TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-07 Sitting 119 Showing 1–4 of 4

In an Adjournment Proceedings debate, the Green MP asked the government about its fiscal discipline and budget priorities. The Liberal MP assured Canadians the government is committed to being fiscally responsible while still providing services. In reality, they mostly just congratulated and assured each other without saying much substantive.

Official Hansard ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 6:15 p.m.

“I asked about cuts to the civil service. The government is cutting people who respond to oil spills. The government is spending billions on outside consultants like Deloitte and McKinsey. I want the government to spend less on consultants and use our civil service workers instead. The minister said the cuts would be voluntary, but I don't believe that. I want a clear answer on the cuts to oil spill response workers.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tom Osborne

Liberal 6:20 p.m.

“The government is cutting 16,000 jobs and 1,000 executive positions to save money. We say we are being fair and compassionate by using attrition and voluntary departures. We have an early retirement incentive to encourage people to leave. These cuts are necessary to redirect funds to other priorities.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 6:25 p.m.

“I don't like the government's budget or its cuts. They are spending too much on subsidies to fossil fuels. I want more taxes on the wealthy. The budget is not balanced. I want more environmental protection and spending. I think the government's ocean protection plans have too many cuts.”

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tom Osborne

Liberal 6:25 p.m.

“I want to look good by saying nice things about the government's plans. We will spend money on many things that Canadians want. We will be responsible with our spending. I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates