It’s not an area that I feel very comfortable commenting on because specific claims and comprehensive claims are very complex. They need to be looked at from a historical lens. I’m not a historian, and I don’t feel competent enough to answer that type of question, sadly.

Thank you, Mr. Giroux, Ms. Giswold and Ms. Vanderwees.

I have the impression that we have already discussed this same situation, which is the fact that we are increasing these budgets for these liabilities and the cost of core processes and compensation to Indigenous people. We seem not to have a grasp on how to predict.

Senator Smith and Senator Dagenais asked if we were in danger, and we are not in danger, but if we cannot predict anything, how can you be sure that we aren’t?

You said you compared it to the time when you started, which is when they were at that level. Because of what is happening these days with all the crises that we are living in, do you think there could be — I don’t want to say “a bubble,” but we don’t know. Is it possible?

It is possible. If interest rates were to continue to increase, then we’d be in a different situation. If they were to increase by 300 basis points or 3 percentage points, we would be in a very different situation.

When I say that I’m not overly concerned, it’s because I don’t think that’s a very likely scenario. It doesn’t mean it’s an impossible scenario, but not very likely.

With respect to the issue of specific claims and liabilities, it is a bit concerning that they have increased so much. It raises the question as to how firmly in control the government is with respect to these claims, if we keep discovering new claims, which are supposed to be based on historical facts. At a certain point, we should have a pretty good idea as to the extent of the government’s responsibilities toward Indigenous people. Things should have improved, and we should stop incurring these claims by correcting wrongs from the past. We should have a very good handle and a thorough knowledge on that.

I probably wasn’t very clear in my answer, or hadn’t thought it through well enough, but it’s a bit disconcerting to see these liabilities increasing so much when we’ve had so much time to figure them out.

I do remember that you strongly recommended that we bring the two ministers to explain the details, and we didn’t do that.

Chair, can we please invite the two ministers to hear more details on this ongoing process? We need to have an idea about how this will —

I’ve taken a note of it, and we’ll bring it over to the steering committee.

I think it’s important.

We will come back to the committee on that.

It is very surprising — when the government has clearly stated its intention to reduce the use of professional and special services — to see authorities having increased significantly. The process of granting authorities but freezing parts of them is a bit strange. I think it would have been more efficient to just not provide the authorities in the first place rather than bank on a lapse.

The government providing these authorities, which could be spent, when it wants to reduce spending in that area is unusual. Maybe the President of the Treasury Board has a better explanation.

What are the main subject matters on which the government uses consulting and professional services? Do you have that information?

Not off the top of my head. We had that in previous reports. Ms. Vanderwees, do you know?

There are several areas. Most recently, defence has a large portion of it, as well as health, although I imagine with the end of the pandemic, that would be changing this year. We don’t have that level of detail through the estimates.

What are the main reasons for the heavy reliance on consulting and professional services? Would it not be more efficient to hire personnel to that effect who are specialized in the areas that require most of the special consulting?

It depends. That’s a good question for individual ministers. Reasons often quoted for using external professional and special services are that the expertise does not exist in the federal civil service, or it’s so specialized that it wouldn’t be worth having that expertise in-house. It’s a case-by-case situation.

When we look at the personnel increase over the years, and then we look at the consulting increase, I question what’s going on. We’re increasing personnel drastically. The expenses are increasing substantially, and then you look at the professional services, and it’s there too.

I know that in the IT sector, it’s a problem. Even if the government had the capacity to double its contingent of IT specialists, they don’t exist on the market. That’s why they use professional services, because that’s the way to get these professionals.

As you pointed out — and I have raised this issue several times — we have an increasing public service, but also an increase in the use of professional and special services. One does not necessarily have to go with the other. Normally, if you hire tens of thousands of public servants, you would think that you’d need to use fewer professional services.

Talking about personnel, in your PBO report on the supplementary estimates, it’s highlighted that spending on personnel continued to increase, totalling $67.4 billion. Based on The Fiscal Monitor, personnel spending in the first five months of 2023-24 is up 4.2%. In June, we know that the government approved eight collective agreements covering 138,000 public service employees.

Do you believe that corresponds to inflation and a general increase of labour costs? Is it justified, considering the population growth and related increased demand for government services?

In terms of the 4.2%, we’ve since had another The Fiscal Monitor issued and released. It’s now 4.1%. Roughly speaking, it corresponds to inflation and salary increases as people evolve through the salary scales. That’s for 2023-24.

Looking at the last couple of years, even if you do a per capita comparison on that basis, the number of public servants has increased significantly over the last couple of years. The public service has been growing in absolute terms, but also on a per capita basis or per-thousand Canadians basis.

Do you believe an external review of service delivery methods could be beneficial for maximizing the use of public funds by the government?

I think one of your colleagues — I believe it’s Senator Colin Deacon — is keen on improving digital services. I think that’s a very good avenue to streamline service delivery and make these more efficient. Honestly, I’m surprised the government is not embarking more enthusiastically on that bandwagon to improve service delivery for Canadians, while making service delivery more efficient from a personnel point of view.

[Translation]