Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Blake Bromley Headshot

The CRA Should Learn That Charities Can Have Controversial Views

Posted: Updated:
JOSE JORDAN via Getty Images
JOSE JORDAN via Getty Images

Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) very public and aggressive program of auditing the alleged political activities of charities is being conducted in spite of the fact that the law of charity upon which CRA purports to rely is moving in the opposite direction.

In a recent piece on "advocacy chill" in Canada, I pointed out that on July 9 the Charity Tribunal in England came down with a legal decision which held that "promoting the sound administration of the law" was a charitable purpose under the common law. Most environmental and other charities currently under audit by CRA are simply "promoting the sound administration of the law" rather than engaging in "political activities."

Yesterday the Supreme Court of New Zealand handed down its long awaited decision on the application of Greenpeace of New Zealand to become a registered charity. The highest court in New Zealand spent more than a year writing a tightly reasoned 54-page decision holding that a political purpose can be a charitable purpose. The court took on all the gobbledygook in CRA's "Policy Statement on Political Activities" on "incidental and ancillary" activities and refused to follow the jurisprudence upon which it is based. After doing a "political activities" audit, CRA revoked the charitable registration of Greenpeace Canada Charitable Foundation in 1998.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand appreciates that if charity law is to be relevant in the 21st-century and serve the needs of a modern society, it must both change and bring change. It rejected the position that highly controversial views cannot be charitable, saying: "Such thinking would effectively exclude much promotion of change while favouring charitable status on the basis of majoritarian assessment and the status quo. Just as unpopularity of causes otherwise charitable should not affect their charitable status, we do not think that lack of controversy could be determinative."

There is no force more determinative of charity law in Canada than the status quo and our government has a strong proclivity for "majoritarian assessment."

The highest court in New Zealand followed the path of the highest court in Australia which in 2010 allowed political purposes in the Aid/Watch appeal when it rejected the cases relied upon by CRA. Further, the majority judgment concluded that "the generation by lawful means of public debate ... itself is a purpose beneficial to the community within the fourth head in Pemsel."

I was the lawyer who in 2011 tried to convince the Federal Court of Appeal to follow the Aid/Watch reasoning in Canada. While my client was not registered, the court clearly opened the door to accepting the Aid/Watch decision when it stated: "the public debate carried out by a charity must itself be targeted to a charitable purpose, in that case the relief of poverty in the developing world."

Preserving and protecting the environment is clearly a charitable purpose or CRA would not have registered the charities under audit. Consequently, any non-partisan debate about the environment meets the Federal Court of Appeal's test that there be a "focus on public debate concerning a genuinely charitable issue." Inducing an advocacy chill to frustrate open and even highly controversial debate is contrary to the law of charity. I have taken this position long before the current spate of press articles on CRA's intimidating political activities audits.

CRA is cherry-picking its jurisprudence to justify its program of political activities audits. It is ignoring these recent decisions from Australia, England, New Zealand and even Canada's Federal Court of Appeal. Disagreeing with the government on environmental issues is not necessarily a partisan activity.

I am personally less concerned about final decision on specific environmental issues than that Canadians engage in a robust and informed debate on the issues. Charities are capable of campaigning on disinformation just as are corporations and governments. However, if political activities audits are to be governed by the rule of law, then CRA needs to begin acknowledging the extent to which the courts are changing the law rather than exclusively quoting English decisions of past centuries. CRA needs to go back to policing the provisions of the Income Tax Act and not public debates on policy.

  • Justin Forsyth: Save The Children, £163,000 salary
    Forsyth has been chief executive of Save the Children since 2010. He was previously director of strategic communications in Number 10 under Gordon Brown. He was also an adviser to Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister, on environmental and international developments in the Number 10 policy unit. In 2012 Save The Children was forced to defend its first ever fund-raising campaign to alleviate poverty in Britain after Tory MPs claimed it reflected a “political agenda”.
  • Chris Bain: Catholic Agency For Overseas Development (Cafod), £87,000 salary
    Cafod director Chris Bain came to prominence when it emerged that he was sharing a flat rent-free with Paul Goggins, a Labour MP who was caught up in the Parliamentary expenses scandal. The pair had lived together for 11 years before the scandal broke in May 2009. Bain wrote an article on ConservativeHome in 2011 in which he said that “Labour’s world leadership and domestic commitment on international development could not be faulted” and urged David Cameron to “learn the lessons of the past decade” and ask why the scale of Tony Blair’s ambitions “were not achieved”.
  • Damian McBride: Cafod, salary unknown, but as a special adviser, he was paid in the six-figures
    Cafod head of media is controversial former Labour spin-doctor Damian McBride. Many of Cafod’s supporters think the charity should sever all ties with Gordon Brown’s former guard dog, once nicknamed McPoison. On 11 April 2009 he resigned his position after it emerged on a political blog that he and another prominent Labour Party supporter, blogger Derek Draper, had exchanged emails discussing the possibility of disseminating rumours McBride had fabricated about the private lives of some Conservative Party politicians and their spouses. The emails from McBride had been sent from his No 10 Downing Street email account.
  • Gavin Grant: RSPCA, up to £160,000 salary
    The RSPCA's controversial former chief executive has now successfully re-entered politics – after winning a hotly-contested council by-election in his hometown of Malmesbury as an independent. The charity had been under attack from pro-hunt MPs and the Countryside Alliance for much of Grant's three-year tenure, after it began taking on private prosecutions of hunts it claimed had broken the 2004 ban on fox and deer hunting. Grant had been a lifelong member of the Liberal Party and its successor Liberal Democrats, and was its Chair of the South West England regional party in 2011. Grant had also advised successive Liberal Democrat leaders including Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and in 2007 he was involved in Clegg's campaign to become party leader. In September 2013 the RSPCA deputy chairman Paul Draycott said that "too political" campaigns threatened the charity's future and could deter donors.
  • Sir Nick Young: British Red Cross, £184,000 salary
    As well as being a member of the Foreign Secretary’s Human Rights Advisory Group, Sir Nick Young has been chairmen and chief executive of the British Red Cross since 2010. Under Labour he sat on the NHS Modernisation Board and the Office of the Third Sector advisory board between 2008 and 2011. He has spoken before of how charities enjoyed a golden age under Labour. He once said: “There was more money, more Government support and a greater sense of engagement in policy. The present Government talks about the big society, but there is not quite the same sense of involvement and certainly not the same amount of money.”
  • Barbara Stocking: Oxfam, £105,943 salary
    Under Stocking's leadership Oxfam officials made Labour "the most charitable administration ever." But the UK branch came under fire from other NGOs for becoming too close to Tony Blair's government, with one senior NGO official describing the relationship as "far too cosy". "They have incredible access, and what that has meant is that Oxfam are the ones who are always asked to speak for the whole development movement. And they differ on policy from other groups," he said. "They have decided that, in the longer term, their lot is best served by being in with Labour and they go out on a limb to endorse the government."
  • Matthew Frost: Tearfund, £92,000 salary
    Matthew Frost has been the chief executive of Tearfund since October 2005. He previously worked as head of strategy at the Department for Education and Skills under Labour from 2004 and 2005, after a five year spell as a consultant at McKinsey.
  • Peter Benenson: Amnesty International, now deceased
    Amnesty's founder, Peter Benenson, joined the Labour Party and stood - unsuccessfully - for election. Amnesty International was founded in London in July 1961 at a meeting of Benenson and six other men, who included a Tory, a Liberal and a Labour MP.