this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
49 points (90.2% liked)
Canada
10222 readers
446 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Here's the platform.
I think it is important to read the whole thing and not cherry pick.
From the article:
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.
Are you sure about that?
From the article:
You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them
The answers to your question, from reading the article and the platform before asking:
No, it doesn't say that in the platform.
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.
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:
https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo
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:
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.
Uh huh, and here's what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:
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
So that rule was mainly intended for the election season. It was relatively easy during that period for us to check and verify election related information, and there was an increased risk from harmful information being posted right before people went to vote.
The initial removal of the rule from the sidebar was a mistake on my part from when I updated the sidebar the other day to add the new communities people made. I edit the sidebar elsewhere and copy it in, and didn't grab the latest version of the sidebar like I should have.
However, since we're planning to work on the updated guidelines and recommended community rules sometime soon (+ the posts to collect feedback), we might just leave it as is and deal with things in a case by case basic till then. I'm estimating that we will be able to get that done in late August / early fall, based on what our schedules look like.
Thank you for checking! I appreciate when users keep an eye on things and give feedback, since it helps us catch issues and improve our processes
Thanks for responding and for taking a thoughtful approach with this. I would very much like the fediverse to eventually replace corporate social media, so it's good to see folks working on governance and policy with an eye to the future. And obviously I get that this can take time, especially when people are doing so on a volunteer basis.
I'd suggest, though, asking community members for suggestions & feedback early in the process, and also to seek out existing work on the topic of online community safety & governance, especially by women, BIPOC and queer folks, if you haven't already.
When I had looked through the mod log recently, there was also a case where a post from the Toronto Sun (to be clear, fuck the Toronto Sun) had been taken down with the reason being something like "American owned propaganda newspaper" and then reinstated. There at least need to be some clear guidelines around what can be posted, it can't just be completely made up on the fly.
Don't feel obliged to respond to this message, I just wanted to communicate these things to you. Thanks again
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?
https://lemmy.ca/post/48500865/17947360
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?