Jagmeet Singh Reinstates NDP MP David Christopherson Of Critic Role After Outcry

565 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101

Furthermore the data makes it seem like MPs had to personally approve of the grants.   In 2016, the government was sued for denying applications from anti-choice groups, and thus the attestation.

6079_Smith_W

But they didn't fix it.

And Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP, got the top prize since the 2015 election. The election was in the fall, so I don't see how she inherited anything.

SocialJustice101

They did fix it with the attestation.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 I wasn't working for a church. In all cases they were non-profit organizations. And what I said was in almost all cases they were projects that were part of our annual activities; so while we knew it wasn't guaranteed funding, some of it was work we were depending on.  

Then they should have no trouble affirming that their core mandate does not include speaking against Charter Rights or reproductive rights for women. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
   Again, if you read some of the articles they were talking about camps and other projects being scaled back. So if the question is whether this is going to mean reduced services, and if people are going to hurt because of it I expect they probably will. 

Talking about and doing are two different things.  People are hurt by people who oppose Charter Rights and reproductive freedom for women. That is not something I want governments to support. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  ​I don't know if any of you have looked at the original report by Abortion Rights Coalition that started this all. Not only did they specifically target groups which did anti-abortion work, the total number was less than 60 from 2010 to 2017 (125 if you count chapters of the same group). Square that with the over 1500 groups that were denied funding this year because they would not sign. 

I see that as a positive. My opinion isn't based on what the Abortion Coalition requested. The summer jobs program has specific goals which include supporting the LBGTQ community. It seems to me funding organizations that are opposed to LBGTQ rights under the charter are in opposition to the purpose of the program. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

OTTAWA -- A reproductive rights advocate who urged the Liberals to deny summer job grants to groups pushing for restricted access to abortion said the government may have gone a step too far in rolling out the changes. 

They are entitled to their opinion. I'm not a group think type. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

But (Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada) said she thinks the message is getting lost, thanks to vague language that has faith-based groups fearful that the government is treading on fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion and thought guaranteed by the charter

I have agreed all along that the manner in which this was done was inappropriate and politically motivated. I hope the wording is clarified and that the same organizations still feel they cannot sign it so do not receive funds from this program.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

One other interesting thing ideological purists might want to check out on the arcc website is the list of parties whose ridings sponsored the most anti-choice organiations, and the most benevolent parties since the last election. The Liberals came in first on that second list, but both the Consevatives and NDP are on it too.  

Why would that matter? Like most people my vote will be based on the economy, more specifically if a party is capable of running the economy and what direction they want to take it in. I already determined Singh is head and shoulders above Trudeau, and that's an understatement. If I had not Trudeau trying to bully BC would have sent me to the NDP. 

I'm not an "ideological purist" because there is no ideology involved on my end. I don't consider human rights to be ideological or debatable. A woman has a right to whatever she wants with or to her body at all times. 

Sean in Ottawa

Is nobody interested in discussing the loophole I raised and why that is a problem?

Consider a case -- a group of large faith-based organizations fund an anti-choice group. The faith based organizations are anti-choice but they qualify as the government has directly declared since being anti-choice is not their core but a side activity. The funded group does not qualify considering the core mandate. So the funded anti-choice group winds up, hands the money back to the qualifying faith organizations who merely do the activity as a cooperative venture instead of a formal organization and they qualify for the funding. Each of the faith based organization -- who collectively were the hands behind the whole thing -- can then proceed exactly as before.

The issue of how core mandate is defined has to do with structure rather than activity so a re-structure can solve the problem without missing a beat.

Now of course, while the government says the faith based organizations are not affected now, as this is not their core mandate, when people see this result, the government would then have to redefine the clarification or leave it in place knowing that it is essentially useless.

I am sure each of the 60 anti-choice groups that have been discussed have backers, in some cases the same ones.

It is a bit like playing both ends against the middle to say that this statement is meaningless so will not affect many people and that it actually does something at the same time.

I am sure this year organization that do not qualify might be out but that does not mean that their backers did not access the exact same money to do the same activity just not organized under that same core mandate.

It would be worth, over time, looking at the net total of money accessed by the backers and the specific organizations to see if there is any net change.

Pondering

The wording is going to be changed for next year so it's a moot point. 

6079_Smith_W

@Sean

I think some Liberal MPs were pretending that clandestine machinations like that were going on, in part because it bolsters their myth that this is some mysterious plot. And that clearly this involves people who are looking to pull the wool over our collective eyes and do something bad.

But anyone who has administered a CSJ project knows that it is pretty strictly controlled, including visits from workers, and there is an accounting of the funds. Also, the money isn't handed in a lump sum; it comes increments (usually biweekly, if I remember) and the contacts are the people and organization on the form; I expect if one just decided to fold the project would stop, and all the funds would have to be accounted for and any excess handed back. Turning them over to a third party, and telling the feds to just write the cheques to these other people instead is something I don't see flying.

