While most coverage was over the size of the deficits and who gets what money, my attention was on a single bullet on page 206.

• Pertaining to rules governing charities and their political activities, the CRA, in consultation with the Department of Finance, will engage with charities through discussions with stakeholder groups and an online consultation to clarify the rules governing the political activities of charities.

The Liberals had promised changes coming for Canada’s charities. But this disappointed me.

From the Liberal Party’s platform:

We will allow charities to do their work on behalf of Canadians free from political harassment, and will modernize the rules governing the charitable and not-for-profit sectors. This will include clarifying the rules governing “political activity,” with an understanding that charities make an important contribution to public debate and public policy. A new legislative framework to strengthen the sector will emerge from this process.

I work for two charities, completed a non-profit management course and worked and volunteered in the charitable sector in the UK for two years. My concern with this budget proposal is that instead of achieving even this modest goal of “modernize the rules” and “a new legislative framework,” we’re being given committees and consultations with the goal to “clarify the rules.”

Let’s be clear. Canada Revenue Agency makes it quite clear what counts as political and partisan material on its own website and in its briefings. And it’s pretty restrictive. Take this advisory that was released during the 2015 election. One part states:

When a charity invites comments on its website, blogs, or on social media, it should monitor them for partisan political statements and remove, edit, or moderate such statements within a reasonable time.

The rule is pretty clear to me: Since I work for a charity, it’s now my job to police the content of people’s comments on Facebook. Even though the organization I work for is a staunch defender of free speech and open debate.

Instead of this not-even-half-measure contained in the budget, my own personal preference would be to see Canada move toward a Charities Act, similar to what was introduced in England & Wales, first in 1993 but updated most recently in 2011. Such an act would modernize the rules for what purposes constitute a charity (Canada’s rules currently date to 19th century case law), create an arms-length body to regulate charities (one free from political interference) and empower charities to lobby for change they feel necessary to achieve their mission. Given the changing landscape, it could go even further and create space for so-called social enterprises.

I’ve written my MP arguing as much and hope you will do the same.

This is an issue that could make a world of difference for the many, many charities in Canada – none of whom have the time or resources to advocate for better charitable law (since they’re spending their time fulfilling their own mission and complying with the law as it stands). Some groups, like the Broadbent Institute, the Voices-Voix Coalition and Protecting Canadian Charities, are starting to speak out on this but they’ll need our encouragement.

Clark’s Liberal government is looking to overhaul the law that regulates over 27,000 non-profit societies, including almost every active freethought organisation in the province. Many of the reforms are likely good ideas, like allowing societies to be registered and file documents electronically; however, at least one section would potentially allow members of the public to sue non-profits if they feel they are “carrying on activities that are detrimental to the public interest.”

Given that every non-profit is already required by the same law to operate in the public interest, there seems no reason to open non-profits up to the risk of frivolous lawsuits. Vancouver community advocate Sandy Garossino believes this proposal is designed to allow the province’s oil and mining industries to sue environmental NGOs. By the same logic, religious groups could use this same clause to persecute atheist and pro-choice organisations by claiming they are a threat to “traditional values.”

Most frustratingly, the government’s White Paper has been hiding on their website for months with little notification to the thousands of non-profits that are going to be affected by this. Every organisation in the province should have been told about this consultation and given the chance to respond.

The paper is 166 pages. There is simply not enough time to know what other changes will impact non-profits in the province. A quick glance suggests extra reporting requirements and changes to what needs to be in the by-laws.

The government needs to extend the deadline for responses and seek feedback from those who are set to be affected.

Here’s my letter:

As a former member of a BC society’s board of directors and staff member for two societies, I am worried by the quiet nature of this consultation. I only became aware that the government was considering on reforming the Society Act yesterday and in that time have not had a chance to carefully consider the 166-page white paper you have produced.

I don’t think my situation is unique. Every one of the 27,000 BC societies should have been notified that the government is considering re-writing the rules they are governed by. The consultation must be extended until this happens.

While many of the reforms are likely good ideas, such as allowing societies to be registered and file documents electronically, at least one section – 99 – seems to open organisations to frivolous lawsuits from members of the public. The section would allow non-profits to be sued if someone feels they are “carrying on activities that are detrimental to the public interest.”

Given that every non-profit is already required by the same law to operate in the public interest, there seems no rational reason to open non-profits up to this risk. Many non-profits are set to challenge the status quo and push for societal change. These actions inevitably bring about critics who would welcome the ability to sue to protect their positions of privilege rather than defend themselves in the public debate.

Please scrap section 99 and extend the deadline for responses until you are able to seek feedback from those organisations who are set to be affected.

Because of these limitations, you can wind up with articles like “Energy-based therapies and cancer” from Macmillan Cancer Support, the UK’s leading cancer charity.

This article naturally falls under the “Complementary therapies” section of information about treating cancer. It’s designed (I’m assuming) to answer questions that patients may have when facing tough treatment decisions and a wealth of pseudoscience from everyone who’s second aunt twice removed once beat cancer with a mixture of beat juice.

The need to tread delicately is apparent throughout the site, as the tough stick approach of scientific skepticism would likely appear callous to those at their weakest. Therefore, the page talks in generalities, while slipping the occasional explicit  statement like, “These therapies have no anti-cancer effects.”

Nevertheless, the page does reinforce a lot of alt-med propaganda and links to reflexology, shiatsu, and healing touch groups across Britain.

It’s tough to know whether articles like this help or harm cancer patients. While providing information (that is likely requested frequently) with clear disclaimers is arguably positive, the non-confrontational nature of the articles may serve as a tacit endorsement from an otherwise reputable agency.

It may also be the case that the staff at the charity, and is especially the case in smaller charities, aren’t well versed in the scientific efficacy of various treatments, and the desire to do something to improve the lives of others is strong, especially in the kind of people who work for charities. Therefore, promotion of alternative treatments is seen as one way to help, especially when science-based medicine provides few options.

So in general I’m reticent to criticize charities too much for promoting pseudoscience and woo. In most cases, it’s likely harmless and may provide some placebo comfort for clients and it’s beyond the means of many groups to keep up with the latest studies.

Except in cases like Canadian Blood Service’s sloppy blood astrology program. That’s just patent nonsense.

It’s a common trope that atheists and Humanists don’t give as much (or frequently) as the religious. Lacking formal structures and congregations, there’s less of a culture of philanthropy, both in terms of regular tithes or even to secular charities.

However, these trends are changing.

The Foundation Beyond Belief is working with freethought groups across North America to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Light the Night Walk. As of this morning they have raised nearly $305,000 toward their goal of $500,000 – which will be matched by the Stiefel Foundation for a total gift of $1 million to fight blood cancer.

Here in Vancouver, the BC Humanist Association’s team has raised over $3,500 between our 15 team members (comprised of BCHA, Vancouver Skeptics, and UBC Freethinkers members).

Our walk is this Saturday, so if you can spare a few dollars, why not chip into my campaign. Remember that every dollar you donate is being matched and Canadian donations over $25 are eligible for a tax-receipt.

Every gift, big and small, is appreciated and helps highlight the compassion and charity we all have.

The Challenge started two years ago among a network of CP associations in Australia. It was so successful that they’ve now essentially franchised the fundraiser to associations in Canada and across the United States.

The premise is very simple and is explained best by their promotional video:

Basically, just get active and promote a healthy lifestyle while raising awareness and money for children and adults living with cerebral palsy. Participants register as teams of 4 for $25/adult or $10/child and track their daily steps through the interactive website. We send everyone a pedometer and have a conversion chart in case you do other activities (running, weights, bocce ball, etc.). The Challenge runs from World CP Day, September 4th, until October 2nd.

For those teams that register here in BC, I’ve scored a few prizes for you:

1. Every team that enters by August 5th will be entered to win a pack of four tickets to either the August 13th or August 25th Vancovuer Canadians baseball games.
2. The top individual fundraiser at the start of the Challenge, Sept. 4th, will receive 2 tickets to any 2012 BC Lions (the 2011 Grey Cup Champions) home game.
3. The person who takes the most steps during the Challenge will win a BC Lions hat, autographed by running back #33 Andrew Harris.

Cerebral palsy is a physical disability that limits movement. It varies from very minor cases (a slight difficulty walking), to severe cases where even eating and breathing are difficult. My brother’s case falls somewhere in the middle. He is unable to walk, but he can talk and play video games just fine.

CP is caused by damage to the brain that occurs during pregnancy, birth, or in the first three years. It’s not degenerative or contagious, but it is a lifelong condition.

The Cerebral Palsy Association of BC describes itself as follows:

The Cerebral Palsy Association of British Columbia  was started in 1954 by a group of parents who wanted to assist their children living with CP to reach their maximum potential within society. Today we are an independent charitable organization governed by a volunteer Board of Directors. We provide support, education, and information throughour BC. Our Mission is:

• to raise awareness of Cerebral Palsy in the community;
• to assit those living with Cerebral Palsy to reach their maximum potential; and
• to work to see those living with Cerebral Palsy realize their place as equals in a diverse society.

I hope you’ll register a team today or, at very least, sponsor my individual campaign.

I noted that it didn’t seem like it violated any of the NDP or Canada Election rules, but one further recollection I realized that the rules being broken weren’t by Martin Singh’s campaign but by the Malton Gurdwara.

A Gurdwara is a Sikh Temple and the Malton Gurdwara is operated by a federally registered charity: Sri Guru Singh Sabha Canada. From its T3010 return we learn that its charitable mandate is 70% “Places of worship, congregations, parishes, dioceses, etc.” and 30% “Food or clothing banks, soup kitchens, hostels”. In its 2011 return it claimed to perform no “political activities during the fiscal period.”

From the Canada Revenue guidelines around charities and political/partisan activities:

149.1

(6.1) Charitable purposes

For the purposes of the definition “charitable foundation” in subsection (1), where a corporation or trust devotes substantially all of its resources to charitable purposes and

(a) it devotes part of its resources to political activities,
(b) those political activities are ancillary and incidental to its charitable purposes, and
(c) those political activities do not include the direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office,

the corporation or trust shall be considered to be constituted and operated for charitable purposes to the extent of that part of its resources so devoted.

(6.2) Charitable activities

For the purposes of the definition “charitable organization” in subsection (1), where an organization devotes substantially all of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it and

(a) it devotes part of its resources to political activities,
(b) those political activities are ancillary and incidental to its charitable activities, and
(c) those political activities do not include the direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office,

the organization shall be considered to be devoting that part of its resources to charitable activities carried on by it. [emphasis original]

Furthermore from that advisory:

A registered charity is prohibited from directly or indirectly supporting or opposing a candidate for public office as well as a political party. In deciding whether a charity is engaged in prohibited activity, we generally consider whether the activity can reasonably be construed as intending to influence the outcome of the election. [emphasis mine]

The rules get a bit murkier as “hosted a leadership poll for a single candidate” is not specifically outlined in the examples cited by the CRA but this feels like its crossing a line into a church endorsing a specific leadership candidate.

To contact the Canada Revenue Service call 1-800-267-2384. Let me know if you take this story farther.

I’ve had my differences with CFI Canada in the past, but we are on the same side, and they continue to do the most for freethought in Canada. I therefore urge you to donate to their “Next Big Step” campaign to help raise half a million dollars, enough to lease or buy physical locations for each of their centres in Canada.

So go and donate now, and again, and get your friends to donate to the Next Big Step campaign.

The deadline is September 30th, so there’s not a lot of time to reach this goal.

The idea is, as I’ve now learned, based off the growing social enterprise movement which seeks to have companies run for financial, social and environmental gain – the triple bottom line. In many cases the corporation is actually a non-profit or charitable organization which runs a business to fund its work and expansion. A highly successful model of this sort of idea is the Salvation Army’s Thrift Stores which finance much of their missionary and religious work.

So the idea that I had today was sparked by a desire within the Vancouver skeptical/freethought community to have a place of our own, that is a venue where we can routinely host out discussions, meetings and set up an office or two.

Currently CFI Vancouver meets sporadically in cheap or free spaces that are provided by campus groups or rented at reduced rates (through its charitable status) and the BC Humanist Association meets weekly at the Oakridge Senior’s Centre through a deal they have there.

CFI is committed to seeing something more permanent in the next few years be established and while the Senior’s Centre is a great venue for the BCHA, there is the justified concern both inside and outside the organization that the word “senior” in the venue’s name is a deterrent.

So the idea I had was that these organizations ought to found a coffee shop/cafe, which during regular hours can be open to the public for coffee, cookies, and what-have you, with an extra influence of humanism and skepticism present (such as a resource library for the curious and some science-inspired artwork or something). Then, during evenings, weekends, or whenever it is needed, the shop can close up, move the tables aside (or not) and serve as a meeting venue for the invested groups.

There’s a few bonuses in this format. First, the coffee shop serves as an advertisement and fundraiser for the associated charities. Second, the venue would accommodate the majority of the events being held (the larger lectures and debates will always require large campus lecture halls), and would have coffee and snacks available, and could even be potentially licensed.

The drawbacks are the large initial investment required (likely a few $100,000 which none of these organizations have), and the requirement that someone will actually have to manage the business end of things.

However, with a strong business plan and the right people, it should be possible to raise the requisite funds via government grants, personal donations, and loans if necessary.

It’s also worth noting that under Vancouver’s basic commercial zoning laws [pdf], most of these types of spaces can be used for the categories of cultural and recreational (including clubs and community centres), institutional (schools), offices, retail and services. So there should be no difficulty with this portion.

Now, who has some entrepreneurial experience and wants to get this started?

To everyone who has donated, thank-you. Countless more will undoubtedly be needed, so please spare what you can.