Canadians who are paying attention to federal spending continue to ask one pressing question:
Why does the Liberal government keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars on consultants?
The answer lies at the heart of what this blog emphasizes: financial education and an understanding of how public sector unions shape federal spending.
Canada’s government is, on paper, one of the most fiscally mismanaged in the developed world. But it gets away with this largely because of geography—its close economic relationship with the United States provides access to America’s vast market, masking much of Canada’s internal inefficiencies.
The Real Cost of Public Sector Unions
Canada Post is a useful case study. As a Crown corporation, it struggles with efficiency due in large part to the influence of powerful public sector unions. The government often turns to outside consultants not because it’s efficient—but to avoid hiring more unionized federal workers, who are virtually impossible to remove once hired.
This issue became glaring under Justin Trudeau, who paid exorbitant consulting fees throughout his tenure. Why? Because once someone is employed in the public sector, they’re protected by unions, pension guarantees, and long-term job security, all of which are costly and difficult to reverse.
Hiring a consultant is expensive—but not as politically risky as creating another permanent, unionized job.
Mark Carney: Spending Like Trudeau—But Quieter
Current Prime Minister Mark Carney claims he’ll be more fiscally responsible than Trudeau, but early signs suggest otherwise. He’s spending heavily on consultants—just like Trudeau—and unlike Donald Trump, who at least pushed for regulatory cuts, Carney has shown no real intent to streamline Canada’s bloated bureaucracy, which is a major contributor to price inflation.
Trudeau, for all his rhetoric, actually tried to bypass government systems when it suited him. For instance, during the COVID-19 crisis, his government chose not to rely on Canada Post for certain emergency deliveries. Why? Because the public sector, including the unionized workforce, was too inflexible for rapid, strategic response.
And now, we’re seeing Carney take a similar approach—hiring expensive external consultants to push forward his agenda without having to deal with public sector constraints.
The Hidden Political Strategy
Public sector unions—like the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), which represents nearly 240,000 workers, including 185,000 federal employees—are massive voting blocs. It’s not hard to imagine that their influence helped tip the scales in Ottawa, particularly against Pierre Poilievre in his own riding.
But hiring these consultants isn’t just about avoiding union entanglement. It’s also a way to navigate political quotas and identity-based obligations. For example, Carney may be expected to meet with leaders from Indigenous communities, the LGBTQ+ population, or Black Canadian organizations. However, hiring them into official roles could backfire politically—they’d gain union protections and potential media access if things go wrong.
Instead, paying them as external consultants gives the appearance of inclusion while limiting long-term risk. This way, Carney’s administration can meet diversity quotas and political expectations without making permanent hires who could become political liabilities.
This strategy was likely informed by what happened to Justin Trudeau during the Jody Wilson-Raybould scandal. Trudeau wrongly assumed that loyalty within his political circle would guarantee silence or support. But Wilson-Raybould revealed internal backroom dealings, proving that hiring individuals into powerful positions without clear alignment can be risky.
Carney appears to have learned from this and is starting his term by spending heavily on consultants, ensuring plausible deniability and flexibility—just in case anything goes sideways.
Influence Behind the Curtain
It’s also worth noting that Carney has ties to Brookfield, a global investment giant known for delivering strong returns to shareholders. While there may not be direct links between Brookfield and the consultants advising the government, the influence can be indirect but powerful—what some might call “soft lobbying.”
Brookfield doesn’t need to own the firms being paid. It just needs to maintain influence and access through shared goals and mutual benefit.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, Canada’s consulting crisis isn’t just about money—it’s about political insulation.
Consultants offer flexibility. They don’t unionize. They don’t collect pensions. And if something goes wrong, they can be quietly dismissed without triggering public sector outrage.
But it’s also a sign that Canada’s governance is increasingly shaped by special interests, risk aversion, and a desire to manage optics rather than results. Whether it’s Trudeau, Carney, or the next leader to come, until there’s a serious reckoning with the size and power of the public sector—and the unions behind it—taxpayers will keep footing the bill for politically convenient outsourcing.