Exactly.
Evidence of meeting #154 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #154 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director General, Corporate and Government Affairs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Exactly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Sylvain.
Moving on to division 11, “Red Tape Reduction Act”, we have Ms. Ritchot, executive director, regulatory cooperation, Treasury Board Secretariat.
Welcome, Jeannine. The floor is yours.
Jeannine Ritchot Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak this evening about the government plans to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act.
The Red Tape Reduction Act establishes a one-for-one rule to control the amount of administrative burden that is imposed on business through Government of Canada regulations. Whenever a new or amended regulation is brought forward by a department, it must take out an equal value of administrative burden and must also remove a regulatory title.
To date, we have seen a net reduction of 123 regulations and $30.1 million in annual administrative burden.
At present, the Red Tape Reduction Act only applies to Canadian federal regulations. The government's proposed amendments will allow Canadian departments to reduce the administrative burden on Canadian businesses resulting from the regulatory measures of other countries, such as the United States, as part of an official cooperative initiative for regulatory reduction.
For example, we have formal regulatory cooperation relations with the United States and the European Union. The goal is to incentivize Canadian departments to work more closely with their counterparts of these countries to reduce the regulatory burden that can adversely affect international trade.
I will stop there and take any questions that you may have.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a quick question.
If I am understanding this division correctly, any new regulation brought in by the federal government could be offset by another level of jurisdiction, whether its provincial, municipal, or international organizations. Is that correct, or does it have to be offset strictly with another federal government rule or regulation of the sort?
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
The rule in the way that it works now is that anytime a federal regulation comes in within a portfolio.... So, if, for example, the Minister of Health brings in a new regulation within the health portfolio, she must remove administrative burden in an equal amount as well as the title.
This law would allow administrative burden reductions that are taken as a consequence of actions perhaps by her counterpart, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, at the federal level. She would be allowed to calculate that in her offsets in the health portfolio.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Right now, the way the rule is, she has to do an offset within her portfolio, and this would allow her to do an offset if just an FTA rule changed but not necessarily something else changed within her portfolio currently.
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes, that's right. If the change in the U.S. federal regulation had administrative cost savings for Canadian businesses, that could count in her bank of offsets.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Okay. I do not want to belabour this point. If the FDA acted to increase regulatory burden that impacted our side, would we not then have to offset that?
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
No. The objective behind this is to incite regulatory co-operation. Federal departments have indicated that in its present form the one-for-one rule does not always encourage them to work with their counterparts in other jurisdictions to find ways to align their regulatory frameworks. This is meant to demonstrate to them that when you work together to align a framework and there's a cost reduction, then you can count that as your offset.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Do you mean that if a counterpart adds a regulation on the one-for-one rule, it would give the Canadian department the right to add another one to balance it out?
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
No. It's only in the case of a reduction. The rule would not kick in in the case of an increase of administrative burden in the U.S. I would point out that the U.S. has just instituted a two-for-one, so it's unlikely that we'll see any increases in burden that would impact Canadian businesses as a result, since they are also undertaking an exercise to reduce burden on business.
The rule would only apply in the case of a cost reduction, not a cost increase.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
In the case of a cost reduction, a reduction of administrative burden in the U.S., for example, it would give Health Canada, for example, the right or the authority to take one burden, one measure. As you said, it would give her the right, in her bank of regulations, to put in another one.
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. She would be able to put that in her bank. That's exactly a good analogy and one that we use often. She would put that credit in her bank so that if she did bring forward a regulation that increased administrative burden, she would be able to use that amount from her bank as her offset.
Yes, she would be able to bring in an additional burden because she would already have an offset from the regulatory co-operation initiative that's been undertaken with her partner in the U.S.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
As long as the other countries and partners around the world are fine with reducing the burden, Canada can at much the same pace increase the burden on Canadian business in Canada?
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
The Canadian regulators will still always have to pay very close attention to any increase in administrative burden because of the one-for-one rule in general. They can't just increase the burden without a commensurate amount being removed—
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
But it's removed on Canadian business. If it's only removed on American business, this rule will not apply. The impact has to be quantified and felt here in Canada.
I would also point out, because I'm not sure that I was clear enough in my statement, that it only applies where we have formal regulatory co-operation arrangements. Right now we have one under CETA, with the EU. We have the regulatory co-operation council with the U.S. The Canada free trade agreement established a regulatory co-operation table as well.
It's only in those situations. It's not with just any country without which we have an arrangement.
NDP
Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes.
Conservative
