Consultation sur l’ébauche de la Directive du Cabinet sur la réglementation

Note aux lecteurs

La période de consultation de cette ébauche est maintenant terminée. Tous les commentaires reçus sont considérés pour finaliser l’ébauche de la Directive du Cabinet sur la réglementation. Nous apprécions votre participation.

La consultation est un élément clé des efforts du Canada pour un gouvernement ouvert et est essentielle à notre troisième Plan biannuel dans le cadre du Partenariat pour un Gouvernement Ouvert (2016-2018). L’objectif de ce plan est de rendre les renseignements et les politiques du gouvernement plus ouverts et transparents, ce qui en retour augmentera la confiance des Canadiens dans le gouvernement.

Le gouvernement du Canada s’engage à protéger et à promouvoir l’intérêt public en travaillant en collaboration avec les Canadiens et les autres gouvernements pour s’assurer que ses activités de réglementation procurent les plus grands avantages globaux aux générations actuelles et futures de Canadiens. Les règlements sont des instruments de politique importants utilisés par le gouvernement pour permettre de préserver le bien-être économique et social des Canadiens mais ils sont aussi vus comme une forme de loi. Les règlements ont une force exécutoire et énonçant normalement des règles d’application générale plutôt que des règles propres à des personnes ou des situations. Les règlements constituent une assise nécessaire aux économies de marché. Nous travaillons avec les Canadiens et avec d’autres gouvernements en matière de réglementation à protéger et promouvoir l’intérêt public en ce qui a trait à la santé, à la sûreté et à la sécurité, à la qualité de l’environnement.

Un système de réglementation fiable et efficace assure la cohérence, l’équité et la transparence et favorise l’innovation, la productivité et la concurrence. De plus, un système de réglementation efficace ne sert pas uniquement à protéger. Un règlement est souvent un agent habilitant. Par exemple, concernant la sphère économique, il établit les règles régissant l’équité des marchés, limite les obstacles au commerce en assurant la concordance avec les partenaires commerciaux, clarifie les conditions d’utilisation des nouveaux produits et services et des nouvelles technologies, et favorise les nouveaux investissements.

Dans cette consultation, il y a huit (8) sections que vous pouvez explorer :

  1. But et
  2. Champ d’application
  3. Principes directeurs de la politique fédérale en matière de réglementation
  4. Démarche relative au cycle de vie d’un règlement
  5. Élaboration des règlements
  6. Gestion de la réglementation
  7. Examen et résultats
  8. Annexe A

En outre, il y a cing (5) questions d’orientation. Ces questions sont destinées à recueillir vos commentaires sur la nouvelle politique de réglementation fédérale appelée le Directive du Cabinet sur la réglementation (DCR). Les commentaires de cette consultation seront pris en considération lorsque le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor finalise la DCR.

Les questions d’orientation se retrouvent à la fin des sections 4, 5, 7 et à la fin de l’annex A. Veuillez soumettre vos commentaires basés sur votre expérience et votre familiarité avec le processus de développement de la réglementation fédérale. Ne vous sentez pas obligé (e) de répondre à une question si celle-ci ne s’applique pas à vous. Lorsque vous soumettez vos commentaires ou suggestions, veuillez spécifier le numéro de la question (par exemple, Q1 ou Q2 ou Q3 ou Q4 ou Q5).

Prochaines étapes

Le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor (SCT) analysera et examinera tous les commentaires pertinents.

SCT pourrait publier un rapport résumant les principaux commentaires reçus, notre explication en ce qui a trait à l’acceptation ou au refus des commentaires soumis par des intervenants, aux modifications apportées et à l’impact des commentaires sur le système de réglementation fédéral.

Veuillez identifier votre point de vue parmi les suivants. Veuillez sélectionner une seule lettre et mettez votre choix dans la boîte réservée pour les commentaires.

  1. Académique
  2. Les affaires
  3. Communautaire ou à but non lucratif
  4. Individu
  5. Les organisations des Premières nations, des Inuits ou des Métis
  6. Gouvernement provincial ou territorial
  7. Médias
  8. Gouvernement municipal
  9. Gouvernement fédéral
  10. Personne à la retraite
  11. Étudiant (e)
  12. Autre
  13. Je désire ne pas répondre à cette question
Veuillez prendre note que les commentaires sont modérés. Les commentaires peuvent prendre un certain temps avant d’apparaître en ligne. Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez consulter nos règles de participation.

Commentaires d'utilisateurs

Judging from the well-considered comments you appear to have received from current stakeholders, you have been receiving substantive feedback on the proposed directive. I'll restrict my comments to a few points.

