Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Report looks at captured nature of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission August 6, 2019
    From an early stage, BC’s Oil and Gas Commission bore the hallmarks of a captured regulator. The very industry that the Commission was formed to regulate had a significant hand in its creation and, too often, the interests of the industry it regulates take precedence over the public interest. This report looks at the evolution […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Correcting the Record July 26, 2019
    Earlier this week Kris Sims and Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Sun and Toronto Sun. The opinion piece makes several false claims and connections regarding the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), which we would like to correct. The […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Rental Wage in Canada July 18, 2019
    Our new report maps rental affordability in neighbourhoods across Canada by calculating the “rental wage,” which is the hourly wage needed to afford an average apartment without spending more than 30% of one’s earnings.  Across all of Canada, the average wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is $22.40/h, or $20.20/h for an average one […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada July 9, 2019
    CCPA senior economist David Macdonald co-authored a new report, Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada­—released by Upstream Institute in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)—tracks child poverty rates using Census 2006, the 2011 National Household Survey and Census 2016. The report is available for […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Fossil-Power Top 50 launched July 3, 2019
    What do Suncor, Encana, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Fraser Institute and 46 other companies and organizations have in common? They are among the entities that make up the most influential fossil fuel industry players in Canada. Today, the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP) is drawing attention to these powerful corporations and organizations with the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Comparing the Platforms: A Better Way to A Balanced Budget.

A quick and easy way to get a very bad bad headache is to attempt to compare and contrast the fiscal plans attached to the major party platforms. But they throw some light on the real priorities of the parties, and the real choices in play in the election.

One thing the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats apparently have in common is a commitment to balance the federal budget over the life of the next Parliament.

However, there are important differences.

The Conservatives and New Democrats say they would balance the books by 2014-15.

The Liberals go a fair bit further. They commit to a 1% deficit within two years, which is a bit less than the 2011 Budget forecast of a 1.1% of GDP deficit  for 2012-13. They pledge further reductions thereafter, and raise more in new revenues than they would add to spending by allocating $1.5 Billion each year to a new “Prudence Reserve Fund” which would likely, Paul Martin style, be used to reduce the deficit. Overall, they seem committed to a faster pace of deficit reduction than either the Conservatives or the New Democrats, which implies the possibility of spending cuts should the economic recovery begin to slow and/or the deficit does not fall as fast as forecast in the last Budget.

The Conservative platform is basically a somewhat amended version of the Budget they just introduced, with the costly family income tax splitting measure and doubling of TFSAs to be added once the deficit is gone.

As I have noted earlier, eliminating the deficit requires that you believe (1) that the currently optimistic fiscal forecast is accurate notwithstanding the criticisms of experts like Peter Devries and the Parliamentary Budget Officer and (2)  that $4 Billion in additional savings savings can be found.

I take the Conservatives more or less at their word that, given a majority, they are prepared to cut their way to budget balance and a new round of tax cuts, since I suspect there are a lot of  federal programs that they don’t like very much.  Readers may want to take a glance at the spending estimates of Departments like Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Social Development, Citizenship and Immigration and Indian and Northern Affairs to guess where the axe will fall to eliminate another 5% of direct program spending. Arts and film development programs? The CBC? Social Sciences and Humanities research? What remains of the Office for the Status of Women?  Grants and contributions to social development organizations? Student loans and grants? Disability programs? Aboriginal learning and health programs? The list goes on.

Neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats are very explicit about what spending  measures embodied in the 2011 Budget would be rolled over into a new fiscal plan if there were to be a change in government. Some Conservative promises have found their way into the platforms of the other parties. For example, all parties seem to support tax credits at varying levels for volunteer firefighters, to cite a minor example, and the Liberals and New Democrats  both allocate $400 million to the GIS on top of the modest Conservative annual increase of $300 Million.

One assumes, or hopes, that  there would be some significant revisiting of expensive  Conservative spending priorities, such as on crime and defence,  in a new fiscal plan.

I see one big difference between the New Democrat fiscal plan and those of the other parties. The total amount of money to be raised through new revenue measures is really quite substantial – $9.0 Billion in 2011-12 rising to $15.2 Billion in 2014-15. That is more than double the new revenues that the Liberals would raise on top of the current fiscal plan.

The New Democrats would introduce a bigger corporate tax rate increase than the Liberals, raising it to 19.5% rather than 18%, which will raise about $4 Billion more per year. They propose to raise $2 Billion from ending fossil fuel subsidies, almost ten times as much as the Liberals. They also propose to raise $1 Billion in new revenues next year rising to over $3 Billion in 2014-15 by cracking down on tax havens. (Details are apparently  to follow.)  There is a lot of evidence that the CRA have been extremely lax in preventing large-scale Canadian tax evasion and these numbers seem credible.

The New Democrats would also raise significant revenues – $3.6 Billion this year, rising to $7.4 Billion by 2014-15 – from an emissions cap and trade system. Proceeds from selling emissions permits would go to an impressive set of green economy initiatives, including major investments in energy efficient housing, expansion of public transit, and clean energy.

As Mike McCracken says in a short note included in  the NDP platform, major changes in the mix of spending compared to the current fiscal plan  would likely give a boost to job creation.  The big items in terms of job creation are significant tax credits to business for job creation and real investment in place of no strings attached tax breaks; the major green jobs package; and modest funds allocated to child care and other services which would create new jobs while meeting caring needs.

While it is fiscally cautious, the New Democrat platform does point to a better way to bring down the deficit, through job creation rather than through spending cuts.

I might also note – since it has not been widely noted- that New Democrat support for a continued 6% escalator in health transfers is clearly and explicitly tied to enforcement of the Canada Health Act and maintenance of publicly delivered health care.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from kirbycairo
Time: April 11, 2011, 12:45 pm

It amazes me that this is a pretty straightforward and mainstream budget but many Canadians still think of the NDP as some kind of radical socialist party. I guess people just don’t pay attention.

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: April 11, 2011, 3:24 pm

You nailed it Kirby, just today the national post had a front headline on jack L. Inferring he was an out of control socialist spender.

One could go a whole lot more into the budgets, but given all parties are professing balanced budgets, ultimately is, as Andrew states, what are the priorities, and to me jets, jails and corporate tax cuts are a long way from mainstream canadian values.

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: April 11, 2011, 4:57 pm

And then there are things that would change if the conservatives were not in power which seem small but when aggregated to the level of the country are not trivial matters. Take for instance the conservative insistence that water supply development proposals are P3s. So Abbotsford and Mission (BC) cannot access federal funds unless it is a P3 proposal. This is water privatization by stealth and we all know the track record of water privatization. So in some ways a narrow focus on budget balance does not really have much purchase on how public policy touches the ground at the community level.

Comment from FD Johnson
Time: April 11, 2011, 8:46 pm

I sincerely distrust the real goals of the Liberals. I like the NDP going after the tax havens for profits, notably taking our government-backed Chartered banks to task on this habit of taking profits out of the country and calling them “foreign investment”!

Write a comment





Related articles