Tides grilled over U.S. funds

[styky]

Tides grilled over U.S. funds


By Jessica Murphy ,Parliamentary Bureau

First posted: Thursday, March 08, 2012 06:17 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, March 08, 2012 06:27 PM EST
OTTAWA - Tides Canada says it takes no position for or against the oilsands, but admits part of its mandate is to ensure funding for the "environmental voice."

Conservative senators forced Tides - appearing before a Senate committee probing Canada's energy sector - to take the defensive Thursday for accepting cash from foreign foundations to fund anti-oilsands projects.

"Issues like climate change and dirty water don't stop at the border," said Merran Smith, Tides' energy initiative director. "That's why we attract international money."

Smith appeared with her colleague Sarah Goodman, vice-president for business development.

In January, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver slammed foreign-funded environmental "radicals" for attempting to block pipeline development.

Tides and related organizations have since been under increasing scrutiny.

But Goodman argued Tides received just over $6 million from U.S. foundations last year and only a nominal amount - 3% - went to projects related to energy companies.

She added that Tides had partnered with the federal government on a number of projects.

Senators also peppered Smith and Goodman with questions over whether Tides partners had an anti-oilsands bias.

"We're for having clean water, we're for protecting the environment," Smith said.

Conservative Senator Judith Seidmann responded: "That answers the question - you're funding one side of the debate."

Tides also says it is reviewing its funding of Forest Ethics, one of the biggest environmental groups opposed to oilsands development and pipelines.

Forest Ethics has said it "played a role in registering close to 600 speakers" for current public hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, slowing down the review process.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/08/ti ... r-us-funds

[wildernessvoice]

So, thousands of speakers want to present at the pipeline hearings?

Give each speaker 10 minutes

Hold hearings at one location only

Speakers will be heard 24 hours per day.

Time slots will be assigned by lottery

You can put 144 speakers through per day.

[styky]

To be charitable, tax breaks for political activism stinks

Ezra Levant_op
By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency

First posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 01:00 AM CST | Updated: Friday, March 09, 2012 06:44 PM CST
On Thursday, a registered charity called Tides Canada was summoned before the Canadian Senate to answer for their political conduct.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that political conduct and charity work are not the same thing.

Charitable tax status is for real charities. You know — training seeing eye dogs. Helping widows and orphans. Feeding the hungry.

But Tides Canada is a political charity. They take money from anonymous billionaires, including foreign interest groups, and funnel it to Canadian lobbyists who do baldly political things. Like fighting against the oilsands, and oil pipelines.

I don’t know why that’s legal. And neither does the Senate. So they’re asking questions about it.

For example, one of the lobby groups that Tides Canada has funneled money to is the Dogwood Initiative in B.C.

Their chief lobbyist, Eric Swanson, boasted on national TV about signing up

1,600 people to oppose the oilsands pipeline to B.C. Their campaign was called “Mob the Mic” — as in jam the hearings with a bunch of Occupy Wall Street types, just to slow it down.

That’s political activism, not charity. But he got Tides charity money for it — and the Canada Revenue Agency approved all this.

How’s that legal?

Tides Canada, along with its U.S. parent, has funded

36 cookie-cutter anti-oilsands and anti-development lobby groups.

But when asked by the Senate about their anti-oilsands partisanship, they denied it. They fund 36 lobby groups — but they’re not taking sides. I’m impressed that they said that without laughing.

Tides gives money to Forest Ethics, the ironically named extremist group.

Forest Ethics is part of the Rockefeller brothers’ $7 million-a-year campaign against the oilsands.

Were the Tides executives even under oath when they told the Senate they weren’t anti-oilsands?

Forest Ethics — I hate saying their name, because it’s propaganda in itself — is famous for their campaigns to get companies to boycott Canadian oilsands product. Last December, they pressured Chiquita Banana to comply.

