Bill C-21 (Historical)

Red Tape Reduction Act

An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses

This enactment enacts the Red Tape Reduction Act, which establishes controls on the amount of administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Shall the committee order a reprint of Bill C-21?

No, that is not necessary, as it was not amended.

This concludes our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21.

As the committee has just requested, I am going to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

That said, there are no further items on our agenda. Members of the committee, we will meet again in January.

Have a good Christmas to all. It will be nice to see you in January.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Amendment NPD-11 reads as follows:

That Bill C-21, in clause 8, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 3, with the following: “done under this Act, except in the case of serious or irreversible environmental damage or an accident causing the death of a person.”

The chair feels that amendment NPD-11 is not in order. I will explain my decision.

The purpose of Bill C-21 is to create An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses. The bill states that the Crown has total immunity from all legal action or any other procedure. The purpose of the amendment would be to lift that immunity in certain cases.

TheHouse of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 766, states the following:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion that the amendment is contrary to the principles of the bill as adopted at second reading by the House on November 17. Consequently, I declare the amendment not receivable.

Since there are no other amendments to clause 8, we will vote.

(Clause 8 agreed to)

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Good morning.

I now call to order the 39^th hearing of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21.

Mr. Vandergrift, who is with us today, will be able to answer specific questions on clauses of the bill and the potential effects of the amendments. He is our resource person.

The legislative clerk is also present; he will also be able to answer questions and decide with me whether amendments are in order.

Without further ado, we will begin our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. You no doubt have all of the necessary documents in hand.

Consideration of the title, short title and preamble stand postponed. I remind you that you may propose amendments. Twelve amendments have already been tabled, but it is possible to propose others now.

So, we shall begin with clauses 2 to 4.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

[Mike Beale, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Environment Canada about Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

My name is Mike Beale. I'm the assistant deputy minister for environmental stewardship at Environment Canada. I'm here today with Stewart Lindale, who is the director of regulatory innovation and management systems at Environment Canada. Stewart oversees implementation of the one-for-one rule for the department.

Environment Canada administers over a dozen acts and more than 70 regulations that support the department's goal to provide Canadians with a clean, safe and sustainable environment.

The department has an active regulatory agenda. Our forward regulatory plan contains 42 initiatives that we anticipate advancing over the next two years. Since the one-for-one rule was introduced in April 2012, we have completed approximately 33 regulations or regulatory amendments.

As one of the government's most active regulatory departments, Environment Canada has, for many years, emphasized the importance of continual improvement in pursuit of regulatory excellence, and places high importance on strengthening the capacity of its people and its regulatory systems.

Before amending an existing regulation or designing a new one, we seek to ensure that it will be the right tool to achieve the risk management objective. When designing a regulation, we strive to ask only for information that is needed and only as often as required, maximize the use of online reporting, and actively engage regulatees in discussing ways to reduce administrative burden without compromising the attainment of environmental objectives.

To date, the one-for-one rule has been triggered for eleven Environment Canada regulatory initiatives, three of which added burden, and eight of which were regulatory amendments that reduced administrative burden without compromising environmental protection. In total, we have attained a net reduction in administrative burden of approximately $1.6 million over the past two years.

Environment Canada has actively engaged with the Treasury Board Secretariat in the implementation of the government's regulatory reform agenda, and going forward, we will continue to strive to minimize burden on Canadian business while fulfilling our environmental protection mandate.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[Kendal Weber, Director General, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Committee.

My name is Kendal Weber and I am the director general of policy, planning and international affairs in the health products and food branch at Health Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to present Health Canada's perspective on Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

As you know, Health Canada's primary mandate is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We support the government's red tape reduction action plan, including enshrining the one-for-one rule in law to target and control administrative burden on business. Cutting red tape to business fosters growth, competitiveness, job creation, and innovation.

As one of the government's major regulators, Health Canada is committed to reducing regulatory administrative burden to industry, while ensuring that the health and safety of Canadians is not compromised.

Health Canada has an ambitious regulatory modernization agenda and follows good regulatory design principles, including the reduction of unnecessary administrative burden to industry. The good practices required by the one-for-one rule are consistent with departmental approaches to regulatory design.

With respect to reducing administrative burden, it is now a matter of practice within Health Canada that the development of regulations includes an assessment of the cost, alternatives, and consideration of ways to reduce the imposition of administrative burden on regulated parties, particularly small business.

This practice is embedded in the design of our regulations. Stakeholders are consulted throughout the regulatory development process, including on the assessment and costing of administrative burden, as well as identifying alternatives to minimize the burden without compromising on health and safety requirements.

Stakeholder consultations begin early and include publishing regulations in the Canada Gazette, part I. This pre-publication of regulations gives all Canadians a chance to submit their comments about a proposed regulation well before it is made. Bill C-21 would allow for a 24-month reconciliation of administrative burden. This flexibility over two years respects the realities of the timelines involved in introducing new or amended regulations through the Canada Gazette process.

ln implementing the requirements of the one-for-one rule over the past two years, we have recognized that there are opportunities within the 95 regulations which we administer to cut red tape and minimize burden on businesses while continuing to meet our mandate of protecting the health and safety of Canadians. These two objectives of health and safety and administrative burden reduction are not incompatible.

Here is an example of how Health Canada has been able to do just that: reduce administrative burden on business without compromising the health and safety of Canadians.

Pharmacists and their regulatory associations told us that certain requirements under the food and drug regulations were out of step with more modern provincial legislation and were unnecessarily prescriptive, requiring pharmacists to perform functions which could be safely performed by pharmacy technicians. We listened and amended the provisions that regulate prescription drugs. The regulations now allow the transfer of prescriptions by pharmacy technicians, an administrative task that was previously administered solely by pharmacists. This means that community pharmacies and retailers that dispense prescriptions may better utilize the skills of lower-salaried pharmacy technicians, thereby reducing the overall operating and administrative costs of business.

This change alone represents a net annual reduction of almost $15 million in unnecessary administrative burden and does not compromise the health and safety of Canadians. lt was of benefit to everyone, was practical, and made good sense.

As of June 2014, the department has contributed to approximately 70% of government-wide administrative cost reductions.

Health Canada will continue to seek opportunities to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden to industry implementing the one-for-one rule while protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Furthermore, the department has embedded in its regulatory design a small business lens assessment to consider flexible regulatory options that reduce costs to small businesses.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important issue. I'm happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Order, please.

We will now begin the second hour of this meeting on Bill C-21.

We have the opportunity to welcome a few people from two major federal departments. First of all, we will hear from Ms. Weber, who represents the Department of Health. We are also joined by Mr. Beale and Mr. Lindale, who represent the Department of the Environment.

The witnesses have 10 minutes for their presentations, after which we will move on to questions by committee members.

Before we go further, I see that Mr. Byrne has a point of order, so I will give him the floor.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Ms. Jones. You had the last word. This brings our first hour of testimony to an end.

Thank you so much for having shared your expertise with us. This will no doubt help us to further study Bill C-21.

I will now suspend the meeting for a few moments so we can see you off and welcome our next panel of witnesses who are already in the room.

[Chris Aylward, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee for allowing representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to appear before you this morning.

My name is Chris Aylward. I'm the national executive vice-president for PSAC.

PSAC represents public service workers who provide a broad range of regulatory, inspection, and enforcement services for Canadians. Our members protect Canadian consumers, and work in the fields of health and safety, food safety, transportation safety, and environmental protection, among others. They are proud of the work they do to protect Canadians.

Our major issue with Bill C-21, an act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, is that it is completely unnecessary. If members of Parliament and senators have passed laws and created regulations, we have to assume that they believed those laws and regulations were created in the public interest. The stated purpose of Bill C-21, the so-called red tape reduction act, is to eliminate one regulation for every regulation created, the one-for-one rule. If regulations are no longer deemed to be in the public interest after due consideration and consultation, the regulators have always had the ability to amend or delete them. In fact, they have done so on a regular basis. There is absolutely no need for the one-for-one rule. Everything that it claims to do can already be done.

Bill C-21 is filled with loaded terms like “red tape” and “administrative burden”. Laws and their accompanying regulations are important safeguards to balance rights in a democratic society. We should be proud that they exist and not paint them as red tape.

Administrative burden means anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the completing of forms.

Why should it be a burden to obey the laws of the land? Why should it be a burden to make sure our citizens are protected?

Regulations in Canada have helped make this country one of the safest and best places to live. Canadians depend on regulations to protect our water, food, health, and consumer goods. Regulations ensure the safety of the roads we drive on and the environment we live in. They keep financial institutions, telecom companies, and other businesses in check. In the case of financial regulation, Canada's economy was sheltered from the worst of the 2008 global economic meltdown because our bank regulations were tougher than those in jurisdictions like the United States. Those regulations paid off and protected Canadians from the economic devastation that almost ruined some other countries.

Canadians also rely on their governments to enforce those regulations. Today, that reliance is in jeopardy. Not only are regulations on the chopping block, so are the people who enforce them. Federal inspectors in all sectors have seen their numbers and enforcement power reduced through successive budget cuts and freezes. For the past two years, for example, regulatory positions have been eliminated in beef research, aircraft service and maintenance, food-borne pathogen research, microbiological and viral disease research, civil aviation programs and road safety, cereal analysis, and aquatic ecosystem management and biosphere analysis. We are relying more and more on corporate self-regulation to the detriment of Canadians' health and safety.

Not only is Bill C-21 unnecessary, it will not adequately protect Canadians. While the bill says that the one-for-one rule must not compromise public health, public safety, or the Canadian economy, this is insufficient. It compromises a broader category of issues that concern Canadians, such as consumer protection and environmental protection. It could mean, for example, that our current strong financial regulations won't be there to protect Canadians in the event of future economic crises.

The immunity clause, clause 8, while absolutely essential if this bill becomes law, makes us wonder again why this bill is even necessary in the first place. This clause says that no action will be taken if this legislation isn't applied and that no regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with the act. As we understand it, the proposed legislation foresees that there will be occasions when the government will decide that the act can't and won't apply. If that's the case, and regulations can already be amended or deleted, what is the point of Bill C-21?

We believe there must be transparency around which current regulations will be traded away for new regulations. This is suggested in clause 9. However, clause 9 doesn't meet the test of transparency. Public or stakeholder consultation must occur openly before regulations are scrapped, not simply contained in a report after the fact. Our members believe that it is more important to the Canadian people that they spend time to actually inspect and enforce non-compliance.

For instance, in February of this year, in the case of Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), the Federal Court declared that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acted unlawfully in delaying, for several years, the production of recovery strategies for four at-risk species. These species were threatened by industrial development, including the proposed northern gateway pipeline and tanker route.

The department's reasons for not meeting their legal obligations were staff shortages and not enough capacity. Yet between 2010 and 2017, Environment Canada will have cut, or plan to cut 21% of their staff, some 338 employees from the climate change division alone. At Fisheries and Oceans, there has been a further 30% cut of the staff who were responsible for the Species at Risk Act and the recovery and protection of all aquatic species in Canada.

ln 2014 there will be 60% fewer ground meat inspections than there were in 2013 at CFIA. This means that there will be less checking of fat content, filler, and fraudulent species claims. There will be no inspection of cooking oils. Less than half of the independent food retailers inspected in 2013 will be inspected this year.

Just last week the Transportation Safety Board said that the federal government isn't doing enough to enforce proper safety practices by Canada's railways, airlines, and marine operations. The board also said that there was an imbalance between auditing processes versus traditional inspections.

We agree with the Transportation Safety Board, and we believe that the Canadian public would agree. There needs to be more emphasis on real inspection and enforcement, not just on safety management systems. We certainly don't believe it's in anyone's interest to have public service regulators spending their time looking for regulations to cut just to meet the terms of this unnecessary bill. That would really be an administrative burden.

Bill C-21 is just one aspect of how regulations to protect Canadians are being undermined. First you eliminate the people who enforce the regulations, and then when you can no longer enforce them, you eliminate the regulations.

ln summary, we believe that Bill C-21 is unnecessary. At worst it is a make-work project that will mean regulatory and enforcement officers will have to spend their valuable time within a context of shrinking resources aimlessly looking for regulations to cut.

Thank you for your time.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

It's a pleasure to be here today to provide CCSPA's perspective on your review of the proposed legislation, Bill C-21.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I'm the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. I have proudly represented the industry for the last 16 years and our many accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry.

CCSPA is a national trade association that represents 35 member companies across Canada. We're collectively a $20 billion industry and employ 12,000 people in over 100 facilities.

Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps, detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard surface disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals, or as I call it everything under the kitchen sink. I have provided the clerk with copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of the products, and I'm sure many of you have used them today. Also, you would have received our goody bags in the spring, that is, of course assuming that your staff decided to share them with you.

Why are we here? CCSPA member companies are regulated. The ingredients in our products, the bottle, at times the end use—ant traps and disinfectants, for example—and all the labelling are regulated under the respective regulations and legislation. This is both for consumer and workplace use.

We support Bill C-21 because it adds the necessary checks and balances for regulation development, which in turn adds complexity and costs to doing business in Canada. The bill tackles the issue of administrative burden, which is very important to industry. While it may be very narrow in scope in only addressing regulatory burden brought on by paperwork, it is a positive step in the right direction.

It causes regulators to reflect on the costs to industry prior to the development and implementation of a regulation. Could the scope, the net, be bigger? Yes, we would argue that the scope could have included regulations that modernize labelling laws or ingredient regulations, which are very costly to industry.

We are currently faced with the implementation of the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals for workplace chemicals. Industry will be changing all of its safety data sheets and labels to adopt the UN's globally harmonized system, GHS, which the U.S. recently adopted. This will be a significant cost to industry and the one-for-one rule does not apply. However, the spirit of the one-for-one rule was considered in the development of the regulation, and as Health Canada worked with officials from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, they reduced regulatory barriers so that industry could use one safety data sheet and one label within North America.

As per the RIAS, the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for GHS, it is “proposing to revise the classification and hazard communication requirements related to workplace hazardous chemicals in order to align the current system with that of the United States ... it is expected to reduce costs for industry while simultaneously enhancing the health and safety of Canadian workers.”

We support the GHS initiative and the intent to streamline regulations for the classification and labelling of workplace chemicals. We see Bill C-21 as a catalyst for change within regulatory development. It is the first in a stepwise approach to changing Canadian regulatory development processes and the culture that creates it, and it provides a rigorous check and balance function by Treasury Board.

Since the one-for-one rule has been introduced, we've seen officials within government open to ideas of harmonization to reduce regulatory burden with Treasury Board officials providing oversight and guidance to departments to ensure adherence to the policy. Both have been refreshing and effective.

For the proposed legislation to be successful, CCSPA would ask that the committee also undertake a review or accountability function to assess the successes and possible improvements by reviewing the scorecard and the metrics to develop that scorecard; by reviewing the successes not captured in the report, which I'm sure stakeholders could provide to you—I certainly can; by reviewing each of the departments forward regulatory plans; and also by ensuring departments publish and deliver on those plans and that the small business lens is being utilized within the departments.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation and provide our perspective. We support this legislation and will work with you and the officials to ensure the intent of the legislation is fulfilled.

I'd be happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Good morning.

As it is 8:45, we will begin the 38^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates immediately.

Today, we will hear from several witnesses who will speak about Bill C-21.

During our last meeting, we heard from the President of Treasury Board. Today, we will hear from experts who will provide some clarification on the issue of administrative red tape that burdens businesses. Each witness will have 10 minutes to present.

We will begin with Ms. Jones and Ms. Moreau, who are here on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We will then move on to Ms. Coombs, from the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, then to Mr. Aylward and Mr. West, for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Following the three presentations, committee members will ask questions of the witnesses, until 9:45.

Without further ado, I give the floor to Ms. Jones and Ms. Moreau.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

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

Very well.

You said the following in your presentation: “As the preamble to Bill C-21states, the One-for-One rule will not compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy.”

There are at least three components, but why not the environment or the happiness of Canadians? Why have you chosen these three elements?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That's interesting, because you mentioned earlier that in other jurisdictions, other advanced economies, the problem with their legislation or policies is that they include directives that can be undone by another directive. Clause 8(1) of this piece of legislation states:

No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.

Clause 8(2) states:

No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.

It sounds to me like Bill C-21 has a poison pill. It has a directive that's built into it that can be used to undo all of the other elements of the bill. This is an unenforceable bill because you've built in a clause that says, “Yes, we have a policy, we have a general thrust, we have an intention”, but clause 8 as it is spelled out in this bill gives you an off-ramp. It gives the Government of Canada an off-ramp. You don't have to do anything under this bill and not be in compliance with this bill because of clause 8.

Minister, how would you respond to that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I want thank the President of the Treasury Board and, obviously, Mr. Vandergrift for coming in today to talk about the merits of Bill C-21.

Before I get into Bill C-21, pertaining to Ms. Day's comments that this particular bill doesn't address anything to do with red tape, if I heard you correctly you said that as of June 2014 the rules resulted in a net annual reduction of more than $22 million of administrative burden on businesses and an estimated annual savings of 290,000 hours dealing with regulatory red tape. To me, that sounds like the one-for-one rule has already had an impact on businesses right across this country.

[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.