Community Discussions: Governance

We began after introductions with the question whether there are other questions that also needed to be addressed. We agreed that the question of the legitimacy of the rules that are made has to be raised also and that it is tied to questions about the process of making regulations which is involved in question #3.

Question 1 How much regulation is too much?
It depends on to whose benefits the regulations are? Are there principles that could guide how much regulation? Trade deals which can trump domestic regulation in Canada are too much regulation! Another reason to regulate is to ensure uniformity of standards so citizens know when they buy a product or use a service it will meet a minimum standard.
One key question is whether or not the behaviour or actions we wish to regulate affects others. If that action has costs for others ie causes harm for another individual or the community or the commons (eg the ecosystem) then it should be regulated in the public interest. We must also distinguish regulations which seek to regulate what people or corporations should not do from those that try to tell you what you must do. For example, should there be a regulation that says you must vote or must eat healthy food? Some regulations, such as a requirement that a government balance its budget is phoney regulation because the government can change the law when it wishes.
We need to address the question also of individual freedom and issues such as privacy. One key issue is information. Citizens need to have a right to know, for example, what is in their food. If we expect them to make good choices they need to know what is in food.
Accountability must also be stressed. If government has a regulation we need to hold them accountable as to whether it is achieving its goal. There must be independent feedback on the extent of compliance.

Question 2 What role should voluntary compliance play?
In the case of voluntary compliance it is even more vital that we have an independent feedback mechanism to measure whether the regulation is achieving its objective. A good example are inspections of trucks and school buses where spotchecks found that a large proporation were not meeting standards. There should not be volutary compliance when those being regulated can commercially benefit from skirting the regulations or concealing violations. There is clearly a conflict of interest.
Voluntary compliance is also not appropriate when there are public health and safety issues at issue. For example the case of Walkerton and water standards was used as an example where voluntary compliance would be inappropriate. Where we use voluntary compliance we also need to ensure that there is adequate information and education and a strong community that is on the alert and helps ensure compliance, for example, in the usage of local parks. There is an argument to made that people will not change their behaviour voluntarily especially if it is inconveniant and only change when they have to. How we decide whether voluntary compliance or enforcement is necessary depends on the severity of the threat to either people ( in terms of harm) or the broader public good ( including the broader commons) In addition as the recent case of continuing care facilities indicate, voluntary compliance is inadequate where there are vulnerable populations or groups who cannot protect themselves.
While enforcement of regulations does have a cost we need to pay attention to how we measure costs. The cost of not enforcing, for example if we destroy a watershed or a river or the environment has to be measured too. In other words the cost of not enforcing a regulation may be very high.

Question 3 How can we ensure that business input into the policy process does not overwhelm it?
We agreed that this is really a question of the process of making rules and regulations and whose voice gets heard in the process and who does not. A first step is to Kill Bill 46, in other words when a resource project is being reviewed citizens must have a right to have input and have their voices heard. Ministers must also be held accountable and tell the truth, the example used was the attempt to deny the health impacts in Fort Chip of oilsands development. Key principles of the process must include real transparency and accountability.
The bigger issue is one of how representative our government really is? It is often elected with less than half of the votes cast and does not represent the real preferences of citizens. First past the post electoral systems need to be changed. There must be reform as well in Alberta of campaingn finance regulation which allows business to fund a party campaign and expensive ads. There was also a concern that the Westminister style parliamentary system which gives premiers and cabinets a lot of power and this needs to be changed.
At the municipal level we also need to address how people are treated in a re-development process. For example the inner city poor are often marginalized, unorganized and have no voice when projects are developed and they are displaced. There must be a requirement that all who are impacted by a project have a voice and are consulted. While the final decision might not satisfy all it is important to the legitimacy of the decisions which are made. The decision process must always be an open and transparent one.
Boards and things like environmental hearings must allow for intervenors and all those affected to be heard or the process will not be seen or be legitimate. The public must be included and all discussion and processes or approval must be open.
One thing we as citizens can do in the short term is to monitor and document and expose what boards are doing. We must also organize and pressure government. We need to go to forums and use them as much as we can as groups to get our voice heard and use the media to expose what is happening and raise our concerns. We can also use demonstrations and protests to make our voice heard.