OREANDA-NEWS. June 11, 2015. One of the better ideas I’ve heard this year comes from the United States’ neighbors to the north. Earlier this spring Canada formally adopted a law that requires the government to remove one regulation on the books for every new regulation it seeks to add.

The One-for-One Rule, as it is known, aims at reducing the administrative burden on Canadian business. Here’s a recent NPR Morning Edition segment about the new law.

The beauty of this approach lies in how it obligates lawmakers and regulators to consider and reconsider the whole suite of regulations that government has promulgated. It reflects an acknowledgement that too much regulation can weigh down the vitality of the private sector, i.e., the part of society that creates wealth and drives economic progress. (A similar approach is currently being tried in Australia.)

Compare this to how it’s done in the United States. How often do we see laws passed or regulations put into effect – regardless of their merits – with little or no consideration of how they add to the overall regulatory burden on the economy? The National Association of Manufacturers estimates federal regulations cost more than \\$2 trillion annually.

Furthermore, these additional layers of regulation often live on long after when changing social, economic, or market conditions call for a new approach. Keep in mind that the “temporary” federal telephone excise tax, implemented to finance the Spanish-American War at the end of the 19th century, wasn’t eliminated until the first decade of the 21st.

Critics of the Canadian plan contend it will lead to an emasculation of important regulations on safety, health, and the environment.

The reality is the law will force lawmakers and regulators to be more conscientious about the regulatory regime, not less.

What really is at risk in the Canadian experiment are the failed regulations currently on the books, regulations that have outlived their usefulness (or never even worked as intended) while still imposing substantial burdens on the economy.

Canadian officials will be forced to constantly reassess their approach to regulation. They will have to consider which ones aren’t working or which need to be replaced. In the process, they are likely to remove the least effective or most onerous regulations, not the ones society deems most important. In fact, it will help clarify what is working best.

The One-for-One Rule is akin to regularly trimming and weeding a garden to keep it from becoming overgrown.

That’s a far smarter approach than ensnaring the private economy in an ever-growing thicket of rules and regulations. And it’s a precision approach that officials in Washington and statehouses around the country might consider emulating.