The Trudeau government’s eighth budget explicitly targets the fact that for many Canadians, life doesn’t seem very fair at the moment. The present feels unfair and there is no promise of a better future.
The word “equity” appears in various forms on 123 of the budget’s 430 pages, not including the cover page titled “Fairness for All Generations.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are acting today to ensure fairness for all generations,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said after introducing the Budget in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
To be fair, the generations Freeland has most in mind are Millennials and Gen Z, Canadians under 40, especially those who don’t own a home or are struggling to pay rent. In other words, they are people who have entered the post-society. The world of the pandemic feels unfair.
This budget is an attempt by the Liberal Party to confront, both rhetorically and practically, the serious issues that threaten its chances of retaining power through a fourth election, even if it still remains a possibility. It can be read as But it also relies heavily on the original argument. appeal to fairness – That’s what got them into office in 2015.
Freeland then explained the situation in harsh terms.
“Democracy is not inevitable. Democracies succeed and have been successful because they have created a prosperous life for the middle class,” he said in his budget speech, deviating from the basic details of the new policy. He said he did.
“When liberal democracies fail to fulfill their most basic social contracts, we should not be surprised if the middle class loses faith in democracy itself.”
In the eyes of Conservative leaders sitting across the aisle, failure was already real.
“He’s running out of money and Canadians are broke,” Pierre Poièvre said of the prime minister. “The country is broken.”
It was no surprise that Mr. Poilievre did not support the budget. But he waited at least until Freeland finished his remarks before making an official announcement.
Freeland itches for battle
of Broader housing challenges The government has spent the past few weeks setting out in detail the outlines of the Budget’s new commitment to fairness. Freeland reviewed it in detail. She said it was a “nation-building exercise” and a plan to “open the door to the middle class for more young Canadians.”
There are other new and ongoing items she wanted to highlight, including funding to create more child care spaces, dental care programs for uninsured Canadians, and free new federal funds to establish or support schools, pharmacare programs that provide contraceptives, and new federal funds to establish or support schools. Nutrition programs and new investments in artificial intelligence and decarbonization.
It was with some restraint that Freeland was able to announce new policies while maintaining the government’s previous fiscal goals. Freeland proudly announced his plan to modestly reduce the size of public services. And that itself was a tax change framed from an equity perspective. .
Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said this year’s federal budget will pave the way for Canada to increase housing construction at a pace not seen since World War II. New investments and changes to financing models will also cut through red tape and break down zoning barriers for people who want to build homes faster, she said.
The government’s changes to the way capital gains are taxed fall short of the rumored windfall tax or wealth tax that caused swoon in the 48 hours leading up to the Budget. But the changes still target the wealthiest Canadians, and Freeland appeared to still be itching to fight that point when he took the floor in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
“I know there will be a lot of outcry,” she said.
She then asked Poièvre if she supported or opposed the tax changes. Conservative leaders declined to go into such details.
When it was his turn to speak, Poièvre focused his criticism solely on the broader concept of deficit spending. He said this was the Liberal government’s ninth budget deficit and blamed government spending for many problems, including high mortgage rates, high rents and homelessness.
In the final third of his speech, Freeland spoke passionately about “putting the power of government to work” for Canadians and issued a stark warning about the Conservative Party’s “austerity.”
“Let’s be honest about what austerity and provincial cuts mean for Canadians. It means you become independent,” she said.
In response to the federal Liberal Party’s budget proposal on Tuesday, Opposition Leader Pierre Poièvre said Conservatives would vote against the fiscal plan and renewed his call for a “carbon tax election” to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Ta.
Poièvre responded by accusing Freeland of indulging in “appalling ideological fanaticism.” He stood and reiterated his claim that government spending is the root of the problem.
Trudeau said he has delivered a “stronger government” and a “weaker” people. He said the Conservatives would deliver a “smaller, more efficient government” and “larger Canadians.” Mr Poièvre said the government was doubling down on “the same mistakes” in its latest budget proposal.
For now, Mr. Poièvre is able to sidestep questions about whether he will make cuts to things like child care and school nutrition programs. But he is at least laying the rhetorical groundwork for major change. If government spending is the cause of every problem in life, how much can we justly give up?
Liberals return to first principles
Liberals will no doubt quibble with the idea that they have failed. But I think it’s hard to argue that they’re doubling.
Mr. Freeland’s suggestion that he would not be surprised if Canadians lost faith in a democracy that does not uphold its social contract echoes the warning Mr. Trudeau himself issued more than a decade ago, shortly after starting his campaign for the Liberal leadership. This is an updated version.
In an editorial in the Toronto StarPrime Minister Trudeau said that if governments fail to address widening income inequality and a marginalized middle class, “we shouldn’t be surprised if the middle class begins to question the very policies and institutions that measure and promote growth.” he warned.
Prime Minister Trudeau’s response in 2012 was to call for a more active government, paid at least in part by higher taxes and fewer benefits for the wealthiest Canadians. More than a decade later, the Liberal Party’s response is to stick to these ideas.
It was easier to make such an argument in 2012, for obvious reasons.
In 2012, the Liberal Party’s argument was that Canada needed a different kind of government and that change was needed. In 2024, Freeland warns that change can be dangerous.
In 2012, the Liberal Party proposed solutions to problems it accused the current government of neglecting. In 2024, the Liberals are proposing to fix the situation they are accused of.
In 2012, Prime Minister Trudeau was a newcomer. In 2024, he will face the traditionally limited patience of his people as prime minister for his third term.
Politics, like life, is not always fair. But if the Trudeau government remains true to its founding principles and goes into the next election, the next election could at least force Canadians to make very tough choices between different visions of government.
