This week’s Budget and Michael Ignatieff’s response to it, puts Prime Minister Harper on a short leash and may well trim the sails of Canada’s “right-wing” conservative movement for a while.

In many ways, this was a small “l” liberal budget. It was also a scatter-gun budget with little strategic cohesion. There seems to be a little bit for virtually everything except science and technology research and alternative energy initiatives.

It could have opened the door to real and productive change. Instead Mr. Harper chose to survive. Mr. Ignatieff had a chance to define himself with a substantive policy amendment. Instead, he chose to amend with a process instrument – a periodic reporting mechanism on performance.

Some people I talked with this week think it was a masterful stroke, others, particularly younger people were disappointed. As one man said to me on Thursday “They’re projecting an $85 billion deficit for short term spending with little or no long-term payback and it’s my generation that will have to pay for it”.

Never in my lifetime has a Canadian government forecast an $85 billion deficit. Those who would have us believe these projections told us just two months ago that we would have a surplus this year and next year.

There is no single visionary, great, national project in the budget, no compelling direction, no real hope-offering for the future.

It’s a politically-driven budget, strongly influenced by threat of a coalition government, not a strategic response to economic crisis. The deficit for this year alone is projected at $34 billion. Less than a third of it will be invested in infrastructure.

It would appear that forty to fifty percent of the deficit will be the result of lower tax revenues, not increased spending. In little more than sixty days, government revenue projections have somehow managed to deteriorate by about $15 billion.

How is this possible?

Everyone knew in November that we were headed into recession. How could the government have missed the signs?

Much of the Budget’s infrastructure spending is tied to cost-sharing with provinces and municipalities. Many of them will not be able to participate in the program without incurring significant new debt.

The same might be true of the home-reno offerings or the “first-time home-buyer” incentives. These programs will only benefit people who have already decided to renovate or purchase a home. Most renovations of consequence probably cost $15,000 or more. A home renovation tax credit of $1,350 is not going to trigger a $15,000 decision in times of economic stress. If the incentive was a $6,000 or $7,000 tax credit, it might get a lot of people on the phone to their contractor.

The Government has said it will change the maximum amount a first-time homebuyer can deduct from a Registered Retirement Savings Plan - the maximum allowable withdrawal would rise to $25,000 from $20,000. Good stuff, but very narrow in its application because not every (probably not most) first time home-buyer has $25,000 in his or her RRSP account.

The Canadian economy is shedding thousands of jobs, almost daily. The government is proposing changes that would tinker with the EI program but not adjust it to the circumstance of the day. It plans to extend maximum EI benefits by five weeks. It would not reduce the wait-time for first payments.

The measure would cost $1.15 billion. Another $500 million would be set aside to extend EI benefits for Canadians participating in longer-term training programs. Again, good stuff but it will not change behaviors or address the real problem of extended unemployment. Training for jobs that don’t exist has little value.

There are good things in this budget but they respond more to public consultation, than a well thought out strategic plan. In my view, an effective stimulus budget should be designed to change behavior and it should be designed to change the psychology of the marketplace. A scatter-gun approach will not get us there. The deficit projections are also suspect.

Indeed, the International Monetary Fund has already suggested that Canada’s Budget forecasts, as relate to the depth of recession are under-estimated. There is no plan (in the budget) to take us out of deficit. There is no plan to address the issue of lost consumer confidence. There is no guarantee that those who are in most need of help will get what they need.

Is this Budget the best our Parliamentarians can do for Canadians?

I don’t think so. It had the opportunity to respond to the economic crisis as an opportunity to re-tool the Canadian economy. It chose to respond with a political-survival budget. Can the Liberal Party support this Budget and be credible?

I have my doubts. The economic landscape has changed; the ball is now back in the Government’s court.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com