no chain of command, where each tier of government has powers but united by the cooperation between them. During the federal establishment of Canada, a majority of British strategic political players hoped for a three-tiered system between each government stage, with the local system being lower to the federal administration, in some critical issues, and with Ottawa in the same subordinate position. The legal base for this position, comprised reserved powers, that permits the upper government level to suspend and eventually decline any legal Act sanctioned by the bottom level. Even though these two authorities are currently regarded as inactive by legal professionals, this structure is still a political philosophy, hence influencing the relationship between the local and the federal governments. The culture of authority still presents ways in which intergovernmental relations are steered in Canada.

Canadian provinces have distinct political cultures varied across provinces in concert with other socio-demographic factors like class, employment, and immigration status. More recent analyses have debated whether regional political cultures have become more or less distinctive over time. While these analyses tell us much about the nature and diversity of political culture within the Canadian federation, they pay surprisingly little attention to beliefs and attitudes about federalism and federations, what others have called the political culture of federalism. This culture has acknowledged the importance of public opinion and the social context in shaping governments' preferences as they enter into intergovernmental negotiations. When intergovernmental talks fail, the judiciary must resolve disagreements that arise from government directives. Also, the judicial arm has a specific function of establishing the limits of the legal settlement by setting precedence in case of laws, thus influencing Canadian establishments. The division of competence in Canada is ingrained in restraining influences at both levels. There are difficulties in amending the constitution. Hence, the court must interpret the law to become accustomed to the varying social circumstances, economic, and political situations. Since the year 1970, the Supreme court in Canada has openly assumed an advanced role of clarifying, hence providing a platform upon which the constitution can evolve. This interpretation has led to the expansion of federal powers, taking into account the constitutional conventions.

Rights and Federalism in Preeminent Court of Canada

The issue of Federalism in Canada must be reviewed in the context of international law; for example, international law declares that the central government is responsible for fulfilling treaty commitments regardless of the jurisdiction, as outlined in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The treaty states that a party to the convention must not use domestic rules as a defense for violating the obligation of the international agreement. In the case of Canada, the treaty entered into force in the year 1980, and the central authority was reinforced by specific provisions in the international trade agreement. Currently, Canada is among the rare federal countries lacking distinct constitutional limits about the actions of international non-centralized governments. Section 132 of the British Native Act gives the dominion the powers to enforce agreements negotiated by the British. Thus, Canada has gained increasing autonomy in its foreign affairs, with direct implications for the provinces.

The enactment of the bill of rights reveals how the idea of human rights in Canada has advanced, from the results of two requests presented to the legislature by members of Jehovah's Witness, who were detained in Quebec in the 1940s. The bill was not entrenched, on these petitions, but this meant that the bill of rights entrenched in these cases, lacked the statutory power, and could be modified by the legislature using the same procedure applied in enacting other laws. Moreover, it was explicitly applied to the federal authority and but did not have any impact on provinces. Federal powers in Canada are not given an unusually broad construction to encompass matters that were a renowned Canadian constitutional test. The demoralizing effect of the Charter, which applies equally to both levels of government, is another matter to which an entire, separate work is devoted. The critical section of the Charter deals with essential legal and equality rights, and freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, and unique responses to the problems of the linguistic group's rights. Section 1 of the Charter, makes all of the liberties and rights therein subject to rational restrictions set by the law as justified in an independent and civilized society.

The Canadian Supreme Court has thrived in enacting an operational Charter review approach, as a formal federation actor. The development of a new plan has resulted in the re-emergence of the adjudicator of the federalism function in dispute prior to the amendment of the 1982 constitution. The accomplishment is apparent both jurisprudentially and scientifically Since the courts have acted in an even-handed style in determining such rights, canceling an approximate equivalent sum of provincial and federal Acts. In effect, the new plan, the Supreme Court, has flourished in protecting and safeguarding the values of local autonomy and Federalism. It has achieved this goal in a new policy atmosphere that needs the legislative force to govern in the right culture. Moreover, the judiciary, through its court system, has established a jurisprudence based on federalism within the legal framework of rights litigations, deepening the cultural multiplicity and allowing the provinces to solve difficult questions in distinctive ways. The growth of the limitation clause, where the judiciary accepts the diversity of policy as a significant aim for violating the freedom and rights, which indicates the rise of a federalism topic, in the judiciary's jurisprudence charter. This compassion towards federal multiplicity is essential because the unpredicted change in the Supreme Court's explanation of the Charter has followed the resolution between rights and federalism in Canada.

The evolving tactic to court annulment has prompted the Supreme Court to implement the solution of suspending the declaration of unconstitutionality, which demonstrates the existence of numerous constitutional guardians, and the restricted utility of approaching the legal guardian. The role of a court ruling which affects provincial sovereignty is borne beyond the court actors but within the scope of legislative actors who ensures that the law is subject to a Charter evaluation that limits the capacity of the judicial arm to overturn and nullify laws as an abuse to the Charter.

The case Republic versus Morgetaler (1988), illustrates the impact of federalism and political implementation of national policies such as the abortion policy on access to services. Canada has a significant Health Act provision, which demands that provinces and specific regions, should offer medical facilities and make access to these services more accessible. The members of the Liberal Party also support legislation that allows health facilities to offer abortion services, if they are essential for their survival, and have attempted to implement the policy although the 1867 North American Act, and the existing constitution reserving these rights to provinces. The law allows the federal government to sanction the violation of the Health Act provisions. However, in the case of Republic versus Morgentaler (1988), the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion by striking the section of the Criminal Code, which restricted legal abortions to those approved by health professionals, thus affirming a woman's right to abortion. Nonetheless, the state failed to establish a constitutional right for entitling women to access abortion services. Thus, prompting the Supreme Court to strike down the existing laws on the basis that its provisions violated the right to life and liberty among women.

The case of Guerin Versus Republic also illustrates how court choices sway the enactment of bills and its impact on federalism in Canada. When ruling the case, Justice Dickson notes that the interests of the Aboriginals in the land are a preexisting legal right, which cannot be changed by any statutory provisions or Royal Proclamation but should instead be based on the independent historical and cultural basis for Aboriginal title. The court also notes that the Aboriginal perspectives must be considered when interpreting the government measures affecting the ri...