Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Evaluation of the Treasury Board Submission Process


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Appendix G: Survey Results

Program Analyst Survey Results


1. How long have you been in your current position?
Number of years %
n=sample size n=60
Less then one year 33.3
1 to 2 years 35.0
2 to 3 years 15.0
3 to 4 years 8.3
4 to 5 years 3.3
More then 5 years 5.0

2. Which program sector do you work for?
Sector %
n=sample size n=59
Social and Cultural 22.0
Economic 18.6
International Affairs, Security and Justice 23.7
Government Operations (program side) 35.6

3. What classification and level is your current position?
Classification and level %
n=sample size n=60
ES-02 or equivalent 5.0
ES-03 or equivalent 6.7
ES-04 or equivalent 20.0
ES-05 or equivalent 18.3
ES-06 or equivalent 40.0
ES-07 or equivalent 6.7
EX-03 or equivalent 3.3

4. During a normal one-year period, how many different government departments on average do you assist?
Number of departments %
n=sample size n=59
Mean 3.9
1 22.0
2 18.6
3 16.9
4 8.5
5 15.3
6 3.4
8 3.4
9 5.1
10 6.8

5. Please identify which federal departments/agencies you have worked with in the last year.
Federal Department\Agency n= %
Note: Due to the ability to select multiple responses for this question, total percentage values will not equal 100.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2 3.3
Canadian Heritage 6 10.0
Canadian International Development Agency 5 8.3
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3 5.0
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 8 13.3
Health Canada 5 8.3
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 7 11.7
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 8 13.3
Industry Canada 6 10.0
Infrastructure Canada 2 3.3
National Capital Commission 1 1.7
National Defence and the Canadian Forces 7 11.7
Natural Resources Canada 5 8.3
Privy Council Office 10 16.7
Public Works and Government Services Canada 12 20.0
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 6 10.0
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Portfolio 7 11.7
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 16 26.7
**Other 19 31.7

5.1 Other
** Other Federal Department\Agency n= %
Note: Due to the ability to select multiple responses for this question, total percentage values will not equal 100.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency 2 2.9
Assisted Human Reproduction Canada 1 1.4
Canada Border Services Agency 1 1.4
Canada Council for the Arts 1 1.4
Canada Lands Company Limited 1 1.4
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 1 1.4
Canada Public Service Agency (now Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer) 2 2.9
Canada Revenue Agency 1 1.4
Canada School of Public Service 1 1.4
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal 1 1.4
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety 1 1.4
Canadian Food Inspection Agency 1 1.4
Canadian Grain Commission 1 1.4
Canadian Industrial Relations Board 1 1.4
Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2 2.9
Canadian International Trade Tribunal 1 1.4
Canadian Museum for Human Rights 1 1.4
Canadian Museum of Civilization 2 2.9
Canadian Museum of Nature 2 2.9
Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission 1 1.4
Canadian Science and Technology Museum 2 2.9
Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2 2.9
Canadian Space Agency 1 1.4
Canadian Tourism Commission 1 1.4
Citizenship and Immigration Canada 1 1.4
Correctional Service Canada 1 1.4
Department of Finance Canada 8 11.4
Environment Canada 1 1.4
Farm Credit Canada 1 1.4
First Nations Statistical Institute 1 1.4
Registry of the Specific Claims Tribunal of Canada 2 2.9
Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada 2 2.9
Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission 1 1.4
Library of Parliamentr 1 1.4
National Gallery of Canada 1 1.4
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages 1 1.4
Office of the Information Commissioner 1 1.4
Office of the Privacy Commissioner 1 1.4
Parks Canada 2 2.9
Public Health Agency of Canada 2 2.9
Public Safety Canada 2 2.9
Science and Engineering Research Canada 1 1.4
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 1 1.4
Standards Council of Canada 1 1.4
Statistics Canada 1 1.4
Veterans Affairs Canada 4 5.7

6. Approximately how many TB submissions have you been responsible for reviewing in the last year?
Number of Submissions %
n=sample size n=60
Mean 12.5
1 1.7
2 1.7
3 10.0
5 15.0
6 11.7
7 1.7
8 10.0
9 6.7
10 11.7
12 8.3
15 5.0
17 1.7
20 3.3
25 3.3
40 3.3
42 1.7
50 1.7
100 1.7

7. Based on your own assessment, approximately what percentage of these would you classify as:
% completed that were: Standard % Complex % Strategic Review %
n= sample size n=57 n=54 n=38
Overall submission distribution 54.2% 38.4% 7.5
0 1.8 3.7 36.8
1     7.9
5   1.9 5.3
9 1.8    
10 5.3 5.6 21.1
11     2.6
15   1.9  
20 7.0 11.1 13.2
25 1.8 7.4 5.3
30 1.8 11.1  
33 1.8    
34   1.9 2.6
35 1.8 1.9  
40 3.5 9.3  
45 1.8 1.9  
50 14.0 14.8  
55 1.8 1.9  
60 10.5 5.6  
65 1.8    
66 3.5    
67   1.9  
70 8.8 1.9 2.6
75 7.0 1.9  
79 1.8    
80 10.5 7.4  
89 1.8    
90 3.5 5.6 2.6
94 1.8    
100 5.3 1.9  

8. In the last year, what percentage of TB submissions was focused on federal organizations seeking exemptions and exclusions?
% %
n=sample size n=59
Mean 14.5
0 49.2
10 16.9
20 11.9
25 3.4
30 8.5
40 1.7
50 3.4
75 1.7
100 3.4

