That is another very good question.
I think in some cases it's obvious. When we look at the Nova Scotia example I gave earlier, employers, doctors, patients— everyone was agreeing that the sick note requirements were not adding any value, and they were taking a lot of time. That's an example of the obvious.
Sometimes, your definition of what's needed might be my definition of red tape, and that's where you get into healthy debate. I think in all cases it's important to ask what objective we are trying to achieve and whether this particular set of rules is doing that effectively.
If we go back to those first principles and we look at data and evidence, then that's very helpful. We can also look at where things are duplicative. If we have two or three rules trying to do the same thing, maybe one will accomplish the goal, and that's often an example of where you can find that line between necessary regulation and red tape.