RIAS WRITER'S GUIDE
FOR USE BY WRITERS OF REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
STATEMENTS
PREPARED BY
CONSULTING AND AUDIT CANADA
AUGUST 1992
BEFORE YOU START
QUICK
REFERENCE:
The RIAS Writers' Checklist highlights
all the information about each of the six parts of the RIAS.
The Table of Contents lists good examples of the various sections
of the RIAS.
Following each example is a discussion of the strengths of the
example.
Your departmental regulatory coordinator can guide you on the steps
you need to take in preparing regulations. His or her name and phone
number is available from Regulatory
Affairs & Orders in Council (613) 943-5076.
Purpose of this guide
This guide is designed to help departments meet the objectives of
the Regulatory policy by improving the quality of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis Statements (RIASes) prepared for their regulations.
This guide cannot address every possible situation. Rather, it is
intended to give you ideas on how different types of problems might
be addressed.
This guide was prepared after consultations with RIAS users, both
inside and outside government, and RIAS writers in several
departments. Almost all the examples used in this guide have been
selected from a survey of over 300 recently published RIASes. They
have been edited to best illustrate the points being presented.
There are other regulatory guides available that can help you
with:
-
getting regulations approved;
-
cost-benefit analysis;
-
international harmonization of regulations (and
standards);
-
compliance and enforcement; and
-
competitiveness and the design of regulations.
Other guides will be appearing from time to time.
This guide is a joint venture of Consulting and Audit Canada and
the Regulatory Affairs Directorate of the Treasury Board
Secretariat.
Regulatory reform - from 1986 to the present
In 1986, the government introduced some key innovations to the
regulatory process.
-
A Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) now
accompanies each proposed regulation;
-
A Citizens' Code of Regulatory Fairness was
adopted;
-
Draft regulations are published, together with the RIAS,
in the Canada Gazette,1 Part I to provide an
additional opportunity for public comment on upcoming
regulations.
The regulatory process has been fully operational since 1987.
Since its implementation, experience has shown that RIASes are used
and valued by members of the public, as well as being useful in the
process of developing regulations.
The driving force behind the regulatory process is the Regulatory
policy. It is designed to ensure that use of the government's
regulatory powers results in the greatest benefit to Canadians. The
RIAS plays a fundamental role in the implementation of the
Regulatory policy.
The RIAS: a contract between the government and Canadians
Because the RIAS is used
-
by the government to complete the public consultation
process, and
-
by ministers to approve regulations,
it is very much a social contract. It provides a description of
what the government is going to deliver, how Canadians have been
consulted, and what they have said. It then offers a final chance
for Canadians to have input to the regulation-making process.
Within government, the RIAS is intended to provide better
information for decision-makers both inside and outside the
initiating department.
Outside the government, the RIAS is intended to give the public
better information on which
-
to evaluate proposed regulations, and
-
to base any questions and final comments they may have
about specific regulations.
The opportunity for public review is an important feature of the
Regulatory policy.
What the RIAS looks like
The RIAS has six sections.
-
Description outlines the
regulations, defines the problem and shows why action is
necessary.
-
Alternatives lists options
besides regulation and other types of regulation.
-
Benefits and Costs quantifies the
impact.
-
Consultation shows who was
conferred with and the results.
-
Compliance and Enforcement explains
the policy on conforming to the regulations and tools to
ensure it is respected.
-
Contact Person is the individual
best able to answer questions from RIAS readers.
Every section of the RIAS is motivated by one or more items in
the Regulatory policy or the Citizens' Code of Regulatory
Fairness. The RIAS is, therefore, a public accounting of each
regulation in terms of the government's Regulatory policy.
The RIAS and the Regulatory policy
Although writing the formal RIAS often comes toward the end of the
regulation-making process, most of the evaluation should have
already occurred. For instance, before regulation is even viewed as
an option, the Regulatory policy asks some basic questions (1 and 2
below). The answers to these and subsequent Regulatory policy
questions are the core of the RIAS.
How does this work?
The Regulatory policy provides government
officials who are faced with a problem with a framework for
analysing the issue and exploring possible solutions.
The RIAS, in answering the following
questions, explains how officials did their analysis and chose the
particular regulatory option being proposed.
-
Does a problem or risk exist? (You explain in the
Description section of the RIAS how the regulation complies
or does not comply with this requirement.)
-
Is government intervention justified? (Discuss in
Description.)
-
Of all potential alternatives, is regulation the best? (Discuss
in Alternatives.)
-
Is the regulatory program "designed" to
maximize the gains to beneficiaries in relation to the cost
to Canadian governments, businesses and individuals? (Discuss
in Benefits and Costs.)
- Have steps been taken:
- Have Canadians, particularly those most directly
affected, been informed about and had an opportunity to
participate in the development of, or modification to,
regulations and regulatory programs? (Describe the
consultation, summarizing the main results.)
-
Are compliance and enforcement policies articulated? (Explain
in Compliance and Enforcement.)
-
Have resources been approved and are they adequate:
-
to discharge the department's enforcement
responsibilities effectively, and
-
to ensure compliance where the regulation binds the
government, (Ensure the resource issue is resolved and
explain, if appropriate, in Benefits and Costs.)
DRAFTING THE RIAS
You are
making a presentation
-
Address the concerns of your audience.
-
Put what is most important first.
-
Use short sentences and clear language.
Do not obscure your presentation with excessive technical
language.
The RIAS is published with the regulation. It is intended to show
that
-
government intervention was necessary;
-
regulation is the best alternative;
-
the proposed regulation maximizes net social benefits;
-
there was adequate consultation; and
-
the compliance mechanism is appropriate and in place.
When you see your RIAS as a presentation, instead of merely
explaining the regulation, the whole character of the document is
transformed. Rather than a dry narrative, you build arguments to
logical conclusions.
Decision-makers in government are becoming more and more
sceptical about whether all the regulations already on the books are
really necessary. Consequently, it is becoming harder to show that
yet another regulation is really in the best interests of the
country.
Stick to the facts and you will reveal the merits of the
regulation.
If, on the other hand, you are not persuaded that your department
has done its homework in preparing the regulation, you may save it
and your senior managers a lot of grief if you go back and ask
questions now, before the regulation gets snarled in the system.
Discuss your reservations with other staff members in your
department, to enhance your understanding and your arguments in
support of the regulation.
A key objective: persuasion
In a RIAS, you want your readers to be convinced that the
regulation conforms to government policy. There are two parts to
this question.
- Does the regulation assist my department in carrying out its
mission in implementing the policy from which the regulation
emanates?
- Does the regulation conform to the government's Regulatory
policy?
Regulations are an instrument of policy. They flesh out what is
normally already accepted policy, whether in the form of a
ministerial statement or a clearly legislated mission.
To show this consistency, you need to address and demonstrate the
points on pages 5 and 6. The critical test is this (and it is a
stiff test): does the regulation maximize the gains to Canadian
society in relation to the costs?
Your audience: who reads a RIAS and why?
The RIAS reflects the conclusions the department or agency has
reached after appropriate analysis and consultation. It sets out
what the department or agency will be accountable for.
There are four potential groups of readers:
- the public at large
- the affected public (that has been consulted during the
regulation development process)
- the interested public and
- ministers, their staffs and departments.
