More from Tasha Kheiriddin available More fromavailable here

There’s a lot to dislike about the current Conservative government. On a personality level, it’s petty, partisan and frequently pig-headed. On a policy level, the Tories have made a series of missteps: running years of deficits, doling out corporate welfare, putting scoundrels in the Senate, neglecting the needs of veterans, sparring with the Supreme Court.

Then there’s their biggest fail: losing support for pipelines by letting Canada become a global environmental pariah. That one will haunt the country for years, no matter who wins the next election.

But the fact remains that, at voting time, one of the main tests for a sitting government is not what it did wrong, but whether it did what it said it would do. Did it keep its promises, despite bumps in the road? Because if it did, many voters will assume they can trust it to do so again. And trust is a critical factor in an election year, especially in a world that seems beset on all sides by threats and fear, both mortal and economic.

The Conservatives’ 2015-16 budget, their last before the next election, will be designed to show that they have fulfilled their election promises from 2011. It will tie up loose ends and telegraph a message of trust. See. We did what you elected us to do. And we’ll do it again. You may not like us, but you know you can trust us.

Can we? What did the last Conservative platform promise to do on the economy, exactly? Its opening pledge was that it would “provide the steady hand needed to keep protecting and creating jobs and to complete our recovery from the global recession. We will eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets, without cutting transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces.”

Now, the wording of that promise is critical. The opposition can argue all it wants that the government only achieved a balanced budget by selling off GM stock, dipping into the $3 billion contingency fund and cutting program spending — none of which actually represents a breach of the Tories’ election promises. The first two were a result of the drop in oil prices, while the third was actually part of the Conservatives’ mandate. The Tories didn’t promise not to cut programs. They promised not to cut transfers. That’s an important distinction.

Like them or not, it’s hard to argue the Conservatives haven’t done what they said they’d do. They have moved the delivery of government benefits from the program level to the personal level. They have shifted redistribution from one set of beneficiaries to another more aligned with their beliefs. Like them or not, it’s hard to argue the Conservatives haven’t done what they said they’d do. They have moved the delivery of government benefits from the program level to the personal level. They have shifted redistribution from one set of beneficiaries to another more aligned with their beliefs.

The Tories were actually elected on a platform to cut specific programs, such as the gun registry. They went on to put an end to many others — Katimavik, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Rights and Democracy, just to name a few. The programs they cut may have provided benefits, but not in the form of direct cash transfers from the government; they often represented an indirect benefit, such as boosting Canada’s human rights pedigree abroad. They also may have benefited constituencies that didn’t necessarily support the government, such as environmentalists. Most importantly, they didn’t put money directly into the pockets of voters — where recipients could see it, feel it and connect it with the Harper government.

Rather than spending money on programs, the Tories promised to transfer money to people. And for many individuals, transfers have actually gone up. Families have seen an increase in transfers related to their children: monthly payments, now extended to parents of all kids under eighteen, as well as tax credits for children’s sports, and the new income-splitting measure. Savers have seen a transfer through increases in TFSA and RRSP limits. Apprentices and tradespeople can receive a transfer to buy tools. Parents of crime victims are eligible for special income support. Veterans are (finally) seeing increases in transfers for support and care.

It’s true that some Canadians lost their eligibility for transfers. EI rules were changed, negatively affecting many seasonal workers. Future generations of retirees will have to wait until age 67 to collect OAS and GIC, rather than 65, starting in 2023. The Conservatives will argue these measures represent not a cut, but rather a rule change. The opposition will beg to differ. The Tories will have to win this debate if they’re to convince voters that they kept their promise not to cut transfers — and go beyond semantics to do so.

One policy field they can cite as support for their argument is provincial transfers. Transfer rules have also been changed, and transfers to the provinces may grow more slowly as a result. But they have not been ‘cut’. True, the renegotiation of the health accord in 2012 will send less money to the provinces over time, starting in 2014, than they would have received had the previous formula remained in place. But Ottawa will still increase transfers year-over-year. As political scientist Emmett MacFarlane wrote in a recent issue of Policy Options: “In reality, the critics’ language of ‘cuts’ is premised on a gap between what they believe federal funding should be and what it is projected to be, irrespective of reality.”

The gap critics complain of is one of expectations, not entitlements. The same can be said of Ottawa’s decision last year to end the practice of “total transfer protection”, described as “a temporary move to help provinces and territories in transitioning through current economic challenges.”

Started in 2010, the practice saw the federal government top up transfer payments to ensure they did not decline year-to-year even if they otherwise should have, based on federal funding formulas. Ending the practice did not represent a cut in transfers, because it was not intended as a permanent transfer. Says Finance Canada spokesperson Stephanie Rubec, “This temporary measure was extended on a one-year basis for each of the three subsequent fiscal years, but was always a temporary measure that would be ended.”

For the Conservatives, budget 2015-16 represents their last official opportunity to check off their remaining election promises of four years ago. And whether you like them or not, it’s hard to argue they haven’t done what they said they’d do. They have effectively moved the delivery of government benefits from the program level to the personal level, from an indirect to a direct one. They have shifted redistribution from one set of beneficiaries to another more aligned with their beliefs.

And you can trust them to do more of the same if they’re re-elected. The debate for the next election isn’t about whether the Tories stuck to their course, but whether Canadians want to stay on it.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.