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)

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