MAF Assessment: Justice Canada - 2005

Leadership recognized internally and externally as demonstrating strong ethics and values behaviour, as evidenced by:

• Leadership communication with employees about expected ethical behaviour and public service values;
• Selection, evaluation, promotion and discharge of leaders based on their conduct with respect to Public Serivce (PS) values and ethics.

Leadership at DOJ communicates with employees on values and ethics through special events such a Deputy Minister Breakfast or through regular messages from senior management. As well, DOJ is currently developing a management accountability self-assessment tool that incorporates key performance expectations and core questions/issues along a broad range of management practices, including values and ethics. Core competencies for senior managers include leadership values, as well; senior manager performance agreements include core public service values and ethics. DOJ is commended for this work and is encouraged to consider the following:

1. Continue to implement activities and communication tools that enable all leaders across the organization to directly communicate expected ethical behaviour and Public Service values to employees.
2. Assess how employees perceive leadership performance with respect to values and ethics.

Organizational culture reflecting public service values and ethics, as evidenced by:

• Feedback from employees on fairness, respect, satisfaction and engagement;
• Departmental benchmark results and implemented improvements;
• Trends in management and program irregularities, regularly reported on and reviewed by management.

The Department of Justice makes an effort to track trends regarding disclosure and report this information to senior management. As well, discussion is held at the senior executive and senior management levels of the organization, on risk and associated mitigation strategies. The department is strongly encouraged to pursue the following activities:

1. Collect employee feedback on a regular basis, to assess employee perceptions of organizational culture and other related values and ethics issues, such as fairness and respect.
2. Continue to identify (list) areas within the organization that may be susceptible to risk with regard to values and ethics.

V&E policies, guidelines, standards, recourse and disclosure mechanisms in place and understood by all employees as evidenced by:

• Customized codes of conduct, including standards of behaviour, consequences and rewards for exemplary behaviour;
• Effective communication, learning and orientation strategies for the Code of Public Service Values, for customized organizational codes and guidelines and for Public Service values and ethics in general;
• Appropriate, accessible avenues for: employee advice, reports of wrongdoing and resolution of conflicts.

1. Assess to what extent employees and managers, both new and existing, understand and feel impacted by the Code and other values and ethics guidelines or books developed by the department. 
2. Collect information on how comfortable employees feel in accessing the available recourse avenues.

A legal framework of powers, duties and functions related to the institution (or its Minister) reflective and enabling of its objectives, as evidenced by:

• Programs and activities authorized by and in compliance with the law (e.g., constitutive legislation, the Financial Administration Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other applicable statutes or regulations);
• A corporate process to identify areas where legal authority may be lacking or issues of lawfulness, including:
  • A requirement that an assessment of the adequacy of legal authority and lawfulness for new programs and activities be incorporated into the decision-making process when these programs and activities are developed;
  • A process and work plan to review whether current programs and activities are authorized.

The responsibilities of the Minister and the Attorney General are set out in the Department of Justice Act.  The Minister/Attorney General is responsible in whole or in part for this act and 47 other acts of Parliament: in supporting the Minister as both Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice fulfills three distinctive roles within the Government of Canada acting as a:

1. policy department with broad responsibilities for overseeing all matters relating to the administration of justice that fall within the federal domain, including policy as it relates to criminal law, family justice, Aboriginal justice, youth justice, human rights, privacy, access to information, and official languages;
2. provider of an integrated suite of legal advisory, dispute resolution, litigation and legislative services to client departments and agencies that enable them to develop and implement the policies and programs for which they are responsible in a manner consistent and compliant with Canada's legal framework;
3. central agency responsible for supporting our Minister in advising Cabinet on all legal matters including the constitutionality of government activities.

The department has a number of key processes in place that ensure that programs and policies are delivered in accordance with the department's legal, policy and program authorities.

Policy Committee (subcommittee of Senior Management Board) assesses and approves all new programs.  One of the criteria is an assessment of the underlying authorities for all new policy and related program activities.

A stable Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS), the foundation for results-based management, as evidenced by:

• Clearly defined, measurable strategic outcomes that reflect the organization’s corporate mandate and vision;
• Clear results outcome statements that are linked to corporate government-wide priorities;
• Program Activity Architecture (PAA) sufficiently populated with results and financial information;
• Defined governance structure outlining the decision-making, mechanisms, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the department.

An effective planning function, as evidenced by:

• Approved organizational strategy to integrate business and strategic planning, human resources planning, resource management, and performance monitoring;
• Established process and calendar for corporate planning and decision making;
• Operational plans and performance agreements aligned with and linked to strategic plans.

The previous MAF highlighted persistent weaknesses in this area raised through the 2003 Expenditure Management Review (EMR) and the August 2004 business case for the $1 B reallocation exercise. 

In follow up to the Deputy Minister's (DM) MAF commitments for fiscal year 2005-2006, the Department of Justice has self-identified the need to develop the capacity to integrate planning and accountability and has adjusted its organizational structure and its resources to focus on this area. 

The department has launched a corporate-wide business planning process.  This is the first year of a three-year implementation strategy for integrated business and strategic planning.  Accomplishments to date include:

1. the launch of planning by the DM in May 2005,
2. alignment of the Department of Justice business planning approach to the government planning cycle,
3. alignment of the planning approach to the Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and Management, Resources and Results (MRRS),
4. kick-off of data gathering for portfolio level plans,
5. planning templates to integrate human resources (HR), resource management and substantive planning into comprehensive portfolio business plans.

The second wave of actions will integrate regional business plans with portfolio plans and a third wave will consolidate all plans into a strategic corporate business plan that will be reflected in the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP).

The Department also has an established process and calendar for corporate planning and decision-making, which highlights the annual planning and performance management cycle within the Department (and portrays the linkages to government-wide planning and performance management cycle).

Operational plans at the sector, portfolio and regional levels and senior managers' performance agreements are concretely linked to departmental strategic plans. The approach to the planning process includes direct linkages to the performance agreements as the performance agreement is the instrument whereby departmental, portfolio and individual accountabilities converge.

