What exactly is relevant regulation? 

In our community, we seek continuous opportunities to improve approaches to licensing and professional regulation.  

Over the past ten years, we have all become familiar with terms like openness and transparency, diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as modernizing regulation.  These are all terms and considerations that leadership teams across Canada, the US, and around the world have taken hold of and oftentimes entrenched into strategic priorities and plans seeking ways to become fairer but more accountable authorities.

For the past year, I’ve been very interested in “relevant regulation,” a term I first began paying attention to when listening to Marc Spector, current President of CLEAR (Council on Licensure, Enforcement, and Regulation), and Deputy Registrar at Ontario’s Home Construction Regulatory Authority. A personatypically drawn to rules and structure (though I admittedly am great at breaking them), the idea of relevance in regulation, which I first interpreted as the rules for rules, struck an unusually exciting chord with me.  

I’ve done a lot of thinking about it, asked Spector his thoughts, and listened to explanations from other sector leaders in Canada and around the world. In terms of publications and academic research, only the European Commission has volumes of information on relevant regulation, but I find their term simply synonymous with being responsible. Other definitions are strangely irrelevant to our context.

Based on my understanding, relevant regulation refers to regulatory bodies having a proactive and meaningful impact on the lives of others. That occurs when:

1. Regulators listen to understand their registrants’ needs and permit greater transparency in the regulation process.
2. Regulators are open with the public, their registrants, and other stakeholders and can be counted on to be honest.
3. The public and registrants can rely on the regulator for accurate and timely information, assistance, and justice, most importantly when they are most vulnerable.
4. Regulators tremendously influence the professionals they regulate; every type of communication can influence the mood, sense of safety, livelihood, and family of registrants. With the public, understanding that a complainant is in distress and supporting them with empathy builds trust and security.
5. Regulators understand and embrace the merits of diversity and equity. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation is ineffective, so regulators adapt and become more accommodating to registrants and the public.
6. There is a need for regulators to evaluate their impact on the public they protect, especially the most vulnerable.

So, I’m asking you to join me in creating a peer-generated definition of relevant regulation. Please provide your comments by clicking on the link below. We will compile the feedback, share the outcomes, and attempt to create a working definition.

Let’s join forces and define this!  

Click here to access the survey.