[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

But that example has nothing to do with spending room given to a government in a budget.  You guys are talking about cuts.  Not money the government failed to spend on make work projects.

From your own post:

The Public Accounts show Infrastructure Canada had an approved budget of $6.3-billion, yet only used $4.5-billion.

So Infrastructure Canada had an approved budget of $1.8-billion more than what they spent. Was that $1.8-billion not assigned to anything in particular? Was it just "use this money for whatever", and "whatever" never came up?

I'm working under the assumption that government department budgets are approved on fairly stringent criteria, including money being assigned or attached to specific projects, tasks and deliverables, but maybe that's wrong?

[Maximus]

But that example has nothing to do with spending room given to a government in a budget.  You guys are talking about cuts.  Not money the government failed to spend on make work projects.

I don't think that objectively there's a difference, other than the normative language of referring to it as "make-work projects" or "infrastructure projects", unless there's more information than we're given here(likely).

I agree that shooting dogs isn't the best example. Better examples might be the two extremes of starving in the dark on mattresses full of money or, alternately, splurging on credit you can't pay back, showing that there are reasonable upper bounds on both spending and saving.

[Barrister]

But that example has nothing to do with spending room given to a government in a budget.  You guys are talking about cuts.  Not money the government failed to spend on make work projects.

From your own post:

The Public Accounts show Infrastructure Canada had an approved budget of $6.3-billion, yet only used $4.5-billion.

So Infrastructure Canada had an approved budget of $1.8-billion more than what they spent. Was that $1.8-billion not assigned to anything in particular? Was it just "use this money for whatever", and "whatever" never came up?

I'm working under the assumption that government department budgets are approved on fairly stringent criteria, including money being assigned or attached to specific projects, tasks and deliverables, but maybe that's wrong?

Not necessarily.  Lots of money gets budgeted to expected expenses - things you think will come up, but aren't etched in stone yet.

My FIL was involved in trying to get federal infrastructure money to improve the ball diamond in his really small town.  But they had to meet all of these requirements before they could get the money.  So that's the kind of thing that money would be spent on, but not with certainty.

You've heard the stories before - government departments have money left over at the end of the year and they rush out to spend it.  Well I guess this year they didn't.

[Jacob]

You may be right BB, but if that's the case I'd like to see that made clear.

I mean, maybe roughly 1/3 (or more) of the Infrastructure Canada budget was there just in case. It seems a pretty large amount on the face of it, though.

[Josephus]

Not necessarily.  Lots of money gets budgeted to expected expenses - things you think will come up, but aren't etched in stone yet.

So if that's the case it's not a matter of the Harper government being so tight good with money, but a case of the Canadian labourer being so good at building bridges and roads that last forever.

[crazy canuck]

Really you people dont see a difference between shooting dogs to save money and not spending budgeted money.  Really?

I guess I put you down as all for government agencies going on spending sprees at fiscal year ends to justify next years budget allocations.

Wow, just wow.

[Barrister]

Not necessarily.  Lots of money gets budgeted to expected expenses - things you think will come up, but aren't etched in stone yet.

So if that's the case it's not a matter of the Harper government being so tight good with money, but a case of the Canadian labourer being so good at building bridges and roads that last forever.

The federal government isn't directly responsible for bridges and roads - or really 98% of infrastructure that's out there.  That's all provincial/municipal.  The infrastructure program was about providing funds to those other levels of government to do their infrastructure programs.

[crazy canuck]

Not necessarily.  Lots of money gets budgeted to expected expenses - things you think will come up, but aren't etched in stone yet.

So if that's the case it's not a matter of the Harper government being so tight good with money, but a case of the Canadian labourer being so good at building bridges and roads that last forever.

The federal government isn't directly responsible for bridges and roads - or really 98% of infrastructure that's out there.  That's all provincial/municipal.  The infrastructure program was about providing funds to those other levels of government to do their infrastructure programs.

Stop it BB.  If the government doesnt spend or better still over spend then something must be wrong.  This is known - apparently.

[Jacob]

All I'm asking is what they thought the money was going to be spent on when they budgeted it, and what happened so that the thinking changed.

The dog thing was simply an illustration that all savings are not inherently good; it is not an illustration of how government works.

[Jacob]

I mean seriously... there's a discrepancy between budgeted expenditures and actual expenditures of about 30% (at least in the case of Infrastructure Canada). I don't think it's outlandish to wonder where that discrepancy came from before we go "yeay! We saved a bunch of money!"

It's entirely possible that these savings are entirely through prudent fiscal management, improved efficiency, elimination of waste, and unanticipated low replacement needs. Well, let's see the numbers and confirm those facts.

I mean, if the savings are primarily because there was a lower need for infrastructure replacement than anticipated then that's different if they were all down to efficiency or if it was down to elimination of waster. In the first case, it means we shouldn't necessarily anticipate similar low costs next year - in fact they may be higher as replacement initially budgeted for this year got pushed out; if it was because of efficiency and good management with no downsides anywhere then that's pretty significant and the Harper government deserves significant credit; if it's because of elimination of waste, it's the kind of thing that probably should be political, because perhaps the opposition can make the case that it wasn't "waste" but important programs. Or maybe it was down to something else... I think it's worthwhile to understand what it was.

[crazy canuck]

Seems the Globe Editorial Board agrees with me

The NDP opposition is upset that the Harper government spent $8-billion less than it promised in its 2011 budget, a budget on which the Conservatives campaigned. They are attempting to sell Ottawa's frugality as a lack of transparency, but in this case it's far more sensible to see it as a wise use of taxpayers' money at a time when governments need to reduce their deficits. Call it leading by example.

According to the Public Accounts, the billions in savings are easily explained and just as easily justified. Almost $2-billion came as a result of lower-than-expected Employment Insurance claims; another $1.4-billion is explained by a change stemming from British Columbia's decision not to adopt the Harmonized Sales Tax. But the bulk of the savings – around $5-billion – are the result of Ottawa's decision not to squander every single penny it had originally budgeted as stimulus spending designed to aid in the country's economic recovery.

There are far too few politicians in Canada, or in the world for that matter, who can resist the temptation to spend a dollar once it has been made available to them in a budget. The Harper government could have easily lavished those approved monies on headline-grabbing infrastructure programs, even if the country's stabilized economy dictated otherwise. Instead, the government ended up reducing its 2011-12 deficit by $6-billion through the rather extraordinary measure of not wasting your money on unneeded projects.

There is no question that the Harper government has transparency issues. Its recent omnibus budget bills are a sham that make proper Parliamentary oversight next-to-impossible. And the government has done nothing to improve Ottawa's arcane budget process, despite repeatedly promising more accountability. Overall, budget transparency should be a government priority. But when it comes to promising to spend billions during an election campaign and then quietly not spending it once you are in power because there is no longer a valid justification for it, most Canadians, aside from the NDP, are okay with that.

[Neil]

Whether saving money is good depends a fair bit on how it was saved.

No, that is backwards.  Whether spending money is good depends entirely on how it is spent.

Both are true.

For example, saving money on dog food by shooting 100+ sled dogs one by one out behind the shed is not a good way to save money.

But butchering and eating them is?  You fucking Sinopologist.

[Jacob]

But butchering and eating them is?  You fucking Sinopologist.

Now you are sounding like Raz.

[Josephus]

Not necessarily.  Lots of money gets budgeted to expected expenses - things you think will come up, but aren't etched in stone yet.

So if that's the case it's not a matter of the Harper government being so tight good with money, but a case of the Canadian labourer being so good at building bridges and roads that last forever.

The federal government isn't directly responsible for bridges and roads - or really 98% of infrastructure that's out there.  That's all provincial/municipal.  The infrastructure program was about providing funds to those other levels of government to do their infrastructure programs.

But they didn't need to transfer the money to the provinces cause the workers did such a good job. I don't see the difference.

[viper37]

I'm working under the assumption that government department budgets are approved on fairly stringent criteria, including money being assigned or attached to specific projects, tasks and deliverables, but maybe that's wrong?

I know it's a rethorical question... but, no, you are correct, money is attached to specific projects by each sub-department, than brought back into the general budget spreadsheet of the full department.

And to answer BB, a specific "project" or "function" may or may not include a provision for supplemental expenses, but they are still identified as such somewhere in the department.  Usually, the finance division of each department in Hull/Ottawa will have all this in detail.  So it's not like they can't tell you.