Federal Funding of Gay Pride Parade

[Dave_ON]

You sure it wasn't a hundred billion? I mean, as long as they're inventing ridiculous numbers, why not make them even larger. Surely size DOES count in the gay community.

Looks like the gays aren't the ones that are overcompensating, however I digress. The federal funding isn't necessary and as I stated earlier the government received roughly $18 Million in tax revenues as a result of the event. The event has funded itself for decades and the federal funds are not necessary to keep it going. The funds were used to further enhance the event. Reality is the government budgets 'x' amount of dollars for tourist and cultural events and anyone who goes through the application process and meets the standards is eligible for it.

The numbers are estimates but they're hardly made up. Toronto pride draws roughly 1.2 million people, if each person spent roughly $100 dollars each that would easily reach the $100 Million mark. Spending $100 is easy enough to do at the event; some folks spend that on booze alone.

Do you honestly expect our government to spend every dime on the military?

[Shakeyhands]

If this thing were profitable then Toronto could fund it.

As for the military - we are flying cheap civilian knock-off helicopters in Afghanistan right now so that the governmetn can have money to spend on things like gay pride parades, blonde joke books, and canoe museums. One of them went down the other day, killing two Canadians.

How much pride is there in that?

Thats a rather miopic view on things don't you think? The government can spend their share of the return on any number of projects, incluidng funding new helicopters if they wish. Why do you hate capitialism? IMO, you just don't like the idea of an investment in a parade celebrating gays becoming equal. And there is a lot to be proud of in that.

[M.Dancer]

Why do you hate capitialism?

IMO, you just don't like the idea of an investment in a parade celebrating gays becoming equal. And there is a lot to be proud of in that.

Talk about two disjointed statements. Public funding of an event which has the potential to make money is not even remotely close to capitalism....it's blatant socialism. It's not an investment either. The week long event would generate tax dollars regardles of whether public money was used....there fore the money is wasted.

It's like you have a choice of putting up a roof..you could use 5 cent nails but you get a subsidy and pay 10cents for the same nail.

[Shakeyhands]

Talk about two disjointed statements. Public funding of an event which has the potential to make money is not even remotely close to capitalism....it's blatant socialism. It's not an investment either. The week long event would generate tax dollars regardles of whether public money was used....there fore the money is wasted.

It's like you have a choice of putting up a roof..you could use 5 cent nails but you get a subsidy and pay 10cents for the same nail.

Hmm... If I invest money in the nail and the guy who ultimately sells the nail for substantially more therefore allowing me to make a substantial profit on my investment, I've then practiced capitialism.

Not sure how you don't see that.

And as was stated earlier, if the event that is funded is able to make itself more attractive to potential visitors, then it is win win, and certainly a good investment.

[Argus]

The numbers are estimates but they're hardly made up. Toronto pride draws roughly 1.2 million people, if each person spent roughly $100 dollars each that would easily reach the $100 Million mark. Spending $100 is easy enough to do at the event; some folks spend that on booze alone.

The point you miss is that people with money to spend on going out generally go out. If there is no "pride" event, that week, then they'll go to another bar, or the same one, or they'll go to a movie, or they'll go clubbing, or to the zoo, or to Ontario Place, or the ROM. Wherever they go and whatever they spend their money on the government will get tax revenue. The idea that the pride parade "generates" tax revenues is silly.

Do you honestly expect our government to spend every dime on the military?

I expect our government to logically evaluate which is more important to spend money on - good quality equipment for the soldiers in Afghanistan, or unnecessary, uneeded extravagancies.

[Smallc]

Public funding of an event which has the potential to make money is not even remotely close to capitalism....it's blatant socialism.

Yes, the government has taken over and distribution of pride... Give me a break, you're usually more credible than that.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

The idea that the pride parade "generates" tax revenues is silly.

Twist and turn al you want to try to avoid reality Argus. Pride and the ride parade draws people from all over the city, province, country, continent, and world. These people spend money. If not for pride they wouldn't be there. If the federal government wants to contribute to help make the tourist draw even better, then I'm all for it.

[Dave_ON]

The point you miss is that people with money to spend on going out generally go out. If there is no "pride" event, that week, then they'll go to another bar, or the same one, or they'll go to a movie, or they'll go clubbing, or to the zoo, or to Ontario Place, or the ROM. Wherever they go and whatever they spend their money on the government will get tax revenue. The idea that the pride parade "generates" tax revenues is silly.

I expect our government to logically evaluate which is more important to spend money on - good quality equipment for the soldiers in Afghanistan, or unnecessary, uneeded extravagancies.

The point you miss is this is not only Torontonian's that are in attendance, its people from all over NA. So in fact it is generating tax revenues over and above what would normally be generated. It also infuses cash into the local economy that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's basic tourism principals and that's why the government budgets for tourism events. So you're right people who have money will spend it, this event ensures they spend it in Canada not their local area bars etc.

As for military spending I can't comment on that as I'm not sure what the numbers are. But I'm fairly certain we spend a great deal more on defense spending than we do on tourism funding. I'm certain if we compared the two budgets the gap would be substantial. How much is enough Argus? Is the government not budgeting enough or is the DND not allocating it properly? Is the structure in need of revamping? Where's the disconnect? Honestly this is off the thread topic and would be more suitable in the thread dedicated to it.

[M.Dancer]

The point you miss is that people with money to spend on going out generally go out. If there is no "pride" event, that week, then they'll go to another bar, or the same one, or they'll go to a movie, or they'll go clubbing, or to the zoo, or to Ontario Place, or the ROM.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it shouldn't be funded....but if there was no Pride week all those people would indeed go to another bar.....mainly bars in their hometowns....Pittsburg, NYC, Detroit, Boston....

I would guess that the bulk of the pride attendees are tourists who would not come to Toronto the Stinky if not for Pride.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It seems like most everyone on here is in agreement - both left and right - that gay pride parades shouldn't be getting handouts.

So how do they get away with it?

It goes back to my own pet topic on this board: the tyranny of "nice" (as the book is called).

We've been conditioned to never speak our opinions in public, lest someone gets offended and we're accused of "hate".

My $0.02

[jdobbin]

The Tories seem to be going to great lengths in distancing themselves from gays. However, they have been funding a few gay organizations through different miniseries for a while now.

Are they all going to be cut off?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...activities.aspx

Recipient: Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives

Minister: Hon. James Moore

Funding received - $175,000.00

Purpose: Arts in Communities

Date: 2009-03-26

The list goes on for a while.

Will all these minister's face anger in caucus?

[Dave_ON]

The Tories seem to be going to great lengths in distancing themselves from gays. However, they have been funding a few gay organizations through different miniseries for a while now.

Are they all going to be cut off?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...activities.aspx

The list goes on for a while.

Will all these minister's face anger in caucus?

Not sure they'll be able to distance themselves from it. Interesting CBC article.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...ontreal008.html

Girard said she has received money from the federal government's Economic Development Corp. for the last decade. And this year the Conservative government committed to two years of funding, providing her with more budget stability.

She has also received minor funding from Canadian Heritage for the 17-year-old festival, which features gay musicians, dancers and theatrical performers. Divers-Cité brings in $10 million in tourism dollars.

Which minister is going to get the blame for this one and how will they explain it away this time?

[Dave_ON]

It seems like most everyone on here is in agreement - both left and right - that gay pride parades shouldn't be getting handouts.

So how do they get away with it?

It goes back to my own pet topic on this board: the tyranny of "nice" (as the book is called).

We've been conditioned to never speak our opinions in public, lest someone gets offended and we're accused of "hate".

My $0.02

I wouldn't say everyone is in agreement that gay pride parades alone shouldn't get a hand out. I think the consensus is more that cultural events shouldn't be funded including pride. I happen to disagree with this assertion, anything that is good for tourism is good for Canada.

[M.Dancer]

I happen to disagree with this assertion, anything that is good for tourism is good for Canada.

I agree but i think they should advertise destinations rather than subsidize events.

[Shakeyhands]

Clement, asked whose "values" the government was looking after and whether it was a question of "social values," said the government is looking to ensure "value on behalf of Canadians. Value in terms of a monetary value because we put money in and we expect that this will be helpful to our economy."

"Our position is we're going to review that file like I, we just finished a review a whole knowledge-infrastructure program that's brand new."

"It's part of my duties and responsibilities as a minister of industry. And for next year, I really can't speculate on who'll be applying, where that money will go. We've got $50 million on this particular program to dispense next year, but based on value for money for sure."

Return on an investment. Doesn't look like that argument will disqualify Pride Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/663337

[ToadBrother]

I wouldn't say everyone is in agreement that gay pride parades alone shouldn't get a hand out. I think the consensus is more that cultural events shouldn't be funded including pride. I happen to disagree with this assertion, anything that is good for tourism is good for Canada.

No kidding. A dollar is a dollar, whether the guy handing it to you is wearing a Hawaiian shirt or buttless pants.

[benny]

No kidding. A dollar is a dollar, whether the guy handing it to you is wearing a Hawaiian shirt or buttless pants.

Toronto is not Bangkok.

[August1991]

Twist and turn al you want to try to avoid reality Argus. Pride and the ride parade draws people from all over the city, province, country, continent, and world. These people spend money. If not for pride they wouldn't be there. If the federal government wants to contribute to help make the tourist draw even better, then I'm all for it.

The Toronto gay parade or Calgary stampede may draw people but the benefit, if there is one, is the small slice of extra profits for the hospitality sector in Toronto or Calgary. (To claim that 1.2 million visitors each spend $100 for a total of $120 million confuses gross revenue and profit.)

Ideally, the businesses in the hospitality sector of Toronto and Calgary should provide any subsidy for any parade in their cities. (Incidentally, the Quebec government imposes just such a regional tax to raise such funds.) A municipal tax imitates this.

In short, there is no reason for the federal government to get involved in this sort of festival. If it does so, it is for crass political reasons. It's worth reminding everyone that the sponsorship scandal was one grotesque example of Liberal Party corruption.

----

Let me just add the downside to local parades and pride weeks. Some people find the noise and congestion irritating. The extra profits of the local bars and restaurants should be reduced by this "cost" to local residents. I have the suspicion that this cost is greater in Toronto than Calgary.

Why should municipal councils be picking winners and losers if the federal government shouldn't?

In their wisdom, the writers of our Constitution decided that in a country such as Canada with two dominant languages and two dominant Christian denominations, it is better for the federal government not to get involved. Most issues and certainly moral public issues are better decided locally. Edited July 9, 2009 by August1991

[benny]

In short, there is no reason for the federal government to get involved in this sort of festival. If it does so, it is for crass political reasons. It's worth reminding everyone that the sponsorship scandal was one grotesque example of Liberal Party corruption.

A democratic government has all the reasons to push citizens to be proud of having overcome self-denigration, shame, hate and social prejudices.

Edited July 9, 2009 by benny

[jdobbin]

In short, there is no reason for the federal government to get involved in this sort of festival. If it does so, it is for crass political reasons. It's worth reminding everyone that the sponsorship scandal was one grotesque example of Liberal Party corruption.

So you believe this is Tory corruption now?

[benny]

So you believe this is Tory corruption now?

Money corrupts.

[Shakeyhands]

It's worth reminding everyone that the sponsorship scandal was one grotesque example of Liberal Party corruption.

I love how this keeps getting trotted out. It wasn't anything to do with the Federal Party I'll remind you, but rather individuals within the Quebec wing. Your pal Gomery wrote a whole report on it, perhaps you should refresh your memory and read it.

[benny]

I love how this keeps getting trotted out. It wasn't anything to do with the Federal Party I'll remind you, but rather individuals within the Quebec wing. Your pal Gomery wrote a whole report on it, perhaps you should refresh your memory and read it.

Gays emancipation and Quebec independence: same struggle!?

[August1991]

I still fail to see the difference. You seem to imply that the Calgary Stampede is not a "lifestyle" choice which in fact it is, just like those who oppose gay pride events feel that being gay is a “lifestyle” choice. Do I enjoy the Calgary stampede or anything about it? Absolutely not, it's absolutely ridiculous in my never humble opinion but to each their own. I understand the tourist draw it is for Calgary and all the more power to those who do enjoy it, just not my cup of tea.

I have never been to the Calgary stampede but it reminds me of a small town exhibition. Irritating to some but hardly a moral challenge to conventional wisdom.

IMHO, the State should not subsidize a sans-culotte, avant garde revolution, or any challenge to conventional wisdom.

(Dave, I suggest that you think about my argument.)

As for you assertion that the lifesite should get funding because the “gays” do its based on an erroneous assumption that they are opposite sides of the same coin.

The fact is, they are on opposite sides.

Dress this pig up as you want, but some people oppose the "gay lifestyle" and gay marriage. There are two sides to this story.

The fact remains that the Toronto Pride organization went through the process and jumped through all the same hoops that other organizations did, like the Calgary stampede which means they have as much right to access tax payer funding as the rest do.

"... jumped through all the same hoops... "

This is the most terrifying idea. We now have a new criteria for governments to choose winners/losers: Can supplicants of taxpayer money "jump through the hoops"?

Russia's monarchy collapsed because the czar handed out money using a similar system.

----

BTW, I argued some of this in the Montreal Formula One thread.

I quote myself from that thread:

Dobbin, a government is not a business. It shouldn't spend money with an eye to what tax revenues the spending will generate. But let me take that idea and see where it goes. If the government taxes me and gives it to Barney Ecclestone so that American tourists will come to Montreal and eat in restaurants which in turn will pay taxes to local governments.

Why involve Ecclestone and Americans in this? Why not leave the money in my pocket and let me go to the restaurant and have a meal? The government will still get the tax revenue without the circuitous foreign route.

IOW, when the government taxes me, that means I have less to spend and others will pay lower taxes.

If you are going to champion the "economic benefits" of some government scheme, at least have the decent integrity to note the "economic costs" of the taxes collected. In a river, water diverted in one direction just means less water going elsewhere.

A democratic government has all the reasons to push citizens to be proud of having overcome self-denigration, shame, hate and social prejudices.

A democratic government has no reason or justification to push any citizen in any direction. Benny, imagine how your idea could be abused. Edited July 9, 2009 by August1991

[benny]

Russia's monarchy collapsed because the czar handed out money using a similar system.

Russia's monarchy collapsed because of Lenin's adaptation of Marxism to a feudal regime.