7.0 Examen et résultats

Suivre :

  • RSS
  • Citer

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.

L’examen et l’évaluation des résultats d’un règlement constituent l’étape finale du cycle de vie d’un règlement. Les règlements forment un instrument au sein d’un programme ainsi l’examen de l’efficacité d’un règlement à l’égard de l’atteinte de résultats ne peut être étudié de manière isolée, mais plutôt par rapport aux objectifs et aux résultats du programme dans son intégralité. 

L’examen des programmes réglementaires et de l’inventaire de règlements permet aux ministères et aux organismes d’examiner les effets et les fardeaux imposés aux parties prenantes, tout en continuant d’assurer la protection de la santé, de la sûreté, de la sécurité, de l’environnement, de l’économie, et du bien-être socioéconomique des Canadiens.

7.1     Examens des programmes réglementaires

Les ministères et organismes sont responsables de l’évaluation du rendement de leurs programmes réglementaires, et sont tenus de respecter les politiques du Conseil du Trésor soient la Politique sur les résultats et la Politique sur l’audit interne. Les résultats de l’examen d’un programme réglementaire peuvent orienter l’examen de l’inventaire de règlements.

7.2     Examens de l’inventaire de règlements

Les ministères et organismes doivent effectuer un examen périodique de leur inventaire de règlements actuel pour veiller à la pertinence et à l’efficacité de leurs règlements en tout temps et vérifier qu’ils sont en voie d’atteindre les objectifs stratégiques qu’ils se sont fixés.  

Au cours d’un examen, les ministères et organismes doivent étudier les règlements dans le but :

  1. de supprimer les règlements désuets et caducs de l’inventaire dès que possible;
  2. d’accroître l’efficience et l’efficacité;
  3. d’atténuer les incidences imprévues;
  4. de veiller à ce que les renvois à des normes techniques soient exacts et d’intégrer les plus récentes normes, au besoin;
  5. de déterminer les nouvelles possibilités de collaboration en matière de réglementation;
  6. de réduire le fardeau réglementaire imposé aux parties concernées;
  7. de réduire au minimum les répercussions sur les petites entreprises;
  8. d’apporter, au besoin, d’autres changements qui renforcent les objectifs stratégiques et le rendement;
  9. de modifier les règlements afin de résoudre les enjeux d’application relevés lors de la mise en œuvre.

Les plans d’examens de l’inventaire de règlements d’un ministère ou organisme, ainsi que les projets de modifications règlementaires soulevées au cours des processus d’examen doivent être publiés dans les plans prospectifs de la réglementation. Les résultats d’un examen devraient éclairer le développement réglementaire à venir, continuant ainsi le cycle de vie réglementaire.

Les ministères et organismes sont responsables d’établir les échéances pour mener leurs examens de l’inventaire de de règlements. Le président du Conseil du Trésor a le pouvoir d’exiger des ministères et organismes qu’ils entreprennent à des examens spéciaux ou qu’ils participent à des examens menés centralement.

7.3 Comité mixte permanent d’examen de la réglementation

Les ministères et organismes doivent répondre aux questions posées par le Comité mixte permanent d’examen de la réglementation (CMPER) dans les délais fixé par ce dernier.

Le Comité mixte permanent d’examen de la réglementation examine les règlements, entre autres, afin de vérifier qu’ils respectent les pouvoirs conférés à une autorité réglementaire par une loi fédérale et pour des raisons liées à la rédaction de textes juridiques. Le Comité mixte permanent est saisi de tout texte réglementaire en permanence aux fins d’examen.

Q4. Dans cette mise à jour de cette politique, nous pensons que les examens en cours ou les examens fréquents de l’inventaire règlements reportés dans nos livres sont nécessaires (voir la section 7.2). Existe-t-il des exigences manquantes? Veuillez expliquer et fournir des suggestions pour l’amélioration.

“Pour plus d’information, veuillez-vous référer à la section 5.2 intitulée “Examens et résultats”.

Commentaires

Soumis par Nancy J Coulas le ven 03/11/2017 - 17:00

We also support the comment that this directive should 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.

Soumis par Nancy J Coulas le ven 03/11/2017 - 16:59

Removing regulations without consulting stakeholders can be problematic as well. Changes, additions or removal of regulations should allow for full consultation before the Canada Gazette process. Frequently changing regulatory requirements can also add burden to business. That said, we support regulatory review that is streamlined and aligned with Red tape Reduction initiative. We agree with FPAC that new regulatory development seems to get more resources and cleaning up wasteful regulation is not a priority - but it needs to be in order to be lean and effective as possible.

Soumis par Fiona Wallace le lun 30/10/2017 - 03:22

One suggestion is that the government MUST ensure that resources (staff) are dedicated to removing outdated regulations, especially if there is a submission put forward by key stakeholders. The reality is that we know of many outdated regulations that the government even agrees needs updating- but that no resources are available to do so. As such- files can languish for years waiting to be dealt with. So I would suggest that in this section, that there is some consideration of staffing needs in the agencies to implement recommendations and outdated regulations. Otherwise there is no way they will be dealt with in a timely manner, as is the desire above. We do suggest adding regularly published reports on the performance of regulatory policy and reform programmes. Such reports should also include information on how regulatory tools such as Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), public consultation practices and reviews of existing regulations are functioning in practice. Thank you for the opportunity to input into this important consultation.

