Monday, 23 January 2012

The One-For-One Rule an Over-Simplified Approach to Regulations

President of the Treasury Board Minister Tony Clement
Minister Tony Clement's released their new One-For-One rule on Jan 18th.  Put simply the press release is announcing that the federal government plans to treat regulations like trading cards.
This means that regulators will be required to remove at least one regulation each time they introduce a new one that imposes administrative burden on business. 
I understand that Minister Clement is trying to "reduce red tape" but this over simplified approach is not the way to go.  Minister Clement is assuring that with this rule Canadian standards will never increase and may even potentially decrease.  Regulations are imposed on finance, environment and health to ensure the safety of the public whether it be safeguarding their retirement savings or inspecting the quality of their food.

Minister Clement from his letter, views regulations as simply burdens on business and nothing else.  In fact he makes no mention of the importance of regulations at all.  Regulations are put in place after much thought and consideration by regulators and forcing regulators to remove one of these important regulations in order to add a new one that has now become necessary due to more information available or a change in a situation is well to put it bluntly - stupid.

Treasury Board  Press Release Jan 18, 2012
Playing with Fire - When Political Ideology Costs Lives

Add to Technorati Favorites


  1. They used to say "Big brother is watching us" but instead with this government it's "Big brother would rather not bother with us".

  2. It should actually be a one-for-two rule, that way we actually end up with LESS regulations. Although regulators look at a problem from inside a bubble, they rarely look at the larger picture. Which in turn often causes much bigger problems. Sure we could have many more regulations, which make it harder for businesses to hire Canadians, and instead hire Chinese workers overseas where there are no regulations...

  3. Brian is entitled to his opinion. Obviously I disagree. His reasoning being that we should be at a race to the bottom when it comes to standards. I find it even more concerning that the regulations he seems to think are too stringent are health and safety since he talks about hiring workers overseas where there are no regulations.

  4. Pamela is entitled to her opinion as well. Although I did not mention anything about health and safety regulations she has assumed that is what I want to get rid of. Health and safety are very important, and if there were no regulations regarding safe practices it would still be in the companies best interest to make sure the workplace was safe. If a worker gets hurt not only is the company open to lawsuit damages, but also bad press.

    1. In all fairness to Pamela when I read your comments it sounded like regulations surrounding working conditions (which include health and safety).


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post.

All comments are reviewed before posting. Spam and comments containing disrespectful language or character attacks will be deleted without posting.