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

Will All Parties Support Finance Committee Hearings on Audits?

August 7, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

Cana­dian Press and the Toronto Star yes­ter­day ran reports that the fed­eral NDP wants to recall Parliament’s finance com­mit­tee this sum­mer to dis­cuss politi­ciza­tion of the ‘polit­i­cal activ­i­ties’ audits of char­i­ties by Canada Rev­enue Agency.

The CP report para­phrased NDP finance critic Mur­ray Rankin say­ing pub­lic hear­ings before the finance com­mit­tee “would give besieged char­i­ta­ble groups a safe venue to speak out with­out appear­ing to pro­voke the tax agency.”

Said Rankin in a direct quote: “It wouldn’t be as if they’ve gone to the press and spilled the beans. … We can’t let this fes­ter much longer. We’ve got to clear the air. It’s bad for the rep­u­ta­tion of the CRA and it’s bad for the envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions and other char­i­ties that are some­how under a shadow.”

Rankin has a point and I hope that other polit­i­cal par­ties are lis­ten­ing. In my MA the­sis research, I inter­viewed 16 char­ity lead­ers (in five provinces and five dif­fer­ent char­ity sectors—environment being only one) and five charity-sector experts (lawyers, for­mer bureau­crats, umbrella orga­ni­za­tion staff, aca­d­e­mics, fundrais­ing experts).

The large major­ity, includ­ing to my sur­prise three of five experts, required com­plete con­fi­den­tial­ity in order to speak to me. That’s because they are afraid that if their name, or that of their orga­ni­za­tion, can be deduced they risk draw­ing the ire of the tax­man or the gov­ern­ment. In my the­sis analy­sis using grounded the­ory, and in inter­views with media and my own pub­lic writ­ings, I have done my best to rep­re­sent their expe­ri­ences, shared facts, emo­tions, and opinions.

It also bears not­ing that some inter­view par­tic­i­pants were very happy to be directly iden­ti­fied or deducible to some­one who knows their orga­ni­za­tions very well, because they con­sider the rhetoric and actions of the cur­rent fed­eral gov­ern­ment extreme and bad for Cana­dian policy-making and the vigor of democ­racy itself. In any case, it was dif­fi­cult find­ing 16 char­ity lead­ers will­ing to take a chance on a Master’s stu­dent pro­tect­ing their orga­ni­za­tions, and hence their mem­bers, sup­port­ers, donors and, most impor­tantly, Missions.

Appear­ing before a Par­lia­men­tary com­mit­tee to share their organization’s sto­ries could be just the ticket to ensure pub­lic pro­tec­tion. Yes, they would be putting it on the line and very pub­licly. But also, yes, the pub­lic and politi­cians would know who they are and, I sus­pect, sur­round them in a pro­tec­tive blan­ket for years, per­haps decades, into the future regard­less of which party is in power. Of course, that’s easy for me to say and hard for them to do.

But orga­ni­za­tions that step for­ward might per­haps become de-facto untouch­able after tes­ti­fy­ing before a Par­lia­men­tary com­mit­tee. Woe to the audi­tor or politi­cian who strays over the line and tar­gets them in rhetoric or deed, or tries to re-interpret def­i­n­i­tions and reg­u­la­tions in order to threaten their char­i­ta­ble sta­tus, or to “muf­fle” and “dis­tract” them as my research dis­cov­ered is now happening.

In any case, it’s good to see the NDP take this on. Rankin had already called sev­eral weeks ago for an inde­pen­dent spe­cial inves­ti­ga­tion into politi­ciza­tion of the audit process, headed by a retired judge or sim­i­lar per­son of expe­ri­ence and stature.

I’m won­der­ing where the Lib­er­als are in all this? And the Bloc Que­be­cois? The Greens? Inde­pen­dents and the Inde­pen­dent Conservative?

For that mat­ter, where are the back-bench Con­ser­v­a­tives? The role of char­i­ties in soci­ety as providers of socially needed ser­vices, and as inde­pen­dent experts on pub­lic pol­icy, fits very tightly with tra­di­tional con­ser­v­a­tive thought and values.

It’s sum­mer, of course, and even politi­cians need a break, and we a break from them. But read­ing the com­ments from read­ers to news sto­ries tells me that Cana­di­ans care about how their char­i­ties are treated by gov­ern­ment, and about the government’s politi­ciza­tion of the nation’s admin­is­tra­tive arms to fight oppo­nents of its policies.

