This may be the budget that ended deficit phobia

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

PMO Photo by Adam Scotti

Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't agree that Wednesday's federal budget was a non-event: "cynical," a "placeholder," "bafflegab and buzzwords" -- as others wrote.

I think this budget rocked, in one sense: it did a 180 on the stifling monomania of the last 30 years. I'm referring to the obsession with deficits. As recently as the last election, the Liberals promised a balanced budget by the end of their first term. Now their projected deficits are even higher but that promise is gone and the thought process, transformed.

Finance minister Bill Morneau blandly says, they'll "be responsible every step along the way" and "show a decline in net debt to GDP," which totally shifts the metric. He might as well have trilled, "Tra-la-la, we really don't care." It's a damn earthquake.

For proof, look not at the opposition -- Rona Ambrose predictably called it "spending out of control"-- but at the journalists, who were left sputtering. It's so radical they struggled for words. Peter Mansbridge began interviewing Morneau with: "How does it feel to know you'll likely never have a balanced budget?"

I wish Morneau had said, "I'm fine, but is there anything I can do to help you through this?"

Mansbridge couldn't stop, turning plaintively to his panel: "I tried to get him on the deficit … Is there a right and wrong any more?"

Jennifer Ditchburn tried to soothe him with, "Deficit is a word they just don't use any more."

If I'm hyperventilating, it's because I've led a cramped existence all these years, bowed under the weight of deficitism since I first heard the phrase, "Yeah, but how ya gonna pay for that?" during the 1988 election.

No one knew where it came from or how it usurped all other political concerns, like a missive from heaven, or the Fraser Institute. Paul Martin adopted it, using it to sink the Canada we knew, and his own career.

Yet, there's apparently an ebb and flow to these things: a Nanos poll says Canadians now want Ottawa to run deficits as long as overall debt declines relative to GDP. That's a pretty sophisticated alteration for ordinary folks to make intuitively; it makes you wonder if someone isn't pulling strings somewhere and decided to drop a new backdrop (to public discourse) over the previous one.

Is this stuff all orchestrated from offstage and the actors simply read the new lines? If so, I wish I knew who's rewriting them. Or maybe the cast just got tired of being scared out of their pants, like the kids in Monsters Inc.

The point is, all the angst-ridden, action-inhibiting deficit phobia wasn't based on immutable laws of nature. It suited the needs of some heavy players at the time, who are now prepared to cheerily jettison it for its near opposite. No harm done, eh? What might replace it?

Personally, I'm intrigued by MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), a version of Keynesianism. It maintains that governments can create (or "print") money to fill public needs and can't go into debt to themselves, though they should keep an eye on inflation.

It has respectable advocates, such as James Galbraith (son of John Kenneth). Paul Hellyer, who's been chirping at Liberal governments since he was in one in the 1970s, says he remembers the Bank of Canada governor who unilaterally decreed that henceforth all public debt would be owed to the big banks, not ourselves. He says it's been downhill, or downhell, ever since.

I don't really expect any Liberal government, including this one, to do anything very radical or publicly beneficial with their new leash but if you want some real common sense on the subject you can't beat Tommy Douglas in his farewell speech as the NDP's first leader, in 1971. He was recalling challenges early in his career as a socialist voice for activist government:

"In 1937, the minister of finance asked, where will we get the money? [Liberal finance minister] Benson asks the same question today. My reply at that time was that if we were to go to war, the minister would find the money. And it turned out to be true … we can, if we want to, mobilize the same resources to fight poverty, unemployment and social injustice."

Good point, IMHO. Now get some of those bright economists and pollsters to figure out what myths and manias are required get on with it.

This column was first published in the Toronto Star.

PMO Photo by Adam Scotti

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. 

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.