The public at large
While members of the public at large seldom have the time or
interest to read a RIAS, those who represent their interests do. The
Canada Gazette, in whichRIASes are published, is received by
associations, companies, consumer groups, lobbyists, unions, legal
firms, universities and hundreds of libraries across the country.
Once it is published in the Gazette, a RIAS is in the public
domain. It should, therefore, be understandable to anyone who may
wish to read it.
The affected public
Departments will have already consulted many of those who are
directly affected by a proposed regulation as it is being developed.
The consultation should include such groups as industry or consumer
associations. Those consulted will be aware of the general intent of
the regulation, but frequently will not know in detail what course
the government has ultimately chosen. TheRIAS provides this detail.
The interested public
Since it is impossible to reach every firm or consumer
individually through consultation, publication of the RIAS with the
regulation provides a final opportunity for interested Canadians to
be aware of what is happening and to have an input if they so
desire. Many readers of the Canada Gazette, like those who
have been consulted, are knowledgeable about the industry or
activity being regulated.
As you draft, think mostly of this group -- informed members of
the public. They are knowledgeable about the industry or activity
being regulated, but are largely unaware of the initiative itself.
As a result, using some technical terminology makes sense if it
improves clarity, but otherwise avoid it, as well as unnecessary
details. If you write the RIAS at a level of detail and in language
that is understandable to the informed public, you will also be
serving another group -- ministers and their staffs.
Ministers, their staffs and departments
The Special Committee of Council (SCC) is a committee of Cabinet
that considers and approves submissions to the Governor in Council,
essentially Orders in Council and regulations made pursuant to
statutory authority. The Chair is usually the President of the Privy
Council.
The SCC reviews most regulations twice before they become law:
first, prior to publication in Part I of the Canada Gazette (prepublication)
and second, before they can be published, as law, in Part II. The
SCC is responsible for ensuring that
-
regulations conform to government policy, including the
Regulatory policy, and
-
communications and other issues related to the regulation
have been considered.
The RIAS (together with the Communications Plan and, if
necessary, a Supplementary Note for Ministers -- see page 51) should
assure ministers that this is the case.
Some writing hints
Put yourself in the position of your target reader -- the
interested and informed public. Start with what is important to your
audience. You may find clues in the results of the consultation.
What bothers people about this regulation? Deal with those issues,
and try to put them in descending order of importance.
In terms of the content of your arguments, focus on what
conclusions you want your readers to come to. Do your arguments lead
to those conclusions? Put the most telling argument first. This
helps you identify points that really are not relevant. These should
come last, where they are easier to cut.
In the following box we present an excerpt from the guide for
writing Memoranda to Cabinet. It contains good drafting points.
-
Use everyday language.
-
Avoid long, complicated sentences and paragraphs.
-
Avoid technical terms, jargon or unfamiliar acronyms.
-
Be concise and stick to the key points.
-
Build arguments step by step.
-
Rework each sentence until every word counts.
-
Ruthlessly cut back, reread your draft after a few days,
and cut back again.
-
Ask a colleague who is unfamiliar with the subject to
read through your final draft.
Cost of publishing: options
Departments and agencies are charged about $240 per page to publish
the RIAS and regulations in the Canada Gazette, Parts I and
II. (A single WordPerfect page of text in one language, when
published in the Gazette in both languages, equals one Canada
Gazette page).
If either your regulations or RIAS are very long, you have
options.
-
At prepublication (Part I), consider publishing a summary
RIAS and no regulations. If you do so, explain at the
beginning of the summary RIAS that both the complete RIAS
and the regulations are available from the contact person
(see page 49). In this case, the prepublication stage should
be longer than 30 days.
-
At final publication (Part II), consider publishing the
summary RIAS again. At this stage, the regulations will have
to be published in their entirety for legal reasons.
DESCRIPTION
-
Define the problem.
-
Let your readers quickly see whether and how the
regulation will affect them.
-
Show why action is necessary.
-
Describe the solution that the regulation or amendment is
intended to provide.
-
Avoid detailing the history of the legislation or
regulation beyond what is essential.
The Description section is the most widely read and,
consequently, most important section of the RIAS. It is not
necessarily easy to draft, as it is intended to cover a variety of
points in short order. It should seldom be necessary to draft more
than a page for this section. The purpose is to define the problem
and show that it needs government intervention. Next, describe the
solution that the regulation or amendment will provide.
One of the first questions your readers will be asking is,
"Does this regulation concern me?". Your task is to
provide enough information to help them find out quickly if the
proposed regulation will affect them and how. You can do this by
describing the affected population at the start. Readers in this
group will read on.
In clear and simple language, provide a context to help the reader
understand the regulation, but avoid giving excess detail on the
history of the legislation or regulation. If you have difficulty
focusing on what is most important, try thinking about how you would
describe the regulation if you were speaking for two minutes to a
person who is somewhat aware of the issue.
You may also want to explain how the proposed regulation fits
into the department's policy framework, and that it is within the
department's mandate.
In the Description section, you are dealing in part with the two
first requirements of the government's Regulatory policy, e.g., that
departments must justify that
- a problem or risk exists, and
- government intervention is justified.
The fact that there is a problem is not of itself a justification
for action. In particular, it is not a justification for regulatory
action of any sort, let alone what is being contemplated. The action
requires its own justification. State it.
The solution to the problem will be put into focus in the two
following sections, the Alternatives and the analysis of Benefits
and Costs. Leave the arguments for later. Just sketch the essentials
of the regulation here. Avoid citing section numbers of the Act or
regulation as well as other non-essential details; they distract.
On the following pages are examples of several well-written
descriptions:
Example 1 A minor "housekeeping"
regulation,
Examples 2 and 3 Regulations implementing policy
initiatives, and
Example 4 A cost-recovery regulation.
Each describes a different type of regulation. In reviewing these
examples, remember that the scope of a regulation is determined by
the number of people affected and to what extent. This helps
determine how long the RIAS (and the Description) should be.
You will see that the same questions can be addressed in a
variety of ways, so you do not have to force your RIAS into someone
else's style.
A minor "housekeeping" regulation
Example 1
A Regulation Concerning the National Parks Act
Description
A recent amendment to the National Parks Act requires the
National Parks Townsite and Subdivision Designation Regulations to
be revised to reflect certain changes in terminology.
The new regulations are called the National Parks Town, Visitor
Centre and Resort Subdivision Designation Regulations. These
regulations refer to certain surveyed lands within the national
parks by different names or designations. The following table shows
a comparison of the previous and the new designations.
NATIONAL PARK |
NAME OF SURVEYED LANDS |
DESIGNATION
IN PREVIOUS REGULATIONS |
DESIGNATION
IN NEW REGULATIONS |
Banff |
Banff
Lake Louise |
Townsite
Townsite |
Town
Visitor Centre |
Jasper |
Jasper
Lake Edith |
Townsite
Subdivision |
Town
Resort
Subdivision |
Kootenay |
Radium Hot
Springs
|
Townsite |
Visitor Centre |
These regulations also completely update the lists of Plan
Numbers of Record in the Canada Lands Surveys Records Office in
Ottawa
Discussion
- The context is described concisely and the reader can easily
understand the reason for the regulation.
Charts, graphs and tables often help. In this case an
easy-to-understand table presents a lot of information that would
have been difficult to follow in narrative form.