9. Relevant to the scope of your work and your program area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
I have a strong understanding of the TB submission process.   5.0 10.0 36.7 46.7 1.7 n=60
The Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions helps to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   5.0 13.3 51.7 30.0   n=60
TBS-developed tools help to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   8.3 40.0 31.7 16.7 3.3 n=60
TBS Analyst Boot Camp helped to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 2.5 17.5 32.5 27.5 15.0 5.0 n=40
Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) training on TB submissions helped to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 11.1 11.1 27.8 5.6   44.4 n=18
I have a strong understanding of who to consult within different TBS areas. 3.3 5.0 10.0 35.0 46.7   n=60
I benefit from ongoing support, mentoring, and training as a program analyst. 5.4 10.7 14.3 39.3 30.4   n=56
I have sufficient time to provide input into TB submission documents.   3.3 10.0 58.3 28.3   n=60
I am confident that the advice I provide is reflected in final TB submission documents.   3.3 10.0 58.3 28.3   n=60
The federal organizations I work with have demonstrated, over the years, an increased understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 3.4 15.5 22.4 44.8 3.4 10.3 n=58
I maintain ongoing, regular contact with my client departments regardless of the submission process.   1.7 6.7 38.3 53.3   n=60
It is easy for me to obtain input from other TBS sectors, as required, when working on TB submissions. 5.0 8.3 23.3 41.7 21.7   n=60

10. Relevant to the scope of your work and your program area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
In general, program analysts are offering services that enable federal organizations' draft submissions to comply with TB authorities, policies, and directions.     3.3 46.7 48.3 1.7 n=60
In general, program analysts are providing consistent policy advice/ interpretation regarding TB submissions at the pre-submission stage (when federal organizations are trying to decide whether a TB submission is required).   5.0 20.0 56.7 5.0 13.3 n=60
In general, program analysts are providing accurate policy advice/ interpretation regarding TB submissions at the pre-submission stage (when federal organizations are trying to decide whether a TB submission is required).   1.7 15.0 68.3 6.7 8.3 n=60
In general, the submission review process within TBS ensures that TB submissions comply with government authorities and policies.     6.8 55.9 35.6 1.7 n=59
In general, TBS analysts (Program, Policy, and Enabling Sectors) are providing consistent advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 1.7 15.3 16.9 57.6 5.1 3.4 n=59
In general, TBS analysts (Program, Policy, and Enabling Sectors) are providing accurate advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage.   1.7 16.9 71.2 8.5 1.7 n=59
In general, TBS analysts (Program, Policy, and Enabling Sectors) are providing useful advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage.   3.4 10.2 72.9 13.6   n=59
In general, TBS analysts (Program, Policy, and Enabling Sectors) are providing timely advice in regards to TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 1.7 10.0 28.3 40.0 20.0   n=60

11. Relevant to the scope of your work and your program area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
TBS has adequate mechanisms in place to track conditions placed on TB submissions. 23.3 45.0 18.3 1.7 1.7 10.0 n=60
TBS communicates the TB decision in a timely manner to those involved.   3.3 11.7 51.7 30.0 3.3 n=60
TBS communicates the TB decision to all required parties (e.g. federal organization, Expenditure Management Sector, program analysts, other TBS analysts, etc.). 1.7 13.3 11.7 45.0 13.3 15.0 n=60
TBS's decision filing system is complete. 10.2 10.2 13.6 23.7 0.0 40.7 n=59
TBS's decision filing system is usable. 8.3 11.7 13.3 25.0 0.0 40.0 n=60

12. In the past year, have federal organizations shared drafts for consideration/review that did not require a TB submission?


13. In the past year, have federal organizations submitted drafts for approval that did not require a TB submission?
Were any drafts shared? Did the authors consult TBS prior to sharing? Were any drafts submitted? Did the authors consult TBS prior to submitting?
n=sample size n=59 n=24 n=58 n=11
Yes 40.7 62.5 19.0 81.8
No 40.7 25.0 55.2 9.1
Do not know 18.6 12.5 25.9 9.1

12./13. What percentage of drafts did you receive that fell into this category?
( filtered by "Yes" response to Q10)
% Shared Submitted
n=sample size n=24 n=11
Mean 17.5 9.1
0 16.7 36.4
10 58.3 45.5
20 12.5 9.1
30 4.2 9.1
90 4.2  
100 4.2  

12./13. Has the percentage been increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same?
( filtered by "Yes" response to Q10)
Frequency Shared Submitted
n=sample size n=24 n=11
Increasing 4.2  
Decreasing 8.3  
Remaining the same 29.2 36.4
Do not know 58.3 63.6

14. How many weeks in advance of a TB meeting date should a federal organization submit its first complete draft to its TBS program analyst to ensure adequate time for review and feedback by the various analysts within TBS?
Weeks %
n=sample size n=53
Mean 8.5
4 1.9
5 3.8
6 22.6
7 5.7
8 32.1
9 5.7
10 5.7
11 1.9
12 15.1
14 3.8
20 1.9

15. What percentage of the TB submission drafts you received in the past year:
% Appear to have completed internal consultations? Were submitted with enough time for TBS analysts to review? Follow the Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions? Have risk and mitigation strategies identified? Ask for the right authorities? Have the appropriate level of justification? Contain accurate information? Are written in a clear manner?
n=sample size n=58 n=59 n=59 n=59 n=58 n=59 n=59 n=59
  Ind. (9.2) Ind. (5.1) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2)
Mean 57.3 57.5 56.7 59.5 60.2 54.7 54.2 51.4
0 3.4 1.7 3.4 1.7   3.4 6.8 1.7
10 5.2 3.4 6.8 10.2 3.4 1.7 3.4 5.1
20 1.7 6.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.8 1.7 5.1
25 5.2 6.8 3.4 1.7 6.9 8.5 6.8 5.1
30 3.4 1.7 1.7 10.2 6.9 8.5 1.7 10.2
40 5.2 1.7 3.4 1.7 1.7 3.4 3.4 5.1
50 25.9 23.7 25.4 15.3 12.1 16.9 25.4 20.3
60 6.9 11.9 6.8 5.1 17.2 8.5 16.9 18.6
70 6.9 16.9 18.6 10.2 8.6 13.6 11.9 10.2
75 8.6 5.1 8.5 8.5 20.7 10.2 8.5 10.2
80 10.3 6.8 8.5 8.5 6.9 8.5 3.4 3.4
90 8.6 6.8 5.1 10.2 8.6 5.1 5.1 3.4
100 8.6 6.8 5.1 13.6 3.4 5.1 5.1 1.7

16. In this past year, approximately what percentage of TB submissions for which you are the program analyst have resulted in:
% A TB decision that is consistent with the recommendations you put forward? A TB decision that has additional conditions to those you proposed? Challenges to the submission and/or recommendations? Legal contestations?
n=sample size n=58 n=58 n=58 n=58
Mean 82.2 5.6 8.4 3.5
0 5.2 63.8 55.2 74.1
10 1.7 22.4 13.8 3.4
20   3.4 5.2 5.2
25     5.2 3.4
30   1.7 1.7  
50     3.4 1.7
70 5.2      
75     1.7  
80 1.7      
90 22.4      
100 56.9 1.7    
Do not know 6.9 6.9 13.8 12.1

17. Are you aware of the risk criteria applied to TB submissions?
Level of awareness %
n=sample size n=58
Yes, I am aware, but I do not apply them when I analyze and provide advice. 3.4
Yes, I am aware, and I do apply them when I analyze and provide advice. 91.4
No, I am not aware. 5.2

18. In your program area, do you believe that the risk criteria are being applied consistently across TB submissions?
Risk Criteria being applied consistently? %
n=58 100.0
Yes 43.1
No 25.9
Do not know 31.0

19. How would you say the overall quality of TB submissions has changed during your time with TBS?
Level of quality? %
n=sample size n=59
Significantly worse 3.4
Somewhat worse 8.5
No change (neither better nor worse) 50.8
Somewhat better 32.2
Significantly better 5.1

20. Please identify the top three key challenges of the TB submission process.
% Quality of first draft Not enough time for TBS review, consultation, due diligence Lack of program analysts' knowledge of department / need of coordination with department Policy centre advice not appropriate, consistent, coordinated Federal organizations' poor follow-up to TBS input or needs Poor TBS condition tracking Record keeping TBS requirements unclear, unresponsive to federal organizations' needs, awkward for federal organizations Political pressure n=sample size
1st 32.8 43.1 3.4 10.3 1.7 1.7 0.0 3.4 1.7 n=57
2nd 15.5 31.0 3.4 8.6 19.0 0.0 3.4 10.3 3.4 n=55
3rd 8.6 20.7 5.2 12.1 27.6 5.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 n=51

21. Please identify the top three key strengths of the TB submission process.
% TBS tools Provides insight and knowledge of departmental operations Keeps ministers informed Strong process TBS staff support, good consultation process Recent changes beneficial Enhances operations of federal organizations n=sample size
1st Strength 5.5 3.6 3.6 38.2 40.0 1.8 10.9 n=55
2nd Strength 9.6 6.8 6.8 40.9 29.5 0.0 6.8 n=45
3rd Strength 7.9 10.5 7.9 39.5 26.3 2.6 5.3 n=38

22. What percentage of your time, in the last year, is dedicated to the following tasks:
% Pre-submission advice and consultation? Reviewing/consulting on submissions? Briefing/preparing briefing documents (e.g. prcis)? Other TBS submission activities? Other TBS non-submission activities?
n=sample size n=59 n=59 n=59 n=37 n=55
Average time for each activity 15.8% 28.5% 21.6% 6.8% 27.4%
0 3.4 0.00 3.4 18.9  
5 20.3 3.4 3.4 29.7 3.6
10 32.2 8.5 13.6 18.9 16.4
15 8.5 13.6 13.6 5.4 5.5
20 15.3 16.9 27.1 18.9 7.3
25 3.4 8.5 10.2 2.7 10.9
30 6.8 18.6 15.3 0.0 18.2
35 0 3.4 5.1 2.7 3.6
40 6.8 11.9 5.1 0.0 18.2
45 1.7 1.7 0.0 2.7 3.6
50 1.7 5.1 3.4   7.3
55   3.4     1.8
60   3.4     1.8
65         1.8
70   1.7      

22. Comments – Other activities
% Document preparation (administrative) MAF related Provision of advice Strategic reviews Oversight Post-approval activities Financial exercises ARLU and Supple-mentary Estimates, Memoranda to Cabinet Policy input
n=65 4.6 16.9 15.4 3.1 3.1 12.3 15.4 21.5 7.7

23. In the last year, how often have you found that your workload has provided you with enough time to complete your work with respect to TB submissions?
Frequency %
n=sample size n=60
Never 1.7
Rarely 10.0
Sometimes 50.0
Often 23.3
Always 13.3
Do not know 1.7

24. During your time as a program analyst, have you found that your workload with respect to TB submissions has:
Level %
n=sample size n=59
Decreased 8.5
Remained the same 45.8
Increased 45.8

25.  In your view, what percentage of your workload should be spent working on TB submissions?
Percentage of workload %
n=sample size n=59
Mean 49.6
0 1.7
20 1.7
25 3.4
30 5.1
40 35.6
50 22.0
60 6.8
70 10.2
75 8.5
80 5.1

26. How efficient is the TB submission process?
Level of efficiency %
n=sample size n=59
Very inefficient 3.4
Somewhat inefficient 30.5
Neither inefficient nor efficient 27.1
Somewhat efficient 37.3
Very efficient 1.7

27. Have any measures to manage the TB submission workload been undertaken at TBS?
Measures taken? %
N=sample size n=58
Yes 50.0
No 50.0

28. Has TBS undertaken any measures to improve the efficiency of the TB submission process?
Measures taken? %
N=sample size n=56
Yes 51.8
No 48.2

29. Please indicate what impact you believe the following measures could have on the efficiency of the TB submission process:
% Significantly less efficient Somewhat less efficient No change Somewhat more efficient Significantly more efficient  Do not know n=
Ministerial renewal of terms and conditions 1.7 3.4 13.8 51.7 12.1 17.2 n=58
Increasing department delegated authorities 1.7 5.1 20.3 50.8 16.9 5.1 n=59
Chief financial officer (CFO) sign-off 6.8 5.1 25.4 42.4 20.3 0.0 n=59
Managing low-risk submissions differently 0.0 0.0 6.9 51.7 37.9 3.4 n=58
Altering the submission calendar 1.7 0.0 29.3 31.0 22.4 15.5 n=58
Streamlining supply processes 0.0 1.7 13.6 40.7 18.6 25.4 n=59

30. With respect to your program area and interactions with federal organizations, what additional measures, if any, could make the submission process more efficient?
Additional measures Reduce analyst turnover, better stability Change timelines – internal and external Have more tools Consistent message to clients and internally More regular involvement with Finance unit, better internal communications Increased knowledge of federal organizations, skills, quality control More program analyst support (increased tools and training, reallocate workload) n=
% 6.3 31.3 15.6 9.4 9.4 43.8 9.4 n=32

31. Are there any specific steps along the submission process where the flow of work gets stalled (i.e. bottlenecked)?
Steps Analyst turnover (re-education) Acceptance of late submissions / supply cycle points Principal analyst and executive director review stage Getting EMS sign-off during Estimates period Federal organization delays after first draft Input from policy centres Workload planning not efficient n=
% 2.9 11.4 11.4 2.9 28.6 31.4 25.7 n=35

32. Additional comments
Additional comments Federal organizations doing poor submissions Better information sharing, knowledge access, and workflow management needed Need more time for proper due diligence More training needed for federal organizations n=
% 12.5 50 31.3 6.25 n=16

COE Analyst Survey Results


1. How long have you been in your current position?
Number of years %
n=sample size n=66
Less then one year 15.2
1 to 2 years 33.3
2 to 3 years 19.7
3 to 4 years 10.6
4 to 5 years 4.5
More then 5 years 16.7

2. Which TBS area do you work for?
Sector %
n=sample size n=66
Policy Sectors: Chief Information Officer Branch 19.7
Policy Sectors: Government Operations (policy side) 12.1
Policy Sectors: Labour Relations and Compensation Operations 1.5
Policy Sectors: Office of the Comptroller General 16.7
Policy Sectors: Pension and Benefits 9.1
Policy Sectors: Expenditure Management 21.2
Policy Sectors: Service 1.5
Enabling Sectors: Priorities and Planning 1.5
Enabling Sectors: Corporate Services 3.0
Enabling Sectors: Legal Services 7.6
Enabling Sectors: Regulatory Affairs 4.5
Other 1.5

3. Approximately how many TB submissions have you been responsible for providing technical review and/or assistance in the last year?
Number of Submissions %
n=sample size n=63
Mean 38.7
0 1.6
1 1.6
2 9.5
3 1.6
3 4.8
4 1.6
5 1.6
6 6.3
7 1.6
8 1.6
10 9.5
12 1.6
15 1.6
20 3.2
22 1.6
25 4.8
27 1.6
30 4.8
31 3.2
35 1.6
40 4.8
45 1.6
50 3.2
60 6.3
65 1.6
75 3.2
80 1.6
100 6.3
115 1.6
135 1.6
200 1.6
275 1.6

4. Based on your own assessment, approximately what percentage of these would you classify as:
% completed that were: Standard % Complex % Strategic Review %
n= sample size n=60 n=57 n=33
Overall submission distribution 61.1% 34.3% 4.5%
0     21.2
1     18.2
2   1.8 3.0
3     3.0
4   1.8 3.0
5     18.2
6     3.0
8     3.0
10 1.7 5.3 3.0
13     3.0
14     3.0
15   8.8  
19 1.7 1.8  
20 5.0 5.3 9.1
22 1.7    
23 1.7    
25 1.7 19.3 6.1
26   1.8  
30   5.3  
33   8.8  
35   1.8  
37   1.8  
40 5.0 1.8  
45   1.8  
50 15.0 14.0  
53 1.7    
55 1.7    
58 1.7    
60 5.0 5.3  
65 1.7 1.8  
67 5.0    
70 6.7    
74 1.7    
75 11.7 3.5  
77     3.0
79 1.7    
80 8.3 3.5  
84 1.7    
85 1.7    
90 5.0 1.8  
92 1.7    
95 1.7    
98 1.7    
100 6.7 3.5  

5. Relevant to the scope of your work and your area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
I have a strong understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   9.2 12.3 33.8 43.1 1.5 n=65
The Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions helps to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   6.6 11.5 57.4 21.3 3.3 n=61
TBS-developed tools help to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 1.7 6.9 22.4 41.4 15.5 12.1 n=58
TBS Analysts Boot Camp helped to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 12.0 16.0 28.0 28.0   16.0 n=25
Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) training on TB submissions helped to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 14.3   21.4     64.3 n=14
I have sufficient time to provide input into TB submission documents. 10.8 33.8 13.8 35.4 6.2   n=65
I am confident that the advice I provide is reflected in final TB submission documents.   4.5 18.2 50.0 21.2 6.1 n=66

6. Relevant to the scope of your work and your area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
The program analysts I work with have demonstrated, over the years, an increased understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 3.2 17.7 19.4 33.9 16.1 9.7 n=62
Program analysts have a strong understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process as a result of TBS-provided awareness education activities.   10.3 22.4 15.5 8.6 43.1 n=58
Program analysts consult our team in a timely manner with respect to submissions.   32.8 23.4 32.8 9.4 1.6 n=64
Program analysts provide me with enough information to adequately respond and provide advice with respect to submissions. 3.1 18.5 13.8 49.2 15.4   n=65
TBS is offering services that enable federal organizations' draft submissions to comply with TB authorities, policies, and directions.   1.7 15.3 37.3 11.9 33.9 n=59
The submission review process within TBS ensures that TB submissions comply with government authorities and policies. 1.6 1.6 9.7 54.8 24.2 8.1 n=62

7. Relevant to the scope of your work and your area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
TBS has adequate mechanisms in place to track conditions placed on TB submissions. 14.1 25.0 7.8 17.2 1.6 34.4 n=64
TBS communicates the TB decision in a timely manner to those involved. 9.8 6.6 9.8 27.9 6.6 39.3 n=61
TBS communicates the TB decision to all required parties. 9.8 26.2 16.4 14.8 3.3 29.5 n=61
TBS's decision filing system is complete. 6.5 11.3 12.9 8.1 3.2 58.1 n=62
TBS's decision filing system is usable. 4.8 9.7 16.1 11.3 1.6 56.5 n=62

8. In the past year, have federal organizations shared drafts for consideration/review that did not require a TB submission?


9. In the past year, have federal organizations submitted drafts for approval that did not require a TB submission?
% Were any drafts shared? Did the authors consult TBS prior to sharing? Were any drafts submitted? Did the authors consult TBS prior to submitting?
Yes 45.3 44.8 10.8 42.9
No 20.3 10.3 36.9  
Do not know 34.4 44.8 52.3 57.1
n=sample size n=64 n=29 n=65 n=7

8./9. What percentage of drafts did you receive that fell into this category?
(filtered by "Yes" response to Q6)
% Shared Submitted
n=sample size n=29 n=7
Mean 15.3 8.6
0 17.2 28.6
10 69.0 57.1
20   14.3
40 3.4  
50 3.4  
75 3.4  
80 3.4  

8./9. Has the percentage been increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same?
(filtered by "Yes" response to Q6)
% Shared Submitted
Increasing 21.4  
Decreasing 7.1  
Remaining the same 32.1 14.3
Do not know 39.3 85.7
n=sample size n=28 n=7

10. How may weeks in advance of a TB meeting date should a federal organization submit its first complete draft to its TBS program analyst to ensure adequate time for review and feedback by the various analysts within TBS?
Weeks %
n=sample size n=49
Mean 10.3
6 6.1
3 4.1
4 4.1
5 2.0
6 10.2
7 2.0
8 24.5
9 4.1
10 8.2
12 14.3
14 4.1
15 4.1
16 6.1
18 2.0
26 2.0
56 2.0

11. What percentage of the TB submission drafts you received in the past year:
% Appear to have completed internal consultations? Were submitted with enough time for your team to adequately review them? Follow the Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions? Have risk and mitigation strategies identified relevant to your area? Ask for the right authorities relevant to your area? Have an appropriate level of justification relevant to your area? Contain accurate information relevant to your area? Are written in a clear manner?
n=sample size n=58 n=60 n=53 n=50 n=55 n=55 n=59 n=61
  Ind. (9.2) Ind. (5.1) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2)
Mean 55.1 50.8 62.7 52.5 61.9 55.9 54.3 60.6
0 13.8 8.3 5.7 12.0 7.3 10.9 8.5 3.3
10 1.7 5.0   4.0     3.4 1.6
20 3.4 1.7 3.8 6.0 3.6 3.6 1.7 1.6
25 6.9 15.0 1.9 4.0   3.6 5.1  
30 5.2 3.3 5.7 6.0 5.5 1.8 5.1 3.3
40   5.0 1.9 2.0 7.3 10.9 8.5 9.8
50 22.4 18.3 18.9 16.0 14.5 16.4 16.9 24.6
60 3.4 5.0 7.5 12.0 9.1 7.3 13.6 4.9
70 5.2 5.0 3.8 2.0 5.5 12.7 3.4 16.4
75 8.6 15.0 22.6 14.0 9.1 9.1 10.2 11.5
80 5.2 6.7 7.5 8.0 21.8 7.3 10.2 11.5
90 12.1 6.7 13.2 2.0 5.5 10.9 8.5 8.2
100 12.1 5.0 7.5 12.0 10.9 5.5 5.1 3.3

12. Are you aware of the risk criteria applied to TB submissions?
Aware of risk criteria %
n=sample size n=66
Yes, I am aware, but I do not apply them when I analyze and provide advice. 33.3
Yes, I am aware, and I do apply them when I analyze and provide advice. 41.3
No, I am not aware. 25.4

13. In your area, do you believe that the risk criteria are being applied consistently across TB submissions?
Applied consistently? %
n=sample size n=61
Yes 14.8
No 21.3
Do not know 63.9

14. How would you say that program analysts' overall understanding of your area has changed during your time with TBS?
Level of overall understanding %
n=sample size n=62
Significantly worse 3.2
Somewhat worse 19.4
No change (neither better nor worse) 43.5
Somewhat better 27.4
Significantly better 6.5

15. Please identify the top three key challenges of the TB submission process.
% Quality of submission Timelines Document manage-ment processes used throughout TBS Insufficient feedback from TB decisions, poor TBS condition tracking Separation of the two TBS roles, as central agency and department, and its affect on roles and responsibi-lities Limited program analyst under-standing of policy role, program analyst workload and turnover Inconsis-tency of advice, lack of coordinated approach Cumber-some process Disorgani-zation of department, don't understand tools Problems with financial information n=sample size
1st 29.1 40.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 10.9 5.5 5.5 3.6 1.8 n=55
2nd 21.6 19.6 13.7 0.0 2.0 7.8 3.9 13.7 11.8 5.9 n=51
3rd 7.0 11.6 20.9 11.6 2.3 9.3 2.3 16.3 11.6 7.0 n=43

16. Please identify the top three key strengths of the TB submission process.
% TBS tools Strong process, i.e. is comprehensive, has clear results, based on risk assessment, focuses priorities TBS staff support, good internal consultation process Recent changes beneficial Good communications, promotes external relationships STS repository, submission tracking n=sample size
1st Strength 6.5 50.0 32.6 0.0 6.5 4.3 n=46
2nd Strength 11.8 41.2 20.6 5.9 17.6 2.9 n=34
3rd Strength 13.0 43.5 21.7 17.4 0.0 4.3 n=23

17. What percentage of your time, in the last year, is dedicated to the following tasks:
% Pre-submission advice and consultation? Reviewing/consulting on submissions? Briefing/ preparing briefing documents (e.g. prcis)? Other TBS submission activities? Other TBS non-submission activities?
Average time for each activity 15.5% 29.2% 6.6% 9.0% 39.7%

17. Comments – Other activities
% Development of policies, management activities Part B submissions MAF related Provision of advice Strategic reviews IT oversight Post-approval activities Financial exercises ARLU and Supplementary Estimates
n=38 18.4 5.3 15.8 21.1 5.3 7.9 7.9 10.5 7.9

18. In the last year, have you found that your workload has provided you with enough time to provide advice with respect to TB submissions?
Workload provided time to provide advice %
n=sample size n=66
Never 1.5
Rarely 15.2
Sometimes 34.8
Often 36.4
Always 6.1
Do not know 6.1

19. During your time as a TBS "internal contact," have you found that your workload with respect to TB submissions has:
Level of workload %
n=sample size n=64
Decreased 7.8
Remained the same 37.5
Increased 48.4
Do not know 6.3

20. From your (area's) standpoint, how efficient is the TB submission process?
Level of efficiency %
n=sample size n=52
Very inefficient 7.9
Somewhat inefficient 34.9
Neither inefficient nor efficient 19.0
Somewhat efficient 34.9
Very efficientt 3.2

21. Have any measures to manage the TB submission workload been undertaken at TBS?
Measures undertaken? %
n=sample size n=63
Yes 38.5
No 61.5

21.1 If yes, please describe the measures taken and whether they have contributed to improved efficiencies.
% Delegated authorities New tools Focus on high-risk, high-value submissions None taken / Not aware of More staff Removed the need to sign off on submission after the Treasury Board date Change to EMIS
n=24
Awareness of particular measures 5 5 4 5 2 2 1
Believe measure is better 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Believe measure is no better 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

22. Please indicate what impact you believe the following measures could have on the efficiency of the TB submission process.
% Significantly less efficient Somewhat less efficient No change Somewhat more efficient Significantly more efficient Do not know n=sample size
Ministerial renewal of terms and conditions   1.5 7.6 36.4 13.6 40.9 n=66
Increasing department delegated authorities 1.5 4.5 4.5 37.9 18.2 33.3 n=66
Chief financial officer (CFO) sign-off   4.5 9.1 28.8 28.8 28.8 n=66
Managing low-risk submissions differently 1.5 3.0 6.1 39.4 33.3 16.7 n=66
Altering the submission calendar   1.6 6.3 27.0 27.0 38.1 n=63
Streamlining supply processes 1.5 1.5 1.5 30.3 12.1 53.0 n=66

23. With respect to your area, what additional measures, if any, could make the submission process more efficient?
% Make the process more objective and less subjective, better aligned and streamlined Better training on internal process to have more knowledgeable analysts Better federal organization and TBS engagement, earlier federal organization consultation and support Better time frames Better internal tracking and document system Aligning Part A and Part B submissions Regular TBS working groups to assess ongoing enhancements and changes
n=29 20.7 27.6 44.8 6.9 27.6 3.4 6.9

24. Are there any specific steps along the submission process where the flow of work gets stalled (i.e. bottlenecked)?
% Delays with federal organizations, federal organizations wait for last sitting, bad drafts from federal organizations Lack of internal knowledge of internal processes and internal communications Sign-offs and time pressures owing to political pressures and waves of submissions None
n=22 31.8 22.7 22.7 9.1

25. Additional comments?
% Need more time to do a better job (CIOB) Resist unreal departmental time expectations, educate federal organizations on this More conditions and monitoring thereof Greater internal information sharing, more precise information available, and reduction in conflicting information More intensive program analyst training Introduce more performance measurement, audit, and evaluation evidence at the Memorandum to Cabinet stage Increase review time for high-risk submissions Investments in government-wide solutions needed rather than costly one-off solutions by individual departments
n=18 11.1 11.1 5.6 33.3 22.2 5.6 5.6 5.6

Federal Organization Survey Results


1. How long have you been in your current position?
Number of years %
n=sample size n=94
Less then one year 18.1
1 to 2 years 28.7
2 to 3 years 25.5
3 to 4 years 10.6
4 to 5 years 3.2
More then 5 years 13.8

2. Which federal organization do you work for?
Federal organization %
n=sample size n=92
Canadian Heritage 4.3
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 7.6
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1.1
National Defence and the Canadian Forces 4.3
Health Canada 1.1
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 17.4
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 1.1
Industry Canada 1.1
Infrastructure Canada 1.1
Natural Resources Canada 1.1
Privy Council Office 1.1
Public Works and Government Services Canada 8.7
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1.1
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 7.6
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Portfolio 6.5
Other 34.8

2.1 Other
Other organizations %
n=sample size n=30
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency 3.3
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 3.3
Canada Border Services Agency 3.3
Canada Post Corporation 3.3
Canada Public Service Agency (now Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer) 13.3
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 3.3
Canadian Food Inspection Agency 6.7
Canadian Museum of Nature 3.3
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3.3
Canadian Museum of Civilization 3.3
Correctional Service Canada 3.3
Courts Administration Service 3.3
Department of Finance Canada 3.3
Environment Canada 3.3
Export Development Canada 3.3
National Film Board of Canada 3.3
Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada 3.3
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada 3.3
Public Safety Canada 0.0
Public Service Commission of Canada 10.0
Public Service Labour Relations Board 3.3
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada 3.3
Status of Women Canada 3.3
Veterans Affairs Canada 3.3

3. During a normal one-year period, how many TBS analysts do you work with to prepare your TB submissions?
Number of analysts %
n=89  
Mean 3.9
1 29.2
2 18.0
3 21.3
4 11.2
5 5.6
6 2.2
7 4.5
8 1.1
9 1.1
10 4.5
11 1.1

4. Do you know who to consult with at TBS with respect to submissions?
Who to consult? %
n=94  
Yes 95.7
No 4.3

5. Approximately how many TB submissions have you prepared or contributed to the preparation of in the last year?
Number of Submissions %
n=91  
Mean 11.1
0 3.3
1 17.6
2 16.5
3 17.6
4 6.6
5 7.7
8 2.2
9 1.1
10 2.2
12 1.1
16 1.1
17 1.1
20 3.3
25 2.2
27 1.1
30 3.3
35 2.2
40 2.2
50 1.1
51 1.1
75 1.1
100 2.2

6. Based on your own assessment, approximately what percentage of these would you classify as:
% completed that were: Standard % Complex % Strategic Review %
n=sample size n=80 n=71 n=41
Overall submission distribution 56.6% 39.3% 4.1%
0 2.5 5.6 53.7
2     2.4
3     2.4
6     2.4
10   1.4 12.2
17   1.4 2.4
20   5.6 4.9
23     2.4
25 5.0 8.5 9.8
28   1.4  
30 6.3 4.2 2.4
33 1.3 5.6  
34   4.2  
37 1.3    
40 8.8 5.6 2.4
44 1.3    
45 1.3    
47 1.3 1.4  
50 20.0 23.9 2.4
60 3.8 5.6  
66 5.0    
67 3.8 1.4  
70 2.5 7.0  
75 5.0 1.4  
80 5.0    
90 26.3 15.5  

7. In the last year, what percentage of your submissions was for the purpose of seeking exemptions or exclusions?
Number of submissions seeking exemptions and exclusions %
n=sample size n=87
Mean 10.5
0 57.5
10 19.5
20 5.7
25 4.6
30 4.6
50 5.7
70 1.1
100 1.1

8. Have you had the opportunity to attend TB submission training and learning opportunities provided by the Canada School of Public Service?
Attended training and learning opportunities %
n=sample size n=94
Yes 34.0
No 66.0

9. Relevant to the scope of your work and your program area, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Do not know n=
I have a strong understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   5.3 10.6 39.4 43.6 1.1 n=94
The Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions helps to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 1.1 7.4 11.7 50.0 23.4 6.4 n=94
TBS-developed tools help to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process.   13.0 20.7 40.2 9.8 16.3 n=94
TBS outreach helped to improve my understanding of the elements of TB submissions, policies, and process. 2.2 22.6 22.6 23.7 10.8 18.3 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are offering us services that enable our draft submissions to comply with TB authorities, policies, and directions.   4.3 10.6 50.0 28.7 6.4 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are providing consistent policy advice/interpretation regarding TB submissions at the pre-submission stage. 1.1 22.6 18.3 34.4 15.1 8.6 n=94
In general, the submission review process within TBS ensures that TB submissions comply with government authorities and policies. 1.1 2.2 9.9 47.3 31.9 7.7 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are providing consistent advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 6.4 21.3 11.7 41.5 13.8 5.3 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are providing accurate advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 1.1 8.5 21.3 43.6 18.1 7.4 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are providing useful advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 2.1 10.6 19.1 45.7 17.0 5.3 n=94
In general, TBS analysts are providing timely advice regarding TB submissions during the TB submission review stage. 5.3 17.0 19.1 35.1 19.1 4.3 n=93
TBS communicates the TB decision with respect to our submission(s) in a timely manner. 2.2 6.5 17.2 30.1 35.5 8.6 n=94
Our federal organization has adequate mechanisms in place to track conditions placed on our TB submissions. 4.3 14.9 12.8 30.9 24.5 12.8 n=94

10. How many weeks in advance of a TB meeting date should you, as a federal organization, submit your first complete draft to a TBS program analyst to ensure adequate time for review and feedback by the various areas within TBS?
Weeks Valid Percent
n=sample size n=85
Mean 8.9
2 2.4
3 3.5
4 7.1
5 4.7
6 18.8
7 3.5
8 18.8
9 8.2
10 8.2
11 2.4
12 9.4
13 1.2
14 3.5
16 3.5
22 1.2
26 3.5

11. What percentage of your organization's draft TB submissions, which were part of your workload, in the past year:
% Were complete with respect to your required internal consultations prior to submitting to TBS? Were, in your opinion, submitted with enough time for TBS to adequately review them? Followed the Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions? Had risk and mitigation strategies identified? Asked for the right authorities? Had an appropriate level of justification? Contained accurate information (e.g. accurate financial tables)? Were written in a clear manner?
n=sample size n=85 n=87 n=83 n=85 n=85 n=85 n=85 n=84
  Ind. (9.2) Ind. (5.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2) Ind. (9.2)
Mean 83.1 83.0 83.7 76.4 90.3 89.8 90.8 88.3
0     6.0 7.1 1.2      
10   2.3            
20   1.1 2.4 1.2     1.2  
25 2.4 1.1     2.4 1.2    
30 4.7 1.1       1.2   1.2
40         1.2     1.2
50 9.4 5.7 2.4 15.3 1.2 2.4 3.5 6.0
60 3.5 2.3 2.4 7.1 2.4 2.4 1.2 1.2
70 3.5 5.7 3.6 4.7 2.4 4.7 2.4 1.2
75 4.7 8.0 1.2 5.9 5.9 5.9 3.5 8.3
80 12.9 18.4 15.7 4.7 4.7 9.4 11.8 10.7
90 9.4 11.5 16.9 12.9 14.1 16.5 21.2 21.4
100 49.4 42.5 49.4 41.2 64.7 56.5 55.3 48.8

