'Smart Regulations' Too American, Critics Say

The review is largely based on recommendations by an advisory committee established in 2003. Its report, given to Prime Minister Paul Martin last September, called for a reduction in the number of made-in-Canada regulations. "The emergence of global markets and the need to co-operate in managing international problems means that country-specific solutions are increasingly less effective," the report states. "Canada should develop its own regulatory requirements only when they are necessary in order to meet national goals and values." The report does not define the goals and values. It also states that "if the approach of key trading partners meets Canadian standards for protection, their approach should be adopted." In practice, that will mean the widespread adoption of U.S. standards, critics say. That could have a major impact on questions such as the commercial sale of genetically engineered fish or the future shape of agriculture. "Adopting the American regulatory system would favour the industrial livestock production over the family farm," said Cathy Holtslander of the Saskatchewan-based Beyond Family Farming Coalition. "A regulatory system skewed toward high-speed processing, centralization, high technology, expensive input fees and capital requirements will have a negative impact on the rural economy by concentrating meat and livestock production around a few large packing plants." She notes that in the past Canada has differed from the United States in regulatory approaches, such as its refusal to permit the use of bovine growth hormone to enhance milk production in dairy cows. Mr. Alcock has said Canada's regulatory system has "served us well" but needs to be updated..... www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050328/REGS28/TPNational/TopStories [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 29, 2005]