There were problems in more than two-thirds of the evaluations you reviewed. The other six perhaps gave results. What is even more worrisome is that this only represents 5% to 13% of the programs per year. The others aren't even evaluated. Therefore very few are evaluated. For those that are evaluated, in more than two-thirds of cases, the evaluations are not satisfactory. One would hope that at least the others would lead to results. That's what your report states.
However, six departments—we heard this again this morning—increased their resources in this area. I did the math. If one looks at exhibit 1.6 on page 22 in the English version and page 27 in the French version, from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, there was an increase of 38% in the funding for program evaluations. With respect to staff increases, table 1.7 on page 23 in the English version and page 28 in the French version shows that there was a 54% increase in evaluation staff. We end up with this kind of result. Obviously one has to ask why we have such unsatisfactory results with an increase in resources.
How much more should resources be increased, given that only 5% to 13% of programs were evaluated, and badly evaluated, given that your goal is to evaluate them all over five years? Twenty per cent of programs should be evaluated over five years, satisfactorily, when you're having difficulty in recruiting competent staff, which is another aggravating factor. You have used contractors, but we don't know if the contractors will stay long enough to provide any memory or experience to the various departments and Treasury Board itself appears to be completely overwhelmed. According to your report, there is not enough staff and you have not provided sufficient leadership. How will we get there? The government is increasing its requirements and you are not able to meet the ones you had already. The gap is quite glaring: 5% to 13% of programs evaluated when the goal is adequate evaluations of at least 20%.