this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
49 points (90.2% liked)

Canada

10212 readers
500 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
49
Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service (ottawacitizen.com)
submitted 6 days ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I have read the article. It doesn't answer my questions.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I have read the article. It doesn’t answer my questions.

Are you sure about that?

From the article:

On July 7, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne sent letters to ministers asking them to find 15 per cent savings over three years in their departments. He has asked them to come up with savings of 7.5 per cent during the 2026-27 fiscal year, with an additional 2.5 per cent the year after and 5 per cent in 2028-29.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.

The answers to your question, from reading the article and the platform before asking:

No, it doesn't say that in the platform.

Also, what else will ‘save’ 15% other than cutting jobs?

Ask the relevant Ministers who have access to the numbers, and the power to make decisions.

Neither has to do with the point that right now no one is being laid off, and departments are being asked to save money up to 15% over the next three years.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, the ministers aren't talking, but the unions and the PBO are.

Also the fact that departments were not asked to find only non-personnel cuts is another good indication that the warnings are correct.

Do you have anything concrete to back up the idea that all these indicators are wrong, or shall we go ahead and use Occam's razor here?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I am using the same information everyone else is spinning to come to my conclusions. The difference is I am not speculating for personal benefit, or fear mongering in order to defend my position.

Facts of the matter are clear.

The Liberal platform stated that they are committed to capping employment instead of cutting employment and “As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.”, and Government departments have been asked to save 15% over 3 years with no direct orders to cut anything specific.

If you want to play with Occam's razor be sure not to cut yourself attempting to ground your speculation and assumptions in something real.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?

And if, as you say, there's no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from "fear mongering"?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Do you have something to add or are we done here?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we're done here

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I already did what you are asking, and I won't repeat myself again.

Take care.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Um no, you claimed that people were "fear mongering" because it is to their "personal benefit" to do so.

I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney's government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn't they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

But it's only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there's a material benefit to them for speaking out.

Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you've declined to do so. Take care.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Read the article.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately for you, I did.

Economists, including Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, have said that it could be difficult to achieve Carney’s spending promises without significant cuts.

Notice how it says "could be difficult" and not "absolutely impossible".

You have now used up all good faith.

Take care.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Notice the language: "without significant cuts". The PBO did not say "without cuts". This implies that cuts are assumed, it's just a matter of degree.

Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about "personal benefit" to unions raising the alarm.

Not saying you're a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it's not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here's a direct quote:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago

Yeah, that was in June, they hadn't updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn't been announced either

Again, not saying you're a bad faith actor, but