430
edits
Changes
no edit summary
'''Download'''
'''Download'''
If the following document is not accessible to you, please contact [[Mailto:info@tbs-sct.gc.ca|info@tbs-sct.gc.ca]] for assistance.
If the following document is not accessible to you, please contact [mailto:info@tbs-sct.gc.ca info@tbs-sct.gc.ca] for assistance.
* [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/tbs-sct/migration/hgw-cgf/priorities-priorites/rtrap-parfa/guides/riaswg-grrier/riascpt-pcreir.rtf.doc RIAS cover page template] (RTF version, 34Kb)
* [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/tbs-sct/migration/hgw-cgf/priorities-priorites/rtrap-parfa/guides/riaswg-grrier/riascpt-pcreir.rtf.doc RIAS cover page template] (RTF version, 34Kb)
If the proposal contains a request for exemption from pre-publication in the ''Canada Gazette'', Part I, the cover page must provide a detailed justification for the exemption.
If the proposal contains a request for exemption from pre-publication in the ''Canada Gazette'', Part I, the cover page must provide a detailed justification for the exemption.
== Medium/high-impact RIAS ==
One or more elements of the CDSR are represented in a corresponding section of the medium/high-impact RIAS. The following describes each section of the RIAS for regulations that have been assessed as medium or high impact in the Triage Statement.
== Executive summary ==
The '''executive summary''' appears in a text box at the beginning of a medium/high-impact RIAS. It should be no more than 60 lines long (1,000 words) and should cover the following topics:
* '''Issue:''' A brief statement to describe the issue that the regulation will address and why government intervention through regulation is needed;
* '''Description:''' A brief description of the proposed regulatory action and how it addresses the issue;
* '''Cost-benefit statement:''' A summary statement of the regulations' quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits;
* '''Business and consumer impacts:''' A statement on the impacts of the regulation on administrative burden, competition, and consumers;
* '''Domestic and international coordination and cooperation:''' A statement on any domestic or international regulatory coordination and cooperation (including trade impacts) that relate to the regulatory proposal. When specific Canadian requirements are proposed, this subsection should contain a statement of the rationale for the Canadian approach; and
* '''Performance measurement and evaluation plan (high-impact regulations only):''' A brief description of the performance measurement and evaluation plan to ensure that the regulatory activity continually meets its initial objectives.
== Issue ==
The "Issue" section should clearly specify the problem or issue that has prompted the consideration of government action. This section should describe the public policy issue(s), including a description of any risk assessment, and demonstrate why government intervention is needed. A clear summary of the risk assessment should be provided, as well as a Web link to the full risk assessment or departmental contact who can provide the full risk assessment.
The issue should be described in concrete terms. The drivers or underlying causes of the problem, and groups likely to be most affected, should also be identified. To show it has appropriately addressed a public policy issue, the government needs to provide in the RIAS a sense of the nature and magnitude of the problem and identify what government actions (if any) have been taken in the past to address it.
This section should also provide a summary description of the expected evolution of the problem into the future, based on reasonable assumptions about intervening factors. This is known as the baseline scenario, and it is used as a starting point for the analysis of benefits and costs of the various policy options described in later sections of the RIAS. The aim of the baseline scenario is to explain how the current situation would evolve without additional public intervention. In other words, it is the "no policy change" scenario. A description of the baseline is important so that when impacts of different options are described, they can be compared with a common starting point. For more information, please refer to the ''[[Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals]]'' and ''[[Assessing, Selecting, and Implementing Instruments for Government Action]]''.
The baseline projection must provide a clear indication of how serious the problem is, to what extent it would become more serious without government intervention, and whether the consequences would be irreversible. A realistic baseline should have a strong factual basis and, as far as possible, be expressed in quantitative terms. It should also be set for an appropriate time horizon. Although a 10-year time horizon is usually considered appropriate, this will vary depending on the nature of the regulatory proposal and the degree to which information is available.
Use the following checklist to ensure a full and complete "Issue" section.
{| class="wikitable"
!Checklist
!CDSR references
|-
|
* Has the issue or risk been properly identified and assessed (how it may change over time)?
* Has the need for government intervention been demonstrated?
* Has a quantitative risk assessment been performed?
* Have scientific and empirical evidence, uncertainties, ethical considerations, and public views of the public policy issue been summarized?
* Has a Web link or departmental contact to the full risk analysis been provided?
|CDSR Section 4.2, Identifying and assessing public policy issues
''Assessing, Selecting, and Implementing Instruments for Government Action''
|}
== Objectives ==
The "Objectives" section states the intent of the proposed regulatory action in concrete terms and situates it within the broader policy context. This involves articulating policy goals and desired outcomes. There may be several policy goals, each with a variety of outcomes. While policy goals and outcomes go hand in hand, they are not quite the same. For example, a goal might be to make a particular activity safer, while the desired outcome might be a 30-per-cent reduction in the rate of injury.
Describe the solution that the regulation or amendment is intended to provide and explain why government intervention is justified. The fact that there is a problem is not in itself a justification for action, nor is it a justification for regulatory action. The regulatory action requires its own justification and needs to be stated clearly.
It may also be beneficial to explain how the proposed regulation fits into the department's policy framework and to clarify that it is within the department's mandate.
{| class="wikitable"
!Checklist
!CDSR references
|-
|
* Have public policy objectives been clearly stated in terms of tangible outcomes for Canadians?
|CDSR Section 4.3, Setting public policy objectives
''Assessing, Selecting, and Implementing Instruments for Government Action''
|}
== Description ==
This section describes the proposed regulatory action. One of the first questions readers will ask is: "Does this regulation concern me?" The writer's task is to provide enough information to help individuals find out quickly if and how the proposed regulation will affect them. The RIAS should communicate this by beginning with a description of the affected population. Readers in this group will pay particular attention.
Avoid detailing the history of the legislation or regulation beyond what is essential. The solution to the problem will be put into focus in subsequent sections, so leave the arguments and rationale for later. Just sketch the essentials of the regulation here. It should seldom be necessary to draft more than a page for this section.
In clear and simple language, provide context to help the reader understand the regulation. A reference to the legal regulatory text itself may be useful in some cases, but numerous citations are distracting and unnecessary. If it is difficult to focus on what is most important, try thinking about how the regulation could be described to a person who is only marginally aware of the issue.
{| class="wikitable"
!Checklist
!CDSR references
|-
|
* Has a summary description been provided with only the essential details of the regulation?
* Is it presented in clear and simple language, providing context to help the reader understand the regulation, but avoiding excess detail on the history of the legislation or regulation?
* Does it describe who will be affected by the regulation and how?
* Have essential and relevant linkages to enabling legislation and government priorities been established to ensure relevance and consistency?
|CDSR Section 4.1, Regulatory consultation
|}
== Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered ==
This section describes the range of regulatory and non-regulatory options considered in addressing the issue or risk identified, including the proposed regulatory action and the key differences between the options. Not every option considered in developing the regulatory proposal needs to be presented—just the real or viable options.
Ideally, the RIAS will report on all legitimate options that were viewed as having the potential to be efficient or cost-effective. The selection of alternatives may have been based on a preliminary analysis of their characteristics or on the prior experience of other jurisdictions that have employed such options. In any event, the source of the options should be noted in the RIAS, except where issues of Cabinet confidence arise.
This section should include both alternatives to regulation (such as voluntary standards) and alternative types or forms of regulation (including market instruments, such as tradable emission rights) that have been analyzed. There can be many reasons for choosing or disqualifying alternatives (cost, feasibility, etc.). In all cases, list the most viable alternatives and offer a brief explanation of why these alternatives were not selected. Treating each alternative in a separate paragraph adds clarity. For more on the range of possible regulatory and non-regulatory instruments and how to choose between them, refer to ''Assessing, Selecting, and Implementing Instruments for Government Action.'' Where a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory options have been selected, they should be explained together to demonstrate how they achieve the outcome.
When there are multiple options or alternatives, a "best practice" is to identify which option is the preferred or recommended one by using subheadings or parentheses.
{| class="wikitable"
!Checklist
!CDSR references
|-
|
* Have both regulatory and non-regulatory options considered been summarized, including the proposed regulatory action?
* Have the key differences between the options been summarized and assessed?
|CDSR Section 4.4, Selecting the appropriate mix of government instruments
''Assessing, Selecting, and Implementing Instruments for Government Action''
|}
== Benefits and costs ==
Information in this section should provide an assessment of benefits, costs, and net benefits of the selected option, including how impacts may be distributed across various stakeholders, sectors, or regions. For guidance, please refer to the ''[[Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals]]''.
This section should report on the impacts of the proposed regulation on the economy, administrative burden, businesses, consumers, competition, and on domestic and international trade (exports and imports). This section should also describe how the recommended option has been developed to minimize negative impacts on health and safety, the environment, society and culture, public security, and the economy.
When a cost-benefit analysis or a risk assessment has been done, a cost-benefit summary statement must be included in the RIAS to clearly communicate costs and benefits. It is expected that a Web link to the full cost-benefit analysis, or departmental contact that can provide the full cost-benefit analysis, also be included in this section.
==Notes==
==Notes==
<references />
<references />