SPP Regulatory Framework [4 Items] NACC Reports, CCPA More Than Jellybeans, CoC

[2] NACC Report to Ministers - addresses North American Regulatory Cooperation Framework http://tinyurl.com/333hof Executive Summary Below 8. Sign a new North American Regulatory Cooperation Framework and ensure consistent application of standards and regulatory requirements within each country. This framework should be based on the principle that both in drafting new regulations and in revising existing rules, regulatory authorities in all three countries should make every effort to reflect prevailing North American or international standards. Upon signature of the framework, a North American Regulatory Cooperation and Standards Committee should be formed to survey the variety of standards and regulatory differences by industry that impede trade. This committee will also seek to reduce the identified differences or develop other mechanisms to lessen their impact on the competitiveness of North American industry. <><><><><><> [3] http://tinyurl.com/32naed BUILDING A SECURE AND COMPETITIVE NORTH AMERICA PRIVATE SECTOR PRIORITIES FOR THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA 2007 REPORT TO LEADERS FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL (NACC) AUGUST 2007 For those recommendations included in the standards and regulatory cooperation section, we are pleased that the three governments appear to be close to completion on two of our short-term recommendations: 1) the conclusion of a voluntary trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework and 2) the development of a trilateral Intellectual Property Rights strategy. We put forward the Regulatory Cooperation Framework as an immediate recommendation because it is a prerequisite to more effective action across a host of sector-specific regulatory concerns. While we expect that the governments will soon conclude their discussions and will release this framework at the August meeting, we urge the Leaders to ensure that it is both comprehensive in scope and meaningful in substance. Linked to regulatory cooperation and forming another essential element in building a competitive North America is the proposed Intellectual Property Rights strategy. Intellectual property issues affect every aspect of the lives of our people and are prerequisites for investments in research and innovation that are critical to the future quality of life of communities across North America. Each of the three governments has taken significant steps toward enforcing IPR. However greater coordination is needed to address the trans-border aspects of IPR enforcement, specifically through a coordinated intellectual property rights strategy. We understand that such a strategy will be released at the Leaders´ meeting, focusing especially on ways to deter and detect trade AUGUST 2007 10 in pirated and counterfeit goods, public awareness and outreach to the business community, and measurements to assess progress in specific sectors. Once this strategy is in place, we hope that officials will agree on an accelerated timetable to address the NACC recommendations in this area, including especially steps to combat DVD piracy and consumer goods counterfeiting, such as the development of a list of protected titles; establishment of "fake-free zones" around theaters and malls; licensing the importation of industrial-capacity DVD burners; development of a digital piracy pilot project; improved strategic enforcement; and establishment of model local anti-piracy programs. Governments also are moving forward on several of our sectoral recommendations: o Food and agriculture. Agencies of the three governments have together explored a common scientific underpinning to discuss labeling and health claims in their countries. In terms of fortified food regulations, Canada´s revised policy is expected to be published in 2007. o Financial services. Discussions between Canada and the United States are nearing completion concerning our recommendation to eliminate the withholding tax on cross-border interest payments. In addition, financial regulators from the three countries will continue to work closely within the SPP/NAFTA Financial Services Group to enhance cooperation in financial regulation. o Insurance. Early indications are that the Mexican government is favorably disposed to our recommendations for increasing by 2010 the percentage of assets that Mexico-based North American insurers are allowed to invest overseas. o Trucking. The United States has issued a proposed rule that would allow Canadian trucks to enter the United States using Canadian insurance and has called for public comment on the proposal. o Electronic trading. While there is still no assessment of potential outcomes, the G-7 finance Ministers group has undertaken the AUGUST 2007 11 recommendation of enhancing cross-border transactions through direct access to existing electronic trading platforms. Finally, on the energy front, the initial feedback we have received <><><><> [4] More Than Jellybeans: The SPP Regulatory Framework Agreement and Its Impact on Chemicals Regulation, by Bruce Campbell http://www.policyalternatives.ca/news/2007/09/pressrelease1717/index.cfm Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Contrary to assurances from Prime Minister Harper, an SPP regulatory agreement signed at Montebello sets Canada on course toward a single North American regime for regulating industrial chemicals that will almost certainly weaken the existing Canadian regulatory system and erode policy autonomy. This study, by CCPA Executive Director Bruce Campbell, reveals that a sub-agreement on chemicals regulation was signed at Montebello, but it was not publicized and it was not posted on the Canadian government web site. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Press Release Hidden Montebello SPP agreement on industrial chemicals will weaken Canadian regulation-report September 24, 2007 | National Office | Topic(s): International trade & investment, deep integration | Publication Type: Press Release OTTAWA-Contrary to assurances from Prime Minister Harper, an SPP regulatory agreement signed at Montebello sets Canada on course toward a single North American regime for regulating industrial chemicals that will almost certainly weaken the existing Canadian regulatory system and erode policy autonomy, says a study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The study, by CCPA Executive Director Bruce Campbell, reveals that a sub-agreement on chemicals regulation was signed at Montebello, but it was not publicized and it was not posted on the Canadian government web site. The sub-agreement commits the three NAFTA countries to harmonizing chemicals regulation in testing, research, information gathering, assessment, and risk management, as much as possible, by 2012. It also commits the three governments to work toward a single North American voice in international standard-setting bodies, which, given existing power realities, means an American voice. The chemicals agreement follows the advice of the SPP business council, which complained that tougher Canadian regulations were preventing certain U.S. goods from being sold in Canada. "Signing this SPP chemicals harmonization agreement is further evidence that the Harper government is moving Canada deeper into the business-friendly U.S. camp and away from the much stronger European system, which takes a safety-first approach to regulation," says Campbell. "How much more risk to health, safety and the environment will Canadians have to incur in the name of business competitiveness?" Campbell concluded. -30- More Than Jellybeans: The SPP Regulatory Cooperation Agreement and its Impact on Chemicals Regulation, is available on the CCPA web site: http://www.policyalternatives.ca For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/news/2007/09/pressrelease1717/index.cfm Download the Report/Study: More Than Jellybeans: The SPP Regulatory Framework Agreement and Its Impact on Chemicals Regulation - PDF File, 133 Kb Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. CCPA National Office | Suite 410, 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON, K1P 5E7 tel: 613-563-1341 fax: 613-233-1458 | e-mail: ccpa@policyalternatives.ca Provincial Offices | Search | Site Map | Home Website by Pencilneck Software Corp. Design by Raised Eyebrow Web Studio <><><><><><><> [4] Citizen's Guide to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) The SPP and public safety: How regulatory harmonization threatens our health and the environment - download PDF version - http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/safety.html T he first priority of the Security and Prosperity Partnership´s so- called Prosperity Agenda is to "develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework by 2007." The goal is to eliminate differences in Canadian, Mexican and U.S. standards on everything from food safety and the environment to financial services, labour and manufacturing. Proponents of this idea claim it will reduce the cost of doing business in North America and increase the continent´s competitiveness. In reality, eliminating country-specific standards is simply a way to increase corporate profits by limiting what governments can do to protect their citizens from corporate abuse. It is about letting big businesses set their own rules and having the public bear all the environmental and health risks of a deregulated market. "Smart regulation" or deregulation? On March 24, 2005, the day after North America´s leaders announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Treasury Board initiated a Smart Regulation Action Plan aimed at changing how the government regulates the economy. In the words of former Treasury Board president Reg Alcock, "Smart Regulation understands that we cannot continue to do things as they have always been done; that in today's world, regulation can-and must-become a competitive advantage and a key instrument for achieving our social, environmental and economic objectives." Historically, "how things have always been done" was that government rules would make sure our food is safe and properly labelled, and our air and water is clean. In other words, regulation is about protecting the public from corporate abuse. The "smart" regulation agenda, which was later incorporated into the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation, reverses this historical logic by: * Entrenching trade and commerce promotion-as opposed to health and safety protection-as the primary consideration before regulating; * Committing to "seamless" provincial, territorial and federal regulations with the likely outcome being the national adoption of the weakest rules; * Protecting the regulator from liability for bad decisions; * Approving food, drugs and other products faster so they can get to market; * Increasing the onus on the regulator to prove the need for regulations; and * Relying on voluntary measures and industry-based performance targets instead of enforceable standards. "Smart regulation" and the SPP The Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation, which was completed and released to the public on April 1, 2007, has more to do with copying the U.S. regulatory process, which is much weaker than in Canada, than with bringing Canada´s own process up to date. It is about North American regulatory harmonization as described in the SPP and in North American Competitiveness Council documents. In February 2007, the NACC recommended that, "an overarching principle" of a North American Regulatory Cooperation Framework, "should be to require agencies to take into consideration, as part of their cost- benefit analysis, the trade effect of regulations that differ from North American standards." In other words, regulators like Health Canada, Environment Canada or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency would have consider how the U.S. or any other government would feel about stricter rules and regulations than exist in their countries. Obviously businesses in the U.S. would be irritated by almost any Canadian rule that was stricter than in the U.S. and pressure would be incredible for Canada to lower its standards. In fact it is already happening. Nothing "smart" about pesticides and trans-fats Part of the SPP agenda involves developing common North American standards on how food is produced, how it is inspected, how it is processed and how it is moved from one place to another. Current differences in food standards have been labelled as "trade irritants." So regulators in all three NAFTA countries are working to eliminate them. A 2006 SPP report identified stricter pesticide residue limits in Canada as a "barrier to trade." So Canada is raising pesticide limits on hundreds of fruits and vegetables in an effort to merge its policies with the United States. Using the same logic, it becomes apparent that a highly popular ban on trans-fats in Canada would never fly because it too would be a significant "trade irritant" with the U.S. While common food safety standards developed in the public interest might be a good idea, regulatory harmonization as spelled out in the SPP clearly has nothing to do with our health and safety. Bush plans even more deregulation Under the SPP, Canada is harmonizing its regulatory practices with a U.S. government that is busily deregulating its entire economy. In July 2007, a new executive order came into effect requiring all U.S. departments to prove a "market failure" before any new rules or regulations can be passed. Approval for regulations is to be centralized in a new Regulatory Policy Office within the White House and headed by a presidential appointee. "This can only further delay implementing health, safety and environmental protections," Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, told the Associated Press at the beginning of July. Like Canada´s "Smart Regulation" agenda, the U.S. order also encourages corporations to set their own standards. The SPP will force Canada to adopt whatever regulatory policy is set in Washington. The SPP and TILMA Many regulations in Canada are set by the provinces, not by the federal government, and can differ in small or large ways across the country. That means that the federal government would have to first eliminate these differences across Canada before moving ahead with continental regulatory harmonization. As it turns out, a little-known agreement between Alberta and British Columbia is quietly achieving that goal. The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), which came into effect on April 1, 2007, requires that Alberta and B.C. mutually recognize standards and regulations affecting inter-provincial trade and investment. Regulations that are stricter in one province than the other can be legally challenged as an impediment to trade (i.e. profits). If a province refuses to lower its regulations it faces penalties of up to $5 million - stiff enough to discourage most new rules affecting the economy. But this is precisely the point of TILMA-deregulation-and B.C. and Alberta´s premiers, as well as the federal Conservatives, are currently trying to get other provinces to sign on. This would pave the way for Canada- U.S. regulatory harmonization as mandated in the SPP. There are rules for a reason Canada deserves a regulatory policy that puts our health and the health of our environment first. The SPP will force Canada to regulate the American way, which is to barely regulate at all and to let corporations set and enforce their own rules.

Note: http://tinyurl.com/39knwa http://tinyurl.com/333hof http://tinyurl.com/32naed http://www.policyaltern... http://www.policyaltern... http://www.policyaltern... http://www.canadians.or...