2017–18 Departmental Results Report

The Honourable Scott Brison 
President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government

PDF Version

ISSN 2561-2158

Table of Contents

Commissioner’s Message

Our 2017–18 Departmental Results Report provides Canadians with information on our activities and achievements over the past year. This document is an important means of ensuring transparency, but also of raising awareness and understanding of the work of our Office.

The success of the federal public sector whistleblowing regime, made up of our Office as the external oversight body and of the internal process for disclosures of wrongdoing, depends on people having the information they need to make confident and informed decisions about what to do and where to go when they believe something is wrong, and to know that they have a place to go if they are retaliated against for speaking up.

The process of building an Office such as ours is an evolutionary one, and our progress is driven by the recognition of the need to continuously improve our processes and approaches.  I would like to highlight some notable achievements from last year as indications of this progress:  the long-awaited parliamentary review of our legislation, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was completed, which provided us with the opportunity to publicly advocate for improvements to the Act to make it more responsive and more effective; we tabled in Parliament three reports of founded cases of wrongdoing; we continued to develop policies and procedures to guide the consistent interpretation and application of the Act, including sharing these publicly; and we have invested in building our operational strength, focusing on ongoing training and human resources planning, to ensure that we attract and retain the highly skilled employees needed to carry out our sensitive work.

In the coming year, we will continue to focus on our core operational mandate and to find new ways, including increased use of social media strategies, to address the ongoing need to provide public servants and all Canadians, with the information they need to make confident choices about coming forward to have their concerns addressed, without fear of reprisal.  We will also continue to advocate for the legislative changes that we proposed to improve the Act, despite the government’s decision not to make any legislative changes at this time.

Our core mandate to assess, investigate and report on the disclosures and complaints we receive is what guides the allocation and use of our financial and human resources, and, while that mandate remains constant, we are continually exploring ways to implement it more effectively, to demonstrate success through results and, in doing so, to build confidence in our Office and in the federal public sector.


Joe Friday,

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Results at a Glance

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner will continue to support the duties of its Commissioner by ensuring disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal are dealt with in a timely and effective manner, raising awareness about the Office and the whistleblowing regime and ensuring public servants and members of the public have access to information to make an informed decision about disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal.

Public sector disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal – 2017–18 Highlights


  • An efficient, timely and transparent management of disclosures and reprisal complaints;
  • To be known and accessible to public servants and members of the public;
  • A skilled and adaptable team capable of responding to evolving needs


  • $4.9 million
  • 29 full-time equivalents


  • Participated in parliamentary review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act;
  • Extended our use of social media to communicate our cases, created online submission form and participated in multiple conferences and other outreach events;
  • Developed training curriculum, operational and human resources policies, maintained pools of qualified candidates and created a mental health action plan.



For more information on the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s plans, priorities and results achieved, see the “Results: what we achieved” section of this report.

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

Raison d’être

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada was established to implement the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (the Act), which came into force in April 2007.

The Commissioner reports directly to Parliament, and the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for tabling the Office's Departmental Plan and Departmental Results Report in Parliament.

Mandate and role

The Office contributes to strengthening accountability and increases oversight of government operations by providing:

  • public servants and members of the public with an independent and confidential process for receiving and investigating disclosures of wrongdoing in, or relating to, the federal public sector, and by reporting founded cases to Parliament and making recommendations to chief executives on corrective measures; and
  • public servants and former public servants with a mechanism for handling complaints of reprisal for the purpose of coming to a resolution including referring cases to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal.

For more general information about the Office, see the “Supplementary information” section of this report.

Operating context and key risks

Operating context

The Office is an independent Agent of Parliament and receives disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal from public servants working in federal and Crown corporations, as well as members of the public.  The Office is one element of a larger public sector integrity landscape that includes the Treasury Board Secretariat, which has overall responsibility for promoting ethical practices by public servants and disseminating knowledge about the Act. In turn, federal departments and agencies are responsible for administering these ethical practices and are accountable for establishing their own internal disclosure mechanisms in order to provide public servants with an alternative to disclosing wrongdoing to our Office.  The Office has the exclusive jurisdiction, however, for responding to complaints of reprisal that result from protected disclosures.

