Give and take.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government gives and takes. In May 2006, the government eliminated the capital gains tax on publicly-traded stocks and bonds donated to charity. The government was highly praised by many voluntary sector leaders for that gift, but we expressed doubts about this "reform" to the tax laws.

Since then, announcements of new multi-million dollar securities gifts have appeared in the media. Large health institutions and universities have been the principal beneficiaries. These organizations are usually able to place names and corporate icons on buildings, thereby promoting the giver. Highly publicized programs are also getting similar treatment. Any organization that can afford a substantial fund-raising department is getting the benefit of these generous gifts.

Predictably, smaller and medium sized organizations are not realizing any great benefit. Homeless programs, women's shelters, youth employment, and rehabilitation of offenders, for instance, do not have sufficient glamour to attract the larger gifts. Who wants to put a corporate brand on these organizations? The volunteers and contributors to these groups are stalwarts who often have to battle public opinion in order to gain support.

The financial services industry is also reaping benefits. Some financial planners are advising their clients that they could receive substantial tax rebates from this type of giving.

We worried back in May that Harper's government would exact payment for its generosity. Recently, the government announced plans to cut government spending by a billion or more dollars per year. According to the Voluntary Sector Forum, this will eliminate $200 million from programs of social significance. These include the Court Challenges Program, the Law Commission of Canada, Status of Women Canada, Adult Learning and Literacy Programs, Youth Employment Programs, the Museum Assistance Program, First Nations Programs, and the Canadian Volunteerism Initiative. These programs provide direct and indirect funding to a wide range of voluntary organizations (mostly smaller ones) that help implement their goals.

However, the Voluntary Sector Forum, an arms-length agency that includes government representatives, is unclear on the full impact of the cuts. They are asking for voluntary groups to report to them on funding changes. We suspect that when they get their answers, the tally will be much greater than the $200 million announced initially. Nor should we be surprised if the Forum itself loses funding.

This is only the beginning. As elimination of the capital gains tax for charitable gifts cuts deeper into revenues, the federal government will look for more ways to cut the government funding of voluntary organizations.

Up until a few years ago, governments at all levels paid about half the program costs of voluntary social service organizations. The federal government is now withdrawing its support largely because of the new charitable contributions rules. By foregoing the capital gains tax, it sees itself as giving this sector enough.

Until recently, a large part of the voluntary sector, especially the social services, existed in a diverse environment receiving funding from federal, provincial, and municipal governments and also from charitable sources. Charitable contributions served to indicate community support and could therefore encourage government funding. The several levels of governments themselves often look to one another to share the costs of many health, social and cultural programs.

The most important role of the voluntary sector has been to encourage and promote new ideas and new methods for dealing with social problems. The federal government appears not especially interested in anything new or different.

Prime Minister Harper can be expected to withdraw even more support while his government is still in power. Will the provincial governments make up the shortfall? We doubt it. Will charitable contributions rise sufficiently to meet the need? We doubt that, as well.

The federal government has to be told that it is going in the wrong direction. Will the leaders of the charitable sector who initially advocated for the change in the tax laws do it? They should make it clear that they did not seek tax changes in order to give the federal government an excuse for cutting the already meagre support for voluntary social services. It requires a strong reaction and the leaders of this sector should step up to the plate with vigour.