Unit 8
Unit 8 Content notes
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
Describe the stages involved in evaluation the policy-making process
Identify various measures that determine the success factors of public policies
Identify the various types of program managements
Describe and apply the role of courts in public-policy and decision making processes.
Public policy making is a very straightforward process that involves various specific steps.
However, public policy does not end once the policy or legislation is created.
One of the most significant aspects of public policy is its application into the “real world”, the ultimate test to determine whether the components that were relevant during the process can be translated into something more tangible.
different ways that public policy is evaluated, including performance measurements and the role of courts in determining the legitimacy of any public policy.
Program Evaluation
One of the key aspects of program evaluation is monitoring the flow of money and spending from all affected departments and agencies.
Evaluation is not simply about assessing whether an initiative was a success or failure.
Evaluation is about creating the information and data about the initiative's success and why.
Evaluation findings can lead to more effective and efficient program delivery.
According to Miljan, another key aspect of program evaluation is impact assessment which is legally required under the 1985 Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Slideshow/lecture video notes:
Types of departments
Service and support departments
Horizontal policy coordinative – most influential of all departments
Only four: PMO, PCO, DOF, TB
Central agencies
Provide guidance to other smaller departments
Horizontal Administrative – least influential
Department of public works
Only works within their own department
Vertical departments
Health, justice, CIC (IRCC)
Top bottom approach
Departments
Operating departments – administrative unit comprising of one or more organizational components over which a minister has direct ministerial management control
Minister – elected official, manage department generally
Deputy minister is responsible for day to day
Life long role
Lots of expertise within the department
Report to minister
The legislature and government departments
New departments are created by an act or parliament
Legislation sets out the responsibilities of the department
Individual ministerial responsibility
Rationale for crown corporations
Public is most related to
Governmental owned but day to day is more privately based
More autonomy
“Arms length”
More human resource flexibility
Board of directors instead of ministers (minister is pretty much nonexistent)
More general framework
Nation building
Make investments
Economic protection
Principle of public ownership – natural monopolies
Nationalist argument
Difficult for international companies to take over
Takes away divide of political ideologies
Non-partisan
Develop relations with private sectors
Guarantees we have access to these services
Set an example
How things should work
By contract; direct
By market action; indirect
Advantages over departments (autonomy)
Federal-provincial relations
Federal: via rail, canada post
Provincial: LCBO (essential economically)
Central agencies
Increased in power under Pierre Trudeau (1968)
Mistrust of advice form operating departments
Advocate of ‘rational management’
Competing source of advice/information
Increased size and strength of agencies
PMO and PCO in particular
Continued under Mulroney
Generally agreement that 4 organizations: PMO, PCO, TBS and department of Finance
Types of Evaluation
Four types
Process evaluation:
Determine why a program or polciy is performing at current levels
Improve program performance by recommending how solutions should be implemented and evaluated once carried out
Outcome evaluation:
Program outcomes (positive or negative)
Outputs vs outcomes
Impact evaluation:
Program or policy results and whether they are intended or unintended, positive or negative, in effect
Cost-benefit evaluation:
A method which to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of a policy’s costs, benefits, and outcomes
For certain types of programs, such as education, one could argues that the real benefits do not materialize for years or decades
Policy evaluation
In addition to the performance audits, and impact assessments, the Government of Canada has created Policy on Results which outlines the main requirements for Canadian federal departments to comply with program evaluation criteria
Policy on Results:
This policy, effective July 1, 2016, replaces several previous Treasury Board policies.
It sets guidelines for departments to implement new frameworks related to performance measurement, program evaluation, and resource management.
Key deadlines include implementing certain requirements by November 1, 2017, and April 1, 2017.
The policy is issued under the Financial Administration Act and defines responsibilities for departments, ministers, deputy heads, and the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding performance measurement, evaluation, and reporting.
Departments must develop Departmental Results Frameworks and Program Inventories, obtain approvals, and ensure performance information is included in Treasury Board submissions.
They are also responsible for maintaining robust evaluation functions and following specific guidelines for evaluation planning and reporting.
Exemptions include certain programs of grants and contributions under $5 million annually and assessed contributions to international organizations.
The policy aims to improve government results, enhance transparency, and ensure resources are allocated based on performance.
The policy applies to all departments, except those defined as small departments, agents of Parliament, or Crown corporations, with some exceptions for these groups.
Responsibilities for monitoring and ensuring compliance fall on deputy heads, with oversight from the Treasury Board Secretariat.
The policy also aligns with other government frameworks, such as financial management and service policies.
Another way that the Treasury Boards ensures that departments follow a strict guideline in implementing policy is called Policy on Evaluation.
This document, which was implemented in 2009, consists of information that departments and agencies need with reporting, expenditure managements, policy requirements, monitoring requirements and the roles and responsibilities of various organizations and institutions involved in implementing policies.
Policy on evaluation:
This policy, effective April 1, 2009, requires departments to implement a comprehensive evaluation framework.
Full implementation of Section 6.1.8 (a) must be achieved by March 31, 2013. Updates were made effective April 1, 2012.
The policy applies to most government departments, excluding certain offices like the Senate, House of Commons, and specific independent offices.
Small departments' compliance is deferred until further direction.
The policy's goal is to ensure that evaluations are systematically conducted to assess the relevance and performance of government programs, aiding decision-making and accountability.
Evaluation results should inform resource allocation, policy improvements, and program management.
Key responsibilities include:
Deputy heads must ensure their departments have an evaluation function, appoint evaluation heads, and establish departmental committees to advise on evaluations.
Departments must evaluate direct program spending and major statutory programs regularly and address specific evaluations as needed.
Deputy heads must monitor compliance and ensure evaluations are used for decision-making.
The Secretary of the Treasury Board is responsible for overseeing evaluations across the government and ensuring compliance.
Non-compliance may result in corrective actions.
The policy links to various related legislation and frameworks, such as the Financial Administration Act, and is supported by directives and standards for conducting evaluations.
Benefits of policy evaluation:
Enhancing the chance that the initiative's goals and objectives are being achieved
Determining value for money (i.e., allocated resources are yielding the greatest benefit for clients and stakeholders)
Identifying what components of an initiative work/do not work and why
Identifying areas that need improvement in order to provide the best service possible
Role of Courts
The judiciary plays an important role in implementing and evaluating public policy.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms especially dictates how a policy can be implement and enforced.
There has been a lot of discussion on whether judges are too involved in making public policy.
Many important social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage were mostly resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than the elected officials that were chosen to make these decisions.
A role that is traditionally completed by politicians is increasingly being taken over by the judiciary.
This has created a different view of the public policy process, since it does question the accountability of politicians and judges.
If appointed judges are making public policy decisions, what does this say about the concept of democracy as we know it?
The concept of judicial independence states that judges must be above politics and are not beholden to politicians or political parties.
Since this concept of politicians hiding behind the judiciary has taken a big toll on the creation of public policy, many academics have come up with the term “judicialization of politics” to address this issue.
There are two main components hiding behind this concept:
Legalizing politics
Politicizing the law
Both concepts question the role of public policy and politics taking place in courtrooms rather than in the legislature.
Since federal judges are appointed by the executive branch without the need for confirmation by the legislature, are politicians therefore passing off controversial public policy decisions to judges to buy public opinion?
The required article by Monahan discusses some of the ways that the judiciary and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms affect public policy in Canada.
Important themes and concepts to remember:
Performance Evaluation
Performance Management
Expenditure Management
Governmental Departments
Central Agencies
Public Inquiries
Courts
Judges and Public Inquiries Video:
Participants in the debate:
Justice Dennis O'Connor: Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, presided over two major public inquiries (Walkerton water scandal and wrongful imprisonment of Paul Bernardo).
Justice Stephen Gouge: Ontario Court of Appeal Justice, headed the inquiry into the province's forensic pathology system.
Linda Rothstein: Lead Commission Counsel for the forensic pathology inquiry.
Edward Tushine: Professor Emeritus at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, author of The Conduct of Public Inquiries.
Topic of the Debate: Public inquiries, especially those called when politicians face a crisis. This is different from public inquiries on general policy issues (e.g., healthcare, free trade).
Process of being called to Head an Inquiry
Justice Gouge
The Attorney General called him on a Saturday night to ask if he was willing to head a public inquiry into errors by pathologist Charles Smith.
Little information was provided initially, just the issue being covered in the news.
Gouge was informed that the Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice had approved his potential involvement.
He initially reflected on the offer and agreed to proceed.
Justice O’Connor
Received a call from Chief Justice McMurtry while in Yukon.
The inquiry was related to the Walkerton water contamination crisis, where many fell ill and several died.
The initial conversation lasted around 15 minutes discussing the scope and concerns about the inquiry's terms of reference.
He had the option to refuse and was asked to carefully consider whether the inquiry was suitable for a sitting judge.
Linda Rothestein
Called by Justice Gouge 24 hours after he agreed to take on the inquiry.
Rothstein immediately understood the request and agreed to assist as Lead Commission Counsel.
The role involves close collaboration with the judge and overseeing the investigation and inquiry process.
Paul Cavallo
Had a similar experience with Justice O'Connor when he was called for both the Walkerton and the wrongful imprisonment inquiry.
Initially, he was reluctant in the second case due to the significant time commitment involved but ultimately agreed.
Responsibilities and Challenges of Leading an Inquiry:
Terms of reference:
Setting clear and comprehensive terms of reference is critical for the success of an inquiry. It ensures the inquiry is focused on public concerns but avoids becoming too broad or indefinite.
Both O'Connor and Gouge discussed the importance of these terms early on to ensure clarity and appropriateness for the investigation.
Resources and staff:
Once an inquiry is accepted, discussions about budget, staff, and other resources are necessary, though they are typically handled later once the investigation progresses.
An inquiry usually takes several years to complete, so judges often phase out their regular caseloads to focus on the inquiry full-time.
Role of Commission Counsel:
Commission Counsel (e.g., Linda Rothstein and Paul Cavallo) is tasked with advising the judge and ensuring the inquiry is conducted fairly, efficiently, and transparently.
Counsel works closely with the judge to shape the inquiry’s design and proceedings.
Their role includes ensuring all evidence is collected and procedures are followed, often advising on legal and strategic matters throughout the process.
Legal and ethical considerations
Independence and objectivity:
The judge’s role in a public inquiry is seen as critical for ensuring independence and impartiality. This is essential for maintaining public confidence in the inquiry's results.
Public inquiries are generally viewed as more credible when a judge leads them, due to their reputation for impartiality and fairness
Governmental Influence:
While the government typically calls for the inquiry, judges and their counsel maintain independence in how the inquiry is conducted.
Any involvement with politicians (e.g., the Attorney General) is minimal and often limited to logistical matters such as funding, but any behind-the-scenes political pressure is avoided.
It is considered inappropriate for government officials to interfere with the inquiry’s direction.
Challenges of Public Inquiries:
Media and public attention
Judges involved in public inquiries are often thrust into the media spotlight, which contrasts with their usual work in court where they remain out of the public eye.
The media's constant coverage of high-profile inquiries (like Walkerton) can be overwhelming for judges, but it is essential for transparency and public trust.
Confidentiality and Legal Issues:
One of the main challenges in a public inquiry is balancing public interest with the protection of privacy. This is especially important when dealing with sensitive information related to victims or ongoing legal cases.
Judges and counsel must navigate issues such as national security, privilege, and confidentiality, ensuring that the public interest is served without compromising legal rights or privacy.
Importance and Impact of Public Inquiries:
Judicial Stature and public Confidence:
A public inquiry led by a judge brings significant public confidence due to the judiciary’s perceived independence and credibility.
Public inquiries are seen as a tool to restore trust when the usual political and legal processes are insufficient.
Judicial reflection:
Judges often feel a strong sense of duty when called to lead inquiries, given the public interest at stake. While the media attention is challenging, they recognize the importance of transparency and accountability.
O’Connor and Gouge both agreed that taking on an inquiry is a significant responsibility that requires careful consideration, but it is often seen as a capstone to a judicial career.
Public inquiries are essential tools for addressing large-scale issues that impact public trust in government systems.
Judges play a critical role in ensuring that these inquiries are fair, transparent, and independent, providing a mechanism to restore public confidence when necessary.
The process of accepting and conducting an inquiry involves careful planning, resource allocation, and a balance between legal, ethical, and practical considerations
Concerns about commission independence:
If there were any issues with how the Commissioner is presiding, they should be addressed through discussion.
Commissioners are the final decision-makers, though Commission Counsel can provide advice.
Commission Counsel roles:
In Newfoundland’s Royal Commission, two roles existed: one as advocate in the courtroom and the other as advisory counsel.
The latter (the speaker's role) did not speak in the hearing room but worked on the report and could privately discuss matters with the Commissioner.
Independence from government:
the importance of the independence of the Commission from government influence. In their case, they had minimal contact with government officials, only interacting with the Deputy Minister shortly after the Attorney General’s invitation.
They see the government's role as creating the inquiry and respecting its independence.
Role of Politician in inquires:
Political figures can testify in inquiries (as seen with Ontario's Walkerton Inquiry, where Premier Mike Harris testified).
Emphasized that while politicians deserve respect, they must be questioned about relevant issues in an unbiased manner.
Handling Premier Testimony in Walkerton Inquiry:
Testifying in Walkerton, Premier Mike Harris was treated with respect, though the questions were firm and direct.
There was no personal animosity, and the process was carried out professionally.
Recounts an awkward but respectful interaction with Harris at a later event.
Media and public scrutiny:
Public inquiries attract intense media attention, and witnesses, especially politicians, face public scrutiny, often in negative contexts.
The importance of maintaining professionalism, avoiding sensationalism, and staying focused on facts is stressed.
Managing public inquiries amind tension:
While managing tension and media hype, the inquiry’s goal should be to uncover facts and make recommendations to prevent future issues, not to assign blame or criminal liability.
Inquiry management and costs:
Public inquiries are complex tasks involving large budgets, media relations, and public expectations.
They require effective leadership and management skills from commissioners to ensure timely and efficient completion.
Challenges in Cornwall Inquiry:
The Cornwall inquiry faced issues like exceeding time limits, running over budget, and venturing into unexpected areas.
The speaker noted that inexperienced staff can lead to inefficiency and increased costs, emphasizing the importance of having an organized approach.:
Efficiency in public inquiries
A successful inquiry is one that balances thoroughness with efficiency.
For example, the Walkerton Inquiry finished in just under two years, despite the complexity of the cases involved.
