Tories overstate cost of Liberal EI plan

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/11/...-insurance.html

The Conservative government has overestimated the price tag of the Liberals' proposed employment insurance plan by nearly four times the actual cost, the parliamentary budget office said Friday.

According to the budget office, the Liberals' $1.1-billion cost projection for their EI plan is a “reasonable estimate." The Conservatives have pegged the cost at $4 billion.

But office's report said the government’s estimate "is not consistent" with the proposal because it wrongly included unemployed individuals not covered in the plan. For example, special beneficiaries, new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force would not be included.

Guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Tories were wrong on this.

The Budget Officer has consistently given more accurate numbers than what the Tories have on things like deficits and the like.

[Topaz]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/11/...-insurance.html

Guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Tories were wrong on this.

The Budget Officer has consistently given more accurate numbers than what the Tories have on things like deficits and the like.

I saw that on the news the other day, and thought Harper must be wishing he never hired this guy. Thank goodness we have someone there for the taxpayers, just telling it like it is!

[waldo]

I saw that on the news the other day, and thought Harper must be wishing he never hired this guy. Thank goodness we have someone there for the taxpayers, just telling it like it is!

apparently, Kevin Page causes Harper cold sweats, heart palpitations and insomnia

and, of course, Conservative Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development - Diane Finley, was making the rounds yesterday... completely oblivious to the suggestion that this dramatic cost overstatement may have played a significant part in the Conservatives failure to support the EI reform committee. And, once again, Finley attacked the Liberal EI proposal in the context of touting it as a permanent measure, rather than its stated intent as a temporary measure tied to the recession.

[Alex Moore]

What where you guys expecting? Of course the conservatives are going to overestimate the cost of something that they don't want to pass. But you forget that the liberals are also probably underestimating the cost. We have no independent estimate of what this is likely to cost. This whole EI reform issue has become lame ass politicing.

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/11/...-insurance.html

Guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Tories were wrong on this.

The Budget Officer has consistently given more accurate numbers than what the Tories have on things like deficits and the like.

I'm not exactly sure why the Budget Officer is evaluating something that was proposed by an opposition party. Is that really his job? Was he requested to do it by the government?

[jdobbin]

I'm not exactly sure why the Budget Officer is evaluating something that was proposed by an opposition party. Is that really his job? Was he requested to do it by the government?

He is the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the way Harper set it up was that Parliamentarians can request analysis of any program.

He is not a government official working for the Finance department. He works for the Library and reports to the Speakers who run Parliament.

In other words, any MP can make use of the service.

You think this is wrong?

Edited September 13, 2009 by jdobbin

[DrGreenthumb]

harper and the conservatives are pathalogical liars, they lie about everything. There will be no recession, we will not run a deficit, the deficit will be 32 billion, no wait it will be 50 billion, oops we need about 6 billion to buy votes if we have an election so now the deficit will be 56 billion. The only way we will know the extent of their lying about our finances is by electing a different government so that we can see how burnt our books are from flaherty's constant cooking of them.

the conservatives will also never tax income trusts, never appoint senators, and never bring in abortion legislation......pffffft,

NEVER TRUST A TORY.

[Alex Moore]

harper and the conservatives are pathalogical liars, they lie about everything. There will be no recession, we will not run a deficit, the deficit will be 32 billion, no wait it will be 50 billion, oops we need about 6 billion to buy votes if we have an election so now the deficit will be 56 billion. The only way we will know the extent of their lying about our finances is by electing a different government so that we can see how burnt our books are from flaherty's constant cooking of them.

the conservatives will also never tax income trusts, never appoint senators, and never bring in abortion legislation......pffffft,

NEVER TRUST A TORY.

you forget we're talking about politicians here. Used cars salesmen are more trusted then they. It not just conservatives that are liars, It's anyone with an agenda. Have you forgotten the sponsorship scandal already?

As I said earlier the liberals are likely underestimating the costs. so don't get an erection just because the conservatives may be overestimating the cost. Your only falling for obvious politicking.

this whole argument is worthless until the cost of EI reform is independantly confirmed.

[capricorn]

Thank goodness we have someone there for the taxpayers, just telling it like it is!

You seem to be saying that Mr. Page is the only one there for the taxpayers. If that's what you think, then you must be of the opinion that the opposition, Layton and Ignatieff, are not there for the taxpayers. Just askin'.

[waldo]

As I said earlier the liberals are likely underestimating the costs. so don't get an erection just because the conservatives may be overestimating the cost. Your only falling for obvious politicking.

this whole argument is worthless until the cost of EI reform is independantly confirmed.

do you consider the PBO to be partisan?

did you actually read the article... the quote offered?

The Conservative government has overestimated the price tag of the Liberals' proposed employment insurance plan by nearly four times the actual cost, the parliamentary budget office said Friday.

According to the budget office, the Liberals' $1.1-billion cost projection for their EI plan is a “reasonable estimate." The Conservatives have pegged the cost at $4 billion.

[jdobbin]

You seem to be saying that Mr. Page is the only one there for the taxpayers. If that's what you think, then you must be of the opinion that the opposition, Layton and Ignatieff, are not there for the taxpayers. Just askin'.

He is certainly the only independent voice in Parliament in regards to budgets, don't you think?