Commitment and contribution to the results- based management of horizontal initiatives, as evidenced by:

• Leadership where appropriate;
• Active participation; and,
• Responsibilities for horizontal initiatives reflected (including leadership) in performance agreements.

1. The department of Justice is the lead for Youth Justice Initiative as identified in its 2004-05 Departmental Performance Report (DPR), and also the lead on the War Crimes Initiative.

The department actively participates in a broad range of horizontal government initiatives:

1. Active participation in following horizontal initiatives (for which other departments are the lead): official languages, international human rights, trafficking in persons, cross-cultural roundtable on security, public safety and terrorism, IMET, organized crime, Drug Strategy, Aboriginal issues, anti-racism, Smart Regulation, as well as working with over 50 departments in order to provide advice in achieving their national policy objectives.

The department assigns specific responsibilities / accountabilities for horizontal initiatives (including leadership) and monitors performance through the performance management program for senior managers (e.g. performance agreements):

1. Key commitments included in Performance Accords for individual Senior Managers include responsibilities / accountabilities for specific horizontal initiatives.

An effective portfolio management structure and process in place, as evidenced by:

• Clear direction, leadership and communications;
• Information exchange, sharing of common best practices;
• Structured consultations on: priority-setting and decision-making, resource allocation and budgeting, policy development and planning;
• Committee processes and an organized governance structure;
• Integrative operational mechanisms and shared services;
• Graduated portfolio-based approval processes;
• Integrated mandate and common objectives.

Currently, the department exchanges information and best practices in broader forums that would include representatives of the Justice portfolio (e.g., law conferences, etc.).

A solid policy framework, as evidenced by:

• Consistency with the departmental mandate;
• Alignment with the government-wide policy agenda;
• Appropriate horizontal linkages to the policy frameworks of other departments;
• Clarity to central agencies and other departments; and,
• Utility in managing competing demands and allocating scarce resources.

The responsibilities of the Minister and the Attorney General are set out in the Department of Justice Act.  The Minister/Attorney General is responsible in whole or in part for this act and 47 other acts of Parliament; in supporting the Minister as both Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice fulfills three distinctive roles within the Government of Canada acting as:

1. a policy department with broad responsibilities for overseeing all matters relating to the administration of justice that fall within the federal domain, including policy as it relates to criminal law, family justice, Aboriginal justice, youth justice, human rights, privacy, access to information, and official languages;
2. a provider of an integrated suite of legal advisory, dispute resolution, litigation (including prosecution) and legislative services to client departments and agencies that enable them to develop and implement the policies and programs for which they are responsible in a manner consistent and compliant with Canada's legal framework;
3. a central agency responsible for supporting our Minister in advising Cabinet on all legal matters including the constitutionality of government activities.

By way of a concrete example of how the department ensures ongoing work is aligned with and consistent with the departmental mandate, we have aligned research and analytic capacity in order to review, assess and make recommendations to the Minister to ensure the Access to Information Act (ATI Act), Pay Equity policy, and the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) meet the requirements of today's society.

The department is fully engaged in government-wide processes and mechanisms to ensure that the DoJ policy framework is aligned with the government-wide policy agenda:

1. policy agenda based on Ministerial priorities and government agenda and linked to PCO processes and Deputy Minister level Government of Canada Policy Committee;
2. participation in various interdepartmental policy related networks of which Justice heads the Interdepartmental Director General Policy Network.

The department maintains formal and informal mechanisms with a broad range of partner departments in order to ensure horizontal linkages between the department's and OGD policy frameworks:

1. Linkages with key partners at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Industry Canada, Foreign Affairs, Privy Council Office (PCO), Canadian Heritage, the Department of Indian and Northern Development (DIAND), Government House Leader, Minister of State  Multiculturalism, Citizenship and Immigration, Health, Human Resources and Skills Development (HRSD), Social Development (SD), TBS as well as partnerships with Provinces and Territories for delivery of national programs aimed at an accessible justice system.  DoJ also works with over 50 departments in order to provide advice in achieving their national policy objectives.
2. With regard to initiatives that have a whole of government impact, the reviews and analysis of the ATI, the CHRA and Pay Equity have been shared with other government departments and central agencies that will be impacted by any policy options put forward.
3. DoJ also maintains an active federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) consultation/external relations capacity in order to ensure that appropriate linkages are maintained between the policy and program work of the department with those of the provinces and territories.  This capacity is further enhanced by the linkages which are maintained with other federal partners including PCO-IGA.

The department is open and transparent with central agencies and other departments with regard to its policy framework and agenda.  As per their respective roles, central agencies provide advice / direction to the department in the formulation of specific proposals to Cabinet related to the department's policy agenda.

*

Over the past two years, the normal decision-making process has been distorted by change in the Budget cycle, delays in tabling and approving Main Estimates, and focus on two major cross-government budget reduction exercises:

1. Central agencies and other relevant departments are involved in the early stages of analysis and development of policy options related to DoJ mandate.  Interdepartmental meetings are called to ensure sharing of information and discussion.
2. Also in the area of current and emerging Aboriginal issues, an area where there is often a lack of clarity regarding federal government roles and responsibilities, the department plays a strategic role by providing expert legal advice and informing policy development across a variety of departments.

The department's policy framework plays a key role in determining priorities and allocating scarce resources to meeting those priorities.  One of the problems for the department has been the management of pressures created by the policy agendas of other government departments where decisions are implemented without due regard to the costs for the department to implement supporting legal services (e.g., signing of international agreements without due regard to cost implications of implementation):

1. Policy Committee is a key part of the departmental policy framework and is directly linked to senior governance structure (i.e., subcommittee of Senior Management Board).  It recommends strategic policy direction to the Senior Management Board (SMB) and Governing Council (GC); and acts in an advisory capacity to, and formulates recommendations for action by, the SMB and GC regarding policy priorities and the policy agenda, as well as policy proposals and initiatives related to government and departmental priorities.  It also deliberates and guides the development of the justice policy agenda to ensure linkages with broad federal priorities and a whole of government approach;
2. The National Litigation Committee (NLC) is also an important element of the departmental policy framework.  NLC holds regular law practice forums as needed to discuss and resolve legal practice issues that also have whole-of-government policy implications.

