[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Budgets are estimates only.  The fact that they underspend what they estimated is a good thing.  What detail is there?

Whether the overestimation was uniformly across the board (suggesting that someone is being too generous in their estimates), whether it was due to external factors (changes in market conditions etc), whether it was a good estimation to begin with but due to changing conditions, whether the difference was due to a one-off type event, whether it suggests a long-term trend, or whether it has to do with the budgeting process itself.

I've sat through a number of budget meetings in various capacities, and something being off by 30% - above or below budget - at the very least gets a footnote of "here's the reason". All I'm looking for here is something similar. I think it's worthwhile to understand how and why the balance sheets turn out the way they do.

And I agree with Jacob, once again.

[crazy canuck]

Whether the overestimation was uniformly across the board (suggesting that someone is being too generous in their estimates), whether it was due to external factors (changes in market conditions etc), whether it was a good estimation to begin with but due to changing conditions, whether the difference was due to a one-off type event, whether it suggests a long-term trend, or whether it has to do with the budgeting process itself.

I've sat through a number of budget meetings in various capacities, and something being off by 30% - above or below budget - at the very least gets a footnote of "here's the reason". All I'm looking for here is something similar. I think it's worthwhile to understand how and why the balance sheets turn out the way they do.

... and of course the NDP is kicking up a fuss. That's their job. They're the opposition.

I dont think you understand the budgetary process in government.  Its not like spending in a corporation or on a game.

[crazy canuck]

Budgets are estimates only.  The fact that they underspend what they estimated is a good thing.  What detail is there?

Whether the overestimation was uniformly across the board (suggesting that someone is being too generous in their estimates), whether it was due to external factors (changes in market conditions etc), whether it was a good estimation to begin with but due to changing conditions, whether the difference was due to a one-off type event, whether it suggests a long-term trend, or whether it has to do with the budgeting process itself.

I've sat through a number of budget meetings in various capacities, and something being off by 30% - above or below budget - at the very least gets a footnote of "here's the reason". All I'm looking for here is something similar. I think it's worthwhile to understand how and why the balance sheets turn out the way they do.

And I agree with Jacob, once again.

Again not surprising.

Not sure what you two dont understand about budgetary estimates of stimulus money to be made available for shovel ready stimulus projects that end up never being used.

If you name me the person that can accurately predict what money is going to be requested that conforms to the criteria the government set for access to that money then I we should track them down because it can only mean they have a time machine.

This isnt like a business saying they expect X project is going to cost Y after they have done some due diligence to estimate those costs.  It is a shot in the dark about how much money the government wants to spend as a maximum.

Its a GOOD NEWS STORY unless you are some leftest freak you thinks not spending money is a bad thing.

[viper37]

I think you don't understand the concept of budget CC.  Every variation needs to be explained and documented.

Every department prepares a MYOP (Multi-Year Operational Plan), detailing expenses for the next 3 years, and concialiting the real expenses for the last year.  They may have gone over budget, they may have surplus, but all of this is documented, in detail, for each section, for each program.  Each finance section of the department will have the details by program and by region, provided by the people in regional offices accross Canada.  They then forward their numbers to the Finance department so they can prepare the budget.

If budgetted money is not spent, they need to justify it to the Treasury board for next year's credits.  If they go overboard and need additional funds, they need to justify it to the Treasury board.

But all this is detailed, and it's not a shot in the dark.

Do they miss?  Yes they do.  Like in the private sector they do miss their budget estimates sometimes.  Revenues are not as planned, expenses are bigger than expected.

Departments plan only their expenses, unlike the private sector wich will plan expected incomes (sales) and expected expenses.  Projected incomes are aggregated through the Finance department.

And again, everything has to be justified.  That's why you'll often here that a Minister asked for 20$ orange juice, or a 3000$ limo, or that a yearly party costed 500 000$: because everything is documented and everything has to be justified.  And often, it is leaked to the medias.

That does not mean there are costs overruns, that means everything is justified and the ability to spend by a single unit is severely restricted.

That is why simply announcing a budget cut is silly.  What it takes to reduce expenses is careful planning from the top down.  You need a careful evaluation of every program in every department, and then you decide what you keep, what you don't keep.  If a MYOP and a budget were only a shot in the dark, than all you'd need to do to reduce expenses in any government is simply announce a 5% reduction in spending and it would be done as easily as moving a slider in EU2.

[crazy canuck]

I think you don't understand the concept of budget CC.  Every variation needs to be explained and documented.

It has  - they alotted X.  They spent Y.

I am very happy they didnt spend more money trying to figure out why they didnt have to spend more money.

[crazy canuck]

Canadian Budget is now not projected to be in surplus until 2015/16 - assuming the yanks doing completely screw things up and fall over their cliff.  If that happens all bets are off.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure if anyone outside BC noticed but the SCC handed down a significant ruling the other day allowing a claim for damages by parents of a child with a learning disability against a school board who had cut a program that would have been beneficial for the child. When the program was cut the child's parent paid for a private school which offered similiar but better support than what the child would have recieved from the old public school program.  The parents recieved the tuition they paid as damages.

In the course of its ruling the Court expressly called into question the resource allocation decisions made by the elected officials noting that the school board elected to continue to fund outdoor school programs but cut this special needs program.

