The quiet cuts -

The quiet cuts


Statistics Canada has released a list of the programs and surveys that will be affected by budget cuts.

Statistics Canada released today a comprehensive list of programs identified for elimination or reduction to meet its savings target announced in Economic Action Plan 2012 of $33.9 million by 2014-15. To meet its commitments, Statistics Canada has focused resources where they are most needed. The savings incurred through these program adjustments represent moderate reductions in the production of statistics in support of policy development, administration and evaluation, while continuing to meet the highest priority needs for public purposes. In some cases, the information will continue to be available in a different format.

The full list is here.

See previously: The quiet cuts


The quiet cuts

  1. Interesting how Harper raised government spending by $100B/yr and is now gutting essential services to save $5B/yr. Maybe he should think of cutting the Soviet-style bureaucracy he created obsessed with secrecy, information control and muzzling scientists. (A recent study ranks Canada #51 in the world in government accountability behind Niger — despite the fact that Harper ran on transparency and cleaning up corruption in Ottawa.)

    Fact is, of the 60% he increased spending by, none of it has been of any benefit to Canadians. All the money has been poured down the memory hole. We won’t find out what really went on until we get rid of this not-so-“benevolent dictatorship.”

    • “Fact is, of the 60% he increased spending by, none of it has been of any benefit to Canadians. ”
      So your assertion is that, for example, of ALL of the infrastructure projects which were funded via Canada’s Economic Action Plan, not a single one of them provided any benefit whatsoever? Every single one of them was utterly useless and unnecessary and should not have been undertaken?

      • The $40B stimulus package of $20B/yr over 2 years is long gone (2009 and 2010.) But what remains is an increase in government spending that is $100B more per year than where the Harper Government started from. Spending in 2005 was $175B/yr. Spending in 2011 was $279B/yr. There was no stimulus spending in 2011 except for the $100M/yr the Harper Government spent on self-promoting “Economic Action Plan” ads.

        What is utterly useless and unnecessary is increasing spending by $100B/yr that includes no stimulus, no social spending, and, in fact, absolutely nothing that Canadians or the economy benefited from. Where did all the money go? Don’t ask the Budget Officer the Harper Government appointed. It has refused to release public budget documents to the PBO for years now. (In 2011, the Harper Government was found in Contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over public documents from its 2010 budget.)

        What should never have been undertaken is the doling out of absolute power to a minority party that a super-majority was against. Canada needs to become a democracy before there is nothing of Canada left.

        • I’m not here to defend Harper’s record on economic management, as there are lots of things this govt has done I disagree with, such as the GST cut.
          But the logical implications of some of your statements are ludicrous. The upshot of your assertion is that the government can amp spending up by $100 billion, and that this is going to have absolutely no positive effect on the economy or on Canadians whatsoever. That is patently ridiculous. Note that I’m not talking about net effects here, just effects.
          The converse assumption that flows from your assertion is that, if that $100 billion is so “utterly useless and unnecessary”, then the government could instantly cut that same $100 billion from its spending plans tomorrow and it would have absolutely no adverse effect on the economy or any Canadian. That is a patently absurd thing to suggest. Yet it is clearly the logical implication of what you’re saying.
          But I’m not surprised, because your last paragraph clearly reveals that you’re an uber-partisan who has no interest in discussing these matters in a balanced fashion. Cut the partisan hyperbole and you’d have a chance at some credibility.

          • My point is that there was a very steep increase in spending, yet no new stimulus spending, infrastructure spending or social spending — things that are of actual use to Canadians and the economy. (You claimed the increase was due to the 2 year stimulus spending package, but that turned out not to be the case.)

            What would happen if spending had increased so much under a Liberal or NDP government? Conservatives would be climbing the walls railing against these “tax and spend” abusers of taxpayer dollars, just like when Bob Rae was premier of ON. But according to conservative columnist Andrew Coyne, Harper’s record is *worse* than Bob Rae’s:

            “In his first two fiscal years, Rae increased spending from $42-billion to $49-billion, an increase of roughly 16%. Thereafter spending declined slightly: after four years in office, Rae left spending 15% higher than he found it — after inflation and population growth are factored in, just 2%. By comparison, in his first four years Harper increased spending almost 40%, from $175-billion to $245-billion. And while spending has since levelled off, it remains about 14% higher, after inflation and population growth, than it was in the Liberals’ last year.”


          • So back to my original point: I think a new government (NDP or Liberal) would save billions a year by dismantling Harper’s Soviet-style information control bureaucracy and other wasted spending like his Republican war-on-drugs import (which was a colossal failure south of the border.) Sensible military spending could also save more billions. (Harper has changed Canada’s role in the world from peacekeepers to war-makers which costs taxpayers much more money. Restoring Canada’s role in the world would save taxpayers a lot of money.)