A solid strategic policy function and analytic capacity, as evidenced by:

• Ability to anticipate challenges and respond in a strategic rather than a reactive manner;
• Organizational model to harness distributed policy capacity;
• Strong and sustainable community of analysts;
• Policy development process grounded in fact-based analysis with reliable modeling and due regard for implementation and operational matters;
• Outcomes-focused policy and program development informed by past performance;
• Stakeholder engagement to effectively inform policy making without creating expectations that unduly constrain government decision-making.

The department is still in a developmental stage when it comes to building its strategic policy capacity.  Justice's policy development capacity has continued to be enhanced and its organizational structure has been adjusted to balance its sectoral focus.

Justice has self-identified the need to develop a stronger capacity to monitor, track and report on outcomes and results, including the need to develop the capacity to integrate planning and accountability.  As such, the department has adjusted its organizational structure and its resources to focus on this area.

The Advisory Committee on Managing the Volume of Litigation is responsible for addressing the implementation strategy for mandatory mediation of claims against the Crown at the use of alternative dispute resolution methods across all portfolios.

The department maintains a broad network across federal departments as well as with provinces and territories, non-government agencies and other key stakeholders in order to be able to gather intelligence necessary to be able to respond strategically to justice related policy and program issues and challenges.

The department also maintains a strong research and analysis capacity devoted to providing research and statistics advice and services in support of the dual role of the Minister of Justice and the attorney General of Canada.  This research and analytic capacity is imperative for fostering a sustainable, forward-looking policy agenda.  In 2005-06, the department provided relevant and timely research and statistical services for policy development, and for the identification of strategic management issues in support of the Justice Policy agenda.  The department publishes and widely disseminates its research and statistics products and analyses.

The department is also committed to its on-going partnership with the National Justice Statistics Initiative and to the Justice Information Council (chaired by the DM).

Changes to Justice's governance structure, including the establishment of the Policy Committee and the National Litigation Committee as standing Committees of senior managers that support the Senior Management Board, have strengthened horizontal linkages within the organization, better permitting Justice to harness the distributed policy capacity that exists across the department.

The department maintains a strong and sustainable community of legal, policy and research analysts.  There may, however, be opportunities to improve the distributed capacity of Justice's financial and business analytic capacities across the department by better identifying standards, providing enhanced training and possibly increasing the recruitment of personnel from FI and ES categories.  Additionally, a strengthened business planning challenge function will be an integral element to the department's approach to implementing the Comptroller-General's proposed Chief Financial Officer model. 

Policy and program development are informed by results of research studies and statistical analyses as well as results of program and project evaluations.

The department works closely with provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations, community stakeholders and major national organizations to ensure connectivity between various justice stakeholders and the diverse horizontal initiatives within the department, thus ensuring the department receives and is able to incorporate where appropriate the advice of all stakeholders in achieving the government's national policy objectives on horizontal initiatives.

An effective evaluation function, as evidenced by:

• Capacity of the evaluation function;
• The deputy head as Chair of an active evaluation (and audit) committee(s); 
• Risk-based evaluation plans;
• Management action plans to address evaluation findings/recommendations;
• Evaluation reports submitted to TBS and posted in a timely fashion (three months);
• Performance information regularly audited or evaluated;
• Audit and Evaluation or other executive committee review of performance information.

As the department's evaluation division functions on a cost recovery basis, with programs and sectors being evaluated contributing an additional $1.8M.  The Head of Evaluation is not in control of all evaluation funding.  This places the independence and objectivity of the functions at risk and limits the department's ability to allocate evaluation resources on a risk-oriented basis.

The department continues to have an active Audit and Evaluation Committee, chaired by the DM.  It approves all evaluation plans, reports, and management action, and monitors implementation of recommendations.

A 2005-06 departmental evaluation plan has been approved by Committee and forwarded to TBS.

The implementation of management action plans is reported to be 90% implemented for 2003-04 and 75% for 2004-05.

18 evaluation documents have been completed in 2004-05 (11 evaluation reports, two Results-based Management Accountability Frameworks (RMAFs), three performance measurement studies and two miscellaneous reviews) with an increase to 24 evaluation documents for 2005-06 (15 evaluation reports, four RMAFs, one Performance Measurement Study and four miscellaneous reviews.)

Of 9 reports approved in 2004-05, 5 have been submitted to TBS to be posted on the publicly accessible Website. (four in 2004-05 and one in 2003-04)

Of eight evaluation reports analyzed by CEE, two demonstrate high substantiation for relevance or public interest, four demonstrate fair to limited substantiation, and two2 do not cover relevance. In the area of  'value for money', two demonstrated limited substantiation with six not covering the area at all.

Accounting and reporting of financial activities consistent with government policies, directives and standards, as evidenced by:

• Timely and accurate financial reporting including accuracy of public account plates and improvements on the quality and timeliness of departmental financial statements;
• Quality of Central Financial Management and Reporting System (CFMRS) trial balance submissions including materiality and number of errors and timeliness of corrections;
• Quality presentation and accounting for specified purpose accounts.

Public Account Plates:  The department obtained a grade of A with 97% of plates submitted on time.  An improvement from a grade of B with 89% on time last year.

Trial Balance Submissions:  There was a 4% decrease in the number of errors compared to the prior year.

Internal Audit Reports:  No items related to financial reporting were noted.

Access to and use of integrated information for corporate decision making, as evidenced by:

• Integrated information from financial, human resources, payroll, and asset and real property management systems in support of senior management decision-making and related to the achievement of strategic objectives; and,
• Regular Deputy Minister and senior management challenge of proposed investment decisions on the basis of integrated information from various sources linked to strategic objectives.

Although Justice does not yet have a fully integrated information system in place to produce integrated information, the department has made some positive steps towards building integrated systems.

