Rethink Campaigns

Oak Foundation Grants Against Canadian Energy, and Specifically Against Enbridge

Since 2005, the U.S.-based Oak Foundation has made at least eight grants for $3 million for projects that are clearly intended to tackle the Canadian oil industry and/or stop the development of the Northern Gateway project. Four of these grants went to Tides Canada, two went to Greenpeace, one went to Forest Ethics and one went to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation.

1) In 2010, Oak paid $US 97,131 to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation "to constrain development of Alberta's tar sands by establishing a legislative ban on crude oil tankers on British Columbia's north coast." Oak specified, "Such a ban would necessitate the cancelation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline" and Oak states, "The desired result would be a permanent legislative tanker ban and cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline." Oak also specified how WCELRF would bring this about. Oak states, "WCEL will intensify its government education and outreach activities to establish the conditions under which (a) opposition parties holding a Parliamentary majority work together to enact a legislative tanker ban under a minority government and/or (b) opposition parties promise a legislative tanker ban so committing themselves to act following an election that produces a majority government; and (c) First Nations declare their own bans on transportation of tar sands crude oil by pipeline or tanker through their territories and waters, adding pressure on federal parties to act." 

2) In 2010, Oak paid $US 299,879 to Forest Ethics for a project titled, "Tar Sands Campaign." The stated purpose of this project is "To minimise Tar Sands impacts by 1) creating a perception of economic risk, whereby Tar Sands imports become 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. 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 Sands oil from Alberta through BC's pristine wilderness to an oil tanker port on the coast for shipment to Asia."

3) In 2007, Oak paid $US 436,675 to  Greenpeace Canada  for a project titled, "Phase Out Tar Sands Campaign." The stated purpose of the project was "To initiate three distinct but interrelated efforts concerning tar sands in Alberta: (1) enhancing the ability of Greenpeace Canada to more effectively launch and deliver its "Phase Out Tar Sands Campaign"; (2) leveraging the growing interest of ranchers/landowners in limiting unbridled oil and gas exploration and production in southern Alberta; and (3) conducting specialised opinion research and media work to identify messaging for these and other efforts that will generate maximum impact among Albertans."

4) In 2010, Oak paid $US 424,373 to Greenpeace Canada for a project titled, "Stop the Tar Sands Campaign,"Oak stipulated that with its funds, Greenpeace Canada "will employ its unique strengths as a direct advocacy organisation to create controversy around the tar sands both within and outside of Canada."  Oak states that the result of this project will be "the withdrawal of two institutional investors from the tar sands by 2012; the disengagement of Norway's Statoil and Britian's BP from the tar sands project;the end of tar sands subsidies from the Government of France. Oak stipulated that this project will "create enough financial, regulatory, and political uncertainty that prominent financial analysts will publicly state their concern about investments in the tar sands; to generate enough information and attention that the media, opinion leaders, and Members of Parliament will express concerns publically about the lack of government regulation of the tar sands industry."

The Oak Foundation also made four grants to Tides Canada. For those, click here.

Tides Canada Paid $US900,000 by the Oak Foundation for Energy-Related Projects

Since 2005, the Oak Foundation has made four grants to Tides Canada for nearly $US900,000. The Oak Foundation has offices in Europe, Africa and the U.S. The foundation files U.S. tax returns.

The Oak Foundation specifically funded Tides Canada to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The Oak Foundation also funded Tides Canada "to launch a public and media relations campaign to persuade the Government of Canada to halt planned policies" with regards to climate change. Oak also funded Tides Canada to create a "Canadian Energy Fund," similar to the Energy Foundation, with a budget of up to USD 30 million sourced from 100 to 200 high-net worth Canadian and international donors. The Energy Foundation's explicit purpose is to shift the U.S. economy away from so-called "yesterday's fossil fuels," and to create a market for renewable energy technology, worth $65 billion over 15 years. 

In at least one instance, the funds for Tides Canada were granted by the Oak Foundation, through the U.S. Tides Foundation.

Details of Oak Grants to Tides Canada:

• $US 208,181 in 2005 for a project titled, "Sage Climate Project Renewal."

• $US 440,587 in 2006 for a project titled, "Canada Global Warming Public Education Project." The stated purpose of this grant was "To launch a public and media relations campaign to persuade the Government of Canada to halt planned policies that would weaken Canada's commitment to combating climate change. This was to be undertaken via a co-ordinated media campaign and via local grassroots organizing.

• $US 50,000 in 2010 for a project titled, The Energy Initiative "to develop a five-year strategic plan to begin to convince Canada to accept the long-term goal of dramatically lowering the country's GHG emissions, while creating jobs and opportunities, and lessening the country's dependence on fossil fuels; and to determine the feasibility of creating a Canadian Energy Fund, similar to the Energy Foundation, with a budget of up to USD 30 million sourced from 100 to 200 high-net worth Canadian and international donors."

• $US 200,000 in 2011 to Tides USA for a project titled, "Tides Canada Initiatives: A New Energy Vision for Canada. The stated purpose of the $200,000 is "To develop a plan and a pathway to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050 while strengthening the economy, and to amplify and better coordinate the efforts of those who already advocate for a transition to a low-carbon future.Tides Canada is proposing two projects to accomplish these goals. They will complete a practical, independent, multi-stakeholder analysis of the pathways to achieve a low-carbon Canada. Based loosely on the European Climate Foundation's Roadmap 2050 initiative, the proposed 'Canada 2050' project will unite an array of sectors and players and equip them with independent science, research, tools, and support including scenario planning and macroeconomic modeling needed to make informed policy decisions. It will concurrently coordinate and build capacity among organizations already working towards a low-carbon future via a 'Clean Energy Network' a cross-sector initiative to develop a compelling narrative and use it to sustain critical pressure and focus public attention while policy pathway discussions proceed."

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

$6 Million From the Oak Foundation for the Global Campaign for Climate Change

During 2009 and 2010, the Oak Foundation granted $6 million for the Global Campaign for Climate Action, based here in Canada. Who ultimately got the money? And how was it spent?

• $2.5 million in 2009.  This grant specified that the $2.5 million was "To mobilise civil society and public opinion in support of transformational change and rapid action to save the planet from dangerous levels of climate change." This project called for "massive public organising, rigorous and rapid analysis, nimble coordination and targeted, effective campaigning at all levels" and specified a number of "political objectives."

• a further $2.5 million in 2009 

• $1 million in 2010 

• $73,746 in 2010 for a Global Campaign for Climate Action Planning and Partner Retreat. The country where this grant is designated is Canada.

QUIETLY REMOVED: On-Line Material About Political Activity & Advocacy

By its own admission, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been using Tides Canada as a vehicle through which to receive charitable donations because PETA itself doesn't qualify for charitable status.

"Head up, Canadian!" wrote PETA at its web-site, adding, "For your retirement account, and donations and bequests to PETA in general, you may want to consider giving through the Tides Canada Foundation-PETA Fund. Tides Canada.  Tides Canada is a registered charity, but PETA is not because of our advocacy work. The RRSP beneficiary paperwork is just as easy, so if Canadian tax credits are important, you can only get those benefits by making the beneficiary of your retirement accounts the Tides Canada-PETA Fund rather than specifying PETA."

Shortly after Tides Canada was asked questions about this by e-mail, and shortly after this was reported in a post at this blog in 2011, PETA quietly removed this paragraph from its web-site.

Elsewhere at its web-site PETA says, "Are you interested in receiving a Canadian tax credit for your bequest or donation? Contact us to learn more about the Tides Canada PETA Fund. Like many advocacy and campaigning organizations in Canada, PETA is not recognized as a charity under Canadian law, so donations made directly to PETA are not tax-creditable against Canadian income. However, donations and bequests made to the PETA Fund at the Tides Canada Foundation, a qualified Canadian charity, may be eligible for a Canadian tax credit...."

To read this web-page at PETA's web-site as it reads today, click here. To read this web-page as it reads in Internet archives from , click here.  For a .pdf click here. For information about the Tides Canada-Peta Fund, click here.

Living Oceans Society

Another organization, also funded by Tides Canada, that has admitted in writing that it was keeping its political activity quiet, is Living Oceans Society (LOS). Over the past decade, Living Oceans Society has been granted at least $10 million by U.S. foundations, U.S. tax returns show.

In a 2001 report prepared by LOS, contained in the U.S. tax returns of the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, LOS says, "Living Oceans Society is currently applying for charitable tax status. We have been advised to refrain from posting action items on our web-page until this application has been approved as it could be interpreted as 'political.'  In the meantime, we have met with a web-page designer and we are prepared to add this to our web page when the timing is more appropriate."  This excerpt is shown below.

How is Living Oceans Society funded today?  At its web-site, Living Oceans says that it is funded through Tides Canada. "Contributions donated to the Oceans Fund (at Tides Canada) are granted to various charitable organizations that we collaborate with to support work that advances our mission of research and education .... Donations to support this charitable work are eligible for a charitable tax receipt issued by Tides Canada Foundation," says Living Oceans Society at its web-site.

Pipe Up Against Enbridge

Other information about politically-active organizations funded by Tides Canada has also been taken off-line since this blog began to raise quesitons about this political activity - which does not appear to be related to any charitable purpose. For example, the web-site of Rainforest Solutions, one of the largest projects of Tides Canada, no longer promotes the Pipe Up Against Enbridge campaign, as it did during the summer of 2011 (as shown above).  

In 2009, Tides Canada granted $848,966 to Rainforest Solutions, in a single grant, U.S. tax returns show.  How much Tides Canada has since granted for this project is unclear because Tides Canada's U.S. tax returns for 2010 are much less transparent than they were in 2008 and 2009.

Open Media

Information about donations to Open Media, made through Tides Canada, has also been quietly removed and re-written. For more about that, click here.

Tides Canada Revenue: $173 Million (2000-2010)

Excerpts from Tides Canada's Consolidated Financial Statements:

• 2000
• 2001
• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005
  
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010

For Tides Canada's complete consolidated financial statements which are provided by Tides Canada at its web-site, click here.

$10 Million Granted to Living Oceans by American Foundations, Since 2000

Living Oceans Society, based in the small, remote B.C. town of Sointula, has been paid more than $US10 million since 2000 by American charitable foundations, according to my analysis of U.S. tax returns and the on-line databases of these foundations. U.S. grants to LOS increased from $8,000 in 1999 to a high of $2.9 million in 2008.

By far, most of this U.S. money has gone towards Living Ocean's campaign against salmon farming. Living Oceans was also granted U.S. funds for a campaign "to retain the current prohibition on offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia." That was a grant from the Seattle-based Bullitt-foundation for $20,000 in 2005.

Living Oceans Society is a federally registered charity in the U.S. but as far as I can tell, it is not federally registered in Canada. According to information provided by staff at the Canada Revenue Agency, Living Oceans began the process of becoming a federally registered Canadian charity but did not complete it. In a 2001 report contained in the U.S. tax returns of the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, LOS says, "Living Oceans Society is currently applying for charitable tax status. We have been advised to refrain from posting action items on our web-page until this application has been approved as it could be interpreted as 'political.'  In the meantime, we have met with a web-page designer and we are prepared to add this to our web page when the timing is more appropriate." This excerpt from Living Ocean's own report, is shown below.

Of the $10 million, $6.5 million was from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, $2.3 million was from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation,$789,698 was from the Oak Foundation and $260,000 was from the Marisla Foundation. 

Living Oceans Society was contacted by phone and by e-mail and asked to confirm these numbers. No reply was received. (For my previous letter to Living Oceans Society, sent in March of 2010, click here).

Grants from the Marisla Foundation and several of the grants from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation were made through the Redmond, Washington-based Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI).  The $260,000 from the Marisla foundation includes a grant for $130,000 which may not have been passed on to the Living Oceans Society in its entirety.  Other grants from Marisla to MCBI may have been passed on in whole or in part to LOS but are not included in the list below as the stated purpose of the grant did not specifically mention LOS. 

Below, here are links to the grants from American foundations to Living Oceans Society, for a total of $10 million.

Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation: $6,508,141

• $453,400 in 2003 NOTE: This is one of the grants for the salmon farming campaign that was quietly re-written by the Moore foundation after concerns were raised.
•  $1,125,000 in 2005 for the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform.  NOTE: This is one of the grants for the salmon farming campaign that was quietly re-written by the Moore foundation after concerns were raised.
•  $500,000 in 2006 for Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform – Framework for Dialogue
• $578,098 in 2006 for Increasing stakeholder participation in Area-Based Management
• $600,000 in 2007 Joint Research on Salmon Farming (with Marine Harvest)
• $1,843,531 in 2008 for the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform in BC
• $239,835 in 2008 for Securing deep sea coral protection
• $880,500 in 2010 for the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform in BC
• $287,777 in 2010 for Technical Analyses for Marine Spatial Planning

David & Lucile Packard Foundation: $2,358,000

Directly to the Living Oceans Society:

