Dropping the r-bomb
The bourgeois tyranny of the fully-abled
It was revealed by The Wall Street Journal in late January that at a private strategy session in August, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, blasted the internally divisive political ploy proposed by some aggressively left-wing Democrats as “f——-g retarded.”
An intense brouhaha, with disability advocacy groups, Special Olympics spokespeople and even Sarah Palin piling on, confirmed that the word “retarded”—though still a bona fide medical term—has almost achieved the same social radioactivity as “the N-word.”
Objectively there’s no viable comparison between the two.
The N-word is an odious racial slur targeting an identifiable group of humans endowed with immutable genetic characteristics. From its inception, the N-word has been identified with real immiseration of blacks by real racists.
By contrast, “retarded” is merely descriptive of an objective condition, and applicable to culturally disparate individuals. The term may even be said to be a euphemism: “delayed,” after all, suggests more hopefulness than is usually warranted for these unfortunates.
But, like its predecessors, “idiot,” “moron” and “feebleminded,” the once-benign “retard” has lost dignity through constant association with juvenile humour, as well as coarsely-couched impatience with normally intelligent people acting stupidly, Emanuel’s peccadillo. Medical and support groups now prefer “intellectually disabled.” (Strangely, the same fate has not befallen “gay,” despite its parallel downward trajectory in popular usage.)
To be fair, although never enslaved or maligned as a group, the disabled, until relatively recently, were overlooked at best, and often shamed, depersonalized and marginalized in all societies. But again to be fair, the West can be proud of its progress on the disability file. Over the centuries our perceptions of the deformed, the diseased and the disabled as ritually unclean or loathsome have evolved into attitudes of compassion, inclusion and frank admiration.
The Paralympics, beginning this Friday, are a testimony to the sensible modern understanding of disability as a modifier, but not a disqualifier, for participation in athletic competition—a far cry from the original Olympics where the slightest physical imperfection (even circumcision) disqualified candidates for inclusion.
None of this happened by magic. Activism amongst the disabled and their sympathizers followed the well-trodden path traversed by blacks, women and homosexuals in their legitimate, rights-claiming phases. Slowly but surely curbs became sloped, elevators were installed and wheelchair-friendly transportation was made available. Much remains to be done, but the principle of equal accessibility to public resources has been firmly established, a principle roundly supported by liberals and conservatives alike.
Until political activism morphed into a field of academic study. Then—as with women’s, queer and African-American studies—disability studies fell prey to the post-modern anti-intellectual credo amongst intellectuals that “studies” means the advancement of “theory” and political activism rather than disinterested free inquiry. Many liberals may like what they see on campus, most conservatives not so much.
On its face, the relatively nascent phenomenon of disability studies is an attractive concept. Disability in literature (fairy tales, mythology, Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare), in the plastic and visual arts, in family dynamics, in sports, in politics: All of these make lush intellectual pickings for real scholarship.
Instead the field has been colonized by leftist ideologues. You’ll find in its academic literature all the buzz words you see in race and gender studies: “progressive,” “oppression,” “bourgeois,” “empowerment.” Riffle through a few conference papers and it’s the same old, same old: “At the heart of disability studies is a recognition that disability is a cultural construction; that is, that ‘disability’ has no inherent meaning”; and “The exciting thing about disability studies is that it is both an academic field of inquiry and an area of political activity …”; and “Social justice is at the heart of disability theory and changing morality in the Western world.”
In other words, disability studies’ academic stakeholders have co-opted the disabled—for the most part apolitical individuals seeking nothing more than a physical levelling of the playing field in order to pursue their unique personal goals—as eternal Marxist victims of “ableist” oppressors. (The University of Toronto disabilities studies department claims it “aims to examine and deconstruct ableism.”)
That’s where the animus against “retarded” comes from. The word suggests there is a normative IQ against which the -er -“cognitively different” can, and should, be measured. Like feminists who won’t hear of discrepancies between male and female faculties in maths and sciences, disability activists rebel against the bourgeois tyranny of the fully abled. The same denial of reality prevails.
(The deaf “culture” or “linguistic community” who resist integration through lip-reading is the most egregious example of the syndrome. Extreme disability correctness led two deaf lesbians to seek a congenitally deaf sperm donor to ensure a deaf child.)
