We will come back to the committee on that.

Mr. Giroux, thank you for joining us.

[English]

Budget 2023 announced a 15% or $500-million spending reduction in consulting, professional services and travel for the planned 2023-24 discretionary spending. We’ve already discussed how this would be done: by freezing $350 million in spending related to professional and special services, and $150 million in spending related to travel. Spending on professional and special services continues to increase despite the lapses — at the end of the year, the frozen amounts will lapse. Inclusive of Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2023-24, the total proposed authorities for professional and special services are at a record $21.6 billion.

Why do you think that, despite the $500-million spending freeze in consulting and travel, the planned spending in 2023-24 remains above previous years’ spending levels?

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]

Great minds think alike. All the questions my colleague Senator Loffreda asked are exactly the same questions I wanted to ask.

Thank you for your responses and thank you for the questions.

[English]

My question is on a topic that several senators mentioned: It’s Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and all the money that is requested in Supplementary Estimates (B). One of the challenges that I have is trying to find which financial statements are bearing the burden of the claim.

The $5 billion for the Restoule settlement agreement is a significant sum of money. I cannot find that in last year’s public accounts. I can’t find it anywhere. When the government talks about being transparent, I have to shake my head over it. If you have an expenditure of that magnitude — $5 billion — and you can’t find it, there’s an issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we can go about finding that financial information? I know that the budget and the public accounts are not aligned. We’ve talked about that many times. It’s very difficult to track the expenditures because they’re going back and forth between documents.

Do you have any suggestions, or do you know where that $5 billion is recorded in the financial statements of the government?

That’s a very good point, and I don’t know. I don’t know in which year it’s been recorded as a liability.

Generally speaking, the government is reluctant to disclose how much it has set aside for specific, individual claims for fear of tipping its hand and revealing how much it’s prepared to pay. If that amount were to become public, it would easily become the floor in any negotiation with specific claims, or any other claim — it could be with contractors and so on. It’s kept secret to a certain level, even at cabinet.

I’ve seen cabinet documents. When ministers discuss that, cabinet ministers have the memoranda to cabinet, and it’s a series of Xs where the numbers should be. Then, they are handed out something that states “X” means that many billions, and “Y” means that many thousands of individuals, so that the secrecy is maintained. That’s why it’s very difficult to figure out in which year the liability was recorded on the Government of Canada books because even ministers are given these numbers literally at the last minute.

Even in the fiscal update document and in the budget, there are large dollar amounts, and you can’t tell what it’s for. The public accounts have a similar problem. Going through the public accounts that were just released, there are dollar amounts in the billions of dollars, and there’s no way to find out what they represent.

Yes, it’s a “trust us.”

It’s a transparency issue.