Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • How to make NAFTA sustainable, equitable July 19, 2017
    Global Affairs Canada is consulting Canadians on their priorities for, and concerns about, the planned renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In CCPA’s submission to this process, Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood point out how NAFTA has failed to live up to its promise with respect to job and productivity […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • What’s next for BC? July 4, 2017
    Five weeks ago the CCPA-BC began a letter to our supporters with this statement: “What an interesting and exciting moment in BC politics! For a bunch of policy nerds like us at the CCPA, it doesn’t get much better than this.” At the time, we were writing about the just-announced agreement between the BC NDP […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Could skyrocketing private sector debt spell economic crisis? June 21, 2017
    Our latest report finds that Canada is racking up private sector debt faster than any other advanced economy in the world, putting the country at risk of serious economic consequences. The report, Addicted to Debt, reveals that Canada has added $1 trillion in private sector debt over the past five years, with the corporate sector […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The energy industry’s insatiable thirst for water threatens First Nations’ treaty-protected rights June 21, 2017
    Our latest report looks at the growing concerns that First Nations in British Columbia have with the fossil fuel industry’s increasing need for large volumes of water for natural gas fracking operations. Titled Fracking, First Nations and Water: Respecting Indigenous rights and better protecting our shared resources, it describes what steps should be taken to […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Betting on Bitumen: Alberta's energy policies from Lougheed to Klein June 8, 2017
    The role of government in Alberta, both involvement and funding, has been critical in ensuring that more than narrow corporate interests were served in the development of the province’s bitumen resources.  A new report contrasts the approaches taken by two former premiers during the industry’s early development and rapid expansion periods.  The Lougheed government invested […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Deregulation: A Bad Idea Crosses the Atlantic

The Harper government announced today that federal “regulators will be required to remove at least one regulation each time they introduce a new one that imposes administrative burden on business.”

At the risk of imposing a proofreading burden on communications staff, that sentence is missing the word “an.”

I first heard this idea at a meeting of the OECD’s Regulatory Policy Committee, where the British government representative was touting the “One-in, One-out rule.” Canada’s Conservatives have just renamed it the “One-for-One Rule.”

At best, this rule is a gimmick. At worst, it will delay or prevent the implementation of needed public-interest regulation.

The issue is not, of course, the sheer number of regulations. It obviously makes sense to review existing and proposed regulations. But an honest review should be open to the possibility that more regulations are warranted, if that is what the evidence indicates.

The One-for-One Rule will create perverse incentives for federal regulators. They will maintain and husband unnecessary regulations so that they have something to remove when they need to introduce new regulations.

For your reading pleasure, here is what I and others submitted to the OECD.

UPDATE (January 21): This letter is in today’s Globe and Mail (page F8):

Regulation roulette

It obviously makes sense to review existing and proposed regulations (Tories Seek To Cut Red Tape Wrapped Around Businesses – Jan. 19). But an honest review should be open to the possibility of increasing regulation, if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Requiring the elimination of an existing regulation for each new one creates perverse incentives. Regulators will husband unnecessary regulations so they have something to eliminate when new ones are required. If not, the “one-for-one” rule could impede needed public-interest regulation.

Erin Weir, economist, United Steelworkers

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: January 19, 2012, 8:21 am

The conservatives are doing yet another in-out in-out in place of real public policy.

Comment from Andrew
Time: January 19, 2012, 7:08 pm

This is indeed really stupid. I note the commission also recommended that public service executives get bonuses based on their elimination of regulations. So someone can get a bigger bonus by dropping food safety or drug safety regs. Brilliant!!

Write a comment





Related articles