Rethink Campaigns

Who Funds Environmentalists ..... and Why?

"This is the best investigative work I've seen this year."

- Michael Campbell, CKNW, December 21, 2010.

In various environmental campaigns in Canada, American economic and trade interests are being protected. For example, the campaign against oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia would landlock Canadian oil and continue the virtual monopoly that the U.S. has on our oil exports - all in the name of protecting the environment.  No oil tanker traffic means no oil exports to Asia. The "antifarming campaign" against B.C. farmed salmon sways market share towards "wild" salmon, most of which is Alaskan.

According to my preliminary calculations, since 2000 USA foundations have poured $300 million into the environmental movement in Canada. The David Suzuki Foundation alone has been paid at least $10 million by American foundations over the past decade. Why are American foundations spending so much money in Canada instead of in their own country or in other countries around the world that are far more needy than Canada?

In some instances, environmental activism is funded by American foundations as part of marketing campaigns in favor of American interests. The publicity and media coverage of scientific studies from environmental organizations is one of the key tactics of these charity-funded marketing campaigns. The problem is, some of this science is seriously flawed, and in some cases, the findings have been falsely reported.  A classic example of this is David Suzuki's false claim about high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon.

Incidentally, after concerns were raised about the "antifarming campaign," funded by the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation against farmed salmon, the foundation quietly re-wrote four grants for $3.6 million for this campaign.  The David Suzuki Foundation quietly removed 23 press releases and web-pages that contained inaccurate or selective information about salmon aquaculture. At least three USA foundations have quietly removed or re-written information about their grants for campaigns against the Canadian oil industry.

The goal of this blog is to raise fair questions  in a fair way. Fair comments are most welcome.  

Most read/watched/listened to:

• Global TV: Prime Minister Stephen Harper on American Funding to Environmentalists

• David Suzuki's Fish Story, published in The Financial Post

• My TV interview about when David Suzuki told me to F**K off.

• Americans Are Meddling in B.C. Politics, published in The Vancouver Sun

• U.S. Foundations Against The Oil Sands and Demarketing Alberta

• Mayor Gerry Furney asks Prime Minister Stephen Harper for investigation

On Twitter at @FairQuestions

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Vivian Krause on John Gormley's Show, Heard Across Saskatchewan

John Gormley, Q.C. is a Canadian radio talk show host and lawyer.

Today, I had the privilege of being a guest on his radio show which is heard across Saskatchewan. To listen to the podcast of today's show, click here: Vivian Krause on The John Gormerly Show

A bit of background about John Gormley....

In 1984, John was elected to the House of Commons as Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatchewan. After leaving politics, he studied and practiced employment law in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Since 1998, Gormley has been host of John Gormley Live which is heard weekday mornings across Saskatchewan. Gormley is also a columnist for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and Regina Leader Post newspapers. His first book, Left Out - Saskatchewan's NDP and the Relentless Pursuit of Mediocrity, was published in 2010 and is a Canadian bestseller.

Shine Light On Money For Oilsands Debate

From The Edmonton Journal

The oilsands are Alberta's advantage, and while no further proof is needed, it's right there in a provincial budget that predicts unrivalled revenue and royalties for the industry and the province respectively.

And it's in the national census that proves Canadians from other provinces are flocking to Alberta, no doubt for the promise of jobs and prosperity. It's there in a report from TD Economics that projects a country-leading 2.5-per-cent increase in Alberta's GDP from 2016 to 2021. It's there in the price of oil and oilsands company stocks, which are clawing back much of the value lost last year. It's there in the Stephen Harper government's defence of the oilsands as a major boon to the Canadian economy and in his advocacy for the two proposed pipelines that would deliver bitumen to thirsty markets around the globe.

There is no doubt that the oilsands are an asset with far-reaching economic, political and societal benefits; a resource worth defending and developing, responsibly of course.

Because of their real and potential impacts on the environment, the oilsands are also a target worth attacking, and environmental groups have done their fair share of taking the industry and Alberta government to task in public for failings in the realm of stewardship. How-ever, we don't always know who is putting up the money to allow those environmental groups to launch their offensives. And that's wrong.

If foreign interests are funding Canadian groups and thereby influencing oilsands conversation in this country, the public has a right to know and that right ought to be legally entrenched. There is no need to stop foreign funding of Canadian advocacy groups, no more than there is a need to stop foreign in-vestment in the oilsands, but companies like Suncor and Syncrude have to declare their foreign partnerships.

