Government Operations Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2014

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

It is up to the ministers of Health and the Environment to decide what is good, what is not, and what should be eliminated.

What can you tell us to reassure the public?

[Mike Beale]

I guess I would repeat what my colleague Ms. Weber said. There are consultations around the forward regulatory plan. Any repeal goes to Canada Gazette, part I, and there's opportunity for public comment. So there are opportunities for Canadians to express their views on proposed repeals.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony here today.

I am going to follow up with what Mr. Ravignat was discussing, particularly around the discussion about costing and transparency.

We had a witness in the previous session—I'm not sure if you were able to hear them—who made allusions that there is only an after-the-fact scorecard evaluation of regulations. My understanding is that Treasury Board Secretariat assesses all final Governor-in-Council approved regulatory changes with administrative burden cost increases or decreases, and those are then published in the Canada Gazette. I think it's prepublication is in part I. Then any stakeholder, any Canadian, can comment on it. In those regulatory impact assessment statements, they actually not only say how the one-for-one rule applies, but they also give the burden in plain language that anyone can understand. They can then make sense of the regulation and then comment.

Is that something your departments do on a regular basis?

[Kendal Weber]

Yes, for sure. Advancing any new regulation doesn't happen overnight. I think what's important is that we start the policy analysis process.

We do international comparisons. Sometimes, and we've done this most recently on nutrition labelling, we undertake an online consultation with the public at large, a Canadian public consultation. We then do a cost-benefit analysis. We use a cost calculator provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

That becomes a part of our regulatory package that is advanced to the Canada Gazette for consultation. In that RIAS, the regulatory impact assessment statement, we outline the costs and the benefits of the particular regulation that is going forward. It is put in the Canada Gazette for 30 or 75 days for consultation. We collect the comments, bring them back, advance to Treasury Board again, and then we publish in the Canada Gazette , part II.

In the instance I just mentioned, about the pharmacy technicians, we also engaged the pharmacists' association to conduct a survey to determine the costs to the industry. We actually engaged the pharmacists in the determination of that cost calculation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Beale, is that the same experience...? Do you consult with Canadians in very much the same way?

[Mike Beale]

Exactly.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Excellent.

This is a further question for Environment Canada. I have with me, Mr. Chair, “The 2012-2013 Scorecard Report”. it mentions the specific amendment that was made:

Through amendments to Environment Canada’s On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emission Regulations, $1.5 million of administrative burden on vehicle importers was reduced by eliminating the need for them to submit vehicle or engine identification numbers... and the dates they imported the vehicles as part of their declarations. Importers are now only required to submit one importation declaration to the Minister of Environment per year.

You mentioned earlier, Mr. Beale, that when you look to amend an old regulation or put in place a new one, you try to make sure that you only ask for information as it is pertinent and only when necessary. Is that in line with this example of the on-road vehicle and engine emission regulations and with the one-for-one rule in general?

[Mike Beale]

Yes, absolutely. We obtained approximately $1.5 million in savings just from this one initiative of reducing the burden around these vehicle regulations. We found that we were able to get the information we needed without this additional burden.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Were you able to do so with no compromising of health and safety for Canadians?

[Mike Beale]

Absolutely.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That's great, and I'm very happy to hear it.

Mr. Ravignat asked the previous witnesses about the importance of the cap and whether it was necessary or could be achieved with ongoing constant reviews. My question for you is, does having a cap on the administrative burden force you to go back to look at old regulations and then refresh them as necessary so that Canadians still get the best regulations, but in such a way that we are constantly keeping an eye on the costs of administrative burden on our entrepreneurs and on Canadians in general?

[Mike Beale]

Yes, absolutely. It encourages us to go back to look at our existing regulation bank, including how the regulations are structured and whether they could be better structured, as well as at the exact administrative costs that we impose on industry and Canadians in those regulations and whether there are ways that we can get the same information in a more efficient way.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Albas. Your time is up.

I now give the floor to Ms. Day, who has five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

A bit earlier, a representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told us about a consultation undertaken with its 109,000 members. She told us that health, safety, the economy and the environment were important for those members.

I would therefore like to repeat the question asked earlier by Mr. Ravignat. I am not asking you for a personal opinion, I am asking you about what consultations undertaken by the federation and others reflect. Do you not believe the environment should be a part of this bill?

[Mike Beale]

As I said, I don't have a personal opinion, and the department supports the bill as put forward by the President of the Treasury Board.

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

The federation therefore believes the environment should be mentioned.

Ms. Weber, earlier you mentioned the example of pharmacists and certain regulations. In the absence of the one-for-one rule, could we have achieve the same result?

[Kendal Weber]

Well, the actual changes that were made for the pharmacy technicians were made last year. It followed the regulatory reform announcement in 2012 and the work of the Red Tape Reduction Commission. A previous witness did mention the culture change. We did start to make those changes. We integrated the small business lens into our regulatory design. We also looked at the administrative burden and how it could be reduced. As we advanced our regulatory packages we looked for opportunities where unnecessary burden could be reduced.

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

Your departments deal with the environment and health. Could you tell us how many regulations that means in all?

[Kendal Weber]

At Health Canada we have 95 regulations.

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

And what about the environmental side of things?

[Stewart Lindale, Director, Regulatory Innovation and Management Systems, Department of the Environment]

Environment Canada has a stock of 72 regulations.

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

That means 95 plus 72 regulations. Therefore, the one-for-one rule does not affect a large number of regulations. So if this bill is adopted, every time a regulation is added, one will have to be removed.

Under this bill, the President of Treasury Board must provide an annual report on section 5, meaning the application of the one-for-one rule.

Have you any idea what that report would include? What criteria have you been given to draft this report?

[Mike Beale]

I would say that as part of the forward regulatory plan we indicate what our proposed regulatory initiatives are going to be for the next two years. In there we also indicate some of the repeals and adjustments that we expect in our existing stock of regulations. As we go forward we will be continuing to make that balance between the new regulations that we introduced and any changes to the existing stock.

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

The bill also stipulates the following: “Five years after the day on which this Act comes into force, the President of the Treasury Board must cause a review of the Act to be conducted“.

Have you already been provided with the process and the evaluation criteria that will be implemented during the five first years? I don't imagine you will be given that in the 6^th year.