It isn't just those groups that are being shut out. And they would be shut out by a requirement to not use funds for that purpose. But that declaration also shuts out groups that do anti-poverty work, immigrant support work, and support for prisoners.
Again, this is documented in some of the articles in the other thread.
The intention of the attestation was to bar anti-choice/anti-gay advocacy groups from receiving taxpayers' dollars.
But some religious charitable organizations, which would have been accepted under the program, decided to exploit this opportunity to portray themselves as victims. They are using people's ignorance for media exposure.
Core mandate: This is the primary activities undertaken by the organization that reflect the organization’s ongoing services provided to the community. It is not the beliefs of the organization, and it is not the values of the organization.
That pretty well settles the issue, as far as I'm concerned. Is Christopherson (and his defenders) saying that we should fund organizations whose "primary activities" and "ongoing services provided to the community" include anti-abortion activities? Or is he just misreading plain English?
Bravo to the NDP for taking this stand of principle.
However - the question of how Christopherson was turfed, the role of the Leader, and the unquestioning obedience of the members, remains to be addressed.
Nathan Cullen also Criticized Liberals Over Abortion Rules For Canada Summer Jobs Program
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/24/ndp-slams-liberals-over-abortio...
What is meant by “activities”? And who should judge whether they are “primary”? Obviously, an anti-abortion group’s primary activity could be discerned from either it’s name or a simple google search. Thus, the question is unnecessary. As for others, they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law. Again, question 28.1 should suffice, thereby avoiding these complications.
What is meant by “activities”? And who should judge whether they are “primary”? Obviously, an anti-abortion group’s primary activity could be discerned from either it’s name or a simple google search. Thus, the question is unnecessary. As for others, they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law. Again, question 28.1 should suffice, thereby avoiding these complications.
The application is based on self-reporting, but the government reserves the right to investigate. The question is very necessary, because anti-abortion groups took the govt to court last year. The govt had to settle because they didn't provide a specific reason for declining funding to anti-abortion advocacy groups. Now they can. Section 28.1 requires compliance with all laws , but there is nothing in the current law that prohibits anti-choice/anti-gay advocacy. The attestation is the only legal defense for denying funding to such groups.
Advocacy? I thought it was activities? Not speech, but action. Which just goes to my previous point.
Free speech is a negative right to be left alone by the government, not an entitlement to get funded by the government, to facilitate your speech.Advocacy? I thought it was activities? Not speech, but action. Which just goes to my previous point.
Advocacy is activities. The Harper government was very ruthless with women's groups and environmental groups, threatening to pull funding at any indication of advocacy, That's the exact term they used - "advocacy".
No reasonable person could argue that government has to fund all types of advocacy. That would include Nazi organizations, cults, etc.
And that was wrong too. What you’re saying is government should fund only those advocates whose viewpoints it agrees with. Because advocacy is speech. I’m saying that funding for a government program of general applicability should be viewpoint neutral.
And that was wrong too. What you’re saying is government should fund only those advocates whose viewpoints it agrees with. Because advocacy is speech. I’m saying that funding should be viewpoint neutral.
Legally speaking, yes, the Government can choose which advocacy projects it wishes to support. That's always been the case. If government had to remain neutral, nothing would ever get done. Is supporting the environment neutral? Is supporting the homeless neutral? Some conservatives would disagree.
We have elections for a reason. Elections have consequences.
If the government makes funding of a program available to all applicants who meet a general programmatic criteria, it should not deny that funding because an applicant has particular viewpoint on an issue tangential to the program,
If the government makes funding of a program available to all applicants who meet a general programmatic criteria, it should not deny that funding because an applicant has particular viewpoint on an issue tangential to the program,
Viewpoints are irrelevant, as long as they don't directly affect the organization's primary activities and services rendered to the community.
In the corporate world, we all sign a Code of Conduct which includes non-discrimination. Does everyone personally agree with non-discrimination? I doubt it.
As for others, they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law.
