OTTAWA—The Conservative government is distancing itself from the taxman’s audit of a left-leaning think tank targeted because its website appeared “biased” and “one-sided.”

Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s office insists Canada Revenue Agency audits “occur at arm’s length from the government and are conducted free of any political interference or motivation.”

Nicholas Kalegerakos, director of parliamentary affairs for Findlay, told the Star “The rules regarding charities and political activities are long-standing. The CRA has a legal responsibility to ensure that charitable dollars, donated by charitable Canadians, are used for charitable purposes.”

But over at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), a left-leaning “progressive” research and public education group that publishes on income inequality, climate change and a host of other issues, they have grave doubts.

The organization, best known for its annual Alternative Federal Budget, got what it calls an unnerving glimpse into auditors’ motivations via CRA’s response to its Access to Information request.

Among the documents was a one-page summary that indicated a review of the CCPA’s website “suggests that the organization may be carrying out prohibited partisan political activities, and that much of its research/educational materials may be biased/one-sided.”

The CRA document also cited two prior audits of CCPA — in 1989-90 and in 2002 — that it said looked at “political activity.” But if those audits found concerns about political activity, the CCPA says it was kept in the dark.

The CRA document says the organization “has only reported undertaking political activities since 2007, and that its total reported expenditures tend to be well below 1% of its total annual revenues.”

It all appears to have raised the taxman’s suspicions.

The CRA has launched a full audit of the organization — underway since last fall — that CCPA executive director Bruce Campbell says is “absolutely” politically motivated and designed to weaken a left-leaning voice in civil society.

By law, registered charities may not engage in partisan political activity. That’s defined as “direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.” And a charity must limit any non-partisan political activity to no more than 10 per cent of its resources.

The CRA says a group’s political activity must be “related to its charitable purposes, and limited in extent. A political activity is any activity that explicitly communicates to the public that a law, policy or decision of any level of government inside or outside Canada should be retained, opposed, or changed.”

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which regularly criticizes aspects of Conservative policies such as its 2011 campaign promise of income-splitting for families, reported the value of any political activity under its roof to be about $40,000 — or 0.7 per cent of its $5.4 million in annual spending.

Campbell said in an interview that’s the estimated value of “in-kind” contributions by staffers in some provinces who work with poverty-reduction coalitions, but not with any political parties.

It ticked off boxes that referred to “media releases and advertisements, conference, workshops, speeches, or lectures, publications, petitions, boycotts, or letter-writing and Internet campaigns.” But no attendance at rallies, demonstrations, or public meetings.

As for whether its work is “biased” and “one-sided,” Campbell scoffs if there’s a bias. It’s the same kind of bias that all think tanks have, coming from a “core set of values” that informs a group’s work, but doesn’t taint it, he says.

“We’re policy analysts; we’re equal opportunity critics of government policies of all stripes, at all levels of government.”

Campbell says the two previous audits highlighted issues with the organization’s “receipting practices — fairly minor stuff” and led to no order, caution or verbal communication of concern over any political activity on the organization’s part.

Still, the organization’s 40 part-time and full-time staffers take pains to avoid partisan activity, he said.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Campbell doubts any conservative-leaning or pro-business think-tanks are similarly targeted.

“The bigger question for me is the principle of this. Already there is a huge imbalance in the depth of our pockets between ourselves and the conservative think-tanks which have access to major corporate funding.”

“We have a right to continue to do this work. We’re an integral part of the democratic process; we provide informed evidence, analysis and commentary that’s really vital for public policy, public debates, that’s a role we play as part of civil society.”

CP reported this week that two right-of-centre think-tanks, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said they are not currently under audit for political activities.

The Fraser Institute’s website says it depends “entirely on donations from people who understand the importance of impartial research and who support greater choice, less government intervention, and more personal responsibility.”

Niels Veldhuis, president of the Fraser Institute, told the Star its policy is not to comment on any dealings it has with CRA, although he said in its 40-year history it has previously been audited three times by the CRA and the U.S. government’s IRS. He said any charity should expect such audits periodically.

However, Veldhuis adamantly disagreed with Campbell’s suggestion that think-tanks all come from a perspective or core set of values, or even that the Fraser Institute should be described as a conservative organization. He said the institute’s work is “not value-based, it’s driven by data.”

“The role of a think-tank is to ask a question, examine the data and let the data tell you the answer. That’s what the role of a research organization is. That’s what we do. That’s not one-sided. I’ve no concerns about us being one-sided because that’s not research.”

Similarly, the Montreal Economic Institute — another pro-business based think-tank — declined comment on whether it is facing any such audit.

The tax agency’s auditors won’t talk.

The CRA says it is bound by confidentiality provisions in the Income Tax Act, even if the group under its microscope is happy to go public.

Phil Brideau, a spokesman for CRA, said: “We don’t discuss specific cases in the public domain.” He said the agency would only waive privacy over a file to share information with an organization’s lawyer or accountant.

“The minister’s office answered your questions and that will be our statement,” he said.

Read more about: