The 2014–15 Scorecard Report on Reducing Regulatory Red Tape

Table of Contents

Message From the President of the Treasury Board

A photograph of the Honourable Scott Brison , President of the Treasury BoardAs the Minister responsible for federal regulatory policy, I am pleased to invite Canadians to read the 2014-15 Scorecard Report on Reducing Regulatory Red Tape.

I would like to sincerely thank the members of the external Regulatory Advisory Committee for their diligent review and advice on this Scorecard Report. Their independent review and thoughtful commentary are very much appreciated.

The Government of Canada is committed to giving Canadians the open and transparent government they expect and deserve. Canadians also have high standards for the services they receive from their government which is why we are focused on delivering results that make a positive difference in their everyday lives. This Scorecard Report profiles the considerable efforts of federal regulators to make progress on all these fronts.

We are also committed to growing our economy, strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it. Designing and delivering regulations that advance and protect the public interest, while minimizing the administrative burden on businesses, contribute to that goal. It’s good for Canadians, good for our economy and supports the Government’s objective of helping businesses become more innovative, competitive and successful.

Just as importantly, this report highlights important gains made in opening up the regulatory system, improving service and predictability for stakeholders, and in ensuring public accountability for results achieved. The posting of forward regulatory plans, service performance reporting, a government-wide baseline of administrative burden – all of these initiatives contribute to an open regulatory system, one that invites Canadians to contribute to its improved performance going forward.

In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues, stakeholders and citizens alike, to make sure Canada’s regulatory system continues to earn the confidence and trust of all Canadians.

Original signed by:

The Honourable Scott Brison
President of the Treasury Board

Introduction

Regulation is an important tool for protecting and advancing the health, safety and environment of Canadians, and for creating the conditions for an innovative and prosperous economy. It is a form of law, made by the Governor in Council, a minister or an agency within the delegated authority set out by Parliament.

Federal regulators work in a complex, changing environment, characterized by fast-paced science and technological advancement, increasing trade flows, and integrated supply chains. They must respond to high stakeholder and citizen expectations for openness and meaningful engagement on regulatory proposals, expectations for clear accountability and transparency, and for approaches to enforcement that incorporate a service orientation.

Against this backdrop of opportunity, challenge and change, a consistent focus for federal regulators is the drive to maximize regulatory protection objectives (benefits) while minimizing the costs to Canadians and businesses. This is reflected in the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management, which underscores the importance of regulating in ways that maximize net benefits to Canadians. In keeping with this objective, Canada has undertaken a number of reform initiatives with the aim of making the regulatory system more transparent and predictable for businesses and citizens alike. These reforms are as follows:

The Annual Scorecard Report summarizes implementation progress for the above initiatives. As in previous years, the Scorecard Report has benefited from the review and advice of the Regulatory Advisory Committee, which reports to the President of the Treasury Board. Comprising external experts from consumer and business groups, the committee provides the President of the Treasury Board with an independent perspective on the fairness and reliability of progress being reported by the federal government.

The Small Business Lens

Figure 1: The Small Business Lens
The Small Business Lens. Text version below:
Figure 1 - Text version

Reducing burden on Canadian business

The small business lens

  • The small business lens requires regulators to consult small businesses and consider flexible regulatory options to minimize costs without compromising health, safety, security or the environment.
  • Application of the lens in 2014–15 reduced the potential burden that small business would have otherwise faced by an estimated $4 million per year.
  • After three years, the lens has helped reduce the burden that small business would otherwise have incurred by approximately $79 million annually.

The purpose of the small business lens is to require sensitivity to small business impacts in the regulatory development process. Consultation and robust analysis help develop a clear understanding of business realities at the earliest stages of regulatory design.

The lens applies to regulatory proposals that impact small business and have nationwide cost impacts of over $1 million annually. Further to the expectations outlined in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) guidance document Hardwiring Sensitivity to Small Business Impacts of Regulation: Guide for the Small Business Lens, there are a number of requirements that regulators must consider when designing regulations.

The small business lens at work

The Regulations Amending the Maple Products Regulations give small federally registered maple syrup establishments two years to gradually implement new regulatory requirements. They can either follow the current grading system or the new grading system, and they have time to buy and install new equipment and change labels to comply with the new requirements. As a result, 204 small businesses are expected to avoid $227,000 in potential administrative and compliance burden over the next 10 years.

Sensitivity to small business must not compromise the protection of health and safety or the environment. Sometimes, adopting a less burdensome, more flexible approach is not appropriate. In such situations, the regulator explains why this is the case in the published Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. For example, in the proposed Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act, Health Canada considered and rejected delayed implementation of new restrictions on flavoured tobacco products targeted to youth. While a delay would have given tobacco distributors time to clear inventories of product, the department demonstrated that delayed implementation ran counter to the health protection objectives of the amendment.

Regulators must complete a checklist that drives consultation with small business, and the publicly available Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) describes the regulator’s efforts to minimize the burden on small business. This includes the development and disclosure of an alternative, less burdensome design option in the RIAS. Costs for both the initial and flexible options are also disclosed. If the less burdensome option is not adopted, the onus is on the regulator to explain why in the RIAS. Transparency in the results of the lens’s application enables stakeholders to provide feedback on costing and other design assumptions when the draft regulation is published for comment in the Canada Gazette, Part I. This type of feedback can help the regulator avoid unanticipated impacts on small businesses by considering risk-based alternative approaches that do not compromise health, safety, security or the environment.

Considering small business impacts when regulating

In some instances, regulators are taking extra steps to lower burden on small businesses even if the lens does not apply; they do this simply as a matter of good regulatory practice. For example, through the Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reduced administrative and compliance costs for 29 small businesses by removing certain unnecessary recordkeeping, reporting and reviewing requirements, as well as pre-registration testing. The amendment spares businesses $114,426 in new burden per year, or about $4,000 annually per stakeholder, representing a present value of $803,682 over 10 years.

Regulators understand the importance and value of engaging business in the regulatory development process. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example, has undertaken significant steps to engage stakeholders on a potential new approach to food inspection. This has included consultation with micro and small businesses through multiple channels: in-person sessions during the day and evening to accommodate schedules of small enterprises, solicitation of input through webinars and online questionnaires, and partnering with provincial governments and industry associations to assist in promoting these consultations.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • The small business lens was applied to seven final regulations that were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
  • Of the seven final regulations, five adopted the proposed flexible option. This enabled small business to avoid an estimated $4 million annually in administrative and compliance burden over the next 10 years (see Appendix C).
  • Through the application of the lens, the impacts on stakeholders are being identified and, where possible, mitigated through the adoption of flexible regulatory design options that reduce the burden on small businesses in different ways.
  • While TBS’s guidance is not prescriptive in this regard, regulators have used a number of approaches, including delayed implementation, reduced frequency of reporting or certification, and requirements adapted to the particular situation of regulated businesses.
  • For example, risk-based approaches have been used to safely reduce the licensing frequency and retraining requirements for small laboratories that handle low-risk human pathogens. As well, a risk-based approach to security requirements in small airports reflected the risk factors specific to these small facilities while maintaining a coordinated, national approach to airport security.

The One-for-One Rule

Figure 2: The one-for-one rule
The one-for-one rule. Text version below:
Figure 2 - Text version

Reducing burden on Canadian business

The one-for-one rule

  • The one-for-one rule aims to control the growth of administrative burden on business arising from regulations.
  • In 2014–15, administrative burden was reduced by more than $2.7 million, equivalent to an estimated 80,000 hours each year dealing with regulatory burden.
  • After three years, the rule has delivered almost $24 million in net administrative burden relief annually, representing 344,000 fewer hours dealing with regulatory red tape each year. There has also been a reduction of 20 net regulations under the rule.

The one-for-one rule seeks to control the growth of administrative burden on business arising from regulations. When a new or amended regulation increases the administrative burden on business, the rule requires regulators to offset an equal amount of administrative burden cost. As well, the rule also requires regulators to remove an existing regulation each time they introduce a new regulation that imposes new administrative burden on business.

The rule applies to all regulatory changes that impose new administrative burden costs on business. There are, however, three circumstances where the Treasury Board may exemptFootnote 1 regulations from the application of the rule:

  • Regulations related to tax or tax administration;
  • Regulations where Her Majesty in right of Canada has no discretion regarding the requirements that must be included in the regulation due to international or legal obligations, including the imposition of international sanctions or the implementation of Supreme Court of Canada decisions; and
  • Regulations in emergency, unique or exceptional circumstances, including if compliance with the rule’s requirements would compromise public health, public safety or the Canadian economy.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • The one-for-one rule is meeting its intended objective of controlling growth in administrative burden arising from regulations. Since its introduction in 2012–13, the one-for-one rule has resulted in nearly $24 million in administrative burden relief and an estimated 344,000 fewer hours spent annually dealing with regulatory red tape. There has also been a reduction of 20 net regulations under the rule.
  • In 2014–15, 86 per cent of final Governor in Council (GIC)–approved and non-GIC regulatory changes published in the Canada Gazette either reduced (13 per cent) or did not impose any new administrative burden (73 per cent) on business.Footnote 2
  • The Red Tape Reduction Act, which gives the force of law to the rule, received Royal Assent on . The Red Tape Reduction Regulations were finalized in July 2015 and set out the operational elements for how the rule is to be applied.
  • The Act and Regulations require that the President of the Treasury Board publish an annual report on the application of the rule, and the Act has a provision requiring that it be reviewed after five years.
  • As per the requirement to publicly report on the application of section 5 of the Red Tape Reduction Act for 2014–15, the increases and decreases in the cost of administrative burden and the number of regulations amended or repealed are as follows:
    • Annual net administrative burden to business was reduced by approximately $2.7 million: 11 regulations increased burden by over $500,000; 60 per cent of this resulted from three new regulatory titles, with the balance from other regulatory changes (e.g., amendments). This new administrative burden was offset by 13 regulations that provided burden relief of over $3,200,000. This saves businesses an estimated 80,000 hours in time spent dealing with regulatory burden each year. A detailed list of regulatory changes increasing or decreasing administrative burden on business under the one-for-one rule, as published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in 2014–15 can be found in Appendix D, Table 1.
    • Ten amended regulations, as well as one Order and two regulations that resulted in repeals (for a total of 13), relieved administrative burden on business. These regulatory changes are identified in Appendix D, Table 1.
    • In total, eight regulations were repealed. These include three regulations removed from the regulatory stock and five regulations that were replaced by four new regulatory titles. This resulted in a total net reduction of one regulation under the rule in 2014–15. Further details on repealed regulations are found in Appendix D, Table 2.
  • For 2014–15, the regulation removing the most administrative burden ($955,000) was Regulations Amending the Canada Labour Standards Regulations. This regulatory change reduces the administrative burden on small business by simplifying the holiday pay calculation for employees whose hours of work differ from day to day, or who are paid on a basis other than time (e.g., commissioned sales).
  • There were 30 regulations exempted from the rule, including 27 non-discretionary obligations (e.g., international sanctions), 2 related to emergency situations, and 1 concerning tax or tax administration. A detailed list can be found in Appendix D, Table 3.
  • In 2014–15, all regulatory portfolios complied with the requirement to offset administrative burden or new regulations within 24 months. Compliance with analytical and costing requirements remains strong; areas for improvement include disclosing costing assumptions to help ensure robust cost calculations, and engaging impacted stakeholders to review and challenge the accuracy of the calculations, as appropriate.
Table 1: One-for-one rule: 2012–13 to 2014–15
2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 Total

Table 1 Notes

Table Note 1

In the previous two scorecards, it was indicated that the number of carve-outs (exemptions) for 2012–13 was eight regulations. Subsequent analysis has revealed that one regulation, the Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Part XLIX – Qualified Investments) (SOR 2012-270), had not been reflected. The updated figure of nine is used in this scorecard.

Return to table 1 note i referrer

Table Note 2

These are regulatory titles repealing other regulations, and therefore had no incremental administrative burden impact regarding the one-for-one rule.

Return to table 1 note ii referrer

Table Note 3

The 2013–14 scorecard indicated a total of 23 regulations with administrative impacts on business in 2013–14. A footnote to the table in that scorecard clarified that one regulatory package contained two regulations, thus accounting for 24 total regulations with business impacts. The 2013–14 figures in this scorecard have been adjusted to reflect this.

Return to table 1 note iii referrer

Table Note 4

Figures in the table are rounded from 98,192 hours in 2012–13, 165,218 hours in 2013–14, and 80,288 hours in 2014–15. The total for three years is 343,698 hours.

Return to table 1 note iv referrer

How many regulations had one-for-one implications? 27 36 58 121
How many regulations were exempted from the rule? 9table 1 note i 7 30 46
How many regulations were only repealing other regulations?table 1 note ii 4 5 4 13
How many regulations had administrative impacts on business? 14 24table 1 note iii 24 62
Administrative burden increased ($ millions, rounded) $0.5 $2.0 $0.5 $3.0
Administrative burden decreased ($ millions, rounded) $3.5 $20.0 $3.2 $26.7
Total administrative burden saved annually ($ millions, rounded) $3.0 $18.0 $2.7 $23.7
Total number of hours saved to business annually (rounded) 98,000 165,000 80,000 344,000table 1 note iv
Net number of regulations reduced 5 14 1 20

Service Standards for High-Volume Regulatory Authorizations

Figure 3: Service Standards for High-Volume Regulatory Authorizations
Service Standards for High-Volume Regulatory Authorizations. Text version below:
Figure 3 - Text version

Improving service, predictability and transparency

Service standards for high-volume regulatory authorizations

  • Service standards provide businesses with a clear indication of how long it will normally take to obtain a decision on regulatory authorizations.
  • More than 400 timeliness service standards for 147 high-volume regulatory authorizations impacting business are now posted publicly, and regulators are beginning to post performance results against these standards.
  • Results posted in 2014 show that regulators met their performance targets 93% of the time.

Service standards provide businesses with a clear indication of how long it will normally take to obtain a decision from a regulator, allowing stakeholders to factor these timelines into their planning. Departments and agencies are required to post service standards and service performance for high-volume regulatory authorizations (HVRAs) on their Acts and Regulations web pages. A high-volume authorization is a licensing, permit or certification process with 100 or more transactions per year. Service standards cover a range of sectors and business activities, from licensing off-track betting to issuing registration certificates under the Controlled Goods Program of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Predictable service for high-volume regulatory authorizations

Canadian businesses that import or sell textile fibre products can expect Industry Canada to issue a CA Identification Number (required for product labelling) within 5 days when the request is submitted online, and 20 days when submitted by mail.

