Departmental Results Report 2016-2017

Table of contents

Message from the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer

Picture of Caroline Maynard Interim Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Military Grievances External Review CommitteeAs the Interim Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Military Grievances External Review Committee (Committee), I am pleased to present the Committee’s Departmental Results Report for 2016-2017.

During the period covered by this report, the Committee continued to deliver on its mandate to provide an independent review of military grievances in the face of a number of challenges. The end of 2016 saw the departure of the Committee’s then-Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, whom I have since been replacing on an interim basis. While the Committee has been operating with significantly fewer members than the National Defence Act mandates, it was able to adapt and continued to provide timely and high-quality findings and recommendations. In addition, the Committee developed a new logic model and performance measurement tools for its program in compliance with the new Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Results. The exercise provided the Committee an opportunity to review its program objectives and establish how achievements will be measured. At the same time, the Committee prepared for the implementation of a new version of its case management system, a change that required a considerable investment in time and effort to ensure a smooth transition.

A number of corporate initiatives were successfully realized in 2016-2017, helping the Committee to contribute to the achievement of several Blueprint 2020 objectives. Among these were the development of an organizational mental health strategy to align with the priorities set out by the Clerk of the Privy Council, the migration of the Committee’s web content to the new canada.ca site, and the establishment of a vision for the Committee’s Workplace Renewal Initiative. In addition, a lean office initiative was launched that will make the Committee’s program and corporate operations more efficient and significantly less reliant on paper.

Change is a constant in our environment, and the Committee’s dedicated employees work tirelessly to contribute to the organization’s successful achievement of its mandate. As I submit this report, I am confident that the Committee will remain a high-performing organization.



Caroline Maynard
Interim Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer

Results at a glance

  • Received 199 grievance files for external review
  • Issued 224 findings and recommendations reports
  • Prepared for the implementation of a new version of the Committee’s case management system
  • Undertook an internal strategic program review that resulted in the development of new performance measurement tools for the Committee
  • Established a new logic model for the Committee’s program
  • Developed an organizational mental health strategy
  • Launched a lean office initiative
  • Completed the implementation of the Web Renewal Initiative
  • Implemented the Government of Canada common file plan
  • Addressed all recommendations resulting from the core control audit conducted by the Office of the Comptroller General
  • Developed a project plan for the Workplace Renewal Initiative

For more information on the department’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 raison d’être of the Military Grievances External Review Committee (Committee) is to provide an independent and external review of military grievances. Section 29 of the National Defence ActEndnote i (NDA) provides a statutory right for an officer or a non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved, to grieve a decision, an act or an omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Armed Forces. The importance of this broad right cannot be overstated since it is, with certain narrow exceptions, the only formal complaint process available to Canadian Armed Forces members.

Mandate and role

The Military Grievances External Review Committee is an independent administrative tribunal reporting to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence.

The Committee reviews military grievances referred to it pursuant to s. 29 of the National Defence Act and provides findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence StaffEndnote ii and the Canadian Armed Forces member who submitted the grievance.

The Committee also has the obligation to deal with all matters before it as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.

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

Operating context and key risks

Operating context

The Committee is a micro organization of fewer than 50 employees tasked with a very specific mandate – the independent review of military grievances. Since its establishment in 2000, the Committee has built a strong foundation and solid group of knowledgeable and experienced employees. As a result, the Committee is able to produce findings and recommendations that are sound in facts and law. Over the years, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and the officers who have acted as final authority of the grievance process have noted their appreciation of the quality of findings and recommendations produced by the Committee.

The Committee does not control the type or number of cases referred for its review in any given year, and in the past six years, the Committee’s workload has fluctuated significantly, mostly upward, as a result of greater numbers discretionary referrals by the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA). These changing numbers offered the Committee the opportunity to revise its processes to ensure that it is able to continually produce high-quality findings and recommendations, within the established service standards. As the Committee is made up of members appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC), there is also minimal internal control over who is appointed and when. This continued to pose a challenge for the Committee in terms of its ability to issue findings and recommendations in a timely fashion, given the significantly limited number of members in place in 2016-2017.

In spite of these challenges, however, the Committee demonstrated its ability to manage its workload and to mitigate risks. The Committee is a resilient organization and has consistently demonstrated its ability to adapt and overcome obstacles.

Key risks

Key risks
Risks Mitigating strategy and effectiveness Link to the department’s Programs Link to mandate letter commitments or to government-wide and departmental priorities
Risk #1 – Committee’s relevance.

The risk was rated as moderate.
  • Ensure the quality and timeliness of our product.
  • Implement a communications strategy.
Independent review of military grievances N/A
Risk #2 – Significant fluctuations in volume of grievances received.

The risk was rated as moderate.
  • Monitor workload planning assumptions.
    • Integrated Business and Human Resources Planning (IBHRP).
  • Communicate regularly with the Canadian Armed Forces.
  • Ensure appropriate staffing strategies are in place.
  • Track financial situation and workload.
  • Review internal grievance process.
Independent review of military grievances N/A
Risk #3 – Human Resources capacity and competencies.

The risk was rated as moderate.
  • Plan for succession in key positions.
  • Develop a variety of staffing mechanisms and alternatives.
  • Anticipate and risk manage staffing levels.
  • Provide training opportunities.
  • Implement a continuous learning process.
  • Enhance the leadership competencies of management.
  • Monitor workload volumes.
  • Establish Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Trackable (SMART) work objectives and clear expectations for employees.
  • Inform the Minister of National Defence of any upcoming Committee member’s vacancies.
  • Develop relationship with other Small Departments and Agencies (SDAs) or hire consultants.
  • Create a healthy workplace environment.
Independent review of military grievances N/A

Risk #1 – Throughout 2016-2017, the Committee continued to demonstrate its relevance, in light of the continued high volume of cases referred by the CFGA for external review. The results of the program evaluation that turned into an internal strategic review undertaken in 2016-2017 revealed that stakeholders perceive the Committee’s findings and recommendations to be of high quality and value the guidance provided by Committee members, regardless of whether the final authority ultimately agrees with the findings and recommendations. To ensure timeliness of findings and recommendations, the Committee continued to closely monitor its internal review process, timelines, as well as workload, and adjust when necessary.

Risk # 2 – In 2016-2017, the CFGA continued to refer a high number of cases to the Committee for external review. As the Committee has faced a record number of referred cases in recent years, it was well placed to respond, by continually monitoring its workload, communicating regularly with the CFGA, promptly filling any vacancies in the Operations Branch, and ensuring that the most efficient process was in place.

Risk # 3 – Throughout 2016-2017, due to delays in the GIC appointment process, the Committee remained without its full complement of members, which created significant workload for those remaining and put the Committee at risk of not being able to issue findings and recommendations. The remaining members made every effort – though to the detriment of their work-life balance and health – to complete their tasks and were able to issue a considerable number of findings and recommendations.

During the same period, the Committee maintained a knowledgeable group of employees. To achieve this, the Committee used a variety of staffing mechanisms and alternatives, including using anticipatory staffing processes to create pools of pre-qualified candidates for senior grievance officer positions, to ease the transition time in the event of an employee departure. New employees were offered training to bring them quickly up to speed on the grievance review process, existing employees were informed of changes to the process, SMART work objectives and clear expectations were provided to employees, and all employees benefited from regular performance feedback to give them a well-defined path to high performance.

With respect to succession planning, the Committee put in place pre-retirement assignments for employees planning to retire to ensure an adequate knowledge transfer to those taking over their positions. In spite of its limited opportunities for advancement, the Committee’s workforce remained relatively stable through the year. The Committee strongly encourages employees to develop their careers by making the most of their training plans. As such, training has not been solely limited to courses related to internal advancement but, rather, related to career development within the public service as a whole.

In 2016-2017, the Committee established a number of arrangements with other government organizations to ensure continuity of service. For example, the Committee volunteered for a pilot arrangement with Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), to ensure backup support related to human resources systems. Treasury Board Secretariat has taken a keen interest in the results of this pilot arrangement to determine whether similar arrangements might be of value to other organizations. In addition, in consideration of the time and effort required on the part of the Committee’s human resources and financial officers to deal with the challenges associated with the Phoenix pay system, the Committee established a separate arrangement with PSPC to have regular access to compensation advisors and to ensure timely employee compensation.

