2015-2016 Departmental Performance Report
Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Original signed by
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Suzanne Legault
Information Commissioner of Canada
ISSN 2368-2957
Table of Contents
Commissioner’s Message
Reflecting on 2015–16, the subject of this Departmental Performance Report, I cannot help but note that, despite facing continuing significant financial pressures, my team and I were successful in safeguarding the right of access to the greatest extent possible and maintaining our course of excellence.
My office closed a number of longstanding and resource-intensive investigations, and was able to maintain its median turnaround time for files once they were in the hands of investigators. Important proceedings in court were also a signficant part of my oversight activities.
And, while challenges remain—particularly since the number of complaints my office received in 2015–16 grew by 17 percent from the previous year—I am more optimistic about the state of access to information than I have been in a number of years.
Since the change of government, I have noticed a greater willingness among institutions to cooperate with my investigations. This is allowing my investigators to be more efficient and to respond to complaints more quickly, often with additional records being disclosed to complainants.
I also welcome the government’s announcement of its intention to introduce long overdue amendments to the Access to Information Act, and the inclusion of a number of my recommendations in the report of the parliamentary committee looking at modernizing the Act.
Finally, I was pleased to learn in June 2016 that the Treasury Board had agreed to provide my office with approximately $3.4 million in temporary funding for the year. I will be using this much needed cash infusion to hire more investigators and reduce the inventory of complaints by more than 1,000 files.
Together, all these measures will help my office work more effectively and, in turn, better protect information rights in what is already turning out to be an important year for access. There will be much to celebrate on the first International Day for the Universal Access to Information on September 28, 2016.
Results Highlights
What funds were used?$10,838,247 Actual spending |
Highlights
|
Who was involved?80 full-time equivalents (FTEs) Actual FTEs |
Section I: Organizational Overview
Organizational Profile
Commissioner: Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada
Ministerial Portfolio: Justice
Enabling Instrument: Access to Information Act (R.S.C., 1985, C-1)
Year Established: 1983
The Minister of Justice is responsible for submitting the organization’s Report on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Report.
Organizational Context
Raison d’être
The Information Commissioner of Canada reports directly to the House of Commons and Senate. The Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada ensures that the rights conferred by the Access to Information Act are respected, which ultimately enhances transparency and accountability across the federal government.
Responsibilities
The OIC is an independent public body created in 1983 under the Access to Information Act. The OIC’s primary responsibility is to conduct efficient, fair and confidential investigations into complaints about federal institutions’ handling of access to information requests. The OIC strives to maximize compliance with the Act, while fostering disclosure of public sector information using the full range of tools, activities and powers at the Commissioner’s disposal.
The OIC primarily uses mediation and persuasion to resolve complaints. In doing so, the OIC gives complainants, heads of institutions and all third parties affected by complaints a reasonable opportunity to make representations. The OIC encourages institutions to disclose information and to respect Canadians’ rights to receive information, in the name of transparency and accountability. The OIC brings cases to the Federal Court to ensure the Act is properly applied and interpreted.
The OIC also supports the Information Commissioner in her advisory role to Parliament and parliamentary committees on all matters pertaining to access to information. The OIC actively makes the case for greater freedom of information in Canada through targeted initiatives such as Right to Know Week and ongoing dialogue with Canadians, Parliament and federal institutions.
The following diagram shows the OIC’s organizational structure.
View Text Version
This organizational chart shows the titles of the two senior officials at the Office of the Information Commissioner who report to the Information Commissioner: Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance, and General Counsel and Director, Legal Services. In addition, the chart shows that Corporate Services falls under the responsibility of the Assistant Commissioner and Public Affairs under the responsibility of the General Counsel.
Complaints Resolution and Compliance mediates and investigates complaints about the processing of access to information requests and any issues related to requesting or obtaining access to records under the Act, and makes formal recommendations to institutions and heads of institutions, as required.
