And according to a lawyer in the field, it’s not as crazy as it sounds.
Over the weekend, the Green party announced that it had filed a complaint about a charity with the Canada Revenue Agency over leader Elizabeth May's exclusion from next week's Munk Debate.
The Greens claim that May's exclusion is actually illegal under the Income Tax Act because charities — like the one funding the debate — aren't allowed to engage in partisan political activity.
WTF does this even mean, you ask?
Good question. Let us explain, first with some necessary background.
Next Monday, the Munk School of Global Affairs is hosting a leaders' debate on foreign policy. It invited three leaders — Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau — to participate.
The debate is sponsored by the Aurea Foundation, a registered charity associated with the larger Munk Foundation.
The Munk Debate, like last week's Globe Debate, did not invite May — whose party is represented solely by her and one other MP in the House of Commons — to participate.
But wait, you say, then why isn't May's party asking the CRA to investigate the Globe and its partners, too? Because Globe & co aren't charities.
Chad Hipolito / The Canadian Press
Getting invited to the leaders' debates has been an issue for the Green party. It's a bit of a Catch-22: Debate organizers leave the Greens out because they're small, but they're arguably smaller because they're not given exposure in national debates.
Adding fuel the fire is the fact that many people agreed that May killed it at the Maclean's debate in early August.
Now, on to this complaint with the Canada Revenue Agency.
The Income Tax Act prohibits charitable organizations from engaging in partisan political activities.
"A partisan political activity is one that involves the direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party at any time, whether during an election period or not, or a candidate for public office," the CRA's website says. That includes "organizing an all-candidates meeting or public forum in a way that could be seen to favour a political party or candidate."
Chad Hipolito / The Canadian Press
The Green party is claiming that by excluding May from the Munk Debate, the Aurea Foundation is engaging in partisan political activity, thus contravening the Income Tax Act.
“Not inviting Elizabeth May, in the view of our counsel, is breaking the law and the CRA should step in and enforce it,” party spokesperson Jim Harris is quoted as saying in a press release.
The Greens want the CRA, which can de-register charities if they're found to be breaking the law, to investigate the Aurea Foundation.
According to Hamilton tax lawyer Craig Burley, the complaint, though "unusual," isn't as far-fetched as some may think.
“The law isn’t very settled or clear here, but you could see an argument for both sides,” he said in an interview.
“If the argument is, 'there’s no legitimate reason to exclude us', then you could call that indirect opposition,” he said.
And yes, if May succeeded here, other left-out party leaders (that's you, Rhinoceros party) could make the same claim — but only in the case of leaders' debates funded by charitable organizations.
Burley said this demand by the Green party is basically the equivalent of calling the agency's snitch line. As such, the CRA could or could not launch an investigation.
“Do they have better things to do? Absolutely. But do they sometimes engage things at this level? They do.”
The Canada Revenue Agency has been strict lately in enforcing the Income Tax Act charity rules, Burley said. And among the charities the CRA has been investigating are numerous environmental groups.
plus.google.com
View Entire List ›