ARCHIVED - Public Appointments Commission Secretariat - Report

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section II: Analysis of Program Activity by Strategic Outcome

Performance Analysis of Priorities

Program Activity : Oversight of the Governor-in-Council Appointments

2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions)			2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending	Planned	Actual	Difference
963	918	238	4	1	3

Priority 1: Support the Commission

The Public Appointments Commission Secretariat is charged with the development of policy and operational documents for consideration by the Commission, once established. The materials have been prepared and updated to reflect ongoing practices for similar federal entities, domestically and internationally. The materials include guidance for the board of directors, an internal code of conduct, a strategic communications policy, speeches and other outreach materials such as brochures and leaflets, and the development of a website to be launched with the announcement of a Commission, which will explain its roles and functions and present such key documents as the Code of Practice and associated guidance (see priority 3).

Priority 2: Build the Organization

The Treasury Board of Canada has approved the Program Activity Architecture and funding for the Commission and the Secretariat, once both are fully operational. Resources are deemed sufficient for a Commission (part time member(s)), a core Secretariat of 3 to 4 permanent staff, and an annual contract via government tendering processes to secure external auditors to assess compliance to the Commission’s policies and procedures. In advance of the Commission, the Treasury Board has provided a limited budget for advance work by a core Secretariat, staffed on a temporary basis. Additionally, a management accountability framework has been prepared which outlines how performance for both the Commission and its Secretariat will be assessed, once the former is established.

The Secretariat is currently supported by the Privy Council Office for financial and administrative services via the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The costing of the MOU is now fully reflected in all of the Secretariat’s financial reporting. Preparations for permanent staffing have also been completed which should provide for a quick start up of a permanent structure once an Executive Director (as Deputy Head) is appointed.

Priority 3: Develop the Code of Practice

The Secretariat has developed options for a Code of Practice which will be the primary document the Commission will need to review, adopt, and publish to fulfill its mandate within the shortest timeframe.

The Code of Practice will be the definitive document for public organizations under the Commission’s jurisdiction, but could be supplemented by procedures developed and tailored by individual agencies.

The Secretariat’s consultative work and ongoing work programs, including research into procedures and best practices of similar domestic and international accountability bodies, have indicated widespread agreement on the fundamental directions for the range of options developed for the Code of Practice. There is a strong consensus for a Code of Practice that builds on the strengths and recent reforms of the current system, and still maintains the well-established tradition of Ministerial responsibility, specifically:

• the processes set out by the Code of Practice will need to be cost-effective, timely, and not burdensome, particularly in light of the wide range in size, scope and profile of federal organizations under the Commission’s jurisdiction, which argues against a “one size fits all” approach;
• the focus will need to remain on competency-based appointments, but with sufficient allowance to meet diversity and representational needs for public boards (i.e., relevant skills, interests and backgrounds);
• the need for the Code of Practice to be flexible and proportionate, meaning that appointment processes are to be appropriate to the nature and profile of the vacancy to be filled and the needs of the organization and its stage of development; and
• in all cases, appointment processes adopted need to be set out clearly and publicly.

Priority 4: Monitor, Audit and Report

A Performance Measurement Framework has been prepared, with the assistance of the Treasury Board Secretariat, with respect to performance indicators, to measure the expected outcomes of the Commission and its Secretariat, once fully established and operational. Performance indicators will need to focus on base compliance to the Code of Practice, evidence of consistent and quality selection processes, internal cultural support for governance reforms in appointment processes, and increased public awareness and support for the appointment system in general. A proposed framework has also been developed for the Commission’s Annual Report.  The Commission and its Secretariat will be subject to internal audits, under the supervision of the PCO, as set out in the MOU.

Lessons Learned

While awaiting the creation of the Commission, the Secretariat needed to ensure that its research and work efforts informed and contributed to the ongoing efforts lead by the PCO to improve the Governor-in-Council appointment system. For 2009-10, the Secretariat kept abreast with developments, domestically and internationally, in this area, and highlighted where efforts might be directed to provide more consistent and rigorous Governor-in-Council appointment practices across federal organizations.

Looking domestically, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have distinct internal organizations that give advice on and monitor public appointments. British Columbia Board Resource Development Office (BRDO) represents the most centralized appointment process in light of the fact that almost all public appointments, including appointments to administrative tribunals must be handled by this Office. The BRDO provides specific guidance on all aspects of the appointment process, is actively involved in each individual appointment round, requires active participation from all government agencies, boards, and commissions in the process, performs and oversees due diligence reviews, oversees orientation, training and evaluation, and manages a central website which can accept on-line applications.  Alberta’s Agency Governance Secretariat is less “hands-on” when compared with the BRDO. Its approach is to set principles and policies, with the operations for public appointments decentralized with respective Ministers and their departments; its unique feature is its integration of the appointment system with overall governance policy and management. Ontario’s Public Appointment Secretariat manages a centralized database for tracking appointment terms and expiration dates, posts vacancies on its website and provides for on-line applications; also, all persons applying to serve on public bodies in Ontario must apply through this Secretariat.

Although Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have not created distinct appointment secretariats, many functions of such secretariats are performed by staff within the government’s Executive Council. The focus has been on the creation of consistent but flexible appointment guidelines and the development of centralized websites capable of handling on-line applications. The latter is aimed to address openness and transparency concerns, and to enhance the range of applicants available for vacancies in this sector.

Much of the work of these organizations follows the early precedents set out by the United Kingdom’s Commissioner of Public Appointments, whose office regulates the public appointments process, monitors compliance with a Code of Practice through annual audits and the investigation of complaints about appointment processes, and promotes fair selection procedures focused on merit. Detailed information about appointment processes and the population of public appointees is provided annually to Parliament.

Recent trends in policy development and procedures include: a greater focus on strategic planning for appointments and reappointments, in part to reduce vacancy rates and the amount of time required for each appointment round; strengthening clearing-house functions to identify and distribute good practices; a stronger focus on both individual and board performance evaluation, including the need to assess members for quasi-judicial bodies while still respecting their need for independence; development of internal systems to monitor appointment procedures and to generate data to evaluate system outcomes; conducting reviews of the agency sector, including assessing board needs in terms of appointments; developing internal systems to provide for continuing monitoring and evaluation of this sector; devising enhanced due diligence protocols; providing for a strengthened role for Parliament respecting public appointments; and developing pro-active policies and outreach to improve the range of individuals applying for these types of positions, in line with diversity and representativeness objectives. Québec has taken the strongest lead on diversity, employing both policy and legislative approaches.

The Governor-in-Council appointment system for the federal government has well developed policies and procedures and much progress has been made since 2006 to strengthen the system and improve its rigour. Looking ahead, and in light of advancements in other jurisdictions, future efforts might require stronger focus on: planning for appointments and reappointments; developing internal systems to better monitor and assess key elements of the appointment system; strengthening selection requirements for senior positions and ensuring that boards have assessed their needs in terms of membership; providing consistency in performance evaluation; and providing for greater transparency via expansion of the PCO appointments website to accept on-line applications and to enhance information to the public on the advantages of public appointments, and how a citizen can identify his or her interest, and on the Governor-in-Council population, in general.

Program Activity 1: Internal Services¹

2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions)			2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending	Planned	Actual	Difference
100	100	53	0	0	0

¹ Commencing in the 2009-10 Estimates cycle, the resources for the Internal Services program activity are displayed separately from other program activities; they are no longer distributed among the remaining program activities, as was the case in previous Main Estimates. This has affected the comparability of spending and FTE information by Program Activity between fiscal years.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page