I would like to give my opinion on what Mr. Housefather said about the overall study.
I agree with the committee doing the study. Indeed, I had good reason to sign the letter on holding a meeting. We can ask questions about McKinsey and his sense of ethics. We can also ask questions about many other companies, for the exact same reasons.
The main issue is to determine whether we really need external consultants. Do we not already have this expertise in-house? If we do not, why is that? If we have it, why do we not use it?
There is nothing more demotivating for an employee than to have the impression that their work is not recognized. I am certain that government employees who have the necessary expertise are surprised to see referrals to consultants. These employees have the necessary knowledge and can help the government. They are government employees, but their skills aren't solicited. That's extremely demotivating.
Furthermore, that means taxpayers are paying to people: the consultant and the employee whose skills are misused. It's sad.
As for the amendment, I have no objection to the proposed date changes. If we are making a comparison, better to do it right. I am still surprised that we haven't asked to look at documents from the previous year. Of course, we don't want to end up buried under an avalanche of documents.
That said, I swear before my colleagues that I will analyse all the documents I receive. However, we have to give ourselves a reasonable timeframe, and I think 2011 is a reasonable timeframe to make an adequate comparison.