Gareth KirkbyCommunication teacher, professional communication, strategy
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Thesis
    • Thesis Intro: Click
    • My Master’s Thesis: Uncharitable Chill
    • Media
  • Strategic Communications
  • Journalism
  • Photography
  • Resume

How Government Created a ‘Funnel’ to Target

July 24, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

The ques­tion I’m most asked about the audits of char­i­ties for their ‘polit­i­cal activ­i­ties’ con­cerns how Canada Rev­enue Agency could end up sin­gling out char­i­ties from the “pro­gres­sive” end of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, par­tic­u­larly envi­ron­men­tal char­i­ties work­ing on issues around var­i­ous aspects of energy policy.

How is it that the process has been politi­cized? Peo­ple won­der whether a cab­i­net min­is­ter told a senior CRA bureau­crat who to audit, and then it got passed down the line. That would be a clear vio­la­tion of the sep­a­ra­tion of admin­is­tra­tive tax­a­tion deci­sions from the polit­i­cal arm of government.

But it’s also the hard­est to prove, because a smok­ing gun would prob­a­bly involve a memo from a senior bureau­crat dis­cov­ered through a free­dom of infor­ma­tion request. Given how wrong it would be for a senior bureau­crat to fol­low such instruc­tions from a cab­i­net min­is­ter or polit­i­cal oper­a­tive in the Prime Minister’s Office (equally wrong as giv­ing such instruc­tions in the first place), it’s hard to imag­ine a min­istry offi­cial writ­ing about it.

So if that’s how the polit­i­cal inter­fer­ence is tak­ing place, it’s unlikely there would be a smok­ing gun. That said, it’s telling that some of the char­ity lead­ers I inter­viewed thought it pos­si­ble for this to hap­pen in the cur­rent polit­i­cal cli­mate. Per­haps trust is not high for the integrity of gov­ern­ment min­is­ters and senior bureaucrats?

The best expla­na­tion though, is what I’ll call the “Con­struct­ing the Fun­nel” approach to ensur­ing CRA tar­gets orga­ni­za­tions that have dif­fer­ent pol­icy pref­er­ences to those of the gov­ern­ment. Now, keep in mind that for this to work it does not have to be a con­scious, well-thought-out strat­egy. Whether very delib­er­ate or the result of a series of actions, the fun­nel gets con­structed and the char­i­ties get dis­tracted and muffled.

Step 1
Start­ing in 2012 and last­ing all the way to the 2014 fed­eral bud­get, fed­eral cab­i­net min­is­ters, with back-up com­ments from the Prime Min­is­ter, write and speak in pub­lic of char­i­ties in the same breath as money-launderers, crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions, and ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions. Envi­ron­men­tal­ists are labeled “extrem­ists” under­min­ing Cana­dian fam­i­lies. Envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions are added to the national ter­ror­ism strat­egy as poten­tial threats to secu­rity. CRA staff see this as surely as the rest of us and know who the gov­ern­ment is con­cerned about.

Step 2
In 2011, a polit­i­cal employee leaves the employ of fed­eral cab­i­net min­is­ter Jason Ken­ney to found Eth­i­cal Oil, an aggres­sive pri­vate non-profit that advo­cates on behalf of Canada’s petro­chem­i­cal sec­tor. The orga­ni­za­tion starts a web­site and files com­plaints to the CRA against energy-issue char­i­ties, accus­ing them of break­ing reg­u­la­tions con­cern­ing “polit­i­cal” and par­ti­san activ­i­ties. The oper­a­tive returns to Ottawa with a pro­mo­tion to the Prime Minister’s Office. Peo­ple with con­nec­tions to the Con­ser­v­a­tive Party con­tinue to run Eth­i­cal Oil.

Step 3
The 2012 fed­eral bud­get sets aside $8 mil­lion for stepped-up CRA audits of “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” and other mat­ters, at the same time as other gov­ern­ment depart­ments get cuts in an aus­ter­ity bud­get that laid off approx­i­mately 2000 gov­ern­ment sci­en­tists and mas­sively reduced envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions and pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion processes. In dis­cussing the changes, Finance Min­is­ter Jim Fla­herty refers to cit­i­zen complaints.

Step 4
CRA now has the finan­cial resources to increase audits for “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” and aims for 60 over three years. Staff check files to dis­cover which orga­ni­za­tions are declar­ing higher per­cent­age of resources devoted to “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” (most char­i­ties are allowed up to 10 per­cent of resources, smaller char­i­ties up to 20 per­cent). These tend to be orga­ni­za­tions with dif­fer­ent ideas than the cur­rent gov­ern­ment about the best pub­lic poli­cies for Canada.

Step 5
CRA finds mul­ti­ple com­plaints from Eth­i­cal Oil in the files of orga­ni­za­tions that address envi­ron­men­tal and eco­nomic issues around cli­mate change, expan­sion of the oil sands or gas extrac­tion, pipeline and train trans­porta­tion, export by ocean tankers, and pro­tec­tion of habi­tat and species in Alberta and BC related to the above.

Inter­est­ingly, a Feb­ru­ary 6, 2014 news report by CBC quoted Alberta Con­ser­v­a­tive MP James Rajotte noted that he assumes CRA “receive all sorts of infor­ma­tion from all sorts of Cana­di­ans, in terms of who they should or should not audit.”

Step 6
Per­haps there are com­plaints from indi­vid­u­als or groups in the CRA files of char­i­ties in other sec­tors my data iden­ti­fied as targeted—development/human rights groups and groups with sig­nif­i­cant fund­ing from labour unions—or per­haps there are other yel­low or red flags that drew CRA attention.

Step 7
Char­i­ties with high self-declaration of “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” and/or com­plaints are given early and par­tic­u­lar atten­tion for auditing.

The fed­eral gov­ern­ment has con­sis­tently denied that it either tar­gets indi­vid­ual char­i­ties or tells CRA to do so. In any case, three sec­tors are being tar­geted for audits. It seems that the gov­ern­ment has, unin­ten­tion­ally or by design, con­structed a fun­nel that increases the like­li­hood of audits focus­ing on groups that have dif­fer­ent ideas than the gov­ern­ment about pub­lic poli­cies, and are more likely to voice their dissatisfaction.

My fun­nel is derived from the com­ments of 16 char­ity lead­ers and five experts who par­tic­i­pated in my the­sis research on con­di­tion of anonymity, along with a sur­vey of lit­er­a­ture on the Cana­dian char­ity and vol­un­tary sec­tor. It is a rea­son­able expla­na­tion for explain­ing the tar­get­ing now being expe­ri­enced, and reflects the expe­ri­ences of char­i­ties, char­ity lawyers and for­mer gov­ern­ment staffers. As they say in the TV com­mer­cials, “Actual results may vary.” There’s no trade­mark on this fun­nel; feel free to share it.

Mean­while, please check out my Master’s the­sis and feel free to for­ward and tweet it. And you can fol­low me on Twit­ter: @garethkirkby

I am a for­mer jour­nal­ist and media man­ager who recently com­pleted my Master’s the­sis for Royal Roads Uni­ver­sity and now work as a com­mu­ni­ca­tions pro­fes­sional. I have earned a Web­ster Award of Dis­tinc­tion, among other awards, for my reporting.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-environmental-charities-face-canada-revenue-agency-audits-1.2526330

Archived Posts

  • November 2015
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

Tags

abuse active citizens alternative energy audit audits BCCLA bullying carbon economy carbon taxes charitable charities civil society complaints confusion CRA democracy enemies energy regulations enforcement environmentalists ethical funnel greenwash Imagine Canada interpretation investigation muffling NDP oil partisan PEN petroleum pipeline opposition policy political activities politicization power public Rankin RCMP rhetoric silencing spying targeting voices

All contents by Gareth Kirkby | Theme by Theme in Progress | Proudly powered by WordPress

facebook twitter linkedin Rss