The Decibel - How sweeping cuts could impact Canada’s public sector

Episode Date: March 25, 2026

The federal government is hoping to make room for the new spending outlined in last year’s budget by making cuts across the public sector. The goal is to save $60 billion over the next 5 years. Departments like Library and Archives Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada are reducing their workforces, while some programs, like one for public transit, are seeing funding cuts. The Globe’s deputy Ottawa bureau chief, Bill Curry, explains what we know so far about the cuts and the potential impacts on the services provided to Canadians. Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail] Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The federal government is planning to cut thousands of jobs in the public sector, including in departments like Veterans Affairs, Library and Archives, and Correctional Services. This is part of an attempt to save $60 billion over five years. We've been waiting for the details of these cuts for a while. So today, we've got the Globe's Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief Bill Curry on the show. He's here to tell us what we've learned. I'm Cheryl Sutherland, and this is the Descent. from the Globe and Mail.

Hi, Bill. Thanks so much for joining us today. Hi, Cheryl. So let's start off by understanding why exactly the government is making these cuts. Well, I think this kind of flows from the liberal platform. We heard the slogan over and over during the campaign, spend less to invest more,

and then we were waiting for the budget to find out what that would actually mean in terms of numbers. So we found out that the spend more part was about $140 billion in new spending over five years largely in areas like defense spending and major projects. And then there was the pledge to reduce spending internally by about $60 billion over five years. So clearly the spend less part is a lot smaller than the invest more part. So they certainly don't offset each other and the size of the deficit will grow,

but it won't grow by as much had they not done this cost-cutting exercise. Okay. So they're talking about $60 billion in cuts here. Can you put that number into context? Is that a lot? It's interesting. The budget had a good section there to put it in some historical context because, you know, these spending review waves come every now and then. And it's been a while since we've had a significant one. I think the most significant one in recent times would have been during the Stephen Harper government around 2011. They had a program review exercise similar in scope. And the budget kind of put this in terms of projection. direct program expenses reduction.

So this budget plans to reduce that by about 4.9%. The conservative review was similar in size like 4.5%. And then people may remember in the mid-90s, there were really deep cuts to federal spending because the debt had gotten to concerning levels. And so those reductions in the mid-90s were 14.9% reduction. So three times larger than what the government is doing now.

Yeah, okay, so 4.9% is definitely far away from this 15% that we saw in the 90s, but it's still significant in terms of jobs, right? So how many jobs are we talking about here? We are talking about, depending on what your starting point is, because the last year there actually had started to do some cutbacks. So we actually did see a 10,000 person reduction in the size of the Federal Public Service. And the budget would take that another 30,000 over the next three years. So it's a 30,000 cut from the budget or a 40,000 from a recent peak. Can you give me a sense of the size of the public sector? Like, are there concerns that it's too big?

Yeah, it's definitely a hot topic. You know, if you just look at the numbers in 2015, the size of the public service was about 257,000. And now we're about 100,000 above that. So that's a pretty big increase. It's, you know, around 40% increase. And some people will counter, well, you know, the size of Canada has grown quite a bit. But, you know, the population has only grown about 14 or 15% in that period. So it's the growth in the size of the public service is out of whack with the growth in the size of the Canadian population.

And so that's what's driving some of these concerns. Okay. How is the government deciding what jobs are going to be cut? That's a great question. We still don't really know the answer. The budget gave most departments targets overall, roughly around 15%, to find reductions in internal savings. Some were exempt from that or had lower targets, like indigenous services were exempt from those bigger targets. So that gave you one set of information.

And then through December and January, we started to see departments roll out targets for job cuts. So that's, you know, we're starting to get more specific numbers there. And then even more recently, we had the departmental plans, which the government had promised would be where we'd find all the details on the spending cuts. And we certainly don't get all the details. We get new numbers in terms of job targets. But it's still unclear as to who specifically is being cut because they are still rolling that out. And in the collective bargaining process, there's rules for this that kind of stretch out for a while. So I think it's still going to take several more months, if not another year, before the dust settles.

