Government finance
During the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last January, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that Canada would write off “the vast majority” of the C$750 million Iraq owes to federal agencies. Media reports implied that this debt reduction would occur right away. In fact, the Prime Minister’s announcement put Canada squarely behind a U.S. plan to delay Iraqi debt rescheduling until it could be tied to the acceptance of economic policies approved by the International Monetary Fund.
CCPA staff, research associates, economists and NGO activists are busily at work drafting our Alternative Federal Budget (AFB) for 2004. It will be unveiled shortly before federal Finance Minister John Manley tables his official budget in February.
The AFB has been a “signature” exercise for the Centre since 1994--an annual project that, more than any other, defines the CCPA and displays its research capability.
In the 2004 election, economic issues have not been front and centre. Accountability, rights issues and health care have dominated the stage, while the economy has essentially been taken for granted. That is too bad because the contending parties have very different visions of what makes good economic policy.
When Canadians went to the polls last June they chose, in policy terms, new spending by the federal government over shrinking government through more tax cuts. In so doing, they rejected arguments that higher public spending would inevitably undermine Canada's economic performance, or conversely, that reducing the size of government by cutting taxes would boost the economy.
(Ottawa) Would cutting taxes even further boost Canada's economic performance? Would introducing a new social program like early childhood education and care hurt Canada's productivity? A new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reviews the evidence, finding no relationship between how big a government is and a country's economic performance.