Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to finish what I was saying earlier about the contracting out of work, because the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is the committee that examines those contracts. I wasn't on the committee when you went through that nightmare, Mr. Chair. Nevertheless, I'm very worried.

I was asking the minister questions earlier. Salaries are going up, collective agreements are in place and 16,000 jobs are being eliminated through attrition. Where does it say that less work will be contracted out and that the work will be assigned in accordance with the skill sets of the public servants who remain? Thousands of them are keeping their jobs. Where does it say that?

I am very worried. This is a fiasco. Are we charging towards another wall?

[Bill Matthews]

In the budget, the government stated its intention to reduce spending on consultants by 20%.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You are talking about a 20% reduction, not an 80% reduction. Is that right?

[Bill Matthews]

Yes.

However, it doesn't apply to all services. We contract out certain types of work, shipbuilding and other such tangible activities. There is a difference between spending on consultants and spending on shipbuilding or a new IT system.

That's fine. That's in the budget. We will work on that. There's some really good disclosure around government spending on contracts and what it's for in the public accounts.

In terms of the balance between the public service and contracting and reductions, number one, all public servants aren't created equal. In cases where we can do the work with public servants rather than with contractors, we should be doing it with public servants every single time, but there are skill sets we do not have in the public service that we need outside help for—construction, etc.—and that's fine as well.

I think you'll see in departments' plans, main estimates, etc. where they plan to spend money and where the reductions will be by skill set.

The one that's worth highlighting is that we did put in a special regime for experts in the digital domain. Basically, through our chief information officer, departments are forced to look at the digital talent we have inside the government before they go outside. That's one specific thing we've done, but where we can do the work with public servants, that will obviously be the priority.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, my sense is that we're going to have to keep a watchful eye. I don't want to relive the same nightmare, especially when we're talking about contracting out digital work. You must have trouble sleeping from time to time.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much, Madame Gaudreau. I think we all wish to avoid another digital nightmare.

Colleagues, if you don't mind, I have a couple of quick questions for Mr. Matthews—a couple maybe just for an answer and a couple maybe to take away.

I'm glad Mrs. Block brought up the issue about the bonuses and the lack of alignment, I guess, with what's achieved. I'm glad it was brought up, because I've brought it up at public accounts to many different ministers and many different department heads. The excuse or the answer is always, well, we follow Treasury Board guidelines.

If you wish, I can go through all the blues from the many times we've brought it up. They always blame Treasury Board: Yes, we've failed massively, but we're only following Treasury Board guidelines. The onus seems to be placed on the guidelines.

You mentioned not passing judgment. I think 98% of executives and management are getting bonuses when results are failing. According to GC InfoBase, 47% of the results were not achieved. Just from memory, in the previous year it was close to 50%. In the year previous, it was 53%. We have this massive failure, and department officials are always saying, oh, we're just following the rules. So I'll put that back with you.

I'm glad you talked about departmental plans. When you look at the departmental results, fully 19% of last year's departmental results had no results available—I know you're probably laughing inside, because we've brought this up every year for the last several years—or to be achieved in the future. Of course, the estimates are based on a one-year achievement. I'm hoping that you will actually stop that procedure or practice in the departments where they're actually presenting departmental plans to Parliament without actual goals attached. I do appreciate that.

On the stretch goals, I wonder if you could get back to us. I know you mentioned that departments are missing results because of stretch goals. We actually go through and look. For a fair amount of where they've missed the results, they've actually dropped less than last year. If you look at the departmental plans, I would happily bet money that more than 50% of the goals for next year are actually below what they actually achieved the previous year. So I don't think it's because they have stretch goals when most of them are actually showing lower; their goals are to actually achieve less than they have previous years and the previous year before that. I'll just leave that with you

I do have a quick question. I want to follow up with Mr. Kelly—who has left the room—about the PBO and the CER. The PBO wrote to the five departments asking for the information. He didn't write to Treasury Board. He wrote to the five ministers. But the comptroller general responded. Who directed her not to provide the information to the PBO?

It was October 30 when we asked the minister. He said yes. I know that on October 31, the cabinet was briefed by the comptroller general and others on the CER. But it's still not released. Who would have directed her to refuse to hand over the data to the PBO that's required under the Parliament of Canada Act?

[Bill Matthews]

There are a couple of points in there, Mr. Chair. One, on the decision of the comptroller general to write to the PBO and say they were unable to respond right now, it was not a “no”; it was that they couldn't respond within this deadline. There was no consultation on the deadline.

That decision was taken between me, the comptroller general and colleagues at the Department of Finance. It was just felt that because all five were in the same boat, just one response would be a useful thing to give—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you saying that on October 31, when the comptroller general briefed the cabinet committee on this, she briefed them with incomplete numbers?

[Bill Matthews]

The comptroller general would not have briefed the cabinet committee on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You're saying that the comptroller general did not brief anyone on this?

[Bill Matthews]

On the CER?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

[Bill Matthews]

The comptroller general would not have been briefing on the CER, no. She will now be monitoring results. The decision was this: We know that all five aren't in a position to respond, so we just thought one response was better. This was not, no, we will not respond; this was we can't respond in this timeline.

The five departments in question are all working to respond as quickly as they can. Those responses to the PBO, to the request, will come from the departments on behalf of their minister, not from TBS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate that. So the decision was made by you and finance, but not by the departments themselves. The PBO writes to the departments. No offence, but it's not to you and not to finance; it's to the departments.

[Bill Matthews]

That's fair, Mr. Chair.

There was dialogue between Treasury Board Secretariat and departments about this. It was not written out of the blue without consulting departments. They were not in a position to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think we will agree to disagree. We hope that we will see the document or the information very soon.

I do echo Mr. Kelly's comments. It's bizarre to ask us to vote on a budget and on the cuts when the information is not shared with us. Then to sit and say that you have to inform others what the cuts will be after Parliament, uninformed, announces the cuts.

I appreciate your feedback. I'm glad you were able to join us today. Mr. Matthews has been with us so much that I think he's reached OGGO super-elite status. You get a complimentary upgrade on your next visit with us.

Anyway, thanks very much for being with us.

Colleagues, I have a couple of quick announcements just to update everyone. We had set aside December 2 for our meeting with Mr. Guzman and Secretary Fuhr. It was for a two-hour meeting. They have stated they will not honour our motion and they are refusing to meet separately. They will only appear together for one hour.

I'm not asking for a decision or anything from the committee yet, but we'll bring it up at the next meeting. We've given them several alternatives, but they will not appear separately and will only appear for one hour.

You saw the note that December 11 is Canada Post now. We do apologize. I think we said repeatedly that it would be the 4th, but it is December 11. I appreciate everyone's patience with that.

On December 4 we will have the representative from Stellantis in person for one hour. In the second hour we had invited the minister for PSPC. We made several dates available and unfortunately the minister will not make himself available to defend his estimates. We're looking at the second hour being PSPC officials.

I'll leave that with everyone and we can take up the issue of the motion calling for two separate hours for Mr. Guzman and the secretary and then how we wish to follow up with the minister for PSPC at our next meeting.

Again, witnesses, thanks for being with us today. We appreciate the information and the feedback you provided.

Colleagues, thanks very much for your patience as we play around with our schedule.

We are adjourned.