From a piece by Jason Clemens in the WSJ (it's gated but reproduced here):

But change really began to take off in 1993. A socialist-leaning government in Saskatchewan started by reducing spending and moving towards a balanced budget. This was followed by historic reforms by the Conservatives in Alberta, who relied on spending reductions to balance their budget quickly.

In 1995, the federal government, led by the Liberal Party, passed the most important budget in three generations. Federal spending was reduced almost 10% over two years and federal employment was slashed 14%. By 1998, the federal government was in surplus and reducing the nearly $650 billion national debt. Provincial governments similarly focused on eliminating deficits by paring spending and reducing debt, and then they started to offer tax relief.

All government spending peaked at 53% of Canadian GDP in 1992 and fell steadily to just under 40% by 2008. (Government spending in the U.S. was 38.8% of GDP that year.)

Canada doesn't seem to have experienced the negative consequences that Keynesians would have us expect. In fact, the cuts started when Canada was in a mild recession (GDP peaked in 1991) yet the results were far from some sort of Krugmanesque replay of the Great Depression.

"Hooverism" is in quotes, of course, because Hoover did not cut spending and did not adhere to balanced budgets.