The Department of Foreign Affairs spent over $523,000 on furniture in a single day as the fiscal year came to a close on March 31, records reveal. Blacklock's Reporter says the rush purchases, which included 73 separate orders for office and residential furniture, have reignited concerns about the federal government’s so-called “March Madness” spending habits.“Furniture is purchased on a regular basis as part of the department’s standard furniture replacement cycle,” Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly’s department said in an Inquiry of Ministry tabled in the House of Commons. “The Government of Canada acquires and manages furniture in an effective and economical way.”The department did not explain why the bulk of its furniture needs arose on the final day of the fiscal year. Officials noted that furniture is provided not only in Canadian offices but also in staff accommodations abroad to ensure employees can “work and live abroad in an efficient, economic, productive and safe manner.”The disclosure came in response to a question from Conservative MP Eric Melillo (Kenora, Ont.), who requested details on government expenditures for “furniture and fixtures including parts.”The spending aligns with a long-standing pattern identified by critics, where federal departments push through unspent budget allocations before they expire. Cabinet has previously denied the existence of such year-end spending sprees.“Contracts are issued throughout the year at a regular pace with only a moderate increase in February or March,” cabinet wrote in a 2019 statement. However, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux testified in 2021 that “March Madness” is a recurring phenomenon in government spending.“You spend money you have rather than let it lapse even if you don’t absolutely need the money,” Giroux told the Senate national finance committee. He described it as a common practice with potential downsides.“Do you think we are encouraging a culture where managers are asking for even more than they need?” asked Sen. Éric Forest (Que.) during the same hearing. Giroux replied, “Yes... That is the downside, the potential downside, and it is what we observe fairly frequently.”Giroux added that the incentives within government systems favor overspending. “There are few negative consequences to underspending,” he said, “but there are more incentives to ask for more.”
The Department of Foreign Affairs spent over $523,000 on furniture in a single day as the fiscal year came to a close on March 31, records reveal. Blacklock's Reporter says the rush purchases, which included 73 separate orders for office and residential furniture, have reignited concerns about the federal government’s so-called “March Madness” spending habits.“Furniture is purchased on a regular basis as part of the department’s standard furniture replacement cycle,” Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly’s department said in an Inquiry of Ministry tabled in the House of Commons. “The Government of Canada acquires and manages furniture in an effective and economical way.”The department did not explain why the bulk of its furniture needs arose on the final day of the fiscal year. Officials noted that furniture is provided not only in Canadian offices but also in staff accommodations abroad to ensure employees can “work and live abroad in an efficient, economic, productive and safe manner.”The disclosure came in response to a question from Conservative MP Eric Melillo (Kenora, Ont.), who requested details on government expenditures for “furniture and fixtures including parts.”The spending aligns with a long-standing pattern identified by critics, where federal departments push through unspent budget allocations before they expire. Cabinet has previously denied the existence of such year-end spending sprees.“Contracts are issued throughout the year at a regular pace with only a moderate increase in February or March,” cabinet wrote in a 2019 statement. However, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux testified in 2021 that “March Madness” is a recurring phenomenon in government spending.“You spend money you have rather than let it lapse even if you don’t absolutely need the money,” Giroux told the Senate national finance committee. He described it as a common practice with potential downsides.“Do you think we are encouraging a culture where managers are asking for even more than they need?” asked Sen. Éric Forest (Que.) during the same hearing. Giroux replied, “Yes... That is the downside, the potential downside, and it is what we observe fairly frequently.”Giroux added that the incentives within government systems favor overspending. “There are few negative consequences to underspending,” he said, “but there are more incentives to ask for more.”
