this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
49 points (90.2% liked)
Canada
10206 readers
453 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- 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
I do not remember a single part of the Liberal election platform that said "We won't cut funding in public services". The only thing I can remember being exclusively off the table were cuts to Provincial transfers.
It would be nice if the article cited those promises, but that is the Ottawa Citizen (Post media) for you.
We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment. Federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis. As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.
I think it is important to read the whole thing and not cherry pick.
The federal government has been spending too much. There are federal programs and processes that aren’t working as well as they should, and projects that need to be reviewed as we adjust to the priorities of this challenging moment. We need to be efficient and effective in all that we spend, while empowering a world-class, tech-enabled public service.
A Mark Carney-led government will launch a comprehensive review of government spending in order to increase the federal government’s productivity. This review will focus on clear targets by departments and Crown Corporations with an iterative process that deploys best approaches across the public sector. A portion of these savings will be redeployed to invest in technology and people in order to improve the quality of what the federal government does, such as reducing the time it takes to process an EI payment. Some examples of what the review could focus on:
Amalgamating service delivery so there is one point of access for Canadians in how they interact with government programs, that meets the customer service standards we have come to expect in a digital enabled economy.
Consolidating grants and contributions that serve similar purposes and are delivered to the same organizations across multiple departments, increasing impact.
Better leveraging technology to improve the automation of routine tasks and inquiries from the public and reducing the need for additional hiring. Significantly reducing reliance on external consultants, while improving the capacity of the public service to hire expertise in-house.
Better managing litigation and contingent liabilities and improving asset management practices.
Following the initial results of this review, we will institute a permanent process to link spending and outcomes across departments and continuous improvement in spending control. We will focus performance on a smaller and clearer set of things that matter to real people, such as the number of homes built and how long it takes to get an EI cheque.
As part of this review, the government will consider where AI can be leveraged to enhance productivity in government. We will look at every new dollar being spent through the lens of how AI and technology can improve service and reduce costs.
We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment. Federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis. As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.
Additionally, recognizing that it’s time to change the way Canada does procurement, we will modernize our defence procurement to ensure our Forces can buy the tools and equipment they need, in a timely way, working with trusted partners.
As a result of the main investments and savings proposed in this plan, direct program expenses are projected to grow at an average rate of less than 2% per cent per year through 2028-29. This compares to a compound annual growth of nearly 9 percent over the previous decade. This is what spending less, and investing more is all about.
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.
I am not seeing a promise broken here. The departments are being asked to come up with savings, and those savings are not "Lay off everyone" as is being suggested by the Unions. We currently do not know what each department will look to trim.
I'd hardly call it "cherry picking" - "We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment" is a complete statement unto itself, and constitutes an election promise. There's no ambiguity, and there are no caveats provided.
If you want to make the argument that they intend to reduce departmental budgets by 15% without cutting staff...I'm willing to listen to it, but I don't think it's likely to happen. And the departments don't appear to have been instructed to do so.
It is cherry picking because it ignores the entire context of the place you picked it from, including the last sentence of the paragraph: "As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians."
The way I read this is, which is why context is important, "We are committed to capping employment where it is instead of hiring or cutting employees". This does not mean the need to cut employees will never exist, simply the priority will be operational budgets outside of employees.
Yes, they are committed to not cutting public service employment as per the Platform. Which means that the 15% of savings per department should not be employees. As of now, we do not know what is or isn't being done to save that 15%, and there has been no announcement of mass layoffs.
If it is needed to cut employees because they are redundant, and it does not impact service, I do not see that as breaking an election promise.
Again, nothing has been announced. Even the article itself can cite nothing concrete and simply assumes its points.
You're free to give them the benefit of the doubt. The union is not obligated to, and I'm inclined to think their concerns are very valid.
What inclines you to believe their concerns are valid?
I don't think it's possible to make budget cuts that huge without cutting staff.
Can you explain why?
Payroll is a large portion of any budget, and I haven't seen any credible claims that it's possible to cut round it, or that they're even trying.
What percentage of the Federal budget is payroll?
What credible evidence have you seen to support that it isn't possible to "cut round it"?
What credible evidence do you have that demonstrates the Federal Government isn't trying to avoid employment cuts?
Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.
Also, what else will 'save' 15% other than cutting jobs?
Read the article.
I have read the article. It doesn't answer my questions.
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.
You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them
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.
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?
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.
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"?
Do you have something to add or are we done here?
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
I already did what you are asking, and I won't repeat myself again.
Take care.
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.
When you can provide a single piece of anything to support your point I am all ears.
Read the article.
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.
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
Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.
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
Here's a direct quote from the PBO on June 5th when asked about the Carney Liberals' planned tripling of the defense budget and simultaneous tax cuts:
“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
The Liberals' platform explicitly talked about capping the size of the public service, not cutting it. It's frankly ridiculous to pretend they never said this.
From your source. Again.
Currently, the main estimates don’t suggest major cuts to the public service, Giroux said.
Uh huh, and here's what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:
Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.
“Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.
You're not arguing I'm good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you're willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.
@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn't just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.
That constitutes deliberate misinformation.
If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of "civility" for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.
Hi, we're discussing this one with the other admins and someone will get back to you soon. I've reapproved the comments in the meantime.
Appreciate the update, thanks
Hi patatas,
We had a chance to discuss this post and what we can do differently in the future. You raised some good points in your communication with us, and I've copied it in to our notes for future guidelines / recommended community rules. Thank you for reaching out, we're keeping the comments approved.
Quick question sorry: did rule 2 get removed from the sidebar? I don't see it anymore
That is fantastic to hear! Thanks.
Why are you continuing to cite an article that you yourself said is outdated, and are stating I am operating in bad faith by citing the conclusion of the article?
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
If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:
I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.
That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.
@otter@lemmy.ca if it is "uncivil" to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?
Has anything actually gotten better in Canada while we inflated bureaucracy 40%?
I can't see a single thing personally so I'm actully curious.