Please Note! This particular section of Mapleleafweb is outdated and is in the process of being updated and migrated to the new version of Maple Leaf Web. Maple Leaf Web makes no guarantee that the information below is up to date and or correct.
Please update your bookmarks and thank you for your patience. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments
|
|
|
Responses to 2004 Throne SpeechThe following provides summaries of responses to the 2004 Throne Speech. The responses are divided into Opposition Political Parties, Political Institutes and Think-Tanks, and Societal Groups. Opposition Political PartiesConservative Party of Canada - The Conservative Party attacked the 2004 Throne Speech as a “glorified election pamphlet” in which Prime Minister Paul Martin is attempting to get re-elected by promising everything to everyone. The Conservative Party emphasized the ambiguous nature of the Speech in which there was little detail on exactly how the Liberal government would accomplish the goals it had laid out. The Party also was critical of the absence of further commitments to increase transfer payments to the provinces, which continues to leave many social services under funded. Other criticisms include the lack of new ideas on Aboriginal policy, the absence of any real commitment to rural communities, and the failure to provide new tax cuts to Canadians.
New Democratic Party of Canada – The NDP criticized the 2004 Throne Speech for not reflecting the priorities of Canadians. The NDP accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of portraying a progressive image when in fact he is a conservative. On healthcare, the NDP is critical of the government's failure to commit to the Romanow report, more transfer payments to the provinces, homecare and prescription drugs. The NDP also attacked the failure of the government to make gas taxes available to the cities this year, the lack of a clear plan on the Kyoto Protocol, and the failure to commit to the democratic reform of proportional representation. The NDP also noted that the government failed to mention its interested in the United States-proposed missile defence program. Political Institutes and Think-TanksFraser Institute – The Fraser Institute, a neo-liberal think-tank , criticized the 2004 Throne Speech for failing to substantively address some of the country's most pressing problems. In particular, tax relief and reform, regional development, international trade, national defence, and immigration. The Institute suggested that the Speech was reminiscent of those of the Chretien era in that they were preoccupied primarily with special-interest spending. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – The Centre for Policy Alternatives is critical of Prime Minister Paul Martin's assessment of the government's finances, which contributed to the direction of the 2004 Throne Speech. In the Speech, the government stressed fiscal responsibility, the tight government budget, and the need to limit spending in many policy areas. The Centre has projected a large government surplus of $8.3 billion for 2003/2004. Such a large budget surplus should allow the government to increase social transfers to provinces in key areas such as healthcare and education. Societal GroupsAssembly of First Nations – The Assembly called the 2004 Throne Speech “a first step to improving the quality of life for Canada's Aboriginal peoples and better future for all Canadians.” The Assembly welcomed the government's characterization of conditions in Aboriginal communities as “shameful,” as well as the government's commitments to safe drinking water for Aboriginal communities, support of education and training programs, support of urban Aboriginals, and improving the governing capabilities of First Nations. The Assembly did express disappointment that on-reserve housing was not addressed directly.
Canadian Taxpayers Federation – The Taxpayers Federation was critical of the 2004 Throne Speech on several issues. The Federation noted a difference in approach between the governments of Jean Chretien and Paul martin. Under Chretien new spending was generally offset with some debt reduction and very moderst tax relief. However, Prime Minister Martin made no commitment to paying down the debt or providing Canadians with any tax relief. Further, the Federation was critical of the government's interventionist stance in the economy by providing corporate welfare to business attempting to commercialize research developments. The Federation did welcome the government's commitment to give members of parliament greater say in government. Canadian Federation of Students – The Federation of Students were highly critical of the 2004 Throne Speech's commitments to post-secondary education. The Federation places responsibility for higher tuition costs with the federal government's decision to cut education transfers to the provinces over the last 10 years. The initiatives taken by the government in the Speech insufficiently addresses the problems facing students – large student loan debts and rising education costs.
Next >>
|
|
© 2001-2006 Maple
Leaf Web. |
