• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (9)
  •  

Going, going, gone: 2012 budget axed millions but deeper cuts likely on the way

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty

Published on March 19, 2013
Published on March 19, 2013
The Canadian Press  RSS Feed
Topics :
NDP , Statistics Canada , Parole Board , Canada

A year’s worth of budget cuts saw dozens of federal programs eliminated in 2012, but when it comes to paring down the deficit, it’s not the first cut that’s the deepest.

Thursday’s federal budget is unlikely to give departments any breathing room as they move on to Round Two of deficit-reduction measures, requiring them to hit a savings target twice as big as last year.

The government’s ultimate goal, as laid out in last year’s budget, is to see $5.2 billion in spending gone by 2014-2015.

The first year of cuts required departments to scale back around $1.47 billion; in 2013-2014 that jumps to just over $3 billion.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement characterized the first year as productive and the cuts as prudent and responsible.

“We have taken measures, both big and small, to find efficiencies and revamp decades-old programs to reflect Canadian’s priorities,” said Clement in an email.

But the NDP said from their perspective, the cuts seemed to have no overarching goal.

“My overall feeling is that it was done rather indiscriminately, that we’ve not seen any plans,” said NDP finance critic Peggy Nash.

“We were told that most of these changes were back-of-the-house, central office changes and we find out afterwards that all kinds of programs and services were cut that have a direct impact on people.”

How exactly the government will save $5.2 billion sparked a heated battle between the parliamentary budget officer and Conservative government, a fight that heads to court this week to determine whether the PBO has the right to know.

Only dribs and drabs of specific details have been released, some publicly, others via departmental financial statements and planning documents.

Many have been controversial, like the end of certain health-care benefits to some refugees, saving $24.2 million.

Among the big-ticket items, there was the military’s decision to hold off increasing the size of the forces, thereby saving $135 million.

There were also the attention-grabbers, like the end of the penny for $11 million in annual savings and the end of a popular youth program known as Katimavik, which banked $15 million.

About 11,000 public-sector jobs are also gone, and the government says the majority were via retirement.

Grants and contributions were a prime casualty, with funding reduced or eliminated for everything from tobacco control to rehabilitating young criminals.

A program that helped develop digital Canadian content is gone. So is funding that helped Canada participate in international expos.

Statistics Canada used to survey how much the government spent on culture funding, but that study has been axed, one of almost three dozen reports either eliminated or pared back by the agency to save money.

Over at the Parole Board, officials managed to cut their travel budget by 35 per cent, they reported, by spending more time on the phone or talking via videoconferencing.

Moving more government services online was cited by a number of departments as a means to cut costs, with departments including Veterans Affairs, Canada Revenue among those reporting a shift to e-business.

But this year, the axe will start swinging with government departments required to cut over $3 billion in program spending.

Some specifics of how that will be achieved have already been reported by government agencies via their own financial statements.

For example, by the end 2014, thirteen of the world’s developing economies will see the aid provided to them by Canada either reduced or eliminated entirely to save $115 million, according to the Canadian International Development Agency’s quarterly financial reports.

Three prisons, including the storied Kingston Penitentiary will also close, saving the government $120 million a year.

The recently released main estimates, which give a sense of government spending next year, suggest further big changes are afoot.

But Nash said the estimates process don’t allow parliamentarians and the public to know what those cuts represent.

Hopefully, some detail will emerge on Thursday, she said.

“Our expectation is that the cuts are going to be deeper,” Nash said.

“All indications are this is going to be an austerity budget.”

 

Comments

  • Bill Kays
    Bill Kays
    - March 21, 2013 at 10:10:14

    You can expect further cuts to the maritimes, but even worse for PEI as they try to force us into a Maritme union. The only reason they would decide to close prisons is if they intend to start executing us instead of keeping us housed, after all, a bullet is pretty cheap. Think of the money they could save. All government does is look at the bottom line numbers, the overall economy. As long as the rich get richer, then all is well. When they measure growth or the state of the economy, that is code for the corporations made more profit. This method of governance must change. They are not taking into consideration the hardships and difficulties such measures (cuts, cuts, cuts) put on the poor of this country. There is no compassion from the fed or prov governments. THEY DO NOT CARE FOR YOU OR ME OR OUR CHILDREN. If you look a the individual or or family unit we are much worse off now than we were 20 years ago but your government hides these facts from the public. Our standard of living is falling, our country and our people are drowning in debt, our people have become unGodly and unruly.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    johnny cash
    - March 20, 2013 at 07:35:08

    All sounds good but they don't ever look at the golden goose.Now they should cut the number of MP's and cut the pensions. We are hopelessly over governed.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    WayneDrops
    - March 19, 2013 at 23:58:40

    Yes Garth, from our pocketbooks to big oil in Alberta.. No wonder you can't stay with one party... Still laughing at you around that table!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    bye the way
    - March 19, 2013 at 22:55:45

    Cutting the Military was always the Liberals department Garth ....what gives? Tougher on crime but no place to put them...sounds like good old american republican private prisons coming our way. Keep the good work going Mr. Flaherty.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Amazed
    - March 19, 2013 at 21:57:34

    It is confusing to see a picture of Mike Duffy trying on glasses as the cover of this story...however. Gazebo Tony is actually called upon to pronounce this as prudent and responsible. Really.The man who took $50,000,000.00 from customs and used it to buy his own riding before the last election.When they came to power they had a $12 BILLION dollar surplus left by the Liberals,one of a dozen surplus budgets the Liberals posted during their last term. The EI Program could operate off just the interest earned from the money in that great pool of money employers and employees had contributed to that fund now that is also gone.Look it up,be informed ,the Liberals in Ottawa post a surplus and deliver more programs, the Conservatives have never had a surplus ever(well just the one they inherited) yet they cut cut cut cut cut cut cut the little guy and give our country away to strangers and than ask us to clean up the mess.SHAME ON US ALL.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    THINK THINK THINK
    - March 19, 2013 at 20:50:55

    Yes, Garth. Until the cuts affect you!!

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    James Macgoo
    - March 19, 2013 at 20:43:16

    It will be interesting to learn how the government of PEI portrays the actions of the Federal government. One would expect that this should not be a surprise and our PEI government has plans fpr this decision. If they do not, we will hear the familiar refrain, we couted on X$, they gave us Y$ - not our fault. Let;s reserve judgment and see if the PEI government displays leadership in dealing with our economics.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Garth Staples
    - March 19, 2013 at 20:23:44

    All sounds good to me. A Govt with courage and the taxpayer in mind---from where all funds come.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Jimmy Buffet
      - March 19, 2013 at 22:25:51

      Get a clue man.Most of these funds come from taxpayers then after it goes through the Feds grubby fingers it ends up feeding the already fattened .Bureaucrats ,senators,party hatchet men and favourites and all others that can get a snout in the trough are the beneficiaries.But I suppose this is all appropriate from your perspective,we would not want to see any members go away empty handed.

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Expert bloggers

Ride for Heart
Blogger
Heart and Stroke Foundation
Let's go ride a bike
[Sponsored]

More bloggers here

The Guardian Twitter

Advertising