{"id":28491,"date":"2019-07-18T12:16:04","date_gmt":"2019-07-18T16:16:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=28491"},"modified":"2019-07-18T12:19:19","modified_gmt":"2019-07-18T16:19:19","slug":"the-senate-report-on-the-charitable-sector-what-you-need-to-know-finances-and-miscellany","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/legal\/2019\/07\/18\/the-senate-report-on-the-charitable-sector-what-you-need-to-know-finances-and-miscellany\/","title":{"rendered":"The Senate Report on the Charitable Sector: What You Need to Know, Finances and Miscellany"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Senate Report<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

We\u2019re completing our look at the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector<\/a>\u2019s\nreport, Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap\nto a Stronger Charitable Sector<\/a> with today\u2019s post. This installment\nwill look at financial and miscellaneous recommendations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Part One<\/a>, we looked\nat the context of uncertainty surrounding the report; there is no guarantee the\nrecommendations will be pursued. In Part Two<\/a>, we looked\nat recommendations about donations and legislation. Part Three<\/a>\nconsidered potential reporting requirements for charities, and Part Four<\/a> discussed\npolicies and guidance that may be reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charities face operational challenges that the for-profit\nsector does not experience, or at least not to the same degree. Examples\ninclude workforce retention and the challenge of offering competitive\ncompensation and benefits, particularly for employees with skills and training\nthat are in high demand.[1]<\/a>\nA few recommendations came out of this discussion, including the development of\na human resources renewal plan through Labour Canada, reinstatement of the\nHuman Resources Council for the Voluntary Sector, and pensions for the\ncharitable and non-profit sectors.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employee retention is essential but so too is volunteer\nrecruitment. Statistics presented to the Committee show that in 2013 Canadians\nprovided almost 2 billion hours of volunteer time, with older volunteers\naccounting for more hours and individuals than younger Canadians. In response,\nthe Committee recommended a variety of actions: a national strategy to\nencourage volunteerism, including volunteer recruitment\/retention costs in\ngovernment contribution agreements; recognition programs for volunteers\ndelivering government services; and reducing or eliminating police check costs.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Christians, service should be part of our everyday\nlives, and aside from challenges inherent in an aging population, and thus the\nvolunteer pool, faith-based charities aren\u2019t limited to government-led\nrecruitment initiatives. Faith-based charities have recourse to the spiritual\nand Biblical call on believers to actively engage in serving the poor, the\nunreached, the orphaned, the marginalized. As regulated entities, all charities\nmust necessarily be mindful of government actions, but faith-based charities\ndon\u2019t \u2013and shouldn\u2019t \u2013 look to government to solve what are, at core, heart\nissues impacting the desire and willingness to sacrificially give personal\ntime, money and resources.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of money and resources, the Report covers a wide\nvariety of initiatives and recommendations with the aim of improving and\nenhancing the financial stability of charities: government funding agreements\nthat include administrative costs, minimum 2-year timeframe for government\ngrants, encouraging innovation through the Social Finance Fund, opening up\nprocurement opportunities, funding to develop shared technologies for\nadministration, and studying restrictions on accessing other forms of capital.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charities currently rely heavily on donors for funding,\nwhich necessitate frequent communication with donors and potential donors.\nCanada\u2019s Anti-Spam Legislation<\/a>\n(CASL) has clouded the waters somewhat for charities and their communication strategies.[6]<\/a>\nWithout making specific recommendations for reform, the Committee suggested\nthat the Advisory Committee on the\nCharitable Sector<\/a> (ACCS) review CASL and its impact on charities.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But before charities concern themselves with CASL, they must navigate the process of becoming<\/em> a charity, which is not always a straightforward path. Sometimes charities\u2019 registrations are rejected. Rather than launch appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal on a written record provided by the Canada Revenue Agency, the Committee recommended that the Income Tax Act <\/em>be amended to provide that \u201call appeals from decisions of the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency proceed to the Tax Court of Canada.\u201d[8]<\/a> These would be hearings de novo<\/em>, which means charities can adduce evidence and the matter is heard anew or over again. The Committee also recommended a right of appeal to the Tax Court where the CRA\u2019s Tax and Charities Appeals Directorate has not made a decision on rejected applications or revoked registrations within six months of the appeal.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recognizing that appeals can be too costly for charities,\nthe Committee also recommended establishing some sort of financial assistance\nprogram,[10]<\/a>\nmuch like the recently revived Court Challenges Program<\/a>.\nAt the risk of becoming a resounding gong, any time the government sets up a\nfunding program there will be strings attached. How likely is it that a new\npregnancy care centre \u2013 that would be rejected for Canada Summer\nJobs funding<\/a> \u2013 would be approved for Tax Court appeal funding? And\nif only charities (or potential charities, more accurately) with certain\nviewpoints are financially capable of appealing, and by virtue of the appeal,\ndeveloping the common law of charity, what impact could that have on the very\ndefinition of charity? Accountability and clarity are desirable, and a court\nprocess may enhance both; however, to the extent that a political element is\nintroduced into the process, the level of transparency, accountability and\nneutrality is attenuated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though we\u2019ve taken five blog posts to discuss various\naspects of the Report, it has not been an exhaustive discussion. I\u2019ve attempted\nto point out what I see as concerning, encouraging, and relevant sections in\nthe Report. But I end where I began, and that is with a measure of restraint.\nThe Report is not binding, and many recommendations hinge on the not yet\nappointed ACCS. If and when action is taken on the Report, you can be sure\nwe\u2019ll keep you in the loop on any noteworthy<\/em>\ndevelopments.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>\nReport, pp.33-35<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a>\nRecommendations 6, 7, 5, respectively. CCCC offers a Pension Plan to Affiliate\nand Certified members. For more information, see https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/pension<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>\nRecommendations 1-4, pp.26-33<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> 3\nJohn 5-8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a>\nRecommendations 10\/11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19 respectively<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>\nFor more information on CASL compliance, see CCCC Bulletin Articles CASL for Charities: An Update<\/a> and Complying with the New Anti-spam Law: A How To Guide\nfor Charities<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a>\nRecommendation 41, pp 122-123<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>\nRecommendation 23, pp 74-77<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> For\nmore information on the current process, see CRA\u2019s website Objections and Appeals<\/a>\nand the links contained therein<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a>\nRecommendation 24, p 77<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Senate Report<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>

We\u2019re completing our look at the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector\u2019s report, Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector with today\u2019s post. This installment will look at financial and miscellaneous recommendations. In Part One, we looked at the context of uncertainty surrounding the report; there… More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[417],"series":[416],"class_list":["post-28491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-senate-report","series-senate-report"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28491"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=28491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}