Canadian senators are currently engaged in a debate prompted by Senator Nicole Eaton's concerns about "the interference of foreign foundations in Canada's domestic affairs." This follows the Natural Resources Minister's open letter that some observers have taken as implying that charities, especially those that attract foreign donations, should not play a role in public policy discussions. With the spotlight once again on the issue, it is appropriate to provide some perspective.
A wide variety of Canadian charities, including hospitals, cultural institutions, and universities, benefits from donations from abroad. But foreign donations are nothing compared to what Canadians themselves give. For example, based on what we know, total international support for charities operating in the environmental sector accounts for only about four per cent of revenue. Far from, as Senator Eaton put it, "troublesome manipulation of Canada's domestic affairs by foreign interests." Canadian charities' priorities are clearly set by Canadians and for Canadians.
Charities have long provided a means for Canadians from different walks of life, different backgrounds, and different locations to collectively express their views, gather evidence, consult, carry out research, and thus better contribute to the public policy process. Political activity by charities is strictly regulated and charities follow guidelines established by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Charities are often at the forefront of issues, raising public awareness and advocating policies that are not mainstream at the time but later become accepted wisdom. By raising diverse viewpoints and perspectives, they force us to consider all sides of an issue. This strengthens the policy process and leads to better outcomes. Health charities were instrumental in promoting tobacco reduction strategies and smoke-free workplaces.
Environmental charities raised the issue of acid rain, leading to a treaty with the United States to address this problem. Charities have also been at the forefront of efforts to curb drinking and driving; to establish the Registered Disability Savings Plan, the National Child Benefit, and the Children's Fitness Tax Credit; and to create the Canadian Initiative for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.
As economic issues are top of mind today, we need to remember that good social, environmental and health policies are also good economic policies and that charities have much to contribute. It is telling that, in one of his first speeches as British Prime Minister, David Cameron emphasized that "the voluntary sector and social enterprise sector will be a bigger part of government than ever. But we have to involve your organisations, and work with you and through you." Charities seek to contribute to quality of life, not to undermine it.
So what about foreign money? Should outsiders be allowed to influence what happens in Canada? Modern philanthropy -- like many other aspects of life -- is increasingly global in its activities and funding. People know more about the world around them, they recognize where they have common interests and concerns, and they work to support causes in which they believe. Many issues are of universal concern and lessons we learn in one place can often be adapted and applied in other places. Some issues simply do not respect national borders, and actions taken in one country have direct consequences for another.
Good public policy cannot emerge from a vacuum. It requires the full participation of a broad spectrum of Canadians and communities. Individuals, corporations, small businesses, aboriginal organizations, trade unions, and charities all have a vital role to play.
Because we never know where the next good idea is going to come from, we need to make sure that the marketplace of ideas is as wide open as possible. We welcome the opportunity the Senate debate has given us to remind Parliamentarians and the broader public of this principle that is so fundamental to our society and our democracy.
Canada Revenue Agency - Charities
Charities paid $762M to private fundraisers - Canada - CBC News
the Tories' ability to condemn others for their own sins is at times remarkably breathtaking. I mean, if there's "troublesome manipulation of Canada's domestic affairs by foreign interests", the first at the top of that list is the GOP's meddling in the creation and methods of the Canadian polity by the indoctrination and assistance given the Conservatives. Including the use not just of US-side political tactics and dirty trickery, but of actual participation in the campaign by US companies and consultants with GOP ties. If there's a country or faction in another country meddling in our domestic affairs, IT'S THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in all its many-headed corporatist and Jesus-groupie ugliness.
Complaining about the Sierra Club when you're spending taxpayer-assisted money to US companies to help win a campaign in Canada is more than hypocritical; more than unethical, more than hypocritical.......somewhere past gall into sheer absurdity.
The Senator has conveniently neglected to make mention of the billions of foreign dollars invested in the oil sands.
Chinese oil companies like Sinopec have multi-billion dollar stakes in this project and to think they are not HEAVILY levering on Canadian policy makers is absurd. What are we supposed to think Harper was doing in China a few weeks ago? Sampling the Dim Sum? Of course he was promising Chinese officials representing state owned oil companies that oil sands expansion WOULD be happening, and a pipeline to bring bitumen to China via super-tankers WOULD be built.
So as far as the senator is concerned, foreign interests, including large amounts of foreign monetary support are OK as long as they are pro-oil-sands. But if other, significantly less powerful and wealthy foreign interests (i.e. charities) are against oil-sands expansion or pipelines in pristine territories, they are somehow evil "radicals" or "extremists".
I wonder if the senator is bright enough to appreciate this gross double standard. Somehow I doubt it.... But don't think Canadians haven't noticed.
There already are strict policies in place limiting how much can be spent to influence "lobby" the government". These charities help all Canadians in one way or another and pick up the slack where government programs are limited.
Charities run welfare programs, whether for people, animals, or the environment. Advocacy groups, even if they take donations should not consider themselves charity. Otherwise conservative think tanks just need to start accepting donations and they too can be a "charity".
I'd say ..No.
But they aren't, are they? Many charities are targeting highly political issues and trying to sway government decisions.
And that makes all of the difference in the world.
Here is a link to the US National Institute of Health (NIH) grants to foreign researchers for 2012. OF COURSE, many of them are Canadian.
http://report.nih.gov/award/organizations.cfm?ot=&fy=2012&state=Foreign&ic=&fm=&orgid=&sumcol=loc&sumdir=asc&view=data
So you are OK with them funding medical research, but you are against them funding environmental advocacy. Why? You are either an insular hermit against all foreign intervention and thereby outraged by NIH (and many many other American and international charities and organizations) sponsorship of medical research in Canada. OR, you are just an anti-environmental hypocrite.
Do you believe that the environment they live in is in any way connected to the health of the population? Hmmmmm.....
It is not 'charities accepting foreign money' that anyone is concerned about, obviously.
We are concerned that a ton of foreign money is being used to lobby to influence regulatory issues that concern Canadians.
Something tells me if the US drug companies and PMO's were spending billions to kill public healthcare in Canada you would be singing a different tune, the tune of course that suites your agenda.
From where i sit this is just about protecting the base in Alberta. The pipeline defeat has the cons upset and they didnt mind citizen activists until they realized they could actually make a difference
I submit they'll find some other excuse to go after them even if they become 100% canadian funded.
Gotta protect The Base! And screw everyone else
But wil the Cons understand the subtle differences?!?