Shell game

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

It’s worthwhile sometimes to stop and see how others look at us: inside the country, we might have vastly different views about where our federal government is taking us. So a concise view from the outside is probably not a bad thing.

The view in the Feb. 15 issue of The Economist is certainly worth thinking about. The magazine, often seen as a thorough, albeit slightly right-of-centre publication, had some interesting views on Canada’s current budgetary policy.

The headline? “Something doesn’t add up. The process for approving the budget is broken.”

The article argues that changes to Canada’s budgetary policy mean it’s hard to tell what the federal government is actually doing with taxpayers’ money, because the budget uses one set of figures while the federal estimates, released months later, use a different method. “As a result, some of the figures (Finance Minister Jim) Flaherty mentioned in his budget speech will appear as different amounts in the spending estimates. Some will not appear at all,” the magazine notes. “A reconcilation of the two sets of figures no longer appears.”

The budget debate? Well, the term “political theatre” might be most apt.

Here’s The Economist’s take. The show is one thing, with government politicians and the opposition playing their well-worn, back-and-forth parts.

The debate doesn’t end up meaning much, the magazine points out.

“So much for appearances. Like most finance ministers in parliamentary democracies, Mr. Flaherty knows the Conservative majority in the House of Commons will approve his revenue and spending plans even if they don’t understand them. But Canada’s budget process is designed to hamper rigorous scrutiny.”

The article goes on to point out that significant changes — some of which strengthen the hold of Prime Minister’s Office while weakening parliamentary oversight — have been tucked into massive omnibus budget bills.

“Few people noticed in time in 2007 when the government took away Parliament’s power to authorize borrowing and gave it to cabinet — because the move was buried in an omnibus bill,” The Economist says. “The second of two omnibus bills in 2013 contained changes to the way Supreme Court justices are selected, an inclusion some thought was illegal because it was not mentioned in the budget and had no fiscal impact.”

Overall, though, the most damning lines in the article are the first and the last.

The first?

“Central to the sovereignty of Parliament is that it, not the executive, should ultimately control the public purse.”

The last?

“So much for sovereignty.”

You might say, who cares what someone from away thinks?

Well, consider this: The Economist doesn’t have a vested interest in Canadian budgetary policy or politics.

But it can certainly tell when something walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and makes a practice of ducking public scrutiny.

Organizations: House of Commons, Supreme Court

Geographic location: Canada

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • ducking public scrutiny
    March 05, 2014 - 22:29

    TIME CLEANS UP ALL MESSES?Vale Newfoundland and Labrador (bullshit subsidiary ovoid-holding company) pleaded not guilty (of course they did!) to three charges under the Fisheries Act in court on Thursday and basically told Nain to go ream itself! The company is accused of dumping a 'lethal effluent' into Edwards Cove, Anaktalak Bay in Labrador. The area is near the Voisey's Bay nickel mine site according to CBC, but is 10 km away, where we all got our cabins. The dirty lazy stupid deed was done from Oct. 4 to 31, 2011 and is still being delayed in court, and very lightly covered by the press because VALE has more money than some individual who gets stripped of their gear. Vale should be kicked out, and a new operator brought in over this. Vale is also accused of not taking adequate steps to prevent it, and with failing to report the incident. {THEY COVER UP A LOT AROUND THE WORLD}Vale needs money. Vale tries to quash dissent but they are back in court on March 18. VALE has made me sign papers to not so much as critize them, so all this rambling here - is not real.

  • Ed Fry
    March 05, 2014 - 06:55

    That's a nice little twist by the author, trying to label the Economist as "right of centre." The Economist has in fact drifted quite far past the left of centre in the last couple of decades. They have a habit of targeting right of centre issues and governments. As such, their criticism stems from their own biased agenda, and is in no way a neutral appraisal of our budgetary processes. If ithere was a Liberal government in place, the article would either be far different or would never have been written.