Environmental groups should certainly have to make the same disclosure, so their motives are crystal clear. Conservative MP Brian Jean, who represents the riding of Fort McMurray-Athabasca, will be pushing a private member's bill that would block foreign funding of so-called "radical" Canadian environmental groups and lessen the possibility that outsiders are paying First Nations to oppose projects like the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Bruderheim to Kitimat. In raising the latter spectre, he has already taken his fight a step too far, without benefit of any proof.

However, there is a problem that needs solving and Jean's interest in the role foreign interests have played in the environmental movement was piqued by Vancouver-based researcher Vivian Krause. Earlier this week she told a Parliamentary committee hearing that $300 million has flowed from U.S. trusts to Canadian environmental groups in the past 10 years. Given the ever increasing stakes, the torrent is not about to stop.

"I think we'll see significant American interests trying to line up against the Northern Gateway project, precisely because it's not in the interests of the United States," Prime Minister Harper told Global TV recently. "It's in the interests of Canada. They'll funnel money through environmental groups and others to try to slow it down but, as I say, we'll make sure that the best interests of Canada are protected."

The oilsands are obviously worth protecting and it is most definitely worth knowing who is financing the various partisans to the debate. Let the money flow north if it must, but bring its sources into the light first.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Vivian Krause's Testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources

For the audio recording of my testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, click here. On the right hand side of the web-site, there's a small box, titled "Meeting Information" (shown to the right).  Click on the small green symbol that looks something like airwaves (shown to the right by the big red arrow).

For my written notes, click here. 

 

$95 Million For Ducks (?) And More

From: The Financial Post

If U.S. President Barack Obama’s quivering over Keystone XL proved anything, it’s that the environmental movement has become very powerful. No wonder. Over the past decade, grants to green groups from U.S. charitable foundations have quadrupled from roughly US$500-million to more than US$2-billion, the U.S. Foundation Center says. With more cash comes more responsibility for transparency and fairness.

Since 2009, the Canada Revenue Agency has required Canadian non-profits to report their funding from outside Canada. By my analysis, 30 of Canada’s environmental organizations reported a combined total of $95-million from outside Canada, $45-million in 2009 and nearly $50-million for 2010.

Of the $95-million, $65-million (69%) was reported by a single organization: Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC). That accounted for 34% of DUC’s total revenue for 2009 and 2010. “The majority of this funding has been used directly for on-the-ground projects for the protection and restoration of wetlands and associated habitats,” Ducks Unlimited said in an email.

Since 2000, the Philadelphia-based, Pew Charitable Trusts has granted at least US$57-million to Ducks Unlimited USA for the Canadian Boreal Initiative and the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (ICBC). So far, Ducks Unlimited Canada hasn’t said how much of this has come into Canada and how it has been used. In 2009 alone, Pew granted US$11.2-million for the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC), which has called for a moratorium on new oil sands leases and project approvals. “The U.S. government should not provide any incentives for expansion of tar sands oil imports into the U.S.,” says the Pew-funded IBCC, in its documents titled, “Canada's Tar Sands.”

By my analysis and calculations, the second biggest recipient of foreign funds is Tides Canada, reporting $9.4-million, 23% of Tides Canada’s total revenue for 2009 and 2010.

For 2009 and 2010, 10 environmental organizations reported more than half a million in foreign funds. These were the David Suzuki Foundation ($1.2-million), Environmental Defence Canada Inc. ($787,083), Watershed Watch Salmon Society ($650,457), the Sierra Club of B.C. ($558,907), Ecojustice ($530,075), the Ecology Action Centre ($523,391) and Wildsight ($513,113).  Foreign funding accounted for between 6% and 47% of the total revenue of these groups.

RAVEN (Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs), which campaigns against B.C.’s Prosperity Mine, reported $468,452 from outside Canada That was 83% of its total revenue for 2009 and 2010.

To continue reading, click here.

 

$95 Million in Foreign Funding Reported by Canadian Enviro Groups (2009/2010)

The above figure and table is based on information reported in Schedule 6 (Line 4575) of Canadian tax returns filed by environmental organizations.  This information is publicly available at the web-site of Revenue Canada. For links to the original sources of this information, see below. In each case, the first link is to the 2009 return, the second link is to the 2010 return:

• Algoma Highlands Conservancy: $330,906 and zero in 2010
• Banrock Station Wetlands Foundation: $279,951 and zero in 2010
• Bird Studies Canada: $272,828 and $130,891 
• David Suzuki Foundation: $712,004 and $553,560
• Ducks Unlimited Canada: $31,980,744 and $33,348,454
• Ecojustice (AKA Sierra Legal defense Fund): $530,075 and zero in 2010
• Ecology Action Centre: $329,396 and $193,995
• Environmental Defence Canada Inc.: $308,260 and $478,823
• Environmental Youth Society Alliance: $209,333 and $35,157
• Georgia Straight Alliance: $157,589 and $141,727
• Natural Step Canada Inc.: $262,783 and $89,575
• Nature Conservancy Canada: $4,822,013 and $3,298,490
• Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research Society: $198,437 and $135,948
• Pacific Wild Foundation (AKA West Coast Whale Research) $97,700 and $25
• Raincoast Conservation Foundation $106,748 and $107,000
• Respecting Aboriginal Values and Environmental Needs (RAVEN): $145,177 and $323,275
• Sierra Club of B.C. Foundation: $229,263 and $ 329,644
• Sierra Club of Canada Foundation: $290,005 and $146,738
• Tides Canada: $1,410,308 ($819,659 and $590,649 in 2009) and $8,022,398 ($7,809,143 and $213,255 in 2010)
• Walter & Duncan Gordon Charitable Foundation: $67,297 and $ 148,723
• Watershed Watch Salmon Society: $274,338 and $376,119
• West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation: zero in 2009 and  $129,827
• Wildsight: $299,391 and $213,722
• World Wildlife Fund Canada: $2,179,546 and $870,191
• Yukon Conservation Society $66,837 and $343,854
• Zoocheck Canada Inc. $107,929 and $100,460

It’s Not About Canadianism; It’s About Capitalism

From: Richard Telofski, The Daily Capitalist

"Recently I wrote on my Web site “Canada Chooses Prosperity Over Radical Influence,” an article which discusses how the Canadian government will now give more attention to capitalistic criteria and less attention to radical and ideological environmentalist criteria as a foundation for the approval of future business projects.

Yes, I know. This is quite a refreshing and sudden change. To see governments say enough is enough with the environmentalist emotional bullying is quite a surprise, especially for those of us in the United States. But how did this flip suddenly come about? What was the catalyst that precipitated this shift?

I’ll admit it. I don’t watch Canadian politics very closely. But I do check in on them occasionally. And what seems to have caused this change, according to the Canadian newspaper, The Financial Post, was Vivian Krause.

Vivian who?

Exactly.

Americans aren’t going to recognize this name. After all, we’re busier attending to the antics of Lindsay Lohan and the opinions of Angelina Jolie. But apparently, Vivian is currently a big deal in the Great White North. Why?"

To continue reading, click here.

Forest Ethics Paid to Stop Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

According to its web-site, in 2010 the Oak Foundation granted $US 299,879  to Forest Ethics "to minimize Tar Sands impacts by 1) creating a perception of economic risk, whereby Tar Sands imports became less attractive to US corporations and, the Canadian government questions its unbridled support for expanded and unregulated development; 2) placing a hard cap on Tar Sands emissions to slow expansion and clean up operations; and 3) addressing the environmental impacts of Tar Sands to limit toxic pollution of water and air and respect Aboriginal Treaty Rights.

As shown below, the Oak Foundation specified, "ForestEthics will work with at least 10 Fortune 500 companies to publicly disavow Tar Sands fuel and to purchase fuel from less polluting sources; work with at least one of these companies to exert influence within the US Government to support regulations that will disadvantage Tar Sands fuel; and stop Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline which would carry Tar Sand oil from Alberta through BC's pristine wilderness to an oil tanker port on the coast for shipment to Asia."

The country specified in this grant is the United States yet it specifically mentions influencing the Canadian government and Aboriginal Treaty rights, which presumably, are in Canada.  This raises a fair question:  who got the $299,879 from the Oak Foundation?  Did it go to Forest Ethics, based in San Francisco? Or did this money, or part of it, go to Forest Ethics Canada which the CEO of Tides Canada has recently identified as a project of Tides Canada? This is a salient question because it is important to know whether Tides Canada has accepted funding to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Last year, Tides Canada's vice-president of business development, Sarah Goodman, was quoted by Business in Vancouver as saying that Tides Canada has "taken no stand for or against the oilsands." Is this still the case?

 

 

Commentary RE: Foreign Funding of Environmentalism in Canada

Reflecting a wide range of points of view, here are some of the op-eds and commentary about the foreign funding of environmentalism in Canada, particularly with regards to the campaign against Canadian oil and the debates over the Keystone XL and Enbridge pipelines:

• Charlie Smith, Canadian oil at the centre of an intriguing international story involving the U.S. and China, August 25, 2011, The Straight.

• Gary Mason, The next great pipeline debate - and U.S. fundin. funding, September 29, 2011, The Globe & Mail.

• Barbara Yaffee, Cash flow from U.S. to 'green' initiatives often hides private interests Financial contributions sometimes thinly veiled attempts to help American industries gain unfair advantages over Canadian counterparts. October 6, 2011, The Vancouver Sun.

• Deborah Yedlin, Does everyone have a right to complain at Northern Gateway pipeline review? November 4, 2011, The Calgary Herald

• George Hoberg, Foreign influence on Canadian environmental policy: A request for some balance, November 15, 2011, The Vancouver Sun.

• Tom Fletcher, B.C. A Playground for Eco-Stunts, December 6, 2011, Alberni Valley News.

• Peter Ladner, Applause for U.S. funds aimed at improving our environment, Business in Vancouver, December 13 - 19, 2011, subsequently posted at the web-site of Tides Canada.

• Terence Corcoran, A War on Green 'Radicals,' January 9, 2012, The Financial Post.

• Stephen Hume, Spin cycle on pipelines, 'foreign interests' hits warp speed,  January 10, 2012, The Vancouver Sun.

• Jeffrey Simpson, 'Foreign money' is a hypocritical diversion, January 11, 2012, The Globe and Mail.

• Margaret Wente, Seeking pipeline common sense, January 10, 2012, The Globe & Mail.

• Terry Glavin, Canada sells the oil sands to China. Then complains about ‘foreign interference’, January 13, 2012, The National Post.

• Lorne Gunter, Foreign eco-foundations pump hundreds of millions into anti-oilsands fight, January 13, 2012, The National Post.

• Rex Murphy, Thou must not question Big Environment, January 14, 2012.

• Keith Baldrey, China's Stake in Pipelines is Disturbing, Keith Baldrey, January 17, 2012.

• Arno Carpecky, Why Canada is starting to feel like Peru, January 20, 2012. The Tyee.

• Harvey Enchin, Anti-Oil Sands Groups Threaten Our Jobs, January 21, 2012, The Vancouver Sun.

• Rafe Mair, Tube the pipelines, all three, January 23, 2012, The Tyee.

• Claudia Cattaneo, Foreign influx in oil sands top issue, January 23, 2012, The Financial Post.

Radio commentary:

• The Bill Good Show, January 10 & 13, 2012

• Rob Breakenridge, CHQR 770, Januarya 12, 2012

• Michael Campbell, Money Talks, CKNW, January 19, 2012

Not included above are is material from Ezra Levant and his campaign to expose the foreign funding of environmentalists.  I am not part of that campaign in any way.

Big Money and U.S. Interests Are Impacting Major Decisions in Canada, Michael Campbell's Commentary

"This is a story that merits a heck of a lot more intense scrutiny."

- Michael Campbell, Money Talks

Click here:

• Money Talks, Michael Campbell on U.S. Foundations' Influence in Canada

The Economist: Canada's Oil Industry

From The Economist, January 21, 2012

SOON after Barack Obama chose to delay a decision last year on a proposed Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline called Keystone XL, Stephen Harper, Canada’s prime minister, warned that his country would not be left at the altar. “This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we’re able to access Asian markets for our energy products,” he said. The threat was clear: if the United States did not want oil from Alberta’s dirty tar sands, Canada would build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship the stuff to Asia. There, says Enbridge, the firm behind the project, each barrel might fetch $20 more (counting shipping) than in America. On January 18th Mr Obama rejected Keystone XL. New calls for Canada to look west will surely follow.

Yet the domestic opponents to the Northern Gateway pipeline, linking Edmonton with the port of Kitimat, seem to be copying the campaign against Keystone XL. In 2010, 55 of Canada’s native tribes (called First Nations) signed a declaration rejecting the project. At the first day of the National Energy Board’s (NEB) hearings on the pipeline, held on January 10th, the chiefs of the Haisla tribe said they feared an oil spill would ruin their fishery. Some 4,300 people have signed up to speak.

The pipeline’s opponents still face an uphill battle. A December poll by Ipsos-Reid found that British Columbians back it by 48% to 32%. And Mr Harper is close to the oil industry. Joe Oliver, the natural-resources minister, recently wrote an open letter accusing “radical groups” with “funding from foreign special-interest groups” of delaying and undermining the debate. Vivian Krause, a blogger in Vancouver, has released documents showing that American foundations have given $300m since 2000 to Canadian green and aboriginal groups for environmental campaigns.

To continue reading, click here