I feel like my colleague, Mr. Albas, is the play-by-play man and I'm the colour man, but I'll just add a few comments to clarify.
In clause 4, the purpose of the bill clearly says “administrative burden”. It explicitly says that compliance burden is not subject. I was wondering where the definition for compliance burden would be contained. Apparently the Government of Canada has something called the “Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide”. It's a formal document, and it clearly spells out the differences between compliance burden and administrative burden.
Examples of compliance burden would be the cost of a business installing emission control equipment or pharmaceutical testing. Those are burdens, but they have to comply with the regulations. It's very clearly delineated from administrative burden.
It's a standard set of definitions that other countries in the OECD have. It's derived from something governments use around the world called the standard cost model. There's a clear definition; therefore, the amendment isn't necessary because clearly health and safety compliance burdens are exempt from these kinds of regulations.