The post Speech on Bill C-15 (Budget Implementation Act) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am going to divide the 10 minutes that I have into three general categories: first, the overall quality of the budgetary information; second, a quick review of those things that are pretty good, but not good enough; and third, concerns about the environmental content of the budget.

First, on the quality of the budget, there is something that I think parliamentarians need to spend a lot more time talking about and demanding of Finance Canada. It has been a number of years since I have been able to find in the budget of Canada something that I think most Canadians would expect us to find, something called a budget: a statement of revenues, a statement of expenses, a bottom line, clear information.

I started saying with the previous government that we should really stop calling it the budget and call it the annual spring thick brochure so we would know what we were talking about. I expected more clarity of information, frankly, from the new finance minister, but as we have seen in the information from the parliamentary budget office in its review of this document, we still do not have detailed tables to identify the impacts of changes. Budget 2016 has actually shortened the time horizon on cost estimates from five years to two years, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to reconcile the program information with the budgetary information with our main estimates and supplementary estimates. I urge the new government to make sure that 2016 is the last budget that is not really a budget.

In addition to the things that the PBO has asked for, I would like to see a return to budget documents that include a statement of the budgets that are comparable from the previous year to the next year, department by department. Quite often in the budgets over the last number of years, we can see an announcement that there is money for a department to do whatever, but we cannot figure out for months, if we ever can, whether that is new money, re-profiled money, or whether it is a real commitment. I would like to see that.

Another thing I would like the Minister of Finance to do before next year, and as a matter of fact as quickly as possible, is present legislation to enshrine the parliamentary budget office and the parliamentary budget officer as independent officers of Parliament, properly funded and not subsumed in the budget of the Library of Parliament. The PBO does an amazing job for us as parliamentarians. It should not have to fight tooth and claw for information from Finance Canada. It should be as available to them as it is to us, and we are not seeing that change yet.

This budget is clearly much more welcome to the Green Party of Canada than the ones over the last 10 years. I do not open it and cringe and fear weeping at every page. Therefore, let me go through those things that are good, but not good enough.

It is certainly welcome to see $8.4 billion allocated to first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. It is good, but not good enough, because it neglected where we really need to see some increased spending, which is on the care of children in those communities. Specific child care dollars were missed. We need more attention on those key areas. It is certainly welcome, but falls a bit short there. Actually, it is more than a bit short. It completely omits, as Cindy Blackstock has pointed out, money for first nations children and to make sure we act on all the commitments under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I was pleased to see action to assist young Canadians or any students with student debt in making that more manageable, but when one reads very carefully, one finds that there is no new money for that. It is re-profiled in ways that will help students carry student debt and ensure they do not have to start paying student debt back until they are making more money. It is encouraging, but not good enough.

There is more money for international development for Global Affairs Canada, but not nearly enough to catch up to where Canada should be. I want to see a reinstatement of our goal as a nation to 0.7% of our GDP into international development assistance. We are far short of that, even with the modest increase to spending in this budget.

It was very welcome to see money for housing and the federal government being involved again in housing. It is very important that we do that, but I was very disappointed not to see money in this budget for energy retrofits. I will return to that.

It is also welcome to see a return to the funding of basic science and away from the notion that we will not fund anything unless it has an immediate commercial application. It is very welcome to see a return to basic science research and more money for hiring scientists, such as the $40 million that was recently announced for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to start rehiring scientists. Parks and marine protected areas also get funding.

One of Canada’s greatest environmental thought leaders passed away earlier this year. I would like to take a moment to note that Jim MacNeill’s passing is devastating to the whole policy community that has done any work on sustainable development. Jim MacNeill always said that the single most important environmental statement from any government is its budget. After analyzing this budget for the environmental promises, that is where we find the deepest disappointment.

First, on infrastructure, during the election campaign the Liberals promised to spend enough on infrastructure to stimulate our economy to hire a great deal more people to ensure that we have a strong and vibrant economy that could get us out of the deficit. That was the premise of the Liberals’ election campaign. I have to say I do not quibble with that. The Green Party platform was a balanced budget, but I am easily persuaded that in a weak, stagnant economy, when the cost of borrowing is as low as it is today, it is not a bad idea to go into deficit to kick-start the economy. It is a good idea. However, the Liberals fell far short of what needs to be done to create the investments that we need in infrastructure and green infrastructure to create that vibrant economy.

