The following op-ed by PIPSC President Sean O’Reilly was published in the Hill Times on March 5, 2026.

The assumption appears to be that fewer experts can somehow do more with less—an impossibility in a system already stretched past its limits.

Canada is entering a defining trade moment.

With relations with the United States increasingly volatile, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been clear about the path forward: reduce Canada’s dependence on the U.S., and grow non-American exports by 50 per cent over the next decade.

That goal is ambitious and necessary. But it rests on a critical assumption: that Canada has the public infrastructure needed to earn and maintain the trust of global markets. Right now, that foundation is being weakened.

Cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) threaten one of this country’s most valuable trade assets: confidence in our food safety, and animal and plant health systems. At the precise moment when credibility and speed matter most, Canada is stripping capacity from the system that underpins access to hundreds of international markets.

Canada’s food and agriculture economy is worth $100-billion annually. CFIA’s $839-million budget protects that entire ecosystem of trade—an extraordinary return on investment. Yet, these cuts put it at risk by eliminating over a million hours of inspection, surveillance, and scientific expertise each year. This is not trimming bureaucracy; it is removing the experts who stop disease before it shuts borders down.

Trading partners do not take a country’s word that its animals, plants, or food are safe. Veterinary epidemiologists, disease and insect vector surveillance, and risk analysis are core trade requirements. Cutting this expertise increases the risk of undetected diseases entering Canada, and jeopardizes access to export markets by laying off the very experts who help keep them open.

Imagine an outbreak of a disease such as bluetongue, African swine fever, or even a single case of foot-and-mouth disease without adequate domestic surveillance in place. Canada would lose its export status overnight, devastating entire sectors. Without veterinarians to investigate, contain, and certify disease status, outbreaks spread faster, markets stay closed longer, and losses compound. The risk of zoonotic disease spilling into the human population also grows.

There is no plan for managing these risks under the proposed cuts.

The assumption appears to be that fewer experts can somehow do more with less—an impossibility in a system already stretched past its limits. Workload has surged in the last decade, but staffing hasn’t kept up. Already, this country lacks sufficient veterinary capacity to inspect export trucks before they leave the country. The system is operating without redundancy; further cuts risk removing the safety margin entirely.

The expertise required is neither abundant, nor replaceable. There are only a handful of veterinary epidemiologists in Canada, and only dozens globally. We cannot afford to lose them. Universities and the private sector do not maintain national surveillance systems, nor should they. If CFIA were to lose capacity, the work does not get “streamlined.” It stops.

Diversifying trade to non-U.S. markets will only increase the pressure CFIA faces. Canada’s trade negotiators cannot secure new market access without the surveillance, data, and controls provided by CFIA. Every trading partner imposes commodity-specific requirements that CFIA regulates for export.

To trade, Canada must be able to demonstrate compliance. If a large partner requires expanded monitoring—for example, for insects that may carry bluetongue—and this country lacks the capacity to deliver it, market access is lost and industry suffers the loss. Expanding market access is not achievable if importing countries do not maintain confidence in CFIA’s inspection systems. This makes the Canadian economy more reliant on the U.S., not less.

Strong surveillance is not a luxury; it is the lowest-cost alternative to export bans and preventable public-health emergencies. At a time when Canada is trying to build resilience, economic sovereignty, and independence from a single hegemonic market, weakening the CFIA is reckless and entirely unnecessary, putting billions of dollars in trade at risk.

Sean O’Reilly is the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

For 15 consecutive years, Iceland has ranked number one in the world for gender equality. Canada ranks 36th.

That gap represents more than a number. It reflects who advances into leadership, who carries unpaid caregiving work, and whose economic contributions are undervalued.

In Canada, women make up nearly half the workforce but hold just 29% of senior leadership roles. Women earn 87 cents for every dollar earned by men and report spending 4 to 8 additional hours each week on unpaid care for children and adults.

We know advancing gender equity could add $150 billion to Canada’s GDP. The case for change is not abstract. It is economic, social, and urgent.

Iceland shows what’s possible when equality is treated as a national priority, backed by policy, cultural expectation, and sustained public commitment.

On International Women’s Day, join us for a conversation with Eliza Reid – bestselling author, former First Lady of Iceland, and leading advocate for gender equality – as we explore how Iceland achieved measurable progress and what it would take for Canada to do the same.

When: Tuesday, March 10 at 1:00 PM ET

Where: Zoom

Register now

All webinar attendees will be entered to win one of 25 copies of Eliza Reid’s newest book, The First Lady Next Door.

If you have questions, please contact bettertogether@pipsc.ca.

Let’s move beyond acknowledging the gap – and start discussing how to close it.

As union members and public service professionals, we’re facing several serious threats. Thousands of public service professionals have already received WFA letters, including those who work in critical services that will directly impact Canadians. These cuts threaten the stability of our communities, the quality of life we work hard to protect, and the very future of the public service. 

We are pushing back against these shortsighted decisions. Recently, we organized an event to highlight the dangerous cuts happening to food inspectors at the CFIA – and the impacts those cuts could have on all Canadians. But we have to keep up the pressure on multiple fronts, and we need your help.

To add insult to injury, we’ve been ordered back into the office 4 days per week. This is happening despite years of demonstrated productivity, and despite clear evidence that remote work supports recruitment, retention, and service delivery. This mandate is not about performance, collaboration or better service to Canadians. 

Here’s the truth: these actions are being justified because far too many – MPs included – don’t fully understand the work we do. That’s why it’s time to make our work visible. 

We are pushing back against these shortsighted decisions. This March, PIPSC is launching our next Regional Lobby Week, so members like you can connect with your MP, share your experiences, and help build understanding of the vital work we do.

We’re looking for members across Canada who are willing to volunteer to meet their MPs and share the stories of how these cuts are putting Canadians at risk and how RTO mandates will make things worse. Can you help us?

Lobby Dates: March 30 to April 2

 Sign Up Here

You don’t need prior lobbying or advocacy experience – we’ve got your back with all the training and support you’ll need.

Once you’re signed up, we’ll follow up with details and an invitation to one of our mandatory virtual lobby training sessions. Questions? Contact us anytime at gov_relations@pipsc.ca.

Public service workers are the backbone of this country. We’ve always shown up for Canadians – now, we need to show up for each other. 

Let’s raise our voices, together in solidarity, because when experts are cut, the risk increases. Cuts today, crisis tomorrow.

The National Joint Council (NJC)  Travel Directive has been updated to reflect employees’ travel-related needs.

The updates are the result of an extensive, cyclical review of the NJC Travel Directive, which began in 2021 and involved several years of consultation, information sharing, and co-development between the Employer and the bargaining agents. 

Through this process, the parties reached agreements on a wide range of updates to modernize and clarify the Directive. Where agreement could not be reached, a limited number of outstanding issues were referred to interest arbitration and have now been resolved through an arbitration award. 

The changes outlined here reflect both items agreed to by the parties and those awarded through arbitration, updating the Travel Directive to better reflect employees’ travel needs.

For more information, see the changes on the NJC’s website. The full award is posted here.

Changes Awarded Through Arbitration

Headquarters Area 

• No change to the definition of the Headquarters Area
• This threshold is subject to further review between the parties

Dependant Care Allowance (Declaration-Based)

• The declaration-based dependant care allowance has increased:
  • From $35 to $50 per household

Dependant Care Allowance (Receipted – Professional Care)

• Where dependant care is provided by a person or organization in the business of providing care, and supported by receipts:
  • The allowance has increased from $75 a day per household to $100 a day per dependent
• Declarations will not be accepted for this allowance
• A standardized sample declaration form will be developed

Incidental Expense Allowance

• The incidental expense allowance has increased from $17.30 to $25.

Future Review of Allowance Indexing

• Rather than imposing a specific indexing model for incidentals and dependant care, the board has left it to the parties to discuss what indexing model makes sense

Effective Date (Arbitration Items)

• All changes awarded through arbitration take effect March 28, 2026

Changes Agreed to During the Cyclical Review (Pre-Arbitration)

Changes Throughout the Directive

• Streamlined terminology for private motor vehicle (PMV) to ensure consistency
• Updated references to include common-law partners
• Translation errors corrected
• References revised and duplicate language removed

General / Application

• Updated reference to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board in the grievance procedure
• Clarified the distinction between provisions applicable to travellers and employees
• Clarified that commuting to a permanent or regular workplace does not constitute government travel
• Revised the definition of temporary workplace to improve clarity
• Removed Veterans Affairs Canada hospitals from the definition of government and institutional accommodation

Administration (Part I)

• Where an employee has an aversion to air travel, management shall endeavour to schedule work using alternative travel methods
• Management may consider relocation as an option rather than long-term travel status
• Travel status may be extended in emergencies preventing timely return, with reasonable costs reimbursed when not covered by another authority
• Environmentally friendly suppliers added as preferential suppliers
• “Workplace Change” retitled Temporary Workplace Change (within the headquarters area), with clarified scope and entitlements

Insurance (Part II)

• Clarified employee responsibilities regarding vehicle insurance, and the circumstances under which insurance costs will be reimbursed by the Employer

Travel Modules (Part III)

• Wording updated for consistency across travel modules
• Updated guidance on the appropriate departments to consult for travel documents and medical services
• Clarified what types of water are reimbursable and in what circumstances
• Meals:
  • Reimbursement may exceed Appendix C or D amounts, in exceptional circumstances and with receipts
  • Clarified meal timing, sequencing, and provisions for shift workers
• Transportation:
  • Rental vehicles may be acquired the day before travel
  • Clarified authorization when business or executive class air travel is unavailable
• Incidental Expense Allowance:
  • Clarified that entitlement applies only where the employee is staying overnight in accommodation

Special Travel Circumstances (Part IV)

• Section retitled Travel Provisions for Specific Employees
• Special transportation needs provisions relocated to section 1.5.1.

Emergencies and Illness (Part V)

• Employees may return earlier or later due to personal illness, accidents, or emergency situations at home (e.g., serious illness, fire, flood, ice storm)
   

The following op-ed by PIPSC President Sean O’Reilly was published in the Ottawa Citizen on Dec 18, 2025.

Six weeks after the federal government unveiled Budget 2025, its implications for the public service are becoming clearer and more troubling.

At the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, we’ve heard from members  that fighting outsourcing remains a top priority.

During the spring election, the Liberals promised to reduce the government’s reliance on external consultants, but it’s obvious that the budget moves Canada in the opposite direction. What was pitched as a plan for discipline, modernization and efficiency is instead accelerating a decade-long shift toward outside consultants and away from in-house expertise.

Rather than strengthening the public service, the federal government has chosen once again to double down on outsourcing — the practice of hiring private consultants to do work the public service can and should be doing. This is a bad habit that’s been quietly draining billions of dollars from federal coffers for years, all while weakening the very systems Canadians rely on.

Budget 2025 even claims it will “cut back” on private consultants, but the government’s own numbers tell a different story. Outsourcing has doubled since pre-pandemic levels, and spending on professional services is projected to hit $26.1 billion this year — a 37 per cent increase from last year and a record high.

Even if the government somehow achieves its promised 20 cent reduction, outsourcing would still be roughly double what it was a decade ago. Private contractors cost taxpayers up to 26 per cent more than public servants.

It’s not even close. At best, it’s a premium price tag for duplication, delay and dependency. At worst, it weakens the very systems Canadians rely on, such as food safety, emergency response, digital security and environmental protection.

The budget makes matters worse by cutting around 30,000 public service jobs  in addition to about 10,000 that were lost last year. Replacing skilled, permanent staff with contractors isn’t efficiency — it’s erosion. Fewer public servants and more outsourcing will leave departments stretched thin, less resilient, and increasingly dependent on private-sector firms to perform core government functions.

We’ve seen this play out before. Phoenix was sold as a cost-saving reform and became one of the largest administrative failures in federal history. Billions were wasted.  ArriveCAN began as a modest digital contract and ballooned into a $60-million fiasco. Both were built by outside firms. Both continue to cost Canadians.

Contrast that with what happened when emergency struck during the COVID-19 pandemic: it was public servants — not consultants — who designed and delivered the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)  system in just six weeks. There were no million-dollar contracts, no glossy branding and no chaos. That’s what real efficiency looks like.

