Conservative
Cuts the Tip of the Iceberg
By:
The Honourable John McCallum, Liberal Official Opposition Critic for
Finance
It
made for a very strange photo op in Ottawa when Finance Minister Jim
Flaherty announced a $13 billion dollar surplus while directly beside him
the President of the Treasury Board, John Baird, announced $1 billion in
cuts to valuable social programs.
The
Conservatives’ actions left many Canadians puzzled, scratching their
heads and wondering why the Conservatives would choose to cut funding to
the poor, the illiterate, Aboriginal Canadians and women’s groups at a
time when government coffers are awash in cash.
The
truth is, the Conservative spending cuts have little to do with
“responsible spending” or giving Canadians “value for money,” as
the Conservatives would have us believe.
Underneath the surface these cuts show a distinctly partisan and
ideological character. They
are a mean spirited swipe at constituencies that traditionally don’t
vote Conservative.
Take
for instance the elimination of the Courts Challenges Program.
The program provides funding for court cases where Canadians’
language and equality rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms may have been violated. It
is perhaps not a surprising move for a Prime Minister who has said that
the Supreme Court should defer to the will of Parliament rather than
uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These
cuts however are only the beginning.
Although the government inherited a very healthy surplus, they have
quickly spent the vast majority of it.
In fact, when you add up all the goodies promised by the
Conservatives in their first budget, Stephen Harper spent over $18 billion
per year including $3 billion per year in debt reduction. And this figure
still doesn’t take into account all the additional spending proposed for
defence, nor does it factor in the hefty price tag that will come with Mr.
Harper’s “fiscal imbalance” solution.
The
escalating price tag of Conservative promises and fewer tax dollars to pay
for them only leads us to one logical conclusion, fewer social services.
This latest round of cuts to social spending is only the tip of the
iceberg.
During
the 2006 election the Conservative admitted to a $22 billion hole in their
election platform over the next five years.
Accordingly, Budget 2006 indicates that they will have to find $2.4
billion more in ongoing savings next year.
Not to mention the fact that the budget called for $1.2 billion in
savings this year alone and they have only so far announced $1 billion
over this year and the following one.
In
short, if you thought October’s cuts were mean-spirited, you ain’t
seen nothin’ yet.
