Ottawa's federal public service is one of the largest and most experienced bureaucracies in the world — so why does the government keep reaching for outside consultants?
That's the question a lot of Canadians are asking, and it's one that Scott Taymun, a former senior public service executive, has spent considerable time thinking about. His answer isn't black and white, but it's worth unpacking.
The Case for Keeping It In-House
The federal government employs tens of thousands of skilled professionals across departments — economists, policy analysts, engineers, lawyers, IT specialists — many of whom have spent decades building deep institutional knowledge. Critics of consultant culture argue that when you bring in an outside firm, you're often paying a premium for work that could be done better, faster, and cheaper by the people who already know the files.
That institutional knowledge matters enormously. A public servant who has worked on, say, Canada's social housing policy for fifteen years understands the history, the stakeholders, the political landmines, and the practical constraints in ways that a consultant parachuting in for a six-month engagement simply cannot replicate.
Taymun acknowledges this reality. When the expertise exists internally, and when the timeline allows, using in-house staff is often the smarter, more cost-effective choice.
When Consultants Actually Make Sense
That said, Taymun argues there are legitimate reasons to bring in outside help. Surge capacity is one — when a department needs to deliver a major project quickly and simply doesn't have enough bodies, a short-term contract can bridge the gap. Specialized technical skills that don't make sense to maintain permanently are another.
There's also the question of independence. Sometimes governments genuinely benefit from outside perspectives — audits, program evaluations, or sensitive reviews where internal staff may face real or perceived conflicts of interest.
The problem, critics say, is that Ottawa has drifted well past these legitimate use cases. Consultants are increasingly used not because the internal capacity doesn't exist, but because hiring contractors is faster than navigating government HR processes, or because it gives political cover when things go wrong.
The McKinsey Moment
The federal government's consulting spend has drawn intense scrutiny in recent years. High-profile contracts — including significant payments to firms like McKinsey & Company — sparked parliamentary investigations and uncomfortable questions about accountability. How are these contracts awarded? Are they being monitored? Are taxpayers getting value?
For Ottawa-area public servants, many of whom work alongside or directly supervise outside consultants, the dynamic can be frustrating. Watching a contractor bill $300 an hour to produce a report that a senior analyst could have written is a morale issue as much as a fiscal one.
What Needs to Change
Taymun's nuanced take is ultimately a call for better judgment — not a blanket ban on consultants, but a genuine, case-by-case assessment of whether outside help is truly necessary. That means departments asking hard questions before signing contracts: Do we have this expertise in-house? If not, should we build it? Is this a one-time need or a recurring one?
Building internal capacity takes time and investment, but it pays dividends. The federal public service in Ottawa has a deep bench — the challenge is making sure it's actually used.
Source: Ottawa Citizen. Original reporting by the Ottawa Citizen public service desk.