Results: what we achieved

Programs

Program name – Independent Review of Military Grievances

Description

The Military Grievances External Review Committee, an independent tribunal, reviews military grievances referred to it pursuant to section 29 of the National Defence Act which provides a statutory right for an officer or a non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved, to grieve a decision, an act or an omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Armed Forces; this is, with certain narrow exceptions, the only formal complaint process available to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Committee provides findings and recommendations to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the member who submitted the grievance. The findings and recommendations may also identify issues with policies or other matters of broad concern. The Committee conducts its review as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.

The Committee reports the results of its activities through its annual report and various publications.

Results
Results achieved

Throughout 2016-2017, the Committee focused on a number of initiatives aimed at enhancing service delivery to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness.

The Committee continued to receive in 2016-2017 a high number of cases referred by the CFGA. This, combined with having very few Committee members to issue findings and recommendations, resulted in a challenging year. Ultimately, the Committee received 199 grievance files for external review, and issued 224 findings and recommendations reports by the end of 2016-2017.

The Committee continued to produce a variety of communications tools, including case summaries, systemic recommendations, statistics, and eBulletins to communicate the results of its work and increase understanding of the grievance process, regulations, policies, and guidelines affecting CAF members. Technical difficulties experienced in the rollout of the Web Renewal Initiative delayed the publishing of case summaries and systemic recommendations on canada.ca. A solution was found later during the year and the Committee will be able to resume publishing these communications products.. In October 2016, the Committee also published its first issue of the newsletter Perspectives since October 2014. Perspectives’ aim is to promote a better understanding of particular topics and to raise decision-makers’ awareness of broader issues and trends that have come to the Committee’s attention during the review of grievances.

In 2016-2017, the Committee prepared for the implementation of an improved case management system. This involved preparing a business case to upgrade to a new version of the case management system used by the Committee (WebCIMS), and developing a comprehensive implementation plan, including business process mapping, identifying user needs, and upgrading systems. The new version will enable the Operations Branch to continue using WebCIMS to effectively manage case information. Implementation of the updated case management system is anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2017.

In 2016-2017, the Committee had planned to undertake a five-year evaluation of its independent review of military grievances program, which aimed to measure the extent to which the Committee was able to deliver on its core mandate. While the scope of this project remained the same, the focus changed from an external evaluation to an internal strategic review. Following this strategic review, the Committee noted that its existing indicators with respect to the Committee’s performance were linked to the efficiency of the CAF grievance process, over which it does not have control, as the Committee is but one part of the said process. It was therefore imperative that the Committee’s performance indicators accurately measure the timeliness of the Committee’s program and the quality of the Committee’s findings and recommendations reports. This resulted in the development of a new program logic model to ensure consistency with the Committee’s legislative mandate, as well as a corresponding Departmental Results Framework, Program Inventory, and Performance Information Profile to comply with the requirements of the new Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Results.

Expected results Performance indicators Target Date to achieve target 2016-2017 
Actual results
2015-2016
Actual  results
2014-2015
Actual  results
Intermediate Outcome – Enhanced confidence in the grievance process and the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) % of stakeholders that agree that the external review provided by the Committee adds to the adjudicative fairness of the process 75% of respondents agree April 2017 (Results from 2013-2014)

 100% of stakeholders responding either strongly agreed or agreed
(Results from 2013-2014)

 100% of stakeholders responding either strongly agreed or agreed
(Results from 2013-2014)

 Contributing to the fairness, equity and transparency of the CAF grievances process:

16.7% agreed; and

83.3% strongly agreed
Immediate Outcome – The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) is assisted in rendering decisions on grievances and is informed of systemic issues % of Findings and Recommendations (F&R) with which the CDS disagrees on the basis of error in law or fact Less than 10% of the cases upon which the CDS disagrees or 1% of all files April 2017 The CDS disagreed with the Committee’s F&R in 14% of cases – 0% on the basis of error in law or fact The CDS disagreed with the Committee’s F&R in 17% of cases – 0% on the basis of error in law or fact The CDS disagreed with the Committee’s F&R in 19% of the cases – 0% on the basis of error in law or fact
Immediate Outcome – Stakeholders have an increased awareness and understanding of the grievance process, regulations, policies and guidelines affecting Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members % of positive feedback from external stakeholders on the usefulness of publications of case summaries, systemic recommendations and lessons learned 75% of respondents agree on the usefulness April 2017 71% of respondents are interested in case summaries