Aquaculture operators know how long it will take to obtain licences for new sites or to make modifications to existing sites. In cases where licences are sought for British Columbia, Fisheries and Oceans Canada issues the licence, but the provincial government and other federal departments play a role in the licensing process – a good example of interdepartmental and interjurisdictional service delivery.

Within six months, businesses can expect Citizenship and Immigration Canada to process electronic applications under the Skilled Trades Program (for people who want to become permanent residents based on being qualified in a skilled trade).

In addition to timeliness standards and service targets, regulators are required to establish a feedback mechanism so that Canadians can raise service issues if expectations have not been met. Providing feedback on the service that businesses receive when they apply for an authorization can help regulators improve service and recalibrate their timeliness commitments over time.

In 2014–15, regulators were required to post service standards for regulatory authorizations with more than 500 annual transactions. This threshold has been adjusted each year to gradually phase in more authorizations. In 2012–13, the threshold was 2,000 transactions, and in 2013–14 it was 1,000. In 2013–14, regulators were also required to transition their pre-existing service standards for HVRAs to the expectations outlined in the TBS guidance document Guide on Improving Service Performance for Regulatory Authorizations.

In 2014–15, for the first time, departments and agencies were also required to report service performance against the standards that were posted in spring 2013, the first year of this initiative.

User-centric service

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has created a one-stop-shop web page to help businesses find information and services related to their tax situation. The CRA’s My Business Account portal now offers the ability to submit enquiries and receive responses electronically. "Smartlinks" have also been strategically placed in complex or high-interest web content to connect users with an agent. A Liaison Officer Initiative is helping businesses understand their tax affairs and "get it right from the start," and a smartphone app has been introduced to provide custom alerts for instalments, payments, returns and remittances.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • Service performance was reported against all of the new timeliness standards that were established in March 2013. Performance targets were met or exceeded for 14 of the 15 new authorizations assessed for performance. In the one instance where a department did not meet its targetFootnote 3, it provided a thorough explanation on its website, demonstrating openness and transparency with stakeholders, and accountability for commitments made.
  • New service standards for an additional 15 HVRAs that impact business were also posted on departmental Acts and Regulations web pages. Appendix E provides a list of these HVRAs and associated service standards posted in 2014–15.
  • Most departments met TBS guidance requirements in 2014–15 by posting their service standards by the deadline of , providing a clear articulation of the service standard. They also posted information processes and requirements for obtaining the regulatory authorization, and specified a feedback mechanism that stakeholders can access if service expectations are not met.
  • There are now 197 regulatory authorizations, 147 of which have business impacts, covered by more than 400 publicly available service standards. These authorizations address a wide range of activities such as health products licensing and the permitting of import/export of natural resources and agricultural and manufactured goods.
  • The opportunity now exists for stakeholders to provide feedback to regulators through service mechanisms identified on departmental websites. Regulators can use this feedback to address issues that affect service performance, or to adapt service standards based on stakeholders’ experience.
Figure 4: 2014–15 new high-volume regulatory authorizations covered by service standards: Annual transactions directly impacting business
2014–15 new high-volume regulatory authorizations covered by service standards. Text version below:
Figure 4 - Text version

Figure 4 shows a pie chart for new high-volume regulatory authorizations (HRVAs) covered by service standards. The chart shows the number of annual transactions that directly impact business.

The pie chart is divided into nine segments:

  • Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada had 1 HVRA and 439 transactions.
  • Agriculture and Agri-food Canada had 1 HRVA and 200 transactions.
  • The Canadian Transportation Agency had 1 HRVA and 133 transactions.
  • Economic and Social Development Canada had 1 HRVA and 100 transactions.
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada had 3 HRVAs and 1,000 transactions.
  • Industry Canada had 1 HRVA and 100 transactions.
  • Health Canada had 2 HRVAs and 2,079 transactions.
  • The Natural Resources portfolio had 2 HRVAs and 816 transactions.
  • Public Works and Government Services Canada had 3 HRVAs and 5,103 transactions.
Table 2: High-volume regulatory authorizations covered by service standards, 2012–13 to 2014–15
2012–13table 2 note i 2013–14 2014–15 Total

Table 2 Notes

Table Note 1

In The 2012–13 Scorecard Report, it was reported that there were 24 HVRAs governed by service standards, 19 of which were new. Since that time, departments and agencies (i.e., Citizenship and Immigration Canada; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada) have updated some of these authorizations and service standards on their web pages. Moreover, one HVRA reported in 2012–13 (Transport Canada’s Defect Investigations and Recalls) was determined in 2014–15 to not have been an HVRA. In order to present an updated three-year count of all HVRAs and associated service standards in this Scorecard Report, a full recount was conducted. Updated figures are presented accordingly in this report.

Return to table 2 note i referrer

Table Note 2

The figures for 2013–14 are significantly higher than for the first and third years of implementation because departments were to bring all existing high-volume authorization service standards into line with posting requirements based on TBS expectations for this reform area.

Return to table 2 note ii referrer

Number of high-volume regulatory authorizations 15 163 19 197
Number of high-volume regulatory authorizations with business impacts 14 118 15 147
Number of timeliness service standards 24 419table 2 note ii 28 471

Forward Regulatory Plans

Figure 5: Forward Regulatory Plans
Forward regulatory plans. Text version below:
Figure 5 - Text version

Improving service, predictability and transparency

Forward regulatory plans

  • Forward regulatory plans provide information on changes or new federal regulations expected in the next two years, and give businesses an opportunity to engage in their development and prepare for implementation.
  • The plans of nearly 40 major regulators provide stakeholders with information on more than 400 regulatory initiatives, including whether there are anticipated business impacts and how they can engage in consultations and provide feedback to regulators.

Forward regulatory plans describe anticipated regulatory changes or proposals that a department or agency intends to bring forward over a 24-month period. Federal departments and agencies make their forward regulatory plans publicly available on their Acts and Regulations web pages, giving businesses and other stakeholders a heads-up on upcoming regulations that impact them and an opportunity to engage regulators on regulatory design and plan for implementation.

The Guide on Forward Planning and Related Measures to Improve the Transparency and Predictability of the Federal Regulatory System requires that departments and agencies post the following for every regulatory initiative: a concise, plain-language description of the initiative’s objective; an indication of anticipated impacts on business; information on the intended approach to upcoming public consultations, including estimated timing; and a departmental contact in the event that a stakeholder requires additional information.

Departments have been posting annual plans for three years and have been adding mid-year updates as of 2013–14. As such, Canada now has a regularized and highly transparent forward-planning infrastructure. This disclosure of anticipated regulatory changes is of benefit to businesses, trading partners and citizens alike, and has become incorporated into how regulators do business.

