It was with some interest that I read about environmentalist/politician David Suzuki’s cross-Canada election-style pass through Edmonton this week, in which it was written in the Edmonton Sun:
Suzuki slams Harper, Alberta
Tells students PM doesn’t care about environment or them, and oilsands expansion is ‘insanity’By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA
Picture below: Dr. David Suzuki took the prime minister and Alberta to task over global warming yesterday as he spoke to students, teachers and parents at Altadore elementary school in Calgary. (Stuart Dryden, Sun Media)
Calgary—Environmentalist David Suzuki savaged Prime Minister Stephen Harper over global warming in front of a gymnasium full of elementary school students and their parents yesterday.
Later, he lashed out at Albertans, calling rapid development of the oilsands “insanity” and a “disaster.”
Suzuki, who was invited to speak at Calgary’s Altadore elementary school and accept $835 collected by the students for his foundation, asked kids what Harper’s main priority was after being elected last year.
“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” he said, adding any of the PM’s pledges to preserve the environment are cynical ploys to that end.
“I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body – he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment.”
He told the room some of his message was directed at the adults, because the youngsters don’t vote and Harper and other politicians don’t care about them.
“It’s up to your moms and dads to ensure your futures and livelihoods are part of the agenda,” he said to about 185 students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 6.
And here I thought that charitable organizations like the Suzuki Foundation (I imagine that $835 of kiddy cash will go right into that Suzuki Foundation account?) would instantly LOSE their charitable status if they did such partisan—in this case rabidly anti-Conservative and anti-Harper—and leftist politicking.
For instance, churches have been threatened as such when the Liberals were in power and about to lose the last election. And Greenpeace lost its charitable status in Canada for what I’m guessing is exactly that reason.
Sounds like Suzuki’s on an election tour to me. As some of us have heard. He’s even using a big political-campaign-style bus just like politicians do when they’re trying to sway voters. For instance, the environmental web site called “Stolen Moments” said in a post regarding what seems to me to be a voter-swaying election tour:
David Suzuki launches cross-Canada dialogue on environment
“If you were Prime Minister, what would you do for the environment? David Suzuki wants to know, and he’s embarking on a cross-Canada election-style campaign to find out.”
[…] The David Suzuki Foundation is committed to reducing and offsetting its greenhouse gas emissions by going Carbon Neutral. All of the major emissions associated with this tour, as well as from day-to-day Foundation operations (including staff commuting, paper use, electricity consumption, and air travel) are offset through investments in sustainable energy projects, such as wind farms, solar installations, or energy efficiency projects.
An itinerary of all appearances and tour stops is available online.
Here’s an actual picture of what I’m going to go ahead and call his Foundation’s campaign bus:
The links to “DavidSuzuki.org” is a web site called The Suzuki Foundation. There’s a prominent graphic pleading for charitable donations and it even offers their charitable tax number
Our charitable numbers:
The David Suzuki Foundation: (BN) 12775 6716 RR0001
The David Suzuki Foundation USA: 94-3204049
There’s also a graphic there representing the notion that the Suzuki Foundation is one of those “ethical” foundations that adheres to “the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy’s Ethical Fundraising and Financial Accountability Code”.
Back in 2004 (during Prime Minister Martin’s dying days as Prime Minister and leader of the Liberals), a Conservative MP, Joy Smith, rose in Parliament and spoke to the church’s charitable status issue and documented it on her web site:
Debates 11/18/2004
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our charter of rights guarantees every Canadian citizen freedom of expression and freedom of religion.This year the Prime Minister, through his tax collectors, actually threatened to remove tax free status for Roman Catholic and evangelical organizations because Calgary Bishop Fred Henry sent a letter to his congregation that the Prime Minister did not agree with.
On June 6, 2004, Bishop Fred Henry sent a letter to all his parishes in the diocese of Calgary for inclusion in the Sunday church bulletins. Bishop Fred Henry wanted to support his beliefs and the work in his church, and give spiritual direction to his congregation. That is what any pastor, bishop, rabbi or any other clergyman has the legal right and spiritual responsibility to do under the charter of rights.
Only this time there was something different. Someone in the federal government got wind of what was going on and Revenue Canada was sent to visit the good bishop, not for spiritual counselling but for intimidation purposes to ensure that the good bishop got on the side of government policy.
Is it not surprising that the good bishop was the recipient of this kind of strong-arm tactics? Is there not supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country? Do we not have the right to worship where we want? Do we not have the right to express our opinions freely? Do we not have the right to believe in whatever we choose to believe and to express those beliefs publicly?
It is true that charitable organizations have a legal responsibility to maintain political neutrality. However, our government also has a responsibility to uphold the rights of its citizens. Bishop Henry simply expressed his views as the spiritual leader of his community about the comments of a man who sought election to be our Prime Minister, a man he differed with and the direction in which this man intended to take our country.
[…]
Bishop Fred Henry did not pick a political party. He stood up and spoke out on an issue according to his religion and his beliefs. He did not attack the Liberal Party. He questioned the man who sought to be Prime Minister.
Today, as member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul in Winnipeg, Manitoba, I am asking the Minister of National Revenue to explain to all members and all Canadians, why was the charitable organization tax free status threatened by this government because a single bishop questioned the direction his government was taking him?
A Liberal MP rose to answer with his seemingly well-researched and prepared remarks:
Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Emerging Markets), Lib.): […] The CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] carries out broad based outreach and education activities to ensure that registered charities understand the law. When the CRA identifies a trend toward partisan political activity, our outreach activities can include proactively contacting these organizations to ensure that they understand the law and will comply.
The Income Tax Act allows registered charities to engage in limited, non-partisan political activities. Charities can speak out on issues related to their mandate, including controversial issues. They are free to engage in public debate and to conduct public awareness campaigns. To be acceptable under these rules, these activities must be linked to the charity’s purposes and remain incidental to its charitable programs.
Partisan political activity is not permitted at any time. I would like to repeat that because I believe it is the crux of the issue. Partisan political activity by registered charities is not acceptable under the law.
These rules are applied evenly and fairly to all registered charities. The CRA’s application of these rules are not based on which side of a debate or issue a charity supports. If the CRA acts against a registered charity, it does so because of the actions of that charity, not on what that charity is or who it represents.
The CRA receives complaints about organizations that engage the public on a specific political issue, including environmental groups, rights advocates and faith based organizations.
These organizations may be deeply committed to their causes and may be conducting allowable political activities, but if they are engaged in partisan political activity, they have contravened the Income Tax Act rules governing charities.
When the CRA believes that a charity’s activities may be contravening the rules, its staff step in to inform and educate the charity about its obligations under the Income Tax Act. Revoking charitable status is our last option, after our efforts to educate, guide and provide advice have not been successful.
[…]
Mr. Speaker, everyone reads a book a different way I guess. For almost 20 years, the Income Tax Act has clearly stated that charities cannot “directly” or “indirectly” support or oppose a candidate for public office or a political party and the hon. member should know that.
The Canada Revenue Agency’s Policy Guideline on this sort of activity states:
In order to serve the public, the information charities give on public policy issues should be presented in an informative, accurate, and well-reasoned way to enable society to decide for itself what position to take.
In addition, when charities choose to contribute to public policy debates, they are required by law to do so in a way that considers certain constraints. A charity cannot be established with the aim of furthering or opposing the interests of a political party, elected representative, or candidate for public office. Also, a charity cannot be formed to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country. However, charities may choose to advance their charitable purposes by taking part in political activities if they are connected and subordinate to those purposes.
We have narrowed what we consider political activities to no longer include many attempts to inform public opinion on an issue. This change in policy should enable charities to more effectively carry out their public awareness programs.
I question whether David Suzuki is in fact breaking the law therefore.
The Guidelines go on:
What are prohibited activities?
A charity may not take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity. A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.
When a political party or candidate for public office supports a policy that is also supported by a charity, the charity is not prevented from promoting this policy. However, a charity in this situation must not directly or indirectly support the political party or candidate for public office. This means that a charity may make the public aware of its position on an issue provided:
a. it does not explicitly connect its views to any political party or candidate for public office;
the issue is connected to its purposes;
b. its views are based on a well-reasoned position;
c. public awareness campaigns do not become the charity’s primary activity.
d. In addition, a charity in this situation is also subject to the restrictions this guidance places on non-partisan political activity, public awareness campaigns and communications with an elected representative or public official.Finally, a charity may provide information to its supporters or the public on how all the Members of Parliament or the legislature of a province, territory or municipal council voted on an issue connected with the charity’s purpose. However, a charity must not single out the voting pattern on an issue of any one elected representative or political party.
I’m not making any accusations here—I’ll leave that to lawyers, tax investigators, and Canada Revenue Agency officials. I just think it’s interesting to question this activity. The media certainly isn’t.
(Hat tip to John Y. for the tip on the Edmonton Sun article)
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
