Regulatory Improvement Act aims to curb red tape

Summary#

Bill 23 would create the Regulatory Improvement and Efficiency Act; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to promote sound regulatory governance and improve efficiency, accountability and transparency. It is at first reading, so it is not law; the bill gives no start date.

  • The Minister must establish and publish a Charter of Governing Principles, based on the Red Tape Reduction Office’s advice.
  • The Red Tape Reduction Office would oversee and monitor how the Charter is applied, report on it, and advise and assist the minister and government departments, offices and agencies.
  • The minister must publish a yearly report by June 30 on government initiatives, including progress on improving regulations and reducing regulatory burden.
  • Departments must publish a service standard for decisions on certain new licence, permit or authorization requirements. This applies when a new requirement is imposed for an activity or thing that did not previously need one, unless the law setting the requirement already gives a decision timeframe.
  • If the minister requests it, a department must develop, implement and maintain a red tape reduction plan with the Office. The plan must include targets for decision times and assess the benefits and risks of possible regulatory changes.
  • The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make rules setting further requirements, or exempt classes or types of regulation from the Act or its rules. The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act takes precedence if there is a conflict.

What it means for you#

  • People and businesses seeking certain new approvals: The responsible department must publish a service standard about how long it will take to decide a completed application. The bill does not promise approval or create a general deadline for all applications.
  • Government departments: They must publish those service standards when the bill’s conditions apply. They must also prepare and maintain a red tape reduction plan if the minister requests one.
  • The minister and Red Tape Reduction Office: The minister must establish and publish the Charter and issue the annual report. The Office has oversight, monitoring and advisory duties under the bill.
  • Labrador Inuit: The bill says it must be read and applied with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act; that Act prevails in a conflict.
  • Everyone else: The bill does not itself repeal or change a specific regulation, create a right to challenge a regulation in court, or require people or businesses to apply for a new licence.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • The bill assigns work to the minister, the Office and departments, but does not estimate staffing or other costs.
  • It does not set a fee, fine, tax, or direct payment to the public.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain how the Red Tape Reduction Office is established, who it reports to, or what staff and resources it has.
  • It does not set a start date.
  • It does not say whether service standards are legally binding deadlines, or what happens if a department misses one.
  • The minister may request plans, but the bill does not require them for every department or require departments to publish them.
  • The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may set further requirements and exemptions; the bill does not specify what those will be.
  • The bill gives no process for public input into the Charter, plans or regulatory changes.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make government’s regulatory work more visible through a public Charter and annual report.
  • Public service standards could help applicants understand the expected decision time for certain new approval requirements.
  • Requiring departments to assess the benefits and risks of possible changes could encourage attention to both efficiency and possible downsides.
  • The minister can request plans from departments where targeted work on regulatory delays or other improvements is considered necessary.

Case against#

  • The bill sets broad powers to make requirements and exemptions but does not specify their limits or require public input.
  • Service standards and plans do not come with stated consequences for missing targets; non-compliance does not affect whether a regulation is legally in force.
  • The minister decides whether to request plans, so the bill does not ensure every department will set reduction targets.
  • The Office’s structure, resources and independence are not explained, making its capacity to oversee and report unclear.