Canada Revenue Agency says ‘preventing poverty’ not allowed as goal for charity

[RedHot25]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle19763321/

The Canada Revenue Agency has told a well-known charity that it can no longer try to prevent poverty around the world, it can only alleviate poverty — because preventing poverty might benefit people who are not already poor.

The bizarre bureaucratic brawl over a mission statement is yet more evidence of deteriorating relations between the Harper government and some parts of Canada’s charitable sector.

The contretemps is yet more evidence of frosty relations between the Harper government and some charities, several dozen of which have been targeted since 2012 for audits of their “political activities.”

The Canada Revenue Agency, armed with $13 million in special funding, is currently auditing some 52 groups, many of whom have criticized the Harper government’s programs and policies, especially on the environment.

Charities have said the CRA campaign is draining them of cash and resources, creating a so-called “advocacy chill” as they self-censor to avoid aggravating auditors or attracting fresh audits. Auditors have the power to strip a charity of its registration, and therefore its ability to issue income-tax receipts, potentially drying up donations.

[vanisleflamesfan]

It certainly appears as though there is a bit of a pattern regarding which charities are getting audited.

List of Charities

[pylon]

Good, I see David Suzuki is on the list. I hope they expose him for the hypocrite he is somehow.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by pylon

Good, I see David Suzuki is on the list. I hope they expose him for the hypocrite he is somehow.

Go on...

[Five-hole]

The legal definition of charitable purpose is a joke IMO. It's one of those things that comes from a 400 year old English document and is predictably out of touch.

Also the religion thing, but maybe that's a topic for another thread.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Go on...

[Thor]

We need great scientific minds who can serve as ambassadors and popularizers of science. We need those with the scientific literacy and communications skills to make science accessible and understandable for the masses.

That’s how David Suzuki has always been billed. His official bio at the David Suzuki Foundation describes him as someone who can “explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way.” And clearly many Canadians still view him that way. An Angus Reid poll last October found that David Suzuki was at the top of the list when it came to the most admired Canadians.

Unfortunately, though, the reality of David Suzuki now seems completely at odds with the perception of David Suzuki. On a number of issues, he is not informing Canadians, but misinforming them. Rather than scientists getting their messages out through David Suzuki, they’re having to undo the damage his words are causing.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-david-suzuki/

[Devils'Advocate]

*sigh*

They are not going after David Suzuki. They are going after the David Suzuki Foundation.

Suzuki has stepped down from the board of directors and has limited his involvement with the foundation, leaving it to stand on its own. He had to do this because he wanted the freedom to speak out politically, which he could not do while maintaining a relationship with the charity. So shutting down the foundation will not affect Suzuki in the wallet at all.

From Wikipedia, the foundation stands for:
The Foundation has four main program departments – Ontario and Northern Region, Quebec/Francophone, B.C. and Western Region, and Science and Policy. Together, they focus on the following areas:[4]
Protecting our climate — ensure that Canada is doing its fair share to avoid dangerous climate change and is on track to achieve a safe level of greenhouse gas emissions.
Transforming the economy — make certain that Canadians can maintain a high quality of life within the finite limits of nature through efficient resource use.
Protecting nature — work to protect the diversity and health of Canada's marine, freshwater, and terrestrial creatures and ecosystems.
Reconnecting with nature — ensure that Canadians, especially youth, learn about their dependence on a healthy environment through outdoor education.
Building community — engage Canadians to live healthier, more fulfilled and just lives with tips on building Earth-friendly infrastructure, making smart energy choices, using efficient transportation, and being mindful of the products, food and water we use.

So yeah, let's cheer on Revenue Canada auditing them. Woo hoo!

[Locke]

Really? They're auditing 'Amnesty International?' Hm.

Amnesty International Canada, Ottawa
Human-rights charity, 2012 revenues of $11.8 million; one per cent of expenses for political activities.
Audit began in December 2012, including into political activities. Continues.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/can...267989381.html

[undercoverbrother]

There is nothing wrong with auditing charities.

They can become fat like many big "bureaucracies".

[Devils'Advocate]

They are not auditing them to see that they are putting their funds to good use.... they are auditing them to ensure that they are not using any funds for "political purposes". Such as Amnesty speaking out against the death penalty could be seen as "political". Or as the OP suggested, they have ruled that "preventing poverty" cannot be "charitable". *cry*

[RedHot25]

Yes, charities should be audited, just like businesses are, individuals are, etc. Definitely.

Just though, makes you wonder when apparently now something like "preventing poverty" is not charitable (if something like that is not charitable, I'm not sure what is then?).

Also opens up good discussion, as charities are extremely limited to have much/if any "political involvement". Should this remain the case? http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/...rmnts-eng.html

Also interesting when you look at the list of charities currently being audited, like someone else in this thread said, there appears that there may be a bit of a pattern (for e.g., apparently if you are an environmental org, be prepared to be audited ). Interesting that a number are due to complaints by Ethical Oil (http://www.ethicaloil.org/about/), which if I am reading their about section correct, they should fall under the same CRA rules...

[GP_Matt]

It is semantics, but the CRA argument does make sense to me.
If you can create a charity with the goal of preventing poverty, you can collect donations from a bunch of lower middle class people and issue them a tax receipt for said donations. you can then take the money that you collected and give it those same lower middle class people to help prevent them from succumbing to poverty.
And if you can do that, you can bet some rich jerks are going to try the same thing.

[Bobblehead]

There is an interesting post in the reddit thread about this issue:

The fact that organizations, both big and small, are being audited has caused a number of organizations to pull back in fear of doing too much. Prior to the CRA's redefinition of "political activity", non-profits have been allowed to spend up to 10% of their budget on political activity. Prior to this recent crackdown, even the much publicly maligned David Suzuki Foundation, which people like to hold up as the example of an organization that spends too much on political activity, was only spending roughly 6% of its budget on it. DSF was always open and transparent on this subject and anybody who wanted to know could have picked up a phone or emailed and gotten this answer.

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comme...revent/cj7i4tj

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It is semantics, but the CRA argument does make sense to me.
If you can create a charity with the goal of preventing poverty, you can collect donations from a bunch of lower middle class people and issue them a tax receipt for said donations. you can then take the money that you collected and give it those same lower middle class people to help prevent them from succumbing to poverty.
And if you can do that, you can bet some rich jerks are going to try the same thing.

Yep. My new charity prevents poverty by providing a tax break on investment advice to those with > $250,000 in income yearly.

[RedHot25]

Ok, then, but just for discussion sake, does that then limit a large portion of what can be deemed a charity (as in CRA charitable status)?

For e.g., just because I referenced it in previous post, Ethical Oil - I think, going off their website - appears to be charitable ("registered non-profit NGO" - http://www.ethicaloil.org/about/).

Their goal is to get people to use ethical canadian oil...so, then, you can collect donations from people...issue them a receipt for said donations...then take that money that you collected and give to the same people to help them use Canadian oil, preventing their use of apparent "non-ethical oil" from other places.

To note, I'm not picking on Ethical Oil, just using it as an example as it was noted as filing complaints. I've often wondered if charities should have more political sway/activities allowed, regardless what side they fall on (ethical oil vs an environmental org).

More 2-second google news search for background on the audits:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-en...dits-1.2526330

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...oups-1.2703177

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Yep. My new charity prevents poverty by providing a tax break on investment advice to those with > $250,000 in income yearly.

Is the issue "preventing poverty" as a charitable cause, or people potentially fraudulently exploiting things (e.g. such as your example)? There is a key difference, I think.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Is the issue "preventing poverty" as a charitable cause, or people potentially fraudulently exploiting things (e.g. such as your example)? There is a key difference, I think.

If "preventing poverty" is a legitimate charitable purpose, then there's nothing fraudulent about the "charity" in my example.

The point is, "alleviating poverty" is a legitimate charitable purpose. "Preventing poverty" can be construed far too broadly and would accomodate things which are certainly not charitable. I would speculate that in most cases, any real charity that said it was "preventing poverty" could be easily reconstrued as a charity "alleviating poverty" without changing what they do.

[RedHot25]

Interesting five-hole, I'll have to think a bit. Good discussion.

But if you say ok "preventing poverty" is not charitable, then you need to extend that a lot more broadly, no? For e.g. does "preventing homelessness" or "preventing addiction" now become not charitable either?

[Five-hole]

Per your post above, I don't think "non-profit" (or "not-for-profit") and charitable are one and the same thing. I'm not an expert in this area but I think there are many not-for-profits which aren't charitable (and have an explicit political purpose, for example). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Your point about prevention is an interesting one, but again I think it could be easily construed so as to fit within the accepted "heads" of charity, which are:

1) Relief of poverty
2) Advancement of education
3) Advancement of religion (boooooo)
4) "Other" purposes beneficial to society

(See more here: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/...bjcts-eng.html)

Included within #4 are "addressing and preventing problems faced by youth" and "addressing and preventing problems faced by families", which "prevention of addition" could easily be classified as. Prevention of homelessness could easily be classified as "alleviation of poverty".

As I said above, it's not necessarily WHAT you do, it's how you DESCRIBE what you do. The CRA is not objecting to charities which attempt to prevent poverty necessarily -- they're saying that, as your defined charitable purpose, is unacceptable because of what it could potentially admit.

Ah, the law. Strange old broad.