Conservatives cancel $4.7M arts travel program

[maldon_road]

Holy F--k!

That's one of the groups that got a grant. If the program's recipients have included "a general radical," and "a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank" why not just tighten up the criteria for a grant?

Conservatives cancel $4.7M arts travel program

Risqué groups got most of the money: official

The federal government will cancel a program today that sent artists abroad to promote Canadian culture because the program's grant recipients included "a general radical," "a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank" and a rock band that uses an expletive as part of its name.

The Conservatives are cancelling the $4.7-million PromArt program, administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, because most of the money "went to groups that would raise the eyebrows of any typical Canadian," said a government official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The move is sure to provoke a backlash in the Canadian cultural community, already angry at the Tories for tinkering with the funding criteria for other arts programs, most famously for pending legislation that would prohibit federal funding of films and TV shows the government might find offensive.

Tal Bachman, son of legendary Canadian rocker Randy Bachman, received a grant of $16,500 to help pay the cost of a music tour to South Africa and Zimbabwe. "I think there's a reasonable expectation by taxpayers that they won't fund the world travel of wealthy rock stars, ideological activists or fringe and alternative groups," a Conservative government source said.

The cut is part of an ongoing government-wide review to trim spending, but the department's PromArt program became an easy target when senior Conservatives discovered that some recipients of taxpayer-funded foreign travel were "not exactly the foot that most Canadians would want to see put forward."

The recipients singled out by the Conservatives include:

*** $3,000 to Toronto-based experimental rock band Holy F--k for a week-long tour of the United Kingdom.

*** $5,000 to former CBC broadcaster Avi Lewis, who now works for Arab television network al-Jazeera and who is described in a Conservative memo as "a general radical," to help pay for his travel to film festivals in Australia and Argentina....

ARTS GRANTS

[normanchateau]

If the program's recipients have included "a general radical," and "a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank" why not just tighten up the criteria for a grant?

Tightening up the criteria would require intelligence, creativity and self-discipline, not something one can expect from the Harper Conservatives. For this inept crew it's simpler to get rid of the entire program, create talking points about the most outrageous grant recipients and pretend to be fiscal conservatives. The incompetent and fiscally irresponsible Harper has now driven Canada into two consecutive months of deficit after squandering billions of the surplus in 2006 and 2007 through increased spending:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

[White Doors]

good decision!

[jdobbin]

Tightening up the criteria would require intelligence, creativity and self-discipline, not something one can expect from the Harper Conservatives. For this inept crew it's simpler to get rid of the entire program, create talking points about the most outrageous grant recipients and pretend to be fiscal conservatives. The incompetent and fiscally irresponsible Harper has now driven Canada into two consecutive months of deficit after squandering billions of the surplus in 2006 and 2007 through increased spending:

I'd be happy if they cancelled the train in Flaherty's riding.

[capricorn]

If the program's recipients have included "a general radical," and "a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank" why not just tighten up the criteria for a grant?

The Treasury is not overflowing in cash as it once was. It's true the Conservatives have made large expenditures of late. Just like any household that overspends (whether or not the overspending was justified) the first things to cut are frills. Grants are frills. Tightening the qualifying criteria will not result in any cost saving or reduction of the bloated federal bureaucracy.

For those fretting about economic disaster, let's not jump off a pier over a couple of months of negative financial numbers. If a year-end deficit is posted we can all go into depression together.

[TomS]

Tightening up the criteria would require intelligence, creativity and self-discipline, not something one can expect from the Harper Conservatives. For this inept crew it's simpler to get rid of the entire program, create talking points about the most outrageous grant recipients and pretend to be fiscal conservatives. The incompetent and fiscally irresponsible Harper has now driven Canada into two consecutive months of deficit after squandering billions of the surplus in 2006 and 2007 through increased spending:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

It sounds like you agree, that tightening up the criteria is a good idea, but you don't think the Conservative Government has the required characteristics to do the job. Let me guess, the Liberals who continued to fund it without changes for eleven long years has all the required qualities to fix their mistake now. Allowing Canadians to keep their own money through tax cuts could only be described as "squandering" by a Liberal, ( including NDP as Liberals ). That surplus was created by over taxing hard working Canadian citzens, it was used as a winfall by the previous Liberal government, but it was never theirs to "squander" although they did.

[jdobbin]

For those fretting about economic disaster, let's not jump off a pier over a couple of months of negative financial numbers. If a year-end deficit is posted we can all go into depression together.

And elect a party who have a proven reputation of not running a deficit?

[jdobbin]

Allowing Canadians to keep their own money through tax cuts could only be described as "squandering" by a Liberal, ( including NDP as Liberals ).

It was the Liberals, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who made the largest tax cuts. It has taken three years for the Tories to match 2005's cuts. Of course, the Liberals didn't run a deficit to do so.

[TomS]

It was the Liberals, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who made the largest tax cuts. It has taken three years for the Tories to match 2005's cuts. Of course, the Liberals didn't run a deficit to do so.

You failed to respond to the other half of the statement regarding the Liberals funding this program for eleven years and their ability to fix their mistake now. Maybe you didn't see that part?

[jdobbin]

You failed to respond to the other half of the statement regarding the Liberals funding this program for eleven years and their ability to fix their mistake now. Maybe you didn't see that part?

Unlike yourself, I don't know that it was a mistake.

I know that the conservatives dislike the arts receiving money because they think it as elite and it is there right to cut the program if they feel like it. However, I don't really feel much like going on a book burning based on present day politics. Picking and choosing what receives funding inevitably awards the bland if is based on what on generics.

It is best left to some arm's length organization if it is going to happen at all.

[capricorn]

And elect a party who have a proven reputation of not running a deficit?

I take it that you are extremely concerned over a couple of months of negative numbers. In your view does this mean that the Conservatives are establishing a pattern of operating in a deficit, in other words a reputation of running a deficit? Are you predicting that the Conservatives will end the year in deficit?

You brought up the Liberal reputation of not running a deficit so I will address this point. I will grant you that the Liberals were very creative in avoiding deficits. I think specifically of their misuse of the EI fund which was essentially the tool by which deficits were avoided while keeping spending high.

During their years as prime minister

and finance minister, Jean Chrétien

and Paul Martin have presided over

a remarkable restoration of federal

fiscal health. The federal budget for fiscal year

1993/94 showed a $42 billion deficit; this fiscal

year, current indications are that the budget

may reach a $7 billion surplus. The employment

insurance (EI) program has made a major

contribution to this turnaround. While EI premium

revenues fell slightly short of program

costs in 1993/94, premium collections in

1998/99 will likely exceed costs by about

$7 billion.

Now, however, EI’s key role in improving

federal finances presents the government with

a problem. EI is supposed to be a social insurance

program, collecting insurance premiums

from employers and employees to fund benefits

to workers who lose their jobs. Since 1986,

the EI account has been consolidated with the

rest of the budget, on the grounds that a statement

of Ottawa’s fiscal position that left out

such a large program would be seriously incomplete.

But the Employment Insurance Act requires

that, over time, EI premiums and

payouts should roughly match and that premium

rates should be set accordingly. Now

that several years of revenues running well

ahead of expenditures have driven the cumulative

surplus in the EI account to almost $19 billion

— roughly equal to annual contributions

— something has to give.

But what? The federal government, which

wants to keep premiums high to fund other tax

cuts, pay for new spending, and still leave

something over to guard against a return to

deficits and, with luck, pay down some debt,

appears to be planning changes to the EI act

that would allow the cumulative surplus in the

account to keep building for the foreseeable future.

Doing so, however, would expose the EI’s

insurance label as a fraud, raising serious

questions about political accountability and

even legality.

----

Both Parliament and the public need clear,

consistent labels on government programs in

order to understand and control the nation’s finances.

It is hard for parliamentarians to know

what they are actually voting for if programs

are misleadingly named and if funds ostensibly

raised for one purpose are diverted to another.

---

These concerns are serious: they go to the

heart of representative government and the

ability of the public to hold Parliament accountable

for its use of public funds. If Canadians

are to consider keeping EI premiums

higher than are needed to cover benefits or,

even more extraordinary, to tolerate an appropriation

of the cumulative surplus in the

account for other purposes, there had better be

some very compelling reasons for doing so.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/kbkool-4.pdf

As a result, the Conservatives have been left with a serious fiscal problem to solve. This should be kept in mind by those who accuse the Conservatives of being fiscally irresponsible.

[jdobbin]

I take it that you are extremely concerned over a couple of months of negative numbers. In your view does this mean that the Conservatives are establishing a pattern of operating in a deficit, in other words a reputation of running a deficit? Are you predicting that the Conservatives will end the year in deficit?

Praying it doesn't happen with their out of control spending.

You brought up the Liberal reputation of not running a deficit so I will address this point. I will grant you that the Liberals were very creative in avoiding deficits. I think specifically of their misuse of the EI fund which was essentially the tool by which deficits were avoided while keeping spending high.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/kbkool-4.pdf

As a result, the Conservatives have been left with a serious fiscal problem to solve. This should be kept in mind by those who accuse the Conservatives of being fiscally irresponsible.

I'm afraid your 1998 is totally out date. Please use something more current.

[capricorn]

Praying it doesn't happen with their out of control spending.

Maybe cutting these grants is a first step in having your prayers answered.

I'm afraid your 1998 is totally out date. Please use something more current.

OK since you asked so nicely.

Your reference to “reputation of not running deficits” includes the 1998 budget and is valid. The article I linked addresses the chronic misuse of the EI surplus by the Liberals up to 1998. Anyway, here is what the AG said in 2004.

Employment Insurance fund surplus still too big: auditor general

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has once again slammed Ottawa for running huge surpluses in the Employment Insurance fund.

In her latest report, Fraser said the federal government took in an extra $2 billion in the last fiscal year, pushing the EI surplus to a massive $46 billion.

Fraser said that figure is more than three times the maximum reserve that the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada considered sufficient in 2001.

"Parliament did not intend that a surplus would accumulate beyond what could reasonably be spent on Employment Insurance," the auditor general noted.

Fraser added that she believes the government has not observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

The whopping surplus in the EI fund is something that the auditor general has criticized each year since 1999, and she urged the government to take the necessary steps to resolve it.

The EI surplus has been a frequent target for the government's critics, who say the Liberals should lower premiums or pay out more in benefits.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/11/23/A...lus-041123.html

And in 2005, this from the Winnipeg Sun on the $46B surplus in the EI fund.

If there was any hope the federal government may begin repaying the enormous employment insurance surplus it's been sitting on for the past few years, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale quashed it yesterday during a one-day stop in Winnipeg.

The federal government has been racking up massive surpluses in the employment insurance account since the mid-1990s, handing out about $3 billion less in benefits than they're taking in from premiums.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has been slamming the government over the past four years for the surpluses, demanding that Ottawa do something about the $46 billion it's accumulated since 1995.

But when asked about it yesterday, Goodale -- who was bragging to a Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce breakfast crowd about how financially responsible the federal Liberals are -- shot down any idea of repaying that debt.

"It's not money in an account," Goodale said. "All of the revenue that comes to the government from EI premiums goes into the consolidated revenue account."

--

Goodale says if they take in more money than they pay out in any given year, they just keep the money. He justifies that by saying if the fund can't meet its obligations in another year, the federal government picks up the tab through general revenues.

That sounds good on paper. Trouble is, there's no way this fund is ever going into deficit because they've slashed benefits so deeply, it's almost impossible to go into the red.

Part of the savings comes from the fact that a huge number of workers who now pay into the fund aren't eligible for benefits.

Military personnel, for example, pay into the fund but can't claim benefits.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists...13/1214253.html

You raised the reputation of Liberals of not running a deficit. Don’t try to dance around the fact that the Liberals misused the EI fund to avoid deficits and to help fund their spending. It’s too well documented to be countered.

[jdobbin]

Maybe cutting these grants is a first step in having your prayers answered.

I'll be believe significant restraint is happening when the Tories meet their pledge from the election on spending. So far they have breezed past it unapologetically. And with spending announcements of $4 million a day, it is one step forward, 60 steps backwards.