Since the last MAF, Justice has begun putting standardized and systematized information systems in place to produce integrated information in order to improve the senior management's ability to make decisions based on an integrated view of the Department.

Justice has started developing and implementing a comprehensive integrated planning process that will incorporate linkages among strategic priorities, management commitments and operational plans.

Justice has also started exploring ways of incorporating the principles of results management into the departmental management framework to shift the departmental focus from simply reporting on results to managing for results.  It is expected that the full transition from managing by activities to an integrated risk and results-based approach to managing for results will take three to five years.

Sector, Portfolio and Regional business plans are informed by integrated performance information.  The plans are challenged by Finance Committee and at the year-end meeting of all senior managers (Governing Council).

Annual Departmental Performance Reports include formal assessments of the quality of data used to support management assessments of the degree to which performance expectations have been met.  These assessments are based upon rigorous challenge of performance data quality by internal experts from the Evaluation Division, the Research and Statistics Division, the Performance Management and Reporting Division and an external expert in performance measurement (on a rotational basis).

Multiple challenge mechanisms have been put in place.  Senior committees including Finance Committee and Policy Committee challenge investment proposals prior to providing recommendations to the Senior Management Board.  These senior committees rely in part on analyses using integrated information from a variety of sources including financial systems, HR systems and integrated business plans.

The Senior Management Board in turn challenges investment proposals based on advice and analysis from the senior committees, plus members' knowledge and understanding of how proposed investments could (or not) support both departmental and broader government priorities.

A single national system (iCase) was developed for departmental case management and timekeeping to support workload volume and cost information for client legal services.  National Rollout (including DLSUs) of iCase is nearing completion. A pilot for the MIS  "Eureka" is currently underway to provide resource utilization, and Performance Management reports to managers. As part of the Review of Legal Services, the department is also committed to developing and implementing standard business reports in respect of legal services in Government, and will make necessary adjustments to its processes and systems in a phased-approach over a two-year period

Justice has self-identified the need to develop a stronger capacity to monitor, track and report on outcomes and results and has adjusted its organizational structure and its resources to focus on this area.  For example Justice has embarked on a self-assessment of its capacity and progress in collecting and using performance information to report on priorities and commitments by adopting the criteria and rating levels tool from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in order to help senior management and stakeholders make informed decisions.

Planning and reporting systems to support executive decision-making, as evidenced by:

• Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs)/Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs) reflective of information contained in Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS);
• DPRs linked to RPPs;
• Electronic, meaningful real-time data linking resources and results.

Anticipation and management of significant organizational change, as evidenced by :

• Change management strategies at the corporate and 'initiative' levels;
• Change management function:
• Assignment of responsibilities and support to change management practices.

DEPARTMENTAL FEEDBACK:  Each year, the Department establishes corporate change management priorities to improve the management of the Department and facilitate the successful delivery of our strategic outcomes. Over the past several years, we have identified and made progress in advancing a number of priorities, including: reducing our reliance on term employment; establishing a learning culture and tools; better integrating new employees into the organization; conducting a departmental vertical review; and, preparing for Government transition. During 2004-2005, we established the following four priorities to improve the management of the Department and facilitate the successful delivery of our strategic outcomes: our people; performing and reporting; managing the volume of litigation; and sustainable funding. Given the ongoing nature and breadth of scope of these priorities, they have been readopted for 2005-06. During 2004-2005 accountability for demonstrating leadership and making progress on each of the priorities was assigned to individual senior managers. In support of these champions, various steering committees honed their approach and developed project plans for each of the priorities. A number of projects are already underway and others continue to be developed. Additionally, the ongoing work around the Review of Legal Services directly supports two corporate priorities: sustainable funding and managing the volume of litigation.

The organization learns from its results, as evidenced by:

• An organizational learning strategy incorporating regularly reviewed learning objectives, opportunities and requirements;
• A strategy to determine organizational knowledge needs as well as to capture, manage and apply organizational knowledge to shape action and improve results.

DEPARTMENTAL FEEDBACK: The department developed and implemented a Departmental Learning Policy that calls for individual learning plans for each employee that are regularly reviewed as part of annual performance appraisal and employee development processes The Human Resources and Professional Development Directorate is currently establishing a new learning unit to provide leadership in relation to strategic learning and organizational development for the DOJ to ensure the development and management of a learning organization. The learning unit will help the Department to response effectively to the implementation of the new Policy on Learning, Training and Development. The Department also has a number of information sharing mechanisms in place to ensure organizational learning ex:• Enhanced training for managers through learning modules The Department also has an active Professional Development Division which has developed tailored strategies to meet the departments knowledge needs in the following areas • Legal practice• Enhanced professional and technical performance • Improved management practices• Implementing Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA)• Balancing professional and personal commitments

Adequate management of legal risk, as evidenced by:

• Ongoing/regular scanning of programs for legal risks, in a manner commensurate with the nature of the department’s activities and mandate; 
• Senior management engagement in Legal Risk Management (LRM), including the active review, avoidance, mitigation and management of legal risks;
• Effective sharing of information on legal risks, including with the Department of Justice and central agencies (in large part to 'create' a whole on government perspective);
• Contingency planning to respond to risks that have materialized.

1. Ongoing scan of DoJ programs and policies for legal risks;
2. Policy Committee reviews significant new policy and program proposals, including associated legal risks;
3. DoJ established points of contact in each regional office and holds teleconferences with Chairs of Regional Litigation Committees monthly to identify and coordinate issues across regions;
4. LRM issues are discussed regularly at senior management meetings including the DM Daily meetings;
5. DoJ monitors the most important (approximately) 100 high-impact cases to ensure that they are effectively risk managed and have contingency plans in place to respond quickly and effectively in the event of adverse outcomes;
6. DoJ works with departments in order to provide advice on legal risks that may have impacts on the achievement of their national policy objectives.

