Tax crackdown latest intimidating tactic.
by Jody Dallaire, Dieppe Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity between Women and Men
Among the many misguided changes in the 2012 federal budget — the much hated Omnibus Bill C-38 — the government announced (along with cuts to several programs) that it is allocating $8 million dollars to police Canadian charities.
This is only the latest of several policy and budget decisions the federal government has made, that impede the work of registered charities and non-profits.
Indeed, this government has implemented drastic funding cuts to programs designed to support public education, research, public policy and advocacy work. For instance, the Status of Women Canada's mandate no longer includes the word "equality"; the Court Challenges Program was abolished entirely; and of course cuts to environmental programs such as the Experimental Lakes Area.
ustify; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold;
It does not appear that there is a rampant problem in Canada.
Another significant blow was when the Feds decided to limit the amount of reliable data by abolishing the mandatory long form survey of the Canadian Census. The repercussions of this decision alone will be felt for years to come, and not only by the non-profit and charitable sector either.
But creating a whole new agency to monitor how well charities comply with tax laws? Wait a minute.
The government's rationale is that, under Canadian law, registered charities can only use 10 percent of their resources (money, volunteer time, etc) for non-partisan political activities which further their mandate. The term "non-partisan" means that charities can recommend policy initiatives but cannot openly support or reject one of the political parties in the process.
The 10 percent rule, as it is commonly known, has been in place for several years now. It applies only to charities. This rule does not apply to non profits as they cannot issue income tax receipts to their donors.
A charity found to have breached the 10 percent rule may be penalized by revocation of its ability to issue income tax receipts for one year. If a charity fails to adequately report its political activities, they will also face the one year ban.
Already there is an advocacy chill in Canada. According to a study done by Canadian Press of the Canada Revenue Agency`s Charities Database, only 450 of the 85,000 registered charities use any of their resources for political activities. This represents half of one percent (0.5 percent). Many are a long way from the 10 percent maximum. Also, only one legitimate charity has lost its tax status since this rule has been in place. It does not appear that there is a rampant problem in Canada.
Why then devote so much money to policing a law that is by-and-large respected? Many have suggested that the goal was to intimidate charities, especially in the sector of the environment, so they won't participate in public debate on issues.
I am not sure how the federal government reconciles this new agency with this statement included in the budget documents: "Given their unique perspective and expertise, it is broadly recognized that charities make a valuable contribution to the development of public policy in Canada."
Perhaps some insight can be drawn from an open letter written by the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, in January 2012. He characterized some charities and non-profit groups as: "environmental and other radical groups." Someone with this perspective would think it makes sense to invest millions of dollars to police such groups.
All is not rosy on the provincial front either. Remember, the provincial government decided to abolish all of the funding allocated to the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a decision made without any consultation whatsoever. And this decision has yet to be reversed or revised, in spite of general and sustained resistance.
I have heard the stories where non-profit organizations in New Brunswick have received calls from civil servants and elected representatives calling on their organization to either "be quiet or lose your funding."
Measures like this make you stop and re-examine core beliefs that we lived in a free and democratic society based on reason, where research, data and debate are valued and celebrated, not quashed.
About Jody Dallaire
Jody Dallaire lives and works in Dieppe New Brunswick where she writes a weekly column on women's equality issues and matters of social justice.
Email: jody.dallaire@rogers.com.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.