Industry committee  It's the number one answer to the question of what you would do if there were savings there. It would be to invest in your business, and you have over half of businesses saying they would have more to invest, which directly affects productivity for the sector. Again, if we even

Industry committee  We need to do everything we can to make it simple to pass on businesses to family members. Certainly, to make it fair, we need to ensure that it's not more expensive to do that, to sell to a member of your family than to sell outside your family, and that those successions go wel

Industry committee  I think this is one of the recommendations we're making that's very simple. If you're using existing software, just allow that to work with the back end of the government's software, instead of taking what you have in the software and then having to reinput it into the government

Industry committee  I would love to see us get away from having the lowest common denominator dictate the regulatory burden for all businesses. I think that it's very destructive, not just directly for the businesses but for all Canadians, because it undermines our economic growth and our productivi

Industry committee  You're absolutely right. For the burden in some areas we're seeing a slight decrease, but our measures are fairly broad and aggregate, so I would say, at best, we're holding ground. What we do know is that sometimes these things shift around. For example, as things get more compl

Industry committee  If I understand the idea correctly, it would be fewer charges for smaller businesses, less burden for smaller business—a divide. Certainly we should do everything we can to keep the regulatory burden reasonable for all businesses, and there are certain areas where as you grow th

Industry committee  I'm sorry. I'm not sure the translation was perfect at the end of your question. Did you ask what I would think of the government taking away some of the costs for a small business?

Industry committee  I understand. Yes, this is like a one in, one out policy. We have that in place, actually, federally in Canada. I think there was only one MP who voted against it at the time, so it was widely supported. The challenge is that it's on a very narrow base. It only looks at regula

Industry committee  The simple answer is no.

Industry committee  I'd be happy to expand on that. The vaccine is a good example. Normally, that would have taken the better part of a decade. There was an understanding that we had an outcome here that we needed to achieve and that was more important than.... While we needed to continue to check

Industry committee  Absolutely. On the challenges, which you just flagged, has to do with the culture. I would say those are the two big challenges. Being very risk averse is another piece of that culture. When you try to get risk down to zero, the problem is that you introduce other risks, and ther

Industry committee  Of course you're going to want the data that looks at very specific rules, and we have some of that when you think about cost-benefit analysis. There's a lack of sector-specific data. I would say that the biggest thing that's missing is a fairly simple and straightforward aggre

Industry committee  In British Columbia, what they do is measure every time there's a “shall” or a “must” or some kind of prohibition. They count that not just in the regulation, but also in the legislation and the policy, which is important. They call this “regulatory requirement”. They had a count

Industry committee  I think there's a bit of a sense of hopelessness around this issue and a feeling that things continue to get worse: Will this ever be a high enough priority for government to turn the tide? On top of that—and I'm speculating here because you didn't ask why my view has changed—a

Industry committee  I apologize if I didn't understand the question completely. The translation seems to have—