Also, with the exception of extra expenses it is JOB funding, which also means it is specific to the student or other person being hired. So if someone were inclined to resort to fraud, they would be a party to it too.

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@Sean

I think some Liberal MPs were pretending that clandestine machinations like that were going on, in part because it bolsters their myth that this is some mysterious plot. And that clearly this involves people who are looking to pull the wool over our collective eyes and do something bad.

But anyone who has administered a CSJ project knows that it is pretty strictly controlled, including visits from workers, and there is an accounting of the funds. Also, the money isn't handed in a lump sum; it comes increments (usually biweekly, if I remember) and the contacts are the people and organization on the form; I expect if one just decided to fold the project would stop, and all the funds would have to be accounted for and any excess handed back. Turning them over to a third party, and telling the feds to just write the cheques to these other people instead is something I don't see flying.

Also, with the exception of extra expenses it is JOB funding, which also means it is specific to the student or other person being hired. So if someone were inclined to resort to fraud, they would be a party to it too.

 

I really don't understand the point here. Coalitions often form entities -- they can un-form them and act together as well. At most they would lose a season. A decision to do a partnership coalition or to set up a legal structure is a choice. It is not about fraud if the loophole is legal. All you say about the visits etc. is not material if the definition is to core mandate. The structure of a project itself is quite transferable if the parties agree. Even the people running it can be transfered. If the program is big enough the change in organization is quite simple. At the end of the day this activity is largely funded and directed by large entities that have other core mandates. If you look at the supporters behind the names on the page you can see they are there.

What the government could do is address the definition of what the organization is and its partners to prevent this from happening but there is no indication that this will happen or is the intention. The government said it is happy to give this money to organizations with anti-choice views so long as it is not their core mandate...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So the funded anti-choice group winds up, hands the money back to the qualifying faith organizations who merely do the activity as a cooperative venture instead of a formal organization and they qualify for the funding. Each of the faith based organization -- who collectively were the hands behind the whole thing -- can then proceed exactly as before.

Perhaps I've read your example wrong.  But any transfer of funds to any organizations participating in this is for wages.  I do seem to recall suggesting that if the government (and we) underwrite the cost of paying a student to cut lawn on behalf of an anti-gay or anti-choice group, we'd be effectively subsidizing them, since they wouldn't have to pay to have their lawn cut out of their own pocket, and could use the money they save to laminate huge, twin-bed sized posters of 10th month abortions or whatever.

But having read the actual form a little closer, it doesn't seem too likely that this summer job money will ever go to something that an organization critically needs in order to function -- the beneficiary is really the student who gets a summer job.  The declaration is in place to ensure that the student isn't being asked to do something that we shouldn't reasonably support.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. Plus despite a few Liberal MPs' claims about why they needed this attestation,  I don't think there is any actual evidence that anyone is playing shell games here.

ARCC seems to have done a pretty thorough accounting, including finding out who hasn't declared after the fact to CRA. None of that involved hidden projects or misappropriated funds.

Aside from a bit of additional funding to support the work (and yes, it all requires receipts to show it was spent) it is all job money.

SocialJustice101

Smith, don't take Liberal MPs word for it.  You've done a pretty good job demonstrating exactly why the attestation was badly needed, by providing the info on existing funding of anti-choice groups under the CSJ program.

Mighty Middle

A longtime Liberal MP who voted against the federal government's controversial Canada Summer Jobs attestation has been removed from his job as a committee chair.

Scott Simms was quietly ousted as chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans Monday — losing a $11,900 salary bump that comes with the job.

"Yes, they removed me from the committee because of my vote," Simms confirmed to HuffPost Canada.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/19/scott-simms-canada-summer-jobs-...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"To me, that's a lack of respect. If I was to say to someone, 'Look, don't worry about it, just tick the box or whatever' — some people have a core fundamental belief that they don't believe in this,"

Don't believe in WHAT?

What don't they believe in, in the context of this application form?

It doesn't really matter; I'm just curious.  They're not being asked about their beliefs, so what's the sticking point?  Anyone?

ed'd to add:  just for fun, let's imagine religions using some of the bazillions of dollars they pull from wicker plates and pay no taxes on to fund charitable initiatives, with the sole condition being that the recipients of their free money not use it to try to prove that the world is billions of years old, or that there is no God.

If me and my charity just want to buy soccer balls for inner city kids, should I refuse to agree to those terms?

I just want to buy soccer balls, FFS.  And I can believe whatever I personally, as an individual, want to believe.  Someone show me the problem with accepting their money on their terms.

Caissa

Where in the attestation is the word "belief" used?

Pages