Latest news with #ClarityAct
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
House Dems Get Bonus Hearing on Crypto Market Structure, Assail Trump Conflicts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump's crypto ventures were once again under the microscope during a House Financial Services Committee hearing that otherwise saw legal experts express worries about how regulators might police digital assets under a market structure bill. The committee held a "minority day" hearing — meaning the witnesses were primarily picked by the Democrats, the current minority party in the House — on Friday, letting lawmakers ask questions more targeted on concerns they have with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the Republican-led market structure legislation that will receive a markup vote next week. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee who'd demanding this extracurricular hearing after the panel met earlier in the week on the same topic, pointed to Trump's various crypto efforts in her opening statement, saying her goal was to stop Trump from profiting off of his crypto ventures to the extent he has been. "What I'm opposed to in this act … is the crooked president of the United States of America, who's decided to use the office of the presidency to enhance his access to profits," Waters said. Republicans focused on a different tack: "Currently, there is no federal framework for non-security digital assets," Committee Chair French Hill said in his own opening statement, a stance echoed by his colleagues Bryan Steil and Warren Davidson. They contend that Democrats and the administration of former President Joe Biden allowed years to pass in which they failed to protect consumers by offering no rules to oversee crypto. Crypto has driven an ideological wedge into the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, with many Democrats — typically skewing toward the younger members — supporting the advancement of digital assets legislation despite the direction of their leadership. Most of the Democrats attending this bonus hearing on the Clarity Act were in the crypto-critical camp, though Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, has supported crypto bills in the past and questioned witnesses at the hearing about his concerns that the bill may include loopholes that could allow financial firms to dodge oversight. Himes, a yes vote on last year's predecessor to the Clarity Act — the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21 — said some of the provisions in the new effort may allow for a carveout that can be abused by certain types of issuers under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The Clarity Act itself is more complicated than it needs to be and does not address some of the cybersecurity risks posed to the cryptocurrency industry, said Carole House, a former White House adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center. She pointed to recent crypto hacks, including crypto exchange ByBit, as an example. Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets, a Washington group advocating for financial policies that favor the public, said her bigger issue was with the exceptions that exist for companies to seek regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that it might provide loopholes for issuers or other crypto companies that otherwise would be regulated under the SEC and be subject to securities registration and reporting requirements. But as has been seen in other recent hearings, Trump's crypto ties again reappeared as the star of the show. Bart Naylor, a policy expert at Public Citizen and a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes Trump is specifically soliciting gifts through his memecoin and selling favors through actions like his memecoin dinner or by terminating SEC lawsuits against companies which donated money to him. White House officials have routinely denied Trump is exhibiting a conflict of interests in his pursuit of digital assets business gains. Waters had staged a walkout last month from what was meant to be a joint hearing of this and the House Agriculture Committee on crypto policy, though industry insiders were careful to note that not all the panel's Democrats followed Waters' departure.
Canada Standard
6 days ago
- Business
- Canada Standard
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using sovereignty sentiments in Alberta as a kind of implied threat to get a better deal for the province. In a letter to Mark Carney in the run-up to the recent first ministers conference in Saskatoon, Smith told the prime minister that failure to build additional pipelines for Alberta oil would "send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa's commitment to national unity." Accordingly, it's worth asking: what would happen if Alberta did vote to leave? Two historical touch points are the 1995 sovereignty referendum in Quebec and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in 2016. In different ways, both examples drive home one inevitable point: in the event of a vote to pursue sovereignty, the future of Alberta would have to be negotiated one painful and uncertain step at a time. Sovereignty is an assertion of independent governmental authority, notably including a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a defined people and territory. Unlike provinces in a country like Canada, sovereign countries co-operate with each other if - and only if - it's in their interests to do so. Some proponents of separatism have argued that an independent Alberta could rely on international law to secure continued access to tidewater through Canada. The idea seems to form the basis of Smith's assertions that one nation cannot "landlock" another under international law. But that's not the case. What's more, international law - even if it does apply in theory - doesn't always hold in