Okay. I suggest that there are some criteria, but they're generally quite vague, and certain activities should not be candidates for outsourcing.
Diminished policy capacity within the public service and a lack of confidence in the willingness of senior public servants to speak truth to power may have contributed to the trend towards reliance on consultants as policy advisers. However, I know of no comprehensive empirical study of the historical pattern of the use of consultants for high-level policy work. That is something that could be explored. For accountability to work as intended, ministers must always have the final say on policy decisions.
I make the point that contracting out—and contracting—is a multi-stage process with various stages involved. Not all organizations have the capacity at all stages to behave as smart buyers. Managing relationships with contractors is crucial and is more difficult to produce effectively when managing across organizational boundaries.
I believe that management consultants and other contractors should be required to sign a conflict of interest declaration, just as registered lobbyists are required to do under the lobbyists' code. Consultants should also fall within the scope of the Access to Information Act to reinforce the principle that the information and knowledge generated in the contracting process is open to public disclosure, with limited exceptions.
I've read many of the guides and policy documents produced by the Treasury Board Secretariat, including the government-wide integrity regime document. The more fundamental challenge, I believe, is to create a professional community of contract managers with a shared culture, developed on a foundation of evidence-based, results-oriented decision-making.
My conclusion is that there is a place for management consultants in the modern governing process and that those consultants should be kept in their place.
Thank you.