Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada

2018-19

Departmental Results Report

The Honourable David Lametti, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

represented by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (FJA) Canada, 2019

Catalogue No. J41-5E-PDF

ISSN 2561-2778


Commissioner’s message

I am pleased to submit the Departmental Results Report for the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (FJA) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019. This report provides parliamentarians and Canadians with information on what we accomplished and achieved in the last year.

FJA strives to safeguard the independence of the judiciary through various means, including its administration of Part I of the Judges Act. During the past year, we also conducted work in preparation for the implementation of Bill C-58, which contains provisions for the publication of expenses paid under the Judges Act. This included establishing an Advisory Board as well as working groups comprised of highly ranked members of the judiciary, the private sector and other groups, in order to comply with the legislative requirements whilst maintaining proper respect for judicial independence. As well, we developed a new tool to perform assessments of the language proficiency of candidates who apply for the bench, and carried out our mandate to administer and support the judicial appointment process.

The overarching mandate of this organization is the provision of support to federally appointed judges. In addition to core services in the areas of finance and compensation and benefits delivered to more than 1200 federally appointed judges, we continued to fulfill our other responsibilities, as well as respond to the needs of our clientele. Amongst other things, this was done through the provision of language training, the coordination of international co-operation initiatives involving the judiciary; and the publication of Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court decisions.

In closing, I wish to thank all members of FJA’s personnel for their hard work and commitment. We continually strive to improve in order to be efficient and take on new challenges.

 

Marc A. Giroux
Commissioner

 

Results at a glance

 

What funds were used?

The department’s actual spending for 2018-19 was $595,476,569.

Who was involved?

The department’s actual full-time equivalents (FTEs) for 2018-19 were 60.

Key Results

ü  Provided support to the 17 Judicial Advisory Committees and the Minister’s office in assessing candidates for new appointments and elevations to Canada’s superior courts.

ü  Implemented a quality control tool for assessing the bilingual capacity of randomly selected candidates for appointment to a superior court.

 

ü  Secured funding to remunerate Judicial Appointment Committee members, effective April 1, 2019.


For more information on Federal Judicial Affairs’ plans, priorities and results achieved, see the “Results: what we achieved” section of this report.

 

Results: what we achieved

Core Responsibility

 

Administrative support to federally appointed judges

Description

To provide services and support to the federal judiciary in a manner which contributes to the independence of the judiciary and the confidence of Canadians in our judicial system.

Results

Federally-appointed judges are provided with centralized services in a timely and effective manner

FJA continued to provide a high level of service to clients and achieve our service standards in terms of core services such as payment of judges’ salaries, allowances and annuities. Our Finance staff continued to conduct 100% verification of approximately 20,000 expense claims in order to maintain a low error rate in payments and exercise proper stewardship of public funds. Additionally, from an IT perspective we continued to maintain and provide judges with access to an internally supported email and communications platform (JUDICOM).

FJA’s Judges Language training program was expanded to include the assessment of the bilingual capacity of randomly selected candidates seeking appointment as judges, including the implementation of a quality control tool. Information gathered from periodic consultations with teachers, observations of service delivery during classroom immersion sessions and questionnaires of satisfaction completed by judges allowed for the development of tools for assessing the second language proficiency of candidates for judicial appointment in the view of increasing the bilingual capacity on the superior courts. The impact of this program has resulted in federally appointed judges being more proficient in both official languages, translating in increased bilingual capacities when presiding in court, understanding testimony, reading legal texts, writing decisions, participating in legal conferences and conducting presentations in their second official language.

The entire collection of the Federal Court Reports and its predecessor (for decisions of the Exchequer Court of Canada) was digitized and made available on the FJA website. This collection dates back to 1875. We were also successful in implementing the addition of two-way links between decisions published on FJA’s Reports website and those published on the site of the Federal Courts. Via these links, users of the Federal Courts website are able to easily access corresponding information on our sites thereby enhancing the visibility of the FJA Reports website while ensuring the public benefits from the editorial elements we provide.

