For farmers, agribusinesses and their lobbyists who long have complained about excessive regulation that hinders their business, these are good days.
Regulatory reform is the flavour of this political season.
A government Red Tape Reduction Commission recently recommended that as part of a sweeping review of government regulation, agriculture be one of the prime targets.
It suggested a “one-for-one” strategy that would see one old or unnecessary regulation eliminated when a new one is created.
Shortly after, the Centre for Food in Canada, created by the Conference Board of Canada to lead its effort to develop a national food strategy, issued a report suggesting regulatory reform as a centrepiece of that strategy. Regulations should be eliminated if they are deemed no longer necessary.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Threads of the report are being debated at a Toronto conference this week.
As well, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is holding public consultations on proposals to change regulations, recognizing the responsibility of food companies and industry to ensure food safety and limiting the ability of the agency to direct how it must be done.
Farm leaders generally are delighted.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Ron Bonnett said regulatory burden is one of the great frustrations for farmers.
Former CFA president Bob Friesen, now head of the Strategic Agriculture Institute of Farmers of North America, embraces the one-for-one proposal but says it should go further. It simply would maintain the status quo in the number of industry-affecting rules.
“We suspect there are numerous regulations that could be eliminated without replacing them with new ones and it could easily be done without compromising health, safety and the environment.”
Farmers and food processors complain about excessive regulation that adds costs, denies them products that competitors have, slows down innovation and erodes competitiveness.
Free business to do what it does best without the unnecessary heavy hand of government. They always, of course, insist they don’t want to get rid of regulation, just stupid or unnecessary ones because having government oversight gives the food industry credibility with consumers.
The recent spate of talk suggests the farmer-industry lobby is having an effect.
Still, it has been an oddly one-sided debate in Canada.
Few voices have been raised to question the wisdom of giving more food safety responsibility to companies. Food inspector unions voice concerns, but they are seen as merely protecting jobs.
With the conservative media in full voice against big government, there has been almost no debate or analysis of how far is too far in deregulation, what is smart and what is dumb regulation and why companies should be trusted to police themselves under the occasional auditing gaze of regulators.
The debate suffers because Canada has no credible, thoughtful and well-funded consumer lobby to raise those questions.
From eroding pension plans and wage rollbacks to layoffs and a government anxious to make Canada open for business, this indeed is the business sector’s time.