The DoJ'sLRM strategy, introduced in 2000 incorporates a departmental LRM Accountability Framework and Governance Structure. The Framework and Governance Structure sets out accountabilities within the identified parts of the DoJ (e.g., Portfolios, Regions, Policy Sectors). It also creates two pieces in the LRM governance structure; a departmental LRM Steering Committee and the DoJ'sLRM Special Counsel Office located within the Civil Litigation Branch.

Managing legal risk is also a responsibility shared with client departments.  Many client departments have established senior-level litigation committees, where decisions to litigate or settle are discussed and where lessons learned are fed back into policy and program development in the client department.  Additionally, client departments with large volumes of litigation have established litigation management units that are actively involved in ongoing co-management of litigation activities with the Department of Justice.

Note also that, senior Department of Justice officials are active members of a number of client department executive committees.  As legal advisors for client executive decision-making bodies, the Department provides proactive advice during the early stages of policy and program implementation in order to reduce future legal risks downstream.

Within DoJ, the National Litigation Committee meets weekly to discuss significant litigation to which the federal government is a party or which has significant implications and in which there is a federal interest in intervening. This extends to all significant litigation, regardless of the level of court for the purposes of supporting the department's obligations for legal risk management and, providing instructions to counsel and making recommendations to the Deputy Minister and the Attorney General.

Contingency plans are discussed at Litigation Committee and on an ongoing basis with clients.

DoJ monitors the most important (approximately) 100 high-impact cases to ensure that they are effectively risk managed and have contingency plans in place to respond quickly and effectively in the event of adverse outcomes.

Risk as an active factor in decision-making processes, as evidenced by:

• Evergreen Executive Committee assessment of corporate risks and the status of risk management (Corporate Risk Profile);
• An integrated risk management function (organizational focus) linked to corporate decision-making;
• Protocols, processes and tools to ensure the consistent application of risk management principles throughout departmental decision making and delivery; and,
• Continuous organizational learning about risk management and lessons learned from risks successfully identified, mitigated or not.

The department is now seeking to broaden its risk management approach.  The department is currently developing a framework and methodology to facilitate the integration of risk management writ large in the planning, priority setting, and decision-making processes of the department.  While the elements of the department's integrated risk management program are still under discussion at the senior management table, it is expected that:

1. the program will be designed to complement and build on the department's well-developed practices and expertise respecting legal risk management;
2. the development of a Corporate Risk Profile is likely to be an early priority;
3. a module on risk identification and mitigation will be developed to include in the department's business and human resources planning process;
4. tools will be developed to integrate risk considerations in the deliberations of senior departmental committees; and,
5. training needs will be assessed and a training program developed.

A workplace that is fair, enabling, healthy and safe in order to provide best services to Canadians, as evidenced by:

• Fair employment and workplace practices and effective labour relations;
• Clear direction, collaboration, respect and support for employees' linguistic rights, diversity and personal circumstances in order to enable them to fulfill their mandate;
• Healthy and safe physical and psychological environment.

Over the past five years there has been no major increase in the use of sick leave, either uncertified (3.04 to 4.12 days), certified (2.51 to 2.46 days) or sick leave without pay (8.47 to 1.54 days).  These statistics are consistently lower than the public service average.

The department monitors leave utilization and other organizational health indicators (such as EAP utilization) on an ongoing basis. Data in this regard is provided to senior managers at the regional/portfolio level for information purposes and where necessary, for the implementation of remedial measures. In addition, leave utilization statistics are included in the departmental Demographic and Organizational Health Profile.

A departmental Wellness Survey was conducted in 2005 with an excellent participation rate. An action plan to respond to the findings of this survey is currently being developed.

Training and information sessions on mental health, stress management are offered on a regular basis.

A workforce that is productive, principled, sustainable and adaptable in order to provide best services to Canadians, as evidenced by:

• The size, mix of skills and diversity of backgrounds to competently perform its duties;
• Reflective of Canada’s population, respectful of Canada’s official languages and performs its duties guided by the values and ethics of the Public Service;
• Renewable and affordable over time;
• Versatile, innovative and engages in continuous learning.

Rates of involuntary and retirement separation are not significantly different than the public service average but rates of voluntary separation show a significant increase over 5 years.

Trends in tenure of workforce, transfer out rates and retirement age are all similar to public service averages. Separation rates and other workforce trends such as transfer out rates, retirement patterns are closely monitored and reported annually in the departmental demographic profile. In addition, data in this regard is now provided to senior management at the portfolio/regional level for planning purposes.

The department has approved the development and implementation of a National Management Development Program which will serve to develop the leadership and management competencies required to meet our future human resources requirements and to increase the representation of designated group members in the senior cadre of the LA Group. The Embracing Change benchmark will be applied to this program.

Embracing Change objectives for visible minorities met, and workforce availability targets met for designated groups, as evidenced by:

• Demonstrated results in meeting Embracing Change targets for: 
  • recruitment;
  • promotions;
  • EX appointments.
• Specific initiatives planned or underway to meet targets of Workforce Availability (WFA) for:
  • women;
  • persons with disabilities;
  • Aboriginal persons;
  • visible minorities.

Visible minorities accounted for 15.7% (32 out of 204) of employees externally recruited at Justice Canada for 2004-05.

No visible minorities were appointed to the EX group (zero out of two) for 2004-05.

A well-developed Human Resources (HR) planning process integrated with its business planning, as evidenced by:

• HR planning aligned with the organization’s strategic outcomes and integrated with business planning;
• HR planning incorporating future needs, effective recruitment and retention, succession planning, learning and diversity.

1. A senior level working group on Human Resources Planning was established in January 2005 and meets on a regular basis.  The mandate of this committee is to continue to advance the work in relation to integrated Human Resources planning.  Since the creation of the working group, a fully integrated business and Human Resources planning process, aligned with department's strategic outcomes, was launched in September 2005.
2. For this first year of integrated planning, focus has been placed on Staffing/Recruitment including Employment Equity and Official Languages (i.e. referred to as "resourcing").  The Human Resources component of the integrated planning process will be enhanced in a phased approach over the next few years.  As part of this process, managers are asked to identify their current and future human resources requirements.
3. Human Resources planning tools for managers were developed.
4. Training on Integrated Human Resources and Business Planning is currently being marketed as part of the departmental Learning Strategy under Public Service Modernization.

