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.
5 p.m.
NDP
5 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your coming.
You've trumpeted the advance system that Treasury Board has and the Government of Canada has for monetization of the costs of administrative burden. Let's put that to the test. Could you inform the committee what is the global or cross-government interdepartmental estimate of the monetization cost for the administrative burden imposed on business by the federal government on an annual basis?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I certainly will try to find that answer for you. I don't have it off the top of my head.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
I think if I were appearing before a parliamentary committee trumpeting the advanced system of estimating the monetization of administrative burden, that's an answer I would have had.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Well, I could answer rhetorically and say a dollar of red tape burden that isn't necessary is a dollar too much.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Okay, let's see what that system comes to. Maybe you'd be able to report that a little bit later.
This policy has been place for several years now. Has it been effective?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Number one, it helps to change the culture in this place so that the needs and concerns of small business are more a part of the decision-making process, and two, by virtue of the one-for-one. As I said, the hundreds of thousands of hours that have been reduced in terms of burden and the monetary reduction in the cost of burden I believe are good indicative measures.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
If the policy has been successful for several years, why legislate it?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I think it's important to have the force of Parliament behind this particular piece of legislation. I think that sends the right message. It also encompasses, I believe, the view that this is not just a rule that at whim can be removed.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
That's interesting, because you mentioned earlier that in other jurisdictions, other advanced economies, the problem with their legislation or policies is that they include directives that can be undone by another directive. Clause 8(1) of this piece of legislation states:
No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.
Clause 8(2) states:
No regulation is invalid by reason only of a failure to comply with this Act.
It sounds to me like Bill C-21 has a poison pill. It has a directive that's built into it that can be used to undo all of the other elements of the bill. This is an unenforceable bill because you've built in a clause that says, “Yes, we have a policy, we have a general thrust, we have an intention”, but clause 8 as it is spelled out in this bill gives you an off-ramp. It gives the Government of Canada an off-ramp. You don't have to do anything under this bill and not be in compliance with this bill because of clause 8.
Minister, how would you respond to that?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I think that is a general immunity clause, quite frankly, which means that Her Majesty in right of Canada is protected. That's fairly standard. What I would say is when you look at the rule itself, which is found in clause 5, that is the actionable clause in this particular bill.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Understood, but clause 8 says that you don't have to action it. Nothing can be done. There are no consequences for not acting on clause 5. The government cannot be held accountable.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Minister, I'll just read it again so that we're clear:
No action or other proceeding may be brought against Her Majesty in right of Canada for anything done or omitted to be done, or for anything purported to be done or omitted to be done, under this Act.
That sounds to me like a big off-ramp.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
That is a cause of action in the courts. That doesn't mean that the bill has no force and effect, because it has the force and effect of Parliament and Parliament can require the bill to be enforced.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
It's an act of Parliament. The minister can be dragged before this committee and you can ask questions in the House of Commons. There can be shaking of fists and beating of fists—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Minister, if I am a business owner and I am trying to use this bill to lighten my burden, and I want to invoke this bill, what action can I bring forward to ensure that it happens if you're saying that...? There's an off-ramp. There's a total immunity clause.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
This is a pamphlet. This is not legislation. This is a communications exercise
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
That is all the time we have, but I will just let Mr. Clement answer you if he wishes to do so.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Oui. This is not a total immunity. This is immunity in a legal cause of action, which is a standard procedure in governmental files. At the same time, this will have the force of Parliament and I believe that any government that completely ignores this particular bill would be in contempt of Parliament.