If the government wants to balance the books, it should reduce contractor waste before cutting scientists, analysts and inspectors. Build capacity before buying another quick fix. Canadians want a government that works for them — not one that looks “efficient” on paper while paying more to get less.

If we want real results, we need to look at who’s actually doing the work. It’s not consultants in corporate boardrooms; it’s the public servants in labs, offices, and control rooms who keep the country running.

Budget 2025 was a chance to rebuild public capacity and chart a smarter, self-reliant course. Instead, it repeats the mistakes of previous governments.

Outsourcing doesn’t make government leaner — it makes it weaker. You can’t cut your way to competence, and you can’t outsource efficiency.

Some employer email security settings are blocking union emails from reaching members. 

If you are using an employer email address to receive PIPSC communications, we recommend updating it to a personal email address.

Update my email address with PIPSC

It is important to use a personal email address to receive communications from your union for the following reasons:

Privacy: The employer can access your emails through your employer's email address. Using a personal email address keeps your information private. 

Communication: If you lose access to your employer email address, we can still reach you at your personal email address.

Time-sensitive information: Now more than ever, there are important issues members need to know about, such as Work Force Adjustment (WFA), Return to Office (RTO), and bargaining a new collective agreement. Using a personal email address for PIPSC communications ensures you continue to receive these updates.

The following op-ed by PIPSC President Sean O’Reilly was published in National Newswatch on Nov 13, 2025.

The federal government’s Budget 2025, tabled last week, promises discipline, modernization, and efficiency. Those words might sound reassuring. But as always, the real question is: efficient for whom? And at what cost to Canada? 

Budget 2025 is not an example of fiscal prudence. It is a high-risk experiment that will reach into every department, every program and every service Canadians rely on. 

One of the key takeaways of this document is the plan to eliminate roughly over 40,000 public service jobs in the next few years. When governments make changes that are this drastic, Canadians always pay the price. Food inspections slow down. Emergencies take longer to contain. Digital systems grow weaker just as cyberattacks become more frequent. 

These are not abstract risks. They are the daily functions that hold the country together.

Canadians want their government to spend wisely. Public service professionals want that too. But there is a big difference between improving how government works and hollowing out its ability to deliver. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of safety, stability or trust.

We have seen what happens when short-term savings take priority over smart investment. The downsizing of the 1990s closed laboratories and gutted regional services – hollowing out expertise for a generation. The “streamlining” of the 2010s gave us Phoenix, an IT project that still costs billions to repair. Every so-called era of efficiency ends the same way: broken programs, demoralized workers and higher bills later.

Today’s public service faces that same risk, this time under the banner of making the country stronger. The government says it wants innovation, faster service, better technology. So do we. But you cannot innovate by eliminating the people who deliver the work. You do not strengthen a country by defunding the systems that hold it together.

Behind the job numbers are people Canadians rarely see but rely on every day: the scientists who test our food and water, the meteorologists who track wildfires, the engineers who inspect bridges and the cybersecurity specialists who defend our networks from attack. Reducing their capacity does not simply shrink government; it weakens Canada’s resilience.

Public service professionals have delivered real efficiency before. When the pandemic hit, it was public servants who built the CERB benefit system in six weeks. There were no billion-dollar private contracts, no chaos, only competence. That is what genuine efficiency and innovation look like when expertise is trusted and properly resourced. The public service can and should be part of the solution, but only if it still has the people and tools to deliver.

True efficiency means smarter investment, not deeper cuts. It means empowering professionals to modernize from within, not hollowing out expertise and leaving the country vulnerable. It means investing in the workers delivering crucial public services, not relying on outsourcing to the tune of $26 billion dollars. 

Canadians want to know that when a crisis hits — a flood, a wildfire, a cyber-attack — someone is on the job. They want a government that protects what keeps us safe and stable, not one that gambles with the services we all depend on.

Budget 2025 gambles with that security. It treats the public service as a cost to be managed instead of the infrastructure that keeps our economy, environment and communities functioning. Cuts this deep do not make the government leaner. They make Canada weaker.

