If there’s any branch of the federal government that should top the “hate list” for Canadian conservatives it has to be the Canada Revenue Agency.

This is the agency, after all, that big government uses to painfully extract our hard-earned wealth – sometimes with bullying tactics – so that Bev Oda has the funds to buy more orange juice.

Yet strangely, the supposedly “conservative” Harper government is giving $8-million in additional funding to the CRA.

What’s going on here? Isn’t that like Hobbits giving arrows to Orcs? Or like New York Yankees fans cheering for the Boston Red Sox?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Nevertheless, it seems the Tories want to bolster the CRA’s muscle so it can more efficiently squelch free speech.

Well OK, that’s not really fair to the Conservatives.

What they really want is for the CRA to more thoroughly investigate charitable groups that are trying (horror of horrors) to sway public opinion.

Under our laws a registered charity is allowed to engage in what’s called non-partisan political activity only if the money spent represents no more than 10 per cent of its resources.

The Conservatives want more information to ensure charities are respecting the rules. The government, by the way, can suspend a group’s charitable status if it doesn’t get the information it wants or if it finds the group has exceeded the limits.

Why are the Tories so interested in charities engaging in political activity all of a sudden?

Well, it’s likely because certain charitable environmental groups have recently spent money in an attempt to turn Canadians against the government’s plan to build the Northern Gateway pipeline.

This opposition has made the Tories very unhappy.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, for instance, recently decried “environmental and other radical groups” whose opposition to the pipeline, he said, is undermining the national interest.

And so the Tories are unleashing their tax-law legions.

They also want to amend the Income Tax Act to introduce penalties for charities that exceed the limits on political activity or fail to report it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says this is just standard operating procedure. As he put it, “What is incumbent upon all charities is that they respect the laws regarding political activities. Those laws are clear.”

Technically speaking, of course, the Prime Minister is right – the law is the law.

But what if the law is wrong?

And in this case, the law gagging charities is most definitely wrong because it infringes on free speech.

To put it another way, democracy would be better served if charities had more freedom to advance ideas and to debate issues.

Certainly, this would help ensure voters are better informed when it comes to policies. And more-informed voters make more-informed votes.

Mind you, this is something Mr. Harper should already understand. In fact, as a conservative, he should be ideologically opposed to government rules and regulations that only serve to stifle free expression.

In other words, he should be loosening rather than tightening the regulatory straitjacket constricting the rights of charities.

And yes, if he did this it would give charities that oppose his agenda more freedom to speak out. But at the same time it would also give charities that support his agenda more freedom to do the same.

In the end the side with the best ideas would prevail in the court of public opinion. That’s the way it should be in a democracy.

If none of my arguments has convinced you, consider this final point: Less-regulated charities should frighten you far less than a better-funded Canada Revenue Agency.

Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/charities-silenced-by-the-taxman/article2433828/ >

The world has changed, and when it comes to its immigration system, Canada is not changing fast enough to compete in it. It is no longer possible to sit back languidly, as the best and the brightest queue on its doorstep. The global market for human capital is voracious. There may always be migrants wanting to come to Canada, but they may not be the ones that Canada needs. People with options are less and less likely to tolerate hidebound and cumbersome immigration process, waiting as long as eight years to have their applications processed. If you are ambitious, if you are skilled, if you are entrepreneurial, if you are educated, if you are impatient for success, you will look elsewhere. Increasingly, elsewhere is looking better.

Countries like Australia can now fast-track applications for permanent residency in less than a year. Nor is the competition coming only from developed countries. With growing prosperity at home, not every upwardly mobile citizen of China, India and Brazil sees re-locating overseas as the only path to success. In fact, the Chinese and Indian governments are using investment, tax and visa incentives to draw the highly educated children of Chinese and Indian immigrants to their ancestral homelands.

To ensure Canada remains attractive to the sharpest minds, the keenest entrepreneurs and greatest innovators, the country must move beyond an inefficient selection system and long waits. Why should people put their careers on hold, in order to come to Canada? “International competition is starting to heat up for the best immigrants, the Frank Stronachs, the people who will drive the economy,” notes Arthur Sweetman, an economist at McMaster University.

A new Gallup poll shows that Canada is the third most popular destination for people looking to relocate, with the U.S. first, and the U.K. second. Some might say that top three isn’t bad. But Canada fell a spot from 2010, the global survey of 452,199 adults in 151 countries shows. Despite the recession, the U.S. remains by far the world’s most desired destination for prospective migrants. Why isn’t Canada in first place?

