Tides grilled over U.S. funds

[Edward Kennedy]

...aholes

[styky]

Mayor really the Prince of Tides

By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency

First posted: Monday, April 30, 2012 07:19 PM CDT | Updated: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 06:19 AM CDT
The extremists at the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation have spent millions of dollars trying to shut down Canada’s oilsands.

Their Canadian branch plant, the Tides Canada Foundation, has too.

Abusing Canadian charities law, they’ve bankrolled dozens of front groups to jam up our country’s courts and environmental reviews.

All this, while passing off their political activity as “charitable” work.

And it almost worked. They managed to delay the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal that would ship oilsands oil from Alberta to the B.C. port of Kitimat.

They convinced their anti-oil president, Barack Obama, to delay the Keystone XL pipeline that would have shipped oilsands oil down to the Gulf Coast of Texas.

But there’s one loose end: A pipeline built

60 years ago, from Edmonton, across the Rocky Mountains, straight to the Port of Vancouver.

In fact, the oil doesn’t stop at the end of the pipe. There’s a tanker facility right there in the rivers of Vancouver. Been doing it for decades. Fits right in with the rest of the port — the biggest in Canada.

And now Kinder Morgan, the company that owns the Trans Mountain pipeline, wants to expand the pipe’s capacity.

The expansion is a slam dunk — no need to negotiate land claims, no environmental questions unanswered. The thing’s been working since 1953. They just want to make it bigger.

You’d think the mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, would be delighted — more work in Vancouver, more wealth for the port, more success for Canada.

But the thing about Robertson is that while he is the mayor of Vancouver in name, he’s the mayor of the Tides Foundation in fact.

He was a director of their Canadian branch plant before running for office.

And, when Robertson finally ran to be mayor of Vancouver, his Vision Vancouver party spending a staggering $2 million to win a vote in a city of just 600,000 people, it was his radical environmentalist friends who gave him his campaign cash — $330,000 to his municipal party from Tides officials or their associates. Including thousands of dollars from

U.S. donors. Hang on: U.S. donors to a Canadian mayor’s campaign? Yes.

So the Tides Foundation called in their marker last week. And Robertson came out against the pipeline expansion. Here’s what he wrote in a local newspaper: “For Kinder Morgan, the benefits are obvious: A dramatic increase in the amount of oil they can move to market from the Alberta oilsands project. But for Vancouver, it’s hard to find any upside.”

But Vancouver needs oil, too — more than a million cars, a busy airport. Without Trans Mountain, Vancouver grinds to a halt. Let alone lost jobs. But note the subtle xenophobia: Those Alberta rednecks will benefit, but not us. Let’s close our port to them.

Robertson wants to build a provincial firewall. A trade barrier. Because his San Francisco bosses want one. Imagine if Alberta took the same view: No imports from the Port of Vancouver may pass through Alberta by truck or rail if some Alberta mayor’s donors say so.

It doesn’t make any sense for the mayor of Vancouver to oppose shipping raw materials through the port. It doesn’t make sense for Canadian interests. It doesn’t make sense for B.C. jobs. But this isn’t about Canada, or B.C., or even Vancouver.

This is about a Manchurian candidate, put in place by extremist millionaires in the U.S., being activated. Tides doesn’t want the pipeline expansion; Vancouver’s mayor will ensure it doesn’t happen.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/04/30/m ... e-of-tides

[Brexx]

Gregor Robertson can't stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. That pipeline doesn't come into Vancouver. It comes into Burnaby. The tankers go in and out of Burrard inlet, also not in the city of Vancouver's jurisdiction.

[Edward Kennedy]

RObertson is an airhead methinks, the nemesis of common sense, a half wit no less.

[styky]

Charities urge Peter Kent to retract 'laundering' accusation
By Max Paris, Environmental Unit, CBC News
Posted: May 4, 2012 4:14 PM ET
Last Updated: May 4, 2012 4:25 PM ET

Canadian charities are demanding Environment Minister Peter Kent retract accusations that some charitable groups are "laundering" foreign funds in Canada.

Imagine Canada — an umbrella organization representing the charitable sector — penned an open letter to the minister Friday expressing "serious concern" over his repeated use of the word.

"Imagine Canada does not take a position on the specific policy debate that triggered your comments," writes Imagine's CEO, Marcel Lauzière."However, saying that charities are 'laundering' funds, a criminal activity, goes far beyond the specifics of any one policy file."

Kent first accused charities of laundering money for foreign foundations on the April 28 episode of the CBC Radio's The House. It was in response to a question about environmental charities' fears the government is trying to silence them by removing their charitable status.

"Some groups with charitable status have been going well beyond the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) guidelines for what is acceptable practice as a charitable agency. And there has also been concern that some Canadian charitable agencies have been used to launder off-shore foreign funds," Kent told host Evan Solomon.

Kent repeated the accusation on Tuesday in an interview with Solomon on CBC News Network's Power & Politics program. He sought to clarify his comments for a CBC Radio News story on Thursday.

"Whether you call it money laundering or a financial shell game or three-card monty, it is inappropriate under those organizations' charitable status," Kent explained.

Another minister involved in the environmental file was asked if he suspected environmental charities of money laundering.

"No. I'm not suggesting a criminal intent at all," Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told Power & Politics in an interview airing Friday.

Imagine asked Kent to reconsider his statements or provide details of the allegations.

"If you have specific knowledge of improper or illegal activity by any individual organization, it is imperative that you provide details to the appropriate investigating authorities. If, however, you misspoke, we would encourage you to retract your comments publicly," the letter reads.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... funds.html

[styky]

Andrew Coyne: Harper move to defund political charities might be partisan, but it’s also right

Andrew Coyne May 4, 2012 – 6:59 PM ET
It is a given that virtually everything the Harper government does is for reasons of partisan advantage. It is also a given that in the pursuit of its own partisan advantage it often seeks to deny the same to its opponents. It does not follow that it is always wrong to do so.

Were the government to ban opposition parties or censor the press, it would be in clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed liberties, not to say basic norms of liberal democracy: it is hard to think of any circumstances that would justify such draconian measures, and if there were, it would be the circumstances, not the motive — it would not be sufficient that the government “meant well.”

So, too, its refusal to provide Parliament with the information it demands, whether in the matter of the Afghan prisoners or the F-35s, cannot be defended, and would not be redeemed by honourable motives. Ditto its abuse of the power of prorogation, or its habitual invocation of time allocation to shut down debate, or the vast omnibus budget bill now before the House, among a very long list.

But there are also things it has done that, while clearly in its narrow partisan interest, also happen to be right in principle. The addition of 30 Commons seats from Ontario and the West is one example: whatever it means to the Tories’ electoral chances, there is no denying these regions were severely under-represented in the House. A more arguable example would be the abolition of the per-vote subsidy to political parties.

Very well. What are we to make, then, of the Tories’ latest moves to defund their critics: not parties this time, but advocacy groups. Some of these, like the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy or the National Council of Welfare, are creatures of the federal government, and dependent on it for funding. Others, like the many environmental and charitable groups that, notwithstanding their charitable tax status, engage in “political activity,” are outside government, but dependent on it nevertheless for favourable tax treatment. Was it improper for the recent budget to have shut down several examples of the former, and cracked down on the latter? Is this yet another case of dissent being stifled?

Well yes, but no, I don’t see anything improper about it. No doubt the Harper government found little to agree with in the work of either the NRRE or the NCW. But it is not constitutionally obliged to fund its critics. These are not officers of Parliament, like the Auditor-General, part of the formal apparatus by which government is held to account. They’re lobby groups. While they may have a valid point of view, they perform no particular service that could not be obtained by other means. If a future government wants to revive them, it can.

The same applies to charitable groups. Nothing the government is proposing would forbid any of them from taking any position they like, political or otherwise, and shouting it from the rooftops if they choose. The only question is whether they should be able to do so and still claim charitable tax status.

Under current law, charities are forbidden from overtly partisan advocacy of any kind. They are, however, permitted to devote up to 10% (as a general rule: there are higher limits for smaller charities) of their resources, financial or otherwise, to more broadly defined “political activities” — for example, advocating that a particular law should be “retained, opposed, or changed,” or some other equally explicit “call to political action.”

It’s a safe bet that a good many of the more well-known advocacy groups in the country, including the various think thanks of the left and right, are operating in excess of this standard, and have been for years. As long as it’s even-handed about it, I see nothing wrong with simply enforcing the law, as the government proposes. Indeed, I’d go further. Why should any charity be permitted to spend any money on advocacy of any kind?

Preferential tax exemptions are a form of public spending (among wonks they’re known as “tax expenditures”) in as much as they confer a particular benefit on the recipient that must be made up out of the taxes everyone else pays. Only whereas most decisions on public spending are made collectively, by and through Parliament, the tax exemption essentially privatizes the decision.

That might be okay where the cause in question is universally agreed to be advancing the public good. But the very nature of advocacy implies the opposite. You’re entering into an argument, and if you’re a registered charity, you’re doing so on my dime.

Indeed, a charity’s whole purpose, whether or not it engages in advocacy, may be repugnant to one corner of opinion or the other. In which case, why should they be forced to fund it? If it’s wrong to conscript all taxpayers to fund political parties (and it is wrong, whether via explicit subsidy or the extraordinarily generous tax credit on political contributions), it is no less wrong to conscript them in support of the 85,000 charities (and counting) on the Canada Revenue Agency’s list.

Let each, in short, contribute to his own causes, out of his own funds, rather than invoking his magnanimity to help himself to others.’ Charity is a wonderful thing. But virtue is supposed to be its own reward.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... e-charity/

[styky]

Ottawa should cease and desist its smear campaign of environmental groups opposing Northern Gateway pipeline
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, May. 06, 2012 7:30PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, May. 06, 2012 9:27PM EDT

Environment Minister Peter Kent’s unsupported accusations of “money laundering” involving foreign and Canadian environmental charities are part of an apparent campaign of the Conservative government to smear and intimidate groups opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Mr. Kent’s accusation in Parliament and media interviews, and the pattern they are a part of, suggest the government is improperly taking sides between the environment and business – trying to discredit those who raise environmental concerns in a public-hearing process mandated under federal law.

This pipeline may well prove a financial boon to Canada, but there are legitimate environmental concerns that need to be heard, including the danger of oil spills in environmentally sensitive waters. The pipeline will take bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., before it is loaded on ships bound for Asia. Business and the environment do not exist on two separate planes, where one matters and the other doesn’t.

The Environment Minister has accused unnamed environmental charities of criminal activity, and yet provides no specifics, except to point to the work of Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton. “There is political manipulation,” she said. “There is influence peddling. There are millions of dollars crossing borders masquerading as charitable foundations into bank accounts of sometimes phantom charities that do nothing more than act as a fiscal clearing house.” There is paranoia, there is partisanship, there are wild allegations. But evidence? No..........................http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... nt=2423344

[styky]

Foreign charity waters down anti-oilsands grants

By Daniel Proussalidis ,Parliamentary Bureau

First posted: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:14 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 09:36 AM EDT
OTTAWA - A foreign charity that has given millions to Canadian environmental groups has quietly - and retroactively - re-written grant descriptions days after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warned in his budget the federal government would apply heightened scrutiny to the political activities of charities in this country.

"We have modified and added additional content to some grants to reflect progress, lessons learned and achievements," the Geneva-based Oak Foundation said in an April 2 posting at its website.

While Oak's description of the changes is vague, researcher and blogger Vivian Krause has written in the Financial Post, "The changes mostly remove aspects of grant descriptions that might draw criticism and regulatory attention."

Krause was the first to identify the funding connection between foreign organizations and Canadian environmental groups. Last week, Environment Minister Peter Kent accused Canadian groups of "laundering" foreign money to block Canadian resource development projects.

QMI Agency has independently verified the Oak Foundation edited the description of its grants to Greenpeace Canada.

Back in December, QMI Agency reported the Oak Foundation had given Greenpeace Canada $860,000 in part "to create financial and political uncertainty" about the oilsands.

That grant description has since been changed to read "to create awareness of the financial, regulatory and political uncertainty that surrounds investments in the tarsands."

Krause has written she has found additional changes involving grant descriptions for the anti-oilsands campaigns of Tides Canada, Forest Ethics, and the West Coast Environmental Law Foundation.

In the case of Forest Ethics, Krause said the original grant was for "creating a perception of economic risk" to get the Canadian government to back off its support for the industry.

That, too, has apparently been changed to "create awareness" of risk, while dumping the part about getting Ottawa to change its oilsands attitude.

British billionaire Alan Parker set up the Oak Foundation. Since 2007, it has divided almost $2.6 million among various activist groups for campaigns against oilsands development.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/08/fo ... nds-grants

[styky]

Which charities get the most foreign cash? Not those on Tory hit list

Steve Rennie
Ottawa— The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, May. 10, 2012 10:10AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 10, 2012 10:15AM EDT

The Conservatives have taken some Canadian environmental charities to task for accepting money from wealthy foreign donors to finance their campaigns against oil and gas projects.

But tax returns filed to the Canada Revenue Agency show most of the foreign money that fills the coffers of domestic charities does not go to the environmental groups now in Tory crosshairs.

An analysis by The Canadian Press of charities' annual tax returns found only one of the top 10 foreign-funded charities could be considered a conservation group.

That group is Ducks Unlimited Canada. Tax returns show it has reported receiving more than $33-million over the years from foreign sources, making it the fifth-largest recipient of money from outside the country.

Ducks Unlimited Canada says it receives foreign funding from its sister organization in the United States, U.S. federal and state governments, corporations, private foundations and individual contributors.

CARE Canada reported the largest amount of foreign funding. It has accepted nearly $99-million over the years from foreign donors. Most of it came from United Nations agencies, foreign governments and the charity's international members.

Second was World Vision Canada, which has reported $89-million in foreign income. It says the vast majority of that money comes from gift-in-kind donations from UN organizations and international corporations with branches in Canada.....................http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2428592/

[styky]

Tides Canada aims for unprecedented transparency as Tories threaten stricter charity rules enforcement

Kathryn Blaze Carlson Jun 27, 2012 – 11:07 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 27, 2012 1:37 PM ET
An environmental charity at the centre of the climaxing battle between green groups and the Conservative government opened its books on Wednesday, coming out on the offensive with an unprecedented, detailed account of its key grant recipients and major international donors.

Tides Canada, a Vancouver group that runs a grant-making foundation and a charity that backs environmental and social-justice projects, received $10.9-million in foreign funding in 2011 — amounting to 45% of the group’s total revenue, according to an accounting breakdown posted on its website. That is more than usual, Tides said, because of a large grant from the San Francisco-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to support marine planning and protect wild salmon in B.C...........http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/27 ... forcement/

[styky]

FP’s Terence Corcoran: The truth rolls in on green charities

Terence Corcoran Jun 27, 2012 – 9:00 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 27, 2012 9:59 PM ET

It’s not easy being the bearer of truth, apparently. Non-partisan truth, the kind of sacred truth — about the environment, the economy, the climate — that exists exclusively in the hearts and minds of green activists and professional agitators who run the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defence, the Sierra Club, Tides Canada and other groups. Those truths, moreover, can only be heard in Canada because these groups have tax status as environmental charities. Without tax-backed philanthropy, the truth would never come to light.

So runs the implausible argument articulated Wednesday in a Toronto speech at the Economic Club of Toronto by Ross McMillan, CEO of Tides Canada. Tides is the U.S.-backed, anti-oil-sands charity caught in a political storm over the role of green charities in Canada. In his speech, Mr. McMillan rose to answer critics and launch a counter-attack against the Harper government’s alleged war on environmental activism.

The speech also corresponded with the unveiling of Tides Canada’s new slick website and its slogan, “Strange Bedfellows.” Read more...............http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... um=twitter

[virgey]

...aholes

DITTO

[styky]

Terence Corcoran: The truth rolls in on green charities

Terence Corcoran Jun 27, 2012 – 9:05 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 27, 2012 9:13 PM ET
You can sleep your way to a green economy

It’s not easy being the bearer of truth, apparently. Non-partisan truth, the kind of sacred truth — about the environment, the economy, the climate — that exists exclusively in the hearts and minds of green activists and professional agitators who run the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defence, the Sierra Club, Tides Canada and other groups. Those truths, moreover, can only be heard in Canada because these groups have tax status as environmental charities. Without tax-backed philanthropy, the truth would never come to light.

So runs the implausible argument articulated Wednesday in a Toronto speech at the Economic Club of Toronto by Ross McMillan, CEO of Tides Canada. Tides is the U.S.-backed, anti-oil-sands charity caught in a political storm over the role of green charities in Canada. In his speech, Mr. McMillan rose to answer critics and launch a counter-attack against the Harper government’s alleged war on environmental activism.

The speech also corresponded with the unveiling of Tides Canada’s new slick website and its slogan, “Strange Bedfellows.”.................http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/0 ... charities/

[Godwin]

The root of the problem lies in the tax deductable status of donations to charities. Without this status, we would not need government bureaucrats to monitor their activities.

[styky]

Minister backs green group scrutiny

By Daniel Proussalidis, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: August 9, 2012 7:32pm
OTTAWA - Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver no longer talks about "radicals" trying to "hijack" environmental hearings for the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, but he is backing tougher scrutiny for environmental charities.

"We want charitable organizations to comply with the law, and the law says that the vast bulk of their activities and money must be spent in charitable activities," Oliver said in Saskatoon, Sask. "Any charitable organization that complies with the law doesn't really represent a problem."

His comments come a day after Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) received a complaint requesting that Tides Canada's charitable status to be revoked.

The group EthicalOil.org, headed up by a former Tory staffer, launched its complaint on Wednesday, telling CRA that Tides Canada gets around restrictions on political activities by funding "organizations that otherwise would have no access to charitable dollars because they are not registered charities."..................http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012 ... 86816.html