Arkouda

Do you have something to add or are we done 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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you explain why?

Read the article.

What inclines you to believe their concerns are valid?

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.

Honesty is the most important factor in any relationship.

I can give you the first one!

The book opens up with "Why does 1 + 1 = 2?", and goes on to explain an answer to the question, including ways where "1 + 1 != 2" and why.

What do you expect him to do, as in, what does a "firm stance" look like to you?