Evidence of meeting #36 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gordon O'Connor  Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
Michael Vandergrift  Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Clement.

Ms. Day, the floor is yours.

November 26th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Clement.

We have several questions to ask you about bill C-21. I think you are quite proud of your bill. However, there are several surprising things about it.

Firstly, we find that the premise is a bit flawed, as this bill is supposed to reduce red tape. In fact, it sets out the one-for-one rule, which means that when a new regulation is added, another regulation is removed. That does not reduce paperwork, it just prevents it from increasing.

Next, why did you choose such a populist title for the bill? Is it because businesses want to see red tape reduced? We know that for decades, they have been calling for a real reduction of paperwork. They have a lot of difficulty with the various levels of government and the various departments when it comes to reducing paperwork. This bill does not reduce paperwork.

Why did you choose a populist title given that the bill does not actually reduce red tape?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you for your question.

In the first place, the one-for-one rule represents part of a major action plan to fight red tape. There are many strategies for eliminating red tape for SMEs, of course.

The one-for-one rule is one strategy. However, there are other strategies. I have already said the following:

Other strategies include looking at new regulations through a small business lens, which requires the bureaucracy and Treasury Board by extension to review a new regulation to see what impact it will have on small business. I think that's a very critical culture change.

I would also suggest to you that having a scorecard where independent assessors assess how we are reducing red tape for small businesses is also something that changes the culture.

The results are in, as I mentioned already. We looked at 290,000 hours of estimated annual savings for small businesses and more than $22 million in reductions in administrative burden.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Mr. Trottier, you now have the floor for five minutes.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you, Minister, for being here this afternoon.

You mentioned in your comments that this bill gives the one-for-one rule the “added muscle of legislation”. I think that was your wording.

How is legislating the one-for-one rule different from the current implementation?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I think it is important. We have had this rule in place, Mr. Trottier, and I believe it has had an impact. But having the added force of legislation indicates that this culture change in the bureaucracy has the weight of Parliament behind it.

It also means that we are leaders in the world. There are several jurisdictions, not many, but there are several, which have similar one-for-one rules. In the case of the U.K., I believe it's even a two-for-one rule. But none of them have the force of law. They are merely directives, which can always be undone by another directive. I think it is important that the weight of Parliament be behind the aspiration that goes along with the one-for-one rule. By doing so, it adds credibility and it requires government, the executive branch of government as opposed to the parliamentary branch, to take it seriously.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you.

I know that the one-for-one rule was introduced in 2012. You mentioned in your remarks some progress. Before we actually created the rule as a government, I know that you held some consultations around the country. In fact you came to Etobicoke—Lakeshore, and we held some consultations with one of the chambers of commerce there.

Can you share some of the experience you gained? I know that you and also the Minister of State for Small Business, Maxime Bernier, held extensive consultations. What were the kinds of things small business people were saying about dealing with the federal government and the redundant and onerous regulations?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Right. I think this is an important point. It really had not changed very much from the time I was a start-up entrepreneur as well.

Maybe I can put them in two categories. Number one is the duplication that goes along with red tape. This is usually expressed in the way that the sole proprietor or small business entrepreneur gets a whole host of forms from some level of government, spends an afternoon or an evening filling out the forms, and then the very next day another branch of the same government or another level of government asks for basically the same information. This is very frustrating to small business entrepreneurs.

The other thing that was expressed time and again was getting blindsided, to put it in that vernacular. When government comes to them with new regulations, hasn't thought through the small business aspect of those regulations, and there is a quick turnaround where they have to comply with the administrative burden, then that, to them, is not only costly economically but it obviously takes their attention away from the thing they want to do, which is to concentrate on their business and to meet the demands of government.

It makes business less predictable if government comes in and does these things without a lot of notice. That is why one of the things we've done is a forward-looking agenda on future regulatory approaches. It's so important, because it gives business the time to react and also to comment.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

You mentioned from the small business perspective some of the advantages they've seen. Could you share with us the change that...? You mentioned the culture change among the regulators—the ministries, the agencies, and the departments. Could you give some examples of the different mindset? Typically we don't think of government as changing all that rapidly.

This rule has been in place for a couple of years now. How has their approach changed, and some of their procedures, when they come to introducing any new regulations?

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I have a couple of examples I can share. Employment and Social Development Canada, for instance, did amend the Canada disability savings regulations, removing the 180-day requirement for the registered disability savings plan grant and bond applications. Having that 180-day requirement in place meant that certainly some beneficiaries of those grants were delayed. Also, it removed the requirement to resubmit applications.

The annual savings for businesses just based on those two changes in that particular department were over $377,000.

Health Canada reduced the red tape burden by amending regulations to allow regulated people, pharmacy technicians, to oversee the transfer of prescriptions from one pharmacy to another. Before, it had to be done by the pharmacist himself or herself. The pharmacist is a small business person, and she or he should be attending to clients and patients, not dealing with this regulatory burden.

With that change to the regulations, not only are they spending time with patients and customers and running their businesses, but the burden on pharmacists is reduced by $15 million a year.

Those are two good, tangible examples of how it has a positive impact on things.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

We now move on to Mr. Ravignat, who also has five minutes.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Minister, thank you for being here. It's too bad that you couldn't be here for the estimates. In fact, the person who replaced you and who was here had to leave almost a half hour early, unbeknownst to us and to the committee. We were all surprised when this person, Mr. Matthews, announced that he was going to leave early. He said that he had to leave early because cabinet summoned him. Were you the person who asked him to—

4:50 p.m.

An hon. member

A point of order.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Mr. Ravignat, your question has nothing to do with bill C-21. You make a valid point, but you must return to the topic currently under study.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

I think it is essential to find out why the person who is appearing in committee to defend supplementary estimates B needs to leave to go to a cabinet meeting. That reduces the time available for us to put questions to him. That is completely unacceptable from a procedural point of view.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I understand your point of view, but we need to brings things back to bill C -21.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Maybe the minister wants to answer.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

No.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Very well. I will come back with pleasure to bill C-21. Since—

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I have to interrupt you again. Several committee members are raising points of order.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Chair, I am going to make the same point of order again on relevancy. I would just suggest that the other members bring themselves about to show respect for the chair. If a member does not agree with a ruling by the chair, which you have done multiple times today, Mr. Chair, then they can challenge the chair, and it will go to a vote.

I would just suggest that all members should respect the position that you're in, Mr. Chair.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Ravignat, back to you.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Very well, Mr. Chair. Let me come back to bill C-21.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I see that the question has already been settled. If all of the points of order are on the same topic, we do not need to raise them.

Mr. Ravignat, the floor is yours to speak about bill C-21.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

Basically, the one-for-one rule has been in effect since 2012, so that's two years. Has there been a macro-level evaluation done in departments on its effectiveness?