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has enacted long-overdue reforms to streamline the selection system for economic immigrants. More points will be given for younger people with language proficiency who have prearranged employment.

He also plans to tackle the backlog by closing 100,000 files involving 300,000 people. This is a necessary measure – but one with consequences. It puts a stain on Canada’s credibility, and more reforms are necessary to ensure the problem doesn’t recur.

There is a need for a different kind of immigration officer to be sent to Canada’s missions around the world: not someone with a shiny badge, armed with a long list of bureaucratic time-consuming checks that may end up impeding people with desirable educations, entrepreneurial instincts and in-demand skills from immigrating to Canada. Instead they should be people whose job it is to find and recruit talent. Canada needs headhunters.

Canada needs to open the doors for the right kind of migrant. Faster processing times would enable Canada to take advantage of global cyclical downturns. The current unemployment rate for Spaniards under age 25 is 50 per cent, the overall rate in the country is 25 per cent. Spain has an army of highly literate, technologically savvy people sitting idle, people who could, in some cases, literally walk in and fill vacant jobs here in the hi-tech, telecommunications, mining and petroleum sectors.

Instead of having a system flexible enough to seize on such opportunities, we have immigration lawyers with stories of clients – such as a couple from South Africa with MBAs – who become so frustrated, they simply give up on Canada.

Mr. Kenney is trying. Ottawa has expanded the provincial-nominee category, which favours immigrants with prearranged employment. However, the model has some weaknesses: Newcomers entering through the nominee stream are also less educated, and have lower salaries over the long term, than those who enter through the federal points system. This category of workers remains crucial to Canada’s overall program, but it will not suffice.

Ottawa must do more to ensure newcomers can convert their foreign credentials and job experience. It must address discrimination in the labour market, and gate-keeping by professional associations. But first and foremost, Canada needs to change its mentality around immigration. It should be designed as much around whom Canada wants, as who wants Canada.

It is becoming a seller’s market. As Sergio Karas, a Toronto immigration lawyer, says, “People from developing countries are no longer automatically migrating to Canada.” Canada must learn to compete. Educated professionals, entrepreneurs, leaders, will not waste their most productive years trying just to get through the door. They know where they are wanted, and if they’re not wanted here they will pack up their bags and go to where they are, taking with them all their potential and promise.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canada-must-actively-recruit-the-best-and-brightest-immigrants/article2423327/ >

The recent federal budget launched a shot across the bows of Canadian registered charities to be careful about how they engage in political activities. The shot was not really a surprise as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Natural Resources minister, Joe Oliver, had already aimed a few volleys at the sector in their promotion of the tar sands and the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Canada’s charity law permits registered charities to engage in limited political activity for up to 10 per cent of their activity. The regulations define permissible activity. Excluded are partisan activities like supporting or opposing specific candidates or parties. The political activity must be related to the charitable purpose of the organization, and generally aimed at creating a broader understanding of issues and problems.

Most Canadian charities engage in no political activities. They are the traditional charities familiar to the Conservative members of the Senate who in recent hearings expressed surprise that charities had any public policy or advocacy role. In fact, most charities do not engage in public policy or advocacy, have never seen it as part of their role, and are likely unaware that they are permitted to do so.

Even among those charities that have an interest in public policy, there is a reluctance to engage, and few play anywhere close to the 10 per cent level. The reluctance arises in some cases from a lack of knowledge of the rules, or uncertainty in what they actually mean (despite the presence of a useful memo from the Canada Revenue Agency on the matter), or a fear of incurring the wrath of government.

Most charities in Canada are small, with few professional staff members, each of whom generally has to wear a variety of hats. They are primarily occupied with fundraising and operating issues. Fundraising may be in the form of applying for grants from governments or private grant-makers like foundations and corporations. Many of them deal with hard problems of human suffering that have fallen between the cracks of big governments and big charities.

As such, they don’t have much time for public policy work, for advocacy on their issue, or for buttonholing politicians. They hope others will play that role. Generally in the sector, everyone knows that what the big players with the big budgets, governments and corporations, do is important. Not only is it important, it can be transformative.

Since governments have shed much of their policy capacity in the last few decades, they need good ideas from outside, and particularly from those working close to the coal face of society’s problems. And many corporations are more than willing to step up to help deal with crucial community issues, as evidenced by so many changing their human resource practices to access our burgeoning immigrant talent better.

This is the intelligence of the public policy behind the 10 per cent rule, and why it is good that the CRA makes efforts to be clear about what is permitted. The CRA guidelines are sensible, and geared to helping inform public policy formation.

