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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Grahame Johnson  Managing Director, Funds Management and Banking Department, Bank of Canada
Nicolas Marion  Chief, Capital Markets and International Affairs, Securities Policies Division, Department of Finance
Marie-Josée Lambert  Director, Crown Corporations and Currency, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Richard Wall  Managing Director, Currency, Bank of Canada
Justin Brown  Director, Financial Stability, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Léticia Villeneuve  Economist, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Michèle Govier  Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Annie Moulin  Acting Director, Arctic Science Policy Integration, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Patrick Barthold  Director, Northern Governance and Partnerships Directorate, Northern Governance Branch, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Christian Sylvain  Director General, Corporate and Government Affairs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Jeannine Ritchot  Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Don Parker  Director, Strategic Policy, Communications Security Establishment
Julie Lalonde-Goldenberg  Director General, Partnerships Development and Management Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
Andrew Brown  Acting Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Cara Scales  Director, Policy Analysis and Initiatives, Employment and Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Catherine McKinnon  Senior Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Department of Justice
Anna Dekker  Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Manuel Dussault  Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Julien Brazeau  Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jeremy Weil  Senior Project Leader, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Saskia Tolsma  Senior Economist, Sectoral Policy Analysis, Economic Development and Corporate Finance, Department of Finance
David Dewar  Director, Strategic Policy & Government Affairs, Policy & Strategic Direction, Department of Western Economic Diversification
Selena Beattie  Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Marianna Giordano  Director, CPP Policy and Legislation, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Ann Sheppard  Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. Mr. Kmiec, you're up.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Thank you, Mr. Albas. That's so generous of you.

You answered one question. I was going to ask about the formal, but my other question is about the removal of a regulatory title from existing stock. I have it in bullets here. Ministers have 24 months.

7:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

That's right.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

My question is if this is introduced, how many are there that are still outstanding to meet the requirement of the one-for-one rule that would then fall under this new rule that allows them to have it offset through formal co-operation with another jurisdiction? How many are still outstanding to meet the requirements?

7:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

I want to make sure I understand the question. You're wondering how many departments have their 24 months that still haven't run out?

I actually don't have the specifics on that, on how many might be left. We publish an annual report to Parliament on the cost in and cost out under the rule. I'm not sure if I know with specificity, but I will go back, and I will check, and I will endeavour to find an answer to that question, yes.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Can you provide that to the committee?

The other question I had was about subsection 5(1), the control of administrative burden. I'm not going to read the whole paragraph, but there are four words being added, “imposed by a regulation", on the last line. What is that supposed to encompass?

7:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

I'm sorry, I'm just going to find my—

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

It's section “260 Subsection 5(1) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following”, and it says, “Control of administrative burden”.

7:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

The purpose of that clause is to amend the English version of the act to clarify that the reference to administrative burden in section 5 of the act relates to administrative burden that is imposed by Canadian federal regulations, not by American regulation, for example.

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Then it shows the exchange you had before.

This is just so I understand it completely. It's only through formal co-operation under the CETA body that you mentioned. So let's say Germany has a rule that the federal government engages with and says this rule is bad for Canadian companies and asks if we can find a way to harmonize it with ours to make shipping easier. If they change the rule, it would count towards, say, the Minister of International Trade's amounts, the one-for-one rule, so they would get to tick it off?

7:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

As long as they can quantify administrative burden reductions for Canadian business, yes, they can put it in their bank account, so to speak.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Okay.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Albas.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Regarding the new definition for “other jurisdiction”, why would we include a province or a municipality within the country?

7:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

The reason for including the provinces is because the Canadian Free Trade Agreement established a regulatory reconciliation and co-operation table. There are examples on which we are actively working right now to establish our first work plan under this table. There may be examples in which changes that come from that regulatory co-operation arrangement will reduce administrative burden.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

I'm a big believer that the mechanism for outside the country, for example the U.S. or CETA, to me, makes a lot of sense and encourages more business between countries. I think, though, that the idea of harmonizing within Canada should just be a non sequitur. That's something that we should be doing every day.

I do look forward to the committee receiving the Red Tape Reduction Act report to Parliament. I haven't viewed the most recent one, but I do appreciate the work that's being done. I think this particular section, at least on international co-operation, is a very good measure.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We have Mr. Kmiec.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

If we go back, then, to section 261 “Offset — regulatory cooperation”, there's a new series of paragraphs being introduced and it includes “with the approval of the Treasury Board”.

Was Treasury Board involved in approving what a department was considering sufficient quantification for the purposes of the red tape one-for-one rule? Is that new, that the Treasury Board Secretariat would be involved?

7:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

No, we've always administered it at the Treasury Board Secretariat, yes.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Poilievre, you're next.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

What do you consider to be “a unit of burden”?

7:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

Administrative burden—I'm sorry, I'm having such trouble with my earpiece here—"a unit of burden”—and I must apologize, I'm not an economist by any stretch. I don't necessarily understand the cost calculator that we use. We have economists who do that for us, but we have a very specific methodology that calculates administrative burden. Generally speaking, administrative burden is paperwork, for example, forms that you have to fill out to demonstrate how you comply.

We do have a very specific cost calculator that is standardized, so all departments calculate it in the same way. That's why we're able to know the amount that we have saved as a result of the Red Tape Reduction Act.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

You're trying to trade one elimination for one addition. It's not rule for rule. It's dollar for dollar?

7:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Regulatory Cooperation, Regulatory Affairs Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat

Jeannine Ritchot

It's a bit of both, actually. It's dollar for dollar, which I would say is the part that is really most tied to the reduction of the actual burden on business. The second component of the rule is removing a title. Every time you introduce new admin burden, you have to remove, dollar for dollar, the amount you have introduced, and you also have to take one title off of your regulatory stock.

In a way, what it has done is it has compelled departments to clean up their stock, which they hadn't necessarily cleaned up in quite a while. When the rule was introduced, it allowed departments to take a look at their regulations and to remove the titles that were no longer necessary.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Can they get credit for removing those titles as a reduction in burden even though some of those titles are really not even being enforced or relevant anymore?