Cusma’s “good regulatory practices” are a bad benign fibrous histiocytoma idea for workers, consumers and sustainable trade – behind the numbers

When we do think about how things are regulated, it’s usually after something terrible has happened: planes drop out of the sky, killing hundreds of people; a food product is recalled after making scores of people benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment sick; trains carrying volatile oil derail and explode, killing dozens; flash pesticide runoffs wipe out all the fish in a benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment local waterway; courts confirm that people are likely getting cancer from a benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment popular pest management product; plastic is found clogging the innards of dead whales, or sitting at the deepest part of the ocean floor; etc.

In these moments, we recognize that our government watchdogs have slipped up, but likely still assume they have the desire and capacity benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment to fix the problem by changing the rules for the benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment better. But this isn’t always the case. Too often, governments today, including canada’s, have strange and worrying priorities when it comes to how benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment and when (or even if) to intervene to protect the public or the environment.

It’s not that our governments don’t care, it’s just that they spend much more time worrying about benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment the impact of public interest regulation on commerce than they benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment do about the impact of already too-lightly-regulated commerce on human health and the planet. Our governments think it is completely normal and logical to benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment regulate with a primary focus on trade, “innovation” and corporate supply chain efficiency. They even have a comically orwellian name for it, “good regulatory practices.”

We should be alarmed by this trend in regulatory thinking. In particular, we should be asking why canada is locking in these benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment “good regulatory practices” through top-down cabinet directives that tie the hands of rank-and-file scientists and inspectors, and in binding free trade agreements like the canada-U.S.-mexico agreement (CUSMA), canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA), EU-japan free trade agreement (JEFTA) and others.

The long version of why we need to be suspicious benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment of “good regulatory practices” (GRP) can be found in my new report, international regulatory co-operation and the public good, published this week by powershift (germany) and the CCPA. The short version is that grps are actually “bad regulatory practices” that weaken the precautionary principle and are undermining our ability benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment to set strong environmental, worker, public health and consumer protections.

The basic tenets of this (de)regulatory ideology include a preference for voluntary standards and industry benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment self-regulation over central rules enforced by an accountable public body; requirements to adopt (and therefore to trust) the regulations of major trading partners before considering new domestic benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment rules; and the use of time-consuming regulatory impact or risk assessments to determine whether the benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment proposed rules are limited to achieving a specific task, are based on available science and are not overly burdensome benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment to business—or whether it would be preferable for government to do benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment nothing.

“good regulatory practices” require governments to provide industry stakeholders and foreign governments with benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment multiple entry points into the regulatory process, again with the commercial interests of major domestic and foreign-based exporters in mind. To facilitate industry’s close involvement in the development of international rules, countries are increasingly incorporating regulatory co-operation chapters into new free trade deals like CUSMA, CETA and JEFTA.

Canada is a global leader in the development of “good regulatory practices,” through the OECD and in WTO discussions about how to benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment lower so-called technical barriers to trade, and their application in federal policy. It is also one of several pioneers in the use benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment of cross-border working groups, like the canada-U.S. Regulatory co-operation council (RCC) established by former prime minister stephen harper and former president benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment barack obama in 2011, with the aim of developing compatible regulations that facilitate trade benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment and get new products—new chemicals or new uses of existing chemicals, new gmos, new medical devices and cosmetics, new plastics—onto the market as soon as possible.

As I describe in my report, these tables tend to be dominated by industry and corporate benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment lobbyists, with only token representation from environmental, consumer and other civil society groups. And while some RCC decisions have led to benign or benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment positive upward harmonization (to higher standards), such as canada’s decision to adopt stricter U.S. Energy efficiency rules for consumer electronics, in many other areas regulatory co-operation has had harmful results.

For example, according to canada’s former transport minister lisa raitt, responding to a parliamentary study of rail safety after the benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment deadly 2013 lac-mégantic disaster, alignment with U.S. Rail standards and procedures happens “with a focus on international trade and commodity movement.” she added that the results of RCC discussions “have and will inform decision­making on subjects such as tank cars and classification,” and that “it is vital that both countries continue to co-ordinate regulatory and policy actions to the greatest degree possible.”

