Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just think that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the other side—perhaps not the whole other side—as to what this bill actually does. It actually does not look at compliance burden. The whole purpose of regulation is to provide for health and safety as well as clarity to business. That is the compliance burden. This bill has nothing to do with that. The Government of Canada and individual ministers will continue to put forward regulations that make sure those issues are well looked after. What this particular bill does is work on the administrative burden that is associated with it.
Last meeting, at the request of Mr. Byrne, we had Health Canada, and Mr. Beale came. He specifically said that when they look through and are pulling out another regulation from the perspective of administrative burden, they actually look to see if the information that's being asked for is duplicated somewhere else. They ask to see how often it should be reported. Obviously they make sure that those things are in line with making sure that there are no issues with health and safety—or the environment in this case, because he's an Environment Canada official—and that it has no bearing whatsoever on health and safety or the environment. I gave the example of where they were able to just ask for the VIN only once from importers of foreign cars. That has saved more than $1.5 million for the industry, again without compromising health, safety, or the environment.
The one-for-one rule has been in practice for the least two years. It has a track record. For the member opposite to come to the conclusion that continually looking to make sure the administrative burden on businesses is kept in check but not the compliance, that is either disingenuous or the member and his party do not understand the bill.
I would just again suggest, Mr. Chair—and I do say this respectfully, I know this gentleman tries very hard to represent the small businesses in his riding—he should be able to go back to his constituents and be able tell them that this will have no effect on the environment or health and safety at all. I would recommend that all members do not vote in favour of this amendment.