“…The government also said it would not commit to balancing the budget next year, saying that trying to do that at any cost would hurt Canadians more than it might help them. A month ago on the campaign trail, though, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was unequivocal in saying his government would never go into deficit.
“There's nothing on the horizon – notwithstanding the storm clouds, and they are significant – that indicates to me that we should immediately go into deficit,” Harper said on Oct. 6.
But Jean, reading the throne speech with Harper at her side, said, “In a historic global downturn, it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost.”
McCallum seized on that, accusing Harper of lying on the campaign trail and rejecting the government's excuse that a Canadian deficit will have been caused by events outside Canada.
“We are seeing that Mr. Harper was misleading the Canadian people during the election,” McCallum said. “If this is to be a deficit, and it now looks like it will be, it will be a made-in-Canada Conservative deficit. The overspending and the erosion of the tax base and the cutting of the contingency reserve – all of that preceded this economic crisis.”
[Read the whole story]
If I recall correctly, this “contingency reserve” that the Liberals keep on about, was an uncontrollable slush fund that they had set up, and it could have been 3 Billion, or 20 Billion, whichever way the wind happened to be blowing at any given time. That is not prudent or responsible fiscal planning, it's just outright opportunism on the backs of the Canadian Taxpayer.
Conservatives made it law, that any surplus would, and must be committed to reducing the principal of the National Debt, over and above the 3 Billion allocated in the budget specifically to do that. Regardless of what is happening now, or what was happening then, that IS and continues to be a sound fiscal policy.
At this point, this government (like any other would) is covering it's rear by saying that to “guarantee no deficit spending at ALL costs” would be an “irresponsible position to take”. What is does not say, is that they guarantee they will go into deficit spending.
I would challenge Mr. McCallum to offer suggestions as to which programs or services he believes should receive spending cuts in order to prevent deficit spending. I truly doubt he would do so, claiming that it's not his position to tell the government how they ought to cut costs or some other weasely way to avoid providing an unpopular solution to the issue.
That I believe sums up the major problem with the Opposition Parties. They do not want the Government of the time to co-operate and compromise with them. Instead, what they insist that the Government of the time do, is to adopt their platform. That in itself is not concientious objection, but opportunistic obstructionism which gets the House of Commons absolutly nowhere at all.
Hear! hear!