McLeod Group Blog, January 26, 2015
What do birdwatchers in the Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists Club and human rights activists in Amnesty International have in common? Well, they are Canadian charities and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seems to have all of them in their sights for their political activities.
Shortly after the bird watchers wrote a letter to two federal cabinet ministers complaining about government-approved chemicals that damage bee colonies, they received a letter from CRA objecting to political material on the group’s website and warning them to refrain from partisan activities. Amnesty, well known and respected for its defense of human rights at home and abroad, is undergoing a prolonged CRA audit for political activities.
The Harper government has politicized the regulatory process for Canadian charities to a degree never before seen in Canada. And not surprisingly the relationship between the federal government and parts of the charitable sector is at an all-time low.
Although the Conservative government has never issued a policy statement describing its vision of the role of civil society in Canada (it has made statements internationally), since coming to power in 2006 the government has steadily moved to narrowly limit the work of parts of the sector which have been critical of Conservative government policies – environmental groups, women’s groups, international development groups, antipoverty groups have all come under scrutiny.
The Harper government has politicized the regulatory process by implementing a series of audits of political activity with a focus on groups that are critical of current government policies. It has defunded groups that advocate alternative policies. It has reduced and in many cases eliminated the space for policy dialogue between civil society groups and government departments. It has attempted to smear the reputation of environmental organizations for receiving foreign funding. It has changed the definitions of what constitutes political activity to limit the range of activities possible.
The CRA maintains that it chooses groups impartially without any input from the minister’s office, although officials acknowledge that they act on media attention about charities, as well as on complaints received. A review by the Broadbent Institute of ten right-leaning charities found that not one had reported political activities to CRA between 2011 and 2013, although there were obvious examples of political advocacy on their websites.
The move against civil society groups is part of a larger Harper government strategy to weaken deliberative democracy by limiting public discussion and silencing dissent, using a variety of tactics that include withholding information, surveillance and silencing public servants.
The result of this crackdown, and probably the intention, has been to intimidate organizations so that they self-censor and limit their public critiques out of fear of losing their charitable status. Many organizations, especially their Boards of Directors, think if they just keep their heads down the storm will pass.
Some individual cases, most recently the ‘annulment’ of Dying With Dignity’s charitable status, have received media attention. It hasn’t generated the level of public concern and even outrage that is warranted given its chilling effect on charities’ policy and advocacy work.
One reason for this complacency, as Susan Phillips of Carleton University notes, is the way Canadians see the charitable sector. The underlying model of Canadian charitable organizations remains rooted in a 19th century view of charity: their purpose is to provide services to the poor and disadvantaged, supported primarily by private philanthropy. The idea that this sector is fundamental to citizenship and democracy, builds community, is a social innovator and a force in economic development, is not well understood. This narrow vision is reflected in Canadian charitable law and regulation. Add to this the politicization of charitable regulation by the Conservative government and you have a set of profound political and public policy challenges.
If they want to keep their voice and their relevance, leaders in the sector – not just those currently under attack – must join forces and push back against these government actions. In the longer term, if there is a change in government, there will need to be a process to develop a more contemporary framework for charitable organizations, one that acknowledges their important role and enshrines it in a new contract with government.