practice. That's because between countries, formal anarchy prevails: no one has the responsibility to enforce international law on their own. If one country breaks international law, it's up to other countries to respond. If that doesn't happen, then it just doesn't happen. Simply put, if Alberta were to leave Canada, it would lose all enforceable rights and protections offered by the Canadian Constitution and enforced by the institutions and courts. In their place, Alberta would get exactly - and only - what it can bargain for. The Quebec independence saga has in many ways clarified and refined the path to potential secession for provinces in Canada, and hints at what can happen in the aftermath of a sovereignty referendum. In the wake of the near miss that was the 1995 referendum - when those wanting to remain in Canada defeated those who voted to separate with the narrowest of margins - Jean Chretien's Liberal government took rapid steps to respond. Plan A focused on actions aimed at addressing Quebec's grievances, not unlike Carney's quest for a national consensus to build an additional pipeline. Another course of action, known as Plan B, defined the path to secession. The federal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the legality of sovereignty. It then passed the Clarity Act, which enshrined into law Ottawa's understanding of the court's answer. The reference and act both made clear that any secession attempt could be triggered only by a "clear majority" on a "clear question." The act also illuminated the stakes of secession. The preamble of the legislation, for instance, spells out that provincial sovereignty would mean the end of guaranteed Canadian citizenship for departing provincial residents. The act also lays out some of the points to be negotiated in the event of secession, "including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights." Simply put, everything would be on the table if Albertans opted to separate. Brexit provides an example of just how painful that process can be. After voting to leave the European Union, the U.K. found itself bogged down in a difficult negotiation process that continues to this day. Political, economic and trade rights - even including the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - have all been painfully reconstituted through complex negotiations. Despite the promises made by those who advocated in favour of Brexit, the U.K. will continue to pay in perpetuity for access to the limited EU services it still retains. The U.K. is dealing with these challenges even though it was already a sovereign state. Alberta is not. Everything between a sovereign Alberta and its neighbours would be subject to difficult negotiations, both in the initial days of an independent Albertan state and any subsequent discussions. Once independent, Alberta would be a landlocked, oil-exporting nation. It would be negotiating with Canada - and the United States, its neighbour to the south - over every aspect of its new relationship. Its borders with other provinces and territories would need be negotiated, as would the status of marginalized populations and Indigenous Peoples within Alberta. The status of lands subject to treaty - in other words, most of the province - would have to be negotiated. Indigenous Peoples themselves have already made clear they have no interest in secession and would mount a vigorous defence of Indigenous rights as they exist within Canada. After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. A new republic has no automatic claims to territory with respect to Indigenous Peoples and treaty lands. Once borders were settled, Alberta would have little leverage and would need a lot of help as a country of about 4.5 million negotiating with neighbours of 35 million in Canada and 350 million in the U.S. Who would be its allies? Nothing would be guaranteed, not Alberta's admission to the United Nations, the establishment of an Albertan currency and exchange rates, national and continental defence, the management of shared borders and citizenship rules or the terms of cross-border trade and investment. Access to Canadian ports would be at Canada's discretion, negotiated on terms Canada considered in its interests. Alberta could no more force a pipeline through Canada than through the United States. Of course, a republic of Alberta would be free to pursue deeper relations with the American republic to its south. The U.S president, however, has already made clear what would be the likely terms for free trade: accession. Here, too, there would be no guarantees. Alberta could just as easily become an American territory, with limited representation, as it could a 51st state. "Puerto Rico North" is as possible as "Alaska South." Gone too would be any claims to share collective goods. Alberta's neighbours would have no incentive, for instance, to help with the inevitable post-oil clean-up, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Simply put, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada, it would truly be on its own.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. House Republicans Officially Introduce Crypto Market Structure Bill
