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.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's intervention, as a businessman himself.

Does the member not think it is somewhat ironic that the bill proposes to introduce new regulations in order to set up the one-for-one process and that it would all be under the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board? He would decide what would qualify for the one-for-one, and it would be after he had established a whole bunch of additional regulations. Would the member not agree that it is a bit of a waste of money?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to think what the cost of putting the bill through this process has been. It is expensive, and it takes away from other more important things that could be done within the current Parliament. For that matter, whether we vote on it today or tomorrow, the vote for us will be the same: we do not think it is necessary, and we are not going to vote for it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be splitting my time with the esteemed member for Peace River.

I just love this bill. It is a common-sense bill that is applauded by small business.

I will walk the House through what regulatory burden is, why this bill is necessary and important, some of the key points the bill covers, and some of the potential improvements small business would see because of it.

This was one of the key recommendations of the red tape reduction action plan.

For the information of hon. members, regulatory burden is essentially government burden. I will read a bit from a posting on the Industry Canada website under “SME Research and Statistics”. It states:

The burden of government is the intervention and interference of government in the operations of a business..... It is the cost involved in complying with regulatory requirements, collecting taxes and responding to information demands from government.... it is the administrative hurdles...the delays, the uncertainties and the frustration involved in dealing with public bureaucracy.

The above definition recognizes that government burden goes beyond regulations to administrative practices such as policies, guidelines and other requirements imposed by a government department.

The article goes on to talk about some of the components of the administrative burden of regulatory oversight as it relates to small business, because there is actually a quantifiable cost. That is what is at the core of this bill.

If we argue that government regulations are a burden on small business and on business in general, why have them at all? We have talked a bit in the House about why regulations are important. I agree that there is definitely a role for government to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Regulations also ensure that public funds are spent appropriately. They also help to ensure that there is public confidence built into things like the build-out of major natural resources projects, because we will know that the government is there to ensure that the health and safety component is there.

Certainly regulations are important, but there is a cost to having them. If there is a cost to regulations, and it is important for regulations to exist, what is the sweet spot between the two? To me it is ensuring that public safety and the health of Canadians are not compromised, that public funds are used effectively, and that we are evaluating both the positive and negative opportunity costs for business associated with developing a regulation and monitoring on an ongoing basis whether it is effective and efficient, based on the original review.

The question then becomes how we strike this balance. It is important to first define each of the components of that particular opportunity cost calculation.

First of all, does the regulation do what it says it will do? Does it address a need that has been brought forward by Parliament or legislation?

What is the direct cost in terms of staffing hours required by business to comply with the regulation?

What is the cost in terms of the impact on the public service and the public sector? Will we have to employ more bureaucrats? Will we have to put other resources in place to monitor its effectiveness or to ensure that there is compliance?

What about the certainty to business? For example, certainty of regulations often becomes a determinant of investments, especially major capital infrastructure investments, like some of our natural resources projects and whatnot. When a company is looking at putting billions of dollars into a capital investment or having an ongoing operation over a 25-year period, certainty with regard to regulations is also a determinant of investment, because it impacts the decision-making process in terms of investment or long-term spending.

Also, does this create any redundancies? What is the cost in terms of overlap with other regulations?

I think it is important to first define these areas and then to use those definitions to actually monetize and calculate the costs.

I read some of the committee testimony, and it was interesting.

I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House would agree that sometimes regulations can create an incentive to innovate. When we have a policy question that needs to be addressed, can we put a regulation in place that incentivizes behaviour in a certain way that can create growth? More often than not, the monetary impact will probably be detrimental, but these are certainly the sorts of opportunity cost calculation factors we need to be looking at when talking about regulations.

The last component is ensuring that after we have defined them, we can actually measure these costs in the long run. We would not only measure the effectiveness of the regulation but also the costs, both pros and cons, to businesses, the public, et cetera. My colleague who spoke earlier asked why we would have this bill. It is because it would enshrine these principles in legislation and in the operating practices of government, and that is a very good thing.

Why should we have this law? I am so glad the member brought this up. The first reason is that businesses are telling us that they need this. I read through some of the committee testimony, and I want to share with the House something I thought was very impactful. Laura Jones is the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and in committee she said:

...it is a pleasure to be here to represent [the small business] perspective on red tape. I want to be clear about one thing, though, and that is that small businesses absolutely support necessary and important regulations,...

There is an acknowledgement that regulations need to exist.

...those regulations that protect human health, safety, and the environment. In fact, it might surprise some people to know that when we ask small businesses how much of the regulatory burden they think could be cut without sacrificing those important goals, they are saying between 25% and one third. It depends on whom you ask and how you ask the question, but it's roughly in that range.... they're telling us that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the rules in the system are legitimate, necessary rules that they support.

She went on to talk about how while there is support for regulation and acknowledgement that yes, it can incent innovation, there is also a significant and disproportionate impact on small business, because the cost of regulations and the administrative burden on a per-employee basis affects small business the most. We are hearing from industry and industry groups that this particular piece of legislation would ensure that there would be certainty and monetization of the opportunity cost calculation associated with regulatory decisions.

I love that the Prime Minister said, with regard to the regulatory burden, that it is a hidden tax and a killer of jobs. I actually could not agree more. I have personally been impacted by the regulatory burden, though not in a small-business sense. I managed a significant portion of the University of Calgary's research compliance process, and I saw the burden of compliance on government-funded researchers.

It is incumbent upon us to ask how we can ensure that we still have compliance but do it in such an effective way that it is not actually impeding business from being done.

I have to give my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, a nod for acknowledging a review of that particular problem in the science and technology strategy.

I will close by talking about how this act would achieve some of these balance points we have talked about. Again, the one-for-one rule is a cornerstone of the red tape action plan and would impose new discipline across the regulatory system. It would maintain the current protection of health and safety as it controls both the number of regulations and the growth of the administrative burden for businesses.

What I want to emphasize is that the reason this is effective and necessary is that it would enshrine in our business processes the calculation of costs associated with putting a regulation in place and would ensure that it is reviewed on a regular basis. Under this particular system, it would be incumbent on the public service and on us as legislators to look at the costs that could be incurred through regulation, to be transparent about them, and to talk to people during the consultation process about the assumptions we are making in terms of costing.

By the way, I also read in committee testimony that there was some question about the consultation process when it came to regulatory review. The Canada Gazette process has been in place for a very long time and certainly supports that.

I just think that this particular piece of legislation would enshrine in legislation that practice, which would ensure the efficacy, predictability, and stability of our regulatory system for a long time to come.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although she attempts to make great points on this issue, the reality is that when we look at regulations and how the current government and the previous Liberal government have actually handled regulations, the record is quite contrary to what they are saying they are trying to achieve. The Conservatives do not have a good track record when it comes to safeguarding regulations and standards that protect the health and safety of Canadians.

When we look back at 2013, we see that the former transport minister granted WestJet an exemption on flight attendant requirements under the Canadian aviation regulations, thereby allowing WestJet planes to fly with one flight attendant for every 50 passengers. We tried to have that reversed to ensure that the ratio of 1.4 was maintained, but the current government certainly went the other way.

Then in 1999, the Liberals further deregulated rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach adopted by the Mulroney Conservative government.

As I have indicated before, when it comes to regulation these are not people that Canadians can trust.

The Conservatives promised to reduce exorbitant transaction fees, but if they really want to make a difference, why will they not pressure Visa and MasterCard about transaction fees? That is what would actually make a difference for small business.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague's question about track records, I will speak specifically to the subject matter of this bill, the government's ability to ensure the health and safety of Canadians while reducing the compliance burden on small business.

The one-for-one regulatory plan, as of June 14, 2014, has resulted in a net annual reduction of over $22 million in the administrative burden on businesses, and is estimated to have saved about 290,000 hours annually in time spent dealing with regulatory red tape, and has seen a net 19 federal regulations taken off the books.

As someone with a small business background and who has seen what small business needs to survive, I think this particular piece of legislation, which says “We're going to put stability, predictability, and efficacy at the core of how we approach regulations”, is something that small businesses across Canada can cheer for.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member across the way. One of the concerns that I suspect many Canadians have is a sense that we need to get a comprehensive approach dealing with regulations. It does cause a great deal of frustration. All one has to look at is the amount of paperwork involved in income tax. There is a sense that the government needs to show stronger leadership in working with other levels of government in dealing with regulations, especially for our small business community.

When we talk about enhancing and seeing our small businesses grow in Canada, thereby creating critically important jobs, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is having an overall, comprehensive approach dealing with regulations at different levels of government.

To what degree does she believe the federal government needs to play a stronger leadership role?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question because I can give a specific example in response. In economic action plan 2012, when we put forward the responsible resource development regulatory framework, the principle of reducing barriers for business in environmental reviews was enshrined. It acknowledged that where we can harmonize review processes in that particular subject matter, we should do so.

Certainly, this was cheered not only because it protected the environment and ensured a stronger review system, but also because it harmonized the time and effort it took to go through these types of processes. I think that is a fantastic example. However, I am not sure my colleague opposite supported it, so I will have to leave it at that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House and follow the minister. We definitely want to thank her for all of her work at WED and for her commitment to small business. It is a privilege for me to share a province with the member, where we are proud of the work that she has done.

The red tape reduction act is one that is very close to me. I have the privilege of serving on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, and what we have heard again and again from small businesses from coast to coast is the need for the government to get a handle on the amount of red tape that is developed. This one-for-one rule is really moving the goalpost further down the field to ensure that we get to a place where we can address some of the concerns of small businesses and other businesses across the country.

As members know, this legislation would fulfill a commitment that we made as a government. In October, 2012, we brought forward the red tape reduction action plan in response to the commission's recommendations. With this legislation, we hope to make it the law of the land that regulators strictly control the administrative burden they impose upon businesses. Under the one-for-one rule, for every new regulation that adds an administrative burden on businesses, one must be removed.

This is smart legislation. It would help Canadian businesses become more productive and help them succeed in an increasingly global and competitive marketplace.

The red tape reduction act would require that regulators take seriously the requirement to control the amount of red tape imposed upon businesses and the related costs. The legislation is designed to be tough. It would challenge regulators to think through how regulations could be designed and implemented in ways that do not impose unnecessary red tape upon businesses.

It is tough, but it is also quite flexible. The government's commitment to maintaining Canada's high health and safety standards is unwavering. The one-for-one rule would be applied without compromising the protection of the health and safety of Canadians.

This legislation is very timely. As we know, one of the government's top priorities is creating a climate in which business can innovate, invest in the future, and create economic growth and jobs. Too often, red tape gets in the way by tying up a company's time, energy, and production resources. The red tape reduction act would allow businesses to use their resources to become more productive by eliminating unnecessary regulatory red tape.

Given what is happening in the global economy today, we know that Canadian businesses have to be at the top of their game to succeed. The good news is that the Canadian economy has come through a global economic downturn, that recovery is happening, and the economy is in relatively good shape. Canada is positioned for sustainable economic growth.

It is worth remembering that when the hard times arrived in 2008, Canada was in a position of economic strength compared to its international partners. This allowed us to put in place one of the most comprehensive stimulus packages in the world. At the time, international observers, such as the International Monetary Fund, were predicting that Canada would be one of the fastest countries to recover. I am proud to say that these predictions have come true, given our relative economic and fiscal strength.

Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and jobs lost during the recession. The Canadian economy has boasted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 over the recovery, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since June, 2009. Over 90% of the jobs created since June 2009 are full-time positions, 80% of those in the private sector, and over two thirds in high wage industries.

What is more is that the real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. Not only has Canada weathered the economic storm well, but the world has also noticed. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect that Canada will be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the seventh year in a row in its annual Global Competitiveness Report. According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7, and 46% lower than those in the United States.

In addition, four credit rating agencies, Moody's Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard and Poors, and DBRS, have reaffirmed their top rating for Canada and expect Canada to maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead.

However, we cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since 2009, too many Canadians remain unemployed. That is why the government's economic action plan focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education, skills and communities—underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning a balanced budget by 2015.

Clearly, responsible fiscal management has to be in place for us to succeed. Canada is one of the few countries that can now boast of having a declining tax rate and a low debt. That is why we remain committed to eliminating the deficit. Reducing debt helps to keep interest rates low and encourages businesses to invest and create jobs.

Reducing debt signals that the public services are sustainable over the long run. The gains that we saw as a result of Canada's low-tax plan are fostering long-term growth that will continue to generate high wage jobs in Canada into the future. It strengthens the country's ability to respond to economic shocks, such as the global financial crisis that we witnessed in 2009, and it will ensure that Canada keeps its economic advantage now and for generations to come.

Helping Canadian companies succeed in the global economy has clearly been a priority of this government and we certainly have seen the success of that. By taking action such as enshrining the one-to-one rule in law, we are making the regulatory system more conducive to business success and to economic growth. We are creating a more predictable environment for businesses, particularly for small and medium-size businesses, and we are freeing entrepreneurs from the burden of regulatory red tape.

It is all part of our plan for Canada. I certainly invite hon. members across the way to join me in supporting the bill we are speaking about today. It will help us to further eliminate unnecessary rules and costs that have been the source of frustration for business people and entrepreneurs across this country, and it will bolster Canada's strong reputation as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business and to invest.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I did not know any better, I would say the member had the wrong speech from the Prime Minister's Office. He is talking about the government's economic action plan and jobs and so forth, and many of the numbers he has put on the record I would challenge. However, I will issue him the ultimate challenge in an area where the government has not been very successful, and that is the whole issue of debt reduction. The government has not been able to balance a budget despite being very clear that it wants to be able to show that it can.

Given the type of speech the member gave, I would question the government's inability to issue a national budget at a time when there are issues affecting confidence in Canada's economy. The Prime Minister has let Canadians down by postponing a budget indefinitely. Could the member explain why he thinks the Prime Minister has disappointed Canadians in that fashion?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would dispute the numbers of the World Economic Forum and the organizations I referenced, who are bringing forward these numbers, including Stats Canada. It is interesting that the Liberal Party would disagree with these numbers.

With regard to the budget, I can guarantee that we will continue to bring in budgets that will foster economic growth in this country. We will continue to lower taxes for small business. We will continue to reduce taxes for Canadian families.

We know the Liberals have not put out any policy on much, but we do know that they will raise taxes, that they will raise the debt, that they will raise the deficit and they impose a level of taxation that will be unsustainable for Canadian businesses and Canadian families.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague on the other side of the House, but I did not hear him talk about anything relevant to small and medium-sized businesses.

I visited SMEs in my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, and business owners all agree that unnecessary red tape hurts them financially and causes them to lose valuable time.

Why do the Conservatives not eliminate regulations that are not in the public interest, unless it is because these regulations serve their own interests? I would like a straight answer from my colleague on the other side of the House.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member probably missed the opportunity to listen to the speech, because it was centred around the one-to-one rule that will now be legislated.

It is interesting, because she asks about the unnecessary burden of red tape, and I agree. As a matter of fact, when I sat on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, what we heard from Canadian businesses was that it is a costly endeavour to comply with the red tape that is required at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. It is estimated that it costs businesses across the country about $31 billion to comply with regulation across jurisdictions on an annual basis. This is an incredible burden.

What the NDP, even in this debate, has reinforced time and time again is that it wants to see more red tape. It opposes the one-to-one rule. The one-to-one rule would actually require, as the member calls for, the removal of unnecessary red tape. If a new regulation is brought forward, one would have to be taken away, one that is no longer necessary, so that these small businesses would not have to comply with unnecessary red tape.

I believe that the member desires to see red tape reduced. That is why I call on her to split from her party and actually vote for the bill, which would reduce the amount of red tape for small businesses in her constituency.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. I will therefore be speaking for just 10 minutes, in order to leave him the other half of my 20 minutes.

I have the honour today to address my colleagues, and those who are kind enough to be watching us on CPAC, on the subject of Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

I would recall at the outset that for a long time, the government called this its bill to reduce—and not to control—red tape. We can already see that there has been some backsliding with respect to the government’s real intent to deal with the problem.

Over the last seven years, a number of ministers have made numerous announcements at various locations in Canada, with much fanfare, to express how eager the government was to attack the administrative burden. The Conservatives said they wanted to reduce what they called “red tape”. They made it into a major obsession, which has unfortunately produced very little in the form of Bill C-21.

However, this is an important issue, not to say a major problem. Roughly $30 billion in time and costs are imposed on SMEs and entrepreneurship in general in Canada with forms and various other requirements. That is a lot of money. For an SME or a business, the situation is even worse in terms of its resources.

When you have more than 100, 125, 200 or 300 employees, you can set up human resources or administrative services where people can focus on administrative requirements. The business thus becomes more efficient, and in proportion to the company’s overall operations, such requirements pose less of a problem.

However, for the owner of a small business that has generated 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 jobs through hard work, whenever a form or a request from a public servant appears, it is always handled by a single person: the small business owner. It is a heavy burden, especially for small businesses and microbusinesses. It is also a burden for medium-sized businesses, but it is even more serious for small and microbusinesses.

We have to deal with this problem, because 98% of our active businesses in Canada have fewer than 100 employees. Ninety-eight per cent. The category includes people who work very hard and have created jobs, but do not yet have sufficient turnover to have human resources and administrative departments. These people have to shoulder the administrative burden themselves.

Sixty-four per cent of employees in the private sector work in an SME; 64% of people in Canada who are not employed by provincial governments or the federal government work in an enterprise with fewer than 100 employees.

This is the sector of the Canadian economy that creates and maintains the most jobs, and it is these enterprises that have to come up with most of the $30 billion invested in time and trouble because of good old red tape.

In addressing this major and important issue, we unfortunately have serious problems with respect to the bill that is before us at third reading today. The bill embodies the government’s desire to apply the one-to-one rule, which is designed to eliminate a regulation for every new regulation made by the government.

