'The budget is not structurally balanced'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 2, 2009 at 7:03 PM - 42 Comments

Kevin Page issues his latest report.

Canada’s economy will not fully recover until 2013 and the federal government will carry a structural budgetary deficit of C$19 billion ($17.6 billion) after the crisis, a report by the parliamentary budget officer said on Monday …“PBO calculations continue to suggest that the budget is not structurally balanced over the medium term,” the report said. ”PBO estimates that the structural balance would deteriorate from essentially a balanced position in 2007-08 to an C$18.9 billion structural deficit in 2013-14.”

'4,476 pages of contempt'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM - 121 Comments

Kevin Page has apparently asked the government if it might turn over the electric version of the paper data it dumped in boxes on his doorstep last week. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair appeared after QP on Friday with one of the boxes to unleash the following.

J’ai été, les trois boîtes, ça c’est les boîtes elles-mêmes qui ont été donné hier à Kevin Page.  Celui-ci, le 2 of 3 est marqué Ontario complete.  En réponse à une demande légalement formulée par le directeur parlementaire du budget, Kevin Page a reçu la réponse suivante du ministre Baird.  Il a reçu trois boîtes, 4,476 pages de documents, aucun résumé, aucune version électronique.

This is one of three boxes that Minister Baird sent to Kevin Page, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer in response to his legally formulated request for information.  If you look at the Act that constitutes the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he has the right to ask for all information required to allow him to do his job.  There was no summary, no synopsis, no spreadsheet, there wasn’t even an electronic version, 4,476 pages of contempt from John Baird to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  This one is marked Box 2 of 3, Ontario complete.  These are the actual boxes, although you’ll understand that the documents are no longer in them because every document and we have copies for you of one of the pages, every document is marked Protected A.  So these documents were sent to Kevin Page’s office.

Continue…

Fun with maps

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM - 38 Comments

While John Baird’s office offers the Parliamentary Budget Office a 4,476-page spreadsheet, the folks at Spatial Databox have put together a customizable map. Enjoy.

The Commons: If we can't talk to each other, we can only talk to ourselves

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM - 52 Comments

The Scene. The Conservatives cheered as Bob Rae, perhaps their preferred opponent, stood to start Question Period. Then, though, he spoke.

“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for public health and for H1N1,” said the white-haired one. “It is very clear that there was a delay in the decision of the federal government to order the vaccine. It is very clear that there has been a delay in the distribution of the vaccine. I would like to ask the minister, in light of these two clear facts that are delineated by the evidence, does she not understand that these delays have cost and will cost lives?”

The Conservatives groaned, having apparently expected something more laudatory of their efforts.

On this question of health policy, it was of course Tony Clement, the Industry Minister, who was offered up to respond. Just as Christian Paradis, the Minister of Public Works, would later take a question on climate change, the Treasury Board President Vic Toews would expound on the scourge of organized crime, and Heritage Minister James Moore would stand and account for the government’s approach to taxation.

“Mr. Speaker, in fact our Minister of Health has been working with the Chief Public Health Officer and has been working assiduously with the provinces and territories across this land to deliver the vaccine,” Mr. Clement informed the House

And surely we can all agree that assiduously is a very impressive-sounding word. Continue…

Er, maybe not

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM - 24 Comments

The Liberal leader issues a statement refuting any suggestion he intends to raise taxes and, with Conservatives and New Democrats already on the attack, Canadian Press softens its previous report.

News that Ignatieff was prepared to even discuss the possibility of tax increases was greeted as a political gift by the Conservatives and NDP, who instantly began circulating the story and offering critical comment…

The insiders indicated Ignatieff intends to kick off discussion of the tough choices ahead with a speech Thursday to the Chamber of Commerce in London, Ont. That was to be followed by a series of townhall-style meetings to engage Canadians in the debate.

However, Ignatieff spokesperson Jill Fairbrother said late Wednesday that the leader intends only to continue demanding that the Tories “come clean” on the real fiscal numbers. As part of that, he’ll continue to argue against what Liberals contend is a Tory attempt to muzzle Page. ”He doesn’t believe you can develop a plan to get us out of this mess until you know what the real numbers are,” she said. ”That is where we’re at and there’s no strategy beyond that.“

The Commons: A difference of realities

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 6:24 PM - 46 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff stood and, perhaps feeling a bit parched, took a sip of water. Putting down his glass, he proceeded with his supposition.

The Prime Minister, the Liberal leader said, was planning to increase employment insurance premiums. This, he said, will deter employers from hiring. And this, he explained, would add to the tax burden. Across the way, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was loudly displeased.

“Will the Prime Minister admit,” Mr. Ignatieff finished, “that he is raising taxes and that tax increases will kill jobs?”

Shaking his head and shrugging, the Prime Minister stood with his version of events.

“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary,” he said, “this government has frozen premiums for employment insurance for this year and next. In the long term, these rates are determined by an independent commission.”

Mr. Ignatieff listened to this response, then stood with a conclusion.

“Mr. Speaker,” he explained, “this means that ‘Yes, we’ll raise taxes.’” Continue…

Ignatieff on Ignatieff

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 2:46 AM - 42 Comments

The Liberal leader explains himself.

The Liberal Leader is still a novice, and his fumbles over trying to bring down the government, building the party in Quebec, and how he runs his office and manages his caucus have corroded his relationship with the Canadian public, leaving him about as unpopular as his predecessor, Stéphane Dion. Mr. Ignatieff’s response is to keep on trying to bring down a government whose leader is double-digits ahead of him in popularity, and to take up the cause of Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose own budget is about to be gutted.

Politically, this is madness. Mr. Ignatieff doesn’t care.

“All I can hold on to is: What is my job?” he said Tuesday in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “And my job is to stand up on behalf of Canadians and say: ‘What the heck are the facts, here? What are you doing with the public finances?’ That’s why the Parliamentary Budget Officer matters.”

The Commons: Down the memory hole

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 6:39 PM - 27 Comments

The Scene. Nobody knows anything, and fewer remember what we thought the day before. So it is in Ottawa and so it shall always be, until and unless it isn’t.

In the absence of knowledge or memory, there is refuge in rumour and prognostication. So we guess when the next election will come, fascinate ourselves with polls that rarely change. Last week we discussed, at length and with great concern, how completely and indisputably screwed the Liberals were in Quebec. The latest poll, released yesterday, shows them up 10 points in that province, struggling everywhere else.

This week, the gossip concerns which member of the official opposition is preparing to switch allegiances. Such is the surreal nature of this place that a source within a government that once proclaimed that a coalition of opposition parties would violate the basic principles of our democracy is now, apparently, happy to report that various members of one of those opposition parties are nearly ready to coalesce about the Conservative party in direct contradiction, one assumes, of everything those individuals campaigned on last fall.

You’re forgiven if you find it hard to keep up. In fairness, it’s less like watching an afternoon soap and more akin to a bad sketch comedy series, acted and scripted by untreated ADHD sufferers.

Amid all this, Michael Ignatieff stood just after 2:15pm this afternoon and dared talk about the state of the federal government’s finances. Continue…

The Commons: Huzzah, Mr. Ignatieff asks a question that is not entirely rhetorical

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:45 PM - 33 Comments

The Scene. We are—as a people, as a political class, as a town quite bored with itself—easily impressed. So it is that the Prime Minister’s overt display this weekend of something approaching personality is being roundly hailed as something approaching significance. Mr. Harper played the piano and sang. In public. And such is the state of things that, were you to judge only the reaction, you might assume he’d personally negotiated the surrender of the Taliban, or at least convinced Gary Bettman to move a hockey team to Hamilton.

By those same standards, similar huzzahs are almost certainly due to the leader of the opposition, who, let the record show, stood in the House this day and asked a question that was almost not entirely rhetorical.

This was, mere months ago, his trademark: an insistence that Question Period be something other than an exchange of slanders. Alas, since returning this fall, with a new mandate of opposition to justify, he’s been less reason and inquiry and more piss and vinegar. Take, for instance, the first of his questions on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week. Continue…

PBOWatch: "He wants more information on infrastructure spending? Hasn't he seen the ads for the website?"

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 4:57 PM - 49 Comments

As noted by Colleague Wherry earlier today, midway through the Toronto Star’s coverage of the all-but-buried-by-the-Coderre-Affair-and-don’t-think-for-a-second-that-was-a-coincidence plank walk by now former Conservative candidate Gordon Landon comes the not entirely astonishing news that the parliamentary budget officer is having some difficulty prying loose the numbers behind the government’s claim that some impressively large percentage of projects to be funded under the Canada Action! Plan are already underway:

Page said his office filed a request for specific infrastructure spending at the end of August but was stonewalled.

“We got a letter back from the deputy minister of transport and infrastructure just last week saying this is a significant data request … and they weren’t prepared to give us this data (at this time),” said Page, who has been a thorn in the Harper government’s side.

Page has embarrassed the federal government by casting doubt on Ottawa’s price tag for the Afghan mission and accurately predicting the deficit would be far greater than forecast by the Conservatives.

“We are looking at where the bar has been set in other countries on openness and transparency on stimulus money and … we will keep asking for the information so we can do our own analysis on money going out the door,” he told the Toronto Star.

For the record, here is the letter that Page sent to Transport in August:

Response_013

… and here’s the reply — which, according to the datestamp, Page’s office received on September 23, 2009:

Info_Request_013

The good news? The department has assured the PBO that they are ‘working diligently” to provide his office with the requested information “within a reasonable time frame such that it respects the intent of the Act.” The bad news? They don’t seem to be willing to say exactly — or even approximately — how long that will take. What ITQ wants to know, however, is why it seems to be such an arduous demand to make, considering that all that information seems to be readily available to provide examples of shovel-festooned projects to ministers and Conservative spokesthingies faced with scepticism over the speed by which the money is flowing out the door. Why would it be so hard to collect all those talking points together and send off the whole package to Kevin Page?

Jumped v. pushed

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM - 13 Comments

Gordon Landon says he was politely asked to go away.

The York regional councillor says he complied with a request from the Conservative party to step aside, adding he is not used to people telling him what to say and think … As a regional councillor from Markham, Landon, 61, is used to being independent and speaking his mind, “so it’s hard for me to bow to a lot of structure and having everything approved by Ottawa,” he said.

… Meanwhile, Landon said he stands by what he said about the lack of funding for the medical devices centre but wishes he had said it differently. ”I didn’t follow Conservative policy in terms of getting permission to go on that TV show and I made a comment on that show that was an embarrassment to some members of the Conservative party.”

Elsewhere, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says he’s being politely rebuffed in his attempts to scrutinize government stimulus spending.

That wasn't so hard

By Paul Wells - Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 10:33 PM - 41 Comments

One hundred and thirty-four economists, including 15 past presidents of the Canadian Economics Association, sign a clear letter of support for proper budgetary support and institutional independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The contrast with Michael Ignatieff’s stumblebum Liberal opposition, and with a government that wants credit for creating the PBO as an institution but doesn’t want any actual sass from Kevin Page, is striking.

You gotta fight for your right to leak

By Paul Wells - Monday, July 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM - 54 Comments

I know you’ll be as surprised as I was — i.e., not in the slightest — to discover it was the Liberals who leaked the latest report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, that being the first report he provided to MPs before releasing it to the general public.

Page has argued since he took up this job, barely a year ago, that he must not release his reports to MPs exclusively because that would make it easier for them to use his work as partisan fodder. Page knew from the outset that any independent and empowered observer of the fiscal picture will, eventually, be seen as antagonistic to any government, at least to the most thin-skinned members of that government. He really didn’t want to speed that process along by volunteering to be MPs’ partisan shill. Since it’s part of his mandate to answer questions put by opposition MPs, it would be all too easy for one to ask him a question and then stand up in the House one Question Period and say, “Mr. Speaker, the government is doing so-and-so — and I have here in my hand a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer proving it!!!” And the rest of us wouldn’t be able to judge whether the PBO report actually said such a thing.

Now, it’s possible to argue that that’s too bad, and Page can just lump it. It’s also possible to argue that Page’s institution is valuable and new, and he needs support as he defines his role in a way that will benefit public good instead of Parliament Hill jousting and assorted other baloney. But you really need to be the Michael Ignatieff Liberals to argue both sides, at length, for months on end. Continue…

'Dumb'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM - 12 Comments

The Prime Minister apparently thinks little of the parliamentary budget officer he hired.

But on Friday, Harper ridiculed the suggestion that the government would need to slash spending or boost taxes to balance its budget when the economy recovers. ”We will not start raising taxes and cutting programs. That’s a very dumb policy and, to the extent, frankly, that the parliamentary budget officer suggested it, it’s a dumb position,” he said.

The Liberal press office was quick this afternoon to point out that it was also Conservative MP Brad Trost, in explaining himself to the Star-Phoenix yesterday, who said, “I’m a fiscal conservative so I’ve been urging reductions all across the board on all sorts of issues, not just on heritage funding.”

Tax increase or spending cut?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, July 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM - 64 Comments

More from the Parliament Budget Officer, this time in an interview with Canwest.

Page also believes that the deficit can be eliminated only with “significant discretionary actions,” the least painful of which, in his view and the view of other private sector economists, would be to increase the country’s consumption tax — the GST.

“It would be very difficult to see a surplus within the next five years without significant discretionary actions to bring it back into balance,” Page said in an exclusive interview with Canwest News Service and Global National on June 25, just as he was putting the finishing touches to the forecast he will publish Wednesday.

Loyal readers may remember this discussion.

Put it on our tab

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, July 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM - 10 Comments

Reuters gets hold of the latest projections from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Mr. Page forecasts a deficit of $48.6-billion this year, slightly lower than the government’s estimate of $50.2-billion. But he projects a shortfall of $41.3-billion in 2010-11, $27.6-billion in 2011-12, $21.6-billion in 2012-13 and $16.7-billion in 2013-14. He says the deficits from 2012 to 2014 will be structural rather than cyclical, but small nonetheless at less than 1% of GDP.

Time for another retrospective? Continue…

'Anybody can do that'

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, June 14, 2009 at 9:02 PM - 16 Comments

Jim Flaherty tries to explain why Kevin Page is wrong to say that tax hikes or spending cuts are going to be necessary to get the country back out of deficit.

“He’s wrong,” Flaherty told journalists in a conference call from a G8 finance ministers’ meeting in Lecce, Italy. ”Because he says growth rates likely will be slower than I had predicted. Now, if you make an assumption with respect to lower growth rates, then you get the results that he postulates. But anybody can do that.”

Hey, remember late 2004?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM - 1 Comment

Back to the previous Conservative opposition’s demand for objective analysis of the national finances. Here is the NDP’s second question today and the current Conservative government’s response.

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the election the Prime Minister said we would have no deficit. In November, that changed to a small surplus. In January, that changed again to a $34 billion deficit. Now the Conservatives are admitting to the largest shortfall in Canadian history. The finance minister has changed his numbers so often that no one is confident that he knows what he is doing. For the good of the country, will the Prime Minister agree to turn the books over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an honest appraisal?

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. We have a very competent finance minister who has done a great job of leading us through the outcome of a worldwide recession. In fact, we have put $29 billion, almost 2% of the GDP, into the economy as stimulus money this year. We care about Canadians. We are helping Canadians. We are there to help industries that are struggling. We are there to help those who are unemployed.

Paikin v. Page

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM - 2 Comments

Steve Paikin talks to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

A frustrated Flaherty

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM - 2 Comments

Jim Flaherty is confronted by some friendly pensioners.

“Listen, this is a very serious time!” a frustrated Flaherty said sternly. “All of these issues being raised about jobs, about pensions, about whether or not General Motors can survive and in what form, and whether Chrysler Canada Ltd. can survive and in what form, these are very major questions that are being discussed right now in a serious way.”

In other news.

The Commons: The prudence of pessimism

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 7:01 PM - 13 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had tried to reason with the government.

“According to StatsCan, of the 300,000 people who have lost their jobs since the election, only four out of 10 workers have qualified for EI. Parliament has spoken and called upon the government to reform employment insurance. Today, the conference board repeated that,” he said. “Why is it doing nothing to help?”

“Mr. Speaker, let us not quibble about the statistics that he is citing,” sighed Diane Finley, accusing Mulcair of misconstruing the situation and “playing petty partisan politics with the futures of real people.”

Now, the NDP deputy leader was merely mad, yelling and pointing across the aisle. “Mr. Speaker, in September, the Conservatives were saying there would be no recession and no deficit. In November, it was a technical recession and small surplus. In January, it was a recession and some deficit. In the past 24 hours, both the parliamentary budget officer and the TD Bank are predicting record deficits and a long recession,” he reported. “What purpose is served by continuing to misstate the facts as she just did on the deficit, the recession and unemployment? Start telling the truth to Canadians. Start respecting the votes in the House and we can start implementing resolutions like the EI proposals adopted two weeks ago. Start helping Canadians and stop lying.”

The Conservative side howled at the allegation. The Speaker reprimanded Mulcair. And Jim Flaherty stood to offer a rare response. Continue…

Do your share

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 11:50 PM - 17 Comments

Mike Wallace responds to the parliamentary budget officer’s latest projections.

“I believe part of the issue facing Canada and the world is we need some of the positive stuff. And when the positive stuff does come out it tends to get discounted immediately,” he said. “I myself purchased two cars these past two weeks. I am doing my share. I think there’s some good news stories. It’s not great news, don’t get me wrong.”

PBOWatch: Okay, the Parliamentary Budget Office has now officially put more thought into those quarterly budget reports …

By kadyomalley - Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM - 12 Comments

… than the party that came up with the idea to have the government provide them in the first place. Or so it seems from the latest briefing note, released earlier today:

• The PBO recommends that Parliament establish an appropriate provisional reporting framework prior to the release of the Government’s reports to ensure the appropriate information is being collected up-front — on the understanding that these reports can be improved over time as information accumulates and the situation evolves.

• This note provides the PBO’s view on some key information requirements for the content of these reports — the central goal of which should be to provide Parliament with accurate, timely, and easily understood information that details: recent economic and fiscal developments and prospects; the implementation and effectiveness of budget measures; and the budget results in light of its guiding principles.

• The specific contents of future progress reports to Parliament may include:

o An evaluation of economic developments relative to Budget 2009 assumptions, and an assessment of economic risks that uses an updated survey of private sector forecasters and, if applicable, the Government’s own forecast.

o A summary of recent fiscal results and analysis of fiscal risks, as well as an estimate of the Government’s structural budget balance and statement of its fiscal targets.

o A clear implementation and oversight framework that describes for each budget measure: the spending authority and delivery mechanism; implementation indicators and progress benchmarks; and expected output and/or outcome indicators. This note provides specific examples to illustrate these concepts.

o A discussion of progress relative to the three guiding principles that Budget 2009 be: timely; targeted; and temporary.

And that’s just from the summary — the full report runs fifteen pages, and includes a very helpful backgrounder on parliamentary oversight, and extensive analysis – with tables, even -  of the sort of information that will be useful in determining exactly whether the money is being spent in accordance with the stated goals of the budget. They’ve even provided a sample spreadsheet!

Now, it’s possible – although somewhat unlikely – that the Liberals have released a similarly detailed outline and ITQ missed it – or, alternately, that they specifically requested that the PBO put together this report, in which case I will cheerfully update this post. But at the moment, it looks like the parliamentary budget officer is putting more effort into making sure that these reports – the first of which, incidentally, is theoretically due by the end of March – hold the government accountable than the Official Opposition.

PBOWatch: Is that a Cabinet Confidence in your budget forecast …

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 9:21 AM - 7 Comments

Or do you just not want to give away all your secrets?

Everyone’s favourite fiscal futurist Kevin Page appears to have hit a brick wall in his efforts to persuade the FInance department to hand over the economic and fiscal projections underlying last fall’s Economic and Fiscal Statement (which, ITQ readers may dimly recall, very nearly brought down the government).

As it turned out, the folks at Finance were happy to send along the results of the private economic survey that were used to come up with their projections, but balked at releasing any “additional details” without first getting the green light from PCO, according to Deputy Minister Rob Wright, whose response is dated December 24, 2008:

Continue…