Mandatory Program Performance Reviews

Summary#

This bill would require regular, public evaluations of most ongoing provincial programs created by law. The goal is to check whether programs meet their goals, use money wisely, and if there are better ways to deliver results.

• Most statutory programs must be evaluated at least once every seven years.
• Reviews must look at goals, results, efficiency, and possible better options.
• A senior official (the Chair of the Treasury and Policy Board) sets the schedule and standards, after consulting experts, and spreads the workload across departments.
• Ministers must finish evaluations on time and table the results in the Legislature.
• The Auditor General must review evaluations of very large programs and may review others.
• A legislative committee can study the evaluations, hold public hearings if ordered, and the Government must respond.

What it means for you#

• Residents and program users

  • Expect more public reports on how health, education, housing, and other programs are doing.
  • Services could change over time if reviews find better or cheaper ways to meet goals.
  • If a program ends, there will be a look-back review of how it performed.
  • You may be able to share your views if a legislative committee holds public hearings.

• Taxpayers

  • More transparency about where money goes and what results it buys.
  • Regular checks are meant to reduce waste and improve value for money.

• Community groups, businesses, and non-profits that get provincial funding

  • More reporting and data may be required for evaluations.
  • Funding terms or program design could change based on findings.

• Government employees and managers

  • Added work to plan, measure, and report on program results on a set cycle.
  • Need to follow common evaluation standards across departments.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Regular, expert-guided reviews will improve accountability and public trust.
• Tax dollars will be better targeted to programs that work, reducing waste.
• A seven-year cycle, with only 10–20% of programs reviewed each year, spreads the workload and avoids bottlenecks.
• Mandatory Auditor General oversight for the largest programs adds an extra layer of independent scrutiny.
• Allowing the Legislature to order out-of-cycle reviews lets government respond quickly to concerns.

Opponents' View#

• Setting up and running evaluations could add costs and pull staff away from service delivery.
• A fixed seven-year cycle may be too slow for fast-changing areas, or too frequent for stable programs.
• Limiting reviews to no more than one of the five biggest-spending programs per year could delay fixes in major programs.
• Pressure to show short-term savings might lead to cuts even when long-term benefits are stronger.
• How schedules and standards are chosen could be influenced by politics rather than need.