Tories cut $1.1 billion over two years

[MSH]

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.

After examining these "drastic cuts" it seems to me that there is absolutely nothing at all "critical" about ANY of the services affected. Harper and his team are proving to be quite good strategists and can make a lot of political hay over what in reality is virtually zero impact on the day to day lives of Canadians. This seems to have the usual suspects in an uproar, and also has a few pundits a bit puzzled as the announcement was very public but there was little explanation behind the cuts. However, if you are very familiar with the history of the Conservatives (particularly the part of it with Reform/Alliance roots) then this strategy is quite brilliant.

Here is my theory on what is going on: The Conservatives loudly proclaim that they have chopped a whole billion from the budget, and have done so as part of their promise to be fiscally responsible. It is a simple, straightforward message carefully crafted to appeal to mostly jaded (and thus uninformed, apathetic) voters. They release broad details of these cuts--enough to flesh out a news story or newspaper article, or to fuel water-cooler discussion, but they do not get into finer details or how they justified cutting where they did. This way, voter's eyes won't glaze over yet it keeps the public's attention.

The "Chicken Little" opposition is doing exactly what it has done since the inception of the Reform Party: it is decrying the cuts as cruel, heartless, "un-Canadian" and reckless in an attempt to paint the Conservatives in an unflattering image and scare voters back into their fold. In the past, the Reform and Alliance parties basically kept beating its head against the wall--whenever it was branded evil or extreme or whatever it would shift into defensive mode and answer every wild accusation with the truth according to the official party policy. This let the opposition control the message and the defensive strategy never yielded much success--someone on the defensive never looks very trustworthy after all, and it is hard to hold the attention of voters with the minutae of party policy documents.

It seems the opposition are even slower learners than the Reform/Alliance were though. With the formation of the new Conservative party came a new strategy and the opposition has not changed its own strategy in response. The Conservatives have learned that defensiveness and details never translate into votes. Voters want (more than ever) a decisive government that keeps its promises (at a token level at the very least). They've learned (for better or worse) not to "open the kimono" too widely, and to basically ignore all but the most serious criticisms. This makes the traditional Liberal offensive strategy completely ineffective.

Despite the indignant outcry of lobbyists, Liberals and leftist activists these cuts were far from reckless, cruel or mean spirited and are right in line with the Conservative's philosophy. In fact if anything they are more measured, more modest and far less radical than expected. This is a whole billion dollars in spending cuts that will go completely unnoticed by the general public and will have next to no short-term economic impact at all, except to make a bit bigger payment on the debt than expected. Since the opposition have predicted much damage as a result of such haphazard, heartless cuts they will look quite uncredible and foolish when nobody at all notices.

You (and the opposition) contend that "critical programs" were cut. I challenge you to give me CONCRETE EXAMPLES of where these cutbacks will be visibly and painfully felt. JUST ONE. "Help get people into the workplace"? In most of the country (even in some parts where unenployment has been traditionally high) the problem is that workplaces outnumber people in need of them. Furthermore, from firsthand knowledge, I can tell you that federal programmes for things like "adult literacy" and "workplace training for the disabled" are not only quite ineffective, they are invisible to the public. Not only was none of that money spent on marketing/informing the public, it seems that these departments actually made an effort to HIDE them. I've actually heard the argument that "we don't really publicise the existence of this programme becasue we probably couldn't handle the demand" (translation: it would be too much hard work to actually do our jobs).

Furthermore, the vast majority of reduced and eliminated programmes were FEDERAL efforts being made in PROVINCIAL juristictions (workplace training is education--a PROVINCIAL domain...medical marijuana is healthcare, another provincial responsibility, and so on). At least in my home province I can say for sure that the provincial government has its own (more effective and more visible) programmes already that address a substantial amount of what was eliminated or reduced by the feds.

So, considering that a full third of these "cuts" were simply cancellations of previously budgeted but unspent funds and that most of the remainder basically removed duplication of provincial functions I think the argument can be made that this truly was useless spending.

[geoffrey]

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.

I agree, but it needs to be taken further. It hurts Albertans that there are unemployed Newfoundlanders, et al., that refuse to help us out with our labour shortage. It's not like we haven't funded Newfoundland for the last 50 something years. If we were at 8 or 9 percent unemployment, different story. But people out here are suffering under high inflation because people don't want to work. It's not an "Alberta problem", it's a Canada problem.

If the ROC continues to suggest Alberta needs to deal with it's own labour issues, then I suggest the ROC needs to learn to deal with their own financial issues when we pull out our support of equalisation. Canada either works together, or it loses all crediability as a nation. Right now, it's not working together.

I don't understand why Alberta politicans continue to support a nation that doesn't support them in return. Pulling out of equalisation would force Maritimers to move out here as they'd have nothing left to eat otherwise. It's the heavy handedness that we need, all other options have failed so far.

[scribblet]

Imagine, a conservative gov't actually being - conservative - whoda thunk it.

Good move on their part to cut the fat, didn't see any CBC cuts though, did I miss that one -

[geoffrey]

Imagine, a conservative gov't actually being - conservative - whoda thunk it.

Good move on their part to cut the fat, didn't see any CBC cuts though, did I miss that one -

Can't touch the sacred cow quite yet.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Imagine, a conservative gov't actually being - conservative - whoda thunk it.

Good move on their part to cut the fat, didn't see any CBC cuts though, did I miss that one -

All the Government has to do is let the dumbasses at CBC lose the rights to Hockey Night in Canada. The loss in profit from that cash cow will force a major re-organization at MotherCorp.

[Rovik]

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.

Here you go again with your degrading, stereotypical attitude. In regards to adult literacy, youth employment and skills development programs, people who use these are not slackers and are trying to make improvements in their lives. It would indefensible to tell someone, who was illiterate, not to learn how to read but to go to Alberta because they are hiring everyone. And here in Newfoundland, we have lost a huge number of people to Alberta and elsewhere who have had to leave the province to find jobs, These people end up enriching the coffers of Alberta.

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.

I can assure you that people here living on social assistance are not skiing in the winter or biking in the summer. I'm sure that many don't feel so great about having to use food banks and receive clothes from places such as the Salvation Army. Many would gladly be off social assistance if they could. I like to see you tell a single young mom to get a job or tell someone with a disability to get a job. And what would you do to get them off social assistance; take out your whip and force them to work. Would you give them money for plane fare if they needed to leave the province to find a job or to help them move their belongings halfway across the country?

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

The point I was making is that many who leave to work in Alberta, even with the higher wages don't come out that much ahead or in some cases find themselves worse off. Many would rather benefit from the training and skill programs offered by the government and find a job locally then go to Alberta where bachelor apartments are often over $1000/month to rent or where a typical house costs well over $300000 (in comparsion to a similar house here that would cost about $125000.)

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.

There is no "sense of entitlement", this is a myth pushed by yourself and other sadly like-minded people.

[Rovik]

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?

A couple off the top of my head would be to pull out of Afghanistan after Feb. 2007 (or offer a much smaller contingent which only concern would be rebuilding not combat.) This would save millions and millions in money since we wouldn't need to ship and maintain a larger force. It would be easy to justify as majority of Canadians do not support Canada's new role in Afghanistan and are alos concerned about the lack of an exit time ot deadline for the soldiers to leave. Secondly, I would implement a "windfall tax" on the oil companies as they are considering in the United States. Here is an excerpts from the following article Specter Says Rising Gas Prices May Lead to Tax on Oil Profits

Republican Senator Arlen Specter said the U.S. Congress should consider taxing the ``windfall profits'' reaped by oil companies as a result of surging crude oil prices.

We're not talking about an industry who are breaking even or making only marginal profits but as the article mentions "obscene profits."

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.

There are many instances when the person on social assistance has no other choice, I gave a couple of examples in my previous post. And I wonder if the govt. should subsidize the costs to these people of leaving one province to another to fiind work, especially if these people can't afford the transportation and moving costs themselves.

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.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I used this example to make a point. Though, this particular example might not have been the best to make the point.

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

HRDC is a federal department not a provincial one so it is indeed under the auspices of the federal government.

[Rovik]

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.

I agree, but it needs to be taken further. It hurts Albertans that there are unemployed Newfoundlanders, et al., that refuse to help us out with our labour shortage. It's not like we haven't funded Newfoundland for the last 50 something years. If we were at 8 or 9 percent unemployment, different story. But people out here are suffering under high inflation because people don't want to work. It's not an "Alberta problem", it's a Canada problem.

If the ROC continues to suggest Alberta needs to deal with it's own labour issues, then I suggest the ROC needs to learn to deal with their own financial issues when we pull out our support of equalisation. Canada either works together, or it loses all crediability as a nation. Right now, it's not working together.

I don't understand why Alberta politicans continue to support a nation that doesn't support them in return. Pulling out of equalisation would force Maritimers to move out here as they'd have nothing left to eat otherwise. It's the heavy handedness that we need, all other options have failed so far.

Canada has gotten more from Newfoundland then Newfoundland has gotten from Canada since Confederation. Excerpt from this article Michener nomination

The final numbers showed that while the province has benefited by $8.9 billion from the federation, Canada has reaped six times that, or $53.5 billion.

Seems to me that Canada has got the better part of the deal.

By the way, Newfoundlanders are not Maritimers. The Maritimes consist of NB, NS and PEI.

[Rovik]

You (and the opposition) contend that "critical programs" were cut. I challenge you to give me CONCRETE EXAMPLES of where these cutbacks will be visibly and painfully felt. JUST ONE. "Help get people into the workplace"? In most of the country (even in some parts where unenployment has been traditionally high) the problem is that workplaces outnumber people in need of them. Furthermore, from firsthand knowledge, I can tell you that federal programmes for things like "adult literacy" and "workplace training for the disabled" are not only quite ineffective, they are invisible to the public. Not only was none of that money spent on marketing/informing the public, it seems that these departments actually made an effort to HIDE them. I've actually heard the argument that "we don't really publicise the existence of this programme becasue we probably couldn't handle the demand" (translation: it would be too much hard work to actually do our jobs).

I disagree. The training and adult literacy programs are very important. To me, to teach an adult how to read is a big deal and will greatlly improve a person's quality of life and work opportunities.

Adult literacy programs have been broadly advertised on media such as tv and radio. Many people have taken advantage and have benefitted greatly.

I admit that these cuts are not as bad as many have been fearing but you have to remember the the Conservatives have a minority and don't want to scare off potential voters next election. If they had a majority, I shudder to think how deep they would have cut programs.

[Ricki Bobbi]

If they had a majority, I shudder to think how deep they would have cut programs.

Wow. Scary scary scary has now gone from describing *any* Conservative government to a Conservative majority government.

It worked in 2004. Didn't work so well in January and hopefully is even less effective next spring.

[Renegade]

Secondly, I would implement a "windfall tax" on the oil companies as they are considering in the United States. Here is an excerpts from the following article Specter Says Rising Gas Prices May Lead to Tax on Oil Profits

How is your second one a program cut? Unfortuantely it is the answer to a question I didn't ask.

There are many instances when the person on social assistance has no other choice, I gave a couple of examples in my previous post. And I wonder if the govt. should subsidize people the costs of leaving one province to another, especially if these people can't afford the transportation and moving costs themselves.