Two regulations implementing policy initiatives
Example 2
A Regulation Concerning Tax Relief for Farmers
Description
On June 30, 1988 the Minister of Finance announced a tax deferral
program for farmers forced to sell their breeding herd of livestock
due to drought conditions. These regulations name the eligible
drought regions for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990.
The amendments to the Income Tax Act, included in Bill
C-28 (1989), permit farmers who sell breeding livestock because of
drought to defer a portion of their taxable income. The sale
proceeds can be deferred until the following year, or the year
following the end of a series of consecutive drought years, as the
case may be. As a result, the full amount of the proceeds will be
available to replenish their herds at that time.
The tax deferral applies to sales of breeding animals in
prescribed drought regions. These are areas of Canada that the
Minister of Agriculture advises should be designated as suffering
from drought conditions during a year.
Between June 1988 and September 1990, the ministers of Finance
and Agriculture announced that various regions of British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario were prescribed drought
regions for that respective year.
Discussion
- The history is neatly captured.
- Affected persons can quickly identify themselves.
- The need for the regulation is apparent.
Example 3
Permits for Moving Elk and Other Ungulates (Tuberculosis Control)
Description
The regulation and the order which it replaces are required
because of the discovery of a large number of herds of elk in Canada
that have been exposed to tuberculosis. There are currently 47 herds
of game animals, primarily elk, under quarantine in Canada. Animals
from these herds are still being traced to determine whether they
have spread the disease.
The regulation requires anyone who wishes to move certain
animals, anywhere within Canada, to obtain a permit from an
Agriculture Canada veterinarian. The animals which require a permit
are ungulates, members of the order Artiodactyla, and include
all deer, elk, antelope, camels, lamas, sheep, goats and pigs, and
other animals having feet which end in an even number of toes or
hooves. The regulation applies to all places that have such animals,
including zoos, petting zoos and game farms.
Domestic cattle, sheep, goats and pigs that are used to produce
food or fibre, are exempt from the regulation.
The regulation replaces the Ungulate Removal Prohibition Order,
which prohibited the movement of these animals. The regulation will
allow animals to move again providing they have the appropriate
permit, while allowing Agriculture Canada to ensure that they do not
spread tuberculosis.
Agriculture Canada veterinarians are tracing the movement of all
animals that are known to have been exposed to the infected herds.
At the same time they are investigating and testing all premises
which have game animals that are susceptible to tuberculosis.
Permits will be issued when the veterinarian is satisfied the
animals will not spread tuberculosis or brucellosis. The
veterinarian's decision will be based on criteria which will assure
that the herd is free of tuberculosis and brucellosis, such as:
history of the herd; individual and herd tests; the number of
purchases, their test history and their point of origin; and
exposure to animals suspected of or infected with tuberculosis or
brucellosis.
Discussion
- Those affected are clearly identified.
- The need for the regulation is clearly stated. The response
is outlined briefly, but coherently.
- A scientific term is used, but clearly explained.
A cost-recovery regulation
Example 4
Regulation Concerning the Energy Board
Description
Since 1985, the government has been introducing a user-pay system
to recover the costs of installing and operating services for the
general public.
In response to this initiative, the National Energy Board (NEB)
has developed the National Energy Board Cost Recovery Regulations,
under the National Energy Board Act. The companies regulated by the
NEB include almost 50 oil and natural gas pipeline companies, some
100 oil and gas exporters and 15 electricity exporters.
Under the regulations, the NEB will recover the cost of its
operation, some $26.5 million annually. The regulations prescribe
the charges payable by the regulated companies and the method of
calculation and of payment.
Charges will be calculated using a two-tier system. First, an
initial split will be made among the three commodities, oil, natural
gas and electricity, based on the amount of time spent by the NEB on
each. For example, in the first year, approximately 55 per cent of
the NEB's costs ($14.5 million) would be allocated to natural gas,
35 per cent ($9.3 million) to oil and 10 per cent ($2.7 million) to
electric utilities that export electricity.
Second, the allocation to each commodity will be further divided.
Among the larger pipeline companies, the allocation will be based on
forecast deliveries from their pipelines; among the electric
utilities who export, it will be based on the amount of their
forecast export. The regulations provide for a threshold as well.
The Board would assess a specified, reduced amount to companies
operating below the threshold.
In calculating the annual invoice, the billing procedure includes
adjustments for variances. Adjustments are based on actual versus
forecast deliveries, actual versus forecast electricity exports, and
actual versus forecast NEB operating costs.
The NEB's cost-recovery program should be implemented as
soon as possible in the 19XX/XX fiscal year.
Discussion
- The justification for the regulation is immediate and the
context is presented succinctly.
- People who might be interested or affected can quickly
understand the purpose and application of the regulation.
- Although in its detail the regulation is complicated, the
reader has a clear understanding of the costing approach
used.
ALTERNATIVES
-
This section is optional if the regulation is a minor
correction to an existing regulation or where the law
defines both the nature and form of the regulation.
-
List alternatives to regulation and alternative types or
forms of regulation. Explain why these alternatives were
not selected.
In the process of developing a regulation, your department looked
at the options available to it as soon as the problem was
defined.The Regulatory policy requires this examination to avoid
needless or unnecessarily costly regulations. Since the examination
may have been done some time ago, check the information on the
alternatives considered.
Think broadly. This section should list both alternatives to
regulation (such as voluntary standards) and alternative types or
forms of regulation (such as economic instruments, e.g., tradeable
emission rights). In all cases, list the alternatives and offer a
brief explanation of why these alternatives were not selected.
Treating each alternative in a separate paragraph (see Example 5)
adds clarity.
There can be many reasons for choosing or disqualifying
alternatives, cost and feasibility being among the more common. You
should also consider whether regulatory cooperation with the
provinces could reduce the overall regulatory burden or wasteful
duplication. As well, in recent years regulations have been
overturned by Parliament for failing to meet two principles. These
are:
- the alternative selected should not represent undue
interference with individual freedom; and
- the alternative should not infringe on the powers of
Parliament, notably the power to authorize expenditures.
Statements such as "There are no alternatives" should
be avoided except in those circumstances described in the next
paragraph.
Under certain circumstances, the Alternatives section may be
omitted, particularly when it is self-evident that there were no
real alternatives. Make sure that the decision to omit is clearly
explained and easily verified, such as where the law defines both
the choice of instrument and its form (e.g., each year the Minister
of Finance prescribes the tables employers are to use in collecting
contributions to the Canada Pension Plan -- contributions which are
already specified in law).
If, for political or other reasons, the information on
alternatives is sensitive, include the discussion in a Supplementary
Note to Ministers, which will not be published (see page 51 of this
guide).
The following examples are provided:
Example 5 Replacing an existing regulation,
Example 6 Implementing a policy change,
Example 7 Regulating because there is no alternative, and
Example 8 A new regulation.
Replacing an existing regulation
Example 5
Permits for Moving Elk and other Ungulates (Tuberculosis Control)
Alternatives
Alternative 1
To allow these animals to move freely in Canada.
Canada is currently reaching the final stage of an eradication
program to wipe out tuberculosis in cattle. The spread of
tuberculosis from these animals to cattle is not acceptable. Not all
the animals that have been exposed in known infected herds will have
been traced and tested.
