More from L. Ian MacDonald available More fromavailable here

In October 1986, the Mulroney government announced a $1 billion deficiency payment to Western grain farmers, then on the losing end of an international price war over wheat.

Brian Mulroney himself made the announcement in a speech to the National Farmers Union, who were meeting at the National Conference Centre in Ottawa. The farmers were very happy, as was Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine — who, by no coincidence, went on to win re-election a few days later.

Mulroney was on his way to give the speech when the phone rang in my office in the Langevin Building. It was a senior adviser to the Finance minister, calling with several colleagues on the line.

“We have changes for the PM’s speech,” she announced. “He can’t say that the $1 billion is new money. It has to be re-profiled money.” Announcing the money as new money, she explained, would change the fiscal framework.

“What assurance can you give us,” she continued, “that the speech will be delivered exactly with the changes as we have dictated them to you?”

“There must be some mistake,” I replied. “This isn’t the Ministry of Youth. This is the PM’s office. We don’t work for you. You work for us.”

Which ended the conversation.

But Imperial Finance has always been very good at protecting its interests, which begins with protecting the integrity of the ‘FISC’ — the fiscal framework, the whole budget plan, from taxes to programs. And the integrity of the FISC in Joe Oliver’s coming budget depends on the Conservative government keeping its promise to balance the books in this fiscal year for the first time since the downturn of 2008-09.

During this time period, Ottawa took on $160 billion of new debt to stimulate the economy. “We’re all Keynesians now,” Jim Flaherty quipped at the time. He could have balanced the books last year had he wanted — “We’re almost there,” he said — but a political decision was made to hold off on that until an election year. And here we are.

It’s not new infrastructure money — not a thin dime of it. It’s re-announced money, allocated for the current year. The only thing ‘new’ about it will be the press releases. It’s not new infrastructure money — not a thin dime of it. It’s re-announced money, allocated for the current year. The only thing ‘new’ about it will be the press releases.

The government already has pre-announced $5 billion a year in spending on enhanced child care benefits, child care cost deductions, the child fitness tax credit and income-splitting. Oliver hasn’t forgotten the government’s promise to double the Tax-Free Savings Account contribution cap, which would take it up to at least $10,000 per year. Eleven million Canadians have set up TFSAs since Flaherty established them in 2009.

All this retail stuff works very well in suburban ridings where the October election will be decided. The $5 billion in pre-announced family benefits were priced into the fall update. No one has mentioned the cost of doubling the TFSA limit to the government in foregone revenues.

In the fall update, Oliver forecast a surplus of $1.9 billion — but that was when oil was US$81 a barrel, $30 above where it is today. Bearing in mind that every $5 drop in oil prices costs Ottawa $1 billion, that would leave Ottawa short $6 billion, with a deficit of $4 billion.

Not a problem. Oliver just spends down the $3 billion contingency reserve, sells off Ottawa’s shares in General Motors for another $3.3 billion, and he’s at least $2 billion to the good, with TFSA head room to spare. No worries about the FISC.

(You could, of course, make a good case that the money from selling Ottawa’s GM shares should go to paying down debt, or perhaps to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, rather than to operational spending. But in an election year, you’d be shouting into the wind.)

Anyway, all of this is to point out that Oliver can get to balance while keeping the FISC intact. So what on earth was Industry Minister James Moore doing on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, talking about new infrastructure spending?

“This budget,” he told CTV’s Bob Fife, “will reaffirm our commitment to infrastructure spending … on a very large scale in every part of the country to the benefit of productivity, to the benefit of infrastructure and to the benefit of the quality of life of everyday Canadians.”

Wouldn’t this blow up the FISC? It surely would — if it were new money. In fact, the money’s coming out of a $75 billion pool Ottawa earmarked to be spent over 10 years — in the 2013 budget. That includes $52 billion for the New Building Canada Plan.

So it’s not new money — not a thin dime of it. It’s re-announced money, allocated for the current year. The only thing ‘new’ about it will be the press releases.

And it will work. Here’s the thing — nobody in the real world talks about infrastructure. You never hear anyone on the bus say, “I’m really worried about our infrastructure.” But voters may notice photo ops about bridges, interchanges or subway stops coming to their neighbourhood. For an incumbent government facing a tough election, previously-announced infrastructure spending is the gift that keeps on giving.

All the announcements Oliver and Moore have made over the last few days confirm the Conservatives are hard at work changing their message track: away from scary stories about terrorism, towards a more positive narrative that works for them in the suburbs. As for the FISC — Finance still has it covered.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94. 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.

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.