Legal Services represents the Commissioner in court as she seeks to clarify points of access law and uphold information rights. Lawyers provide legal advice on investigations and administrative and legislative matters, as well as customized reference tools and training on recent case law. Legal Services also monitors legislative developments to determine their possible effect on the Commissioner’s work and access to information in general.
Public Affairs conducts communications and external relations with a wide range of stakeholders, notably Parliament, governments and the media. Public Affairs also provides input to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat on improving the administration of the Act. Public Affairs is responsible for the OIC’s access to information and privacy function.
Corporate Services provides strategic and corporate leadership for planning and reporting, human resources and financial management, security and administrative services, internal audit and evaluation, and information management and technology.
Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture
1. Strategic Outcome: Rights under the Access to Information Act are safeguarded
1.1 Program: Compliance with access to information obligations
Internal Services
Operating Environment and Risk Analysis
The most significant risk facing the Commissioner and the OIC in 2015–16 was the lack of sufficient resources for the organization. In combination with the ongoing increase in complaints (17 percent growth from the previous year), this led to a perfect storm of circumstances that put considerable stress on the organization to effectively carry out the Commissioner’s mandate.
Helping counteract this risk, however, was that over the course of the year, particularly with the change in government, there were positive signs of a more open culture within government.
While investigating complaints, the OIC has found institutions to be increasingly cooperative. With the additional advantage of enhanced training for investigators, this meant that the median completion times for investigations once files were assigned remained steady. (At the same time, however, the overall delay before files could be assigned to investigators increased from 174 days in 2014–15 to 230 days in 2015–16.)
Moving into the new fiscal year, the OIC learned in June 2016 that it would receive approximately $3.4 million in one-year funding through the Supplementary Estimates to hire more investigators and reduce the inventory of complaints. This will help the organization better protect information rights by closing more longstanding files.
June also brought the publication of the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on modernizing the Access to Information Act. The report contains 32 recommendations, several of which are in line with proposals the Commissioner made in her comprehensive 2015 report on updating the Act. These include providing the Commissioner with order-making power. The government’s response to this report, expected in the fall of 2016, may set out the content and timing of the proposals the government intends to pursue, and therefore the probable changes to the OIC’s operating environment.
Key Risks
| Risk | Risk Response Strategy | Link to the Organization’s Program |
|---|---|---|
| That information rights will be further eroded due to financial restraint and an increasing workload |
|
Compliance with access to information obligations Internal services |
| That demographic factors, the mobility of access to information subject-matter experts within the public service, and ongoing pressure due to financial restraint and an increasing workload will lead to instability in the workforce |
|
Compliance with access to information obligations Internal services |
Organizational Priorities
The following were the OIC’s organizational priorities for 2015–16.
Name of Priority
Uphold information rights through effective oversight
Description
Investigations are the heart of the OIC’s program and the principal means by which the Commissioner safeguards the rights conferred by the Access to Information Act.
Priority Type
New
Key Supporting Initiatives
| Planned Initiatives | Start Date | End Date | Status | Link to the Organization’s Program |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete investigations | Ongoing | On track | Compliance with access to information obligations | |
| Clarify the interpretation and application of the Act before the courts | Ongoing | On track | Compliance with access to information obligations | |
| Provide advice to Parliament on access to information matters | Ongoing | On track | Compliance with access to information obligations | |
| Promote access to information | Ongoing | On track | Compliance with access to information obligations | |
| Introduce simplified process for investigating time extension and deemed refusal complaints | April 1, 2015 | March 31, 2016 | Completed | Compliance with access to information obligations |
| Publish observations on the health of the access to information system for 2013–14 | April 1, 2015 | December 31, 2015 | Completed | Compliance with access to information obligations |
| Progress Toward the Priority | ||||
|
The Commissioner completed several resource-intensive investigations in 2015–16, including one focussed on Parks Canada’s approach to processing access to information requests. In particular, the investigation looked at delays in responding to requests resulting from the institution’s approval process and practices associated with fees that led to a high percentage of requests being abandoned. The Commissioner also completed a longstanding investigation into a complaint about inadequate searches for records in a minister’s office. The investigation and subsequent recommendations underscored the need for ministers to implement and maintain robust information management practices within their offices. To clarify the interpretation of provisions of the Access to Information Act, the Commissioner pursued access to information matters before the courts. In 2015–16, these included proceedings related to the long-gun registry and senators’ expenses. In addition, the Commissioner had a decision by Transport Canada to withhold information related to Canada’s no-fly list referred back to the institution for further consideration. In May 2015, the Commissioner tabled a special report on her investigation into an access to information request for the long-gun registry and appeared before a House of Commons and a Senate committee on that report and associated legislation in June 2016. When she appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in February 2016, she recommended that it conduct a study of the Access to Information Act with a view to modernizing it. The committee agreed with this recommendation, and the Commissioner was the first witness once the study got under way. She discussed the report she had issued in 2015 that contained comprehensive recommendations on modernizing the Act. The Commissioner appeared again in May 2016 to set out her priorities for amending the Act. The Commissioner launched her blog, http://www.suzannelegault.ca, in 2015–16 to engage directly with Canadians. The Commissioner, as well as senior OIC officials, spoke at conferences and other events to promote access rights and received visits from international delegations interested in learning about Canada’s legal and policy framework for access to information. The Commissioner modified her approach to investigating complaints concerning search and preparation fees in 2015–16 as a result of a March 2015 Federal Court decision in response to a reference question brought by the Commissioner. The Court determined that institutions should no longer charge fees to search for, and prepare, electronic records. The Commissioner issued an advisory notice in 2015–16 that explains her interpretation of the Court’s decision and sets out what institutions must demonstrate during investigations of complaints concerning search and preparation fees. In May 2016, the government announced that institutions are to waive all fees associated with access to information requests, other than the $5 application fee. In 2015–16, the Commissioner focused on streamlining her investigation process to establish clear procedures and to increase predictability for complainants and institutions. To that end, she introduced a simplified investigation process for time extension and deemed refusal complaints. The Commissioner published her observations on the health of the access system for the 2013–14 fiscal year, including detailed analysis of the annual statistics on access to information operations in 27 institutions. This analysis provides a comprehensive picture of the state of the access system and allows the Commissioner to proactively identify issues of concern. As she has for several years, the Commissioner dedicated as many of the human and financial resources at her disposal as possible to the program, with the goals of maximizing disclosure and improving timeliness. |
||||
Name of Priority
Ensure OIC employees have the knowledge and skills they need to carry out their duties to the highest level of excellence
Description
The OIC’s work requires a high level of knowledge and expertise. It is essential, then, that the OIC attract and retain independent, informed and engaged employees.