Leading Republicans in the House of Representatives have formally introduced their latest version of the bill to establish a regulatory structure for digital assets markets, something the industry has clamored for for years. The successor to the previous session's Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), the new bill called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is being pushed by top Republicans in the House Financial Services and the House Agriculture committees. Stablecoin legislation is still the frontrunner to be the first major piece of U.S. crypto law, but Thursday's introduction pushes the ball forward on the more important and complex of the two companion efforts. "America should be the global leader in the digital assets marketplace, but we can't do that without establishing a clear regulatory framework," said Representative Dusty Johnson, the South Dakota Republican who leads the agriculture subcommittee focused on digital assets, in a statement on the bill's introduction. The hefty 236-page Clarity Act — likely a starting point for lengthy negotiations between the parties in the House and eventually their Senate counterparts — gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission "exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over digital commodity cash or spot markets that occur on or with new CFTC registered entities," which represents the bulk of crypto activity according to the current thinking of U.S. regulators. The legislation would set up a regime in which crypto platforms would have options for registration with the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission, depending on whether they're trading in digital assets commodities such as bitcoin BTC, securities or both. Those seeking registration with the CFTC as a digital commodity exchange, broker or dealer could get provisional registrations while the agency is working on rules. The bill also requires crypto platforms to be regulated as financial firms under the Bank Secrecy Act; exempts certain decentralized finance (DeFi) operations and wallet providers from SEC oversight; bans future efforts of regulators to force custody firms to hold their customers' assets on their own balance sheets as the SEC staff sought to do under a now-scrapped accounting stance; and puts some transactional authorities over payment stablecoins — which are clearly stated to not be securities — in the hands of whichever regulator already oversees the firm involved in the activity. The Clarity Act additionally delved into so-called "qualified digital asset custodians" — previously a controversial point when the SEC sought to allow only a narrow array of regulated custodians to handle the assets of investment advisers' clients. The new bill sets the standard for such a custodian as one under "adequate supervision and appropriate regulation by certain federal, state, or foreign authorities" — a bar the CFTC will be called to define. DeFi is kicked down the road, with the bill demanding the SEC, CFTC and Treasury Department study that arena of digital assets and come back with a report in a year on how to proceed. The Government Accountability Office would also be asked to write a report on DeFi and on non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The involved regulators would have a year to put the Clarity Act's market structure rules into effect if the law were enacted. That's a tight timeframe for complex financial regulation, which can often take more than a year — or even several years — for the agency staffs to write rules and seek public input. Despite similar timelines in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, for instance, there are still a few provisions that haven't yet been completed. The Senate will return to a floor debate next week on its stablecoin bill, which has already cleared several procedural hurdles with bipartisan support, despite loud Democratic misgivings about President Donald Trump's personal business connections to the crypto sector his government is seeking to regulate. But it's unclear whether that legislation will mesh with whatever version of stablecoin oversight the House eventually votes on, leaving uncertainty about exactly how crypto legislation will proceed in this session. Some discussion remains about whether the stablecoin and market structure bills should be combined as a single crypto push in Congress. Trump has called for both to land on his desk by the August congressional break, though many crypto insiders in Washington see that as a highly ambitious goal. The relevant House committees are set to hold digital assets hearings next week that will give members a chance to publicly discuss the details of the legislation.
Calgary Herald
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
Everything you need to know about the threat of Alberta separatism
Article content Then, everything would follow per the federal Clarity Act. This legislation sets out that a province — whether Quebec, Alberta or anywhere else — may not unilaterally secede from Canada. They must negotiate secession with the federal government and the rest of the provinces, settling on some sort of constitutional amendment and agreement. Article content Article content The preamble also sets out a few guideposts on what happens. First, the outcome of a referendum would need to demonstrate a 'clear majority in favour of secession,' which would then 'create an obligation to negotiate secession.' The Clarity Act does not set a specific percentage that counts as a 'clear majority,' although 51 per cent is often cited as a clear majority. (The House of Commons could determine that that wasn't clear enough, and that means that secession could not go ahead.) Article content Second, the question asked on the referendum itself must be 'free of ambiguity.' Article content Third, for any province to legally leave would require negotiations between all the provinces and opening up and amending the Constitution. Article content Article content If all that was satisfied — plus any other aspects of the Clarity Act — and if an agreement was reached, then Alberta could separate. Eric Adams, a University of Alberta law professor, has said it 'seems next to impossible.' Article content 'If you look to the Supreme Court of Canada's statement on separation, it looks exceptionally difficult but may be feasible, if … those negotiations produce some workable separation arrangement,' Adams said in 2019. Article content What role could Indigenous people play? Article content All of Alberta is covered by treaties, the majority of it by Treaties 6, 7 and 8. And there are 813,000 hectares of specific reserve land. After Smith said she would be willing to hold a referendum, a coalition of First Nation chiefs met for an emergency meeting and denounced the talk of separation. Article content 'We're not going anywhere and if you feel that you have problems with First Nations you could leave,' said Chief Troy Knowlton of Piikani Nation. Article content While the Alberta government is making it easier for citizens to push for a referendum, in the face of concern from Indigenous people in Alberta, the government introduced 11th-hour amendments to the legislation changing up the referendum process. The amendments were in the legislation passed as the spring session of the Alberta legislature drew to a close. Article content Article content 'In response to feedback from First Nations and Indigenous partners and to reassert our commitment to protecting Treaty rights, the bill now includes a clause stating that nothing in a referendum under the Act is to deviate from existing Treaty rights,' said Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery in a statement. 'Alberta's government will always recognize, protect, and honour Treaty rights as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.' Article content It remains to be seen whether this would affect the ability of Albertans to even get a separation referendum on the ballot in the first place. Article content An analysis of First Nations rights vis-à-vis separation, written by University of Calgary law professors Robert Hamilton and David Wright, says that Indigenous people in the province would likely have a significant role to play in any future negotiations over separation.
Scotsman
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: SNP must be worried as experienced MSPs abandon Holyrood
Reader is unsurprised to see John Swinney put spotlight on Scottish independence once again Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... I was once told that the health of the UK economy can be gauged by an unusual factor. That factor is the increase or decrease in the sales of sulphuric acid, as it is an essential in the production of steel. Steel, of course, is used in a huge number of industrial processes, from construction to the motor industry. In a quite dissimilar way, one can tell when things are going badly for the SNP because they immediately begin to talk of holding another referendum on independence. Leader John Swinney knows that a party with nothing to show for 18 years in power is in great danger of being considered irrelevant, as most of us know it to be. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, the main concern among nationalists must be that most of them are retiring at the forthcoming election and many of those left are well aware of how tarnished they are by the gender legislation they tried to push through. Women, who are half the population, are only too aware of that epic miscalculation and cheered when the Supreme Court announced their decision. Former first minister Humza Yousaf and Finance Secretary Shona Robison are among the MSPs stepping down at the next Holyrood elections (Picture: Jeff) As Keir Starmer is changing his position on so many things these days, perhaps he could be persuaded to pass a Clarity Act, regarding any future referendum on Scottish independence in the same way Canada has done. He could even take a leaf from the SNP, whose constitution states: 'This Constitution may not be changed, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the delegates present and voting at National Conference.' If it's good enough for their own constitution, I am sure they would agree that it is just as relevant to the UK's constitution. Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh Vicious circle Who would have thought Keir Starmer would say that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', freeze work visas for care workers when there are 130,000 vacancies, and tighten up on qualifications and language requirements? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It sounds desperate given Labour's disastrous recent local election results, as opposed to Reform's showing. Starmer expects to reduce the number of workers entering the UK by 50,000, a drop in the ocean compared to 700,000 net migration. Most foreign workers are essential given the lack of skills education and the inability of the UK Government to get some of the two million people of working age not in work to take jobs. Bizarrely, the number of dependents of those coming to work or study is currently higher than work applicants. With this expected to fall, the biggest opportunity is to ensure 400,000 non-EU students entering to study each year leave when their visas expire as only around 100,000 are currently leaving. There are legitimate reasons some stay – many will be taking skilled jobs that would otherwise not be filled. According to Migration Policy Scotland in 2024, 42 per cent of Scots wanted less immigration, compared to 52 per cent across the UK. Scotland needs immigration to fill jobs given its working age population is falling. A greater proportion are coming to retire here than work from the rest of the UK. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This may be partly due to the tax position for workers and better welfare for people over 60. It puts more pressure on housing and on higher rate taxpayers to fund the added welfare bill and more worker demand from abroad. It's a vicious circle that needs to be addressed. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Despicable acts Now we have Labour creating policies to appease the threat of Reform, but at what cost? The cost will be catastrophic to our public services here in Scotland, the construction industry and higher education institutions. Labour's new proposals will require migrants to have degree-level qualifications before being considered for entry to the UK; however, despite Scotland's doors being opened, immigration is a reserved matter to Westminster and Scotland's needs are not a priority. The Prime Minister's statement on Monday included, and I quote: 'If we do need to do more to release pressure on housing and public services, then mark my words, we will.' Is this a mere threat or could Labour go further and close down our public services, including our care sector? In coming to government Labour first went after the pensioners, then it was employers and benefit claimants, now it is the turn of those we desperately need to provide essential services, migrants. Those proposals by a Labour Government will incur costs. Take the care sector – if those currently on lower earnings need a degree to be employed, then increased costs, through increased wages, will be demanded. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The actions of this Labour Government have been despicable on a number of counts and I am sure few Labour voters expected such 'change' – after all, those proposals were not in their manifesto in 2024. Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk Green sexism? The Scottish Greens are obviously not content with the damage done to women by their insistence on gender reforms. Now it appears men are in their sights too. Gillian Mackay is challenging for the co-leadership of the Scottish Greens alongside current co-leader Lorna Slater. It appears their rules allow a man and a woman to take these roles or two women – but not two men. What is Scottish party politics coming to when such blatant discrimination appears to be the norm? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Poor marks The Supreme Court judgment which defined a woman by biological sex has clarified that a male-born trans person can be excluded from female-only spaces. This includes female toilets or girls' changing rooms. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Up pops the National Education Union, (NEU), which says it will defy the Supreme Court ruling and insists trans women in schools must be allowed to use the ladies' toilets, and will provide legal assistance for trans teachers. This proposed defiance of UK law was by 52 executive members of the NEU without consulting their 445,000 members, the majority of whom are women. The 52 should be forced to pay all legal costs incurred and not use the NEU funds provided by the members. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Union betrayal With regards to the letters by Jill Stephenson (13 May), unionists like her don't seem to understand that the Union, as it currently is, is not fit for purpose. The Better Together campaign promised both Yes and No voters change if the country voted to stay within the Union, but to both the Tory and Labour Party change is some sort of optional extra. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Most countries in Europe have moved away from the 'first past the post' electoral system, certainly don't have a huge unelected House of Lords, and as for the federalism promised by Gordon Brown, well that's not about to happen, is it? They hang on to this notion that Scotland could not cope without the Barnett formula and yet New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Republic of Ireland seem to manage just fine. So, just when is the 'change' promised by the Better Together campaign actually going to happen? Peter Ovenstone, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire Plane frustrating I am a regular flyer between Edinburgh and European cities. I am not all all surprised that when arriving at my various European destinations, I am, post-Brexit, treated as a second-class citizen, and fully expect and anticipate longer passport control waiting times than those experienced by European passport holders. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What does surprise me is the same feeling I have, as a local, when landing back in Edinburgh, disembarking from an international fight. Through a combination of invariably faulty self scanners, poor queue management systems, inexperienced staff, an emphasis on ease of transition for non-UK passport holders, and the under-utilised, part manned security stations, it is not unusual to take at least an hour from wheels down to passing through passport control. As most observers in the Edinburgh airport UK passport queues can easily observe, slightly better management could significantly reduce waiting times. I just wonder whether it would make sense to give control of passport control to VisitScotland, with delegated authority for security matters. Hopefully that organisation would appreciate the importance of first impressions to new visitors to our country. Alternatively, I dread to think about the length of queues and feelings of frustration for all our international guests (not to mention the locals) in the forthcoming peak tourist season, if nothing changes. Ian Gray, Edinburgh What necks? Watching Russia's impressive military parade to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War on television, I was disturbed by the way Russia's troops are drilled to turn their head to face the Commander-in-Chief as they march past. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Leaving to one side the fact that they cannot properly see where they are going, relying on the end soldier of each rank to keep them on track, one questions what effect that has on the physiology of their necks and shoulders, and ultimately on the accuracy of their rifle fire. Does it have a rightward bias? Similarly, when guards officers are standing to attention to form a ceremonial detachment facing a walk-past of some visiting dignitary they extend their necks and look up in a manner which is strange, if not downright silly. William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire Write to The Scotsman
