Sensemaking
#7Key Findings
Canada performs well (rank 7) in the category of sensemaking.
The government lacks official strategic foresight mechanisms, with many decisions focused on short-term goals driven by electoral cycles. Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the Privy Council Office have dedicated strategic planning units for long-term scenarios. Central agencies regularly draw on experts to develop plans and priorities.
The federal government uses a regulatory impact analysis system for proposed regulations with significant impact. Especially in areas like environment and climate change, these are often informed by scientific research conducted by the department. As relevant, they quantify impacts on sustainability.
Ex post evaluation is a weak point. Even when performed, such assessments are rarely made public. Most such evaluations are conducted internally within departments, and thus are not independent and lack transparency.
The government lacks official strategic foresight mechanisms, with many decisions focused on short-term goals driven by electoral cycles. Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the Privy Council Office have dedicated strategic planning units for long-term scenarios. Central agencies regularly draw on experts to develop plans and priorities.
The federal government uses a regulatory impact analysis system for proposed regulations with significant impact. Especially in areas like environment and climate change, these are often informed by scientific research conducted by the department. As relevant, they quantify impacts on sustainability.
Ex post evaluation is a weak point. Even when performed, such assessments are rarely made public. Most such evaluations are conducted internally within departments, and thus are not independent and lack transparency.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Little strategic foresight exists in Canada, and many decisions are short-term in nature, guided by electoral cycles and imperatives. Public officials have complained about this for years (Wilner and Roy 2019).
Neither the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) nor the Privy Council Office (PCO) has an official strategic planning unit dedicated to medium- and long-term scenarios. Past efforts, such as the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, were abolished in the early 1990s. In 1997, Policy Horizons Canada was established under the PCO with a mandate to provide analysis and help the
Federal public service anticipated emerging policy challenges and opportunities. However, its budget was small, and this initiative was more or less canceled in the mid-2000s.
In practice, however, central agencies – particularly the PCO and the Department of Finance – often have expert capacity dedicated to planning and priorities, both in policy agenda-setting and rollout, accessing these experts through the Canadian university system. Budgets typically consider five-year horizons and various medium-term scenarios in setting the fiscal framework. Planning initiatives are undertaken in the lead-up to Speeches from the Throne, and consultations with external consultants are common.
Canadian government departments and agencies tap into the expertise of academics and other experts through advisory committees and consultancies. The current Trudeau government has also used special advisory groups to provide information and consultations on a number of policy areas such as economic growth, cultural policy, and issues relating to young people. This was evident most recently in response to COVID-19, when expert councils became more prominent in the health field. A COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, for example, was created to advise on vaccine candidates and development, especially since the country lacked domestic supply. Moreover, the existing National Advisory Committee on Immunization has played a critical role throughout the pandemic.
A new chief science adviser, appointed in September 2017, continues to provide advice on issues related to science and government policies that support it.
Citations:
Wilner, Alex, and Martin Roy. 2020. “Canada’s Emerging Foresight Landscape: Observations and Lessons.” Foresight 22 (5/6): 551–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2020-0027.
Neither the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) nor the Privy Council Office (PCO) has an official strategic planning unit dedicated to medium- and long-term scenarios. Past efforts, such as the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, were abolished in the early 1990s. In 1997, Policy Horizons Canada was established under the PCO with a mandate to provide analysis and help the
Federal public service anticipated emerging policy challenges and opportunities. However, its budget was small, and this initiative was more or less canceled in the mid-2000s.
In practice, however, central agencies – particularly the PCO and the Department of Finance – often have expert capacity dedicated to planning and priorities, both in policy agenda-setting and rollout, accessing these experts through the Canadian university system. Budgets typically consider five-year horizons and various medium-term scenarios in setting the fiscal framework. Planning initiatives are undertaken in the lead-up to Speeches from the Throne, and consultations with external consultants are common.
Canadian government departments and agencies tap into the expertise of academics and other experts through advisory committees and consultancies. The current Trudeau government has also used special advisory groups to provide information and consultations on a number of policy areas such as economic growth, cultural policy, and issues relating to young people. This was evident most recently in response to COVID-19, when expert councils became more prominent in the health field. A COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, for example, was created to advise on vaccine candidates and development, especially since the country lacked domestic supply. Moreover, the existing National Advisory Committee on Immunization has played a critical role throughout the pandemic.
A new chief science adviser, appointed in September 2017, continues to provide advice on issues related to science and government policies that support it.
Citations:
Wilner, Alex, and Martin Roy. 2020. “Canada’s Emerging Foresight Landscape: Observations and Lessons.” Foresight 22 (5/6): 551–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2020-0027.