Priority Type
New
Key Supporting Initiatives
| Planned Initiatives | Start Date | End Date | Status | Link to the Organization’s Program |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implement new investigator training program | April 1, 2015 | March 31, 2016 | Completed | Compliance with access to information obligations |
| Publish new orientation guide | September 1, 2015 | December 31, 2015 | Completed | Compliance with access to information obligations Internal services |
| Enhance performance management for all staff | April 1, 2015 | March 31, 2017 | On track | Compliance with access to information obligations Internal services |
| Progress Toward the Priority | ||||
|
As part of the Commissioner’s focus on streamlining investigations, the OIC developed an updated, comprehensive training suite to ensure a consistent approach to the conduct of investigations. Employees in other groups at the OIC were encouraged to attend these training sessions. Professional development opportunities were also made available for employees in Legal Services, Corporate Services and Public Affairs. Staff hired in 2015–16 benefited from a new orientation guide, completed in December 2015. The purpose of this guide is to integrate new employees into the OIC’s organizational culture. 2015–16 also saw the continued implementation of a performance management model for investigators focused on open dialogue, with investigators proactively identifying needs for training and tools. The OIC implemented several shared-services projects to make the best use possible of its resources and ensure it meets government-wide policy and program requirements. In 2015–16, the Commissioner developed the OIC’s Open Government Implementation Plan and a working group to implement it in the subsequent year. The OIC renewed its focus on security awareness, holding a number of activities for employees. An audit of the OIC’s information technology security infrastructure was launched and is expected to be completed in 2016. |
||||
Section II: Expenditure Overview
Actual Expenditures
Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
| 2015–16 Main Estimates |
2015–16 Planned Spending |
2015–16 Total Authorities Available for Use |
2015–16 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,259,372 | 11,259,372 | 11,182,982 | 10,838,247 | (421,125) |
Human Resources (FTEs)
| 2015–16 Planned |
2015–16 Actual |
2015–16 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 93 | 80 | (13) |
Budgetary Performance Summary
Budgetary Performance Summary for the Program and Internal Services (dollars)
| Program and internal services | 2015–16 Main Estimates |
2015–16 Planned Spending |
2016–17 Planned Spending |
2017–18 Planned Spending |
2015–16 Total Authorities Available for Use |
2015–16 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
2014–15 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
2013–14 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with access to information obligations | 8,669,716 | 8,669,716 | 8,694,136 | 8,694,136 | 8,610,896 | 8,482,910 | 9,152,469 | 9,961,251 |
| Internal services | 2,589,656 | 2,589,656 | 2,596,950 | 2,596,950 | 2,572,086 | 2,355,337 | 2,618,339 | 5,343,842 |
| Total | 11,259,372 | 11,259,372 | 11,291,086* | 11,291,086 | 11,182,982 | 10,838,247 | 11,770,808 | 15,305,093 |
*The OIC expects total planned spending for 2016–17 to increase due to an infusion of approximately $3.4 million in temporary funding through the Supplementary Estimates to reduce the inventory of complaints.
For more information on the OIC’s spending, see “Spending Trend,” below.
Spending Trend
View Text Version
This bar chart shows the OIC’s spending trend from 2013–2014 to 2018–2019 in three categories: anticipated sunset programs, statutory and voted. The figures for each are as follows:
Anticipated sunset programs: $2,702,000 in 2013–2014. There are no anticipated sunset programs in any year from 2014–2015 to 2018–2019.
Statutory: $1,340,000 for 2013–2014, $1,284,000 for 2014–2015, $1,106,000 for 2015–2016 and $1,364,000 for each of 2016–2017, 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
Voted: $11,263,000 for 2013–2014, $10,487,000 for 2014–2015, 9,732,000 for 2015–2016 and $9,927,000 for each of 2016–2017, 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
The total spending for each year is as follows: $15,305,000 for 2013–2014, $11,771,000 for 2014–2015, $10,838,000 for 2015–2016, and $11,291,000 for each of 2016–2017, 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
The above figure illustrates the OIC’s spending each year from 2013–14 to 2018–19. Spending decreased year-over-year from its level in 2013–14, when the OIC had received a $2.6-million loan to cover the costs of its office relocation, to 2015–16.
Spending is expected to increase in 2016–17, as a result of the Commissioner’s receiving approximately $3.4 million in temporary funding through the Supplementary Estimates to help reduce the inventory of complaints. The OIC also expects to have to review its resourcing requirements during 2016–17 in light of anticipated amendments to the Access to Information Act that could significantly change the organization’s business model.
Expenditures by Vote
For information on the Office of the Information’s organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2016.
Alignment of Spending With the Whole-of-Government Framework
The OIC’s single program and related spending fall under the spending area of Government Affairs in the Whole-of-Government Framework, and align to the following Government of Canada outcome: A transparent, accountable and responsive federal government.
Financial Statements and Financial Statements Highlights
Financial Statements
The OIC’s current financial statements are available on its website.
Financial Statements Highlights
Condensed Statement of Operations (unaudited)
For the Year Ended March 31, 2016 (dollars)
| Financial Information | 2015–16 Planned Results | 2015–16 Actual | 2014–15 Actual | Difference (2015–16 actual minus 2015–16 planned) | Difference (2015–16 actual minus 2014–15 actual) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total expenses | 13,005,763 | 12,124,653 | 13,340,328 | (881,110) | (1,215,675) |
| Total revenues | – | – | – | – | – |
| Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers | 13,005,763 | 12,124,653 | 13,340,328 | (881,110) | (1,215,675) |
The OIC’s total expenses for 2015–16 decreased by $1.2 million from 2014–15. This was primarily due to delays in staffing actions.
Condensed Statement of Financial Position (unaudited)
As at March 31, 2016 (dollars)
| Financial Information | 2015–16 | 2014–15 | Difference (2015–16 minus 2014–15) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total net liabilities | 1,891,957 | 1,609,564 | 282,393 |
| Total net financial assets | 1,196,025 | 738,182 | 457,843 |
| Departmental net debt | 695,932 | 871,382 | (175,450) |
| Total non-financial assets | 2,162,255 | 2,142,098 | 20,157 |
| Departmental net financial position | 1,466,323 | 1,270,716 | 195,607 |
In April 2015, the OIC migrated to a new financial system. In anticipation of this change, the OIC accelerated its treatment of accounts payables and accounts receivables as at March 31, 2015. This action accounts for the differences in total net liabilities and total net financial assets between 2015–16 and 2014–15.
Section III: Analysis of Program and Internal Services
Program
Program Title
Compliance with access to information obligations
Description
The Access to Information Act is the statutory authority for the oversight activities of the Information Commissioner, which are: to investigate complaints from requestors; to review the performance of government institutions; to report results of investigations/reviews and recommendations to complainants, government institutions and Parliament; to pursue judicial enforcement; and to provide advice to Parliament on access to information matters. The Office of the Information Commissioner supports the Commissioner in carrying out these activities.
Program Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned
Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
| 2015–16 Main Estimates |
2015–16 Planned Spending |
2015–16 Total Authorities Available for Use |
2015–16 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
2015–16 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8,669,716 | 8,669,716 | 8,610,896 | 8,482,910 | (186,806) |
Human Resources (FTEs)
| 2015–16 Planned | 2015–16 Actual | 2015–16 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 71 | 61 | (10) |
Performance Results
| Expected Results | Performance Indicators | Targets | Actual Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canadians receive timely resolution of complaints about federal institutions’ decisions on access to information requests | Median turnaround time for administrative cases | 90 days* | 64 percent |
| Median turnaround time for refusal cases | 180 days* | 47 percent | |
| Institutions meet their obligations under the Access to Information Act and adopt measures to address institutional and systemic issues affecting access to information |
Percentage of recommendations from investigations of complaints that are adopted | 95 percent | Already met |
| Percentage of recommendations from systemic investigations that are adopted | 80 percent | Already met |
*Performance against these indicators is measured from the date files are assigned to investigators. It is important to note that, given the OIC’s resource constraints, there were, as of March 31, 2016, delays of 83 days and 230 days for administrative and refusal complaints, respectively, before files could be assigned to investigators.
2015–16 was a challenging year for the OIC. Several resource-intensive investigations required the dedicated attention of teams of investigators, legal counsel and senior officials, often for extended periods during the year. These investigations included one into an access to information request for the long-gun registry and related litigation, an investigation of Parks Canada’s approach to processing access requests, an ongoing systemic investigation in response to a complaint made by the Environmental Law Clinic, and an investigation about inadequate searches for records in a minister’s office.
The OIC was able to complete three quarters of investigations within nine months. The overall median turnaround time for closing administrative complaints in 2015–16 from the date files were assigned was 48 days. The overall median turnaround time for closing refusal complaints in 2015–16 from the date files were assigned was 166 days. Of note, the closure rate for administrative files (a performance indicator, noted above) improved slightly from 2014–15, from 63.4 percent to 64.1 percent completed in 90 days.
