Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s 2013 federal budget might be heavy on jobs, but critics say it’s light on detail and almost silent on climate change.

The only real mention of the issue of climate change in the 450-page Economic Action Plan comes in the form of a grant of $325 million over eight years to Sustainable Development Technology Canada "to continue support for the development and demonstration of new, clean technologies that create efficiencies for businesses and contribute to sustainable economic development.”

Clare Demerse of the Pembina Institute points out that the investment is less than half the amount “recommended by a coalition of environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute, but this long-term commitment is still good news for the more than 700 clean technology companies that Analytica Advisors estimates are operating in Canada today.”

Indeed, the budget presents a rather sunny description of last year’s controversial changes to environmental assessment and protection but doesn't provide any detail regarding how it plans to move forward. 

To maximize the value that Canada draws from our natural resources, Economic Action Plan 2012 introduced significant system-wide improvements to achieve the goal of ‘one project, one review’ in a clearly defined time period, streamlined the review process for major economic projects, enhanced consultation with Aboriginal peoples, and strengthened environmental protection and pipeline and marine safety.

One big loser in this year’s budget is Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which will suffer “targeted savings” rising to $33 million per year by 2015-2016. The budget promises to focus more on local organizations to take up the slack with budget hike of $10 million over two years. 

Policy critics Scott Clark and Peter DeVries write that the budget “like most of the budgets since 2006, is remarkable for its lack of vision and boldness. There is no narrative that sets out the longer-run economic and social challenges, and there is no discussion of how these challenges are interrelated.”

Clark and DeVries criticize the document’s “clear lack of transparency and accountability” and predict another omnibus bill like the one that introduced last year’s Bill C-45 and C-38, prompting nation-wide protests.

“When a budget says, ‘the government will introduce legislation as needed to consolidate operations and eliminate redundant organizations’ best to be nervous,” they say.

In his Huffington Post blog, Liberal leader Bob Rae called the budget a “political smoke screen, replete with gimmicks designed to convince Canadians that the Conservatives, somehow, are in fact balancing the books.”

Meanwhile, Green Party leader Elizabeth May told the CBC, “I want to see the final budget numbers, because this strange document doesn’t actually give us the budget. It doesn’t show us the base budget for departments. It doesn’t show us what happens to the bottom line, so announcements that are made are in something of a vacuum.”

Image credit: Joshua Sherurcij via Wikimedia

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is set to release the 2013 federal budget today, outlining the government’s spending plans and economic priorities for the year ahead. As has been the custom since 2009, the budget won’t simply be called a budget, but rather an Economic Action Plan. So what kind of action can we expect from this year’s Economic Action Plan?

As Flaherty is fond of repeating, Canada is still facing a fragile recovery in the midst of a global economy coping with the lingering effects of the financial crisis. For Flaherty, the fragility of the Canadian economy means that a return to stability and growth can only be assured through a commitment to balancing the budget. Flaherty claims to be “focused like a laser” on cutting government spending to achieve that goal.

A balanced budget has become something of a sacred priority in Canadian politics, functioning as an indisputable sign that the country is on track for prosperity and stable growth. In Conservative messaging, government spending is equated with waste, or a kind of creeping addiction that can only be held in check by ruthless cuts to government programs.

It’s a bit of an awkward communication strategy considering the Conservative record. Having inherited a $13 billion surplus upon entering office, Prime Minister Harper cut the GST by two points and slashed corporate taxes, drastically reducing government revenue. By the time the recession hit in late 2008, that surplus had nearly eroded, and would slide deep into the red as the government expanded stimulus spending to cope with the crisis.

Moving towards a balanced budget and securing their reputation as prudent fiscal managers is a top priority for Conservatives on the eve of the 2013 federal budget. But too often the goal of a balanced budget obscures the real challenges facing Canada—both when it comes to jobs and the environment.

Government expenditures are not merely wasteful largesse. On the contrary, a 2013 federal budget that included increased government spending, specifically targeted on expanding green energy infrastructure and jobs training, would serve two crucial purposes.

The first, more immediate purpose is preventing the Canadian economy from sliding back into recession. Across Europe, governments in thrall to the same balanced-budget dogma have been slashing spending despite sluggish growth and high unemployment. The predictable result can be seen in the UK, where major austerity cuts have put the economy on the verge of a triple-dip recession. Even the International Monetary Fund, long the leading international body calling for governments to reign in their spending, has admitted that budget cuts during a period of slow growth can end up further harming the economy and killing jobs.

The second purpose, though directed towards the long term, is no less urgent. In order to meet its obligations to both the international community and future generations, Canada needs to transition towards a low-carbon economy. This transition can only happen if the federal government steps up to provide the right combination of investment and incentives to the private sector. 

This was the message from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a federal advisory body whose $5.7 million annual funding was cut by Harper in the last federal budget. The reason? Their research consistently concluded that Canada’s long-term economic health hinges on making the transition from an economy dependent on polluting industries like the tar sands towards providing low-carbon goods and services.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) supports their findings, further arguing that the green economy has greater potential for long-term job growth than the oil and gas industry. Like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the CCPA outlines specific ways that the federal government can act to stimulate green economic growth and promote well-paying green jobs.

The environment is not a secondary concern, or something that can be addressed with an advertising campaign that bills the tar sands as “green." Canada needs a real economic action plan that puts the lives of its citizens ahead of balanced budgets, and promotes responsible green growth instead of feeding an oil boom. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Harper government has been using taxpayer money to sharpen its marketing toolkit in the debate over natural resource development. According to a recent report from Léger Marketing, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) commissioned the company to perform pre- and post-testing of their $9 million Responsible Resource Development advertising campaign.

Aside from revealing the extraordinary cost the Harper government is willing to foot in order to assure that the country gets a sunny picture of its economic policies, the report provides a unique behind-the-curtain view of the mechanics involved in selling energy and resource development to Canadians.

The reasoning behind the move to hire a marketing firm seems relatively innocuous: “It will be important in this environment to encourage Canadians to become better informed about the development of Canada’s natural resources and the critical impact to Canada’s economy that contributes to our economic growth and jobs, and through generated tax revenues helps to maintain important social programs like health, education and pensions.”

However, the report reveals Léger used focus groups to test not only comprehension and recollection of the message in the ads, but also “the extent to which Canadians were impacted by the language, content and context of the advertising concepts.”

The first round of ads was tested on people who represented “a good mix of ethnic, educational and socio economic backgrounds” in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Moncton, Mississauga, London and Quebec City in November 2012. In total, 2000 Canadians were interviewed.  

The first two concepts entitled “Let’s do Both” and “Canada’s Moment” highlighted the ways in which Harper government’s Economic Action Plan (EAP) was balancing environmental impact and job creation.

This first round of commercials were said to leave subjects feeling confused. The images they saw didn’t give respondents an adequate idea of how they might personally benefit from resource development. Worst of all, they felt that they couldn’t see how the government would balance resource development with environmental protection. They believed “the concepts were missing hard facts or evidence regarding the claims presented.”

This prompted NRCan to request another $4 million for their advertising budget to produce a second round of ads. These three new ads offered a much more pleasant and focused picture of Canada’s natural resource policies, with heavy emphasis on oil extraction and transportation.

This time they got the desired result. Focus groups in Vancouver, London and Quebec City “readily understood the messages conveyed by the ad concepts and mostly viewed them as uplifting, many spontaneously saying that it made them proud to be Canadian.”

The third of the new ads, “Environment and Safety” even “reassured many people that the Canadian government was doing something to protect the environment for future generations.”

Without changing a single policy, the EAP went, in the eyes of focus groups, from hurting the country’s environment to saving it.

Never mind that several of the examples presented in the commercials—shipping safety along BC’s coast, oil pipelines in Ontario—refer to issues that are being hotly debated on ethical grounds. The stirring nationalistic tone banished any questions.

Using Canadian identity to sell environmentally questionable resource development is nothing new. Many are familiar with the advertisements from Cenovus that played before films at Cineplex movie theatres last year. Alongside stirring images of the Canadarm and the majestic peaks of the Rocky Mountains, it told us that the word Canada is “spelled with a can — not a can’t,” implying that if we don’t use all the technology available to extract and sell our oil, we've failed at being Canadian. 

Vision of Alberta's tar sands, as artistically rendered by Cenovus.

NDP Treasury Board Critic Mathieu Ravignat told the Canadian Press the government ads are nearly indistinguishable from ads released by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada's largest and most powerful oil and gas lobby. 

"If you put the ads next to each other — the government ads and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers ads — what's going on is damage control," Ravignat said.

"We've got an industry which doesn't have the best reputation, we've got a government helping part of the industry in order to sell itself as responsible."

The difference here is that our government is paying for the EAP advertisements with our taxes. Sure, it’s important for our government to keep us up to date but if, as the interviews uncovered, most Canadians already understand “the importance of natural resources for Canada’s economy and for job creation,” what is the function of this kind of advertising?

Is the Harper government using its advertising budget to inform us of neutral facts or to sell us on practices that it knows make us queasy?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.