And we really know what positions have been eliminated. And then they also have to wait for things like buyouts, right, and voluntary departures, which will kind of offset the amount of jobs they have to cut in the end. Yeah, that's a great point. And that is really one of the delays that is occurring. So when the budget came out, that was one of the bits of news in terms of job cuts. It was that they were going to offer a significant. bio package for public servants who are, you know, meet certain criteria for years of work in the government and are near retirement. So that was of interest to a lot of people to figure out how

that might work. The budget had implied that details could come in January if the budget bill had passed by then, but the budget bill has not passed at that point. So it's still before the Senate as we speak, so it could pass any day now. And then once that happens, then the government can roll out the details of what this program looks like. Okay, so it takes a bit of time to finally get to the numbers here. So we talked about job cuts, but how else is the government planning on hitting this $60 billion number? Are there other ways?

Reading the tea leaves, it certainly looks like job cuts is going to do the lion's share of the cost reductions because personnel is a gigantic expense for the public service. But they can cut programs, and that's where it's still kind of a murky picture. We're starting to hear little bits here and there about programs being affected. This is largely coming from the public sector unions who are finding out details and letting the media know about it. There has not been a whole lot of concrete explanations from departments in terms of the jobs or programs that they are eliminating.

And the challenge is some of this can be done by stealth just because of the wonky nature of the way the public service is funded. A lot of programs are not necessarily permanent programs. They're funded for three or four years. And then when you get to the end, in the public service jargon, they call that sunseting, which just means the program's funding comes to an end. So you could have quiet cuts where a program just sunsets. It doesn't get renewed, and there's a cut there. And then it gets also really challenging because some of the documents that the government will table in Parliament will refer to programs at sunset.

even though they don't say it, but they actually do have plans internally to renew it. The challenge in going through these documents is sometimes things will look like a cut, but it's not actually a cut, that they might actually renew it as the fiscal year goes on. How transparent is the government being about these cuts? I would argue not very, and that's not necessarily a criticism of this government. It's just a longstanding issue with the way that the federal government and federal department report their spending plans to Parliament. I mean, there had been some talk that might actually improve with this new system

where we have the federal budget being tabled in the fall instead of the spring. And why that's important is because there was always this weird disconnect where the budget would come out in February or March, and then right after you would have these so-called main estimates or departmental plans. and that's the reports from departments to Parliament so that MPs can approve that spending. And they were always immediately out of date because the departments could say, well, we just had the budget, we didn't have enough time to put all the budget decisions into our documents. So there's a lot of hope that these documents would be better this time around.

But I think any improvements by my reader are kind of minor. So I think that the real information comes from parliamentarians at committees using these reports as a, as a, jumping off point to ask deeper questions of union leaders, of departmental leaders, of cabinet ministers, and through that process, we're starting to get more detail. So it sounds like there's still a lot of questions out there, a lot of work for you and other journalists to do to figure out what's going on. But let's talk about some of the specific departments and programs facing cuts, some of the things that we actually do know. I'd like to start with Library and Archives Canada. What's going on there?

Yeah, so according to library and archives, they say that they're going to save a little over $13 million by making reductions in one of their sectors, which doesn't sound like a whole lot of money. But when you look more closely at what's being cut, it's going to have a pretty significant impact. And so the section that's facing that cut is their access to information system. So just to pull back a little bit, journalists, researchers, that kind of thing, you can spend five bucks and ask any department for some government documents. and then they send them back eventually. But once they become historical documents after a certain period of time, all departments send their files over to the library and archives.

So it's like the central repository for all federal departments of historical stuff. And this can be like old spy reports, cabinet records, all kinds of interesting stuff. But once they're all sitting at library and archives, for the most part, you have to still do access to information request to get those documents. And that's the area that they are.

cutting substantially, it's like almost in half. So they, in their own words, written words, are acknowledging that this is going to mean they might not be able to meet their legal requirements under the act. So that seems like a big deal. Yeah. Well, it's, it's a big deal for people trying to write about Canadian history, that kind of thing. And it makes what was already a system in crisis worse because the globe, as you know, we've been doing this series because Secret Canada for a few years, and that was a key part of it. Yeah, and that looked at how dysfunctional this access to information already is, right? And this sounds like it's going to make it potentially worse.

Exactly. And especially for library and archives, because the Globe's reporting, it said it was so bad that historians are often going to, you know, the UK's historical records to find out information about Parliament or about Canada if they can or the United States because they're doing a better job of collecting and releasing records about Canada than the Canadian government is through the library and archives. So it's a real mess. And, you know, if anybody's in Ottawa, it's particularly bizarre because there's this gigantic,

gorgeous new building going up on the Loretton Flats, which will house the new library and archives. So they're going to have, you know, this is like over $300 million going into this incredible new building that's going to be downtown. But their core service of... producing and collecting and releasing historical records is just completely falling apart. We'll be right back. Another department facing some notable cuts is correctional services.

What's going on there? Yes, our colleague Tanya Talaga was writing about this recently. So there's a program in federal prisons where there's about 31 librarians working across 38 federal prisons that provide library services to inmates. And that, it sounds like, is going to be completely eliminated as part of the corrections spending cuts, according to the unions. You know, there's advocates who say that this goes against some, some UN human rights rules. So I think there could be some pushback about that. And one thing that the unions are concerned about in terms of those who represent correctional service officers is the canine unit.

So in prisons, there's usually a dog and the dog handler. and they're in charge of finding drugs. And I was speaking to the union about this, and they were saying, like, this is getting to be a bigger and bigger problem because of drones, you know, it's so easy and accessible to have a drone now. And so you can use a drone to drop off drugs or even weapons into a prison. And the dogs are a key part of defending against that to try to catch this. And they say that in the prison system,

there's supposed to be about 100 of these units. It's one-on-one, one dog per one handler. They're already down to 80, and they've been told by their managers that through attrition, nobody will be replaced. So as soon as a dog handler retires, they're not going to replace that. And so that's one way they're going to save some money. They've also been told that some of the security perimeter work is going to be reduced. And I went to Corrections Canada, and they confirmed that,

but they say that that can be compensated by a greater use of technology on the perimeter. or that kind of thing. Even the dog's jobs aren't safe here. No, exactly. The poor pooches. Let's talk about veterans affairs. What cuts are we seeing in that department? Well, that was an interesting one because on budget day on November 4,

there was an annex in the budget where all the major departments had a page or a page and a half explaining at a high level what they were going to do. And that mostly talked about efficiencies and trying to find 15% cut in internal savings. But Veterans Affairs was an outlier and that it did have a very specific change. It was going to change the rate that they reimbursed for medical marijuana for veterans to lower the price per gram. So that was going to save over a billion dollars. So that was one very specific cut. But now more details starting to come out again through committee hearings and from union representatives from Veterans Affairs.

And so they're saying that there's this program, you know, if you're a veteran and you're not happy with your level of benefits, and you think there's been a mistake, you can go to an appeal board and try to challenge that. And a federal program provides legal support for the veterans. And that is a program that is being cut, which Veterans Affairs acknowledges.

So, you know, you could end up creating a delay that might be a year, is now becoming a three or four year delay before you get your hearing to challenge your benefits. So that's kind of an emerging specific issue that's coming out in terms of cuts in controversy right now. on Parliament Hill.

So finally, Bill, there's infrastructure. The federal government announced a cut to this public transit fund. Tell me about that. Yeah, so Canada Public Transit Fund is a very large program. It was supposed to be $30 billion over 10 years. And the budget was very confusing on the whole issue of infrastructure and support for municipalities because they really kind of juggled a lot of programs and repackaged them, renamed it, and it was really not clear what exactly was happening in terms of the bottom

line and what cities could expect. And over time, as municipal leaders started to meet with federal officials to try to get a sense of it, they started to realize that it actually meant a significant cut to this Canadian Public Transit Fund. And so being that it was a $5 billion cut over 10 years, very, you know, it's a substantial amount of money. That is, you know, just not what cities are pushing for. Obviously, every city's, especially major cities, have got major projects that they want to go ahead with, or existing transit systems that need more funding

just to maintain what they're doing. So, you know, they aren't pulling their hair out because it is a 10-year program. So, you know, Mark Sutcliffe, the mayor of Ottawa, said there will be nine more budgets between now and then, and so they do have some time to make their case to get this program budget increased. But at the same time,