In 2005, the department implemented the first phase of its integrated business planning cycle which includes HR Planning. Additional tools to support management in future phases of this new cycle will be developed over the course of the next several months including the development of a departmental integrated planning training course for managers.

Legislation and policy on Official Languages in the workplace respected, as evidenced by:

• Composition of the workforce reflecting the presence of both official language communities of Canada;
• Incumbents of positions with bilingual requirements meeting those requirements;
• Use of the official language of their choice by employees in bilingual regions;
• Availability of communications, tools and products in both official languages in bilingual regions;
• Availability of training in both official languages.

Sources: 2004-2005 Annual Review on Official Languages; and, Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) data as of March 31, 2005.

An effective performance assessment process, as evidenced by:

• Performance agreements that:
  • Have specific outcomes and are results- based;
  • Clearly identify expectations in line with Clerk’s priorities;
  • Require sound financial and human resource management
• Rigorous performance assessment process (e.g. quality and distribution of performance pay) and HR follow up.

New legislation and delegations of authority, policies and procedures in place, as evidenced by:

• Collaborative labour relations;
• Training, tool kits, guides and other supports available for managers and HR professionals;
• Current and future needs identified leading to their use in clear staffing criteria;
• Internal policies, procedures and monitoring to ensure consistent and fair implementation of new Act.

1. Departmental guidelines for exclusion were developed and communicated throughout the department and LA positions for exclusion under the new PSLRA proposed to TB within prescribed timelines. Training on PSLRA and FAA was offered to all departmental managers in the October to December 2005 timeframe.
2. Departmental grievance guidelines have been developed. A policy is not required at this time. The approach to adjudication will be discussed and negotiated with TB representatives in the near future. It is the department's intention to handle its own adjudication files.
3. All essentials for Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) coming-into-force were completed prior to December 3lst. Communications products from Deputy Minister and DG, HRPPD were developed and disseminated to all staff. A HR Modernization Portal was developed and launched. A PSMA Learning Roadmap was developed to provide managers and employees with a list of learning activities and opportunities identified by the DOJ. The activities are available in different formats such as in class, on-line, on video or through practice forums. These learning activities are helping the employees prepare and adapt for the changes that PSMA is bringing.
4. Regarding the PSLRA, the Labour Relation course was revised to address the new legislative changes. The course was offered across the DOJ during the Fall of 2005. 240 managers attended the training on labour relations.
5. Concerning the PSEA, a new delegation policy was adopted which requires that all delegated managers have to successfully complete a two-day departmental Staffing Delegation for Managers course. This mandatory training will ensure that managers have sufficient knowledge of the new staffing regime and are competent to exercise their delegated staffing authorities. Managers who fail to attend the training will not received their staffing delegation until required training is completed. PSEA training will be offered throughout 2006 with the majority of managers expected to be trained in the January to March timeframe.
6. All Direct Reports to DM received mandatory delegation training on January 9, 2006. ADAI signed and returned to PSC on December 9. Tracking and reporting changes to meet central agency reporting requirements will be implemented within HRMS by mid-January. As such, department will be able to meet April 2006 reporting requirements to Public Service Commission (PSC).

Effective investment planning in capital assets, as evidenced by:

• Adequate information on condition and use of capital assets in support of investment planning;
• A long-term plan that integrates all capital asset classes (real property, materiel and IM/IT); and,
• A clear linkage between asset and program delivery.

Portfolios, Sectors and Regions include in their business plans their proposed investments in each asset class.

Portfolios, Sector and Regional business plans make clear linkages between assets and program delivery.

Solid financial analysis, as evidenced by:

• Frequent and accurate year-end forecasts and variance reporting (most especially at mid-year) showing the organization’s true financial status;
• Analyses of high-risk areas in relation to reference levels by program activity and major funding approvals (real and projected) including anticipated funding pressures and re-profiling trends; and,
• A reasonable history of carry forwards and lapses.

Justice has made some progress in this area and is expected to continue to improve its financial analysis capacity in the near-to medium term; e.g. Justice has established a Finance Committee that regularly reviews financial forecasts and variance reporting throughout the year, which helps them deal with year-end forecasts, approvals of program activities, major funding and re-profiling.  The Finance Committee regularly applies a risk management lens to all major funding approvals (real and projected).

From a re-profiling perspective, a reserve as well as a rigorous process to access it (to internally manage pressures) and reallocation has been established.

All senior managers within the department receive quarterly Financial Situation Reports, which are also used as part of the quarterly progress updates on performance agreements between senior managers and the DM Team.

All senior managers are currently tasked with preparing annual business plans for 2006-2007.  As part of the business plans, senior managers identify high risks to their operations including risks to their reference levels.

As part of the Review of Legal Services, the department is reviewing its costing models for delivery of legal services to departments that, along with improved joint Justice/departmental forecasting and planning, will assist in enhancing Justice's financial analysis capacity.

There have been, however, some signs of weaknesses in developing rationale for funding requests, which would suggest there is still room for improvement in the area of financial analysis.  For example, in preparing MCs *, the department expressed some difficulties in securing accurate information on past performance, and in justifying specifically where additional funds were required.  Similar financial tracking issues on past performance were evident in PSAT reporting, and have also been raised in the context of the Legal Services Review.

The department has managed its resources so as to respect the allowable carry-forward provisions for operating budgets.  As part of its financial management framework, Justice intentionally holds a portion of its monies in reserve so that, if needed, the department can respond to government-wide pressures without imposing on Direct Reports and in-year tax.  If not needed, these monies can be carried forward to serve as part of the departmental reserve in the following year.

As far as lapses are concerned, the department has shown some progress, and the outcome of the Legal Services Review should lead to a new cost-recovery mechanism that will address the main cause of lapsed funds for the department in recent years (an interim cost-recovery mechanism has seen the creation of a temporary frozen allotment within Justice's reference levels, which lapses a considerable amount of funds each year depending on the actual amount of legal services provided by Justice to other government departments compared to a benchmark amount forecasted when the interim process was established).

