Budget 2012

[GAP]

Conservatives counting on ‘breathtaking’ budget to put end to recent troubles
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/08/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-counting-on-breathtaking-budget-to-put-end-to-recent-troubles/
Postmedia News  Mar 8, 2012

In a sharp break from their first two mandates, the Harper Conservatives are preparing to unveil a budget that is revolutionary rather than evolutionary, one that will introduce sweeping structural changes in key areas of federal policy. Politically, from the government’s standpoint, that won’t happen a moment too soon — even if the budget provokes great controversy, which it most certainly will.

Whether in trade, immigration, retirement benefits, resource development, innovation or fiscal policy, Conservative insiders say, the years of plodding, minority-era “incrementalism” are over. Indeed, there’s a sense within Conservative ranks that their moment of truth, a chance to distinguish themselves from the other parties in stark terms and establish a lasting legacy, has arrived.

“Everybody’s going to be busy for a long time reporting about it,” said one insider, speaking of the coming budget, to be handed down by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on March 29.

The subtext: Unless the robocalls scandal mutates like a super flu into something as-yet-unseen — specifically, unless evidence emerges that the Conservative Party or its national campaign knew about or participated in electoral fraud, something the prime minister and campaign chair Guy Giorno have categorically denied — it may soon be knocked off front pages by more wrenching debates.

Government sources characterize the coming shift as moving from day-to-day governing, extracting successes wherever possible, to making fundamental changes that correct big, underlying problems in the economy, or open up new opportunities in broad areas, such as resource development or trade. In a sense the Tories are adopting something closer to the style of earlier Conservative governments, such as the Brian Mulroney regimes that introduced North American free trade: Go big or go home.

These changes, and the strategy underlying them, were first flagged by the prime minister in his “OAS shocker” speech in Davos, Switzerland, in January. At the time most attention focused on Stephen Harper’s revelation that the government was considering a fundamental overhaul of retirement benefits, in order to make them sustainable long-term, despite the aging baby boom. That might even include a rise in the age of eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67, Harper indicated.

The Liberals and New Democrats, too predictably, immediately cast this as an attempt by the harshly cold, callous Conservatives to seize income from silver-haired widows and hand it over to weapons manufacturers. That debate, callow as it was, was swept aside by the backlash over Bill C-30, the online access bill, then Vikileaks and then robocalls, which continues to dominate political discussion in Ottawa.

What’s interesting about the government’s intentions now, heading into the budget, is how determined the Conservatives are to press ahead with a full suite of significant reform, controversies be damned — and how far the plan extends beyond the OAS system. The change envisioned is huge.

For starters, the age of eligibility for OAS will indeed rise from the current 65 to 67 (though in grandfathered fashion, so that only those younger than 50 or so now will be affected), sources confirm. Beyond that, immigration, resource development, research and innovation and trade are also being overhauled, all while the government moves more aggressively than previously signalled to balance the books. (The Finance department has said budget cuts will be in a range between $4-billion and $8-billion. As I reported here last week, the overwhelming majority of Tory ministers and MPs are pushing hard for cuts at the very upper end of that range, because they want to campaign in 2015 on a balanced budget.)
more on link

 

[ModlrMike]

I certainly think the budget is going to be a doozy. Be certain the NDP and Liberals are up in arms over this. Expect comments like "draconian, extremist, punitive, unfair to young and old" to be part of the narrative.

On the OAS front, I think more stability can be gained by lowering the claw-back thresholds. Right now, claw-back begins at a net income of $67668 (equates to $84545 pre tax). Even with a net income of 100K, you still get 1200 per year in OAS. I'm all for supporting our poor seniors, but I have to think that if your net income is $67000, you're probably doing OK. If the claw-back threshold was lowered to $50000 (net), then there would be significant savings. If you throw in income splitting, then you're still looking at 100K family income before the benefit is reduced.

 

[MJP]

On the OAS front, I think more stability can be gained by lowering the claw-back thresholds. Right now, claw-back begins at a net income of $67668 (equates to $84545 pre tax). Even with a net income of 100K, you still get 1200 per year in OAS. I'm all for supporting our poor seniors, but I have to think that if your net income is $67000, you're probably doing OK. If the claw-back threshold was lowered to $50000 (net), then there would be significant savings. If you throw in income splitting, then you're still looking at 100K family income before the benefit is reduced.

I agree that the clawback thresholds are too high and can be reduced.  I have said it before but I think the whole scare a senior shell game regarding OAS is a crap move by the opposition for exactly the reasons you outline above..  If any party was serious about reducing senior poverty they would advocate increasingthe GIS.  That would have more effect than tinkering with the OAS in the long term. 

 

[ModlrMike]

The opposition knows that seniors by and large tend to vote Conservative. They hope to pry a large number of those votes away in the next election(s). I think the Conservatives are presuming that any significant changes to OAS etc can happen this year, so as to be well minimized when we next go to the polls. If you look at the promise of income splitting, they need to balance the budget first. Get the deficit sorted by 2015, introduce income splitting, effectively reverse the OAS changes by now splitting non-pension income.

 

[dapaterson]

A balanced budget is a good platform to run on - but more importantly, it suggests fiscal flexibility when running, meaning a whole new collection of promises become possible.

 

[GAP]

I agree that the clawback thresholds are too high and can be reduced.  I have said it before but I think the whole scare a senior shell game regarding OAS is a crap move by the opposition for exactly the reasons you outline above..  If any party was serious about reducing senior poverty they would advocate increasingthe GIS.  That would have more effect than tinkering with the OAS in the long term.

I agree. I was chatting to Service Canada awhile back regarding my upcoming pension. She gleefully informed me the GIS will ensure I have 16K to live on if I need it.......really, that much?

uh....the poverty line is 22K......but dog food is cheap  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Things could actually be worse for the government. A Drummond Report like accounting would mean real draconian cuts (Ontario needs to cut spending by 17% just to stabilize the economy and get the deficit and debt under control. Since the current government is set to ignore the report, a future Ontario government may come into office facing a $30 billion deficit, 400 billion debt and a flatlined economy).

Luckily for us, we have had a combination of skillful management and a bit of good luck (high resource prices have provided a great deal of revenue, which hasn't been totally squandered). Still, getting the budget balanced should only be considered the first step; there is a $500+ billion dollar debt ($30 billion/year in interest payments on that alone) and another $500 billion in unfunded liabilities (mostly government pensions and the like) that should be paid down as a matter of urgency.

As a third priority, I would like to see the tax burden go down for Canadians as well; with 42% of the average Canadian family income going to taxes and fees there is little scope for wealth building, much less wealth creation for citizens. Even a reduction from 42% to 32% of income would have dramatic effects (basically recapitalizing the working population).

If the government can balance the budget by 2015, these are the priorities that they should be looking at for the 2015-2020 cycle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Now that the budget date has been announced all "decisions," even those that have been made and are firmly in place, albeit pending release of the budget, "have not been taken" and are not "taken," by convention,, until the budget is brought down in the HoC. Many governments, including this one have ignored that convention, when it suits them, but it is still an 'honest' parliamentary answer: budget confidentiality rules.

And here is a preview, one that, I think does not really violate any budget confidentiality rules, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-offer-glimpse-at-budget-changes-in-speech-to-party-faithful/article2365625/

Tories offer glimpse at budget changes in speech to party faithful

STEPHANIE LEVITZ

OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
Published Saturday, Mar. 10, 2012

The Tories tempted their party faithful this weekend with tidbits of the upcoming federal budget as conservatives fretted openly that their party – and politics – has lost its way.

Six federal cabinet ministers gave keynote speeches at a two-day Manning Centre conference, providing a broad brush look at the March 29 budget that will reflect billions in budget cuts but also set forth a longer-term government strategy.

Hints were dropped about coming changes on social policy, environmental regulation and budget oversight.

Part of the plan is to change the attitude of government entirely, said Treasury Board President Tony Clement.

“The real job that we have to accomplish is change the culture of official Ottawa from one of being spending enablers to one of being cost containers,” Mr. Clement said in an early-morning speech Saturday.

Mr. Clement mused that once-a-year exercises like the budget or strategic reviews need to be refashioned as ongoing spending oversight exercises.

In advance of the coming budget, Mr. Clement had struck a high-level cabinet committee charged with overseeing as much as $8-billion in cuts to annual government spending.

Going forward, one option being considered is leaving in place the cabinet committee, which had reviewing the spending cut proposals submitted by departments. The committee would monitor the roll-out of the cuts and direct future cuts as necessary.

Mr. Clement would not confirm if that's the case.

The government has also not said how it will communicate exactly what's been cut by the review, raising the ire of the Opposition who say that more transparency about the cuts is essential.

A report from a progressive think tank has estimated as many as 68,000 public-sector jobs could be on the line.

Mr. Clement acknowledged the government expects pushback from unions, but also suggested that incentives could be a tool to motivate public servants to keep cost in mind when going about their daily jobs.

“It's partially how one is compensated and partially how we do our jobs as overseers,” Mr. Clement told reporters after his speech.

Incentives are also key to possible changes to the way government handles social programs, said Human Resources Minister Diane Finley.

She suggested the government is looking at creating “social impact bonds,” which are contracts between government and private investors to fund social programs.

Payment from the government is tied to program outcomes.

“Essentially the social impact bond has the effect of moving risk from the current state of affairs where government – and taxpayers – pay up front without a real way of guaranteeing performance, to the social group itself who will be ‘paid for results,’ ” Ms. Finley said.

“The investors win, the community groups who are successful win, the recipients and users of the service win and the taxpayers win.”

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver also reiterated the government's intention to change the regulation system as it applies to energy projects.

He said he couldn't say whether those changes will be reflected in the budget but said they were coming in “months, not years.”

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, who oversees the annual conference billed as a conservative family reunion, said he hopes the budget sees the government fall more in line with a traditional conservative ideological approach.

Many conservatives pilloried the ruling Conservatives for their stimulus programs during the recession and the resulting deficit, but Manning says he hopes those days are over.

“I'm hopeful and I think a lot of speakers here are hopeful that now that we're on our way to recovery that stronger spending constraints can be employed,” he told reporters.

NDP MP Peter Julian said it appears the Tories were tossing out tidbits of “red meat” to the conservative base after a few difficult months.

But he said they are sending too many mixed messages, zig-zagging between austerity measures and promising large-scale change.

Public confidence in the government overall is on the decline, Mr. Julian said.

“It's very difficult to follow where the government is heading,” he said. “The public wants investment, the public wants jobs.”

The public also needs to rebuild trust in the political system as a whole, said Mr. Manning.

Polling done for the Manning Centre suggests confidence in politics and politicians is at historic lows, he said.

“This disrespect, virtually contempt, is not so much rooted in antipathy to the policies of politicians as it is in a perceived lack of ethics – unfair in many respects but nevertheless real – that most politicians are unprincipled, dishonest, self-serving, and untruthful,” he said.

“In the public mind, this judgment is reinforced every time unethical conduct by someone in the political world makes the headlines, as in the case of the sponsorship scandal and now the more recent robo-calling affair, to cite only two examples.”

But one Conservative pollster suggested the robo-calls scandal was being overblown.

Richard Ciano is a partner with Campaign Research Inc., which was responsible for making calls into Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's riding last year erroneously telling voters that Mr. Cotler was stepping down and a by-election was imminent.

Their actions were called “reprehensible” by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

On Saturday, Mr. Ciano condemned reports that during the last federal election, voters were being called and told to go to polling stations that didn't exist.

But he said the Liberals and the NDP were inflating the issue, calling it a “systematic undermining of confidence in Canada's electoral process, and fear mongering about virtually all forms of live or automated telephone calls to voters.”

The NDP's Julian called Mr. Ciano's assertion “laughable.”

“It's not about the technology,” Mr. Julian said. “It's about the fact that there was a very clear impersonation of an Elections Canada official.”

I liked this bit, from Treasury Board President Tony Clement: “The real job that we have to accomplish is change the culture of official Ottawa from one of being spending enablers to one of being cost containers ...”  That gets to a problem with this less than conservative Conservative government.

I also like this, from Diane Finlay: “Essentially the social impact bond has the effect of moving risk from the current state of affairs where government – and taxpayers – pay up front without a real way of guaranteeing performance, to the social group itself who will be ‘paid for results’ ... The investors win, the community groups who are successful win, the recipients and users of the service win and the taxpayers win.”

We don't have long to wait.

 

[Teeps74]

And here is a preview, one that, I think does not really violate any budget confidentiality rules, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-offer-glimpse-at-budget-changes-in-speech-to-party-faithful/article2365625/

I liked this bit, from Treasury Board President Tony Clement: “The real job that we have to accomplish is change the culture of official Ottawa from one of being spending enablers to one of being cost containers ...”  That gets to a problem with this less than conservative Conservative government.

I also like this, from Diane Finlay: “Essentially the social impact bond has the effect of moving risk from the current state of affairs where government – and taxpayers – pay up front without a real way of guaranteeing performance, to the social group itself who will be ‘paid for results’ ... The investors win, the community groups who are successful win, the recipients and users of the service win and the taxpayers win.”

We don't have long to wait.

Well, there is a time and place for everything. The military however should be placing the imperative on operational effectiveness first and fore most, not fiscal responsibility. Want to limit the military's spending in that environment? Define what the military does for operations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, there is a time and place for everything. The military however should be placing the imperative on operational effectiveness first and fore most, not fiscal responsibility. Want to limit the military's spending in that environment? Define what the military does for operations.

It's not the military's budget; it is not, even, in any special way, about the military. It is the government's budget, aimed at the whole country - government departments, provinces, cities, even you and me; it's about how we and they save and how how we and they spend. It might signal a change to conservative values ~ see an earlier post of mine here re: why a Conservative government hasn't been very conservative.

 

[a_majoor]

The budget per se has no real bearing on if we are operationally effective or not; it is the job of the CF leadership to ensure the dollars we do have are spent to keep us operationally effective. Even if there is no money whatsoever (and yes, I was once the Pl 2I/C of a BMQ(L) course which had a 0 allotment of ammunition for the ranges) we have to find some way to make it work. Small things like teaching troops to "count rounds" rather than yell "bang" (and making them change mags when they reach 30) might not be 100%, but still help you reach some level of operationa effectiveness.

A 10% cut need not lead to a decade of darkness, especially if a real effort is made to cut the fat, eliminate excess overhead and keep dollars directed towards training, a lot of our problems in the CF are self inflicted and can be traced to a huge, cumbersome and creaking bureaucratic apparatus. Prune that as our 10% contribution to a balanced budget and you will have no issues with operational effectiveness.

 

[Edward Campbell]

An article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, dealing with civil service cuts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/dont-expect-radical-changes-in-upcoming-public-service-cuts/article2368727/

Don’t expect radical changes in upcoming public service cuts

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Mar. 14, 2012

Rumours are swirling, numbers being bandied about, totals projected and denied. How severely will the federal public service be downsized? How many layoffs will there be? What will the severance packages cost?

With Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s landmark 2012 budget only 15 days away, the Ottawa machine is spinning in neutral, as departments wait to hear whether their budget will be cut by 5 per cent, 10 per cent, or somewhere in between, and what that will mean for both programs and for the workforce.

The Tories insist that any speculation is simply, well, speculation. But the government is prepared to lay down a few markers.

One: The total number of people laid off, after attrition and buyouts have taken care of the rest, will be sufficiently modest to not cause much of a stir.

Two: Any costs related to severance and other compensation that results from downsizing will be considerably less than the amount of money being saved. And severance costs must be born by the department through its new budget, not deducted from savings.

Three, collective agreements will be respected, laying to rest the notion that the government was planning override legislation.

Four: While there won’t be another round of government-wide spending reductions next year, departments should expect to see any future increases tied to inflation and population growth, at best. Spending caps will be the norm. Funding for any new initiative will have to come from cuts elsewhere.

This is particularly important. Having presided over an ever-swelling bureaucracy and a raft of new programs during six years in office, the Tories claim to have finally got religion. After this round of downsizing, they plan to keep the pressure on departments by limiting any future increases. We will have to see whether they succeed where so many other governments—who typically open the spigots wide after brief bouts of austerity—have failed.

Five: As the 18 major bargaining units within the federal public service enter negotiations for new contracts, management will be pushing for greater flexibility to reward superior performance and to prune dead weight.

The Conservatives are not gearing for a major showdown with their unions. But they do expect future pay increases to be based more on performance and less on seniority. They want to reverse the trend of new arrivals who quit after a year or two, frustrated with the legendary inertia of the federal bureaucracy. They want those who demonstrate an ability and willingness to do more with less to rise quickly, at the expense of those who simply fight to retain the status quo.

To which you should respond: Yeah, right. Governments across the developed world have proclaimed the same goals over and over again, and achieved little. The nature of the public service discourages individual initiative for a reason: Assuming personal responsibility, pushing the envelope, treating government like a business can result in savings and improved performance. It can also result in cock-ups, and unlike the private sector, public-sector cock-ups earn headlines and gleeful attacks by the opposition.

Bottom line: We aren’t likely to see a full-on showdown between the government and public-sector unions over spending cuts and new contracts, but we are likely to see a whole lot of aggro as labour fights to retain its traditional privileges, while management pushes to make it easier to hire and fire, punish and promote.

Just don’t expect radical change. The bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, after all.

Those five points sound pretty realistic and reasonable, to me, except that this, from item 4, will be, IF it is implemented, a radical and most welcome change: "... departments should expect to see any future increases tied to inflation and population growth, at best. Spending caps will be the norm."

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the civil service cuts, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Budget+reveal+details+cuts+Clement+says/6303389/story.html

Budget won’t reveal details of PS cuts, Clement says

By KATHRYN MAY, The Ottawa Citizen

March 14, 2012

OTTAWA — Canada’s public servants still won’t know if they’re losing their jobs when the Conservative government unveils its deficit-reduction plan on budget day and may not find out their fate for months.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement acknowledged at the Commons’ government operations committee Wednesday that it may take months for the impact of the March 29 budget cuts to unfold within federal departments, where bureaucrats are braced for up to 30,000 job losses.

Clement said details will be revealed in stages as “accurate” information becomes available between budget day and next fall. He said some details will be provided in the budget and more will be released in the spring and fall when supplementary estimates are released and the two-stage budget implementation act is passed. He said some reductions may not take effect for three years.

“Look, we give details when we have the detail and when it is our responsibility to convey that detail to agents of Parliament and parliamentarians,” he told reporters after the meeting.

“When we make decisions and when (surplus) notices have gone to individuals … then we will convey that information and that will start with the budget and then spring (budget) implementation act, then the fall implementation act and then there is the next round of Estimates,” he said.

Clement said the details about the cuts will be unveiled in the same way the government released information about reductions from the strategic reviews departments have gone through since 2006. Details of those cuts emerged in dribs and drabs over the course of months.

Critics have argued that Canadians won’t know what programs and services they could be losing in the reductions until they are gone and the public servants are given pink slips.

Liberal MP John McCallum said this “slow oozing” of information over months erodes transparency and accountability and silences any debate at committees on what programs and services Canadians may be losing.

McCallum said he’s suspected this delay and “lack of transparency” around the reductions since Treasury Board recently ordered departments not to include details about the reductions in their annual planning and priorities reports to Parliament. These reports will also be delayed until May.

Clement said the budget has never included a “list of public servants by name and number” whose jobs will be eliminated.

But McCallum argued that the Liberal government gave full details of its $11-billion reductions on budget day when it conducted a similar spending review in 2005. The Liberals revealed 45,000 jobs would be eliminated before reductions were announced ahead of the 1995 budget.

But Clement questioned the accuracy of such forecasts.

“I think our way is a better way and we give the detail when it is in an accurate form,” he said.

McCallum questioned whether the government needed an extra seven or eight months because it still has not decided what it’s going to cut.

“It makes me think they haven’t completed the exercise. If they have, why not give the results?”

Clement said he’s concerned about the impact on anxious public servants who have been waiting for months to find out where the axe will fall, but he said the government has an obligation to taxpayers and the downsizing will be fair and “consistent with obligations to public servants and whatever collective agreements they have.”

Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, said departments are bracing for “blocks of job cuts” in the spring and fall rather than having to absorb them all at once.

He said the Conservatives’ approach drags out the waiting, but it also “buys time” for departments to manage cuts to ensure they keep the right mix of workers. He said managers need time to move people around, find them other jobs or retrain them to reduce the number of layoffs.

“It creates more anxiety in the workplace because people like to know and get on with their lives … but we don’t want to see the public service decimated at the same time as it’s downsized. We don’t want the best and brightest to go out the door,” said Corbett.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Much as I, personally, regret the "anxiety in the workplace" that these well trumpeted cuts are creating, I hope they are deep and actually require the national government to stop doing some, ideally many things ~ especially in areas that are, Constitutionally, matters of provincial responsibility.

 

[larry Strong]

An alternative budget. Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/15/pol-cp-alternative-budget.html

'Alternate budget' would raise taxes, spending

Ottawa can balance the budget and still spend billions on job creation and social programs, a leading left-wing think-tank says in its latest "alternative budget."

The annual document from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives being released Thursday is, at 202 pages, almost as thick as Jim Flaherty's real budget will be in two weeks.

But that's where similarities end.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Flaherty have already made clear the March 29 budget will rein in spending, introduce new austerity to save $4 billion to $8 billion annually, cut back on the public service and propose reductions to elderly benefits.

That's the wrong approach to a balanced budget, says the CCPA, and will entrench a lost decade of slow economic growth and high unemployment.

It argues part of the reason for slow growth is that the government sector is playing a smaller role in the economy, reducing spending from 17 per cent in the early 1990s to a projected 13.3 per cent by 2014. Tax revenues have similarly gone down.

The centre wants Ottawa to go back to the past by taking a more active role.

The result, it says, will be to arrive at the same place — although it says it will take a year longer to eliminate the deficit — but with more Canadians working and less income disparity.

Arguing for higher taxes
"The era of tax cuts is over," said Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist with the group.

"We need to raise money. We can continue to maintain a very high standard of living for everybody if we just invest in the future."

CHART Canada's deficits and surpluses from Pearson to Harper Comparing the country's financial figures from 1963-2010The think-tank would spend tens of billions to create between 247,000 and 329,000 jobs by investing in infrastructure, day care, low-income housing and poverty reduction, paid for by higher levies on corporations, the rich and a new carbon tax.

The corporate tax rate would be rolled back to where it stood in 2007 at 21 per cent from today's 15 per cent. As well, the group would create a 35 per cent tax bracket for individuals with incomes above $250,000.

At present, Canadians have seen little in terms of job creation from radically reducing corporate taxes. Corporations have mostly hoarded their windfall, she said.

The added revenues, along with greater receipts from more Canadians working, would come close but not quite match the new spending, which is why it will take a year longer to eliminate the deficit.

Yalnizyan said her calculations are not pie in the sky. She said she and fellow economist David Macdonald based them on the Finance Department's own growth projections by using well-established multipliers.

Warnings over austerity
Bank of Montreal economists Douglas Porter, who had not seen the report, said generally most private-sector economists support Ottawa's approach to budgeting, with some reservations.

Porter has gone on record as warning Flaherty against overdoing austerity given the fragile state of the economy, but said budget cuts in the range of $4 billion would not have a major impact.

Surprisingly, he said raising the corporate tax rate to 21 per cent would also not reduce growth.

"But longer term I think it would make Canada a little less favourable jurisdiction to invest in," he said.

Yalnizyan said some Canadians might "flee" from higher taxes, but doubted they would represent a major drain on the economy.

Still, she agreed that the call for government to collect more tax revenues would be the most difficult for any government to implement. Even the NDP would have difficulty implementing the centre's proposals, she said.

"Nobody is going to do it. I think even the NDP are too scared to talk about raising revenues."

She added the value of the report was to show governments can have people-oriented priorities and still be fiscally responsible.

"You can have your cake and eat it too," she said.

"One of the ways to get to a zero deficit is to invest in things today that bring you rates of return down the road for the next 10 or 20 years."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Based on what I can see, a reduction or removal of most of the “Lawlist” triggers for CEAA. A lot of current regulation will be either done away with or turned into “Best management practice's meaning no requirement to apply if you meet the stated requirements. This removes the requirement for the Crown to make a Decision and reduces the Crown's duty to consult with First Nations. I also expect that Federal regulators will told to rely more on Provincial environmental Assessments.
Other effects will be that any non-funded activities by departments are going to grind to halt, so unless it's directly in their mandate, they won't do it. Expect more Service charges as well for what they still do.
Normally at this time we are being asked to spend money, now we can't get money to carry out parts of our mandate and have effectively run out of funds. Mainly as they clawed back more money based on optimistic costings. 

 

[a_majoor]

Normally at this time we are being asked to spend money, now we can't get money to carry out parts of our mandate and have effectively run out of funds. Mainly as they clawed back more money based on optimistic costings.

Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...

 

[dapaterson]

Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...

Private sector is not magically better than the public sector in budgeting or planning.  Public sector planning is often constrained by higher level inputs - political leadership says "you may budget only $XXX for a job" when all are well aware that the true cost will be $YYY.  To blame the public service for lowballing costs when the planned costs were dictated, rather than properly estimated, is to blame the public service for the failings of political leadership.

 

[a_majoor]

I'll argue the management should then take action to work within these restraints, including scaling back to match the resources allocated, changing expectations, or if all else fails, falling on your sword.

Business also often works under imposed constraints from the board of directors, shareholder expectations, regulatory issues etc, so management has similar issues. In business, market discipline provides the ultimate benchmark, which is why the private sector has a generally better record in these matters.

 

[dapaterson]

The challenege is that in many areas there is no "market" for government services, making "the market" a poor comparison.

That said, there are far too many "encroaching incrementalists" in government (both on the political and bureaucratic sides) who slowly maneuver into areas that should not be served by government - those are prime for elimination, rather than improvement (IMHO).

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - some highlights from the attached excerpt on defence and security:

AFB (Alternate Federal Budget) Actions

The AFB resolves to take the following actions for the 2011–12 fiscal year:

• Reduce Department of National Defence Spending, with a goal of returning to pre-September 11, 2001 levels.

The National Defence Budget must be brought in line with the changed realities that Canada faces in the world, a decade after the events of September 11, 2001. The most prominent threats facing the security of Canadian citizens are economic, rather than military, and an attitude of unlimited military spending only heightens the challenges of high unemployment and large deficits. The Canadian government cannot continue increasing defence funding year by year for another decade, particularly considering the stated goal of achieving a balanced budget. With Canadian involvement in Afghanistan winding down and our commitment to addressing the global financial crisis, an immediate reduction in the defence budget and an eventual return to pre-2001 levels are realistic goals that would set Canada on the path to fiscal responsibility in the field of expenditures. Prior to September 11, 2001, the defence budget was the equivalent of $15.3 billion in today’s dollars, $6.4 billion less than this year’s estimated level. In order to return
to pre-2001 levels in the next five years, the AFB will undertake an immediate reduction of $1.28 billion in the next fiscal year. This reduction is to continue every year until FY2016–17.

• Review planned equipment spending to ensure projects still meet Canada’s national defence policy priorities.

Given that a major element of defence spending consists of materiel procurement, a review of all major equipment spending programs that are currently in the works is needed to ensure a reversal of the trends of the last decade. Many of the current projects have not been subjected to the intense scrutiny faced by other departments and programs in the government. Major Crown Projects such as the F-35 purchase plan, the awarding of naval and Coast Guard contracts, and the future of Canada’s submarine fleet would all be subject to this review. By comprehensively assessing whether these major capital expenses are essential to Canadian security, and whether the contract processes are producing the best value for public dollars, important fiscal adjustments can be made in line with current global realities.

• Increase oversight of Department of National Defence equipment spending by establishing a parliamentary committee or sub-committee responsible for Major Crown Projects.

The Auditor General of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, and other fiscal monitoring agencies have repeatedly warned about the dangers of unchecked spending increases in the Department of National Defence, but have had little effect. The lack of transparency and democratic mechanisms affecting the current military procurement regime must be addressed through greater parliamentary oversight. Contracts that must go through a parliamentary committee or sub-committee before receiving approval are significantly more likely to guarantee job offsets, include specific costs, and generally involve a greater degree of open competition for the public dollars involved.

• Increase Overseas Development Assistance to impoverished countries to approach Lester B. Pearson’s goal of 0.7% of GNP over 10 years.

• Freeze non-defence portions of the National Security Establishment including Canada Border Security, CSIS, Corrections Canada, Public Safety and related programs. Simply stopping their significant growth paths will lead to incremental savings of approximately $500 million a year.