Ottawa's $2-billion hit list

[sanch]

Here are the cuts. Kind of like throwing peanuts at an elephant. These cuts probably took about 5 minutes to decide on and some are particularly stupid. And I am someone who believes that with technology we can slice the federal bureaucracy by 50%.

1) Cuts to museum assistance and the end to GST rebates. Well Canada may as well forget about saving the jobs that were created when the loonie was week. As anyone in any corporation will tell you rebates are an incentive and are a good promotion primarily because most people don't cash them in. And state of the art museums are being constructed in New England and New YorkState. Obviously people with families will chose these destinations over Canadian cities.

2) The elimination of funding for the Court Challenges Program is baffling. Canada is a country where the justice department will defend the rights of civil servants in court unequivocally even if there has been a violation of criminal law. Why not get rid of all the legal protections that allow for corruption in government to be covered up? Why not eliminate the indifference Canada shows to white collar crime and fine these corporate individuals who break the law? Why take the opportunity away from people who have no resources they can use to challenge a corrupt system—a system that is doubt being fortified with further resources?

It's a very patriarchal approach to government and not surprising since Vic Toews did grow up in Paraguay as a Mennonite. Canada is a very diverse country yet these cuts seem to reflect the interest of only the community Toews is MP of.

And eliminating the rights of ordinary people to challenge the system is what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. This is hardly an enlightened move.
.

Some of the programs, initiatives and other areas being eliminated or reduced to help the federal government save $1-billion over the next two years -- part of a $2-billion savings plan -- and the amount of savings for each:
$50-million: Elimination of unused funding for Northwest Territories devolution
$4-million: End to medical-marijuana science funding
$78.8-million: End to program that gave GST rebates to tourists
$11.7-million: Removal of unused funds for mountain pine beetle initiative
$46.8-million: Smaller cabinet announced in February
$45-million: "Efficiencies" in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
$4.25-million: Consolidation of foreign missions
$13.9-million: Cancellation of National Defence High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar Project
$6.5-million: Elimination of funding for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada
$4.6-million: Cuts to museum assistance
$5-million: Administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada
$6-million: Operational efficiencies at the Canada Firearms Centre
$4.2-million: Cuts to Law Commission of Canada
$15-million Elimination of residual funding for softwood-lumber trade litigation
$4.6-million: Elimination of the RCMP drug-impaired-driving program's training budget
$5.6-million: Elimination of Court Challenges Program

 

[BitWhys]

whatever. you get what you vote for.

"$15-million Elimination of residual funding for softwood-lumber trade litigation"

heh

and it only cost the industry a little over $1B to do it but, hey, what's a little externality between friends?

the horses mouth

 

[sanch]

I wasn't allowed to vote. I did support the conservatives over the liberals mainly because of the corruption issue. But Harper did not do what he said he would do which is very typical.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Yesterday, the paper headlines were hilarious.
The National Post: Canada posts $13.8 billion surplus
The Globe and Mail: $2 billion in programs get the axe.

While I don't agree with all the cuts. I seruiously think we should work harder at paying down the debt.

 

[missile]

I expected at least some cutting of the CBC budget[and am glad that it isn't on the Hit list yet!]

 

[Vicious]

Bastards. Don't they know that all Canadians expect is that the government spend money on the problem, we don't actually expect results. If they expect results a problem might get solved and then they couldn't promise to solve it come election time.

All this talk about efficiencies and value for money, that doesn't spend tax payers money. Cripe Margaret, if they don't spend all that money they take from us, they may turn around and not take so much from us next year and then we could spend it on Big screen TVs and beer. No good can come from that.

 

[Colpy]

Bastards. Don't they know that all Canadians expect is that the government spend money on the problem, we don't actually expect results. If they expect results a problem might get solved and then they couldn't promise to solve it come election time.

All this talk about efficiencies and value for money, that doesn't spend tax payers money. Cripe Margaret, if they don't spend all that money they take from us, they may turn around and not take so much from us next year and then we could spend it on Big screen TVs and beer. No good can come from that.

I believe you are misguided.

The proper concern is that, if left to spend their own money, the Great Unwashed Peasantry would spend it on "popcorn and beer", not "big screen TVs and beer".

Try to keep up.

Edited to say:

I loved it when the head of the Treasury Board got up and said in the House "Liberals will never change, this is not our money, it belongs to the taxpayers of Canada".

I could grow to like that boy.

 

[Andrew]

It's a very patriarchal approach to government.

Patriarchal? No. Common sense? Yes. Patriarchy is a term people throw around way too often, even though it has not existed for many years in Canada. Just because men are better at something than women, does not mean a system is in place to keep women down, and the reverse is true too. We are just different, and males and females are better at certain things than one another. Just because "that is the way we have always done it", doesn't make it patriarchal, no more than it is matriarchal. But without the argument that the world is patriarchal, there are whole groups of "non-profit" organizations that couldn't hold onto their multi-million dollars in government funding. But the truth is starting to come out, and more and more people are seeing through the smoke and mirrors.

Just because something is logical, doesn't mean it is wrong. There is lots of fat to cut in government, and the cuts the Tories have made account for less than 1% of government spending. With a great business approach to government, we could cut the fat by 30%, and provide the und users with even better service than they are receiving today.

 

[sanch]

True matriarchal societies are hard to find. The Iroquois had a matrilineal society where there was a strong patriarchal bias. The uncles really ran things on the female side.

I used patriarchal to refer to the authoritarian disposition of the current government. It is in large part a white male government.

I agree there is a lot of fat but the conservatives are afraid to cut it. They could cut by 50% without drastically affecting essential services. These cuts seem directed at a particular type of service and not at fat cutting.