Follow-up to the Regulatory Process Compliance Review. Audit and Evaluation Branch

Transcription

1 Follow-up to the Regulatory Process Compliance Review

2 Report Clearance Steps Follow-up process implemented July 2002 Report completed August 2002 Factual review completed October 2002 Report approved by Departmental Audit and Evaluation May 2003 Committee (DAEC) Acronyms used in the report CEPA CWS DAEC DRACC EC EEM EPS PCO P&C REAB RPMS TBS Canadian Environmental Protection Act Canadian Wildlife Service Departmental Audit and Evaluation Committee Departmental Regulatory Affairs Coordinating Committee Environment Canada Environmental Effects Monitoring Environmental Protection Service Privy Council Office Policy and Communications Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch Regulatory Process Management System Treasury Board Secretariat Acknowledgments This project was completed by Matthew Williams under contract with the direction of V. Neimanis; they would like to thank those individuals who contributed to this project. ii Environment Canada

3 Table of Contents CONTEXT AND CURRENT STATUS... 1 AREAS REQUIRING ATTENTION... 1 RISK... 2 DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR ASSESSMENT... 2 CONCLUSION... 4 Environment Canada iii

4

5 This follow-up was initiated approximately two years after the Report on the Regulatory was released in May The follow-up was done in order to determine the level of implementation of the recommendations made in the original report. Follow-ups are important, as they give senior management a crucial indicator as to the implementation rate of recommendations and adjustments made in relation to the management responses. Although the actions that are being taken by Departmental Regulatory Affairs Co-ordinating Committee (DRACC) have begun to address some of the issues that were identified in the Review, there remain recommendations that have not been implemented. As a result, it is recommended that another follow-up be conducted in one year to assess the implementation of the recommendations that are yet to be implemented. Context and Current Status In , the Regulatory Consulting Group Inc. (RCGI) was retained by Review Branch of Environment Canada (EC) to conduct an independent analysis of EC's compliance with the Regulatory Process Management Standards (RPMS). The review encompassed an analysis of the regulatory process for six representative departmental regulations. The RPMS review focused on process rather than assessing the quality, adequacy or accuracy of the step along the way in the development of a regulation. The review found the Department to be substantially in compliance with the requirements, intent and principles of the RPMS. The review noted developments in co-ordination of the regulatory process as well as the setting of priorities and allocation of resources through the creation of the Departmental Regulatory Affairs Co-ordinating Committee (DRACC). As well the review noted that the Department was expected to make substantial improvements in communicating and documenting the regulatory process, assessing policy options, setting priorities, and the post-implementation evaluation of regulations. The review recommended that the work and structure of DRACC should be examined to assess its effectiveness. Since the review was completed, the DRACC has been working to respond to the Review s recommendations. The DRACC was meeting regularly but has not formally met at the Director General level since September 2001 and at the working level since February As a result progress appears to have stalled. Future directions for DRACC and regulatory co-ordination at EC need to be examined and DRACC s mandate may need to be renewed. Areas Requiring Attention Generally the follow-up has discovered that the program has demonstrated some initiative in meeting the recommendations made in the Regulatory, but that there remain several issues that have not been acted upon. The follow-up has found that of the five recommendations, 2 have been met, 1 partially met and 2 have not been met. The areas that still require attention are: Environment Canada 1

6 The assessment of the DRACC role in co-ordinating departmental priority setting; Initiating a comparative analysis of the projected effects of a regulation with actual post implementation experience; and, The development of a departmental complaints resolution mechanism. Risk The actions taken by DRACC have begun to address some of the issues that were identified in the initial Review. However, there is still work to be done to bring the co-ordination of regulatory affairs to a level that will adequately address the risk that the regulatory process poses to the department. Given recent attention and that EC is leading departmentally with this work, the level of risk is relatively low for the department. Nevertheless, it is recommended that another follow-up be conducted in one year to assess the implementation of the remaining recommendations. There is an opportunity for the department to solidify its actions, gain from its past investments, already established efficiencies and momentum by ensuring an assessment of DRACC as well as instituting a complaints mechanism as specified in the regulatory process. Detailed Recommendations and their Assessment Recommendation #1 The Management, Administration and Policy Table should, by March 31, 2001, assess the effectiveness of DRACC in co-ordinating departmental priority setting. Assessment of Actions Taken - Not Met The MAP Table has not assessed the effectiveness of DRACC in co-ordinating departmental priority setting. A progress report was made to EMB in February 2001 but there has been no formal assessment of the DRACC. Although there has been discussion of approaching MAP for new terms of reference (TOR) for DRACC and a paper prepared concerning the future of the regulatory function at EC, neither of these initiatives has been formally followed through. A priority setting mechanism has been established which has screening criteria that helps to set regulatory priorities. The mechanism has been effective in reducing the number of priorities but the list of priorities that are chosen to deliver on is still remains too large to be implemented. Recommendation #2 The DRACC should ensure that the requirements of RPMS and other central agency directives are well communicated to and understood by departmental officials involved in all aspects of regulatory development. This would include an enhancement of both paper-based and web-based communications. This should be addressed in the next fiscal year. 2 Environment Canada

