Evidence of meeting #36 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gordon O'Connor  Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC
Michael Vandergrift  Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board Secretariat

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I would like to welcome you to the 36th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We will be planning future business until 4:30 p.m. That includes planning the study that we will be starting this afternoon. An important witness will be appearing: the President of the Treasury Board; he is the sponsor of Bill C-21. We will also discuss the scheduling of the study as well as the list of witnesses who will be invited to appear.

I now give the floor to Mr. Trottier.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because we're talking about various witnesses, I think we should move in camera, please.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

There is a motion to proceed in camera.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for a recorded vote please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 4; nays, 3. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

4:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I call this meeting to order. It is 4:30 by my watch.

We will continue our 36th meeting with the second item on the agenda.

It is our pleasure to receive the President of the Treasury Board who is here to answer questions on Bill C-21. He is the sponsor of the bill. He is thus the first witness to appear before our committee. He will speak for about 10 minutes. Then committee members can ask him questions.

He is accompanied by Mr. Vandergrift, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs.

Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. Clement, President of the Treasury Board.

4:30 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a great pleasure to be here with you this afternoon to talk about how we can reduce red tape for SMEs.

As you already mentioned, Mr. Michael Vandergrift, who's the assistant secretary of regulatory affairs at the Treasury Board Secretariat, is with me. We're pleased to comment on Bill C-21, which enshrines the one-for-one rule into law and as a result will help to permanently control the growth of federal regulatory red tape.

The one-for-one rule, I should mention to committee, has already been in place as a rule for more than two years.

The one-for-one rule has been in place for more than two years.

It is a cornerstone of the government's Red Tape Reduction Action Plan, which we launched in October 2012 to eliminate unnecessary regulations, while maintaining high standards for safety and protection.

The purpose of the rule is to make regulation as pain free and efficient as possible for Canadian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, and to free them up for what they do best, that to is to say, to grow, innovate, and create jobs.

Specifically the one-for-one rule requires regulators to monetize—and I will get into that a bit later—and offset any increases in administrative burden that result from regulatory changes with equal reductions from existing regulations. One rule comes on and one or more rules must come off. In addition, when a brand new regulatory title is introduced that adds administrative burden, an existing regulation must also be repealed.

This approach has already proven to be effective.

During the first year of implementation, it provided successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that impacted businesses. As of June of this year, the rule had resulted in a net annual reduction of more than $22 million insofar as it is calculated for administrative burden on businesses, an estimated annual savings for businesses of 290,000 hours—that's 33 years dealing with regulatory red tape—and a net of 19 federal regulations taken off the books.

As I mentioned earlier, the government is committed to help permanently control federal regulatory red tape.

That's why we decided to propose to Parliament that we enshrine the one-for-one rule into law, and that's why we introduced the red tape reduction act. By giving the one-for-one rule the added muscle of legislation, Canada will have one of the most aggressive red tape regulations in the world.

The one-for-one rule and other red tape reduction action plan reforms are, I can report to you, bringing a new level of discipline to how government regulates and creates a more predictable environment for businesses. And believe me, that is their request and demand of government.

And we are doing it while maintaining high standards for the safety and protection of Canadians.

Canadians count on their government and on their regulatory system to uphold the public trust.

I can assure you that the government will continue to protect the health and safety of our citizens, but we will do that while freeing businesses from unnecessary costly and time-consuming red tape. Our approach is designed to increase Canadian competitiveness and to free businesses to innovate, invest, grow, and create jobs without being impeded by unnecessary government regulations. With this bill and by following through on our other red tape commitments, we are helping to cement Canada's reputation as one of the best places in the world in which to do business and invest.

I just want to describe very briefly some of our other commitments. They include introducing the small business lens, posting forward regulatory plans on the web, increasing service standards for high-volume regulatory authorizations, and keeping track of our progress in reducing red tape through the annual scorecard report.

It's precisely because we have taken such actions that Bloomberg recently ranked Canada as the second-best country in the world in which to do business. We believe that it is the private sector and the ingenuity and creativity of hard-working Canadians that should and does create economic growth, jobs, and long-term prosperity.

Indeed, our role as the government is to put in place the right balance of policies to support them.

We are doing that not just through our red tape reduction reforms but also through other measures that secure Canada's long-term economic prosperity, including a competitive tax regime, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G-7, and a stable banking environment.

With that, I can say thank you.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Minister, for your statement.

Without further ado, let us move to questions and answers. We will start with Mr. Martin, who will doubtless share his time with his colleague.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Clement, for being here. I'd like to begin with a question, Mr. Clement. What do the following ministers have in common: the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Human Resources, Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry, and the Minister of National Defence?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I believe they're all Conservatives.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

They're all Conservatives. That is true, but it's not the answer I was looking for.

The answer I was looking for, Minister, is that all of those ministers are willingly appearing before their appropriate standing committees to defend their supplementary estimates (B). Many of them with amounts of money in the supplementary estimates (B) lower than the Treasury Board are coming to Parliament to ask permission to spend $151 million in vote 15b.

My question, Minister, is as pleased as we are are to have you here with us today, why can those ministers find time to show respect for the parliamentary committees that are responsible for the oversight of their departments and you never seem to be able to? It's like pulling teeth getting you to our committee to speak to one of the most important constitutionally protected rights that parliamentarians have, which is the estimates.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I have to interrupt you, because Mr. Albas is raising a point of order. Is that correct?

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

You know, Mr. Chair, I hate to cut into Mr. Martin's time by any way or means, however, the point I'm making is relevancy. We're here to discuss Bill C-21, and I have failed to hear any question coming from the member in reference to our study of this particular bill.

I believe that being relevant, particularly at committee, considering that this committee is charged with looking at this bill in depth, really should provoke a response of focusing on the bill.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you for your point of order about Mr. Martin's remarks.

I was waiting for the end of his question to see if it had anything to do with Bill C-21. I am presuming that Mr. Martin will ask it quickly. Indeed, we need to stick to today's topic.

I will let him finish, in the hope that he will bring things around to the bill that we are currently studying. That is why Mr. Clement is here today.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I'd be more interested in the minister's answer. Frankly, I don't think anybody can deny the relevance of having the President of the Treasury Board speak before the parliamentary committee charged with the oversight and scrutiny of the activities of the Treasury Board in something as important as estimates.

The minister oversaw a report, an in-depth study that we did on the very subject of estimates.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I must interrupt you because Ms. Smith is raising a point or order.

You have the floor, Ms. Smith.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

I have a point of order.

Without challenging the chair at this point, I would like to point out to my colleague across the way, with all due respect, it is a well-known fact—I know when I was chairing the health committee—there are often times when a minister can't appear because of scheduling issues. Today we're talking about Bill C-21 and to be relevant we need to stick to that particular topic and not go off on all these rabbit trails.

November 26th, 2014 / 4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you for your point of order, but I hope that in the next 30 seconds, maximum, Mr. Martin will bring things back around to bill C-21, otherwise the question will not be—

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Speaking of time, I hope these points of order aren't taking away from the limited amount of time allocated to the official opposition to question the minister.

I can point out that this is Wednesday afternoon at 4:30. We made special provisions to accommodate the schedule of the minister. Our meeting times are 8:30 to 11:30, Tuesdays and Thursdays, but we're willing to meet any time, anywhere to discuss the estimates with our minister. We accommodated him this time. What's the reasoning for not accommodating us with one hour sometime throughout the 40-hour work week we have here—the 80-hour work week that we have here?

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Does this have anything at all to do with the bill or with a point of order?

4:40 p.m.

Gordon O'Connor Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC

It was the same point of order. Enough's enough. Mr. Martin has already been warned twice. He doesn't need to be warned three times.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I have the floor, don't I?

4:40 p.m.

Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC

Gordon O'Connor

You don't have it with a point of order and you're not on topic. You've got to get on the topic or get off.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

What could be more relevant than the estimates?

4:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

I just stopped him because he seemed to be getting off track, but I noticed a slight link with bill C-21. If the minister wishes to answer, I will give him the opportunity to do so.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

I always appear if any committee wants me to appear. They vote that way, and I appear.