With respect to Canadian judicial engagement in international activities, FJA continued to participate in the Support to Judicial Reform in Ukraine Project (“SJRP”), a 5 year judicial reform project initiative funded by Global Affairs Canada (“GAC”) and implemented by both FJA and the National Judicial Institute (“NJI”). This project contributes to the advancement of democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine, thereby rebuilding confidence in judicial institutions.

The judicial appointments process is managed efficiently

Though the mandated terms for all 17 Advisory Committees expired during the 2018-2019 fiscal year (the earliest being January 1, 2019) the Judicial Appointments Secretariat received more than 475 new applications, and over 450 were evaluated by the relevant Judicial Advisory Committee. Further information regarding these applications is available on FJA’s website[i].

For each of the 93 appointments and 26 elevations made during the 2018-19 fiscal year, our staff was responsible for preparing the necessary supporting order-in-council and ministerial recommendation documentation.

FJA was successful in securing permanent core funding to commence remunerating future committee members, effective April 1, 2019.

The judicial conduct review process is completed in a timely and effective manner

During 2018-19, the CJC received 636 pieces of correspondence which resulted in 319 opened files of which 280 were processed and closed representing a caseload of 88% of matters closed within 12 months. Correspondence can include questions or comments relating to the justice system, as well as concerns about judicial conduct that warrant opening a file. 

 

CJC ensures that federally-appointed judges have access to relevant training and learning opportunities

In 2018-19 the Council focused its efforts on enhancing transparency of judicial education, reforming the judicial conduct regime, improving access to justice through enhanced case management; and strengthening judicial independence.

In this reporting period, 110 education programs were delivered to Canadian judges. The CJC’s main delivery partner, the National Judicial Institute reported that 89% of participants to national seminars and 87% of participants to court-based programs rated them as excellent or very good.

 

 

Results achieved

Departmental results

Performance indicators

Target

Date to achieve target

2018–19
Actual results

2017–18
Actual results

2016–17
Actual results

Federally-appointed judges are provided with centralized services in a timely and effective manner

% of judges’ allowances processed within the 10 day service standard

At least 90%

March 2020

88% of judges’ allowances were processed within the 10 day service standard

Over 90% of judges’ allowances were processed within the 10 day service standard

Over 90% of judges’ allowances were processed within the 10 day service standard

The judicial appointments process is managed efficiently

% of candidate applications ready to be evaluated within 3 months of reception

Exactly 100%

March 2020

Over 95% of applications were screened and ready to be evaluated by Committees within 3 months of reception

Over 95% of applications were screened and ready to be evaluated by Committees within 3 months of reception

Over 95% of applications were screened and ready to be evaluated by Committees within 3 months of reception

The judicial conduct review process is completed in a timely and effective manner

% of complaints reviewed within six months

At least 80%

March 2020

80% of complaints were reviewed within six months

80% of complaints were reviewed within six months

80% of complaints were reviewed within six months

CJC ensures that federally-appointed judges have access to relevant training and learning opportunities

% of judges who reported to the CJC that their training and learning needs were met

At least 90%

March 2020

90% of judges reported to the CJC that their training and learning needs were met

Not available*

Not available*

 

*This is a new indicator effective fiscal year 2018-19

 

Budgetary financial resources (dollars)

2018–19
Main Estimates

2018–19
Planned spending

2018–19
Total authorities available for use

2018–19
Actual spending
(authorities used)

2018–19
Difference
(Actual spending minus Planned spending)

582,391,453

582,391,453

597,138,126

594,749,777

12,358,324

 

Human resources (full-time equivalents)

2018–19
Planned full-time equivalents

2018–19
Actual full-time equivalents

2018–19
Difference
(Actual full-time equivalents minus Planned full-time equivalents)

60.5

54.5

(6)

 

Financial, human resources and performance information for Federal Judicial Affairs’ Program Inventory is available in the GC InfoBase[ii].

 

Internal Services

 
Description

Internal Services are those groups of related activities and resources that the federal government considers to be services in support of Programs and/or required to meet corporate obligations of an organization. Internal Services refers to the activities and resources of the 10 distinct service categories that support Program delivery in the organization, regardless of the Internal Services delivery model in a department. The 10 service categories are: 

4  Acquisition Management Services

4   Communications Services

4   Financial Management Services

4   Human Resources Management Services

4   Information Management Services

4   Information Technology Services

4   Legal Services

4   Materiel Management Services

4   Management and Oversight Services

4   Real Property Management Services

Results      

In 2018-19, FJA internal services continued to provide the necessary support to the organization meeting its core mandate objectives as well as staying abreast of Government of Canada Wide initiatives in the areas of financial reporting, information management, IT and physical security and human resources.

FJA pay services were not transferred to the Miramichi Pay Centre and as such is a direct-entry organization employing a team of on-site pay advisors to manage the pay functions for both federally appointed judges and by extension FJA employees. The impact of the Phoenix pay issues has been relatively low compared to the rest of government.

From an Information Management perspective, FJA continued to host its own internal servers to provide secure and private communication services to federally appointed judges across Canada. This service allows for the establishment of discussion forums and email exchanges to safeguard the privacy and independence of the judiciary.

 

Budgetary financial resources (dollars)

2018–19
Main Estimates

2018–19
Planned spending

2018–19
Total authorities available for use

2018–19
Actual spending
(authorities used)

2018–19
Difference
(Actual spending minus Planned spending)

726,800

726,800

726,792

726,792

(8)

 

Human resources (full-time equivalents)

2018–19
Planned full-time equivalents

2018–19
Actual full-time equivalents

2018–19
Difference
(Actual full-time equivalents minus Planned full-time equivalents)

5.5

5.5

0

 

 

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Actual expenditures

Departmental spending trend graph

Budgetary performance summary for the core responsibility and internal services (dollars)

Core responsibility and internal services

2018–19
Main Estimates

2018–19
Planned spending

2019–20
Planned spending

2020–21
Planned spending

2018–19
Total authorities available for use

2018–19
Actual spending (authorities used)

2017–18
Actual spending (authorities used)

2016–17
Actual spending (authorities used)

Administrative support to federally appointed judges

582,391,453

582,391,453

614,659,819

629,154,976

597,138,126

594,749,777

567,723,131

546,069,647

Subtotal

582,391,453

582,391,453

614,659,819

629,154,976

597,138,126

594,749,777

567,723,131

546,069,647

Internal Services

726,800

726,800

726,800

726,800

726,792

726,792

726,800

726,800

Total

583,118,253

583,118,253

615,386,619

629,881,776

597,864,918

595,476,569

568,449,931

546,796,447

 

The actual spending for the department shows a continual increase over the reporting periods resulting from the annual increase in judges’ salaries based on the Industrial Aggregate as provided for in the Judges Act, and an increase in the number of judges appointed to the bench and the number of pensioners receiving benefits under the Judges Act.

 

Actual human resources

Human resources summary for the core responsibility and internal services (full‑time equivalents)

Core responsibility and internal services

2016–17
 Actual full‑time equivalents

2017–18
 Actual full‑time equivalents

2018–19
Planned full‑time equivalents

2018–19
 Actual full‑time equivalents

2019–20
 Planned full‑time equivalents

2020–21
 Planned full‑time equivalents

Administrative support to federal appointed judges

57.5

58.5

60.5

54.5

60.5

60.5

Subtotal

57.5

58.5

60.5

54.5

60.5

60.5

Internal Services

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

Total

63

64

66

60

66

66

 

Expenditures by vote

For information on Federal Judicial Affairs’ organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the  Public Accounts of Canada 2018–2019[iii].

Government of Canada spending and activities

Information on the alignment of Federal Judicial Affairs’ spending with the Government of Canada’s spending and activities is available in theGC InfoBase[iv].

