The audit is clear that Canada's climate is "becoming warmer and wetter, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent."
It's the missed opportunities over the 2012 health ministry firings that will forever haunt the B.C. government. Instead of seizing opportunities to set the record straight, Ombudsperson Jay Chalke's report pointed to a pattern of falsehood piled upon falsehood.
In all of my interviews with directors over the years, when I ask about a director's greatest regret the answer is consistently, "I should have spoken up when I had the chance." Chances are several of your colleagues are thinking the exact same thing.
Consider me one of the millions of Canadians offended by the Senate spending scandal. But it's not for the reason you might think. The auditor general spent around $23 million on this investigation, and found less than $1 million in questionable expenses -- out of $180 million worth of expenses investigated. So we, the ever-patient, ever-indulgent taxpayers, spent $23 million to find out that 0.5 per cent of Senate expenses were questionable. Should we be outraged? Yes, by the dollar cost of the investigation and by the cost to the reputation of Canada's upper house.
While auditing your global supply chain may at first glance appear to be a costly, time consuming and seemingly insurmountable process, an existing infrastructure of widely available tools and resources affords companies the opportunity to do this audit efficiently and effectively.
The debate about how "tricky" it is for the Director-General of CRA's Charity Directorate to consider political leanings when selecting charities for audits continues to rage in Canada. The outrage has reached the dreaded "gate" stage with respected opinion leaders asking "Why is this not considered Canada's own Auditgate scandal?"
In 2009, CRA began to publish on its website summaries of the reasons it had revoked registrations "for cause". There is nothing in the Income Tax Act which defines revocation "for cause". (In deed, it is alarming to think that charities could be revoked "without cause".) These are simply charities CRA wants to "name and shame".
Not terrorists, white-collar crooks, or climate change -- it seems the real threat to Canadian society hides behind a much friendlier face: charities. Or to be more specific, charities critical of the Canadian government. This week it was made public that the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) is auditing PEN Canada for its "political activities." In 2012, the Canadian government earmarked $8 million of the CRA's budget for auditing political activities, and then upped that amount again to $13 million. In a time of austerity, there is still a plenty of money to go after enemies of our federal government.
Canadian charities are experiencing an "advocacy chill" and changing the way they go about their work as a result of what they say is "bullying" by the Harper Conservative government. My just completed Master's thesis research finds that the denunciatory rhetoric of government ministers against charities, followed by stepped up audits is having its toll not only on charity operations, but also on the strength of Canada's public discussions and thus on the vigor of democracy itself.
1. Active owners focused on performance. Expect pressure by activists and institutions for boards to control under-performing