2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report
Table of Contents
Foreword
Departmental Performance Reports are part of the Estimates family of documents. Estimates documents support appropriation acts, which specify the amounts and broad purposes for which funds can be spent by the government. The Estimates document family has three parts.
Part I (Government Expenditure Plan) provides an overview of federal spending.
Part II (Main Estimates) lists the financial resources required by individual departments, agencies and Crown corporations for the upcoming fiscal year.
Part III (Departmental Expenditure Plans) consists of two documents. Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) are expenditure plans for each appropriated department and agency (excluding Crown corporations). They describe departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, programs, expected results and associated resource requirements, covering a three-year period beginning with the year indicated in the title of the report. Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs) are individual department and agency accounts of actual performance, for the most recently completed fiscal year, against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in their respective RPPs. DPRs inform parliamentarians and Canadians of the results achieved by government organizations for Canadians.
Additionally, Supplementary Estimates documents present information on spending requirements that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the Main Estimates or were subsequently refined to account for developments in particular programs and services.
The financial information in DPRs is drawn directly from authorities presented in the Main Estimates and the planned spending information in RPPs. The financial information in DPRs is also consistent with information in the Public Accounts of Canada. The Public Accounts of Canada include the Government of Canada Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Deficit, the Consolidated Statement of Change in Net Debt, and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flow, as well as details of financial operations segregated by ministerial portfolio for a given fiscal year. For the DPR, two types of financial information are drawn from the Public Accounts of Canada: authorities available for use by an appropriated organization for the fiscal year, and authorities used for that same fiscal year. The latter corresponds to actual spending as presented in the DPR.
The Treasury Board Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structures further strengthens the alignment of the performance information presented in DPRs, other Estimates documents and the Public Accounts of Canada. The policy establishes the Program Alignment Architecture of appropriated organizations as the structure against which financial and non-financial performance information is provided for Estimates and parliamentary reporting. The same reporting structure applies irrespective of whether the organization is reporting in the Main Estimates, the RPP, the DPR or the Public Accounts of Canada.
A number of changes have been made to DPRs for 2013−14 to better support decisions on appropriations. Where applicable, DPRs now provide financial, human resources and performance information in Section II at the lowest level of the organization's Program Alignment Architecture.
In addition, the DPR's format and terminology have been revised to provide greater clarity, consistency and a strengthened emphasis on Estimates and Public Accounts information. As well, departmental reporting on the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy has been consolidated into a new supplementary information table posted on departmental websites. This new table brings together all of the components of the Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy formerly presented in DPRs and on departmental websites, including reporting on the Greening of Government Operations and Strategic Environmental Assessments. Section III of the report provides a link to the new table on the organization's website. Finally, definitions of terminology are now provided in an appendix.
Commissioner's Message
I am pleased to present the 2013-2014 Departmental Performance Report, my first as Commissioner, for the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.
As Commissioner, I have a mandate under the National Defence Act: to review the activities of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) activities to determine whether they comply with the law and take measures to protect the privacy of Canadians; to undertake any investigation I deem necessary in response to a written complaint; and to inform the Minister of National Defence, who is accountable to Parliament for CSE, and the Attorney General of Canada of any CSE activities that I believe may not be in compliance with the law.
Under the Security of Information Act (SOIA), I have a mandate to receive information from persons who are permanently bound to secrecy, if they believe it is in the public interest to release special operational information of CSE. No such matters were reported to me in 2013-2014.
Throughout the year, I continued to review, like my predecessors have done since the creation of the office in 1996, the activities of CSE for compliance with the law. The 81 classified review reports submitted to the Minister of National Defence over this period have contained 148 recommendations. CSE has accepted 137 (93%) of these recommendations and is working to implement the most recent recommendations, including all 10 from this reporting year.
The past year, CSE and the Commissioner's office were thrust into the media spotlight as a result of the revelations of Edward Snowden. Canadians were not well informed (lack of information and misinformation) about activities of CSE or the Commissioner's office. For some Canadians, fears about CSE activities threw into question the effectiveness of review of intelligence agencies.
Transparency is critical to maintain public trust. During the year, our extensive outreach efforts were focused on better informing a now much more interested Canadian public and media. We provided as much information as possible within the limits of the SOIA, about our reviews, investigations, conclusions and recommendations. We did this through the office's website and through greater participation in public forums about security and intelligence, where the Commissioner's mandate, authority and activities could be explained in detail and misinformation could be corrected. Our efforts will continue to focus on increased transparency.
The greatest strength of the office is its people, and all of the achievements I have mentioned and that are detailed in this report are due to its employees working together with expertise, dedication and determination.
The Honourable Jean-Pierre Plouffe,
Commissioner
September 30, 2014
Section I: Organizational Expenditure Overview
Organizational Profile
Appropriate Minister: The Honourable Robert Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. - Minister of National Defence
Institutional Head: The Honourable Jean-Pierre Plouffe - Commissioner
Ministerial Portfolio: Defence
Enabling Instrument(s): National Defence Act; Security of Information Act; Inquiries Act.
Year of Incorporation / Commencement: 1996
Other: 2008 –the Commissioner's office was granted its own appropriation
Organizational Context
Raison d'être
The position of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner was created to review the activities of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to determine whether it performs its duties and functions in accordance with the laws of Canada. This includes having due regard for the privacy of Canadians. The Commissioner's office exists to support the Commissioner in the effective discharge of his mandate.
Responsibilities
The mandate of the Commissioner under the National Defence Act consists of three key functions:
273.63(2)
a) to review the activities of the CSE to ensure they comply with the law;
b) in response to a complaint, to undertake any investigation that the Commissioner considers necessary;
c) to inform the Minister of National Defence and the Attorney General of Canada of any activity of the Communications Security Establishment that the Commissioner believes may not be in compliance with the law;
273.65(8)
to review and report to the Minister as to whether the activities carried out under a ministerial authorization are authorized;
273.63(3)
to submit an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament on the Commissioner's activities and findings within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year; and
Under the Section 15 of the Security of Information Act:
to receive information from persons who are permanently bound to secrecy and who seek to defend the release of classified information about Communications Security Establishment Canada on the grounds that it is in the public interest.
Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture
1. Strategic Outcome: The strategic outcome of the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner is that the CSE performs its duties and functions in accordance with the laws of Canada. This includes safeguarding the privacy of Canadians.
1.1. Program: Review program
Internal Services
Organizational Priorities
The goal of this program is to plan, conduct and report on reviews and studies of CSE activities with a goal of contributing to government and public confidence in the lawfulness of CSE's activities.
In its Report on Plans and Priorities for 2013-14, the office set out its essential organizational priority - improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the review program – towards which significant progress has been made in support of the office's strategic outcome.
During the course of the fiscal year, another priority came to the forefront - increase transparency and maintain public trust.
In the aftermath of the initial (June 2013), and subsequent, Snowden unauthorized disclosures of classified documents, it became clear that there was a significant amount of misinformation that was being communicated on some of the activities of CSE. This contributed substantially to questioning the effectiveness of review of intelligence agencies in general and of CSE in particular. To correct this situation, it became clear there was a need to provide more public information on the activities of the Commissioner's office and of CSE. What was always an element of the overall priority of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the review program became, in an instant, a priority on its own. Progress has been made but efforts must continue in order to illustrate to Canadians that effective independent review is being conducted of CSE's operational activities to determine whether it is complying with the law.
Organizational Priorities
| Priority | Type[1] | Strategic Outcome [and/or] Program |
|---|---|---|
| Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the review program |
|
|
| Summary of Progress | ||
|
What progress has been made toward this priority?
|
||
| Priority | Type[2] | Strategic Outcome [and/or] Program |
|---|---|---|
| Increase transparency and maintain public trust |
|
|
| Summary of Progress | ||
|
What progress has been made toward this priority? Significant progress has been made to date:
|
||
Risk Analysis
The 2013-2014 Report on Plans and Priorities identified strategic risks that were likely to influence the office's performance in 2013-2014. One additional strategic risk was identified during the course of the 2013-2014 fiscal year. The three most critical are set out in the table below. The table identifies each risk as well as the risk-response strategy put forth to manage the risks. The narrative text that follows the table provides further context on the factors in the office's operating environment that led to the risks, and more detail about the mitigating actions.
| Risk | Risk Response Strategy | Link to Program Alignment Architecture |
|---|---|---|
| Continued maintenance of an arm's length professional and cooperative relationship with CSE | The office will continue to work with CSE, including holding annual roundtable and other meetings, to optimize the review process while minimizing adverse impacts on CSE's operations. Frequent discussions on plans, findings and recommendations of individual reviews will also continue with CSE to ensure that reviews proceed as efficiently as possible and are completed in a timely manner. |
|
| "Staying current" | The office must continue to identify areas that pose the greatest risk to compliance and privacy and maintain and continuously assess its review methodologies for relevance and effectiveness. |
|
| Transparency | Canadians must have confidence that the Commissioner's review of CSE activities is effective, tough and fair. Canadians must also have confidence that as a result of this review, the Commissioner would find any instance of CSE not being in compliance with the law or not taking adequate measures to protect privacy. Information, to the greatest extent permissible by the SOIA, must be provided to correct the mis-information that currently exists, to allow further insight into the roles, responsibilities and operations of the office, the authorities of the Commissioner and how they are exercised, as well as provide sufficient evidence of the work performed. |
|
Risk 1 - Continued maintenance of an arm's length professional and cooperative relationship with CSE
The requirement to guard the Commissioner's independence and arm's length status is a priority to ensure the integrity of the review process and the Commissioner's credibility.
The basic principle of the approach to this risk is ensuring effective review while not impeding the mandated operations of CSE. This was accomplished in a variety of ways as set out below:
- CSE provided the Commissioner, as a new Commissioner, with numerous detailed information sessions on legal, operational, technical and administrative issues respecting its activities.
- CSE continues to provide an annual overview briefing on organizational, policy and operational issues and changes that have occurred or are in process.
- CSE makes available to the office its classified annual report to the Minister. This report, which set out CSE's priorities, and its significant legal, policy and management issues, is vital to our work planning.
- Staff of the office have sat as observers on CSE training courses on foreign signals intelligence and on IT security activities.
- Staff of the office, during the conduct of their reviews, were provided a number of detailed briefings by CSE. These briefings are an integral part of the review process.
- The office made several presentations during the year to new CSE employees. The presentation, mandatory for new CSE employees, consists of an overview of my office, the work we do and what is expected should their activity be subject to a review by my office, including an emphasis on protecting privacy.
- Ensuring that there are no attempts by CSE or the government to interfere with the Commissioner's reports.
Based on the results achieved to date, I can state that we have succeeded in maintaining and strengthening an effective working relationship between my office and CSE that is arm's length, professional and cooperative.
Risk 2 – Staying current
This is an ongoing risk. My office must allocate its resources for maximum effectiveness in assessing compliance and privacy protection. Our three-year work plan is developed from a variety of sources and is updated twice yearly. Information received from CSE, such as CSE's classified report to the Minister, information sessions on management issues and changing policies and priorities, briefing sessions related to individual reviews, action plans regarding negative findings and recommendations, is essential to the planning process.
More information on the Commissioner's risk-based and preventative approach to selecting and prioritizing reviews is available on the office's website.
Risk 3 – Transparency
As a direct result of the Snowden revelations, the uncertainty created in the public mind in terms of the privacy of Canadians and the reliability of review of intelligence agencies, as well as the misinformation that flowed from "expert" analysis of CSE activities, made it abundantly clear that greater transparency was needed regarding the activities of CSE and the resultant review of those activities by my office.
Public trust must be maintained. In that regard, the reports released by my office will disclose, to the greatest extent possible, information on reviews, investigations, conclusions and recommendations. As well, the office has increased dramatically its engagement with the media and participation in national and international conferences and meetings dealing with review and oversight of the security and intelligence community. In response to commentaries in the media and questions directed towards my office, the information on the office website, concerning the mandate, role and responsibilities of the Commissioner, was expanded and displayed in a much more user-friendly format.
It must be noted that prior to the Snowden unauthorized disclosures, there was little public or media interest or uptake regarding the activities of the Commissioner's office or those of the CSE. Transparency only became a significant risk issue with the Snowden disclosures.
Actual Expenditures
| 2013–14 Main Estimates | 2013–14 Planned Spending | 2013–14 Total Authorities Available for Use | 2013–14 Actual Spending (authorities used) | Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,112,886 | 2,295,000 | 2,267,394 | 1,943,120 | (351,880) |
| 2013–14 Planned | 2013–14 Actual | 2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 11.5 | 11.5 | 0 |
The actual spending in 2013-2014 was less than planned in three areas:
- planned capital asset acquisitions were not required to the extent originally thought necessary and not all acquisitions were received and operational at year-end ($160,000);
- professional service costs declined, for the most part, as a result of the full staff complement ( $90,000); and
- planned spending included funds set aside for reprofiling costs (a frozen allotment that could not be spent but rather required to lapse to partially cover the costs of funds advanced in 2012-2013 for construction) ( $100,000).
