So the opposition parties are outraged that Jim Flaherty was off by a wide margin in his deficit prediction in the January budget. In fact there are rumblings that Iggy might table a non-confidence vote in late June over the size of the deficit. I'll save the fact the NDP, oops. sorry, Ignatieff's planned changes for E.I. would add another $1.5 billion to the deficit for another post.
Now I admit I don't even know if this is even possible under Parliament rules. The major reason for the unexpected increase in the federal budget is a result of the additional money required for the GM and Chrysler bailout. Mr. Ignatieff has had a free ride over the auto-sector bailouts. In fact, I can't remember the last time any journalist even asked him about it. Same for Jack Layton. They have a free ride to critcize the government for increased funding with absolutely no blowback to themselves or their parties. So here is the plan.
The Conservative's can state that the January budget only included set amounts for the auto sector bailout, and that because of the large increase in funding and opposition outrage over the inflated yearly deficit, they put forth a new stimulus bill (something John "Chevy" McCallum) has called for in the past) in the house including additional auto sector funding. The bill would be a money bill and would therefore be a confidence vote.
Jack Layton would be hard pressed to vote against it. Michael Ignatieff might vote against it, but in doing so would lose all that free union support and advertising, and voting against it would cost him votes in southern Ontario cities and towns that rely heavily on the auto sector for jobs. Duceppe would vote against it because the auto sector is mostly in Ontario, and outside of Quebec's borders he views any federal spending as a waste.
If it passes, which I think it would, the opposition will have effectively endorsed the increased deficit.
2 comments:
Right, the auto bailout was still being negotiated, and not in the budget/stimulus and voted on.
But were are talking loans (and an equity stake), that falls on the balance sheet, not the income statement.
Can this matter go to a vote?
I thought the government can call any bill a matter of confidence, at their will.
But at the very least, the opps must be forced to make it clear they support 'the additional deficit due to increases in EI payouts and the auto loans'
From what they said on TV today Wilson, the auto sector money would show as fiscal money spent for this year. In subsequent years if and when the loans were repaid that money would be added as revenue for the fiscal year it is received in.
Post a Comment