'You do get the sense there were different books being kept' - Macleans.ca

‘You do get the sense there were different books being kept’


Kevin Pages throws a quote on the F-35 fire.

Page told host Evan Solomon what bothered his office was that one set of books was available inside DND, while another “for communication purposes” was presented publicly, in which he said the government was “low-balling” the numbers. “You do get the sense there were different books being kept,” he told Solomon.

Meanwhile, another major defence procurement is being restarted.


‘You do get the sense there were different books being kept’

  1. Devil’s Dictionary ~ Economy:

    Purchasing the barrel of whiskey that you do not need for the price of the cow that you cannot afford

  2. I am glad Page mentioned it but many have had the sense The Government has been keeping two sets of books for at least the past 15 yrs.

    Also, it seems like amateur hour that our parliamentary budget office goes on radio program to accuse the government of cooking the books without providing significant evidence or remedies.

    • He would have to go through one hella Freedom of Information request, doncha think? And it also aint his job to provide solutions. It’s his job to provide Canadians with criticism. The job of providing solutions resides solely with the government. The job of providing alternative solutions resides with the Opposition.

      • Actually, I don’t think it’s his job to provide criticism, either. His job is to provide neutral, objective, evidence-based, value-free information on the government’s fiscal decisions, budget estimates, and financial performance.

        • Okay. The word Criticism has taken on tones of a negative value in this day and age. Put down that defensive ego. Its meaning is much broader. And Information is never value [free]. Data can be, but never information.

          • Defensive ego? I’ve got nuthin’ about which to be defensive. I’m just suggesting Page himself would disavow any mission to “provide criticism”. And I disagree that all information is necessarily value-laden (being told that it’s raining outside is to acquire information, but I fail to to see how it’s value-laden). But now we just playing with semantics, so ’nuff said.

  3. Reminds me of the cooked books Jim Flaherty kept under Mike Harris. They claimed there was a surplus, but when they were ousted a big hole of debt was revealed.

  4. Is he confirming the existence of separate books, or expressing an opinion? The first sentence of the quote above asserts the existence of separate books, but the 2nd sentence (quoting Page) comes across as an opinion or theory.

  5. Well we know there were 2 sets of books because we caught Mackay reading from the wrong one on TV.

  6. One gets a sense the Harper Cons have a separate set of budget books as well. Their accounting methods are dubious to say the least considering these facts:

    1) The Harper Conservatives underestimated the price of the F-35 fighter jets by at least $10B. How much are they off by now?

    2) When Flaherty was finance minister of ON he said a $5.6B deficit was a balanced budget. (Is he still using “creative accounting” techniques?)

    3) In 2011, the Harper government was found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over public budget documents to the Budget Officer it appointed, falsely claiming “cabinet confidence.”

    4) Tony “Gazebo” Clement recently announced he was “handcuffed” and couldn’t release details about the 2012 budget cuts for another year. (Of course, no other government has fallen prey to this handcuffing dilemma…)

    5) Flaherty has still to come clean on the details of the 2011 budget cuts.

    6) Budget Officer Kevin Page blasted the Harper Cons over their budget secrecy. He said their reporting of the numbers “is not  adequately transparent – timely, comparable, reconciled – as defined by the OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency.”

    • To be fair to Tony C, it is awfully difficult to list all those cuts on twitter.

    • Isn’t it incredible how much “money, numbers and general budget stuff” gets left out of the Conservatives budget and how much “environmental impact assessment stuff” get put in?
      Strange days indeed.

  7. I suppose this note will only be read by the first 3 liberals before it disappears behind the Macleans censor, however I must say that of all the stupid move Macleans have made, this latest bit of censorship is the dumbest. The most intelligent and interesting comments have always been from conservatives and now you hide them because this site is overloaded with idle boring liberals who do not want to hear any thing which may be pro-Harper or conservative.

    It`s over. This is now a boring echo chamber led by Lib-blogger-Wherry. Macleans can try to fix things, but it`s over. You guys will still be playing with each other in 10 years time when Harper will still be PM.

    • So, then, I take it you have no problem with the fact that our government was apparently trying to hide over $10 billion of spending from us by lying right to our faces during an election campaign???

    • While I don’t agree that the “most intelligent and interesting comments have always been from conservatives”, I do agree you have the right to express them and I’m definitely opposed to the Disqus auto-censor. I thumbed you up just to keep your comment visible. :-)

      • And so did I.

    • When those comments drop below display threshold, I manage see a link to display the comment. I guess it’s a matter of seeing what you want to see.

      • It still smacks of administrative meddling in free discourse. It’s stupid.

        • An argument can be made for it’s suppressing stupid speech, rather than reasonable discourse.

          The same criticism you make can be taken to the government muzzling scientists.

          • So what’s the point of Disqus suppressing (OK, hiding) any comment that isn’t inherently libelous or defamatory ? The practice serves no purpose in facilitating participation or commentary. And, in terms of optics, it’s definitely giving the appearance of rejecting only those comments that are right wing or conservative.

            Ergo, IMO, it’s stupid.

          • it’s definitely giving the appearance of rejecting only those comments that are right wing or conservative.

            DIsqus doesn’t suppress the comments. Disqus provides the mechanism.The audience suppresses the comments. I expect that you would see a similar suppression of centre, left, and progressive comments at the Post, or the Sun, or the Globe if this system were implemented there.

            I automatically thumb down any comments with abusive language. I read as far as the abuse then stop. I usually thumb down any comments that whine about free speech or censorship just to be contrary.