Federal budget deficit hits $39.4-billion - Macleans.ca

Federal budget deficit hits $39.4-billion

Will Harper have to raise taxes after all?


Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will have some explaining to do as he announces the budget on March 4. Canada’s deficit numbers from April through December 2009 have hit $39.4 billion, compared with a surplus of $0.4 billion in the same nine month period in the last fiscal year. The Department of Finance’s monthly Fiscal Monitor report attributes the deficit to lower tax revenues, an aging population and higher program expenses. 16 billion can be attributed to Canada’s Economic Action Plan. So far, the deficit numbers are in line with Flaherty’s prediction of a $56 billion deficit for the year, although his initial 2009-2010 budget called for a deficit of $33.7 billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page suggested last week that taxes will need to be raised to balance the budget, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledge not to do so.

CTV News

Filed under:

Federal budget deficit hits $39.4-billion

  1. They weren't going to raise taxes* before and the situation hasn't changed, so I see no reason why they would consider it now.

    *Note – hasn't stopped them from raising other sources of revenue.

  2. no needto raise taxes – as all the other projections I have seen do not figure in a decent price of oil and since we are well ahead of past projections and the deficit is slowing at a faster than anticipated rate as well the new pipline to the yanks from the sands which was not factored into the previous projections and the bottom line is that in 3 4 years now we will be back in balance and not the 5 – 6 originally thought! – it only takes 1 $ per barrel increase higher than projected to make a world of difference

  3. now is not this budget deficit the way of a low class minority party leader incompetence….guess so! no one is disagreeing!

  4. Before any political nitwit gets a chance to say that immigration is the answer, let's make it clear that bringing in masses of people from foreign cultures, often hostile to the West, is not the answer. If they become the majority, all they have to do is vote in a gov't of their own choosing that will simply abolish or sharply curtail benefits to elderly Canadians. Why would they want to work and pay taxes to support someone else's parents and grandparents?

    Even if the vast majority of immigrants are peaceful, it only takes a few like the "Toronto 18" to eat up millions of dollars in resources for arrest, prosecution, incarceration, etc. Most people in Iraq are peaceful too but the violent minority easily makes life for everyone else a living hell. The young radicals that get together in Toronto-area Mosques are not holding meetings on how to shore up Canada's social programs, that's for sure.

    • …and who let your clan into the country?

    • check the immigration stats, the largest group coming to canada are of asian descent, they are probably smarter, harder working and better educated than lazy white people like myself

  5. Since at least 1990, immigration has NOT been a benefit to Canada, nothing against the immigrants themselves but, as a whole the amount they can pay in taxes is significantly less than what they can draw on services. You can't blame individual immigrants for wanting to come here but you CAN blame stupid polticians for maintaining an idiotic immigration policy that will bring us to ruin.

    • i don't believe this . the standards to get into the country are very high, in fact most canadians wouldn't qualify

    • i don't believe this . the standards to get into the country are very high, in fact most canadians wouldn't qualify

  6. Dead wrong, without immigration think of how skewed Canada's population distribution would be – all old fogies with very few young people to pay for pensions and rising healthcare costs. Immigrants are absolutely a boon to this country. The problem is that some people with no understanding of economics assume that when an immigrant gets a job, they "stole that job" from another Canadian. In the long-term however, job creation begets more job creation. That immigrant will save up money providing more capital that can be invested into the economy.

    As for being net users of services, again, you are utterly wrong. Immigrants have low rates of welfare dependency, low rates of criminal behavior, and are, on average, in their 30's meaning it is a long time before we have to pay for their pensions and healthcare. About the only way in which there are above average "costs" for immigrants is in that they often have kids which go to school. However, those kids will grow up to work and live in Canada their whole lives – and we will reap the benefits of their labour (and tax dollars). Educating young immigrants then, is not a cost, it is an investment.

  7. Hoosier,
    Do you take into account the costs of those learning English or French as a second language? Children who don’t speak the official language of their classroom lag behind, often permanently. Also, while they are Canadian it has been demonstrated that the children of immigrants have less nationalistic attachments than their parents.

    • Hell.. the children of Canadian born citizens have less nationalistic attachments than their parents. In case you haven't noticed, the world's gotten awfully small since the advent of the internet.

      And the costs of learning English or French as a second language are done before they get here. Immigration requires a basic knowledge of one of the two official languages of this country. Not that that really matters, because only in North America is it that we're so woefully inadequate that we generally only know one language. Most citizens of European, Middle Eastern, or Indian countries know several.. they have to in order to have dealings with the various people they come across. If we weren't such a mono-culture over here, perhaps we'd have less xenophobes as well.

  8. Of course taxes will have to be raised. But I'm Canadian, so raise taxes on that other guy.

  9. They weren't going to raise taxes* before and the situation hasn't changed, so I see no reason why they would consider it now.

    *Note – hasn't stopped them from raising other sources of revenue.

    Craig O has written a valuable comment.