The Office’s environment is a complex one that reflects its sensitive mandate. The work requires a high degree of care as each case we handle directly impacts the lives and reputations of individuals and organizations. Despite the existence of formal mechanisms to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing and to protect against and prevent reprisals, there still exists a culture of resistance to whistleblowing within the federal public service due to various factors, including fear of reprisals. This plays a fundamental role in an individual’s decision to disclose wrongdoing. This informs outreach and engagement strategies to increase awareness of the whistleblowing regime, clarify the role of the Office and build trust in the Office.

Media and public interest have demonstrated the need and growing demand to respond to concerns about integrity in both the private and public sectors. Integrity regimes at provincial and municipal levels, as well as in other countries, vary in terms of legislation, mandate, powers, jurisdiction and organizational structures. They provide opportunities for benchmarking and sharing best practices and research.

The Office is working with a multi-stakeholder advisory committee to communicate and engage with external stakeholders on an ongoing and proactive basis and to respond to emerging issues clearly and in a respectful and timely manner.

As a micro-organization, there are challenges with regard to staff retention given limited internal growth opportunities. There are also challenges in sourcing, given that the labour market for key skilled positions, such as investigators, is very competitive.

New technologies are emerging that could better help the Office manage its corporate knowledge as well as its administration, accessibility, case management and performance statistics.

Key risks

Risks can arise from events that the Office cannot influence or by factors outside its control, but the Office must be able to monitor and respond accordingly in order to mitigate the impact, in order to address disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal. All of the organizational priorities contribute either directly or indirectly to mitigating the risk of increasing case volumes and/or complexity that may in turn impact the timeliness of completing case files. In particular, a disclosure and reprisal management function that is timely, rigorous, independent and accessible supports effective and efficient use of resources and case file decisions which are clear and complete, minimizing the need for further allocations of resources.

Key risks
RisksMitigating strategy and effectivenessLink to the Office's ProgramLink to government‑wide and Office priorities
Increasing case volume: The Office’s ability to respond in a timely manner can be affected by increases in case volume or complexity.The Office completed the LEAN review and continued to implement the recommendations on operational processes. It continued to take actions as appropriate to ensure the Office is within its service standards.Disclosure and Reprisal Management ProgramA transparent, accountable and responsive federal government
Breaches of secure information: This is critical in the context of disclosures, investigations and the need for preserving confidentiality and maintaining trust in the Office. Sensitive or private information must be protected from potential loss or inappropriate access in order to avoid potential litigation, damaged reputation and further reluctance in coming forward.The Office has ongoing practices aimed at ensuring the security of information, which include security briefings and confidentiality agreements, random information security checks within the premises, and controlled access for the storage of sensitive information.Disclosure and Reprisal Management ProgramA transparent, accountable and responsive federal government
Maintaining HR capacity: There is a risk that the Office may not be able to attract and retain the right people with the appropriate mix of skills to deliver on its mandate.Implement strategic human resources management, including completing anticipatory staffing processes, maintaining pools of candidates and using available flexibilities in staffing processes.Disclosure and Reprisal Management ProgramA transparent, accountable and responsive federal government

Results: what we achieved


Disclosure and Reprisal Management Program


The objective of the program is to address disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal and increase confidence in federal public institutions. It aims to provide advice to federal public sector employees and members of the public who are considering making a disclosure and to accept, investigate and report on disclosures of information concerning possible wrongdoing. Based on this activity, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner will exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the review, conciliation and settlement of complaints of reprisal, including making applications to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal which determines whether reprisals have taken place and orders appropriate remedial and disciplinary action.


Following the three-year strategic plan, which contributed to establishing the plans and priorities, the Office achieved successful results and performance measurements targets. It spent 92% of its planned financial resources and achieved 96% of utilization rate for its planned human resources. Lower-than-planned expenditures in 2017–2018 is primarily due to one full-time employee below expected plans, lower spending in professional contracted services than projected and less travel than anticipated at the beginning of the year. The 2017–18 planned initiatives and related results are as follow:

  • Improved timeliness of case management: 
    Following the LEAN exercise, timeliness for case management was improved through two principal avenues. First, the Office has eased the level of management review. Analyses that do not result in a recommendation for investigation and investigations that do not result in a founded recommendation do not get presented to and reviewed by senior management and are sent directly to the Commissioner. This process has reduced the response time to the discloser. Second, the Office proceeds with greater overview of ongoing files. The progress of those cases that may take more than a year is followed closely with weekly reports on file status and statistics on file progression every three weeks. Any legal issues are presented immediately to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.
  • Further developed and implemented operational policy instruments, tools and procedures: 
    The Office developed and implemented two policies including, the Policy on Complaints of Reprisal Arising from Harassment or Workplace Grievances and a process map for conciliation which support decision-making and provide further understanding of the Act.
  • Participated actively in the legislative review of the Act: 
    In 2016–17, the Office submitted 16 proposals for substantive change to the Act as part of the parliamentary review of the legislation. The government response to the report in October 2017, while acknowledging that improvements to the whistleblowing regime are required, did not propose any formal changes to the Act. The Commissioner expressed his disappointment publicly at that time, which leaves the Office to continue to work with the Act in its current state, without the proposed improvements.
  • Pursued new opportunities to raise awareness: 
    The Office is always working to find innovative ways to reach stakeholders, and uses a variety of media to do so. In the past year, a video was posted to support the publication of a case report and was posted on YouTube and the PSIC websiteFootnote 1. In addition, “infobites” were developed for use on social media platforms such as Twitter. The target of 10,000 communications products and items shared was based on past activities, including PSIC’s attendance at a number of events the previous year. Certain events did not occur as anticipated, and this affected the total number of products distributed. It is also important to note that the actual result provided is approximate, as PSIC does not currently track the number of downloads of products from the website, or each specific instance when staff shares a small number of products at outside meetings.
  • Further developed strong relationships with key stakeholders: 
    The Office continued to develop and establish strong relationships with key stakeholders, including Senior Officers within federal organizations, functional communities, such as financial managers and fraud investigators, and the management community. PSIC representatives attended conferences and information sessions to provide information and increase awareness of the Office and the Act across the public sector.
  • Enhanced suite of tools and communication products to facilitate access and use of our services: 
    The Office maintains a robust suite of tools and communication products on its website. Enhancements made in the past fiscal year included an online submission form for protected disclosures, reprisals and access to legal advice, as well as a video entitled “Six questions about blowing the whistleFootnote2.
  • Attracted, retained, supported and invested in our people: 
    The Office developed a training curriculum for managers and other employees, including both mandatory and optional training requirements for technical and soft skills, which enables all employees to verify their progression and assess the gaps in their training requirements. The curriculum is also used to support career development. The Office also continued creating and maintaining a pool of qualified candidates for case analysts and investigators, which help shorten the time to staff vacant positions. Furthermore, PSIC developed a Directive on Alternative Work Arrangements which will be implemented in 2018–19. The Directive will provide employees with the opportunities to present a flexible working arrangement where it is economically and operationally feasible to do so, and in a fair, consistent and transparent manner.
  • Fostered a healthy, supportive and inclusive work environment that supports employee engagement: 
    The Office organized consultations with all employees and adopted a Mental Health Action Plan. It is currently being implemented, including the establishment of an employees’ mental health committee. In addition, the Employee Assistance Program Coordinator and the Occupational Health and Safety Officer ensure that the Office meets its obligations.
Results achieved
Expected ResultsPerformance IndicatorsTargetDate to achieve target2017–18 Actual results2016–17 Actual results2015–16 Actual results
An efficient, timely and transparent management of disclosures and reprisal complaintsDecision whether to investigate a complaint of reprisal is made within 15 days100%March 2018100%100%100%
General inquiries are responded to within one working day80%March 201897%99%90%
Decision whether to investigate a disclosure of wrongdoing is made within 90 days80%March 201890%88%33%
Investigations are completed within one year80%March 201886%82%50%
Percentage of follow-ups on all recommendations made in case reports to public sector organizations100%March 2018100%Not Available*Not Available*
To be known and accessible to public servants and members of the publicNumber of communication products and items shared through various means10,000March 20189,392Not Available*Not Available*
Online form adopted by users versus other means30% adoption rateMarch 201880%Not Available*Not Available*
A skilled and adaptable team capable of responding to evolving needsPercentage of employees out of total Office staff96%March 201896%Not Available*Not Available*
Percentage of employees who have a) completed a training plan and b) taken training

a) 100%

b) 80%

March 2018

a) 100%

b) 100%

Not Available*Not Available*

* Service standard started to be measured in 2017–18


Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
Main Estimates
Planned spending
Total authorities available for use
Actual spending 
(authorities used)
(Actual spending minus Planned spending)
Human resources (full-time equivalents)


Planned full-time equivalents


Actual full-time equivalents


Difference (Actual full-time equivalents minus Planned full-time equivalents)


Information on the Office’s programs is available in the GC InfoBaseFootnote 3

Internal Services


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: Management and Oversight Services; Communications Services; Legal Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; and Acquisition Services.


The Office is committed to continue the ongoing improvement of its internal services. In 2017–18, specific projects were successfully completed such as finalizing the implementation of the requirements of the Treasury Board Policy on Results to improve the achievement of results and the assessment of performance. PSIC continued to work with its service providers to deliver comprehensive human resources management, sound financial management and a stable information technology infrastructure. The Office also started its plans to relocate the office to a larger floor within its current building to ensure future growth.

For its internal services, the Office spent 89% of its planned financial resources and achieved a 100% utilization rate for its human resources. Lower-than-planned Internal Services expenditures in 2017–18 is primarily due to delays in the relocation project.

Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
Main Estimates
Planned Spending
Total Authorities Available for Use
Actual Spending (authorities used)
Difference (Actual spending minus Planned spending)
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
Planned full-time equivalents
Actual full-time equivalents
(Actual full-time equivalents minus Planned full-time equivalents)

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Actual expenditures

The Office has very little year-over-year variations in its spending and human resources. The majority of program spending are correlated with the number of disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisals received and handled during the year as the nature of a file has a direct impact on the time and effort to complete the file. Overall the number of files has remained fairly constant over the last three years. However, in 2017–18, we have received 147 disclosures of wrongdoing, which was a significant increase from 81 the year before. The reasons for this increase may be difficult to identify, but what we can identify is the fact that we launched an online form to make a disclosure or complaint of reprisal. Experience in other organizations indicates that this is generally followed by an increase in activity. The spending trend graph and tables below display the actual and planned expenditures and full-time equivalents.

Departmental spending trend graph
Office spending trend graph 2017-2018
Text Version

This bar graph illustrates the spending trend for the Office’s program expenditures related to actual and planned spending from fiscal years 2015-16 to 2020-21. Financial figures are presented in dollars along the y axis, increasing by $1 million increments to $6 million. These are graphed against fiscal years 2015–16 to 2020–21 on the x axis.

There are two budgetary items identified for each fiscal year. The first being the statutory items, comprised of contributions to employee benefit plans (EBP), and the second relates to the Office's program expenditures (Voted).

The Office has only one program, hence no sunset program was recorded or is anticipated.

In 2015–16, actual spending was $398,272 for statutory items and $4,055,285 for program expenditures.

In 2016–17, actual spending was $394,972 for statutory items and $3,928,726 for program expenditures.

In 2017-18, actual spending was $431,723 for statutory items and $4,518,110 for program expenditures.

Planned spending for statutory items is expected to increase to approximately $476,051 starting in 2018-19 and ongoing. However, this will depend on the Treasury Board EBP rate and staffing requirements.

Planned spending for program expenditures will remain the same for fiscal years 2018-19 to 2020-21 in the amount of $5,009,887. This estimated amount includes, in particular, new project spending in information technology infrastructures and office accommodation.

Budgetary performance summary for Programs and Internal Services (dollars)
Programs and Internal Services2017–18 
Main Estimates
Planned Spending
Planned Spending
Planned Spending
Total Authorities Available for Use
Actual Spending (authorities used)
Actual Spending (authorities used)
Actual Spending (authorities used)
Disclosure and Reprisal Management Program3,550,8983,550,8984,124,4534,124,4533,817,6543,262,7502,779,9462,644,497
Internal Services1,890,4831,890,4831,361,4851,361,4851,893,4671,677,5891,543,7531,809,060


Actual human resources

Human resources summary for Programs and Internal Services (full-time equivalents)
Programs and Internal Services2015–16 Actual full-time equivalents2016–17 Actual full-time equivalent2017–18 
Planned full-time equivalents
2017–18 Actual full-time equivalents2018–19 Planned2019–20 Planned
Disclosure and Reprisal Management Program191923222727
Internal Services777788


Expenditures by vote

For information on the Office’s organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2017–18Footnote 4.

Government of Canada spending and activities

Information on the alignment of the Office's spending with the Government of Canada's spending and activities is available in the GC InfoBaseFootnote 5.

Financial statements and financial statements highlights

Financial statements

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s financial statements (audited) for the year ended March 31, 2018, are available on the Office websiteFootnote 6.

Financial statements highlights

The Office major expenditures, which represents almost 95% of the total spending, include salaries and employee benefits, professional services and accommodation. The people within the Office are the major drivers of the results we achieve. As previously mentioned, disclosures received in 2017–18 was higher than the previous year which contributed to the increase in salary expenditures. As a small organization with limited employees, the Office also need to hire consultants to complete work outside our expertise. It rely on external service providers for most internal services. Although the Office assets and liabilities are low compared to other government departments, but it still has multi-year contractual obligations with internal service providers and it needs to acquire computer equipment on a regular basis, including servers, to maintain its information technology up to date.


Condensed Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2018 (dollars)
Financial Information2017–18 
Planned results
Actual results
Actual results
(2017–18 Actual minus 2017–18 Planned results)
(2017–18 Actual results minus 2016–17 Actual results)
Total expenses6,178,7615,675,5244,923,067(503,237)752,457
Total revenues00000
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers6,178,7165,675,5244,923,067(503,237)752,457


Condensed Statement of Financial Position (unaudited) as at March 31, 2018 (dollars)
Financial Information2017–182016–17Difference 
(2017–18 minus 2016–17)
Total net liabilities999,180849,583149,597
Total net financial assets634,804522,640112,164
Office net debt364,376326,94337,433
Total non-financial assets157,449177,188(19,739)
Office net financial position(206,927)(149,755)(57,172)


Supplementary information

Corporate information

Organizational profile

Minister: The Honourable Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board 
Institutional head: Joe Friday, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner 
Ministerial portfolio: Treasury Board Secretariat 
Enabling instruments: Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46Footnote 7 
Year of incorporation / commencement: 2007

Other: The Office supports the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, who is an independent Agent of Parliament.

Reporting framework

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture of record for 2017–18 are shown below.

  1. Strategic Outcome: Disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal are dealt with effectively, in a fair and timely manner.

1.1  Program: Disclosure and Reprisal Management Program

Internal Services

Supplementary information tables

The following supplementary information tables are available on the Office’s websiteFootnote8:

  • Evaluations
  • Fees
  • Internal audits
  • Response to parliamentary committees and external audits

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 ExpendituresFootnote 9. 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

60 Queen Street, 7th Floor 
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Y7 
Telephone: 613-941-6400 
Toll Free: 1-866-941-6400


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.

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.

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) 
Provides information on the plans and expected performance of appropriated departments over a three‑year period. Departmental Plans are tabled in Parliament each spring.

Departmental Result 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.

Evaluation (évaluation) 
In the Government of Canada, the systematic and neutral collection and analysis of evidence to judge merit, worth or value. Evaluation informs decision making, improvements, innovation and accountability. Evaluations typically focus on programs, policies and priorities and examine questions related to relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. Depending on user needs, however, evaluations can also examine other units, themes and issues, including alternatives to existing interventions. Evaluations generally employ social science research methods.

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 approach used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that the gender-based analysis goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (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. Examples of GBA+ processes include using data disaggregated by sex, gender and other intersecting identity factors in performance analysis, and identifying any impacts of the program on diverse groups of people, with a view to adjusting these initiatives to make them more inclusive.

Government-wide Priorities (priorités pangouvernementales) 
For the purpose of the 2017–18 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 Initiatives (initiative horizontale) 
An initiative where two or more departments are given funding to pursue a shared outcome, often linked to a government priority.

Management, Resources and Results Structure (Structure de la gestion, des ressources et des résultats) 
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 (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 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 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) 
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.

Program Alignment Architecture (architecture d’alignement des programmes) 
A structured inventory of an organization’s programs depicting the hierarchical relationship between programs and the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute.

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.

Sunset Program (programme temporisé) 
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 (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.