Fw: Efficiency or Deficiency? by Helen Forsey

Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:41:57 -0700
Andrew Hund (asajh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU)

>
> A mood of deregulation threatens health, safety and the environment as
> businesses are allowed to bypass federal laws.
>
>
> Do we want our health and that of the environment threatened by backroom
> deals between the government and big corporations? If not, we had better
> watch out. In both Canada and the United States, governments are yielding
> to relentless corporate pressure by pulling the teeth out of the
> regulations and safeguards that people have fought so hard for over the
> years.
>
> Because regulations put into effect the laws that protect the public and
> the environment, the practical implications of these measures touch every
> aspect of our daily lives. Issues as diverse as transportation safety,
> toxic pollution prevention, medical devices, telecom- munications,
> inspection and labelling of food, and support for cultural initiatives
all
> depend on regulation. In Canada, regulatory failure has been a major
factor
> in recent problems like the Atlantic fishery collapse, the tainted blood
> affair, and the Westray mine disaster. The U.S. has similar horror
stories.
>
>
> But big business interests in both Canada and the U.S. claim that
> regulations cost them money and reduce their competitiveness. In tandem
> with its American counterparts, the Canadian cabinet is responding by
> making “regulatory reform” a key element in its economic plans.
>
> A new “Business Impact Test” will soon apply to all major regulatory
> changes under the ministries of Agriculture and Food, Environment,
Health,
> Fisheries and Oceans, Transport, Industry, and Revenue, effectively
making
> corporate profits and “competitiveness” the deciding factors in
determining
> how to regulate these sectors.
>
> The other immediate threat for Canadians is Bill C-62, now making its way
> through Parliament. Euphemistically named the “Regulatory Efficiency
Act”,
> this legislation will allow businesses to by-pass federal regulations,
> effectively establishing a two-tier system of law. The general public
will
> still be subject to existing and future regulations, but big companies
will
> be able to substitute “compliance agreements” they themselves have
> designed. Key sectors to be targetted first are: biotechnology, health,
> food and therapeutic products, mining, automotive, forest products, and
> aquaculture.
>
> While the bill may eventually reduce paperwork for those in the corporate
> sector with access to lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, it will have
the
> opposite effect for everyone else, including small business, workers,
> farmers, consumers, and public interest groups.
>
> The Canadian Environmental Law Association and others opposing the
Canadian
> Bill C-62 point out that outmoded or useless regulations should be
revoked
> or changed, not left to apply to some people or businesses, but not to
> others.
>
> Bill C-62 puts at risk all the health, safety and environmental
regulations
> Canadians have fought for over the years, introducing the potential for
> scandal and “cronyism” on a grand scale, and making effective public or
> parliamentary scrutiny impossible. The bill has made many MPs uneasy, and
> concerned public action might still stop it from becoming law.
>
> That would be a significant victory in what is clearly becoming an
on-going
> international struggle against the dangers of deregulation.
> Andrew Hund
> http://cwolf.uaa.alaska.edu/~asajh/Soc/