Does putting it in larger font over and over again make it more true?

Also are the reporters and editors Canadian? Not saying there’s zero influence from ownership or that the editorial slant is completely unbiased, but like, this is quoting union folks, it’s hardly some fabricated outrage from a right-wing US think-tank.

What inclines you to believe their concerns are valid?

Read the article.

I don’t think it’s possible to make budget cuts that huge without cutting staff.

Can you explain why?

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

Big font is because the people who need to read it the most - me - often overlook it.

I’m glad for it. I’m grateful the warning exists so I know I’m not debating actual news.

OK so you’re saying the quotes from the unions and PBO are fake news?

I ask because some people seem to think that “media literacy” means uncritically discarding all information from a particular outlet, rather than recognising the ways in which bias can affect what, and how, events are portrayed in media, and using that as a lens with which to interpret the mix of fact and framing that all reporting invariably has

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.