Government Operations Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[Stewart Lindale]

As my colleagues mentioned, certainly the forward regulatory plan does add significant transparency to the process, and as we mentioned earlier, with every regulatory proposal it triggers the one-for-one rule and the small business lens. There is transparency leading up to the publication of that proposal in the Canada Gazette as well as publication in the Canada Gazette. In that way we are ensuring that there is transparency around these decisions.

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

What is your answer, Mr. Beale?

[Mike Beale]

I would just add that one of the initiatives the department has been moving forward over the last couple of years is what we call a world-class regulator initiative where Environment Canada is striving to be world class in everything it does in the regulatory area. We have a number of principles there, and one of the key principles we have is transparency. So the concept of transparency is already something that is very much built into the way we operate.

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

All right.

To supplement your answer, can you tell me who is subject to that transparency? Are small and medium-sized businesses, entrepreneurs, departments or politicians subject to it?

In the case of departments, what difficulties were encountered since the implementation of the one-for-one rule?

[Mike Beale]

Sure. I think our transparency is addressed to everybody who has a potential interest in our regulations. That includes regulatees, other sectors that might have an interest in the area, environmental organizations, and academic experts. In our pre-regulatory development we try hard to make sure all interested parties are aware of the initiatives we're bringing forward.

I think that, in terms of some of the challenges that we have experienced to date in implementing the one-for-one rule, some of them are around administrative costs. We go out and consult, in advance of Canada Gazette, on administrative costs. Sometimes it's hard to bring that to a fine point, because our regulation has not yet been developed. So, in a sense, the exact substance of the regulatory requirement is not known. Sometimes our regulatees find it difficult to engage with us, because they don't yet know exactly what they're going to be required to do. Sometimes small businesses have their own pressures, and they don't necessarily have the time to engage with us in advance of the regulation being put forward in Canada Gazette part I.

Those are just some of the practical issues that we deal with. They're not showstoppers, but they're things that we deal with as we implement one-for-one.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Ms. Day. Your time is up.

I now give the floor to Mr. Ravignat, for five minutes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I really appreciate your contribution, but sometimes it's a little hard to get down to the meat of the issue.

For me the meat of the issue is who makes the decision about what a high priority health regulation is, what a low priority one is, which one should be considered for elimination, and which one shouldn't be considered for elimination. If I understand what you're saying, there's an internal decision made, and then that recommendation is brought to the minister and the minister decides whether or not the regulation can be eliminated.

What ensures that the identification is correct? How do you classify certain regulations as being really important and certain ones as not important under the pressure of having to eliminate them?

[Mike Beale]

I can take a shot at that.

In response to this point, I think we have found that there have been some potential repeals that have quite clearly made sense. For example, in our forward regulatory plan, we're planning to remove the vinyl chloride release regulations. Those are regulations that have been in place for 22 years. The world has changed in those 22 years, and right now there's only one plant in Canada that is covered by those regulations. It's in Ontario. Ontario has a perfectly acceptable regulatory system there, so we decided there's really no value added to that regulation, and we've proposed its removal to the minister.

Similarly, we have a chlor-alkali mercury liquid effluent regulation. At the time that was introduced, it was a different situation. Right now there are no plants currently operating in Canada that are subject to that regulation.

So, we found regulations we could remove without any significant cost, in fact, without any cost at all to the environment.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. Fair enough. Those are pretty good examples.

We really haven't spoken about challenges, whether it be resources or human resources. This is a new administrative burden on departments. How have you dealt with the need for expertise in your ministries and in your departments, and where did you get these individuals? In a context in which there are fewer and fewer inspectors, the public can be rightfully critical that maybe we shouldn't be spending additional dollars in this area, instead of spending them on, for example, inspecting and in enforcing regulation that's important to the health and safety of Canadians.

Did this come with additional resources so that you could do these types of evaluations?

[Mike Beale]

There were no additional resources provided to deal with this. We found that there was a marginal, if any, impact on our existing resources. We already had, under Mr. Lindale, a group whose mandate was to ensure the integrity of our regulatory system.

They provide that overall guidance. We then had sectoral groups who implemented. Their day-to-day job is to ensure that regulations are structured in such a way as to maximize overall benefit. There was no additional task for them to take a hard look at administrative costs.

I would like to mention one issue that we dealt with that came up. As we looked at administrative costs, there was sometimes a relationship between administrative costs and flexibilities in our regulations. We try hard to make sure that our regulations are flexible to industry. Sometimes there can be a trade-off there. If you introduce additional flexibilities, those may incur or impose a reporting burden, for example, so we need to look at a balance for those.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Madam Weber, do you want to add something?

[Kendal Weber]

I think those are excellent points that Mr. Beale made.

Over the past two years since the actual Red Tape Reduction Commission did its work, we spent a lot of time internally looking at the way we do regulations and actually ensuring that we had the necessary training.

There was cross-government training through the community and federal regulators. There has been collaboration with the Treasury Board Secretariat in the rollout of the different tools that they've provided for red tape reduction.

We've also organized ourselves within Health Canada. We didn't do this as well before. When we developed our regulations, we also looked at our guidance documents and operations for implementing them.

We streamlined our approach for the actual development of the regulations, guidance and operations, and found that we had more efficiencies internally, so we were not only reducing the administrative burden externally but also internally.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Trottier for five minutes.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I understand the one-for-one rule has been in effect for about two years now, as some witnesses mentioned, as opposed to the regulatory cleanup being a one-time event. It's now an embedded process within different government departments, to always look at regulations through the lens of what I would call the customer, the customer being stakeholders who have to comply with the regulations.

One of the benefits of enshrining this into law is that it then becomes a permanent fixture of government. Another government couldn't just quietly in the night remove the regulation. It would have to go before Parliament to change this.

Can you tell me, from the perspective of government departments, is there any real impact to you whether it's a regulation or it's enshrined in law?

[Kendal Weber]

There is definitely a culture change. It started two years ago. There is definite support from Health Canada for this piece of legislation. As described, the administrative burden reduction has been implemented over the past couple of years.

[Mike Beale]

In your question, you captured the difference between a legislative initiative and a Treasury Board requirement. All government departments follow Treasury Board requirements very carefully, so we implement one just like we implement the other.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Given that only a few minutes remain, I would like to ask you a question myself.

I was wondering whether you thought that adopting this bill would make a significant difference. A directive on this was already drafted in 2012, and it will be enshrined in a statute when that statute goes into effect.

Since you have already been applying the one-for-one rule since 2012, and since section 8 makes it possible to disregard the act once it goes into effect, do you expect to see real change within your departments?

Let us hear from Mr. Beale first.

[Mike Beale]

My understanding is that the legislation really codifies the existing one-for-one rule, so we're not expecting any significant change on how we operate. As I indicated, we take Treasury Board requirements very seriously.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Ms. Weber, do you have anything to add?

[Kendal Weber]

It's exactly the same at Health Canada.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

As the meeting is drawing to an end, I would like to thank you once again for having appeared this morning and shared your expertise with us.

I remind committee members that clause-by-clause study of the bill will take place next Thursday and that the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m., 5 minutes earlier than usual. Due to the availability of a department representative, the meeting is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 10:30. a.m. I also remind you that you have until this evening at 5 p.m. to table amendments.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Did you explain why the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m., Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

One of the officials is only available until 10:30 a.m. because of a cabinet meeting.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

If we are to begin at 8:30 a.m., would it possible to order some food?