Behind every so-called efficiency is a service Canadians will lose. Behind every saving is someone’s safety, livelihood or access to the essentials of daily life. You cannot cut your way to competence.

If we want a government that delivers for Canadians, we must protect the people and the systems that make that possible. Because when those are gone, the damage will not just be measured in jobs — it will be measured in the safety and stability of the country itself.

Sean O'Reilly, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC)

Budget 2025 was tabled this week, and it confirms much of what we warned about in our “Five Red Flags” analysis. 

Simply put: behind the language of “discipline” and “modernization” lurks the most significant downsizing of Canada’s public service since the 1990s – with 40, 000 positions being eliminated by 2028.

While it is not yet clear what exactly will get cut, it is clear that cuts will result in losses of key public goods, particularly in environmental monitoring, data collection, and applied research.

This is not what we wanted, and not what Canadians wanted. 

Where we wanted to see efficiency, we are seeing erosion of services. Where we wanted to see strategic investment, we are seeing slashing of capacity. 

The public service is being sacrificed as a quick fix, and it will cost Canadians.

Canadians want their government to spend wisely, and public service professionals agree. But when you eliminate the people who inspect food, deliver benefits, protect data, and track wildfires, you’re not cutting waste. You’re increasing risk.

Here’s how the budget’s promises are playing out in practice, and what it means for Public Service Commission members and Canadians.

“Efficiency” language hides the cost of real cuts

What’s branded as “modernization” is, in reality, cuts, reduced capacity and service loss. Phrases like “reduced overlap,” “streamlining,” and “program consolidation” sound prudent, but are euphemisms for program cuts that risk creating gaps where no one is accountable.

Cuts like the ones proposed in Budget 2025 disrupt workflows, break mentorship chains, and scatter institutional memory – and lead to slower services and more inefficiency.

Without a plan to transfer expertise or train replacements, institutional knowledge simply disappears. Attrition is often framed as painless, but with one in ten jobs being eliminated, we know many of us are going to feel the impacts.

The language of efficiency masks the disappearance of capacity: fewer food safety inspections, slower emergency responses, weaker disease monitoring. Canadians will pay the price.

While the budget didn’t outline where every job, service or program will be cut, it did outline where we can expect some: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will close its Agricultural Climate Solutions Living Labs. The Canadian Space Agency faces $41 million in unexplained cuts. Public Services and Procurement Canada will see reduced funding for Laboratories Canada pilot projects. And while the Canada Border Services Agency plans to hire 1,000 new officers, it will simultaneously cut training budgets — undermining the effectiveness of those very hires.

These are not efficiency measures. They are dismantling the infrastructure of public service piece by piece, and creating conditions for chaos not a fast, effective federal public service.

Artificial Intelligence as a “quick fix” with long-term consequences

Artificial Intelligence plays a prominent but uneven role in Budget 2025. While the government touts cuts to “management and consulting services,” most AI and digital work still falls under professional-services contracts that depend heavily on private IT vendors.

While we welcome the “Made in Canada” tech solutions in this budget, it does not necessarily mean “made by Canadian public servants.”  We need to ensure public ownership in any new AI infrastructure to safeguard Canadian data and ensure public control and accountability.

The budget also provides little clarity on how these new initiatives will affect public-sector jobs or internal capacity. Labour must be part of AI governance to ensure protection, transparency and accountability. Unions need to be consulted at every step of the way, which is why we continue to call for a seat on the government’s AI advisory committee that currently only includes science and business voices. 

Finally, making investments in AI while cutting tens of thousands of public sector jobs is more than just a contradiction, it sets the country up to fail. We cannot build sovereign technology if we dismantle the workforce meant to run it. Algorithms and AI bots cannot replace professional judgment of human experts. 

We know that rushed automation leads to errors, delays, and costly failures. We are still living with the impacts of the CRA’s audit automation problems and the Phoenix pay system debacle.

Unless AI initiatives are paired with investment in in-house training and hiring, they will expand outsourcing rather than reduce it.

AI should be a tool to strengthen the public service, not a shortcut that weakens it.

