Environmental and left-leaning charities can breath a sigh of relief now that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instructed Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier to modernize Canada’s archaic charity law and clarify rules around allowable “political activity.”

The ministry should “allow charities to do their work on behalf of Canadians free from political harassment,” Trudeau wrote in a ministerial mandate letter Friday, “with an understanding that charities make an important contribution to public debate and public policy.”

The new mandate signals a remarkable change in tone from the at times aggressive stance of the former government.

In 2012 the Harper government allocated $13.4 million to the Canada Revenue Agency for the audit of charities to determine if groups were in violation of rules that limit their spending on “political activity” to 10 per cent of resources. The program also instituted new reporting for charities receiving foreign funding.

The audit program was launched in the wake of former Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s infamous open-letter in which he accused environmental organizations participating in the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings of being foreign-funded “radical groups” intent on “hijacking our regulatory system.”

Many environmental charities felt they were targeted by the investigation and said the sometimes multiple successive audits left them strapped for resources, intimidated and unable to carry out their mandates.

Environmental charities under audit included Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Tides Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, the Pembina Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Ecology Action Centre and Environmental Defence.

Critics also pointed out that right-leaning charities that clearly engaged in political activity, such as the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute, were spared from the audits even though their activity appeared to violate CRA rules.

A report prepared for DeSmog Canada and released by the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre in March 2015 found Canada’s charitable laws lack clarity and create an “intolerable state of uncertainty” for active charities. The report called for sweeping reform of Canada’s charitable law to clarify what constitutes “political activity” and to allow for more generous limits on allowable “political activity.”

Calvin Sandborn, director of the law centre, said he is “thrilled by this reversal of policy.”

“Whether or not government was directing audits against charities, a dangerous chill had fallen on environmental charities. People were afraid to speak out, and that was bad for Canada,” Sandborn said. “Charities need to be free to speak out for law reform related to their charitable mission. Charitable advocacy helps society recognize and actually respond to the problems that charities address.”

He added the political activities of the Canadian Cancer Society resulted in tougher smoking laws for public places and the political work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has saved lives by fighting for tougher drunk driving laws.

“If charities had continued to shy away from any political activity at all, public debate about how to solve society’s problems would have been seriously impoverished — as those with some of the best expertise on such problems would have remained silent,” Sandborn said.

"I think many people in the charitable sector will see this as a welcome development that the new government is keen to both take a little bit of the spotlight off charities and take a closer look at the regulatory environment for charities and not-for-profits,” Kathryn Chan, assistant professor of law and charitable law expert at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

Chan added there is some lack of certainty as to whether the audits were politically motivated or not, but said in some ways it didn’t make a difference.

“There was certainly a perception of harassment and sometimes that can do damage on its own whether or not it’s true,” Chan said. “I think there’s need to address that no matter what the exact factual situation was.”

Image: Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new report from the Broadbent Institute is raising questions once again about the political activity audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and whether or not the agency has unfairly focused on charities with missions that don’t align with the interests of the federal government.

The report finds nine out of 10 prominent right-wing charities claimed zero per cent of their budgets were used for political activity in the most recent fiscal year. The final filing for the tenth organization has yet to be submitted or made public by the CRA.

The report is an update of a similar October 2014 investigation, which discovered all 10 charitable organizations reported zero political activities between 2011 and 2013. That investigation led the Broadbent Institute to call for an independent inquiry into the CRA’s audits to ensure charities under investigation aren’t the target of political attack.

The new report, which reviews the 2014 filings of the 10 organizations in light of their public activities, renews calls for an independent inquiry “to ensure transparency and fairness in the CRA’s decision-making.”

Under CRA rules, charities are allowed to spend up to 10 per cent of the organization’s time and money on "political activities," which the CRA defines as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies.

According to the Broadbent Institute, many of the public activities undertaken by the organizations in question, which include the Fraser Institute and Focus on the Family, appear to meet the definition of political activity.

For example, in September 2014, Marco Navarro-Genie, president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies published an opinion piece in the Chronicle Herald that discouraged governments from banning fracking, saying the move “closes opportunities for greater innovation…and the development of more employment.”

“Prohibition is the wrong impulse,” he wrote.

The report also cites the example of Macdonald-Laurier Institute managing director Brian Lee Crowley, who in July 2014 argued the federal government should “assert its power to sweep away barriers to trade created by the provinces” in the Globe and Mail.

Other groups investigated in the Broadbent report are: C.D.Howe Institute, the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian Constitution Foundation, Energy Probe Research Foundation, and Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

“The examples cited are only some of the many possible examples of political activity in which these groups engaged,” Jonathan Sas, Broadbent Institute director of research and author of the report, writes. “The juxtaposition calls into question how these charities interpret the restrictions on engaging in 'political activity' and why, if these groups are engaging in political activity, as defined by the CRA, the agency continues to allow them to report zero per cent.”

So far, at least 52 charities have been the target of the CRA’s $13.4 million audit program, which began in 2012.

Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Equiterre, Pen Canada, Canada Without Poverty, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Ecology Action Centre have all been subjected to investigation and audit since the program began.

In March 2015, the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre released a report, prepared for DeSmog Canada, that called for significant reform to Canada’s charitable tax law.

The report found current rules around the issue of political activity are confusing and create an “intolerable state of uncertainty.”

The report called on the federal government to clarify rules about what constitutes political activity and to loosen the 10 per cent rule on allowable limits.

The Broadbent Institute report confirms the broad discrepancies in how charities view reporting requirements around political activities.

“This report makes clear that the CRA rules around political activity are interpreted, to put it charitably, quite differently by many right-leaning charities,” Sas concluded in the report.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

You may be surprised to hear this, but the history of charitable case law in Canada involves a little-known story about war, political deception and a group of ‘United Brethren’ known as the Moravians. Really.

It should read like a Dan Brown novel.

Unfortunately, it’s not nearly that scintillating. Mostly, I’m sure, because the history of charitable law has been written by…well…lawyers.

But there is an interesting story of the protracted history of charitable law in our country and it reaches way back to Shakespearian times. That history continues to have a profound effect on the contemporary Canadian political landscape.

To make that loooooong story short, what you need to know is this: Canadian charity law is old and full of holes.

The Current State of Affairs For Canada’s Charities

Charities in Canada are strictly prevented from engaging in partisan activities (such as endorsing a political party), but they are allowed to participate in political activity (defined by the Canadian Revenue Agency as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies) so long as that activity doesn’t take up more than 10 per cent of their resources. Such policy advocacy by Canada’s charities has resulted in laws against drunk driving, the regulation of smoking and the measures that eliminated acid rain.

The rest of a charity’s work must be technically charitable, and yet what, exactly, constitutes charity is a question for the ages.

And that’s a question that, at least in Canada, has never been sufficiently answered.

As a result, charities are left operating in this legal grey zone with no precise knowledge of how their activities will be seen in the eyes of the law or even how that law might be applied, and what the consequences of that law might be.

This uncertainty — on its own — would be enough to provoke a case of charity paralysis for most organizations.

But when coupled with a recent $13.4 million federal audit program of charities’ “political activities,” this legal uncertainty is enough to cripple some of Canada’s most respected charities, preventing them from carrying out their most basic mandate.

In March, a report on charitable law by the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre stated Canada’s current rules around “political activity” are so confusing they create “an intolerable state of uncertainty.” The report — prepared for DeSmog Canada — called for sweeping reform of Canadian charitable law in line with other jurisdictions such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and England.

Charities: Mind the Gap

The law that governs charities — the Income Tax Act — “doesn’t define the term ‘charitable,’ ” Kathryn Chan, assistant professor of law and charitable law expert at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

“The body of law upon which the courts and the Canada Revenue Agency have always relied on for determining who is charitable and who is not in this country is a body of case law that has a very long lineage and goes back at least to 17th century England,” she said.

Chan added that even with that history behind us there is sparse case law in Canada related specifically to charities “and so there are gaps.”

That means “the parameters around the kinds of things our charitable laws are based on are laws that were set in 17th and 18th century England and this arguably isn’t a very accurate reflection of our contemporary society.”

Modern-day concerns such as drunk driving, second-hand smoke or climate change just weren’t around hundreds of years ago when the first definition of ‘charity’ emerged in a British courtroom.

This leads to a situation in Canada where charities are forced to rely on the “discretion of the Canada Revenue Agency.”

But the agency “has very loose parameters within which to make decisions as to the charitable status or not of organizations,” Chan added.

“The less clear the law is, and the less clear the legislation is, the greater discretion you’re vesting in the administrative agency.”

“It gives rise to a lot of uncertainty for sure.“

Compounding the difficulty this uncertainty creates for organizations is the fact that charities aren’t often in a position to challenge the Canada Revenue Agency’s legal interpretation.

So, Chan said, “if we’re going to move things forward in the courts you need some champions.”

And that’s where the Pemsel Case Foundation comes in.

A Case to Be Made for Charities

The Pemsel Case Foundation — named after a pivotal 1891 judgment in England that made charities exempt from income tax (that’s where the Moravians come in) — has a mandate to clarify the law when it comes to Canadian charities, both inside and outside the courtroom, says executive director Peter Broder.

“There are actually a relatively small number of cases that are litigated in Canada and because of that, the opportunity to develop a robust intellectual analysis of what qualifies as charitable and what doesn’t is limited in comparison to other jurisdictions,” Broder said.

He added his foundation  — founded in 2010 — doesn’t argue whether a particular organization should be granted charitable status or not. Instead it is trying to develop a ‘charity test’ for the courts that can help determine when and where charitable status makes sense.

“The important thing — for the purposes of developing the structure of law in Canada — is that we use the right test and that the right considerations go into that test,” he said. “We are looking for an outcome that is rigorously argued as opposed to an outcome that is arbitrary.”

For example, Broder offered up the question of whether one amateur youth soccer organization might qualify for charitable status. He said the Crown expressed concern that introducing one group of this kind would result in all 21,000 other amateur soccer associations in Canada wanting charitable status.

But the cost or inconvenience of that consequence shouldn’t play a role in the decision for one soccer association, Broder said.   

Legally it should come down to whether another analogous group had previously been deemed charitable.

“We would argue that it’s not about the costs,” Broder said.

“Outside Canada, the fiscal consequences of a decision are not generally a significant consideration in determining the meaning of charity.”

“What we’re trying to do is to make sure that they use the appropriate test and apply it in the appropriate way.”

But, he adds, “We’re not the white knight.”

No Evidence Audits Are Politically Motivated: Broder

Broder characterizes the work of the Pemsel Case Foundation as “scholarly.” He said the goal of the organization isn’t to be oppositional, but to clarify the law.

With respect to critics who claim some of CRA’s recent political activities audits are‘politically motivated, Broder says he’s “agnostic.”

But he does say there is significant room for improvement within the law.

“If the law is clear and there is more certainty to the law — it is easier for the administrator and it is easier for the person who is trying to abide by the law,” he said. “If the law is loose and vague then the opportunity for it to be abused at an administrator’s discretion is greater, but just because it’s loose and vague does not mean there is administrative abuse.”

Canada Needs Fulsome Public Debate On Charities

Perhaps the most notable thing about Canada when it comes to charitable law, Chan said, is our lack of public debate.

“Where Canada is kind of unique is in the almost negligible amount of political debate — actual debate within the legislature or within the public — about what kinds of things should be charitable and what should not,” Chan said.

Ask an average person on the street about Canada’s charities, she said, and they won’t know a thing about them. For instance, they are unlikely to know that many of our universities and hospitals operate under the charity umbrella.

There are conversations to be had about the charitable sector in Canada and what service that sector should perform, Chan said. And for that, Canadians need more than the strategic litigation undertaken by the likes of the Pemsel Case Foundation.

“Canadians might want to have a say in determining what our charitable sector looks like: who’s in and who’s out and how it should be administered,” she said. “Ultimately I think that we need a broader political conversation about the way forward.”

Image Credit: David Garrick Between Tragedy and Comedy, BBC

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Eighteen Canadian charities have written a letter to the country’s political parties asking them for platform commitments to enhance the ability for charities to engage in public policy debates.

The charities argue in their letter that “without years of organizing effort by Canadian charities, Canada would not have dealt with issues such as addressing acid rain, promoting safe driving, reducing smoking and banning toxic chemicals.”

The chief concern lies around the current regulation of so-called “political activities” — defined by the Canada Revenue Agency as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies. Charities are currently limited to spending ten per cent of their resources on these “political activities.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Groups that signed onto the letter include Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Amnesty International Canada, David Suzuki Foundation and Equiterre.

“Our society has evolved and our legislation hasn’t,” Eric Hebert Daly, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, told DeSmog Canada.

Charities have changed from being primarily service providers — doing things like running soup kitchens and helping the disabled — to contributing direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates, Hebert Daly argued.

“It seems ridiculous to not let the experts be the ones to speak out on issues that they’re experts in,” he said. “If you’re a corporation, you can write off 100 per cent of your spending on political activity and have no restrictions whatsoever, but if you’re a charity you can only write off 10 per cent. There’s a real discrepancy there that doesn’t seem to make sense.”

Right now, the letter the charities sent to federal politicians would qualify as “political activity” and would need to be accounted for under the ten per cent rule.

“When they hear political activity, most people think ‘supporting a political party’ but there’s a huge gap between creating public policy and supporting a political party,” Hebert Daly said.

Charities are banned from taking part in “partisan activity” (supporting or opposing a candidate or political party).

Several of the charities that signed onto the letter have been audited since 2012, when the federal government dedicated $13.4 million to the Canada Revenue Agency to audit the political activities of charities.

The groups argue in their letter that the current regulations are confusing:

“A confusing regulatory environment leaves many would-be advocates unclear how proactively charities can advocate for policy change. The existing interpretation of the Income Tax Act appears to be open to widely divergent interpretations of what constitutes charitable activity … The result is a chill where charities feel that their efforts are being discouraged, subjected to rhetorical attacks or harsh or arbitrary review.”

Hebert Daly says all political parties should be interested in reforming the law so there is no question about arbitrary application of the rules or silencing of dissent.

“The fact that the interpretation itself can change at any moment is part of the problem,” he said. “It would simply take a bureaucrat three seconds to change their mind at CRA and we’d be way above the 10 per cent.”

The groups are asking for an open consultation process involving a broad range of charities and the public to help develop new regulations for the sector.

“The debate on this has really just started,” Hebert Daly said. “I think you need to have an open and honest conversation in the public view about what makes sense in terms of modernizing the Income Tax Act.”

Photo: Dave King via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Few Canadians think about public policy, though it touches our lives in innumerable ways every day. Our collective safety and security, well-being and prosperity do not appear out of thin air. They are, in large measure, the outcomes of a vigorous public policy process.

Charities have a long history of playing important roles in that policy process. Here are just 10 examples of policies that have been shaped by the work of Canadian charities.

1) Laws against drunk driving. Mothers Against Drinking and Driving (MADD) Canada has long played a leading role in advocating for stronger policies against impaired driving. MADD Canada emerged in 1989 from an Ontario-based anti-drinking and driving group that was one of several early pioneer organizations that advocated against drinking and driving.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

2) Regulation of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco lobby in Canada dates back to at least the middle of the twentieth century, when the National Cancer Institute of Canada declared there may be a link between lung cancer and smoking. In the subsequent decades, dozens of charities have contributed to the effort to limit the sale and use of tobacco products.

3) Removal of bisphenol-A from baby bottles. In 2000, the Canadian Environmental Law Association turned its attention to the issue of toxins and human health. In the years following, dozens of charities — many of which joined forces in the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment — developed a sound research base and engagement strategy that contributed to a 2008 Health Canada ban on the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles.

4) The effective provision of mental health services to youth in Ontario.  Starting with careful planning in 2004, Children’s Mental Health Ontario informed the development of a Child and Youth Mental Health and Addictions Strategy for the province. The organization worked for eight years to move the issue of children’s mental health up the provincial health agenda, and in late 2011 was rewarded for its efforts when the provincial government pledged significant funding to help support kids with mental health and addictions issues.

5) The Registered Disability Savings Plan. By the late 1990s, Al Etmanski and his wife Vickie Cammack had concluded that the charity they founded — Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network — needed to focus some of its energy on changing the policy framework to permit families of children with disabilities to better prepare for their children’s financial future. After years of developing credible research and building a constituency, they were rewarded with success. The Registered Disability Savings Plan was announced in the 2007 federal budget.

6) Increases to Alberta's Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped. Each year between 2005 and 2009, the Government of Alberta made increases to the monthly benefit under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. By 2010, charities on the front line serving Alberta’s disabled community believed a further increase was warranted. Dozens of charities — many of which coordinated their efforts through the Alberta Disabilities Forum — continued to make the case until the province announced an additional increase in 2012.

7) The development and delivery of high-quality early childhood care. The charities that have tirelessly devoted their energy to early childhood development and care are too numerous to mention. Canada’s public discourse on this issue is populated by a broad network of universities, service delivery agencies, think tanks and other charities whose most recent success is the emergence of child care as a central issue in the 2015 federal election campaign.

8) The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. While our governments at all levels are the central institutions of public governance, decisions made in the public interest don’t necessarily require government involvement. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement emerged from a long negotiation between the 19 member companies of the Forestry Products Association of Canada and seven leading Canadian environmental non-government organizations.  It aims to ensure sustainable forestry practice in more than 73 million hectares of public forests.

9) The measures that eliminated acid rain. The Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain was formed as a charity in 1981 by 12 member groups. By 1990, when the coalition achieved success with the passage of amendments to the US Clean Air Act, there were 58 member groups, all of whom had contributed to the research, advocacy and education that contributed to ultimate success.

10) The emergent green economy. Dozens of charities in Canada are contributing research, convening, organizing and education elements to a broad-based movement that aims to shift our economy to a more sustainable footing. With any luck, we’ll be able to look back in ten years time and easily identify some big wins.

The list could go on and on, and it’s as varied as the concerns Canadians have for their society, and the hopes they have for its future.

While the list of successes is long and should be celebrated, there is an even longer list of false starts, blind alleys and clear failures in the space between policy decision makers in government and policy advocates in the charitable sector.

No policy advocate can expect success all the time, but as a sector, and as a society, we can do better. And given the complexity of many of the challenges before us — both at home and in our relations with the globalized world — there is good reason to try.

Three Reasons Canadian Charities Are Vital to Creating Public Policy

There are at least three arguments in favour of Canadian charities engaging with governments in the public policy process.

The first invokes deeply held Canadian democratic values. The quality of a democracy depends on considerably more than citizens turning out to vote in elections. The extent to which elections are informed and motivated by citizens engaging with each other on issues they care about is an indicator of the overall health of our political system.

Many Canadian charities are elemental expressions of citizen aspirations to participate in caring for each other and governing ourselves. As such, these groups are an important platform for engagement between citizens and the elected officials and public servants who act on their behalf.

The second argument is that charities often have good policy advice to give. It is expressed very well in Canada Revenue Agency’s Policy Statement on Political Activities (CPS-022):

Through their dedicated delivery of essential programs, many charities have acquired a wealth of knowledge about how government policies affect people's lives. Charities are well placed to study, assess, and comment on those government policies. Canadians benefit from the efforts of charities and the practical, innovative ways they use to resolve complex issues related to delivering social services. Beyond service delivery, their expertise is also a vital source of information for governments to help guide policy decisions. It is therefore essential that charities continue to offer their direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates.

The third argument is that governments need good advice. Much has been written about the diminishing capacity of governments in Canada, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to do the kind of policy development necessary to respond to the challenges they face.

At the same time as their resources are shrinking, governments are facing heightened scrutiny and expectations from an electorate that is increasingly diverse. Canadian charities can help in a range of ways, including bringing front line knowledge to bear, convening stakeholders, facilitating and informing dialogue, delivering and assessing demonstrations and pilots, and providing neutral spaces for engagement.

But most of all, charities serve a vital purpose in bringing the public interest to the forefront of public conversations. Without years of lobbying by Canadian charities, we may well lack many societal features Canadians now cherish.

While charities’ work can have enormous payoffs in the public policy sphere, it’s seldom an easy path, and an arcane regulatory environment leaves many would-be advocates unclear how aggressively charities can lobby for policy change.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Image Credit: David Precious via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadians are inundated with ads from Enbridge, Cenovus, Kinder Morgan, Shell and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

But we’re also targeted by a more insidious type of PR brought into the spotlight by the New York Times scoop on a speech Richard Berman gave to the Western Energy Alliance.

In that speech, Berman told the group’s members — mostly oil and gas companies — they had to be prepared to "win ugly" in an "endless war" against environmentalists. 

We are now finding out we are also subjected to secretly funded propaganda from groups like the “Environmental Policy Alliance” (whose self-conciously chosen initials are EPA, the same as the U.S. government’s Environment Protection Agency), or the more obviously biased “Big Green Radicals.”

Let’s take publicity-averse oil and gas players like the Koch brothers, for example. They are one of the largest leaseholders in the oilsands, and major contributors to Canada's Fraser Institute. Their combined net worth of $85.4 billion is greater than that of Bill Gates. And they are no doubt secretly spending untold sums of money influencing elections throughout North America, lobbying against environmental groups and attempting to ridicule or “diminish [progessives'] moral authority.”

Loaded Messages and Commercial Warfare

Propaganda, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, is “an organized program of publicity, selected information, etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc.”

It is regarded as misleading and dishonest. It often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.

Enter Vivian Krause, the “researcher” who has spent years attacking Canada’s environmental groups.

Looking at a July 2014 Alberta Oil article penned by Krause, one can’t help but note how she delicately skirts around issues like the value of intact ecosystems and their useful services. She also ignores anthropogenic global warming and instead funnels the entire support system for Canada’s environmental advocacy groups down into her favoured conspiracy theory: the plan to destroy Canada’s fossil fuel industry to protect U.S. interests.

To do this, Krause needs some serious blinders on. For example, she describes a strategy paper called “Designed to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming.” The phrase “global warming” is right there in front of her, in black and white, but she skips around it and zooms in on a pejorative view of the “education campaigns” to shift investment into large-scale renewable energy — as if going from fossil fuels to renewables was just some random, self-serving business decision.

She makes no mention of the concerns of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the World Bank (does she see them all as a soft, self-serving and self-indulgent elite?), all of whom think that global climate change is a really big issue, and all of whom have far more credibility than Krause.

Krause writes disparagingly of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity, an organization created in 1987 by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Over the years, it has morphed into a focal point for philanthropic foundations that want to help make a better world. The stated vision of the organization is: “A sustainable, just and healthy future for all life on Earth, advanced by a vibrant and effective philanthropic sector.”

These high-minded goals are of no interest to Krause. All she cares about is that some of the $440 million handed out all over the world by the 64 charitable foundations that compose this organization has gone to Canadian environmental groups and First Nations communities, and some of that portion of their donations has been used to advocate against expansion of fossil fuel extraction, processing and transport.

But the real monstrosity of her claim is highlighted by a look at the bigger picture in which Krause’s critique is placed. 

Adding up all the money that has been spent by American charitable foundations on environmental issues in Canada in the last 15 years — that appears to be the timeframe of Krause’ analysis — the entire sum, from the numbers scattered here and there in her article, is about $500 million.

That may seem like a very large sum of money at first glance, but put in context it’s not. First of all, this is spread across dozens of organizations and across a decade and a half, making the annual grants to any single organization modest.

Secondly, dwarfing these sums is the vast fiscal colossus of the fossil fuel industry itself. While berating environmental groups and their funders, Krause makes no mention of the astonishing wealth taken in and spent by the oil and gas industry on a constant, relentless basis, day in and day out.

In the year 2013, the players in the oil and gas industry who are connected just to the oilsands — let’s call them “the Bitumen Boys” — earned the following astronomical sums:

What is obvious in this table is that the in-and-out totals of the Bitumen Boys, and the profits delivered to shareholders, as well as the total revenue stream, dwarf anything received from philanthropy by several orders of magnitude. Of the 22 companies listed, most profited more in one year, by many multiples, than their non-profit counterparts gained in 15 years.

In fact, the total profits of these 22 Bitumen Boys in one fiscal year — $142.7 billion — is 284 times the entire sum of money given to all environmental groups mentioned by Krause over 15 fiscal years.

Put another way, all the money given to environmental groups over 15 years was 0.35 per cent of the net annual profits of the companies developing the oilsands.

Yet Krause finishes her Alberta Oil article by saying: “For the fossil fuel industries, the battle with environmental activists is no longer David versus Goliath.”

It’s misleading and dishonest and she’s got to know that isn’t the case. Propaganda anyone?

Overlooking Oil Industry Spending

We don’t know the exact amount of money Enbridge is spending on its ad campaigns, because the cost for this public relations blitz is buried in generalized headings like “operating and administrative” or similar non-specific designations.

Krause never mentions oil company expenditures. Couple it with the plethora of opaque front groups like Ethical Oil that play by the Richard Berman playbook, and it’s clear that only the industry's inner circle can find out who pays for what.

Krause casts a blind eye toward oil industry spending, as well as the biological and climatological science that motivates many philanthropic foundations and non-profit groups to take action. She also adamantly skirts mention of the massive profits that motivate the fossil fuel industry.

If Krause wants to opine that global climate change, widespread pollution, population growth, species loss and over-exploitation of biological resources are minor issues, then she and I (along with most other Canadians) part company.

I’m throwing my lot in with the IPCC, with ecological economists like UBC’s Bill Rees, with my colleague John O’Connor whose direct field observations as a physician raise serious concerns about oilsands development, with the economists who are taking climate change seriously and with the public relations industry that has ruled out working with climate deniers.

The question is: who’s left to throw their lot in with Krause?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

He had no idea he was being taped.

So when influential Washington, DC, political consultant Richard Berman talked about strategy and tactics to the oil and gas industry’s Western Energy Alliance in Colorado Springs this past June, he didn’t mince words.  

“This is an endless war,” Berman said.

The secret tape was published in the New York Times a few weeks ago, released by a displeased oil industry executive, on condition of anonymity.

As he urged industry reps to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, Berman also made one emphatic point:

“People always ask me one question all the time, ‘How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?’ We run all of this stuff through non-profit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us. We've been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.”

The Western Energy Alliance, at whose June meeting Berman laid out his cold-blooded strategy, describes membership as “an investment in the future of the independent oil and gas community in the West.” Its members throughout the U.S. and Canada “share and support our commitment to improve business conditions, expand opportunities and move the industry forward.” 

The only government member of the 480-member Western Energy Alliance is the Canadian Consulate.

Deliberately Misleading the Public

What was Berman, chief executive of Berman & Company, doing talking to the Western Energy Alliance? He was there to raise $3 million from energy executives to pay for an advertising and PR campaign named “Big Green Radicals.”

Berman boasts of having more than 25 “non-profit” front groups that launder money from industry players of all sorts, including the fossil fuel sector, with no way for citizens to find out about this clandestine funding.

“I am religious about not allowing company names to ever get used … And I don't want companies to ever admit that because it does give the other side a way to diminish our message.”

Major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty,” he said.

That strategy sounds familiar back in Canada.

Here’s a deliberately misleading statement that would seem to come straight out of Berman’s manual: “For the fossil fuel industries, the battle with environmental activists is no longer David versus Goliath.”

But this wasn’t a statement from Berman — no, this is the final sentence of an article by Vancouver "researcher" Vivian Krause, who came out of the woodwork in the fall of 2009 when she first started writing a blog called Fair Questions, taking aim at the David Suzuki Foundation’s work on farmed salmon and the support it received from U.S. charitable foundations.

Fun fact: Krause is a nutritionist who worked doing PR for the farmed salmon industry. But it didn’t take long for her so-called “fair questions” to extend to many other environmental issues and organizations.

Instead of searching for a fair answer, Krause settled upon a conspiracy theory. It was to be a story she told over and over again — and it goes like this:

The corporate sector is beleaguered by rich environmental groups bolstered by money from U.S. charitable foundations with a hidden, self-interested agenda — not to do good in the world, or protect the environment, but to attack Canadian competition.

Krause wrote that U.S. foundations were funding work to “demarket” Canadian oil, so the U.S. can control the market. She attacked one of British Columbia's greatest conservation achievements, The Great Bear Rainforest agreement, as part of this conspiracy, calling the forest, "The Great Trade Barrier."

She pursued this theory with blinders on — ignoring all other money in the debate, ignoring all rational explanations for U.S. foundations funding work in Canada and ignoring organizations like Ethical Oil and British Columbians for Prosperity that tout Krause’s arguments but don’t disclose their own sources of funding.

Krause’s work is largely responsible for providing the federal government the ammunition it needed to earmark $13 million for the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct audits of charities’ “political activities.” Diverting the attention of environmental groups to decrease their effectiveness is another strategy out of Big Oil’s dirty PR playbook — as indicated in the Edelman documents outlining a strategy to do just that in the TransCanada Energy East pipeline debate.

Krause has maintained she’s working out of her North Vancouver basement apartment, driven by a sense of injustice to right a wrong. No one was paying her. In fact, she was living on her savings. It seemed an implausible story given the time she put into the work.  

Eventually, Vancouver businessperson and civic advocate Sandy Garossino managed to get Krause to admit on Twitter that more than 90 per cent of her income from 2012 onward has come from resource sector speaking fees.

But this hasn’t stopped her message being picked up verbatim by those who agree with it.

In July 2014, Krause’s work was published in the fossil fuel industry magazine, Alberta Oil, an updated version of the same-old-same-old story.

Her message — now also Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s message — is reinforced by other contributors in the issue of Alberta Oil. There’s Ezra Levant, the abrasive Sun Media host, and author of "Ethical Oil" who asserts: “Some organizations are on the payroll, like the Council of Canadians, that took $1.6 million from U.S. foundations to fight against fracking.”

The editor of Alberta Oil, Sebastian Gault, tells readers that Krause “uncovered an international sponsored scheme [he just about said “conspiracy,” didn’t he?] to stall energy development.”

He adds: “We now have a better understanding of the rise of Big Green and its influence over pseudo-grassroots organizations working against the resource sector.”

"Big Green?" Guess where that term comes from? Straight from Rick Berman, who vowed to wage a campaign he would call “Big Green Radicals."  

Embarrass them publicly, ridicule them, don't worry about playing fair or being honest, the goal is simple: win. That is Berman's message and Krause’s years of attacks on Canadian environmental groups seem to play from his book.

—

Editor’s Note:

We know that upon publishing this article, angry tweets and messages in the form of personal attacks will be aimed at damaging the credibility of DeSmog Canada. 

We know this will happen because this is what Krause and her followers do again and again, straight from the Berman script. This makes many journalists wary of challenging what Krause says and particularly intimidates those she directly attacks.

But DeSmog Canada exists to cut through the spin clouding the debate on important national issues such as natural resource development, the economy and democracy — and we wouldn’t be doing our job if we shied away from this topic. 

Next up: Digging Deeper into Vivian Krause's Disingenuous Anti-Environment Witch Hunt

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The below video originally appeared on the Toronto Star.

Birdwatchers – the paparazzi of the natural world – are subverting our democracy according to the Canada Revenue Agency – the overbearing mother of the financial world.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists, a registered charity, recently wrote a letter to federal cabinet members complaining about pesticides linked to dying bees. Shortly after, they got a letter from CRA warning them to “refrain from undertaking any partisan activities.” Activities like their dogmatic anti-bee-death manifesto.

It’s part of a recent crackdown on charities for political activities. CRA rules state that to get tax-free status a charity must be non-partisan. But what charity isn’t partisan? They all support something. We don’t say “Okay, we’ve heard from the ice-bucket challenge guys, but let’s give the pro-ALS folks a chance to weigh in on this… and their buckets of lava.”

And if CRA is so concerned with partisan charities, why aren’t they auditing The Fraser Institute? A “charitable” right-wing think tank whose heroic mission is to protect private profits from abuse by the poor, and protect climate change deniers from reality, and whose donors include Exxon, the tobacco industry and the Koch brothers. They tried getting a donation from Hans Gruber and someone had to tell them that was just the bad guy in Die Hard that’s not a real guy.

And if we’re really serious about people avoiding taxes, what are we doing about the billions we lose each year to offshore tax havens? It turns out, not much. Documents leaked early this year show that over 3000 full-time positions will be cut from the CRA budget in the next four years, including auditors.

So if the birdwatchers really want to keep the CRA off their back, they don’t need to stop partisan activities. They just need to stop being not rich. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

B.C.'s Christy Clark government is proposing to overhaul the Societies Act, and they've distributed a snoozer of a White Paper to let you know all about it.

If you've dozed off already, WAKE UP, because there's a massive zinger quietly planted deep inside. You can do something about it — more on that at the end of this post. But unmentioned in any preamble or executive summary, Section 99 allows any person (including corporations) to take any registered society to court that they believe is acting contrary to the public interest — whatever that is.

Here it is:

Complaints by public

99 (1) A person whom the court considers to be an appropriate person to make an application under this section may apply to the court for an order under this section on the grounds that a society

(b) is carrying on activities that are detrimental to the public interest.

In other words, environmental non-profit groups better watch their step because they're in the cross-hairs. Premier Clark is handing the legal hammer to Enbridge, Kinder Morgan, ExxonMobil, Koch, Encana, Chevron, Sinopec, Suncor and the entire B.C. LNG sector to tie non-profits up in court for years.

Section 99 looks like Clark's close advisor Gwyn Morgan drafted it up during half-time at last year's Grey Cup. Not a single competent lawyer within the Ministry of Justice could say with a straight face that it's constitutional. The clear intent is to silence and intimidate Canadian conservation and environmental non-profits with the threat of litigation. And if mere threat doesn't work, this legislation enables the corporate sector to bludgeon them into lawsuit bankruptcy.

This proposal is one of the most ill-conceived and draconian initiatives to see the light of day in a modern democracy, and reveals the extent of Clark's captivity by the oil and gas lobby. (And one more reason B.C. political leaders should be prevented from funding their election campaigns at the Petroleum Club in Calgary).

But as policy, it's also breathtakingly stupid. As if B.C. doesn't already have the mother of all court backlogs to cope with, the Clark government now proposes to fill up the system with disgruntled parents taking out their beefs in court against a minor hockey association or local elementary school parent advisory council. It will be open season on abortion clinics, LGBTQ organizations and mosques. Don't think for a minute that won't happen.

The real backdrop, of course, is that the Harper government has been on a tear against environmentalists for years, muzzling our scientists and attempting to discredit Canadian environmental NGOs.

The government has spent millions in fruitless CRA revenge audits hunting for a wholly imaginary conspiracy involving Canadian environmental organizations and U.S. scientific and charitable foundations. This vendetta has cost both the charitable sector and public purse untold funds in accounting and legal fees, over nothing.

Agree or disagree with the environmental movement, its members are entitled, as are all of us, to contribute vigorously to public debate over resource development. No one in a free and democratic society should be silenced or censored by fear of government-sanctioned reprisal. But that is precisely the purpose of this legislation.

Christy Clark would do well to remember that Canada is a free nation — our constitution says so. British Columbians, including non-profits, are free to do what we want, express ourselves freely and associate with whomever we choose to, unless it's for an unlawful purpose.

If government wants to limit that freedom it must abide by the Charter of Rights, not force citizens to meet a vague test like "public interest," which doesn't mean the same thing to any two people in the province. That would be the same Charter of Rights that Justice Susan Griffin pounded the B.C. government with during the teachers' dispute.

This White Paper is open to comments by the public until the end of day Wednesday Oct. 15. E-mail yours to the Financial and Corporate Sector Policy Branch here: fcsp@gov.bc.ca

Photo: Chris Yakimov.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Pen Canada, a Canadian charity that fights for freedom of expression and represents more than 1,000 writers and supports is the latest group identified for a political-activities audit by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The group has been a vocal opponent of some of the Harper government’s recent policies, including the muzzling of federal scientists and the alleged surveillance of Canadian citizens as revealed through the Edward Snowden leaks.

Follow revelations of mass state surveillance, Pen Canada advocated for an adoption of “International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.”

The organization also spoke out against restrictive communications protocols, implemented by the Harper government, that prevent federal scientists from speaking with the media about their research. “The federal government’s restriction on media access to publicly funded scientists have become a serious infringement on the right to freedom of expression in Canada,” the group wrote on its website.

Federal auditors appeared at Pen Canada’s offices yesterday, asking to review internal documents, the Globe and Mail reports.

Philip Slayton, the group’s president, said they are fully cooperating with the audit, of which they were notified two or three months ago.

The audit places Pen Canada among the ranks of several other charities currently under audit. The list includes prominent charities such as the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canada Without Poverty, Environmental Defence, ForestEthics, Tides Canada and Amnesty International Canada.

So far Physicians for Global Survival, a group advocating against nuclear weapons, is the only Canadian charity to have its charitable status revoked for being deemed too political.

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, new research done by Gareth Kirkby, a former journalist and graduate student at Royal Roads University, suggests Canada’s charitable sector has come under threat from federal policies that hinder the ability of advocacy groups to carry out their mandate.

Kirkby’s research, which included the anonymous participation of 16 charities currently under audit, confirmed charities are self-censoring due to the threat of audits, which place a strain on the groups’ resources.

Even groups not currently under audit have augmented their messaging, Kirkby found, in anticipation or fear of a potential audit.

The result is a ‘chill effect,’ Kirkby stated.

Environmental charities advocating on issues related to the oil and gas industry, Kirkby discovered, “seem to be the most heavily targeted.”

In 2012, before the federal government announced $8 million dollars would be devoted to the investigation and audit of Canadian charities (DeSmog Canada subsequently discovered through Access to Information legislation the figure is actually well above $13 million), Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked about environmental charities critical of government policy receiving federal funding.

He said, “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayer’s money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

The CRA maintains the audits are not politically motivated, despite ongoing criticism from many groups and individuals.

The Globe and Mail reports Pen Canada has held only one or two full-time positions in recent years and, according to its latest tax records, reported just $237,000 in expenses for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

The group reported no political activities, although charities are allowed to spend 10 per cent of their resources on political activities under CRA rules. Partisan activities are off limits.

Slayton said Pen Canada has played by the rules although the CRA rules regarding political activities are unclear.

“They (the rules) are vaguely formulated,” he told the Globe and Mail. “There’s a lot of room for interpretation. We’ll see what the CRA thinks.”

He added the audit is a drain on the group’s resources. “This is taking up a lot of time,” he said, in reference to the preparatory work they had to do before the auditors arrived. The process is expected to take months and possibly over one year.

“I refuse to let it have a chilling effect on us,” Slayton said. “We are not going to have some kind of fear – about having our charitable status questioned by authorities – stop us speaking out on issues.”

“If it means you have to live in fear of the revenue authorities, and if it means that there are things you want to say, you feel you should say, but you feel you cannot say because of the rules, well then, what price [is] charitable registration?”

Image Credit: Margaret Atwood by Thompson Rivers University via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s charitable sector — the second largest charitable sector in the world, after the Netherlands — has come under threat from federal policies that hinder advocacy groups from doing their work, according to new research.

As DeSmog Canada and other outlets have reported, numerous charities — ranging from development organizations to women’s rights groups — have lost their funding from the federal government during the last several years.

Most recently, in June of 2012, the federal government announced $8 million would be devoted to investigating and auditing charities to ensure their activities comply with Canada Revenue Agency rules. (DeSmog Canada recently revealed through Access to Information legislation that, in fact, more than $13 million has been dedicated to these audits).

Several individuals and organizations have criticized the audits as politically-motivated.

So far, we haven’t heard much from the charities themselves under audit, because, with resources already stretched thin and sometimes multiple federal auditors scrutinizing their work, speaking out has been seen as too much of a risk.

But what charities haven’t been able to say for themselves is now outlined in a new analysis by former journalist and graduate student Gareth Kirkby. His research on the ‘chill effect’ that resulted from the ongoing audits was brought together in his thesis (attached below), recently submitted to faculty in the public communications department at Royal Roads University.

According to Kirkby, who guaranteed 16 charities under audit anonymity in his research, groups have drastically changed their behaviour since the wave of audits, limiting their capability to carry out their mandates, which involve advocating for progressive changes that will benefit often under-represented communities, individuals and the environment.

According to Kirky’s research, charities that work on advocacy issues face the toughest scrutiny from the federal government. Environmental organizations dealing with issues related to the petroleum industry, Kirkby said, “seem to be the most heavily targeted.”

The audits have “amounted to a change in the discourse emanating from these organizations,” Kirkby told DeSmog Canada in a recent interview. And this is happening at a time, he said, when we need these groups more engaged.

“We have some complicated and challenging issues in our society right now that we really need to talk about. And we need to talk about these issues openly, vigorously and without intimidation from the government.”

The transition in Canada

Changes to the charitable sector were dramatically accelerated under the leadership of the Harper government, especially after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, Kirkby’s research found.

By 2006, Kirkby said, it was clear what the incoming government’s priorities were, and what they were not.

“It was very clear right off the bat with the first budget in 2006,” Kirkby said. “There were major cuts in funding to organizations that had received [previous funding] from the federal government.”

These included funding cuts to groups that, in some cases, had been operating on for half a century — charities like the Court Challenges Program, the Canadian Council on International Co-operation, MATCH International, the Rights and Democracy Agency and the church group KAIROS. (A detailed analysis of funding cuts to charities between 2006 and 2011 can be found in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report: Silencing Dissent: The Conservative Record).

Then, Kirkby said, the charitable sector lost its invitation to speak up for the citizens they represented. And this, according to Kirkby, happed to charitable groups from all across the sector – from development organizations to women’s rights groups.

But by 2012 a new pattern emerged, one that clearly demonstrated a more narrow focus on environmental charities.

At the time, when asked about environment critics receiving federal funding, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said, “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayer’s money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

According to Kirkby, that new trajectory was most publicly marked by former Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter, published in the Globe and Mail in January 2012, that accused environmental groups of being ‘foreign funded radicals’ intent on ‘hijacking the regulatory process’ regarding oil pipelines.

That letter was quickly bolstered by three cabinet ministers who “compared charities to criminal organizations, terrorist organizations, [and] money launderers,” Kirkby said.

“Then [former Minister of Public Safety] Vic Towes put environmental organizations on the list of potential security threats in the government’s terrorism strategy. All of that happened in pretty rapid succession and that created a climate of vilification, of demonization of environmental groups but also a great deal of confusion in the public mind.”

The accusations were eventually topped off with an announcement that the federal government would spend the next several years — and millions of taxpayer dollars — investigating charities (many environmental), their funding and the nature of their ‘political activity.’

Silenced

What followed was a major chill in the charity world, according to Kirkby’s research. Charities clammed up and hunkered down, trying to survive the strain of sometimes back-to-back audits and looming fears over the possible backlash of any activity seen as unfavourable by the federal government.

Kirkby said in his overview of many of these charities, he found them to be generally “moderate.” He said this was in large part due to Canadians being a “moderate people” and the restrictions already in place on charities: only 10 per cent of their activity can be political in nature (no partisan activity is allowed).

Dressed in the language of ministers like Oliver, Kirkby said, the federal government “framed [political activity] very effectively as if political activities were a bad thing and had to be stopped — had to be audited and stopped.”

“But, you know,” Kirkby added, “political activities are basically something as simple as asking people call their MP about an issue they care about.”

The issue had become so contentious, however, and charities so heavily scrutinized by government, and a small but very vocal sector of society, that a lot of internal damage to groups had been done.

That created an “inward turn” according to Kirkby’s research. He found most under audit were “distracted” by the presence and pressure of auditors and began “altering the tone, content and frequency or channel of communication” with their audiences and government.

A general sense of “what are they coming for next?” diverted the majority of groups under audit from their mission, Kirkby found.

“There was a silencing,” he said. “Not a silencing, but a muzzling that occurred, as environmental and other charities wondered what was next.”

The sum of the parts

This isn’t some grand conspiracy, Kirkby noted, just the culmination of years of decision-making that advances the private sector and hurts the “third sector,” the collective of non-profits and charities serving civil society.

But intentional or not, the outcome affects democracy all the same, Kirkby concluded.

“I don’t think that there’s necessarily… some blueprint that is being followed but the accumulation of these various tactical actions results very much in damage to the vigour of our democracy,” he said.

What is clear is that the current federal government appears to “have very close ties to one sector,” Kirkby said, adding, “that’s not unprecedented in this country.” He recounted former Liberal government’s support of companies like Bombardier and Boeing.

The situation, however, has scaled up with the Harper government’s support of the oil and gas sector, Kirkby said. “So we see this really close alignment of whatever benefits the petroleum industry, benefits government, and the government seems to believe that what seems good for the petroleum industry is what is good for Canada.”

Whoever contradicts that conviction is being “bullied into muting their messages,” Kirkby said.

With these forces acting in concert, Kirkby said, “what you have is a government that is too close to a sector. It first of all seems to be using the levers of power that are available to a government – like the tax authority – to fight its policy battles.”

“When you add that up what you have is a narrowing of debate and a polarizing of viewpoints, rather than a discussion.”

About “more than just charities”

For Kirkby this issue has everything and nothing to do with charities:

“I say this isn’t about charities — and yes, it is a little about charities because they are an important part of civil society, a very important contributor to conversation — but what we’re doing, this is a problem for all of us,” he said.

“If we’re not hearing all the options on policy, if we’re not having a vigorous discussion on the way forward, we risk choosing wrong options. There has been a muzzling and silencing of particularly environmental charities, but not only environmental charities, development charities as well, at a key moment when these issues need a thorough airing.”

These issues, Kirkby said, cover everything from wealth inequality to climate change and all deserve more enriched public conversations.

“We’re at a time when we’re seeing a reduction of the middle class, and polarization around income that is very much on people’s minds; concerns about quantity and quality of jobs; we’re seeing human rights issues in Canada and internationally; we’re seeing Canadians are becoming aware that many of our mining companies are quite controversial in many of the developing countries in which they are operating.”

But at the forefront of Canada’s concerns are issues of the environment and how our natural resources are managed.

“On the environmental front we’re at a critical time when we’re considering a massive expansion of the oilsands; we’re considering multiple pipelines to take bitumen to various coasts of the United States and shipping them through inner waters, or transporting them by train and we’ve got organizations that are looking at… the impact of all these things on land-based and sea-based ecosystems and individual species, including species at risk.”

The good old days

Throughout his research, Kirkby noted a continuing trend — far outdating the current federal government — to limit the involvement and capacity of the charitable sector in policy discussions.

But this wasn’t always the case.

There was a time in Canada when citizen groups were invited to the policy table, at the highest federal level, and asked for their ideas on new programs and legislation. In the mid-twentieth century, providing federal funds to charitable groups that defended civil society, even if they were critical of government, was seen as a democratic good. That era marked the beginning of a flourishing sector of non-governmental organizations.

Not only were these groups shown early drafts of new policies — they were often invited to help craft them, giving advice and input at the earliest developmental stages.

“They used to be invited in to speak to cabinet minsters and senior bureaucrats about ideas for policies and to comment on policies as they came to light,” Kirkby said. “They largely got shut out of that way of communicating and that included environmental organizations and development organizations that had developed a strong reputation as authoritative representatives on policies.”

“It’s well-documented by researchers and academics that for 30 years there has been a gradual reduction in reach of non-profit sector and of civil society organizations,” Kirkby said. By the 1980s and thereafter, “there was less recognition of the representative nature of the organizations and more seeing them as service delivery vehicles on contract to the government.”

Eventually funding cuts and the establishment of new ‘priorities’ for the charitable and non-profit sector forced many of these groups out of the government’s inner circle. Given time, the charitable sector was increasingly seen as an outsider to government, even an obstacle to certain government agendas.

“There was a tendency to pull back and say that the only legitimate representation to the government were elected officials,” Kirkby explained. “The rest were special interest groups.”

“And though they may have some good ideas, the government felt it could pick and choose when and how and if it would listen to them. We’ve seen a corresponding loss of access to comment on government policies that were in formulation including in really early idea formulation of what public policy should be.”

And that access is just what is needed to ensure Canadians are getting the kind of policies they deserve.

As Allan Northcott, vice president of the Calgary-based Max Bell Foundation, recently wrote for The Philanthropist, charities have brought Canadians some of the most basic policies we get to take for granted every day.

Laws against drunk driving, regulating tobacco, protecting baby products from bisphenol-A, mental health services, the Boreal Forest Agreement — these are just some of the benefits society gains from the hard work of nonprofits and charities.

“But, of course,” Northcott writes, “our collective safety and security, well-being, and prosperity do not appear out of thin air.”

With charities under increased scrutiny, for better or for worse Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of that.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.