Todayville
  • Red Deer
    • City of Red Deer
    • Community
    • Food and Dining
    • Local Business
      • Business of the Year Awards
      • Real Estate
    • Local Education
      • Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools
      • Red Deer Public School Division
    • Local Entertainment
      • Celebrity Dance Off
    • Local Sports
      • Athlete of the Month
    • #ReDiscoverRedDeer
    • #RedDeerStrong
  • Alberta
    • Agriculture
    • Alberta Country Music Awards
    • Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
    • Central Alberta
      • Blackfalds
      • Drumheller
      • Innisfail
      • Lacombe
      • Penhold
      • Red Deer County
      • Rimbey
      • Rocky Mountain House
      • Stettler
      • Sylvan Lake
    • Calgary
    • Edmonton
    • Energy
    • Government of Alberta
  • Topics
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Business
    • Creator
    • Crime
    • Economy
    • Education
    • History
    • Lifestyle
    • News
    • Podcasts
    • Sports
    • Travel
  • Register
  • Login
  • Our Network
    • Todayville Calgary
    • Todayville Edmonton
Connect with us
Todayville Todayville

Todayville

Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations

  • Topics
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Business
    • COVID-19
    • Crime
    • Economy
    • News
    • Sports
    • Travel
      • Gerry Feehan
    • Also Interesting
  • Red Deer
    • #ReDiscoverRedDeer
    • City of Red Deer
    • Community
    • Food and Dining
    • Red Deer Downtown Business Association
    • Local Business
      • Business of the Year Awards
    • Local Education
      • Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools
      • Red Deer College
      • Red Deer Public School Division
    • Local Entertainment
      • Celebrity Dance Off
    • Local Sports
      • Athlete of the Month
    • Primary Care Network
  • Alberta
    • Agriculture
    • Alberta Country Music Awards
    • Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
    • Government of Alberta
  • Opinion
    • Bruce Dowbiggin
    • Dan McTeague
    • John Campbell
    • John Stossel
    • Josh Andrus – Project Confederation
    • Michael Shellenberger
    • Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan
  • Energy
  • Central Alberta
    • Blackfalds
    • Drumheller
    • Innisfail
    • Lacombe
    • Penhold
    • Red Deer County
    • Rimbey
    • Rocky Mountain House
    • Stettler
    • Sylvan Lake
  • Register
  • Login
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Advertise

Opinion

Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations

Todayville

Published

2 hours ago

6 minute read

The Audit

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

Over the past few years, I’ve had canvassers coming to my home in Toronto on behalf of a wide range of non-profits – including hospitals and mental health and homeless support organizations. The fundraisers all “wear” a noticeable post secondary student vibe. That’s hardly news.

But curiously, no matter what they’re collecting for, every last one of them uses the exact same methodology. That is, they refuse to take a one-time donation, instead insisting I sign up for six (not seven, and definitely not five) monthly payments. They don’t want me donating online through the organization’s website (explaining that they wouldn’t get credit for that). They do expect me to enter my basic information on a high-end tablet they’re carrying. When that’s done, they’ll use their smartphones to make a call to a remote agent who would take my financial information.

Subscribe to The Audit

I only completed the process once – for the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Toronto. But that was mostly because, at the time, they were in the middle of quite literally saving my granddaughter’s life. I couldn’t very well say no.

Because of the paranoia that comes with my background in IT systems administration, I generally don’t participate, explaining that I never share financial information on a call I didn’t initiate. At the same time, these campaigns are not fraudulent and, with the possible exception of UNICEF, they all represent legitimate organizations. Nevertheless, they all come with the clear fingerprints of a third-party, for-profit company. Which makes me curious.

After a little digging, it became clear that a company called Globalfaces Direct was the most likely employer of the face-to-face (F2F) canvassers I’m seeing. It’s also obvious that those canvassers are paid at least partially through revenue-based commissions.

Estimating how much of your donations are actually used for charitable work can be difficult. For once thing, in the case of SickKids, it’s not even clear which organization the money is going to. There at least three related non-profit accounts registered with CRA: The Hospital for Sick Children, The Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, and the SickKids Charitable Giving Fund.

But even where there isn’t such ambiguity we have only limited visibility into an organization’s finances. Covenant House, for instance, issued receipts for $26 million in donations for 2024, but there’s no way to know how much of that came through Globalfaces Direct F2F campaigns. And there’s certainly no public record indicating how much of that $26 million was spent on commissions and overhead. CRA filings for Covenant House do report fundraising costs of $9.4 million in 2024, which was 22 percent of their total spending and 32 percent of all donations.

