Let's annotate the end of the PM's speech this afternoon in Brampton, Ont.
Harper: Ladies and gentlemen, we are responding with unprecedented speed because we are in an global recession, that has arrived with unprecedented speed. We are, as I’ve said, cutting bureaucratic red tape. The public service has been enormously helpful in getting this done. But We cannot have the opposition in Parliament replacing bureaucratic red tape with political red tape.
I must admit I am very frustrated with the opposition.
As we know, the opposition formed a coalition to try and prevent us from even bringing our Budget forward.
Me: The coalition was formed partly in response to Harper's attempt to cut off all parties from public financing, a move he surely knew would back all three of his opponents into a corner where they would be forced to fight. But Harper's opponents were aided in this by the absence of any economic plan in his government's November's fiscal update and by pollyanna economic pronouncements. At that time, Harper was insisting the government would not run a deficit and that, if anything the country would experience “a technical recession.” The coalition was deeply unpopular with Canadians but it did not prevent the Conservatives from bringing forward a budget, it forced them to bring forward a budget as fast as possible.
Then the opposition coalition, the Liberal Party in particular, refused to produce its own budgetary proposals.
Since when does any government wait for the Opposition to tell it what should be in the budget? Isn't that the government's job? And the NDP, at least, had lots of ideas and even hosted an open-to-the-media caucus workshop to develop those ideas.
Now some in the opposition are even suggesting that the government should provide notice or even approval for each individual spending project.
Harper should name those individuals for none of them are the leaders of the three opposition parties. None want an itemized list of projects. They only want to know — for a small part ($4-billion) of overall government spending ($236-billion) — what program areas will be getting additional funding. In other words, the opposition doesn't care to know which bridge and which tunnel is getting repaired it simply wants to know: is this money for the Building Canada Fund, for the Pacific Gateway Fund, etc.
That is not realistic – ever. And certainly not realistic in today’s world.
As I’ve said, we’ve got the Estimates before Parliament.
Not the whole story. While the Estimates or Government spending plan has indeed been published and circulated, the enabling legislation has not yet been tabled nor will it be tabled until March 26, as normal, just before the end of the government's current fiscal year. In fact, the Estimates Harper refers to will not be voted on until June — just like every year.
We all need to keep the pressure on the opposition to act.
Let's say it one more time: The legislation has not yet been tabled nor will it be until March 26. Even if the entire opposition crossed the floor today and the House of Commons consisted of 308 Conservative MPs, there would be nothing for them to “act” on because, and I hate to belabour this point, the legislation will not be tabled until March 26.
So, ladies and gentlemen, send them a message:
Stop the political games. Pass the estimates. And let the work begin!
One final note: There is still at least $4 billion that has not yet been spent that was approved in the 2008 budget and estimates.
I may be reading it wrong David, but that looks awfully inconsistent. First you're criticizing the government for not bringing forward a budget/fiscal plan back during the Fall Economic Update, and then you turn around and criticize them for wanting to press the opposition to pass something that won't be realized until March 26th anyway. A situation, I believe, would have been exactly the same had the Government provided a Budget or Fiscal Plan back at the beginning.
Which, ultimately, was the position of the Government in the first place. They were providing an Economic Update in the fall, not a budget because they knew they wouldn't be able to pursue an actual budget or new spending initiatives until March anyway. Plenty of time to come up with a budget it seems. The Opposition wanted to play politics though and did the whole Coalition spat.
I have to think that people are splitting hairs here.
You may recall that under the circumstances of the time, the Government in the interest of doing what's best for Canadians invited the Opposition Parties to participate in the creation of a budget for all Canadians. A uniquely nonpartisan budget.
The Liberals thew up their hands claiming it wasn't their responsibility to come up with ideas so that they could ride the fence and fall whichever way the winds blew.
The NDP refused to participate with the Government, instead insisting that the Conservatives step down and hand over control to the Coalition who would then create their own Budget, with limited Conservative input (if any). Otherwise they didn't want to have anything to do with it.
The BLOC simply weren't interested outside of what they could wring out of anyone for Quebec.
Maybe that $4B is being held in reserve for the Auto-Sector? It might be a good idea for the Government to have that kind of flexibility should something happen before the next fiscal year?
Please David, I'm just asking for a little more objectivity. Not that I'm accusing you of bashing the Government, but maybe that you've just overlooked some other issues/past events.
Not to mention that according to House Standing Order #82 the only way to have the Main Estimates approved before June is for the government to use its own time under Government Orders to consider them. But I guess that is only an option for a government that, “feels that there is a matter of urgency and it cannot wait until the end of a Supply period.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2000 Edition)
One final note: There is still at least $4 billion that has not yet been spent that was approved in the 2008 budget and estimates.
So, can the Harper gov't spend it any which way it wants?
Talk about taking a page from the Liberal Communication Strategy and filling in between the bullet points!
Seriously, Mr. Akin's. Either that, or you just approach things from the Left.
“Either that, or you just approach things rationally.”
There, fixed it for ya.
“Harper should name those individuals for none of them are the leaders of the three opposition parties. None want an itemized list of projects.”
Perhaps you might want to correct your rebuttal. Liberal MP Dan MacTeague was on tv today in committee asking for an itemized list. Aside from that, Iggy has stood up in question period asking for a detailed list of the $3 billion in stimulus funding.
“Then the opposition coalition, the Liberal Party in particular, refused to produce its own budgetary proposals.”
The three parties of the coalition repeatedly stated that the PM would not take thier advice or considerations in the economic statement, so its fair to assume the PM thought they wantee input. By the way, Iggy refused to put forth budgetary proposals because he didn't want the Liberals to “wear those cuts or spending”. I don't call that responsible government, just partisan crap.
Today in Brampton Harper stated: “Like virtually every other country, we will be running a deficit over the next couple of years,” he said. “The difference is that our deficits will be temporary, because our stimulus spending is time-limited.”
This doesn’t jive with the earlier statements by Jim Flaherty who claimed that the Conservatives had already provided stimulus to the economy in earlier budgets. By that he was referring to the 2% GST cut and the cuts to corporate taxes. These measures alone are costing the government over $12 billion a year in foregone tax revenue……and neither of these stimulus measures are “time limited” in any way, shape or form.
Once again, Harper is advancing patent falsehoods, much as he did with his falsehood known as “tax leakage”.
Rather than touting his measures as being superior to those of “every other country”, again Harper is mis-portraying the truth, since Britain lowered its GST equivalent tax, known as the VAT, from 17.5% to 15%, for a “time limited” period of two years and not in perpetuity as Harper did, thereby creating a $10 billion a year structural deficit in Canada?
Why does Harper feel so free to abandon the truth when speaking with Canadians?
No. Parliament approved that spending last year specifically for certain kinds of infrastructure projects. And, as infrastructure minister John Baird as noted on more than one occasion, this money will get spent likely on projects that can take a year or more until environmental assessments, approvals, and engineering work is complete.
I see Brent Fullard has returned to using his time bashing Harper on blogs. Guess he has time as he was the losing Liberal candidate in Flaherty's riding.
So I thought. Thanks.
Makes you wonder why the Liberals keep raising the issue.
David – Mr. Harper did not try to cut off all parties from public financing. Parties are currently subsidized three different ways:
1) a couple bucks per electoral vote per year;
2) Tax credits for political donors
3) Rebates to the riding associations of 60% of the campaign expenses.
Mr. Harper only proposed the elimination of one of these
Mr. Akin (no apostrophe s, please, ladies & gents!) writes:
“The coalition was formed partly in response to Harper's attempt to cut off all parties from public financing, a move he surely knew would back all three of his opponents into a corner where they would be forced to fight. But Harper's opponents were aided in this by the absence of any economic plan in his government's November's fiscal update and by pollyanna economic pronouncements. At that time, Harper was insisting the government would not run a deficit and that, if anything the country would experience “a technical recession.”
Mr. Akin, the public financing measure was withdrawn on Nov. 29, two days after the Economic and Fiscal Update was brought out (Nov. 27), yet the opposition went ahead with its previously concocted coalition. As I previously posted elsewhere on a related topic:
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081202/081202_showdown_timeline/20081202/?hub=CP24Home
“A timeline of recent developments in the unfolding parliamentary crisis in Ottawa”
Let's review some salient points:
Nov. 27: Fiscal Update, elimination of political party funding introduced.