The Commissioner’s annual report to Parliament contains full details on investigations, court proceedings and activities related to her and the OIC’s work promoting and protecting access rights.
The inventory of complaints yet to be investigated reached 3,000 files in 2015–16. In June 2016, the OIC was successful in securing approximately $3.4 million in temporary funding. The Commissioner is using these funds to hire more investigators to reduce the March 31, 2016, inventory by 1,061 files by the end of March 2017.
Internal Services
Description
Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization. Internal services include only those activities and resources that apply across an organization, and not those provided to a specific program. The groups of activities are Management and Oversight Services; Communications Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; and Acquisition Services.
Program Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned
Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)
| 2015–16 Main Estimates |
2015–16 Planned Spending |
2015–16 Total Authorities Available for Use |
2015–16 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
2015–16 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,589,656 | 2,589,656 | 2,572,086 | 2,355,337 | (234,319) |
Human Resources (FTEs)
| 2015–16 Planned | 2015–16 Actual | 2015–16 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 22 | 19 | (3) |
The OIC continued to operate with a small internal services team in 2015–16. Nonetheless, the group accomplished a great deal, including implementing several shared-services projects: a new financial system shared with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and hosted by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; a new human resources information system (MyGCHR); pay modernization (Phoenix), administered by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC); and compensation and classification services from PSPC.
The OIC also shared its corporate expertise with other organizations. For example, representatives from several federal organizations and from provincial commissioners’ offices came to the OIC in 2015 for a demonstration of the OIC’s new case management system and to learn about its effectiveness and security, and the cost-benefits it can provide.
In 2015–16, the OIC put a renewed focus on security awareness. In November 2015, the Privy Council Office’s Departmental Security Officer Centre for Development gave a security awareness training session to OIC employees. To mark Security Awareness Week (February 8 to 12, 2016), the security teams from all the tenants in the building where the OIC is located came together to offer presentations, security exercises and workstation demonstrations. Lastly, in March 2016 the OIC security team launched a Cyber Security Awareness Resource Centre on the OIC’s intranet.
An audit of the OIC’s information technology security infrastructure was commenced in 2015–16 and is expected to be completed in 2016. The purpose of this audit is to assess the OIC’s information technology security posture.
The OIC’s Audit and Evaluation Committee (AEC) met four times during the year to discuss matters such as the OIC’s caseload, litigation and human resources. In 2015–16, the AEC also closely monitored the OIC’s financial situation. The committee held discussions on targeted efforts to foster an exceptional workplace at the OIC. Training for investigators was also broadly discussed with AEC members.
Section IV: Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information Tables
The following supplementary information table is available on the OIC’s website.
Federal Tax Expenditures
The tax system can be used to achieve public policy objectives through the application of special measures such as low tax rates, exemptions, deductions, deferrals and credits. The Department of Finance Canada publishes cost estimates and projections for these measures annually in the Report of Federal Tax Expenditures. This report also provides detailed background information on tax expenditures, including descriptions, objectives, historical information and references to related federal spending programs. The tax measures presented in this report are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
Organizational Contact Information
Layla Michaud
Acting Assistant Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer
Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
30 Victoria Street
Gatineau QC K1A 1H3
Tel.: 819-994-0004
Fax: 819-994-1768
Email: layla.michaud@ci-oic.gc.ca
Website: www.ci-oic.gc.ca
Appendix: Definitions
appropriation (crédit): Any authority of Parliament to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
budgetary expenditures (dépenses budgétaires): Operating and capital expenditures; transfer payments to other levels of government, organizations or individuals; and payments to Crown corporations.