Yes I realize people have excuses such as wanting to "avoid the rat race", but in many cases when "a person has no choice" it is simply an excuse not to undergo hardship. There are many Newfoundland men who go to Alberta, and are separated from their families for months at a time inorder to save a pile of money to allow themselves some choices. In many cases several men share an apartment to keep costs low. I appreciate that these men make sacrifices, and they do so because they woudl rather earn their keep where there is opportunity then be on the public dole. As far as "affording the transportation", many, many Alberta companies will pay transport to get workers in, as long as the worker agrees to work for a period of time, so it is hard to use that one as an excuse. The other thing is that what was cut was a drop in the bucket to the available programs.

HRDC is a federal department not a provincial one so it is indeed under the auspices of the federal government.

I know that but some of the services cut, can equally be provided by the provincial government, since by your own admission, they stand to benefit by training the workers instead of having the workers move to other provinces.

[Renegade]

To me, to teach an adult how to read is a big deal and will greatlly improve a person's quality of life and work opportunities.

Adult literacy programs have been broadly advertised on media such as tv and radio. Many people have taken advantage and have benefitted greatly.

In my view, the taxpayers pay once already through public school funding to get everyone literate. If for whatever reason the adult is still illiterate, they should get literate on their own dime.

[Wilber]

Secondly, I would implement a "windfall tax" on the oil companies as they are considering in the United States. Here is an excerpts from the following article Specter Says Rising Gas Prices May Lead to Tax on Oil Profits

We're not talking about an industry who are breaking even or making only marginal profits but as the article mentions "obscene profits."

"Obscene profits" are a mater of opinion. To some people the word profit itself is obscene. Where would this tax money go. Are the oil companies bad guys just because their business is resulting in too many jobs in part of the country? That's logic I can't quite get my head around.

I think I may have said this before. I was lucky enough to never be unemployed during my working career but to do it I moved across the country and back as well as leaving my family behind to work offshore on two occasions. I don't have a lot of patience with the "bring me a job" crowd for whatever reason. You go where you have to go and do what you have to do. If that means going to Ft McMoney and paying 250K for a mobile home in order to make a living, you do it. There will always be some who really are unable (there are people on social assistance in BC and Alberta to) but it is not reasonable to expect some to pay for others choices.

[August1991]

Here is my theory on what is going on: The Conservatives loudly proclaim that they have chopped a whole billion from the budget, and have done so as part of their promise to be fiscally responsible. It is a simple, straightforward message carefully crafted to appeal to mostly jaded (and thus uninformed, apathetic) voters. They release broad details of these cuts--enough to flesh out a news story or newspaper article, or to fuel water-cooler discussion, but they do not get into finer details or how they justified cutting where they did. This way, voter's eyes won't glaze over yet it keeps the public's attention.

I agree. The Conservatives have learned how to present their message to the public - one important thing they've learned is that the Left (and the media) are paper tigers. They can make alot of noise but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

It's better to provide the basic facts and then ignore most of the complaints. The opposition is too lazy to dig deeper.

The Tories have done this very well.

Canada has gotten more from Newfoundland then Newfoundland has gotten from Canada since Confederation. Excerpt from this article Michener nomination

Good topic. Start a new thread.

[Rovik]

Yes I realize people have excuses such as wanting to "avoid the rat race", but in many cases when "a person has no choice" it is simply an excuse not to undergo hardship. There are many Newfoundland men who go to Alberta, and are separated from their families for months at a time inorder to save a pile of money to allow themselves some choices. In many cases several men share an apartment to keep costs low. I appreciate that these men make sacrifices, and they do so because they woudl rather earn their keep where there is opportunity then be on the public dole. As far as "affording the transportation", many, many Alberta companies will pay transport to get workers in, as long as the worker agrees to work for a period of time, so it is hard to use that one as an excuse. The other thing is that what was cut was a drop in the bucket to the available programs.

Yes, many Newfoundlanders have left the province for work elsewhere such as Alberta, but not all can easily get up and go. Again how does one expect a young mom with no skills or a 58 year old fisherman who can't even read and write to up and leave. And regarding companies paying transport for workers to get to Alberta and BC; this is true for the most part for skilled workers but as far as I know this is not the case for unskilled workers and many on social assistance are unskilled.

[Renegade]

Again how does one expect a young mom with no skills or a 58 year old fisherman who can't even read and write to up and leave.

I'm not saying every single person in Newfoundland should get up and leave. There will always be circumstanance where that is not possible. Conditions being what they are now, any able bodied (even illiterate) person can likely get a job in Alberta. Welfare benefits still exist for the single mom, no matter how foolish she was to have kids she couldnt support.

And regarding companies paying transport for workers to get to Alberta and BC; this is true for the most part for skilled workers but as far as I know this is not the case for unskilled workers and many on social assistance are unskilled.

A student I know went to Alberta for the summer to earn some money. He spent the summer working for Wendy's. They offered to fly him back any time he wanted to go back to work there. Case in point. How much less skilled can you get than Wendy's

[Renegade]

Canada has gotten more from Newfoundland then Newfoundland has gotten from Canada since Confederation. Excerpt from this article Michener nomination

Good topic. Start a new thread.

The details of the analysis are here: Cost Benefit Methodology

They've done some interesting manipulation to arrive at those numbers.

[geoffrey]

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.

Here you go again with your degrading, stereotypical attitude.

If your able bodied and not working in Canada today, you are a slacker. No excuses. I don't know when work became an option for adults, but it's definitely a sad case of too much nanny state intervention.

In regards to adult literacy, youth employment and skills development programs, people who use these are not slackers and are trying to make improvements in their lives. It would indefensible to tell someone, who was illiterate, not to learn how to read but to go to Alberta because they are hiring everyone. And here in Newfoundland, we have lost a huge number of people to Alberta and elsewhere who have had to leave the province to find jobs, These people end up enriching the coffers of Alberta.

Sure, teach them to read, fine, sounds good. It's also a provincial responsibility, out of the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Cut cut cut. Then cut taxes so provinces can raise theirs to fill the void if need be.

I can assure you that people here living on social assistance are not skiing in the winter or biking in the summer. I'm sure that many don't feel so great about having to use food banks and receive clothes from places such as the Salvation Army. Many would gladly be off social assistance if they could. I like to see you tell a single young mom to get a job or tell someone with a disability to get a job. And what would you do to get them off social assistance; take out your whip and force them to work. Would you give them money for plane fare if they needed to leave the province to find a job or to help them move their belongings halfway across the country?

Many oil companies pay full relocation expenses these days. Get a whip and force them to work? No, just stop paying their way... I work, they use my money. Doesn't make much sense to me. If we were in a recession and jobs were hard to come by, I'd support a little help here and there. But right now, not working hurts everyone, and that's very anti-social behavior.

The point I was making is that many who leave to work in Alberta, even with the higher wages don't come out that much ahead or in some cases find themselves worse off. Many would rather benefit from the training and skill programs offered by the government and find a job locally then go to Alberta where bachelor apartments are often over $1000/month to rent or where a typical house costs well over $300000 (in comparsion to a similar house here that would cost about $125000.)

I'm going to University full time, don't live with the 'rents (pay about average rent for my accomodations), don't make an excessively high income (you'd make considerably more than my off-summer job pays working any labour position in the province) and I get by fine in Calgary. Edmonton is cheaper, some of the rural communities are cheaper yet. This myth that Calgary is impossible to live in, is just that, a myth. I know people that get by ok making considerably less than I do as well, it's not a fair excuse. My monthly expenses are around $1800 excluding school, it doesn't take much to earn that amount in Calgary. I don't live in a super ritzy place, but it's warm, it's habitable. I have a car, thinking of a new one soon, though I walk or bike most places, saves money. All on an income that could be earned at Superstore cutting meat or even cashiers now... there's a Burger King sign that pays a full-time wage that would cover those expenses.

There is no "sense of entitlement", this is a myth pushed by yourself and other sadly like-minded people.

Bullshit, you just proved it. You seem to think people are entitled to societies support while they participate in highly anti-social activities like not working. Pretty big sense of entitlement to me. If one doesn't work, how can they expect our money that we work for? It's ridiculous. And in many places in Canada, it goes beyond a hand up anymore... 2 or 3 months tops EI is acceptable. Past that, it's leeching.

[jdobbin]

Mrs. Harper said today there's nothing more important that illiteracy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28092006/2/nati...t-literacy.html

She didn't comment on the cut in the budget to the program.

The Treasury Board minister said it wasn't worth it to try and help illiterate adults.

[Renegade]

Mrs. Harper said today there's nothing more important that illiteracy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28092006/2/nati...t-literacy.html

She didn't comment on the cut in the budget to the program.

The Treasury Board minister said it wasn't worth it to try and help illiterate adults.

It is superficial to criticize the cut to adult literacy programs without looking deeper at the results. for example:

1. Assuming increasing literacy is the aim, would the money be better spent on education while in school?

2. If we are looking at the economic aspect of literacy, how many of those now literate are unemployed and would actually get a job which depends upon literacy?

3. How do we know if the program is effective? (ie how much has it improved our oveall literacy rate?)

[jdobbin]

It is superficial to criticize the cut to adult literacy programs without looking deeper at the results. for example:

1. Assuming increasing literacy is the aim, would the money be better spent on education while in school?

2. If we are looking at the economic aspect of literacy, how many of those now literate are unemployed and would actually get a job which depends upon literacy?

3. How do we know if the program is effective? (ie how much has it improved our oveall literacy rate?)

They money wasn't directed at schools though. It was simply cut.

The answer to your last two questions is provided in the audits the governments do on the program. That information is pretty much being shown in every Canwest newspaper in Canada today. This is one program that has had some tangible benefits. And for that reason Mrs. Harper has said she supported adult literacy progams.

Judge for yourself. Why are the Conservatives idealogically opposed to adult illiteracy?

[geoffrey]

It's a provincial issue, the Federal government was out of its jurisdiction in funding it. Section 93, Constitution Act, 1867.

In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:

It goes on to talk about dissident Protestant schools, ect.. It's not a Federal law or spending area. Cut it!

[Argus]

Mrs. Harper said today there's nothing more important that illiteracy.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/28092006/2/nati...t-literacy.html

She didn't comment on the cut in the budget to the program.

The Treasury Board minister said it wasn't worth it to try and help illiterate adults.

I suspect it has rather more to do with Harper and the Conservative Party's very well-known belief that the federal government should not be intruding into areas of provincial jurisidiction. Education is most definitely a provincial responsibility.

[August1991]

A couple of million down, a few billion to go...

The Conservative government, without confirming a decision publicly, is scrubbing plans for a national portrait gallery at the site of the former U.S. embassy on Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill and is considering other uses for the heritage building.

...

When former Canadian Heritage minister Sheila Copps announced the gallery project in January 2001, the estimated price tag was $22 million. By the time then-heritage minister Liza Frulla unveiled the design in March 2005, following an earlier suspension of work under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, the expected cost had grown to $44.6 million.

By last April, with the only visible work completed outside the building being a decorative wooden hoarding along the sidewalk that cost $30,000, the government had spent a total of $9 million on architectural plans, mockups, mortar inspection, interior demolition and portrait gallery staff in a new Library and Archives Canada bureau.

CanWest

It doesn't matter whether this was paid for with tax revenues or borrowing. It's not even clear what the budget effect would have been. All that matters is that the government has wisely decided not to buy another expensive Ottawa museum on our collective behalf.

Moreover, the simple fact is that no other federal political party can do this except the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.

[Remiel]

While perhaps worthy of lament, I don't think I could argue cancellation is a bad thing after so little progress though. That being said, how many expensive federal museums are their in Ottawa, and what is so wrong with spending some money on them, August?