First and most important, regarding Section 3 : Guiding Principles. You really should continue to use the phrase "benefits justify the costs" in the first principle. This has been an important feature of every Government of Canada directive on regulation -- the Treasury Board Directives of 1992 and 1995 (promulgated when I was Head of Regulatory Affairs in TBS) through the later Cabinet Directives in 1999 (essentially a copy of the last TB policy), 2007 and 2012. It has also been embedded in the Recommendations of the OECD Ministerial Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance (we first introduced Ministerial Council recommendations on regulation in 1995; it was most recently re-confirmed and up-dated in 2012). In my experience, regulators need to be continuously reminded that the costs of regulations can be just as important to the well-being of Canadians (whether costs are dollars, jobs, reduced consumer choice, time wasted, increased mortality and morbidity) as the intended benefits.

My second point is just that the structure of the Directive where you use Section 4 on regulatory-life cycle AND consultation/engagement does not work well. I suggest you revert to 2012 structure where Life-cycle has its own small section covering all the following sections/stages of the life cycle. This could then be followed by a separate section on consultation.

Third, some of the comments you have received on consultation suggested a longer pre-publication period requirement. In my experience the earlier consultation/engagement work to ensure a thorough understanding of the issue is more critical, with pre-publication mostly acting as a "fail safe" device for Ministers to ensure that anyone or any group that wasn't fully consulted on the proposal's details would have an opportunity to comment. The suggestion that you received regarding a "NOI to regulate" might be beneficial as long as there's some real discipline shown by departments/agencies to not publish NOIs respecting a "wish list" of proposals; I note that when we used to annual regulatory plans combined with a longer pre-pub period for regulatory proposals that had not appeared in the plan led to a situation where only about a third of regulations "planned" to be promulgated actually were. That diminished the effectiveness of the plans considerably. Early consultation on issue identification and instrument choice will often be key to successfully regulating in the public interest.

My last point is quite technical and regards the stated 70 day pre-publication period for proposals having an impact on trade (Section 5.4.1). If I recall correctly, the 75 day period referenced in all previous Directives was needed to reflect the time that the Standards Council of Canada (as the formal international contact point for technical regulations of both the federal and provincial governments) took to issue its formal notification to trading partners following pre-publication. Processes may have improved since my time. In any event, the time period referenced in trade agreements starts with the SCC's formal notification not the pre-publication date. If a way to speed up that process has been found since my time that's great; but if not the 70 days may need to changed back to 75.

Hi James,
Thank you for your comments and guidance.

b

C.

Hopefully we will do away with the “requirement” that for every new regulation we must eliminate and “old” regulation to reduce regulatory burden ( but often decrease safety and security for Canadians). This concept was popular with our previous government and may have even been enshrined in laws and TB Policy. It is also popular in the Trump government. However when you consider and new technology area, drones, transport of oil by trains, or internet security for examples, we need new regulations to protect Canadians, and the one for one concept makes no sense.

Hi GB Geiger,
Thank you for your comment.

c
I have provided the input of the Consumers Council of Canada to this consultation in the subsequent comment boxes related to specific parts of the consultation. The opportunity to contribute thoughts to this process is appreciated.
Civil society organizations, in particular groups like the Council that represent around marketplace rights and responsibilities, detached from a direct pecuniary interest on behalf of a heterogeneous constituency, have a deep concern for the fairness of regulatory processes.
Addressing regulatory processes is complex and expensive. Our submission addresses this through constructive ideas to make processes of regulatory review fairer and more inclusive.
We would point out that this system for making online comment is crude and is not as well organized as it could or should be. Clearly the Government of Canada has a ways to go to understood the user interface and other requirements to conduct consultation online, and we would encourage further consultation, research and development about how to do this well. The Council congratulates you for 'trying', but the government will want to develop better means to do this in the future. It needs a comprehensive, systematic approach to online consultation.

Hi Ken,
Yes indeed we did receive the Consumers Council of Canada's submission.
With respect to your point about this system for online consultation, you are correct, we continue to find ways to improve our online presence.

b.
Q1: There should be some assurances that regulatory cooperation does have impacts on timing for approvals or add regulatory burden to business. Our experience with this has been through MOU’s between government agencies/departments has not been good. An agency has taken over the preliminary review of an authorization, which has taken over 3 years with no resolution, and then we will still be required to go through the process with the department that issues the authorization with no guarantee that additional work will not be required. This has resulted in duplication of effort and unnecessary burden.

Q2: It would be good to look at having a regulatory ombudsman where issues can be raised. Typically regulations and regulatory instruments are designed by the implementing agency or department. When comments are addressed through public comment periods, the agency or department can disposition away comments that may be of great concern to business, industry or the public with no recourse, in fact, the regulation typically comes into effect before stakeholders get to see how their comments were dispostioned.

Q3: Experience has shown that not all departments or agencies are looking at the cost and benefits of all regulatory proposals. Some agencies are using other regulatory instruments (i.e. Regulatory Documents) implemented through Licences to impose new requirements. These do not undergo the RIAS process and are often justified by the statement “staff believe that this will increase safety” with no scientific or evidence based justification. These new requirements often have significant costs and burdens on stakeholders.