Departmental Performance Report (rapport ministériel sur le rendement): Reports on an appropriated organization’s actual accomplishments against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in the corresponding Reports on Plans and Priorities. These reports are tabled in Parliament in the fall.
full-time equivalent (équivalent temps plein): A measure of the extent to which an employee represents a full person-year charge against a departmental budget. Full-time equivalents are calculated as a ratio of assigned hours of work to scheduled hours of work. Scheduled hours of work are set out in collective agreements.
Government of Canada outcomes (résultats du gouvernement du Canada): A set of 16 high-level objectives defined for the government as a whole, grouped in four spending areas: economic affairs, social affairs, international affairs and government affairs.
Management, Resources and Results Structure (Structure de la gestion, des ressources et des résultats): A comprehensive framework that consists of an organization’s inventory of programs, resources, results, performance indicators and governance information. Programs and results are depicted in their hierarchical relationship to each other and to the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute. The Management, Resources and Results Structure is developed from the Program Alignment Architecture.
non-budgetary expenditures (dépenses non budgétaires): Net outlays and receipts related to loans, investments and advances, which change the composition of the financial assets of the Government of Canada.
performance (rendement): What an organization did with its resources to achieve its results, how well those results compare to what the organization intended to achieve, and how well lessons learned have been identified.
performance indicator (indicateur de rendement): A qualitative or quantitative means of measuring an output or outcome, with the intention of gauging the performance of an organization, program, policy or initiative respecting expected results.
performance reporting (production de rapports sur le rendement): The process of communicating evidence-based performance information. Performance reporting supports decision making, accountability and transparency.
planned spending (dépenses prévues): For Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs), planned spending refers to those amounts that receive Treasury Board approval by February 1. Therefore, planned spending may include amounts incremental to planned expenditures presented in the Main Estimates.
A department is expected to be aware of the authorities that it has sought and received. The determination of planned spending is a departmental responsibility, and departments must be able to defend the expenditure and accrual numbers presented in their RPPs and DPRs.
plans (plan): The articulation of strategic choices, which provides information on how an organization intends to achieve its priorities and associated results. Generally a plan will explain the logic behind the strategies chosen and tend to focus on actions that lead up to the expected result.
priorities (priorité): Plans or projects that an organization has chosen to focus and report on during the planning period. Priorities represent the things that are most important or what must be done first to support the achievement of the desired Strategic Outcome(s).
program (programme): A group of related resource inputs and activities that are managed to meet specific needs and to achieve intended results and that are treated as a budgetary unit.
Program Alignment Architecture (architecture d’alignement des programmes): A structured inventory of an organization’s programs depicting the hierarchical relationship between programs and the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute.
Report on Plans and Priorities (rapport sur les plans et les priorités): Provides information on the plans and expected performance of appropriated organizations over a three-year period. These reports are tabled in Parliament each spring.
results (résultat): An external consequence attributed, in part, to an organization, policy, program or initiative. Results are not within the control of a single organization, policy, program or initiative; instead they are within the area of the organization’s influence.
statutory expenditures (dépenses législatives): Expenditures that Parliament has approved through legislation other than appropriation acts. The legislation sets out the purpose of the expenditures and the terms and conditions under which they may be made.
Strategic Outcome (résultat stratégique): A long-term and enduring benefit to Canadians that is linked to the organization’s mandate, vision and core functions.
sunset program (programme temporisé): A time-limited program that does not have an ongoing funding and policy authority. When the program is set to expire, a decision must be made whether to continue the program. In the case of a renewal, the decision specifies the scope, funding level and duration.
target (cible): A measurable performance or success level that an organization, program or initiative plans to achieve within a specified time period. Targets can be either quantitative or qualitative.
voted expenditures (dépenses votées): Expenditures that Parliament approves annually through an Appropriation Act. The Vote wording becomes the governing conditions under which these expenditures may be made.
Whole-of-government framework (cadre pangouvernemental): Maps the financial contributions of federal organizations receiving appropriations by aligning their Programs to a set of 16 government-wide, high-level outcome areas, grouped under four spending areas.