The status quo (with populist tweaks)

Compared to past years, during which global recessions and minority governments lent drama to the unveiling of a federal budget, the 2013/14 instalment is an unexciting affair. There are a few (somewhat) attention-grabbing promises and a few trims. But the big picture remains unchanged: As the Canadian economy continues to recover and add more jobs, the federal deficit — an estimated $18.7-billion for the year ahead — will gradually come down. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty still believes that our books will be back to balance by 2015, though with a narrower surplus than earlier expected. The voters will hold him to that.

There isn’t much here to excite a true fiscal conservative, which is disappointing — but also unsurprising given the party’s focus on the moderate middle of Canadian politics. We’re pleased that new spending for the year ahead is expected to amount to less than 1% of total expenditures, but we have not forgotten that under a Conservative government, and Mr. Flaherty’s direction, annual spending already has gone up by no less than $60-billion dollars. The government’s proud boast that the economy has replaced the jobs lost during the recession must be weighed against that figure. Recovery hasn’t come cheap.

All that said, some of the changes this budget implements are ones we can support, or at least live with.

Merging the Canadian International Development Agency with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a good idea that will make our efforts abroad more efficient and hopefully also more cost-effective. The government’s moves to tighten up tax loopholes and crack down on evasion likely won’t make an enormous difference on the bottom line, but are worthy in principle. Increased support for the families of deceased veterans, struggling to pay for a proper burial for those who served our country, represents a small boost to spending that we are pleased to see, and one that marks a happy change from this government’s inexplicable habit, considering its oftstated support of our troops, of neglecting our aging warriors.

The Building Canada Plan, which provides billions each year to municipalities for pub- lic works projects, has been renewed and extended until 2024, and will provide city planners with a measure of budgetary stability. (Though we question whether such dollars always are well spent, there is no doubt that many of Canada’s largest cities are desperate for new infrastructure.) Thanks to small tweaks to tariffs, baby clothes and hockey skates will be cheaper. That is good we suppose, but also symbolic of the Tories’ self-parodic practice of catering to every conceivable family priority and recreational hobby embraced by the stereotypical family-values suburban voter which stands at the centre of their re-election plan.

The part of the budget that is most important is the renewed focus on training for Canadians who wish to pursue a career in the skilled trades. Under the new template, Ottawa will share with the provinces and industry partners the cost of a $15,000per-worker grant to train citizens in high-demand skills that currently are in short supply. The problem of under-qualified Canadian graduates is a big one, and speaks to an educational system that spends billions each year producing university graduates who are long on debtfinanced liberal arts degrees but short on work skills. This is a cultural problem — reflecting a society that values white-collar work over and above skilled blue-collar jobs — and one that cannot be properly addressed through mere budgets. But giving Canadians a nudge in the right direction through jobtraining initiatives can’t hurt.

Taken altogether, it is a modest budget, designed to offend the fewest people possible while still steering Canada back to surplus. We wished for more effort to control spending and reduce deficits in the years ahead. Unfortunately, the Conservative government fears being portrayed as cold-hearted slash-and-burn ideologues more than it does public anger at incurred debts. All we can say to our fellow deficit hawks is that it could be worse — and has been before.