David Suzuki charity questioned for alleged partisan politics

[Locutus]

The David Suzuki Foundation on Tuesday became the target of a complaint to the Canada Revenue Agency, just days after its namesake co-founder stepped down amid heightened tensions between environmental charities and the Conservative government.

EthicalOil.org, a non-profit organization that promotes oil from Canada and other democracies, sent a letter to the agency asking it to investigate whether the David Suzuki Foundation is breaking rules that pertain to political activity. Registered charities are allowed to devote only a small fraction of their resources to political activity, although they can never be partisan.

“If you find the Suzuki Foundation is in contravention of the CRA rules, then we request that you consider whether the Suzuki Foundation should have its charitable status revoked or otherwise be sanctioned,” EthicalOil.org said in its 44-page letter, which was drafted by Calgary-based JSS Barristers and obtained by the National Post.


more


David Suzuki charity questioned for alleged partisan politics | News | National Post

 

[mentalfloss]

Ethical Oil spokesperson refuses to answer the basic question about whether Enbridge gives them cash

Interviewed on CBC’s Power and Politics, Ethical Oil spokesperson Kathryn Marshall refused to answer the basic question about whether Enbridge is providing financial support to her group. Ms. Marshall has been ruthlessly criticizing environmental groups for their opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which Enbridge wants to build.

The interview, which you can watch above, is really something unto itself. After being repeatedly asked to answer the basic question about Enbridge, Ms. Marshall responded with a series of shakily constructed talking points and completely avoided answering the question.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline would run from Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. Proponents of the pipeline say it would open Canada’s wealth of oil resources to Asian markets, including China.

Opponents of the project, including many First Nations communities, point to recent oil pipeline leaks that could damage the pristine natural habitat of northern British Columbia. Opponents also point out the danger of navigating large oil tankers through the narrow and rocky Douglas Channel that leads to Kitimat.

Ethical Oil spokesperson refuses to answer the basic question about whether Enbridge gives them cash

 

[Walter]

God bless EthicalOil.

 

[mentalfloss]

God bless EthicalOil.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[captain morgan]

This isn't the first time that this allegation has been leveled against the Suzuki Foundation

 

[mentalfloss]

It's a problem with the way the system works.

Registered charities are allowed to devote only a small fraction of their resources to political activity, although they can never be partisan.

This is a contradiction of terms since there will always be opposing views to that charity's political activity. I think Suzuki is simply being used as a figurehead because the current government is clearly partisan against environmental activism.

In reality, taxpayers should not be propping up any charities.

 

[captain morgan]

It's a problem with the way the system works.

Very true, however, it also extends to the manner in which the charity acts within the bounds of the system.

This is a contradiction of terms since there will always be opposing views to that charity's political activity. I think Suzuki is simply being used as a figurehead because the current government is clearly partisan against environmental activism.

From what I recall, Suzuki first got in hot water when Harper won his first minority... Prior to the election, he was running around and speaking at public venues basically saying that folks should not vote for Harper.

My understanding is that those actions were interpreted as being outside the CRA's rules for charities.

 

[mentalfloss]

From what I recall, Suzuki first got in hot water when Harper won his first minority... Prior to the election, he was running around and speaking at public venues basically saying that folks should not vote for Harper.

My understanding is that those actions were interpreted as being outside the CRA's rules for charities.

I'm sure they were - as well as all charities that have some theme that would divide people. Whether or not he hates Harper belays the greater point that not everyone in Canada (including political parties) agrees with the purpose of his charity.

Why doesn't parliament simply have routine votes on which charities should stay and which ones should go?

 

[captain morgan]

The problem here is that raison d'etre of Suzuki foundation is not political punditry. Had that been identified as the primary (business) activity, they never would have been granted charitable status

 

[taxslave]

It's a problem with the way the system works.


This is a contradiction of terms since there will always be opposing views to that charity's political activity. I think Suzuki is simply being used as a figurehead because the current government is clearly partisan against environmental activism.

In reality, taxpayers should not be propping up any charities.

True but governments have made it hard for charities to support themselves.
Our Lions club ran a weekly bingo for about 38 years. The last several were under the control of the BC lottery commission. Aside from declining interest in Bingo the dealing with government is onerous with much filing of useless reports and constant changing of the rules. Did you know that your local club can not have a privte 50-50 draw without a permit? And a full report of number of tickets and revenue. Now we get a bunch of money every year from the government to dole out to various groups we support. It is also illegal to raffle off a bottle of wine to club members.

 

[mentalfloss]

The problem here is that raison d'etre of Suzuki foundation is not political punditry. Had that been identified as the primary (business) activity, they never would have been granted charitable status

True. I'm just saying, who cares if it is partisan, as long as everyone has no problem with the foundation. If a country wants to support a right-wing think tank, let them vote on it. If they want to support an left-wing charity, then let them have it if that is what the people want.

 

[taxslave]

The Suzuki organization isn't exactly a charity. It is an organization with a message. MUch more like a political organization.

 

[mentalfloss]

The Suzuki organization isn't exactly a charity. It is an organization with a message. MUch more like a political organization.

The key purpose of any charitable organization is that it would serve the public interest or public good. It just so happens that the public good is one that doesn't agree with Stephen Harper.

I could have told you that.

 

[captain morgan]

True. I'm just saying, who cares if it is partisan, as long as everyone has no problem with the foundation. If a country wants to support a right-wing think tank, let them vote on it. If they want to support an left-wing charity, then let them have it if that is what the people want.

Pretty slippery slope there, doesn't necessarily end with political affiliation as the exclusion... What's to stop me from starting an oil company under a foundation structure and apply the revenues towards electing the party that suits my individual needs?

 

[taxslave]

The key purpose of any charitable organization is that it would serve the public interest or public good. It just so happens that the public good is one that doesn't agree with Stephen Harper.

I could have told you that.

Job creation projects are in the public good. Especially ones that are geared to the export market.

 

[mentalfloss]

Pretty slippery slope there, doesn't necessarily end with political affiliation as the exclusion... What's to stop me from starting an oil company under a foundation structure and apply the revenues towards electing the party that suits my individual needs?

You would have to give up your right of private enterprise and convert to non-profit.

Job creation projects are in the public good. Especially ones that are geared to the export market.

And the public would have to agree to fund such a project if it was put forward in parliament.

 

[captain morgan]

You would have to give up your right of private enterprise and convert to non-profit.

I realize that, but it would be a huge advantage to convert to a non-profit/chartiy as I could 'release' all the profits into my pocket... An honorarium if you will.

And the public would have to agree to fund such a project if it was put forward in parliament.

Are you kidding? The people that I approach to be a part of it will all over that like white on rice... Those people will be part of the 'public'.

 

[mentalfloss]

You're now talking about accountability measures that would be taken care of in the process.

 

[captain morgan]

What I am talking about is the slippery slope that I mentioned.

The suzuki Foundation tried to straddle the fence on it and got caught... The underlying message here is that the CRA has specific rules for charities (like them or not) to prevent any grey areas from being exploited.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

It's a problem with the way the system works.

I agree. A charity should not be able to use any funds for any political activity.