 72% are interested in recommendations on systemic issues
 74% of respondents are interested in case summaries

 67% are interested in recommendations on systemic issues
Increasing awareness and understanding of the CAF grievance process, regulations, policies and guidelines affecting CAF members:

57.1% agreed; and

39.3% strongly agreed
Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
2016-2017
Main Estimates
2016-2017
Planned spending
2016-2017
Total authorities available for use
2016-2017
Actual spending
(authorities used)
2016-2017
Difference
(actual minus planned)
4,727,762 4,695,000 4,430,354 4,038,820 -656,180
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
2016-2017
Planned
2016-2017
Actual
2016-2017
Difference  (actual minus planned)
32 29 -3

Internal Services

Description

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.

Results

Throughout 2016-2017, the Committee worked hard to deliver on its objective to be a high-performing organization. The initiatives undertaken during this timeframe highlight the Committee’s efforts to contribute to Blueprint 2020, making it an employer of choice and a strong contributor to the “whole-of-government approach that enhances service delivery and value for money”.

This year, the Committee participated in or undertook a variety of initiatives to find effective and efficient internal service delivery solutions and align with the broader government agenda.

In support of the Clerk of the Privy Council’s priority related to mental health, in 2016-2017, the Committee developed and rolled out a mental health strategy aimed at fostering an open and stigma-free dialogue and removing barriers in the workplace to accommodate employees with mental health challenges. In November 2016, the Committee sought employee input on their workplace environment as it relates to mental health via a survey, which fed into the development of actions to address areas of concern. In December 2016, employees also took part in an all-staff teambuilding session that included elements specific to mental health in the workplace, and were invited to share their experiences on the subject.

Planning for the Committee’s Workplace Renewal Initiative got underway in 2016-2017 with the development of a broad vision and consultation with PSPC and Treasury Board Secretariat to establish project parameters. By the end of 2017-2018, the Committee will have reduced its footprint by approximately one quarter, and will have allocated office accommodations more efficiently. To maintain its ability to conduct hearings while respecting its need to streamline its office space envelope, the Committee established an arrangement with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC), a small organization located in the same building, which enables the Committee to use the CRCC’s hearing room space as required.

The Committee also took the opportunity to incorporate elements of Blueprint 2020 into the vision for its Workplace Renewal Initiative by including the renewal of information technology infrastructure, as a way to ensure  the Committee has “a modern workplace that makes smart use of new technologies to improve networking, access to data and customer service”. The Committee’s existing use of virtual desktops and secure remote access has continued to support collaboration and a mobile and connected workforce. In addition, the Committee’s tablet pilot project was successfully rolled out to Corporate Services managers; users are now able to work and conduct meetings in a paperless environment. Efforts are ongoing to determine the best way to move program operations to a more paperless model.

In 2016-2017, the Committee launched its lean office initiative, building in support for Blueprint 2020, specifically aiming to maintain “a capable, confident and high-performing workforce that embraces new ways of working and mobilizes the diversity of talent to serve the country’s evolving needs”. This initiative has included documenting business processes, evaluating the utility or the added value of each step in the process, and establishing whether the Committee has a continued need to undertake a number of its processes. Exploratory work began during this period to determine how the Committee’s information management system (GCDocs) could be leveraged to automate processes, incorporate electronic signatures, and reduce paper usage and administrative steps to result in greater efficiency and productivity. This work has also included evaluating how the Committee manages and ensures the security of its information.

As part of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Web Renewal Initiative, the Committee’s web content was migrated to the centralized canada.ca website in November 2016. This was the conclusion of a three-year project that started with the Committee being selected to participate in the pilot project (Pathfinder). As noted above, technical difficulties have made the Committee unable to publish all of its communications materials on canada.ca.

