This example is for the prior decade, but the difference is so stark over 2003-2013 (22% public sector growth vs. 10% private) that even if the comment was conjecture, it would be a pretty good one. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/times-have-changed-p...
I'd suggest a more constructive comment might be to find an example source and ask whether it is consistent with the reasoning. These "source?" comments are low effort and degrade the quality of conversation.
It is also worth noting that the Fraiser Institute is a conservative think tank and the article does not explain their methodology. In some ways the article is contradicting itself, by making assertions that imply causation near the top of the article then admiting that correlation does not imply causation near the end of the article.
Understanding whether we are looking at causation or correlation is important here. Canada is neighbours with the largest economy in the world, with the Canadian economy being heavily influenced by the American economy. Quite often public programs are introduced simply to be competitive because the private sector is not stepping up. (At least that is the perception. That perception is important polticially.)
It's an example that is better than a comment that says, "source?" Pretty sure public sector growth outpaces private sector growth in Canada.
However, what is "stepping up," in the private sector, as if it involves putting down our cigars and caviar and having our butlers open the jobs lever a bit, I'd suggest there is a broken ontology at play.
I found that Fraser Institute article first and went through the effort of finding the actual Statscan data because I'm well aware that a significant slice of Canadians will disregard anything coming from the Fraser Institute. I've been hearing about they're an evil organisation funded by American Corporations since I was a wee lad hearing my socialist family complain about the latest Fraser Institute study published in our local Postmedia paper. They implored me never to trust them!
In any case, their claims seem to line up with the Statscan data to me, and I don't see where else they would have gotten this data from.
I'd suggest a more constructive comment might be to find an example source and ask whether it is consistent with the reasoning. These "source?" comments are low effort and degrade the quality of conversation.