Speed was essential without sacrificing the quality of the findings.
Judicial oversight of inquiry direction:
If a judge in an inquiry is perceived as going "off-script," Commission Counsel can provide advice but cannot overrule the judge.
If necessary, parties can bring a judicial application to limit the inquiry's scope or challenge its direction, potentially causing delays and affecting public confidence.
Importance of clear mandates:
A well-defined mandate for an inquiry is crucial.
If the original order is unclear or unrealistic, it can cause the inquiry to veer off course.
Judicial supervision can ensure that the inquiry stays within its mandate, and governments can politically intervene if they feel the inquiry is becoming too challenging.
Government's power to end an inquiry
If the government feels that an inquiry is becoming too politically difficult, they can cancel it.
References to the Somali Inquiry, which was shut down by the government due to political pressure.
Judges role and government authority:
The government has the authority to establish and shut down inquiries.
If the government decides to shut down an inquiry, the judge can’t do much about it, as it’s the government’s decision, not the judge’s.
The judge should avoid publicly debating the government’s decision to shut down the inquiry and continue with their judicial duties.
The government can shut down an inquiry without facing political consequences if it chooses to.
Conducting a commission:
Running a commission requires maintaining independence, avoiding doing exactly what the government wants.
It’s crucial to pursue the mandate in a way that remains impartial, even when facing government opposition.
Finalizing the report:
When the inquiry ends and witnesses have been heard, the work shifts to writing the final report.
In some cases, the judge may not write the report personally, but there are different views on whether the commissioner’s council should be involved.
For instance, one case had the council assist with summarizing evidence and testing the validity of the judge’s recommendations.
The council would help assess the effectiveness and potential issues with the judge’s recommendations.
The council might suggest whether a recommendation is workable or if it truly solves the issue at hand.
Post-inquiry process:
After the inquiry, the commission staff plays a role in summarizing and analyzing the evidence, but ultimately, the judge makes the decisions.
This process also involves consulting expert advice and synthesizing facts gathered over the course of the inquiry.
Evaluating Recommendations:
The recommendations must be assessed, and one must consider whether the government can afford the suggested changes.
For example, during the Walkerton inquiry, experts were hired to assess the cost of implementing recommendations, and they provided a range of costs for various communities.
Challenges with Implementation:
Despite recommendations being made, they may not always be implemented right away. Some may become part of the public debate or take time to be implemented fully.
Some inquiries achieve their goals, while others only achieve some or part of them.
The political pressure to implement recommendations is often significant, as it was in the Walkerton case, where the recommendations gained widespread support.
Effectiveness of Public Inquiries:
Public inquiries often achieve their goals, though the degree of success varies. Some achieve full success, while others achieve most or some of their objectives.
Inquiries can be successful over time, especially policy-oriented commissions that shape future policies.
Some investigative inquiries, especially those on health care, have been particularly successful
Measuring the Success of an Inquiry:
Success can be measured by how many recommendations are adopted by the government, but also by the public benefit and transparency the inquiry provides.
One of the crucial benefits is the opportunity to meet with and listen to victims of crises, providing a sense of healing or reconciliation.
Success isn’t just about implementing recommendations but also about giving a voice to those affected and shining a light on societal issues.
General Consensus:
Most public inquiries in Canada in recent years have been successful in revealing the truth, gaining government support for recommendations, and satisfying public demand for transparency.
Governments have largely adopted the recommendations, and public satisfaction with the findings and disclosures from inquiries has been high.
Final Thoughts:
Judge Gouge mentioned that despite the challenges, he would consider taking on a public inquiry again.
The success of an inquiry can’t just be judged by the adoption of its recommendations, but also by its broader impact on society and policy development.
Covers the main points about the role of judges, the process of conducting inquiries, the challenges of implementing recommendations, and the overall success of public inquiries.
This final step of public policy evaluation comes with many added challenges and is perhaps considered the most complicated part of the process.
There are many players involved in the process, including governmental departments, organizations, central agencies, including the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the courts.
Chapter 8 notes
Policy evaluation is an essential part of the policy cycle and involves measuring an agency’s performance.
Evaluation helps assess how well a policy is being implemented and if the goals are being met.
Many government agencies, including specialized watchdogs, are responsible for evaluating specific policy fields or aspects of policy-making.
For example, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages monitors bilingualism policies, and the Office of the Auditor General ensures public funds are spent properly.
Most government departments and smaller agencies like the Canadian International Development Agency have in-house evaluation bureaus.
Program evaluation is a key part of the budgetary process, requiring departments to justify their spending requests based on how well their programs align with established policy goals.
Evaluation before policy implementation is legally required under the 1985 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which involves impact assessment to predict potential environmental consequences.
Various government bodies such as task forces, royal commissions, and parliamentary committees also conduct program evaluations.
The Government of Canada’s evaluation policy aims to build a comprehensive and reliable base of evaluation evidence to support policy and program improvement, expenditure management, Cabinet decision-making, and public reporting.
Public policy is an ongoing process, requiring continuous evaluation and improvement.
Policies often result from compromises among stakeholders, leading to less-than-ideal outcomes for some groups.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms exemplifies how policies evolve; different groups sought inclusion in the Charter, and compromises were made.
Groups not included, like the LGBTQ+ community, felt overlooked and pursued legal remedies, leading to court rulings that revised the Charter’s interpretation.
The Egan v. Canada case extended section 15 of the Charter to protect sexual orientation, showcasing how legal challenges act as policy evaluations.
Policy evaluation typically occurs through a systematic process within government departments, focusing on financial aspects such as value-for-money.
Other aspects of evaluation include alignment with departmental structures and objectives.
The goal of policy evaluation is to conduct a neutral assessment of the department’s effectiveness and performance.
Policy evaluation has gained importance due to value-for-money assessments, focusing on whether public expenditures are worthwhile.
The U.S. faced criticism in the 1960s for failing to reduce poverty despite large government spending, leading to the development of policy evaluation to understand social issues better.
Canada followed the U.S. example, with a focus on government accountability in managing taxpayer funds.
The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) plays a key role in expenditure management, providing objective information to hold the federal government accountable.
Established in 1878, the OAG's role has evolved, initially examining past transactions and approving government cheques.
In 1931, the cheque-writing responsibility shifted to the Comptroller of the Treasury, giving the Auditor General more independence.
By 1977, the Auditor General’s mandate expanded to examine government affairs, beyond just financial transactions.
In 1994, amendments to the Auditor General Act allowed for more reports and established the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
In 2009, the Budget Implementation Act further expanded the OAG's scope to include foundations and Crown corporations.
The Auditor General conducts three types of audits: performance audits, financial audits, and special examinations of Crown corporations.
Performance audit:
Focuses on whether programs are run efficiently and with regard to economy, efficiency, and environmental impact.
Evaluates if the government has measures in place to assess a program’s effectiveness.
Non-political, examining systems and practices for best practices.
Example: The Auditor General's request in 2010 for a performance audit of Parliament’s administration, such as contracting and human resource management.
Performance audits may recommend investments for improvement, such as enhancing call centers rather than cutting costs directly.
Aims to ensure systems provide the needed services at an appropriate level of risk.
Financial audit:
Focuses on whether the government keeps proper accounts, records, and presents financial information fairly.
Ensures compliance with laws and regulations.
Helps bring attention to overlooked matters, such as e-commerce tax fairness.
Example: A 2019 audit on Canadian retailers’ disadvantage in the digital marketplace due to outdated tax systems.
Reports often criticize the government's operational issues and suggest improvements.
Special examination of crown corporations
Conducted at least once every 10 years, focusing on management practices of Crown corporations.
Reports to the corporation's board of directors, then to the Treasury Board, and eventually made public.
Audits assess systems and practices, with criteria established at the start of the audit.
The Expenditure Review Committee (ERC), created in 2003, reviewed federal spending using new public management (NPM) principles, focusing on results, efficiency, effectiveness, and evidence-based decision-making.
ERC assessed programs based on seven criteria: public interest, role of government, federalism, partnership, value-for-money, efficiency, and affordability.
Under Justin Trudeau, the ERC was replaced by the Results Division of the Treasury Board Secretariat in 2016, marking a shift in policy evaluation.
The new policy aimed to improve government results and enhance understanding of how results are achieved and resources used.
Key elements of the new policy include:
Departments defining goals and assessing success.
Measuring and evaluating performance to manage and improve policies and services.
Allocating resources based on performance.
Ensuring transparency and clear communication of results to the public and Parliament.
A focus on transparency and public awareness was emphasized, including making ministerial mandate letters public.
The Treasury Board tracks progress on mandate letters, ranking items on a six-point scale, showing progress on most initiatives, with few abandoned.
Examples of completed items include maintaining National Defence spending and repealing previous government changes to Employment Insurance.
The new rubric does not assess the efficacy of programs or policies, focusing instead on tracking progress on commitments.
Example: The commitment to ratify the Paris Agreement and develop a Pan-Canadian framework is reported as completed, but the effectiveness of the policy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not addressed.
Some provinces rejected or repealed parts of the framework, such as Ontario’s cap-and-trade and Alberta’s carbon tax, but this is not mentioned.
The new approach is different from the previous ERC model, which focused on controlling government spending, ensuring accountability, and aligning with Canadian priorities.
The shift to focusing on campaign promises rather than policy evaluation prioritizes policy achievement over effectiveness.
Barber’s advice emphasized making policies irreversible through strong public support and effective communication, rather than evaluating their efficacy.
In the past, reports were submitted to Parliament and made available to the public, allowing MPs to comment and use them in debates.
The Treasury Board continues to make reports available on its website, with the Mandate Letter Tracker as a key communication tool.
Tony Dean questions if Canadians are aware of and using the Mandate Letter Tracker.
Trudeau’s government adopted a results-focused delivery model, inspired by Tony Blair's approach in the UK, emphasizing measurable targets and progress reporting.
Critical success factors include selecting clear transformative priorities, regular tracking meetings, clarity of accountability, and addressing federal complexities.
The Mandate Letter Tracker provides a transparent and frank color-coded progress update on initiatives, with green for on-track, amber for caution, and red for unmet goals.
Publicly available mandate letters clarify accountability for ministers and public servants.
Despite successes, challenges include over 400 items in the Mandate Tracker, insufficient focus on second-tier priorities, and skepticism about self-assessment.
While the approach has led to progress on key priorities, further improvements in engagement, resources, and credibility are needed.
Many Canadians may not check the Mandate Letter Tracker, and Blair’s experience shows that data doesn't excite the public as much as daily life experiences.
The goal is to make government programs more effective and communicate their impact in ways that resonate with Canadians.
Barber critiques government review processes, noting they take too long to have an impact.
A major challenge in policy evaluation is determining all consequences of policy decisions, which is often impossible.
Social sciences deal with complex phenomena, making it difficult to isolate the effects of a single policy.
Unlike natural sciences, social sciences cannot predict exact results due to the many interacting variables in human behavior.
Laws like supply and demand are valid but can't predict precise outcomes because other factors influence the results.
Policy analysis, which includes evaluation, aims to empirically determine the effects of a policy.
Evaluation involves documenting real-world evidence of policy impacts, but isolating the effects of one policy is difficult due to overlapping influences.
Governments argue that intervention is needed to correct the imperfections of a capitalist system, but evaluating these corrections is complex.
The critical problem in evaluation is determining how to isolate the effects of one policy from others or from changing circumstances.
Policy evaluation often faces challenges in isolating the effects of a specific policy due to multiple contributing factors.
Example: Raising the minimum wage might show no increase in unemployment, but other factors like investment or consumer confidence could mask the true impact.
Statistical data can provide aggregates, but cannot offer causal explanations of policy effects.
Economists may argue that minimum wage increases could lead to higher unemployment, but positive economic trends could mask this effect.
In some cases, it is difficult to even conceptualize policy outcomes, like in merger controls aimed at preventing monopoly power.
Mergers can reduce costs and increase competition, but evaluating the costs and benefits of mergers is complicated due to uncertainty and difficulty in comparing counterfactual outcomes (separate firms vs. merged firm).
Bureaucrats lack the knowledge to predict which economic outcomes would occur with or without a merger, making it impossible to accurately evaluate the policy.
Evaluating policies like mergers requires knowledge of future outcomes, which is impossible, creating a paradox of needing "prophets" to predict results.
The methodology for evaluating economic policies is flawed because causal relationships are often unclear, unlike in natural sciences where experiments can isolate variables.
Despite using statistical methods, economic evaluations may still rely on guesswork and assumptions rather than clear causal evidence.
Policy analysis and evaluation are common, but they don't always provide a clear picture of how well objectives are being met.
Program evaluations are often conducted by those who implement the programs, raising concerns about objectivity.
The possibility of disclosure through the Access to Information Act can limit the transparency and frankness of evaluations.
Experimental economics, used by 2019 Nobel Laureates, tests policies through field experiments, but its application by governments is limited.
Vague public policy goals, such as promoting culture or protecting the environment, are difficult to measure accurately.
Measuring the benefits of programs like environmental protection is challenging; economists may use market-based methods that reduce benefits to dollar values, but this approach may not capture all intrinsic values.
Environmentalists and animal rights advocates argue that certain values, such as wilderness protection or species diversity, cannot be reduced to economic terms.
The use of dollars in evaluating policies can bias results toward easily measurable programs, undervaluing less tangible benefits.
Politics plays a role in performance measurement; stakeholders with vested interests in soft data may push for ambiguous results, while those interested in efficiency and accountability seek hard data.
Program evaluation often occurs on the periphery of policy-making and lacks strong support from political and bureaucratic elites.
Measuring success in public programs is difficult and crucial to avoid misdirection or waste.
Private sector success is easier to measure with clear metrics like profits and market share, while public sector success is less straightforward.
Research shows private organizations generally perform similar tasks more efficiently than public ones.
Three reasons for the efficiency gap:
Situational ambiguity: Public officials face unclear or conflicting goals, making efficient action harder to define.
Incentives: Public officials lack the personal financial incentives to improve efficiency that private-sector managers have.
Authority: Public agencies often lack the authority to implement efficiency improvements, with limited control over budgets, hiring, and internal changes.
Public-sector managers are constrained by bureaucratic processes and legislative approval, unlike their private-sector counterparts.
Policy evaluation is crucial but politics often determine policy adoption, continuation, or termination, not evaluation results.
Evaluators are expected to have skills blending research, interpretation, and critical thinking, with a focus on impartial advice and transparency.
In 2004, the Treasury Board reviewed federal evaluations and found 23% inadequate, mainly due to:
Limited discussion on alternative cost-effective approaches (only 26% in reports).
No reports indicated that a program was unnecessary or irrelevant.
Self-review by government agencies often justifies programs instead of recommending their termination, influenced by political dynamics.
Example: In response to the 2008-9 recession, the government switched to a $33.7 billion deficit after initially planning for tax cuts and spending reduction. Despite a larger deficit, the government claimed the stimulus worked, while critics questioned its effectiveness.
Evaluations depend on the perspective of the evaluator, with think tanks like the Fraser Institute and CCPA offering differing conclusions on the effectiveness of stimulus spending.
The Auditor General's evaluation focused on the efficiency of the stimulus but didn't address whether it achieved its intended outcomes.
Governments have formalized and systematized policy evaluation, but bureaucrats often criticize policies at the margins and use evaluations to justify ongoing public spending.
True policy evaluation is typically carried out when a new government takes office, as they are not bound by the previous administration’s decisions.
New governments can more effectively evaluate past policies and implement changes to government machinery.
Policy evaluation in the political arena is an important reason for elections, as it allows for policy revisions or terminations.
The 2015 Canadian federal election exemplified this when the new Liberal government quickly reversed many Conservative policies.
The rapid changes after the 2015 election demonstrate the significant influence of political elites over bureaucratic processes.
Despite its importance, policy evaluation remains subject to political influence and posturing, similar to other stages of the policy process.
KEY TERMS
allocative inefficiency A theoretical measure of the benefit or utility obtained from a proposed or actual choice in the distribution of resources.
ceteris paribus A Latin term meaning “all things being equal.”
cost-benefit analysis A technique used to identify all the potential costs and benefits of a proposed or actual policy and then derive the net result. Ideally a net benefit will result in policy adoption, and a net negative will result in policy rejection.
deliverology a method by which governments link results to priorities using evidence-based policy-making, measurement, and evaluation throughout the policy process.
evaluation The measurement of an agency’s performance.
ex ante A Latin term meaning an analysis done before adoption of a policy.
financial audits These audits ask the question, “Is the government keeping proper accounts and records and presenting its financial information fairly?”
impact assessment An analysis typically done before policy adoption to determine what impacts the proposed policy will have on the environment.
performance audit These audits examine whether the system itself is running efficiently and whether or not changes can be made to save money in the long run.
program evaluation Part of the budgetary process that requires all departments and agencies to justify their spending requests to the Treasury Board in terms of how their programs met the policy goals established by cabinet.
value-for-money Closely related to allocative efficiency, value-for-money audits ask whether the government’s use of money was worthwhile.
Monahan, P. notes
The article titled "Impact of the Charter on the Public Policy Process" is a comprehensive symposium article that provides a deep examination of the implications of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (referred to as the Charter) on the formulation and execution of public policy within various government structures in Canada.
Authored by Patrick J. Monahan and Marie Finkelstein, this work is published as a Special Issue Article, identifiable by DOI: 10.60082/2817-5069.1712.
The article contributes significantly to the understanding of how constitutional rights influence the operation of government and policy-making processes, shedding light on both the theoretical and practical dimensions of this impact.
Abstract
This essay represents a paradigm shift, focusing on the tangible effects of the Charter on governmental policy processes rather than solely on its traditional judicial interpretations.
The authors contend that the Charter has fundamentally altered how public policy is developed, assessed, and implemented:
Alignment with Charter Principles: Policy proposals must now explicitly align with the stipulations set out in the Charter. This requirement ensures that the fundamental rights of citizens are prioritized and considered in every aspect of the decision-making process.
Enhanced Oversight: There is an increase in oversight by the Attorney General's office, marking a notable shift in the dynamics of governmental power and oversight functionality. This has implications for both accountability and the protection of individual rights.
Structural Changes: The article discusses various structural transformations initiated within both federal and provincial governments, critically evaluating their implications for the effectiveness and outcomes of policy decisions. Such changes reflect a broader integration of rights considerations into the fabric of governance.
Introduction
Historical Context
The enactment of the Charter of Rights in 1982 represented a watershed moment in Canadian governance.
This constitutional shift has fundamentally redirected the focus towards individual rights, serving as a counterbalance to governmental authority.
The integration of the Charter into the Canadian constitutional framework has created a new context for policy-making, compelling policymakers to consider individual rights alongside legislative priorities.
Public Perception
Public sentiment regarding the Charter has been mixed, as revealed through surveys and polls.
Canadians exhibit a spectrum of feelings ranging from strong support for the Charter’s proactive stance on civil liberties to skepticism regarding its practical implications on daily life and constitutional rights.
Findings indicate varying degrees of awareness and knowledge concerning the Charter’s provisions, prompting discussions about the need for greater public education regarding rights and freedoms.
