Month: May 2008

How fine of a line is David Suzuki walking?

David Suzuki is the head of the eponymous David Suzuki Foundation, a registered Canadian charity that advocates on environmental issues.

Among the issues that are central to the Suzuki Foundation’s main issue campaign of climate change awareness is the introduction of a carbon tax. The Suzuki Foundation website states:

Canadian businesses and individuals can dump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they want–free of charge. We used to think that was OK, but global warming unveiled the limited capacity of the earth’s atmosphere.

Putting a price on carbon, through a carbon tax or through a cap-and-trade system, has been widely accepted as the most effective instrument to reduce carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas.

Fair enough. The Foundation is advocating on a particular policy issue to effect political and social change.

Today, from CTV.ca’s summary of David Suzuki’s interview on that program,

Famed environmentalist David Suzuki has strongly backed Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s emerging carbon tax plan and slammed the NDP and Conservatives.

After hearing the NDP’s criticism of Dion’s plan, Suzuki said: “I’m really shocked with the NDP with this. I thought that they had a very progressive environmental outlook.”

“To oppose (the carbon tax plan), its just nonsense. It’s certainly the way we got to go,” he said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period.

QP’s host, Jane Taber asked Suzuki,

Taber: “So are you saying that the Harper government is failing us on the environment?”

Suzuki: “Absolutely, absolutely”

David Suzuki, as an individual, is entitled to his opinion.

Consider Revenue Canada’s restriction on political activities by registered charities:

A registered charity cannot be created for a political purpose and cannot be involved in partisan political activities. A political activity is considered partisan if it involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, a political party or candidate for public office.

CTV’s Question Period interviewed Suzuki for the purpose of commenting upon Dion’s carbon tax plan. While slamming the previous Liberal governments for inaction on climate change, Suzuki’s condemnation of the NDP and Conservatives and support for Dion’s position could be interpreted as partisan political activity.

The technical loophole here that keeps this legal is that David Suzuki and the David Suzuki Foundation are two entities whose activities are separate.

However, as the David Suzuki Foundation advocates for a carbon tax while David Suzuki supports one party’s position on carbon tax while condemning the policies of the other two parties, how nuanced is the difference?

ADDENDUM: I don’t fault Suzuki for walking a fine line. In fact, I believe that any level of political activity should be considered charitable. Political parties shouldn’t be the only organized political entities that should have the ability to issue tax receipts. Until that time, David Suzuki treads carefully.

UPDATE: Treading a fine line? He may have already crossed it here,

Environmentalist David Suzuki savaged Prime Minister Harper over global warming in front of a gymnasium full of elementary school students and their parents on Friday.

Later, he furiously lashed out at Albertans, calling rapid development of the oilsands “insanity” and a “disaster.”

Suzuki, who was invited to speak at Altadore elementary school and accept $835 collected by the students for his foundation, asked the kids what Harper’s main priority was after being elected last year.

…

He told the room some of his message was directed at the adults, because the youngsters don’t vote and Harper and other politicians don’t care about them.

“It’s up to your mom and dads to ensure your futures and livelihoods are part of the agenda,” he said to about 185 students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 6.

Collecting money for your charitable foundation while blasting the Prime Minister on policy and encouraging children to have their parents put an issue on the agenda could easily be deemed political activity and very inappropriateby the government. Again, according to Revenue Canada,

“A political activity is considered partisan if it involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, a political party or candidate for public office.“

Does David Suzuki’s Foundation still qualify for charitable status?

Chuck Cadman, RCMP closure and the last Liberal stretch

RCMP:

[the] “investigation disclosed no evidence to support a charge under the Criminal Code or under the Parliament of Canada Act” (emphasis added)

The Liberal Party of Canada:

“The ethical standards of a Prime Minister must be above those of the evidentiary rules for prosecution under the Criminal Code” — Dominic Leblanc

Incongruent spin from the Liberals:

Mr. LeBlanc said while he fully accepts the RCMP’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecution, he believes Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have a duty to give Canadians all the details of the offer that was made to Mr. Cadman.

If Dominic Leblanc “fully accepts” the RCMP’s assessment, how can “no evidence” to support a charge become “insufficient evidence” for the same? Mathematically, “no evidence” equals zero, while “insufficient evidence” is less than one.

The only ongoing legal proceeding on this matter is a result of Stephane Dion’s inappropriate and allegedly libelous statements against the Prime Minister. The Liberals should stop stretching the truth to smear the Prime Minister and accept that this issue with provide no more mileage and that their gamble on this attack only weakens their credibility on the other scandal narratives that the party has constructed.

We get letters: In response to Jeffrey Simpson

The following comes from a good friend who read Jeffery Simpson’s Globe and Mail column today and found himself a bit perturbed at the lacking quality of Simpson’s arguments for the National Portrait Gallery to be located in Ottawa. My friend doesn’t get to do a lot of this sort of creative writing in his job, so I’m glad to post it here with his permission.

Mr. Simpson makes the quite excellent point that the private sector really shouldn’t house our portrait gallery and that the portrait gallery shouldn’t leave the capital because, after all, no other country does it that way.

No! Its not about the potential beauty of some new facility in some new city. After all, what could be more arrestingly beautiful than the status quo? It’s certainly not about the efficient use of tax dollars. How crass to worry about how we spend other peoples money when the issue is the arts. I mean….just look at the CBC. Who but a philistine would begrudge those tax dollars given the artistic sitcoms that the CBC produces. The new Portrait Gallery could even model itself after the CBC except the CBC has moved to Toronto which is impossible because it should be in Ottawa where all the other art stuff is, except for the other art stuff like Telefilm that moved to Montreal.

And of course it’s certainly not about putting the Portrait Gallery where whole new swaths of the country could appreciate it. What kind of ugly ideology would support that? I’ll tell you what kind, a very, very ugly one.

Anyway….if anyone has an ideology that is worth following it is Jeff Simpson who is easily Canada’s most articulate proponent of the ideology of sameness. We should do it the same way as we always have, because that’s the way we’ve always done it. We should do it the same as the Americans because its the only thing that they’ve ever done right.

I see now where Jeff is leading us. He’s saying that we can lead the world if we do everything the same way, but do it with even more vigour and enthusiasm than we have in the past, except we do it the same way, because that’s the way we’ve always done it. You know….I feel exactly the same way.