Within whose means?

From the title of this article, it looked like Ralph Goodale might be sending a (perfectly valid) message of fiscal prudence to Canadians in general. But based on the article itself, Goodale (and his merry band of anonymous sources) is merely trying to lower government expectations again, while not even hinting that individual Canadians should try to live within their own means:

As always, though, Goodale will warn that everything must be done within a tight budget.

And for once, federal finances might be almost as tight as the minister claims.

In the next few weeks, Goodale is expected to announce the surplus from fiscal 2004-05 will be no more than $3 billion - as he forecast.

Sources say that's likely as good as things will get, after a flurry of last-minute adjustments to the books for the year that ended March 31.

Oddly, the sources don't take the time to explain how the government's fiscal situation could have deteriorated in an economy where everybody else's income is improving. Or how Goodale's plan is the least bit radical when the only apparent added funding is in post-secondary education - which, as we should all know, was addressed in the last budget thanks to the NDP's input.

The only other government policy put forward, a plan for streamlining regulation, is a good enough idea. But there's no particular reason for the issue not to have been addressed long ago - and it certainly doesn't seem to be a top-priority issue for most Canadians. Meanwhile, the three top public priorities (health care, the environment and child poverty, according to an Environics poll cited in the article) are ignored.

The other supposedly-fresh initiative to be pushed by Goodale is an increase in private-sector investment in education and research. Which is well and good in theory, but unlikely at best in practice since nothing in the article suggests that the request will be backed by policy supports. With interest rates rising, there's not much reason to think employers will suddenly decide that added training is a good investment at a higher cost now when it wasn't at a lower cost previously.

So, Goodale's plan is a combination of unduly minimizing the federal government's means and role, while simultaneously making demands of other sectors of society to support his vision while the public's priorities get ignored. Somehow this doesn't strike me as the epitome of responsible government.