People who use a "household budgeting" attitude to government spending obviously missed the 20th Century. Ask any American politician, left or right, about paying off their national debt, and they will just laugh in your face, and for good reason too. Since about the 1930s, American military spending has been a constant kick-starter for "free enterprise". (I consider NASA to be an Air Force operation). That military spending caused the microprocessor computer you are using to be invented. Military spending against the Nazis was the reason the computer itself was invented.
Considering government to be a "household" is one step even more inaccurate than considering it to be a "business". Oh yeah economics (oikonomia) comes from "house management" in Greek. However these days, when it comes to government, we don't call it "economics" but "public policy". A household earns money, either from its labour, its capital, or both. The government earns nothing. They collect the money through source deductions from most of us through the force of law. Then they spend it. When government spends money on things like social services provided by a prosperous civil service, infrastructure provided by prosperous construction workers, and income supports to make economically disadvantaged people slightly more prosperous, this spending has a huge knock-on effect to the rest of the real economy. Not only do we get more spending in the general retail economy from all these people, but we also get the added value that they provide making our lives better through health care, transit which works better, etc.
"But we are all the deciders of our own destiny, and the government should be too!" This does not make sense on many levels. The government is not even the sum of all Canadians. It doesn't need to eat, and it has no emotions. It is an artificial European creation based on monarchy and the Estates. It is there to govern us, hence the name government.
If anyone hadn't noticed, there has been an economic depression in the real economy for quite some time now. All the usual suspects are to blame. Automation. Competition from the developing world. Trickle up economics, and hoarding of money in tax havens. Small businesses failing because of operations like Wal*Mart and Amazon (as predicted quite neatly in the Communist Manifesto). You get less money, so you want stuff cheaper, so they have to pay their workers less, so you eventually get your $25 an hour job replaced by $12.50 an hour. Be careful how much cheap you want, because you might get your wishes answered in more ways than you expected.
There has been some talk here about how GDP growth covers the debt. That which does even more so is inflation. Inflation of prices means more sales tax. Inflation of wages means more income tax. In turn, the value of the debt is also eroded in constant dollars. Inflation is kind of like a bottle of good cognac. A couple of shots will give you a glow, but drink the whole bottle and the next day will be somewhat dismal. Ask the traditional post-war non-Tory-Blairite British Labour Party. Its next day was Margaret Thatcher.
So given the economic boom for the wealthy and the depression for the rest of us, the solution has to be in government spending, as it was in the 1930s and much of the post WW-II period.
The only concern is whether the bottomless pit of the international financial markets will refuse to buy the debt. Even under an NDP government, Canadian sovereign debt will be snapped up like hotcakes. If any rich person asks what you are doing, you give Keynsian explanations and not socialist ones. In a capitalist economy with a large public sector (what we used to call a mixed economy), we disagree that a retreat by government will mean an increase in demand. We have much proof of exactly the opposite.
Conservatives voted for Justin Trudeau because he made a Keynsian case. Unfortunately, he is now subject to ridicule for whatever reason, which is doom for his political career.