Tuesday, February 7, 2012

David Suzuki Foundation: Charity or Lobbyists?

Calling Canada Revenue Agency!


hunter said...

From Revenue Canada:

6.1 What are prohibited activities?

A charity may not take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity. A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.

When a political party or candidate for public office supports a policy that is also supported by a charity, the charity is not prevented from promoting this policy. However, a charity in this situation must not directly or indirectly support the political party or candidate for public office. This means that a charity may make the public aware of its position on an issue provided:

it does not explicitly connect its views to any political party or candidate for public office;

The Suzuki Foundation is in clear violation of the Revenue Canada Act.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant as usual Ezra!
I think the "Maggots" have come home to roost.
This would have been done years ago if the Media Party cared about Canada.
Let's see what happens now.
Cheers Bubba

Anonymous said...

Like all charlatans with a god complex, Suzuki and his minions believe they are above the law and the strictures that apply to the great unwashed. Of course, this applies to all the radical environmentalists.

Anonymous said...

I asked that question of our Prime Minister and my M.P. in a recent email. No reply.
My M.P. Stephen Woodworth has instead decided it is more important to re-eopen the abortion debate. Next election I sit it out,
no time money or energy on his behalf.
When a M.P. puts personal issues ahead of the state of our economy he/she does not deserve our support.
Enjoy your one trick job Mr. Woodworth, you lost mye respect and support.

JR said...

I took a closer look at the CRA criteria to qualify for charitable status and it seems pretty loosey-goosey. I'm wondering why organizations like, say, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation aren't registered.

At the same time I'm also wondering why the criteria are so frickin' loose.

Alain said...

The CRA is very selective when it comes to enforcing their own criteria. Several years ago a pro-life charity had its charitable status revoked by the CRA on the grounds that demonstrating for pro-life was being involved in politics. This happened under a Liberal government and was nonsense, but it basically ended the organisation in Canada. As they could no longer issue receipts for donations they pretty well ceased to operate. Whether one is pro-life or not, this shows how selective the CRA is since we have numerous organisations openly partisan and involved in politics while retaining their charitable status. The CRA is responsible and the government should force them to apply the regulations equally to all.