Aside from the huge impact this decision will have in fincancing of public schools the decision strikes me as the Court making a significant move into the political realm.   I dont know of another decision where the Court has so opening challenged the role of government in relation to resource allocation - isnt that fundamentally what we elect people to do?

[Barrister]

Not sure if anyone outside BC noticed but the SCC handed down a significant ruling the other day allowing a claim for damages by parents of a child with a learning disability against a school board who had cut a program that would have been beneficial for the child. When the program was cut the child's parent paid for a private school which offered similiar but better support than what the child would have recieved from the old public school program.  The parents recieved the tuition they paid as damages.

In the course of its ruling the Court expressly called into question the resource allocation decisions made by the elected officials noting that the school board elected to continue to fund outdoor school programs but cut this special needs program.

Aside from the huge impact this decision will have in fincancing of public schools the decision strikes me as the Court making a significant move into the political realm.   I dont know of another decision where the Court has so opening challenged the role of government in relation to resource allocation - isnt that fundamentally what we elect people to do?

If the case is as you suggest, then yes - that's a huge move to interfere resource allocation.

[Neil]

Is this really that surprising?  The courts took decision-making out of the hands of Parliament, is it really that surprising that they would eventually come for budgeting?  And there's nothing that can be done about it, short of murdering every judge in the country.  While that's actually a pretty good idea, it probably wouldn't get much support.

[crazy canuck]

Is this really that surprising?  The courts took decision-making out of the hands of Parliament, is it really that surprising that they would eventually come for budgeting?  And there's nothing that can be done about it, short of murdering every judge in the country.  While that's actually a pretty good idea, it probably wouldn't get much support.

It is surprising.  There has been a pretty clear line drawn across all areas of law that make resource allocation decisions impervious to court challenge - that is the basis upon which this claim was rejected at every other level.  The lower courts had held that the child had not been discriminiated against because he was given equal treatment within the programs available.  The SCC has stepped in and expressly ruled another program should have been provided and the failure to do so was discriminatory.

The Globe had a pretty good editorial about it

The Supreme Court of Canada has opened a Pandora's box for public school boards by finding that a British Columbia school district discriminated against a dyslexic child when, during a financial crisis, it closed a special-education centre that provided him intensive help in learning to read. From here on, schools, school boards or provinces could be forced to bleed other programs to meet court-ordered educational standards for special-needs students.

The court appears to have been blind to the practical effects of its ruling. How could those effects be anything but massive after the court perhaps unwittingly defined adequacy, or "meaningful access" to education, in a way that few if any school boards meet? "Realistically, we don't have the supports we need in every single school," a Toronto principal said after the ruling, mentioning a lack of psychologists, social workers and special-needs assistants.

The court would have a case if Jeffrey Moore's special needs had been ignored, but they emphatically were not; he received half-hour, one-on-one sessions three times a week with a learning assistance teacher, and two 40-minute sessions with a volunteer tutor, in Grade 1. A psychologist later recommended he receive more intensive help at a special centre run by the North Vancouver school district. But then the district closed the centre. The Supreme Court, noting that the district kept an outdoor education program open in spite of its financial difficulties, found that it had illegally discriminated. Is it the court's business to choose a school district's programs, or prescribe the required intensity of extra help?

The court's definition of adequacy is stunningly open-ended. A psychologist had said the centre's intensive help would be beneficial; to the court, that meant it was required. By that standard, anyone with a child who is autistic, developmentally delayed, suffering from anxiety or depression or a myriad of other diagnosed difficulties, would have a claim on their public school for intensive services. Would a child too anxious to attend school benefit from (and therefore need) daily home visits from a tutor? How many children with behavioural problems would benefit from or need a full-time personal aide?

It makes the court's unanimous ruling more out of touch that the boy's public education unfolded between 1991 and 1994, during and after a recession marked by across-the-board restraint, and finally, the overcoming of Canada's deficit. Many political choices went into those years, and similar choices await today; governments, accountable to voters, should be the ones making those choices. The court overstepped its authority.

[Neil]

Well, now that line is gone.  The rapaciousness of the priests of the law knows no bounds, and it was obvious that they'd get there eventually.

[viper37]

Aside from the huge impact this decision will have in fincancing of public schools the decision strikes me as the Court making a significant move into the political realm.   I dont know of another decision where the Court has so opening challenged the role of government in relation to resource allocation - isnt that fundamentally what we elect people to do?

there have been a few cases against the government of Quebec for failing to provide health care, and the verdict was a payback of all medical expenses incured in the United States.
There's also the Chaouilli judgement, wich forced the Quebec government to either let the people take a private insurance or provide the care they were taxing us for.

[viper37]

In a certain way, that decision makes sense.  The government charges everyone of use for public education.  Going to a private school is a choice, it is not mandatory for certain cases.

What the CSC did, was similar to the Chaouilli ruling: the government should offer everyone the services they pay for, budget is not an excuse.

I think it makes sense, because otherwise governments can tax without spending.  Like that new "health tax" we have here, wich is diverted to various other things but hospital costs.

[Neil]

See, we're backsliding into a corrupt kleptocracy like Quebec, only with judges instead of the mafia in charge.

[Grey Fox]

We usually refer to them as Unions.