|
Regulations are laws that affect our day-to-day lives. Because of their
importance, the use and development of regulations has been guided by the
Regulatory Policy since 1986.
How We Got Started
In the 1970s and early 1980s, governments began to realize that they needed
to manage regulations better. This realization was embodied in the introduction
of instruments like the Socio-Economic Impact Analysis (SEIA) in 1978, which
applied to all new, major regulations in the areas of health, safety, and
fairness. Also, at about the same time, the Economic Council of Canada was
tasked to undertake a series of specialized studies to review the effects of
regulatory action by all levels of government. Support for this movement was not
limited to Canada as G-7 members spoke in favour of regulatory reform at their
1978 Summit.
The widespread support for regulatory reform pushed the issue to the
forefront of the government agenda. In 1980, the House of Commons' Special
Committee on Regulatory Reform, chaired by James Peterson, made 29
recommendations for improving regulation management. Acting on those
recommendations, the Federal Government named a minister responsible for
regulatory affairs and embarked on several major deregulatory initiatives, the
air transport industry being the most notable.
The 1980's saw a rising tide of concern for the economic impact of
regulations and the need to minimize regulatory burden on the private sector.
Significant interest and activity in economic deregulation marked this period.
These concerns were captured by the Nielsen Task Force which, when it reported
in 1986, documented the pervasiveness of regulations and highlighted concerns
for their economic impact on society.
Also in 1986, a number of important developments emerged. Cabinet approved Guiding
Principles of Federal Regulatory Policy and a Citizen’s Code of
Regulatory Fairness was adopted. A Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement would
now support regulatory proposals. The Minister of Privatization and Regulatory
Affairs was named responsible for regulatory affairs and the Office of
Privatization and Regulatory Affairs was established.
The cumulative impact of the actions taken in 1986 was the establishment of a
set of process principles and a regime providing an exhaustive review, and
centrally managed control.
In 1991, the President of the Treasury Board was given responsibility for
regulatory affairs. Concurrent with this change, the Federal Government launched
two parallel regulatory reviews.
Departmental Regulatory Review
In 1992, the Government launched departmental and parliamentary reviews of
regulations. These reviews had departments examine (through public consultation)
and "re-justify" their regulatory programs. Departments also worked to
determine the effect of their regulations on Canadian competitiveness and
identified ways of improving the regulatory process, programs, and
intergovernmental collaboration.
Treasury Board supported the exercise by providing guidance and encouraging
interdepartmental information exchanges.
The reviews resulted in some 835 revocations and revisions of regulations
that were to be made over five years. In addition to this lessening of the
regulatory burden, the process also had intergovernmental benefits. There was a
renewed movement toward both federal-provincial harmonization in areas like
agriculture and transportation, and toward collaboration between government and
industry.
Parliamentary Regulatory Review
Concurrent to the Departmental Review, a Parliamentary Review sought to gauge
the impact of regulation on Canada's competitiveness. The House of Commons'
Standing Committee on Finance identified six areas for change and recommended
that:
- better analysis be done so that regulatory goals could be achieved with
greater efficiency;
- there be greater stakeholder involvement in setting goals and
determining the means of achieving them;
- there be more flexible approaches to defining and measuring the extent
to which a goal is achieved;
- there be better co-ordination among federal departments; and
- parliamentarians be more involved in the regulatory process.
Lessons Learned
The 1992-1993 Regulatory Reviews were the largest reviews of their kind ever
undertaken at the federal level. The twenty-six departments that participated
learned several valuable lessons.
- Having the reviews led by several departments, each with its own
approach, was particularly helpful. The group provided a range of
learning experiences that were shared with the other regulating
departments.
- Allowing departments to determine their own path of reform, based on an
outline provided by the Treasury Board, gave them the opportunity to
apply their expertise and experience to their particular problems,
instead of forcing them into a single mold. The process was more than a
paper exercise because individual departments "owned" it.
- As a trade-off for encouraging creativity, independence, and
flexibility, the reviews did not accomplish as much as was originally
hoped. However, they were important in recognizing the need for
"regulating smarter". Some out of date regulations were
eliminated and the quality of new regulations improved.
- Toward the end of the review coping with budget restraint became a
higher priority. However, the review did allow departments
to position themselves for future funding reductions.
- Departments found it difficult to measure the combined regulatory burden
(e.g., the burden created by the regulation of a given sector by more
than one department or level of government). The sectoral reviews
launched in 1994 sought to better address this question and break out of
the "stovepipe" approach of the past.
The result of these reviews was the Federal Regulatory Reform Agenda, which
became a central element of the Government's Jobs & Growth initiative. In
addition to implementing the results of the regulatory reviews, priority was
given to improving regulation for selected sectors of the economy.
Other items on the Regulatory Reform Agenda included:
- hastening access to regulatory information;
- creating a better complaints-handling process;
- improving federal-provincial co-operation;
- building a new regulatory culture (more training, discussion groups,
newsletters, etc.);
- increasing the use of plain language; and
- possible legislative changes to ensure better regulation.
More Recently
Support for TB in regulatory matters requiring Governor in Council approval
has been has been enhanced and
consolidated within the Privy Council Office with the creation of the Regulatory Affairs and Orders in
Council Secretariat. Consequently, TBS responsibilities for the Regulatory Policy, including
the Regulatory Process Management Standards (RPMS), were transferred to the
Privy Council Office.
Regulatory Affairs and Orders in Council
Secretariat now has responsibility for the implementation and development of the
Regulatory Policy and for the provision of support to TB Ministers on
regulatory matters.
|