Further to a core control audit of the Committee undertaken by the Office of the Comptroller General at the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Committee took action to respond to recommendations raised. These recommendations targeted areas such as procurement, financial management, and human resources management. As of March 31, 2017, solutions had been implemented to address all six recommendations and to ensure sound stewardship of the Committee’s resources.

In addition, the Committee implemented the Government of Canada Information Management Common Core file plan into its document management system (GCDocs), bringing it in line with government information management practices, and requiring significant cleanup of documents and email stores. Finally, the Committee sought to increase its efficiency through the year by reviewing its organizational structure with a view to streamlining for results. This involved thoroughly reviewing required functions and exploring ways that services could be delivered using fewer resources without jeopardizing service timeliness and quality.

Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
2016-2017
Main Estimates
2016-2017
Planned spending
2016-2017
Total authorities available for use
2016-2017
Actual spending
(authorities used)
2016-2017
Difference
(actual minus planned)
2,026,183 2,011,000 2,639,457 1,946,982 -64,018
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
2016-2017
Planned
2016-2017
Actual
2016-2017
Difference  (actual minus planned)
14 12 -2

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Actual expenditures

Departmental spending trend graph (thousands of dollars)
  2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
Sunset Programs - Anticipated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statutory 628 656 602 563 563 563
Voted 5,622 5,595 5,384 6,160 6,160 6,160
Departmental spending trend graph (thousands of dollars)
  2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
Sunset Programs - Anticipated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statutory 628 656 602 563 563 563
Voted 5,622 5,595 5,384 6,160 6,160 6,160
Total 6,250 6,251 5,986 6,723 6,723 6,723
Budgetary performance summary for Programs and Internal Services (dollars)
Programs and Internal Services 2016-2017
Main Estimates
2016-2017
Planned spending
2017-2018
Planned spending
2018-2019
Planned spending
2016-2017 
Total authorities available for use
2016-2017
Actual  spending (authorities used)
2015-2016 
Actual  spending (authorities used)
2014-2015
Actual  spending (authorities used)
Independent review of military grievances 4,727,762 4,695,000 4,907,663 4,907,663 4,430,354 4,038,820 4,367,142 4,255,974
Internal Services 2,026,183 2,011,000 1,815,163 1,815,163 2,639,457 1,946,982 1,884,456 1,993.931
Total 6,753,945 6,706,000 6,722,826 6,722,826 7,069,811 5,985,802 6,251,598 6,249,905

Total spending in 2016-2017 has slightly decreased relative to previous years. The variance in 2016-2017 can be largely attributed to the Committee’s planned Workplace Renewal Initiative; in 2015-2016, the Committee had planned to undertake this initiative and allocated some of its surplus to this, which increased the total authorities for use in 2016-2017. This initiative, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, was delayed, however, resulting in limited spending against this initiative in 2016-2017. In addition, the Committee had planned for the integration of new GIC-appointed members in 2016-2017, which did not take place, resulting in additional decreased actual spending.

Actual human resources

Human resources summary for Programs and Internal Services (full-time equivalents)
Programs and Internal Services 2014-2015
Actual
2015-2016
Actual
2016-2017
Forecast
 
2016-2017 
Actual
2017-2018 
Planned
2018-2019
Planned
Independent review of military grievances 26 29 32 29 35 35
Internal Services 14 14 14 12 11 11
Total 40 43 46 41 46 46

As a result of the Committee’s organizational structure review, certain positions were reallocated from Internal Services to the Independent review of military grievances program to ensure greater efficiency of service delivery. In addition, the appointment of Committee members anticipated in 2016-2017 was delayed to 2017-2018, which resulted in a decrease in actual full-time equivalents.

Expenditures by vote

For information on the Military Grievances External Review Committee’s organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2017.Endnote iii

Alignment of spending with the whole-of-government framework

Alignment of 2016-2017 actual spending with the whole-of-government frameworkEndnote iv (dollars)

Program Spending area Government of Canada activity 2016-2017
Actual spending
Independent review of military grievances Government affairs Well-managed and efficient government operations 4,038,820
Total spending by spending area (dollars)
Spending area Total planned spending Total actual spending
Economic affairs 0 0
Social affairs 0 0
International affairs 0 0
Government affairs 4,695,000 4,038,820

Financial statements and financial statements highlights

Financial statements

The Military Grievances External Review Committee’s financial statements [unaudited] for the year ended March 31, 2017, are available on the departmental websiteEndnote v.

Financial statements highlights

Condensed Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2017 (dollars)
Financial information 2016-2017
Planned
results
2016-2017
Actual
2015-2016
Actual
Difference (2016-2017 actual minus 2016-2017 planned) Difference (2016-2017 actual minus 2015-2016 actual)
Total expenses 7,094,000 6,314,831 6,604,650 -779,169 -289,819
Total revenues 0 0 10 0 -10
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers 7,094,000 6,314,831 6,604,640 -779,169 -289,809

The majority of the Committee’s expenses relate to salaries, office space rental, and professional and special services. The Committee does not have any revenue to report for 2016-2017. The variance in 2016-2017 can be largely attributed to the Committee’s planned Workplace Renewal Initiative; in 2015-2016, the Committee had planned to undertake this initiative and anticipated spending on professional services to complete this initiative. As the initiative was delayed, there was a decrease in overall actual spending.

Condensed Statement of Financial Position (unaudited) as at March 31, 2017 (dollars)
Financial Information 2016-2017 2015-2016 Difference
(2016-2017 minus
2015-2016)
Total net liabilities 925,836 1,071,018 -145,182
Total net financial assets 559,824 668,836 -109,012
Departmental net debt 366,012 402,182 -36,170
Total non-financial assets 76,287 99,321 -23,034
Departmental net financial position -289,725 -302,861 -13,136

The Committee’s net financial position for 2016-2017 has not changed significantly from 2015-2016. The variances related to total net liabilities and total net financial assets did not affect the Committee’s performance, and are primarily attributable to differences in timing related to year-end accounting.

Supplementary information

Corporate information

Organizational profile

Appropriate minister: The Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan, P.C.M.P.
Institutional head: Caroline Maynard, Interim Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer
Ministerial portfolio: National Defence
Enabling instrument: National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5Endnote vi
Year of incorporation / commencement: 2000
Other: About the CommitteeEndnote vii

Reporting framework

The Military Grievances External Review Committee’s Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture of record for 2016-2017 are shown below.

1. Strategic Outcome:
1.1 Program: Independent review of military grievances
Internal Services


Text Version
  • 1. Strategic Outcome: The Chief of the Defence Staff and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have access to a fair, independent and timely review of military grievances
    • 1.1 Program: Independent review of military grievances
  • Internal Services

Supplementary information tables

The following supplementary information tables are available on the Military Grievances External Review Committee’s websiteEndnote viii:

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 Expenditures.Endnote ix 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

Military Grievances External Review Committee
60 Queen Street, 10th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Y7
Canada
Telephone: (613) 996-8529
Toll-Free Telephone: 877-276-4193
Fax: (613) 996-6491
Email: mgerc-ceegm@mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca
Web: https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review.html

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.
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 (résultat ministériel)
A Departmental Result represents the change or changes that the department seeks to influence. A Departmental Result is often outside departments’ immediate control, but it should be influenced by program-level outcomes.
Departmental Result Indicator (indicateur de résultat ministériel)
A factor or variable that provides a valid and reliable means to measure or describe progress on a Departmental Result.
Departmental Results Framework (cadre ministériel des résultats)
Consists of the department’s Core Responsibilities, Departmental Results and Departmental Result Indicators.
Departmental Results Report (Rapport sur les résultats ministériels)
Provides information on the 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.
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.
government-wide priorities (priorités pangouvernementales)
For the purpose of the 2017-2018 Departmental Plan, government-wide priorities refers to 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 federal organizations, through an approved funding agreement, work toward achieving clearly defined shared outcomes, and which has been designated (for example, by Cabinet or a central agency) as a horizontal initiative for managing and reporting purposes.
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.
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.
plans (plans)
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.
priorities (priorité)
Plans or projects 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).
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.
results (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.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: