The recent 'Let Charities Speak: The Charities and Advocacy Dialogue Report' sets out several options for expanding the advocacy role
of Canadian charities. Among the suggestions is an option to increase
the portion of spending that charities can direct to advocacy from 10%
of revenues to either 48% or 100% of revenues. Should charities be able
to direct more of their resources to advocacy? If so, what, if any, is
the fair spending limit and what other protection should be put in place?
While most of the time I agree with Cam and appreciate his comments,
on this issue of whether charities can be more involved in advocacy
I feel he is off the mark.
Cam's point seems to be that charities should do charitable work, meaning
giving programs and services to people in need. HOWEVER, many of the
root causes of the problems of poverty, environmental desolation, poor
health, teen pregnancy and other issues addressed by charitable organizations
cannot be adequately handled by pouring limited money into programs.
These root causes need to be addressed by changing governmental programs,
affecting corporate systems and addressing societal infrastructure.
Cam points out that charities often have expertise that comes from working
with people on the ground. Let them share what they have learned.
It is a take on the old saying. Give a person a fish and they eat for
a day. Teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime. But perhaps the
person does not have access to the lake, or the lake has no fish, or
the taxes on the fish are too high or industrial pollution contaminates
the fish. There are many other systemic reasons for not being able to
eat the fish. It is this analysis, these solutions that charities can
advocate for their clients and society as a whole. Doing so, we work
ourselves toward that future when charities are needed less. Let the
charities speak.
-- Randolph Haluza-DeLay
CSoP Research & Consulting, Thunder Bay, Ontario
I just happened on this opportunity to spout off when reading Village
Vibes just now. As long as corporations in our society get good tax
breaks, often including the reduction or postponement of paying property
taxes for a period of years in some municipalities, I see no problem.
Here in Nova Scotia, the government just gave over $6 million to a Florida
based call centre planning to relocate here. If companies are given
tax rebates or reductions or given government grants, that money comes
out of all of our tax monies. It means they get to pay less, and we
taxpayers foot the bill. That is considered in the public interest.
By the same token I'd say charities who devote money to advocacy work
have every right to do so... that means individuals who donate to charities
are able to pay less taxes -- while the rest of society picks up their
tax tab.
The problem is that much of the work that used to be done by the government
is done now by charities. So we end up paying twice, first in taxes
and then in charitable donations to get some social and health services.
By divesting itself of an increasing number of social services, government
is forcing the growth of the charitable sector. Not a bad thing, but
the advantage of a government service is that it is given to all equally
and there is a single administrative structure. Services provided by
charities are sometimes predicated on where one lives, individual need,
religious affiliation, gender, family status and other things that mean
they can be a less equal way of providing services.
-- Judith Haiven PhD
Department of Management, Saint Mary's University
E-mail us your thoughts today at 
