Federal Regulatory
Process Management Standards
Compliance Guide
Regulatory Affairs Guide
A Self-Assessment Guide for Departmental Managers
November 1996
Table of Contents
Foreword
Part I
Introduction
Part II
The Guide
Annexes
This guide, prepared by the Regulatory Affairs Division of the
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, is designed to help you
assess your compliance with the government’s regulatory policy. It
gives you tools for evaluating the processes you follow in your
department when developing or revising regulations.
Using the guide is not mandatory, nor is the guide prescriptive.
It is intended to help you understand the regulatory process
management standards, explore alternative ways of meeting them, and
satisfy the review and reporting requirements of the Treasury Board.
The guide is divided into two parts. The introduction explains
the federal government’s regulatory policy framework and the
Treasury Board’s requirements for departments to review and report
on their compliance with standards for managing the regulatory
process.
The second part of the guide explains the standards for managing
the regulatory process and provides self-assessment checklists to
help you determine whether your management systems meet the
standards.
Framework for the federal regulatory
system
The Treasury Board is responsible for developing and issuing the
government’s Regulatory Policy, which includes the regulatory
process management standards. Training courses, seminars and guides
are available to regulatory authorities to give them the skills and
the flexibility they need to create an effective and efficient
national regulatory system. The Policy, training and guides are part
of an evolving framework designed to create the best regulatory
system in Canada.
By best, we mean a system that
- respects legal and constitutional requirements;
- gives us the most regulatory protection at the least cost to
both the private sector and the government;
- promotes a culture of openness and accountability;
- enacts regulations based on input from stakeholders;
- is user friendly, accessible and understandable; and
- is continuously updated and improved.
Key documents explained
The policy: the Regulatory Policy
of the Government of Canada, which is designed to ensure
that the government uses its regulatory powers to the
greatest net benefit to Canadian society. Regulatory
authorities develop, maintain and enforce regulatory programs
that follow the Policy.
The standards: the regulatory
process management standards which the Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat developed in 1995, in consultation
with departments. They are mandatory “quality
assurance” standards for the regulatory process,
inspired by the system of ISO 9000 standards. Regulatory
authorities must have management systems in place that
meet the standards, and must review their performance
periodically and report on it to the President of
the Treasury Board.
The guides: advisory documents
that offer detailed suggestions on developing
regulations and managing regulatory programs. Titles
include A Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide and Alternatives
to Regulation. A list of guides is attached in Annex
C to this document.
|
Federal regulatory policy
statment1 |
|
Canadians view health, safety, the quality of the environment,
and economic and social well-being as important concerns. The
government’s regulatory activity in these areas is part of its
responsibility to serve the public interest.
Ensuring that taxpayer’s money is spent wisely is also in the
public interest. The government will weigh the benefits of
alternatives to regulation, and of alternative regulations, against
their cost, and focus resources where they can do the most good.
To these ends, the federal government is committed to working in
partnership with industry, labour, interest groups, professional
organizations, other governments and interested individuals.
Policy requirements
When regulating, regulatory authorities must ensure that
- government intervention is justified, and that regulation is
the best alternative;
- they have consulted Canadians;
- the benefits outweigh the costs to Canadians, their
governments and their businesses;
- when managing risks, they allocate resources where they will
do the most good;
- they have minimized adverse economic impacts, addressed the
special circumstances of small businesses, and considered
equivalent means of conforming to regulatory requirements;
- they have respected intergovernmental agreements and
coordinated their efforts with those of other governments
and agencies; and
- systems and sufficient resources exist to allow them to
manage regulatory programs effectively and follow the
Management Standards.
Regulatory process management
standards |
|
Standards for managing the regulatory process are a new
requirement for regulating departments. They are designed to enhance
adherence to the Regulatory Policy.
The flow chart at right illustrates the system for managing the
regulatory process. It links the steps involved in managing and
continually improving the process for developing regulations.
Departmental compliance with these management standards is
expected within the scope of your authority to carry out the various
steps involved in developing or amending a regulation. One
department may carry out the front-end assessment and analysis of
policy alternatives. Another may develop and administer the
regulations. Each is responsible for applying and respecting the
management standards in their respective roles in the regulatory
process.
Efforts in applying the Regulatory Process Management Standards
should be proportional to the impact of potential regulatory
changes. The greater the impact, the greater should be the effort
put into consultations, consideration of alternatives, cost-benefit
analysis etc.
Summary of the review and reporting
requirements
The seven major regulatory departments (see Annex
A) will
- implement management systems by December 31,
1996;
- review compliance with the management
standards by December 31, 1999;
- report to the President of the Treasury Board
on the results of the review; and
- develop, jointly with Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat, a schedule for subsequent
reviews based on risk.
The other regulatory authorities will
- implement management systems by December 31,
1997;
- develop, jointly with Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat, a schedule of reviews,
based on significance of and risk associated
with non-compliance with the Regulatory Process
Management Standards.
|
Measurements of significance and risk reflect the magnitude of
the possible positive and negative impacts of regulatory programs;
the extent to which health, safety and environmental risks are
concerned; and the degree of public acceptance. The greater the
significance and risk, the earlier the management system controlling
a regulation should be reviewed.
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, ensures that regulatory
authorities review and report on their adherence to these standards
in the appropriate time frame. To achieve this, we will offer
guidance and follow up on a timely basis, to ensure that regulatory
authorities complete reports and meet deadlines.
Review process
Within the established time frame your organization must review
its regulatory process and report to the President of the Treasury
Board, that it has met and applied the management standards.
Those conducting the reviews must
- be independent of departmental regulatory units; that is,
they must report to a different senior manager;
- be qualified and trained to do this work;
- prepare a review plan setting out scope, approach, criteria
and review program; and
- complete all work so that others can draw an appropriate
conclusion on the organization’s adherence to the
Standards.
Reports should be clear and complete; state deviations,
rationales and recommendations when appropriate; make conclusions
regarding adherence to Standards; and include best practices when
appropriate.
Working papers should
- substantiate the reported results by providing evidence that
the regulatory authority has or has not met a standard, or
the rationale for deviations; and
- provide details of any assumptions made, including
alternative approaches.
To ensure accountability, managers at the appropriate level
should review and sign working papers and reports.
Finding evidence of a problem
General. Regulatory authorities
proposing new regulatory requirements or regulatory
changes must have evidence that a problem has arisen,
that government intervention is required, and that new
regulatory requirements are necessary. When health,
safety and environmental risks are involved, regulatory
authorities must consider whether the relative and
absolute risks posed are such that intervention is
required at this time.
The problem. The problem must be
described and documented in clear, concise terms. The
problem must be analyzed. Interested parties must be
consulted on alternative ways to solve the
problem.
|
Discussion
This part of the standard deals with the preliminary step in
government intervention, namely a thorough understanding and
definition of the problem. Various players in a situation may create
a problem. To solve the problem, government wants to change these
behaviours. It can do so by strengthening the incentives to do the
right thing and reducing the disincentives.
Regulation is one policy tool government uses to encourage or
change behaviour. However, regulations are expensive to develop and
enforce and can create economic barriers for business. Therefore,
government must ensure that it establishes and maintains regulations
when a demonstrated need exists and when regulations are the best
solution to a problem. This is why you must thoroughly analyze and
understand the problem at the outset.
To do this well, authorities should get input from stakeholders
on the nature of the problem. If, at the start, people are uncertain
about the exact nature of the problem, they will be concerned in the
future about the appropriateness of the solution selected.
Throughout this document we stress the need for good mechanisms for
consulting with stakeholders. We suggest that you start discussing
the nature and extent of the problem with stakeholders early in the
process, before even beginning to think about how to solve it.
Document the problem and ask the various players in the
initiative to confirm the specific wording so there is no room for
misunderstanding, and all parties can refer to written material at
later stages of the regulatory process.
Self-assessment checklist
1.1 Policies, procedures and practices are in place to
ensure detection of actual or potential problems.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are procedures in place for monitoring the regulatory
environment for potential problems? |
|
![](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to respond quickly to
important new problems as they arise? |
1.2 All problems detected are properly defined and
described.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for ensuring that a problem, that
may be addressed by regulation, is clearly and
comprehensively described? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are advisory documents used to help define the problem,
such as Assessing Regulatory Alternatives Section
1 (Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat 1994)? |
1.3 Problems are analyzed to fully understand their
nature and implications.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are actual and potential problems analyzed, their risks
assessed and affected parties identified? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is public perception of problems part of the systematic
analysis, where appropriate? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are available advisory documents used to establish the
analytical framework for investigating problems? These
documents include: |
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
|
Technical Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Section 1 (Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat 1994); |
![](docs/images/trans1x2.gif) |
|
|
Assessing Regulatory Alternatives, Part 2
(Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat 1994); |
![](docs/images/trans1x2.gif) |
|
|
Q850 Risk Management: Guidelines for Decision
Makers (Canadian Standards Association, 7th draft,
1996); and |
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place for verifying that
authorities adequately evaluate and understand
identified problems? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a procedure for verifying that all the
relevant, cost-effective information on a problem is
collected? |
1.4 The absolute and relative health, safety and
environmental risks associated with potential problems are assessed
and compared, and risk management principles are used to set
priorities for regulatory changes.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are regulatory priorities set for your department or
agency as a whole, and are they based on risk management
principles and available resources? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the regulatory priorities of your whole organization
reviewed and verified on a periodic basis? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a process in place for ensuring regulatory
development, analysis and resources are focused on the
highest priority problems and does this process involve
senior management? |
1.5 Interested parties are consulted on the nature of the
problems and on potential solutions.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for carrying out consultations at
this stage of the regulatory development process, which
confirm the nature of problems and increase the degree
of public acceptance of solutions? |
1.6 Consultation is proportional to the degree of risk
and public acceptance associated with the regulatory actions
proposed.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are consultations extensive enough for problems with
high risks and low public acceptance? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are consultation efforts proportional to the impact of
potential regulatory changes? |
1.7 Documentation is concise and affected parties can
understand it easily.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are documents that identify and analyze the problem
shared with stakeholders? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the documentation written in a style and language
that stakeholders can easily understand? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do all parties agree on the way the documentation
defines and describes the problem? |
1.8 Government intervention is justified as a result of
problem identification and definition, analysis and
consultation.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does the analysis and the results of your
consultations indicate that the problem warrants more
detailed study?
|
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you document your definition of the problem, your
consultations with interested parties, and the
conclusions of your preliminary analysis?
|
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do program managers have sufficient information for
determining whether government intervention is justified
and if alternative solutions should be explored?
|
Identifying and reviewing alternative
solutions
Alternative solutions. It must be
demonstrated that new regulatory requirements will help
solve the problem. Alternative regulatory solutions must
also be analyzed to ensure the most effective and efficient
is chosen.
Flexibility. Positive
consideration must be given to parties proposing
equivalent means to conform with regulatory
requirements. If proposals are not accepted, the
rationale for doing so must be documented.
|
Discussion
You need to be creative when looking for the least disruptive and
least expensive way to get the result you seek, and you should not
assume that regulations are the only solution. Both regulatory and
non-regulatory tools can solve problems or create incentives or
disincentives to influence how people or firms act. Sometimes you
can best achieve your objective by implementing a combination of
regulatory and non-regulatory solutions.
Consider proposals from regulated parties that offer an
equivalent way of meeting a regulatory requirement. You must try to
accommodate those proposals if you have the legal means to do so,
or, consider changing the legal framework.
Regulations written with a lot of prescriptive detail limit the
way regulated parties can meet regulatory objectives. In many
situations, there may be more than one way to meet these objectives.
Avoid writing regulations with a lot of inflexible detail or you may
needlessly increase costs, prohibit innovation, and prevent the use
of more efficient technologies. Generally, you should focus instead
on desired results or performance requirements, and give regulated
parties flexibility in achieving them. Many regulatory authorities
are moving to performance-based regulations.
