Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on Parks Canada spending and service cuts. The Conservative member said Parks Canada is cutting $145 million and about 500 jobs, ending the search and rescue dog program in Banff, and that this puts public safety at risk in places like Jasper; he argued Parks Canada should restore the dog program and save money elsewhere instead, citing executive bonuses and catering costs. The Liberal parliamentary secretary said the government values the parks but that members cannot ask for spending cuts and then object when cuts are made, pointing to deficit reduction, tax cuts, and what he described as disciplined, targeted spending. Much of the exchange went back and forth over whether these cuts were responsible fiscal management or harmful to frontline services.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

William Stevenson, Yellowhead

Conservative
“The government is cutting $145 million and about 500 jobs from Parks Canada. It is also ending the search and rescue dog program in Banff. These cuts put public safety at risk and hurt recovery work in places like Jasper. The government needs to save money responsibly, not by cutting essential frontline services.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a question I asked earlier in the year about the affordability crisis facing Canadians and the government’s costly decisions. When Canadians are working full-time but cannot afford a home, when families are struggling to pay for groceries and rent, and when people are forced to make impossible choices just to get by, Canadians deserve more than a government pointing to economic indicators and good news. They deserve responsible spending, meaningful actions and a government that understands the consequences of its decisions. As a chartered professional accountant for 26 years with tax experience, I understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. Budgets must balance priorities, spending must deliver results, and every dollar of taxpayer money must be treated with respect. Responsible budgeting is not simply about cutting costs. It is about understanding what we are losing when we make those cuts. What has been top of mind in recent days are the Liberals’ cuts to national parks. We learned late last week that Parks Canada is discontinuing its search and rescue dog program in Banff National Park, a program that has been essential for more than 55 years. The program has helped locate missing people, find avalanche victims, recover those lost in the mountains and support law enforcement locally. One of these dogs, Leroy, helped find more than 57 people during his career. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are people who were brought home to their families because of the dedication and specialized skills of these dogs and their handlers. Banff and Jasper are among Canada’s most treasured national spaces. They attract visitors from across the country and around the world. As visitation grows, and demands on our parks increase, especially with the Canada strong pass, we should be strengthening the tools that help people be safe, not eliminating proven capabilities in the name of savings. This decision raises a serious question. What is the true cost of cutting a program that helps save lives? The concerns do not end there. Parks Canada is now undertaking another round of workforce adjustments. The agency expects to eliminate the equivalent of roughly 500 full-time positions as part of its federal spending reductions, totalling nearly $145 million over the next three years. These are the people who maintain trails and facilities, protect wildlife, support visitors, preserve our national heritage and help communities recover from disasters. In Jasper, where the community and the park continue to recover from the devastating 2024 wildfire, Parks Canada employees are still doing essential rebuilding work while facing uncertainty about their own futures. These are not positions that can be written off as cost savings measures. When experienced employees leave, specialized programs disappear. We are losing institutional knowledge, frontline capacity and the ability to respond effectively when emergencies happen. Canadians expect their government to find savings, eliminate waste and live within its means. Conservatives believe in that responsibility. However, cutting essential services and jeopardizing skilled careers is not good management. Affordability matters. Canadians need relief from the cost of living, and taxpayers deserve value for money, but affordability controls cannot become an excuse for decisions that put livelihoods at risk or compromise the safety—

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“The member cannot demand that we cut spending and then complain when we make cuts. We are reviewing our spending to save $60 billion. We also lowered our deficit by $11 billion and cut taxes on income, housing, fuel, and business investments. Our plan is responsible and helps Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 43 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I fully acknowledge that Jasper National Park and Banff National Park are real treasures in our country. I have visited Banff National Park and absolutely love Parks Canada and the work that it does to preserve natural spaces, and allow people to enjoy those spaces and experience the outdoors in Canada. Canada has so much to offer the world and visitors, as well as the people who live in our great country. In terms of geography and natural wonders, we have unlimited experiences for people to take advantage of. I am glad to hear the member opposite advocate for something that he is passionate about. I empathize with him. At the same time, the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, the member opposite has said he wants fiscal discipline, but then he disagrees with the comprehensive expenditure review that our government has done. I think it was a demonstration of fiscal responsibility. We went through a pretty comprehensive exercise to look at ways to reduce government operational spending. It was a $60-billion savings exercise to achieve optimization within government operations, and that includes reductions that the member opposite is pointing to. He just does not like where those decisions are being made. However, I think he would agree that it is important for governments to do vertical and horizontal reviews, to review where there can be savings made and where government operations can be optimized, and that is a good practice for us to undertake. Simultaneously, to demonstrate fiscal discipline, we have reported $11 billion less of a deficit in the spring economic update. We just recently announced that we will be meeting the target for one of our fiscal anchors a year in advance, which is to balance our operational budget or spending with revenues. That is significant progress. I understand that there is more work to do on that, but it has created some fiscal room as well for the government to take some of these tax measures and make cuts that we have made. Significantly, we have cut taxes on income, housing, fuel and new business investment. Surely the member opposite can understand the significance of those things, given his many speeches and interventions on the cost of living challenges and affordability challenges that Canadians are going through, not to mention the Conservative Party’s repeated requests for cutting taxes. I am sure that he supports those measures. Is he saying, on the one hand, that we should cut and exercise fiscal discipline but not do it in a way that impacts anybody in his riding, or is he broadly supportive of those? I cannot understand the logic here. I think that we are demonstrating fiscal discipline. We are strategically investing in the economy. We are putting in place measures that give Canadians a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow, which is how we think about it. People need to get through the challenges they are facing today with the economic shocks that we are under, but really have hope for a future where they know that the government is working hard to create prosperity for Canadians for generations to come. That is exactly what we will stay focused on.

William Stevenson, Yellowhead

Conservative
“Parks Canada wastes money on executive bonuses and catering, but cut the rescue dog program in Banff. Winter is coming and we need these dogs for avalanches. I want the government to bring the program back.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to first say that this is all about decisions. We can look at a lot of the choices that are made with regard to Parks Canada. Last year, it gave $2 million worth of bonuses to executives and paid over $400,000 in catering. This is all about decisions. Meanwhile, the Canada strong pass reduced the amount of fees that were collected from those who were visiting, so that reduced the actual income. That is a choice that affects spending. Regarding the rescue dog program in Banff, when I first heard about this decision, I knew immediately that this was something that needed to be addressed right now, before we have deep snow and an increased risk of avalanches. We have received dozens of emails and calls already and have thousands of signatures on an e-petition that was only started yesterday. This is not a cost-saving measure. Will the government commit to reinstating the rescue dog program in Banff?

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal

Linked statement

“Our plan is careful and disciplined. We are lowering the deficit and spending money where it helps the economy and the most Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 8 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our plan is focused and disciplined. We are acting where we can make the most difference, by maintaining fiscal sustainability and discipline, and making targeted investments that benefit Canadians right across the country. That means reducing the operating deficit, meeting our fiscal anchors and ensuring public funds support growth, resilience and the well-being of Canadians. I appreciate the member opposite’s comments and his commitment to that particular program in his jurisdiction. As he said, quite rightly, it is about decision-making. The Government of Canada is doing its very best to make the best decisions for the greatest number of Canadians, and pursue the prosperity and the strength in our economy that all Canadians want to see.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 157

  1. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  2. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 13 statements
  7. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Parks Canada 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  13. Private Members' Business Points of Order 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  15. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  16. Private Members' Business Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 7 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 202 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  19. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements