Environmental groups conducting more advocacy with charitable, political separations

Environmental charities are finding ways to conduct more advocacy by separating their advocacy and charitable operations as the Conservative government warns them about conducting too much political work.

Last month, two environmental groups, the David Suzuki Foundation and ForestEthics made moves to separate their charitable functions from advocacy.

ForestEthics in April split into two entities, registered charity ForestEthics Solutions and advocacy group ForestEthics Advocacy, to conduct more advocacy on environmental issues.

Karen Tam Wu, senior conservation campaigner for ForestEthics Advocacy, said not having charitable status for the advocacy division isn’t hurting it financially.

“We’ve had much more response from donors than ever before in response to our new entity,” Tam Wu said.

ForestEthics Advocacy, which is not a registered charity and cannot issue tax receipts to donors, received nearly $70,000 in donations in a 48-hour period following its inception, she said.

As a charity, ForestEthics Solutions can give limited resources to ForestEthics Advocacy. Tam Wu said she’s not concerned about the advocacy side working closely with the charitable side.

“We’re separate organizations with separate staff, separate boards, separate accounting, so if there is a foundation that funded one, it’d be really clear what the deliverables from that organization would be,” she said.

The Conservative government has criticized the work of Canadian charities, particularly environmental groups that receive foreign funding and conduct advocacy work. Environment Minister Peter Kent repeated an allegation in the House of Commons this week that some groups have “laundered” money.

He told CBC Radio's The House on April 28 that “some groups with charitable status have been going well beyond the CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] guidelines for what is acceptable practice as a charitable agency.”

Registered charities are required to report to the CRA and allocate no more than 10 per cent of their resources to “political activities.” They are not at all permitted to engage in partisan political activities such as supporting or opposing political parties or candidates for public office.

The Conservative government’s budget implementation act, Bill C-38, allocates $8 million over two years to the CRA to ensure charities comply with the rules.

The budget does not fundamentally change the rules for charities or their acceptance of foreign donations but it places greater reporting and transparency requirements on them and their sources of funding.

ForestEthics Advocacy said in a release in April it will “strike back against the government’s crackdown on charitable environmental groups, as well as its gutting of even the most basic environmental protections.”

Tam Wu said she would not rule out ForestEthics Advocacy's direct lobbying of the government as a registered lobby group.

ForestEthics Advocacy has a staff of three, located in Vancouver and Northern British Columbia. Tam Wu said her branch will continue to work closely with ForestEthics in the United States and ForestEthics Solutions in Canada.

Of the 85,000 registered charities in Canada, 450 reported spending money on political activities, according to an analysis by the Canadian Press published in April. That represents less than one per cent of charities. (CP didn't say for what tax year the analysis was conducted.)

The David Suzuki Foundation came under fire during last fall's Ontario election campaign for a video showing David Suzuki and Ontario Liberal candidate and leader Dalton McGuinty walking together in Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

On April 13, 2012, Suzuki issued an open letter on the foundation’s blog, saying he had stepped down from the organization's board last summer, before the provincial election.

“I want to speak freely without fear that my words will be deemed too political, and harm the organization of which I am so proud,” Suzuki said.

He said the Conservative government, industry and special interest groups were “bullying” the foundation.

“So last year, I made the decision to step off the board of directors of the David Suzuki Foundation,” Suzuki wrote. “I remain one of its most active volunteers and committed major donors.”

Peter Robinson, CEO of the foundation, said in an interview that, as a board member, Suzuki offered direction to the organization, and now as a volunteer, he will have more freedom to speak out on political issues.

Suzuki stepped down because he felt that when he spoke out he could “compromise the organization's charitable status, so he decided to step off of the formal relationship as a director," Robinson said.

There is no plan to change the name of the foundation that Suzuki founded, he said, and the foundation will recruit a new director to replace Suzuki.

“The unintended consequence of all of this latest rhetoric from the government about charities and environmental charities has meant that we’ve gone back, really carefully, and looked at what is eligible under the regulations,” Robinson said.

“You’re allowed to speak out on issues and policy issues and advocate for them—you just can’t be partisan—but you’re allowed to do it as long as you don’t spend 10 per cent or more on these issues,” he said.

The foundation has so far been allocating about one or two per cent of its resources on advocacy, Robinson said, so it has more room to speak out.

The David Suzuki Foundation is one of several environmental charities that this week launched a social media and advocacy campaign against the government’s omnibus budget bill, which in addition to introducing new reporting requirements for charities, will speed up energy project reviews, limit national environmental groups' involvement in them, and provide the government more power to approve projects.

The campaign, called Blackoutspeakout, calls for individuals and groups to black out their websites on June 4.

Other charities involved include Environmental Defence, the Tides Canada Foundation, ForestEthics, Ecojustice, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Pembina Institute.

The CRA is currently auditing Tides Canada to ensure it’s complying with the rules for charities, The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday. Tides Canada accepts foreign donations and passes the funds along to other groups, such as Environmental Defence.

CRA says on its website that charities must operate for charitable purposes, and that “political purposes” are those that “further the interests of a particular political party” or candidate for public office, or activities to “retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.”

The agency says that a charity using at least 90 per cent of its “various resources” for charitable work, and devoting no more than 10 per cent of its total resources a year to political activities, is operating within the rules.

Bill C-38 would clarify that it would be a “political activity,” contributing to the 10 per cent limit, for a registered charity to donate funds to another registered charity where “it can reasonably be considered that a purpose of the gift is to support the political activities” of the recipient charitable group, according to the bill.

Revenue Minister Gail Shea said this week in question period that the measures in the budget will “provide more education to charities to ensure they are operating within the law and to provide more transparency for those Canadians who donate so generously.”

Robinson said the David Suzuki Foundation has tried to work collaboratively with the government, including deputy ministers, scientists, MPs, ministers and the Prime Minister's Office, and that “it's always been a very healthy relationship.”

After Jim Prentice stepped down as environment minister in November 2010, the group has run into problems, he said. “We’ve certainly not been able to see the current minister,” Robinson said. “We’ll likely have to be more on the public advocacy side.”

Political strategist and communications consultant Gerry Nicholls said the government should allow charities more leeway for advocacy.

“I think the government’s wrong to have Revenue Canada crack down on these groups,” he said. “The more people getting ideas out there the better, so long as they’re not overtly partisan.”

He said it's more difficult for groups to raise money when they give up their charitable status. Nicholls worked for the National Citizens’ Coalition, a conservative advocacy group, for 22 years until 2007. It looked at ways to become a charity but couldn't under the rules, he said.

“Any time you’re in the fundraising business, you’re competing out there with hospitals and children’s groups and political parties for very scarce donation dollars,” Nicholls said.

yberger@lobbymonitor.ca