In a nutshell, we read in this budget that over the next 10 years there will be $120 billion invested in infrastructure. That is a big number and it sounds great, until we realize that part one is the next five years, past the next election, in which less than 10% of that money, $11.9 billion, will be spent. The 90% of $120 billion will come to us in the second five-year period. That is important to note, because it means that for public transit money, which is desperately needed, there is only $3.4 billion over three years. It is not enough to significantly reduce greenhouse gases by moving us to public transit. A key piece of stimulus spending that would have put tens of thousands of Canadians to work quickly is to fund eco-energy projects.

With the previous Liberal government, under former prime minister Paul Martin who created the program, it was wildly successful. It delivered on greenhouse gas reductions. Homeowners loved it. Contractors loved it. Building supply companies loved it. It worked. It should have come back in this budget and it should have been expanded to include institutions like universities, schools, and hospitals, to replace inefficient furnaces, to bring in heat pumps, and to employ an army of carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who could go to work to deliver. It is missing and that is a shame. I hope it will get serious consideration before the 2017 budget so that we can actually attack the 30% of greenhouse gases that come from leaky buildings in Canada.

However, I have to say the most despairing part in reading the budget was when I came to a section which has the heading, “Restoring trust in environmental assessment”. This is at page 165 in the budget. Restoring trust in environmental assessment requires fixing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, brought in originally in 1993, was repealed in 2012 in the spring omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38.

This section of the budget suggests we are going to keep the broken, bogus, useless Environmental Assessment Act that was brought in under Bill C-38, and that we are going to keep it for four more years. There is a specific reference to it getting funded for four more years. This is an enormous mistake, and it must be reversed. Similarly, we must get rid of what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act, to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was in the fall omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45.

We need to fix our environmental laws if we are going to have a hope of restoring public trust in the environmental assessment process. This must be fixed and it is a budgetary issue. However, it is an urgent parliamentary concern that we undo the damage that every single member of the opposition fought against in 2012. Every New Democrat, every Liberal, and every Green MP fought that. We need to pay attention to the mistakes in this budget and fix them immediately.

The post Speech on Budget 2016 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The clearest commitment and strongest funding was delivered for First Nations, Inuit, and Metis communities.  At $8.4 billion, it was “historic” as the Minister claimed.  Whether it is enough is another matter, but it was significantly more than the 2005 Kelowna Accord (killed by the Conservatives) had promised.

The 2016 budget contains many encouraging measures for health, education, youth, waste and water works, and public infrastructure. Many of my requests to Finance Minister Bill Morneau have been accepted – including energy retrofits to existing social housing, support for affordable rental housing, re-opening the Coast Guard base at Kitsilano, restoring funding to the CBC, additional $50 million to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, reinstating the Court Challenges Programme, investing in science and returning support for basic scientific research, and action to reduce the burden of student loans and increasing student grants.

But there is so little in the climate action part of the budget.  $3.4 billion over three years for public transit may sound like a lot, but one billion dollars is not enough in a year to make a dent in the infrastructure deficit for a single city. In a budget premised on creating economic stimulus and employment, it made no sense to neglect the opportunity for energy efficiency improvements in Canada’s buildings. Leaky buildings are responsible for 30% of Canada’s GHG.  Employing carpenters, electricians, contractors, and plumbers to retrofit homes, commercial buildings and institutions would deliver immediate economic benefits in creating jobs, while cutting GHG.  Other than retrofits to social housing, it is ignored.  In contrast, the 2005 budget of former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale was much stronger on climate action. It included Eco-Energy retrofits for home owners, rebates for the purchase of hybrid vehicles (which should have been reinstated and extended to electric vehicles), as well as billions more for infrastructure and funding for provinces to meet GHG reductions.

Disturbingly, the budget cites the target of the Paris Agreement as avoiding 2 degrees global average temperature increase, when it was Canadian leadership that helped drive the world to the more ambitious goal of striving to hold temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees C.   The Liberal platform promised carbon pricing which, in fairness, we did not expect to see in this budget.  It is clear that the negotiations with the premiers on carbon pricing will run their course before we see a clear federal plan for pricing carbon. But the Liberal platform also promised to phase out subsidies to fossil fuel, reducing them by $125 million in 2017-18.  Instead, no changes have been made to fossil fuel subsidies and the subsidies to LNG are specifically continued until the end of 2024.

