Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 1 of 1
View Julie Vignola Profile
I have five pages of questions. I'm a questions gal.
Earlier, we were talking about “two-for-one” and “three-for-one” and so on.
I was looking at the bill and wondering where the cost reduction was, if we were going “one-for-one”. I see that some regulations have been adopted, and that two or three others have been repealed. Still, I'm wondering why preventive action isn't being taken.
When new regulations are put in place, is there not a way to ensure that they meet health and safety standards and everything else, but also that they do not add to the administrative burden as a priority? At the same time, we have a new regulation that does not increase this burden, and we are removing another one that may be unnecessary, depending on the analysis.
Why don't we do that instead of just applying a one-for-one approach to increased administrative burden?
Result: 1 - 1 of 1

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data