It is also a given that in the pursuit of its own partisan advantage, it often seeks to deny the same to its opponents. It does not follow that it is always wrong to do so.
Were the government to ban opposition parties or to censor the press, it would be in clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed liberties, not to say basic norms of liberal democracy: it is difficult to think of any circumstances that would justify such draconian measures, and if there were, it would be the circumstances, not the motive — it would not be sufficient that the government "meant well."
So, too, its refusal to provide Parliament with the information it demands, whether in the matter of the Afghan prisoners or the F-35s, cannot be defended, and would not be redeemed by honourable motives. Ditto its abuse of the power of prorogation, or its habitual invocation of time allocation to shut down debate, or the vast omnibus budget bill now before the House, among a very long list.
But there are also things it has done that, while clearly in its narrow partisan interest, also happen to be right in principle. The addition of 30 Commons seats, mostly from Ontario and the West, is one example: whatever it means to the Tories' electoral chances, there is no denying these regions were severely under-represented in the House. A more arguable example would be the abolition of the per-vote subsidy to political parties.
Very well. What are we to make, then, of the Tories' latest moves to defund their critics — not parties this time, but advocacy groups? Some of these, such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy or the National Council of Welfare, are creatures of the federal government, and dependent on it for funding. Others, like the many environmental and charitable groups that, notwithstanding their charitable tax status, engage in "political activity," are outside government, but dependent on it nevertheless, for favourable tax treatment. Was it improper for the recent budget to have shut down several examples of the former, and cracked down on the latter? Is this yet another case of dissent being stifled?
Well yes, but no, I don't see anything improper about it. No doubt the Harper government found little to agree with in the work of either the NRTEE or the NCW. But it is not constitutionally obliged to fund its critics. These are not officers of Parliament, like the Auditor General, part of the formal apparatus by which government is held to account. They're lobby groups. While they may have a valid point of view, they perform no particular service that could not be obtained by other means. If a future government wants to revive them, it can.
The same applies to charitable groups. Nothing the government is proposing would forbid any of them from taking any position they like, political or otherwise, and shouting it from the rooftops, if they choose. The only question is whether they should be able to do so and still claim charitable tax status.
Under current law, charities are forbidden from overtly partisan advocacy of any kind. They are, however, permitted to devote up to 10 per cent (as a general rule; there are higher limits for smaller charities) of their resources, financial or otherwise, to more broadly defined "political activities" — for example, advocating that a particular law should be "retained, opposed, or changed," or some other equally explicit "call to political action."
It's a safe bet that a good many of the more well-known advocacy groups in the country, including the various think-tanks of the left and right, are operating in excess of this standard, and have been for years. As long as it's even-handed, I see nothing wrong with simply enforcing the law, as the government proposes. Indeed, I'd go further. Why should any charity be permitted to spend any money on advocacy of any kind?
Preferential tax exemptions are a form of public spending (among wonks they're known as "tax expenditures") in as much as they confer a particular benefit on the recipient that must be made up out of the taxes everyone else pays. Only whereas most decisions on public spending are made collectively, by and through Parliament, the tax exemption essentially privatizes the decision.
That might be OK where the cause in question is universally agreed to be advancing the public good. But the very nature of advocacy implies the opposite. You're entering into an argument, and if you're a registered charity, you're doing so on my dime.
Indeed, a charity's whole purpose, regardless of whether it engages in advocacy, may be repugnant to one corner of opinion or the other. In which case, why should they be forced to fund it? If it's wrong to conscript all taxpayers to fund political parties (and it is wrong, whether via explicit subsidy or the extraordinarily generous tax credit on political contributions), it is no less wrong to conscript them in support of the 85,000 charities (and counting) on the Canada Revenue Agency's list.
Let each, in short, contribute to his own causes, out of his own funds, rather than invoking his magnanimity to help himself to others'.
Charity is a wonderful thing. But virtue is supposed to be its own reward.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Andrew Coyne
No comments:
Post a Comment