An IM/IT vision and strategy supportive of the organization’s business strategy and government- wide directions, as evidenced by:

• A governance structure that includes program representation and is effective in priority setting of IM/IT investments and resources;
• IM/IT enabled projects that have effective governance and are executed well;
• Strategy and approved plans that reflect a Government of Canada (GoC) Enterprise approach to common IT services;
• Implementation of Management of Government Information (MGI) Policy strategy, based on an IM capacity assessment; and,
• Integrated privacy and security measures.

Justice completed an IM assessment (April 2004) and approved a Strategic Framework for Information Management (November 2004). Part of the strategy (partially funded by the MGI Policy Implementation Fund) is to develop a standard classification structure for all departmental records. This structure:

1. results from extensive user need assessments;
2. is a necessary precursor to the department-wide implementation of RDIMS subject to approval by the Justice IM/IT Governance Committee.

Justice is developing web-based IM awareness and training available to all employees, possibly expanded to classroom mode.

Challenges to meeting the goals of the Strategic Framework for Information Management include:

1. recruitment and retention of personnel with the required IM skill sets; ·
2. insufficient clarity on key objectives among central agencies accountable for information management;
3. lack of progress with Library and Archives Canada in the development of a comprehensive records disposition authority.

Justice will comply with most of the standard on the Management of IT Security (MITS) by December 2006. Justice has completed or almost completed 46% of MITS requirements.  MITS implementation is well underway, resources have been reallocated to achieve MITS compliance, and senior management support has been obtained through the MITS Action Plan process. The MITS Action Plan is well thought out and an excellent security risk management process is in place. 

There is no information on alignment of departmental strategic planning with the GoC common IT services agenda. This alignment is a future consideration for planning as internal service transformation emerges.

An effective internal audit function, as evidenced by:

• An appropriate infrastructure to effectively discharge its internal audit responsibilities as outlined in the Internal Audit Policy (governance structure and appropriate level of resources);
• A completed risk-based audit plan; and,
• All reports including progress reports are submitted to TBS for follow-up activities.

Effective Transfer Payment Program management in place, as evidenced by:

• Timely renewal of transfer payment programs;
• Departmental internal audit plans include provision for the review of internal management policies, practices and controls of transfer payment programs;
• Regular audit of transfer payment programs and follow-up.

In the last 6 months however, process improvements and greater quality in the production of RMAFs/RBAFs have been noted.  For example, Justice developed acceptable RBAFs and RMAFs, Terms & Conditions prior to seeking TB approval for the Victims of Crime Initiative.  There is evidence in the RBAF that the Departmental internal audit plans include provision for regular audits of the transfer payment policy.  There is only one particular case (a horizontal initiative) regarding War Crimes, where Justice experienced difficulty producing a horizontal RMAF before seeking TB approval, but this was due to a lack of coordination between a number of departments involved in the initiative (a TB condition was imposed as a result, and a horizontal RMAF is to be produced by the end of fiscal year 2005-2006).

Justice has been proactive in requesting the use of existing terms and conditions for new initiatives that are mostly horizontal and led by other departments. This was the case for the Anti-Racism initiative, using the Legal Partnership and Innovation Fund Terms and Conditions.

In particular, the Victims of Crime and the Access to Both Official Languages Transfer Payment programs were recently renewed or amended. Justice did not experience any significant problems in producing terms and conditions, risk and results frameworks.

Given the delay in a decision on the level of longer term federal funding for youth justice services, the Minister of Justice has also exercised his delegated authority (as per Section 7.3.2 of the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments) to extend the existing terms and conditions for the Youth Justice services program for one year, until March 31, 2006.

The Department of Justice conducts regular audits. The last report on this audit was produced in February 2003. The audit assessed the level and effectiveness of contribution agreement auditing in the Department of Justice. Approximately 30 contribution agreement audits were conducted and the audit found that the Department is proactive in meeting Treasury Board Secretariat transfer payment policy requirements.

TBS is not able to assess if there is regular follow up of these regular audits.

An appropriate materiel management framework in place, as evidenced by:

• Clear accountabilities consistent with organizational capacity; and,
• Reliable life- cycle cost and performance information that supports decision- making.

Justice is piloting a new assets inventory system for the National Capital Region that will be linked to the Department's integrated financial and materiel system. A roll out to the regions is expected in the new year.

Risk-based approach to procurement and contracting management, as evidenced by:

• Clear delegations of authority are tied to knowledge and capacity;
• Demonstrated compliance with delegated contracting authorities and conditions identified by Treasury Board policy; and,
• Explicit oversight, monitoring and on- going review of procurement and contracting function and processes (e.g. Contracts Review Committee, quality of contracting data, timely completion of contracts over $10,000 disclosure information, implementation of audit recommendations where applicable, etc);
• Methods for procuring demonstrating the most cost-effective end-to-end process.

Justice reports 10,800 acquisition card transactions with an overall value of $2M.

Justice has a contracting unit of four people reporting to a Director with responsibilities for contracting as well as materiel management.  A delegation of authority matrix for contracting has been promulgated at Justice Canada Headquarters. It consists of five levels from Administration Assistant to Assistant Deputy Minister. The regional offices have also implanted a similar matrix. Low volume of activity reflective of size and special provisions for contracting for lawyers (e.g, not subject to GCRs).

All recommendations outlined in a 2003 Audit Report are being addressed in a structured way. The Audit report included nine recommendations, five of which have been fully implemented and the remaining four recommendations are more than 75% completed.  The key recommendation speaks to strengthening the Management Control Framework for the contracting function, including training, revised guidance and tools as well as improvements to and greater clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the contract review process.

Rather than report on work in progress, next year's MAF will report on the success of Justice in implementing all of the 2003 audit recommendations.

Justice is compliant with the requirement to proactively disclose contracts greater then $10K and has reported eight contract awards (app $5M) over all quarters.

