Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on the government’s cuts to the federal public service. Elizabeth May of the Green Party asked why jobs are being cut, including park staff, scientists and oil-spill responders, and said spending on outside consultants should be reduced instead; she also raised the federal deficit, the absence of a wealth tax, and support for fossil fuel companies. Tom Osborne of the Liberal Party replied that the government promised fiscal discipline and is saving about $13 billion a year by cutting roughly 16,000 positions, using early retirement and voluntary departures, and said services to Canadians would be maintained and improved.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“The government is firing thousands of public workers, including park staff, scientists, and people who respond to oil spills. It should keep these workers and cut spending on expensive outside consultants instead. I want a clear answer about why these jobs are being cut.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend from Simcoe North. Those who started watching at late show will not know what just happened. In any case, that was a good moment. I am speaking tonight to a question that I asked in question period on January 28, related to what the government had announced as intended cuts to the civil service. I was particularly concerned because within my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands and elsewhere on Vancouver Island we were getting news that people involved in the critical work of emergency response in the case of oil spills were already receiving their pink slips. They were being told that they were to be removed from their position. It appeared to be everyone in that department. On the same day, the Public Service Alliance of Canada held its own press conference to say that it was informed that about 8,000 workers of the federal civil service were to be terminated. Since the time I asked the question, it is now confirmed that about 800 of those people are from Parks Canada. Today, I heard from concerned constituents that an interpreter position within Gulf Islands National Park Reserve is being terminated, an essential connection for the visiting public on Saturna Island. The list goes on, including many workers within Environment and Climate Change Canada, particularly those who do critical work in understanding and tracking what we are doing to respond to climate change, which is less by the day so there is less to track. However, there is no question that we are seeing significant cuts to the civil service. We are seeing some reduction in an area where I am very concerned. We could see cuts in federal spending, which is in the billions of dollars, on outside consultants. We have civil service workers with expertise and if they are put in the role of delivery, they are a lot less expensive than asking Deloitte or McKinsey or other billion-dollar management consultants all around the world that have been getting too much of the public purse in Canada to do the work that we should be doing internally with our own public sector workers. I saw a recent statement that the Government of Canada, in budget 2026, was going to cut by 20% the amount it is spending. That still, by my calculation, leaves us spending about $4 billion on outside consultants, which are for-profit agencies from outside Canada for the most part. What are we cutting here? Again, there are cuts in science, agricultural research stations across Canada and the oceans protection plan, which appears to no longer exist. We are looking at significant cuts across the board. As I said, the Public Service Alliance of Canada representatives are estimating 8,000 workers. The answer I got on January 28 was from the minister himself, which is somewhat unusual. The President of the Treasury Board did stand to answer my question and did say that there were going to be cuts through voluntary measures. However, I rather think, as ever, that when a government is putting through significant cuts that affect the services that Canadians want, it does tend to downplay it and say that it will do it by attrition, that it will find some people it could give a buyout package to and encourage them to leave now, knowing that their job is hanging by a thread anyway. I never did get a clear answer to my specific concern about the workers who are supposed to be ready, although we know that, if ever there were ever a spill of diluted bitumen, we do not have the technology to clean it up. I hope that tonight we can get a clear answer.

Tom Osborne, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Liberal
“We promised to spend less money on running the government so we can invest more in the economy, defence, and workers. We found ways to save 13 billion dollars a year by cutting about 16,000 public service jobs. We are doing this fairly by offering early retirement and letting people leave on their own instead of firing them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as members may recall, the government made a clear commitment to Canadians to be fiscally responsible and bring discipline to the federal budget. We were also elected with the mandate to spend less on government operations so that we can invest more in workers, businesses, defence and nation-building infrastructure that will grow our economy and strengthen the country. As part of this effort, the government launched the comprehensive expenditure review to meet its commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians. This review required federal organizations to bring forward savings proposals, to spend less on the day-to-day running of government by targeting programs and activities that are not core to their federal mandate, that are duplicative or that are not aligned with government priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, where it makes sense. Budget 2025, tabled last November, presented the results of this review, which identified savings across government of $13 billion annually by 2028-29. This will include decreasing the size of the public service by approximately 16,000 full-time equivalents. It will also look to reduce 1,000 executive positions over the next two years. The reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible. That is why we have the early retirement incentive. Organizations are required to follow established workforce adjustment policies outlined in collective agreements or, in the case of executives, career transition measures. Both set out clear processes and supports for employees who may be affected. In a workforce adjustment situation, there are specific provisions governing how this is done that are co-developed or negotiated with bargaining agents. Indeed, the government is leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures. This includes the proposed early retirement incentive, a program that would provide an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without a penalty for early departure. These reductions are being carried out fairly and responsibly, in line with the government’s obligations as an employer. They are part of a necessary and major “recalibration” in government spending that will redirect funds to investing in Canada. They are what this moment calls for and an investment in our future.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“The government has a huge deficit, but it refuses to tax the super-rich. Instead, it gives more money to fossil fuel companies and cuts workers who clean up oil spills. We bought emergency ships, but we do not have the staff to run them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I am not impressed with the government’s attempt to run balanced budgets when we now have a $66.9-billion deficit. We also know that where there are funds that could be accessed through reasonable shifts in taxation, such as a wealth tax, those opportunities are being avoided. So too is a financial transaction tax that would affect no one but multi-billionaires. We also see a boost in subsidies to fossil fuels, and there is a real cost in the climate impacts that will happen across Canada, not to mention specifically the one I keep trying to find an answer for: cuts to the workers who should be ready in the case of oil spill emergencies. In fact, we do not have people to maintain the vessels that were purchased for oil spill emergencies, in what I would call the greenwashing of saying, “We are prepared,” and with no oceans protection plan. Where are we now for the impacts of the build Canada strong major projects?

Tom Osborne, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Liberal
“We will be fair and caring as we do this work. We will make services better for Canadians while being responsible with money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that as the government goes through this process in a fair and compassionate way, we are also committed to ensuring the services that Canadians rely on and that Canadians will get. We are absolutely committed to Canadians, to providing better services for Canadians but also being fiscally responsible.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 119

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 116 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Climate Change 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Youth 14 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 69 statements
  21. Private Members' Business Financial Administration Act 11 statements
  22. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  23. Oral Questions National Defence 11 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements