The Impact of Federal Cutbacks
Jan 25, 2012
alternatives, macdonald, program, tension
A new study by David Macdonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) takes a look at the three waves of cuts to federal programs, staff, and operations since the Harper government came into office in 2006. And he finds that these cutbacks will slash services and increase unemployment.
In “The Cuts Behind the Curtain: How Federal Cutbacks Will Slash Services and Increase Unemployment,” Macdonald shows that the first wave (the Strategic Reviews of 2007-2010) totaled $1.82 billion in cuts, with a loss of some 6300 jobs by 2013-1014. That was followed by the $2 billion Personnel Budget Freeze (announced in 2010) and a $4 billion cut announced in 2011 – the Strategic and Operating Review.
In total, Macdonald shows that the federal government will have been slashed by $7.82 billion as of 2014-2015, when all the cuts will be in effect. As he states, “more than 60,000 jobs are guaranteed to disappear somewhere in Canada.” According to his analysis, some 22,000 of these could be in the National Capital Region.
The analysis goes on to look at various scenarios to explore how the cuts will play out, and shows that they will affect more than just the unemployment rate. The report suggests that these cuts will be hard on the most vulnerable: Aboriginal Peoples, low-income families and individuals, those already out of work, and the environment.
Macdonald goes into some detail to explain that which jobs will go and how they will be spread between government, not-for-profit, Crown corporations, and the private sector depends on how they are weighted. But a main cause of ambiguity is the government’s “purposeful and strategic lack of transparency” with regard to cuts to programs. What is clear is that the total job loss of the last two waves of cuts will be between 53,800 and 62,000.
Cutbacks that resulted from the first wave of cuts affected those groups referred to above: Aboriginal Peoples because of reductions in cultural programs and skills development; low-income families/seniors and the unemployed because staff cuts could make programs geared to them harder to access; and the environment primarily because of cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada.
Macdonald concludes by noting that such large cuts and significant changes to federal programs deserve to be thoroughly examined and considered. They require debate, and that hasn’t happened so far.
The report can be accessed here.
Comments
Comments are now closed