• $175,000 in 2003 “for the farmed salmon markets campaign of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform.”
• $50,000 in 2003 “for Living Ocean’s marine protected area campaign.”
• $50,000 in 2004 “for a campaign to establish a network of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast of Canada”
• $33,000 in 2005 "for fund development planning"
• $225,000 in 2006 "For Farmed and Dangerous, the farmed salmon markets campaign of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform."
• $225,000 in 2007  "for continued support of Farmed and Dangerous, the farmed salmon markets campaign of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform."
• $225,000 in 2008 "For continued support of the farmed salmon markets campaign of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform."
• $225,000 in 2009 "For phase-out support of the farmed salmon markets campaign of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform."
• $225,000 in 2010 "To strengthen social media strategies and build a senior management team to lead the implementation of the new strategic plan."

Through the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), Redmond WA:

• $200,000 in 2000, granted to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, based in Redmond WA, for “support for the Living Ocean Society Marine Protected Area Program.”
• $50,000 in 2001, granted to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, based in Redmond WA, for “support for the Living Ocean Society Marine Protected Area Program.”
• $125,000 in 2002, granted to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, based in Redmond WA, for “support for the Living Ocean Society Marine Protected Area Program.”
• $125,000 in 2006, granted to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, based in Redmond WA, "for Living Oceans Society's Sustainable Fisheries Campaign and for general operating expenses"
• $125,000 in 2007, granted to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, based in Redmond WA, "for Living Ocean Society's general operating expenses."

Bullitt Foundation:  $178,000

• Click here and search for the Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

This included three grants that specifically refer to the offshore moratorium on oil and gas development in B.C.:

• $25,000 in 2001 to support "a project to promote continuing an existing moratorium on oil and gas development off the British Columbia coast, including public and government outreach and education." For this grant, the "fiscal sponsor" was the Sierra Legal Defence Council.
• $20,000 in 2003 to support "the Living Oceans Society's offshore oil and gas public outreach campaign."  This grant went through the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington.
• $20,000 in 2005 to support "Living Oceans Society's campaign to retain the current prohibition on offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia." This grant went through the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington.

Over the years, the stated purposes of grants made by the Bullitt Foundation to Living Oceans Society became more vague.  In 2010, the stated purpose of the grant is simply "For general support."

Marisla Foundation: $260,000

• $130,000 in 2003 to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington for "General Support/Living Oceans Society."
• $30,000 in 2004 to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington for the Living Oceans Society
• $50,000 in 2008 to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington for the Living Oceans Society
• $50,000 in 2009 to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington for the Living Oceans Society
• $50,000 in 2009, approved for future payment to the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond Washington for the Living Oceans Society.
  

Oak Foundation: $789,698

• $200,000 in 2005 for Developing Sustainable Fisheries on B.C.'s Coast. The stated purpose of this grant is, "To support coordinated efforts with the Canadian government to design an effective process for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area."
• $485,057 in 2008 for Establishing a network of marine protected areas and ecosystem based management in British Columbia and the Arctic.  The stated purpose of this grant is, "To secure the Canadian government's political and financial support of the Oceans Action Plan to ensure the long-term health of the ocean and coastal communities on the Pacific Coast of Canada. LOS will work to make certain that the structure of the integrated oceans management process is designed to engage stakeholders and includes ecosystem-based management measures and a network of marine protected areas in British Columbia and the Arctic. It will conduct analyses that illustrate the environmental impacts of ecosystem-based management practices and work to link the marine protected areas with international efforts for a system ranging from Mexico to the Arctic."
• $104,641 in 2011 for an Environmental Plan for B.C.'s PNCIMA. The stated purpose of this grant is "To ensure that the Pacific North Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) Marine Spatial Planning Initiative achieves strong conservation objectives for this region which covers two thirdsof British Columbia. The conservation objectives will include: an ecosystem-based management framework to guide the management of all industries; spatial application of the EBM framework; and a network of marine protected areas including core no take zones."

Please read: Important Notice & Disclaimer

My Appeal to David Suzuki

    "There is good science in the campaign of course.  All campaigns at the David Suzuki Foundation begin with good science."

- David Suzuki, May 2002 

April 16, 2011

Dr. Suzuki,

RE: Salmon Aquaculture

This open letter re-iterates the appeal that I have been making to you for nearly five years, to please make amends for your false claims about farmed salmon and salmon farming.  As you'll note, this appeal is the same, almost word for word, as the appeal that I made to you in May of 2011.

For many years, the David Suzuki Foundation has been suggesting that farmed salmon is unsafe and unsustainable because of contaminants, sea lice, and other issues.

If sound science shows that farmed salmon is high in contaminants, and that sea lice originating from salmon farms put wild salmon at serious risk, I would agree that farmed salmon should be boycotted and banned. But for the many reasons that I have outlined in my papers and letters, it is clear to me that in both cases, this is not what research actually shows.  Once again, here are my papers which I have sent to you before:

• Research on Contaminants in Farmed Salmon: Science or Marketing?

• Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?

The fact is, research shows that contaminant levels are actually lower in farmed salmon than in other fish. Excellent returns of wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago and the Fraser River suggest that salmon farming does not put wild salmon on the brink of extinction, as the David Suzuki Foundation been saying. Moreover, of the two ways of growing salmon, farming has important advantages over Alaska's salmon ranching and commercial fisheries.  Farming avoids the risks of over-fishing and by-catch which are, after all, the worst risks to wild fish.

On the basis of my analysis as presented in the letters that I have sent to you over the past five years, it is clear to me that in many instances, the David Suzuki Foundation has selectively and inaccurately broadcast some of its own research findings about farmed salmon and salmon farming. I feel that this has falsely reflected some of the actual findings, especially with regards to PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice.

Hundreds of media stories have taken cues from the press releases issued by the David Suzuki Foundation and have echoed the false and misleading information that the David Suzuki Foundation issued in the first place.

I am concerned because it appears to me that the David Suzuki Foundation may have garbled its research findings and exacerbated the salmon farming controversy as part of the "Context-Setting" and the "earned media" of a mulit-million dollar American marketing campaign to sway consumers and retailers towards "wild" fish, most of which is Alaskan. Bad press about farmed salmon being unsafe and unsustainable has provided a foil for differentiating Alaskan "wild" salmon as safe and sustainable.

Under the weight of years of bad press generated by the David Suzuki Foundation and the campaigns in which the David Suzuki Foundation has played a lead role (eg. the Farmed and Dangerous Campaign and the Pure Salmon Campaign), I believe that the salmon farming industry does not have a fair chance.

Last spring, it came to my attention that the David Suzuki Foundation has quietly removed 23 of the 26 press releases and web-pages about which I have raised concern. Internet archives show that most of these were last registered in internet archives merely hours after I posted an open letter to you, Dr. Suzuki, at my blog, on Feb. 3, 2010. I feel that it is unacceptable for the David Suzuki Foundation to quietly remove all of this material given that it was broadcast with so much fanfare in the first place.

My hope, Dr. Suzuki, is that you would please acknowledge that in some instances, the David Suzuki Foundation has incorrectly reported some of its research findings about PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice. Its fair, I believe, to request a clarification of the actual research findings and funding sources. In my opinion, this would go a long way towards putting the salmon farming controversy into proper perspective.

In particular, I believe that the David Suzuki Foundation should acknowledge that its sea lice research was partially funded by the same U.S. foundation (the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation) that paid $560,000 for an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media" and that the sea lice researchers funded by the David Suzuki Foundation had a "research partnership" with this organization while it helped to generate hundreds of media items about sea lice. I also believe that the David Suzuki Foundation should publicly disclose that its sea lice research was partially funded by a commercial fishing company, a business that may have a commercial interest in disparaging farmed fish.

In conclusion, I appeal to you, Dr. Suzuki, to please issue a public statement that accurately and comprehensively reports your actual research findings with regards to PCBs in farmed salmon, and sea lice.  I believe that this statement should make clear that the research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation:

• Does not show and has never shown that farmed salmon is "high" in PCBs, and

• Does not show and has never shown that sea lice originating from salmon farms are causing high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.

Lastly, I wish to clarify that contrary to the insinuations that the David Suzuki Foundation has made, I am in no way involved with nor supported by the salmon farming industry. As I have acknowledged all along, years ago I did try to get support from several salmon farming companies but apart from the two consultancies that I did in 2007, I have not had any support from the aquaculture industry. I was paid $17,750 for the consultancies that I did in 2007. Since then, I have done all of my research and writing on my own, on my own nickel.

Recognizing that aquaculture avoids some of the worst risks of commercial fisheries, my hope is that there will be a breakthrough for aquaculture in Canada, especially in some of the poorest areas of our country. I can think of nothing better to hit the re-set button on public opinion about Canadian aquaculture than for you, Dr. Suzuki, to acknowledge that some of the claims that you and your foundation have made about high levels of PCBs in farmed salmon, and about sea lice from salmon farms putting wild salmon at risk of extinction, are false.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

Please see also:

• Letter from David Suzuki, May 2002.  In this letter, Dr. Suzuki says that he uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins.  As I see it, this is what kicked off a major scare about contaminants in farmed salmon that brought the salmon farming industry to its knees. The problem is, the claim that farmed salmon is high in PCBs and other toxins, is false.

• My Appeal to David Suzuki, May of 2011.

• Open Letters to David Suzuki (13 letters since 2007)

• My surprise meeting with David Suzuki, June 2010 (when he told me to "f**k off")

• A look back at meeting Peter Robinson, CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation

• 23 press releases & web-pages quietly removed by the David Suzuki Foundation

• 16 press releases and web-pages quietly removed from the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation, last archived Feb. 3 & 4, 2010, according to internet archives

• Quietly Removed: Why did the David Suzuki Foundation removed its brochure titled, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon," on Feb. 3, 2010?

• Who funded David Suzuki's brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon?"

• Research on Contaminants in Farmed Salmon: Science or Marketing?

• Sea Lice Research: Science or Marketing?

• Open Letter to the CEOs of Four U.S. Foundations with $US 21 BILLION: Hewlett, Packard, Gordon Moore & the Pew Charitable Trusts

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Open Letter To David Suzuki (#15)

    "There is good science in the campaign of course.  All campaigns at the David Suzuki Foundation begin with good science."

- David Suzuki, May 2002 

April 16, 2012

Dr. Suzuki,

For nearly five years, I have tried to inquire about your apparent involvement in marketing Alaskan wild fish by "demarketing" the competition: farmed fish, especially farmed salmon. I have sent 13 open letters to you since May of 2007. The body of this letter is the same, almost word for word, as the letter that I sent to you two years ago, on February 3, 2010.

Five years on, my main questions are the same.

To continue reading , please click here.

80 Percent of Canadians Support Increased Scrutiny of Politically Active Charities, Angus Reid Poll Says

More than any other initiative in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2012 budget, the one that struck a chord with Canadians is $8-million for the Canada Revenue Agency to require greater transparency from non-profits with regards to their political activity and foreign funding.  An  found that 80 percent of Canadians support Harper's direction. That's high. In comparison, only 71 percent agree with allowing more duty-free goods to be brought across the border and only 68 percent agree to get rid of the penny. These results are from an online survey of a representative national sample of 1,060 Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists. The data were collected from March 30 to April 2, 2012. The margin of error is 3 percent, 19 times out of 20.

For more information about this poll, click here.

B.C. Wins Big In Budget

From today's Vancouver Sun:

"B.C. was handed a major victory Thursday in a remarkably West-oriented federal budget that targeted three major barriers to resource industry growth - unnecessarily long and complicated environmental reviews, a skilled labour shortage, and opposition to the oilsands sector by environmental groups, the province's senior cabinet minister said Thursday.

But opposition MPs said the budget represented an "assault" on individuals and groups concerned about the pace of energy and natural resource developments.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget promised legislation to limit environmental reviews to no more than two years, and said from now on Ottawa will accept provincial assessments as the final word on many proposed projects.

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore said the cumbersome federal review process has caused an investment "chill" in B.C.

He cited the federal decision to reject the proposed Prosperity gold and copper mine about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake even though a provincial panel had approved the project, which proposed using a trout-bearing lake as a tailings pond. A new federal panel is reassessing a revised Prosperity proposal.

"It's what British Columbia has been asking for a decade, and we're delivering on it," said Moore, MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam.

A starkly different message was sent to environmental groups that are waging an intense battle against the oilsands sector and especially Calgary-based Enbridge's proposal to build an oilsands pipeline to Kitimat.

The budget commits $8 million over the next two years to help the Canadian Revenue Agency target registered charities the government believes are too overtly political. The money will be used to "improve transparency by requiring charities to provide more information on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources," according to budget documents.

The $8-million initiative was inspired entirely by work done on foreign funding of Canadian environmental groups by Vancouver researcher Vivian Krause, according to Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose."

To continue reading, click here.