So it is useful that the recent federal budget drew attention to the permissibility of charities engaging in public policy. Many charities who weren’t aware of the 10 per cent rule can now gear up to add a public policy dimension to their work, to begin to get a grip on one of the biggest levers of change for the better. And those charities which have been reluctant, or been underutilizing their capacity, can gear up to be even more effective participants in the public discourse on important matters facing our communities and the nation.

As for the source of these funds for public good, we should be grateful that people in other countries want to help Canada. Where would stem cell research be had it not been for U.S. private support coming to Canada during the Bush years when stem cell research was discouraged in the U.S.? Where would many of our university research programs be without significant foreign sourced funding?

As we are happy to have foreign investment to develop our commerce, so should we be happy to have it support our communities.

Alan Broadbent is chairman and CEO of Avana Capital Corp. and founder and chair of Maytree.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1165638–a-call-for-canadian-charities-to-become-politically-active >

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper says charities that engage in too much politicking should be denied tax subsidies, he’s right.

There’s no good reason why environmental groups that oppose oil pipelines should be able to finance their activities, in part, on the backs of the general taxpayer.

The problem with Harper’s dictum, however, is that it’s not broad enough. He’s only putting the boots to charities that his Conservatives don’t like.

Parliament should end the tax subsidies going to all charities. Period.

That would include cutting off not only dubious charities, such as the right-wing Fraser Institute, but organizations that probably do some good, like the United Way.

The original idea of having the public subsidize charitable organizations was well-meaning.

Charities used to be organizations that engaged in uncontroversial good works, such as helping widows and orphans.

And so governments provided a tax break. Registered charities were given the privilege of issuing charitable receipts to donors. Those donors, in turn, could deduct a portion of their gift from the income tax they owed — money that, in the end, had to be made up by someone else.

In practice, that meant the public in general ended up subsidizing charities chosen by individual taxpayers.

Sharp-eyed entrepreneurs, particularly among those who want to influence public opinion, sensed the gravy-train potential and began to apply for charitable status — usually under the pretense of fostering education.

The upshot is that if I give $100 to the Red Maple Foundation (which is a charity publishing the pinkish This Magazine), you’re on the hook for $15 of that amount — regardless of what you think about pinkos or magazines.

Similarly, you and I are both on the hook for a portion of $2.8 million in so-called charitable donations that the Fraser Institute raised in 2010. Its donors too received charitable tax receipts.

I don’t know about you. But I resent having to subsidize an organization that spends much its time fulminating for neo-liberalism.

For the same reason, I have no interest in helping to fund the Canadian Constitution 2005 Foundation, which agitates against medicare.

And I really find it irritating to have my tax dollars subsidize the Manning Foundation for Democratic Education. It’s a training school for Conservative operatives started by former Reform leader Preston Manning that offers “certified programs in political management” as well as “faith/political interface programs.”

I have the funny feeling that I’m helping to teach young Conservatives how to manipulate robocalls.

That foundation, incidentally, is a subsidiary of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, an unabashed Conservative front.

Former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent’s new Broadbent Institute hasn’t yet asked for charitable status. When and if it does, I reckon many will resent subsidizing it too.

The Douglas-Coldwell Foundation, another NDP front, already has charitable status. But according to its latest public tax filing, it raises little money and does less.

So what is to be done?

The simplest answer is to scrap charitable tax receipts entirely. Distinguishing between real and bogus charities is an almost impossible task. Even established charities can be controversial.

Some fund medical testing on animals. Others promote birth control.

If real charities like the United Way need public funding, they should apply for grants up front — as does, say, the CBC.

And bogus charities?

Let me put it this way: If you want to finance Preston Manning’s world view, go to it. Just don’t ask me to chip in.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1165402–walkom-stephen-harper-s-attack-on-charities-doesn-t-go-far-enough >

It was a throwaway line in Jim Flaherty’s budget; a throwaway institution in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa.

Deeply buried in an attachment to the 2012 budget was a one-sentence announcement that the National Council of Welfarehad been axed.

For a few days anti-poverty activists thought low-income Canadians had been spared. By the time they discovered the truth, all they could do was mourn the demise of another once-proud social agency.

Since 1962, the National Council of Welfare had held up a mirror to the nation, highlighting the pockets of poverty and warning policy-makers of the consequences of neglecting those in need. It gave non-profit groups the facts they needed to speak credibly about hardship in a land of plenty. It tracked the emergence and growth of a crack in society between the comfortably well-off and the struggling. And it brought together social policy thinkers to find solutions to poverty — or at least keep the debate alive.

Now it’s gone. Kellie Leitch, parliamentary secretary to the minister of human resources, dismissed the loss offhandedly. “We are putting our policy resources to best use and reducing duplication,” she said, pointing to Campaign 2000 and Canada Without Poverty as high-profile non-profit organizations serving the same role.

Actually they don’t. They don’t have a government mandate “to advise the (human resources) minister on matters concerning poverty and the realities of low-income Canadians.” They don’t have the resources to buy Statistics Canada’s unpublished data. They don’t have the statutory authority to create opportunities for the poor to participate in the national decision-making process.

But Leitch’s rationale scarcely mattered. Everybody working in the field knew the real reason the Conservatives dumped the agency was that it was an unwanted piece of Liberal baggage. They hadn’t listened to it in years. They didn’t want to be nagged about poverty, inequality or social responsibility.

Scrapping the council saved an easy $1.1 million.

Only one MP, New Democrat Carol Hughes, challenged the decision in Parliament.

There was no outcry from the provinces. They were happy to keep their own actions out of the spotlight. Ontario just froze its welfare rate at $599 per month and halved this year’s increase in the provincial child benefit.

The Star was the only media outlet that reported the death of the National Council of Welfare. Other newspapers and broadcast outlets — even the publicly owned CBC — didn’t consider it newsworthy.

That left the churches, food banks and social agencies to protest. But most of them are so overwhelmed coping with surging demand in the face of dwindling donations that they can’t afford to engage in advocacy.

Moreover, they’re weary.

They fought to save the long-form census, the best source of information on living conditions in Canada, and lost.

They fought for decent social assistance rates and lost.

They fought for the 60 per cent of jobless workers excluded from the employment insurance system, only to be told by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley: “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid.”

There are still reasons — albeit tenuous ones — for hope.

Last week, Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair told business leaders face-to-face: “The NDP is going to do everything it can to create a Canada that is more prosperous, as long as it is more prosperous for everybody.” Liberal Leader Bob Rae affirmed his party’s commitment to reverse the “stunning growth” of income inequality. And the courts drew a line in the sand. Judge Sandra Simpson of the Federal Court issued an injunction preventing the government from proceeding with one of the measures in its budget: a drastic reduction in social assistance to First Nations communities. The move would cause “emotional and psychological stress amounting to irreparable harm for some recipients,” she said.

The Conservatives can keep tossing away the fixtures of a compassionate Canada. But they can’t turn this into a nation of throwaway values. Only Canadians can do that.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1160732–harper-throws-national-council-of-welfare-on-the-scrap-heap >

Ontario’s Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition has been watching for some 25 years as poverty in Ontario has become ever more entrenched. The stain of inequality has spread in our province just as we have created the richest society we have ever known. And for too many years now, ISARC has been insisting that there are limits to charity; that faith communities can only do so much philanthropy in food banks and shelters. Ontario and Canada need a holistic, cross-government approach to addressing poverty and social inequality. Such a new approach would focus on poverty and inequality as both ethical and financial challenges.

That is why we were somewhat heartened by our first glance at the recent Drummond Report’s emphasis on planning and integrating the way government manages the public treasury. Much of this Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services concentrates on long-term thinking and value for money. The Commission comes across with clanging alarm bells. ISARC agrees with all of this. But the Commission’s approach falls flat. It diagnoses central challenges in health – “the ideal health system would emphasize the prevention of poor health.”[1] It recognizes the need for “evidence-based policy.”

The Commission’s prescription proceeds to emphasize technical approaches that may be necessary in some cases but are far from sufficient: family health teams, expanded roles for nurses, efficiency. The list is long and familiar.  But equally familiar is massive evidence in the field of social epidemiology that shows clearly that the prevention of poor health is best achieved by addressing poverty as a root cause of illness.[2]  Having nurses administer more drugs, certainly a worthy goal will do little to address the epidemic levels of diabetes, obesity and cardio-vascular disease that disproportionately afflict low-income populations, thereby driving up health care costs. It is only bypreventing poverty that Ontario can get at crucially important factors driving up health care costs.

In February, a second report was released by the Commission on the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario, who had the daunting task of summarizing the issues of the current income support systems and presenting a range of options for policy reforms within a political climate that is increasingly focused on austerity over human dignity.  Many of the statements, ideas and opinions in the second Discussion Paper show the Commission heard the voices of people consulted on the first Discussion Paper.

The paper acknowledges that the stigma of living on low-income is reinforced at many places in the social assistance system.  It recognizes the policies that plummet people into deep poverty by depleting their assets, thereby reducing people’s financial resilience, making it hard to get back on their feet, and undermining their future financial stability.  The paper agrees that adequacy and poverty reduction are important principles in how to determine rates, recognizing the need to move away from a culture of surveillance that assumes people on social assistance abuse the system.  It identifies that employment services have to be significantly improved and are currently failing to meet people’s needs; but also notes that employment is “a” route out of poverty, acknowledging that there are currently many barriers for people in the system to find work despite high motivation.

At the same time, ISARC is disappointed in the lack of a message for urgent action to our political representatives, policy makers, and the general public to immediately address the reality of deep poverty for many Ontarians living on low-income.  Too many adults and children in Ontario continue to experience monthly cycles of chronic hunger and hardship that must be addressed now and cannot wait grand plans for reform in the distant future.  With manufacturing plants closing and more employment becoming part time, contract, and temporary; urgency for reform increases.

We urge members of Ontario’s faith sector to download:

ISARC’s response to the Commission on the Review of Social Assistance and use the document as a resource to write a response from your faith community or faith-based organization and submit it to the Commission by the deadline of March 16, 2012.

ISARC’s Prebudget Submission to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario addressing concerns with the recent Drummond report and its implications on public policies and recommendations for funding cuts to community programs and services. Use the Letter and the Prebudget Submission Backgrounder as a resource for your faith community to submit its own response to the Ontario government to inform the 2012 budget.

_______________________________________________________

Faith Community Response to the Release of Ontario’s 2012 Budget
Thursday, 29 March 2012.   Queen’s Park

We, faith leaders gathered at Queen’s Park, assert that it is fundamentally unjust to balance the provincial budget on the backs of our most vulnerable neighbours.

Two days after the tabling of the 2012 Provincial Budget, religious leaders from across Ontario met at Queen’s Park for the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition’s Religious Leaders Forum. The focus of the forum was Health and Poverty.

Dr. Rosanna Pellizzari, Peterborough’s Medical Officer of Health, insisted on the need to prevent and reduce poverty in order to achieve better health, and emphasized that poverty and inequality hurt all of us, not just the poor.

Budget 2012 proposes to freeze social assistance rates and postpone the full implementation of the Ontario Child Benefit. This will increase poverty and inequality in Ontario.

In his opening theological reflection, Rafael Vallejo, Presbyterian Lay Minister challenged religious leaders, legislators and all Ontarians to ask “Who pays for austerity? Who says there is no choice?”

Ontario does have choices about how to balance the budget.

Poverty does not just happen. There are things that we do in society that create poverty and inequality. And there are things we can do to reduce poverty and inequality.

Therefore, to respect the letter and the spirit of Ontario’s landmark poverty reduction act, passed with unanimous support from all parties in the legislature, we call for these changes to the 2012 Ontario Budget:

- raise social assistance rates to at least cover the rise in the cost of living,

- immediately implement the full Ontario Child Benefit;

- do not make structural changes to social assistance programs before hearing the recommendations from the Social Assistance Review Commissioners.

We support the call of Doctors and Lawyers for Tax Fairness to increase taxes for high-income individuals and corporations. Because taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society and being neighbour to each other.

As ISARC has so often insisted in the past, we live in a rich society. We certainly have the resources to end poverty in Ontario. We simply require the will to do so. We will all be richer for it.

For more information contact: Rev. Susan Eagle, ISARC Chair, Phone: 705-817-3402

< http://qtconnect.ca/connect/admin/temp/newsletters/1807/ISARC%20-%20RLF%202012%20-%20BUDGET%20REPSPONSE.pdf >

It should come as no surprise that the Harper Conservatives used their first majority-government budget to kill the Katimavik program.

Despite the fact that Katimavik is a highly valuable program that more than pays for itself, the government has shut it down for what can only be ideological reasons.

Long track record

Katimavik is the country’s oldest and largest youth engagement program, open to all Canadians aged 17-21.

Participants spend six months volunteering in two regions of the country. Groups of 11 participants live together in one house (along with a staff member), where they share all household duties.

Outside of their full-time volunteering commitments, participants also engage in daily programing on themes that include healthy living, environmental awareness, cultural awareness, practising both official languages and engaging as a citizen.

The federal budget states that Katimavik is being cut because it serves, “a very small number of participants at an excessive per-person cost.” (page 218)

Ignoring the facts

A 2006 report called Social and Economic Impact Study of the Katimavik Program, however, demonstrated that Katimavik actually generates excess value in the communities where it operates.

This study, which was performed by a professional consulting firm and is available to download from the Katimavik website, measured the value of participants’ volunteer efforts and the secondary benefits that community partners recognize from association with Katimavik (such as an increase in donations, etc.).

The report found that for every $1 Katimavik spends, host communities receive a value of $2.20. (page 40)

Most of this value is invested in rural and remote communities, where Katimavik runs most of its programs.

Facts don’t matter

But, as we’ve seen before, this Conservative government doesn’t let facts get in its way when making policy decisions.

Empowering Canadian youth is clearly not a priority for our current federal government — they’d rather build more prisons.

David Jerome, St. John’s

< http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Letters%20to%20the%20editor/2012-04-05/article-2947959/Picking-prisons-ahead-of-citizenship/1 >

Anti-poverty groups are shocked, but not surprised, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty axed the National Council of Welfare in Thursday’s budget.

The independent, federally-appointed body was created by an act of Parliament in 1969 to advise the minster of human resources on poverty in Canada.

But since the Harper government was elected in 2006, it has ignored the council’s research and advice on how to address growing income disparity across the country, activists say.

“If the government actually heeded the council’s advice, they’d be saving a whole lot more than the $1 million per year they have been spending on the council,” said Rob Rainer of Canada Without Poverty.

A spokesperson for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said the $1.1 million council and its eight Ottawa-based staff are being cut next year to reduce duplication.

“Many non-governmental organizations . . . provide quality independent advice and research on poverty-related issues,” said Alyson Queen.

“We continue to take poverty issues very seriously, investing in skills, training and support for families to ensure every Canadian has the opportunity to fully participate in the economy,” she added.

However, Rainer and others said their organizations rely heavily on the council’s “excellent” research to inform their work.

The council’s annual report on welfare incomes in Canada is the only comprehensive analysis of social assistance across the country and how it interacts with federal benefits, he said. The council has also produced authoritative reports on child care, child benefits and low incomes in Canada.

Its latest report, “The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty,” released in August, showed that it would cost $12.6 billion to give some 3.5 million poor Canadians enough money to live above the poverty line. However, the economic and social consequences of poverty cost Canadians twice as much, the report found.

“So, I guess we don’t want to know anything about poverty or how to solve it,” said NDP MP Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina).

“Without the information, no one will be able to report on how many people this Conservative government is leaving behind,” she added. “It’s called out of sight and out of mind. And don’t get in the way.”

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1154445–federal-budget-2012-ottawa-axes-national-council-on-welfare >

Is it fair to convict a man of sexual assault based in part on the word of a disabled woman with the mental age of a three- to six-year-old, who can’t explain the difference between truth and lies?

That was the tough question before the Supreme Court of Canada last week. To answer “no” might deprive mentally challenged adults of a voice in court, leaving them virtually unprotected by the law.

The court answered well. Sticking to the text of a 1987 law, which allows mentally disabled adults to testify on a promise to tell the truth, as long as they can communicate evidence, the majority in the 6-3 ruling said it was wrong to ask the Ontario woman to explain what truth means.

A transcript of her questioning at the hands of a Crown attorney and the trial judge shows why this was a sound ruling. The Crown says he is wearing a black gown, and asks her if that is the truth or a lie. “The truth,” she says. “And why is that?” “I don’t know.” “Is it a good thing or a bad thing to tell the truth?” “Good thing.” “Is it a good thing or a bad thing to tell a lie?” “Bad thing.” She understands that truth is good, lies are bad. But she can’t explain why.

The trial judge asks if she has been taught about God. She hasn’t been. “What happens if you steal something?” “I don’t know.” “Tell me what you think about the truth.” “I don’t know.” “Is it important to tell the truth?” “I don’t know.” “What’s a promise?” “I don’t know.” He insists on an explanation that she is not capable of.

Not all testimony is equal; a judge decides how much weight to give it. But to cut off the possibility of testimony from disabled adults because they have trouble verbalizing what they understand of truth and lies is an arbitrary approach. It doesn’t get at what they know, just at what they can explain about what they know.

That 1987 law permitting disabled adults to testify on a promise to tell the truth came after various scandals and studies revealed startling levels of victimization of disabled people. Truth is the only safe ground to stand on, someone once said, and mentally disabled adults should not be arbitrarily denied a piece of that ground.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/supreme-court-ruling-in-case-of-disabled-woman-admirable/article2334703/ >