HAFF Committee Report

The Sub-committee substantially endorses the proposals as presented except as noted in the commentary and recommendations made herein.

The first witness called to the subcommittee was Mr. Donald G. Lenihan, from the Centre for Collaborative Government. The witness presented a brief outline of the proposals to be considered by the Sub-committee.

These proposals are the final result of a long process of consultations that began in 1995 with Treasury Board Secretariat’s Improved Reporting to Parliament Project. This initiative involved the participation of many departments, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, several roundtables and various other organizations interested in improving the reporting to Parliament.7

Essentially, the objectives that these proposals aim to achieve are threefold: (1) improve "horizontal" or interdepartmental reporting; (2) simplify reporting to Parliament; and (3) revitalize parliamentarians’ involvement in committee activities.

These proposals were developed as a response to requests made by parliamentarians over many years concerning their information requirements. These can be summarized into four basic themes: easy access to user-friendly information, balanced reporting on how well government objectives are achieved; more reliable information on issues that cuts across departments or jurisdictions, and a broader context in which the information can be discussed and considered.

The underlying concepts driving the development of these proposals were derived from two recent trends in modern public administration:

• greater emphasis on reporting results achieved by government programs instead of processes or activities;
• development of societal indicators that serve to measure, monitor and report on social trends in such a manner that it provides a broader social "backdrop" that enhances the way public policy issues are debated and considered.

What is occurring is a change in thinking about the way government programs are assessed. Instead of measuring and reporting solely on government activities or processes, public sector managers are increasingly preoccupied in defining what results or outcomes their programs are expected to achieve. Once outcomes are defined, ways of measuring or assessing whether the program outcomes are achieved have to be developed. Therefore, there is a need for performance indicators, which assist in determining whether these programs have achieved their results efficiently and in a cost-effective manner.

Societal indicators, which can be considered as higher-level performance indicators, can provide a broader context in which government programs are to be assessed. The question these societal indicators try to answer is to what degree the individual program outcomes contribute to overall societal goals such as safer communities and healthier populations. Societal indicators essentially will provide a bridge linking specific government program and policy objectives to broader societal considerations.

The Sub-committee endorsed the concept of societal indicators and encouraged the development and evolution of benchmarking systems. Some scepticism was expressed as to the government’s ability to implement the IRPP proposals owing to the lack of resources or capacity of departments and agencies to carry out the reforms. The Sub-committee therefore recommends:

The current IRPP initiative rests on the assumption that good quality planning and performance information will assist parliamentarians fulfil their roles and responsibilities to Parliament and their constituencies.

By providing better information to Parliament, it is expected this will contribute to more effective committee work in the development of public policies and legislation, provide a better account of government activity to constituents, and, provide assistance to parliamentarians in representing their constituents interests and concerns to Parliament.