24 / 32
24
/ Canadian Government Executive
// April 2016
Program Evaluation
Assessing the Performance Information of
the CRA, CFIA and Parks Canada
Opportunity Lost?
Tom
Wileman
I
t almost goes without saying that
good governance requires fair and
reliable performance reporting by
public sector entities. Several OECD
nations have developed performance
reporting principles, and the Canadian
government has called for concise, cred-
ible, reliable and balanced information.
However, as Colin Talbot, a noted expert
on performance has pointed out, these
principles tend to fall into disuse if they
lack institutional force or sanction.
This article looks at a possible excep-
tion, namely the requirement for the ex-
ternal auditor of three Canadian federal
agencies to assess the fairness and reli-
ability of performance information, from
the late 1990s to 2012. My aim is to explore
the nature of the assessment practice, and
the lessons learned.
From 1997 to 1999, the federal govern-
ment moved about 35 percent of the pub-
lic service into three agencies to deal with
revenue, food inspection and parks. An-
nounced in the context of program review
and alternative service delivery, these agen-
cies were shaped as ministerial depart-
ments, but with administrative authorities
(notably as separate employers). The aim
was more effective service delivery. As re-
flected in their reporting requirements, ac-
countability was also a concern; therefore a
provision for Agency Assessments was add-
ed to the Auditor General’s existing man-
date for financial and performance audits.
Unlike performance audits, which could
examine agency performance, the as-
sessments were limited to determining
whether the performance information was
reported fairly and reliably against the ob-
jectives in the corporate plan. Accordingly,
they were carried out as review engage-
ments, following generally accepted stan-
dards. They were reported in a section of
the annual report authored by the audit of-
fice. As one agency noted, the assessments
were “only a review level of assurance [and
did] not constitute an audit”.
The new reporting requirements came
into effect when the agencies were en-
gaged in a complex transition process.
For example, the Canada Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA) was created from three dif-
ferent departments. In addition, in some
cases the timeframe for completion of the
assessments was compressed, since the
performance information was not always
available until a few weeks before the
deadline for the completion of the annual
report. These transitional issues suggested
the need for a more gradual implementa-
tion of the assessments.