Self-assessment checklist
2.1 The analyses of alternative solutions show that new
regulatory requirements, be they new regulations or changes to
existing ones, will help solve the problems.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you consult on alternative ways to solve problems,
including non-regulatory solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you systematically consider alternative instruments
for changing behaviours, including regulatory and
non-regulatory ones? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you identify and fully consider noninterventionist
alternatives? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you use the advisory document Assessing Regulatory
Alternatives, (Treasury Board of Canada,
Secretariat, 1994) to help develop the analytical
framework for assessing alternative solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you use the advisory document Designing Regulatory
Laws that Work, (Department of Justice, 1994), or A
Guide to the Making of Federal Acts and Regulations,
(Department of Justice, 1996) to develop the analytical
framework for identifying and assessing the form of
regulatory programs? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you use the advisory document Benefit- Cost
Analysis Guide for Regulatory Programs,
Chapter 2 (Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, 1995)
to screen regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the comparative advantages of alternatives assessed
in terms of legality, effectiveness, efficiency,
fairness, intrusiveness, visibility, timeliness and
responsiveness? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are preliminary assessments done on alternative
regulatory solutions in terms of their approximate
benefits and costs, their impact on the environment and
interest groups, and their ability to solve problems? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to verify that regulatory
solutions help solve the problems they are supposed to
address? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does management have sufficient information to determine
whether the most efficient and effective regulatory
solutions are recommended? |
2.2 Regulatory solutions based on performance
requirements are considered as alternatives to
prescriptive standards.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your regulatory process ensure that you consider
performance-based regulatory solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there guidance to help regulators developing
regulatory proposals to incorporate performance goals
rather than prescriptive requirements? |
2.3 When possible, positive consideration is given to
proposals for achieving regulatory objectives by equivalent means.
When such proposals are not accepted, the reasons are fully
documented and are explained to the proposer.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do senior management and the Minister have clear
policies that support flexible regulatory initiatives
and responsiveness to legitimate concerns of regulated
parties? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are procedures in place for reviewing proposed
regulations in terms of their flexibility and their
responsiveness to changing technologies, changing
regulated parties, and changing market conditions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you give high priority to proposals from regulated
parties for equivalent means of achieving desired
results and do you accept them when appropriate? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
When you do not accept proposals for achieving
regulatory objectives by equivalent proposals, do you
document your reasons and explain them to the proposer? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you systematically encourage regulated parties to
identify equivalent means of achieving regulatory
objectives and then make these available to others as
appropriate? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
For regulations affecting manufactured products, is full
consideration given to using good manufacturing practice
standards, which focus on how a product is designed,
produced and serviced? Are equivalent proposals from
industry in this area considered? |
Analyzing benefits, costs and regulatory
burden
Benefit-cost analysis. It must be
demonstrated that the benefits of regulatory
requirements are greater than their costs. When
regulations address health, social, economic or
environmental risks, it must also be demonstrated that
regulatory effort is being expended where it will do the
most good. For all regulatory proposals, a benefit-cost
analysis must be carried out to assess potential
effects, such as impacts on the environment, workers,
consumers and other sectors of society. The Business
Impact Test, or equivalent analysis, must be undertaken
to assess the effect that major regulatory proposals
will have on Canadian businesses.
Regulatory burden. It must be
demonstrated that adverse impacts on Canada’s
sustainable development - this concerns the long run
capacity of both the economy and the environment to
generate well-being, wealth and employment for Canadians
- are minimized and that no unnecessary regulatory
burden has been imposed. Information and administrative
requirements should be limited to what is absolutely
necessary and impose the least possible cost on
regulatees. The impact of additional regulatory burden
on small businesses in particular must be considered,
and the least burdensome but effective alternative for
their circumstances should be chosen.
|
Discussion
You must clearly understand the gross costs of regulations, which
are a good measure of a regulation’s importance to society as a
whole. Conduct benefit-cost analyses on alternative solutions and
alternative regulatory proposals, using an effort proportional to
the potential impact of the alternatives. Government resources are
becoming more and more limited, so you should make full use of risk
management techniques for your regulations to have the greatest
positive impact.
In general, do not use regulations to solve problems if the costs
that those regulations impose, whether direct or indirect, are
greater than the benefits of the regulations. If you use regulations
when it is unclear whether benefits exceed costs, then you must
fully document your reasons.
For significant regulatory proposals that could have an impact on
the business community, use the Business Impact Test (BIT), or
equivalent analysis, so that you can understand the specific affects
on business operations. The BIT requires a structured dialogue
between industry and government; consequently, it is also a helpful
consultation tool. Consultation is an important component of the
Regulatory Policy.
You must clearly understand what your regulatory proposals will
cost those affected. For example, small businesses, such as those
employing fewer than 50 full-time employees, have fewer resources
than larger companies making it harder to digest and adjust to new
rules. You should limit the extra work and expense caused to small
businesses and to other regulated parties.
For instance, you can try to align administrative requirements as
closely as possible to standard business practices, information
systems and accounting procedures, to reduce the need for parallel
systems in businesses. Check that your requirements do not
contradict those that firms must meet for other authorities or
governments. Also, you should explore opportunities for sharing
information with other authorities, rather than collecting
information for yourself only.
Self-assessment checklist
3.1 Benefit-cost analyses are carried out on possible
solutions to identified problems. The analytical effort is
proportional to the related risks being addressed.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are benefit-cost analyses systematically carried out for
regulatory proposals and their alternatives, including
the status quo? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for ensuring that the amount of
analysis conducted is reasonable when compared to the
significance of the problem being addressed and the
potential impact of solutions being considered? |
3.2a The benefit-cost analysis considers both direct and
indirect benefits and costs, and considers impacts on the
environment, government, business, workers, consumers and other
sectors of society. The total gross costs of regulatory proposals
are estimated.
3.2b The impacts of potential solutions on sustainable
development are assessed and recommended solutions balance
environmental, economic and societal goals.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are benefits, both direct and indirect, systematically
taken into consideration? Are costs similarly
considered? Are the benefits and costs for identifiable
and significant groups, such as consumers, labour, or
industry, considered? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are impacts on the environment fully considered? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are total gross costs always estimated and documented? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to ensure that affected
groups are consulted? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the long-run impacts of major regulatory proposals2
on economic productivity and on the functioning of
important ecosystems systematically analyzed? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the benefit-cost analysis structured according to
practised techniques, for example as outlined in the Benefit-Cost
Analysis Guide for Regulatory Programs, (Treasury
Board of Canada, Secretariat, 1995)? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to verify the results of
major benefit-cost analyses using third-party reviews? |
3.3 Regulatory proposals are brought forward when
benefits clearly outweigh costs. When this is not the case, a full
explanation and justification is given for
exceptions.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your departmental regulatory policy require that
benefits outweigh costs for both new and existing
regulations? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you fully document your justification for proposed
regulatory measures where the benefits do not clearly
exceed the costs? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do program managers have access to sufficient
information to allow them to make informed decisions
about net benefits? |
3.4 For regulations addressing health, social, economic
or environmental risks, the relative net benefits of actions are
considered. Those with the greatest net benefit are the regulatory
proposals brought forward first. When this is not the case, a full
explanation and justification is given for exceptions.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place for assessing the risks posed
by problems and for comparing the risks posed by
problems, to ensure that effort is focused on the most
important problems? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the risks associated with regulatory proposals
systematically assessed, and used as a criterion in
selecting costeffective solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
For regulatory actions that are not your top priority on
the basis of risk, do you have a process to fully
justify your reasons for proceeding? |
3.5 Analyses are undertaken on the burden alternative
regulatory proposals impose.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for ensuring that the
burden of regulatory proposals is explicitly considered
from the start when developing regulatory proposals? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the cumulative burden of federal regulations known,
so that the total cost of information, administrative,
and compliance requirements can be considered when
reviewing proposed changes? |
3.6 The specific effects of regulatory burden on small
business are considered, and their particular circumstances and
business practices are taken into account.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you have a system for ensuring that you consult small
businesses? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are structures of businesses that may be affected by
proposed regulatory change well researched, understood
and documented. |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are impacts on small business addressed as a high
priority and special circumstances and needs of small
businesses taken into account? |
3.7 The Business Impact Test (BIT) or equivalent is used
to analyze and compare the anticipated impacts of major, alternative
regulatory solutions on business.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the BIT or equivalent analysis used for proposals
with a present-value gross cost of more than $50 million
and those with a lower present-value gross cost that
have a low degree of public acceptance? If not, are the
reasons why clearly documented? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Have you considered impact of the of the regulatory
proposal on the workplace using the Workplace Impact
Test (WIT) or an equivalent tool? |
3.8 Recommended solutions minimize the regulatory burden
and impose the least costly information and administrative burden on
those regulated.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are measures taken to minimize the burden, to ask only
for necessary information, to coordinate information
requirements with other government agencies when
appropriate, and to minimize costs to business? |
3.9 There is a verification system to ensure that all
feasible alternatives to regulations are fully considered; that full
consideration is given to equivalent means of achieving regulatory
objectives and to performance-based options; and the regulatory
burden is kept to a minimum.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to verify that a range of
reasonable alternatives to regulations and alternative
forms of regulation have been examined and given full
consideration? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Burden is difficult to assess. Can you verify that both
clients and government agree the information on burden
is reasonable? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
For major regulatory proposals, do your procedures
require you to thoroughly analyze the benefits and
costs, assess risk, consult with stakeholders and
analyze the impact of a variety of alternatives before
recommending a solution? |
Identifying opportunities for
intergovernmental coordination
Regulatory authorities must determine what, if
any, related regulatory requirements already exist and
which other departments, agencies or governments are
involved. New regulatory requirements must be
coordinated with existing ones to avoid duplication and
to take advantage of possible efficiencies. When
standards are being considered, reference should be
made, if appropriate, to existing standards developed
within the National Standards System or internationally.
Pertinent international and federalprovincial agreements
must be respected.
|
Discussion
Differing or conflicting regulatory standards at international,
federal and provincial levels greatly frustrate regulated parties.
You should be aware of what other levels of government are doing and
collaborate with them, right from the earliest stage in the
regulatory process.
Collaboration can help you find out about different approaches
other regulators are using. Before writing new regulations you
should also see if there are any existing national or international
standards you can use to avoid reinventing the wheel.
Self-assessment checklist
4.1 Effective relationships are maintained with
provincial and foreign regulators and procedures are in place to
obtain information from them as necessary.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there ongoing communications with regulators in
provincial governments and those of other countries in
order to understand the nature of regulations in other
jurisdictions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the advisory documents used when appropriate? For
example Regulatory Cooperation between Governments,
(Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat 1994) and International
Collaboration: Options for the Regulation of Potentially
Dangerous Products, (Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat 1992) |
4.2a The regulatory environment of the problem area is
understood, particularly what regulations exist, which levels of
government are involved and who the responsible
regulatory authorities are.
4.2b Regulatory solutions are developed with the existing
regulatory environment in mind, and are coordinated with existing
regulatory requirements, to maximize efficiencies and to avoid
overlap and duplication.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you review proposed regulations for consistency with
the requirements of other governments in Canada and
abroad? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
When proposing regulatory change, do you systematically
consider the cumulative burden of the regulations of all
levels of government on business, especially small
business? |
4.3 Recognized Canadian and international standards are
referenced in regulations when appropriate, rather than including a
new, duplicate set of standards.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures to identify equivalent regulatory
standards of major trading partners and to ensure they
are considered when developing Canadian regulations and
standards? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Where proposed Canadian standards differ from those in
other countries, is the difference justified and fully
documented? |
4.4 Interdepartmental and intergovernmental agreements
clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each party, the
objectives of the regulatory program, enforcement policies, and
mechanisms to promote inter-agency coordination.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are interagency agreements designed to anticipate and
foster regulatory coordination? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you have a system for verifying that other
governments are achieving their agreed-upon obligations
when different levels of government share regulatory
responsibilities? |
4.5 Regulatory personnel are familiar and up-to-date with
international and federalprovincial trade agreements and respect
their obligations. They understand and respect
other pertinent agreements.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your management system ensure that your regulators
are familiar with their obligations under international
(such as the World Trade Organization and North American
Free Trade Agreement) and Canadian agreements (such as
the Agreement on Interprovincial Trade)? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are proposed technical regulations systematically
reviewed to ensure fairness in the treatment of products
from different jurisdictions? |
Implementing the best alternative
The regulatory program design must include program
objectives, program delivery specifications and delivery
control procedures. It will also include a simple and
effective complaint resolution system embodying the
principles set out in Annex B to the Regulatory Process
Management Standards.