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 been awarded the Jack Web­ster Award of Dis­tinc­tion, among oth­ers, for my report­ing and editing.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: committee, confidentiality, finance, hearings, investigation, NDP, politicization, protection, public, Rankin

‘Enemy’ Lists, Tax Audits, and Acceptable Government Actions

July 29, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

I was reminded recently by a reader of Richard Nixon’s “Ene­mies List” that freaked out a gen­er­a­tion of US cit­i­zens who expected their politi­cians to play by the rules. The list came to light when John Dean, the for­mer White House Coun­sel for Nixon, tes­ti­fied before the Sen­ate Water­gate Committee.

The orig­i­nal list had 20 names, includ­ing actor Paul New­man, but was later expanded to hun­dreds on a “mas­ter list.” The orig­i­nal list had lead­ers of non-profit orga­ni­za­tions and unions, human rights sup­port­ers, mem­bers of the media, and oppo­si­tion politi­cians and their mon­eyed supporters.

Here’s how Dean explained the list to the committee:

This mem­o­ran­dum addresses the mat­ter of how we can max­i­mize the fact of our incum­bency in deal­ing with per­sons known to be active in their oppo­si­tion to our Admin­is­tra­tion; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the avail­able fed­eral machin­ery to screw our polit­i­cal enemies.

Wikipedia notes that the com­mis­sioner in charge of tax­a­tion, refused to audit the peo­ple on the list.

The reader’s note reminded me of a cou­ple of news reports from 2013 about the “enemy” list given new cab­i­net min­is­ters in the cur­rent fed­eral gov­ern­ment. A senior PMO staffer directed staffers about what to include in tran­si­tion book­lets given to new min­is­ters. Items include: “Who to engage or avoid: friend and enemy stake­hold­ers” and “Who to avoid: bureau­crats that can’t take no (or yes) for an answer.” The gov­ern­ment later con­firmed that the Prime Minister’s Office had pre­vi­ously sent an email to Con­ser­v­a­tive min­is­te­r­ial aids ask­ing for “enemy” lists.

Crit­ics, includ­ing 200 public-interest and aid orga­ni­za­tions for­mally asked Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harper to reveal who was con­sid­ered an “enemy” on the list.

The National Post reported for­mer Envi­ron­ment Min­is­ter Peter Kent’s con­cerns with the “juve­nile” lan­guage of the lists and its obvi­ous res­o­nance with the Nixon list.

Inter­est­ingly, the National Post piece also quoted resigned Con­ser­v­a­tive MP Brent Rathge­ber, who found the lan­guage “very, very trou­bling. We can have respect­ful dis­cus­sions and dis­agree with each other with­out resort­ing to name-calling or vil­i­fi­ca­tion by refer­ring to some­body as an ‘enemy.’”

And the Post quoted Coun­cil of Cana­di­ans exec­u­tive direc­tor Garry Neil:

They don’t view us as cit­i­zens with strongly held opin­ions that come from places of prin­ci­ple. They view us as eco-terrorists. They see us stand­ing with the child pornog­ra­phers. I mean that’s the way they view politics.

Neil expected the Coun­cil to be on an ene­mies list because of its vocal crit­i­cism of pub­lic poli­cies pur­sued by the government.

Now, I’m not sug­gest­ing a direct com­par­i­son between Stephen Harper and his PMO on the one hand and the deeply para­noid psy­chosis that gripped Richard Nixon and his inner circle.

But my research did find that the gov­ern­ment is abus­ing its author­ity and oper­at­ing out­side of tra­di­tional Cana­dian polit­i­cal bound­aries. It is doing so by using admin­is­tra­tive bod­ies, in par­tic­u­lar Canada Rev­enue Agency, to muf­fle and dis­tract its crit­ics in the form of char­i­ties that have dif­fer­ent pub­lic pol­icy pref­er­ences to those of the cab­i­net. This politi­ciza­tion of the bureau­cracy is a cor­rup­tion of Cana­dian democracy.

It may not be Water­gate, but it’s beyond tra­di­tional bound­aries of accept­able polit­i­cal behav­iour. I won­der if it passes the “smell test” among citizens.

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: abuse, bashing, bullying, corruption, criticism, democracy, eco-terrorists, enemies, excessive, friends, list, lists, Nixon, policies, politicization, power, public, reputation, rhetoric

Blame Harper, not CRA, for Audits but Don’t Target Rightwing Charities

July 26, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

Sorry for the blog length, but I think you’ll find this one inter­est­ing and thought-provoking.

In rapid suc­ces­sion we’ve heard from Chris­t­ian char­i­ties announc­ing that their sat­is­fac­tion with the fed­eral government’s audit pro­ce­dure, Canada Rev­enue Agency deny­ing that it is being used by the cur­rent gov­ern­ment to tar­get char­i­ties crit­i­cal of gov­ern­ment poli­cies, and a colum­nist call­ing for audit­ing of right-leaning char­i­ties to even the score.

It’s great to see a national con­ver­sa­tion about the politi­ciza­tion of the CRA’s audit­ing. But if I may, I’d like to take a dif­fer­ent tack on this. The real issue that most char­ity lead­ers and some experts I inter­viewed for my the­sis is not with CRA staff. They acknowl­edged that those work­ing at CRA are decent, pro­fes­sional, ded­i­cated employ­ees doing their best to keep focused on their respon­si­bil­i­ties. (There are some related issues with CRA that emerged in my research, but more about that in a future blog.) And not one char­ity leader spoke against the need for audit­ing char­i­ties, rec­og­niz­ing the prin­ci­ple that the tax ben­e­fits they receive cre­ate an oblig­a­tion to society.

So it’s wrong-headed to focus on CRA itself in the mat­ter of stepped-up ‘polit­i­cal activ­i­ties’ audits and the three cat­e­gories of charities—all of them rel­a­tively ‘progressive’—being tar­geted: envi­ron­men­tal, development/human rights, and those with sig­nif­i­cant fund­ing from labour unions.

The issues for the lead­ers are: who is get­ting audited, why, why this tim­ing, what are the effects and impli­ca­tions for char­i­ties and society?

Atten­tion needs to be on the gov­ern­ment, not the tax man. The gov­ern­ment has cre­ated a fun­nel that leads CRA staff to focus their atten­tion on cer­tain sec­tors. By allo­cat­ing addi­tional audit funds to CRA while other gov­ern­ment depart­ments saw cut­backs, by des­ig­nat­ing those funds for ‘polit­i­cal activ­i­ties,’ by speak­ing pub­licly about the need for CRA to respond to pub­lic com­plaints, the gov­ern­ment cre­ated a fun­nel that led CRA audi­tors to char­i­ties with rel­a­tively higher self-reported ‘polit­i­cal activ­i­ties’ (which are per­fectly allow­able up to 10% of the organization’s resources when done prop­erly) and char­i­ties with com­plaints in their files.

These will very strongly tend be orga­ni­za­tions with dif­fer­ent pub­lic pol­icy per­spec­tives than that of the government.

Now add to the mix the real­ity that the com­plaints, which CRA has acknowl­edged play a role in who is selected for audit­ing, include a sub­stan­tial num­ber from Eth­i­cal Oil in the case of envi­ron­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions and oth­ers deal­ing with envi­ron­men­tal pol­icy options. In fact, in the spirit of open­ness, Eth­i­cal Oil has his­tor­i­cally sent copies of its CRA com­plaints to the orga­ni­za­tion it is com­plain­ing about. Eth­i­cal Oil was started by a for­mer staffer of cab­i­net min­is­ter Jason Ken­ney who left briefly to set up the orga­ni­za­tion and then returned to the fold with a new assign­ment to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Given that CRA does not pub­licly release com­plaints, we don’t know how many com­plaints are on file against orga­ni­za­tions in sec­tors not deal­ing with energy-related pol­icy. But one of the lead­ers I inter­viewed from a non-environmental char­ity, had been told by CRA staff of mul­ti­ple com­plaints in the organization’s file.

Of course it is pos­si­ble that the fun­nel con­struc­tion is a series of indi­vid­ual acts that coin­ci­den­tally lead to con­cen­trated atten­tion on orga­ni­za­tions with dif­fer­ent pol­icy pref­er­ences than the government’s, and par­tic­u­larly in the envi­ron­men­tal sec­tor. And it’s pos­si­ble that a min­is­ter gave an order to a deputy min­is­ter and on down the line—but that would be a major vio­la­tion of bound­aries that surely no min­is­ter, or senior man­darin, would con­sider. In any case, nobody’s had their photo taken hold­ing a smok­ing gun. Most char­ity lead­ers and experts I inter­viewed see a series of steps, which I call a fun­nel, that leads CRA right to where the gov­ern­ment wants them to end up—indirect, but politi­ciza­tion just the same. One leader who took pains to speak of high regard for the CRA staff char­ac­ter­ized it as an “insid­i­ous” process.

So, it can be argued that CRA employ­ees are caught up in some­thing not of their mak­ing. And if the gov­ern­ment PR staff can focus media atten­tion on CRA and away from the PMO and cab­i­net, with the gov­ern­ment offi­cially back­ing up their tax authority’s inde­pen­dence, well that would be a very bright media strat­egy, wouldn’t it?

The CBC report quoted Chris­t­ian Char­i­ties Asso­ci­a­tion CEO Rev. John Pel­lowe say­ing, “CRA has the right to inves­ti­gate char­i­ties to deter­mine if you’re fol­low­ing the rules.” Pel­lowe went fur­ther, “You can do polit­i­cal engage­ment, but you can­not engage in par­ti­san pol­i­tics, and in the cases I’ve heard about, that’s exactly what they’re doing—they’ve crossed the line.” His mem­bers haven’t expressed any con­cerns about polit­i­cal activ­i­ties audits.

As I pre­vi­ously noted, none of the char­ity lead­ers I inter­viewed had any prob­lem with CA inves­ti­gat­ing char­i­ties to ensure they were fol­low­ing the rules. It’s a mat­ter of ensur­ing a fair process, with­out gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence. It’s about the gov­ern­ment not using the tax man to fight its pol­icy bat­tles by instill­ing fear, muf­fling, and divert­ing char­i­ties from their missions—and at the very time that key pol­icy issues are work­ing through the sys­tem and Cana­di­ans need vig­or­ous pub­lic con­ver­sa­tions about them.

I’m intrigued by Pellowe’s judg­ment that “in the cases [he’s] heard about” the char­i­ties are par­tic­i­pat­ing in for­bid­den par­ti­san activ­i­ties rather than accept­able polit­i­cal activ­i­ties. Which char­i­ties, exactly? What par­ti­san activ­i­ties, exactly? Churches and reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions have often taken strong stands on issues such as abor­tion, same-sex mar­riage, divorce, and birth con­trol. Reli­gious char­i­ties are par­tic­u­larly vul­ner­a­ble if a future gov­ern­ment heeds the call of activists who claim some cross the line into par­ti­san activ­i­ties and so the sec­tor should lose their char­i­ta­ble sta­tus en mass. With an eye to the future, some might have expected a char­ity umbrella orga­ni­za­tion rep­re­sent­ing reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions to speak up for the widest pos­si­ble pub­lic con­ver­sa­tions in society.

Heather Mallick’s spicy take on the issue in her Toronto Star col­umn sug­gests that audits should be extended to right-leaning orga­ni­za­tions. “Groups that help cre­ate a bet­ter world for bitu­men extrac­tion or urge preg­nant teenagers not to have abor­tions, in other words, groups that don’t scrape at Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harper’s rage gland, are not audited in a sud­den blitz. They should be. Let’s be fair.”

Play­ful, but not where the char­ity lead­ers I spoke to are com­ing from. Many of them did note that their track­ing sug­gests that only “pro­gres­sive” char­i­ties (and that’s a wide swath of polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion, isn’t it?) are get­ting audited. But only one leader thought that the way to deal with that is to even the score by audit­ing more con­ser­v­a­tive and right-leaning char­i­ties. Almost uni­ver­sally, they thought that any sort of polit­i­cal tar­get­ing is wrong. That soci­ety needs char­i­ties of all ori­en­ta­tions and mis­sions to be given the space to con­tribute to society’s pub­lic con­ver­sa­tions. with­out harass­ment That polit­i­cal audits should be ran­dom or respond­ing to obvi­ous prob­lems, not the ide­ol­ogy of, and mis­use of power by, what­ever gov­ern­ment hap­pens to be in power.

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: audits, charities, Christian, complaints, ethical, funnel, Harper, interference, Mallick, oil, politicization, right-leaning

Philanthropic and Charity Umbrellas Could Pressure Feds

July 22, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

Monday’s Toronto Star edi­to­r­ial exam­ines the NDP’s recent call for an inde­pen­dent inquiry into politi­ciza­tion of the CRA audits of reg­is­tered charities.

The NDP let­ter call­ing for the inquiry “will sig­nal to Canada’s embat­tled char­i­ties that they have a cham­pion in Par­lia­ment,” says the edi­to­r­ial. Mildly goad­ing oth­ers to join the NDP, the edi­to­r­ial says, “If there is a groundswell, with the Lib­er­als, the provin­cial pre­miers and a few influ­en­tial phil­an­thropists demand­ing answers, the Tories may be shamed into sus­pend­ing their ill-conceived crackdown.”

Well said. As I wrote in my last post, “will all par­ties sup­port probe into politi­ciza­tion of CRA char­ity audits,” all par­ties (and I would add at all lev­els of gov­ern­ment) have a vested inter­est in pre­serv­ing broad par­tic­i­pa­tion in impor­tant pol­icy dis­cus­sion, keep­ing sep­a­rate the admin­is­tra­tive and polit­i­cal arms of gov­ern­ment, and enhanc­ing rela­tion­ships between civil soci­ety and government.

I’m par­tic­u­larly enam­ored of the sug­ges­tion that a few influ­en­tial phil­an­thropists could help per­suade the gov­ern­ment to change its course. Cana­dian fam­i­lies such as the Aspers, and Bronf­mans, McCains and West­ons have a his­tory of phil­an­thropy. Some (includ­ing the first three named above, plus cor­po­rate names such as Bom­bardier) have estab­lished foun­da­tions bear­ing their names and these foun­da­tions make grants to charities.

Phil­an­thropic Foun­da­tions Canada (PFC), the largest umbrella orga­ni­za­tion rep­re­sent­ing foun­da­tions, ques­tioned the government’s 2012 rhetoric, increased reg­u­la­tion of char­i­ties, and pro­gram of increased audit­ing of the per­fectly legal “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” of charities.

The rules around “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” are clear and don’t need fur­ther atten­tion, the group told Cana­dian Press in 2012.

J.W. McConnell Fam­ily Foun­da­tion, Canada’s sec­ond old­est fam­ily foun­da­tion, talked to Cana­dian Press. “I think what we have to be con­cerned about is the fear that peo­ple have to speak up or take a posi­tion on an issue of pub­lic impor­tance,” foun­da­tion pres­i­dent Stephen Hud­dart said. “The reg­u­la­tions are clearly laid out so peo­ple feel that they’re able to do so, and in many cases have a respon­si­bil­ity to do so, to speak up on behalf of under­priv­i­leged or dis­pos­sessed or vul­ner­a­ble populations.

“There’s a need for informed debate, a diver­sity of views, on these kinds of issues, and this sec­tor is good at doing that.”

Talk about pre­scient! I dis­cov­ered that the fog of fear has now set­tled upon some char­i­ties in my research. And Hud­dart makes that vital point, more rel­e­vant today than ever, that it is the job of char­i­ties to speak up about issues about which they are expert.

Another impor­tant player is Imag­ine Canada, the umbrella orga­ni­za­tion of the char­i­ties them­selves. My par­tic­i­pants are count­ing on Imag­ine Canada to go to bat for them, to spear­head a major nar­ra­tive cam­paign that touts the “good news” about the con­tri­bu­tion char­i­ties have made and con­tinue to make to Cana­dian soci­ety and pub­lic pol­icy. Like national and provin­cial parks. Or the seat­belt, drunk-driving, and smok­ing reg­u­la­tions that have saved thou­sands of lives.

As The Star edi­to­r­ial rec­om­mends, this is the time for them to step up and divert this gov­ern­ment from a course of action that is clearly hurt­ing soci­ety, includ­ing the very char­i­ties that the foun­da­tions are fund­ing and Imag­ine Canada is representing.

Mean­while, 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: auditing, campaign, editorial, foundations, Huddart, investigation, McConnell, narrative, parties, PFC, philanthropic, philanthropy, politicization, Star, Toronto Star, umbrella

Will All Parties Support Probe Into Politicization of CRA Charity Audits?

July 19, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

Sorry for the inter­rup­tion in blog post­ings; I’ve been trav­el­ling these past two days, largely out of wifi range and not in con­trol of my sched­ule. Bad timing.

Before board­ing the plane, I got the news that a fed­eral party had asked ques­tions in Par­lia­ment directly related to the find­ings in my the­sis.

NDP rev­enue critic Mur­ray Rankin and envi­ron­ment critic Megan Leslie called for an inde­pen­dent probe into the Canada Rev­enue Agency’s audit­ing of char­i­ties for their polit­i­cal activities.

In a July 16 let­ter to gov­ern­ment Rev­enue Min­is­ter Kerry-Lynne Find­lay Rankin and Leslie write that they “fear that the evi­dence strongly sug­gests that the Con­ser­v­a­tive gov­ern­ment has been mis­us­ing the CRA to tar­get its polit­i­cal oppo­nents.” Cana­dian Press reports that Findlay’s office re-released a state­ment deny­ing any polit­i­cal inter­fer­ence with CRA.

My the­sis find­ings, which were widely pub­lished in Cana­dian media in two reports writ­ten by Cana­dian Press deputy-bureau chief Dean Beeby, found that the tar­get­ing by CRA has extended beyond envi­ron­men­tal char­i­ties to also include inter­na­tional development/human rights orga­ni­za­tions and char­i­ties receiv­ing sig­nif­i­cant funds from labour unions. Beeby’s own leg­work found that anti-poverty orga­ni­za­tions are also being caught up in the audits.

The audit­ing, in short, seems to tar­get char­i­ties of a “pro­gres­sive” nature that have dif­fer­ent ideas about the best pub­lic poli­cies for Canada than does the cur­rent fed­eral cabinet.

Pre­vi­ous researchers have warned that politi­ciza­tion of the CRA is under­way and that this is not in line with West­ern demo­c­ra­tic val­ues and will dam­age our inter­na­tional rep­u­ta­tion. My the­sis pointed to a “fun­nel” cre­ated by the gov­ern­ment that more or less pushes CRA toward audit­ing cer­tain charities.

That fun­nel includes increased fund­ing for audit­ing of char­i­ties’ “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” (which, though seem­ingly almost uni­ver­sally below the 10% of a charity’s resources that the cur­rent reg­u­la­tions allowed, tend to be higher in some char­ity sec­tors than oth­ers), and the pres­ence of com­plaint let­ters from Eth­i­cal Oil in the CRA files of char­i­ties that are directly or indi­rectly involved in issues of cli­mate change, oil­sands expan­sion, pipelines, tankers, and ecosys­tem impacts of those indus­trial activities).

Also impor­tant is that Eth­i­cal Oil, an aggres­sive pri­vate activist orga­ni­za­tions, was founded by a staffer of min­is­ter Jason Ken­ney who left to set up the orga­ni­za­tion and then returned to serve the party in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Any gov­ern­ment has a vari­ety of state tools at its dis­posal that can, but should not, be used to short-circuit debate and cit­i­zen par­tic­i­pa­tion in order to force through its own pol­icy agenda. Those include the army, police, secu­rity appa­ra­tus, and tax author­ity. Even use of access to the media that gov­ern­ment min­is­ters enjoy to a level far above that of oth­ers should not be used to let loose with rhetoric that, for exam­ple, con­flates char­i­ties, money-laundering, crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions and ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions as has hap­pened repeat­edly since 2012.

The audits and asso­ci­ated rhetoric on the part of the cur­rent fed­eral gov­ern­ment is hav­ing an impact on the abil­ity of char­i­ties to carry out their Mis­sions. It is affect­ing some organization’s com­mu­ni­ca­tion about issues that Cana­di­ans very much needs to dis­cuss widely and deeply, and so is nar­row­ing society’s con­ver­sa­tions. And in cre­at­ing the fun­nel and dis­tract­ing char­i­ties from their impor­tant social pur­pose as civil-society par­tic­i­pants, idea gen­er­a­tors, alter­na­tive voices, the government’s actions are reduc­ing the vigor of our democracy.

So, it’s good to see a polit­i­cal party weigh into the debate. It’s a fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of democ­racy that politi­cians do not cor­rupt the neu­tral­ity of the admin­is­tra­tive func­tions and indi­vid­ual bureau­crats through politi­ciza­tion. I would think that all polit­i­cal par­ties have a long-term invest­ment in that, includ­ing the party now in power.

Mean­while, check out my Master’s the­sis and feel free to for­ward and tweet it.

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: agenda, audits, CRA, investigation, Leslie, misusing, muffling, NDP, opponents, policy, politicization, probe, Rankin, silencing, target, targeting

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