| Strategic Outcome, Program and Internal Services | 2013–14 Main Estimates | 2013–14 Planned Spending | 2014–15 Planned Spending | 2015–16 Planned Spending | 2013–14 Total Authorities Available for Use | 2013–14 Actual Spending (authorities used) | 2012–13 Actual Spending (authorities used) | 2011–12 Actual Spending (authorities used) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Outcome: The strategic outcome of the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner is that the CSE performs its duties and functions in accordance with the laws of Canada. This includes safeguarding the privacy of Canadians. | ||||||||
| Review Program Subtotal | 1,539,914 | 1,675,000 | 1,675,000 | 1,675,000 | 1,660,021 | 1,322,494 | 1,662,369 | 1,052,044 |
| Internal Services Subtotal | 572,972 | 620,000 | 620,000 | 620,000 | 607,373 | 620,626 | 623,350 | 890,384 |
| Total | 2,112,886 | 2,295,000 | 2,295,000 | 2,295,000 | 2,267,394 | 1,943,120 | 2,285,719 | 1,942,428 |
Alignment of Spending With the Whole-of-Government Framework
| Strategic Outcome | Program | Spending Area | Government of Canada Outcome | 2013-14 Actual Spending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The strategic outcome of the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner is that the CSE performs its duties and functions in accordance with the laws of Canada. This includes safeguarding the privacy of Canadians. | Review Program | Social Affairs | A safe and secure Canada | 1,322,494 |
| Spending Area | Total Planned Spending | Total Actual Spending |
|---|---|---|
| Economic Affairs | 0 | 0 |
| Social Affairs | 1,675,000 | 1,322,494 |
| International Affairs | 0 | 0 |
| Government Affairs | 0 | 0 |
Departmental Spending Trend
Spending for the three years from 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 was more or less consistent at $1.9 million. The change in 2012-2013 spending was as a result of the cost of expanding office space and security retrofit. The additional office space was necessary to accommodate additional review and support staff, expanding the capacity of the office in order to meet the growth in the size and complexity of CSE activities.
Planned spending for the three years from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 is again consistent. The increase in planned spending is due for the most part to the increased cost of personnel, now fully in place.
Estimates by Vote
For information on the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner's organizational Votes and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2014 on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website.
Section II: Analysis of Program by Strategic Outcome
Strategic Outcome: The CSE performs its duties and functions in accordance with the laws of Canada. This includes safeguarding the privacy of Canadians.
Program: Review Program
Description
The review program includes research, monitoring, planning, the conduct of reviews and the reporting of results. It also includes consultations and communications with CSE officials, with other government officials, and senior representatives of the security and intelligence community in Canada and abroad.
| 2013–14 Main Estimates | 2013–14 Planned Spending | 2013–14 Total Authorities Available for Use | 2013–14 Actual Spending (authorities used) | 2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,539,914 | 1,675,000 | 1,660,021 | 1,322,494 | (352,506) |
| 2013–14 Planned | 2013–14 Actual | 2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 8.5 | 8.5 | 0 |
Commissioner's Office Review Program – Logic Model
The following logic model provides a graphic description of how the review program functions.
Performance Results
| Expected Results | Performance Indicators | Targets | Actual Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviews are completed within targeted time frames as established by the Commissioner | % of reviews completed within targeted time frames as established by the Commissioner | 80% | 80% |
| Recommendations resulting from reviews conducted are accepted and implemented | % of recommendations resulting from reviews conducted are accepted and implemented | 80% | 100% |
| Negative findings addressed | % of negative findings addressed | 80% | 100% |
Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned
The performance target established for each of the expected results was exceeded. There are, however, lessons to be learned from the past year's performance.
- Transparency is critical to the maintenance of public trust.
The office must continue to explore opportunities, to the greatest extent possible within the context of the SOIA, to better inform Canadians about the operations of the office and the effectiveness of its review of the activities of CSE.
Steps have been taken in this regard. This year's Annual Report is the most comprehensive report to date. The website has a wealth of additional information on the roles, responsibilities and operations of the office and it is being updated as requests for information are received and addressed by the office. Participation in conferences, discussions with media representative and academics, involvement with other review bodies – these are all opportunities to "get the word out" and we are exploring these opportunities to a greater extent than ever before so that Canadians have a much better understanding of what it is we do and why we do it. - Maintain the existing working relationship with CSE in order to maximize the results of the review efforts.
The existing working relationship works; the results speak for themselves. It is founded on professionalism, mutual respect and cooperation. It is based on a "no surprises" approach and full disclosure. It exists at arm's length. The relationship is worked on everyday, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness in order to fulfill the Commissioner's mandate. - The capacity of the office needs to be periodically assessed.
Commissioners frequently assess whether they have adequate resources to effectively fulfill their mandate. The activities of CSE are numerous, changing and complex. The office must be able to conduct an adequate amount of meaningful review. The existing resource base is sufficient for now but it will continue to be periodically assessed for sufficiency to ensure that the Commissioner's ability to discharge his mandate is not impaired.
To gain further insight into the performance of the office, this section of the DPR should be read in conjunction with this year's Annual Report in order to obtain more information about the mandate, the Commissioner's office, the findings and recommendations resulting from the reviews submitted to the Minister, the activities and the work plan beyond what is reported in the DPR.
Please visit the office website for additional information on this report and other publications and reports.
Internal Services
Description
Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources that support the needs of the office's review program, and respond to the requirements of the central agencies. These groups of related activities include: Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; Acquisition Services; and Other Administrative Services.
| 2013–14 Main Estimates | 2013–14 Planned Spending | 2013–14 Total Authorities Available for Use | 2013–14 Actual Spending (authorities used) | 2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 572,972 | 620,000 | 607,373 | 620,626 | 626 |
| 2013–14 Planned | 2013–14 Actual | 2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned) |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 3 | 0 |
Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned
During the past year the internal services program met the needs of the review program and the requirements of the central agencies. A review of internal services determined that the financial management control framework is in place and is working. Efforts are now underway to review and adjust, as required, the control frameworks in place for human resources, information management and information technology.
Section III: Supplementary Information
Financial Statements Highlights
| 2013–14 Planned Results | 2013–14 Actual | 2012–13 Actual | Difference (2013–14 actual minus 2013–14 planned) | Difference (2013–14 actual minus 2012–13 actual) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total expenses | 2,372,388 | 2,067,209 | 1,608,817 | (305,174) | 458,392 |
| Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers | 2,372,388 | 2,067,209 | 1,608,817 | (305,174) | 458,392 |
| Departmental net financial position | 1,079,857 | 937,913 | 1,002,501 | (141,944) | (64,588) |
The difference between actual and planned expenditures of ($305,174) is due to the frozen allotment included in planned spending but not spent ($100,000), lower professional services ($90,000) and lower net capital asset acquisitions ($100,00). The difference between the actual 2013-2014 and 2012-2013 is primarily due to increased salaries and benefits of $268,000, increased professional services $47,000 and increased accommodation rental costs of $111,000.
| 2013–14 | 2012–13 | Difference (2013–14 minus 2012–13) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total net liabilities | 199,934 | 266,354 | (66,420) |
| Total net financial assets | 145,528 | 201,787 | (56,259) |
| Departmental net debt | 54,676 | 64,567 | (9,891) |
| Total non-financial assets | 992,589 | 1,067,068 | (74,479) |
| Departmental net financial position | 937,913 | 1,002,501 | (64,588) |
The reduction in the departmental net financial position of $64,588 from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014 is almost entirely due to increased amortization of capital assets during the 2013-2014 year.
Financial Statements
The complete financial statements can be found on the office's website.
Supplementary Information Tables
The office does not have any supplementary information tables for inclusion in the 2013–2014 Departmental Performance Report.
Tax Expenditures and Evaluations
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 Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication. The tax measures presented in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
Section IV: Organizational Contact Information
The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner can be reached at the following address:
Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
P.O. Box 1984, Station "B"
Ottawa, ON K1P 5R5
The Office may also be reached:
Telephone: 613-992-3044
Facsimile: 613-992-4096
Email: info@ocsec-bccst.gc.ca
For further information on the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, its mandate and function, please visit the office's website.
Appendix: Definitions
- appropriation:
- Any authority of Parliament to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
- budgetary
- expenditures: Include operating and capital expenditures; transfer payments to other levels of government, organizations or individuals; and payments to Crown corporations.
- Departmental Performance Report:
- 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: Is 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- Include net outlays and receipts related to loans, investments and advances, which change the composition of the financial assets of the Government of Canada.
- performance:
- 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:
- 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:
- The process of communicating evidence-based performance information. Performance reporting supports decision making, accountability and transparency.
- planned spending:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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:
- 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.
- results:
- 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.
- Program Alignment Architecture:
- 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:
- Provides information on the plans and expected performance of appropriated organizations over a three-year period. These reports are tabled in Parliament each spring.
- Strategic Outcome:
- A long-term and enduring benefit to Canadians that is linked to the organization's mandate, vision and core functions.
- sunset
- program: 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:
- 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.
- whole-of-government framework:
- 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.
[1]. Type is defined as follows: previously committed to—committed to in the first or second fiscal year prior to the subject year of the report; ongoing—committed to at least three fiscal years prior to the subject year of the report; and new—newly committed to in the reporting year of the RPP or DPR.
[2]. Type is defined as follows: previously committed to—committed to in the first or second fiscal year prior to the subject year of the report; ongoing—committed to at least three fiscal years prior to the subject year of the report; and new—newly committed to in the reporting year of the RPP or DPR.
- Date modified: