On April 28, 2003, Statistics Canada released its estimates for provincial and territorial gross domestic product for 2002. Claims about GDP growth prior to the publication are merely speculation ("estimates"). For those who want to debate public policy based on information, the release dates are important. The BC Progress Board released its third annual bench marking report on December 18, 2003; the most recent data it covers is 2002. The report is professional, technically competent, and worth reading (although much of the government's recent performance is hidden behind ten year comparisons), but it is not as valuable as a report published in the first week of May. The dates chosen for publication have some relevance for the next election. On the current schedule, the last BC Progress Board report before the May 17, 2005, vote will be in late December 2004 for the year 2003.

The government will be claiming two balanced budgets (one introduced in February 2004 for the year ending March 31, 2005, and one introduced in February 2005 for the year ending March 31, 2006), although the work of the Auditor General will not be complete until the summer of 2005 for the year ending March 31, 2005 - in other words neither of the budgets which the government will claim are balanced will be subject to independent verification. That is particularly important since the government admits that any balance will be slim; in other words, errors of $100 million or more could easily put it out of balance, but that won't be known until after an election.

Other economic indicators such as BC's performance relative to other provinces with respect to real per capital GDP, disposable income or real wages could be made available by the BC Progress Board for the year 2004 in time for the 2005 election, but its report will not be available on the current schedule. Their report is sufficiently professional however, that any competent economist can produce those numbers and make them available by the eve of the election.

If the numbers available by election 2005 are as gloomy as they are now, the BC Liberals will have reason to be concerned. Reading the Board's report can be confusing. It points to BC's strong position on a number of indicators, however, it should be noted that BC has been strong on those indicators for many years, not because of anything the Campbell government has done. Listening to the Campbell government, one might think that they performed miracles with respect to lowering taxes, but the Board's report indicates that they just changed who pays by shifting from income taxes to user fees. The Board's 2003 report stated that "BC posted the 5th lowest consolidated provincial and local government tax burden in Canada at $4,782 in 2002/03. From 1993/94 onward, BC experienced a 2.9% increase in the per capita tax burden, the smallest increase in the country." The report went on to say "From 1993/94 to 2002/03, BC saw the per capita consolidated provincial and local government tax burden rise by $133. In comparison, Alberta recorded an increase of $1,335 and Ontario posted an increase of $1,368." You never saw anything like that in Campbell's New Era Document - an admission that the average tax burden in BC was below Ontario and Quebec for all of the 90s!

The Board's report points out that BC ranks third amongst the provinces in terms of real per capital GDP, a key measure used by the Campbell government. It is important to understand that BC has ranked third for many years; the issue is BC's slower growth. The Board said that BC's real per capita GDP "…recorded the third lowest growth between 2001 and 2002 among the provinces." That moved BC from dead last to 8th position in 2002 - still far down from the 4th position it held in 2000. At that rate the goal of being 1st or 2nd in the growth of real per capita GDP by 2010 is still a long way off, especially so when one looks at "performance indicator 9", gross fixed capital formation. Recall that the massive tax cuts, including the elimination of the capital tax, was supposed to spur investment; the Board reported that in 2002 BC's decrease in gross fixed capital formation was 4.9%; the only province with a larger decrease was Newfoundland.

No amount of government spin will hide the hard facts, and no delay in reporting from the Progress Board will keep commentators from reporting data from Statistics Canada as soon as it becomes available. Campbell's economic agenda has failed and is unlikely to recover in the year ahead.