Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

John Baird's turn to explain the strategic review

by Paul Wells on Saturday, April 9, 2011 2:51pm - 156 Comments

When I ask cabinet ministers—Jim Flaherty last night, John Baird this morning—to explain the cuts the Harper government made under strategic review, I am not asking them to justify their projections for the future. All parties’ projections should be taken with a grain of salt. But the Conservatives have sought to answer that criticism by saying they will find $1 billion in savings, doubling a year later to $2 billion and again to $4 billion in the next two years, in the same way they have already found savings in the past. The Conservatives are planning more responsible spending. Fair enough: I am asking them to explain Annex 1 of the budget the Harper government brought down 18 days ago, which carries the title “Responsible Spending.”

“This round of strategic reviews, combined with targeted restraint in the growth of National Defence spending, has yielded savings of close to $1.6 billion in 2013–14,” the budget says, “amounting to 4.9 per cent of the review base on an ongoing basis. As a result of these reviews, departments are streamlining operations, realigning their activities and transforming their organizations to deliver better programs and better results to Canadians.”

Sounds great! Tell me more. Especially if this is the basis for all future saving, tell me how you achieved these savings in the past.

And nobody can. Bureaucrats responsible for implementing the cuts were embarrassed to admit to me at the budget lockup that they had no information on what was being cut. Jim Flaherty couldn’t explain any of it last night. So this morning at the weekly Conservative Fear-The-Coalition news conference, I asked John Baird. Here’s how that went.

Bookmark and Share
  • ABHarperRegime

    The Harper regime platform -

    -Prorogue Parliament on multiple occasions at the cost of $millions of taxpayers dollars.

    -$16-30+ Billion on American first strike fighter aircraft.

    -$Billions wasted on G8/G20.

    -$Billions on American style mega prisons.

    -Attacks on low-income seniors.

    -Attack veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran for doing his job.

    -For the first time in the history on the UN, Canada is in the noose-bleed section & not the main table.

    -A world disgrace from Copenhagen to Cancun with its head up American AXX on climate change.

    -Scrapping of the long-form census in spite of unanimous condemnation.

    • Great West

      How about about nearly half $1 billion for the G-8 hosted by Chretien in 2002? You conveniently forgot about tGive me a break. Chretien porogued parliament more often than Harper. McGinty also porogued his legislature. Chretien stopped the Somalia inquiry dead in its tracks (first time in Canadian history that an inquiry or shutdown in the middle of its mandate). No howls of indignation from the left, I wonder why?

      -Jails have been overcrowded for years. What is your solution?-

      Close to $1 billion penalty for canceling the helicopters.

      In 2002, the Liberal government announced a $3.1-billion deal to replace the Sea King helicopter with the Sikorsky CH-148 , an unbuilt model plagued with delays.

      Costs have now reached $5.7-billion for 28 helicopters. The Conservative government has successfully squeezed hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of contract concessions from Sikorsky in compensation for delays with the project. Only testing versions, with incomplete software systems, have been delivered. The Canadian Forces expect to begin receiving final versions of the Cyclone helicopter in June 2012, four years late and nearly 50 years after the Sea King entered service in 1963.

      Meanwhile, the Sea King continues to fly, and is part of Canada’s arsenal for the mission in Libya.

      A $2 billion boondoggle wastage by the human resources department which went unexplained.

      Close to $2 billion Gun Registry which was to cost under $20 million and was supposed to pay for itself instead of costing over $100 million annually..

      And how are those multibillion dollar Liberal submarines doing, you know, the ones continuously in dry dock being repaired, so much so that they spend more time above ground than Chretien's Sea King helicopters?

  • ABHarperRegime

    -$Millions wasted on partisan advertising and Economic Action Plan signage.

    -The biggest spending finance minister in Canadian history.

    -Authoritarian style government Muzzling dissent and stifling free speech.

    -A PM who vowed to "never appoint an unelected senator" who now cant appoint them fast enough.

    -A government who campaigned on accountability & ethics now causing an un-necessary election in 2011 for being found in contempt of Parliament for the first time in CDN history.

    -$Billions to help the Americans control our border & sovereignty.

    -Attack the PBO Kevin Page for doing his job.

    -More $Billions in profits for large corporations, banks & dirty oil. ZERO for health care, day care, pharmacare, retirement, etc.

    -Kill gun control.

    -The largest deficit in CDN history.

    Did I miss anything?, oh that's right its all hidden from both the opposition & the CDN public. get out & VOTE!.

    • modster99

      First of all, if it was so 'hidden', how did you find it out? Do you have connections.
      Any single act of any gov't, taken out of context, will look bad to certain segments of our society.
      - biggest spending. . last I checked, it was a minority gov't. Every bill that had to be passed had the support of at least one party. They made sure that they 'got something' for their support. by definition, a minority gov't will spend more than a majority gov't. Also, last I checked, there was a recession, and the opposition were united in demanding that the gov't spend it's way out of it.
      - last I checked, I was still free to say whatever I want.
      - In order for Harper to 'elect' a senator, he would need the support of at least one party. Last I checked, no other party supports elected senators.
      - 'found in contempt . . .' – last I checked, it was found in contempt by a liberal led committee. This is the longest lasting minority gov't in Canadian history. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
      - we pay the Americans to patrol our border – wow – you do have inside information. I had never heard that.
      - billions in profits for ….. – now it is wrong for companies to make profits? Would a liberal gov't ensure that corporations, banks and oil companies (please explain clean oil to me) lost money every year? Wow – where do we sign up?
      - nobody wants to 'kill gun control' – we have always had gun control. The CPC wants to kill a massively expensive, wasteful and useless long gun registry. Please don't try to sway opinion by incorrectly labeling things.
      - The gov't, and the economy, is getting bigger every year. Every 'big' deficit will be the 'largest in CDN history' – they won't get smaller over time. Also, please refer to the part about the opposition demanding that they spend their way out of the recession. All the opposition parties screamed for it, and now the liberal supporters want to blame the CPC for it. Interesting.

    • modster99

      Oops – forgot one thing.
      While the CPC was in a minority position, the gov't spent 'ZERO for health care, daycare, pharmacy, retirement, etc'. – HOLY CRAP Here I thought that we had all of that in Canada, but here you tell us (and we can believe you, because you have inside information) that all through the Harper gov't we haven't had any money spent on any of that.
      Kind of odd, you would have thought we would have noticed. . . .

    • Great West

      This is too easy!

      -Chrétien and everyone else did the same,They called it informing the public about government programs.

      -biggest spending finance Minister was I believe Chretien (or Turner) under Trudeau (in 70s funds)

      -Muzzling-liberals and NDP did not allow free votes on same sex, gun registry (Harper did), Chretien kicked out liberal members who voted against the GST, the NDP kicked out 2 members who voted against same-sex marriage. The only ones that allowed the free vote on same-sex marriage were "Surprise" the conservatives and some of them voted for the institution.

      -he tried to reform the Senate with the liberals obstructing it in parliament and at a Senate level.

      -have you heard of kangaroo courts? Look at up.

      -healthcare has seen an increase of 6% annually.

      -the liberals and NDP voted down the Long Gun Registration with The Liberals and NDP not allowing free votes.

  • modster99

    As far as liberal vs conservative news coverage – it is pretty obvious in most cases. Look at Wells go after this, but has he ever questioned, and recorded Ignatieff about the 6 billion he will 'raise' by raising the corporate tax rate? No. And even if he did, would he run around asking other Liberals to explain it as well. No.
    If the conservative allowed an ex Judge to continue representing the conservative brand, after said judge made remarks that were 'unacceptable' and 'disgraceful'. Especially if those comments related to the judge making light of certain instances of sexual assault. If Harper were to then 'stand by' the said judge, how do you think it would be reported? Do you think it would be mentioned, and then forgotten overnight? I highly doubt it.

  • critisize

    this is easy too answer , if harper gets a majority they will save money by privatizing medicare and doing away with free universal coverage , they will privatize or cripple cpp and cancel old age security, any one unfortunate enoug to be on social assistance will either be cut off or drafted into his new army, or war machine ,there will a lot of union busting and gradual decreases in wages and minamum wages so bussines can have many more employees because of lower wages ,, its all about his secret agenda thats how hell pull it off but if we look too the usa we know that wont work it didnt work for bush junior or senior or regan. actually thats when it started. it didnt work for margerette thatcher either,

    • Great West

      If you were following the news you would have noticed that Harper promised to increase Health Spending by 6% per Year.

  • Great West

    Getting rid of the Long Gun Registry would save over $100 million annually.

  • Great West

    Canada is like cow, Raised in the West but milked in the East.

    If if the Cap And Trade Is brought in by the Liberals then bring on the Republic of Western Canada.

  • Great West

    Canada is like cow, Raised in the West but milked in the East.

  • Placentia Bay Ex-Pat

    Hey wells, good work you keep going hard with you liberal cheer leading and get the american in the PM's office and when he comes with his coalition of losers to raid Alberta and we say no sorry been there done that, we'll take our leave now, the Conservative Fear-The-Coalition news conference will sound more like WE TOLD YOU SO.When you need a passprot to get to Banff don't hold your breath waiting,OK.

  • indygestion

    Newfoundland & Labrador's creative election coverage! http://theindependent.ca/2011/04/12/election-2011…

  • Chris B

    I would say of all the Conservatives, it is Baird who has to stickhandle this the most adroitly. Ottawa is, after all, a one-industry town (hastened by the feds not helping Nortel) and the Conservatives are essentially saying that they want to reduce spending on that one industry by 5%. I imagine that the Liberal candidates facing off against Galipeau, Baird, Poilevre and O'Connor are trying very hard to hammer home the message that the Conservatives are very much targeting Ottawa with their cuts.

    Judging from the Ekos small sample polls, the message is getting through (57% support for the Libs in Ottawa against 27% for the Conservatives).

  • chet

    Will any major media figure ask the Liberals to explain their numbers?

    A single major media figure. Just one?

    Ever?

    While the partisan liberals here are loving the refs trying to throw the game for them, I suspect most average Canadians can see what's going on.

  • Tim

    PSAC? Probably pissed.

  • FVerhoeven

    The message is getting through in almost every western constituency: 60% support for the Conservatives, not so much for the dreamers.

    Oh, I get it: only in Ottawa do real Canadians reside.

  • Greg

    Were you paid to make that comment, Chet?

  • Sean W

    A fair question, perhaps, but please answer this: if the Liberal numbers were shown to be complete BS would that, in your mind, justify what the Conservatives have tried to pull with this absurd projection?

    Are you more offended by the Conservatives having to explain their numbers, or the numbers themselves?

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I absolutely agree that we need to keep the Liberals' feet to the fire, and get them to better explain savings that they say they can find in the future.

    However, I'm still pretty concerned that no one in the Tory camp (and no one in the federal bureaucracy) can apparently explain the nature of the billions of dollars in savings they Tories have supposedly ALREADY FOUND. It's a little scary to me that Ministers of the Crown are booking and defending billions of dollars in savings that they claim are already achievable through increased efficiencies in their various departments, and yet no one who actually WORKS in those departments has ANY IDEA what the Ministers expect them to be doing differently in the future that will achieve these efficiencies.

  • catherine

    You miss the point. Wells is asking the Conservatives to explain something in the budget they brought down several weeks ago and that they claim to have already done.

  • KeithBram

    Uh, chet – the question was to explain actual numbers for a year already gone by, in which the CPC was in charge. They really ought to be able to explain those if they are doing their jobs.

    The Liberals, having been out of power for the past five years, really would have no answer to that question because they weren't running the government in 2010.

    Please try to keep up with the discussion…

  • craigola

    The numbers the post is about are the Conservatives' numbers from their recent budget. Given that it seems reasonable to assume that the Conservatives will be the governing party following the election and PMSH says that we should expect the same budget to be put forward post-election, Chet is caught red-handed (ha! RED-handed!) trying to distract. Yet again. I hope he gets paid well.

  • Ethos

    They should be given equal scrutiny but does that make them of equal importance?

    In my opinion the Conservative numbers most certainly merit greater attention as the promises they are making in this election to the Canadian people all have an asterisk next to them, making them explicitly subject to a balanced budget… If their numbers do not suppourt a balanced budget their promises are empty.

    And don't you think this situation demands attention? In just two weeks the numbers have inflated massively without any explanation… In an instance that implies more than just bad math, but deliberate deception.

  • Politics Freak

    How are things in the Conservative war room? Or are you out in the field receiving your talking points on the Blackberry?

  • Mike T.

    And that somehow eluded them for the five years they were already in charge of these departments.

  • jonatwitan

    There seems to be a misunderstanding. From what I have heard, they have repeatedly stated that they HAVE NOT ALREADY FOUND the billions in savings. They have already found a few hundred million in savings, and that was in the last budget (though the details are apparently scant). They are saying that they are going to go looking for the billions after they get their majority, and that they are confident they will find it. It is at this point that some disagree.

  • Patchouli

    Honey, there's precious little room for growth in the west, so why would cons govern for the west?

    In fact, this is what I wish westerners would think about (I live in the west too). For years, western people have salivated, waiting for the West to get in.

    Well they're in. I won't speak for Alberta, but in SK, the 13/14 conservative MPs do nothing to represent our needs. They are muzzled minions and may as well be from Timbuktoo for all they do for the west.

  • Chris B

    That wasn't my point at all. I made a very specific comment that an Ottawan should be concerned about a Conservative government from a self-interested point of view. After all, if there are to be layoffs or cuts or lack of hiring, it will be Ottawa principally affected. So an Ottawan, in their own interest, should probably not be voting Conservative.

    Nothing at all to do with being a "real Canadian". Why are Conservatives so paranoid?

  • westmalle

    The Conservatives are not stupid. They were burned last time by Duceppe over $45 million in arts and culture cuts. No way this time are they going to be explicit in what specifically they are going to cut. I am sure every journalist in the land is trying to make them say what they'll cut, but the Conservatives appear to have impressive discipline on this point.

  • chet

    I'm offended by the fact that, in context, the conservative numbers are infinitely more reliable that Iggys,

    but that the medai portrays it as precisely the opposite.

    I'm offended by the magnifying glass to the right and a blind eye to the left. Leftist journalists who have corrupted a media, so as not to inform, but to propagandize for.

    I'm offended by:

    the corruption scandal of our generation.

  • FVerhoeven

    This is what I think the east and central Canada will think about (and they will soon enough):

    Once the BQ officially will be given the balance of power over our Canadian Parliament, there will be no going back. Westerners have understood this for a long time.

    Here's a history lesson: In the 1990's when Mulroney had managed to divide this country by being overly outdated in how this country had grown over the years, the rise of the BQ and the rise of the Reform party happened at the very same time.

    Only because the Conservative parties had been divided in two, could the Liberals manage to sneek in with some majority governments. The west has always understood that Canada has changed over the years, and that Quebec is no longer the main driving force as it once was under the old Canadian political system.

    Now that the Conservative party is as one once again,only the BQ has remained as a divisive player within federal elections, and not untill that changes, will our federation be put on the road to future well-being. The west is not waiting for a Messiah like Ignatieff to hand over the balance of power to the BQ. The west is waiting for a Canadian federation to be put to work for all Canadians. And Harper is the only one so far who has not signed anything formal with the BQ, And so the west will keep supporting him on what he has set out to do when the Reform started: namely to let the proper workings of our federation work for our well being in the 21 century, because the 19th century has been part of history for a very long time. And some day, the Quebec people will come to realize that as well.

  • Sean W

    In what "context" is it a "fact" that the numbers that no Conservative minister can explain are "infinitely more reliable" than the Liberals'? Liberal spending for the next two years is based on the government's projections from corporate tax cuts. The Conservative revenue numbers were somewhere between 2 and 11 billion dollars different 18 days ago.

    But you're right, the leftest media is probably to blame…

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Remember why they voted non confidence on The Harper Government? Wells is asking how the past savings were attained and can't get an answer. The magnifying glass is always on the government in politics because we deal not only with promises but with a verifiable record. Surely, the government should be able to give credible information on what it has done these past five years. Why it refuses to do so is puzzling – heck, it is contemptuous.

  • DerekPearce

    Discipline in saying zilch. Lovely.

  • NaiveMadHatter

    Hide the specifics, Is that not why there is an election right now. Government Must Not Hide the Specifics ever!!!
    Full disclosure….

  • FVerhoeven

    And Baird said that if Wells wants to have a specific look at any of the numbers, he should ask and Baird said he would look into it.

    Or did you not hear that? Wells just has to ask precisely which number he isn't clear on.

    The ball is now in Well's court to point out which numbers cannot be justified. We will wait untill Wells finds the right questions to answer.

    But some of us are still wondering if Wells will do the same in regards to the Liberal outlook. Afterall, they have had access to the very same numbers as set out in 2010. Do the Liberals have a problem with some of thes numbers savings? If so, which ones??? And if so, why did the Liberals not point that out in 2010??

  • KeithBram

    That's a more reasonable question – but not the one chet asked.

    Yes, it might be worth asking the Liberals if they agree with the cuts made, and if not – why not, and what would they have done differently?

  • FVerhoeven

    That's interesting. You try to tell me that voters actually vote not for the well being of the country, but would vote for the well being of self interest.

    Never thought about it that way. I have been of the opinion always that federal elections are being held for the well being of our federation, in that the well being of the Canadian federation will be able to feed the well being of all of its citizens in the long run.

    But if federal elections are to be about individual self interests, well, then what's the point of calling such elections federal????

  • TimesArrow

    You're absolutely right. When i vote in my riding i'm going to ph some guy 5000ks away in Chicoutimi to make sure i'm not overriding his districts interests. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  • craigola

    You're smarter than this.

  • Jenn_

    Don't worry, TimesArrow. Chicoutimi is phoning you! They have a call centre there. Currently contracted out to the Harper GovernmentTM

  • cyberclark

    Well I can help you with some of the cuts he has made to save
    http://www.straightgoods.ca/2011/ViewArticle.cfm?…

    They have long professed the Federal Government is over staffed. I remember Mulroney saying the same thing and they ended up with some of the biggest department increases in history; Auxworthy's Department of Transport comes to mind.

    And, still another point on the Conservative way of distrust and paranoia when it comes to the Federal Bureaucracy; Mulroney put his ADMs in charge of the respective departments and got rid of a library of department heads. I can only assume we can look forward to the same thing with Harper and his crew!

    That said, he is looking to cut the Fed and is counting on health care cuts and pretty much anything that comes across the desk.

    As Alberta's Stelmach said in public debate at the last election "We are Conservatives. We are not like these other guys."

  • TimesArrow

    All that might reveal is that the libs missed it. Or didn't ask the right questions. Or worst of all chose to ignore them for political reasons; which is pretty inexcusable really when you're the chief opposition critic. Still, the fact remains, the onus is on the govt to justify those figures.

  • Holly Stick

    Occam's razor: they do not appear to be stupid because they're disciplined but because they really are stupid.

  • ajb

    If Flaherty's not remotely interested in the details, then what's he doing as finance minister?

  • TimesArrow

    Cuts to the GST cost us about how much per year? Say about 10 billion…why that's awfully close to 11 billion…my my what a coincidence. Sure could use some of that right about now. I know it went back in to stimulate the economy [ cept that was before they sorta kinda realized the storm was on its way.] I think i spent my share of it for this year at my kids annual ptub ski race today – thanks Steve…i hardly knew i almost had it. Sure could do with some extra Docs and a new road, maybe some help getting off diesel generators up here though.

    Everyone's breathlessly waiting to see where AC is gonna come down on this little accounting error. Let me guess. He's a contrarian so i'd go with he thinks there's lots of room for a hypothetical $11 billion in savings.

  • Thwim

    Paying his friends as speech-writers.

  • WaterlooAl

    It doesn't really matter, according to the Conservatives all this magic happens under a majority. They know they are being held to a minority at best, so they can offer free ice cream on your birthday, or a tax credit for it, and not have to follow through.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Only because the Conservative parties had been divided in two…

    How did that happen again? Presto?

  • Wes

    Ok, having been in Power for over 5 years now, As a conservative government…

    Are you stating that they have known about these 4Billion per year in savings and have continued to waste the money? or are you saying that after 5 years they will return to office and wisk in the changes that they have been secretly working on ?

  • Stewart_Smith

    Paul is such a Conservative toadie. By sticking to this minor accounting issue like it was an important as the R&D board, he is helping keep the campaign focused on the economy and fiscal competence… THE CONSERVATIVE GAMEPLAN! Moreover, he is providing a direct, unfiltered link between two top-drawer Conservative minds and the electorate. For years, the whining contingent on the right has complained about the media distorting their message and changing the channel to issues that benefit the lefties. Crap, Wells has thrown away the remote, turned up the volume and is now giving the Conservative FREE advertising space on his blog. I hope he is getting some kickback for this underhanded attempt to hand the Conservative's their majority.

  • chet

    "the media is going to be needed to do the right thing and bring these conservatives down". So says the commenter above.

    And its at a plus six in approval. That's a scary thought. What's also scary is just how many in the media appear to believe that it is "the right thing" and that it is their jobs to do so.

    Rather, than on, you know, providing balanced, contextual and factual coverage of all the parties and letting the populace decide.

    But as many leftists believe our elites, "experts" so to speak, know far better what is good for Canadians than Candians do themselves…I suspect they've convinced themselves that throwing the game for Iggy is doing (to use the highly approved of words of the commenter above)…

    "the right thing".

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Not as scary has the media being found guilty of unethical conduct by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council because Dion speaks the language of the Canadiens.

  • Alberta_Girl

    I appreciate when 'the media' go out on a limb and say, file a Freedom of Information request, so they can bring the citizenry information, AKA factual coverage because the PMO has locked that information tighter than [insert your own simile here]. Sadly the media have been continually deflected by the Harper Government much like the parliamentary committee's request for the Afghan detainee documents.

    I don't think you have to be on either end of the political spectrum to appreciate and advocate for ethical decision making that falls within the boundaries of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    If you have a moment take a look at a recent open letter to Canadian journalists by the Assoc. of Canadian Journalists. http://www.caj.ca/?p=692

  • http://politicscanada.wordpress.com Politics Freak

    What is more scary, is a government that bullies, tries to muzzle anyone who is offering another perspective and eliminates the gathering of facts (long-form census) because they do not jive with their narrow ideological views.

    Let's not all pretend that somehow media outlets are more than businesses, trying to sell their product. The key point is that they are free to do whatever the H$%L they want, without that freedom you don't have democracy. I know the Conservatives would love it if they got to approve every piece of information newspapers, websites etc. published.

    They even tried to get the Auditor General to get approval for speaking.

  • chet

    Attacking the conservatives on wrong issue is a sign of bias?

    Oh my.

    Not only do the liberals expect favourable coverage, but finely tuned attacks that can only maximize damage to the Conservatives.

    It appears this monster cannot be fed enough. Give it some biased coverage and it only demands more and more.

  • modster99

    They lost me when they said "As journalists, we fear this will mean more government waste, more misuse of taxpayer dollars, more scandals Canadians won't know about until it's too late."
    First of all, the reporters are hating it because it makes their job more difficult. Period.
    Secondly, I don't recall and Liberal scandals that were stopped at the beginning, because of reporting. Most of these things come to light because of whistle blowing. Also, I don't think that reporting has stopped, in the past, government waste, or the misuse of taxpayer dollars.
    If these reporters want to be believed, they should stick to trying to be more credible first.

From Macleans