Nov. 29: political party funding measure withdrawn
Dec. 1: formal coalition document signed.
As its name implied, the November Fiscal and Economic Update was just that: an “update” telling Canadians the state of the economy up to that point, as well as the forecasts given those conditions. There was no deficit declared at that time for the simple reason there was no stimulus package envisaged at that time. Ergo, no deficit at that time.
Many experts have remarked how rapidly and how deeply the recession set in. Some have said they saw trouble looming, but nothing like the present conditions. If Warren Buffett was flummoxed and Barton Biggs [from Wiki: formerly held the title of “chief global strategist” for Morgan Stanley and was with that firm for 30 years] can say this here http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10135 “Nobody knew how severe and the steepness of this global decline was going to be …”, well, Monday morning quarterbacks are great at “aft”-casting.
Eh to go Johnny! You fixed it, you fixed him.
Don't let them call David a Lefty.
Dear nameless anonymous:
Believe me it's a full time job……now that you've mentioned Jim Flaherty:
Today at a Senate committee hearing, Mr. Flaherty claimed that “no economist predicted the recession” prior to his tabling of the Harper government’s Fiscal and Economic Update on November 27, 2008.
Like Flaherty's argument that income trusts cause tax leakage, this is simply untrue:
· TD Report Sept. 8, 2008. “…we believe the global economy is on the brink of a mild recession.”
· Scotiabank Global Economic Research, Oct. 3, 2008. “We are forecasting recessions for both the U.S. and Canada…”
· Bank of Montreal, Oct. 10, 2008. “I suggest that we will see a longer and deeper recession in the U.S. than many are thinking…recession is likely here as well…”
· TD Report Oct. 31, 2008. “We now deem it likely that the Canadian economy will formally tip into a recession at the end of this year.”
Last time I checked Dan McTeague wasn't the leader of any party. Nice try
I wonder why the media doesn't call the Liberals on it.
why is that David?
Gabby writes: Ergo, no deficit at that time.
“Not true Gabby
“Canada's deficit next year could be as high as $13 billion and that Conservative government decisions to cut the GST and raise government spending are to blame, not global economic events.“
forgot to mention this Article is dated November 20th, 2008
Just another example of this CONservative government's inability to tell the Truth.
Harper wasn't the only Conservative struggling with the truth today.
Flaherty also out-and-out lied, not once but twice:
1. He said the senate is holding up his stimulus when it has not even come to a vote yet and the Conservative and Liberal senators have an agreement on the timing.
2. He claims that no on predicted a recession, which as shown here is palpably false: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkk_OR6Dqt8&feature=channel_page
Just a note on this whole thing…
Saying that a blatant lie is a lie does not mean you are a loonie lefty or moonbat rightwinger.
I remember being taught that telling the truth was the correct, moral, right thing to do.
It's too bad that that is becoming the exception rather than the rule. Frankly it shouldn't matter what your political leanings are – a lie is a lie, the truth is the truth. And suggesting that lies are true and vice versa doesn't make you a loyal political party supporter, it makes you a “moran”.
Fortunately with the internetz it's becoming a lot less easy to get away with telling baldfaced lies.
That's an incredibly cheap shot! You know full well the truth has a Liberal bias.
I'm a link addict, Anna, so I thank you for your good intentions, but the one you provided did not work, so impossible to verify.
However, for your reading pleasure, I recommend this, the Economic and Fiscal Stetement, i.e. the document in question. Go to page 81 where you can read the following:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/pdf/EconomicStatement2008_Eng.pdf
“Highlights [page 81]
The Government is planning on balanced budgets for the current and next five years, although given the downside risks, balanced budgets cannot be guaranteed.
Weaker economic growth has significantly reduced expected revenues.
Program expenses in 2008–09 are expected to be lower than projected in Budget 2008, but in 2009–10 they are expected to be higher than projected in the budget, largely reflecting increased transfers to persons and other levels of government.
Public debt charges are lower than projected in both years due to lower projected interest rates.
After taking into account the actions proposed in this Economic and Fiscal Statement, the projected surplus is $0.8 billion in 2008–09, $0.1 billion in 2009–10 and $0.1 billion in 2010–11.
The projected surplus rises to $1.1 billion in 2011–12, $4.2billion in 2012–13 and $8.1billion in 2013–14.
The tax burden, as measured by total revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), is projected to decline from 15.8 per cent in 2007–08 to 15.2 per cent by 2013–14—its lowest ratio in nearly 50 years.”
You see? No deficit planned at that time. In fact, a modest surplus.
Happy? I am, as long as I can verify.
When I clicked on your link, Anna, I received this message:
«Safari can’t open the page “http://http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=37e84a85-2ccb-4309-9a0e-cd3dde432de2” because it can’t find the server “http”»
After I wrote my first reply to you, which is under Mr. Akin's vigilant moderation, I tried the link again without the two “http”s. This time it worked.
OK, so, from that article you referenced:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=37e84a85-2ccb-4309-9a0e-cd3dde432de2
“Page concluded Ottawa could run a deficit as high as $13.8 billion next year, in 2009-10. Deficits could remain higher than $11 billion each year through to 2013, adding nearly $50-billion to Canada's debt over the next five years.
Page provided a range of deficit scenarios for MPs. His most optimistic scenario shows Ottawa with a surplus of $1.3 billion next year and a surplus that would grow to $11.8 billion by 2013. What he described as his “average” scenario has deficits of $3.9 billion and $1.4 billion for next year and the year after that before Ottawa returns to the black.
But in a briefing with reporters, Page said he believes the most likely outcome “would tend towards the lower scenario,” in which the deficit could be greater than $13 billion next year.”
So, once again, it was not a definitive prediction or forecast. Mr. Page seemed to be saying the government might be running a deficit or … maybe not. A $13B deficit was a possibility on account of lower revenues because of previous tax reductions (GST & other taxes); that was the worst-case scenario.
However, according to the Finance Minister in his Nov. 27 Economic & Fiscal Statement, he was planning to eke out a small surplus contingent on some of the cuts planned in most government departments AND of course no stimulus package that was later provided for in the actual 2009 Budget.
Ergo, no deficit: the Fin. Min had not planned one, with what he knew at the time.
Disclaimer: This blog is a non-paid advertisement for the Liberal Party of Canada
WOW! Some pretty strong comments from some presumedly passionate people. I do have to agree with the benefit that the internet has on disclosing the truths or rather untruths revolving this current Conservative government. Good article David, I love reading some of the more reputable journalist working on the hill, thanks again.
Are my two replies to Anna (at 9:30 and 10:05 pm) on probation?
The reason I ask is because there was a comment added here by another (?) Anonymous at 10:13, which means you weren't otherwise occupied.
I would appreciate the opportunity to reply in a timely fashion to those who challenge the information I've provided, if possible. Thanks.
Call the Liberals on what exactly?
The Conservatives argue that the Opposition parties are holding money getting “out the door” to projects and such.
However, there's 4 billion dollars of unspent infrastructure money (read: money for “shovel ready” projects) that's already been approved by Parliament from last year's budget.
Even if Budget '09 dollars could be spent tomorrow, time is needed for project planning, assessments, and approval (as Baird has pointed out).
But if the Conservatives have a group of projects ready to go now, then there's a 4 billion dollar pot of money ready for them to dip into.
The Opposition parties are not standing in the way of anything, and it's terribly unbecoming of Harper to suggest otherwise.
Let me guess: you put links to other sites in your comments?
Comments are generally posted immediately, but if the spam filter finds something fishy about a comment (such as multiple links to other sites) then it'll flag it as spam. Only until David marks the comment as “not spam” will it be posted here.
Perhaps it is a question of links, as you say. One of the links was for the Finance Dept., Economic Statement. In another comment, I linked to a Canada.com story. Hardly “filterable.”
OTOH, I find it passing strange that a YouTube link gets through without a problem. Oh well, I guess I'll have to find other playgrounds. I'm sure the host will be able to manage without my frequent interventions.