Alternative 2
To continue to prohibit the movement completely.
This alternative (now in place) was chosen initially because it
would stop the movement of animals and thus prevent new premises
from becoming infected. This is now seen to be unnecessarily
restrictive. The Prohibition Order will be revoked and replaced by
the regulation as soon as it is approved.
Alternative 3
To control the movement through a permit system.
This regulation to implement a permit system was brought into
force so that animals that are known to be free of the disease or
that are going to slaughter, will be allowed to be moved. This
regulation will allow some normal trade to resume without the risk
of spreading the disease.
Discussion
- This example takes a very structured approach by separating
the analysis of each alternative with subheads. This
approach is well suited to the content of the section.
- The alternatives are easy to understand and the benefits of
the selected option are explained.
Implementing a policy change
Example 6
An Amendment to the Crop Insurance Act
Alternatives
Two alternatives to these regulations were considered in
developing amendments to the Crop Insurance Act.
The status quo was rejected because revisions to the regulations
were needed. Provinces and the producers requested greater
flexibility and adequate controls on federal contributions were
needed to provide greater consistency between crops and between
provinces. Producer demands for greater consistency and equity
between provincial crop insurance plans were also a major factor in
rejecting the alternative of reduced federal regulatory controls.
Privatization of crop insurance was rejected because private
companies have been unsuccessful in providing multi-peril crop
insurance in North America. High premiums have discouraged the
number of participants needed to pool risk efficiently.
As a result, government subsidies have been necessary to make
insurance affordable for the majority of producers. Private
insurance carriers in Canada have continually expressed little
interest in multi-peril crop insurance.
Discussion
- This example explains why the regulation needed to be
amended and concisely examines the alternatives.
Regulating because there is no alternative
Example 7
Railway Construction Works
Alternatives
These regulations include only works that are significant in
terms of safe railway operations and that can be of concern to
municipalities, other parties and the general public. The proposing
party should be required to give notice of these works far enough in
advance to permit any opposition to be taken into consideration and
acted upon, if necessary, before work commences.
The alternatives are:
- not to prescribe any works for which notices must be given;
or
- to add types of works that will be subject to this
requirement.
The majority of railway construction and alteration projects are
routine in nature and do not have any direct impact on other
parties. These works will be subject to the requirements of the
Railway Safety Act and may be inspected at any time by railway
safety inspectors. Requiring notice of these routine works would
greatly increase paperwork for industry and the government without
the benefit of increased safety.
Discussion
- The example explains why regulation is the only alternative
and then discusses various regulatory alternatives
concisely.
- Even when regulation is the chosen instrument, its design is
another issue. This is addressed.
A new regulation
Example 8
A Regulation Concerning Broadcast Interference
Alternatives
These amendments are the only practical alternative to the status
quo. A voluntary standard set by the Canadian Standards Association
has existed in various forms since 1948. It has not, however, been
effective in reducing the number of radio interference complaints
caused by high voltage (HV) power systems. In fact, over the years,
there has been an increase in interference complaints requiring
investigation the Department of Communications.
Discussion
- An alternative approach, voluntary standards, has failed,
justifying the need for regulation.
BENEFITS AND COSTS
-
The complexity of this section should be proportionate to
the significance and impact of the regulation.
-
Only new regulations and amendments having major impacts
require a full benefit-cost analysis.
-
Assess which groups, activities or areas of concern will
bear the costs of the regulation and which will receive the
benefits.
-
When possible, quantify estimates for impacts on
inflation, employment, distribution of income, operating
costs, international trade, including global
competitiveness, and direct benefits.
-
Include costs to industry, the public and the government,
including enforcement costs.
-
Use qualitative assessments when the anticipated impact
of the regulation does not warrant or lend itself to
detailed quantitative analysis.
-
Whenever there are possible environmental effects,
summarize the results of an assessment of the environmental
implications.
This section is the one most likely to vary in structure and
content from one RIAS to another. As a result, it may be more
difficult to draft. However, it is also one of the most important.
The government's Regulatory policy states not just that the
benefit of a regulation must exceed its cost, but that the
regulation should be designed to maximize gains in relation to
costs. This means that the benefits of the regulatory action chosen
must be greater than the benefit of any other type of regulatory or
non-regulatory action. Demonstrate here how your proposed regulation
complies.
Demonstrate net benefits from the point of view of Canadian
society as a whole. This involves an examination of benefits and
costs, and then a comparison of the two.
For example, concern should be shown for the impact of
regulations on businesses of different size: small companies have
few resources to dedicate to filing information, or to keep up with
changes in regulations.
Early on, you should assess which groups, activities or areas of
concern will bear the costs of the regulation and which will receive
the benefits. To illustrate the range that could be examined, we
have included a list of considerations identified in the guide for
writing Memoranda to Cabinet.
- business
- labour
- primary industries
-
trade
- science and technology
- transportation
- resource industries
- financial institutions
-
tourism
- cultural industries
- education
- consumers
- public safety
- environment
-
health
- international commitments
- Charter of Rights, equality, social
- justice
- privacy, access to information
- official languages
|
|
Regulations and amendments may have a major, moderate or minor
impact. The extent of the analysis should be proportional to the
significance of the regulation. Only those having major impact will
require a full benefit-cost analysis. Those having moderate impact
should include some quantitative analysis. For minor regulations
with little or no cost impact, be brief.
Quantitative analysis can be used most easily to measure
impacts on inflation, employment, operating costs and for direct
benefits.
Where the apparent impact of the regulation warrants it, try to
provide data on such issues as distribution of income and
international trade, including global competitiveness.
Qualitative assessments are used when the anticipated
impact of the regulation does not warrant or lend itself to detailed
quantitative analysis. This is sometimes the case with health,
safety and environmental regulations. In most cases, however, a
dollar figure or similar quantitative assessment can and should be
included in. If it is going to cost $X to save a stream, say so.
The cost issue is key. The requirements of the Regulatory policy
are very clear here -- the regulation must maximize the benefits
in relation to the cost to Canadian governments, businesses and
individuals. For cost-recovery regulations, estimate the costs
to be recovered annually and describe the cost-recovery mechanism.
Inflation should be taken into account. Cost increases in excess of
the rate of inflation (use the Consumer Price Index unless it is
clear another measure is more appropriate) should be justified.
Not all the examples presented in this section address these
issues completely, in some cases improvements are suggested in the
Discussion. This often involves using more numbers, which would give
the reader a more tangible grasp of the impacts, even if a strict
comparison between benefits and costs is difficult to make.
Example 9
|
a regulation with little or no impact |
Examples 10-12 |
three regulations with moderate impact |
Examples 13 and 14 |
two regulations with benefits that are difficult to
quantify |
Example 15 |
a cost-recovery regulation |
Example 16 |
a regulation with major impacts |
A regulation with little or no impact
Example 9
A Regulation to Close a Railway Line
Benefits and Costs
Two shippers use the line, Alberta Power Limited and Manalta Coal
Company. Alberta Power Limited no longer requires these services. As
the Manalta Coal Company has been invited to purchase the branch
line for operation as a short line, no shippers will be adversely
affected by terminating the abandonment protection.
