Any Tong to Hammer Harper with

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Nov 14

My hometown newspaper published an editorial on 22 Nov 14 entitled "Our Veterans deserve better"  It was a criticism of the fact that the department of Veterans Affairs returned money to Treasury that had lain unspent since 2006.  The thrust of the editorial was that the government of Stephen Harper was depriving veterans of money they were owed in order to help balance the federal budget.  Editors of newspapers ought to have a passing knowledge of how laws and parliament work in this country, and should assume that readers do also.  The fact that the government and its bureaucrats cannot spend money on deserving causes without the authorization of parliament seems to have escaped the authors of the editorial.  The result was an unbalanced attack on the government of Stephen Harper and on Julian Fantino, the minster of Veterans Affairs.  The episode began Fantino's rapid descent as Minister.  The department's budget and the caution about spending from year to year is readily accessible on the department's website.


The editorial headlined “Our veterans deserve better” ought to be entitled, “Any tong to hammer Harper with.”

Veterans Affairs Canada has had an annual budget of $3.5 Billion since 2011, and this is expected to rise to $3.6 Billion in the fiscal year 2016-17.  In the eight years included in the period 2006 to 2013, the Department was thus allocated over $20 Billion.  Of this, $1.5 Billion, less than ten percent, was returned to the Treasury as unspent funds.

The budget of Veterans Affairs Canada fluctuates each year due to the demand-driven nature of its programs, which are based upon Veteran’s needs and entitlements.  By estimating future expenditures on the high side, any surge in demand for VAC services can be met with the funding allocated by Parliament in that fiscal year.  It is only proper stewardship of the public’s money to return unspent funds to the Treasury, that is funds that could have met a surge in demand that did not in fact materialize.  It is irresponsible and possibly illegal to push money out the door just to expend all the money allocated to a Department by Parliament.  The attitude that all allocated money must be spent is what leads to out-of-control spending and deficits.

The fact that a government department returned unexpended funds to the Treasury is not, by itself, a sign of viciousness by the government.  If Parliament voted the funds, it was because the government said it needed it and expected to spend it.  That some money was returned is better than having to go back to Parliament and ask for more.  That’s called being fiscally responsible.

There are always new and creative ways of spending the public’s money.  The better ones can actually sound plausible and gain sympathy.  But until those new ways of spending money are actually enacted by Parliament, a government Department has no authority and would acting illegally to spend the public’s money on them.

There have been a spate of stories recently about how much money was not spent by a Federal department, and that these facts show a vicious parsimoniousness on the part of the government.  An adult would know that no such conclusion is supportable on the basis of that evidence.  If anything, it is a sign of prudent financial management.

Anyhow, it is better for the Federal budget to be managed by a Scrooge than a Santa Claus.  The Editorial page seems to believe in Santa Claus.
-30-