Requiring an organization to state their mandate is actually a perfectly normal part of the funding process. No group will get funded by saying "it's hard to explain, but if you just give us that money then you can see what we actually do with it when we do it".
This requirement is no more draconian than the things we all had to agree to when we signed up for a babble account. Surely the spending of limited public funds is as important as a discussion board.
If the government makes funding of a program available to all applicants who meet a general programmatic criteria, it should not deny that funding because an applicant has particular viewpoint on an issue tangential to the program,
No, josh, you're misreading. The clarified guideline clearly states you can have whatever reactionary deranged viewpoint you like. You can believe that walls should be built on the Mexico-Canada border, once climate change washes away the U.S.
But if you publish and distribute leaflets or newsletters pushing that viewpoint? If you send representatives to sit on media panels to say those things? Yes, that's obviously an "activity" of your organization, not just an "opinion". What is complicated about this?
Government is saying here: "You believe abortion is evil, that's just fine. You advocate against reproductive rights as one of your group's primary activities - go raise your own funds." I'd go a step further and say, "You spend a single dime advocating for your perverted views, we're cutting you off."
And if Christopherson and his defenders don't understand that distinction, maybe they should ask more questions and engage in more discussion before breaking ranks in a party vote.
But I still would like to know who removed Christopherson, how, for what reason, and why MPs and members of the party aren't asking this question.
But I still would like to know who removed Christopherson, how, for what reason, and why MPs and members of the party aren't asking this question.
I assume no one is questioning it because it's been done before, on multiple occassions. I recall Jack Layton removing Bev Desjarlais from the shadow cabinet after she voted against same-sex marriage. (She ended up losing her nomination and then worked for a Conservative minister.)
This is very disappointing to read. Individual MPs should have the right of dissent. This is another big blow to Singh's rapidly failing leadership.
This is very disappointing to read. Individual MPs should have the right of dissent. This is another big blow to Singh's rapidly failing leadership.
No one can take away an MP's rights to dissent. At the same time, the party leaders can chose the shadow cabinet they want to present to voters. They also have the full right to expel MPs from the party, something that was not done in this case.
But I still would like to know who removed Christopherson, how, for what reason, and why MPs and members of the party aren't asking this question.I assume no one is questioning it because it's been done before, on multiple occassions. I recall Jack Layton removing Bev Desjarlais from the shadow cabinet after she voted against same-sex marriage. (She ended up losing her nomination and then worked for a Conservative minister.)
"[N]o one is questioning it because it's been done before..."? Is that an observation, an explanation, or a justfication? Do you agree that the Leader should have the power to appoint or remove the shadow cabinet (that means, the Leader acting alone, without being answerable to anyone else)?
They also have the full right to expel MPs from the party, something that was not done in this case.
No - the constitution gives the Leader the power to tell Elections Canada whether or not some candidate is running under the party banner. The Leader has no power to expel members from the party, nor MPs from the caucus (if that's what you actually meant). Not under the rules, anyway. But: Do you think the Leader, acting alone and unaccountably, ought to have that power?
Why don't members care about the rules that they themselves promulgate in convention? Why doesn't the federal Council exercise its constitutional powers?
These are some of the questions which led me to not renew my membership many years ago. There were more "political" reasons as well (turfing of the Ontario Waffle, opposition to Québec's right to self-determination, which latter was finally cured by the adoption of the Sherbrooke Declaration, and others). But I was always concerned about the absence of debate and accountability of "leaders", and I still am.
If the government makes funding of a program available to all applicants who meet a general programmatic criteria, it should not deny that funding because an applicant has particular viewpoint on an issue tangential to the program,
Viewpoints are irrelevant, as long as they don't directly affect the organization's primary activities and services rendered to the community.
In the corporate world, we all sign a Code of Conduct which includes non-discrimination. Does everyone personally agree with non-discrimination? I doubt it.
And non-discrimination is covered by 28.1. An organization’s primary purpose is not too difficult to discover objectively. Making them swear to it is gratuitous, at best.
As for others, they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law.Requiring an organization to state their mandate is actually a perfectly normal part of the funding process. No group will get funded by saying "it's hard to explain, but if you just give us that money then you can see what we actually do with it when we do it".
This requirement is no more draconian than the things we all had to agree to when we signed up for a babble account. Surely the spending of limited public funds is as important as a discussion board.
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
If a party Leader cannot even pick their own "strike-team" from the existing MPs, what can (s)he do? It seems like a reasonable "power." I suppose removal from the party should only be used in extreme cases, and should require ratification by the federal executive council, and possibly the caucus.
If the government makes funding of a program available to all applicants who meet a general programmatic criteria, it should not deny that funding because an applicant has particular viewpoint on an issue tangential to the program,
No, josh, you're misreading. The clarified guideline clearly states you can have whatever reactionary deranged viewpoint you like. You can believe that walls should be built on the Mexico-Canada border, once climate change washes away the U.S.
But if you publish and distribute leaflets or newsletters pushing that viewpoint? If you send representatives to sit on media panels to say those things? Yes, that's obviously an "activity" of your organization, not just an "opinion". What is complicated about this?
Government is saying here: "You believe abortion is evil, that's just fine. You advocate against reproductive rights as one of your group's primary activities - go raise your own funds." I'd go a step further and say, "You spend a single dime advocating for your perverted views, we're cutting you off."
And if Christopherson and his defenders don't understand that distinction, maybe they should ask more questions and engage in more discussion before breaking ranks in a party vote.
But I still would like to know who removed Christopherson, how, for what reason, and why MPs and members of the party aren't asking this question.
Without clarifying what primary activity means, that clarification is meaningless. Under that definition, an organization could do those things if that was not its primary purpose. Or maybe not. And where do you draw the line? Is a newspaper ad ok, but leafleting not ok? Can’t tell.
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
"Organization's Mandate" is Section A, Question 10 of the application.
https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/apps/EForms/pdf/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf
Without clarifying what primary activity means, that clarification is meaningless. Under that definition, an organization could do those things if that was not its primary purpose. Or maybe not. And where do you draw the line? Is a newspaper ad ok, but leafleting not ok? Can’t tell.
The government also provided supplementary information with very specific examples: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/supplementary-information.html
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
"Organization's Mandate" is Section A, Question 10 of the application.
https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/apps/EForms/pdf/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf
Then the disputed question is totally unnecessary.
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
"Organization's Mandate" is Section A, Question 10 of the application.
https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/apps/EForms/pdf/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf
Then the disputed question is totally unnecessary.
As I already explained, the attestitation provides a legal basis for declining an application, which did not exist before. They "court-proofed" the application.
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
"Organization's Mandate" is Section A, Question 10 of the application.
https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/apps/EForms/pdf/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf
Then the disputed question is totally unnecessary.
As I already explained, the attestitation provides a legal basis for declining an application, which did not exist before. They "court-proofed" the application.
Deny it based on viewpoint. Or is there a difference between a mandate and a core mandate? How about a core core mandate. It’s a sham to deny money to people with a particular viewpoint. Next they’ll be asking if BDS is not part of a group’s core mandate. Or a Conservative government could change the definition of anti-Semitism to include opposition to the existence of the State of Israel and make funding contingent on swearing that that’s not part of the group’s core mandate. And on and on as we slide down the slippery slope.
Moreover, organizations don't really have Charter rights in Canada. Only individuals have Charter rights.
The application does not mention viewpoints or beliefs. It only deals with the organization's mandate. If you feel like to you have change the terminology to make your point, then you are not really addressing the case at hand.
The application does not mention viewpoints or beliefs. It only deals with the organization's mandate. If you feel like to you have change the terminology to make your point, then you are not really addressing the case at hand.
I’m not changing the terminology. They use mandate and core mandate. What’s the difference and why the need to use both terms.
The intention of the attestation was to bar anti-choice/anti-gay advocacy groups from receiving taxpayers' dollars.
No it wasn't. It was to declare the Trudeau Liberals progressive for free. It was a no cost move. The type of people who object aren't Liberal voters.
Very few people care about precedence. They are looking at the surface and the surface is that the Liberals want to protect rights, the Conservatives and the NDP want to give money to anti-choice anti-gay organizations on principle.
I said it before Trudeau was elected. the phrase "the Conservatives and the NDP" harms the NDP and only the NDP. It helps the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The application does not mention viewpoints or beliefs. It only deals with the organization's mandate. If you feel like to you have change the terminology to make your point, then you are not really addressing the case at hand.
I’m not changing the terminology. They use mandate and core mandate. What’s the difference and why the need to use both terms.
You did feel it was necessary to change the term "mandate" to "viewpoints", in order to make your case. Those two are very different terms. I don't think there is any difference between "organization's mandate" and "organization's core mandate". Neither of them sounds like someone's personal "viewpoints."
The intention of the attestation was to bar anti-choice/anti-gay advocacy groups from receiving taxpayers' dollars.
No it wasn't. It was to declare the Trudeau Liberals progressive for free. It was a no cost move. The type of people who object aren't Liberal voters.
Can't it be both? Does anyone really care about the latter? Politicians play politics. You don't say....
If there is no difference, why use both of them up in separate questions?
If there is no difference, why use both of them up in separate questions?
It's possible that they wanted to show lenience towards charitable organizations who also have a minor so-con advocacy wing, but not as their "core mandate."
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.
Ah, OK. They're being asked to state that their mandate does not defy Charter rights.
I was responding to your post in which you kind of acted like groups seeking funding were under some kind of undue burden having to be able to say, in words, what they wish to do.
Again, this really isn't confusing or difficult or draconian or unprecedented.
The groups most vocally protesting this know what their mandate is. That's the not problem.
The liberals are trying to create "wedge issues" here with this.
The proof is in the specific wording of the section in question. "Other rights" and the listing of examples of such. Clearly there are many many more "other rights" than what is listed. So why didn't the liberals list them all in this application? Why aren't the posters here concerned about ALL "other rights" that people in Canada may have?
Best thing for the NDP to do is stear clear away from these wedge issues created by the liberals/conservatives!!!
I suspect that a good solid handfull of NDP MP's suspect that Jagmeet went too far and actions like disallowing free votes on obvious wedge issues from the conservative/liberals are only going to hurt the NDP from expanding beyond 50 seats in the lower house and show possible weaknesses Jagmeet may not be able to overcome.
I wouldn't doubt it if these handful NDP MP's are smelling blood and sharpening their knives for 2020.
Another possibility could be that the same handful of NDP MP's have been giving Jagmeet a rough start as leader. And Jagmeet, looking the assert his authority, stacked the deck to create a dissenting voice to make an example of.
If there is no difference, why use both of them up in separate questions?
It's possible that they wanted to show lenience towards charitable organizations who also have a minor so-con advocacy wing, but not as their "core mandate."
I don’t see why mandate wouldn’t cover that situation.
The real reason they’re using core mandate is as a subterfuge to engage in viewpoint/advocacy discrimination. Mandate would suffice if that wasn’t the intention.
They also have the full right to expel MPs from the party, something that was not done in this case.
The Federal leader has no power to expel or suspend party members. That power resides at the provincial level in the prov council or executive (might vary by province). You might recall the exercise of this power when Buzz Hargrove had his membership suspended for endorsing the Liberals. This is one instance where the party constitution actually means something.
If you really meant expel from caucus, that's correct.
But they’re not asking them to state their mandate.Ah, OK. They're being asked to state that their mandate does not defy Charter rights.
I was responding to your post in which you kind of acted like groups seeking funding were under some kind of undue burden having to be able to say, in words, what they wish to do.
Again, this really isn't confusing or difficult or draconian or unprecedented.
The groups most vocally protesting this know what their mandate is. That's the not problem.
They are being asked to state their mandate in question 10.
I guess some of you here who have no problem denying these groups funding, or thinking there is no problem with them lying about their core mandate because the government can't understand their own form. If Trudeau was really interested in mediating what is essentially a misunderstanding based on their own mistake, you'd think they would have done something other than what they did, which was to send back applicants' forms.
Service Canada has told the groups they can resubmit with the full attestation, and some are making a second try by requesting accommodation for their religion and conscience. But unless the government backs down, their applications will be rejected again.
For the Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto alone, the impact on their nearly 30 parishes and charities is $1.1 million in grant applications. “We’re kind of in limbo right now, but obviously making contingency plans,” said spokesman Neil MacCarthy.
Youth for Christ’s chapters across Canada have used the grants for years to fund more than 100 student jobs annually. Toronto City Mission, which runs day camps in impoverished neighbourhoods, received $70,000 last year for 16 positions. Winnipeg’s Centerpoint Church has used the grants for 24 years to hire two summer students; Mill Bay Baptist Church on Vancouver Island used a grant last year to hire a First Nations student. All have seen their applications sent back this year over the attestation.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/groups-scramble-for-replacement-fu...
And I hope you also have no problem with the NDP reaping the results of this at the ballot box.
Personally, I see this as a big mistake that will alienate both supporters like myself, and people who might be inclined to vote NDP.
As for internal issues, I don't see this as a smart move for a party looking to bring members together after a leadership campaign.
They are being asked to state their mandate in question 10.
But you seemed to think this was somehow nebulous and difficult.
Is the problem that you think they're being asked the same question twice (!!!) or is the problem that:
they are asking an organization to make a value judgment about itself, and which of its activities are primary. Or else have someone else do it. Under penalty of law.
If they can't answer the question twice, how will they answer it once?
It isn't the same question Magoo. In the one case they are asked to state their mandate. In the other, they are asked to swear that their mandate supports charter rights, including reproductive rights and not discriminating on the basis of sex.
So that's the onerous part?
Geez, that's as silly as being asked to say why you want to buy a gun, and also being asked to state that you won't use it to shoot someone. Can't some civil servant just look at the first answer and do the math? How many checkboxes are we supposed to be willing to check! I don't have all day for this!!
There is a big difference between viewpoints held by members of an organization and advocacy as organization's mandate. The government has the full right to ensure that they fund organizational activities, including advocacy, which align with constitutional principles, their election platform and priorities.If there is no difference, why use both of them up in separate questions?
It's possible that they wanted to show lenience towards charitable organizations who also have a minor so-con advocacy wing, but not as their "core mandate."
I don’t see why mandate wouldn’t cover that situation.
The real reason they’re using core mandate is as a subterfuge to engage in viewpoint/advocacy discrimination. Mandate would suffice if that wasn’t the intention.
As for "viewpoint discrimination", I've seen absolutely no evidence of that. That's pure speculation, not supported by wording of the application. The explanation provided by the govenment further clarifies that only activies are being accessed, not beliefs. Read it for yourself:
6079_Smith_W, Those organizations were declined because they did not fully complete the application, not because their core mandate was determined to be in conflict with human rights. They are playing politics. Read the statement from the religious leaders. It's full of misinformation and distortions. Apparently basic integrity is not a part of their belief system.
However - the question of how Christopherson was turfed, the role of the Leader, and the unquestioning obedience of the members, remains to be addressed.
There is no question. Removal of a critic role is solely the decision of the leader.
Why would you even think otherwise is kind of Mystifying.
Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
The applicants who don't want to sign aren't the ones claiming that words in a form mean something other than what they clearly say.
Speaking of misinformation and distortions. And playing politics.
It isn't the same question Magoo. In the one case they are asked to state their mandate. In the other, they are asked to swear that their mandate supports charter rights, including reproductive rights and not discriminating on the basis of sex.
"Attest", not "swear."
"Respects" Charter Rights, not "Supports" Charter Rights.
Those are slight, but meaningful differences.
