9

The Commons: Jim Flaherty against the world

The Finance Minister promises to do everything or nothing or both or neither to save the Canadian economy


 

The Scene. Once more Jim Flaherty finds himself with so much to answer for.

“Mr. Speaker, more bad economic news,” lamented Nycole Turmel this afternoon. “The Conference Board of Canada dropped Canada’s rating on income equality. The middle class is falling further behind. Inequality has increased in the past 10 years. Surprise, surprise. It is the same 10 years of the big tax cuts for the big corporations. Is this not another example of the Conservatives’ economic inaction plan?”

She drew out this bit about it being an inaction plan, lest anyone miss the wordplay.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Flaherty responded, “our Conservative government is focused on what actually matters to Canadians, creating jobs and economic growth.”

For sure, Canadian families are likely not meeting around the dinner table each night to discuss inequality coefficients and peruse the latest line graphs. But surely those at the poorer end of the equation are at least vaguely aware of this issue.

Given a moment to think about it, Mr. Flaherty decided he might at least venture an answer to this concern. “Mr. Speaker,” he said in response to a question from the NDP’s Peggy Nash, “the most important equality plan for Canadians is a job.”

In this regard, the opposition remains insistent that the government do something or other. Mr. Flaherty remains unmoved. Or at least unwilling to be pinned down to any position that might be held against him at a later date.

“The way to go is not what the member opposite suggests,” he said of Ms. Nash. “It is not to run up more deficits and more debt. We see clearly around the world what that brings down on countries which follow that course, including the course recommended by the official opposition of a $10 billion tax hike in Canada.”

He waved his arms above his head here to better convey the ominousness of it all.

“Canadian households have never been so deeply in debt, never,” Ms. Nash shot back. “Scotiabank says Canada will likely be the first country to go back into a recession. Now the International Monetary Fund projects Canada’s unemployment rate will keep rising and is downgrading Canada’s economic prospects.”

Mr. Flaherty was profoundly saddened. “Mr. Speaker,” he sighed, “there the member goes again, bad mouthing our country and trying to reduce confidence in our economy.”

The Finance Minister went on to quote some of the IMF’s more flattering adjectives, but then Bob Rae was up noting that the same report had suggested this country had some flexibility to deal with economic malaise. And now Mr. Flaherty was growling and snarling about Mr. Rae’s handling of the Ontario government in the early 1990s.

“What we would not do is run the Government of Canada like the member opposite ran the government of Ontario,” Mr. Flaherty declared. “He ran the province of Ontario into massive debt and deficits from which that province is still trying to recover.”

Mr. Rae came back to wonder why a government so interested in budgetary balance was so committed to expensive justice policy and then the Finance Minister was back on his feet, apparently eager to rerun the 1995 Ontario election.

In between the growls, Mr. Flaherty had promised to do either or both of two things.

“Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that if we are faced with a large external shock to our economy from Europe or elsewhere that we would, of course, be pragmatic and flexible,” he said in his second response to Mr. Rae. “We have said that before and I say it again here today. We would act as we have acted before.”

“We are going to stay the course and go back to a balanced budget,” he said with this next response.

He seemed thus to have mastered the situation, saying everything or nothing or both or neither, but now the opposition was interested to know why the government had decided to pay a private firm something like $90,000 per day to advise the government on how it might reduce its spending.

“With respect to spending, we certainly are opposed to reckless spending and I think Canadians expect us to be prudent in the way we look at spending in Canada, so we are through the deficit-reduction action plan,” Mr. Flaherty explained. “Private sector advice is valuable, important and essential.”

As if global economic turmoil was not enough of a burden, now Mr. Flaherty must fight the debilitating menace of irony.

The Stats. The economy, 10 questions. Government spending, six questions. Taxation, five questions. Infrastructure, four questions. Air Canada, three questions. The environment, the G8 summit and exports, two questions each. Libya, railways, aboriginal affairs, the Canadian Wheat Board, transportation and crime, one question each.

Jim Flaherty, 13 answers. Denis Lebel, six answers. Christian Paradis, five answers. Diane Finley and Deepak Obhrai, three answers each. Peter Kent, Gerry Ritz and Lisa Raitt, two answers each. Ted Menzies, Rona Ambrose, Ed Fast and Vic Toews, one answer each.


 

The Commons: Jim Flaherty against the world

  1. Some people live in reality.

    Unfortunately, Mr Flaherty isn’t one of them.

  2. “Mr. Speaker,” he sighed, “there the member goes again, bad mouthing our
    country and trying to reduce confidence in our economy.”

    There goes Flaherty again, claiming that criticism of the government amounts to treason.

    What a pompous a-hole.

  3. For what it’s worth, Deloitte has a good track record auditing NOHFC applications, and by that I mean that every applications I’ve made resulted in me spending a few hours on the phone drilling auditors on very basic accounting principles.

    The very notion of this deal is so messed up. Deloitte can take the 19 million and end up saying that 4 billion can’t be slashed from the budget, but if they do find some savings, then our $300,000 finance minister will gloat to no end. Paul Martin must be laughing through his 12th cup of coffee.

    • Ah Paul Martin. Wouldn’t it be nice to have him at the helm on this one?

      No matter how you cut it, he was probably one of the best finance ministers Canada ever had, and one of the best in the G8 of all time, though I’d give Michael Wilson a close second.

      We were lucky in this country to have excellent finance minister back to back for many years. I honestly believe that’s why we’ve been so successful until recently.

      Too bad Flaherty had to come in and spend us dry trying to buy elections for Harper.

      • Is he even making his own budgets? I’m still a bit green but it’s the first time I heard a finance minister refer to someone else to find savings in his budget.

  4. i’m not sure how bob rae missed this chance, well 2 of them,

    First, this is the biggest spending government in Canadian history. they have increased our DEBT by 25% since taking office, and have run a deficit in each of the years in office.

    Second, how can the liberals not have a cost to attach to this massive crime bill ready to go?

    Even if its a lie, you might as well throw a billion or 2 out as the number.

    • Doesn’t matter. Nobody’s paying attention.

      Smart thing for opposition parties to do right now is ignore question period altogether. Concentrate on how CPC policies affect their constituents and start proposing alternatives.

  5. Mr. Flaherty was profoundly saddened. “Mr. Speaker,” he sighed, “there the member goes again, bad mouthing our country and trying to reduce confidence in our economy.”
    So with that statement Flaherty admits to all of Canada that he economy is so fragile that nothing he will say or do will fix it.  The Harper party has single handedly broken Canada and that in my opinion was their intentions when they wanted power so badly they broke the election laws by cheating in the 2006 election.  The Harper wrecking crew – mission accomplished!

    • yeah, what is he on about … nobody was talking about the next dr-e-e-e-a-a-a-d-ed recession until Harpy and Jimbo started talking about it … Didn’t they create the bogeyman and now they are saddened when anyone else sees him? Methinks they all should shut up and wait for a real economic crisis not argue about who should do what to address an artificial one …

Sign in to comment.