Blizzard: Cut funding to environmental groups

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
67
Politicians of all stripes are wringing their hands these days, trying to find ways to cut budgets without hurting services.

A quick surf through government websites shows where this province can save hundreds of thousands of dollars: Cut off funding to environmental groups such as the David Suzuki’s Foundation (DSF) — and a raft of other organizations that are big on fancy names — but thin on details.

Oh, sure. I can hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Trees will go unhugged. Unloved whales will wash up on our shores. Civilization as we know it will end.

Take a look at how deep the eco trough runs.

On the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation (FOGF) website, we learn that the David Suzuki Foundation received $120,000 in 2007 and $100,000 in 2009.

The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, a not-for-profit organization which has charitable status and was established by the provincial government in 2005 with $25 million of public dollars.

The 2007 grant is for the DSF to “complete an economic assessment of the non-market value of the Greenbelt’s natural capital or ‘ecological goods and services,’ providing an economic rationale for maintaining the Greenbelt in the Ontario landscape permanently.” Whatever that means.

As for the 2009 cheque: “DSF is reaching out to governments and industry leaders to foster political and private sector support for enhancing the value of ecological services in the Greenbelt and better protecting its natural resources,” according to the website.

The DSF also received between $100,000 and $250,000 from the government- affiliated Ontario Trillium Foundation in 2010.

Another Group, Environmental Defence, has received $1.6 million from FOGF.

In June, 2006, they received $600,000.

Environmental Defence is, “the coordinating organization for the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, a coalition of groups who share a common vision for improving Ontarians’ quality of life and protecting valuable agricultural and environmental lands.”

In June, 2008, the group received another $750,000: “The project continues the work of the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance and Municipal Leaders for the Greenbelt to protect and strengthen the Greenbelt by garnering provincial and municipal support,” says the website.

All in all, a cozy you-scratch-mine and I’ll scratch your kind of set-up.

An organization gets $25 million of tax dollars — and then gets to dole out grants to a variety of agencies it deems worthy. Some of the agencies they support — such $250,000 for “Green-belting Toronto’s governments,” to the Toronto Environmental Allliance — aren’t even in the Greenbelt.

As for Suzuki, he raised eyebrows during the election when he endorsed Premier Dalton McGuinty in an ad extolling McGuinty’s 2003 pledge to close coal-fired plants.

The only coal plant closed so far is Lakeview — which was shut on orders from a Tory environment minister, MPP Elizabeth Witmer.

There are several reasons why these grants should stop. First, when
the government balks at paying for cancer drugs, hippy-dippy programs like these should be first to get the axe.

Second, when a government hands out money to a group, and the person who’s the face of that group turns around and endorses that government in an election, it leads to uncomfortable questions of conflict of interest.

(The DSF told Sun reporter Terry Dvidson in September that Suzuki stepped down from the foundation’s board “sometime in the summer months.”)

Still, better all round if the government just ends these grants right now.




source:


Blizzard: Cut funding to environmental groups | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun


Oh Christina, you're a naughty girl. :lol:
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Actually there is a much easier way to improve the government balance sheets than by removing the relatively piddling amounts mentioned in Ms. Blizzard's article, and that is to put the tax levels on foreign corporations back where they were a few years ago. Mr. Harper was warned that cutting revenues by reducing taxes on corporate income would lead to massive deficits, but he did it anyway. The article is an example of a right wing journalist targeting a program she and her corporate friends don't like while completely ignoring the real problem.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
As soon as any charitable organization starts dabbling in politics it should loose its tax free status.

I don't have a problem with that just so long as the same rule is applied to major corporations, especially those owned by foreigners.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
As soon as any charitable organization starts dabbling in politics it should loose its tax free status.


That policy does already exist to a degree.

You may recall a couple of Federal elections ago, Suzuki was rattling his sabre about Harper's stance on the environment. At that time, Suzuki took a stance and made a recommendation (of sorts) to not support the PC's.... Once that was done, there was a motion to have the CRA investigate the Suzuki Foundation's status as an entity that qualified as a charitable body.

Suzuki shut his pie-hole very quickly after that.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Same logic as i no more corporate welfare but corporations do not have tax exempt status nor can they give tax receipts.

No, but they do lobby politicians using money that might be better given to their shareholders. Not only that, but they do it without the permission of their shareholders, many of whom might not necessarily share the views of of the company.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Actually there is a much easier way to improve the government balance sheets than by removing the relatively piddling amounts mentioned in Ms. Blizzard's article, and that is to put the tax levels on foreign corporations back where they were a few years ago. Mr. Harper was warned that cutting revenues by reducing taxes on corporate income would lead to massive deficits, but he did it anyway. The article is an example of a right wing journalist targeting a program she and her corporate friends don't like while completely ignoring the real problem.
Bingo. Incredible how much MBAs never factor in the cost to future generations.

http://tunes.digitalock.com/fromsmallthingsonedaybigthingscome.mp3

The mathematics show what happens when one allows ownership to go into a positive feedback cycle.

Given that Canada is one of two countries in the world self-sufficient in resources, combined with how its resource-extracting companies dominate outside its border, it means it could kick ass the way Uncle Sam kicks at international military.

The only competition is Australia.

Uncle Sam says Americans must behave themselves outside American borders as if they were at home, so what if Canadian law said Canadian companies must behave in Chile as if at home.

And that's where I get confused. Were those miners so obnoxious that Ottawa told them to be that way somewhere else?
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
If the choice is to cut police services, or park's department environmental initiative education programs ... seems like a no-brainer when it comes to cutting provincial expenditure.