A Tale of Two Governments (and one very long post)
I can't help but compare the systems that produced the two economic updates released this week; one from Canada's federal government and one from Alberta's provincial government.
On the federal side, Liberal Finance Minister released an economic update (referred to by some as a 'mini-budget'). This update, which while it includes spending and taxation adjustments for the current fiscal years, is mostly phased spending over several years, while the government has a life-expectancy of anywhere from a few weeks to a few months at most. Indeed, some of the promised taxation reductions may not come until 2010 (begging the question of who knows what the economy, let alone the government, will looklike by that point!). The update also came the day after opposition leaders agreed to intoduce a motion calling for the government to call an election in January or face a non-confidence vote that would trigger an election before then.
Now, you might be forgiven for assuming that this economic update is a thinly disguised election platform for the forthcoming election. While I would forgive you, apparently Mr. Goodale would not. He insists that the timing of this update is sheer coincidence and that planning for it began as far back as May (i.e. while they were adjusting the '2005 budget' in order to stave off another non-confidence vote). In other words, I can be assured of economic updates from the government based firmly on a process established by and known only by the Finance Minister. Apparently, this rather opaque and obscure process can easily be distinguished from the Minister's whims, though I'm not sure how...
Now, by contrast, let's look at the Alberta model (relevent because I am an Albertan, but also because Alberta is the apothesis of everything evil, according to many Liberals -- well at least during elections). Under Alberta law, along with its annual budget, government release a 3 year business plan, including 3 year plans from each government department and other governmental organizations. These plans lay out the strategic and operational priorities over the three year cycle, along with performance measure designed to track progress that are recorded and reported each year in the government's annual report.
However, in addition, the Alberta Finance Minister is also required (again by law) to prepare and publicly report (whether the legislature is in session or not) quarterly updates on the current fiscal year's revenues and spending compared to the initial budget predictions. This means that the inevitable fluctuations that occur in government spending and revenues over the course of the year are reported on a regular basis about two months after the quarter has ended (i.e. the first quarter (April-June) is reported in August, the second quarter in November and so on. This transparency and regularity is vital to government accountability. If an unbudgeted contingency arises that requires more spending, that that must be reflected in the next quarterly update. Similarly, if revenues turn out to be lower than expected, the quarterly update will show this along with whatever measures the government is taking to compensate.
So why do I bring this up today. It's because I read that Paul Martin is planning to run on a platform emphasizing the Liberal record of fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship. And if that's what the election will be about, maybe Mr. Harper might have a few things to learn from Mr. Klein after all.
I can't help but compare the systems that produced the two economic updates released this week; one from Canada's federal government and one from Alberta's provincial government.
On the federal side, Liberal Finance Minister released an economic update (referred to by some as a 'mini-budget'). This update, which while it includes spending and taxation adjustments for the current fiscal years, is mostly phased spending over several years, while the government has a life-expectancy of anywhere from a few weeks to a few months at most. Indeed, some of the promised taxation reductions may not come until 2010 (begging the question of who knows what the economy, let alone the government, will looklike by that point!). The update also came the day after opposition leaders agreed to intoduce a motion calling for the government to call an election in January or face a non-confidence vote that would trigger an election before then.
Now, you might be forgiven for assuming that this economic update is a thinly disguised election platform for the forthcoming election. While I would forgive you, apparently Mr. Goodale would not. He insists that the timing of this update is sheer coincidence and that planning for it began as far back as May (i.e. while they were adjusting the '2005 budget' in order to stave off another non-confidence vote). In other words, I can be assured of economic updates from the government based firmly on a process established by and known only by the Finance Minister. Apparently, this rather opaque and obscure process can easily be distinguished from the Minister's whims, though I'm not sure how...
Now, by contrast, let's look at the Alberta model (relevent because I am an Albertan, but also because Alberta is the apothesis of everything evil, according to many Liberals -- well at least during elections). Under Alberta law, along with its annual budget, government release a 3 year business plan, including 3 year plans from each government department and other governmental organizations. These plans lay out the strategic and operational priorities over the three year cycle, along with performance measure designed to track progress that are recorded and reported each year in the government's annual report.
However, in addition, the Alberta Finance Minister is also required (again by law) to prepare and publicly report (whether the legislature is in session or not) quarterly updates on the current fiscal year's revenues and spending compared to the initial budget predictions. This means that the inevitable fluctuations that occur in government spending and revenues over the course of the year are reported on a regular basis about two months after the quarter has ended (i.e. the first quarter (April-June) is reported in August, the second quarter in November and so on. This transparency and regularity is vital to government accountability. If an unbudgeted contingency arises that requires more spending, that that must be reflected in the next quarterly update. Similarly, if revenues turn out to be lower than expected, the quarterly update will show this along with whatever measures the government is taking to compensate.
So why do I bring this up today. It's because I read that Paul Martin is planning to run on a platform emphasizing the Liberal record of fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship. And if that's what the election will be about, maybe Mr. Harper might have a few things to learn from Mr. Klein after all.
posted by Quynn at 2:23 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home