If there’s any branch of the federal government that should top the “hate list” for Canadian conservatives it has to be the Canada Revenue Agency.

This is the agency, after all, that big government uses to painfully extract our hard-earned wealth – sometimes with bullying tactics – so that Bev Oda has the funds to buy more orange juice.

Yet strangely, the supposedly “conservative” Harper government is giving $8-million in additional funding to the CRA.

What’s going on here? Isn’t that like Hobbits giving arrows to Orcs? Or like New York Yankees fans cheering for the Boston Red Sox?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Nevertheless, it seems the Tories want to bolster the CRA’s muscle so it can more efficiently squelch free speech.

Well OK, that’s not really fair to the Conservatives.

What they really want is for the CRA to more thoroughly investigate charitable groups that are trying (horror of horrors) to sway public opinion.

Under our laws a registered charity is allowed to engage in what’s called non-partisan political activity only if the money spent represents no more than 10 per cent of its resources.

The Conservatives want more information to ensure charities are respecting the rules. The government, by the way, can suspend a group’s charitable status if it doesn’t get the information it wants or if it finds the group has exceeded the limits.

Why are the Tories so interested in charities engaging in political activity all of a sudden?

Well, it’s likely because certain charitable environmental groups have recently spent money in an attempt to turn Canadians against the government’s plan to build the Northern Gateway pipeline.

This opposition has made the Tories very unhappy.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, for instance, recently decried “environmental and other radical groups” whose opposition to the pipeline, he said, is undermining the national interest.

And so the Tories are unleashing their tax-law legions.

They also want to amend the Income Tax Act to introduce penalties for charities that exceed the limits on political activity or fail to report it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says this is just standard operating procedure. As he put it, “What is incumbent upon all charities is that they respect the laws regarding political activities. Those laws are clear.”

Technically speaking, of course, the Prime Minister is right – the law is the law.

But what if the law is wrong?

And in this case, the law gagging charities is most definitely wrong because it infringes on free speech.

To put it another way, democracy would be better served if charities had more freedom to advance ideas and to debate issues.

Certainly, this would help ensure voters are better informed when it comes to policies. And more-informed voters make more-informed votes.

Mind you, this is something Mr. Harper should already understand. In fact, as a conservative, he should be ideologically opposed to government rules and regulations that only serve to stifle free expression.

In other words, he should be loosening rather than tightening the regulatory straitjacket constricting the rights of charities.

And yes, if he did this it would give charities that oppose his agenda more freedom to speak out. But at the same time it would also give charities that support his agenda more freedom to do the same.

In the end the side with the best ideas would prevail in the court of public opinion. That’s the way it should be in a democracy.

If none of my arguments has convinced you, consider this final point: Less-regulated charities should frighten you far less than a better-funded Canada Revenue Agency.

Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/charities-silenced-by-the-taxman/article2433828/ >

When a crow went down with West Nile virus somewhere in Ontario, my phone would ring. Practising as an infectious disease specialist at the time, I was alerted to early warnings about threats to the public’s health from infectious agents. Immediate response was expected – and provided – by our strong public health infrastructure.

But here at the children’s hospital where I now work, a group of us meet regularly, if informally, about another pressing public health threat – hunger.

We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But hunger is something that we at the hospital increasingly see among the families that bring their children to us for medical attention.

For 10 days beginning May 6, which marked the start of Hunger Awareness Week in Canada, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is making a formal country mission visit to Canada. It’s the first-ever visit to a developed nation by Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian law professor who became special rapporteur in 2008.

As a signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), Canada has a legal obligation to “respect, protect and fulfill the right to food.”

It’s my hope that this visit – and the recommendations in the report that Prof. de Schutter will subsequently produce – will throw a spotlight on the disturbing truth that far too many Canadian children are hungry because their families lack access to adequate and nutritious food.

Food Secure Canada estimates that almost 2.5 million Canadians live without secure access to food.

An infectious agent like West Nile poses an immediate threat as well as long-term health consequences (if almost exclusively in adults). Unquestionably, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity in childhood are similar.

Why are we concerned here? Many pediatricians with community practices tell us that finding the money to feed their children is the top problem faced by many parents they meet.

We see children whose parents struggle with poverty. We admit proportionately more children from high poverty neighbourhoods to hospital than from other neighbourhoods, and the children from poorer neighbourhoods stay longer at the hospital.

We know that childhood hunger – which of course is linked to poverty – has long-term impacts on physical and mental health.

For healthy growth and development, children need sufficient nutrients. Deficiencies of even small amounts during this important period can have long-term health consequences.

One thing we’re seeing in recent years is an upswing in cases of rickets, a condition still prevalent in developing countries but one that I thought would be corrected in Canada through the 1970s, when I trained in Montreal.

Rickets is preventable. It is primarily caused by a lack of sunlight and vitamin D, (including vitamin D supplementation with breast feeding), although a lack of calcium can also contribute to the condition, which causes bones to soften and become prone to deformity. Foods that contain vitamin D include fortified milk, as well as eggs, fish oils, margarine and some other foods.

The children we see who have developed rickets are quite simply not getting adequate amounts of sunlight and nutritious food, including vitamin D supplementation with breast feeding.

As a recent report from Toronto’s medical officer of health states: “Children who live in food-insecure households are more likely to have growth and developmental problems, be susceptible to illness and perform poorly in school, compared to children who are food-secure.”

Adequate nutrition is also a key issue when it comes to mental health among youth. Psychiatrists speaking at the request of community youth in one of our priority neighbourhoods advised that the first two mental-health questions that should be asked of young people are: “How did you sleep last night?” and “Have you eaten today?”

We know that in the Greater Toronto Area, the use of food banks is increasing rapidly. A key reason is that housing costs are eating up a growing proportion of family income. Initiatives are under way to help physicians and other health care providers better link families to resources such as food banks and government services.

But while there is a perception that food banks – as well as programs like school and community meal programs, community gardens and kitchens – are providing the needed response to food needs, Canadian research challenges this notion.

The UN Special Rapporteur will present his preliminary findings on food security in Canada on May 16 in Ottawa. It’s my hope that this will put child hunger squarely on the political agenda in Canada – and galvanize action to eliminate it.

Specializing in social pediatrics, Dr. Elizabeth Lee Ford-Jones is an expert adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca, project investigator at the Hospital for Sick Children and a professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/childhood-hunger-is-a-canadian-public-health-crisis/article2430182/ >

The Conservatives have taken some Canadian environmental charities to task for accepting money from wealthy foreign donors to finance their campaigns against oil and gas projects.

But tax returns filed to the Canada Revenue Agency show most of the foreign money that fills the coffers of domestic charities does not go to the environmental groups now in Tory crosshairs.

An analysis by The Canadian Press of charities’ annual tax returns found only one of the top 10 foreign-funded charities could be considered a conservation group.

That group is Ducks Unlimited Canada. Tax returns show it has reported receiving more than $33-million over the years from foreign sources, making it the fifth-largest recipient of money from outside the country.

Ducks Unlimited Canada says it receives foreign funding from its sister organization in the United States, U.S. federal and state governments, corporations, private foundations and individual contributors.

CARE Canada reported the largest amount of foreign funding. It has accepted nearly $99-million over the years from foreign donors. Most of it came from United Nations agencies, foreign governments and the charity’s international members.

Second was World Vision Canada, which has reported $89-million in foreign income. It says the vast majority of that money comes from gift-in-kind donations from UN organizations and international corporations with branches in Canada.

“For example, these would be things like pharmaceuticals, clothing, school supplies and books and medical supplies,” spokeswoman Tiffany Baggetta said in an email.

“Then we have a very small portion that is from individual citizens who just happen to live outside of Canada. For example, sometimes we have people who sponsor a child through World Vision Canada, then they move to another country but want to continue sponsoring that child through World Vision Canada.”

Third was Hamilton’s McMaster University, which, like many post-secondary institutions, has charitable status. McMaster has reported $43-million in foreign income.

University spokesman Gord Arbeau says last year foreign students paid McMaster $25-million in tuition fees, while the school also received $13-million for research funding and $4-million from sales of medical isotopes from its nuclear reactor.

All that money counts as foreign funding for CRA’s purposes.

The charity that reported the fourth-most foreign funding was the Canadian UNICEF Committee, with $37-million. But a UNICEF Canada spokeswoman says the organization doesn’t actually receive much foreign funding.

“While it appears we received a significant amount of cash from foreign donors – we don’t,” Melanie Sharpe said in an email.

“That figure is almost entirely the value of donated health supplies that we send to our child survival programs in developing countries. Less than 0.5 per cent represents cash donations Canadians have made to one of UNICEF’s global fundraising campaigns.

“… According to accounting regulations all cash or in-kind donations have to be registered as revenue whether from a foreign or domestic source.”

The CRA database shows only 1,998 of the 85,000 or so registered charities now active in Canada have reported any foreign income. Most are aid organizations, religious groups or schools. All of their foreign funding over the years amounts to a combined total of $811,467,808.

“It’s certainly not as if this was something new,” said Marcel Lauziere of Imagine Canada, an advocacy group for Canadian charities. “And even if it were new, and it certainly is not, hard to understand why that would be a bad thing. I mean, unless Canada wants to isolate itself from the rest of the world, it would make no sense.

“You know, if 80 per cent of funding of charities came from foreign sources, you’d say, ‘Okay, that’s a bit bizarre. What does that mean?’ That’s not the case at all. The lion’s share, by far, of the funding that charities get are provided by Canadians.”

Canadian charities do not have to disclose on their tax returns which foreign groups gave them money. But the recent federal budget promised to impose new penalties on charities that fail to provide full disclosure of funding and activities.

“There have also been calls for greater public transparency related to the political activities of charities, including the extent to which they may be funded by foreign sources,” the budget document says.

Sanctions for charities that don’t play by the rules could include fines or a suspension of a charity’s ability to issue tax receipts.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been critical of charities that receive foreign funding, particularly environmental groups.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has accused “environmental and other radical groups” of trying to use money from “foreign special-interest groups” to hijack hearings on a pipeline that would bring Alberta oil-sands bitumen to a port on the British Columbia coast.

Environment Minister Peter Kent even raised the spectre of criminal activity in a recent interview broadcast on CBC Radio’s The House. Asked by host Evan Solomon if the government is trying to silence environmental groups by taking away their charitable status, Mr. Kent raised concerns about money laundering.

“Some groups with charitable status have been going well beyond the CRA guidelines for what is acceptable practice as a charitable agency,” he said. “And there has also been concern that some Canadian charitable agencies have been used to launder offshore foreign funds.”

The Environment Minister was not available to speak to The Canadian Press.

One group that has been singled out for receiving American grants is Tides Canada, which runs both a grant-making foundation and a charity that backs environmental and social-justice projects. It has reported $7.8-million in foreign income over the years, according to CRA tax returns. That makes Tides the 16th-largest recipient of foreign money.

However, U.S. tax records show a different amount.

Annual filings to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service from tax-exempt and non-profit organizations show the Tides Canada Foundation has received more than $63-million from wealthy American foundations. That would put it third on the list of Canadian charities that received funding from outside the country.

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation gave the Tides Canada Foundation almost $33-million, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation gave it nearly $14-million, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation gave it $11 million, and other groups gave it smaller amounts.

Ross McMillan of Tides Canada said wording on the CRA tax form changed in 2009 to include a line for revenue received from all sources outside Canada. Prior to this charities only reported foreign funding under “other gifts.”

Since pre-2009 CRA tax forms did not distinguish foreign funding from other income, a search of the agency’s database does not turn up a higher number for the Tides Canada Foundation.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/which-charities-get-the-most-foreign-cash-not-those-on-tory-hit-list/article2428592/singlepage/#articlecontent >

The world has changed, and when it comes to its immigration system, Canada is not changing fast enough to compete in it. It is no longer possible to sit back languidly, as the best and the brightest queue on its doorstep. The global market for human capital is voracious. There may always be migrants wanting to come to Canada, but they may not be the ones that Canada needs. People with options are less and less likely to tolerate hidebound and cumbersome immigration process, waiting as long as eight years to have their applications processed. If you are ambitious, if you are skilled, if you are entrepreneurial, if you are educated, if you are impatient for success, you will look elsewhere. Increasingly, elsewhere is looking better.

Countries like Australia can now fast-track applications for permanent residency in less than a year. Nor is the competition coming only from developed countries. With growing prosperity at home, not every upwardly mobile citizen of China, India and Brazil sees re-locating overseas as the only path to success. In fact, the Chinese and Indian governments are using investment, tax and visa incentives to draw the highly educated children of Chinese and Indian immigrants to their ancestral homelands.

To ensure Canada remains attractive to the sharpest minds, the keenest entrepreneurs and greatest innovators, the country must move beyond an inefficient selection system and long waits. Why should people put their careers on hold, in order to come to Canada? “International competition is starting to heat up for the best immigrants, the Frank Stronachs, the people who will drive the economy,” notes Arthur Sweetman, an economist at McMaster University.

A new Gallup poll shows that Canada is the third most popular destination for people looking to relocate, with the U.S. first, and the U.K. second. Some might say that top three isn’t bad. But Canada fell a spot from 2010, the global survey of 452,199 adults in 151 countries shows. Despite the recession, the U.S. remains by far the world’s most desired destination for prospective migrants. Why isn’t Canada in first place?

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has enacted long-overdue reforms to streamline the selection system for economic immigrants. More points will be given for younger people with language proficiency who have prearranged employment.

He also plans to tackle the backlog by closing 100,000 files involving 300,000 people. This is a necessary measure – but one with consequences. It puts a stain on Canada’s credibility, and more reforms are necessary to ensure the problem doesn’t recur.

There is a need for a different kind of immigration officer to be sent to Canada’s missions around the world: not someone with a shiny badge, armed with a long list of bureaucratic time-consuming checks that may end up impeding people with desirable educations, entrepreneurial instincts and in-demand skills from immigrating to Canada. Instead they should be people whose job it is to find and recruit talent. Canada needs headhunters.

Canada needs to open the doors for the right kind of migrant. Faster processing times would enable Canada to take advantage of global cyclical downturns. The current unemployment rate for Spaniards under age 25 is 50 per cent, the overall rate in the country is 25 per cent. Spain has an army of highly literate, technologically savvy people sitting idle, people who could, in some cases, literally walk in and fill vacant jobs here in the hi-tech, telecommunications, mining and petroleum sectors.

Instead of having a system flexible enough to seize on such opportunities, we have immigration lawyers with stories of clients – such as a couple from South Africa with MBAs – who become so frustrated, they simply give up on Canada.

Mr. Kenney is trying. Ottawa has expanded the provincial-nominee category, which favours immigrants with prearranged employment. However, the model has some weaknesses: Newcomers entering through the nominee stream are also less educated, and have lower salaries over the long term, than those who enter through the federal points system. This category of workers remains crucial to Canada’s overall program, but it will not suffice.

Ottawa must do more to ensure newcomers can convert their foreign credentials and job experience. It must address discrimination in the labour market, and gate-keeping by professional associations. But first and foremost, Canada needs to change its mentality around immigration. It should be designed as much around whom Canada wants, as who wants Canada.

It is becoming a seller’s market. As Sergio Karas, a Toronto immigration lawyer, says, “People from developing countries are no longer automatically migrating to Canada.” Canada must learn to compete. Educated professionals, entrepreneurs, leaders, will not waste their most productive years trying just to get through the door. They know where they are wanted, and if they’re not wanted here they will pack up their bags and go to where they are, taking with them all their potential and promise.

< http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canada-must-actively-recruit-the-best-and-brightest-immigrants/article2423327/ >

This winter, Jason Kenney introduced Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, in Parliament. We have been watching the debate around this bill with some concern. It seems that Kenney believes the system needs protection from migrants. We, on the other hand, believe migrants, particularly refugees, need protection from his bill.

We are a group of primary care physicians who support our patients, many of whom are refugees, to live proactively healthy lives. This approach is good medical practice, and yes, it even reduces health-care costs. We also recognize that people’s health status is dependent on their social and political realities. We therefore advocate for policies that support healthy living and condemn those that cause harm.

And thus, our contention with the bill.

Take, for example, the case of Ms. J. who could be a patient in any one of our practices. She arrived in Canada on an overcrowded boat with her children, having escaped a war-torn nation where she witnessed the traumatic death of her politically active husband.

She is a poorly controlled diabetic, has flashbacks of her experiences, has difficulty sleeping, and has recently developed suicidal thoughts. Instead of allowing Ms. J. to go through a fair refugee claims process that might allow her protection, Kenney would rather put her in prison for up to a year, separate her from her children, keep her from reuniting with the rest of her family for five years and, even if accepted as a refugee, keep her immigration status in Canada uncertain.

At best, these policies are misguided and driven by ideology. At worst, they are intentionally cruel and inhumane. Bill C-31 proposes automatic detention of refugee claimants for up to one year without review if deemed unilaterally to be an “irregular arrival” by the Minister of Public Safety, currently Vic Toews. In addition to detention, C-31 also fast-tracks refugee claims from certain countries deemed “safe” by the minister, with little regard for the case-by-case nature of refugee claims.

The health consequences of the policies proposed by C-31 cannot be underestimated. In Australia, where the policies that Kenney proposes have been tried and discarded, studies show that detention increases risk of suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress disorder and self-harm in refugee claimants. Such findings are not surprising given previous trauma, isolation from social support and an inherent sense of powerlessness when imprisoned in a foreign country. Furthermore, the very nature of incarceration is known to exacerbate conditions such as hypertension, asthma and diabetes while providing an environment ripe for the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis.

Even after release from detention, Bill C-31 would continue to influence the health of refugees. The legislation precludes applications for family reunification for five years after the refugee claim is adjudicated. We do not know what Kenney has against families, but we know from our clinical experience that sick people who have the support of their families fare better than people who are alone.

The bill also includes the possibility that a patient’s refugee status be ceased and permanent residency revoked. Research has demonstrated that refugees denied permanent status are more socially withdrawn, show less improvement of language skills, and have worse mental health compared with those with secure permanent status.

Kenney often points out that the government is only proposing to do what has already been done elsewhere. What he fails to mention in his quest for mediocrity for Canada is that American civil society groups have denounced detention conditions in the U.S. while more than 100 detainees have died in custody there since 2003. He also forgets that several medical organizations in Australia criticized refugee detention after it was initiated in 1992, and in 2008 the Australian government acknowledged the damage detention inflicts on refugees. The criticisms in Britain are no different.

We are not opposed to change. We believe much can be done to improve our collective responsibility to help those in need, efficiently and fairly. But we have grave concerns about the direction Kenney is taking us. Evidence and experience oblige us to speak out against what seems to be ideology and fear-mongering. We speak not only out of professional duty as physicians, but also as Canadians who demand better for our society.

Ritika Goel MD is a Masters candidate at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and a family physician in Toronto.

Baijayanta Mukhopadhyay MD is a resident in family medicine at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine in Timmins.

Joshua Wales MD is a resident in family medicine at the University of Toronto.

Mei-ling Wiedmeyer MD is a family physician in Toronto.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1169015–migrants-need-protection-from-bill-c-31 >

The recent federal budget launched a shot across the bows of Canadian registered charities to be careful about how they engage in political activities. The shot was not really a surprise as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Natural Resources minister, Joe Oliver, had already aimed a few volleys at the sector in their promotion of the tar sands and the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Canada’s charity law permits registered charities to engage in limited political activity for up to 10 per cent of their activity. The regulations define permissible activity. Excluded are partisan activities like supporting or opposing specific candidates or parties. The political activity must be related to the charitable purpose of the organization, and generally aimed at creating a broader understanding of issues and problems.

Most Canadian charities engage in no political activities. They are the traditional charities familiar to the Conservative members of the Senate who in recent hearings expressed surprise that charities had any public policy or advocacy role. In fact, most charities do not engage in public policy or advocacy, have never seen it as part of their role, and are likely unaware that they are permitted to do so.

Even among those charities that have an interest in public policy, there is a reluctance to engage, and few play anywhere close to the 10 per cent level. The reluctance arises in some cases from a lack of knowledge of the rules, or uncertainty in what they actually mean (despite the presence of a useful memo from the Canada Revenue Agency on the matter), or a fear of incurring the wrath of government.

Most charities in Canada are small, with few professional staff members, each of whom generally has to wear a variety of hats. They are primarily occupied with fundraising and operating issues. Fundraising may be in the form of applying for grants from governments or private grant-makers like foundations and corporations. Many of them deal with hard problems of human suffering that have fallen between the cracks of big governments and big charities.

As such, they don’t have much time for public policy work, for advocacy on their issue, or for buttonholing politicians. They hope others will play that role. Generally in the sector, everyone knows that what the big players with the big budgets, governments and corporations, do is important. Not only is it important, it can be transformative.

Since governments have shed much of their policy capacity in the last few decades, they need good ideas from outside, and particularly from those working close to the coal face of society’s problems. And many corporations are more than willing to step up to help deal with crucial community issues, as evidenced by so many changing their human resource practices to access our burgeoning immigrant talent better.

This is the intelligence of the public policy behind the 10 per cent rule, and why it is good that the CRA makes efforts to be clear about what is permitted. The CRA guidelines are sensible, and geared to helping inform public policy formation.

So it is useful that the recent federal budget drew attention to the permissibility of charities engaging in public policy. Many charities who weren’t aware of the 10 per cent rule can now gear up to add a public policy dimension to their work, to begin to get a grip on one of the biggest levers of change for the better. And those charities which have been reluctant, or been underutilizing their capacity, can gear up to be even more effective participants in the public discourse on important matters facing our communities and the nation.

As for the source of these funds for public good, we should be grateful that people in other countries want to help Canada. Where would stem cell research be had it not been for U.S. private support coming to Canada during the Bush years when stem cell research was discouraged in the U.S.? Where would many of our university research programs be without significant foreign sourced funding?

As we are happy to have foreign investment to develop our commerce, so should we be happy to have it support our communities.

Alan Broadbent is chairman and CEO of Avana Capital Corp. and founder and chair of Maytree.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1165638–a-call-for-canadian-charities-to-become-politically-active >

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper says charities that engage in too much politicking should be denied tax subsidies, he’s right.

There’s no good reason why environmental groups that oppose oil pipelines should be able to finance their activities, in part, on the backs of the general taxpayer.

The problem with Harper’s dictum, however, is that it’s not broad enough. He’s only putting the boots to charities that his Conservatives don’t like.

Parliament should end the tax subsidies going to all charities. Period.

That would include cutting off not only dubious charities, such as the right-wing Fraser Institute, but organizations that probably do some good, like the United Way.

The original idea of having the public subsidize charitable organizations was well-meaning.

Charities used to be organizations that engaged in uncontroversial good works, such as helping widows and orphans.

And so governments provided a tax break. Registered charities were given the privilege of issuing charitable receipts to donors. Those donors, in turn, could deduct a portion of their gift from the income tax they owed — money that, in the end, had to be made up by someone else.

In practice, that meant the public in general ended up subsidizing charities chosen by individual taxpayers.

Sharp-eyed entrepreneurs, particularly among those who want to influence public opinion, sensed the gravy-train potential and began to apply for charitable status — usually under the pretense of fostering education.

The upshot is that if I give $100 to the Red Maple Foundation (which is a charity publishing the pinkish This Magazine), you’re on the hook for $15 of that amount — regardless of what you think about pinkos or magazines.

Similarly, you and I are both on the hook for a portion of $2.8 million in so-called charitable donations that the Fraser Institute raised in 2010. Its donors too received charitable tax receipts.

I don’t know about you. But I resent having to subsidize an organization that spends much its time fulminating for neo-liberalism.

For the same reason, I have no interest in helping to fund the Canadian Constitution 2005 Foundation, which agitates against medicare.

And I really find it irritating to have my tax dollars subsidize the Manning Foundation for Democratic Education. It’s a training school for Conservative operatives started by former Reform leader Preston Manning that offers “certified programs in political management” as well as “faith/political interface programs.”

I have the funny feeling that I’m helping to teach young Conservatives how to manipulate robocalls.

That foundation, incidentally, is a subsidiary of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, an unabashed Conservative front.

Former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent’s new Broadbent Institute hasn’t yet asked for charitable status. When and if it does, I reckon many will resent subsidizing it too.

The Douglas-Coldwell Foundation, another NDP front, already has charitable status. But according to its latest public tax filing, it raises little money and does less.

So what is to be done?

The simplest answer is to scrap charitable tax receipts entirely. Distinguishing between real and bogus charities is an almost impossible task. Even established charities can be controversial.

Some fund medical testing on animals. Others promote birth control.

If real charities like the United Way need public funding, they should apply for grants up front — as does, say, the CBC.

And bogus charities?

Let me put it this way: If you want to finance Preston Manning’s world view, go to it. Just don’t ask me to chip in.

< http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1165402–walkom-stephen-harper-s-attack-on-charities-doesn-t-go-far-enough >

The recession hit Canada’s non-profit sector hard. Demand surged. Donations shrank. Foundations suspended grants to protect their endowments. Government support held up for a time as Ottawa and the provinces poured money into the moribund economy, then it too was cut.

Some charities folded. Others hunkered down, laid off dedicated workers and placed a heavy load on their volunteers. They served their clients as well as they could, but had to turn away people who came seeking help.

Innovative non-profit organizations shelved groundbreaking projects and went into survival mode.

Nora Sobolov, who was chief executive of the Canadian Lung Association at the time, remembers receiving a distraught phone call from a colleague in 2009. He was worried about making his organization’s payroll because the money he was expecting for a government contract had been delayed. When he asked his bank of 15 years for a bridge loan, he was turned down flat.

Then she got a call from another friend. Her arts organization had found an interested corporate sponsor, but it needed a bit of capital to get artists started. No one would give her a loan.

Sobolov kept hearing similar stories, watching the growth of non-profit lending in the United States and Britain and brainstorming with others who shared her concern — at credit unions, co-operatives, social enterprises and other non-profit organizations — about creating a funding mechanism that would link Canadians willing to make a modest investment in their community with non-profit organizations that needed short-term help.

It wouldn’t — couldn’t — provide a sustainable income to chronically troubled charities. Its purpose would be to prevent temporary financial shortfalls from becoming life-threatening crises.

“We were just trying to fill one gap,” Sobolov says. “The (non-profit) sector needs a whole range of financing alternatives.”

She had the vision, the contacts and the qualifications (a law degree and social work degree) but Sobolov stresses that it was a collective effort. She sought help from bankers, securities experts, community leaders, the directors of the Nonprofit Finance Fund in the U.S. and CAF Venturesome in Britain. She tapped into the experience of Vancity and the Edmonton Social Enterprise Fund, which make non-profit loans on a regional basis. And she worked with Imagine Canada

The first step from blueprint to reality was a feasibility study to make sure there was a demand for the service. Sobolov and researcher Arlene Wortsman met the leaders of 100 non-profit organizations and confirmed that the need was real. The second step was to approach foundations looking for creative ways to use their endowments and other potential investors.

In 2010, the Community Forward Fund (CFF) was born.

It took another two years of work — painstaking legal work — to build Canada’s first non-profit lending institution. This spring the last hurdle was cleared. CCF won the approval of the Ontario Security Commission.

To celebrate, the CFF invited everyone who had been involved in its creation to a kickoff in Toronto. The event didn’t attract much public attention but for the voluntary community it was a breakthrough; one Sobolov hopes will mark the beginning of a “rethinking of the way we finance the non-profit sector.”

There will always be a need for government support, individual and corporate donations and grants from foundations, she says. But there have to be other options: fee for service activities, revenue-generating acquisitions, partnerships with private financiers and many more.

Since the launch, the CFF has approved two loans; one to an environmental organization that wanted to cut costs by installing a solar panel, the other to an artists’ group that needed exhibit space. Thirty-three applications are in the pipeline.

To qualify for a loan, a non-profit organization must be registered with the Canada Revenue Agency, have a strong business plan, share its financial records and have a substantial stream ($350,000 annually).

At the moment, there is $7 million in the fund. The goal is $20 million.

“Some people would call it a drop in the bucket,” Sobolov says. “But what a drop.”

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1164808–canada-s-non-profit-sector-invents-a-solution-to-gaps-in-funding >

The fight to stop Stephen Harper’s slow and systematic unravelling of our democracy is lonely and frustrating.

Across Canada, individuals outraged by recent moves by Harper to stifle democracy have been writing letters, signing petitions and tweeting their friends and elected politicians demanding more accountability and respect for our parliamentary institutions.

They are outraged by the F-35 scandal in which the Conservatives lied to voters during the election about the true costs of the fighter jets, by the robocall affair, ethics breaches, slush funds, suppression of public reports, falsified documents, shutting twice of Parliament, dirty campaign tricks, attack ads. The list goes on.

It is toxic politics at its worst.

To date, though, all of their efforts have been fruitless.

Their letters are ignored or receive innocuous replies, backbench MPs dismiss them as cranks, media commentators pay no attention to their petitions, and apathetic friends and neighbours tell them they’re crazy to think they can change the political culture in Ottawa.

Clearly, the need for democratic renewal has never been greater. And yet individuals fighting to restore democracy seemingly can’t make a difference.

That’s just the way Harper wants it. Although he initially vowed to increase government accountability, he has shown zero interest in improving our democratic institutions since coming to power six years ago.

He seems convinced he can get away with it because only about 30 per cent of Canadians regularly follow politics and public policy issues. The rest of us are either turned off, fed up or have given up. Harper is counting on that indifference to continue through the next election.

Upset by what’s been happening in Ottawa, dozens of small groups in this field have sprung up in recent years. But their track records are generally dismal. Organizations come and go, their websites shut down or become inactive. Volunteers burn out, lose interest and move on. Donations dry up.

“It’s definitely fits and starts and not a very robust community,” says Alison Loat, co-founder and executive director of Samara, a non-profit group devoted to promoting citizen engagement.

Samara, co-founded by broadcasting veteran Michael MacMillan three years ago, is one of the few active organizations in this area.

Another is Voices-Voix, a Montreal-based coalition claiming 200 organizations as members. It will hold a daylong event in Montreal on Friday and another in Ottawa on May 11 evaluating the Harper government’s record in terms of democracy.

Leadnow.ca, which was launched in March 2011 and claimed more than 100,000 members at one time, has virtually disappeared except for the occasional Twitter posting. Canadians for Democratic Renewal is basically inactive, with just one blog posting in the last six months. Meanwhile, the badly-named Manning Centre for Building Democracy has little to do with democracy and everything to do with promoting conservative policies and training Conservative politicians.

“Yes, it’s very discouraging,” says Loat.

Samara is undertaking two major initiatives. The first is an annual “democracy index” that will be trying to measure such questions as whether Parliament is dysfunctional and democracy broken. The first report will be issued in 2013.

The second project, “Democracy Talks,” will be launched this summer and will focus on ways to engage citizens who tend to have lower voter turnout rates.

Loat says democratic renewal and citizen engagement “clearly hit a chord” with many Canadians.

But she says individuals who want their voices heard won’t see much success if they work in isolation.

Loat has several ideas for individuals who feel strongly about becoming involved in this field.

First, she suggests citizens focus on the political parties themselves, which she describes as “completely nontransparent” organizations that shut out individuals — and often their own MPs — in every area from policy development to candidate recruitment.

“People blame Parliament for being dysfunctional, but I think it’s really our political parties that are the issue,” she says.

Second, Loat says individuals should take full advantage of today’s social media, which has made it easier to engage like-minded citizens. Loat says it is critical to understand that politicians are now starting to pay far greater attention to Twitter and Facebook than just about any other media outlet.

By themselves, these suggestions won’t change the status quo. Neither will individuals working in isolation.

But together, citizens can slowly — very slowly — start to make a difference.

Yes, trying to save democracy is lonely and frustrating. But it isn’t hopeless.

Bob Hepburn’s column appears Thursday.bhepburn@thestar.ca

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1163958–the-uphill-battle-to-save-democracy-in-canada >

The 2012 federal budget has put Canada’s social justice groups on notice: the era of government-supported good deeds is over.

Over the short term, many state-funded groups will shrink or disappear, while those that survive will lose their autonomy. If you care about critical thinking and social justice, this is bad news.

Over the long term, however, the Conservatives may have done Canada a favour. Deprived of federal funding, independently-minded activists will have to learn new ways of ethically raising money from individuals, communities, and businesses.

By multiplying their revenue sources, social justice groups will reduce their vulnerability to single-source arm-twisting. By going private, they will no longer have to worry about offending government ministers.

This new, American-style approach to promoting social justice could be a good thing. Canadian activists have long relied on federal money, and this has rendered them acutely vulnerable to official pressure.

Early on, the federal government’s intentions were pure. In the 1970s, Canada was suffering economically, and politicians hoped to dampen unrest by funding progressive civic groups. Keen to make the world a better place, they also supported organizations engaged in cutting-edge international thinking.

On the home front, these groups included indigenous rights bodies such as the Native Council of Canada (now theCongress of Aboriginal Peoples), or women’s groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC). To advance justice abroad, they included the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), an innovative, independently-minded Canadian Crown corporation with a multinational governing board.

Until recently, federal support for these and other groups distinguished Canada from its southern neighbour, where critically oriented social justice is privately funded. Under the old rules, Canadian groups were able to maintain their autonomy while taking federal money.

The generous notion underlying this remarkable approach was that a vociferous Canadian social justice sector was a public good worth supporting, irrespective of policy disagreements.

The problem, of course, was that this system created structural dependency. Canadian social justice groups attracted staff who knew how to secure government aid, but who had little ability to raise money from private individuals, communities and businesses.

This weakness became glaringly apparent when Harper’s Conservatives signalled their distaste for the old rules. If his government was going to pay, criticism would not be tolerated.

Harper began by cutting funding to domestic social justice programs such as Status of Women, a federal agency charged with issues of gender equity, and the Court Challenges Program, which had helped aggrieved groups seek legal redress.

Then, the Conservatives began slashing support to internationally oriented groups, such as the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, an independent policy group, and to KAIROS, a faith-based development organization.

More insidiously, officials let it be known that any organization still getting federal money must fall in line. With few safeguards to protect their independence, no state-supported entity was safe.

Understandably, many organizations scrambled to curry favour. At the Ottawa-based IDRC, for example, a jittery board of governors installed a government official as their new director, hoping he would keep the Conservatives happy. That official did his best, slashing programs and projects that might attract Conservative ire, and browbeating his staff into quiescence.

Things worked out similarly at Rights & Democracy, the Montreal-based Crown corporation that supported progressive groups abroad. There, Conservative-installed board members forced the organization’s directors to change course.

The same held true at the North-South Institute, an Ottawa-based think tank, where another new director has proved reluctant to publish findings critical of Canadian businesses and government.

Some groups are limping along in the new environment, while others have expired. The government has just eliminated Rights & Democracy, for example, while at the IDRC and North-South, staff have resigned, been removed, or are searching for new jobs.

And you have only to try and access the NAC’s former website to see how this once proud Canadian women’s group has fared; visitors are redirected to another website offering the domain name for sale.

Other restrictive moves are in the offing. The 2012 budget, for example, introduced new penalties for charities devoting more than 10 per cent of their money to “political advocacy,” meaning that charities supporting Greenpeace could face legal sanction.

Environmental groups seem to have attracted particular government ire. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, for example, recently attacked Tides Canada, a Vancouver based charity, for its opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline.

In other cases, officials have labelled civic groups unpatriotic. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, for example, attacked activists defending migrant workers as “anti-Canadian extremists.”

Harper’s crackdown has attracted substantial media attention, but few Canadian voters care. After all, many cutbacks were publicized long before the Conservatives’ 2011 electoral victory, and 80 per cent of polled Canadians have just voiced support for new restrictions on charities’ political activities.

The writing is on the wall for Canadians still interested in independently-minded social justice: develop new, non-federal sources of funding, or face defeat.

Over the past decade, Conservatives have learned much from their colleagues down south. If left-leaning Canadians want their own causes to survive, they must do the same.

The era of public funding for independently conceived good deeds is over. To keep their dreams alive, activists must develop new sources of support, while sympathetic citizens must dig deep into their own pockets.

Howard Ramos is associate professor of sociology at Dalhousie University.

James Ron is Stassen Chair of International Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and this year is a visiting professor at CIDE, a Mexico City research institute.

< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1161505–funding-cuts-could-unshackle-canadian-civil-society >