Disabled individuals are owed all the help society can reasonably provide to live as normal a life as possible. Colour me ableist: I said it -the other N-word-“normal.” For “normal” is what any reasonable disabled person wants to be. If disability studies academics resist this reality, they may be cognitively abled, but they are ethically … delayed.
Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals Refuse to Stand up for Canadian Sealers
The Breyer Patch
Justice Stephen Breyer was one of the four dissenting voices in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective right, which merely attaches to service in a state militia. On page 35 of his 44 page dissent, Justice Breyer states the following:
“The upshot is that the District’s objectives are compelling; its predictive judgments as to the law’s tendency to achieve those objectives are adequately supported [emphasis mine]; the law does impose a burden upon any self-defense interest that the Amendment seeks to secure; and there is no less clear less restrictive alternative.”
Justice Breyer was defending a District of Columbia law that banned handguns altogether as part of a stated objective to reduce violence in the District. The problem with Breyer’s assertion that “predictive judgments as to the law’s tendency to achieve those objectives are adequately supported” is that it’s patently false. Nonetheless, Breyer continues on the final page (p. 44) of his dissent:
“In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
The wording of this sentence implies that because crime is high in urban areas the government has an interest in restricting access to handguns. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The Court is often in the position of making a decision by balancing one or more government interests against one or more individual liberty interests. Take, for example, the 1979 case of Delaware v. Prouse, which considered the constitutionality of stopping citizens in roadblocks for brief searches not predicated on probable cause or even individual suspicion.
In the case of the roadblock, the government interest is easily distinguished from the individual liberty interest. The government seeks to advance an interest (reducing highway fatalities associated with drunk driving) by setting these roadblocks. The Court approved the roadblocks by taking into account two individual liberty interests: 1) Demanding that the stops minimize intrusion (by being brief) and 2) Demanding that the stops minimize discretion (by stopping every car, or every other car, or every third, etc.).
In the case of gun bans, distinguishing between the two interests has been more difficult. At first, it was simply assumed that banning handguns would reduce crime. After fifteen years of research and sixteen refereed publications finding a contrary result, it’s time we recognize that high crime in urban areas promotes the individual interest in owning and possessing handguns and in the implementation of “shall issue” concealed carry laws.
Nonetheless, the city of Chicago is defending a law which bans handguns entirely – even for use within one’s home. But the case is being challenged by a plaintiff named Otis McDonald. McDonald is asking the Court to consider the individual right to bear arms affirmed in Heller as binding on all fifty states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was a crucial part of the Republican effort to end slavery – even after involuntary servitude had been banned by the Thirteenth Amendment. Back then, Southern Democrats targeted former slaves using vagrancy laws, which made it a crime to “wander without any visible means of support.” After imprisoning the former slave, the Southern Democrat would allow him to work off his fine by picking cotton on a plantation.
These “convict lease systems” were little more than legalized slavery. Thankfully, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment hastened their extinction.
Today, many African Americans – like plaintiff Otis McDonald – are prisoners in their own homes. Urban violence disproportionately affects them. And any law that makes urban violence worse is a law that denies them Equal Protection.
The year after Justice Breyer lost in his bid to uphold the D.C. gun ban a funny thing happened. The murder rate in D.C. plummeted by 25%. To date, he has not retracted his statement that “predictive judgments as to the law’s tendency to achieve those objectives (reducing violence in D.C.) are adequately supported.”
It is rare to see such a convergence of individual liberty interests and government interests as we have in the McDonald case currently before the Supreme Court. It is rarer still to hear a sanctimonious Justice admitting that his ideas are wrong and that their consequences fall disproportionately on those who dwell in “crime ridden urban areas.”
My thoughts on the Jaffer story
With this being the lead story on National Newswatch, I suppose many of you will be curious to hear my thoughts. So here goes…
1) I’ve said for a long time that I’m a strong supporter of mandatory minimums for violent crimes, not all crimes. (at least not that I can recall offhand)
2) Having said that, I’ve always felt that there should be room for leniency for first time, non-violent offenders. (Going over my previous posts, however, I can’t recall the issue of “first time offenders” having ever come up, so I can’t defend this point by simply saying “I’ve always said that”)
3) The folks that are pointing fingers at this “Tory” judge are off base… the charges were withdrawn by the PROVINCE.
4) While I’ll grant the fact that the Prosecutor in this case was indeed appointed by the Harris Tories, he’s working under the direction of the CURRENT Provincial Government.
5) I’m personally curious as to WHY the drunk driving charge was withdrawn. Of all the charges, that one was to me the most serious. (For reference, I’ll refer you to my thoughts from his arrest) Of course, it’s easy to armchair quarterback this one, but we weren’t there in the courtroom. I would like to hear more about this, because with withdrawal of the drunk driving charge does concern me. Not because of who he is, but because I’ve always HATED listening to ads on the radio from paralegals who advertise the fact that they’ll help you get out of a drunk driving charge. Maybe I’m biased, having lost a friend to a drunk driver when I was a kid. (AC, I still think of you, and can still remember your face even to this day… some 25 years later)
That’s all.
The University of Notre Shame
It’s understandable that student newspapers at public universities are left-leaning. The advisors of the papers are usually left-leaning and they often have a left-leaning administration leaning on them. So their coverage of issues like abortion and homosexuality is often skewed. But private religious universities once provided a safe haven for those who wished to express views not approved by the immoral minority. It’s tough to comprehend the extent to which they have fallen prey to political correctness in recent years.
The Observer, the student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame, has shown that our nation’s Catholic universities no longer provide an escape from the politically correct orthodoxy running rampant on our nation’s public campuses. And the paper has shown a remarkable contempt for intellectual honesty – not to mention the Ninth Commandment.
The Observer declined to print a column that defends Church teachings on homosexual activity, which was written by Charles Rice – a Notre Dame Professor of Law. Rice has written a regular column with the Observer for nearly two decades.
At 996 words, Professor Rice’s column is a little long. At first, Observer Editor Matt Gamber used the column’s length as an excuse for non-publication. The excuse sounded credible but, after doing a little research, I’ve concluded that his excuse is an outright lie.
When Barack Obama came to speak at Notre Dame, Professor Rice wrote an 1172-word column, which harshly criticized his appearance as at odds with the school’s principles. Note to Matt Gamber: An 1172-word column is longer than a 996-word column. That much is as clear and obvious as the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.
But, now, Matt Gamber is saying that the subject matter of homosexuality could best by handled by printing opposing views on the subject. But why must a student newspaper at a Catholic university censor Professor Rice in the absence of some “opposing viewpoint”? And what are the implications of this new policy?
If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing polygamy, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-polygamy column?
If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing incest, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-incest column?
If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing adultery, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-adultery column?
Finally, if Professor Rice decides to write another column opposing abortion, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-abortion column?
The answers to my four hypothetical questions follow: No, no, no, and no.
And the reason for the pattern is simple: The Observer carves out a special “opposing viewpoint” exception for homosexuality because the Observer is intensely homophobic.
And the reason for the intense homophobia manifested by Matt Gamber and the Observer is also simple: Homosexuals are less tolerant of criticism than any other portion of the American population, including feminists and Muslims.
But the consequences of homosexual intolerance are not as simple. They are twofold: 1) Homosexual intolerance tends to result in the suppression of contrary views, and 2) Such intolerance tends to make others fearful of talking to homosexuals. In other words, homosexual intolerance actually promotes homophobia.
The present situation at Notre Dame is damaging to both sides of the debate. The Observer should allow Professor Rice to present his views (as unthinkable as it may seem to present the views of the Catholic Church at a Catholic university). Then, they may decide whether the views of the opposition warrant publication.
I believe the other side should be presented after Professor Rice’s column is printed if someone at Notre Dame actually thinks the Holy Bible is unclear on the issue. If they do, the Notre Dame community will wind up with a greater appreciation of the truth via its juxtaposition with falsity.
But the prior restraint of the views of Professor Rice is not defensible. While not a technical violation of the First Amendment – Notre Dame is a private school – it is an assault on both Catholicism and common sense. And it leaves many Catholics wondering whether there is any safe haven in this land that once placed religious liberty above political correctness.
This Puts Things in Perspective for Me
Normally, I don’t spout off on my personal life, most people are rightfully bored by it. But tomorrow, I face a huge exam and I feel a need for some perspective. The video below puts things in perspective for me, so I hope you are blessed by it as I have been.
Newspaper’s “Business” section filled with GOVERNMENT articles
HOW IS THIS BUSINESS?
These are stories in the “Business” section of the weekend paper!
The liberal-left media has so blurred the lines between GOVERNMENT and BUSINESS that they’re now apparently pathologically incapable of telling the difference. Or they’re doing this on purpose.
Reading the “Business” section here is like reading the paper in the old Soviet Union.
The center article (at left), headlined with the word “Corporation”, is about the GOVERNMENT. It’s another GOVERNMENT “corporation” called BC Pavilion “Corporation”. It’s a 100% GOVERNMENT-owned, GOVERNMENT-operated division of the GOVERNMENT. And yet they speak, in the article, of the “corporation” being “in talks” with “the government”.
Someone grab the vodka. We’re going USSR-style now.
Corporation faces deficit up to $40 million
Operator of BC Place, Vancouver Convention Centre in talks with government about how to cover shortfallThe BC Pavilion Corp. will be saddled with almost $40 million in accumulated deficits after accounting for revenue losses and added expenses related to opening its expanded convention centre and the $565-million roof-replacement project for BC Place Stadium, the Crown corporation’s service plan shows.
PavCo and the provincial government remain “in discussions” over how the $40 million will be covered, whether in its operating subsidy or some other form of grant.
PavCo, which operates BC Place Stadium and the Vancouver Convention Centre, is charged with overseeing capital projects at both, including the stadium’s roof replacement.
“PavCo is working to reduce its operating deficit through increasing sales, maintaining costs and seeking new revenue-generating opportunities,” John Harding, the corporation’s chief financial officer, said Friday. …
The top of the page speaks of absolutely nothing to do with business, but rather GOVERNMENT. It’s not even in need of a giant explanation. It’s all about the MINISTRY OF FORESTS. And here’s some news for you all: That’s THE GOVERNMENT. It’s not a business.
Hello? Is this thing on? Am I in the right country? Let’s try this: Hola!? Vive la Cuba!? Vive la revolución!?
Forests minister calls for job-sharing to avoid ministry layoffs
Six-per-cent cut to operating budget will be reflected in fewer person-hours of workForests ministry staff may face work-sharing or reduced work weeks as a result of cuts to the ministry budget announced in this week’s provincial budget.
“We are looking at all kinds of options right now, such as reduced work weeks, work-share,” Forests Minister Pat Bell said in a recent interview. …
The bottom story is about the GOVERNMENT division known as the BC Film Commission. The paper and the Commission can’t even pretend it to be a “corporation”. It’s name is blah blah “Commission” —it sounds wonderfully Soviet on its own! So what’s it doing in the “Business” section? Who knows! The “Commission” may well deal with businesses in the film industry in BC (which, to add hideousness to idiocy, is itself extremely heavily subsidized and molly-coddled by all levels of government via taxpayer cash, and get all manner of special hand-outs of cash, favored tax subsidies, government “investment” of all kinds, all to support an industry which more than nearly any other, reeks of excesses in terms of cash and other available resources), but really, it’s a GOVERNMENT story.
“Hollywood North” is not like Cuba or the Soviet Union — or at least it’s not supposed to be. It’s merely as left-wing as Hollywood and its workers. So I guess the confusion here is almost understandable.
BC Film Commission faces 23-per-cent cut…The provincial agency, which promotes and serves the industry, faces a 23-per-cent budget cut this year.
The commission’s budget from the ministry of tourism, culture and the arts will fall from $1.235 million in 2009-10 to $948,000 in 2010-11, a reduction of $287,000 …
But I still think a “Business” section should report on actual business. Not “corporations” which are actually divisions of the GOVERNMENT —in “talks with” other divisions of THE GOVERNMENT.
So until they get it straight, I suggest the Vancouver Sun use my edited version of their misleading, Soviet-style header for their “Business” section:
Other Canadian newspapers can use a version of it.
Tyranny of but
Does freedom matter?
The short answer to that question, when I have asked various acquaintances of what I would call a “mildly liberal,” or middle-of-the-road disposition, is: “Yes, but …”
This “but” may correspond to any of many suggested qualifications, and that is the first instructive thing. At best it is freedom versus order, or freedom versus equality, or freedom versus social security. Seldom has the position been thought through. Nor is the need for thought acknowledged.
Under cross-examination, most appear to be seeking some kind of balance between freedom and the tyranny of the state. On the moral level, a balance between good and evil; on the esthetic, between beauty and ugliness; on the philosophical, between truth and the socially and legally enforced big lies of political correctness.
“Yes, freedom is important, but it has its place,” said one of the more thoughtful victims of my inquisition, which has been going on for some years now. (For I like to play at Socrates sometimes, the greatest of all Inquisitors, and try to establish what people really believe.)
Or to put it the other way round: “Yes, we should be herded like sheep, but within the limits of common sense.” Granted, this quote is a parody, and inversion; no one would ever say that. Yet it is the corollary of what is often said.
When the victims of my inquisition are in my clutches, I find that they hedge. Under cross-examination, there is hedging within hedging. They are soon on to my game: that I am trying to trap them in a Yes or a No, when they would feel more comfortable with Maybe.
Notice that the original question was not, “Is freedom an absolute value to which all other values must be subordinated?” It was instead more modestly: “Does freedom matter?”
I can think of two possible answers to that question, and neither of them is, “Yes, but …”
Consider for a moment the phrase, “oriental despotism.” It was one that seems to have come easily to the lips of our ancestors, who, whether or not they had travelled, were under the impression that, beyond the frontiers of their civilization, freedom indeed did not matter. More deeply, perhaps, some grasped that the idea of an “individual moral agent”—of the incomparable value of the unique human soul—was tied into our civilizational identity. Lose that, and we are no longer “Western,” or “Judeo-Christian,” or whatever.
The remarkable achievements of our civilization likewise depended on what we were. They were the products of human enterprise. This is true through all centuries: the Catholic idea of saints and martyrs has nothing to do with public policy. Each is, in his or her own nature, the exact opposite of the Pyramids of Egypt—perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the statist mind.
Each man and woman among the saints is held up as an individual example, different in kind from each of the others. Each has, from a unique point of departure—the peculiar, given circumstances of a life—consciously, and in freedom, bought into the wild notion of personal sanctity. Their faith, and not their compulsion, moved our mountains.
But likewise, in all other areas of human enterprise: in the great achievements of business, of literature and music and art, of sciences and education, there was some understanding that we had nothing without manifestations of the individual human will.
The cathedrals were not built by ants; but by individual architects and masons. Nor could any have been built, had individual patrons not stepped forward. They were local, voluntary acts, writ large. St. Patrick’s Basilica here in Ottawa was built by Irish navvies, employed on works like the Rideau Canal, volunteering their time.
All the great eleemosynary and charitable institutions of this town began as individual efforts, and were staffed from the beginning by volunteers. In every case, some decision was made to rise above the condition of wage slavery.
Freedom can most certainly be abused, but it is the necessary condition for the humane.
“Humanism”—in the word’s original meaning, and not in its appropriated meaning as a euphemism for an atheist cult—is squarely founded on this notion of the humane, involving free acts of will. It further involves moral restraints, chosen not imposed, and therefore often far more exacting than what could be imposed. The ideals of humanism are the very opposite of that kind of compulsion our ancestors attributed to “oriental despotism.”
Which is not to say that parallel freedoms have not existed in other cultures and civilizations, or have not been transmitted to them by western example. There was never anywhere an “absolute freedom,” for even at the extremes of anarchy, nature restrains our possibilities.
Yet what goes on “there” has never really mattered “here,” except insofar as our freedom is threatened.
It is for others to free themselves, if they are not free. For us the challenge, once again, is to free ourselves from the tyranny of, “Yes, but …”
Regarding the rewording of O Canada, the PMO speaks…
“We offered to hear from Canadians on this issue and they have already spoken loud and clear. They overwhelmingly do not want to open the issue. The Government will not proceed any further to change our national anthem.”
“Nous avons consulté les Canadiens et Canadiennes sur cette question, et ceux-ci se sont exprimés haut et fort : par une immense majorité, ils ne veulent pas ouvrir ce dossier. Le gouvernement n’ira pas plus loin en vue de modifier l’hymne national.”
Dimitri Soudas, official spokesman for the Prime Minister
Stakeholder reaction to the 2010 budget
National Citizens Coalition
Instead of fixing the job crisis as it promised in yesterday’s Throne Speech, the Harper government appears to be coasting on last year’s stimulus budget, offering no meaningful new initiatives to get Canadians working again.
Today’s budget measures are a good step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to put Canada back on the road to sustainable economic growth.
Responding to today’s federal budget, National Citizens Coalition President Peter Coleman commended the Harper government for introducing measures that will limit the size of government, and address the bloated spending that has become pandemic in Canada. At the same time, the NCC criticizes the budget for not going far enough to secure the country’s financial future.
“This is a matter of fiscal leadership, and doing what is right for Canada,” added Coleman. “This government needs to go further in their efforts to reduce the size of the civil service, and more needs to be done to reduce spending.”
Fraser Institute
Fraser Institute senior economist Niels Veldhuis had harsh words for today’s federal budget, saying the $105 billion in budget deficits over the next five years will prevent the government from making improvements in competitiveness that would lead to a stronger economy.
“The 2010 federal budget does little to strengthen the Canadian economy. By putting off balancing the books for at least five years, the federal government is sacrificing Canadian competitiveness,” Veldhuis said.
“With revenues expected to rebound this coming year, the government could have balanced the budget within two years. Instead, Finance Minister Flaherty has chosen to keep the spending taps open and saddle Canadians with $104.6 billion in deficits over the next five years.”
Canadian Wind Energy Association
The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) today expressed its serious disappointment with the federal government’s failure to expand and extend its very successful ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program in the 2010 federal budget. Despite its expressed desire to harmonize climate change and clean energy policies with the United States, the federal government is now clearly moving in the opposite direction with respect to efforts to attract wind energy investment and jobs.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to the 2010 Federal Budget expressing with great dismay that the Harper government continues to delay efforts to balance the federal budget.
CTF Federal Director, Kevin Gaudet, said “a plan to balance the budget should actually balance the budget and this doesn’t do that. Restraint delayed is restraint denied. Taxpayers have heard similar promises of restraint before. Canadians will believe it when they see it.”
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce today welcomed the federal government’s strategy to achieve its recovery plan, to return to balanced budgets and to promote a more innovative and competitive economy.
Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association
Hidden in today’s budget is the government’s plan to significantly raise employment insurance rates – which means employers will be paying a much higher price to create new jobs during the economic recovery.
Higher EI premiums will cost the restaurant and foodservice industry nearly $30 million a year starting in 2011.
In pre-budget consultations the 33,000-member Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) opposed an increase in employment insurance premiums, calling it a tax on jobs. According to the federal budget, the EI premium rate for employers is rising by nine per cent in 2011 and will continue to increase through at least 2014.
Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
Budget 2010 is making intelligent investments to help students find their way into post-secondary education, and assisting new graduates in finding employment, but has announced little for existing students facing over $500 million in lost income, due to the recession last summer, and are having difficulty paying for college and university.
“Unfortunately the federal government did not recognize the needs of students that are currently facing a cash and credit crunch due to last year’s recession,” said Arati Sharma, National Director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, “Students lost $500 million in income last year due to high unemployment but there were no new investments in the summer jobs program, no increases in the Canada Student Grants Program, and no changes to the student loan system so students can pay the bills they are facing today.”
Budget 2010 also included one-time funding of $30 million in wage support for Career Focus, a program to help businesses hire recent college and university graduates. It also announced up to 140 fellowships for recent graduates of doctoral programs of up to $70,000 per year for two years to do research in Canada.
Canadian Federation of Students
Today’s federal budget contains no measures to address record high tuition fees and the student debt crisis.
“Chronic underfunding of Canada’s post-secondary education system has resulted in skyrocketing tuition fees and record high levels of student debt,” said Katherine Giroux-Bougard, National Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. “With a record number of Canadians enrolled in college or university, this budget does nothing to help students and their families afford an education.”
The Investment Industry Association of Canada
The federal budget, released today, charts a prudent course to support recovery of the Canadian economy and bring public finances back into balance. The government has set out a realistic plan to reduce the $54 billion deficit to near fiscal balance in five years. The Investment Industry Association of Canada (IIAC) supports the commitment to spending restraint to achieve fiscal objectives. The responsible fiscal actions taken in the past four years underlie the credibility in the fiscal projections.
“The measures in the Extraordinary Financing Framework previously introduced by government were timely and effective and have contributed significantly to improved credit and economic conditions,” said Ian Russell, President and CEO, IIAC.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
FCM applauds the federal government for protecting core investments in cities and communities as it reduces the federal budget deficit. These investments will help local governments – and Canadian property tax payers – build the infrastructure that is the backbone of our economy and quality of life.
The government is standing by its promise to permanently invest $2 billion a year in gas tax revenues in safer roads and bridges, quality public transit, and clean drinking water. This commitment, along with funding for affordable housing and the GST Rebate for municipalities, is helping local governments build greener communities that can compete for new jobs, talent, and investment in the post-recession world.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association
The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) is pleased that today’s Budget maintains existing investments that support public transit infrastructure.
“Transit investment stimulates the economy, and builds sustainable transportation choices for the future,” says CUTA President and CEO, Michael Roschlau. “Canada’s transit industry recognizes and supports the recent progress made by the Federal Government in addressing transit needs.”
While CUTA is thankful that the federal government will maintain existing commitments to the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, the $8.8 billion Building Canada Fund and the $2 billion per year Gas Tax Fund, the lack of investments dedicated to public transit will make it a challenge for transit to fully meet the growing needs of Canadian communities.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) is pleased to see some measures to tackle the deficit and recognize the contribution of small business in growing the economy and creating jobs but more could have been done. “Building confidence among small business owners will do more to create jobs across Canada than any other measure,” said Catherine Swift, CFIB’s President and CEO.
Addressing paper burden and regulations has always been a top priority for CFIB members and the establishment of a Red Tape Commission is welcome news. “Providing clear leadership, committing to measuring and publicly reporting on the number of regulations, as well as putting some constraints on regulators will make this initiative a success,” said Swift. “CFIB is a strong supporter of moving this process forward as it really is a low cost way of making our economy more productive and efficient” added Swift.
CFIB was also pleased to see measures to curb government administration costs. “The federal budget deficit cannot be tackled unless the government gets a handle on reducing costs in the public sector,” said Swift. “Many in the private sector have had to make sacrifices during the past year and so must the public sector to help get Canada’s books back in order. This is just a start, however, and much more needs to be done on public/private sector salary and benefit inequities”.
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
The Harper government’s budget fails to measure up to its own job creation promises, says the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), a progressive think tank.
Cardus
Ray Pennings, Director of Research for Cardus, expressed concern that although today’s federal budget rightly focuses on returning the books from deficit to surplus, it pays too little attention to imminent deficits in elder care, charitable service and broad social architecture.
“It’s a good budget, but it’s not visionary,” said Pennings. “Canada will begin facing down critical problems in the coming decades that need bold fiscal leadership, and by that standard, today’s budget is focused too much on short-term physical stimulus, and not enough on helping institutions outside of government build capacity for providing critical services over the long term.”
Certified Management Accountants of Canada
Certified Management Accountants of Canada (CMA Canada) welcomes Budget 2010’s focus on making Canada more globally competitive and encouraging greater investment in Canada.
The budget contains specific measures that will help Canadian businesses increase their capacity to innovate and become more productive.
While CMA Canada welcomes the new investment in public sector R&D included in Budget 2010, the government must continue to encourage business-led R&D, which is a critical source of innovation. To this end, the government should consider CMA Canada’s pre-budget recommendation of enhancing the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credit by enhancing the refundability provisions.
Canadian Auto Workers
“This budget does little to help Canadian workers secure their footing during a period of severe economic instability and is rooted in government-destroying, deeply ideological values,” CAW President Ken Lewenza said in response to Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget today.
The budget shifts the Conservative government policies further in favour of businesses and corporations, to the detriment of average Canadians. It outlines a series of plans to reduce the federal deficit through major spending cuts, including $6.8 billion from the public service budget. The budget also highlights the government’s intent to further reduce tariffs on manufacturing inputs, deregulation of the telecommunications and uranium mining sectors, an expansion of free trade, and boasts that Canada will have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7 by 2012.
The Direct Sellers Association of Canada
The Direct Sellers Association of Canada applauded the federal government for the extension of the GST/HST collection mechanism currently used by thousands of small businesses across Canada and for continued measures to create jobs for Canadians.
“The amendments to the GST/HST collection rules for direct sellers announced in the federal budget confirm this government is committed to creating an environment where entrepreneurial activity can grow and jobs can be created,” said Ross Creber, President of the Direct Sellers Association of Canada (DSA). “The changes Minister Flaherty announced today will benefit thousands of independent sales contractors in the direct selling industry.”
United Steelworkers
“The federal budget provides no new support for green jobs or general investment in manufacturing,” said Ken Neumann, United Steelworkers’ (USW) National Director for Canada. “It projects a higher unemployment rate this year than last year, but proposes only token improvements to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.
“The government should significantly enhance the accessibility, level and duration of regular EI benefits. It should stop deducting severance pay from EI benefits and shorten the two-week waiting period.
“While the budget continues previously announced stimulus spending, it provides almost no new money to create jobs or help unemployed workers,” says Neumann.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada welcomes the government’s strategic choice to invest in university research as announced today in Budget 2010.
“Given Canada’s fiscal outlook, we are pleased that the government is continuing to invest in university research and innovation to create jobs today and to build the economy of tomorrow,” says Michel Belley, chair of the AUCC Board of Directors and rector of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi.
The $32 million annual investment in the three major granting councils will help universities to pursue the kinds of research that will drive innovation and produce the highly skilled workers that all sectors of the economy need. The budget also provided $8 million for the Indirect Costs Program.
Canadian Youth Business Foundation
In today’s federal budget, Prime Minister Stephen Harper strengthened the government’s partnership with the Canadian Youth Business Foundation (CYBF) with the announcement of $10 million in funding. The funds will ensure that CYBF continues to help aspiring young entrepreneurs open businesses in communities across Canada, creating jobs while strengthening Canada’s economic recovery.
“At CYBF we know that youth entrepreneurship is fundamental to Canada’s economic recovery and long-term competitiveness,” explained Vivian Prokop, chief executive officer of CYBF. “The government’s continued investment in CYBF is recognition of our role as an important partner in job creation, economic development and building a culture of entrepreneurship in Canada. This federal funding, coupled with effective public and private partnerships, demonstrates an understanding that young entrepreneurs have great potential to generate ideas and drive innovation in Canada’s communities from coast to coast.”
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union
“All political parties should vote to bring this government down now,” says Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union President Dave Coles in reaction to today’s budget.
“Yet another budget, filled with rhetoric and platitudes, that does nothing for workers, families and communities in hundreds of forest-dependent communities,” says the leader of Canada’s largest forestry union.
“We saw the same show in last year’s budget,” says Coles. “In fact, in the past year, the Conservatives made many announcements about aid to the forest sector, yet we saw a record number of bankruptcies.”
“Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty are simply continuing to milk the media for their own gain.
The Forest Products Association of Canada
The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) today welcomed the spending initiatives and direction announced in the Federal Budget saying it will strengthen the industry’s plans for renewal.
“From a forest industry perspective, the Government has its priorities right: investing in green jobs of tomorrow, stimulating the economy through clean energy technologies, and inviting investment by changing the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance, will give Canada the edge it needs to move into the new bio-economy,” says Avrim Lazar, President and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada.
“The Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative leverages the industry’s ability to make a significant contribution to Canada’s vision of becoming a clean energy superpower. This is a win for the environment, economy and the next generation work force.” says Lazar.
Canada’s Chartered Accountants
Canada’s Chartered Accountants (CAs) are cautiously optimistic about the federal budget giving it a B-plus rating.
“This is really a wait and see budget,” said Kevin Dancey, FCA, president and CEO, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). “We won’t know if this is a successful budget until the government demonstrates that it has the ability to rein in costs.”
It also is a transition budget as the government prepares to move away from its stimulus spending to restraint. The budget confirms $19-billion in new federal stimulus under the second year of the government’s Economic Action Plan. It also charts a course to return Canada to fiscal balance but only brings the deficit down to 1.8-billion by 2014-2015.
Certified General Accountants Association of Canada
Although it includes no major initiatives, the Finance Minister introduced a budget that lays the groundwork for economic recovery and emphasizes productivity and innovation, says the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada).
“The budget addresses the right priorities – continuing with necessary economic stimulus, focusing on innovation, and charting a course for a return to budget balance,” says Anthony Ariganello, CGA-Canada’s President and CEO. “The fact that there are no major new initiatives is not a surprise. Nonetheless, the budget contains a number of interesting smaller measures, especially those related to innovation.”
VANOC
The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) today commended the Government of Canada for committing an additional $17 million annually in funding in support of the Own the Podium program: $11 million for winter athletes and $6 million for summer athletes. The funding announcement came as part of the Government of Canada’s release of the federal budget.
“The Prime Minister and Government of Canada have today confirmed that sport counts in Canada – that sport is an important and vibrant part of the fabric of life in our country,” said John Furlong, VANOC’s Chief Executive Officer. “Canadian winter athletes, through their stellar performance at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and at the upcoming Paralympic Games, are making a significant impact on the country, inspiring national pride and a showing what can be done when confidence is raised to the highest level through strong support. Our summer athletes have tremendous potential as they prepare for the London 2012 Games,” he said.