Summer 2023 // Canadian Government Executive / 13 CGE LEADERSHIP SERIES could have been done by public servants between 2011 and 2021.” The Globe and Mail led their story with “outsourcing costs 74-per-cent higher than when the Liberals promised in 2015 to cut back on the use of external consultants.” Snippets like these seem like they’re meant to quash the public appetite for outsourcing. But the answer isn’t to eliminate outsourcing. It’s to outsource better. For the rest of the discussion, Dr. Clarke, Mr. Wernick and moderator Lori Turnbull (Deputy Editor of Canadian Government Executive Magazine) looked at how the federal government got to the point of spending so much on outsources services, the negative implications of that spend, what can be done do reduce both and, as Dr. Clarke noted, “how to do it in a way that’s accountable, that has value for money, that enriches governance and that leaves the public service and those reliant on its services in a better position. “There’s quite a lot of room for improvement.” Dr. Clarke mentioned this as well and broke her assertion down into a few buckets. First was the value-for-money perspective: is government actually getting what they’re paying for from the consultants they bring in? Are they getting the highest forms of expertise, trained by elite schools of management? Could the work being done by outside consultants for a premium price be done as well or better in-house? Second was appearances of impropriety, and Dr. Clarke broke that down into two sub-buckets. On the one hand, the strict rules of transparency, disclosure, bilingualism and ethics baked into government process for all kinds of reasons aren’t enforced equally across contracts. In some instances, it’s hard to know where money is being spent and if it’s being spent appropriately. Rightly or wrongly, these inconsistencies and the possible lack of visibility they provide raise eyebrows. A similar but different reason for scepticism is the prevalence of senior government leaders making career moves into the private sector at firms they brought in as consultants. The third was the hollowing-out effects of outsourcing. Again, Dr. Clarke broke this down into buckets: institutional knowledge, morale and innovation — all of which negatively affect how the public service works and how well it works. The lack of in-house institutional knowledge is key because it makes government a less informed buyer of services, and more likely to run into the problems outlined above. Also, not having in-house expertise weakens the collaborative potential between government and all its consultants because both sides can’t add equal value. On the morale side, Dr. Clarke described the disrespect felt by public servants when exciting projects they would excel at leading or working on are outsourced. The slight leads to malaise, which comes through in the effort put forth and the lack of innovative thinking. As for the innovation/creativity gap, Dr. Clarke cited this as the place to start the improvement process. “Contracting is a short-term solution to a lack of in-house capacity,” she said. “It’s distracting from the more fundamental need: creating the conditions to ensure a resilient and highly capable federal public service.” Mr. Wernick agreed and added that “a commitment to reduce the spending on “Contracting is a short-term solution to a lack of in-house capacity. It’s distracting from the more fundamental need: creating the conditions to ensure a resilient and highly capable federal public service.” — Dr. Amanda Clarke
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=