Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 4

25 / 32

April 2016 // Canadian Government Executive / 25
Program Evaluation
The state of departmental performance
reporting was not well advanced at that
time. In a government-wide audit, the
Auditor General found a lack of balance:
the agencies were reporting only the good
news, with little reference to the fairness
and reliability of their information. At
times, the auditor’s assessments pointed
out specific areas for improvement, re-
vealing differences of view between the
agencies and the auditor, particularly over
the generation of adequate performance
information.
In 2005, the five-year review of the
creation of the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA) provided an opportunity for Par-
liament to review and consider the suc-
cess of the legislation, including the as-
sessment practice. The parliamentary
committee that reported on the review
supported the performance measure-
ment regime, and recommended that it
not be changed at that time. The com-
mittee cited the Auditor General’s view
that there had been steady improvement
in the agency’s performance information
since 1995.
After that, the assessments received
very little attention from parliamentary
committees even though they were avail-
able for committee consideration and re-
porting to the House as part of the annual
report.
In contrast, the Auditor General’s per-
formance audits of departments and
agencies are permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts,
which often takes them up. The Audi-
tor General has even recommended that
Parliament consider an enhanced role for
standing committees to review depart-
mental performance statements.
The assessment practice came to an
end as a cost-cutting measure. The Office
of the Auditor General actually made the
recommendation because it was asked
by the government to suggest economies.
The government then amended the leg-
islation for the three agencies, removing
the assessment provisions, in the 2012
Budget Implementation Act. Since this
was an omnibus bill, there was little de-
bate of the many detailed changes. (In
fact, the opposition later accused the gov-
ernment of reducing the Auditor Gener-
al’s mandate, to no avail, since it was the
audit office that had actually proposed
the measure.)
This needs to be reconsidered. As an
institutional arrangement, the indepen-
dent assessment of agency performance
information by the external auditor was
innovative. While the assessments were
not easy for either party, they held prom-
ise for improved performance reporting;
and the 2005 review of the CRA gave some
indication that this was taking place. This
suggests the need to evaluate the assess-
ment practice of the CRA, Parks Canada
and the CFIA. It will benefit the agencies,
Parliament, and undoubtedly inform and
improve every aspect of government oper-
ations, including those of the Office of the
Auditor General.
Tom Wileman is a retired Principal
with the Office of the Auditor General
of Canada. He is also an active Board
Member of the Performance and
Planning Exchange (PPX).