7 Assessment of Actions Taken - Met Although there is a Regulatory Process Guide that is available online through PCO, the requirements of the RPMS have yet to be loaded on the departmental web site. The RPMS are no longer available on line. The department does provides links to the following central agency material through the department s web site under About Acts and Regulations: Guide to the Regulatory Process Cabinet Directive of Law-making Government of Canada Regulatory Policy 1999 Consultation Guidelines for Managers in the Federal Public Service RIAS Writers Guide A Strategic Approach to Developing Compliance Policies Orders in Council Requiring Treasury Board Recommendation A Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations A manual and CD-ROM have been developed which contains extensive information on the regulatory process. It is available in hardcopy and it has been circulated, but the manual is yet to be made available online. A training workshop has been developed and delivered on the regulatory process. It was delivered in March 2001 and all key staff involved in regulatory issues at EC attended the workshop. Recommendation #3 The DRACC should examine how to better involve senior officials at an early stage in the assessment of policy options, one of which is regulations. This work should be completed by December Assessment of Actions Taken - Met Senior managers have been better involved in the regulatory process through the development of a policy approval sheet which ensures that policy approval has been attained to establish a new regulation. As a result, there is a sponsoring Director General for every regulation and approval must be sought from the Service Executive Committee and ADM before a regulation can proceed. As well, senior managers are involved in the regulatory process through the priority setting mechanism, which helps to inform managers as to which initiatives are proceeding through the system. Environment Canada 3

8 Recommendation #4 During the first year of DRACC s mandate, the chair should initiate comparative analyses of the projected effects of a regulation with actual post-implementation experience. Assessment of Actions Taken - Partially Met DRACC has not initiated a comparative analysis of the projected effects of a regulation with actual post-implementation experience. No formal approach has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations. Nonetheless, there has been an effort to do some analysis of the projected effects of a regulation against post implementation experience by the Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch (REAB). A TOR was developed for the projects and a consultant retained to do the analysis, but the initiative stalled. There has also been an analysis of Canadian, US and international information related to competitiveness impacts of regulations, but this analysis assesses the consistent overestimation of the costs of regulations by industry and does not focus on the effects of the regulations. There is also work ongoing on a case study that is being done on Pulp and Paper regulations to compare the original anticipated competitiveness impacts of the 1992 Pulp and Paper Regulations with actual results. It will review the estimated impacts of industry and government, and compare and assess them with the actual cost and competitiveness impacts. Recommendation #5 A comprehensive departmental complaints resolution mechanism should be established under the direction of DRACC by March 31, Assessment of Actions Taken - Not Met DRACC has not developed a complaint resolution mechanism. As well, there has been no assessment of what would comprise a complaint resolution mechanism or a request for support in the development of one from PCO and TBS. The EC web site does however contain contact names of regulatory staff, which allows clients access to an EC manager should they have any concerns or problems with a regulation. The department has approached PCO and TB about this requirement and now awaits central agency guidance. Conclusion The actions that are being taken by DRACC have begun to address some of the issues that were identified in the Regulatory. However, there remain recommendations that have not been fully implemented. As a result, work remains to be done to bring the co-ordination of regulatory affairs to a level that will adequately address the risk that the Regulatory Process poses to the department. It is recommended that another follow-up be conducted in one year to assess the implementation of the remaining recommendations. 4 Environment Canada