An increase in costly outsourcing

Budget 2025 claims it will “cut back” on private consultants, but the government’s own numbers tell a different story. Outsourcing has doubled since pre-pandemic levels, and by the government’s own estimates, spending on professional services is projected to hit $26.1 billion this year – a 37% increase from last year and a record high.

We’ve heard this pledge before: past governments vowed to curb contracting costs and never came close. Even if this government’s promised 20% reduction bucks the trend and materializes, outsourcing spending would still be approximately double what it was 10 years ago. 

This isn’t fiscal discipline. It is dependence on private firms that charge up to 26% more than equivalent public service staff. Every taxpayer dollar spent on private consultants is a dollar not spent on building internal public expertise.

The result is a hollowed-out public service forced to rent back the very skills it once had in-house. That’s not efficient. That's a waste.

It doesn’t need to be this way. When the government needed to act fast during the pandemic, public servants built CERB in just six weeks. This was inarguably faster and cheaper than any private firm could have done. That’s what real efficiency looks like. When public service professionals are trusted to lead, we deliver. 

If this government truly wants to make cuts for cost savings, it should start by going after the $26 billion outsourcing bill, not the wildfire analyst, public health scientist, or engineer who keep Canadians safe.

Neglecting science and evidence

Starving public science undermines both safety and sovereignty. Budget 2025 is eerily silent on direct funding for federal science and research laboratories. There are no line items showing investment in departmental research facilities, technical programs, or the scientific workforce — even though we have been clear for years that this funding is desperately needed. There is also no mention of scientific integrity or evidence-based policy — a troubling retreat from earlier commitments.

Instead Budget 2025 threatens to cut more from Canada’s federal science and research capacity. While the specifics of the cuts are yet to be delivered, Budget 2025 included some departmental programs that will be affected: Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, among others. Meanwhile, private-sector R&D continues to receive support while public science is left to attrition.

Public science takes decades to build and seconds to cut – and consequences will be felt far beyond laboratories. They will show up in slower wildfire response, fewer food inspections, and weaker disease monitoring. 

PIPSC’s latest report, A Science Roadmap for Canada’s Future, paints a stark picture: only 6.5 percent of scientists say their department has adequate research funding; confidence in evidence-based policymaking has dropped to 44 percent; and 36 percent of federal labs are in poor or critical condition. Reports of political interference in research are rising.

Public science is already starving for resources and needs investment to stay resilient. More cuts could deliver a devastating blow — not just to scientists, but to every Canadian who relies on their work.

Forgetting the bigger picture

You can’t build a strong Canada by weakening what holds it together. What’s being cut in this budget isn’t red tape; it’s the connective tissue that keeps programs coordinated and accountable. PIPSC members are the quiet force behind Canada’s strength: scientists, engineers, auditors, computer specialists, and policy experts who make government work.

Promises of “doing things faster, simpler, better” cannot be achieved with reduced capacity, capped training, and shrinking professional development. If we truly want a government that works faster, simpler, and better, we have to start by keeping — and supporting — the people who know how it works.

Public servants already know where inefficiencies lie: poor planning, outdated systems, and costly outsourcing. They are ready to fix them. But instead of being empowered to modernize, they are being sidelined by short-term savings targets.

Without a plan, cuts will create a revolving door of quick fixes and lost knowledge. Once that expertise is gone, rebuilding it will take years. Canadians will feel the effects through slower services, weaker oversight, and less preparedness when crises hit.

The path forward 

Canadians want their government to spend wisely, and public servants share that goal. But efficiency without capacity is fragility.

The smarter path forward is clear:

• Strengthen the public service without deep cuts.
• Rein in wasteful outsourcing and rebuild internal expertise.
• Adopt AI responsibly and with transparency.
• Reinvest in evidence-based decision-making and scientific integrity.
• Focus on long-term problem-solving, not short-term optics.

We are calling on Members of Parliament to look closely at what’s being cut and who will pay the price. MPs must not simply rubber-stamp this budget. They must ask hard questions about how these decisions will affect their communities and Canada’s ability to respond to future crises.

So-called “efficiency” cannot come at the expense of the safety, stability, and public services that hold this country together.