Author:
PC PARTY RESPONSE per Joe Hueglin
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:01:10 02/19/03 Wed
Author Host/IP: d150-99-156.home.cgocable.net/24.150.99.156
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE 2003 BUDGET RESPONSE
KEY MESSAGES:
1 The Canadian population is just beginning to see the cost of Chretien’s legacy. The Prime Minister’s last minute legacy largesse will only come into effect long after the current Prime Minister is retired. Chretien will get the credit, and Martin will get the bill.
2 Overall program spending between 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 increased by 11.5% or $14.3 billion. Program spending, excluding health and defence, increased by a staggering 7.3%.
3 The biggest economic issue facing Canada today is the movement of trade through the Canada-US border. The budget does next to nothing to ensure the flow of trade and commerce with our largest trading partner.
4 As Canada stands potentially on the brink of war, the Liberal government’s contribution to our military barely covers the cost of the last deployment in Afghanistan. In fact, the military is being asked to find $200 million a year through internal savings.
5 The fiscal imbalance between the growing federal surplus and the increasing costs of provinces to deliver valued programs is highlighted in this budget. The federal government is awash in a surplus and yet continues to starve health care, starves the military and proposes new expensive programs that interfere directly in areas of provincial jurisidiction.
6 The budget does virtually nothing to put more money in the pockets of middle-income Canadians and their families. There is no real tax relief that will enable Canadians to keep more of the money they earn, such as an increase in the basic personal amount of a cut in tax rates.
TAX CUTS
Budget Highlights:
1 The budget eliminates capital taxes over five years for medium sized businesses. The capital threshold at which the tax applies will be raised from $10 million to $50 million effective 2004. The special tax on larger financial institutions will not change.
2 The budget reduces the airport security tax from $12 to $7 for one-way domestic travel. This is a reduction of 40%.
3 Increasing the small business deduction limit to $300,000 over four years up from the current level of $200,000.
4 Reducing the corporate tax rate for the resource sector over the next five years from 28 to 21 per cent.
5 Increasing the Film or Video Production Services Tax Credit (FVPSTC) from 11 to 16 per cent and extends temporary mineral exploration tax credit.
Talking Points/PC Position
1 Mr. Manley completely missed the point of letting Canadians keep more of their own money. The budget does not say anything about increasing the basic personal exemption which provides tax relief to all Canadians especially those in the middle-income category.
1 The Progressive Conservative party was the first party to call for the elimination of personal capital gains as a means to stimulate growth in the economy.
2 Capital taxes were introduced by the Progressive Conservative government at a time when we were running a deficit. It makes sense to eliminate capital taxes now that the government is in a surplus position.
3 The budget does nothing to deal with the rising costs of gasoline and home heating fuels. The federal government collects a GST windfall every time the price of gasoline or home heating fuels increases. The government should not be profiteering on the backs of working Canadians.
SURPLUS AND DEBT REDUCTION
1 The budget projects the surplus to be zero for 2002-03.
2 The debt is projected to be $507 billion for 2002-03.
3 There is no amount scheduled for debt reduction; it will depend on if there is a surplus at the end of the fiscal year. The $3 billion contingency reserve will go towards the debt if it is not needed.
Talking Points/Our Position
1 The government has managed to wipe $29 billion off of its debt this year not through prudent fiscal management, but through the wave on an accountant’s magic wand. The budget projects zero debt reduction this year net of contingencies and prudence, zero next year, and zero the year after.
2 If the government had not changed its accounting rules, the budget would be projecting a $3 billion deficit this year (fiscal 2002-03).
1 The continual surpluses of the federal government highlight the problems of fiscal imbalance. The provinces continue to struggle to deliver programs such as health care with limited funds while the federal government is awash in funds.
2 Liberal Finance Ministers have continually underestimated the surplus each budget. If their projections were realistic, Canadians would know how much of the debt could be paid down, rather than waiting until the end of the year to see if there are any pennies left in the piggy bank.
1 This budget once again proves that debt reduction is an afterthought rather than a planned item in the budget process.
2 There still is no commitment to debt reduction. The Progressive Conservative Party believes there should be a legislated schedule of debt repayments and debt repayment should be a line-item in every budget.
SECURITY
Budget Highlights:
1 $50 million next year and $25 million in 2004-05 for the Security Contingency Reserve.
2 $94.6 million over the next two years for the Canadian Coast Guard.
3 Reaffirms support for the implementation of the Canada-U.S. 30-point Smart Border Action Plan.
4 $11 million over two years to increase Canada’s representation and trade promotion activities in the US.
Talking Points/PC Position
1 Two-way merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has tripled since the original Free Trade Agreement with the United States was concluded in 1988. More than $2 billion of merchandise crosses the Canada-US border each and every day, equal to $24 thousand a second.
2 Funds must continue to be dedicated to improving the infrastructure at border crossings so trade can be expedited.
3 The Progressive Conservative Party proposed a new Minister of Public Protection and Border Management for immigration, law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
4 We also called for a bi-national/ tri-national agency and a joint Canada-US-Mexico database to monitor the entry of goods and people into North America.
5 We called for a pre-clearance of low risk individuals and goods for expedited transit. Infrastructure at airports, land crossings and seaports needs to be improved to accommodate expedite low-risk individuals and goods.
6 “Without the free movement of goods and services between our borders, our standard of living would certainly be threatened. September 11 has changed how our economy is operating, including the movement of goods and services between our two borders.” (Inky Mark, MP, October 19, 2001)
HEALTH CARE
Budget Highlights
1 The Budget reiterates the commitments of $17.3 billion in health care funding agreed to over the next years at the First Minister’s Meeting on February 4th, 2003. But only $13,4 billion of it is actually new money, $3,9 billion had already been promised.
2 Total funding over five years will rise to $34.8 billion, prolonging the transfers until 2007-08. Estimates for transfers to provinces are given till 2010-11.
3 These funds include investments of $2.5 billion to relieve existing pressures in delivering core health programs; creates a five year $16 billion Health Reform Fund targeted to primary health care, home care and catastrophic drug plans.
4 The budget establishes a Canada Health Transfer by April 1, 2004 for health funding and a Canada Social Transfer for post-secondary funding and social assistance. An estimate of the apportionment is that the new Canada Health Transfer will get 62% from the CHST, the Canada Social Transfer getting 38% (Romanow suggested 43%, the Senate 62%)
5 It establishes a $1.5 billion diagnostic/Medical Equipment Fund to improve access to publicly funded diagnostic services.
6 The budget provides an additional $1.1 billion for other health care needs and sets up other health related programs
7 An additional $2 billion could be available for health if there is sufficient surplus funds at the end of fiscal 2003-04.
8 The Romanow report recommended that the federal government invest $15 billion in new funds (funds not already promised) over three years.
9 The Senate report recommended that the federal government invest $5 billion annually (raised through dedicated taxes)
10 The Séguin Commission recommends that Québec should gain $2 billion in financial means in the short term, and $3 billion in the long term, through tax point transfers or GST transfers.
Talking Points/PC Position
1 $3,9 billions of the funds promised in the Budget and the First Ministers Meeting were already announced, the government needs to come clean and stop playing with the numbers. The new sums amount to $13,4 billion over 3 years, which is $1,6 billion short of the Romanow report recommendations, and short of the Senate recommendations as well.
2 The Federal government is not assuming its share of the risks relating to the escalating costs of health care in Canada.
3 Between 1993 and 2001, the cumulative effect of Paul Martin's cuts in
transfer payments was to take $25 billion away from the provinces.
4 The rapid increase in health care spending, and insufficient federal funding, not only hurts health care but also starves provinces’ other important programs, namely post-secondary education and social programs, the proposed apportionment of CHST will starve education and social programs.
5 We are concerned with the fact that the territorial leaders refused agree to the First Ministers’ accord, saying it doesn't address the needs of aboriginals and other northern residents. Since this government promised to improve health care for First Nations and rural communities in the throne speeches of 1999, 2001 and 2002, why didn’t the Prime minister take the extra step to ask all the Premiers, including the territorial Premiers to stay for one more day so that an agreement could have been worked out that would have brought all the Premiers onside?
6 The former finance minister, who set up the CHST and slashed transfers to provinces, could become prime minister by 2004. We wonder what guaranties has the Prime Minister sought from Paul Martin, or other potential leadership candidates, that they would actually implement the new Health Accord after his departure from office in February 2004?
INFRASTRUCTURE/TRANSPORT
Budget Highlights:
· The budget provides for an additional $3 billion in infrastructure support over the next 10 years. (P-107, The Budget Plan)
· Of this $3 billion, a total of $2 billion will be used to double the funding available under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund - which is targeted at large-scale projects, including those located in Canada’s major urban centres. (P-107, The Budget Plan)
· The remaining $1billion will finance new municipal infrastructure investments over the next 10 years that will focus on smaller scale projects (P-108, The Budget Plan)
· Climate-change-related projects will be eligible and given particular consideration under these two initiatives. (P-108, The Budget Plan)
Talking Points/Our Position
· We are supportive of infrastructure spending that sticks to funding core infrastructure where there is a proven need, like water systems, sewers, roads and our highway systems.
· We are critical of the tendency of the Liberal government to deviate from funding core infrastructure and instead to spend money on what could be considered boutique infrastructure projects, like monkey pavilions, canoe museums and NHL hockey arenas.
ENVIRONMENT
Budget Highlights
· The budget includes measures totalling $3 billion directed at sustainable development and the environment, including :
· $2 billion over five years in measures to help implement the Climate Change Plan for Canada through : increased government support for Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; improved tax incentives in renewable energy; and funding for other climate change measures, including targeted initiatives and partnerships. Actions to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation and new alternative fuels, in such areas as building retrofits, wind power, fuel cells and ethanol;
· an investment of $340 million over two years to address federal contaminated sites, improve air quality, better assess and manage toxic substances, further protect Canada’s species at risk, and support implementation of Canada’s commitments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development;
· $600 million over five years to upgrade, maintain and monitor water and waste systems on reserves; and
· $74 million over two years as an initial investment for the establishment of 10 new national parks and 5 new national marine conservation areas and to restore the ecological health of existing parks. (P-120, The Budget Plan 2003)
Talking Points/Our Position:
· In regard with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, we reiterate our support for close consultation between all levels of government and industry, and we strongly urge the federal government to do its fair contribution.
· Since the ratification, the government has been quiet on its concrete plan and did not make any serious announcements even though it said that there would be agreements. So, where are the deals? What is the real plan, if the government has one? We are looking for an implementation program that makes sense.
· We strongly reject any action that would “alienate” any part of the country or any industry.
· It is important that the federal government take an approach towards implementation that has strong buy-in from the provinces and other levels of government. Otherwise, any funds directed towards addressing climate change might just disappear into a black hole - similar to other federal programs.
· The budget’s measures on contaminated sites, water and waste water systems on reserves, and national parks and marine areas are long overdue.
DEFENCE:
Budget Highlights:
1 The budget allocates an additional $800 million per year to the military beginning in 2003-04.
2 As well, an immediate $170 million will be allocated in this fiscal year for urgent capital requirements, maintenance of existing capital equipment, spare parts and other expenses.
3 An additional $100 million in fiscal 2002-03 is provided to cover the remaining costs for Canada’s contribution in Afghanistan.
4 The budget requires National Defence to identify $200 million a year in internal savings to help address the sustainability gap identified in the Defence Update.
5 The budget establishes a $125 million reserve for contingencies in 2002-03 and $200 million in 2003-04.
Talking Points/PC Position:
1 $800 million does not even cover the ongoing deficit that the Canadian Forces are facing, which is estimated to be $1-1.5 billion a year. Just to keep doing what they are doing now, the Forces need more money.
2 There is minimal amount for capital and the budget will not provide additional personnel.
3 Operation Apollo has cost the Canadian Forces nearly $400 million. The 2001 budget allocated $210 million. With today`s increase of $100 million there is still a shortfall. The allocation today won`t cover any bills that will arise when Canada returns to Afghanistan.
4 After Paul Martin’s last budget, John Manley said that defence needed more money. He had his chance with this budget, and he came up short.
5 A Progressive Conservative government would be committed to funding for adequate strength levels, quality of life initiatives and the procurement of new equipment for the Canadian Forces as the keys to a reasonable defence policy.
6 A Progressive Conservative government would provide the Department of National Defence with immediate additional annual funding for the next five years to maintain current capabilities and implement proposed long-term capital programs.
1 The PC Party supports providing immediate funds to support the Canadian Forces. Our National Defence Critic, MP Elsie Wayne, has advocated raising the base defence budget by $1 billion a year for five years. (Ottawa Citizen, August 27, 2002).
2 Priority areas include replacing the aging Sea King helicopters, the establishment of a national shipbuilding policy to oversee the replacement of the supply ships and the Tribal class destroyers, and acquisition of air and sea lift.
ABORIGINALS
1 The budget promises $72 million dollars over 2 years for Aboriginal education.
2 The budget promises $1.3 billion over 5 years for Aboriginal health programs.
3 The government will expand Aboriginal Headstart and intensify efforts to address fetal alcohol syndrome.
4 The budget provides funding of $600 million over 5 years for upgrades to aboriginal water systems.
Talking Points/PC Position:
1 The recent health announcement does nothing for aboriginals - clearly a federal jurisdiction. The government needs to fund aboriginal health care adequately and not download responsibility to the provinces. The Territorial Leaders said the Prime Minister is leaving a “legacy of neglect” in the North.
1 The PC Party recognizes the importance of these programs and supports initiatives that work towards raising the standards of living in First Nations’ communities.
2 However, the Liberal Government has been long on promises and short on action with regards to First Nations. Many First Nation communities face desperate situations, having major problems in health, housing, clean water… The Federal government must do more. The last budget tabled by this government promised to enhance programs such as child care and head start. The previous budget also promised funds to intensify efforts on reserves to deal with fetal alcohol syndrome.
3 The Department of Indian and Aboriginal Affairs has an annual budget of $6 billion, yet far too many of our first nations live in third world conditions. That simply does not make sense.
4 There still needs to be greater accountability of funds allocated to aboriginals to ensure that the funds are getting to those who need the funds.
5 The budget does not do enough to assist urban aboriginals who do not live on reserves.
6 The government needs to do real consultation with aboriginal communities before drafting legislation, for example, the recent bills (C-6, C-7) before the House.
CHILDREN
Budget Highlights:
1 The combined Child Benefit for low-income children rises to $2,662 in July for the first child from $2,443, and to $3,243 by July 2007.
2 The Budget creates the Child Disability Benefit of $1,600 for low-to-modest income families caring for severely disabled children.
3 The government plans to invest in regulated child care spaces and reduce child care and preschool costs. $900 million over 5 years will be invested.
Talking Points/Our Position
1 The government should be looking at fairer taxation for families with children, such as increasing the personal amounts, introducing a child amount to allow Canadians more options and choices when making decisions about child care, working and providing for their families needs.
2 The government likes to initiate big programs. Currently, the provinces deliver regulate child care and there needs to be broad consultation and agreement with the provinces before a massive program is initiated. Will there be a long-term commitment to funding?
3 In providing child care funds, the government should respect the provinces right to determine how this money is allocated.
NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT TALKING POINTS
1 While we welcome measures to put more money in the hands of lower-income families, this program has a major design problem that results in low income families having the highest tax rates in the country.
2 Because of all the clawbacks that accompany this tax credit, the Canada Child Tax Benefit, and the GST credit, as well as provincial clawbacks, a family with three children has a 70 per cent rate at $29,000 of income. A family with four children has a tax rate of more than 80 per cent at incomes of $33,500. Then, as their incomes rise, their taxes fall - the exact opposite of a progressive tax system.
3 This government taxes the poor and then gives the money back to them as tax credits. The PC Party had a novel idea in the last election - stop taxing the poor. We proposed to stop taxing the first $12,000 Canadians earn, and to stop taxing the first $24,000 earned by single income families.
4 The government of Canada calls this increase in the National Child Tax Benefit Supplement a tax cut. The Auditor General disagrees. She has told the government to stop pretending that this program reduces taxes - she says that it belongs on the spending side of the ledger.
1 Clawback example one:
A Nova Scotia widow has four children and an income of $33,500. She works overtime to earn an extra $1,000 to buy Christmas presents. She faces the following clawbacks and taxes:
Federal income taxes - $220;
Clawback of GST Credit - $50;
Clawback of National Child Benefit - $321;
Clawback of Canada Child Tax Benefit - $50;
CPP and EI net of tax credits - $52;
Nova Scotia tax on taxable income - $149;
Clawback of Nova Scotia Low Income Credit - $50
TOTAL: $892
2 Clawback example two:
A Manitoba family with three children and an income of $29,000 would earning face the following clawbacks and taxes if the breadwinner was to earn $1,000 working overtime:
Federal taxes of $160,
Manitoba tax on taxable income of $109;
Manitoba family tax reduction clawback of $10;
GST Credit clawback of $50;
National Child Benefit clawback of $321,
CPP and EI net of tax credits of $52.
TOTAL: $702.
3 The government says it will consult with the provinces on how Canada Child tax Benefit clawbacks destroy incentives to work. Most of those taxes and clawbacks are federal - the design flaw is Ottawa`s.
EDUCATION
Budget Highlights:
1 A new Canada Graduate Scholarships program supporting 4,000 new scholarships at program maturity.
2 A $125 million per-year increase in funding for Canada’s three federal granting councils beginning in 2003-04.
3 $225 million per year to help fund the indirect costs associated with federally sponsored research through granting councils beginning in 2003-04.
4 Investments of $500 million in the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.
5 $60 million over two years to improve the Canada Student Loans Program. Details include increasing the income eligibility thresholds; increasing the initial loan remission amount to $10,000; additional reductions of up to $10,000 if the borrower continues to be in financial difficulty (up to $5,000 in the 1st year,up to $5,000 two years after that).
6 $100 million for the creation of the proposed Canadian Learning Institute.
Talking Points/Our Position
1 Post secondary education has suffered as a result of the cut in transfer funds to the provinces. Provinces has justifiably juggled any increases to transfer funds to stem the crisis in health care.
1 The PC Party in the 2000 election made a number of innovative proposals dealing with education that do not intervene in the provincial jurisdiction. These included a Canadian Institute for Learning and Technology, which would be a national center of expertise and applied research in the use of technology for learning and teaching, spanning the school, college and university and lifelong learning sectors. The Institute would design and develop exemplary learning materials. As well we promised to establish an E-Campus Collaborations Program to support national collaborations amongst universities to co-develop courses and programs which are enabled by new learning technologies. As well we promised an E-Learning Resource Library for a nation-wide exchange of E-learning content. Canada should be implementing a best practices program in education.
2 We believe students should be able to repay their students loans as a percentage of net after tax income. We would also eliminate the taxable status of scholarships.
3 We believe that there should be a tax credit based on the repayment of Canada Student Loan loan principal, to a maximum of 10 per cent of the principal, per year, for the first ten years after graduation provided the individual remains in Canada.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Budget Highlights:
· The government has all but confirmed that it is going to keep the $45 billion held in the EI account. The money has already been spent on other things.
· The government wants to consult with Canadians on a move to a “pay as you go” EI system. Premiums would be set with a view to keeping the plan in balance over a business cycle, rather than taking into account the EI surplus.
· Premiums will be reduced to $1.98 per $100 of employee earnings next year from $2.10 this year. The government calls this the break even rate, but does not mention that it is only the break even rate because they will no longer be crediting interest to the EI account.
Talking Points/PC Position
· The government is trying to sell this as a move towards lower premiums. In fact, they are trying to get out of being forced to make dramatic premium cuts next year.
· This is because they have only been able to keep premiums high by suspending the rule that the EI account have no more than needed to cover an economic downturn. That temporary suspension ends in December. The EI actuary says that they only need $10 billion to $15 billion to cover the costs of a recession, a fraction of the $45 billion that will be in the account at the end of this year.
· This is also because the EI surplus is currently lent to the government, and the government pays interest on that loan. That interest income is part of the revenue credited to the EI account. Not crediting interest would raise the EI breakeven premium by about 16 cents at current interest rates, and by even more once rates begin to rise.
· Year after year, the Liberals relied upon the EI program to keep his books in the black and to pay for their boondoggles. The government could have chopped the employee premium to $1.75 per $100 of earnings this year and still ran the program to operate in the black, but instead set the premium at $2.10.
· Canadians also pay into the Canada and Quebec pension plans. CPP and QPP premiums have almost doubled over the past decade, from $2.50 per $100 of earnings in 1993 to $4.95 this year. Since 1993, the average worker has seen his or her combined EI and CPP/QPP contributions rise by more than $700 per year.
· Inflated EI premiums have cost someone earning an average wage a cumulative total of just under $2,000. It is the equivalent of handing over to Ottawa more than two and a half weeks pay. The employer’s cumulative share of the EI surplus equals the cost of meeting the payroll for three and a half weeks.
· Paul Martin took $45 billion away from Canadian workers by bringing in a new system for calculating premiums. Now that those rules no longer work in their favour, the Liberals want to keep that $45 billion and bring in a whole new net of rules.
· The Liberals say that there will be consultations based on recommendations for premium setting made in the 1999 House of Commons Finance Committee’s prebudget report. They said in September 2000 that they would study the way premiums are set. They have had more than three years to begin those consultations, but have stalled. The new rules are to take effect in 2005, with next year’s rate set through legislation. Stall, stall and stall again - the Liberals have used delay after delay to keep premiums higher than justified.
RRSP AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS
Budget Highlights
1 The budget advances planned increases in RRSP and Pension Plan savings, and increases the RRSP maximum to $18,000 per year in 2006.
· Existing legislation calls for RRSPs to rise from $13,500 this year to $14,500 in 2004 and 2005. Instead, budget proposes limits of $14,500 in 2003, $15,500 in 2004, $16,500 in 2005, and $18,000 in 2006.
· For money purchase pension plans, these limits will be reached a year earlier, and for defined benefit plans the maximum annual pension benefit will rise to $2,000 per year of service from $1,722.
Talking Points/Our Position
· We support this measure, as it will help Canadians save for their retirement. It will also help to address the brain drain problem, as Canadians hit the top marginal tax bracket far too soon. However, we are concerned that to benefit from any increase, you would need an income of at least $86,000, and to receive the full benefit you would need $100,000. This is because of another law still on the books that RRSP contributions cannot exceed 18 per cent of earned income.
· There is virtually no tax relief in this budget for the vast majority of Canadians. Those earning more than $86,000 get higher RRSP limits. Those with children making less than $33,500 will benefit from higher child tax benefits. How about a tax cut for the middle class?
· The Progressive Conservative Party has called for an increase in the foreign content limit of RRSPs and pension plans to 50 per cent to enable Canadians to invest their retirement savings in the most attractive investments, irrespective of location. Limits on where you can invest your retirement savings means less retirement income. If the government is concerned that you might invest your money outside of the country, then maybe they ought to make Canada a more attractive place to invest.
FOREIGN AID
Budget Highlights:
1 The Throne Speech promised the government would double its development assistance by the year 2010, and earmark at least half of that increase for Africa as part of Canada’s support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.
2 The government promises to implement the commitment of an increase of 8 per cent in foreign aid made by the Prime Minister last March in Monterrey. The budget also reiterates the commitments made at Kananaskis last June.
1 The budget provides for an additional $1.4 billion for the International Assistance Envelope this year and the next two years.
Talking Points/Our Position:
2 During the G8 Summit in Kananaksis last June, $6 billion Canadian over five years from Canada was announced. This included the $500 million Africa fund from the 2001 budget, 50% of the 8% increase in ODA promised at Monterrey in March 2002; and CIDA funds.
1 The Chrétien-Martin government has given the lowest priority to Canada’s role and responsibilities in the world: our contribution to international development is a simple disgrace.
2 The Prime Minister acknowledges the link between extreme poverty and the desperation that nourishes terrorists. Yet while he talks about help, his government has cut Canada’s international assistance more deeply than our spending in almost any other area.
3 Official Development Assistance as a percentage of GNP was .49% in 1991-92 and fell to .25% in 2000-01.
4 Chrétien-Martin have broken our aid promises to the world. It is more than time to stop these cuts to foreign aid and to turn the situation around.
5 The 1993 Red Book promised “a Liberal government will not arbitrarily and without prior consultation cut off aid programs to entire regions of the world, such as East Africa, that continue to face desperate poverty and deprivation. A Liberal government will conduct a comprehensive and public policy review of Canada’s foreign aid priorities to ensure that a clear policy framework is in place for distributing Canadian aid.” (Red Book, 1993)
AGRICULTURE
Budget Highlights :
· The budget provides for agricultural-related funding in the following areas :
· $220 million this fiscal year to provide an advance to the Crop Reinsurance Fund;
· $100 million over the next two fiscal years to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to help it maintain the food safety system;
· $30 million over the next two fiscal years to the Canadian Grain Commission to allow it to maintain its level of service to farmers;
· $113 million this fiscal year for infrastructure improvements at Canada’s four veterinary colleges; and
· $20 million over the next two years to supplement Farm Credit Canada investments for further promotion of innovation in the agriculture sector. (P-120-121, The Budget Plan)
Talking Points/Our Position :
· While we welcome the budget’s commitments respecting agriculture, we are strongly critical of the generally ad-hoc and improvisational nature of the Liberal government’s record on agriculture.
· The advance to the Crop Reinsurance Fund demonstrates the need for a stand-alone Disaster Fund for weather related disasters.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 