Risk-based project management approach, as evidenced by:

• An integrated, achievable up-to-date long-term capital plan or planning document in place that is being implemented (linked to the organization’s key priorities);
• Explicit project management accountability framework, that addresses decision- making and oversight and effective monitoring and ongoing review;
• Properly resourced projects (e.g. project management capacity, appropriately trained officials);
• Demonstrated compliance with delegated project approval requirements and conditions identified by Treasury Board.

Quality TB submissions, as evidenced by:

• Draft submissions regularly vetted through common departmental quality control to ensure consistency, clarity and conciseness; 
• Accurate, substantiated and comprehensive financial components; and,
• Frequency with which TB conditions are imposed.

An implemented real property management framework to meet its obligations under TB Real Property policies, as evidenced by:

• An organizational structure which includes clear accountabilities and appropriate delegations;
• Integrated support systems; and 
• An information management framework to provide complete and accurate inventory data.

DOJ continues to address shortcomings in asset management. A three-day training session was offered to key facility management personnel, one day of which was a joint session with PWGSC, at which relevant policies and processes were reviewed and the new PWGSC accommodation standards and processes were introduced.  The Master Occupancy Agreement (MOA), which had been ready for signature by DOJ and PWGSC, has not been signed as PWGSC has set aside existing MOAs and directed PWGSC staff not to move ahead with new ones until there is a greater degree of clarity and understanding of the implications of the new accommodation regime for all parties.

DOJ has invested in a computer assisted facility management program (CAFM) that will be available nationally on the desktop for all employees dealing with accommodation.  Implementation is underway with a prototype now running, and data for the Atlantic Regional Office has been entered.

DOJ is in the process of developing national CAD standards and updating all drawings.

DOJ continues to face a major challenge with the implementation of PWGSC's new Tenant Interface policy.  DOJ is of the view that, while the PWGSC standards are suitable for the portion of their workforce providing functions commonly found in the Public Service, they are incompatible with the accepted professional standards for the accommodation of legal in both the public and private sector across North America.  DOJ indicates that its inability to deliver on needed space is beginning to compromise its ability to deliver necessary services.  *, DOJ has hired PWGSC to do develop a cost model for DOJ space requirements which will be comparable to that which forms the base of the general accommodation standard.

DOJ indicates that strategic space planning continues to be difficult, but that PWGSC and DOJ are co-developing a strategic five-year plan which will be presented to DOJ Senior Management Board for their approval. In addition, it is the intention that DOJ Finance Committee will review and approve all major accommodation proposals, in order to increase understanding and better integrate the accommodation planning process into the overall departmental planning cycle.

Organizational compliance with conditions imposed by TB, as evidenced by :

• Timely compliance;
• Adequate engagement with TBS; and,
• Appropriate reporting.

Client centred external service delivery strategy that drives efficiencies, respects client privacy rights and reflects an enterprise view of government services and that results in effective external service delivery, as evidenced by:

• Review of key public-facing services to achieve measurable improvements in responsiveness to client needs, effectiveness and value for money;
• Partnerships with other programs, organizations or jurisdictions to achieve more client-centric or cost-effective service delivery or to align program rules and regulations (e.g., Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)/service level agreements in place when partnerships established);
• Measurement of the cost-effectiveness of delivery by channel and migration of clients to lower cost channels where appropriate; and
• Measurement of client satisfaction in a transparent way (e.g., reporting to clients and Parliament) using the Common Measurement Tool, and use of the results to guide continued improvement in client satisfaction.

Pursuing program partnerships:  DOJ met its 2005 partnership target.

Measuring Cost-Effectiveness / Channel Migration:  Other than some qualitative departmental benefits, TBS is unaware of any other specific activity undertaken by DOJ to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual service channels.

Client-satisfaction:  While DOJ has registered for use of the CMT and performed some client satisfaction work, there is no evidence to suggest that the department has been engaged in other service improvement activity that includes the development of service delivery standards or a service improvement plan as outlined in the Policy Framework for Service Improvement in the GoC.

Horizontal Solutions:  N/A

Internal service delivery supportive of enterprise- wide (Government of Canada-wide) approach (e.g. shared and common services and infrastructure in IT, HR, Finance, Materiel), as evidenced by:

• Commitments met on using Secure Channel services (timing and transaction volumes);
• Active participation in enterprise-wide initiatives and adoption of Shared service and systems.

 Department participates in interdepartmental discussion regarding Government of Canada enterprise-wide initiatives.  In this regard, the department is awaiting clarification on the timing and specifics of Government of Canada internal shared services in the areas of HR, Finance, Materiel Mgmt and IT services. . DOJ participated in the data collection exercise for shared services in 2005-06.

Secure Channel:

1. All departments and agencies participate in common, core Secure Channel services: Data Network Service, Secure Application Key Management Service and Federated Infrastructure National Directory Service.
2. Department uses secure channel for one of its two public facing services (FOAEA).  CRDP will be integrated to secure channel

Justice Canada is actively participating in common, core Secure Channel services, specifically:

1. retendering wide area network under PWGSC direction
2. has contracted with PWGSC for Firewall and Intrusion Detection and Prevention systems
3. is contracting with PWGSC for Internet Content filtering 
4. one of the largest Government of Canada users of PWGSC SAKMS service
5. is the PWGSC GEDS services extensively (FINDS has not materialized from PWGSC)

External communications in both official languages, as evidenced by:

• Availability of communications, tools and products in both official languages, for external services to clients.

Sources: 2004-2005 Annual Review on Official Languages; and, Position and Classification Information System (PCIS) data as of March 31, 2005.

Compliance with service delivery and user fee requirements, as evidenced by:

• Performance information for all user fees to which the Act applies; it is based on the DPR (or an alternative report employed by the department) and observations of departmental compliance with the User Fees Act relative to the disclosure of service standards.

Compliance with approved financial authorities and delegations, as evidenced by:

• Issues identified through departmental contacts, Internal Audit reports, Office of the Auditor General (OAG) reports, by Program Sectors, and through review of media reports or other relevant sources of information.