The Charter and Public Policy: The View from Within Government
Federal Government
Institutional Change
Introduction of New Procedural Frameworks:
The federal government has implemented procedural changes to ensure compliance with Charter mandates during the policy-making phases.
This includes steps that are designed to incorporate Charter considerations at every decision point.
Establishment of a Human Rights Section:
A dedicated section has been set up within the federal government to handle inquiries related to the Charter and to manage the complexities that arise in legal contexts.
This reflects an institutional commitment to uphold Charter rights.
Mandated Consultations:
There is now a requirement for early-stage consultations with legal advisors during the policy development process.
This proactive measure allows for potential Charter issues to be addressed before they can become problematic.
Substantive Policy Making
The integration of Charter considerations into federal decision-making processes represents a cultural shift in governance.
Federal officials are now more attuned to the implications of their decisions concerning individual rights.
Increased Collaboration:
There has been a marked increase in collaboration between justice lawyers and various governmental departments.
This collaborative effort is designed to systematically address Charter-related challenges and to minimize the risk of litigation arising from constitutional violations.
Litigation Policy
The federal government has adopted a more rigorous approach to constitutional litigation, emphasizing careful reviews and increased scrutiny before defending existing laws against Charter challenges.
This development signals a greater awareness of the implications of the Charter on legislative efficacy and legal liability.
Ontario Government
Institutional Change
In the 1980s, the Ontario government undertook a thorough review process of existing legislation to ensure alignment with the Charter’s principles.
This process highlights a proactive stance in responding to constitutional changes.
Establishment of a Constitutional Law and Policy Division:
A dedicated division was created to ensure comprehensive compliance with Charter stipulations, thus embedding Charter considerations into the policy-making process.
Substantive Policy Making
Policymakers have become more responsive to the significant impacts of the Charter, adapting policies in reaction to relevant court decisions and outcomes related to Charter compliance.
There is now a strict requirement for certifying Charter considerations before policies are presented for Cabinet approval, indicating that such considerations have become an integral part of the policy approval process.
Litigation Policy
The Ontario government has focused on developing coherent legal strategies to preemptively address possible Charter-related litigation.
The aim is to draft laws that avoid potential constitutional challenges, indicating a shift towards a more thoughtful approach in law-making.
Saskatchewan and British Columbia Governments
Saskatchewan: With a smaller governmental structure, Saskatchewan has experienced more informal processes for Charter review. Discussions about the implications of the Charter tend to occur later in the policy-making stages, often attributed to the absence of formalized procedures.
British Columbia: Similar to Saskatchewan, British Columbia has adopted informal practices. In this context, Charter considerations usually arise only after initial policy proposals receive approval, suggesting a reactive rather than a proactive approach to Charter compliance when formulating public policy.
The Charter and Public Policy: The View from Outside Government
Insights from academics and advocacy groups highlight widespread discontent regarding governmental responses to Charter challenges.
Many critics argue that there is a lack of commitment on the part of the government in actively promoting Charter rights.
Additionally, others contend that the Charter imposes necessary restrictions on governmental creativity and flexibility, potentially stifling innovation in policy-making.
This external perspective emphasizes the ongoing debate regarding the balance between rights enforcement and effective governance.
Analysis and Conclusions
Varied Government Responses
Different provinces exhibit diverse responses to the Charter, with formalized procedures seen in jurisdictions like Ontario contrasted against more informal practices in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
This variability reflects the adaptability of governmental entities as they navigate the complexities introduced by the Charter.
Charter Narrows Government Discretion
The Charter operates not as an outright veto power over legislation, but as a significant variable that influences governmental calculations and strategic approaches to the law-making process.
This change highlights the political and operational constraints placed on government entities in light of constitutional principles.
Changes in Power Dynamics Within Government
The evolving role of the Attorney General reflects a growing political importance and a shift toward integrating legal considerations into core policy-making frameworks.
This elevation of legal oversight indicates a recognition of the necessity for legal compliance in governance.
Broader Political Environment
The Charter has introduced new dynamics in political advocacy, encouraging interest groups to leverage Charter arguments to promote their respective policy objectives.
This shift has reshaped the public discourse on rights and freedoms, thereby influencing how policy debates are conducted in Canada.
Appendix A: Research Guidelines
Assessing the Charter's Impact
Legislative Processes: Has the Charter meaningfully affected legislative processes at federal and provincial levels?
Systematic Procedures: Are there established procedures for addressing Charter-related concerns in policy development?
Statutory Challenges: What mechanisms are activated when a statute faces a challenge under the Charter?
Policy Development and Considerations
Balancing Priorities: How do governments negotiate the balance between Charter considerations and other policy priorities when developing new legislation?
Role of Legal Opinions: What role do legal opinions play in guiding policy outcomes, particularly when faced with potential Charter implications?
This detailed analysis underscores the pervasive influence of the Charter on the governance framework in Canada, illustrating not only the structural changes that have occurred within government but also the deeper cultural shifts that accompany such transformations.