Review the cuts, and a very compelling theme emerges. The Conservatives actually cut Elections Canada, at the exact moment we are having a discussion about its lack of resources and ability to ensure fair elections. Entirely stunning, if anything recent problems have shown a bare bones operations in desperate need of more tools, not less.
The Conservatives went well out of their way to pick on environmental group "charities", I call it the David Suzuki pay back clause. Perhaps more revealing, a budget supposedly about belt tightening found new money to put charities on the defensive, entirely consistent with the wider assault on the environment. In many respects, these charities are the "little guy" counter to well funded industry groups such CAPP, providing some balance to the discussion. There is simply no doubt this out of nowhere announcement in the budget is an attempt to silence- or at least intimidate- perceived opposition to the Conservative agenda. The legislation is entirely transparent, and again fits in nicely with a very coherent overall thrust.
This government will eliminate the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, it will cut environmental reviews and it will speed up the review process. In several ways, the Conservatives have become a proxy for industry and set out to eliminate and marginalize, in a very systematic way, any opposition. With the backdrop of "enemies of the state" clearly in play, these Conservatives have gone on the offensive. Somehow, in CANADA, we have reached the pathetic reality, wherein anyone who shows concern for our natural beauty, legitimate environmental concerns, is someone who needs to be erased from the equation, they are a threat. Nevermind that much of what the Conservatives are now trying to marginalize evolved because their industry masters have previously FAILED to provide sound environmental stewardship, no, one must dispense of historical memory and buy into the new fantasy land the government apparently believes in.
This government went after the Trudeau era Katimavik program, which was cut once prior, only to be reborn with the Chretien government. This government has slashed the CBC budget by a WHOOPING 12% over three years, we are hard pressed to find this "austerity" anywhere else, already underfunded relative to other nations, our public broadcaster takes a direct hit. Again, Conservatives have used the CBC to fundraise, their "state" broadcaster is obsessed with attacking the CBC, anyone with a functioning forebrain would concede the outlier cuts are politically inspired, rather than a consistent commitment to belt tightening.
When you review where these Conservatives cut, where they focused their energy, a very clear pattern emerges. This is a budget that looks every bit like a vendetta, rather than use their newfound majority to bring in an ambitious conservative agenda, it is littered with pettiness and political inspiration, rather than "good government". The thesis finds further weight in the post-budget talking points. Our esteemed Finance Minister volunteered a broadside attack on the Ontario Liberals, somehow undermining his old foes at Queens Park was top of mind, rather than selling his vision for the country. Budgets have flavours, overarching narratives, this one REEKS of the Conservatives again looking for enemies, eliminating and intimidating perceived foes, political before practical, a nasty edge that will be their unflattering legacy.
13 comments:
Nowhere - except in Canadian money, now made out of plastic - ie oil - does Harper come closer to fulfilling Mussolini's definition of fascism as a merger of corporations and the state than in the environmental file: the corporatist media, on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008-09, was brought back from the brink of oblivion and funded through the PMO's propaganda budget. Spin is everything as they money launder support to their corporate friends and allies. The RCMP is a tool of the PMO, so is the military, so you have police, military and corporations all working together to subvert democracy in Canada.
People forget that environmental reviews came to be because corporations proved themselves to be enemies of the greater good. We didn't get here by accident!
Reading National News Watch is like reading the personal mail of the Harpercon Fan Club.
Liberal real really need to address the concentration of media ownership: NDP voters ignore main stream media, because they know it's all bullshit,liberal keep believing in some standard of fair play that died with Peter Gzowski. The CRTC ownership charts, the Keith Davies and Peter Kent reports,are all there to work with. Stop putting money into corporatist hands, bypass the lame stream media, do a Peirre Trudeau, go over the heads of Harper's media to the people, like the NDP do. One ally in the Toronto Star and a handful of Star Group newspapers, and some friends at the CBC does not, make for a level playing field, level the field.
The one thing I admired about Ignatieff was his use of forums and conferences, and his use of the web as a media platform, his democracy forums, his tours around the country etc etc etc all added up to something that he never made use of in the liberal election platform, take the show on the road, get outside bubble Ottawa, create a real world deep discussion process to bypass the corporatist spin. Ignore the PMO financed media outlets.
Ignoring the partisanship of it all, it seems to me that the funding of charities can be seen from either perspective. The Liberals will see the cuts to environmental groups as an assault on the environment, but if it were the Liberals in power giving additional funding to these groups, Conservatives would also see the funding as being politically motivated. Rather than question which charities should be funded by the government and how much funding they should receive, I would prefer that no charities be funded by the government. It is the only way that levels the playing field and is not political. Charities are meant to survive on donations from the people that support the cause, not tax revenues.
Agreed that the budget is petty. The cuts to Elections Canada are the most mind-boggling.
It is the only way that levels the playing field and is not political. Charities are meant to survive on donations from the people that support the cause, not tax revenues.
If you're a charity, you can give tax credits. I'm not sure people donate solely to get these credits. But there's where most federal money comes into play.
Should people get tax credits for charities? Well, say you donate to hospitals like my parents do. The benefits for that spread out to the community. What about food banks? If you give money to them, there's pressure taken off the government safety net. The argument could be made that you're helping the government and society at large in this way.
But, I believe, the "David Suzuki pay back clause" is the fact that they're spending more money monitoring the political activity of charities.
According to the numbers in the article, the Suzuki Foundation follows the rules. What the changes will do is probably place more organizations under audit, causing more money spent by said groups on accountants and lawyers to prove to the government's eyes that they are doing what they say they're doing.
I used Suzuki, because I recall Cons reacting to his political opinions and his charity a couple years ago. It was here that these orgs first came under scrutiny, and I believe the genesis of this decision.
No doubt. David Suzuki irritates them in a fundamental way. He's the Canadian equivalent of "Al Gore."
Leave David Suzuki and the CBC ALONE. David Suzuki is a Canadian icon and the CBC is a Canadian Insitution that keeps the country INFORMED from Victoria B.C., to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. and those who think otherwise are sadly mistaken and don't believe in the freedom of broadcast nor freedom of scientific proven research. How can men...because it was men who put this budget together...who are supposedly well educated, be soooo vendictive and short sighted?
Sharonapple88- I do understand the argument you're making, but I still think that keeping government and charity apart would be better. Many charities are more politically motivated and that is where I see the problem. It is hard to argue that food bank or hospital donations benefit society, but other charities maybe questionable. As an example, pro-choice and pro-life groups both appear to run much like charities, but are they both worthy of tax privileges, or neither, or only one? Different people will have different ideas, and each will think that their point of view is for the betterment of society. Rather than attempt to define which charities are worthy of tax benefits, and which are not, I think it is only fair to treat them all the same which either means support them all (which I think would be irresponsible. Many people would be angry because they would think that charities that go against their views shouldn't be supported, and will feel like they are being forced to support causes that they don't agree with), or support none of them.
Charities that hand out tax credits are suppose to limit their political activities to 10% of their resources, mainly on advocacy. I doubt any pro-choice or pro-life group would fit. (These groups seemed focused solely on advocacy.)
Have any of the charities (like the David Suzuki Foundation) been found in violation of the rules? Not so far, but it seems as though the government's not satisfied with this. So be it. Will they find anything? Doubtful.
As for eliminating the tax credit, it's been argued that these credits help people who are in the middle-class donate. They get a bigger bang for their buck when they do. So eliminating them would hurt charities supported by the middle-class. You could potentially throw the David Suzuki Foundation as a charity supported by the middle-class in Canada since according to one annual report, three-quarters of their donors gave less than $500.
Anyway, some things to consider.
Post a Comment