Government Operations Committee on March 26th, 2026

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here. Thank you to the officials as well.

I'll start by asking about the comprehensive expenditure review. Is it, fundamentally, a job-cutting exercise?

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

That's a very important question. Thank you for that. This is actually not a job-cutting exercise. This is balancing our operational budget over the next three years and finding savings to invest in the priorities that matter most to Canadians.

In budget 2025, we committed approximately $60 billion in savings over five years by modernizing operations, streamlining program delivery and focusing resources where they have the greatest impact. This includes bringing the public service to a more sustainable size over time, but it is about managing growth responsibly, not across-the-board cuts. This is about improving how we operate, reducing duplication, simplifying processes and delivering services more effectively.

We are also working to rely less on external consultants and build more expertise within the public service so that work is done more effectively and efficiently and at a lower cost. Ultimately, this is about respecting taxpayers' dollars and making sure that every dollar is used wisely to deliver results for Canadians and support a strong economy.

As you know, in our—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you so much for that, Minister. I appreciate it.

You're talking about taxpayer dollars and the need to use them wisely. We've heard from constituents, and I'm sure you have heard from your own constituents as well, about service delivery and the lack thereof in many aspects, whether it's at IRCC, the CRA, Passport Canada, Service Canada, etc.

We're looking at cutting up to 15% of departments' budgets. How does that impact service delivery for Canadians?

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

Thank you very much.

Again, that's a very important question. The comprehensive expenditure review is not about across-the-board cuts. It tasks departments with identifying savings by looking closely at programs and activities that are underperforming, duplicative and not core to their mandate. The goal is to find inefficiencies and improve how the government operates so Canadians get better value for their tax dollars.

A key principle of that is that savings should not come at the expense of the frontline services Canadians rely on. Protecting these services remains a priority throughout this process, and that is why some departments have lower savings targets, such as 2%, including National Defence, Women and Gender Equality, Indigenous Services and the research councils. We recognize the critical role these organizations play in delivering essential services, advancing social priorities and supporting national security, and the approach reflects that.

Our focus has been that we cannot compromise on service delivery to Canadians. This is about finding inefficiencies and duplication and finding those savings to reassign money to the priorities that matter most to Canadians.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I appreciate the services we are trying to provide to Canadians. I will register, though, that with respect to service delivery from the IRCC, the CRA and Service Canada, we're finding significant challenges on the ground. I hope you'll take them into account as we go through these cuts.

Moving on to the early retirement incentive, can you walk us through what is being proposed in this process as part of that workforce adjustment plan?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but there's no time left for a response. We are running pretty well on time, though, so we might be able to add a four-minute session after the next one. Maybe we can come back to that.

Next is Madame Gaudreau for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

President of the Treasury Board, I will be very honest. I am outraged. We are talking about services to the public. It's been over three years. Eight MPs from the Bloc Québécois have hired someone out of our own budget to take care of immigration cases. Otherwise, people would be falling through the cracks.

When I hear you say that you not only want to ensure that the services…. There are already problems with the services so explain to me how you are going to manage that because it makes no sense.

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

Our focus has been on balancing our government operational costs in the next three years and finding savings so we can invest in the priorities that matter most to Canadians.

We were elected on a mandate to spend less and invest more to build the strongest economy in the G7 and build Canada strong. That's exactly what we're focused on. We're focusing on the areas where programs were underperforming and where they were not meeting their objectives, and then we're finding those savings and reassigning them to what matters most to Canadians. At the same time, we are focused on ensuring that this exercise does not impact the delivery of services to Canadians. That has been our focus.

My friend, my colleague, if you have any areas, I'd be happy to address them. My team is here to assist if you can point out any area—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have one last question. I have a few seconds left.

Actually, that really strikes a chord. You spoke about building Canada strong. Terrebonne is currently in the midst of an election. There are ads on podcasts and on TV that talk about building Canada strong. When I am in Terrebonne, I see election signs that say “build Canada strong”.

What are the rules regarding public information and partisan messages? I am concerned about that. Ethics are important to me.

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

I'll ask Bill, my deputy, to respond to this question.

[Bill Matthews]

There is a Treasury Board policy on the subject that seeks to ensure that this is not something that can be used for partisan purposes, so—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That needs to be removed and an apology must be made. There are still a few days before the end of the campaign. That is partisan. It is the same slogan.

[Bill Matthews]

The policy requires that an independent agency review the program to ensure that the intent of the policy is respected.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're going to go to Mrs. Kusie and then Ms. Derksen.

Before we do, Mr. Matthews, could I follow up on that point? Will you get back to us on what the process is for that independent review? I've brought it up before, both here and in the House, that the budget actually uses a Liberal campaign slogan. I've also looked at the rules where it states specifically that the government cannot use messaging from campaign slogans.

Would you be able to follow up with the committee on that?

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, I can absolutely give you the policy itself as well as the process that underpins it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect. Thanks very much.

Mrs. Kusie, you have five minutes. Welcome back, by the way.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

It is always a pleasure to be here at the mighty OGGO, Chair. Thank you very much for having me.

As well, thank you very much, President, for returning.

I was recently reviewing the departmental reports, which are closely tied to the CER exercise, and I have two major concerns. The first is that the departments under your care don't seem to have a specific road map as to how they will realign, as you say, and realistically eliminate these positions.

Having served in government for close to 15 years, I know that every position comes with a line item. Your department should be providing you with this. Are you concerned that we won't actually be able to see the plan under your care and its implementation until fiscal year 2026-27, when we will see where the cuts, which will be actual positions, were made?

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

Thank you to my colleague for this important question. I can assure you we have a plan and the department has a plan and is engaged with bargaining agents as well to execute this plan.

If you need detailed clarity, just give me 30 seconds. I'll be happy to help you there—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I've given you 30 seconds already, President, and all I've heard is that you have a plan. I would really suggest you review that plan and, for the sound-mindedness of Canadians, that you release that plan.

My greater concern is that while you are going through this exercise and there is a decrease in positions, we're actually seeing an increase in spending, with 64 departments having greater expenditures in 2025-26, so it's not clear to me and I don't think it's clear to Canadians. Wouldn't the entire idea behind this significant exercise—possibly the hallmark of your time as president—be to show savings for Canadians?

Right now, there are 64 more departments that have greater expenditures in 2025-26. Don't you think that is a failure of the plan even before its implementation is attempted?

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

In fact, it's the other way around. We're saving $60 billion over five years and then we're balancing our government's operational budget in the next three years, so I think it's other way around.

Yes, we're finding savings in the areas where the programs were not performing and not meeting their objectives or where maybe there were duplications, and we are reassigning to different areas. That's where you might have some sort of confusion, but I'll be happy to assist you and explain off-line where you have any confusion.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I don't think there's any confusion. I think spending $80 billion more than you have this year alone is a very clear indicator of your and your government's inability to manage the books and balance them. Unfortunately, we are not seeing any improvement on that in this exercise.

I'm going to move on to the Access to Information Act.

There are many Canadians who are currently concerned about the changes to the Access to Information Act that your department is proposing, which include eliminating emails and texts as responses to requests for access to information in addition to allowing departments to put in place halts or pauses when access to information requests are made.

I believe that Canadians deserve transparency from their government and that these changes would significantly reduce transparency for Canadians trying to obtain information about the decisions your government has taken and your responsibility with respect to that.

Would you agree with me that government should be more transparent and that you, as the President of the Treasury Board, want to provide transparency for Canadians?

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

Thank you for the question.

I think we've been very transparent and this new government has been very transparent.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Then will you commit to not making these changes, President?