Article content continued

Even as his successor, Brian Mulroney, balanced the operating budget, Trudeau-era debt clung to Canada like a bad flu.

Continue reading…

[/np_storybar]

And yet, there’s this: What if a federal law such as the one Oliver proposes could be made to stick? Wouldn’t that be good policy for Canada? History shows us rather clearly that it would.

Let’s examine what Oliver said — the intellectual and logical foundations of his proposal. In non-recessionary times, the government would be allowed to spend no more than it takes in from taxes. When the economy is receding — or in the event of a war or natural disaster that tips the scales by at least $3 billion — deficits would be permitted, if not encouraged. In a situation such as the great recession of 2009, when the world teetered on the brink, stimulus could flow.

Should Oliver base his new law on the 2009 case, which he likely will, there might even be a provision requiring that deficit-financed stimulus be project-oriented, rather than create new federal programs with ongoing fixed costs. Politicians who spend more than the government takes in, beyond what is allowed under terms of the new law, would push the bureaucracy into an immediate freeze in operating spending; and the offending pols would see their pay docked five per cent. A deficit-budgeting finance minister would need to account for his actions before the parliamentary finance committee within 30 days, and demonstrate a path back to balance.