It’s likely that their $9.4 million in fundraising costs includes Globalfaces Direct’s canvasser commissions and overhead costs. But those are only some of the costs – which likely include events, direct mail, and other in-house efforts. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to assume that only 20-30 percent of each dollar raised through F2F canvassing is actually spent on charity work.

From the perspective of the non-profit, hiring F2F companies can generate new sources of stable, long-term income that would have been otherwise unattainable. Especially if the F2F agreement specifies withholding a percentage of what’s collected rather than charging a flat fee, then a non-profit has nothing to lose. Why wouldn’t SickKids or Covenant House sign up for that?

Of course, a lot of that will depend on how you think about the numbers. Taken as a whole, an organization that spends just 32 percent of their donations on fundraising activities is well within CRA guidelines: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it is a purpose of the charity (a collateral non-charitable purpose).” But if we just looked at the money raised through a F2F campaign, that percentage would likely be a lot higher.

Similarly, CRA also expects that: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it delivers a more than incidental private benefit.” In other words, if a private company like Globalfaces Direct were to realize financial gain that’s “more than incidental”, it might fail to meet CRA guidelines.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way for donors to assess the numbers on those terms. So regular people who prefer to direct as much of their donation as possible to the actual cause will generally be far better off donating through an institution’s website or, even better, through a single CRA-friendly aggregator like CanadaHelps.org.

But it would be nice if CRA reporting rules clearly broke those numbers down so we could judge for ourselves.

Subscribe to The Audit

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Email
  • Telegram
  • Print

Related

Related Topics:#DavidClintonCharityCampaignsCharityDonationsDoorToDoorSalesTheAudit
Up Next

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Don't Miss

Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 3 mins ago

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

COVID-19 / 14 mins ago

Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports

Business / 31 mins ago

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Business

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Published on July 14, 2025

By

Todayville

By Gwyn Morgan

Mark Carney was supposed to be the adult in the room. After nearly a decade of runaway spending under Justin Trudeau, the former central banker was presented to Canadians as a steady hand – someone who could responsibly manage the economy and restore fiscal discipline.

Instead, Carney has taken Trudeau’s recklessness and dialled it up. His government’s recently released spending plan shows an increase of 8.5 percent this fiscal year to $437.8 billion. Add in “non-budgetary spending” such as EI payouts, plus at least $49 billion just to service the burgeoning national debt and total spending in Carney’s first year in office will hit $554.5 billion.

Even if tax revenues were to remain level with last year – and they almost certainly won’t given the tariff wars ravaging Canadian industry – we are hurtling toward a deficit that could easily exceed 3 percent of GDP, and thus dwarf our meagre annual economic growth. It will only get worse. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates debt interest alone will consume $70 billion annually by 2029. Fitch Ratings recently warned of Canada’s “rapid and steep fiscal deterioration”, noting that if the Liberal program is implemented total federal, provincial and local debt would rise to 90 percent of GDP.

This was already a fiscal powder keg. But then Carney casually tossed in a lit match. At June’s NATO summit, he pledged to raise defence spending to 2 percent of GDP this fiscal year – to roughly $62 billion. Days later, he stunned even his own caucus by promising to match NATO’s new 5 percent target. If he and his Liberal colleagues follow through, Canada’s defence spending will balloon to the current annual equivalent of $155 billion per year. There is no plan to pay for this. It will all go on the national credit card.

This is not “responsible government.” It is economic madness.

And it’s happening amid broader economic decline. Business investment per worker – a key driver of productivity and living standards – has been shrinking since 2015. The C.D. Howe Institute warns that Canadian workers are increasingly “underequipped compared to their peers abroad,” making us less competitive and less prosperous.

The problem isn’t a lack of money; it’s a lack of discipline and vision. We’ve created a business climate that punishes investment: high taxes, sluggish regulatory processes, and politically motivated uncertainty. Carney has done nothing to reverse this. If anything, he’s making the situation worse.

Recall the 2008 global financial meltdown. Carney loves to highlight his role as Bank of Canada Governor during that time but the true credit for steering the country through the crisis belongs to then-prime minister Stephen Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty. Facing the pressures of a minority Parliament, they made the tough decisions that safeguarded Canada’s fiscal foundation. Their disciplined governance is something Carney would do well to emulate.

Instead, he’s tearing down that legacy. His recent $4.3 billion aid pledge to Ukraine, made without parliamentary approval, exemplifies his careless approach. And his self-proclaimed image as the experienced technocrat who could go eyeball-to-eyeball against Trump is starting to crack. Instead of respecting Carney, Trump is almost toying with him, announcing in June, for example that the U.S. would pull out of the much-ballyhooed bilateral trade talks launched at the G7 Summit less than two weeks earlier.

Ordinary Canadians will foot the bill for Carney’s fiscal mess. The dollar has weakened. Young Canadians – already priced out of the housing market – will inherit a mountain of debt. This is not stewardship. It’s generational theft.

Some still believe Carney will pivot – that he will eventually govern sensibly. But nothing in his actions supports that hope. A leader serious about economic renewal would cancel wasteful Trudeau-era programs, streamline approvals for energy and resource projects, and offer incentives for capital investment. Instead, we’re getting more borrowing and ideological showmanship.

It’s no longer credible to say Carney is better than Trudeau. He’s worse. Trudeau at least pretended deficits were temporary. Carney has made them permanent – and more dangerous.

This is a betrayal of the fiscal stability Canadians were promised. If we care about our credit rating, our standard of living, or the future we are leaving our children, we must change course.

That begins by removing a government unwilling – or unable – to do the job.

Canada once set an economic example for others. Those days are gone. The warning signs – soaring debt, declining productivity, and diminished global standing – are everywhere. Carney’s defenders may still hope he can grow into the job. Canada cannot afford to wait and find out.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Email
  • Telegram
  • Print

Related

Continue Reading

Addictions

Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail

Published on July 14, 2025

By

Todayville
Photo by Acceptable at English Wikipedia, ‘Two 1 mg pills of Hydromorphone, prescribed to me after surgery.’ [Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

By Alexandra Keeler

B.C. released new witnessed dosing guidelines for safer supply opioids. Experts say they are vague, loose and toothless

This February, B.C pledged to reintroduce witnessed dosing to its controversial safer supply program.

Safer supply programs provide prescription opioids to people who use drugs. Witnessed dosing requires patients to consume those prescribed opioids under the supervision of a health-care professional, rather than taking their drugs offsite.

The province said it was reintroducing witnessed dosing to “prevent the diversion of prescribed opioids and hold bad actors accountable.”

But experts are saying the government’s interim guidelines, released April 29, are fundamentally flawed.

“These guidelines — just as any guidelines for safer supply — do not align with addiction medicine best practices, period,” said Dr. Leonara Regenstreif, a primary care physician specializing in substance use disorders. Regenstreif is a founding member of Addiction Medicine Canada, an advocacy group that represents 23 addiction specialists.

Addiction physician Dr. Michael Lester, who is also a founding member of the group, goes further.

“Tweaking a treatment protocol that should not have been implemented in the first place without prior adequate study is not much of an advancement,” he said.

Witnessed dosing

Initially, B.C.’s safer supply program was generally administered through witnessed dosing. But in 2020, to facilitate access amidst pandemic restrictions, the province moved to “take-home dosing,” allowing patients to take their prescription opioids offsite.

After pandemic restrictions were lifted, the province did not initially return to witnessed dosing. Rather, it did so only recently, after a bombshell government report alleged more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were boosting sales by encouraging patients to fill unnecessary opioid prescriptions. This incentivized patients to sell their medications on the black market.

B.C.’s interim guidelines, developed by the BC Centre on Substance Use at the government’s request, now require all new safer supply patients to begin with witnessed dosing.

But for existing patients, the guidelines say prescribers have discretion to determine whether to require witnessed dosing. The guidelines define an existing patient as someone who was dispensed prescription opioids within the past 30 days.

The guidelines say exemptions to witnessed dosing are permitted under “extraordinary circumstances,” where witnessed dosing could destabilize the patient or where a prescriber uses “best clinical judgment” and determines diversion risk is “very low.”

 for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

Holes

Clinicians say the guidelines are deliberately vague.

Regenstreif described them as “wordy, deliberately confusing.” They enable prescribers to carry on as before, she says.

Lester agrees. Prescribers would be in compliance with these guidelines even if “none of their patients are transferred to witnessed dosing,” he said.

In his view, the guidelines will fail to meet their goal of curbing diversion.

And without witnessed dosing, diversion is nearly impossible to detect. “A patient can take one dose a day and sell seven — and this would be impossible to detect through urine testing,” Lester said.

He also says the guidelines do not remove the incentive for patients to sell their drugs to others. He cites estimates from Addiction Medicine Canada that clients can earn up to $20,000 annually by selling part of their prescribed supply.

“[Prescribed safer supply] can function as a form of basic income — except that the community is being flooded with addictive and dangerous opioids,” Lester said.

Regenstreif warns that patients who had been diverting may now receive unnecessarily high doses. “Now you’re going to give people a high dose of opioids who don’t take opioids,” she said.

She also says the guidelines leave out important details on adjusting doses for patients who do shift from take-home to witnessed dosing.

“If a doctor followed [the guidelines] to the word, and the patient followed it to the word, the patient would go into withdrawal,” she said.

The guidelines assume patients will swallow their pills under supervision, but many crush and inject them instead, Regenstreif says. Because swallowing is less potent, a higher dose may be needed.

“None of that is accounted for in this document,” she said.

Survival strategy

Some harm reduction advocates oppose a return to witnessed dosing, saying it will deter people from accessing a regulated drug supply.

Some also view diversion as a life-saving practice.

Diversion is “a harm reduction practice rooted in mutual aid,” says a 2022 document developed by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, a group of clinicians and harm reduction advocates.

The group supports take-home dosing as part of a broader strategy to improve access to safer supply medications. In their document, they say barriers to accessing safer supply programs necessitate diversion among people who use drugs — and that the benefits of diversion outweigh the risks.

However, the risks — and harms — of diversion are mounting.

People can quickly develop a tolerance to “safer” opioids and then transition to more dangerous substances. Some B.C. teenagers have said the prescription opioid Dilaudid was a stepping stone to them using fentanyl. In some cases, diversion of these drugs has led to fatal overdoses.

More recently, a Nanaimo man was sentenced to prison for running a highly organized drug operation that trafficked diverted safer supply opioids. He exchanged fentanyl and other illicit drugs for prescription pills obtained from participants in B.C.’s safer supply program.

Recovery

Lester, of Addiction Medicine Canada, believes clinical discretion has gone too far. He says take-home dosing should be eliminated.

“Best practices in addiction medicine assume physicians prescribing is based on sound and thorough research, and ensuring that their prescribing does not cause harm to the broader community, as well as the patient,” he said.

“[Safer supply] for opioids fails in both these regards.”

He also says safer supply should only be offered as a short-term bridge to patients being started on proven treatments like buprenorphine or methadone, which help reduce drug cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms.

B.C.’s witnessed dosing guidelines say prescribers can discuss such treatment options with patients. However, the guidelines remain neutral on whether safer supply is intended as a transitional step toward longer-term treatment.

Regenstreif says this neutrality undermines care.

“[M]ost patients I’ve seen with opioid use disorder don’t want to have [this disorder],” she said. “They would rather be able to set goals and do other things.”

Oversight gaps

Currently, about 3,900 people in B.C. participate in the safer supply program — down from 5,200 in March 2023.

The B.C. government has not provided data on how many have been transitioned to witnessed dosing. Investigative journalist Rob Shaw recently reported that these data do not exist.

“The government … confirmed recently they don’t have any mechanism to track which ‘safe supply’ participants are witnessed and which [are] not,” said Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been a vocal critic of safer supply.

“Without a public report and accountability there can be no confidence.”

The BC Centre on Substance Use, which developed the interim guidelines, says it does not oversee policy decisions or data tracking. It referred Canadian Affairs’ questions to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which has yet to clarify whether it will track and publish transition data. The ministry did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

B.C. has also not indicated when or whether it will release final guidelines.

Regenstreif says the flawed guidelines mean many people may be misinformed, discouraged or unsupported when trying to reduce their drug use and recover.

“We’re not listening to people with lived experience of recovery,” she said.


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.


Subscribe to Break The Needle

Launched a year ago
Break The Needle provides news and analysis on addiction and crime in Canada.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Email
  • Telegram
  • Print

Related

Continue Reading
Current Month

july, 2025

No Events

  • Most Popular This Week!
Fraser Institute1 day ago

Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually

COVID-192 days ago

FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men

Daily Caller2 days ago

Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns

MAiD1 day ago

Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse

Trending

  • Fraser Institute1 day ago

    Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually

  • MAiD1 day ago

    Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse

  • Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago

    New Book Warns The Decline In Marriage Comes At A High Cost

  • Business1 day ago

    Prime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act

  • Addictions1 day ago

    ‘Over and over until they die’: Drug crisis pushes first responders to the brink

  • International1 day ago

    Chicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV

  • Daily Caller1 day ago

    USAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab

  • Business2 days ago

    103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Todayville
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Principles and Practices
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on Todayville

Copyright © 2025. Created by Todayville Inc.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
X