[Winnipegger]

From the 2007 budget, PDF version, page 32
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf

It was originally formatted in columns, but I don't know how to create a table in this forum, so I'll reformat a bit. The numbers are cut-and-paste.

Program expenses: (billions of dollars)
..Actual
2004–05 176.4
2005–06 175.2
..Projection
2006–07 189.0
2007–08 199.6
2008–09 206.8

And now from the 2005 budget, PDF version, page 258
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoc/2005/budlist-eng.asp

Program expenses: (billions of dollars)
..Actual
2003–04 141.4
..Projection
2004–05 158.1
2005–06 161.3
2006–07 169.5
2007–08 177.9
2008–09 185.8

And we can get the actual expenses for 2002-03 from the 2004 budget, again PDF version, page 64
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoc/2004/budlist-eng.asp

Program expenses: (billions of dollars)
..Actual
2002–03 133.3

Remember, fiscal year end for the federal government is March 31, so each year is from April 1 through March 31. And "program spending" does not include public debt charges.

So, this means spending went up the first year the Harper Conservatives were elected. The banking melt-down in the US happened at the end of 2008 / beginning of 2009. The Canadian government didn't do anything to compensate for that until the beginning of 2009. All spending before that was entirely the Conservatives. In fact, prior to the 2008 election the Harper Conservatives were bully opposition parties, claiming every bill is a confidence measure. So you can't blame opposition parties for anything done prior to 2009.

[Winnipegger]

Michael Ignatieff came out with the Liberal platform today. An official media release said there will be no tax increases for families: no carbon tax, no iPOD tax, and no increase to GST. That effectively kills my plan. Oh well, perhaps next election.

On the up side, if shrugging-off Dion's carbon tax is so easy, then my plan could come back just as easily next time. I was against the carbon tax, but it is a precedent. And cancelling Harper's latest corporate tax cut makes my plan MUCH easier. And he promised to implement Paul Martin's Childcare plan; we need that.

[Caelon]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

And he promised to implement Paul Martin's Childcare plan; we need that.

That is debateable and come to think of it, it has been done in the past. The other side of the coin is the Liberals under Chretien and Martin promised the program for I believe over 10 years and never delivered. What makes you think Iggy would be any different?

[Winnipegger]

Paul Martin announced it is done, in November 2005. Then Jack Layton voted against the Liberal government forcing an election. Effectively, the NDP voted against Childcare.

Of course, I would also like to take away the $100/month childcare cheques. But Ignatieff said he won't do that.

[Khar]

For the record, Lemmy is not the only one here with access to the CANSIM II and CANSIM historical databases, and I would have no problem checking whatever values Lemmy is providing as long as someone sends me a message with what series to look at to verify those values. Given that Lemmy is a professional and would willingly stake his credentials on the values he provided here (and many other values otherwise), and as he is a recognized expert on the topic, my ability to back up his values should be fairly irrelevant.

However, I can straight out tell you guys that v52020759 and v52020762 series from CANSIM II (Statistics Canada database) verify what Lemmy has stated in this thread. With the exception of shortly after being elected (and hence having little ability to change what is going on), generally both total government gross debt and total government net debt decreased over the time Cretien and Martin were in office.

However, it's also worth keeping in mind that both series only began increasing (as a trend) in the final quarter of 2008 (the end of the year when most nations were entering the economic downturn). To this date, quarterly measurements indicate both those metrics continue to increase, with TGGD reaching the 2000-2002 levels while TGND is at mid-2006 levels. Hence, the table provided by Dino would show that the trend was for a general decrease, but as mentioned by Dino himself, his table runs out at 2008 -- the end of which was where the slight increases began.

In short, the data from both sides is not contradictory. The values (and sources thereof) are a non-issue in this discussion, only the interpretation of those values. Unfortunately, either we have to be vague about the values (as Lemmy and I are) due to agreements to have access to the StatsCan database, or the information comes through another source but has been aggregated/simplified (Dino can get yearly information but not the recent amounts, for example).

[BartSimpson]

QBC QBC:

Hmmm...funny how some "members" only show up at election time. Makes me think that maybe they're on someones payroll or something, just a thought.

This.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Martin was actually a Conservative. One need only look to his tenure as president of CSL.

[Proculation]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Michael Ignatieff came out with the Liberal platform today. An official media release said there will be no tax increases for families: no carbon tax, no iPOD tax, and no increase to GST. That effectively kills my plan. Oh well, perhaps next election.

On the up side, if shrugging-off Dion's carbon tax is so easy, then my plan could come back just as easily next time. I was against the carbon tax, but it is a precedent. And cancelling Harper's latest corporate tax cut makes my plan MUCH easier. And he promised to implement Paul Martin's Childcare plan; we need that.

We have it in Quebec and I tell you: you don't need that. Parents have to put their 'child' on the waiting list 2 years before conception to maybe have a place.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Michael Ignatieff came out with the Liberal platform today. An official media release said there will be no tax increases for families: no carbon tax, no iPOD tax, and no increase to GST. That effectively kills my plan. Oh well, perhaps next election.

