Canada

• Government of Canada
• Alberta
• British Columbia
• Manitoba
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland
• Nova Scotia
• Ontario
• PEI
• Quebec
• Saskatchewan
• Territories

Canadian Public Performance Reporting: How it began

Government of Canada

In 1995 the Government of Canada began moving towards a more comprehensive, results-based reporting approach. Comprehensive reporting provided the Government of Canada with a greater understanding of the extent to which it was meeting the following targets and objectives:

• More comprehensive information on individual departmental programs and service
• Greater implementation of government-wide priorities
• Greater association between intergovernmental and interdepartmental programs
• Wider adherence to societal trends in Canada.

The first annual report of the President of Treasury Board Secretariat on performance and accountability was released in 1995, providing an assessment of the Government of Canada’s program for implementing results based management and improved reporting to Parliament[1]. A pilot report, begun in March 1996, recommended that federal departments split their Estimates III documents into separate planning and reporting documents to be released at different times of the fiscal year in an effort to improve expenditure management. In June 1996, the House of Commons accepted the recommendation that Departmental Performance Reports be tabled on a pilot basis beginning October 1996[2]. Sixteen departments agreed to report on the results they achieved for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996. Their individual Performance Reports provided information on results actually obtained in serving Canadians, and on the cost of serving them. These reports presented information on past performance and assisted parliamentarians with assessment of departmental plans and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year[3].

As a result of the success of the pilot initiative, the House of Commons passed a motion dividing what was known as the Part III of the Estimates document for each department or agency into two documents, a Report on Plans and Priorities and a Departmental Performance Report[4].

top

Public Performance Reporting at the Provincial Level

Alberta

In the early 1990s, the Government of Alberta identified a need for better tracking of and reporting on results of government programs and services. In 1993, the government created the Financial Review Commission, which recommended actions needed to improve the province’s management and reporting systems. Budget roundtables were held in 1993 and again in 1994 with the media, academics, business and community leaders, and senior government officials. Based on those consultations, the government took some significant steps towards improving its public accountability. It introduced the Government Accountability Act (GAA), developed the first set of three-year ministry business plans, and released Measuring Up, Alberta’s first annual performance report and the first of its kind in Canada.

The priority between 1993 and 2001 was on developing integrated and strategic business plans, with a focus on outcomes, targets and progress measures. The intention of moving to a performance-based accountability framework was to provide timely and factual financial and non-financial information about the government’s use of public funds and stewardship of the province’s public resources. Another intention was to start Albertans thinking in terms of the results provided by government as opposed to just spending. Performance measurement was central to the accountability framework so that the government’s performance could be measured, publicly reported and evaluated. Challenges during this time included: developing a few relevant performance measures to use in a public report to reflect the government’s key accomplishments, and disclosing what was accomplished when there is much about government that cannot be measured directly or quantitatively.

Between 2002 and 2006, the government of Alberta focused on assessing, maintaining, growing and sustaining Alberta’s accountability and fiscal framework. Business plan standards and a reference guide were developed to provide a framework to develop consistency (in quality, look and form) and mandated components in all ministry business plans. As a result, plans could more easily be understood by the public and there was a shift from more “operational” plans to more strategic business plans.

Integration of financial and non-financial results is viewed as strengthening performance reporting, so by the 2004-07 Government of Alberta business plan, each of the goals was aligned with expenditures in the Fiscal Plan linking the financial information in the fiscal plan with non-financial performance information in the Business Plan (using Statistics Canada’s Expense by Function criteria). Ministries also began to integrate financial and non-financial results by providing expense by core business breakdowns in their business plans and annual reports. An unresolved challenge during this time, which continues to be a challenge today, was in regard to attribution of results to government policies, programs and outputs, as this can be ambiguous.

Going forward, a number of ongoing challenges remain.

• There is the challenge of making these reports more relevant by expanding and improving the performance story through the use of other sources of information (e.g. evaluation results, external studies, etc.) while still keeping the report readable.
• A second challenge pertains to credibility of these reports, that is, the performance information presented must be perceived to be free from bias. The public continues to be unconvinced that the public performance reports are accountability documents. They view them as communications documents, despite review by the Office of the Auditor General.
• A third challenge is the increasing need to distinguish between performance budgeting and management, which are decision-making functions, and public performance reporting for accountability. The performance information used for decision-making is, in many cases, different from what is required for accountability.

  top

British Columbia

Performance reporting got its start in British Columbia in 1996 with an accountability framework and implementation plan that was endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee. The pivotal point in the work toward a public sector accountability framework in BC was the passage of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act (Government of BC, 2000), which mandated annual reporting of performance plans and performance plan reports (now termed service plans and service plan reports, after  BTAA amendments in 2001). In October 2003, three parties in British Columbia — government, legislators and the Auditor General — reached agreement on a set of performance reporting principles for the British Columbia public sector. These principles have become the basis on which the Auditor General of British Columbia annually assesses the quality of ministry and Crown agency performance reports in BC, a practice it started in 2001. The Auditor General has also provided independent assurance — a "fairly presents" opinion — on the performance reports of selected organizations. 

top

Manitoba

In 1996, the Premier of Manitoba sought to increase accountability, fiscal responsibility and transparency in the public service sector. In October 1996, the Government of Manitoba introduced Manitoba Measures, an initiative geared towards planning, performance measurement and accountability. A series of pilot projects from 1997 to 1999 provided results that lead to the creation of a series of core strategies for the province. Then, after the New Democratic Party took office in September, 1999, the Manitoba Measures program was abruptly dropped, and replaced by a series of benchmarks called the “Manitoba Well Being Index” that would track the overall “well-being” of Manitobans[5]. In 2005, the Manitoba government released Reporting to Manitobans on Performance, leading to standardized performance measurement sections contained within each departmental performance report.

top

New Brunswick

The Government of New Brunswick introduced performance reporting into the province in 1995 based upon an election commitment. In cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, government-wide public benchmarks and performance measures were introduced. Subsequent provincial governments have carried on with the performance measurement initiative, and have developed a deeply integrated system that employs government and departmental level strategic planning.

top

Newfoundland

In 1996 the provincial government released the Strategic Social Plan Consultation Paper and appointed a Social Policy Advisory Committee. This committee identified the key needs and critical areas of Newfoundlanders. It also proposed new strategic directions for the provincial government in relation to performance expectations of the public. In 1998, the government released People, Partners and Prosperity: A Strategic Social Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador in 1998, detailing the creation of the Newfoundland Government’s Strategic Social Plan. The Plan called for the government to improve the wellbeing of residents in key areas, and linked government activities to those outcomes[6].

top

Nova Scotia

In 1994 Nova Scotia released its Planning and Accountability Framework Initiative. This initiative was designed to link government and departmental goals together in a results-oriented framework. In 2000 the Nova Scotia government introduced The Course Ahead, implementing four key goals and priorities for the province. Performance reporting in Nova Scotia has linked plans and outcomes with those broad ranging goals ever since[7].

top

Ontario

In 1995 the Ontario Financial Review Commission re-evaluated the province’s reporting, accounting and financial management practices. The Commission recommended three measures to ensure that Ontario taxpayers were receiving value for their tax dollars:

• An introduction of whole-of-government approved business measures
• Departmental and agency program effectiveness measures
• Individual performance agreements.

Over the past 10 years, the Government of Ontario has enhanced the use of performance measures by program management to help focus efforts and expenditures on achieving results as well as to enhance the public reporting of those measures. In 1996, the government published its first annual business plans, which were to include a presentation of the results achieved during the year as well as targets, goals and objectives for the following year. In 2000, Management Board Secretariat (now the Ministry of Government Services) issued the Business Planning and Allocations Directive and later that year a companion guideline entitled Performance Measurement in the Business Planning Process — A Reference Guide for Ministries, which provided guidance on improving performance reporting, with a particular focus on outcomes.

Commencing with planning for the 2004/05 fiscal year, the government introduced “results-based planning”, which it defined as “the corporate process through which ministries demonstrate the alignment of resources to strategies and programs to support achievement of the government’s priorities and results and the fulfillment of statutory obligations.” Based on extensive research into best practices in other jurisdictions (including reference to the CCAF’s nine principles for public reporting as a model for improving Ontario’s reporting on performance), Management Board Secretariat issued a reference guide for performance measurement in March 2005 that describes the Ontario Public Service’s approach to performance measurement and explains how performance information is to be used; i.e., in decision making, risk management, business planning and public reporting.

Public transparency and accountability in Ontario is satisfied through a number of public documents including the Premier’s Progress Report, annual results-based plans published by individual ministries on their websites, the Ontario Budget, Printed Estimates, Quarterly Finances, etc. Accountability is also achieved through formal reporting to committees of the Legislature, including the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Standing Committee on Estimates and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

top

Prince Edward Island

In 1995-96, deputy ministers in the Government of PEI began working collectively to identify and address key trends in public service and governance (Measuring Societal Outcomes in PEI, p.1). Recognising the importance of outcome measurement, the deputy ministers formed a working group on quality and sustainability to identify, analyze and address performance issues. Subsequently, departments began adopting government-wide performance reporting measures as part of their business plans.

top

Quebec

In 1993 the Quebec National Assembly passed legislation that instituted the formal accountability process currently used in Canada. It stipulated that Quebec institute a formal accountability administration that allows for parliamentary committees to question deputy ministers or heads of agencies on their management of public sector entities. It also enabled these committees to follow up with these deputies or heads of agencies pertaining to the recommendations of the Auditor General. In 1995 autonomous service units (ASU) were created. In 1997 a pilot framework for improved annual performance reporting was introduced, mandating the incorporation of relevant information, comparative data and variances into the performance report. After repeated recommendations by the Auditor General in 1998 and 1999, the Public Administration Act was passed in 2000, implementing the framework on accountability, transparency and governance.

top

Saskatchewan

The drive for greater accountability in the province of Saskatchewan began in 1999, in a Speech from the Throne. The Speech called for greater accountability for government departments and the use of accepted benchmarks to measure the achievements of Saskatchewan’s public sector. Saskatchewan’s accountability framework was implemented in 1999 on a pilot basis across seven departments. In 2000, all departments began creating strategic plans and used performance reporting to diagnose their progress. The planning and reporting cycle has been fully implemented in Saskatchewan. Improvements are made to the framework every year. The 2007-08 Performance Plans will incorporate trend line data for all performance measures, providing additional context and historical information for the reader. Saskatchewan is also piloting an approach to risk assessment and risk management, and a number of plans will reflect that work in 2007-08.

top

Territories

CCAF has requested information on the development of Public Performance Reporting in the Territories and will provide it when available.

top