Federal politicians trying to identify underperforming programs during the current “comprehensive spending review” have likely been surprised by how little help they get from evaluation reports prepared by public servants. Their expectations would have been higher given the abundant resources allocated to assessing programs.
- Media Releases
- Opinions & Editorials
- |
Does Ottawa even care about getting value for taxpayers’ money?
Summary:
| Citation | John Lester. 2026. Does Ottawa even care about getting value for taxpayers’ money?. Opinions & Editorials. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. |
| Page Title: | Does Ottawa even care about getting value for taxpayers’ money? – C.D. Howe Institute |
| Article Title: | Does Ottawa even care about getting value for taxpayers’ money? |
| URL: | https://cdhowe.org/publication/does-ottawa-even-care-about-getting-value-for-taxpayers-money/ |
| Published Date: | October 29, 2026 |
| Accessed Date: | October 29, 2026 |
Outline
Outline
Authors
Related Topics
For all media inquiries, including requests for reports or interviews:
Evaluations haven’t made much of a contribution to the spending review because they typically focus on the response of beneficiaries when assessing program performance. That’s a low bar for judging success. Beneficiaries of spending programs always respond favourably.
To be genuinely useful in spending reviews, evaluations must assess whether programs deliver value for money by comparing benefits received to the costs incurred creating them. Unfortunately, this approach is the exception rather than the rule. I recently reviewed 48 evaluations conducted in eight federal departments from 2020 to 2024 and found that only four went beyond assessing impacts on program beneficiaries to examine via a careful comparison of benefits and costs whether they delivered value for taxpayers’ money. The evaluations of labour training programs conducted at Employment and Social Development Canada were one of the exceptions. Their rigorous assessment clearly demonstrated that these programs do provide value for money.
The shortage of value-for-money evaluations is surprising given that the federal government describes its expenditure management system as being “designed to ensure that all programs … provide value for taxpayers’ money.”
What explains this gap between principle and practice? The immediate reason is that under the current policy, value-for-money assessments are optional, not mandatory. But that prompts a further question: why do evaluators generally choose not to conduct them? One explanation is that they’re complex, requiring specialized data systems and technical expertise that departments do not have and would take time and resources to develop.
Why don’t politicians insist that departments build the capacity required to assess all federal programs through a value-for-money lens? One possibility is that, while agreeing with such assessments in principle, politicians balk once they realize they would limit their discretion to use spending to win elections. In “normal” times, ministers don’t see any electoral upside to providing evidence that programs they are responsible for — or, even worse, programs they have championed and implemented — aren’t working.
Ministers have good reason to be concerned about drawing attention to underperforming programs. In a 2024 paper published by the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, I found that many government programs, particularly business subsidies, would fail a value-for-money test. That’s a discouraging conclusion but it also represents an opportunity for ambitious ministers and officials. Eliminating or reforming poorly performing programs would allow the current federal government to pursue its agenda of investing in a stronger economy and more robust national security without raising taxes or adding much to our already high debt.
The timing is therefore right to put value-for-money assessments into practice. Coincidentally or not, Ottawa’s evaluation policy is now under review. Bold reform could dramatically increase the value Canadians receive from federal spending. In our recent C.D. Howe Institute report, Benoît Robidoux and I set out a comprehensive plan for achieving this goal.
Our key recommendation is to make value-for-money assessments mandatory, using a framework that captures all the benefits and costs of a program, private and social. Another important recommendation is to require that new spending programs pass a simplified value-for-money test. In practice, this would make existing approvals more rigorous by applying a benefit-cost framework.
Finally, we recommend that Ottawa set up an independent “evaluator-general” to help build departmental evaluation capacity but also to undertake evaluations while departments are getting up to speed. The EG would also be able to challenge departmental evaluations and undertake evaluations of programs administered by more than one department.
Conducting and publishing value-for-money assessments would allow all Canadians, not just politicians, to have an informed opinion about the worth of federal programs. A better-informed electorate could support better policy choices and increase politicians’ incentive to fix programs that are not working — which would be good for our democracy.
“Value for money” is a principle everyone accepts. We need to close the gap between principle and practice.
Related Publications
- Research
Ursula von der Leyen
- Opinions & Editorials
Steve Ambler, Jeremy Kronick