More from L. Ian MacDonald available More fromavailable here

Welcome to the recession … sort of.

Canada’s GDP grew by 0.5 per cent in June but declined by 0.1 per cent overall in the second quarter, after a 0.2 per cent decline in the first quarter of 2015. On an annualized basis, the economy contracted 0.5 per cent in the second quarter, compared with 3.7 per cent growth in the United States.

Technically speaking, two consecutive quarters of negative growth is a recession. This one comes at an inconvenient moment for Stephen Harper — in the middle of an election campaign. But, as he might say, it’s just a teeny weeny little recession.

It’s not even that, says Joe Oliver — assuming you exclude inflation. “GDP increased by almost $4 billion, a result of a buoyant month of June, up 0.5 per cent,” tweeted the reclusive Finance minister after StatsCan released the second quarter GDP numbers Tuesday morning.

And yes, a stronger-than-expected June reduced the forecast quarterly decline. BMO Capital Markets, for instance, had forecast an annualized shrinkage of 1 per cent in the second quarter.

At a morning announcement at an Ontario steel plant, Harper said the Canadian economy was “back on track” with June showing “the strongest monthly growth in more than a year.” And did he mention that the government was in a $5 billion surplus from April through June, the first quarter of the current fiscal year?

What he didn’t say, of course, was that the $5 billion surplus includes a $2.1 billion one-time gain from the sale of Ottawa’s shares in General Motors. Nor does it include the payout of $3 billion in increased child care benefits for the first seven months of the year in July …

Details, details.

Harper caught a break in the June GDP numbers, which — as StatsCan noted — rose “after falling for five consecutive months” with a “broad based” increase in June. The “output of goods-producing industries advanced 0.9 per cent in June.” In effect, the recession ended the day it began.

Harper also caught a break in the price of oil, which plunged to $38 per barrel last week, before rebounding to the $50 range this week. The price of oil is crucial to Ottawa’s fiscal framework and Harper’s campaign narrative of balanced books.

The April budget forecast a $1.4 billion surplus in the current fiscal year. But that was based on an assumption of oil at $54. Every $5 decline in the price of oil over a full year costs the federal treasury $1 billion.

Do voters care about Ottawa’s books being balanced? Not particularly. Do voters care about Ottawa’s books being balanced? Not particularly.

Anyway, we’re talking about marginal numbers here; the forecast surplus, and the $1 billion deficit predicted by the Parliamentary Budget Office, both amount to rounding errors in an economy the size of Canada’s. But it means a lot in terms of the parties’ campaign posturing and positioning.

Harper and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair are both promising balanced budgets next year, while Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is calling for a stimulative deficit of $10 billion a year before balancing the books in 2019.

Since the Great Recession of 2008-09, the Conservatives have run up deficits every year, adding more than $150 billion of debt. And even the forecast surplus for the current fiscal year is precariously thin.

Mulcair and the NDP will go to any lengths to avoid being depicted as tax-and-spend socialists. Which is why Mulcair points out at every opportunity that NDP governments in Saskatchewan have posted balanced budgets since the days of Tommy Douglas. Ontario and British Columbia? Not so much. Alberta? Well, Rachel Notley inherited a dire situation in the energy crash, and is looking at a $5.9 billion deficit.

Mulcair insists that he can bring in programs like $15 per day child care and still balance the books. The Conservatives and Liberals have run the numbers on the NDP platform and — understandably — point to a different outcome.

Both the blue and red teams had off-day newsers in the same Press Gallery theatre on Sunday. Both said the sky would fall under an NDP government.

For the Conservatives, Jason Kenney claimed an $8 billion shortfall in the first year alone under an NDP government, and $34.5 billion over four years.

For their part, the Liberals ran the NDP numbers and predicted $28 billion of deficit spending over four years.

“This is the biggest, darkest, deepest black hole imaginable,” said Liberal John McCallum, a former chief economist at Royal Bank. “The numbers just don’t add up.”

Neither do Trudeau’s — at least, they don’t add up to balance. In a $2 trillion economy, Trudeau’s deficit spending of $10 billion a year would be only 0.5 per cent of GDP. Again, that’s a rounding number. But $10 billion is a very real number in an election campaign — and in this case it’s raising the underlining question of whether Trudeau is ready to run the economy.

Do voters care about Ottawa’s books being balanced? Not particularly. Last week’s Angus Reid poll asked voters how they ranked “the most important issues facing Canada today.”

In a sample of more than 6,000 people, “the deficit/government spending” ranked only fifth at 13 per cent. The economy was far and away first at 42 per cent, followed by jobs/unemployment and health care at 20 per cent, with the environment/pollution at 14 per cent. Terrorism/security and crime — both key ballot questions for Harper — are barely registering with voters.

In other words, nothing has changed. It’s still “the economy, stupid.”

Two more economic indicators being released later this week will also shape the campaign conversation. Canada’s export/import figures for July will be out Thursday, with the unemployment and job numbers for August due out on Friday morning. Harper must be hoping he can catch a few more breaks.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94. The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.