 

Financial statements and financial statements highlights

Financial statements

Federal Judicial Affairs’ financial statements (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2019, are available on the departmental website.

 

Financial statements highlights

Condensed Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2019 (dollars)

Financial information

2018–19
Planned result
s

2018–19
Actual results

2017–18
Actual results

Difference (2018–19 Actual results minus
2018–19 Planned results)

Difference (2018–19 Actual results minus
2017–18 Actual results)

Total expenses

584,968,000

597,269,745

569,925,177

12,301,745

27,344,568

Total revenues

15,192,000

16,036,791

15,318,053

844,791

718,738

Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers

569,776,000

581,232,954

554,607,124

11,456,954

26,625,830

 

FJA’s future-oriented statement of operations (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2019, is available on the FJA’s website[v].

The departmental Net cost of operations shows an increase of $27 million over the previous fiscal year. This increase is a result of a provision in the Judges Act that allows for an annual increase in salaries to judges based on the Industrial Aggregate and an increase in the number of pensioners receiving benefits under the Judges Act.

 

Condensed Statement of Financial Position (unaudited) as of March 31, 2019 (dollars)

Financial Information

2018–19

2017–18

Difference
(2018–19 minus
2017–18)

Total net liabilities

246,844,677

234,928,951

11,915,726

Total net financial assets

4,301,787

2,407,093

1,894,694

Departmental net debt

242,542,890

232,521,858

10,021,032

Total non‑financial assets

220,956

245,524

(24,568)

Departmental net financial position

(242,321,934)

(232,276,334)

(10,045,600)

 

Net liabilities for 2018-19 are comprised primarily of $2.5 million in accrued liabilities and $244.3 million for the Judges’ Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA). The SRBA is the pension plan for federally appointed judges which provides fully indexed annuities to judges and to all eligible survivors providing they meet minimum age and service requirements. Unlike other pension plans, the judges’ plan lacks an explicit accrual rate for benefits. Instead the full benefit amount is generally payable when the member has completed 15 years of pensionable service and the total of the member’s age and years of service totals 80. The increase of $11.9 million in net liabilities over last fiscal year is fully attributable to the actuarial liability associated with the SRBA.


Supplementary information

Corporate information

Organizational profile

Appropriate minister: The Honourable David Lametti, P.C., M.P.

Institutional head: Marc A. Giroux, Commissioner

Ministerial portfolio: Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Enabling instrument: Judges Act[vi] (R.S.C., 1985, c. J-1)

Year of incorporation / commencement: 1978

Other: Information about the Canadian Judicial Council, its mandate and programs are found at the Council’s website[vii].

 

Raison d’être, mandate and role: who we are and what we do

Raison d’être

 “Raison d’être, mandate and role: who we are and what we do” is available on Federal Judicial Affairs’ website.

Mandate and role

FJA was created in 1978 under an Act of the Parliament of Canada to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and put federally appointed judges at arm's length from the Department of Justice. Our mandate extends to promoting the better administration of justice and providing support for the federal judiciary. The Judges Act[viii] provides for the designation of an officer called the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. One of the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner is to act on behalf of the Minister of Justice in matters related to the administration of Part I of the Judges Act.

FJA has an appointments secretariat which administers 17 advisory committees responsible for evaluating candidates under the superior courts judicial appointments process for federal judicial appointments and administering and supporting the new process for appointment of prothonotaries to the Federal Court. FJA also has the mandate to manage the Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments process, established to assess candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Selection Process for Prothonotaries of the Federal Court.

FJA provides and maintains a secure on-line system (JUDICOM) to facilitate communication and collaboration amongst members of the Canadian federal judiciary.

In order to support the courts, FJA’s Language Training Program personnel develops and maintains a curriculum, which provides individual and group language training services in both official languages, thus enabling federally appointed judges to improve their second language proficiency and legal terminology, ensure that Canadians have access to justice in the official language of their choice.

Additionally, FJA coordinates initiatives with various government and non-government stakeholders related to the federal Canadian judiciary’s role in international cooperation.

The Federal Courts Reports section of FJA is responsible for selecting and publishing Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court decisions in both official languages. Selected decisions undergo a thorough editorial process that includes copy editing and citation verification, the preparation of headnotes and captions, and translation accuracy confirmation.For more general information about the department, see the “Supplementary information” section of this report.

Operating context and key risks

Information on operating context and key risks is available on Federal Judicial Affairs’ website.

Operating context

FJA operates in a complex environment. Reporting directly to the Minister of Justice but independent from the Department of Justice, its overarching role is to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. It has to administer the Judges Act, which forms the foundation of our mandate, while adhering to the requirements set out by central agencies.

As a micro organization, ensuring the right complement of staff and expertise, as well as employee retention are key challenges. Unlike larger organizations where more than one person is tasked with the same activity, for FJA the loss of a single resource creates a gap which impacts on the achievement of goals in a timely and efficient manner.

Technology and the availability of services and information online will increasingly have an impact on the service expectations of judges and FJA clients. This will put increasing pressure on the way services are delivered by FJA, with an increased focus on technology and online web self-service capabilities. The Government’s transition to greater standardization of corporate business processes and shared service delivery models is also resulting in increased pressure on FJA to update its processes and systems to be aligned with government-wide technologies and tools. In doing so, FJA must continue to protect the independence of the federal judiciary necessary to maintain the confidence of Canadians in our judicial system.

FJA, being primarily a service organization, must be adaptive and responsive to changing and competing priorities imposed by its clients and external stakeholders in the management of both financial and human resources.

 

Key risks

Risks

Mitigating strategy and effectiveness

Link to the department’s Programs

Link to mandate letter commitments and any  government‑wide or departmental priorities

Government-wide centralization of common services and shared services.

This risk was identified in the 2018-19 Departmental Plan (DP). Discussions with central agencies were held to explain the mandate of FJA and how this initiative cannot impact judicial independence as well as service levels to judges.

  • Payments pursuant to the Judges Act

Role of Attorney General to upholding the Constitution, the rule of law and respect for the independence of the courts.

Errors (e.g., payments, vacancies lists, procurement).

This risk was identified in the 2018-19 DP. The mitigation strategy was 100% verification of transactions, use of technology to assist in processing payments, staff training, and regular reviews of internal controls.

  • Payments pursuant to the Judges Act
  • Internal services

To provide services and support to federally appointed judges in Canada.

Security and privacy of personal and business information.

This risk was identified in the 2018-19 DP. Mitigation measures included assessing security threats and risks, communication with the Privy Council Office Crisis Management group, developing and implementing recommendations to improve Information Technology (IT) Security, implementing the IT Security framework, preparing business continuity plans, developing and enforcing IM policies, and directing Internet and e-mail traffic through the PSPC provided Secure Channel network.

  • Federal judicial affairs
  • Service to Judges

To provide greater security and opportunity for Canadians.

 

The principal human resources risk facing FJA is the loss of expertise and corporate memory from the departure of experienced staff and the lack of back up in specialized areas. FJA continued to do succession and integrated HR planning to mitigate this risk.

One of FJA’s risks is maintaining a high level of support and services to judges in a manner that supports and promotes judicial independence in the context of government-wide centralization of common services and shared services. The Judges Act establishes a regime of salaries, allowances and annuities unique to federally appointed judges and which is administered by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. The ongoing government-wide initiative to centralize these services cannot interfere with the administration of the Judges Act.

Challenges of administering the unique regime in the Judges Act include ensuring a correct interpretation of the Act and consistency and accuracy in a high volume of transactions environment. The error rate level, for example, in payments, vacancies lists, procurement, etc. may therefore be considered a risk.

Finally, security and privacy of personal and business information is a continuous risk. Maintaining the security and privacy of personal information of judges is of utmost importance given cyber threats to IT security.

 

Reporting Framework

Federal Judicial Affairs’ Departmental Results Framework and Program Inventory of record for 2018–19 are shown below.

Graphical presentation of Departmental Results Framework and Program Inventory

Departmental Results Framework

Core Responsibility:
Administrative Support to Federally Appointed Judges

Internal Services

Departmental Result:
Federally-appointed judges are provided with centralized services in a timely and effective manner.

Indicator:
90% of judges’ allowances processed within the 10 day service standard.

Departmental Result:
The judicial appointments process is managed efficiently.

Indicator:
100% of candidate applications ready to be evaluated within 3 months of reception.

Departmental Result:
The judicial conduct review process is completed in a timely and effective manner.

Indicator:
80% of complaints reviewed within six months.

Departmental Result:
CJC ensures that federally-appointed judges have access to relevant training and learning opportunities.

Indicator:
90% of judges who reported to the CJC that their training and learning needs were met.

Program Inventory

Program: Payments pursuant to the Judges Act

Program: Canadian Judicial Council

Program: Federal Judicial Affairs

Supporting information on the Program Inventory

Financial, human resources and performance information for Federal Judicial Affairs’ Program Inventory is available in the GC InfoBase[ix].

Supplementary information tables

The following supplementary information tables are available on Federal Judicial Affairs’ website:

4   Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy

4   Gender-based analysis plus

 

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 each year in the Report on Federal Tax Expenditures[x]. 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

Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada

99 Metcalfe Street, 8th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 1E3

Canada

Telephone: (613) 995-5140

Facsimile: (613) 995-5615

Email: info@fja-cmf.gc.ca

Web site: http://www.fja-cmf.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.

Core Responsibility (responsabilité essentielle)

An enduring function or role performed by a department. The intentions of the department with respect to a Core Responsibility are reflected in one or more related Departmental Results that the department seeks to contribute to or influence.

Departmental Plan (plan ministériel)

A report on the plans and expected performance of an appropriated department over a three‑year period. Departmental Plans are tabled in Parliament each spring.

Departmental Result (résultat ministériel)

A Departmental Result represents the change or changes that the department seeks to influence. A Departmental Result is often outside departments’ immediate control, but it should be influenced by program-level outcomes.

Departmental Result Indicator (indicateur de résultat ministériel)

A factor or variable that provides a valid and reliable means to measure or describe progress on a Departmental Result.

Departmental Results Framework (cadre ministériel des résultats)

Consists of the department’s Core Responsibilities, Departmental Results and Departmental Result Indicators.

Departmental Results Report (rapport sur les résultats ministériels)

A report on an appropriated department’s actual accomplishments against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in the corresponding Departmental Plan.

experimentation (expérimentation)                                                                  

Activities that seek to explore, test and compare the effects and impacts of policies, interventions and approaches, to inform evidence-based decision-making, by learning what works and what does not.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.

gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) (analyse comparative entre les sexes plus [ACS+])

An analytical process used to help identify the potential impacts of policies, Programs and services on diverse groups of women, men and gender differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

government-wide priorities (priorités pangouvernementales)

For the purpose of the 2018–19 Departmental Results Report, those high-level themes outlining the government’s agenda in the 2015 Speech from the Throne, namely: Growth for the Middle Class; Open and Transparent Government;  A Clean Environment and a Strong Economy; Diversity is Canada’s Strength; and Security and Opportunity.

horizontal initiative (initiative horizontale)

An initiative where two or more departments are given funding to pursue a shared outcome, often linked to a government priority.

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.

plan (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.

planned spending (dépenses prévues)

For Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports, planned spending refers to those amounts presented in 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 Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports.

priority (priorité)

A plan or project 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) or Departmental Results.

program (programme)

Individual or groups of services, activities or combinations thereof that are managed together within the department and focus on a specific set of outputs, outcomes or service levels.

result (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.

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.

Endnotes