Legislative Services Branch Evaluation

Appendix C: Case Study Template and Interview Questions

Case Study File #X: Drafting File

Stakeholder group

LSB counsel - drafting

  • #
  • Roles/responsibilities of interviewees

DLSU counsel

  • #
  • Roles/responsibilities of interviewees

Clients

  • #
  • Roles/responsibilities of interviewees

Total KIIs

NA

Summary of KII Results

Responsiveness of the LSB

Description of the request (LSB)

Link to and understanding of policy requirement (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Challenging factors, including urgency (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Facilitating factors (LSB)

Clients needs met (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Improvements (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Collaboration and Consultation

Description of the working relationship (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Description of consultation requirements/experiences (LSB)

Improvements (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Quality Assurance Processes

Process to meet legal requirement (Constitution Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other relevant legal requirements) (LSB)

Resulting quality enhancement (LSB & clients)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Improvements (LSB)

Process to develop legislative product (LSB)

Resulting quality enhancement-clarity and consistency (LSB)

Improvements (LSB)

Process to meet bijural and bilingual requirements (LSB)

Resulting quality enhancement (LSB & clients)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Improvements (LSB)

Legal Risk

Level of legal risk (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Options proposed to mitigate risk and result of discussions (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Degree of assistance in managing dept’s risk (Client)

Efficiency

Appropriateness of resource utilization (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Duplication of work (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

External factors that influenced efficiency (LSB & Client)

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client 

Best Practices/Lessons Learned

  • LSB Counsel
  • Client

Key Informant Interview Guide for Drafting Case Studies: LSB Counsel

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege when responding to questions or using examples. Please avoid sharing details of any information that you think might be confidential.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (file type, client department, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. a) Please describe: i) the nature of the request; ii) requested/required timelines (i.e., urgency of the request); iii) how quickly was the LSB able to respond to the request? What factors challenged and/or facilitated the LSB’s ability to respond to the request? (Prompts - adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development, procedures, communications, resource allocation, competing priorities, etc.)

b) To what extent were the initial request and drafting instructions, as well as any further information provided, available in both official languages?

3. a) Did the client provide an explanation for the way its policy objectives with respect to the file fit with the legislative/regulatory framework?

b) Did you understand the explanation provided by the client? How did you ensure the legislative product met the client’s policy objectives while respecting the legislative/regulatory framework? Were there any challenges in so doing?

4. Were the client’s needs met, relative to the request made? How could the legislative drafting process have been improved (by either the client or the LSB, or both) with respect to a) communications between the LSB and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

5. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the client? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between the LSB and the client? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

6. Please describe the extent to which this file required consultation with other Justice groups or with other government departments/central agencies. Do you believe these consultations enhanced the quality and legality of the legislative product? Why or why not?

7. What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive collaboration between the LSB and other Justice or government groups? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and these groups work together?

Quality Assurance

8. Please describe the process used to ensure that this LSB legislative product respects the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other relevant legal requirements. Do you believe this process enhanced the quality of the legislative product? [if not] Can you suggest how this process could be improved or strengthened?

9. What quality assurance process was used to develop this legislative product? [Prompts: revision services, jurilinguistic revision services, bijural review services, guidebooks, etc.] Do you believe this process enhanced the quality of the legislative product, particularly with respect to consistency and clarity? [if not] Can you suggest how this process could be improved or strengthened?

10. What process was used to ensure that the legislative product meets bilingual and bijural requirements? Was the review and revision process effective? Do you believe this process enhanced the quality of the legislative product? [if not] Can you suggest how this process could be improved or strengthened?

Legal Risk

11. Were any legal risks associated with the file identified? [if yes] Please describe the level of legal risks associated with this file.

12. Did you propose any options to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file to the client? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

Efficiency

13. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file, specifically with respect to a) the level of counsel assigned to the file? b) the existing workload of counsel assigned to the file? c) if applicable, the timeline for completion associated with the file?

14. Were there any other factors beyond your control that impacted on your ability to provide services efficiently? [if yes] Please describe.

15. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

16. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the legislative drafting process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Advisory Case Study: LSB Counsel

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege when responding to questions or using examples. Please avoid sharing details of any information that you think might be confidential.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (client department, nature of advice, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. a) Please describe: i) the nature of the request; ii) requested/required timelines (i.e., urgency of the request); iii) how quickly was the LSB able to respond to the request? What factors challenged and/or facilitated the LSB’s ability to respond to the request? (Prompts- adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development, procedures, communications, resource allocation, competing priorities, etc.)

3. Were the client’s needs met, relative to the request made? How could the advisory process have been improved (by either the client or the LSB, or both) with respect to a) communications between the LSB and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

4. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the client? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between the LSB and the client? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

5. Please describe the extent to which this file required consultation with other Justice groups or with other government departments/central agencies. Do you believe these consultations enhanced the quality and legality of the legislative product? Why or why not?

6. What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive collaboration between the LSB and other Justice or government groups? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and these groups work together?

Legal Risk

7. Were any legal risks associated with the file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

8. Did you propose any options to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file to the client? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

Efficiency

9. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file, specifically with respect to a) the level of counsel assigned to the file? b) the existing workload of counsel assigned to the file? c) if applicable, the timeline for completion associated with the file?

10. Were there any other factors beyond your control that impacted on your ability to provide services efficiently? [if yes] Please describe.

11. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

12. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the advisory process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Legislative Drafting Case Studies: DLSU Counsel

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (file type, client department, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the legislation play in the achievement of the client department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. a) Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

b) To what extent were the initial request and drafting instructions available in both official languages? Was the client able to provide equal support to both official languages throughout work on this file?

4. a) Did the client provide an explanation for how the client department’s policy objectives with respect to the file fit with the client’s legislative framework?

b) Was LSB staff understanding of and responsive to this explanation, and did the staff consider it in drafting the legislative product? Did the staff identify any potential challenges/issues with respect to how the policy objectives would fit with the legislative framework?

5. Were the client department’s needs met, relative to the request made? How could the legislative drafting process have been improved (by the client, departmental legal service unit or the LSB, or all three) with respect to a) communications between the LSB, departmental legal service unit and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

6. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB, departmental legal services unit and clients work together?

Quality Assurance

7. Did the legislative product respect the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other relevant legal requirements?

8. Did the legislative product meet bilingual and bijural requirements?

Legal Risk

9. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

10. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

11. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to client department in managing their legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

12. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

13. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

14. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

15. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the legislative drafting process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Regulatory Drafting Case Studies: DLSU Counsel

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (file type, client department, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the regulations play in the achievement of the client department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. a) Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

b) To what extent were the initial request and drafting instructions available in both official languages? Was the client department able to provide equal support to both official languages throughout work on this file?

4. a) Did the client department provide an explanation for how the policy objectives of the file fit with the client’s regulatory framework?

b) Was the LSB staff understanding of and responsive to this explanation, and did the staff consider it in drafting the legislative product? Did LSB staff identify any potential challenges/issues with respect to how the policy objectives would fit with the regulatory framework?

5. Were the client department’s needs met, relative to the request made? How could the regulatory drafting process have been improved (by the client, departmental legal service unit or the LSB, or all three) with respect to a) communications between the LSB, departmental legal service unit and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

6. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB, departmental legal service units and clients work together?

Quality Assurance

7. Did the legislative product (regulations) respect the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other relevant legal requirements?

8. Did the legislative product (regulations) meet bilingual and bijural requirements?

Legal Risk

9. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

10. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

11. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to the client department in managing their legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

12. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

13. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

14. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

15. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the regulatory drafting process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Advisory Case Study: DLSU Counsel

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (client department, nature of advice, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the advice play in the achievement of the client department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

4. Were your needs met, relative to the request made? How could the advisory process have been improved (by the client, the departmental legal service unit or the LSB, or all three) with respect to a) communications between the LSB, departmental legal service unit and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

5. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

Legal Risk

6. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

7. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

8. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to the client department in managing their legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

9. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

10. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

11. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

12. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the advisory process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Legislative Drafting Case Studies: Clients

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege when responding to questions or using examples. Please avoid sharing details of any information that you think might be confidential.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (file type, client department, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the legislation play in the achievement of your department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. a) Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

b) To what extent were the initial request and drafting instructions, as well as any further information provided, available in both official languages?

4. a) Did you provide an explanation for how your department’s policy objectives with respect to the file fit with the legislative framework?

b) Was LSB staff understanding of and responsive to this explanation, and did the staff consider it in drafting the legislative product? Did the staff identify any potential challenges/issues with respect to how the policy objectives would fit with the legislative framework?

