Mark Blumberg to make another appearance before Canadian Standing Committee on Finance

I would tend to be more cautious about “transparency” and what it can achieve.  Public cynicism is widespread - affecting all institutions of society;  I don’t think a longer T3010 is going to solve the problem. The bad guys will always find a way to cover their tracks.  Also, should CRA be publishing their side of a story “to alert the public” when a case is under appeal and the very facts and law are in dispute?  CRA is not infallible, especially when it’s caught in a political firestorm and it’s damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t (revoke)..

[Judy - thanks for the comments.  It is great to hear from you.  I agree that there is a lot of public cynicism and it may affect all institutions of society - however I think that public trust in charities is still pretty high according to a number of survey and we should try and do what we can to keep it that way.  There is no question that transparency cannot guarantee the end of abuse of charities and non-profits. It does not necessarily guarantee that non-profits and charities will be accountable or effective.  However, it can shine a light on certain non-profits and charities, which will hopefully help to reduce the amount of abuse that goes on.  People are less likely to abuse charities if they know that they will be more easily discovered.  As I see it transparency is not first and foremost about abuse - it is about informing various stakeholders about the work of charities and there are many different stakeholders who want more information on the work of charities.  Stopping abuse is an added benefit.  The T3010 can certainly be improved to provide better information for example to donors compared to what is currently provided.  I tend to be a little more optimistic than “The bad guys will always find a way to cover their tracks” - first of all I don’t want to make it too easy for them to do it.  Secondly, a number of reporters, bloggers, and CRA through media releases and advisories have tried to provide the public with information so that the tracks are not completely covered.  Unfortunately for those who abuse charities the facts and law are always in dispute - even after the Federal Court of Appeal makes a decision or the Supreme Court decides a case they are often not prepared to admit any mistake was made or their client did anything wrong.  And that whole process takes about 10 years!  So personally I would rather that the public is aware of the CRA concern.  In terms of the political firestorm comment it will be interesting to see how things pan out. and I think that it is important that charities are engaged in the political process and that there is and should be push back from the charitable sector to some of the comments from certain parliamentarians, but charities also need to properly disclose their political activities as well as fundraising costs etc. ]