However, informal feedback from some stakeholders, though positive, suggests awareness of forward regulatory plans among individual business owners is likely to be low. There may be opportunities to use targeted outreach and new technology tools to raise awareness among stakeholders of forward regulatory plans.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • In 2014–15, 39 forward regulatory plans, with a total of 451 planned or potential initiatives for the 2015–17 time frame, were posted on departmental Acts and Regulations web pages.
  • This was the second year that departments were required to post a mid-year update to their forward plan, and nearly three-quarters did so in accordance with the fall 2014 deadline; these are similar to results in 2013–14.
  • 118 initiatives (26 per cent) of the 451 initiatives posted in 2015–17 forward plans were identified as having potential business impacts; the vast majority of these initiatives were at early stages of development and identified planned consultations.
  • Nearly three-quarters of all initiatives listed in forward plans (72 per cent) were proposed amendments to existing regulations. Repealed regulations and new regulations each accounted for 13 per cent of the posted initiatives. Since 2012–13, amendments to existing regulations have consistently made up the majority of the initiatives listed in forward plans.
  • The utility of forward regulatory plans for stakeholders can be improved if departments and agencies place greater attention on using plain language to describe the objectives of regulatory initiatives. Addressing deficiencies in this area, combined with timely posting of forward plans and mid-year updates, would help make information on forward regulatory plans more accessible to stakeholders.
Table 3: Forward regulatory plans
2013–15 2014–16 2015–17
Number of forward regulatory plans 32 40 39
Number of posted initiatives 460 455 451
Number of initiatives with anticipated business impacts 111 148 118

Interpretation Policies

Figure 6: Interpretation Policies
Interpretation Policies. Text version below:
Figure 6 - Text version

Improving service, predictability and transparency

Interpretation Policies

  • Interpretation policies help make regulations and compliance requirements easier to understand by outlining the commitments, practices and tools to be applied when providing information and guidance on regulatory requirements.
  • Businesses now have access to more than 30 interpretation policies that provide links to guidance, FAQs, online training and other tools.
  • Stakeholder engagement is being used to identify areas that would benefit from improved interpretation tools and practices.

Compliance with regulations is the goal of both regulators and stakeholders; while regulators are working to design processes with business needs in mind, they also recognize the importance of providing businesses with timely clarification of what they expect, and tools to help stakeholders comply with regulatory requirements.

Interpretation policies help make regulations and compliance requirements easier to understand by outlining the commitments, practices and tools to be applied by regulators when providing Canadians and businesses with information and guidance on regulatory obligations to be met. This helps reduce administrative burden on Canadians and businesses in particular, who might otherwise expend additional time and resources to interpret regulatory requirements.

The TBS Guide for Developing and Implementing Interpretation Policies sets out the requirements and principles upon which federal departments are to design interpretation policies: predictability, service, stakeholder engagement and improvement.

Departments and agencies are required to outline their practices for responding to regulatory questions, including specifying the conditions under which federal regulators will provide written responses to questions. The policy is also to establish a service timeliness commitment for responding to stakeholders’ questions.

Federal regulators are also called upon to identify the practices and tools they use to engage stakeholders. This could include, for example, consulting Canadians and businesses on the development and review of guidance documents, new information materials, or seeking feedback on their experience using other online resources. Stakeholder feedback is also key to driving further improvements in delivering interpretation services.

For 2014–15, departments and agencies were required to post their interpretation policies on their Acts and Regulations websites, as well as FAQs for their most-accessed regulations. They were to engage stakeholders on their current interpretation practices in order to identify areas for improvement. Metrics that describe how the department or agency will monitor implementation of improvement priorities over time were also to be posted online.

Making it easier to do business with regulators

Businesses can access policies, operational instructions and agreements on Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s interpretation policy web page, including the operational manuals and bulletins that Citizenship and Immigration and Canada Border Services Agency employees consult when carrying out their duties. They can also refer to frequently asked questions (FAQs) on key regulations, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the Citizenship Regulations, and the Passport and Other Travel Document Services Fees Regulations. The page also provides an email address, regs@cic.gc.ca, where businesses can provide feedback on the available information resources and any relevant consultation opportunities.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada recently surveyed businesses and other stakeholders to solicit feedback, ideas and recommendations on its current suite of policy instruments. This information was then used to inform the development of several improvement priorities. On Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s interpretation policy web page, stakeholders can review the consultation methodology, the themes that emerged, and the improvements proposed by the department. These included a flexible client service model, greater use of electronic feedback, plain language, and use of more interactive tools such as social media and videos. Metrics for monitoring the implementation of improvement priorities are also included. For example, under its proposed flexible client service model, the department has committed to develop stakeholder outreach plans for 100 per cent of new regulatory initiatives, regulatory amendments and policy instruments.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • All 34 required departments posted interpretation policies, with FAQs on their most-accessed regulations; 97 per cent of the organizations engaged stakeholders to identify interpretation improvement priorities in spring 2015.
  • The method of consultation varied by department/agency and included the use of emails, phone calls, third-party facilitated sessions, roundtable meetings and online consultations. In some cases, departments and agencies used existing consultation frameworks in order to efficiently engage with stakeholders on the interpretation policy initiative.
  • 85 per cent posted improvement priorities based on stakeholder feedback, and 76 per cent posted metrics to assess progress against their improvement priorities.

Administrative Burden Baseline

Figure 7: Administrative Burden Baseline
Administrative Burden Baseline. Text version below:
Figure 7 - Text version

Improving service, predictability and transparency

Administrative Burden Baseline

  • The Administrative Burden Baseline provides an annual count of requirements in federal regulations and related forms that impose administrative burden on businesses.
  • In 2014–15, 38 federal entities counted and reported their administrative burden requirements, which totaled 129,860.
  • Departments and agencies post annual updates to their counts on their Acts and Regulations web pages, contributing to the openness and transparency of the federal regulatory system.

The Administrative Burden Baseline provides Canadians with a clear metric on the total number of requirements in federal regulations and associated forms that impose administrative burden on business. The baseline is to be updated annually, contributing to the openness and transparency of the federal regulatory system.

In fall 2014, the government-wide baseline count was posted on the TBS website, with links to departmental baseline counts that include a breakdown by regulation. The count reflects regulatory requirements and related forms as of ; it does not include administrative burden that may be associated with legislation or departmental programs or policies.

The guidance document Counting Administrative Burden Regulatory Requirements sets out the requirements for the Administrative Burden Baseline initiative to assist departments and agencies in undertaking their counts.

Results and observations in 2014–15

  • 38 departments and agenciesFootnote 4 counted relevant administrative burden requirements in their regulations and related forms.
  • All departments and agencies posted Administrative Burden Baseline counts in 2014–15 in accordance with the required format. A departmental breakdown of these counts can be found in Appendix F.
  • In 2014–15, there were 129,860 requirements within 684 regulations and associated forms that impose administrative burden on businesses in Canada, resulting in an average of 190 requirements per regulation.

Conclusion

Openness and transparency contribute to robust regulatory governance. This Annual Scorecard Report provides an overview of results achieved in 2014–15 in implementing initiatives to reduce regulatory burden on business, improve service and enhance the predictability of the federal regulatory system. Moreover, it supports the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management’s emphasis on regulation that is accessible, understandable and responsive through engagement, transparency, accountability and public scrutiny.

Appendix A: The Regulatory Advisory Committee’s Advice to the President of the Treasury Board on The 2014–15 Scorecard Report

Deliberations of the Advisory Committee

The Regulatory Advisory Committee was established in . Committee members serving this past year are Victor Young, Corporate Director and Committee Chair; Bruce Cran, President of the Consumers’ Association of Canada; David Fung, Chairman and CEO of ACDEG Group; and Laura Jones, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

The Committee provides advice to the President of Treasury Board on the Annual Scorecard Report. The first annual scorecard, for 2012–13, was published on , and the second, for 2013–14, was published on . Both published scorecards included the Committee’s advice to the President of the Treasury Board.

Since its establishment in 2013, the Committee has remained engaged in monitoring the progress related to the implementation of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan. Specifically in 2015, the Committee met by teleconference on , and held two in-person meetings on and . Both of the in-person meetings included in camera sessions of Committee members only, in the absence of government officials.

The Committee’s meetings of and included consultations with representatives from several federal regulatory departments and agencies. These discussions represented a follow-up on the Committee’s important stakeholder consultation with industry, consumer and government groups held on , to seek their views on the impact of reform implementation.

The Chair is in continuous communication, on behalf of the Committee, with senior Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) officials on matters related to the Committee’s operations and planning for upcoming meetings. Discussions between the Committee and TBS officials have been very open, frank and transparent. The Committee continues to be impressed with the presentations that it has received and the consultations it has undertaken. It has no doubt about the personal commitment of TBS officials to the success of the program.

Role of the Committee

The Committee’s role is limited to providing advice on red tape arising from regulation. It has been advised by TBS officials that regulatory red tape makes up a very important part of the total red tape universe. It does not, however, include other potential sources of burden that business may experience in their interaction with government resulting from government rules, policies and legislation.

In our first two reports, we recommended that government undertake to get a better understanding of how much of the burden of red tape felt by the private sector is covered by the definition of “regulatory red tape”. The ongoing lack of understanding as to what components make up the red tape universe remains an area of considerable weakness, and we repeat our recommendation that an analysis be undertaken as to what elements make up the entire red tape universe. The Red Tape Reduction Action Plan is aimed at changing the regulatory system and halting the growth of regulatory red tape. As we stated in our previous reports, “We believe that government is on a very significant journey that will require many more years of hard work. Therefore the key message is that the program is off to a good start and there is much work to be done and that red tape reduction remains a priority for government going forward. At this stage, we should not confuse significant early action with longer term results”. We should, however, take comfort that a solid foundation has been laid for future improvement and expansion.

Stakeholder Consultations

As indicated in our report last year, the Regulatory Advisory Committee hosted a stakeholder dialogue session with some 20 industry and consumer association representatives who were likely to have been directly impacted and/or highly interested in the implementation of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan. The dialogue with industry and consumer representatives at that time provided the Regulatory Advisory Committee with a rich source of valuable insights on reform implementation. Overall, the dialogue revealed stakeholder support for the red tape reduction reforms, coupled with the view that expanding the Action Plan’s scope beyond regulation (e.g., to legislation and policy) would maximize business and economic impacts. Stakeholders noted encouraging signs of culture change in some regulatory departments and agencies and with senior public servants in particular.

Stakeholders also highlighted improved transparency among regulators but clearly noted that more needed to be done in terms of ongoing consultations. Although the reforms are still early in their implementation, many believed that more outreach by TBS is required to continue to build industry awareness of and involvement in Action Plan implementation. An example can be seen with forward regulatory plans. Although stakeholders view the introduction of forward regulatory plans as an important achievement that can make a difference for business, greater awareness of these plans would enable industry to make better use of the information that is now available.

In response to the Committee’s observations in 2014, TBS officials followed up with a subset of stakeholders that had been engaged by the Committee during its 2014 consultations. Held between May and July of 2015, these informal bilateral discussions with industry representatives reinforced the need to continue to build industry awareness of and involvement in Action Plan implementation. These discussions were either in person or by telephone and helped to underscore the opportunity to enhance engagement and collaboration in order to advance implementation and secure longer-term results.

As indicated earlier in this advice, the Committee met with various government officials in November 2015. Representatives from federal departments and agencies confirmed that the spirit and intent of the reforms are being embraced by senior public service management. Several indicated that having regulatory reform as a clear government priority was helpful to making progress. The Committee came away from the consultation with federal officials with a positive feeling that there was a full understanding of the need to reduce regulatory red tape, and these conclusions reconfirmed the results of the consultations undertaken in 2014.

The consultations also gave us a sense that there is much transformation and modernization taking place in the public service. Importantly, better service and more effective ways to serve the public better are central to many of these improvement initiatives. Red tape reduction is totally consistent with the modernization plans being undertaken. The goal of red tape reduction is seen as a complementary approach, one that encourages TBS and government departments and agencies to work together, as partners, in the drive for more efficient and effective regulatory responses that both protect and advance the public interest, while also taking into consideration the service needs and business realities of regulated parties.

Advice to the President of the Treasury Board for 2014–15

As is required by its mandate, the Regulatory Advisory Committee to the President of the Treasury Board has reviewed the third Annual Scorecard Report related to the government’s Red Tape Reduction Action Plan in 2014–15. The Committee did not perform, nor is it mandated to perform, an “audit-like” review of the scorecard. Rather, the Committee has drawn on the expertise of government officials as well as the members’ business backgrounds and experience to arrive at a general opinion on the overall fairness and reliability of The 2014–15 Scorecard Report.

In last year’s report, the Committee fully anticipated being able to confirm that the implementation of all of the reforms related to: (i) the one-for-one rule; (ii) the small business lens; (iii) forward regulatory plans; (iv) service standards for high-volume regulatory authorizations; (v) interpretation policies; and (vi) the administrative burden baseline would be firmly in place for 2014–15. This has proven to be the case.

Therefore, based on the information provided, the nature of the review undertaken and, in the overall context of the related and pertinent issues described in this report, the Advisory Committee is of the view that The 2014–15 Scorecard Report and the statements made therein (i) are reliable and fairly represent progress to date, and (ii) reflect the ongoing commitment of government to set in place a solid foundation for a meaningful process of regulatory red tape reduction for the long term.

The Committee also can confirm that, in its view, The 2014–15 Scorecard Report reflects a period of continued achievement. In particular, this past year was critical to making progress toward the objective of embedding the understanding of the importance of red tape reduction into the culture of government departments and agencies.

Opportunity to Expand Red Tape Reduction

As stated above, the embedding of ongoing stakeholder consultations into a culture of broad-based red tape reduction is a crucial element to ensuring that the program is successful and ultimately makes a positive difference in the lives of all Canadians. The Committee intends to continue to monitor progress on all issues addressed in this report, including the ongoing development of meaningful metrics while recognizing that the posting of the new Administrative Burden Baseline, for the first time in 2015, represents a good beginning. Also, we will want to see clear evidence that the Action Plan is making a difference on the ground and is lightening the load on businesses, institutions and individuals.

The Committee wants to reiterate that the red tape reduction program is all about reducing waste; improving productivity; and improving the economy while protecting health, safety, security and the environment. It is also about working together to make regulatory red tape reduction a normal part of doing business in government. The ultimate success of this program, therefore, will be when red tape reduction loses its status as a special program requiring special attention and simply becomes an accepted part of doing business as usual. This will take time and continued focus.

The Committee sees the success of the first three years of the program as building a strong foundation for the future. As the program moves forward, the most significant challenge and opportunity remains the expansion of the definition of the red tape universe to include other government rules, legislation and policies that impede the efficiency of the private sector and small business. This has been a theme of the Committee’s first two reports and, with a solid foundation in place on the regulatory side, it is now a natural progression to identify and capture additional rules and policies under a more comprehensive red tape reduction program.