[capricorn]

I'm not sure. His mandate seems to remain unclear.

While at the centre of a political storm over his mandate, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is charging ahead with the release of his first report on the state of Canada's finances.

Mr. Page notified MPs and senators yesterday that he plans to release his economic assessment on Thursday so they have time to prepare for -- and even challenge -- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's economic update later this month.

Mr. Page says the release of the report falls within his mandate, which has been at the centre of a feud between his office, the Chief Librarian William Young and the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate, Peter Milliken and Noël Kinsella.

By law, Mr. Page reports to Mr. Young, who reportedly has told him he can't release his reports without his approval.

Mr. Young had earlier sought a clarification of Mr. Page's role from the two Speakers. They decided Mr. Page was overstepping his mandate and wasn't an independent officer of Parliament, but an employee of the library. They said Parliament certainly didn't intend to put the office "at the centre of parliamentary or public debates or to impinge on parliamentarians constitutional function of overseeing the executive."

The dispute over Mr. Page's mandate erupted over his handling of his office's report into the cost of Canada's involvement in the Afghanistan war.

Many say Mr. Page raised eyebrows within bureaucratic circles when he decided to release -- and hold a press conference on -- the politically sensitive report in the middle of an election campaign when Parliament was dissolved. Not even a full-fledged officer of Parliament, such as Auditor General Sheila Fraser, can release a report during an election. They must table their reports with Parliament.

(my bolding)

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...11-dc071ab4dca6

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure. His mandate seems to remain unclear.

Perhaps Harper could have made his mandate clear when he created the position and appointed him.

[Keepitsimple]

He is the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the way Harper set it up was that Parliamentarians can request analysis of any program.

He is not a government official working for the Finance department. He works for the Library and reports to the Speakers who run Parliament.

In other words, any MP can make use of the service.

You think this is wrong?

It doesn't feel right. The EI changes proposed by the Liberals are not a program - they are simply that - a proposal - lacking a lot of details because it's not prepared for legislation. If that's the way the Budget office is going to work - they'll be costing out all sorts of cockamamie ideas put forward by any parliamentarian. I think his job should be restricted to keeping the government honest with it's own forecasts and estimates - not defending or criticizing the oppositions' estimates. It just doesn't feel right so yes, I think it's wrong.

[jdobbin]

It doesn't feel right. The EI changes proposed by the Liberals are not a program - they are simply that - a proposal - lacking a lot of details because it's not prepared for legislation. If that's the way the Budget office is going to work - they'll be costing out all sorts of cockamamie ideas put forward by any parliamentarian. I think his job should be restricted to keeping the government honest with it's own forecasts and estimates - not defending or criticizing the oppositions' estimates. It just doesn't feel right so yes, I think it's wrong.

Then blame Harper. He created the position and if it running amok, it is he who created the circumstances.

[Keepitsimple]

Then blame Harper. He created the position and if it running amok, it is he who created the circumstances.

I guess that's where any blame would lie....having said that, I'd like to backtrack just a bit and say that the Budget Officer's involvement was not completely improper because his mandate also supports working committees and the 360 hour proposal came out of the EI Panel. Now having said that, I think it's fair to say that the Liberal proposal was pretty threadbare and open to a lot of interpretation and of course, the Conservatives took full and partisan advantage of that. That's the problem with this issue - it appears that the Liberals asked Kevin Page for a specific analysis which may, or may not have been what they would propose as an official piece of legislation. It just all seems to be pie in the sky and ripe for distortion by the Conservatives....and fighting between the government and the Budget Officer. That's why it just doesn't feel right......so yes, as well-meaning as Harper was in creating the independent Budget Officer, the mandate needs to be refined.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I guess that's where any blame would lie....having said that, I'd like to backtrack just a bit and say that the Budget Officer's involvement was not completely improper because his mandate also supports working committees and the 360 hour proposal came out of the EI Panel. Now having said that, I think it's fair to say that the Liberal proposal was pretty threadbare and open to a lot of interpretation and of course, the Conservatives took full and partisan advantage of that. That's the problem with this issue - it appears that the Liberals asked Kevin Page for a specific analysis which may, or may not have been what they would propose as an official piece of legislation. It just all seems to be pie in the sky and ripe for distortion by the Conservatives....and fighting between the government and the Budget Officer. That's why it just doesn't feel right......so yes, as well-meaning as Harper was in creating the independent Budget Officer, the mandate needs to be refined.

Harper has a long track record in saying one thing and doing another in the name of political advantage.

[jdobbin]

I guess that's where any blame would lie....having said that, I'd like to backtrack just a bit and say that the Budget Officer's involvement was not completely improper because his mandate also supports working committees and the 360 hour proposal came out of the EI Panel. Now having said that, I think it's fair to say that the Liberal proposal was pretty threadbare and open to a lot of interpretation and of course, the Conservatives took full and partisan advantage of that. That's the problem with this issue - it appears that the Liberals asked Kevin Page for a specific analysis which may, or may not have been what they would propose as an official piece of legislation.

The Budget Officer looked at some specific changes based on a Liberal proposal and looked at the Tory response and worked out the costs from there.

I have not heard the Tories say the Budget Officer's numbers are wrong. Have you?