That ethically challenged company — recently convicted of supporting narco-terrorists in Latin America — announced they would stop using “tar sands” oil in their banana trucks.

How many Canadian jobs did that “charitable” project kill?

That’s what Tides does with its charitable status. They fund lobby groups that pressure foreign companies to impose anti-Canadian economic sanctions.

Ironically, it was Grant Mitchell, a Liberal from Alberta, who made the best point in the Senate hearings. Mitchell was the failed Liberal leader in that province until he was given his patronage reward. He’s a bizarrely anti-Alberta, anti-oilsands senator. But he made a rare good point last week: The Conservative government of Canada itself does projects with Tides Canada.

Mitchell’s point was clever: How can Conservative senators be upset with Tides Canada’s political activities, if the Conservative government itself participates in them?

Good point. And it’s time to change that.

It’s time to stop the practice that the only political groups in this country that are immune from scrutiny are environmental extremists.

Like any other lobbyist or partisan, we can and must question their conduct; their national loyalty; their funding; and their compliance with the law.

Foreign billionaires and their local lobbyists are just doing what we allow them to do — what Stephen Harper allows them to do.

It’s a problem that foreign interests are trying to shut down our oilsands economy, the same way they went after our forestry industry and our aquaculture industry.

But it’s a bigger problem that the Canada Revenue Agency is allowing them to do so, and give charitable receipts.

And that the federal government is working right alongside them.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/09/t ... ism-stinks

[styky]

New rules in budget ‘create more fear’ among politically active charities
paul waldie
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 30, 2012 9:46PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Mar. 30, 2012 11:00PM EDT
Ross McMillan has a pretty good idea that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty aimed one part of this week’s federal budget squarely at his organization and its partners.

Mr. McMillan is executive director of Tides Canada, a Vancouver-based charity that has been criticized by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for its opposition to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would connect British Columbia to the Alberta oil sands. Mr. Oliver has called Tides and the groups it funds radicals and accused them of hijacking the regulatory hearings for the project.

The impact on Tides Canada, and other groups that oppose the pipeline, is in new measures that target how charities engage in political activity. By law, all charities are allowed to devote 10 per cent of their total resources, including money and volunteers, to political advocacy so long as the activity is part of the charity’s overall purpose and isn’t partisan. For example, a charity can denounce or support a government policy, but it can’t endorse or oppose a particular political candidate or party.

The budget doesn’t change the 10-per-cent rule, but it does go after politically active charities in other ways. For example, the budget increased sanctions on charities that don’t comply with the advocacy regulations and it announced an $8-million special audit by Canada Revenue Agency to see if charities are adhering to the 10-per-cent limit. The budget also announced restrictions on how charitable foundations fund political activities by other organizations and it introduced new reporting rules for charities that use foreign donations to fund these activities.

“We really see this as part of an ongoing effort by the government to divert the country away from real issues,” said Mr. McMillan, who added that the new rules won’t have much of an impact on his organization but could increase administrative costs for many other charities. “This will create more fear in the sector.”

Marcel Lauzière, president of Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities, said the budget measures are vague and he is waiting for more details. In the meantime, “there is no doubt organizations will be worried,” he said. “It may well create a chill” on political activity, he said.

He added that the new reporting rules for foreign donations could be burdensome to many charities. While only a handful of charities rely on foreign donations – roughly 2,000 out of 86,000 registered charities in Canada – those gifts are important to many groups such as universities, religious organizations and international development groups. Those charities will now have to carefully track, and report, how their foreign gifts are used.

Others wonder why the government is hitting all charities with new rules when only a fraction engage in political activity. By some estimates, just 500 charities do any kind of political advocacy, and they typically spend far less than the 10-per-cent threshold. Mr. McMillan said Tides spends less than 5 per cent on political activities and the foreign donations it receives have gone almost entirely toward environmental projects such as the Great Bear Rainforest in B.C.

The federal government is “looking for a problem that I don’t think is there,” added Malcolm Burrows, who heads philanthropic services at the Bank of Nova Scotia. Nonetheless, the proposals “could have a very big impact on the sector.”

Mark Blumberg, a Toronto lawyer who works with charities, said the overall impact might not be that onerous and most charities can just keep doing what they’ve been doing. “There are no additional restrictions on charities and their ability to carry out political activity,” he said adding that the measures relate more to reporting issues.

Rick Smith, executive director of the Environmental Defence, disagreed and called the budget measures an attack on environmental groups. “I think it’s just unprecedented,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2388001/

[Lonesome Bullet]

I recall that Ralph Goodale threatened to revoke the charitable status of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation because they opposed the gun registry.

[backhoe]

The Tides Foundation is rotten to the core- scroll through our database here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/tides/index

[Edward Kennedy]

Almost all enviro whacko groups consist of useful idiots or conniving money grabbers who use the cause to camouflage their love for the damned dollar.

[styky]

The politics of charity: When is a tax-exempt organization too political?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06 ... political/
Kathryn Blaze Carlson Apr 6, 2012 – 4:00 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 6, 2012 6:58 PM ET

The group descended upon Environment Minister Peter Kent’s Ontario riding and launched a door-to-door petition drive. It called every household in the Minister’s electoral district to identify those who disagree with his view that oil sands’ oil is “ethical,” and it ran advertisements challenging Mr. Kent in what the group called his “home base.”

The group is a tax-exempt, registered charity called Environmental Defence, and its activities in the Toronto-area riding were clearly political — the effort was designed to send a message to the Minister, the group said in its press release last year.

Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, called it “the kind of thing many charities do, on a regular basis, every day across the country.” He also said “Canadians expect environmental groups to comment, both positively and negatively, on what industry and government does when it comes to pollution.”

Registered charities are allowed to devote only a small fraction of their resources to political activity, though they can never be partisan (Environmental Defense’s work in Mr. Kent’s riding happened before the election). But in its budget last week, the Conservative government warned that it would be keeping a much closer eye on the blurry line between charity and politics, arming the tax department with $8-million to enforce existing rules and moving to increase transparency around political activity and foreign funding.

To analysts and certain charities, the move had everything to do with the climaxing battle between groups such as Mr. Smith’s, as well as Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation, and resource development — specifically the proposed $7-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project. The Tories have openly blamed environmental groups for stymieing the plan to ship Alberta bitumen to a marine export terminal in B.C., with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently accusing some groups of gaming the public hearings into the project as a way to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

With such multibillion-dollar projects as Gateway and oil-sands expansions at stake, never before has the reach and power of charities been so apparent and consequential. And never before have they squared off against a government so firmly committed to ensuring nothing stands in the way of Canada becoming an energy superpower.

“The catalyst behind the [budget’s] charity piece was, very clearly, the Northern Gateway pipeline,” said University of Calgary energy economist Frank Atkins. “[Some charities] are not acting like they’re a charitable institution, they’re acting like they’re an environmental lobbyist. That’s the big objection.”

But in announcing the crackdown, the government illuminated the murky space in which all registered charities operate. It is an area with rich benefits: A registered charity does not pay income tax, issues deductible tax receipts to donors which invites bigger cheques, and, unlike other kinds of non-profit groups, it can take no-strings-attached donations directly from rich grant-making charitable foundations. The charitable world is also one where the rules are complex and ripe for misinterpretation, and where some groups seem to manoeuvre deftly through legal grey areas.

The original policy spirit behind federal tax breaks for social welfare groups was that charities doing work like poverty relief helped save the government from doing all the work itself. Environmental groups and think-tanks gradually expanded the scope of charitable status because, in Ottawa’s view, they either educate the public or somehow better the community as a whole. Today, Canada is home to 86,000 charities, of all sorts, that comprise a $190-billion sector.

They have long been free to spend limited resources (a 10% maximum) working directly or indirectly to retain, oppose or change the law, policy or decision of any level of government. But some grant-making foundations have also interpreted existing rules to mean they needn’t declare a donation as “political activity,” even if it ultimately ends up becoming part of a recipient’s political efforts. Charities, meantime, have also been free to accept foreign dollars by the millions.

It appears the Tories plan to change all that.

Under the new provisions, charities will have to say how much of their foreign-sourced money goes to political activities, while grant-making foundations will be explicitly directed to claim political activity-bound donations as part of their own 10% quota.

The new monitoring will surely add more compliance complications not just for environmentalists, but also think-tanks, churches and groups focusing on everything from abortion issues to guns.

Charity lawyer Mark Blumberg studied Canada’s 2009 charity returns and found that only 500 charities say they do political work. He said some charities confuse political with partisan — campaigning for gun control laws, for instance, is political, even if it does not directly attack the Conservatives for ending the long-gun registry — and then accidentally misrepresent their activities on their returns.

“I find it very hard to believe that only 500 charities are involved in political activities; I would say the number is far, far, far higher than that,” he said. “It could even be something like 10,000.”

Take the National Abortion Federation of Canada: Its 2010 charity return says the organization conducted zero political activity that year. Yet in a February 2010 press release, the group sounded a political note when it said it was joining the federal Liberal party in “urging the Prime Minister” to include access to contraception and abortion care in his maternal health-care plan for the developing world. The federation would not comment on this story.

Or the Fraser Institute: A charity and think-tank, it also said in its returns that it conducted no political activity in 2010. But in an opinion piece in September of that year, entitled “Reject Unions and Prosper,” the institute said “provinces would do well to adopt worker-choice laws.” Niels Veldhuis, a Fraser Institute vice-president, said the charity is an “educational organization” and that he is unsure whether “one nuanced line [in a column] would make or break political activity.”

Mr. Blumberg said he expects a “whole bunch” of churches will be de-registered because their political activities may well exceed the 10% limit and because pastors sometimes say “things from the pulpit that are partisan.”

Ross McMillan, the head of Tides Canada — a two-pronged organization with a grant-making foundation and an operating charity that backs environmental and social justice projects — said the group is “grappling” to understand the impact of the new disclosure requirements around grant-making.

He said Tides Canda, which according to documents posted online by B.C. researcher Vivian Krause received $60-million in American grants in the past decade, has always reported zero political activity, even though its grant money was sometimes earmarked by a recipient organization for their own political work.

Mr. McMillan said Tides “always assumed” it did not have to report that kind of earmarked money as part of its own political activity. Mr. Blumberg said the guidelines are vague, but that he always interpreted the rules to mean it should.

This is surely the kind of confusion the Tories plan to clear up, if only to ensure Canadian charity policy does what it was originally meant for: more public work, little political work. But for a government focused on developing its resource sector, the effect might be that the playing field where industry squares off against environmental groups is not quite as papered with charitable tax subsidies as it is now.

And that, Prof. Atkins said, is probably how most people would prefer it. “I think most Canadians think of charities doing charitable work,” he said. “In my mind, this is a warped view of what a charitable organization is.”

National Post

[Edward Kennedy]

So why is Planned Parenthood that lobbies for aborticide a charitable organization while Campaign life is not?

[styky]

Taking charities out of politics
By Christina Blizzard, QMI Agency
TORONTO - When is a charity not a charity?

When it dabbles in politics, according to Senator Nicole Eaton.

Eaton welcomes federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s recent budget announcement that he plans to make changes to the Income Tax Act to crack down on charities that use donations for political purposes.

Flaherty’s budget last month said, “Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes measures to ensure that charities devote their resources primarily to charitable, rather than political, activities, and to enhance public transparency and accountability in this area.”

The driving force behind Flaherty’s move is Senator Nicole Eaton, who has been holding a Senate inquiry into political advocacy by registered charities.

She met with Flaherty prior to the budget and hopes to speak to him this week about the issue. Currently, charities are allowed to spend 10% of their revenue for political purposes. Eaton would like to see that figure reduced — to 5% — or eliminated altogether.


One particular aspect she’s concerned about is the role of foreign donations to Canadian environmental charities that lobby our government on public policy.

She believes some of Canada’s iconic industries have been crushed in the process.

“What we found out when I did the inquiry on the oilsands is that all these foundations had a lot of money,” she said of some of the large environmental charities that have advocated against Alberta’s oilsands.

One organization, Tides Canada, provides the infrastructure by which cash raised in the U.S. can be washed through to various Canadian charities.

“Tides Canada can filter enormous amounts of money from American foundations,” Eaton said in an interview.

She points to the work of west coast blogger Vivian Krause, who has documented how several American foundations poured millions of dollars into Tides Canada to campaign to “demarket” B.C. farmed salmon.

“The Packard Foundation was very responsible for demarketing Canadian B.C. salmon,” Eaton said. “It had links to Alaska ranch salmon.

“It in effect destroyed Canadian BC salmon, and it increased the value of Alaskan salmon,” she said.

Eaton would like more transparency about where those overseas donations are coming from.

“Wouldn’t it be nice, if you decide to give money to any of the foundations, that you could see that they raised $25 million from Canadian donors and $50 million from American donors?” she asked.

“It would be nice to know how much of that is actually going to political activity.”

It also raises the question of why charities should be allowed to take part in political lobbying at all.

One of the most politically involved charities is the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF).

Not only does it lobby governments on policy, it also receives considerable funding from government.

In Ontario, for example, DSF received funding from the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation (FOGF) — which received about $25 million in tax money from the provincial government.

FOGF gave the DSF $120,000 in 2007 and $100,000 in 2009. That’s in addition to the between $100,000 and $250,000 it received from the government’s Ontario Trillium Foundation in 2010.

Suzuki then endorsed the McGuinty Liberals in a controversial video that was posted on the Grit website during the election — and then hastily taken down.

It showed Suzuki and Premier Dalton McGuinty strolling through Stanley Park in Vancouver as Suzuki lauded the Ontario premier’s plan to shut coal-fired electricity plants.

A spokesman for the DSF said they’re playing by the rules.

“David Suzuki is neither a member of the board of directors of the DSF, nor is he a paid employee,” said CEO Peter Robinson.

“It is always curious to me.

“If David says something in public, he usually begins the comment by saying, ‘I’m speaking as an individual.’ There’s always a flurry of calls to suspend the charitable status of DSF.

“They’re not related.”

The rules around political activity by Canada’s 85,000 registered charities, he said, are an “established and cherished part” of the charitable sector.

“You can engage in political activity; you just can’t be partisan and you can’t do it with more than 10% of your total resources.”

He’s also all in favour of more transparency. Since he became CEO four years ago, the DSF has spent no more than 6% on political activity.

When asked, he couldn’t put a dollar figure on what that 6% represents.

“Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you that,” he said.

Tides Canada did not return a call.

Flaherty’s review of laws surrounding charitable donations is welcome.

It’s not in Canada’s best interests for wealthy special interest groups or organizations south of the border to be allowed to funnel tax-exempt dollars through Canadian foundations — to fight Canadian industry.

Eaton asks why it is that Americans are targeting Canada on issues such as fishing, resource development, mining, oil and gas pipelines, as well as the oilsands.

“Why aren’t Americans looking at their own environmental mishaps? Why are they interfering in Canada?” she asked, pointing out that one Ohio Valley coal-fired electricity plant produces as much carbon dioxide as the whole of the oilsands.

“As Prime Minister Harper has said, we’re not going to be one big northern national park to suit our friends south of the border,” Eaton added.

“What I saw was foreign interference in what should be a Canadian decision — how and what should be extracted from our natural resources,” she said.

The concept of American groups giving money to influence public policy in Canada strikes at the very heart of this country’s economic independence.

When this country gives tax write-offs to those same groups, it means your tax bucks are paying to shut down the industries that are this country’s economic engine.

We all want corporations and industry to act responsibly and with care for the environment.

What we don’t want is big brother self-interests to the south calling the shots and shutting down this country.

Do we really want the last one out of Canada to turn off the lights?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012 ... 07741.html

[styky]

David Suzuki grapples with Ottawa’s crackdown on green groups
OLIVER MOORE AND SHAWN McCARTHY
TORONTO and OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Published Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 4:09PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 6:00PM EDT
The head of one of Canada’s most prominent environmental groups said the green movement is facing a “chill” in the wake of increasingly harsh scrutiny from Ottawa.

Peter Robinson, chief executive officer of the David Suzuki Foundation, said the group is being extra careful to stay strictly within its mandate and has pulled back from important issues that might push the boundaries of advocacy. He said newly budgeted federal money for audits is “almost a vague threat” that is making charities nervous.

The Conservative government and other supporters of the oil sands and a proposed pipeline to the West Coast have long questioned the motives and patriotism of environmentalists who accept money from foreign donors. And the green movement says it had been feeling a rising tide of negative attention since before the budget.

The negativity was such that Mr. Suzuki has distanced himself from the board of the foundation that bears his name, worried he was bringing down criticism on the group. The long-time environmentalist, now 76, said Thursday he had felt he needed more freedom to speak his mind.

“Every time I shot off my mouth the foundation got blamed for my remarks as an individual and I thought I can’t stand being a liability,” Mr. Suzuki told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board. “But I’m at an age now where ... I can say things without, I think, being accused of having an ulterior agenda or a desire for money or fame or whatever. I mean, this is the most important time of my life and I didn’t want to be fettered.”

In the federal budget, Ottawa mandated more information from non-profit groups “on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources.” The government has found $8-million over two years at the Canadian Revenue Agency for “education and compliance,” which includes money for extra audits to ensure charities follow the rule that no more than 10 per cent of funds can be spent on advocacy.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver had earlier launched an attack on what he called radical, foreign-funded environmental groups.

His attack came after a 2011 campaign by Ethical Oil, a pro-industry lobby group that has close Conservatives ties, including founding member Alykhan Velshi, who now works in the Prime Minister's Office. The lobby group noted that several U.S. and European foundations had made large donations to Canadian environmental charities, in some cases with the express purpose of opposing oil-sands development and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

In an open letter issued in January, Mr. Oliver slammed groups that “use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada's national economic interest” by opposing resource development. In the run-up to the budget, the minister crisscrossed the country, giving speeches that promoted the need for pipeline access to the West Coast and continued to slam “radical” groups that opposed it.

Meanwhile, Conservative MPs and Senators held hearings in which they criticized environmental groups and accused them of abusing their charitable status by advocating against the oil sands generally and the Gateway pipeline specifically, and by tapping foreign money to influence the Canadian debate.

Mr. Robinson, in Toronto with Mr. Suzuki and foundation chairman Jim Hoggan, said that extra scrutiny of charities has made them pull back on serious issues, particularly if a strong statement might blur the lines of advocacy. He pointed to a right to a healthy environment as an example of “an important conversation” being prevented.

“We think it’s a really important issue, it’s the one piece that’s missing from the Canadian constitution that exists in most constitutions around the world,” he said. “We say, you know, we’re going to have rethink our ability to do that because we’re not so sure that within the foundation’s mandate, as a charitable organization, that this one doesn’t push us too far in a way that could draw that attention down.”

Mr. Robinson added that the Suzuki Foundation remains well within the limits on political activity, saying its work is research oriented, rather than political.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... nt=2400300

[Julian]

I have got a couple of e-mails from a couple of senators because I filled out a suzuki petiton. Obviously they didn't read of word of it. If they had they wouldn't be reassuring me that they stand firm against climate change denial and they will fight for the (legitimate) rights of foreign money to advance a foreign agenda on Canada (Tides for one)

I replied and left no doubt about what I had to say to them. I don't expect to hear back again .... unless of course I get another automated e-mail assuring me that they have my concerns foremost in their thoughts and actions!

[styky]

Seeking to blunt Conservative attacks, Suzuki quits board of environmental foundation
SHAWN McCARTHY AND OLIVER MOORE
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 4:09PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012 9:07PM EDT
Canada’s most famous environmentalist, David Suzuki, says he left the board of his charitable foundation to avoid being a lightning rod for criticism and government attacks that would undermine its work.

Still, Peter Robinson, who is the head of the David Suzuki Foundation, said the group is facing a “chill” that is leading it to pull back from important environmental debates lest it be accused by the federal government of exceeding its charitable mandate.

Green groups are responding to the Conservative government’s aggressive attacks on “radical” and “foreign funded” organizations, which culminated in $8-million in new spending in last month’s budget for the Canada Revenue Agency to step up “education and compliance” oversight of the charities, including more audits.

“We’re seeing a very difficult period of time in terms of the rhetoric and the tone of what’s coming out from the government,” Mr. Robinson, the Suzuki Foundation’s chief executive, told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board on Thursday.................http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2400300/

[Edward Kennedy]

...perhaps this has something to do with comments about locking people up who did not believe in globaloney

[styky]

Environmental group gives up charitable status to take on federal Tories

By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

Posted: 3:03 PM | Comments: 1 (including replies) | Last Modified: 5:12 PM
An environmental group that angered the energy industry has given up its charitable status so it can take on the federal government.

ForestEthics, which spearheaded campaigns to get U.S. companies to avoid oilsands-derived fuel, is splitting into two in response to Ottawa's crackdown on charitable groups in the recent budget.

One half will continue conservation work and remain a charity, but the other will no longer offer tax refunds and will focus its efforts on what it calls Conservative attacks on the environment. Neither group will be associated with Tides Canada, a charitable umbrella group.

The move "shows our resolve in this very hostile climate to continue the work that we feel Canadians actually want," said Valerie Langer, who will head ForestEthics Solutions, which will remain a charity.

"Given the climate that we're in, we have to do what we have to do."

Civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby, who will help lead the other group called ForestEthics Advocacy, said the Harper government has started a "relentless" attack on the environment and environmental groups, starting with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's open letter about environmentalists.

"The government implied that the people in the environmental community, or people who have the nerve to act and donate to environmental groups, are unpatriotic and potential terrorists," Ruby said.

The announcement came the same day Ottawa announced environmental assessments in Canada will be radically "streamlined" and left to the provinces. As well, the recent federal budget contained $8 million for the government to audit charitable groups to ensure they stay within the Charities Act.

Ruby said the move was simply to silence critics.

"It is a systematic campaign by the government to stop dissenting opinion and prevent any effective opposition to environmental depredation. They're making it impossible to challenge them and their allies," he said.

"What Canada needs now is not less advocacy for the environment, but more."

Langer said she's confident support will continue for advocacy work even if donors don't get charitable receipts.

"Since the Harper government started attacking us, we've had more individual donors than ever in ForestEthics' history."

ForestEthics is best known for its campaign to encourage large U.S. firms to avoid the use of fuel derived from oilsands crude in their transportation fleets. A total of 16 companies — including giants such as Walgreen's and Chiquita — and one city have made commitments of varying strength.

Seventh Generation, a company that manufactures and distributes green cleaning and personal care products, joined the list last week.

ForestEthics has also worked to get people to sign up to address a National Energy Board review currently underway into Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline between Alberta and Kitimat, B.C. More than 4,000 people have asked to appear.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki ... 06445.html