Red tape redux--or reduction?

• Author: Cirtwill, Charles
• Position: Think Tank

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) celebrated the holidays in 2016 by sending nicely wrapped boxes of red tape to MPPs. The gifts were a protest about the new regulations and red tape that the OMA said would result from the passage of Bill 41. These types of protests are not new. Every regulated industry and occupation complains bitterly about onerous or outdated regulation.

But, do they have a point? A rough manual count of the Statutes and Regulations of Ontario suggest that between 2010 and 2016, Ontario added 135 new laws and repealed 65. A similar manual count of the Regulations of Ontario suggests on that front that, if less is more, things have gotten better. A 370 regulation reduction from 2,920 in 2010, to 2,559 at the end of 2016.

So, if we are prepared to admit that red tape can, on occasion, get out of hand and indeed, sometimes become counterproductive to the intended purpose or to the broader interests of society, why do we only respond when the squeaky wheel demands grease? Or, why do we so often only target the resulting regulations and not the legislation itself?

It has not come down graven on stone that all previous legislation is sacrosanct or that every public program, service or organization must continue to exist for all eternity. Indeed, if you look at the foundations of our legal and judicial systems, we assume that societal needs, and the law that serves them, will develop and change over time.

Yet we do not routinely require our legislators to review in a systematic way the decisions made by themselves and their predecessors. To test, with real consequences, the effectiveness of the legislation they pass or the continuing relevance of rules often created in very different historical and social contexts.

The auditor general annually brings down reports that include (alongside glowing commentary and evidence of decisive impact and positive change) pages of analysis highlighting waste, failure and ineffectiveness. The reports are issued, the departments and agencies issue responses, the auditor general issues progress updates, and the cycle continues.

It does not need to be that way. Texas, as an example, requires all non-constitutionally guaranteed programs and services to face a mandatory sunset review. Every program or service that is created by the State Legislature has a sunset...