Conservative Spending Cuts
Well today the Conservatives have announced where they will cut to find $1 billion in savings. Now to start off I am all for spending cuts where programs are not delivery value for money. Indeed the Liberals did this in the last budget and all previous budgets. However, I am very concerned that rather than going after programs that don't work, they seem to be directed mainly at those who are not Conservative supporters as a form of punishment for not supporting them. If we faced a deficit, I wouldn't complain about cutting these programs, provided there were large spending cuts elsewhere too. But considering there wasn't spending cuts elsewhere and we face a healthy surplus, this seems inexcusable. I will say though I fully support debt repayment so I will give the Conservatives credit where it is due.
- 78.8 million from cancelling visitor GST rebates. I am not sure whether this is a good idea or not. If it reduces tourism the loss in terms of dollars contributed to the economy may be greater than the savings.
- 5 million for Status of women. I would have to see their balance sheet to say definitively whether this is the right thing or not since I don't know whether they are an efficient organization or quite wasteful. Still this won't help their popularity and I do have my concerns.
- 4 million for medical marijuana research. This seems more ideological driven than driven by practicality. While it is not something that I feel strongly about one way or another, I question the motives here.
- 11.7 million in used pine beetle funding. Again I cannot see this helping them in BC. Luckily our economy in BC is strong enough the provincial government will be able to pick up the slack if necessary.
- Eliminating the court challenges program. This is probably the one I am most against as this seems to just play into the idea the Conservatives oppose minority rights.
- Elimination of Youth International Partnership. Another bad idea in my view
Now most of the cuts were simply due to greater efficiencies that might have been done under the Liberals. Glancing through Finance Canada's webpage, many of them sound reasonable, but the few I pointed out are troubling and as someone who has watched politics, you tend to suffer more politically for the unpopular cuts than you gain for the popular cuts. Also without great detail on what each program does and how well they operate, it is sometimes tough to make a judgement. Hopefully in the coming days from hearing from the opposition from the Liberals and NDP while support from the Conservatives, I can make a better judgement on which cuts were right and which were wrong. Since parliament will have to vote on this in a ways and means motion, hopefully the opposition can pull out all the bad cuts in committee. Thankfully with a minority government, these cuts can be stopped where they don't belong, whereas with a majority government they couldn't. Since the Liberals have gone through this exercise many times, I am confident they will be fair and reasonable in what they pull out and what they leave.
- 78.8 million from cancelling visitor GST rebates. I am not sure whether this is a good idea or not. If it reduces tourism the loss in terms of dollars contributed to the economy may be greater than the savings.
- 5 million for Status of women. I would have to see their balance sheet to say definitively whether this is the right thing or not since I don't know whether they are an efficient organization or quite wasteful. Still this won't help their popularity and I do have my concerns.
- 4 million for medical marijuana research. This seems more ideological driven than driven by practicality. While it is not something that I feel strongly about one way or another, I question the motives here.
- 11.7 million in used pine beetle funding. Again I cannot see this helping them in BC. Luckily our economy in BC is strong enough the provincial government will be able to pick up the slack if necessary.
- Eliminating the court challenges program. This is probably the one I am most against as this seems to just play into the idea the Conservatives oppose minority rights.
- Elimination of Youth International Partnership. Another bad idea in my view
Now most of the cuts were simply due to greater efficiencies that might have been done under the Liberals. Glancing through Finance Canada's webpage, many of them sound reasonable, but the few I pointed out are troubling and as someone who has watched politics, you tend to suffer more politically for the unpopular cuts than you gain for the popular cuts. Also without great detail on what each program does and how well they operate, it is sometimes tough to make a judgement. Hopefully in the coming days from hearing from the opposition from the Liberals and NDP while support from the Conservatives, I can make a better judgement on which cuts were right and which were wrong. Since parliament will have to vote on this in a ways and means motion, hopefully the opposition can pull out all the bad cuts in committee. Thankfully with a minority government, these cuts can be stopped where they don't belong, whereas with a majority government they couldn't. Since the Liberals have gone through this exercise many times, I am confident they will be fair and reasonable in what they pull out and what they leave.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 9:17 PM
18 Comments:
I shared your concerns with these cuts, Miles and found the complete axing of the Court Challenges program disconcerting also. It does seem to be very ideologically driven.
Eliminating the court challenges program. This is probably the one I am most against as this seems to just play into the idea the Conservatives oppose minority rights.
Well Miles, it looks like you've finally ceased to be a libertarian and have become a real Liberal.
Why the hell should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for handpicked left-wing causes? The Miles I know would never support such nonsense.
I shared your concerns with these cuts, Miles and found the complete axing of the Court Challenges program disconcerting also. It does seem to be very ideologically driven.
I support the majority of cuts, but this one was clearly wrong.
Well Miles, it looks like you've finally ceased to be a libertarian and have become a real Liberal.
I've never been a pure libertarian. Read my views under Miles Views. Tonight I plan to write on Privatization which will generally be libertarian.
Why the hell should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for handpicked left-wing causes? The Miles I know would never support such nonsense.
Using your logic Brandon, we shouldn't fund the defence for criminals who cannot afford a defence lawyer. Also they are not left wing causes, rather about minority rights such as the gay marriage challenge. Only where a violation of rights has occurred will they fund the challenge. If governments simply followed the Charter it would become redundant. I suspect the reason for its cut is Harper wants to impose his socially conservative agenda and wants to reduce the chances of court challenges to them.
Secondly Brandon, do you believe the poor should have fewer rights than the rich. We are not talking about court challenges for more funding for social programs. We are talking about funding for those who have had their rights violated.
Most of the cuts I agree with, but this one I don't. I am for less government, but I ask you why didn't the Conservatives go after business subsidies. Even going after farm subsidies or CBC funding I would have been fine with.
I might also add, when the BC Liberals cut funding to Legal Aid in 2002, I voiced my initial opposition to this to the SFU BCYL president at that time. It is only when I was told that even after the cuts our legal aid funding was still the third highest per capita in Canada, that I agreed with the decision, since this is not going against my principles. I am for less government, but that doesn't mean I will automatically support every program cut that comes about.
And speaking of left wing special interest groups, I am not against cutting off funding to women's groups who use feminism as a guise to promoting socialism. However, I do believe all money saved here should go towards more money for women's shelters as well as programs to help increase women's participation in the labour force.
To be fair here are my views on each of the cuts, since Brandon asks:
$78.8 million: Elimination of program that gave GST rebates to tourists - (Bad idea. The gains from increased tourism offset loses here).
$50 million: Elimination of unused funding for Northwest Territories devolution - (Sounds reasonable, although need more details)
$46.8 million: Smaller cabinet announced in February - (Fully support this one)
$45 million: "Efficiencies" in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (sounds reasonable, but need more details)
$15 million: Elimination of residual funding for softwood-lumber trade litigation (Disagree here since I oppose the softwood lumber deal)
$13.9 million: Cancellation of National Defence High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar Project (Don't know enough about this to comment one way or another)
$11.7 million: Removal of unused funds for mountain pine beetle initiative (Seems like a bad idea on the surface, but if unused funds, then it might make sense)
$6.5 million: Elimination of funding for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada
(Don't know enough to say for sure, although seems questionable)
$6 million: Operational efficiencies at the Canada Firearms Centre (Fully support this one. How about scrapping the gun registry outright)
$5.6 million: Elimination of Court Challenges Program (Disapprove of this)
$5 million: Administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada (Depends on how the money was being used. I am concerned though)
$4.6 million: Cuts to museum assistance (Would have to see how the funds are being used and the willingness of the private sector to step up to the plate to say one way or another).
$4.6 million: Elimination of the RCMP drug-impaired-driving program's training budget (seems like a bad idea on the surface, but if it is duplication then I would support it)
$4.25 million: Consolidation of foreign missions (I would have to see which missions. For example if we put the Embassy to the EU, NATO, and Belgium in the same building, but separate offices then Yes, but getting rid of embassies in certain countries that we need diplomatic ties with, then No.
$4.2 million: Cuts to Law Commission of Canada
(If their work can be done by another department, then good idea, if not bad idea)
$4 million: End to medical-marijuana science funding (Not really a big issue for me, although I do question the motive here. I support full legalization of marijuana, but I don't think we need further studies, we need action now)
Why the hell should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for handpicked left-wing causes?
Providing public funding to allow for challenges to potential abuses by the Legislative branch of government is not a "handpicked left-wing cause", as much as you might agree with much of what the Harper government is up to. Government funding to allow for checks on thier own power is a sign of a healthy and fair democracy.
Providing public funding to allow for challenges to potential abuses by the Legislative branch of government is not a "handpicked left-wing cause", as much as you might agree with much of what the Harper government is up to. Government funding to allow for checks on thier own power is a sign of a healthy and fair democracy.
I am against funding left wing advocacy groups as I oppose funding all political interest groups (and yes Mike I think the charitable status for the Fraser Institute should be revoked). However, I don't see how supporting court challenges of minorities who have had their rights violated is funding a left wing cause. I have always been a supporter of minority rights. A pure libertarian would be for cutting all government programs, but considering they left in tact many others, I suspect this was done to appease their socially conservative base.
However, I don't see how supporting court challenges of minorities who have had their rights violated is funding a left wing cause.
Whether or not rights have been violated is for the courts to decide. And when you consider the fact that gay people tend on average to have higher incomes, this clearly has nothing to do about rich vs. poor.
I am against funding left wing advocacy groups as I oppose funding all political interest groups.
But you support using taxpayer money so they can carry their causes into the courts.
And when you consider that gay people on average have more income than most other people, that whole rich vs. poor argument goes right out the window.
Whether or not rights have been violated is for the courts to decide. And when you consider the fact that gay people tend on average to have higher incomes, this clearly has nothing to do about rich vs. poor.
Brandon, gay people are not the only minority in the country. If you look into the program, funding is available to any "historically disadvantaged group", which would include many minorities.
Whether or not rights have been violated is for the courts to decide. And when you consider the fact that gay people tend on average to have higher incomes, this clearly has nothing to do about rich vs. poor.
Yes it is up to the courts to provide, but if one doesn't have the money they are out of luck. And I should remind you Brandon a $100,000 legal bill for a Supreme Court case is not uncommon, which even many well-off Canadians couldn't afford. In the Chaoulli case, Jacques Chaoulli spent roughly $600,000 on legal fees. Secondly this does also include groups who are traditionally poor such as aboriginals yet frequently have their rights trampled on. If governments just respected the Charter of Rights and Freedoms this program wouldn't be necessary, but until that happens, it needs to remain in place. If the Tories want to get rid of it, stop violating Charter rights and no one will launch cases. If they frivolous cases, the Court Challenge Program won't take them on.
But you support using taxpayer money so they can carry their causes into the courts.
No I don't, I support using tax dollars to defend people's rights, there is a difference Brandon. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a left wing document, and protecting people's rights is not a left wing cause, it is a just cause. If governments wouldn't violate people's rights you wouldn't have your tax dollars spent here. Maybe you should put more pressure on the politicians to follow the Charter instead of ignoring it if you don't want your tax dollars going here.
Whether or not rights have been violated is for the courts to decide. And when you consider the fact that gay people tend on average to have higher incomes, this clearly has nothing to do about rich vs. poor.
Brandon, gay people are not the only minority in the country. If you look into the program, funding is available to any "historically disadvantaged group", which would include many minorities.
Its ironic that a strong BC Liberal supporter, Mulroney and Harris supporter is agreeing with an NDP supporter. Maybe that says something about just how extreme Harper is. And BTW, I couldn't agree more once again.
Miles - Hope you don't mind that I followed you over from Adam's place :)
I support using tax dollars to defend people's rights, there is a difference Brandon....
So by that definition, Miles, anyone who felt that their rights were aggreived should be entitled to CCP funding, right? Or at the most, the only restriction on giving out such funding would be based on an applicant's income, right?
After all, that would be a much better comparison to the Legal Aid programme you refer to. Legal Aid, to my knowledge, is means-tested (in that if you can afford a laywer of your own, you probably don't qualify). But again, to the best of my knowledge, it's not based on whether one is accused of, say, murder versus sexual assault versus some other offence.
Are you saying that the CCP operated on that basis? That its only criteria was whether the person complaining of a rights violation was of limited means?
Because that's not my understanding of how the CCP worked.
Jason Hickman - CCP is also means based to the best of my knowledge, however it only deals with language and equality rights. The reason for focusing on those two is they are typically the victims more often of violations of their rights. I believe that greater efforts should be put into protecting minority rights who have been tradtionally disadvantaged than those not from traditionally disadvantaged groups.
Miles: The thing is, equality rights under s. 15 are very broadly stated and wide-ranging. Indeed, the fact that the rights included in s. 15 are not deemed to be exclusive is one reason why bans on same sex marriage were found to be unconstitutional.
So I guess a better way to phrase my initial question is, "should anyone who felt that their equality / s. 15 rights were aggreived been entitled to CCP/taxpayer funding, save perhaps for a means test?"
I really don't think the CCP operated in such an egalitarian fashion. Do you?
Now, if something like the CCP was privately funded, it would be their choice as to who they chose to support, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
But the CCP wasn't privately funded (it was, instead, funded by our tax dollars), and as near as I can tell, it wasn't as if the only criteria for funding was whether or not an applicant felt that his/her s. 15 rights were under attack, and was unable to afford a lawyer.
Furthermore, it wasn't even as if the government made a policy decision to only fund this or that group - like I said @ Adam D's blog, at least then I would have a direct say in whether that was ok, via my vote. But again, that's not how the CCP works.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Miles, if you want more info on what the CCP was actually about, listen to Adam Daifallah's interview with Greg Staples
Jason Hickman - You raise some excellent points and certainly no doubt I think CCP should make some changes. I don't think they should be just for helping certain people, but rather help anyone who has had section 15 violated, has a likely chance of winning, and is unable to pay for it. As for privately funding it, if you read my new post, I would happily pay for such a program.
Brandon - I've heard it has its problems, but its intentions are still good, so try to reform it first and scrap it if it cannot be reformed.
Brandon - I listen to the interview and I do agree with much of what Daifallah said. Although he did get one fact wrong on the court challenge program. While it is true Mulroney increased funding to it in its early years, he did abolish it in 1992, but it was re-instated in 1994 and I should note the PCs in their 1993 platform did promise to re-instate it
Post a Comment
<< Home