Canada's Deficit Lower than Predicted

[Smallc]

OTTAWA -- Preliminary estimates from the Department of Finance indicate the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended came in nearly 13% smaller than anticipated.

The department's monthly Fiscal Monitor document, released Friday, suggested the deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year stands at $46.9-billion, or 12.8% less than the estimate of $53.8-billion in Budget 2010. Roughly $19-billion, or 40%, of the preliminary 2009-10 shortfall is attributed to the Conservative government's two-year, $47-billion stimulus package.

Article by Paul Vieira

Quite good news I think. I anticipate, that given Canada's strong growth projections going forward, many provincial governments will find themselves in a similar circumstance.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Topaz]

Quite good news I think. I anticipate, that given Canada's strong growth projections going forward, many provincial governments will find themselves in a similar circumstance.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Costs always go over and the G8, G20 will go over the 1 Bil.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Costs always go over and the G8, G20 will go over the 1 Bil.

I won't hold my breath, I'll want for the actual numbers...but the deficit for 2009 - 2010 looks to have been lower than predicted, and the deficit for 2010 - 2011, even with the G8 and G20 costs added (some of that cost was already budgeted), is predicted to be lower than earlier thought as well.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Shady]

I won't hold my breath, I'll want for the actual numbers...but the deficit for 2009 - 2010 looks to have been lower than predicted, and the deficit for 2010 - 2011, even with the G8 and G20 costs added (some of that cost was already budgeted), is predicted to be lower than earlier thought as well.

I'm glad to see the deficit lowered. But I'd still like to see Harper cut some spending as the economy begins to grow faster again.

[Smallc]

I'm glad to see the deficit lowered. But I'd still like to see Harper cut some spending as the economy begins to grow faster again.

I don't see more than very small targeted cuts as being realistic, given the fact that both the economy and the population will be growing. Holding the line on most programs will even be difficult in many situations.

[Smallc]

That also doesn't mean my observation is right, BTW. It's simply an observation....although I have heard a couple people echo the same thoughts.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Battletoads]

Harper predicted, and promised, no deficit. 47 billion dollars seems a lot higher than than.

[Borg]

Still a deficit - spending more than we bring in

Borg

[Smallc]

Still a deficit - spending more than we bring in

Borg

And? It's smaller than everyone else's, and was nearly unavoidable.

[YEGmann]

Harper predicted, and promised, no deficit. 47 billion dollars seems a lot higher than than.

Citation please.

[Smallc]

Citation please.

Oh come now, in the 2008 election he said no recession and no deficit.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Smallc

[Topaz]

And? It's smaller than everyone else's, and was nearly unavoidable.

I suppose since he DID bailout the banks three days before the last election. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

[Smallc]

I suppose since he DID bailout the banks three days before the last election. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

That wasn't a bank bailout, and it didn't come out of the federal budget. You clearly have little if any idea what you're talking about.

[YEGmann]

Oh come now, in the 2008 election he said no recession and no deficit.

No "come on". Citation please what Harder did really say. Harper never promissed there never would be a deficit.

[Smallc]

No "come on". Citation please what Harder did really say. Harper never promissed there never would be a deficit.

No, just his finance minister:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article714790.ece

Of course, he did say thatr running deficits was a bad idea, and Conservative staffers did deny that he was leaving the door open for future deficits:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article714724.ece

[Keepitsimple]

I suppose since he DID bailout the banks three days before the last election. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

You've said that on more than one occasion so lets get it straight. The government simply exchanged assets with the Banks. They took residential mortgages from Banks and exchanged them for cash. That changed the Banks' Capital requirements and allowed them to lend more money to Canadians. All the mortgages were ensured by CMHC anyway - so it was a no-brainer. They didn't just hand over money to the Banks. No bail out. Is that clear now?

The federal government is buying up $25 billion in residential mortgages to give Canada's chartered banks more cash for loans, but the effort shouldn't be considered a bailout similar to the U.S. government lifeline for Wall Street banks, the federal government and industry watchers said Friday.

"It's a huge stretch to look at it as a bailout - it's a helping hand," said Brad Smith, a banking analyst at Blackmont Capital, a Toronto brokerage.

Flaherty said the auction will be handled by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. starting next week and that Ottawa will be holding most of the mortgages to maturity in five years.

"As insured mortgage pools in Canada already carry government backing, there is no additional risk to taxpayers," he said.

The purchase represents about three per cent of the total outstanding residential mortgages in Canada.

Tsur Somerville, a business professor at the University of British Columbia, said the mortgage transfer announced by Flaherty is not a bailout since the loans are already ensured by a government agency.

"If they went into default then the government would have to bail them out anyhow," he said. "What they've done is essentially replaced mortgages with cash which changes the capital requirements of the banks."

Link: http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/10102008/2/biz-finance-ottawa-takes-25b-mortgages-banks-books-don-t.html

[Battletoads]

No "come on". Citation please what Harder did really say. Harper never promissed there never would be a deficit.

"We're not running a deficit. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."

Stephen Harper, October 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=21506853-dac2-4c02-a6b5-9704fe47d9fc

As of Jan 2009 (3 months later)

34 Billion Dollar Deficit expected

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/22/deficitoutlook.html

and it only got larger from that point on...

[Jack Weber]

"We're not running a deficit. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."

Stephen Harper, October 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=21506853-dac2-4c02-a6b5-9704fe47d9fc

As of Jan 2009 (3 months later)

34 Billion Dollar Deficit expected

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/22/deficitoutlook.html

and it only got larger from that point on...

Yeeks!!!!

Plus 2 perogies!!!!

[YEGmann]

"We're not running a deficit. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit."

Stephen Harper, October 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=21506853-dac2-4c02-a6b5-9704fe47d9fc

Where do you see a promise? Harper was describing the situation at the moment. They were not going into deficit. Before the 2008 election. What he did promise that the conservative party policy would be not running a deficit. But three amigos forced him to spend in the end of 2008 - early 2009. Against the party policy. Thus FY 2008 ended with a deficit.

[YEGmann]

No, just his finance minister:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article714790.ece

OK, now it is not Harper, well, let's assume the finance minister is almost the same. But again, there is no unconditional statement. Please read the Flaherty words. He said "if" and that "if" has been imposed on him by the opposition.

[msj]

Where do you see a promise?

How about this one: "If you don't want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party." Spoken by Stephen Harper on October 12, 2008.

Sure, there's an "if" in there. But read it carefully and see the rather unfortunate use of the word "ensure."

So, let's reword it for Yegmann for clarity's sake (i.e. dumb it down): the only way to ensure that Canada doesn't have a deficit is to vote Conservative.

If it looks like a promise and sounds like a promise....

[Guest TrueMetis]

If it looks like a promise and sounds like a promise....

...It's probably a lie.

[YEGmann]

How about this one: "If you don't want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party." Spoken by Stephen Harper on October 12, 2008.

Sorry, I asked for an original Harper's statement, not what the partisan anticonservative Canwest implies. The Canwest is known for its liberal bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwest

Do you have an independent source of this quotation? Was it written? Where was this said?

However its just technicality. It is not important.

So, let's reword it for Yegmann for clarity's sake (i.e. dumb it down): the only way to ensure that Canada doesn't have a deficit is to vote Conservative.

Let me repeat it (i.e. dumb it down) for you). Slowly. Before October 15, the only way to ensure that Canada would not have a carbon tax, tax increases, deficit and recession was to vote the Conservative party. Lots of stupid people did not do that. I do not blame them - it is democracy. But now to blame the minorty government that cannot fulfil its promises exactly because the three opposition parties united and demanded for the huge deficit, is at least dishonest. You cannot blame a person for the events that are beyond his control.

So you can honestly claim only what Harper said after the election, i.e. after October 14, 2008.

Do you get it?

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, but Canwest is probably the last media outlet in Canada that could ever be accused of Liberal bias. The fact is, you're wrong and Harper and Flaherty lied.

[YEGmann]

I'm sorry, but Canwest is probably the last media outlet in Canada that could ever be accused of Liberal bias.

You certainly did not read the link provided.

"Since Israel Asper's leadership of the Manitoba Liberal Party, the Asper family has been identified with Liberal politics and politicians. In July 2001, Southam national affairs columnist Lawrence Martin was fired after a column of his critical of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was not published. Russell Mills, longtime publisher of The Ottawa Citizen, was fired in June 2002 after the newspaper called on Chrétien to resign."

The fact is, you're wrong and Harper and Flaherty lied.

This is not a fact, this is your dream.

Edited May 31, 2010 by YEGmann