12. Are you aware of the risk criteria TBS applies to TB submissions?
Level of awareness %
n=sample size n=94
Yes, we are aware, but we do not apply them when we prepare our TB submissions. 7.8
Yes, we are aware, and we do apply them when we prepare our TB submissions. 50.0
No, we are not aware. 42.2

13. Does your federal organization have its own risk criteria to be applied to its TB submissions?
Own risk criteria? %
n=sample size n=94
Yes, but we do not apply them when we prepare our TB submissions. 3.3
Yes, and we do apply them when we prepare our TB submissions. 52.7
No 44.0

14. In your organization, do you believe that the risk criteria are being applied consistently across TB submissions?
Risk criteria being applied consistently? %
n=sample size n=94
Yes 23.1
No 19.8
Do not know 57.1

15. Please identify the top three key challenges of the TB submission process.
% Inconsistent or inadequate advice from TBS analysts, analyst turnover Complexity of information asked, too much information in submissions Guide and tools insufficient Time issues Process issues (including political pressures) and changing requirements Internal departmental issues Receiving TBS communications, TBS capacity n=
1st Challenge 20.5 9.6 2.4 36.1 21.7 7.2 2.4 n=83
2nd Challenge 26.3 13.8 1.3 18.8 21.3 13.8 5.0 n=80
3rd Challenge 19.2 20.5 5.5 21.9 17.8 6.8 8.2 n=74

16. Please identify the top three key strengths of the TB submission process.
% Helpful tools (generally) Support provided by helpful analysts Ensures strong business case, diligence, accountability, challenge, and standards Timelines understood Provides future rigour to departments and Government of Canada TBS willing to listen to suggestions, cooperative and collaborative process with feedback functions, TBS capacity Promotes internal departmental strengths n=
1st Strength 18.3 29.6 36.6 0.0 4.2 8.5 2.8 n=71
2nd Strength 6.7 31.7 28.3 5.0 8.3 15.0 5.0 n=60
3rd Strength 2.7 16.2 29.7 8. 13.5 24.3 5.4 n=37

17. Since you have been involved in the preparation of TB submissions for your federal organization, have you found that your workload with respect to TB submissions has:
Level of workload %
n=sample size n=89
Decreased 4.5
Remained the same 28.1
Increased 67.4

18. How efficient is the TB submission process?
Level of workload %
n=sample size n=91
Very inefficient 8.8
Somewhat inefficient 33.0
Neither inefficient nor efficient 17.6
Somewhat efficient 38.5
Very efficient 2.2

19. Has TBS undertaken any measures to improve the efficiency of the TB submission process?
Measures taken to improve? %
n=sample size n=81
Yes 45.7
No 54.3

19.1 If yes, please describe the measures taken and whether they have contributed to
improved efficiencies.
% Guide Outreach Early role of analyst and role of analyst as trusted advisor Reduced submissions New templates, protocols Clear timelines Not aware of new measures Involve Finance unit for financial tables Better communications
n=45
Awareness of particular measures 26.7 8.9 13.3 2.2 17.8 8.9 4.4 8.9 8.9
Believe measure is better 8.9 4.4 4.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Believe measure is no better 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 4.4 0.0

20. Please indicate if you believe that the following measures could improve the efficiency of the TB submission process:
% Significantly less efficient Somewhat less efficient No change Somewhat more efficient Significantly more efficient Do not know n=sample size
Ministerial renewal of terms and conditions 1.1 2.2 9.0 30.3 38.2 19.1 n=89
Increasing department delegated authorities 1.1 3.3 11.1 22.2 43.3 18.9 n=90
Chief financial officer (CFO) sign-off 13.3 24.4 23.3 13.3 22.2 3.3 n=90
Managing low-risk submissions differently 1.1 2.2 6.6 29.7 47.3 13.2 n=91
Altering the submission calendar 6.7 15.6 20.0 18.9 11.1 27.8 n=90
Streamlining supply processes 2.2   12.2 32.2 21.1 32.2 n=90

21. As a federal organization working with TBS, what additional measures, if any, could make
the submission process more efficient?
  Better tools, specific tailored templates for recurring submissions, updated Guide to Preparing Treasury Board Submissions More regular information meetings with TBS staff, earlier discussions, proactive not reactive More training that includes TBS context and needs Harder deadlines between Crown corporations and departments, Crown corporations work directly with TBS TBS analysts with departmental knowledge, analyst stability Limited review of draft and comprehen-sive, timely, and consistent feedback An ombudsman or arbitrator to review/ bypass petty changes or difficult individuals Clear explanation, decision, and rationale for next time Delegation within TBS for submissions with pre-approved spending Better calendar Streamline process, eliminate departments' role for Supplemen-tary Estimates and ARLU n=sample size
% 6.8 13.6 4.5 6.8 13.6 18.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 18.2 44

22. Additional comments
  Good analysts have made the process flow well Challenges owing to analysts' wide discretion, inconsistent comments, and instability, to inconsistent standards, and to sometimes unclear role Political considerations undermines the process Needs to be streamlined for some submissions, to become more efficient Needs to be a cooperative and consultative process Taking the time to produce a good quality first draft is essential to the efficiency of the process n=sample size
% 16.7 26.7 10.0 13.3 30.0 3.3 n=30