A broader program of red tape reduction could enable the government to address unnecessary red tape in regulation and legislation alike, as both can impose legally binding obligations and associated administrative burden on business. Similarly, the approach could incorporate red tape arising from other instruments, including policies (e.g., procurement) and other sources of inefficiency and business frustration, including those arising from the administration of government programs (e.g., grants and contributions) and services.

The Committee recognizes that great progress has been made in addressing regulatory red tape over the past three years. For government, the challenge is to move to an expanded program beyond the current focus on administrative burden arising from regulations in order to elevate the Action Plan to the next level and to make it one that truly can be classified as meaningful, comprehensive and best in class. The alternative is to stand still and be satisfied with the restrictive ability to reduce red tape based on the current regulatory focus. The Committee’s priority advice to the President of Treasury Board, therefore, is that government seriously review and pursue all opportunities for the implementation of a more comprehensive Red Tape Reduction Action Plan. This is the big red tape reduction challenge for 2015–16 and beyond.

Original signed by:

Victor Young
Corporate Director and Committee Chair

David Fung
Chairman and CEO, ACDEG Group

Bruce Cran
President, Consumers' Association of Canada

Laura Jones
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Appendix B: Summary of 2014– Assessment Results by Portfolio/Entity

Scorecard Methodology

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat has produced this report based on assessments of progress made by departments and agencies in implementing systemic reforms in the 2014– fiscal year. These assessments are intended to drive compliance with requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management. It has also been reviewed by the external Regulatory Advisory Committee.

Through these assessments, 25 regulatory portfolios and portfolio entities received a rating that summarizes their progress for each applicable systemic reform initiative. Portfolios are provided with an opportunity to implement corrective actions for a given systemic reform in advance of being assigned a final rating.

Reform Rating Explanation

Full compliance = Full compliance demonstrated for most or all reform commitments and guidance requirements

Generally in compliance = Generally in compliance with reform commitments and guidance requirements; minor corrective actions are required

Some compliance = Some compliance demonstrated with reform commitments and guidance requirements; moderate corrective actions are required

Significant compliance = Significant compliance issues evident with reform commitments and guidance requirements; major corrective actions are required

Inadequate compliance = Inadequate compliance demonstrated with reform commitments and guidance requirements

Table 1 shows the 2014– ratings assigned to the 25 portfolios assessed for each applicable systemic reform. A rating of “N/A” is given if a department did not submit a regulation in 2014– that was identified as having implications under the specific reform (e.g., the one-for-one rule) or if the organization was beyond the scope of assessment.

Table 1: Reform ratings for 2014–
Regulatory Portfolio/Entity Assessed One-for-One Rule Small Business Lens Forward Regulatory Plan Service Standards Administrative Burden Baseline Interpretation Policies

Table 4 Notes

Table Note 1

Denotes a Government of Canada institution that was assessed separately from its governing organization and assigned its own rating at the request of the pertinent minister.

Return to table 4 note 1 * referrer

Table Note 2

Although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has previously posted service standards associated with many of its high-volume regulatory authorizations, it received a "red" rating as it was not in a position to post additional service standards this year. The CFIA is currently engaged in an ambitious, long-term initiative to modernize the way it does business, including a comprehensive review of its user fee structure and service standards. As the review of its user fee structure progresses, the CFIA will be in a better position to post and report against modernized service standards that better reflect its revised service environment.

Return to table 4 note i referrer

Table Note 3

Transport Canada posted its new two-year plan and mid-year update after the deadlines stipulated in guidance. In addition, some of the posted initiatives were missing required information concerning the anticipated timing of consultations. The new forward regulatory plan for Transport Canada was posted and updated on .

Return to table 4 note ii referrer

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Portfolio Generally in compliance N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Some compliance
Agriculture and Agri-Food Portfolio N/A N/A Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Canadian Heritage N/A N/A Full compliance Some compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance
Public Service Commission of Canada table 1 note 1 *
N/A N/A Full compliance N/A N/A N/A
Citizenship and Immigration Canada N/A N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Canada Revenue Agency N/A N/A Full compliance N/A Full compliance Full compliance
Environment Canada Full compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency table 1 note 1 *
N/A N/A Generally in compliance N/A Full compliance Full compliance
Parks Canada table 1 note 1 *
Generally in compliance N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Full compliance N/A Full compliance N/A Full compliance Full compliance
Department of Justice Canada N/A N/A Full compliance N/A N/A N/A
Finance Portfolio N/A N/A Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Fisheries and Oceans Canada N/A N/A Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Health Portfolio Full compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Canadian Food Inspection Agency table 1 note 1 * table 4 note i
Full compliance Full compliance Some compliance Inadequate compliance Full compliance Some compliance
Employment and Social Development Portfolio Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Industry Portfolio N/A Full compliance Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Natural Resources Portfolio N/A N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance
Public Safety Portfolio Full compliance N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Generally in compliance
Public Works and Government Services Canada Full compliance N/A Full compliance Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat N/A N/A Generally in compliance N/A Full compliance N/A
Transport Canadatable 4 note ii Full compliance Full compliance Significant compliance N/A Full compliance Generally in compliance
Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada table 1 note 1 *
N/A N/A Some compliance N/A N/A N/A
Canadian Transportation Agency table 1 note 1 *
N/A N/A Generally in compliance Full compliance Full compliance Full compliance
Veterans Affairs Canada N/A N/A Full compliance N/A N/A Generally in compliance

Appendix C: Small Business Lens

Table 1: Final regulatory changes that applied the small business lens approved by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in 2014–15
Final Regulations Assessed Agency/ Department Initial Option Cost ($) Flexible Option ($) Cost of Option Implemented ($) Estimated Annualized Costs Avoided ($)

Table 5 Notes

Table Note 1

This regulatory proposal considered the development of a flexible option that would have delayed implementation by six months beyond the proposed three months. However, this was not pursued, as explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, due to health and safety concerns. While costing of a flexible option was not provided, the assessment of the small business lens noted this as an area for improvement.

Return to table 5 note i referrer

Table Note 2

An estimate of the cost of a flexible option was not provided by the regulator, as the amendment served to add the species to a Schedule to the Species at Risk Act, with the action to be undertaken set out in the enabling legislation and not subject to modification through a flexible option.

Return to table 5 note ii referrer

Regulations Amending the Maple Products Regulations Canadian Food Inspection Agency 148,090 115,710 115,710 32,380
Human Pathogens and Toxins Regulations Health Canada 98,150 81,910 81,910 16,240
Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Mechanically Tenderized Beef) Health Canada Not estimatedtable 5 note i Not estimated Not estimated 0
Regulations Amending the Weights and Measures Regulations Industry Canada 4,620,984 2,385,664 2,385,664 2,235,320
Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Airport Security Programs) Transport Canada 1,870,440 274,945 274,945 1,595,495
Railway Safety Management Systems Regulations, 2015 Transport Canada 298,151 154,838 154,838 143,313
Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (tri-coloured bats) Environment Canada 920 Not estimatedtable 5 note ii 920 0
Totals 7,036,735 3,013,987 4,022,748
Table 2: Regulatory proposals assessed with the small business lens and published only in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in 2014–15
Regulation Name Agency/Department
Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations Environment Canada
Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act Health Canada
Regulations Amending the On Board Trains Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Employment and Social Development Canada

Appendix D: One-for-One Rule

Table 1: Final regulatory changes with administrative burden implications under the one-for-one rule published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in 2014–15
Portfolio Regulation Publication Date Net In ($) Net Out ($)

Table 6 Notes

Table Note 1

The Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations were repealed, and two separate regulations (the Nunavut Mining Regulations and the Northwest Territories Mining Regulations) were introduced, which led to a net reduction in administrative burden of nearly $619,000.

