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.
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.
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’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?