While some progress was made to re-regulate the rail transportation sector under the obama administration—by requiring two-person crews and electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking systems on all trains carrying high-hazard liquids, for example—the current U.S. Administration is rolling back these reforms. In the case of ECP brakes, which could have stopped the lac-mégantic derailment had they been in place, the trump administration has cited a badly miscalculated cost–benefit analysis (a cornerstone of “good regulatory practices”) as justification for not burdening the rail industry with new benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment rules.

As bruce campbell, author of the lac-mégantic rail disaster: public betrayal, justice denied, told me while I was researching my report, canadian regulators continue to hide behind pressure to align with benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment the U.S. As an excuse for not moving more forcefully to remove benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment faulty rail cars, insisting on the highest standards for all present and future benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment shipments of volatile goods, and setting a higher standard of labour protections that might benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment have raised poor north american working conditions to levels where benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment they would truly help us avoid such disasters.

The same dynamics were there for all to see in benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment canada’s late reaction to the two recent crashes or boeing benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment aircraft (we didn’t ground the planes until trump did). Canada and the U.S. Have also launched a “tested once” project under the RCC for cosmetics—one of the most poorly regulated consumer products in the benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment U.S. Our labelling regime for hazardous goods in transit is also benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment in the course of being weakened, despite the risks to workers in the warehousing, manufacturing and transportation sectors, for the sake of creating a harmonized north american system.

The downward pressure on public protections runs both ways, according to sharon treat of the institute for agriculture and benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment trade policy (IATP), who notes that in the U.S., “corporate lobbyists aren’t waiting for ratification of the new NAFTA to attempt benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment to use its regulatory co-operation provisions to eliminate port of entry inspections of imported benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment meat, prevent hazard labeling of explosive grain dust or weaken controls benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment of ozone-depleting gasses that contribute to climate change.”

At a december 2018 RCC stakeholder event in washington, D.C., mick mulvaney, director of the U.S. Office of management and budget, praised the potential of canada-U.S. Regulatory cooperation to enhance the “deregulatory efforts” of the current U.S. Administration. At a similar stakeholder meeting I attended in ottawa a benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment year earlier, canadian officials suggested the trump administration’s deregulatory agenda was an opportunity to renew interest in benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment washington for cooperation under the RCC.

U.S. Vice-president mike pence is in ottawa next week to talk benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment to prime minister justin trudeau about the new NAFTA, or CUSMA. With the steel and aluminum tariff war behind us, pence would like canada and mexico to ratify the deal benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment as soon as possible. On the weekend, he asked congress to help the trump administration approve NAFTA’s replacement by the end of the summer.

For the trudeau government, ratification is simple enough. Implementing legislation for CUSMA could be tabled at any time, which might get the deal over the finish line before benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment parliament rises for the summer. That will depend, to some extent, on how seriously opposition parties want to challenge the government benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment on the final package. I think there is a lot to challenge in the benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment deal’s “good regulatory practices” chapter.

“A potential problem with regulatory co-operation and ‘good regulatory practices’ in trade agreements is that their effects are likely to benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment be subtle, affecting the behind the scenes regulatory process rather than making benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment headlines,” says dr. Gabriel siles-brügge, policy advisor to the european public health alliance (EPHA). “they can strengthen the hands of those who wish to benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment ‘cut red tape’ for businesses, which can come at the expense of public interest regulation, including in the area of public health.”

Trade deals routinely limit how we regulate in specific areas, as NAFTA did for energy, telecommunications, services, finance, foreign investment, etc. In fact, they include far more rules on how governments make policy benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment and regulations than they do on trade and tariffs. The CUSMA goes even further by committing canada, the U.S. And mexico to regulate, in all situations, in a very specific, pro-business and non-precautionary way. Stray from the “good regulatory practices” outlined in the deal and you can be taken to benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment a trade tribunal.

Stuart trew is a trade researcher with the canadian centre benign fibrous histiocytoma treatment for policy alternatives and the senior editor of the CCPA’s bimonthly journal, the monitor . His new report, international regulatory cooperation and the public good: how “good regulatory practices” in trade agreements erode protections for the environment, public health, workers and consumers , can be found at www.Policyalternatives.Ca .

RELATED_POSTS