Q4: This is a good practise, however; caution must be taken to avoid unintended burden on stakeholders. In our experience, where we are required to implement numerous standards as part of our regulatory framework, frequently changing regulatory requirements create significant burden to stakeholders and may in fact distract stakeholders with constant changes to their business governance in a way that is counterproductive to the end goal of the regulations (i.e. protection of the public, workers, environment and security).

Q5: Some agencies are using other regulatory instruments (i.e. Regulatory Documents) implemented through Licences to impose new regulatory requirements. These do not undergo the RIAS process and are often justified by the statement “staff believe that this will increase safety” with no scientific or evidence based justification. These new requirements often have significant costs and burdens on stakeholders. It would be good to have this directive apply to all regulatory instruments, not just regulations, to ensure that proper stakeholder input and cost/benefit information is taken into account to ensure that unnecessary burden is not being placed on stakeholders through alternative processes.

Hi Maury,
We appreciate your comments and will take them into account to finalize this draft policy.

It is not clear how you are accepting comments on this consultation. Can you only provide comments through these online comment spaces? Are you accepting any written comments, if so, to whom would we direct them to?

Dear representative of the Community or Non-Profit,

You are correct, comments can be submitted online at the bottom of sections 4, 5, 7 and of Appendix A. We have five (5) guiding questions to help us finalize this draft‎ document. These questions can be found at the bottom of sections 4, 5, 7 and of Appendix A. To ease your navigation, here are the links:
Q1: http://open.canada.ca/en/40-regulatory-lifecycle-approach
Q2 and Q3: http://open.canada.ca/en/50-development-regulations
Q4: http://open.canada.ca/en/70-review-and-results
Q5: http://open.canada.ca/en/appendices

Alternatively, a generic email can be found by referring to the Notice to interested parties published in the Canada Gazette (CG), Part 1 on September 30, 2017. Here is the CG's hyperlink:
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-09-30/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne11

Though this consultation ended on October 29, 2017, following a number of requests for additional time, we are accepting comments until November 10, 2017.

i

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on such an important initiative. Can you please advise how long the consultation will be open?

Hi Sally,
Thank you for your feedback. We look forward to receiving your suggestions or comments.

This consultation is opened until October 29, 2017. We have five (5) guiding questions to help us finalize this draft‎ document. These questions can be found at the bottom of sections 4, 5, 7 and of Appendix A.
To ease your navigation, here are the links:
Q1: http://open.canada.ca/en/40-regulatory-lifecycle-approach
Q2 and Q3: http://open.canada.ca/en/50-development-regulations
Q4: http://open.canada.ca/en/70-review-and-results
Q5: http://open.canada.ca/en/appendices

In addition, we invite you to refer to the Notice to interested parties published in the Canada Gazette (CG), Part 1 on September 30, 2017. Here is the CG's hyperlink:
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-09-30/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne11

b

b.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as part of this consultation process.

Hi Charles,
We appreciate your comment. We look forward to receiving any thoughts you may have in general for the proposed CDR policy update and for sections 4, 5 and 7.

b. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Hi Francis,
We believe strongly that by creating opportunities to engage the public, Canadians and businesses, we can improve the federal regulatory system. We invite you to provide us your comments and suggestions by referring to the guiding questions. Guiding questions can be found at the end of Sections 4, 5, 7 and Appendix A. Do not feel obliged to answer a question if you feel it does not apply to you. When providing your comments and suggestions for improvement, please specify the question number (for example, Q1 or Q2 or Q3 or Q4 or Q5) and from a business viewpoint.

i

I want to view the guiding questions.

Hi Enver,

Thank you for your request to see our guiding questions. Guiding questions can be found at the end of Sections 4, 5, 7 and Appendix A. Please answer these questions based on your experience and familiarity with the federal regulatory development process. Do not feel obliged to answer a question if you feel it does not apply to you. When providing your comments and suggestions for improvement, please specify the question number (for example, Q1 or Q2 or Q3 or Q4 or Q5).
To ease your navigation, here are the links:
Q1: http://open.canada.ca/en/40-regulatory-lifecycle-approach
Q2 and Q3: http://open.canada.ca/en/50-development-regulations
Q4: http://open.canada.ca/en/70-review-and-results
Q5: http://open.canada.ca/en/appendices

It is not clear that this is the place to select the viewpoint ("Academia, Business...") it sounds like the list provided above is selectable... "Please Select" . If people are to input their selection into the comment box then the instructions should indicate as such.

Thanks

Hi Robert,
Thank you for this precision. You are correct, please select one letter that represents your viewpoint and provide us your input in the comment box. We are working on changing the instructions to reflect your recommendation.

Date de modification :