Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2020

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

During your remarks, you stated, “Only Governor in Council and ministerial regulations that impose administrative burden on businesses are subject to this one-for-one rule. It does not apply to regulations developed under independent regulation-making authorities such as those typically granted to organizations at arm's length”, and you gave the example of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Why were these excluded?

[James van Raalte]

That's a very good question. There may be aspects to the answer, but the general answer is that many of those independent organizations regulate government. I'll give you a different example.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission—also an independent agency—has regulatory powers. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the Government of Canada, and so they are left at arm's length. For the executive branch to tell that independent agency how to behave.... In the Westminster tradition, it is kept quite separate and at arm's length.

I can say that there is a small number of regulations out of scope—overall 14%, so fewer than 300 regulatory packages since 2012.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

I believe you have answered the question I had with the information you provided around the number of net regulations that have been removed. I think you commented on whether or not they were outdated or irrelevant. I know that at the time we were looking at this legislation, we wanted to make sure that the one-for-one exchange would be meaningful and would be similar in terms of its implications when you were looking at a regulation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you wouldn't take out something that wasn't similar in the scope of a regulation that you were bringing in and perhaps the burden that it might impose on a business. I'm wondering if you could advise us as to whether or not that is happening, when regulations are removed and others are added.

[James van Raalte]

I think this is an important clarification.

The offset, the one-for-one, occurs within a minister's portfolio. There may be burden added, in the form of a new regulatory package, to one sector or one group of businesses. The offset works within the portfolio. The reduction in the burden may occur somewhere else. So if I pick on, say, Fisheries and Oceans, there may be a new burden on the aquaculture industry. The burden reduced may be on fishers in Atlantic Canada or on the west coast. That responsibility is managed by ministers within their portfolio. The rule and the act both provide for that flexibility, so it's not “You get new burden, and we take burden away from you.” It's a general application.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you for that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. Kusmierczyk for five minutes.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Van Raalte, for your expertise and your answers.

You mentioned in your submission that the Treasury Board launched consultations last year and there were 51 submissions from stakeholders. You mentioned that there were some critical views of the rule's performance, that some fundamental concerns had been raised and that, in fact, it was suggested by some stakeholders that the rule be repealed altogether. I'm wondering if you could share with us some of the feedback you've heard or that TBS has heard from stakeholders, not just from these submissions but sort of on a day-to-day basis, with respect to the RTRA, its effectiveness, and potential opportunities for its improvement.

[James van Raalte]

I was remiss in my opening remarks in following up on that consultation process. We will be releasing a formal “What We Heard Report”, which is moving through the approval processes and is expected to be released in the coming weeks. In advance of that approval, I will give some high-level feedback, if that's okay.

We asked, in those consultations, questions around the definition of administrative burden: What has been the impact on your sector or your business? Does the way we calculate administrative burden work or make sense to you? What more could be done to reduce administrative burden on business?

The feedback, of course, was a lot broader than those questions, as you would anticipate. You go into consultations, and it's an opportunity for people to give feedback in a much broader way. Some of the themes that came out of that consultation were around a broader perspective on burden. I have spoken to cumulative burden. As I said, administrative burden is just a narrow concept. More could be done, of course, to reduce red tape for businesses, and I have spoken a little bit to that already.

There was some feedback on moving beyond applying the one-for-one rule to just businesses, and whether it could be applied to government itself, to not-for-profit organizations, and to individual Canadians, and then finally there was feedback on the scope of the application of the one-for-one rule.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Can you clarify what you mean by the scope of the application for the one-for-one rule?

[James van Raalte]

It's whether it could go beyond just administrative burden.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In the table you provided on page 5 of the report, it states the breakdown of the one-for-one rule, the implementation of the one-for-one rule, over the last number of years, from 2012 to 2019. It indicates, for example, that in 2017-18, we had 86 regulations that were eliminated. This represents a significant spike over the number of regulations that were eliminated in the previous years. It only amounted to a reduction in the net administrative burden of about $71,000.

Can you speak to the fact that in that one year you had the largest number of regulations that were eliminated, but you had the smallest amount of impact in terms of cost?

[James van Raalte]

The flow of regulatory changes will differ from year to year. It's helpful again to have the trend and watch how that happens. The rule applies to administrative burden. You could actually have a year where there were 300, 400, 500 packages for approval and review by Treasury Board. If they do not implicate administrative burden, they would not be caught by the Red Tape Reduction Act. It all depends on that calculation of administrative burden.

It is possible, and in many cases you can have a regulatory package that does not implicate regulatory burden, or the regulatory burden is quite minor. Sometimes the regulatory burden in a regulatory package across Canada is calculated in the hundreds of dollars.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you. We're out of time. We'll go to our last interventions of this round, for two and a half minutes each.

Madame Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

I imagine that an administrative process has been put in place with regulators to reduce the administrative burden.

How much does that process cost annually?

[James van Raalte]

Just for clarity, do you mean for the government to administer the rule?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Basically, I'd like to know whether a specific process has been put in place to reduce the administrative burden and to carry out the necessary analyses. If so, how much does it cost annually?

[James van Raalte]

That cost would vary department by department, and their processes for how they undertake that analysis. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provides guidance to departments on what they have to do to meet the obligations of the act. How they then follow through.... It would also depend on how big a regulator they are, and the amount of regulations coming through in any given year. That would vary both by department and by year from a resource implication.

As I said, there is a small unit within our organization that then performs that challenge function. In any given year, within the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, it's probably somewhere between one and two FTEs.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The act is called the Red Tape Reduction Act, but what I'm seeing are a lot of figures about money and time.

Will there really be a reduction of red tape or just a reduction in the time it takes to complete the paperwork?

[James van Raalte]

The purpose of the act is to control administrative burden. Burden can be measured both in time and effort, and actually in what they have to do. The member is correct in terms of.... Let's take a form that may have to be filled out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Make it a short form.

[James van Raalte]

It can go from being a long form to a short form, but then it still may be a complicated form that takes a long time to fill out, so all of those considerations are taken into account when we try to measure and calculate administrative burden.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Green, you're up for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In the application of the act, are exemptions related to public health and safety given a higher priority than those exemptions related to the Canadian economy? Also, what about matters related to the environment?

[James van Raalte]

There are three types of exemptions. There's the tax policy exemption. There is, for lack of a better word, the sort of court-ordered requirement if the Supreme Court makes a decision, and then there are emergencies that may arise.

An exemption is an exemption. There's no calculation in terms of.... The emergency could be a public safety emergency. It could be an environmental emergency. The court order could be a public safety emergency. It could be an economic emergency.

The grounds for an exemption are pretty black and white, and there is no priority given to one or the other. Departments apply for exemptions and are granted them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. Has the one-for-one rule in the act created a bias for departments and agencies to deregulate? If so, what has been the impact on Canadians?