Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to chapter one, we observed that the problem of not having relevant, complete data has existed for a very long time. We did not look at whether the problem had anything to do with information technology. Obviously, technology is one way of obtaining this information, but I believe that fundamentally, the problem is one of clearly identifying performance indicators and the data needed and, of course, of putting systems in place subsequently.
One also has to understand that in the case of a number of programs, it can be difficult to evaluate effects with specific figures. The evaluations may be more qualitative in nature. However, I think that objectives and performance indicators need to be more clearly defined so that subsequently, data can be obtained. This has been a long-standing problem, one that presents a challenge in terms of complying with the new policy whereby as of 2013, all direct spending programs must be evaluated every five years.
Departments also mentioned their evaluation capacity and the shortage of experienced evaluators. In the report, we also note the absence of standards and guidelines and the need for the Treasury Board Secretariat to do more to help departments in this regard.
If I could just draw a parallel with the internal audit function, several years ago, it was observed that internal audit services needed to become more professional. I think the same can be said for evaluation services. Some progress has been made with respect to internal audit services. In the years remaining, the government must address this problem.
Regarding the use of contractors by departments, the problem quite simply is one of resources, capacity and the knowledge to do the required work.