As well, although described as “Restoring Trust in Environmental Assessment,” this budget preserves the devastating changes to environmental assessment of the 2012 omnibus budget bill C-38.  Rather than repeal C-38’s gutting of environmental assessment (EA), the budget commits to four years’ worth of funding for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for “fulfilling its responsibilities” under the C-38 version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.   It also provides funding for what was announced last month as “interim measures” to cope with the broken process under C-38’s environmental review.  But the funding to the National Energy Board for “interim measures” is to last for three years, suggesting they are permanent.  The National Energy Board should not be conducting a single EA that has not already commenced during the previous government.  No new projects should start the EA process under the wrong act, conducted by the wrong agency.  Not for three months more, much less three years.

Do we now declare the Liberals have deliberately broken promises and turned their back on the environment? The rubber stamping just days before Budget Day of the weak environmental assessment of Woodfibre LNG (one conducted under the bogus C-38 version of EA and delegated to the province of BC) might lead some to do so.  And as leader of an opposition party, political culture would expect me to be among the first to denounce them.  But I do not.  Not yet.

Mitigating factors include the budget preparation process. The Minister of Environment never saw the budget before its big reveal on March 22.  The budget was reviewed by the Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. He is well-remembered by climate activists as the lead negotiator blocking action in Copenhagen.  Is it an accident that the 2 degree target, accepted by the Conservatives, is in the budget and not the 1.5 degree target championed by the new government?  Senior civil servants are to follow the direction set by political masters.  It would be a major breach of respect for that tradition for me to suggest any particular civil servant is working against the new government’s interests.  But it is widely acknowledged around Parliament Hill that senior bureaucrats across many departments are having trouble re-orienting to very different priorities.  The mandate letters from the PM to ministers instruct them to respect the advice of the professional civil service.  In respect of the traditional separation between the civil service and the political side of government, which Prime Minister Trudeau is working to restore, there has been no sacking of the old order to bring in the new.  Highly principled, but it does prolong what could charitably be described as inertia in the system.

So, my advice to those frustrated by the failure to reverse the damage inflicted by the Conservatives is “do not despair.”  Do not write off the new government. Instead, redouble efforts to hold them accountable.  Condemn broken promises, but hold out the hope the errors of this budget will be corrected by Budget 2017.

Originally published in Island Tides.

The post The Liberal budget delivered on some promises while breaking others appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Many Green Party of Canada requests from the pre-budget submission to Finance Minister Bill Morneau have been accepted. These include:

• energy retrofits to existing social housing;
• support for affordable rental housing;
• re-opening the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano base in Vancouver;
• restored funding to the CBC;
• reinstating the Court Challenges Program;
• restored funding for the Experimental Lakes Area;
• an additional $50 million to Sustainable Development Technology Canada;
• investing in science and returning support for basic scientific research;
• funding to go after off-shore tax havens;
• tourism promotion;
• increasing the international assistance envelope;
• elimination of boutique tax breaks that benefitted few, and investing in community, recreational and cultural facilities;
• action to reduce the burden of student loans and an increase in student grants;
• and a strong commitment of $8.4 billion to address the crisis in First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

In Budget 2016, the right words are used on a wide range of issues – such as support for VIA Rail, clean technology investment, or expanding the east-west electricity grid – with small amounts of inadequate funding allocated.

The Green Party of Canada was disappointed by a lack of climate-specific elements in Budget 2016.

“The new government’s approach is a vast improvement compared to the previous administration, but when comparing Budget 2016 with the last Liberal budget – from former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in 2005 – this one misses the mark on climate action,” said Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The 2005 budget offered a fully formed climate action plan, including eco-energy rebates for homeowners, substantial funding for provinces to act to address the climate challenge, rebates for the purchase of energy efficient vehicles, and a carbon pricing scheme through a complicated carbon credit approach. The 2016 budget contains none of these measures.

“Disturbingly, the budget cites the target of the Paris Agreement as avoiding 2 degrees Celsius global average temperature increase, when it was Canadian leadership that helped drive the world to the more ambitious goal of striving to hold temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees C,” Ms. May said.

“The Liberal platform promised carbon pricing, which we did not expect to see today given the negotiations with the premiers. It also promised to reduce subsidies to fossil fuels by $125 million in 2017-18. No changes have yet been made to fossil fuel subsidies and subsidies to LNG are specifically continued until the end of 2024,” said Ms. May.

