With its eighth budget, the Liberal government tries to re-win the fairness fight
The government seems to be doubling down on the arguments that brought it to power
The Trudeau government's eighth budget is aimed explicitly at the fact that, for many Canadians, life does not seem very fair right now. The present feels inequitable and the promise of a better future is not guaranteed.
Various forms of the word "fair" appear on 123 of the budget's 430 pages, not including the cover, which bears the title, "Fairness for every generation."
"Mr. Speaker, we are acting today to ensure fairness for every generation," Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said after tabling the budget in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
In all fairness, the generations Freeland has most in mind are millennials and Gen Z, Canadians under the age of 40, in particular those who don't own a home or who are struggling to pay rent — those who have emerged into a post-pandemic world that does not feel fair.
This budget can be read as the Liberals' attempt to face up, rhetorically and practically, to an acute problem that threatens whatever chances they may still have of holding power through a fourth election. But it also draws heavily on the original argument — and the appeal to fairness — that brought them to office in 2015.
And Freeland framed the situation in stark terms.
"Democracy is not inevitable. It has succeeded and succeeds because it has delivered a good life for the middle class," she said as her budget speech strayed away the basic details of new measures.
"When liberal democracy fails to deliver on that most fundamental social contract, we should not be surprised if the middle class loses faith in democracy itself."
In the view of the Conservative leader seated across the aisle, the failure was already real.
"He has spent and Canadians are broke," Pierre Poilievre said of the prime minister. "The country is broken."
Poilievre's lack of support for the budget was not a surprise. But he at least waited until Freeland finished her remarks before making it official.
Freeland itching for a fight
The broad housing agenda the government has spent the last few weeks laying out in detail forms the spine of the budget's new commitment to fairness; Freeland reviewed it at length. It was, she said, an "exercise in nation building" and a plan to "unlock the door to the middle class for more young Canadians."
There were also other items, new and ongoing, she wished to highlight: funds to create more child care spaces, a dental care program to provide for uninsured Canadians, a pharmacare program that will provide free contraception, new federal funding to establish or assist school nutrition programs and new investments in artificial intelligence and decarbonization.
That Freeland was able to announce new measures while keeping to the government's previous fiscal targets was due to a little restraint — Freeland proudly announced a plan to modestly reduce the size of the public service — and a tax change that was itself framed in terms of fairness.
The government's changes to the way capital gains are taxed fall short of the rumoured windfall or wealth taxes that caused fainting spells in the 48 hours before the budget was tabled. But the changes are still aimed at the wealthiest Canadians — and Freeland seemed to still be itching for a fight on that point when she stood in the House on Tuesday.
"I know there will be many voices raised in protest," she said.
Later, she challenged Poilievre to say whether he supported or opposed the tax change. The Conservative leader declined to get into such specifics.
When it was his turn to speak, Poilievre aimed his criticisms only at the broad concept of deficit spending. This was, he said, the Liberal government's ninth deficit budget and he blames government spending for a multitude of problems, including high mortgage rates, high rents and homelessness.
In the last third of her own speech, Freeland enthused about "putting the power of government to work" for Canadians and issued a grim warning about Conservative "austerity."
"Let's be honest about what austerity and shrinking the state would mean for Canadians. It means you're on your own," she said.
In response, Poilievre accused Freeland of indulging in "hair-raising ideological fervour." He stood and repeated his contention that government spending is the root of the problem.
Trudeau, he said, had delivered "stronger government" and "weaker" people. He said Conservatives would deliver "smaller and more efficient government" and "big Canadian citizens." With its latest budget, Poilievre said, the government was doubling-down on "the same failure."
For now, Poilievre can sidestep questions about whether he would cut things like child care or school nutrition programs. But he's at least laying the rhetorical groundwork for big changes: if government spending is the cause of all life's problems, then how much can be justifiably abandoned?
Liberals return to first principles
Liberals surely would quibble with the idea that they have failed. But they might not dispute the claim that they are doubling down.
Freeland's suggestion that we should not be surprised if Canadians lose faith in a democracy that fails to uphold the social contract is an update of a warning Trudeau himself delivered more than a decade ago, shortly after he launched his campaign for the Liberal leadership.
In an op-ed for the Toronto Star, Trudeau warned that if governments failed to respond to rising income inequality and a middle class that was falling behind, "we should not be surprised to see the middle class question the policies, and the very system, that values and encourages growth."
Trudeau's response in 2012 was to call for a more activist government — paid for, at least in part, by higher taxes and fewer advantages for the richest Canadians. More than a decade later, the Liberal response is to hold fast to those ideas.
For obvious reasons, it was easier to make that argument in 2012.
In 2012, the Liberal argument was that Canada needed a different kind of government, that change was necessary. In 2024, Freeland is warning that change could be dangerous.
In 2012, the Liberals were proposing to fix problems it accused the sitting government of letting slide. In 2024, the Liberals are proposing to fix a situation for which they are blamed.
In 2012, Trudeau was a fresh-faced newcomer. In 2024, he's a three-term prime minister running up against the public's traditionally limited patience.
Politics, like life, is not always fair. But if Trudeau's government is set to ride into the next election holding fast to the principles that brought them to office, the next election could at least offer Canadians a very stark choice between different visions of government.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