5. Were your department’s needs met, relative to the request made? How could the legislative drafting process have been improved (by either the client or the LSB, or both) with respect to a) communications between the LSB and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

6. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

Quality Assurance

7. Did the legislative product respect the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other relevant legal requirements?

8. Did the legislative product meet bilingual and bijural requirements?

Legal Risk

9. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

10. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

11. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to you in managing your department’s legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

12. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

13. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

14. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

15. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the legislative drafting process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Regulatory Drafting Case Studies: Clients

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege when responding to questions or using examples. Please avoid sharing details of any information that you think might be confidential.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (file type, client department, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the regulations play in the achievement of your department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. a) Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

b) To what extent were the initial request and drafting instructions, as well as any further information provided, available in both official languages?

4. a) Did you provide an explanation for how the policy objectives of the file fit with the regulatory framework?

b) Was the LSB staff understanding of and responsive to this explanation, and did the staff consider it in drafting the legislative product? Did LSB staff identify any potential challenges/issues with respect to how the policy objectives would fit with the regulatory framework?

5. Were your needs met, relative to the request made? How could the regulatory drafting process have been improved (by either the client or the LSB, or both) with respect to a) communications between the LSB and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

6. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

Quality Assurance

7. Did the legislative product (regulations) respect the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other relevant legal requirements?

8. Did the legislative product (regulations) meet bilingual and bijural requirements?

Legal Risk

9. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

10. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

11. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to you in managing your legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

12. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

13. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

14. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

15. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the regulatory drafting process in the future.


Key Informant Interview Guide for Advisory Case Study: Clients

Date:

Time:

Name:

Title:

Relationship to Branch:

Telephone Number:

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Legislative Services Branch (LSB). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the LSB provides relevant and effective legislative and regulatory drafting services to the federal government. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.,a professional research firm, was hired by the Department to assist with the evaluation process.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of the LSB. This interview will inform one of five case studies about specific files that were opened during the last five years. The purpose of this interview is to be informed of your experience working on this file and to obtain your opinion on what worked well and what could be improved.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analyzed in conjunction with other case file information. Any quotes used in the report will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable from these. Your individual answers will not be shared with the LSB. Identifying details of the files themselves will not be presented in the evaluation report.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege when responding to questions or using examples. Please avoid sharing details of any information that you think might be confidential.

The interview should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Introduction

1. Please describe your role on this file as well as the nature of the file (client department, nature of advice, etc).

Responsiveness of the Legislative Services Branch

2. What role did the advice play in the achievement of your department’s policy objectives/priorities?

3. Please describe the urgency of the initial request for LSB’s services. How quickly did the LSB respond to the request for services? What factors could have affected their responsiveness? (Prompts- nature of request, deadline/timelines, adequacy of drafting instructions, completeness of policy development)

4. Were your needs met, relative to the request made? How could the advisory process have been improved (by either the client or the LSB, or both) with respect to a) communications between the LSB and the client, and b) clarity of instructions/request?

Collaboration and Consultation

5. How would you describe the working relationship between yourself and the LSB staff? What factors contributed to, or detracted from, a positive working relationship between yourself and the LSB? In your opinion, are there processes/practices that could improve how the LSB and clients work together?

Legal Risk

6. Were any legal risks associated with this file identified? [if yes] Please describe this level of legal risk.

7. Were any options proposed by LSB to mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What were the results of discussions and proposals?

8. Were these discussions and proposals of assistance to you in managing your legal risks? [if yes] How? [if not] Why not?

Efficiency

9. Do you believe the LSB’s resource utilization was appropriate on this file?

10. What results did the LSB’s resource utilization (for example, workload of counsel assigned to the file, availability of revisers) have on the activities and outputs produced throughout the duration of this file?

11. Are you aware of any factors beyond the control of the LSB staff that impacted on the staff’s ability to provide services efficiently? (Prompt: developments/changes that occurred that created obstacles, delays or duplication of effort for LSB staff in completing the work ) [if yes] Please describe.

12. Did you observe any duplication of work or redundancies associated with this file? [if yes] Can you suggest ways that this work could have been completed more efficiently?

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

13. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned resulting from this file that could be applied to other similar files, or to any files in general, that would help to improve/streamline the advisory process in the future.

Date modified: