Tories wield the deficit truncheon

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

If only the unemployed weren't so reckless with our money.

In predicting a $50 billion deficit last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was quick to centre-stage the role of the unemployed and his other favourite whipping boy -- the autoworkers -- in soaking up government funds and pushing us deeper into debt.

Flaherty seemed keen to deflect public wrath onto these ill-fated workers, clearly victims of the global economic meltdown triggered by Wall Street. Most of them have probably never even been to Wall Street, let alone flipped asset-backed securities inside hedge fund portfolios.

Still, many are now unemployed, and that means an extra $4 billion in employment insurance costs borne by Canadian taxpayers. (On the other hand, for years workers have paid more in EI premiums than they've received in benefits. Indeed, since the early 1990s, they've paid $57 billion more than they've received, with the money going into government coffers.)

And is it fair to consider the $10 billion going to the auto industry as part of the deficit, when it's a loan -- not unlike the $200 billion in loans and asset swaps which the Bank of Canada made to Canadian banks earlier this year?

Flaherty made no attempt last week to link the bulging deficit to bankers.

Meanwhile, lost in the mists of time, are the massive tax cuts introduced by Flaherty in 2006 and 2007. Without those cuts to the GST and personal and corporate taxes -- worth $34 billion this year, according to the budget -- Ottawa's deficit would be much smaller.

Of course, it wasn't clear back then that the world economy would collapse. But it was clear that massive tax cuts would serve the Harper agenda, no matter what the shape of the economy.

The Harper agenda has always been about reducing spending on government programs -- with the exception of the military, which under Harper has swelled to almost $20 billion this year. Why not link the bulging deficit then to military contractors?

Let's not forget that Stephen Harper, only a decade ago, was head of the fiercely right-wing National Citizens Coalition -- a job he presumably took because he shared the NCC's deep hostility towards medicare and other social programs.

In the early 2000s - when Michael Ignatieff was at Harvard urging his fellow Americans to go to war in Iraq -- Harper was right here attacking Canada, describing his homeland as a "second-tier socialistic country."

As Prime Minister, Harper has been more careful about slagging Canada and Canadian ways. And he inherited massive surpluses from the Liberals, making it hard to justify cuts to popular social programs.

But cutting taxes accomplished much the same thing. If the government has no surplus revenue -- or is running a deficit -- the cupboard will be bare, providing the perfect excuse for holding the line on social spending.

The tragedy is not the $50 billion deficit, which is understandably large due to the recession. Indeed, more stimulus is needed.

The tragedy is that, despite a decade of huge budget surpluses, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives invested in our public services -- in health care, education, public transit, employment insurance.

Such investment would have distributed benefits far more widely than tax cuts, positioning us much better to weather the current economic storm.

Now, whichever party is in power will surely swing that big deficit like a truncheon, clobbering any request for the public investment that's suddenly farther out of reach than ever.

Linda McQuaig is author of It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.