IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Numbers Game: Rating the Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments

Author

Listed:
  • William B.P. Robson

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Farah Omran

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

Abstract

Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments spent some $724 billion on programs and $58 billion on interest charges in 2017. They provide services ranging from defence through health and education to income supports. They have very wide taxing powers and legally unlimited authority to borrow. Canadians need to be able to monitor and influence the ways their elected representatives and government officials manage public funds. A key tool for Canadians as legislators, taxpayers and citizens to monitor and influence governments’ fiscal decisions is through their financial reports: • the budgets governments present around the beginning of the fiscal year; • the estimates legislatures vote to approve specific programs; and • the audited financial statements governments present in their public accounts after year-end. The quality and timeliness of these reports – and therefore their usefulness to legislators, taxpayers and citizens – varies widely. Our evaluation of the budgets, estimates and public accounts tabled by Canada’s senior governments in the 2017/18 fiscal year awards top marks to Alberta and New Brunswick. These A-plus provinces display the relevant numbers prominently and use appropriate and consistent accounting and aggregation in their budgets and public accounts. They also provide straightforward reconciliations of results with budget intentions, their auditors record no reservations, and their budgets and public accounts are timely. Less happily, other governments do not adhere to proper accounting standards, present budgets and estimates that are not comparable to their public accounts, bury key numbers, and are late with their budgets and/or their end-of-year results. Prince Edward Island’s D and the Northwest Territories’ D-plus put them at the bottom of the rankings. Notwithstanding some poor grades in this most recent evaluation, the financial reports of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments generally improved over the years. Adherence to public sector accounting standards is better than it was, as is consistency in presentation of the key numbers. As Alberta and New Brunswick demonstrate, Canadians can get reliable, consistent and timely financial information from their governments – if they want it

Suggested Citation

  • William B.P. Robson & Farah Omran, 2018. "The Numbers Game: Rating the Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 511, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_511.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William B.P. Robson & Farah Omran, 2019. "Show and Tell: Rating the Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments, 2019," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 545, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fiscal and Tax Policy; Federal Budgets; Program Spending and Evaluation; Provincial Taxation and Budgets; Role and Efficiency of Government; Transparency of Public Finances;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H30 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - General
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.