Critics say Fraser Institute letter highlights ‘enormous lack of clarity’ in charity-audit rules | Toronto Star
2015/05/19 2 Comments
How the Fraser Institute can maintain this kind of letter by former Ontario Premier Harris is non-partisan defies credibility and common sense:
A fundraising letter written by Fraser Institute senior fellow and former premier Mike Harris criticizing the Ontario government highlights a double standard in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities, critics charge.
The letter takes swipes at the province for lacking a “credible plan” to balance the provincial budget within two years, and goes on to criticize Ontario’s debt and the province’s unemployment rate.
“As my fellow Ontarian you must be outraged — that is why I am writing to you today to help us educate Ontarians about the severity of Ontario’s problems and the potential solutions,” Harris writes.
The letter asks the reader to “join in the pursuit of policies that will re-establish Ontario as the envy of Canada” by financially supporting the Fraser Institute’s new research program.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government aren’t mentioned in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Star.
The letter is drawing criticism because while charities are permitted to engage in political activities as long as they don’t spend more than 10 per cent of their funds doing so, the Fraser Institute claims the Harris letter isn’t political, and that the group doesn’t engage in any political activities.
Critics argue the letter cuts to the heart of the problem they see in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities.
“This is a great example of the enormous lack of clarity in the rules governing charities and inconsistency in the application by the CRA of those rules,” says NDP MP Murray Rankin, his party’s Canada Revenue critic.
“I just want a level playing field where other charities that may not be aligned with the Conservative government are subject to the same rules,” he said, adding the CRA’s rules are “all over the place.’’
Since Jan. 1, 2012, the CRA’s Charities Directorate has completed roughly 2,000 audits of charities through its regular audit program, and identified more than 50 charities for “political activities” audits.
The government budgets $13 million a year for these political “super audits,” as some people refer to them.
Critics charge that charities espousing views that run counter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — including some environmental groups — have been unfairly and disproportionately targeted for the political activity audits.
Charities that have been subjected to these audits say having to pull together the paperwork for the inspections is a daunting process. Several groups have voiced concerns the audits are intended to silence them.
The president of the Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think-tank and registered charity, says “in no way” is the Harris letter political.
“It’s written by a long time senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, Mike Harris. All of the data in the letter is based on Fraser Institute research,” says president Niels Veldhuis, who adds that his organization is non-partisan.
Veldhuis says his organization has been audited by the CRA three times — the last time being in the late 1990s.
Groups that have been audited since 2012, however, say it’s a stretch to say there’s nothing political about Harris’ fundraising letter.
“We would not have it signed by an ex-politician especially with that level of profile as a Conservative politician,” says Bruce Campbell, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a non-partisan research body devoted to social, economic and environmental justice issues.
In order to address the critics, the Government needs to be more transparent on the criteria used and needs a few high profile examples of right-leaning organizations that are being audited.
Given the last time the Fraser Institute was audited was in the late 1990s, perhaps it could volunteer for an audit?

In our mild good-mannered unprotesting Canadian way, we are truly in the world of George Orwell’s Newspeak where words are redesigned to control – or eliminate – thought; or perhaps we find ourselves in Alice in Wonderland where from high in his perch on the wall Humpty Dumpty declares that words mean what he wants them to mean, neither more nor less. Perhaps it’s time Humpty Dumpty fell off that wall. Totalitarian creep is a dangerous thing.
All too true.