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
Studies about potential policy impacts are sometimes reduced to a few lines in cabinet briefs, but this should not obscure that longer documents are often used for major policy rollouts. Impacts are occasionally assessed through stakeholder consultations, though these may also accompany broader policy briefings on the current socioeconomic environment and the latest research on a topic.
Frequently, the federal government uses the results of special studies or commissions to inform briefings and policy decisions. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth, for example, provided recommendations that directly influenced government decision-making on superclusters. Additionally, before new policy initiatives move forward, a quick environmental scan is typically conducted to review existing research and work.
In addition, the federal government has a regulatory impact analysis system in place.
The federal Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments and agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for any proposed new or amended regulation that could have significant impacts. RIAs are typically comprehensive, and the underlying departmental work can be quite extensive. RIAs are often informed by scientific research that the department, if mandated, is itself conducting, such as in the case of environment and climate change.
The RIA involves identifying potential impacts of regulatory changes, quantifying costs and benefits where possible, assessing distributional impacts on different groups, comparing various options and recommending the best option.
The Treasury Board Secretariat issues detailed guidance to departments on how to properly conduct RIAs as part of the regulatory planning and approval process. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Finance Canada have specialized units to help conduct quality RIAs across departments on regulations in their sectors.
Regulatory Impact Analyses must be finalized in draft form before prepublishing proposed regulations in Canada Gazette Part I, allowing for external feedback that can lead to further analysis.
The final RIAs accompany all regulations tabled in Parliament and become publicly available when the regulations are finalized in the Canada Gazette Part II (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2018).
Citations:
Secretariat, Treasury Board of Canada. 2018. “Cabinet Directive on Regulation.” https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/requirements-developing-managing-reviewing-regulations/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html
Advisory Council on Economic Growth (ACEG). 2017. Unlocking Innovation to Drive Scale and Growth. Ottawa: ACEG.
Frequently, the federal government uses the results of special studies or commissions to inform briefings and policy decisions. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth, for example, provided recommendations that directly influenced government decision-making on superclusters. Additionally, before new policy initiatives move forward, a quick environmental scan is typically conducted to review existing research and work.
In addition, the federal government has a regulatory impact analysis system in place.
The federal Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments and agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for any proposed new or amended regulation that could have significant impacts. RIAs are typically comprehensive, and the underlying departmental work can be quite extensive. RIAs are often informed by scientific research that the department, if mandated, is itself conducting, such as in the case of environment and climate change.
The RIA involves identifying potential impacts of regulatory changes, quantifying costs and benefits where possible, assessing distributional impacts on different groups, comparing various options and recommending the best option.
The Treasury Board Secretariat issues detailed guidance to departments on how to properly conduct RIAs as part of the regulatory planning and approval process. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Finance Canada have specialized units to help conduct quality RIAs across departments on regulations in their sectors.
Regulatory Impact Analyses must be finalized in draft form before prepublishing proposed regulations in Canada Gazette Part I, allowing for external feedback that can lead to further analysis.
The final RIAs accompany all regulations tabled in Parliament and become publicly available when the regulations are finalized in the Canada Gazette Part II (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2018).
Citations:
Secretariat, Treasury Board of Canada. 2018. “Cabinet Directive on Regulation.” https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/requirements-developing-managing-reviewing-regulations/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html
Advisory Council on Economic Growth (ACEG). 2017. Unlocking Innovation to Drive Scale and Growth. Ottawa: ACEG.
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
Canada has maintained a robust system of environmental assessments for many years (Mitchell et al. 1977). Although these assessments are typically project-based, they are generally high-quality and rigorous, including public hearings and other participatory mechanisms. Technically, formal RIAs are used to examine these impacts.
The Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments to assess the positive and negative environmental impacts of regulatory proposals as part of the RIA. Guidance from the Treasury Board directs departments to account for environmental impacts on ecosystems, carbon emissions, and pollution levels, including over the long term where feasible.
RIAs often include a section detailing the potential positive or negative impacts a regulatory change may have on the environment or environmental goals. When relevant, RIAs quantify impacts on sustainability, such as estimating changes in greenhouse gas emissions or effects on biodiversity resulting from a new regulation (Hunsberger et al. 2020).
Citations:
Hunsberger, Carol, Sarah Froese, and George Hoberg. 2020. “Toward ‘Good Process’ in Regulatory Reviews: Is Canada’s New System Any Better than the Old?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82: 106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106379
Mitchell, B., R. Turkheim, and R. R. Krueger. 1977. “Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles, Practices, and Canadian Experiences.” In Managing Canada’s Renewable Resources, 47–66. Toronto: Methuen.
The Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments to assess the positive and negative environmental impacts of regulatory proposals as part of the RIA. Guidance from the Treasury Board directs departments to account for environmental impacts on ecosystems, carbon emissions, and pollution levels, including over the long term where feasible.
RIAs often include a section detailing the potential positive or negative impacts a regulatory change may have on the environment or environmental goals. When relevant, RIAs quantify impacts on sustainability, such as estimating changes in greenhouse gas emissions or effects on biodiversity resulting from a new regulation (Hunsberger et al. 2020).
Citations:
Hunsberger, Carol, Sarah Froese, and George Hoberg. 2020. “Toward ‘Good Process’ in Regulatory Reviews: Is Canada’s New System Any Better than the Old?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82: 106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106379
Mitchell, B., R. Turkheim, and R. R. Krueger. 1977. “Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles, Practices, and Canadian Experiences.” In Managing Canada’s Renewable Resources, 47–66. Toronto: Methuen.
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
Formal ex post evaluations are very poor in Canada and, even when they are done, are often not made public (Dobell and Zussman 1981). Following a royal commission on government financial management and accountability – the Lambert Commission – in the 1970s, an older Office of the Comptroller General was given a new mandate to promote ex post policy and program evaluations across the entire federal government (Lahey 2023). However, after several mergers and reorganizations in the 1990s, by the early 2000s the office re-emerged, although largely stripped of its evaluation function (Free and Radcliffe 2009).
Most evaluations are currently conducted by individual departments, which are responsible for assessing their own programs and policies after implementation. These internal evaluations are expected to gauge effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability but are not conducted at arm’s length from commissioning departments. Central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office, provide guidance and attempt to impose some standards for these departmental evaluation activities.
Treasury Board Secretariat has clear requirements for departments to have in place a Performance Management and Evaluation Committee, which monitors results performance and conducts regular evaluations. Evaluation may involve key programming and any programming that may be deemed to be at risk within the department’s risk management framework. Each department must have a Head of Evaluation who can report directly to the deputy. Respective deputies are mandated with these responsibilities.
Parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, can conduct performance audits and studies on implemented policies. Occasionally, independent external evaluators are contracted to provide impartial evaluations. These evaluators can be professional services firms, academics or non-governmental bodies.
Mechanisms like online consultations, focus groups, and surveys can also provide feedback from program users and the public on an implemented policy.
Citations:
Dobell, R., and D. Zussman. 1981. “An Evaluation System for Government: If Politics Is Theatre, Then Evaluation Is (Mostly) Art.” Canadian Public Administration 24 (3): 404–27.
Lahey, Robert. 2023. “John Mayne and the Origins of Evaluation in the Public Sector in Canada: A Shaping of Both Evaluation and the Evaluator.” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 37 (3): 340–54. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75451.
Free, Clinton, and Vaughan Radcliffe. 2009. “Accountability in Crisis: The Sponsorship Scandal and the Office of the Comptroller General in Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics 84 (2): 189–208.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=3130
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=31306
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/evaluation-government-canada
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9681-8
Most evaluations are currently conducted by individual departments, which are responsible for assessing their own programs and policies after implementation. These internal evaluations are expected to gauge effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability but are not conducted at arm’s length from commissioning departments. Central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office, provide guidance and attempt to impose some standards for these departmental evaluation activities.
Treasury Board Secretariat has clear requirements for departments to have in place a Performance Management and Evaluation Committee, which monitors results performance and conducts regular evaluations. Evaluation may involve key programming and any programming that may be deemed to be at risk within the department’s risk management framework. Each department must have a Head of Evaluation who can report directly to the deputy. Respective deputies are mandated with these responsibilities.
Parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, can conduct performance audits and studies on implemented policies. Occasionally, independent external evaluators are contracted to provide impartial evaluations. These evaluators can be professional services firms, academics or non-governmental bodies.
Mechanisms like online consultations, focus groups, and surveys can also provide feedback from program users and the public on an implemented policy.
Citations:
Dobell, R., and D. Zussman. 1981. “An Evaluation System for Government: If Politics Is Theatre, Then Evaluation Is (Mostly) Art.” Canadian Public Administration 24 (3): 404–27.
Lahey, Robert. 2023. “John Mayne and the Origins of Evaluation in the Public Sector in Canada: A Shaping of Both Evaluation and the Evaluator.” Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 37 (3): 340–54. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75451.
Free, Clinton, and Vaughan Radcliffe. 2009. “Accountability in Crisis: The Sponsorship Scandal and the Office of the Comptroller General in Canada.” Journal of Business Ethics 84 (2): 189–208.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=3130
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=31306
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/evaluation-government-canada
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9681-8