Governments fund new battery plants, pipelines, roads, and mines. Are these good “investments”? Should we have a voice when government funding goes into a project?
Of course we should!
But that’s what’s being dismantled. All the talk in the federal election was about “speeding up” resource projects. But corporations already routinely buy off local communities with money and promises, instead of having their projects and their requests for government hand-outs properly scrutinized.
Over-hyped, under-studied business schemes (like “small modular reactors”) get public funding. Smart private investors see that Canada’s lack of proper project assessment creates risks. If they’re wise, they put their money in other countries. As a result, Canadian governments (i.e. taxpayers) have to spend even more to attract new private business ventures.
No wonder things are getting so expensive.
Exempting projects from assessment diminishes Indigenous and public voices and leads to bad decisions. That, unfortunately, is what Ontario’s Bill 5 is all about. It also would repeal the Endangered Species Act, creating disrespect for other species.
Deregulation, overall, paves the way for closed-door, backroom deals between politicians and developers – crony capitalism.
Too many people believe that by getting rid of regulations we can unleash economic growth. In actuality, deregulation is a big part of why Canada’s productivity is lagging behind other nations. Conversely, smart regulation spurs innovation, competition, and investment, creates jobs, and saves money.
Here’s an example of how this could work.
Suppose that government commissions an in-depth study of laundry detergents, with a view towards possible new regulations. A technical team quickly concludes that most detergents contain unnecessary fragrances, dyes, and other chemical substances that cause cancer, allergic reactions, respiratory problems, and are toxic to aquatic organisms.
They identify laundry detergent jugs as a major source of plastic waste, and show that transporting liquid detergents consumes far more energy than powdered detergents, aggravating climate change.
Importantly, they also compare how clean your clothes will get with powdered versus liquid detergents. They find that powders work better for most household uses, such as mud and grass stains, but liquids are needed for limited applications such as greasy work clothes. They note that powders have virtually disappeared in North America but dominate globally. They recommend that liquids should make up at most 20 per cent of the detergent market.
The government decides to act. It implements a phase-down of liquid detergents and plastic detergent jugs to 20 per cent of total sales over a two-year period, and a phase-out of all toxic substances in detergents. If companies don’t meet these regulations they are subjected to heavy fines.
What happens next? A few small companies that are still in the powdered detergent business expand and flourish. Competition increases. Big companies scramble to retain market share. They retool to replace liquids with powders, investing in new equipment and creating new manufacturing jobs.
It turns out that shipping powders in cardboard containers costs considerably less than shipping liquids in plastic jugs. Consumer costs go down. Most importantly, over the longer term, the health of people, fish, and other aquatic organisms improves because of their reduced exposure to toxic chemicals.
This almost sounds too simple, like a fantasy. But consider this: When the big entrenched corporations and their multimillionaire owners and managers are fighting against regulations, they are simply trying to entrench the status quo – their fat salaries, mainly. They are fighting change – too often with the help of politicians.
Do we need to go all the way to a fully planned socialist system to get rid of the neoliberal policies that are sucking the Earth dry?
Smart regulation might work. Are we willing to give it a chance? Too many politicians and their supporters are swayed by corporate lobbyists and their anti-regulatory, pro-free-market propaganda. Canadians’ standard of living declines. Innovation stagnates. There is little new productive investment. Civil servants sit in their government offices doing nothing, or worse, serving corporate interests instead of the public.
Regulations are an essential part of modern industrial societies. Without them, more people would die from unsafe pharmaceuticals, more workers would die in factory accidents, and even our highways would be far more dangerous.
Don’t fall for the deregulatory hype. Regulation saves money and lives.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