Return to table 6 note i referrer

Table Note 2

The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this miscellaneous amendment reported that the one-for-one rule applies to the amendment to section 135.1 of the Health of Animals Regulations. This removes a reporting requirement for industry that if triggered would impose associated administrative costs. As this requirement has never been triggered, it has never been reported on or enforced. Any associated administrative costs for industry to report are multiplied by zero occurrences per year, and therefore the RIAS net cost/relief was reported as $0.

Return to table 6 note ii referrer

Table Note 3

This ministerial (non-GIC) regulation repealed the Regulations Respecting Applications for Permits for Disposal at Sea.

Return to table 6 note iii referrer

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Northwest Territories Mining Regulationstable 6 note i - 618,962
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations (variety regulations) - 109,515
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Regulations Amending the Maple Products Regulations (grade standards) 41,495 -
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Regulations Amending Certain Canadian Food Inspection Agency Regulations (Miscellaneous Program) - 0table 6 note ii
Environment Canada Disposal at Sea Permit Application Regulationstable 6 note iii - 130
Environment Canada Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Canada National Parks Act 29 -
Environment Canada Regulations Amending the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations - 59,190
Environment Canada Products Containing Mercury Regulations 91,500 -
Environment Canada Order Declaring That the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity Regulations Do Not Apply in Nova Scotia - 120
Environment Canada Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act 741 -
Health Canada Regulations Amending the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 - 55,538
Health Canada Human Pathogens and Toxins Regulations 230,000 -
Employment and Social Development Canada Regulations Amending the Canada Labour Standards Regulations - 955,027
Public Safety Canada Regulations Amending the Accounting for Imported Goods and Payment of Duties Regulations - 688,221
Public Works and Government Services Canada Regulations Amending the Schedule to the Defence Production Act - 710,047
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Update of Standards) - 27,613
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Airport Security Programs) 198 -
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Part 4, Dangerous Goods Safety Marks) - 6,500
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Marine Transportation Security Regulations 13,500 -
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Transportation Information Regulations 3,313 -
Transport Canada Railway Operating Certificate Regulations 221 -
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Transportation Information Regulations 148,717 -
Transport Canada Regulations Amending the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Lithium Metal Batteries, ERAPs and Updates to Schedules) - 2,920
Transport Canada Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015 255 -
Total 529,969 3,233,783
Table 2: New regulatory titles and repealed regulations in 2014–15
Portfolio Regulation Net Impact on Regulatory Stock

Table 7 Notes

Table Note 1

There are some regulatory changes that result in the simultaneous introduction of new regulations and the elimination of one or more other regulatory titles ("repeal and replace”). When a new regulation repeals one title, there is no net change in the number of regulations. However, if the new regulation repeals more than one title, there is a net reduction. For instance, the Hazardous Products Regulations replaced two repealed regulations, resulting in a net reduction of one regulation.

Return to table 7 note i referrer

Table Note 2

Repealed and replaced the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations (SOR/2007-273). The Nunavut Mining Regulations (which did not trigger the one-for-one rule, as it did not create new administrative burden) were introduced simultaneously, and together with the new Northwest Territories Mining Regulations led to a net reduction of administrative burden of nearly $619,000.

Return to table 7 note ii referrer

New regulatory titles with administrative burden
Environment Canada Products Containing Mercury Regulations
Health Canada Human Pathogens and Toxins Regulations 1
Transport Canada Railway Operating Certificate Regulations 1
Subtotal 3
Repealed regulations
Environment Canada Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction Regulations (SOR/90-5) (1)
Health Canada Human Pathogens Importation Regulations (SOR/94-558) (1)
Transport Canada Laurentian Pilotage Authority District No. 3 Regulations (SOR/87-58) (1)
Subtotal (3)
New regulations that simultaneously repealed and replaced existing regulationstable 7 note i
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada The Northwest Territories Mining Regulations table 7 note ii, replace the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations (SOR/2007-273). 0
Environment Canada The Disposal at Sea Permit Application Regulations replace the Regulations Respecting Applications for Permits for Disposal at Sea (SOR/2001-276). 0
Transport Canada The Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015 replace the Railway Safety Management System Regulations (SOR 2001-37). 0
Health Canada The Hazardous Products Regulations replace the Controlled Products Regulations (SOR 88-66) and the Ingredient Disclosure List (SOR/88-64). (1)
Subtotal (1)
Total net impact on regulatory stock for 2014–15 (1)
Table 3: Regulatory changes exempted from the one-for-one rule and published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in 2014–15
Portfolio Regulation Publication Date Regulation Type Exemption Type
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations New regulation Emergency / crisis situation
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (Russia) Permit Authorization Order New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Permit Authorization Order New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Central African Republic New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations  Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolution on Yemen Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (South Sudan) Regulations New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Special Economic Measures (South Sudan) Permit Authorization Order New regulation Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada Regulations Amending the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations Regulatory amendment Non-discretionary obligations
Public Safety Canada Regulations Amending the Proof of Origin of Imported Goods Regulations Regulatory amendment Tax or tax administration
Transport Canada Grade Crossings Regulations New regulation Emergency / crisis situation

Appendix E: Service Standards for High-Volume Regulatory Authorizations

Table 1: New high-volume regulatory authorizations governed by service standards in 2014–15
Department/Entity Name of Authorization Number of Service Standards Number of Annual Transactions Impacts Business

Table 9 Notes

Table Note 1

The Applications for Permits to Prospect on Crown Lands in Nunavut is not a high-volume regulatory authorization, as the estimated number of annual transactions is less than 100. However, because it was posted by the department, it was included in the 2014–15 assessment process.

Return to table 9 note i referrer

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Applications to Record Mineral Claims on Crown Lands in Nunavut 1 439 Yes
Applications for Permits to Prospect on Crown Lands in Nunavuttable 9 note i 1 25 Yes
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Betting Theatre Licence (Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency) 1 200 Yes
Citizenship and Immigration Canada Electronic applications under Skilled Trades Program (received as of January 1, 2015 via Express Entry) 1 +100 No
Canadian Transportation Agency Code Share and Wet Lease Authorities 1 133 Yes
Employment and Social Development Canada Labour Market Impact Assessments Under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program 1 +100 Yes
Fisheries and Oceans Canada British Columbia Aquaculture Regulatory Program 5 +100 Yes
Temporary (In Season) Quota Transfers: Midshore and Offshore Groundfish and Offshore Northern Shrimp 1 +300 Yes
Introductions and Transfers Program – Licences Issued Under Section 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations (FGR) 4 +700 Yes
Industry Canada CA Identification Number 2 +100 Yes
Public Safety Canada Authorizations to Transport Restricted and Prohibited Firearms (ATT) (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) 1 +100 No
Firearms Licensing (Individuals) (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) 1 +100 No
Vulnerable Sector Checks (Individuals) (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) 1 +100 No
Health Canada Dealer’s Licence for Controlled Substances 1 686 Yes
New Industrial Hemp Licences 1 1,393 Yes
Natural Resources Canada Security Screening Approval (Explosives Regulations, 2013, Natural Resources Canada) 1 600 Yes
Transport Licence Application (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) 2 216 Yes
Public Works and Government Services Canada Controlled Goods Program (visitor exemption certificates) 1 1,948 Yes
Controlled Goods Program (security assessments) 1 2,792 Yes
Controlled Goods Program (temporary worker exemptions) 1 363 Yes
Table 2: 2014–15 performance reporting against new service standards for high-volume regulatory authorizations posted in March 2013
Department/Entity Name of Authorization Service Standard Performance Target Result Estimated Number of Transactions

Table 10 Notes

Table Note 1

This authorization was originally counted as four separate authorizations in 2012–13. However, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission now presents this as one authorization.

Return to table 10 note i referrer

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Lands-Related Permits on Indian Lands Review, execute and register complete permit applications that meet all requirements within 15 business days. 80% 94% 400
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada: Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency Inter-Track Betting and Foreign Race Inter-Track Betting Successful applicants will receive their domestic and foreign inter-track betting authorization from the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency within 7 business days of receipt of a complete and accurate application. 99% 99% 3,500
Canadian Heritage Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (tax credit application) The Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office is committed to issuing Canadian Film or Video Production Certificates for tax credit applications within 90 to 120 days from receipt of a complete application. 85% 88% 2,400
The Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office is committed to issuing Accredited Film or Video Production Certificates for tax credit applications within 90 to 120 days from receipt of a complete application. 85% 95%
Certification of Cultural Property for Income Tax Purposes The service standard for certification of cultural property is four months after the published deadline for each Review Board meeting. 80% 90% 600
Environment Canada Permits Under the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations (EIHWHRMR) The administrative review process will be completed within 60 days for shipments of wastes or materials to or from the United States, and materials to or from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. 70% 64% 4,500
Finance Canada: Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Approval to release assets vested in trust and/or vest a non-schedule “A” asset (Form 298) Decision will be provided on a Form 298 request within three business days. Where requests require additional information from the financial institution and involve further analysis, our decision may take longer. 80% 99% 300
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Catch Certification for Exporters of Fish and Seafood Products to Meet International Regulatory Requirements (eg. European Union Council Regulation no. 1005/2008) Registration requests will be responded to within 10 business days. 90% 100% 15,000
Grouping requests will be responded to within 10 business days. 90% 99.54%
Priority catch certificates (fresh and/or exported on application date) will be issued within 2 hours. 90% 94.75%
Catch certificates (processed products exported after application date) will be issued within 48 hours. 90% 99.94%
Fax or mail requests will be responded to within 14 business days. 90% 100%
Certification for Canadian Exporters of Aquatic Species regarding the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna (CITES) Telephone and email inquiries will be responded to within 2 hours. 90% 100% 257
CITES Permit will be issued within 40 calendar days, starting on the day the application is received. 90% 98.79%
Health Canada (including the Public Health Agency of Canada) Import/Export Permits for Controlled Substances The Office of Controlled Substances (OCS) commits to a service standard of 30 business days from the date an application is deemed complete by the OCS to the date a decision is issued to the applicant (permit sent/application refused). 90% 96% 4,000
Laboratory Biosafety and Biosecurity (Permit to Import Human Pathogen(s)) The Public Health Agency of Canada commits to a service delivery standard of 20 business days for the issuance of a permit to import human and/or terrestrial animal pathogen(s) from the receipt of a complete application and any additional information or documents requested. Processing times may take longer for incomplete permit applications, emerging pathogens or any with unknown risk group classifications. 80% 96.60% 1,100
Industry Canada Radio Operator Certificates Applications for the issuance of a new Amateur Radio Operator Certificate will be processed within 4 weeks. 90% 97.3% 15,000
Applications for the issuance of a new Professional Radio Operator Certificate (class GOC, ROC-MC or ROC-A) will be processed within 4 weeks. 90% 99.5%
Parks Canada Overweight Vehicle Permits Successful applicants will receive their permit or a reason for its denial within 48 hours. 90% 100% 200
Public Safety Canada Carrier Code Application Process The Canada Border Services Agency will strive to issue a carrier code to those who meet carrier code eligibility requirements within 3 business days. 85% 99.25% 3,000
Natural Resources Canada Licence Application for Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices Licence application for nuclear substances and radiation devices: screen the licence application for completeness and issue a notification that the application is or is not ready for technical assessment, within 20 business days. 90% 90% 1,540
Licence application for nuclear substances and radiation devices: conduct a technical assessment and issue a licensing decision within 80 business days of receipt of an application deemed complete by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 80% 95%
Licence Application for Class II Nuclear Facilities and Prescribed Equipment (licences and certifications)table 10 note i Licence application for Class II nuclear facilities and prescribed equipment: screen the licence application for completeness and issue a notification that the application is or is not ready for technical assessment, within 20 business days. 90% 95%
Licence application for Class II nuclear facilities and prescribed equipment: conduct a technical assessment and issue a licensing decision within 80 business days of receipt of an application deemed complete by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 80% 92%

Appendix F: Administrative Burden Baseline

The figures in Table 1 represent the number of federal requirements in regulations and related forms that impose administrative burden on businesses in Canada, by regulatory department/agency for the period July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. It does not include administrative burden that may be associated with legislation or departmental programs or policies.Footnote 5

Table 1: Regulatory administrative burden requirements posted in 2014–15 (by regulator)
Department/Agency Number of Regulations Number of Requirements Average
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 12 288 24.0
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 4 134 33.5
Canada Border Services Agency 30 1,426 47.5
Canada Revenue Agency 30 1,776 59.2
Canadian Dairy Commission (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) 2 4 2.0
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1 89 89.0
Canadian Food Inspection Agency 34 10,989 323.2
Canadian Grain Commission (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) 1 1,056 1,056.0
Canadian Heritage 3 797 265.7
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (Industry Canada) 6 569 94.8
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 10 8,169 816.9
Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) 2 731 365.5
Canadian Transportation Agency 7 545 77.9
Citizenship and Immigration Canada 1 14 14.0
Competition Bureau (Industry Canada) 3 444 148.0
Copyright Board of Canada 1 16 16.0
Department of Finance Canada 42 1,818 43.3
Employment and Social Development Canada 7 2,791 398.7
Environment Canada 53 9,985 188.4
Farm Products Council of Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) 3 47 15.7
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 30 5,350 178.3
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada 55 2,809 51.1
Health Canada 95 15,649 164.7
Industry Canada 8 1,693 211.6
Labour Program (Employment and Social Development Canada) 32 21,468 670.9
Measurement Canada (Industry Canada) 2 335 167.5
National Energy Board 14 1,298 92.7
Natural Resources Canada 28 4,507 161.0
Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (Industry Canada) 4 799 199.8
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (Department of Finance Canada) 33 2,875 87.1
Parks Canada 25 773 30.9
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 1 59 59.0
Public Health Agency of Canada 2 42 21.0
Public Safety Canada 6 229 38.2
Public Works and Government Services Canada 1 388 388.0
Statistics Canada 1 157 157.0
Transport Canada 94 29,695 315.9
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 1 46 46.0
Grand total 684 129,860 189.9
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: