Charity Intelligence: A Political Player, Not A Charity Watchdog

In researching my forthcoming book on the WE Charity-Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) saga that saw Canadian politicians, the media and a few bad actors from the non-profit sector conspire to take down Canada’s most beloved and respected charity, I came across a startling revelation.

Two of the key players in the destruction of the charity, Kate Bahen, Managing Director of Charity Intelligence, and soon-to-be retired NDP MP Charlie Angus appear (to me) to be working together behind the scenes to destroy WE.

I’ve written about Charity Intelligence and Charlie Angus and their respective roles in attacking the charity and its founders, Marc and Craig Kielburger. I’d always suspected that, during the summer of 2020, there was a level of coordination between Bahen and Angus. I recently learned there was a direct financial connection: a $500 donation from Bahen to the MP from Northern Ontario who tag-teamed with Pierre Poilievre to attack WE. And Bahen, supposedly an objective analyst of Canada’s charities, was a star witness in that circus.

This is astounding and incredibly inappropriate.

A years-long efforts to destroy the charity –in Canada, at least — and ruin the reputation of its founders.

A few weeks ago, as part of the research for the new book, I sent Bahen some questions about her political donations and her relationships. I wanted to discuss her role in the CSSG scandal and Charity Intelligence’s history of political donations and personal connections to the Conservative party.

When I asked her which political parties she has personally donated to, she offered this vague response:

“As I stated in testimony, I made campaign donations to my friend who chose to run for public office. This friend was courted by both the Conservative and the Liberal party to run. I also gave, from memory, an equal amount to help another friend in his campaign as a Liberal candidate.”

The “testimony” she refers to is her appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance in August 2020. One problem, she made no reference to donating to anyone during the testimony. Similarly, there is no record in the Elections Canada or Elections Ontario databases of her donating to any Liberal candidate.

She went on, saying, “More recently I made a small contribution to an outstanding NDP candidate.”

I didn’t think much of that line at the time. It could be anyone. But I went back to the Elections Canada database to see who this NDP candidate was and it turned out to be Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins-James Bay.

Despite saying in her Finance Committee testimony that she finds “partisanship toxic”, the senior executive and public face of a supposedly impartial, objective and non partisan charity rating agency made political donations, including to a federal politician attacking a Canadian charity. 

I came across other troubling information about Charity Intelligence that calls into question its integrity and the transparency of its ratings process.

For each rating it posts, Charity Intelligence provides space for the charity to submit comments that provide context or point to possible errors or misunderstandings, etc.

However, Bahen recently removed WE’s formal response to its ratings from the Charity Intelligence website, replacing WE’s text with the following: “In August 2023, WE Charity provided a comment that was posted. In March 2024, Charity Intelligence was advised of legal concerns. WE Charity’s comment has been temporarily removed for legal review.”

“Temporarily” has turned out to be a long time. There was no explanation provided beyond Bahen telling me: “I don’t know what the concerns are. Our lawyer emailed us that he has concerns and we have scheduled a call to better understand. I think it’s prudent when a lawyer tells one there’s an issue to listen. As such, to be cautious, we temporarily removed the comment on WE Charity.”

I also asked her if Charity Intelligence had censored any other organizations. She ignored the question. I can only assume that the answer is “no”.

Bahen later told WE staff the comments were removed because of factual errors and that some of the text was “defamatory”.

I disagree. The comments (which were posted for months before they were summarily removed) were critical of Charity Intelligence’s work, but seemed like a measured response to what WE saw as unfair criticism and bias.

Canada needs a charity watchdog organization. It deserves to have a good one. But it should be one that fully stays out of politics and provides an honest and transparent rating system. Charity Intelligence does not meet those standards. 

-Mark Bourrie is a Canadian journalist, lawyer and award winning author. Mark Bourrie, PhD has been a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery from 1994 to 2018. He previously taught media history and journalism at Concordia University. Mark is the author of 13 best-selling books including having won the RBC Taylor Prize.