Hi Pogo,

One big problem (on top of ther hundred or so others) is that ther CSLP has been transformed into a "Canadian business incorporated by the government of Canada rather than an affordable gateway to education and economic stability for ther Canadian people. A contribution means that they have given sacrifice of some sort to the borrowing community, which is is not the case. The CSLP has become a lucrative business that brings in a lot of money with no transparency as to how much - or where it is all going.

Thirdly, the cost of education combined with the quality of education - especially in the private educational institution.

Securing a nursing position in Canada is easy enough - but it appears hardly worth it because of heavy taxation, outrageous workloads and hours drives them all down south of the border (USA). They make more money and have more stable lives down there. We, as a country, are going to be facing a more serious problem in regards to medical care. Doctors and nurses are leaving, and our emergency rooms are filled with patients but only few doctors. The nurses work under excrutiating conditions and the harsh impact on their health and well-being because of this is unimagineable.

 

Johnny wrote: Fourthly, the cost of education combined with the quality of education in the public educational institution, and the fact that the world is changing economically - and world view is much different.

I am actually defending teachers by bringing this out. Teachers are inundated with debt, and they suffer greatly. The same goes for nurses and chiropractors as stated above.

Hi guys

Buff,

Johnny, I know you weren't taking a shot at me or my work. You don't seem like that kind of guy. Well, that and I know where to find you...

 

The efficiency angle is going to be big!

 

The Hill Times, March 26th, 2007
By Simon Doyle

Government to review all federal programs: budget

Feds want to evaluate all programs according to objectives, results, and 'priorities of government'

Before the release of the 2008 budget next year, the Conservative government will conduct a broad evaluation on the effectiveness of all federal government programs, raising questions from the opposition about how the government is going to define program "results."

Under a short section in last week's budget, titled "Smarter Government Spending," the government proposes to evaluate all government programs according to objectives, results, and "the priorities of the government." Program reviews will begin this spring, Budget 2007 says, the results of which will be reported in the 2008 budget.

"When you're spending taxpayers' money, you want to be sure that you do that in the right way. So I think that it's normal for the government to be responsible for that," Industry Minister Maxime Bernier (Beauce, Que.), a member of the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee, told The Hill Times following the Conservatives' caucus meeting on the Hill last week.

When asked whether the reviews mean some government programs could be cancelled, Mr. Bernier said: "We're going to do an examination, like we did in the past, and that means we're going to spend money where Canadians want us to spend money."

Mr. Bernier said Treasury Board President Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.), chair of the six-member Treasury Board Cabinet Committee, will set objectives and results for programs. "The president of the Treasury Board will do that in a manner that is efficient and productive. It's normal. As a government, it's normal to do that," Mr. Bernier said.

The reviews come as part of the government's new expenditure management system. Under that system, the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee will set objectives and results for government programs, which will be measured by departmental "evaluators." The Conservative government maintains that it intends to keep the rate of growth of program spending below the rate of economic growth.

At the budget lockup last week, a senior government official said the Treasury Board Secretariat will draw conclusions about the effectiveness of programs according to the departmental evaluations. The Treasury Board will then issue performance reports to the Treasury Board Cabinet Committee, the official said, but he could not say whether any of the evaluation or performance reports would be public. After the evaluations are completed this fiscal year, reviews of all government programs will continue on a four-year cycle.

Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, Ont.), the New Democrat's Treasury Board critic, welcomed proposals for more efficiency in government, and said such initiatives have been talked about since the Justice John Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship program. But he questions how Cabinet is going to set "results," or benchmarks, which will determine the effectiveness of a program.

Mr. Dewar pointed to the government's tax credits for bus passes, childcare, sports and textbooks, as examples of programs with results that could be measured in multiple ways. "What are we measuring here? Is it the fact that the government got good value-for-money politically, or is it value-for-money for services to Canadians? That's the essence of this. What benchmark are you looking at?" Mr. Dewar said.

Mr. Dewar said input about how to measure the effectiveness of programs should not come from a Cabinet committee but should come from departmental staff directly involved in the programs.

"This government is no different from the previous government. It isn't consulting the people who deliver services. That's the problem for me," he said. "I know that public servants are extremely frustrated that they're not being asked." As examples, Mr. Dewar pointing to the government's cancellation of some climate change programs and the planned sell-off and leasing of government-owned buildings.

Mr. Dewar said that following the emergence of the sponsorship scandal, former Liberal Treasury Board president Reg Alcock "suffocated" the public service by similarly trying to deal with inefficiencies and a perceived lack of accountability in the public service.

Liberal MP Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Ont.), a former member of the House Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, said program reviews are a healthy part of governing, and he gives the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Under former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin (La Salle-Émard, Que), he said, the government looked for billions in "efficiencies" every year.

"What the Liberals did was try to find $2-billion of inefficient spending every year and put some pressure on continued inefficient spending, and that was a good exercise," he said. "I hope that they would look for some inefficient spending. But if when they say they're going to do some program reviews, it means they're going to go and gut a whole bunch of programs because they don't like them politically, ideologically, I would regret that very much," Mr. Lee said of the Conservative government.

When asked how one would decide whether a program is effective, Mr. Lee said: "It depends whether you have a right-winger looking, or a middle-of-the-road Canadian looking, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Last month, Wayne Wouters, secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat, told the House Public Accounts Committee that the government is looking to hire about 200 new evaluators to help in the program reviews.

The senior government official at the budget lockup last week said there are now about 300 such evaluators available government-wide, and that the amount of new evaluators required would not exceed 200. The official said that the evaluators do not require auditing qualifications because they are not measuring financial controls. Their work consists more of statistical analysis and measuring "results," he said.

sdoyle@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times