Discussion
- In this case, the one affected company has been offered the
branch line (price may be an issue). If the firm cannot
profitably operate the line for its own use (and the use of
any customers it may find), then maintaining the line would
not offer a net benefit and closure would be justified.
- Moreover, the decision is left to the company, which has the
best information on the matter.
- Where there is little or no impact, say so early on.
Three regulations with moderate impact
For most regulations and amendments (those with moderate impact),
benefits and costs should be identified, discussed and quantified.
Costs are often easier to quantify than benefits. If industry
costs cannot be quantified, at least provide some data to indicate
the scope of the potential impact, for instance, the number of firms
in the industry, their respective size, and their regional
concentration.
There are ways of quantifying benefits, even when they seem
unquantifiable, e.g. the number of lives saved through improved
health or safety. Other benefits can be measured in dollars:
- employment benefits;
- effects on the distribution of income;
- operating cost savings; and
- international trade benefits including the global
competitiveness of Canadian business.
The following examples are presented to show how a few numbers
can help the reader evaluate the impacts, even when a formal
comparison is not made (or warranted).
Example 10
Initial Payments to Barley Producers
Benefits and Costs
Initial payments to barley producers have been increased by 10
per cent for deliveries made to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). The
higher payment should attract deliveries, enabling the CWB to take
advantage of sales opportunities. Substantial sales of this grain
have been consummated recently, and the monies received allow
further payments to producers. If producers deliver to the pool
account one million ton of designated barley during the 19XX/XX crop
year, this initial payment adjustment will represent $12.5 million
in additional income for barley producers.
Discussion
-
The beneficiaries are clearly identified; however, the
approximate number of barley producers might have been
given. This would enable the reader to quickly grasp the
average impact on producers.
-
The initial and final prices of barley the previous year
would also be relevant. Despite the increase, are farmers
trying to get by on lower incomes, or has there been a
material improvement?
Example 11
Airport Landing Fees
Benefits and Costs
The new minimum landing fees at Toronto-Lester B. Pearson
International and Vancouver International airports will increase
costs to the aviation sector by an estimated $3-$4 million annually.
Minimum fees at peak hours are increased to $75 at Toronto and $25
at Vancouver.
At Vancouver, travellers and carriers will benefit through
reduced congestion. It is anticipated that the aviation sector will
respond to the minimum fees by diverting enough traffic to
neighbouring airports to provide short-term relief of runway
congestion. The anticipated diversion of traffic from Vancouver will
not exceed the available capacity at neighbouring airports.
At Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International, the new minimum
landing fee is intended to complement the existing cap on aircraft
activity. While the number of aircraft diverted may not be
significant, it will help ensure that scarce capacity is allocated
to users who place a high value on access.
Discussion
- The total impact in dollar terms is clearly stated, as well
as the impact on each individual flight.
- The benefits (reducing congestion) are identified as the
object of the regulation. However, in the case of Toronto,
the fee increase is not expected to alter carriers'
behaviour, thus the objective is unlikely to be met. Even
for Vancouver, the discussion could be strengthened, perhaps
by describing the convenience that other airports offer.
Example 12
Duty Remission for Potato Chip Producers
Benefits and Costs
This remission of duties assists potato chip producers in
maintaining production capacity and market share during periods of
shortage of raw inputs from Canadian sources. Canadian chipping
potatoes are not available part of the year due to storage problems,
hence potato producers will suffer little effect. Seven companies
will receive duty remissions totalling $302,814 (for 1987) and
$147,796 (for 1988).
Discussion
- The beneficiaries are clearly identified, and the average
benefits are easily calculated.
- The position of potential losers (Canadian potato growers)
is evaluated, and the impact appears to be minimal, so there
are clear net benefits to this measure.
Two regulations with benefits that are difficult to
quantify
Sometimes benefits are not fully quantifiable, for example:
- certain improvements in safety;
- changes in environmental quality;
- reduced federal-provincial overlap or duplication of
regulations; or
- compliance with the policy on official languages.
Nevertheless, they should still be identified and discussed.
It is important to assess which groups or interests will bear the
costs of the regulation and which will reap the benefits. The number
of people affected might be known, or, in terms of environmental
impact, the change in some biological parameters, such as the loss
of a lake for migratory birds, should be stated.
Example 13
A Regulation Concerning Artificial Sweeteners
Benefits and Costs
Social costs: the department recognizes the potential for
increased intake and the resulting nutritional impact of high
intensity sweeteners as permission is granted to use these
substances in a wider variety of foods. Replacing sugar in the diet
with an intense sweetener could result in a shift in the
distribution of dietary energy sources. For example, a decrease in
sugar content of foods could increase the proportion of fat in the
diet. Further submissions for the use of high intensity sweeteners
in additional foods will take these factors into consideration and
the potential shift in dietary energy sources will be monitored.
Social benefits: the consumer will have a greater
selection of foods sweetened with aspartame. Persons with diabetes
and other consumers who need or wish to avoid sugar will also derive
benefits from this amendment.
The amendment should not result in a reduced marketplace
selection of foods traditionally sweetened with sugar.
Discussion
- The social cost and the social benefits have been
contrasted. Separation of the two sections adds clarity,
even where the benefits and costs of the measure appear
vague.
- Monitoring of the unknown effects of dietary changes is
proposed and it is suggested that the results will provide
improved information for analysing future submissions.
Example 14
A Regulation Governing Sport Fishing
Benefits and Costs
Costs: [not shown here]
Benefits: the amendments should promote and increase
natural spawning. The protection afforded will also make more fish
available to anglers in the future and improve their catch success.
Restructuring the salmon quota allows a sport fishery to be opened
up in sockeye, pink and chum salmon if there are sufficient stocks.
Net Benefits: the costs imposed by the amendments are more
than offset by the long-term benefit of conserving fish stocks for
continued use and enjoyment. The amendments help ensure the
continued viability of the inland sport fishery of British Columbia,
which is worldrenowned and valued at over $300 million annually.
Therefore, the continued welfare of the sport fishing industry
(e.g., lodges, guides, tackle manufacturers and dealers) is also
protected.
Discussion
- The environmental consequences of the measure are outlined
clearly and briefly.
- A link is made between the environmental impact and long-run
economic consequences.
- Where a larger study has been made, it would be useful to
indicate in the RIAS that the environmental assessment
report will be made available when the regulations are
published.
A cost-recovery regulation
When introducing a cost-recovery regulation, include an estimate
of the costs to be recovered annually and a description of the
cost-recovery mechanism.
When a regulation calls for an increase in fees, present this
information in relation to the rate of inflation. Unless another
indicator is clearly more appropriate, the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) will suffice. Thus, a fee increase of five per cent at a time
when inflation was four per cent in the previous year would likely
have little impact. Significant increases over the rate of inflation
should be justified.
Example 15
A Regulation Concerning Admission Fees at National Parks
Benefits and Costs
This initiative is not expected to cause hardships for
recreational facility users. Increases to the fees are an attempt to
recover a portion of the rising costs of operating and maintaining
recreational facilities in the national parks. Where possible, fees
have been scheduled to offer a range of price options to the public.
Some new services are being offered in response to public demand.
The initiative will result in no additional operating costs for
park administrations, which will be responsible for collecting the
fees. The increases will generate approximately $100,000 in extra
revenue.
Discussion
- The rationale for cost recovery is included with an
assessment of the impact of the regulation.
- The means being used to minimize impacts are identified, but
could be spelled out in a little more detail.
- The number of users likely to be affected and their regional
distribution would be pertinent. (Is the burden evenly
distributed, or does it fall mainly on users of the big
parks?)
A regulation with major impacts
Example 16
Daytime Running Lights (DRL) for Motor Vehicles
Benefits and Costs
The anticipated effects of the regulation were described in
detail in the report, Analysis of a Proposed Regulation Requiring
Daytime Running Lights for Motor Vehicles, Report TP7873, Department
of Transport, Ottawa, June 1986, which has been slightly amended
since. The amended assessment is available from the department and a
brief summary follows.
The projected effectiveness of the amendment is based on
experimental research in Canada, on field experience with fleets of
corporate vehicles in Canada and the U.S.A., and on experience in
the Nordic countries with regulations requiring Daytime Running
Lights (DRL). The projections are subject to considerable
uncertainty but median estimates suggest that annual totals of
fatal, injury and property damage accidents will be reduced by about
three, five and four per cent, respectively, once the entire vehicle
fleet is equipped to meet the requirements. This would be equivalent
to a reduction of about 110 fatal accidents, 9,000 injury accidents
and 35,000 property damage accidents annually, at 1985 levels. These
benefits exceed the costs for nearly every option examined.
Benefits
Minimum dollar values for the anticipated benefits in reduced
accidents per vehicle-lifetime have been based on the readily valued
material losses in property damage, productive work, and health care
sustained in average accidents. Ranges of these benefits based on
"low" and "high" assumptions of DRL
effectiveness are presented in Table 1, together with a
"medium" estimate based on the average of several studies.
TABLE 1: PROJECTED VALUES OFBENEFITS IN ACCIDENT REDUCTIONS PER
VEHICLE LIFETIME (1985 DOLLARS)
|
|
Effectiveness |
|
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
Car |
89 |
120 |
156 |
Light truck |
65 |
87 |
114 |
Heavy truck |
187 |
268 |
353 |
Bus |
241 |
336 |
434 |
Costs
The cost of DRL systems will vary depending on the type of lamp
used, the type of vehicle, and the nature of its use. Table 2 shows
median projected costs. Average lifetime costs per vehicle of
different possible DRL systems activating only two front lamps are
estimated at $10 to $113 for passenger cars or light trucks, $30 to
$181 for heavy trucks, and for buses range between a net saving of
$225 and a net cost of $43, all in 1985 dollars. The daytime use of
low-beam headlamps and all exterior marking lamps, which is
currently practised voluntarily by many drivers and vehicle fleets
and also permitted by this amendment, would cost about $290 for
passenger cars and light trucks, and about $480 for heavy trucks or
buses.
TABLE 2: COSTS OF DRL OPTIONS BY VEHICLE TYPE (1985 DOLLARS)
System |
Car |
Light
Truck |
Heavy
Truck |
Bus |
|
Reduced intensity high beams |
10 |
10 |
30 |
-225* |
Reduced intensity low beams |
113 |
113 |
181 |
43 |
High intensity parking lamps |
44 |
44 |
(not applicable) |
Turn signals |
31 |
31 |
61 |
-130* |
Separate daytime running lamps |
41 |
41 |
81 |
-110* |
Normal intensity low beams and exterior
marking lamps |
286 |
286 |
486 |
482 |
Net Benefits
Comparisons of costs and benefits are projected over the lifetime
of a representative vehicle of each type, for each of the DRL
options separately. Using the "medium" benefits from Table
1, the net benefits are shown in Table 3. This table demonstrates
that the safety benefits of DRL can be attained readily in a
cost-beneficial manner on all vehicle types. Depending on the option
the manufacturer chooses, system costs would vary, but they are
positive for nearly every option except the full-time use of
"lights" on current vehicles.
It is expected that a small proportion of new vehicles will be
equipped with the normal intensity low beams and exterior marking
lamps option, and that this proportion will decrease with time. The
department will review the regulation within four years of its
introduction to ensure that this expectation is being met. At that
time, if the benefits of that option or other options selected by
manufacturers do not justify the costs, regulatory action will be
taken to further limit the options available.
TABLE 3: NET BENEFIT OF DRL OPTIONS PER VEHICLE-LIFETIME (1985
DOLLARS)
System |
Car |
Light
Truck |
Heavy
Truck |
Bus |
|
Reduced intensity high beams |
110 |
77 |
238 |
561 |
Reduced intensity low beams |
7 |
-26 |
87 |
293 |
High intensity parking lamps |
76 |
43 |
(not applicable) |
Turn signals |
89 |
56 |
207 |
465 |
Separate daytime running lamps |
79 |
46 |
187 |
445 |
Normal intensity low beams and exterior
marking lamps |
-166 |
-199 |
-218 |
-146 |
Other Impacts
This regulation is not likely to have any discernible effects on
regional balance, technological progress, or the environment. This
amendment and increased public awareness of the safety advantages of
daytime light use has led to the development of a small industry,
with more than 20 companies engaged in producing and marketing DRL
components for new and existing vehicles.
Incremental spending on vehicle equipment and operation will be
lower as a proportion of income for higher-income households, while
benefits will be received in proportion to total expenditures on
vehicle use. Pedestrians and bicyclists will receive substantial
benefits without directly incurring any of the costs. Those vehicle
users (including truck and bus companies) who would have operated
with lights on in daytime without the regulation will also benefit
disproportionately, by being able to avoid the costly use of all
vehicle lamps.
The initial sharing of the costs of DRL between vehicle
manufacturers in equipping vehicles and vehicle users in lamp
replacement and fuel costs will differ substantially among the
system options. Vehicle manufacturers may attempt to pass more of
the costs on to buyers, a positive although a less efficient
solution. In addition, the regulation will slightly differentiate
Canada's vehicle market from those of other countries. This will
constitute an additional cost to their entering the Canadian market.
Vehicle fuel demand will increase by an amount growing to between
100 and 300 million litres annually, depending on the option used,
when the full fleet is equipped. This amounts to about 0.3 to 1 per
cent of current road transport consumption. Fuel to meet additional
demand will effectively all be imported.
Imports of automotive parts and products could be expected to
increase by about $20 million per year from 19XX, and imports of
fuel by an amount growing to about $30-$100 million per year after
2000.
Discussion
- This section is a synopsis of a larger study, which is
appropriate for a regulation of this sort.
- This example addresses impacts in both a quantitative and
qualitative manner.
- The benefits-costs are summarized separately in a way that
is easy to understand.
- The bearers of the costs and the beneficiaries of the
regulations are well defined.
- The net benefit for the regulations shows through clearly.
CONSULTATION
-
If the regulation has been included in the Federal
Regulatory Plan or prepublished in the Canada Gazette
Part I, include the publication dates.
-
Show who was consulted.
-
Indicate what consultation mechanisms were used.
-
Discuss the results of the consultation and whether the
regulation changed as a result.
-
Name any groups still opposed to the regulation, if
necessary in a Supplementary Note to Ministers.
-
Revise to reflect and respond to comments received during
the prepublication process.
Providing Canadians a full opportunity to be consulted and to
participate in the regulatory process is a cornerstone of the
Regulatory policy. The public is to be encouraged to criticize
ineffective or inefficient regulation and to offer suggestions for
better ways to solve problems and meet social and economic
objectives.
Reporting on consultations that your department has undertaken is
not technically difficult. It is only problematic if inadequate
consultation has occurred. This may be grounds for delaying the
adoption of the regulation until this issue is properly addressed.
As is the case with other issues addressed in the RIAS, the
degree of consultation undertaken should be influenced by the
significance and anticipated impact of the proposed regulation. This
in turn will be reflected in the length of your write-up.
This section should include a statement such as, "Early
notice was provided through the 199X Federal Regulatory Plan,
proposal no. __" or "Early notice was not given in the Federal
Regulatory Plan." The latter case requires explanation. If
the regulation was included in more than one annual plan, you may
wish to cite both the current year's Federal Regulatory Plan and
proposal number as well as those of the previous year.
If the regulation has been prepublished, this date should also be
given. Prepublication is not a substitute for consultation. The
groups which are most affected by the regulation should have been
consulted before prepublication. Prepublication is intended only as
a final check to give all interested parties a last opportunity to
catch up with the government's planned course of action.
This section should address, in a concise manner, the following
questions.
- Who was consulted? (individuals, interest groups,
associations, federal departments and provincial
governments, etc.)
- What consultation mechanisms were used? (written
submissions, discussions, conferences, seminars, public
notices)
- What were the results of the consultation and how was the
regulation changed as a result of the consultation?
- If, after consultation, there is still a group opposed to
the legislation, the reason for opposition should be noted,
as well as the identity of the group. If it is highly
sensitive, this can be addressed in a Supplementary Note to
Ministers (see page 51).
Before the RIAS is published in Part II of the Canada Gazette,
the Consultation section should be revised to reflect and respond,
at least in a general way, to comments that were received during the
prepublication process and any changes that were made to the
regulation as a result. If no comments were received or no changes
made, this should be stated. There are three examples provided:
Example 17 consultation on a minor regulation
Example 18 consultation on a disputed regulation
Example 19 consultation on a shift in policy
Consultation on a minor regulation
Example 17
A Regulation to Close a Railway Line
Consultation
There are two shippers who use this line. One of them supports
terminating abandonment protection. Canadian National has offered to
sell the subdivision for operation as a short line to the other
shippers. This Order was prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I
on December 8, 1990. No representations were made following the
prepublication.
Discussion
- The affected groups are clearly indicated.
- The lack of a response to prepublication is recorded.
Consultation on a disputed regulation
Example 18
A Regulation to Restructure Fishing Quotas
Consultation
The Province of British Columbia has developed these amendments
largely in response to requests from individual anglers, local
organizations and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation.
Provincial fisheries management personnel have also been extensively
consulted at a regional level through rod and gun clubs and other
associations such as the B.C. Steelhead Society, the B.C. Federation
of Fly Fishers, tourist camp associations and angling guides. Notice
of substantive amendments was also published a year in advance in
the widely distributed provincial Freshwater Fishing Regulations
Synopsis.
The possibility of opening up a sockeye, pink or chum salmon
sport fishery has met with mixed reaction. The sport fishing
interests have been asking for access to these species for a number
of years. The amendments have been recommended by the Sport Fishing
Advisory Board, which is made up of representatives of the sport
fishing industry and of the general public. The commercial fishing
sector has been consulted through local advisory committees such as
the North Coast Advisory Board. They do not support the amendment as
they view access to the three salmon stocks as a re-allocation from
the commercial fisheries. The native fishing community is also not
supportive of the restructuring, either because they are commercial
fishermen and see it as a re-allocation, or because they see it as a
potential erosion of future land claims settlements.
Although the impact of restructuring sport fisheries is somewhat
controversial, it allows the department to open and close these
fisheries promptly where there are adverse effects on stocks. The
department will carefully monitor pilot sport fisheries for the
salmon species, which will only be considered where salmon stocks
are in excess of spawning requirements and aboriginal food fish
needs. Pilot fisheries will not be undertaken where they will affect
the aboriginal food fishery. Prior to implementing a new fishery,
the department will consult with Indian bands in the area of the
proposed fishery.
There was no reaction to the prepublication of these amendments
in Canada Gazette, Part I, August 25, 1990.
Discussion
- The prepublication date is clearly indicated.
- Intergovernmental and public consultations are described.
- Issues raised by non-supporters of the regulation are
clearly outlined and mechanisms to address these concerns
are described.
- The fact that there was no response to prepublication is
noted.
Consultation on a shift in policy
Example 19
A Regulation Concerning Broadcast Interference
Consultation
These amendments were first prepublished in the Canada Gazette,
Part I on December 11, 1982, and again on August 20, 1988. The
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and 18 utilities responded to the
first prepublication. Two main issues emerged from the responses:
- there was no specification of a minimum AM broadcast signal
level to be protected;
and
- there was no specification of radio noise limits for
distribution systems.
It was agreed that specifying a maximum protected signal level
for AM broadcast stations was necessary in order to identify clearly
the limit of utilities' responsibilities. Otherwise, they would be
responsible for interference with the reception of weak radio
signals even outside a radio station's coverage area.
A conclusion was reached that it would not be appropriate to
specify radio noise limits for distribution systems in the
amendments. Unlike transmission systems, where a certain performance
level is designed into the system, distribution systems produce
radio interference as a result of sparking caused by faulty
equipment, such as loose hardware or faulty insulators. Proper
maintenance is necessary to minimize radio interference.
Following further consultations with the Department of
Communications (DOC) regional office staff, the Canadian Electrical
Association and various electrical utilities, appropriate changes
were incorporated and the amendments were restructured in order to
facilitate their interpretation.
The amendments were again prepublished in the Canada Gazette,
Part I on August 20, 1988. This time four electrical utilities,
the Municipal Electrical Association, the Radio Advisory Board of
Canada and two telecommunications companies responded. The following
revisions were made to the amendments, reflecting the comments
received:
- an exemption for radio noise produced by high voltage direct
current components in a power system, if the design of the
system was initiated before the regulation comes into force;
- in Section 32, the indication that the Minister of
Communications has the final authority for determining
whether interference to radiocommunication originates with a
power system; and
other minor modifications have also been made to make the
amendments consistent with the Radiocommunication Act. The Radiocommunication
Act, which is the enabling legislation for all DOC regulations
respecting radiocommunication in Canada, was promulgated in 1989 and
replaced the Radio Act, which was in force at the time of
prepublication.
Discussion
- The prepublication dates are clearly specified.
- The groups consulted are named or described.
- Issues raised in the consultation phase are carefully
presented.
- Changes to the regulation which resulted from the
consultation are clear and concise.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
-
Optional in certain cases.
-
For new regulations, explain the compliance policy and
the enforcement tools and describe the penalties for
non-compliance.
-
Describe the means used to detect non-compliance.
-
For amendments to regulations, describe only how the need
for enforcement has changed as a result of the amendment.
Regulations are usually intended to get people to modify their
behaviour to protect or enhance the public interest. It cannot,
however, be assumed that everybody will voluntarily comply.
Sanctions may be necessary and a process must be in place to
encourage the necessary compliance. The Regulatory policy requires
that compliance and enforcement policies that are appropriate for
the regulations be established, and that this be clearly
articulated.
Recent court decisions have determined that when a regulation is
not enforced and the lack of enforcement leads to injury, the
government may be held liable. Demonstrating that the means for
ensuring compliance are or will be in place is an important part of
this section.
For new regulations, the Compliance and
Enforcement section should
- explain the mechanism adopted to ensure compliance
(including criminal law sanctions, ticketing, prohibition
and corrective action orders, inspection, licensing,
registration or other government approval requirements);
- describe the means that will be used to detect
non-compliance (e.g., inspection or testing) and
- describe the penalties for non-compliance (fines,
imprisonment, and taxes).
It is vital that rules, processes, sanctions and the actions of
regulatory authorities be securely founded in law. There should be
consistency across regions in the administration of regulations, and
sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the
violation.
In the case of amendments to regulations,
address the question of whether the enforcement burden has
increased. If so, indicate what measures have been taken (e.g.,
training or recruitment) to cope with the increase. It is not
necessary to describe existing enforcement policy if it is unchanged
as a result of the amendment.
Omission
The Compliance section may be omitted
- where a regulation confers a benefit that is not subject to
abuse through inaccurate reporting; or
- when regulation takes the form of an access fee, in a
situation where access is easily controlled.
Examples of such cases are the right granted to an individual to
import a used car and, in the latter case, a park entrance fee.
A final reminder: where legal processes and sanctions are under
discussion, special care must be taken to use plain English.
The following two examples illustrate how a Compliance and
Enforcement section might be written for new and revised
regulations.
A revision to a regulation
Example 20
A Regulation Concerning Fishing Quotas
Compliance and Enforcement
These regulations are enforced by federal fishery officers and
conservation officers of the British Columbia Ministry of the
Environment. The Fisheries Act provides for penalties if the
regulations are contravened. These include fines of up to $5,000
and/or court-imposed forfeitures of fishing gear, catch, vessels and
other equipment used in committing the offence. The courts may also
impose licence suspensions.
These revisions to the regulation do not imply any additional
enforcement costs.
Discussion
- The questions of who enforces, by what right and with what
penalties are answered clearly and concisely.
- The fact that there are no additional enforcement costs is
clearly stated.
A new regulation
Example 21
A Regulation Intended to Preserve Historic Railway Stations
Compliance and Enforcement
In accordance with subsection 5(2) of the Act, any railway
company that does not have authorization from the Governor in
Council before it:
- removes, destroys, alters, sells, assigns, transfers or
otherwise disposes of a heritage railway station it owns or
otherwise controls; or
- alters any of the heritage features of a heritage railway
station
is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of between $50,000
and $1,000,000.
The Canadian Parks Service will regularly inspect heritage
railway stations and their heritage features for illegal
alterations.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be asked to enforce the
Act and regulations as the need arises.
Discussion
- The tools to ensure compliance are well discussed.
- The penalties for non-compliance are specified.
- The monitoring organizations are named.
CONTACT PERSON
At the end of
each RIAS, list the name, address and telephone number of the person
(including area codes and fax numbers if applicable) in the
department who is most knowledgeable about the proposed regulation
and can answer requests for information after the RIAS is published.
Example 22
For further information, contact: Jane Doe
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulations
Transport Canada
1867 Government Street
Moncton, New Brunswick
(506) 388-1415
FAX (506) 388-2500
Try not to make the address longer than necessary, but make sure
it is sufficient to enable people unfamiliar with the government to
get through easily.
OTHER INFORMATION
Omnibus regulations
Omnibus regulations are one of several ways to streamline the
regulationmaking process. Omnibus regulations facilitate the process
by grouping housekeeping regulations (those with no policy
implications) for processing as a block. Regulatory Affairs at
Treasury Board Secretariat prepares the RIAS.
Three types of regulations are targeted:
- amendments in response to non-contentious concerns raised by
the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of
Regulations;
- strictly housekeeping regulations without policy
implications, such as correcting typographical errors,
inconsistencies between the English and French versions, and
renumbering; and
- spent regulations that should be revoked.
The Supplementary Note to Ministers
The competing needs of your different audiences can sometimes
pose a challenge. There are times, for instance, when ministers
should be made aware of certain issues that it would be
inappropriate to publish. In these following cases, you would advise
ministers through a Supplementary Note to Ministers:
- when politically controversial points have arisen in the
consultation, but the decision has been made to continue; or
- when cases involve sensitive or confidential information
that will assist ministers in making their decision, but
which cannot be made public.
A Supplementary Note to Ministers should be titled as such and
would usually carry a PROTECTED security classification (in the top
right-hand corner). The Supplementary Note will not be published and
the words "Not For Publication" should also be included in
the top right-hand corner. The Supplementary Note should not be
included in or attached to the RIAS but should be submitted on a
separate page.
For more information on the Supplementary Note to Ministers,
refer to the "Regulatory Process Guide", or call TBS
Regulatory Affairs at (613) 952-3459.
Several regulations, one RIAS
If there are several regulations on the same or similar topics
(even from different departments), it will often make sense to draft
a single RIAS.
A CHECKLIST FOR RIAS WRITERS
Writing
Style
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Are the conclusions that you want your audience to
arrive at clear in your mind? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you addressed the concerns of your audience? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Do your arguments lead logically to your conclusions? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you put what is important first? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Are your sentences short and your language clear? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you used obscure technical language? |
Content
Description
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you defined the problem succinctly? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Can your readers quickly establish if and how the
regulation will affect them? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you shown why the action is necessary? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you described the solution that the regulation or
amendment is intended to provide? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you set the context of the regulation succinctly,
or is it long and involved? |
Alternatives
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you identified clearly the alternatives to
regulation and alternate types or forms of regulation? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Do you explain why the alternatives were not selected? |
Benefits and Costs
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Is your analysis proportionate to the significance and
impact of the regulation? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Are there major impacts requiring a full benefit-cost
analysis? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you assessed which groups or interests will bear
the costs of the regulation and which will receive the
benefits? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you incorporated quantitative analysis for the
impacts on inflation, employment, operating costs and
direct benefits? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you included costs to industry, the public and the
government, including enforcement costs? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you made a qualitative assessment of impacts that
do not lend themselves to detailed quantitative
analysis? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you summarized any possible environmental effects? |
Consultation
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you included publication dates in the Federal
Regulatory Plan and Canada Gazette, Part I
(if the regulation has been prepublished)? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Who was consulted? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
What consultation mechanisms were used? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
What were the results of the consultation and how was
the regulation changed as a result? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you identified any groups still opposed to the
regulation (if necessary, to ministers in a
Supplementary Note)? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you revised the text to reflect and respond to
comments received subsequent to prepublication? |
Compliance
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
For new regulations, have you explained the enforcement
mechanism and described the penalties for
non-compliance? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you described the means used to detect
non-compliance? |
|
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
For amendments to regulations, have you described how
the need for enforcement has changed as a result of the
amendment? |
CONTACT
![](docs/images/trans2x1.gif) |
![Checkbox](docs/images/checkbox.gif) |
Have you included an address (and phone number) that is
complete enough to enable people unfamiliar with the
government to get through easily? |
Footnotes
1 The
Canada Gazette is the government's official journal for notifying
Canadians of official actions. |