You raised the reputation of Liberals of not running a deficit. Don’t try to dance around the fact that the Liberals misused the EI fund to avoid deficits and to help fund their spending. It’s too well documented to be countered.

And what will the Tories do when they run an annual deficit? Probably hide it. It is too well documented in regards to Flaherty to be countered.

[Wilber]

And elect a party who have a proven reputation of not running a deficit?

Don't get too cocky, they are the party which started the present deficit.

[jdobbin]

Don't get too cocky, they are the party which started the present deficit.

True. And ended it. Some of the critics on these forums have said it really didn't end and that it was hidden.

[Wilber]

True. And ended it. Some of the critics on these forums have said it really didn't end and that it was hidden.

I wouldn't say hidden but a big part of it was downloading to the provinces, surely you won't dispute that. The Liberals ran monthly deficits during surplus years, it remains to be seen what the Tories will do. The fact also remains that the present government would have to be well over 20B in deficit to erase the debt reduction they have done in the past two years. I'm waiting to see how they will react to the down turn in the economy.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't say hidden but a big part of it was downloading to the provinces, surely you won't dispute that.

And yet most of the provinces run surpluses anyway.

[capricorn]

And what will the Tories do when they run an annual deficit? Probably hide it. It is too well documented in regards to Flaherty to be countered.

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves by projecting about hiding a deficit which has yet to materialize? One thing that is not imaginary is that the Conservatives have taken steps to protect the EI fund from being used for unintended purposes.

After years of complaints about Employment Insurance (EI) premiums that are set higher than what is required to pay for the EI program, the federal government has created a new Crown corporation to manage the EI Account. This will ensure that future EI premiums are used exclusively for the EI program and do not feed into general revenues. The new Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will ensure that any surplus on the EI account going forward will be invested; future surpluses will allow a lowering of EI premiums. In order to provide rate stability, the maximum annual change in the premium rate set by the CEIFB will be 15 cents.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/budget/

Promise made in the 2008 budget and promise kept by the Conservatives.

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't say hidden but a big part of it was downloading to the provinces, surely you won't dispute that. The Liberals ran monthly deficits during surplus years, it remains to be seen what the Tories will do. The fact also remains that the present government would have to be well over 20B in deficit to erase the debt reduction they have done in the past two years. I'm waiting to see how they will react to the down turn in the economy.

I don't dispute it. And provinces were ending their deficits as well and offloading to the cities who offloaded to the citizens.

Tory spending is out of control at the moment and with a downturn we might very well have a big problem.

[jdobbin]

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves by projecting about hiding a deficit which has yet to materialize? One thing that is not imaginary is that the Conservatives have taken steps to protect the EI fund from being used for unintended purposes.

Given Flaherty's reputation, it is best to be prepared.

Promise made in the 2008 budget and promise kept by the Conservatives.

Income trust. Promise made. Promise broken. Gas excise tax. Promise made. Promise broken. Spending cap. Promise made. Promise broken.

[Wilber]

And yet most of the provinces run surpluses anyway.

Sure, because the downloading carried on. Think of all the things that are user pay on every government level now, that were not before (if you are old enough). All levels of government shed responsibilities they had before, many of which they invented and took on themselves because they wanted votes. I don't see any hero's here, just a bunch of people who were finally forced to live within their means.

[Smallc]

Sure, because the downloading carried on. Think of all the things that are user pay on every government level now, that were not before (if you are old enough). All levels of government shed responsibilities they had before, many of which they invented and took on themselves because they wanted votes. I don't see any hero's here, just a bunch of people who were finally forced to live within their means.

Running a country is a constant juggling act. Previous governments got in over their heads. That has been largely corrected, and hopefully it stays that way.

[Wilber]

Running a country is a constant juggling act. Previous governments got in over their heads. That has been largely corrected, and hopefully it stays that way.

Couldn't agree more, however human nature doesn't change much although we would like to think so. Didn't Mark Twain say, "History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes", or something like that?

[Smallc]

Couldn't agree more, however human nature doesn't change much although we would like to think so. Didn't Mark Twain say, "History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes", or something like that?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with that. If only we would learn.