It was a post from Glenn where I first eyed the CRA Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration. My mind was immediately blown and I have found myself in the “overly-paranoid” group since. Seeing as Glenn has been through the guidelines previously, I thought it would be good to have him set a couple of things straight for us. For people looking for more commentary and context; Lesley Fox’s “Charity Guidelines Make It Tough For Animal Groups To Change Law In Canada,” Donald Cameron’s “How Ottawa Stifles Animal Activists,” and Merrit Clifton’s “Canada Revenue Agency Moves To Muzzle Animal Charities” are all good sources. It is my sincere hope that people talk publicly about this issue even though I know it has caused some anger and frustration and opened some old wounds. It is not very often that Canadian activists get to have a discussion on tactics and effectiveness that is specific to this country. Also, do not forget that public comment can still be submitted to the CRA until March 31, 2011! The fact that the CRA has posted an update clarifying the proposed guidance is already a great testament to the amount of people who have written in.

I would also suggest people taking a look at the great work that Glenn and all of the folks at Liberation B.C. are doing, and also supporting his newest venture, an all vegan shoe store in Vancouver B.C. called Nice Shoes.

Ever since the Canada Revenue Agency posted their Consultation on proposed guidance for The Promotion of Animal Welfare and Charitable Registration for comment on Feb 5th I have witnessed a broad spectrum of responses; some feel it has no teeth, some are angered by the “paranoia” surrounding it’s impact, others are sincerely cautious of its potential impact and precedence while others point to this as definitive proof that charitable status is more of a hinderance than anything else. What is your reaction to the proposed guidelines?

Let me begin by addressing a slight misconception about the guidance document that I’ve been noticing. It seems as if many people are seeing the draft guidance document as a new set of regulations that will somehow change the charitable rules for animal advocacy or protection groups. But this document is really just an effort by Canada Revenue to present guidance to animal protection groups as to whether or not their activities would be considered charitable under the current regulations. As far as I know, they are not considering any changes to the current regulations. They are not changing the laws to take charitable status away from anyone who already has it. No organizations charitable status is under threat (any more than it has been, of course).

So, to answer your question, I’ve really found the document to be useful. Canada’s charity laws are murky at best, and unbelievably obscure and even contradictory at worst. This document at least clarifies many of the points that prevent many animal protection groups (especially animal rights, anti-animal testing, vegan advocacy, etc) from becoming tax-exempt charities. The document also highlights just how much our charity laws protect the status quo.

Organizations working to change the system are severely limited in how “hard” their advocacy work can be. This isn’t limited to animal protection – all groups are limited in how much advocacy work they can do as a charity.

Animal protection groups face the additional barrier of not being able to advocate solely for animals (especially when human interests are opposed to the animal interests).

I tend to fall into the camp that charitable status is a hindrance, but not entirely. If you are smart and know the regulations really well and can handle auditors well, then you may be able to walk the charitable tightrope. For most animal protection groups, the time and effort involved in pursuing charitable status is just not an effective use of those resources. And, if you really want to advocate for animals full-time, then it’s definitely a hindrance. I think this is especially the case for grassroots groups.

I wouldn’t downplay the advantages of becoming a charity, though. Charities have access to more grants and more government resources than regular non-profits.

I feel like this issue has opened up a bit of a sore between animal advocacy groups that have charitable status and those who do not. I am wondering if you have noticed this as well and if you think this was an intended consequence?

Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. I’m not really sure. I know that most everything opens up a sore between one set of animals advocacy groups and another. I don’t know if it would have been intended, but my inclination is to assume that CRA has posted this guidance document to save themselves some time. They must have to deal with so many groups applying for charitable status all the time, and so many questions about eligibility, that probably take up a decent amount of time.

I covered the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act throughly on this site and I definitely see sections of these guidelines being influenced by that legislation, most notably the section on terrorism. I see a lot of people in Canada glossing over that section as they assume they don’t associate with terrorists, or the constructed image of the Islamic Terrorist, without recognizing that people in the United States are currently being charged with terrorism for freedom of speech cases (AETA 4, SHAC 7, etc.) As someone who is a member of numerous animal advocacy groups with chartible status, but also someone who publicly supports and raises funds for those charged with terrorism in the United States, I see this as a massive issue. Just as the AETA used the label of “terrorism” to push the militant animal rights movement to the fringe and build separation between that and the above ground mainstream advocacy movement, I see these proposed guidelines pushing for the same effect here.

Again, the CRA document is really just an explanation of the current CRA regulations as applied to animal protection groups, not a new set of laws. Efforts in the US to label animal activists as terrorists have progressed much, much further than they have in Canada. We definitely have to be concerned with any language that limits resources “indirectly” made available to someone who engages in or supports terrorist activities (“Under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act and the Income Tax Act, a charity’s status may be revoked if it makes its resources available, directly or indirectly, to any individual or group that engages in or supports terrorist activities”). Anti-terrorist rhetoric has not reached the same level in Canada as it has in the US, but it’s definitely something to be cautious of.

The terrorist issue applies to all charitable organizations, animal or not, so charities really have to be careful about who they support and collaborate with. I don’t know if that has been tested in Canadian court yet, but as far as I know, no animal group, including SHAC, has yet been officially labelled as “terrorist” in Canada.

Some who have seen this legislation feel as though any attempt to enforce it could be easily defeated on the grounds that animal advocacy is charitable and beneficial to humans. Is this approach nieve though as the guidelines are based upon legal precedent, precedent which we currently don’t have even if we have a wealth of logic and reason on our side.

I think you are correct that this view is incorrect, although it would be nice if it were true. In Canada, common-law (precedent set by the courts) does determine how the law is interpreted. Once a court rules a certain way, subsequent tests of that same law are bound to be ruled in accord with the original precedent.

The example CRA uses is animal testing. Many years ago animal testing was ruled to be beneficial to humans, therefore groups that are formed around the issue of opposing animal testing would be ruled to not be charitable because they would be opposed to human benefit.

To challenge the animal testing ruling, someone would have to find a way to prove that the cost to humans outweighs the benefits, which would be a challenge, to say the least.

Animal exploitation industries do benefit large numbers of humans in terms of jobs, if nothing else. To say that animal advocacy can be seen as beneficial to humans is incorrect – especially when you consider that some groups of humans benefit more from exploiting animals than others, and that the costs to humans are not easily weighed.

Take the Canadian seal hunt for example. Some humans definitely benefit from it, while very few humans face any costs from it. Only the seals themselves bear the brunt of the cost.

I think this is a real weakness of our charity laws. Charities should be able to advocate for animal protection, even if it means humans will not be able to benefit from those animals. It ties charities too closely to government and social structures, basically making charitable work an extension of the status quo. Not being able to benefit is quite a bit different than an actual cost.

Some people point to French laws for Charity Advocacy as an example to follow. Can you tell us a bit more about them?

I know very little about France’s regulations, but I do know that charities in France have much greater freedom in terms of advocacy work, and they can actually be involved in political activities.

The US system actually seems to work pretty well too. They used to have a system that was very much like ours, but they changed in 1976. Now more groups are able to become “charitable” and their activities are less limited than they are here.

Most of my knowledge is around advocacy by charities, rather than the actual application of animal advocacy. However, I do know that many groups considered charitable in the US would not be able to get charitable status in Canada. PETA, Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, Vegan Outreach – there’s a slim to zero chance that any of them could ever get charitable status here.

What do you see as the way forward for the animal advocacy movement in Canada?

Mostly, I’d say be willing to support animal protection groups that do work you like even if they are not able to give you a tax receipt.

If we could find more ways to work together and pool our resources we might be able to grow stronger. Canada already has a much smaller amount of donations available than the US (we’re about 1/10th the size), so using the US as a model for building organizations is probably not the best idea.

Lamenting the fact that there are big organizations working in the US but not here in Canada really doesn’t do any good. If the system is stacked against us, we need to get creative, start overlooking slight philosophical differences, support each other, and build a different network of animal activists that can exist without the support of charitable donations or grants. I’ve seen organizations develop into well-funded non-profits without charitable status – even with offices and paid staff. So it is possible. It just takes work.

And, definitely challenge the current charity system. Send comments to CRA about the draft guidance supporting a real change in the way the law works and write to your MP and ask them to work on this issue. Canada, even more than the US, is a democracy, and the system can change.