Tories cut $1.1 billion over two years

[August1991]

The federal government is cutting research into medical uses of marijuana to save $4 million, as part of $1 billion in savings it expects to make over the next two years.

Treasury Board president John Baird mentioned the cut as one example of about $20 million in specific savings he described in a short briefing on Monday. The savings will total nearly $1.1 billion over the next two years according to the Department of Finance website.

CBC

The CBC leads with marijuana. Right. Who is going to howl on that?

The big item is the allocated $380 million that the bureaucrats didn't manage to spend. (The end of fiscal year would make any taxpayer cry. It's real money.... )

The other interesting item the CBC notes is the $78.8 million for GST refunds to foreigners. (That was an invitation to fraud.)

Peanuts? Overall, the Tories just took one 25 cent can of house brand Cola out of a $100 dollar grocery cart. It'll make no difference to the monthly budget but we're going in the right direction.

[watching&waiting]

Many of the things they have cut funding to I agree with. Some of the things though i would have to think about, but so far from what I have seen on the news about this, I feel it was in the right directions and I will await a more indepth accounting before I say for sure.

[M.Dancer]

Anyone can remove a tumour, but it takes a surgeon to ensure the patient doesn't die. Cuts for cuts sake is a tried a true way of pandering for votes. But are all the cuts justified.

The Harperites intend on cutting 13.9 million from the surface wave project....someting about innovation scares the non progfressive conservative?

http://www.ottawa.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/html/RS-211-hfswr_e.html

Will the GST exemption for tourists have a negative effect on tourism? Not if the Tories can lower the CDN$.

[daniel]

I've said it during the Harris Common Sense Revolution and I'll repeat it. Regardless if there is a deficit or a surplus the raison d'etre of the Conservatives is to cut-cut-cut.

[Renegade]

I've said it during the Harris Common Sense Revolution and I'll repeat it. Regardless if there is a deficit or a surplus the raison d'etre of the Conservatives is to cut-cut-cut.

Wrong! Their reason d'etre is to keep their supporters supporting them and garner more support. Their supporters want less government not more, and until that changes that is what they should do.

There are two factors which make up a government deficit or a surplus: The amount the government spends and the amount the government collects.

If it deems (correctly) that it is spending too much, it shoudl cut, independ of how much it collects, and hence independant of if there is a surplus or deficit. However, the right fiscal thing to do would be to adjust the amount collected so that surplus is eliminated.

[Renegade]

Will the GST exemption for tourists have a negative effect on tourism? Not if the Tories can lower the CDN$.

Most tourists aren't even aware of the GST let alone the GST exemption. It will have close to no impact.

[Remiel]

Surface wave project? Is that the one with the idea that you could power a huge country with X mile of coastal wave energy collectors? That should definately not be on the chopping block. As for medical marijuana, I don't know. I've never smoked anything (unlike 50% of Canadians). Is there a complete breakdown available?

[geoffrey]

Surface wave project? Is that the one with the idea that you could power a huge country with X mile of coastal wave energy collectors? That should definately not be on the chopping block.

This is the problem with Canadians, they get some wrong impression and then judge a government on it. The Surface Wave Project is a military expenditure for some costal defense radar concept.

As for medical marijuana, I don't know. I've never smoked anything (unlike 50% of Canadians). Is there a complete breakdown available?

Could care less what you smoke. Which projects/areas were cut, or do you know? Why assume?

It's an easy story to spend, but the facts prove the cuts far more reasonable. I figure another 30% of total expenditures and I'd be happy.

[Remiel]

Cut, cut, cut.

It's just as easy to do a poor job of cutting as it is to do a poor job of spending.

Anyway, I'll thank you at least for correcting me on the Surface Wave Project... that sounds something like the idea of having submerged radar bouys that rise up when something passes over them? I didn't think that was such a bad idea either, especially in the new age of " sovereignty awareness " .

As for cutting 30% out, thats like 60 billion, is it not? You're dreaming.

I forget the exact numbers, but if debt repayment is 50% of the budget, 30% is really 60%, if its 66%, 30% is really like 87%.

[geoffrey]

Cut, cut, cut.

It's just as easy to do a poor job of cutting as it is to do a poor job of spending.

Anyway, I'll thank you at least for correcting me on the Surface Wave Project... that sounds something like the idea of having submerged radar bouys that rise up when something passes over them? I didn't think that was such a bad idea either, especially in the new age of " sovereignty awareness " .

As for cutting 30% out, thats like 60 billion, is it not? You're dreaming.

I forget the exact numbers, but if debt repayment is 50% of the budget, 30% is really 60%, if its 66%, 30% is really like 87%.

Exactly, I don't think we need most of Federal spending there. Half are provincial responsibilities and should be funded as such. There should be no Federal health spending for example, it's not their jurisdiction. Same with housing development, that's a provincial responsibility. Most social programs can be cut, I'd keep CPP and a very scaled back EI, that's it, that's all. Everything else, who cares, let them stand on their merit.

50% in debt repayment isn't right, but we'll work with it, it's more like 30%.

Both national parties (actually, only the CPC is a national party right now) have failed us before every step of the way, when will we realise that it's easy to keep a provincial government accountable? When will we realise that provincial governments are more responsive to the needs of citizens?

[Remiel]

Only the CPC is a national party? Where the hell did that come from?

[M.Dancer]

Only the CPC is a national party? Where the hell did that come from?

The poster is under the mistaken belief that only the CPC had MPs in every province?

[Remiel]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, M.Dancer, but if that is the case... To judge whether a party is national based on seats and not votes is a joke in a first past the post system. Its twisting the results to find a conclusion that isn't really there. Besides, the only province they don't have one is Alberta, and the Conservatives radiate from Alberta, and some of those races were very close. Also, to say that the Conservatives are the only national party is also wrong because they have no seats in the territories. So, if you take territories as well as provinces, the Liberals have seats in more areas than the Conservatives, so you can forget to ridiculously misleading statements.

My mistake, none of them were close, but Landslide Annie still managed 38% versus 44% for the winner. In any case, looking at the results, since all of Alberta except for a few ridings in Edmonton votes overwhelmingly Conservative, it would seem that they have a disproportiate liking for that party. The west dislikes the Liberals because their policy seems to radiate from Ontario and Quebec, so they claim the Liberals arent a national party. The same argument applies to the Conservatives too though. If their policies come overwhelmingly from one province, how can they be truly national?

[M.Dancer]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, M.Dancer, but if that is the case... To judge whether a party is national based on seats and not votes is a joke in a first past the post system. Its twisting the results to find a conclusion that isn't really there. Besides, the only province they don't have one is Alberta, and the Conservatives radiate from Alberta, and some of those races were very close. Also, to say that the Conservatives are the only national party is also wrong because they have no seats in the territories. So, if you take territories as well as provinces, the Liberals have seats in more areas than the Conservatives, so you can forget to ridiculously misleading statements.

I was honestly asking if that was the reason the poster said the CPC was the only national party.

The only p[rovince the CPC is absent is PEI (as well as the terrirtories)

[Renegade]

50% in debt repayment isn't right, but we'll work with it, it's more like 30%.

You guys are way off in your assumptions on how much is paid to service the debt:

12 cents of every revenue dollar would go to servicing the debt in 2013–14, compared to more than 16 cents in 2004–05.

link

[M.Dancer]

Will the GST exemption for tourists have a negative effect on tourism? Not if the Tories can lower the CDN$.

Most tourists aren't even aware of the GST let alone the GST exemption. It will have close to no impact.

If 78 million is close to no impact, I wonder how much a near miss is?

[M.Dancer]

I am amazed that the Harperites are going to cut funding to museums......aren't these the same folks who complain that Canadians are given enough history?

My thought is, if they are going to be so arrogant as a minority, it's time to rein them in. Defeat this bill and put flaherty on the pogue.

[Renegade]

If 78 million is close to no impact, I wonder how much a near miss is?

78 million is peanuts compared to what is collected. Only 3% of tourists actually apply. It will have no impact on tourists decision to come to Canada.

[watching&waiting]

When I first looked at what was cut I had some questions that I thought needed answering because some of these cuts were to things I would have thought were good things. But then I looked at it the way the Federal government would have looked at it and the answer become more clear. While adult literacy is a good thing, it has nothing to do with Federal Government and so it should be cut and addressed by the provincial governments and funds sought from there. The same can be said for just about all the things that were cut that would be controversial. I am all for there being less government and this does go to that theme by putting the responsibility for areas that are provincial back again in that arena. It would have been nice to have had this explained when these annoucements came about, but that is the one areas that the CPC lack in, that being public expalnations for much of what they do. As I said at first I was taken back and wondered why would they do that, but I again had to think it through for myself to see why this was. The CPC need better media optics or a better public information officer, to explain things more clearly.

