Silence of the charities – Renzetti

Elizabeth Renzetti on what appears to be selective criteria in CRA charity audits:

If you look at the 52 groups that have been targeted for audits since the Harper government’s 2012 crackdown on political activity by charities, it’s not hard to see what joins them: advocacy of causes that the Conservative government thinks are, by its own admission, “radical.” I don’t actually know the full list, because it’s not been revealed, but last year the CBC revealed the names of seven environmental charities, including the David Suzuki Foundation and Tides Canada. The free-speech group PEN Canada and human-rights advocates Amnesty International were also targeted. Some 400 academics signed a letter denouncing the audit into the political activities of the progressive think tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The CRA swears up and down that there is no political motivation to the audits, but how is the public to know? The agency doesn’t reveal who is the target of its audits, nor how they’re prepared. Charities live in fear of catching the eye of Sauron.

“Among environmental groups right now there’s a broad reluctance to speak out,” says Calvin Sandborn, director of the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre. “It’s kind of like in Nixon’s America where you didn’t want to be the enemy that he’d sic the IRS on.”

The law students working with Prof. Sandborn recently released a report on the troubling legal underpinnings of the current audit system, and its need for reform. (Mr. Harper’s government may not have been the first to target charities, but it was certainly one of the more vehement, setting aside $13.4-million for audits shortly after adding “environmentalists” to the roster of threats Canada faces.)

Canada’s charities are hobbled in a bunch of ways, the report found. The CRA’s rules around what constitutes “political activity” are murky and confusing; there is little transparency about how those rules are applied; charities subject to audit often have to spend precious resources putting together documents for auditors and providing legal training for staff; and most important, many charities are self-censoring for fear of breaching the 10 per cent rule and facing shutdown by the CRA.

Although the report does not come to any conclusions about whether the current spate of audits are politically motivated, it does find the threat alone has a sinister chilling effect: “The important thing is that the audits themselves – and the mere perception that they may be targeted – are clearly silencing charities that have much to offer society.”

Other countries around the world don’t hobble the political advocacy of their charities the way Canada does. In some countries, like the Netherlands, lobbying by charities is encouraged. In others, like England, the body that oversees charities is an independent entity at arm’s length from government (in Canada, the CRA falls under the remit of the Minister of Revenue.) In the U.S., charities that spend too much on political activities (already set at a far more generous level than here) are taxed rather than shut down.

Silence of the charities – The Globe and Mail.

Stephen Maher: Can you remind us how you care about your opponents’ rights too, Mr. Harper?

Seems like an audit of the Church’s charitable status seems in order 🙂

It seems likely the P.E.I. church is secretly doing its last-minute cancellations of Liberal events to get revenge on the party for Trudeau’s abortion policy.

I hope that’s what they’re up to, because the alternative — that they are telling the truth — is chilling.

Grecco said the church is afraid that if it allows Liberals to hold events in its halls, the church could have to face auditors. [the Church seems not to fear repercussions from holding Conservative events]

“That would jeopardize our standing as a charitable status with the (Canada Revenue Agency),” Grecco said.

That seems like a weak excuse from an organization trying to avoid the truth, but who knows?

In 2012, the CRA threatened to take away the tax-free status of a magazine published by the Mennonites because they published some editorials that were critical of Harper’s wise environmental stewardship.

The CRA’s political auditors have also taken a hard line with the Kairos church charity, various anti-pipeline groups and, of course, the David Suzuki Foundation.

They even targeted Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., bird watchers who were unwise enough to criticize the environmental policy of Conservatives in their bird-watching circulars.

Is it possible that some of the prime minister’s auditors in the CRA have been excessively zealous in carrying out the leader’s wishes, to the point they are frightening churches into cancelling events from opposition parties?

The idea is ridiculous.

We can be sure Harper wants church halls to open their doors to events for all parties, because he supports the fundamental democratic rights of all Canadians.

It’s absurd to think, as the Harper haters would have you believe, that he doesn’t care about the rights of those who disagree with him.

Still, maybe he should say so from time to time, just to make it crystal clear.

Stephen Maher: Can you remind us how you care about your opponents’ rights too, Mr. Harper? | National Post.

CRA audits of charities look fair but feel foul – Don McRae

Looking and finding patterns in the selection of charities for CRA audit:

The Charities Program Update states that one of the factors in building the audit plan was that groups from all four charitable categories were audited. (The categories are relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes of benefit to the community.)

As of Jan. 31, 2014, there were 31 files under audit. Twenty-two of the 31 audits were community benefit groups (where environmental, social justice and human rights groups are found). This segment, which is 23.3 per cent of all charities, makes up 71 per cent of the 31 audits. There appears to be no cause for an over-representation of these groups as they make up only 18.5 per cent of all charities revoked for cause since 1967.

In a Canadian Press story last August, the director general of the charities directorate, Cathy Hawara, explained the audit selection process. She said the CRA considered formal complaints from citizens, lobby groups, MPs or even cabinet ministers. (Having a complaint from a minister raises questions about the selection process.) These external complaints led to 30 “leads” to investigate.

From 2008-09 to 2010-11, there was an average of 24 such complaints to the CRA each year. This went up to 139 complaints in 2011-12 and 159 the year after that. Ethical Oil, the lobby group with Conservative ties that encourages “people, businesses and governments to choose Ethical Oil from Canada’s oilsands,” made several complaints and at least five of these groups are being audited.

Of the 20 self-identified charities, 11 do some work on environmental issues and seven work on social justice or international development. Seven of the 20 have had their federal funding eliminated since 2006. KAIROS, the group that was famously not recommended by the former CIDA minister Bev Oda, is being audited under the auspices of the United Church of Canada. Four other groups identified on the church’s website as partners are being audited. Some of the audits have taken years, draining staff time, resources and energy from the organizations.

The Conservative government has assured Canadians that the system of political activity audits is fair and neutral. The limited evidence we have suggests a different conclusion. To paraphrase Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, the system looks fair but feels foul.

There are two major losers in this process. The first are Canadians, who will not benefit from the research, experience and advice of Canadian charities. The second is the CRA, which must defend what appears to be a stunted and warped selection process by finding new ways to say “trust us.”

CRA audits of charities look fair but feel foul | Toronto Star.

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically

Another illustration that charities chosen for CRA audits, and those not chosen, appear to reflect ideological or political criteria:

The charity behind the campaign to erect a monument to the victims of communism has declared zero political activity in its five-year history, even though it originally told the Canada Revenue Agency some of its work would be political.

A review of Tribute to Liberty’s official filings with the CRA reveals a clear intention to engage in political activity. When asked if it planned to engage in political activities, it answered “Yes” in its 2009 application for charitable status. It said this would involve contacting MPs and senators to gain their support for the project.

Yet, in the five years that followed, the charity answered “No” each time it was asked by the CRA in annual reporting forms whether it conducted political activity.

Dozens of Canadian charities have faced scrutiny since the 2012 Conservative budget set aside $8-million for CRA audits to determine whether they are following rules regarding political activity. The CRA has not published a list of the 60 charities it has identified for auditing. However, some of the groups that said they were audited were critical of government policy. The CRA has rejected suggestions the selection was politically motivated.

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically – The Globe and Mail.

PM’s charity audits look for ‘bias, one-sidedness’

The more information that comes out, the more it smells of bias in the choice of charities it audits:

The CRA says it will do 60 audits, and there are 86,000 charities in Canada. So that’s a one-in-1,400 chance of being audited by random selection. Only it’s not random. The CRA admits it’s looking for red flags, including “bias.”

“Audit selection occurs after a substantial screening process,” the CRA said in an email. “This may include considering issues such as ‘point of view,’ ‘bias,’ or ‘one-sidedness.'”

In Dying With Dignity’s case, its offending activities apparently included attempts to change public opinion.

“It is not legally charitable to engage in pressure tactics on governments such as swaying public opinion, promoting an attitude of mind, creating a climate of opinion,” the CRA’s auditor wrote to Dying With Dignity.

Still, there is a whole class of charities, known as think tanks whose major purpose is creating a climate of opinion or promoting an attitude of mind, activities that fall under the general category of “research as a charitable activity.”

“Think tanks make it very clear from the beginning that their objective is to shape public opinion, and public policy,” says Western University political science professor Donald Abelson. He has spent two decades studying think tanks in Canada and the U.S. and he’s currently writing a book about them.

Just read the annual reports from some of Canada’s leading think tanks to find proud claims of “shaping the national discourse”, “prodding governments, opinion leaders and the general public,” “changing the minds of decision makers,” yet none of that activity apparently trips the wire between political and charitable activity.

“We’re in kind of a grey area, particularly over the last several years, where the lines between policy research and political advocacy have become increasingly blurred,” Abelson said.

Which circles back to the prickly question of how to define “political activities.”

Why the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and not the Fraser Institute? Why Dying with Dignity and not the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms or the Canadian Constitution Foundation?

PM’s charity audits look for ‘bias, one-sidedness’ – Health – CBC News.

Revenue Canada targets birdwatchers for political activity

This may be the over-reach that helps clarify the issues – targeting birdwatchers (see earlier Canadian charities in limbo as tax audits widen to new groups – Politics – CBC News):

But longtime member Roger Suffling is speaking up, saying the issue is about democratic freedom and not about arcane tax rules.

“Effectively, they’ve put a gag on us,” he said in an interview, noting that the letter arrived just after the club had written directly to two federal cabinet ministers to complain about government-approved chemicals that damage bee colonies.

“You can piece together the timing,” said Suffling, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo. “The two things are very concurrent.”

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq responded to the group’s complaint in a March 14 letter — or just days after the Canada Revenue Agency letter arrived — and Suffling is convinced the two events are linked. Aglukkaqs office denies there’s any link, saying the agency operates independently.

Suffling said that if government is using the tax agency as a “pit bull to stifle dissent, then there’s something very wrong.”

Revenue Canada targets birdwatchers for political activity – Politics – CBC News.

Canadian charities in limbo as tax audits widen to new groups – Politics – CBC News

Not quite sure whether the list below passes the “smell” test of being neutral and completely free of political direction:

“CRA audits occur at arm’s length from the government and are conducted free of any political interference. Our government is committed to ensuring that our tax system is fair for all Canadians.”

The tax agency acknowledges it has been auditing the political activities of a variety of charities whose work focuses on animal welfare, poverty, education, religion, health, human rights and others.

Canadian charities in limbo as tax audits widen to new groups – Politics – CBC News.