Skip to Main Content
Institute on Governance

The Challenges of Strategic Direction and Effective Performance in Canadian Governance

Justin Trudeau became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2013 and Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister on November 4th, 2015. As Justin Trudeau steps down as leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister, the IOG will reflect on his legacy through a five-part series. Each installment of this five-part series will explore the Trudeau legacy via a principle of good governance. This second installment looks at the measures of strategic direction, the second of the IOG’s measures of good governance, and effective performance.

By Catherine Waters and Karl Salgo

March 10th

Strategic direction is essential for governments and organizations to effectively plan for the future, aligning their actions with anticipated goals, opportunities, and risks. Government actions should not be random or purely reactive; rather, they should be coordinated and purpose-driven, supporting a broader public policy vision that reflects societal needs and priorities. Ideally, these strategic plans should be publicly articulated, ensuring that citizens understand government intentions and can hold leaders accountable for their commitments. Transparency in strategic planning not only fosters trust in public institutions but also enhances democratic engagement by enabling citizens to assess the effectiveness of governance.

In Canada, key instruments of strategic direction include the Speech from the Throne and the Federal Budget, both of which outline governmental priorities and signal intended policy directions. These documents, typically delivered at the start of a parliamentary session and during fiscal planning, respectively, provide a high-level roadmap for government action. Other important tools include party platforms and policy papers, which offer deeper insights into a government’s long-term objectives, ideological stance, and proposed legislative initiatives. Together, these mechanisms serve as the foundation for coherent governance, setting the stage for policy development and implementation.

Trudeau’s Use of Mandate Letters as a Strategic Tool

In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government took a significant step toward enhancing transparency and accountability by making ministerial mandate letters public. Traditionally, these letters—sent from the prime minister to individual ministers—were confidential internal documents outlining ministerial responsibilities, policy priorities, and performance expectations. By publishing them, the Trudeau government transformed them into a visible statement of strategic direction, allowing Canadians to scrutinize and assess government priorities.

This initiative was closely tied to the government’s commitment to deliverology, a governance approach pioneered by UK public administration theorist Michael Barber. Deliverology emphasizes the systematic implementation of a carefully curated set of priorities, relying on data-driven, outcomes-focused feedback mechanisms to ensure measurable progress and accountability. It represents an attempt to move beyond mere policy announcements, instead fostering a culture of results-oriented governance.

The “Tracker” System and Cabinet Oversight

To reinforce accountability, the Trudeau government developed a comprehensive progress-tracking system for its priorities. This system monitored 364 different initiatives, assigning each a status indicator—green for progress, yellow for caution, and red for stalled projects. A special cabinet committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, was established to oversee this progress, supported by a senior official in the Privy Council Office (PCO) with prior experience managing similar initiatives in Ontario.

On paper, this approach suggested rigorous accountability and an unprecedented commitment to transparency. By systematically tracking initiatives and embedding oversight mechanisms within the highest levels of government, the strategy aimed to ensure sustained focus on execution and measurable outcomes. However, in practice, the deliverology framework encountered significant obstacles that limited its effectiveness.

Why Deliverology Didn’t Deliver

Despite its ambitious goals, the deliverology approach struggled to achieve its intended impact due to several critical shortcomings:

  1. Too Many Priorities, No Clear Focus – Instead of selecting a handful of key government-wide priorities, the Trudeau government applied deliverology principles to all 364 initiatives. This expansive scope diluted focus, making it difficult to determine what truly mattered most. When everything is treated as a priority, in effect, nothing is. The lack of prioritization weakened the government’s ability to drive meaningful progress on the most pressing issues.
  2. Lack of Dedicated Delivery Chains – Deliverology’s success depends on the establishment of well-structured delivery chains—systems that ensure effective implementation, continuous monitoring, and problem-solving at various levels. With hundreds of priorities, creating specialized delivery chains for each was impractical. Instead, the government relied on extensive reporting mechanisms, but these lacked clear pathways for translating data into actionable results. Without dedicated structures to drive implementation, the strategy risked becoming an exercise in bureaucracy rather than execution.
  3. Reporting Burden and Performance Assessments – The extensive reporting requirements placed a considerable burden on ministers and their teams. While intended to enhance accountability, the sheer volume of data collected often overshadowed substantive performance assessments. Furthermore, the tracking system frequently leaned towards self-congratulatory evaluations, making it difficult to conduct critical and objective assessments of actual progress. This led to a situation where the government appeared to be meeting its commitments on paper, even when meaningful results remained elusive.

As a result, deliverology drifted from its original purpose, becoming more of a procedural reporting exercise than an effective mechanism for ensuring delivery. Ironically, the framework failed not because of a lack of strategic vision but due to an inability to translate that vision into an operational model that drove tangible outcomes.

For a detailed history of deliverology’s trajectory in Canada, we include here a link to Kathryn May’s article: “What Ever Happened to Deliverology?”

Lessons for Future Strategic Planning

The Trudeau government’s experience with deliverology underscores the importance of selectivity, structure, and focus in strategic governance. To enhance effectiveness, governments need to recognize that resources – not least time – are limited and to provide focus, including:

  • Prioritize a limited number of key initiatives rather than attempting to track and manage an overwhelming number of commitments simultaneously. Strategic focus allows for deeper engagement, stronger execution, and clearer public communication.
  • Establish clear accountability structures and dedicated delivery chains to support implementation, ensuring that policy objectives translate into measurable outcomes rather than bureaucratic exercises.
  • Balance transparency with meaningful oversight, ensuring that tracking systems serve as tools for genuine performance evaluation rather than mechanisms for self-affirmation. Governments should cultivate a culture of honest assessment, where challenges are identified and addressed rather than obscured by optimistic reporting.

While the concept of deliverology had merit in theory, its execution in Canada ultimately fell short due to a lack of focus and structural inefficiencies. The challenge moving forward is not just in setting strategic goals but in equipping governments with the right tools, organizational structures, and disciplined oversight needed to ensure those goals are realized effectively. Strategic governance is not merely about planning—it is about execution, adaptability, and accountability.

Catherine Waters is the Director, Learning Design and Evaluation at the Institute on Governance.

Karl Salgo is an Associate and Executive Advisor at the Institute on Governance.