Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was not kidding when he said that this, his third budget, would be quite a bit leaner than the others. In fact, you have to look very closely just to find a few potatoes in the pot.

There are no big tax breaks this time, to be spread around like jam at a picnic. No new programs to stir the hearts of nation builders and little of what you might call a vision for the future.

After two previous budgets in which he couldn't shovel tax money out the door fast enough — all the while urging Canadians to "Aspire," the title of the 2007 budget speech — this one uses a spoon.

Yes, there is some proposed debt relief for beleaguered university students. But it doesn't come into effect for at least another year. There is also a tax break for seniors who want to work past retirement age and don't want to see as much of their guaranteed income supplement clawed back.

But most of this latest offering from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives can be seen as scattering nickels and dimes among as many small but worthy causes as possible. For example, $3 million to provide MedicAlert bracelets for children who need them, $33 million over two years to improve food safety and $8 million for a new harbour in Pangnirtung, Nunavut.

This is not to say there are no biggish worthwhile initiatives being set in train. The Harper government is contributing an additional $147 million to aboriginal health care and "setting aside" up to $500 million for public transit. But given the way Ottawa usually throws its fiscal weight around, these amounts are veritable drops in the bucket.

Then there is climate change, one of the most important issues facing Canadians today. The budget's response? A modest $66 million to set up a regulatory framework for industrial air emissions, $10 million for research into biofuels and $250 million for a pilot project on capturing carbon emissions in Nova Scotia. It is a good idea but it is a long way from where the big action is in Alberta.

After two breakneck budgets and a tax-giveaway spree in October 2007, it is difficult not to feel this government has run out of steam — or perhaps out of money.

What's not in this budget

Notably, there were a few anticipated items that didn't appear in this third Conservative budget and their absence may well embolden those election-seeking opposition hawks who want to portray Harper government's as uncaring.

There is almost nothing here for the poor or unemployed. Student relief is promised but down the road. Cities get the promise of regular funding but not the infrastructure bump up they were hoping for.

Quick Facts

The federal government has recorded a budget surplus every year since 1997-98. The biggest federal budget surplus - $19.9 billion - was recorded in the 2000-01 fiscal year.
Source: Dept. of Finance

Importantly, there is also little specific help for the auto sector, something both Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest have been calling for with no little fervour.

Ottawa legislated a $1-billion aid package for these so-called traditional industries in January. But both Quebec and Ontario have said that amount, which is divided up across the country, is nowhere near being enough.

Nor does this budget offer much for investors feeling whipsawed by the problems in the U.S. economy. The new Tax-Free Savings Account lets investors shelter a modest $5,000 a year for a rainy day. It is a far cry from the capital gains tax deferral the Conservatives promised in the 2006 election campaign.

In their defence, the Conservatives have been showering the country with tax relief, as recently as in October, when they reduced the GST for a second time. By Ottawa's calculation, this amounts to $21 billion in personal and corporate tax breaks since the government changed in 2006.

Flaherty may also be trying to keep his powder dry. The economy is slowing faster than Ottawa accounted for just four months ago, when the finance minister released his last economic update. And government revenues and debt reduction plans are slowing accordingly.

A telling set of figures: Ottawa will continue its plan to pay down $10.2 billion in debt this fiscal year, 2007-08. But next year's contribution slows to $2.3 billion, with a further drop to $1.3 billion in the year after that. At this juncture, those last two figures represent the federal government's only room to manoeuvre should a serious downturn come along.

Disciplined spending?

This is not what you would call a traditional election budget, particularly for a minority government facing an uncertain future. Unless, that is, Harper is attempting to egg on his opponents with a Conservative fiscal plan that is so much less than meets the eye.

The other so-called election triggers have now been muted. The Liberals made common cause with the Conservatives over Afghanistan and Liberal senators are scurrying to finish passing the Conservatives' crime bill.

Quick Facts

In the early 1990s, the federal government spent more on public debt charges than on any other single spending item.
Source: Public Accounts

It is very possible that, with fears of a recession in the wind, the Conservatives just don't want to spend money at this point; or they may not have it to spend. It is also possible that they are simply trying to bait their Liberal opponents into proposing a bunch of spending initiatives, to tar them as big spenders.

The Tories have already unveiled election-style ads that paint Liberal Stéphane Dion as a tax-and-spend guy and are portraying themselves in this budget as the responsible guardians of "disciplined spending."

If you listen to Flaherty closely, however, he is only promising to curb government spending in the future, which is a tacit admission he hasn't been doing a very good job at that until now.

In fact, government expenditures under the Conservatives have been increasing at the rate of about six per cent a year, much of that because of the war in Afghanistan and tax expenditures like the $100-a-month baby bonus. Government spending is not looking to come down much at least until after 2010.

By contrast, government expenditures under the previous Liberal governments spiked in 2005 but averaged a fairly modest three-per-cent increase a year over the 12 years they were in power.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]