[August1991]

While adult literacy is a good thing, it has nothing to do with Federal Government and so it should be cut and addressed by the provincial governments and funds sought from there. The same can be said for just about all the things that were cut that would be controversial. I am all for there being less government and this does go to that theme by putting the responsibility for areas that are provincial back again in that arena.

That's a key point w&w. This money is better spent by provincial or municipal governments where there is more control of spending and there is more likelihood that the services are really necessary.

The most efficient governments in Canada are councils in small towns.

It would have been nice to have had this explained when these annoucements came about, but that is the one areas that the CPC lack in, that being public expalnations for much of what they do.

I don't think Baird could have said that. It would have been perceived as downloading federal respeonsibilities to the provinces and it would have been an invitation for the provincial governments (Ontario's Liberals) to bash the feds.

The Tories were right to make the announcement and leave it at that.

Frankly, I think the Tories have mastered well their media message. It was smart to combine the announcement of the cuts with the surplus and paying down the debt. The general appearance is sound fiscal management and that appeals to the small c conservatives who make up the Tories' potential voter pool.

In general, the reaction has been mild. The only noise I've heard is the whacko Left who sound pathetically like drug addicts pleading for a fix.

The Tories have quietly been earning lots of points for competence and professionalism since January. This is more remarkable since they form a minority government. They appear to be a smoothly running administration. Impressive.

[Rovik]

The federal government is cutting research into medical uses of marijuana to save $4 million, as part of $1 billion in savings it expects to make over the next two years.

Treasury Board president John Baird mentioned the cut as one example of about $20 million in specific savings he described in a short briefing on Monday. The savings will total nearly $1.1 billion over the next two years according to the Department of Finance website.

CBC

The CBC leads with marijuana. Right. Who is going to howl on that?

The big item is the allocated $380 million that the bureaucrats didn't manage to spend. (The end of fiscal year would make any taxpayer cry. It's real money.... )

The other interesting item the CBC notes is the $78.8 million for GST refunds to foreigners. (That was an invitation to fraud.)

Peanuts? Overall, the Tories just took one 25 cent can of house brand Cola out of a $100 dollar grocery cart. It'll make no difference to the monthly budget but we're going in the right direction.

Some of the items that are been cut are critical services and it hits the people who need help the most such as lower income or poor people. This is not a step in the right direction but a cruel, heartless one which makes one wonder what they would have cut if they had a majority.

For example, they are cutting programs geared toward adult literacy skills, youth employment and programs to boost work skills. These are essential programs to help get people into the workplace and to cut these programs doesn't make any sense.

[sharkman]

Some of the items that are been cut are critical services and it hits the people who need help the most such as lower income or poor people. This is not a step in the right direction but a cruel, heartless one which makes one wonder what they would have cut if they had a majority.

For example, they are cutting programs geared toward adult literacy skills, youth employment and programs to boost work skills. These are essential programs to help get people into the workplace and to cut these programs doesn't make any sense.

Our economy is just running full tilt. Poor people can get better jobs if they try. There are Canadians who leave their province and make tons of money in Fort McMurry. Once they get there, recruiters hire them away from the company they haven't even even worked for yet, with a bonus to boot. Here in B.C. there are help wanted signs in windows everywhere.

As far as programs to boost skills go, the best way to get skills is on the job every time. I work in a trade, and the trades are just crying out for recruits. Point is, these programs aren't as needed when your economy is red hot.

[Rovik]

Our economy is just running full tilt. Poor people can get better jobs if they try. There are Canadians who leave their province and make tons of money in Fort McMurry. Once they get there, recruiters hire them away from the company they haven't even even worked for yet, with a bonus to boot. Here in B.C. there are help wanted signs in windows everywhere.

As far as programs to boost skills go, the best way to get skills is on the job every time. I work in a trade, and the trades are just crying out for recruits. Point is, these programs aren't as needed when your economy is red hot.

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, BC and parts of Ontario but it is not the case in all of Canada.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who would rather live in the area that they are currently in, for a muititude of reasons; perhaps the spouse has a good job, perhaps it's to take care of family members (parents, siblings, etc.) who are in failing health, perhaps there are opportunities in the area if one has the necessary skills, perhaps the cost of travelling to Alberta or BC is beyond what they have to spare (oftne costs +$1000 for such trips from Newfoundland,) perhaps they are older and want to avoid the rat race of a bigger centre and so on and so on.

A friend of mine, recently came back from Fort McMurray and took a job here in Newfoundland for half the wages he was getting in Fort McMurray. He said with the high cost of living in Fort McMurray he really wasn't

coming out ahead and he could understand why many would rather work here at lesser rates then to move to places like Alberta and BC, and if these government programs can help these people find a job here, rather then elsewhere then so be it.

And then these people would be paying taxes and spending money in their native province, whom need the money more then Alberta or BC does

[geoffrey]

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, BC and parts of Ontario but it is not the case in all of Canada.

Good to know that there are a bunch of slackers is Canada while we are desperate for workers out here. Another reason why there no reason for Canada to claim to be a nation, no one feels like they have to work unless it's in their neighbourhood.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who would rather live in the area that they are currently in, for a muititude of reasons; perhaps the spouse has a good job, perhaps it's to take care of family members (parents, siblings, etc.) who are in failing health, perhaps there are opportunities in the area if one has the necessary skills, perhaps the cost of travelling to Alberta or BC is beyond what they have to spare (oftne costs +$1000 for such trips from Newfoundland,) perhaps they are older and want to avoid the rat race of a bigger centre and so on and so on.

You know where I'd love to live? Fernie, BC, I'd ski everyday in the winter, bike everyday in the summer. But you know what the reality is, you need to work. Unemployment is unacceptable, even criminal in my opinion. I could really care less where one wants to live, but if your on welfare, you gave up that right to choose, time to get a job.

A friend of mine, recently came back from Fort McMurray and took a job here in Newfoundland for half the wages he was getting in Fort McMurray. He said with the high cost of living in Fort McMurray he really wasn't

coming out ahead and he could understand why many would rather work here at lesser rates then to move to places like Alberta and BC, and if these government programs can help these people find a job here, rather then elsewhere then so be it.

So be it, if he's working and not on welfare/EI, then really it doesn't matter now does it?

And then these people would be paying taxes and spending money in their native province, whom need the money more then Alberta or BC does

There's a reason why Alberta and BC don't need the money... and it starts back with that sense of entitlement you eluded to in your 'you should be able to live wherever' statement.

[Renegade]

These are essential programs to help get people into the workplace and to cut these programs doesn't make any sense.

Since you feel these are critical programs and ought not to be cut, if forced to choose, which programs do you think ought to be cut in lieu?

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, BC and parts of Ontario but it is not the case in all of Canada.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who would rather live in the area that they are currently in, for a muititude of reasons; perhaps the spouse has a good job, perhaps it's to take care of family members (parents, siblings, etc.) who are in failing health, perhaps there are opportunities in the area if one has the necessary skills, perhaps the cost of travelling to Alberta or BC is beyond what they have to spare (oftne costs +$1000 for such trips from Newfoundland,) perhaps they are older and want to avoid the rat race of a bigger centre and so on and so on.

If people don't want to move to where the jobs are, it is of course their choice, however there is no good reason the taxpayer should subsidize them in that choice. It is inefficient to subsidize people to stay where there is no work and are in need of handouts.

A friend of mine, recently came back from Fort McMurray and took a job here in Newfoundland for half the wages he was getting in Fort McMurray. He said with the high cost of living in Fort McMurray he really wasn't

coming out ahead and he could understand why many would rather work here at lesser rates then to move to places like Alberta and BC, and if these government programs can help these people find a job here, rather then elsewhere then so be it.

Based upon your description, your friend would not benefit from the progams cut as he could get a job without them in either Newfoundland or Alberta. It becomes completely his choice on where he wants to persue employment, but again without taxpayer subsidy.

And then these people would be paying taxes and spending money in their native province, whom need the money more then Alberta or BC does

If anything that points to a case that their home province ought to be funding such a program and not the federal government.