I do not know how many times I have to drive this home. The one-for-one rule always gives nothing more than zero. We are faced with a solution whereby the sum total of what was to be an attack on red tape to liberate Canadian businesses still amounts to nothing more than zero. That is the major solution offered by this bill.

A few weeks ago, we were fortunate to have Kevin Page with us in Parliament. He gave a speech to my colleagues and me. He made a very accurate observation to the effect that when there is a complex issue, someone always thinks of a simple solution. The problem is that it is often a very bad solution.

When I think about the one-for-one rule, I cannot help but think about what Mr. Page said that day. That is exactly what we have here: a simplistic measure.

Another problem with this bill is that the President of the Treasury Board could decide to eliminate regulations. The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is currently President of the Treasury Board and his record is not entirely spotless when it comes discretionary decisions. Take for example, the $50 million invested in gazebos in Ontario when the G20 leaders were visiting.

It is a serious problem when a bill places so much power in the hands of a single representative of government, particularly when the person who currently holds that position does not have a completely spotless record when it comes to discretionary decisions.

The Conservatives also have a poor track record with respect to workplace health and safety, and the bill says nothing about the environment.

We would not want Bill C-21, which gives the government power to tinker with forms and abolish regulations, to be exploited by a government with a very bad track record. Just think about the train tragedies that have occurred in recent years in Canada. The regulatory management that preceded those accidents was part of the problem, and it was the Conservative government that was in charge. We would not want Bill C-21 to be used to do away with regulations that are for the common good or important for the environment.

The NDP would like the report to contain clear obligations on how we will ensure accountability in how the government will use this law and in how the stakeholders will be consulted before a regulation is eliminated. It would be very important to give that responsibility to an organization and not just to the President of the Treasury Board.

However, the nine amendments presented by my colleagues in committee were all rejected. That is just another problem with this bill, which seeks to address an important issue. We need to cut red tape, but we do not want to adopt a solution that has no effect. It is therefore difficult for parliamentarians to determine whether this is a worthy bill.

In short, according to a document produced by Industry Canada, red tape decreased by about 11% between 2005 and 2008. The report concluded that employment trends and the decrease in workers' compensation claims were the primary causes. This shows how complex the situation is.

If people are being injured at work and there is no job stability, even if we reduce the administrative burden, we will not decrease red tape. If business owners are constantly having to replace employees and if these employees are getting injured every three days, there will be no decrease in red tape. Business owners will have to deal with all kinds of hassles. This is a much bigger and more complex problem.

There are solutions, but they would require a lot more work and co-operation. For example, Belgium is working on digital solutions. Business owners send their papers in electronically, so they are not forced to send them every time a government official has a question.

Furthermore, some European countries have created statuses for microbusinesses. These countries are trying to cut red tape for people who are getting into business and who have only about 10 employees. These companies get a special tax status to make their lives easier. There are solutions that would have an impact.

Those solutions are not in this bill, and it has a number of problems. I will have to continue to think on this bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

Bill C-21 is yet another bill in which the government passes off fluff for action. It is as if the government has created itself as Don Quixote and is going to go after windmills called red tape.

The government has systematically attacked the basic systems that are in place to ensure a viable economy. One example is its attack on the environmental legislation, which stripped all of the water protections, and the government's dumbed-down idea that it would somehow make it easier to get the pipelines approved. Then it has run into one bit of opposition after another because there are no clear rules in place.

The Conservative government is afraid to bring in a budget. It cannot have a plan and cannot even count the money, and yet it has created this false attitude that it is going after red tape.

Could my hon. colleague tell me why he thinks we are wasting time on a bill like this flop, rather than dealing with clear issues like the budget and protecting citizens?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He shares my concerns.

I said before that we fear that this legislation, which can be used to play around with the regulations, might be exploited once it gets in the hands of the Conservatives. We saw them do this with the environment. For example, I do not know how many hundreds of rivers were protected in Canada. Now there are hundreds that are no longer protected. My colleague shares my concerns.

The other part of the problem is the incredible inaction on the part of this government when it comes to finding real solutions that could help small businesses. Taxes have been greatly reduced for big business.

However, practically no tax cuts have been given to SMEs. The opposite should have happened over the past seven or eight years. Why? Because when we give SMEs some breathing room, then they are less likely to take their money and invest it somewhere in Asia or who knows where. They are more likely to create jobs. That is what the government should have done.

Again, this is a meaningless solution for SMEs. Nonetheless, there are some really great structural solutions that would truly help SMEs, which the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing for.