Sold as improving environmental assessment, this budget actually entrenches the gutting of environmental assessment brought in by the 2012 omnibus budget bill C-38. Rather than repeal C-38, this budget commits to four years’ worth of funding for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for “fulfilling its responsibilities” under the C-38 version of the Environmental Assessment Act. It also provides funding for what was announced last month by Ministers McKenna and Carr as “interim measures” to cope with the broken process under C-38’s environmental review.  The funding of these “interim measures” is to last for years, which suggests they are permanent.

“Where is the political will to reverse the horrific environmental damage of the last administration? I knew it might take time to remove Bill C-38, but it is a shock to see a budget entrenching spending for the next four years on the assumption that this anti-environmental law will persist,” Ms. May said.

The post Budget 2016 may deliver for housing and youth, but misses the mark on climate action appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Hon. Bill Morneau Minister of Finance Government of Canada February 18, 2016 Dear Minister, Thank you for the opportunity to submit budgetary suggestions to the Department of Finance and the Privy Council.  I am sharing these ideas in advance of our meeting next Tuesday.

As you may have noted, I voted in support of your government’s Speech from the Throne.  It would be wonderful to feel confidence in the budget as well.

I advance these ideas – big and small – in hopes of providing ideas that still have a chance of making it into the budget framework. This advice is broken down into sections:

1)     The Big Picture – why are industrialized economies sluggish?  Can a new approach make a difference?

2)     Approaches to carbon pricing;

3)     Priorities for new funding;

4)     Suggestions for savings, cutting excess federal spending.

1. The Big Picture

I am enclosing a recent article by Nobel Prize winning economist and current professor at Columbia University, Dr. Joseph Stiglitz.  I met with Dr. Stiglitz in Vancouver last October and can report that he would love to work with the new Liberal government.  His vast knowledge of the economic harm of societal economic inequality is well known.  I totally agree with his analysis that the last three decades of neo-liberal policies, such as those of Thatcher and Reagan, have been tried and are a demonstrable failure.  The assumptions of de-regulation, low taxation and trade liberalization as the recipe for economic prosperity need to be rejected.  Evidence-based decision making requires it.

In the attached article he makes the case that low interest rates and quantitative easing are not producing the desired results.  While this is largely out of your areas of control and are the jurisdiction of Bank of Canada policy, it needs to be discussed.

He does call for more infrastructure spending – consistent with your mandate and the Liberal platform.  I particularly like his distinction between the “real economy” and “asset bubbles.”  We need to keep this in mind as GDP numbers make no distinction between these kinds of economic activities.  Asset bubbles are a threat to the economy.  That North American regulation has done nothing to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown is shocking.  While Canada escaped the worst of that financial disaster, we did so only thanks to the Liberal Finance minister, as he then was, Paul Martin’s rejection of the banks’ calls for de-regulation.  Most G-7 countries favoured some form of global taxation on banks to reduce the risk of a nasty episode based on derivatives and other speculative trading.  Canada should change our position on this matter and support the global Tobin Tax and global Robin Hood tax to reduce the risk of a financial melt-down.

Not yet Liberal policy, Stiglitz would urge raising the tax rate on the highest earners.  I would hope you will as well. As well, the current tax rate on large corporations should be re-examined. The previous administration cut the corporate tax rate very deeply.  At the time, the late Jim Flaherty justified the tax cuts as a way to increase employment.  He described large corporations as the “job creators.”

Canada now has lower corporate taxes than any other country in the G-7, but the additional funds in the hands of the corporate sector are not being reinvested and expanding employment. Former Governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney pointed out that corporate Canada is not re-investing.  It is hoarding funds.   He called the billions of dollars held by corporations “dead money.”

The current estimate is that approximately $629 billion is being held as “dead money.”  This represents an astonishing 35% of Canada’s GDP.  For purposes of comparison, the comparable amount of surplus cash held by US corporations is 9% of US GDP.  Economists rightly point out that corporations are entitled to ensure healthy cash reserves, nevertheless, the cash reserves of Canadian corporations are excessive.

I urge you to reconsider the deep cuts in the corporate tax rate.  We need to put that “dead money” to work.  Surely, setting the Canadian corporate tax rate at the mid-range of OECD countries will keep us competitive while improving the tax revenue to the Government of Canada.   We propose the 2009 level of 19%. That rate would make only a slight dent in the “dead money” of somewhere under $5 billion/year – leaving $595 billion in corporate cash reserves.