|
Discussion
Framework for Managing Regulatory Programs, a document
published by the Regulatory Affairs Division of Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat, discusses in more detail ideas such as program
objectives, specifications for delivering programs and procedures
for controlling program delivery. We encourage you to read this
document. For both the regulation you are enacting and the larger
regulatory initiative of which it is a part, you should have a
detailed and precise statement of the general objectives of
the program, as well as the more specific goals that the program is
meant to achieve.
Specifications for delivering programs
will describe how your activities will meet your program
objectives.
Ensuring compliance with regulations is an objective common to
all regulatory programs, and the Regulatory Policy stresses it. For
this reasons, we expect the specifications for delivering programs
to include a compliance policy. Its complexity and scope will depend
on the nature of the regulation. For more substantive regulations,
the compliance policy will be a comprehensive and detailed plan of
the methods you will use to get people to comply with the law.
This plan must be well-crafted, given recent judicial
pronouncements that redefine the potential liability of government
agencies for failing to enforce regulations.
You should apply the enforcement provisions of regulations
reasonably and responsibly, with penalties proportional to the
seriousness of the infraction. Fair and appropriate redress
mechanisms should be in place, giving people a reasonable
opportunity to respond to demands, assessments, or allegations of
wrongdoing.
Procedures for controlling program delivery allow
you to ensure that your activities help you meet your goals.
These procedures
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
identify key activities in different parts of your
program; |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
analyze these key activities and identify
characteristics or indicators that you should measure
and control to ensure that you reach your regulatory
objectives; |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
define methods for evaluating the chosen
characteristics; and |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
change or control the characteristics. |
Self-assessment checklist
5.1 Regulatory programs have specific and clearly
documented objectives and goals.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the advisory document Framework for Managing
Regulatory Programs, (Treasury Board of Canada,
Secretariat, 1992) used? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures to ensure that clear and
comprehensive regulatory program objectives and goals
are developed? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do the regulatory program goals explicitly incorporate
improved efficiency, enhanced service delivery and
regulatory reform? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place for measuring whether goals
are being met? |
5.2 Compliance policies support the implementation of the
regulatory objectives and goals.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does the compliance policy support the implementation of
the objectives and goals of the regulatory program? |
5.3 The compliance aspects of major regulatory proposals
are designed to minimize the liability of the
government.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does the compliance policy clearly specify enforcement
standards? Is there a system for ensuring that these
standards are being met? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system for ensuring that regulations are
enforced reasonably and responsibly? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are reviews of compliance procedures used to minimize
the potential liability of the government? |
5.4 Those whose actions are subject to regulations are
identified and informed of their responsibilities.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you clearly articulate compliance and enforcement
policies and make them accessible to regulators,
regulated parties, program beneficiaries and the
Canadian public? |
5.5 Compliance objectives are clearly defined and
appropriately reflected in operational plans and budgets. Plans and
performance expectations are communicated to all enforcement
personnel. Fair redress mechanisms exist. Regulatees and products
from different jurisdictions are treated equally.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you have a mechanism for reviewing the compliance
specifications of regulations? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are punishments proportional to the infraction? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there an information system that provides
intelligence on the state of compliance with key
regulatory activities and are there adequate procedures
for handling cases of non-compliance? |
5.6 Regulatory programs have procedures for controlling
program delivery.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are service standards developed for program commitments,
including measures of accessibility, completeness,
response times and accuracy? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are services evaluated against the standards to help
improve service where necessary? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there controls for ensuring that program activities
meet program objectives. |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there adequate resources for the program and are
program personnel adequately trained? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are performance indicators systematically used to
measure the results of interactions with clients, for
example, when monitoring compliance or managing
complaints? |
5.7 Complaint management systems, with fair redress
mechanisms, are in place as appropriate.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a complaints management system in place? Is it
accessible, available in both official languages,
simple, timely, fair, confidential, effective, and
capable of giving feedback to the regulatory program?
(Refer to principles in Annex B.) |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Can the system for managing complaints handle
international and intergovernmental complaints related
to assessing products’ conformity to standards and
other regulations? |
Communicating effectively
Plain language. Regulatory
authorities creating new regulatory requirements must
tell stakeholders about the proposal in simple, clear,
complete and concise language that the general public
can easily understand. New regulations must be written
in plain language that regulatees can easily understand.
Accessibility. New regulations
and changes to existing regulations, as well as material
incorporated by reference, must be well publicised and
accessible to stakeholders.
|
Discussion
If you can describe the problem and the alternative solutions in
clear, simple language, it will show your audience that you have a
well thought-out approach. It will also make it easier for your
audience to understand and respond to your request.
Making regulations easier to read and understand are some of the
benefits of using plain language techniques to write regulations.
However plain language is not a practical option in all cases. You
cannot, for example, insert a plain language amendment into a
conventionally drafted regulation. However, you should write new
regulations in plain language or take advantage of major amendments
to put a regulation into plain language.
Before they become law, new regulations generally appear twice in
the Canada Gazette; that is the minimum requirement for
communicating new regulations to interested parties.
Depending on the circumstances, you can use any combination of
information dissemination tools, including newspapers, trade
journals, newsletters, and, increasingly, more modern tools such as
the Internet to inform those who must obey the new regulation.
Self-assessment checklist
6.1 Consultation documents and information about the
regulatory proposals are clear and all those who may be affected can
understand them easily.
6.2a All those potentially affected by a regulatory
proposal are given adequate notice of it.
