John Robson: How Can Austerity Be Achieved When Lavish Spending Prevails?

Commentary

It is tempting to dismiss the federal government’s pledge of an austere budget after over half a century of similar rhetoric and because they’ve also promised massive spending increases. But as always, it’s important to see this idea from the inside. Then you can dismiss it … until you get the bill.

The National Post invoked Orwell over the prime minister’s promise of “an austerity and investment budget at the same time” because “We need to rein in spending, we need to find efficiencies … that create the room for these big investments.” Plus Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne’s “We’re going to spend less so we can invest more.”

I laughed. As Blacklock’s Reporter observed of this austerity pledge, “Cabinet’s last financial report to Parliament acknowledged the deficit was running 55 percent higher than forecast.” And as Chesterton said, the opposite of “funny” isn’t “serious,” it’s “not funny.” But what’s austere about boasting that “The governments of Canada and Ontario are investing up to $14.6 million through the Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program (RALP) to help farmers make other improvements to their farmland”? Or “Government of Canada funds the Festival celtique de Québec” and “Government of Canada invests over $1 million to support mining innovation in Northern Ontario”?

The funny serious thing here is that the government knows it has to cut spending but can’t because it thinks almost everything the state does leaves us better off on balance. Hence, “Canada’s new government is building a new industrial strategy to meet this moment. This will transform our economy” blah blah blah.

It’s hollow verbiage based on hollow thought. But it does follow logically, from the premise that they can and must work miracles like transforming our economy, that anything they cut will leave us worse off.

Hence they promise to cut spending, and regulations, but can’t because they believe in them. Instead, in testing the “austerity” slogan, the prime minister declared that transfers to individuals and other levels of government were “untouchable.” And since they account for over half of spending, and he’s committed to boosting defence, spending will rise while falling. Especially as, of course, these programs have to be administered, so good luck cutting bureaucracy.

Pierre Poilievre agrees. Pouncing on a deficit likely to blow past $80 billion this year, not the predicted $42.2 billion, he made growly populist noises: “We need to cut bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, handouts to phony and fraudulent refugees.” But not the things the Liberals are promising not to touch. Still, we’re us and they’re them, so na na boo boo.

The Grits beg not to differ. Champagne called cutbacks “not an option” and defined austerity as “Having a leaner and more efficient government to provide services to Canadians.” Instead of public sector layoffs, there would be “adjustments.” Then he said, “I want to be straight with Canadians.”

Again you laugh. But he’s serious. Including about never thinking through whether anyone else ever tried to do something similar and, if so, why it failed. Hence his call for drastic improvements in service at the CRA within 100 days.

Politicians have been whipsawed since the 1960s by voter hostility to excessive overall spending combined with devotion to lavish particular programs for them. So cutting waste and harmful regulations has appealed hugely to generations of politicians, not all of whom were simpletons or idlers. Yet the results have been crushingly, disastrously disappointing.

There must be some reason it’s harder than it sounds. But the people who govern Canada think remarkably little about governance. Let’s not be like them. Including this business of a “Cabinet Planning Forum” on building a stronger economy, for people who’ve spent decades in public life, some writing books about it. Or this weird promise to pause the EV mandate for 60 days to think about it.

What’s left to think about, on either side? We need a decision. But they’re paralyzed because they know it’s right but it looks wrong and they lack practice thinking such things through.

After that Forum, we naturally got a self-congratulatory press release saying “Canada’s new government is focused on what we can control: building a stronger economy, one that strengthens our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world and is more resilient to global shocks. That is how the government can bring down costs and create greater certainty, security, and prosperity for Canadians.”

Sure, it’s fog. But peer through to “bring down costs.” They really think having government get way more ambitious will hypercharge efficiency so, in Chrystia Freeland’s old mantra, we can’t afford not to. Lavish spending is austerity. And like diversity being unity, it matters that they think this way.

It also matters that they don’t think very hard.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.