Government Operations Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Be really quick.

[Bill Matthews]

The excessive surplus that was removed is still in the CRF. There is still a surplus in the pension plan itself.

As the minister said, the early retirement incentive, if approved by Parliament, would be funded from the pension plan, not from the money taken out.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thank you very much.

Minister, you said earlier that 16,000 FTEs are going to be reduced. We have seen reports that it's actually as high as 40,000. Can you confirm whether that's full-time or part-time FTEs? What are the exact implications of the 40,000 people who will lose their job?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

What I said is that 16,000 full-time equivalent positions will be reduced over three years.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Will no part-time jobs be lost?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

What I said was 16,000 full-time equivalents. It's in my statement.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Is the other reported number of 40,000 from other departments wrong?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

I can say what I gave in my statement. You referred to my earlier statement, so I'm sticking with that. These are detailed answers and you will not like them, so I'm sticking with that.

If you want clarity, we can go on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're out of time, but Mr. Matthews, you look like you want to respond really quickly.

[Bill Matthews]

I just want to add something for clarity. Because of the way the reductions will work, if there are 10 jobs that are identical but only seven of them will remain, all 10 people will get a letter saying their job may be impacted. You will see the number of letters issued actually exceeds the number of jobs that will be reduced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

We have a bit of extra time, so we'll probably do a couple of last four-minute rounds.

We'll go to Ms. Rochefort and then to Ms. Block, and then we'll squeeze in Ms. Church.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister Ali, I want to make a statement quickly, and also ask one question.

I've been surprised, since we've started to discuss more publicly regulatory sandboxes, by the amount of misinformation that has been circulating. I find that a section of the proposed legislation seems to always be picked out of context, and I want to point to it. It is the one that speaks to granting a minister the authority to make an order exempting an individual, association or organization for a period of not more than three years from the application of a provision of an act of Parliament under their responsibility or an instrument made under such an act.

I find that when these statements are made, they're taken out of context, and people then come to conclusions that are absolutely incorrect. There is a policy online that people can read. It's a policy on regulatory sandboxes that is really well composed. It provides scope, context, definitions and principles. It provides accountability, roles and responsibilities. I understand that there's never anything perfect, but I think a very first step, when we make public comments, is to read what's out there, what's been provided by bureaucrats who do exceptional work.

That's an important comment that I wanted to put on the record.

My question is completely different, and it is addressed to Deputy Minister Matthews. It follows Ms. Kusie's line of questioning with respect to the comprehensive expenditure review.

From that line of questioning, I'm getting a sense that there has never been, and there won't ever be, any savings from any comprehensive expenditure review the government does. Do you want to comment and maybe expand on that?

[Bill Matthews]

The conversation that was referred to earlier at committee involved what the savings will be. These reductions from the CER will be removed from departments' estimates, and this committee will get to see the main estimates with those reductions.

That being said, every expenditure exercise I have ever been involved in also happens at the same time the government is investing in other areas, and this is no different. You will see these reductions, but at the same time, you're seeing investments in other areas. The best example here would be National Defence. They've been asked to find 2% in savings, but at the same time, they're growing. That, in effect, is really a reallocation of their spending.

If you're expecting to see National Defence projections for spending next year to be lower than the current year, they absolutely will not be. The government has announced its investing in that area. You will see other departments undergoing the same thing, where they've reduced in one area, but they're spending in another.

If the committee wants to study this further, I would suggest that when you engage with departments, understand where the reductions have happened or where they plan to get the reductions, but at the same time, ask about other investments the government has made in a department that may offset the planned reductions, because this is about reallocation.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Absolutely, it is about reallocation. That is the purpose of doing expenditure reviews: to find savings so you can engage and then direct your funding to what is necessary in a particular context.

Would that be correct?

[Bill Matthews]

That is correct.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Budget 2025 also announces a reduction of up to 1,000 executives in the public service over the next two years.

Can one of you, Minister or Deputy Minister, comment on the importance of this initiative? What does it mean? What is the impact on the public service of losing this intellectual capacity?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

As we launch the comprehensive expenditure review and workforce adjustment, trying to bring our public service employees to sustainable levels, executives must also align with the workforce. This is for more fairness and transparency.

We'll be reducing 1,000 executives over the next two years. All organizations have been asked to reduce their executive workforce by 12%.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

That's it for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We'll be able to do a couple of five-minute rounds. We'll have Ms. Block and then Ms. Church.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm not sure that I'm going to take up five minutes; however, they do pass very quickly, as we are very aware, and we often try to keep answers short.

I want to go back to the intervention that my colleague Ms. Gaudreau made. I have to agree with her when it comes to the sandboxes, as you refer to them, that are included in part 2 of Bill C-15. These sandboxes, which I believe are proposed subsections 12(3) and 12(7) in the act, are at best ambiguous and only require the agreement of one other minister within cabinet, which I think would be fairly easy to find.

When you think about the fact that you are providing the ability for a minister to exempt a company or an individual at their discretion, what you are actually doing is providing a minister the ability to pick winners and losers.

My question for you is this: If the laws and regulations we have in place stand in the way of innovation, competitiveness and economic growth to the point where ministers have to provide exemptions, why are you not simply repealing them?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

As I said, there is a misconception about regulatory sandboxes. Regulatory sandboxes are to help regulations keep pace with innovation.

There are rigorous regulations around them. The minister has to justify why they're being used. I think every minister will have to do that. We're providing this tool, but they cannot just unilaterally use it without giving a justification. They have to justify it before using it. I think it's—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Minister Ali, you haven't answered my question, which is fine.

I'm going to move on and follow up on the suggestion that your deputy minister made in terms of reviewing the CER. I'm wondering if we could book one or two meetings to look at this after the estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me address that. We have an invite out for the president to come back for the CER.

Mr. Matthews, I know you mentioned a couple of other departments. Besides the one-hour meeting with the president and the secretary of the board that we agreed to, can we just add a couple after? We have the estimates, and we're filled up with the budget stuff.

That's great. We'll follow up with everyone after. Thanks.

The clock has restarted.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have about a minute and 30 seconds.