6.2b Regulated parties and others affected by regulations
are given adequate information so that they can fully understand the
regulations, the regulatory programs and any associated material of
direct relevance.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there communications guidelines for regulators? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you have procedures for ensuring that you know who
your client group is for regulatory initiatives, and
that you know what communications methods you need to
use to keep them up to date on your regulatory plans? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures clearly state that proposals for new
and changed technical regulations that may affect
international trade must be prepublished in the Canada
Gazette for at least 75 days? |
6.3a Information about regulations and proposed changes
to regulations appears in the types of media that groups affected by
the regulation most often use.
6.3b The regulatory authority is proactive in reaching
its clients, and explores new and emerging ways of
communicating.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do communications plans include actions for advertising
the nature and implications of significant new
regulations? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you explore new avenues for communication with
clients? |
6.4 Managers verify that regulatory information is clear
and accessible to interested parties.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures in place to give management
assurances that affected persons know about and
understand proposed regulatory requirements? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is feedback on the accessibility of regulation-related
information solicited from clients? |
Regulatory impact analysis statement (RIAS)
When a regulatory impact analysis statement is
required, the document must
-
describe the problem and explain why
regulation is required;
-
provide a clear and precise description of
the regulatory proposal;
-
outline the alternatives considered and
the reasons for choosing to regulate;
-
describe the major anticipated impacts;
-
summarize the consultations undertaken;
and
-
explain the procedures and resources that
will be used for compliance and
enforcement.
|
Discussion
When you recommend a regulatory solution to Ministers, you need
to prepare a regulatory impact analysis statement (RIAS). It is used
by Ministers to approve regulations. A companion guide to this one
provides assistance to regulators on how to obtain ministerial
approval for the various types of federal regulations.
It is called Federal Regulatory Process: Procedures for
submitting regulation for ministerial approval (Treasury Board
of Canada, Secretariat, 1996 draft).
The RIAS must also be published in the Canada Gazette to notify
stakeholders of what the government is going to do. The RIAS
describes the regulatory proposal, how Canadians have been
consulted, the benefits and costs of the proposal, and what other
alternatives were considered.
The Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, has also published a
guide for writing RIASs and courses are available on this subject.
Self-assessment checklist
7.1a RIASs are prepared when regulations are to be
written or amended as part or all of the recommended solution to a
problem.
7.1b RIASs are concise, clear and complete, they include
information on the problem, the rationale for a regulatory solution,
the recommended solution, alternatives that have been considered,
the consultation process, and the compliance and enforcement
mechanisms to be used.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the advisory document used, Regulatory Impact
Analysis Statement: Writer’s Guide, (Treasury
Board of Canada, Secretariat 1992)? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there people involved in developing regulations who
are trained in writing RIASs? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you have a system for ensuring that the RIAS
comprehensive and complete? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are RIASs written in plain language that the general
public can easily understand? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures require that you discuss all draft
RIASs with Regulatory Affairs at Treasury Board of
Canada, Secretariat, before going for Ministerial
approval? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you systematically seek feedback from clients on the
usefulness of RIASs published in the Canada Gazette? |
Consulting Stakeholders
Full consultation and notification.
Regulatory authorities proposing new regulatory
requirements, or changes to existing regulatory
requirements, must carry out timely and thorough
consultations with interested parties. The consultation
effort should be proportional to the magnitude of the
impact of the proposed regulatory change. Notice of
proposed regulations and amendments must be given so
that there is time to make changes and to take comments
from consultees into account.
Timeliness of consultations.
Consultations should begin as early as possible in order
to get stakeholder input on the definition of the
problem, as well as on proposed solutions.
Consultation process. Regulatory
authorities must clearly set out the processes they use
to allow interested parties to express their opinions
and provide input. In particular, authorities must be
able to identify and contact interested stakeholders,
including, where appropriate, representatives from
public interest, labour and consumer groups. If
stakeholder groups indicate a preference for a
particular consultation mechanism, they should be
accommodated, time and resources permitting.
Consultation efforts should be coordinated between
authorities to reduce duplication and burden on
stakeholders.
Regulatory authorities should consider using an
iterative system to obtain feedback on the problem, on
alternative solutions and, later, on the preferred
solution.
|
Discussion
Full consultation with stakeholders is a critical element of the
Regulatory Policy. It appears in many of the management standards
because input from people affected by regulations improves the
regulations. The best timing for consultations varies. It can be at
the legislative change stage, if the major impacts will come from
the law rather than the regulations themselves. Timing is left to
your discretion.
Timeliness is part of the standard. In many cases as early as
possible means as soon as you have a problem and are considering a
regulatory solution. Input from stakeholders can be very useful in
defining the problem and its environment. Consultation that you
start when you have already defined the problem and chosen a
preferred solution is not timely.
The Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, through its quality
service initiative, has prepared a guide on client consultation and
the Privy Council Office has published a set of guidelines on best
consultative practices.
Final regulatory decisions should reflect the contributions of
participating groups or explain why they do not.
You should use the Business Impact Test (BIT) or equivalent for
consultation with businesses on major regulatory initiatives. You
can use the BIT to record detailed anticipated impacts of regulatory
proposals, and as a consultation tool when discussing problems,
alternatives and solutions.
Self-assessment checklist
8.1a There are procedures in place for developing and
maintaining appropriate relationships with target populations,
professional bodies and industry associations, to ensure effective
and efficient discussion and resolution of issues.
8.1b There are documented procedures for carrying out
consultations, including how consultees are to be identified,
contacted and encouraged to participate.
8.2 Interested parties are given clear notification of
consultation activities in sufficient time for them to prepare and
deliver their input. For complex regulations, consultations start as
soon as a potential problem is identified.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures require that interested parties be
clearly notified of consultations sufficiently far in
advance? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures leave enough time between the close
of consultations and the submission of recommendations
to Cabinet, for you to consider and incorporate input
from consultations? |
8.3 Defining the exact nature of the problem is part of
the consultation agenda. Consultations cover alternative regulatory
and non-regulatory solutions, and the final
solution.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your consultation policy encourage participants to
discuss the nature of the problem, as well as solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do consultations uncover additional possible solutions
to problems and help to assess the impacts of each? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does the consultation agenda permit those affected to
comment on the final proposed solution? |
8.4 Consultation effort is in proportion to the
importance and impact of proposed regulatory
changes.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for ensuring that the amount of
consultation is reasonable when compared to the
significance of the problem being addressed and the
potential impact of the solutions being considered? |
8.5 Consultations clearly identify who should be
consulted and what methods should be used to consult with different
interest groups. All major interested parties are invited to
participate in consultations.
8.6 Alternative consultation methods are used when
appropriate, especially if proposed by the people
we are consulting.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your consultation policy/approach help you meet the
needs of consultation participants who may have limited
resources or expertise to participate fully? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you consider innovative consultation methods when
potential participants make suggestions or when they
have difficulty participating in traditional ways? |
8.7 An Impact Test or an equivalent is used to consult
with on major regulations.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your policy require you to use the Business Impact
Test or an equivalent to consult with industry on major
regulatory issues? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your policy require you to use the Workplace Impact
Test or an equivalent to consult with labour
representatives and workers on major regulatory issues? |
8.8 Those you consult are approached more than once, as
necessary, when situations change, when new issues arise or when
consultations are out of date.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
For more complex regulatory proposals, are the people
you consult involved on an ongoing basis as you define
the problem more clearly and introduce various
regulatory and non-regulatory solutions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your consultation process require you to determine
whether the public will accept the proposed solution? If
the public does not accept it, do you justify the
proposed measure? |
8.9 All input to consultations is considered and the
reasons for not incorporating major suggestions are documented.
Feedback is provided to those who contribute to the consultation
process on how their ideas are used.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your consultation process ensure that the comments
of participants are considered when developing
regulatory proposals? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you tell participants about decisions you make while
developing regulations? Do you give them an opportunity
to comment on such decisions? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is feedback on the results of consultations given to
participants? |
8.10 There is an awareness of the consultation efforts of
all levels of government in the areas that are addressed by the
regulatory authority, and consultations are
coordinated when appropriate.
4 Is intelligence gathered on related consultation efforts by
other federal departments or other levels of government, and is
there a coordinated effort to reduce consultation burden whenever
possible?
Documenting the process
Documenting the process.
Regulatory authorities must document their regulatory
policy and processes, including the responsibilities,
authorities and interrelationships of personnel who
manage, carry out and review regulatory programs.
Documenting regulatory changes.
The process followed to develop each new or changed
regulation must be documented. The documentation should
include, but not be limited to, a description of the
problem, alternative solutions, the risks involved, the
reasons for regulating, the consultation process used,
and the benefit-cost analysis.
|
Discussion
You must write down how you do what you do by keeping up-to-date
procedures manuals, so that your employees know what is expected of
them and have clear instructions on how to do various tasks.
Documentation is also the record of what you have done. You
should keep track of steps in the decision-making process and
clearly indicate responsibilities and accountabilities. Without such
a record it is difficult to review past actions, to learn from them,
and to improve the system for managing your department’s
regulatory process.
By properly documenting your work, you will also be able to show
that you have complied with the Regulatory Policy. Records should be
easily accessible.
Self-assessment checklist
9.1 The departmental regulatory process is documented and
includes objectives, responsibilities, authorities and review
requirements.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are departmental regulatory policies written down and
available? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does the policy clearly identify the senior manager
responsible for regulatory activities? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the lines of authority, the roles and
responsibilities, the accountabilities and the
relationships of personnel involved in managing the
regulatory process clearly documented and available to
those working in the system? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there clear policies or other statements to
employees that demonstrate that senior management and
the responsible minister fully support the government’s
overall approach to regulation? |
9.2a There are procedure manuals for the regulatory
process management system.
9.2b There are procedure manuals for all but the most
insignificant regulatory programs.
9.2c Procedures are kept up-to-date.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedure manuals for regulation-related
activities? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are the procedures up-to-date? Do they reflect
legislative changes? Do they refer to the 1995
amendments to the Regulatory Policy? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do procedures include references to advisory documents? |
9.3 Decisions are clearly documented throughout the
process and an appropriate level of management approves and verifies
documents.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures require you to document your
decisions throughout the regulatory development process? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is there a system in place to validate the
documentation? |
9.4 The process for each regulatory initiative is
adequately documented. Reasons for not following the Regulatory
Policy are documented whenever that occurs.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there procedures for ensuring you document your
regulatory initiatives. These documents should include a
description of the problem, alternative solutions, the
risks involved, the reasons for regulating, the
consultation process used, the benefit-cost analysis,
and the gross costs of the regulatory action? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
When developing a regulation, do you record the
assumption you make? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Is the documentation adequate to provide evidence you
have complied with the regulatory process management
standards? |
Continuous improvement
Regulatory authorities must regularly review their
management systems to evaluate progress in meeting
standards; report on reviews to senior management; and
take steps to correct any problems identified in their
process for amending and developing regulations.
Regulatory authorities must ensure their employees
have the appropriate training to carry out the
requirements of the Regulatory Process Management
Standards.
|
Discussion
The standards lay out the requirements for managing the
regulatory process well, but are also consistent with overall good
management practices. As part of these practices, you should conduct
regular internal assessments of performance and policy compliance.
This will give senior managers the information they need to verify
that your organization is meeting the requirements of the Regulatory
Policy and to implement corrective action if necessary.
The President of the Treasury Board is accountable for the
regulatory policy and management standards. As discussed in the
introduction, you are responsible for arranging reviews and sending
a copy of the review report to the President of the Treasury Board.
By continuously improving your system for managing the regulatory
process, you will improve your regulatory program. Continuous
improvement will also help you assess your compliance with the
Regulatory Policy, determine whether you meet the standards and
satisfy the review and reporting requirement of the Treasury Board.
Managing the regulatory process and managing regulatory programs
themselves require competent, capable people. With changing
technology and evolving business practices, personnel must stay
up-to-date with the environment they regulate.
Self-assessment checklist
10.1 Internal management reviews of the regulatory
process are conducted on a regular basis.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Does your management system include regular assessments
on whether your regulatory process complies with the
regulatory process management standards? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do staff independent from the departmental regulatory
units conduct these reviews? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you use the Manual on Review, Internal Audit and
Evaluation, Part 1, (Treasury Board of Canada,
Secretariat, 1994) used to structure the review process
and identify performance measurements? |
10.2 Regulatory program designs are periodically reviewed
and improvements are made as a result.
10.3 There is a system for verifying that managers
address problems identified in reviews or by
clients.
10.4 There is a system for verifying that staff are
suitably trained in regulatory development skills and training is
provided when appropriate.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there policies and procedures for assessing what
competencies are required for each job, for assessing
the competencies of incumbents and new recruits, and for
training personnel when there are knowledge and skills
gaps? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Can managers verify whether any particular job is done
only by trained people? |
10.5 There are procedures for training staff to ensure
that sufficient and properly qualified personnel
are available.
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Are there sufficient resources to train people involved
with regulatory programs? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do your procedures ensure that all employees involved
with regulatory issues are aware of the goals of
regulatory programs, the role and activities of each
part of the operation, the government’s overall policy
on using regulatory power, and their personal
responsibility for helping to meet these goals? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do employees receive training in new techniques and
activities before they are required to use those skills
on the job? |
|
![Checkmark](docs/images/checkmark.gif) |
Do you make staff aware of, and provide access to the
advisory documents of Treasury Board of Canada,
Secretariat, training opportunities provided by the
Interdepartmental Best Practices Committee, the Canadian
Centre for Management Development and others; and other
sources of information? |
Annex A
Seven major regulatory departments |
|
The following departments must have systems that meet the
standards by December 31, 1996, and must arrange a first internal review
by December 31, 1999:
Principles for resolving complaints
These principles are designed to ensure that the complaint
resolution mechanisms of federal regulatory authorities are simple,
clear and well-known.
Such mechanisms should help authorities quickly resolve
complaints about program implementation, and increase client
satisfaction with federal government regulatory programs and
services. Complaint resolution mechanisms that provide information
to management will help regulators identify areas where they could
improve government services, and will also improve the delivery of
regulatory programs and services.
Principles
Federal regulatory authorities must have complaint
resolution mechanisms that
-
are easily accessible and well-publicized;
-
are available in both official languages;
-
are simple to understand and use;
-
allow speedy handling, with established
time limits for action, and that keep people
informed of the progress of their complaints;
-
ensure a full and fair investigation of
complaints;
-
respect people’s desire for
confidentiality;
-
provide an effective response and
appropriate redress to complainants;
and
-
provide information to managers so they
can improve service
|
Annex C:
Guides and publications |
|
-
Assessing Regulatory Alternatives (1994) 1 6
-
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide for Regulatory Programs
(1995) 2 3
-
Colloquium on Risk Management (1994) 2 8
-
Competitiveness and the Design of Regulations (1992) 1 2
-
Consultation Guidelines for Managers in the Federal
Public Service (1992) 2 4
-
Designing Regulatory Laws That Work (1994) 7
-
Developing Regulations: The Basic Steps and the Plain
Language Approach Field-tested Edition, (1996) 1
-
Enlightened Practices in Regulatory Programs – Volume
1, Volume 2 (1993, 1994) 1 2 6
-
Federal Regulatory Plan 1 2
-
Federal Regulatory Policy 1995 1 2 6
-
Federal Regulatory Process Management Standards:
Compliance Guide (1996) 1 2
-
Federal Regulatory Process: Procedures for Submitting
Regulations for Ministerial Approval (1996 draft) 1 2
-
Framework for Managing Regulatory Programs (1992) 1 2 6
-
A Guide to the Making of Federal Acts and Regulations
(1996) 7
-
International Collaboration: Options for the Regulation
of Potentially Dangerous Products (1992) 1 2 6
-
Managing Regulation in Canada (1996) 1 2
-
Manual on Review, Internal Audit and Evaluation (1994) 2
-
Plain Language, Clear and Simple (1991) 5
-
Practical Guide to Public Consultations (1993) 4
-
Q850 Risk Management: Guidelines for Decision Makers, 7th
draft, (1995) 9
-
Quality Services: Guide I, Client Consultation (1995) 2
-
Quality Services: Guide XI, Effective Complaint
Management (1996) 1 2
-
Reforming the Federal Regulatory Process in Canada
1971-1992 by W.T. Stanbury 1
-
Regulatory Cooperation Between Governments (1994) 1 2
-
Regulatory Review Report 1992-1994 1
-
RIAS Writer’s Guide (1992) 2
-
A Strategic Approach to Developing Compliance Policies
(1992) 2 3
-
Service Standards: A Guide to the Initiative (1996) 2
-
Technical Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis (1994) 1
-
Using the Business Impact Test Effectively (1994) 1 2
They are available as follows:
-
Regulatory Affairs*
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat
140 O’Connor Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R5
Telephone: (613) 952-3459
Fax: (613) 957-7875
E-mail: RADDAR@tbs-sct.gc.ca
-
Available on the Internet at
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
-
Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC)
(613) 996-1458 sells this publication
-
Communications and Consultation (PCO)
(613) 957-5706
-
Canada Communications Group
Tel: (819) 956-4802
Fax: (819) 994-1498
-
Available on diskette from
Regulatory Affairs
-
Department of Justice (Administrative Law
Section) (613) 941-1978
-
Institute on Governance (613) 562-0090
-
Canadian Standards Association
1-800-463-6727
* Department and agency officials should call
their departmental/agency regulatory coordinator (name and phone
available from Regulatory Affairs)
NOTES
1
Adapted from Regulatory Policy 1995, Treasury Board of Canada,
Secretariat, revised November 1995
2 A
regulation is classified as major if it has a
present value of costs greater than $50 million or if it has a
present value of costs between $100,000 and $50 million and a low
degree of public acceptance.
|
|