Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech in response to the federal budget started off with the same fire and fervor that had been present from the other opposition parties and some commentators since the budget’s release. Rather than withdraw his party’s confidence, however, the Liberals opted to support it if an amendment was moved demanding regular progress reports on the budget implementation. This was quickly accepted, because  as Conservative House Leader Jay Hill puts it, the government always delivers this sort of report. Regardless of the amendment’s lack of power, the stated motivation for mandating progress reports is correct; there is a lot of opportunity for a failure of follow-through in this budget. However, the Liberals no longer have the power to punish the Tories for it the way they almost did so spectacularly in December of last year.

Observers didn’t know what to think of the budget. One of its clear elements is that you can’t really tell who wrote it. The spending programs are a Liberal trademark, but they would not have approved the budget’s tax cuts. Deficits are rhetorically accused of being more and more of a Tory instrument, but they traditionally cringe at interfering in the free markets to the degree which this budget does. The New Democrats generally approve of social programs and interventionism, but would never allow the appalling elimination of pay equity for women. So who is this budget for?

On CBC Newsworld’s initial budget coverage, commentator Chantal Hebert compared the budget to pressing every button on a switchboard in the hope that something good happens. The fact is that the government can’t do everything, and they certainly can’t do everything and avoid structural deficits. In the February 5th, 2009 issue of the UBC Okanagan Phoenix, NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair openly questions the Conservatives’ resolve with a number of these spending measures. The Conservatives are strictly ideological, and the Opposition is right to accuse them of not believing in this budget. If there is any way that they could reduce spending and protect their position in the Commons as Government, they would do so.

Jack Layton argues that they are unlikely to follow through due to past performance regarding fixed election dates and other broken election promises, but there exists greater evidence than campaign rhetoric: the “Maybe we’ll spend it, maybe we won’t” infrastructure component of the budget.

The money being made available for infrastructure programs is intended to contribute to projects in a three way, one-third split.  This is no new system because, according to Kelowna Mayor Sharon Shepard in the Phoenix, the funding was already a series of one-third portions. The government also claims the funding from municipal and provincial levels of government as a part of its stimulus package. International Trade minister and MP from Okanagan-Coquihalla, Stockwell Day compared the funding to a thirty-three cent dollar, where they would only have to put in thirty-three cents in order to obtain the whole thing.

The metaphor, however, applies to each of the three levels of government. Unlike the situation of municipal governments, who must cast out their third of the funding and hope that provincial and federal governments bite, the federal government only needs to make the funds available. But if municipal and provincial governments like Newfoundland and Labrador’s, who will lose  an estimated $1.8 billion in equalization payments due to provisions in the budget, are cash-strapped and cannot buck up their share, the government does not have to provide any money. It even claims potential contributions from other levels of government as part of its economic stimulus package. Additionally, big city mayors like Toronto’s David Miller warn that the approval process will ensure that “money will flow very slowly, if at all.” The money that has already been budgeted for infrastructure projects has been in the pipe for a while, and it is therefore important to take care of it soon.

An ironic inclusion in the budget is new funding to restore Toronto’s Union Station. A monument to broken government promises, $25 million was pledged by the Liberal government in 2000 to restore the condition of the aging transport hub. According to Council the funding never arrived, without explanation of its disappearance. The budget promises $75 million from the government to help complete the project, but the city won’t see dime one until the federal government can inspects the work after completion to see if it likes it. Toronto is fairly close to the federal framework, so that may not take so long. But will the government be able to respond to all the requests that dot all of the small towns across the various provinces?

On its face, demanding “progress reports” to guarantee spending that does seem so unlikely seems like strong action. However, the coalition that made motions of confidence so deadly this winter is now in tatters, and both Ignatieff and the Governor General cannot rely on its influence to form a government if Harper should lose the confidence of Parliament. This will reduce the confidence motions to the same impotent feedback loop that plagued the Liberals in early and mid 2008, where the Conservatives seemingly feared no confidence motion because the Liberals were never properly prepared or convinced they could run an effective campaign.

Lack of follow-through is a huge issue with this budget, especially in one so dependent on its promises. However, the Liberal amendment only helps to remedy this problem the same way that blowing on a burn makes it heal faster: it doesn’t.

 Print This   Email This