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.

403 Forbidden

(ottawacitizen.com)

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.

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

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.

403 Forbidden

(ottawacitizen.com)

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.

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

Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service - Lemmy.ca

Lemmy

(lemmy.ca)

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.

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.