A further source of increased revenue could be found through closing loopholes in off-shore tax havens. Closing loopholes for the wealthiest, who hide funds off-shore, could yield at least $1.2 billion.  We also urge you to implement estate taxes on those estates valued at more than $5 million.  That alone could increase revenue by approximately $1.5 billion/year.

Once the budget is back in surplus, one would hope that at least that portion of debt created under Mr. Harper’s watch would be eliminated over a transparent schedule.  I should also mention that the damage done to Income Trust investors by the previous prime minister is not forgotten.  I made a commitment to seek from your department a transparent assessment, with honest calculations of the tax leakage, of the decision announced October 31, 2006.  I would be very grateful if you reviewed that decision.

2. Approaches to carbon pricing

The Liberal platform promises to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to put a price on carbon.  While this aspect of your budget may be driven more by the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and Natural Resources than by your department alone, I wanted to propose an approach for the 2016 budget.

The current patch-work quilt of carbon pricing across Canada is not good for business certainty. It also perpetuates the dangerous signal that dumping carbon pollution in the atmosphere is a “free” service – offered by future generations to avoid responsible action now.

We have cap and trade within a Western US States trading block for Ontario and Quebec, an internal, too-low carbon tax in British Columbia and an internal rebate to the industry as a carbon price in Alberta.   For consistency of planning and to ensure a predictable transition away from carbon-based fuels, a national carbon price is needed.

I hope your government will consider using a federal carbon price as a back-filler and gap-filler.  A revenue neutral carbon price can be returned to the taxpayers.  I propose Carbon Fee and Dividend as best fitted to this purpose.  As a revenue neutral fee it will deliver a market pricing signal across the economy.  To increase the acceptance of this move by provinces, I propose that every dollar collected under a federally managed Carbon Fee and Dividend be returned to the taxpayers of the province from which the fee was collected.  This would result in a real boon to consumer spending in Alberta where the carbon pollution is the highest and it would also be popular with residents of Saskatchewan.  Where carbon pricing is already in effect, it would have a smaller impact.  Its main benefit would be to ensure a uniform, national carbon price.  I would propose a price of at least $30/tonne, moving upward in a steady and predictable fashion across Canada.

Naturally, I take it as a given that your budget will fulfill the Liberal platform commitment to end federal subsidies to fossil fuels. This must apply to all fossil fuels, including the recent new subsidies to LNG and support for fossil fuels through Export Development Canada.

3. Priorities for new funding

I do not envy you the choices that must be made.  After a decade of lack of funding, key areas of public service and policy are woefully underfunded.  I support moves to restore the Health Accord and particularly for the $40 million requested by the Mental Health Commission for suicide prevention.  I also strongly support funding to acceptable levels for indigenous housing, education, and health care.  These areas of the previous government’s malintention and lack of funding are at a crisis level.

Infrastructure

The promised investments in infrastructure are very welcome.  Particularly welcome is the description of the priority for “green infrastructure.”  Not a single infrastructure dollar should go to any project that increases GHG.   Ideally every dollar invested will be targeted to reducing carbon pollution to meet climate objectives.

This was the approach under the Liberal administration of Paul Martin.  His infrastructure minister, John Godfrey, is an active player in Ontario’s climate advisory group and could, no doubt, confirm how this was accomplished.  Public transit (including VIA Rail), investments in improving the energy efficiency of the build infrastructure and enhancing our east-west electricity grid are key green infrastructure investments.

It has also been encouraging to hear ministers speak of housing and other areas of social policy as candidates for infrastructure spending.

The Big City agenda is encouraging, but please reconsider the status of southern Vancouver Island and the Capital Regional District in and around Victoria.  The area has a population on par with other cities in the “Big City” category and we have a desperate need for public transit investments.  By far, the greatest source of GHG in the region is from private automobiles.  We do not want more traffic interchanges and bypasses.  We do need investment in bringing back passenger rail from Victoria to Courtenay with restoration of the Island Corridor railway, as well as enhanced public transit on the Saanich Peninsula.  A national transit strategy should also embrace the cost of ferry service, currently only scantly supported by federal investment.

Sectors that benefit from low dollar

The lower Canadian dollar creates opportunities for export-dependent sectors in our economy.  The previous government ignored the sectors that suffered with a higher Canadian dollar. These are the sectors where investment now will stimulate and diversify our economy.

For example, over the last decade Canada’s ranking as a tourist destination has fallen from 7^th place globally to 18^th.   Some of that decline was due to the requirement for passports for US visitors to Canada, but some was unquestionably due to a dollar at par.  Tourism was also damaged due to a series of the previous administration’s policies, such as removal of the GST-HST rebate for foreign visitors, elimination of all tourism promotion for Canada in the US market, dramatically cutting the budget for Tourism Canada (now based in Vancouver), undermining the predictability of employment insurance for seasonal workers, and the legislation passed as part of the 2012 C-45 omnibus bill to require a permit from the Minister of Immigration for tourist visits from all countries where visas are not required (although exempting the USA through the Security and Prosperity Partnership).

I urge your government to reverse these perverse measures taken piece-meal by the previous administration – harming tourism as a sector. Please include an emphasis on tourism in the 2016 budget to capitalize on the low dollar.  Even with the declining status of Canada as a global destination the sector still employs over 600,000 Canadians and contributes $33 billion to our GDP.  It is a highly competitive market and can adapt rapidly if treated as a valuable part of our economy.

Similarly there are big gains to be made in promotion of Telefilm Canada and the film and television making industry.  Sadly, Nova Scotia recently did away with its support for this sector. Anything to assist those parts of Canada where the economy is most depressed will help.  Oil and gas development in Atlantic Canada must be discouraged. It threatens the existing industries of tourism and fishing, while increasing GHG.  A partnership with Nova Scotia to develop the enormous tidal energy potential of the Bay of Fundy would help, while rejecting the simultaneously pathetic and outrageous push to re-open the Donkin coal mine.

Steps to assist value added exports include the cleantech sector.  This is a fast growing area that has not received adequate attention while we were in a bitumen bubble. It would be great to see the Sustainable Development Technology Canada budget significantly increased. It has a proven track record of leveraging new funds for every dollar invested.

Housing

To assist the expansion of available affordable housing stock please consider restoring the tax incentive for purpose-built apartment rental units.  It would be a positive move for the residential construction industry and will ease the crisis of access to affordable housing.   Removing the deemed GST when newly constructed condominium units are rented for the short-term prior to sale will assist the housing industry, while creating more accessible housing in the rental market.  Currently, developers have to hold condo units empty when the market is soft.  To rent is to be treated as a “deemed” sale with a GST impact.  This change would assist the economy at little cost to the bottom line of the Government of Canada.

Climate and Energy

To assist the trades and construction industry, as well as to reduce the carrying costs of homes while improving energy efficiency, I am sure you are already planning to restart the previous Liberal government’s Eco-Energy tax rebates for homeowners. Please consider expanding the program to assist small business and institutions, such as hospital, churches, schools and universities, cut costs and contribute to reducing carbon pollution.  Similarly, I hope you will bring back the previous Liberal rebate for the purchase of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs). Since that original programme, the cost and accessibility of EVs has improved enormously.  Infrastructure funds for enhancing the availability of EV charging stations (only in those provinces whose electricity sources are 100% renewable) would be worthwhile.

New programmes to assist homeowners to go beyond energy efficiency would be sensible.  Installing solar pv roofing tiles, heat pumps and geothermal at a residential level makes senses and allows generating electricity – selling excess to the grid.  Such efforts should be encouraged.  The previous government put a 10% tariff on solar photovoltaic roofing panels from China.  This should be removed.

Another helpful move for local sustainability will be funding to encourage food security and local food.  Some local food groups hope for funding through the Canada 150 programme, but a more focussed effort for agriculture would be more logical in expressing governmental support.

Canadians actually favour a “sustainable economy,” something that embraces a broader group of policy tools and goals than those contemplated in the budgets since 2006.

Restoration of measures killed by previous government

Many items that had no real cost-cutting advantage were killed by the previous government.  I applaud your government’s commitment to re-open the centres that served veterans across Canada.  There is another issue of huge importance to veterans.  It pre-dates the Harper government.  In fact, it is a vestige of the Boer War.  The so-called “Gold-digger clause” prevents the surviving spouses of veterans, ex-RCMP and others covered under the Superannuation Act of accessing pensions if their marriage occurred after the age of 60.  A much decorated veteran from my riding, a hero of D-Day, Major (Retired) Charles (“Chic”) Goodman, one of those honoured last year for the liberation of Dutch Concentration Camps, is now celebrating his 30^th year married.  But his wife will receive nothing at his death.  He just turned 90 years old and is deeply troubled by this, as are many wonderful spouses who married late.  There is no excuse for this discrimination, yet it persists.  Please undo this discrimination in the 2016 budget.

Just as your government is undoing the wrongs of closing the veterans’ offices, please restore the following:

• Canada’s ratification of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification;
• As promised, reopen our Coast Guard bases at Kitsilano and Tofino;
• Bring back Katimavik;
• Restore the prison chaplaincy programme and reopen prison gardens (yes, we still own the land);
• Stop the sale of diplomatic residences around the world;
• Provide adequate funding to Transport Canada for management and disposal of derelict vessels;
• Restore capacity to key environment and science departments – Fisheries and Oceans, Environment and Climate Change, Transport Canada – to fulfill their pre-2012 legislative duties under the Fisheries Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and Navigable Waters Protection Act – allowing the Parliament to un-do the devastating damage of the two 2012 omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45;
• Fund sufficient capacity for action on recovery plans under the Species at Risk Act to a level that allows the federal government to meet statutory obligations;
• Bring back the Marine Contaminants programme (which due to structural changes may form more of a network including the Vancouver Aquarium), restore funding to the Canadian Climate Forum to establish the Canadian Climate Council, the Experimental Lakes Area, and to research at the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab (PEARL);
• Restore core funding support to key non-government civil society groups, such as the Canadian Environmental Network, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Kairos, MATCH, the Canadian Association of Women and the Law, LEAF and the National Committee on the Status of Women (none of these NGO’s had large levels of funding.  Restoring funding to all of the above might come to $4-6 million/year).

4. Suggestions for savings, cutting excess federal spending

As noted above, the Green Party supports the decision to end all subsidies to fossil fuels.  In addition, we urge you to end subsidies to the biotechnology industry, nuclear energy and asbestos. (+$256 million).

In seeking ways to cut costs, I applaud the direction to discontinue the practice of buying network TV time to broadcast government advertisements that are thinly veiled ads for the government in power.  The previous government spending tended to average approximately $100 million/year on advertising itself.  This is a glaring example of wasteful and inappropriate spending.

Another place to cut is to reduce the use of external contractors for work that can be completed more cost-effectively by employees in the public service.   In the last four years, there was a nearly 28% increase in outside contracts by the federal government.  You have a golden opportunity to reduce ineffective spending by clamping down on the $10 billion a year spent by the previous administration on such things as IT assistance, management consulting and engineering.  As well, the previous administration laid off key scientific capacity, the category of worker described as “information officers” has increased by 15%.  Returning to the pre-2006 level of information officers should save funds.

The complication of the tax code with boutique tax cuts has expanded the size of the bureaucracy reviewing our tax returns. The current budget of Canada Revenue Agency is just over $4 billion.  Surely a less complex tax code would be well received by citizens and corporations alike.  Please eliminate the boutique tax cuts of the previous government.  Invest in shared public infrastructure for school and community recreation and end the tax breaks for expensive sports.  It is a cumbersome, inefficient and ineffective way to provide a public good.

We urge cuts to the Prime Minister’s Office budget. A 50% cut would be a good start, leaving the PMO approximately $5 million and saving taxpayers $5 million/year.

We also would be very supportive of action to assist in the housing crisis, to create a national Pharmacare programme and to expand facilities and treatment options for those with mental illness. We hope the budget will also deliver on the Throne Speech promise to reduce the costs of post-secondary education.  It is not only that tuition fees are rising; the quality of post-secondary education is also declining.  We need to provide predictable stable funding to colleges and universities to prevent the corporatization of research, through proprietary corporate chairs, masquerading as philanthropy.  We need to open the gates to new tenure track positions from bright young PhDs, and stop their use as a pool of exploited, scandalously underpaid labour.  Universities keep falling into the fund-raising trap of capital improvements because those campaigns raise money.  We need to ensure education is JOB 1.  That will not happen without a serious recommitment to universities,   colleges and students.  Education and health care should be identified, with federal transfer of dollars, tracked and committed to spending in those areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to make some proposals.

With best wishes,

Elizabeth May O.C., M.P.

Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Elizabeth May’s Budget Submission to Finance Minister Morneau appeared first on Elizabeth May.