The projects that these cities are trying to get funded are long-term funding projects. So you kind of want to know what they can expect in terms of federal funding over the next few years. Okay. So the public transit, we won't be seeing, for now at least. It doesn't mean that they're going to be cutting big projects, but it's something that cities are thinking about quite a bit. Yeah. So with all these job cuts coming, what have you heard from people who work in the public sector? Like, how are they feeling about these cuts and the uncertainty that you've been talking

about. Yeah, well, the uncertainty is very real because the thing is, you know, to our point earlier where there's still so much that is unclear, that means pretty much all of the public service is in a very heightened state of anxiety. They don't know whether their own job will be affected. They don't know if the program that they are working on is going to be continued or canceled, what's going to happen to their colleagues, that kind of thing. So at a very personal level, I think, most public servants would like clarity sooner rather than later. Yeah, I can imagine not knowing your job's going to be cut, you know, even for a few months or whatever. It probably doesn't feel very good.

Do we know if the services, these departments provide, will they be affected? Like, what does the government said about that? Well, they're trying to say that they can do these cuts without affecting services. And all the union leaders will say that that's impossible. So I think we don't know the answer to that just yet. We're going to have to see how these play out. in terms of some of the examples we've discussed, you know, veterans benefits and appeals, and that's a very specific service that is now going to have less service. So, you know,

at a bigger level, I think one thing we're going to be watching for is, you know, the real big departments that provide direct service levels, Canada Revenue Agency, for instance, has been repeatedly criticized for not providing great timely service to the public in Auditor General reports, even though they had had recently pretty significant staffing increases. So now as they turn the page and they're moving towards staffing decreases, what does that mean? You know, the Employment Services Department that handles EI, employment insurance claims, that kind of thing.

Those are very direct services. Now they're going to be facing job cuts quite significant. Obviously, the biggest departments are having the biggest job number of cuts. So those, I think, are where we're watching most closely to see if things, there are, in fact, you know, delays in terms of service time for people who need specific things from the federal government. What have we learned about the best ways to improve the public sector? Like, could trimming down the size of these departments, could it, you know, make the public sector better, more efficient? Like, what works and what doesn't?

Yeah, that's a great question. And there's been some really good research on this lately. One in particular, Jocelyn Bogon, who's a former clerk of the Privy Council, in the, the mid-90s. And her experience, so she wrote a book, and her experience is very valuable right now because she was in charge of the public service at the time of those really deep cuts in the 1990s. And she said, there's kind of two ways to go at it. You can give everybody a 15% cut, and then every single program is weakened a little bit. Or is it better, in her view, it is, to go another route, which is, let's look at all the programs, which ones are your

priority programs, which ones are low priority. Let's cut the low priority. Let's cut the low priority programs entirely so that you're not harming the things that you think are really doing great work. At the moment, we're not seeing a whole lot of evidence of that. At the moment, it seems like across the board cuts is what's happening. You know, it is possible that as we learn more, there are specific programs that are being cut. But we're not really seeing major decisions in terms of, you know, perhaps an entire department.

Do we really need that department or that agency? Can it be wound down? So from what we know, Bill, will the government's plan to save money work? We'll see. I think just talking to people who are involved in these kinds of things, I think that there's a view that they might even exceed their target in terms of job cuts, the 30 to 40,000. I think it sounds like they're well on their way towards that already. And with the buyouts, given the demographics of the public service, there's a lot of people who are close to retirement. But I think the job cuts,

It looks like it should happen. And then they're going to have to decide whether that new level is, in fact, sustainable or they're going to have to adjust. Because there's also going to be hiring. It's kind of this weird disconnect because we're going to have some departments like National Defense is getting massive budget increases. So they're going to be hiring. So I think if you're a mid-career public servant and your position has been eliminated, chances are, you know, you could probably find another job because there are other departments hiring. Bill, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much. Thanks, well, Cheryl.

That was Bill Curry, the Globe's Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief. That's it for today. I'm Cheryl Sutherland. Our intern and associate producer is Finn Dermot. Our producers are Madeline White, Rachel Levy McLaughlin and Mahal Stein. Our editor is David Crosby. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pichenza is our executive editor. Thanks so much for listening. Thank you.