Department of Justice Canada
Client Feedback Survey

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]

Annex F – Client Feedback: Regulatory Drafting Services

The Department of Justice Canada is responsible for the review and drafting of regulations for the government. Regulations are drafted to respect the Constitution, be understandable, operate coherently and effectively with other related laws, to meet the linguistic and legal requirements for laws that speak to both official language communities, and operate effectively in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

The following table presents an overview of the Cycle II client feedback provided by the 531 service users who identified that they had received regulatory drafting services in the twelve months preceding the administration of the Survey. Presented for comparison purposes are the Cycle I results for regulatory drafting services.¹⁹

Cycle I results for regulatory drafting services

Colour-Coding of Results

	Cycle II (2012)	Cycle I (2009)
Overall quality of Regulatory Drafting Services provided. †	8.5 (±0.1) Strong	7.8 (±0.4) Moderate

Accessibility/Responsiveness of Legal Services

	Cycle II (2012)	Cycle I (2009)
Official languages: Please rate your overall level of satisfaction with the accessibility of legal services in the official language of your choice.	9.3 (±0.1) Strong	9.2 (±0.2) Strong
Courteousness/Respectfulness: Please rate your overall level of satisfaction with the courteousness/respectfulness of legal service providers.	8.9 (±0.2) Strong	8.8 (±0.3) Strong
Service Provider: Please rate your level of satisfaction with the ease with which the correct service provider to meet your needs was identified.	8.5 (±0.2) Strong	n/a
Satisfaction with access mode: Electronic.	8.7 (±0.3) Strong	n/a
Satisfaction with access mode: Telephone.	8.6 (±0.3) Strong	n/a
Satisfaction with access mode: In person.	8.8 (±0.3) Strong	n/a
Regularly provided informative progress reports or ongoing feedback informing you of the status of your request for services. †	7.7 (±0.2) Moderate	7.1 (±0.5)* Opportunities for Improvement

Usefulness of Legal Services

	Cycle II (2012)	Cycle I (2009)
Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue for which you received assistance.	8.3 (±0.2) Positive	7.9 (±0.4) Positive
Advised you of issues/developments which may impact your department/agency.	8.3 (±0.2) Positive	8.0 (±0.4) Positive
Worked with you to identify legal risks.	8.2 (±0.2) Positive	7.9 (±0.4) Positive
Involved you in the review/development of legal options to mitigate identified legal risks.	8.0 (±0.2) Positive	n/a
Provided consistent legal advice. †	8.3 (±0.2) Positive	7.6 (±0.4) Moderate
Identified opportunities to implement policies or programs by administrative rather than regulatory means. †	7.7 (±0.3) Moderate	7.1 (±0.5)* Opportunities for Improvement
Proposed appropriate solutions for legal and drafting issues raised. †	8.3 (±0.2) Positive	7.7 (±0.4) Moderate
Developed regulatory drafting options appropriate to your policy and program objectives. †	8.3 (±0.2) Positive	7.8 (±0.4) Moderate

Timeliness of Legal Services

	Cycle II (2012)	Cycle I (2009)
Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal services. †	8.0 (±0.2) Positive	7.5 (±0.4) Moderate
Negotiated mutually agreed-upon deadlines.	7.8 (±0.2) Moderate	7.4 (±0.4) Moderate
Met mutually agreed-upon deadlines.	8.0 (±0.2) Positive	7.5 (±0.4) Moderate

• * High margins of error can result from an insufficient number of responses and/or high variability between users’ responses. For this reason, scores with margins of error exceeding ±0.4 are less reliable, and have a limited potential for analysis. Scores that fit this description are indicated by an asterisk.

• † Denotes a statistically significant difference between Cycle II and Cycle I client feedback.

In assessing the overall quality of the regulatory drafting services provided, overall client satisfaction has significantly improved since Cycle I (8.5 versus 7.8 on a 10-point scale). Importantly, there has been an increase in client satisfaction on all eighteen additional elements relating to regulatory drafting services since Cycle I.

There are three specific elements where the client feedback was “moderate” – falling slightly below the established target. Specifically:

• regularly provided informative progress reports or ongoing feedback informing you of the status of your request for services;
• identified opportunities to implement policies or programs by administrative rather than regulatory means; and,
• negotiated mutually agreed-upon deadlines.

---

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next Page ]