On the up side, if shrugging-off Dion's carbon tax is so easy, then my plan could come back just as easily next time. I was against the carbon tax, but it is a precedent. And cancelling Harper's latest corporate tax cut makes my plan MUCH easier. And he promised to implement Paul Martin's Childcare plan; we need that.

No, we DON'T need that. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have 'em!!
Don't expect me to pay for your "babysitting" so you can have 2 people working to support kids you can't afford.
Christ sakes, here in Ontario we have single parents that DO NOT WORK, that live off of the system and yet, send their kids to daycare at taxpayer expense.
If they're at home to look after the kids, why are we paying for their daycare?
What this country DOESN'T need is yet another universal program that is ripe for abuse.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I gave the source of my stats: Statistics Canada. If you want to pay for the Cansim search, you can have them to. Don't put it on me that you're too cheap to check the facts as I've reported them.

CanSim Data, sorry Lemmy but the numbers you've posted don't seem to reflect the numbers from the source you've quoted:

[Lemmy]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Sorry Lemmy but you numbers are not accurate.

They are not, and never were MY numbers, but are StatsCan's numbers.

[Winnipegger]

This still shows the debt increased, peaked in fiscal year ending 31-March-1997, then declined. This table does not show data beyond fiscal year ending 31-March-2008. That last year is called 2007/08. The debt in all following years increased, according to federal budgets.

I still claim the debt figure that's important is "interest bearing debt". The term "net debt" subtracts the value of assets. The term "gross debt" includes "superannuation accounts", which are pensions. The Canada Pension Plan and government employees pensions are separate.

Gross debt also includes outstanding bills that haven't been paid yet, prorated to the date the debt is calculated. So if you pay $104 per month for cable TV and high speed internet, and the report is produced in the middle of a month, then the report would include $52 outstanding "debt". Most people do not include this, they just pay the utility bill when it arrives. The federal government pays most of their bills on terms of net 90 days. As long as it isn't overdue, it shouldn't be included in the debt. I'm told this is called "accrued liabilities"; that is included in "other liabilities". I consider accrued liabilities to be just business as usual, not debt that has to be repaid. This is an attempt to confuse taxpayers; hide the real figures with obfuscation.

"Dominion notes and coins" means money. That shouldn't be included either. At least not included in the debt that has to be repaid. The term "interest bearing debt" is what has to be repaid.

[Lemmy]

Right. There are many ways to make the calculation. Each person's model is going to look slightly different. Something that economists frequently do is to average the yearly debt, rather than taking a March 31st snapshot (like Dino's series). Or, you can take a different date. January 1st or July 1st are common.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

This still shows the debt increased, peaked in fiscal year ending 31-March-1997, then declined. This table does not show data beyond fiscal year ending 31-March-2008. That last year is called 2007/08. The debt in all following years increased, according to federal budgets.

All I'm trying to get at here is that it is that the total federal debt did in fact increase as a whole under the Liberals from 1993 to 2005. Again, as I have stated before, I do give them credit for eliminating the deficit and for starting to pay down the debt but I can not find one single source to support the statement that the federal debt was less when they left as compared to what it was when they took power.

This is the statement I take exception too:

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

While they did repay some of the debt they ran up, The National debt under Chretien and Martin increased, not decreased.

That's bullshit and I proved it was bullshit the last time you said it. I provided the StatsCan data then and here it is again:

It did increase according to the sources I have found. It was by no means some kind of crazy spending spree but it did go up. I don't believe that is an unfair statement to make and I believe OnTheIce was correct in what he stated.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

This still shows the debt increased, peaked in fiscal year ending 31-March-1997, then declined. This table does not show data beyond fiscal year ending 31-March-2008. That last year is called 2007/08. The debt in all following years increased, according to federal budgets.

All I'm trying to get at here is that it is that the total federal debt did in fact increase as a whole under the Liberals from 1993 to 2005. Again, as I have stated before, I do give them credit for eliminating the deficit and for starting to pay down the debt but I can not find one single source to support the statement that the federal debt was less when they left as compared to what it was when they took power.

This is the statement I take exception too:

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

While they did repay some of the debt they ran up, The National debt under Chretien and Martin increased, not decreased.

That's bullshit and I proved it was bullshit the last time you said it. I provided the StatsCan data then and here it is again:

It did increase according to the sources I have found. It was by no means some kind of crazy spending spree but it did go up. I don't believe that is an unfair statement to make and I believe OnTheIce was correct in what he stated.

No. Look at your own dates. Between 1993 & 2005. Chretien took office Nov 4th, 1993. Harper took over Feb 6th, 2006.

The debt level when they actually took office and left office show a different picture. Its easily fair to say the Libs are responsible for the debt from 1994 & 2006 and using your numbers that is a a difference of less then a billion dollars. If you want to be totally fair they were forced to run a large deficit at the start through little fault of their own and Harper was handed a ready made surplus through little effort of his own.

Certainly the debt as a %GDP went WAY down which was the really important factor, kinda like the difference in owing 10K when you make 50K and owing 10K when you make 100K.

While it might be technically correct they added to the total amount owing it doesn't exactly tell the whole story does it?