Why did executives pepper public servants with invitations to retire?

I am not directly affected by the current job cuts in my department; however, I find it inappropriate and offensive to repeatedly receive emails from the assistant commissioner inviting me to register for the CRA’s Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) program.

Having received this “invitation” four times, I perceive it less as a voluntary offer and more as a form of pressure. These messages disregard the retirement benefits guaranteed under my collective agreement. After more than 20 years of service, these accrued benefits are effectively devalued, particularly since no lump-sum payment is offered to employees considering early retirement.

Not all employees earn $100,000 per year or have 30 years of service. This approach gives the impression that the employer’s primary goal is cost reduction by replacing experienced employees with lower-cost, short-term resources, at the expense of institutional knowledge and workforce stability.

Sincerely,

— Not Retiring, Just Irritated

Now let me disentangle this a bit because I think your letter raises two separate issues.

The first is about the emails themselves. Four notices from the assistant commissioner, when you’re not even in scope for the cuts, does feel like a lot and I understand your irritation. But I’d push back a bit on the word “pressure.”

The ERI had a hard application deadline of July 24. That is a very tight timeframe, so it is not surprising that HR went the mass-mailing approach to ensure that employees were aware of this opportunity. By the time this column runs, the window will have closed. The emails will have stopped.

Your second complaint is broader and speaks to the intent. You think the program is unfair, and you think you know why it exists.

On the “why,” you’re not wrong. I spent parts of my career on the inside of exercises like this one. And while I am no longer in the public service, I do know this: the public service grew a great deal over the past decade, and Budget 2025 was trying, deliberately, to bring its size back down.

The ERI is one of the gentler tools available for that. It waives the early-pension penalty, nothing more, nothing less. No lump sum, because that was never its purpose. It is not workforce adjustment. It exists so that people who are ready to leave can leave without being punished for it.

And, to be clear, nothing about the ERI touches your collective agreement entitlements. It’s a separate, voluntary lever, not a substitute for them.

I understand why that seems skewed toward people close to a full pension. It is. That’s simply how the mechanics of an early-retirement incentive work. There’s less penalty to waive for someone already near the finish line.

But I’d ask you to consider a different perspective. I have watched colleagues take early retirement and be thrilled about it; genuinely, unambiguously relieved to leave on their own terms. For some, it has opened new opportunities – whether going back to school, or making a career pivot, or travelling more.

Let me give you an example. Recently, I ran into someone I had met while working in the public service. She wasn’t an executive, and she had really enjoyed her career. But the ERI enabled her to do what she really wanted to do, which was to spend more time with her aging parent, who was dealing with progressive health issues and moving into a retirement home. She told me how pleased she was that she could do this without a pension penalty.

I’ve also seen what can happen next in the workplace through these kinds of programs. Room opens up. Files get reassigned. People a decade or two into their careers are offered opportunities they might not have seen otherwise.

Will there be gaps if too many seasoned experts leave? It will be interesting to see who takes advantage of the ERI. As of this writing, of the 68,000 eligible for the ERI, 9100 had applied for it. That’s roughly 2.6 % of the total size of the public service.

So, while I understand your annoyance at the volume of emails, I don’t agree that the program itself is a mistake.

My default position is optimism. I have tremendous faith in public servants, such as you, to contribute, to challenge and to achieve great things.

—Yazmine Laroche, Public Service Confidential