According to a number of witnesses, Bill C‑5 worked well because the burden of proof was reversed. Regulations were pared down to the basic essentials.
Is the accumulation of regulations without having any processes to reassess old regulations part of the problem? Does the process of recommending an agile regulatory table, among others, have room for some kind of reverse onus? That way, if there are recommendations, we can take action, otherwise these regulations are obsolete.