this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
50 points (90.3% liked)

Canada

10635 readers
712 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
50
Union claims prime minister broke promise to 'cap, not cut' public service (ottawacitizen.com)
submitted 3 months ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (13 children)

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.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (12 children)

From your source. Again.

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

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

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.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

https://lemmy.ca/post/48500865/17947360

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

@otter@lemmy.ca if it is "uncivil" to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)