Maybe it's just my natural streak of cynicism acting up, but when a "senior official" of government tells me that something isn't a sovereignty issue it makes me think that it actually is.
Ottawa to cut red tape, boost productivity: Globe
In efforts to slash the regulatory red tape that's slowing Canadian productivity down, Ottawa plans to make sweeping changes to the way it regulates business, reports The Globe and Mail.The newspaper obtained a draft copy of a report called Smart Regulation -- a 40-point action plan that will streamline Canada's regulatory approval processes with the U.S. in areas such as drugs and biotechnology.
The plan also aims to speed up environmental assessments of business projects.
There's a trick that residents of Ontario will recognize since it was almost an art form under the Harris government. When you have a number of controversial measures to pass, you jam as many of them as possible into one big, fat package and ram them through as quickly as possible. It denies everyone the opportunity of properly studying each item to see what the real implications are.
Part of the report will be harmonizing "consensus standards" with the U.S., and eliminating small differences in the way Canada regulates products and services with its biggest trading partner.
It's interesting to note that this comes hard on the heels of John Manley and Tom d'Aquino doing their latest PR push for Fortress North America and in the same week that Dithers is due to sit down with George Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox to talk about NAFTA+. The Liberals wouldn't be laying the ground work for something before actually explaining the whole plan and giving us a chance to have our say, would they? Naw, not the Liberals.
Ottawa insists the report is not a deregulation exercise, and that it won't cut corners and compromise the health and safety of Canadians, reports The Globe.
I wonder why they felt it necessary to even mention compromising health and safety? You see what I mean about that cynical streak?
A senior official also told The Globe that changes in regulations will have to be handled carefully because of political sensitivities, and points out that this is not a sovereignty issue.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
Given Dithers' history of strategic leaks, I suppose it's always possible that this is just PR to impress Bush and the whole thing will fade away after this week. But this bears watching. Very closely.
Good catch pogge. We can't trust these guys for a second.
I used to work in manufacturing and we used to have a pretty good understanding of what constituted "productivity". Granted, our productivity wasn't always as good as it could/should have been, but the problems didn't always relate to lazy workers or lack of expensive computers on the manufacturing floor.
Guilty parties could include poor product design, crappy raw materials, bad management and conflicting priorities.
It's unlikely that politicians and bureaucrats understand that production of goods, like many things in the world, is complicated, messy and confusing. Therefore, the "problem", if one exists, is not easily ameliorated by spending more money.
Far be it from me to step on anyone else's Cynicism, my own meaning so much to me, but let's be cynical of the media, too. Imagine the following exchange:
Q: "Isn't this a deregulation exercise that will cut corners and compromise the health and safety of Canadians?"
A: "No."
Q: "Isn't this a sovereignty issue?"
A: "No."
Now look at your suspicious quotes again.
Point taken as to the first one.
But the phrase "changes in regulations will have to be handled carefully because of political sensitivities" suggests the exchange was a bit more lengthy than a simple "No" answer. I'm afraid my cynicism remains intact for the moment.
I'm looking at the full Globe report, and pondering the buzzwords. (Find article on the Grope site by searching Smart Regulation; article is by Steven Chase.)
Streamlining and speed-up just mean speed-up, which we may or may not need to do with some approval processes. It's the "harmonizing" that worries me, especially in the context of disparaging references to the "tyranny of small differences" that "hamper" our trade relations with the U.S. And the talk of our needing to be more "nimble" and "flexible."
I don't know much about most of the products and services that might be involved, but I know that there are a number of not-so-small differences between the U.S. and Canada in the way that pharmaceuticals are regulated, and I can imagine that that is a major sore spot for President Bush.
Given the horrorshow that Big Pharma is becoming in the U.S., I think that it is desperately important that we resist so-called harmonization on that score. Speedier approval: maybe. But I think that someone is thinking money here as well. Privatization of publicly funded research through revised patent laws. That sort of thing.
I'm worried about this one because anything that eases the need for compliance with regulations may take away from the health, safety and prosperity of Canadians. After all, there are reasons for regulations. Some of them are good, some of them are bad, but their are reasons.
What also worries me is that this is something that is set to go through without public input, as near as I can tell. Not a happy-making thing.
With that in mind, if you are opposed to this head to Vive le Canada's website via this link:
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/formletters/index.php/20050321122005958
and you can send an email to those in charge opposing this bill.
I did, because every little bit helps, and a lot of little bits can build into something big.
I'm worried about it, too, but while I'm quite happy to express my cynicism and suggest that we need to watch this closely I'm not going to write my MP or any other government official to tell them that I oppose legislation that hasn't been unveiled and perhaps hasn't even been written.
What I want now is specifics. When I know exactly what the proposed changes are and I can measure the potential benefit versus the potential harm, then I might be inclined to contact the government. And an informed protest should carry more weight than one that says "I'm not sure exactly what you're up to but I don't like it anyway."
No doubt the lobbyists who purchase Congress are happy about this. Harmonisation means we adopt US rules, so they'll be buying two (three?) countries for the price of one.