Soumis par Anonyme le sam 28/10/2017 - 21:39

Section 7.1 implies that regulations are subject to evaluation requirements, under the Policy on Results. However, The Policy on Results does not mention regulations, and section 4.3.15 of the Policy on Results only specifically mentions spending, programs and G&C as required to be covered in the rolling five-year plan. Likewise, the definition of a program in the policy is " Program (programme): Individual or groups of services, activities or combinations thereof ..." which does not necessarily imply that a regulation or regulatory framework is a program for the purposes of the evaluation requirements. In practice, regulatory evaluation in Canada tends to be rare. In the OECD's Government at a Glance 2015, Chapter 8 focused on regulatory management notes that ex post regulatory evaluations are rare, and only occasionally does Canada do reviews of regulation to determine if they are meeting their objectives. And most people in the policy field can cite examples of "set-it-and-forget-it" approaches to regulation. I suggest that this be more explicit, and make it clear that significant pieces regulation or related groups of regulation are required to be evaluated on a periodic basis ... either as regulatory evaluations or as evaluations that focus on program aspects (spending, activities, etc.) and regulations jointly (as noted in 7.0 these cannot be considered separately if more than one tool is being used). For section 7.1 and 7.2 - I would also suggest differentiating between "review" and "evaluation", since evaluation implies a systemic examination based on evidence and focused on outcomes, whereas a review could be considered less formal. For section 7.1. and 7.2 - You should also consider specifying that the expectation is that such reviews and evaluations will be published. This would contribute to open government and also allow the reviews to be used as an evidence base for RIA statements. For section 7.3 - The existing text is good, but consider adding a further line that "If the SJCSR makes recommendations that require a change in legislation or regulation to address, it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that the recommendations receive appropriate attention." I am suggesting this since I am aware of at least two cases where responses to correct issues raised by the SJCSR recommendations have lingered for lack of attention at the decision-making level. For Section 7.3, would it be appropriate to require an annual report to TBS from departments on all outstanding issues arising from the SJCRS and plans to address them?

Soumis par Ken Whitehurst… le sam 28/10/2017 - 19:27

Annual performance reports should be filed for every Act and its regulations. Each department has a duty to maximize resource allocation but they also have a responsibility to apply a standard of care for the regulations Parliament has entrusted them to administer and enforce. Consumer regulations in particular are often decimated through reallocation of policy and enforcement resources. If this happens on a sustained basis the organization loses capacity and often the proper infrastructure needed to apply even a minimum standard of care to the regulations. An example is the near abandonment of consumer protection acts (PMMA, TLA, CPLA) by the Competition Bureau resulting in, among other things, lack of sufficient attention to sustaining a viable weights and measures program to verify accurate weights and measures of consumer products. Based on the common available sources of research funding for consumer groups and the attendant application processes, it is important that consumer groups have 24-months notice of the start of any regulatory review, so that it can seek the funding necessary to fund its due diligence ahead of the process beginning. There are ways to shorten this timeline based on developing greater economic capacity within consumer groups. By doing so, 24 month’s notice might be reduced to 12 months, or less. At present, resources and timelines negatively impact consumer groups’ participation in regulatory reviews and often undermine the legitimacy of these reviews from the consumer perspective.

Soumis par Consumer Healt… le ven 27/10/2017 - 20:31

Q4. Section 7.3 refers to the role of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) in raising issues in connection with their review of regulations, and that departments and agencies must respond to these concerns. We note that some of these exchanges between SJCSR and departments or agencies have gone on for more than a decade without resolution. We question the effectiveness of this approach that could allow a regulation that exceeds the authorities granted by Parliament to persist for so long. It is particularly problematic that these exchanges between SJCSR and departments or agencies are not transparent to the public, including regulated parties, as they are not published until SJCSR and the department or agency reach a resolution of the issue. Part of the difficulty is that SJCSR does not appear to have the authority to impose a deadline for response on the departments or agencies to which it addresses its concerns. Further, the only remedy available to SJCSR, when it has an unresolved concern with a regulation, is to recommend its revocation. This is an extreme option, as it would require the department or agency to return to the beginning of the regulatory process and potentially create a lengthy regulatory void where this might not be in the best interest of the public. Recommendation: To address this gap in the regulatory review process, CHP Canada recommends the following: 1. All exchanges between SJCSR and departments or agencies in which concerns over active regulations are raised and addressed should be made public to ensure transparency, and allow public input to speed resolution. 2. SJCSR should be able to impose deadlines on departments or agencies for their responses to inquiries on active regulations. 3. SJCSR should have the power to suspend regulations when concerns have not been met in a timely fashion. In cases where a regulation must be modified to satisfy SJCSR’s concerns, this could be permitted following a shortened consultation through Canada Gazette Part I pre-publication.

Soumis par Bob Larocque le mar 24/10/2017 - 13:25

FPAC support regulatory review and in some cases, regulations have met their objective. Treasury Board should work with departments to streamline or support repealing or removal of regulatory requirements which is also aligned with Red Tape Reduction. Currently, FPAC has done work with departments but this kind of work is not a priority and too resource intensive and departments put their resources only on new regulatory development.
Date de modification :