Rethink Campaigns

The Tar Sands Campaign Must End. Here's Why...

 

Monkey Business at Chimp Foundation: Part 1

 Disclaimer: This blog offers the author's opinions and the analyses on which they are based.

As I've said before, questions need to be asked about the oversight of registered charities by the Charities Directorate at the Canada Revenue Agency. Initially, I came to this conclusion because of how the Charities Directorate handled the controversial audits of the political activity of registered charities. Further to that, on the basis of additional research into the revenue and expenditures of Chimp Foundation and a network of charities that shares a common core of directors with Chimp, it is clear to me that there is some monkey business going on in the charitable sector and that, unfortunately, the Charities Directorate is allowing some charities to run amok.

Click here to continue reading about how I came to look at the financials of Chimp Foundation, and what I found.

For a list of more than 100 charities that share a common core of directors including Blake Bromley and the employees of his company, Benefic Group, click here. Seven of these charities have had their status revoked by the Canada Revenue Agency:

1. Canadian Education Forum - Reasons for CRA Revocation
2. Essential Grace Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation
3. Gateway Benevolent Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation
4. Give2Asia Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation
5. Global Institute - Reasons for CRA Revocation not posted on-line
6. Malachi 3:10 Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation
7. Prescient Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation
8. Theanon Foundation - Reasons for CRA Revocation

Updated August 5, 2018.

25 Charities Directed by Blake Bromley &/or Employees of Benefic Group Inc: THIS is Charity?

Blake Bromley, a Vancouver-based lawyer, claims to have registered more than 650 charities and executed more than $2 billion worth of charitable giving. Mr. Bromley refers to himself as "one of the world's foremost experts in charity law, and the recognized pioneer of charitable law and gifting in Canada."

Of the 650 charities that Mr. Bromley has been involved with, so far I have taken a look at the finances of 70 registered charities. Of these, the charitable status of 20 has been revoked; seven had their status revoked following an audit by the CRA while 13 revoked their status voluntarily. All of these charities share a common core of directors, including Blake Bromley and the employees of his company, Benefic Group. 

Click here for a summary of my analysis of the revenue, expenditures and grantmaking of 25 charities where Blake Bromley is involved. Have a look at the pattern of revenue and expenditures of these 25 registered charities and ask yourself, is this charity?

Open Letter to the University of Alberta RE: Honorary Doctorate Awarded to David Suzuki

Dr. David Turpin, President & Vice-Chancellor

University of Alberta

 

Dr. Turpin,

I am writing to share my opinions and the reasons why I believe that it is wrong for the University of Alberta to award an Honorary Doctorate to David Suzuki.

Many Canadians from the oil and gas industry have voiced objections to the university’s decision. My reasons have nothing to do with oil.

Two days ago, The University of Alberta said that it champions freedom of thought and academic integrity above all else. This is precisely why it makes no sense for the University to award one of its highest honours to David Suzuki.

Before I continue, please allow me to quote from the University of Alberta’s own policy on Research and Scholarship Integrity:

“Research is a cornerstone of advancement in arts, humanities, sciences, and professions. Excellence in research and scholarship depends on the creativity, hard work and dedication of its practitioners. It also depends on integrity. Dishonesty and fabrication fundamentally undermine the worth and usefulness of research and other scholarly work. Even when untainted by fraud, scholarly work must meet other standards of ethics and integrity.”

Your policy says, as follows: “Breaches of integrity (also) offend society. Society places a trust in university scholars and researchers not only to pursue knowledge, but to do so in a manner that respects and promotes fundamental values of honesty, fairness, beneficence and freedom from exploitation.”

Over and over, David Suzuki and his foundation have violated the commonly held good practices of the scientific community and flouted its standards of academic and scientific integrity.  Suzuki’s false claims about research findings with regards to contaminants in farmed salmon and the impacts of sea lice on wild salmon are clear examples of how David Suzuki and his foundation have stooped to prevaricating about some of their own foundation’s research, in disregard of the truth. Detailed evidence of this is provided elsewhere at this blog and in my papers:

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

Years ago, with the encouragement of the Vice-Dean of Research at the University of Alberta, I submitted a formal complaint of apparent scientific misconduct regarding the sea lice research that was partially funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation in conjunction with the UofA’s Centre for Mathematical Biology. That complaint and request for proper investigation was supported by the B.C. Council of Resource Community Mayors and the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association.

In asking the UofA to investigate the apparent scientific fraud that was being perpetrated by the David Suzuki Foundation and the UofA’s Centre for Mathematical Biology, the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association noted activism in academia as one of the forces that keeps First Nations in poverty. Surely it is absurd to award an honorary doctorate to anyone involved in that.

After months of leading me to believe that the University of Alberta would properly investigate my well-documented complaint, it was dismissed by the University without any investigation whatsoever. The University removed the key on-line documents that implicated the Centre for Mathematical Biology and the student who was at the centre of the matter, Martin Krkosek, was awarded not only a doctorate but also the Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada. The David Suzuki Foundation quietly removed more than 20 press releases and articles that I had identified as containing false or inaccurate information – but no apology and nothing was done to correct the scientific record.

My hope for the University of Alberta is that you will turn your current crisis into an opportunity to establish proper standards for scientific integrity and its enforcement. Good first steps would be 1) acknowledge that the University has made errors and 2) make amends.

I sincerely hope you make the right decisions, not only for the sake of your university but for our country.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause, @FairQuestions

Letter to Dr. Turpin, President & Vice-Chancellor of the University of Alberta: Click here.

See also: 

• What Got Me Started: A  Complaint of Apparent Scientific Misconduct
• Sea Lice Research Publicity: Executive Summary of Complaint of Apparent Scientific Misconduct
• Quietly Removed: 23 press releases and articles removed by David Suzuki Foundation
• $13 Million paid to the David Suzuki Foundation
• When David Suzuki Told Me To F*** Off
• U.S. tax returns showing payments from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to The David Suzuki Foundation for "organizing First Nations" and a campaign to keep a moratorium on oil and gas exploration on the coast of British Columbia.
• David Suzuki's Fish Story, The Financial Post, March 14, 2011
• Suzuki's Funding, The Financial Post, April 19, 2012

The Political Activity Audits of Charities: Fair Questions for the CRA

Much to my surprise, it is time to ask questions of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) with regards to its handling of the audits of political activity of registered charities, and more broadly, about its oversight of the Charities Directorate in general.

Back in 2012, the CRA began a series of political activity audits when the Conservative Party of Canada was in office. The charity that was at the centre of the fuss was Tides Canada. For background, see The CRA Audit of Tides Canada: Why The Stakes Are High.

Over and over, Tides Canada has denied any wrongdoing. “We are fully compliant with The Income Tax Act, all CRA guidelines regarding both domestic and international funding,” Tides Canada’s CEO, Ross McMillan, told Evan Solomon in a CBC interview in 2012.

With a staff of 250 and an annual budget of $29 million, The CRA’s Charities Directorate oversees 86,000 registered charities that report nearly $16 BILLION per year in tax-receipted revenue. The Directorate calls itself “a small-scale version of the CRA within the CRA,” and audits roughly 800 charities per year.

Before the political activity audits were brought about, information was provided to the CRA about two issues: 1) anti-pipeline activism, and 2) questionable payments (explained ahead). In the media, the political activity audits have been ridiculed as a witch hunt meanwhile investigative journalism about the questionable payments has been scant.

Result of the CRA’s Political Activity Audits

Between 2010 and 2016, the Charities Directorate did 4,615 charity audits and issued 182 notices of revocation, the CRA as said. Roughly four percent of audited charities have been shut down.

Of the 42 charities that were audited for their political activity between 2012 and 2016, 41 were not found to be compliant, the CRA reported in December of 2016. Most of the problems found were minor. However, with more than half of the audited charities, the CRA did Compliance Agreements, indicating that a moderate or severe level of non-compliance was common.

In keeping with the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, the names of the audited charities cannot be disclosed by the CRA.

In at least five cases, the CRA ruled that the charity should be closed (status revoked). It has since been reported by the CBC that seven charities, not five were slated for revocation. This level of non-compliance is roughly triple what the CRA has found in the course of routine audits over the past six years.

What about the charity that was at the centre of the fuss? What about Tides Canada? Six years on, it continues. So what were the results of its much publicized audit by the CRA?

Given that extensive evidence was provided to the CRA as far back as 2010 and that the federal government provided at least $8 million specifically for audits of politically active charities, what little is publicly known so far about the CRA’s handling of its audit of Tides Canada is baffling.

Tides Canada Not Audited Since 2009 ?!

In the 2016 financial statements for Tides Canada, it is reported that the CRA’s audit of Tides Canada covered 2008 and 2009. What this appears to indicate is that the CRA did NOT audit the books of Tides Canada for any year since 2010. Tides Canada’s financial statements also appear to indicate that the Initiatives Society has been under CRA audit for six years and counting - but as it appears, it is under audit only for 2008 and 2009. Tides Canada has not replied to numerous requests to provide clarification about its audit by the CRA.

Since 2010 when concerns were first drawn to the attention of the CRA, there have been three rounds of municipal elections, two provincial elections in B.C. and a federal election. In elections at all three levels of government, Tides-funded organizations have been active. Most recently, Tides Canada advertised to hire an employee to focus specifically on the 2018 municipal elections and the electoral reform referendum. In Vancouver, it isn't even clear yet who the mayoral candidates will be and yet Tides Canada is already hiring staff for elections activism. 

Over the years, Tides Canada has grown into a hefty operation. In fact, with annual revenue of $31 million and a staff of 225, Tides Canada is nearly the same size as the Charities Directorate at the CRA.

With $65 million in assets, Tides Canada earned nearly $2.5 million (2016) from investment income alone. That could fund a lot of activism, and other activities as well.

Tides Canada operates as two registered charities, Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Society. The foundation has equivalency status in the U.S. and files tax returns with the I.R.S. whereas the society does not. In practice, what this means is that Tides Canada Foundation can receive U.S. funds and then grant them to Tides Canada Initiatives Society. In the process, the U.S. funds are "canadianized" such that the elections activism, for example, that Tides Canada Initiatives conducts can be reported as funded by a "Canadian" source. Also, in terms of its reporting to the I.R.S., Tides Canada Foundation can report its spending on its internal programs as grants made to Tides Canada Initiatives Society - and that's about it. How convenient. Over the past decade, Tides Canada Foundation has reported to the I.R.S. that it has "granted" a total of at least US$46 Million to Tides Canada Initiatives Society. These payments are also reported in the foundations Canadian tax returns. 

Most of the information presented here is from the U.S. tax returns for Tides Canada Foundation. This is because the I.R.S. requires greater disclosure than the CRA. Without recourse to U.S. tax returns, most of the analysis presented here would have been impossible. For example, the US$ 471,706 (2012 & 2013) paid to Gerald Butts by WWF Canada (details ahead) would not have come to light were it not for U.S. tax returns.

The Dogwood Initiative

Had the CRA audited Tides Canada Foundation it would have found that Tides Canada has been funding The Dogwood Initiative (“Dogwood”), one of the most politically active organizations in the country. 

Based in Victoria, B.C., Dogwood is a non-profit that runs get-the-vote out campaigns for municipal, provincial and federal elections. Dogwood is so nakedly political that by its own admission (even as far back as 10 years ago), Dogwood does not quality as charity and yet over the years Dogwood has been funded via at least ten registered charities. For more information, read Who Is Dogwood and Who Funds It?

According to calculations based on its annual reports, Dogwood has had $10 million in revenue since 2008. At least $2.7 Million of that is from U.S. foundations that support anti-pipeline The Tar Sands Campaign, tax returns show. And that's not including funds from at least five U.S. sources, including some of the largest U.S. foundations.

Tides Canada Foundation has granted at least $400,000 to two registered charities that fund Dogwood: Institute for New Economics Public Research ("INE") and the Salal Foundation, and $120,950 to a third charity, the DI Foundation.

After 12 years of operation, INE abruptly ceased all financial activity in 2013. Same for The DI Foundation, which had been created only one year prior.

The Executive Director of the DI Foundation is Don Gordon. He is also the Head of Revenue of the Dogwood Initiative.

As it appears to me, The DI Foundation is a shell. It has no staff, does no fundraising, and since it began in 2012, it has made only one significant transaction: The transfer of $120,000 from Tides Canada Foundation to The Salal Foundation. These facts raise a series of fair questions: Why has the CRA allowed the DI Foundation to qualify as a registered charity? And how many of Canada’s 86,000 charities are shell charities like The DI Foundation?

$400,000 Severance Paid to Gerald Butts

Between 2008 and 2012, Gerald Butts was president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada, one of the organizations with which Tides Canada works most closely. During Mr. Butts' tenure as WWF Canada's president, the spouse of Tides Canada's CEO was hired by WWF Canada. After he resigned to work for Justin Trudeau’s Liberal leadership campaign, WWF Canada paid Mr. Butts US$361,642 in severance.

Both Mr. Butts and David Miller, WWF Canada’s president, have been asked by way of a letter about whether WWF Canada provided what is tantamount to a paid sabbatical to Mr. Butts while he ran the leadership and election campaigns for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Mr. Butts did not reply. Mr. Miller scoffed at the question, calling it a “baseless theory.”

Again, the above-mentioned facts raise a series of fair questions: Does the CRA allow a registered charity to provide as generous a severance package like the one that Mr. Butts received? Isn’t that a bit much?

Imagine if the president of The Fraser Institute had resigned to run leadership and election campaigns for Stephen Harper or Andrew Scheer and was paid more than $400,000 in severance. What a scandal that would be!

Since 2010, more than 50 charities have had their charitable status revoked for some of the same types of transactions that are described here. And yet Tides Canada, WWF Canada, the DI Foundation and other affiliated charities continue to operate and as it appears, they were not even audited despite the fact that the CRA was given millions of dollars specifically to audit the political activities of registered charities.

Not to draw comparisons between Tides Canada and Senator Mike Duffy but imagine the Senate had audited the senators and not audited the senator who was at the centre of the fuss? Again what a scandal that would be.

One of the findings that the CRA announced in its preliminary results was that “undue benefits” have been provided to an individual or individuals involved with one of the audited charities. The name of the charity (or charities) that provided the undue benefits was not given.

Undue benefits is precisely the concern that was first raised with the CRA back in 2010 with regards to the funds (more than $1 million) that The Endswell Foundation paid to Joel Solomon. For more about that, read this letter to Joel Solomon.

If Mr. Solomon and Mr. Gerald Butts are not the individuals to whom the CRA found that undue benefits were provided, then who were? Are these cases of undue benefits that the CRA missed? And if so, why? How many similar cases have also been missed, if any? These questions are fair.

In May of 2017, the National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier announced that the federal government has asked the Canada Revenue Agency to suspend all action in relation to the political activity audits of charities. Asked whether this means that the seven charities that were to lose their status are off the hook, the CRA gave a vague reply (e-mail from Sept. 12, 2017), re-stating what was in the CRA’s press release from May.

Allowing charities to run amok is at least as wrong as the anti-pipeline activism that prompted the political activity audits in the first place. Furthermore, the Charities Directorate has made a mockery not only of itself but also of the honest efforts of Canadians who provided evidence to the CRA in good faith that due process would take its course. In fact, it didn't.

The Tar Sands Campaign Against the Overseas Export of Canadian Oil: Activism or Economic Sabotage?

For excerpts of the full report, click here: The Tar Sands Campaign Against Overseas Exports of Canadian Oil: Activism or Economic Sabotage?

On the basis of the evidence presented in this report, it is clear that The Northern Gateway pipeline and other proposed pipelines for the overseas export of oil from western Canada have been deliberately sabotaged as part of a multi-million dollar, U.S.-funded effort referred to as "The Tar Sands Campaign." This effort aims to stop the export of oil from western Canada by pipeline, tanker and by rail. The absence of a successful response to anti-pipeline activism and other factors also contributed to pipeline project cancellations.

When the American funding behind The Tar Sands Campaign first came to light in 2010, the strategy of the U.S. funders was not entirely clear. But now it is. In the words of the original director of The Tar Sands Campaign, from the very beginning the strategy was to "land-lock" oil from western Canada within North America so that it could not reach overseas markets where it could attain a higher price per barrel.

The Tides Foundation alone has made more than 400 payments totalling $40 million to 100 organizations involved in The Tar Sands Campaign.

Over the years, The Tar Sands Campaign has broadened from environmental activism to elections activism. After Canada's 2015 federal election, The Tar Sands Campaign organizers claimed credit for helping to defeat the Conservative Party of Canada. 

Among the Canadian participants, two of the most heavily funded organizations are Leadnow and The Dogwood Initiative. Both are active in municipal, provincial and federal elections, especially in British Columbia. What this means is that one of the factors in Canadian elections at all levels of government is a multi-million dollar effort that continues the U.S. monopoly on Canadian oil exports, keeping Canada over a barrel.

To continue reading, click here.

More information:  

• Election Activism: The Dogwood Initiative, Who Is It and Who Funds It?
• Who Is Behind Leadnow?
• Submission to Canada Elections RE: Leadnow

 

Election Activism: Dogwood Initiative Who Is It & Who Funds It?

For my complete report (99 pages) click here: Election Activism: Who Is The Dogwood Initiative & Who Funds It?

The Dogwood Initiative is a non-profit organization that campaigns against coal and also plays a lead role in the anti-pipeline, Tar Sands Campaign. Created by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Tides Foundation and other U.S. foundations, The Tar Sands Campaign aims to sabotage the Canadian oil industry by undermining investor confidence and “land-locking” oil sands crude within North America so that it cannot reach overseas markets where it could fetch a higher price per barrel. U.S. foundations that support this campaign have paid Dogwood at least $2.7 million (2008 - 2016).

Dogwood runs get-the-vote-out campaigns in municipal, provincial and federal elections in order to elect candidates and political parties who oppose pipelines and more broadly, to defeat any politician or political party who supports the Canadian oil & gas industry.

Dogwood claims to have helped elect seven mayors during the 2014 municipal elections in B.C. Dogwood also claims to have helped to defeat eight Conservative incumbents in the 2015 federal election. In B.C.’s 2017 provincial election, Dogwood helped to make “corporate cash” a central issue and got voters to the polls in key ridings, especially in Vancouver. It follows that one of the many factors in election outcomes in Canada is a U.S.-funded campaign to keep Canada over a barrel.

For 2016/2017, Dogwood’s total revenue was $1.6 million, up four-fold since 2010. According to the analysis presented here, funding from U.S. foundations accounted for roughly 15% of Dogwood’s total revenue for 2016. With 260,000 supporters, most of whom are Canadian, Dogwood has came to the point that with or without U.S. funding, Dogwood can influence elections at all levels of government.

For more information, click here: Election Activism: Who Is The Dogwood Initiative & Who Funds It?

Who Is Behind Leadnow?

Leadnow is a Vancouver-based, non-profit society that was created in 2010 with the goal of bringing to Canada a model of on-line, political campaigning and movement organizing that began in the U.S. behind President Barack Obama.

During Canada’s 2015 federal election, Leadnow ran a strategic voting initiative called Vote Together. Leadnow claims to have defeated 25 Conservative incumbents.  That’s a stretch but in a small number of ridings, it is conceivable that Leadnow had an impact. For example, in Elmswood-Transcona where Leadnow had paid staff and 130 volunteers, the Conservative incumbent was defeated by only 61 votes.

Leadnow presents itself as a thoroughly Canadian “youth-led” organization with a modest budget, the brainchild of two university students, Adam Shedletzky and Jamie Biggar. But that is not the whole story.

Leadnow’s original business plan, written in 2010, called for $16 million over ten years. Leadnow acknowledges that received seed capital but won't identify the source.

At least 17 companies & consultants have provided services to Leadnow, including the design of its brand, the creation of its donor base, surveys, polls and report editing.

One of Leadnow’s original "founding advisors" is Ben Brandzel. At the time, Brandzel was the Director of Strategic Incubation at the Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL), based in Oakland, California. With funding via The Tides Foundation (“Tides”), the CEL began in 2008, the same year that Tides began to fund its anti-pipeline, Tar Sands Campaign.

In 2011, Brandzel came to Canada to help set up Leadnow and has since provided behind-the-scenes help. On the basis if these facts it appears that Leadnow was set up as part of the CEL’s “Strategic Incubation” program.’

One of CEL's fiscally sponsored projects is the Online Progressive Engagement Network (OPEN). Ben Brandzel is its director. OPEN describes itself as "a sisterhood of grassroots campaigning organizations from around the world." As it appears, the CEL bundled its "strategic incubation" projects – including Leadnow - into OPEN. OPEN’s member groups appear to be authentically grassroots outfits but, in fact, some of them, including Leadnow, began with help from the CEL.

Leadnow staff have attended OPEN meetings in New York, England, Germany and Australia, photos show. In January of 2016, Leadnow received an award from OPEN for its campaign, Vote Together, that helped defeat the Harper government. And yet, in all Leadanow’s on-line communication, not one single mention of Leadnow’s involvement with OPEN could be found.

Why the secrecy if there is nothing to hide?

OPEN calls itself as "the people behind the people." OPEN says it is a ‘B2B’ organization that intentionally keeps "a very low public profile" because of the sensitive political implications of its work. OPEN “helps insights, expertise and collaboration to flow seamlessly across borders,” it says. OPEN gives “special access to best-in-class external resources ranging from video production to management coaching.” “Seasoned campaign veterans provide expert training and strategic support,” OPEN says.

In a job ad that OPEN posted in 2014, OPEN indicated that it anticipated the possibility of assisting Leadnow with the production of advertisements for use during the 2015 federal election. OPEN has also advertised to hire staff that could be based in Vancouver.

From Leadnow's 2010 Business Plan, it is clear that as far back as 2010, Leadnow has been focused on defeating the Conservative government. Leadnow's "Investor Package" states that Leadnow intended to "offer tangible support to parties that adopt their policies, and use tools like strategic voting to "swing elections" to reflect Canada's progressive majority." Evidently, it stands to reason that the Citizen Engagement Laboratory appears to have knowingly supported a foreign organization with a clear, multi-million dollar plan to defeat a democratically elected, Canadian government. Clearly, this is not what American charitable organizations are supposed to do.

Initially, Leadnow had a policy that prohibited “international funding.” At some point before the spring of 2012, that policy was re-written, records show, and the ban on international funding was discontinued.

Leadnow has received funding from The Tides Foundation in San Francisco, both directly and indirectly through the Sisu Institute, based in Sointula B.C. Neither Leadnow nor Sisu will disclose exactly how much of Leadnow’s revenue it receives via Sisu and Tides. For 2015, The Sisu Institute reported total revenue of $1.7 million. Of that, roughly $1 million (nearly 60%) was from the U.S. via Tides in San Francisco. In 2016, Leadnow and the Sisu Institute received US$59,041 and US$201,848, respectively, from Tides.

The most obvious way that Leadnow had an impact in Canada’s 2015 federal election was in terms of ‘getting out the vote,’ particularly in certain ridings. The less obvious means was by running a hard-hitting, negative campaign on social media against the Conservative party, and in particular, against its leader, Stephen Harper. Justin Trudeau hardly needed to “go negative” because Leadnow and other third parties - and much of the media - were doing so, thereby generating a foil of bad press about the Prime Minister and the Conservatives, in general.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with Leadnow being part of an international network of progressive organizations. However, given Leadnow’s influence in Canada’s 2015 federal election, its electoral reform campaign and activism against important energy and pipeline projects, Leadnow’s funding and U.S. support needs to be out in the open.

For my full report, submitted to Canada Elections in May of 2017, click here: Vivian Krause Who Is Behind Leadnow?

Submission to Canada Elections RE: Leadnow

Here is the letter that I sent to Canada Elections on Wednesday, May 24, 2017: Letter to Canada Elections

• Fair Questions For Leadnow - This was sent to Leadnow on October 17, 2016. No reply.

Noting that a potentially important piece of information that I had submitted to Canada Elections had been removed, I wrote a second letter and submitted it on June 30, 2017:  2nd Letter Canada Elections,  June 30, 2017

Here are the attachments to my letter of May 24, 2017:

1. NOTES - Leadnow & OPEN
2. NOTES - Leadnow's Funding
3. NOTES - 17 Companies & Consultants That Have Provided Services to Leadnow
4. NOTES - Leadnow, The Sisu Society & The Tides Foundation
5. NOTES - LeadNow's Paid Employees
6. NOTES - Leadnow Surveys
7. Tides Canada & Collette Travel Pawtucket Rhode Island

Note: After submitting the above files to Canada Elections, I noticed that The Tides Foundation has posted its list of grantees for 2016. According to that list, in 2016 Leadnow received $59,041 via Tides and the Sisu Society received $201,848. This brings the total amount that Leadnow and The Sisu Institute have received via The Tides Foundation to a combined total of US$1.7 million (2012 - 2016). Of that, US$1.6 million was granted directly to the Sisu Institute. The total amount granted directly to Leadnow from the Tides Foundation is at least US$137,587. That consisted of US$ 78,546 in 2014 and US$ 59,041 in 2016.

From a covering letter on a payment to the Sisu Institute in 2013, it is clear that Leadnow was funded by Tides indirectly through the Sisu Institute. For an excerpt of this covering letter, click here.

How much of the US$1.6 million that Tides has paid to The Sisu Institute was re-granted to Leadnow is not clear. Both Leadnow and Sisu have been asked this question. Neither replied.

Related documents:

1. Leadnow’s Financial Statements:

• 2014
• 2015
• 2016: Not yet publicly available.
• 2017: Not yet publicly available.

2. OPEN’s Annual Report for 2015 – available from Ben Brandzel at Ben@the-open.net.

3. Canadians Building A More Progressive Canada. Strategies and Opportunities. 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013. This document is dated December 1, 2010, 30 pages. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/Leadnow-fundraising/1zpZuRPGI7s

4. Leadnow’s Leadnow's 2016 Transformation Plan Written by Jamie Biggar. November 7, 2013. https://prezi.com/wcfc-wgfpgat/leadnows-2016-transformation-plan/

5. Leadnow 2-Year Strategy Gut Check Written by Jamie Biggar. July 24, 2013. https://prezi.com/__vrnxid_ebs/leadnow-2-year-strategy-gut-check/

6. OPEN Summit Event Handbook. Agape Center. Holmes, New York. January 7-10, 2013. OPEN Summit Event Handbook

7. Job Announcement – Director of Development t and Storytelling for OPEN. Posted May 12, 2012, April 23, 2015 and again on May 23, 2015.

8. Job Announcement – Network Architect for OPEN announced on Twitter, September 4, 2014.

Vancouver Observer / National Observer ENTIRELY REMOVED Three Articles About Vivian Krause

As readers of this blog are aware, the Vancouver Observer/National Observer published a series of articles alleging that the writer of this blog, Vivian Krause, is or was part of a "planned attack" against environmental against charities. In essence, the VO/NO painted me, Vivian Krause, as a stooge of the Conservatives, getting paid via speaking engagements that were orchestrated by Senator Mike Duffy. As I explained in detail in previous posts (here and here), these articles were grossly inaccurate and untrue. I believe that these articles were defamatory and were seriously hurting my chances to earn a living. As a result, I sought legal counsel and took action in April of 2017.

Three entire articles about me have now been removed from the web-sites of the Vancouver Observer and the National Observer. The first of these articles was published on April 10, 2015, and removed at around 1 am on August 25, 2015. The second article was published on May 7, 2015. The original author of the first article was Danny Kresnyak. His name was later replaced with that of Jenny Uechi. The second article was authored by Sandy Garossino and Mychaylo Prystupa.

The Vancouver Observer/National Observer also removed an entire article by Mike De Souza, published under the headline, "My former employer attacked me." In conjunction with that article, Mr. De Souza filed a complaint against the Financial Post with the National News Media Council. The complaint was dismissed by the National News Media Council on December 1, 2016.

The Vancouver Observer and the National Observer are published by Observer Media Group.

As alleged in court documents filed on May 5, 2017, the Observer Media Group appears to me to have vested interests and ulterior motives in seeking to discredit me so that my work is not taken seriously.

Vested Interests and Ulterior Motives

In making allegations of vested interests and ulterior motives, I do not do so lightly. These are serious matters.  In the remainder of this post, I'll begin to explain the basis for these allegations.

As I reported in The Financial Post in October 3, 2016, Observer Media Group is funded in part by the Tides Foundation, based in San Francisco, and its Canadian counter-part, the Tides Canada Foundation, based in Vancouver. The founder and publisher of the Observer Group is Linda Solomon Wood who is a sister of Joel Solomon. Known in Vancouver as the mayor's best friend and financial backer, Mr. Joel Solomon has a long history with the Tides Foundation. According to U.S. tax returns, Mr. Solomon was an independent contractor to Tides as far back as 1997. Mr. Solomon is also a former chairman of the board of the Tides Foundation and was a paid employee of the Endswell Foundation, a central charity in the Tides network.

According to a series of covering letters on payments that were posted at the web-site of the Tides Foundation, Tides Canada Foundation has made dozens if not hundreds of payments to ineligible organizations via a mechanism called the Tides Canada Foundation Exchange Fund. By its own admission, Tides Canada has processed at least $22 million via its Exchange Fund.

As I testified to a Senate committee (November of 2016), it is clear to me, from my lay perspective, that Tides Canada Foundation has been involved in a tax fraud scam wherein Tides Canada Foundation received millions of dollars for charitable activity in Canada that was never conducted. This apparent scam was run under the Exchange Fund. Evidence of this scam comes from a large series of covering letters on payments made by the Tides Foundation and tax returns. Five examples of payments that were received by Tides Canada Foundation but were not entirely spent on charitable activity in Canada are listed below, for a total of $3.1 million:

• 2010: $450,000
• 2011: $260,000
• 2012: $575,000
• 2013: $825,000
• 2014: $450,000
• 2015: $600,000

U.S. tax returns and other documents indicate that most of the $3.1 million transferred to Tides Canada Foundation via Collette Foundation Canada was then transferred to a pair of U.S. charities based in Pawtucket, Rhode Island that are managed by the original donors. The funds were then spent by those charities. In essence, it appears to me that, from my lay perspective, Tides Canada was 'selling' a service that enabled another charity (or charities) to issue receipts for tax deductions for millions of dollars worth of charitable activity in Canada that never actually happened. If, indeed, this occurred, this is a serious violation of the Income Tax Act and is grounds for revocation of charitable status. For more about this, readers are referred to a paper that I submitted as part of my testimony to a Senate committee: Tides Canada Foundation and Collette Travel, Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

In December, Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer, reported at his blog that Tides Canada Foundation was closing its "international donor matching system," another term for the Exchange Fund. Mr. Blumberg also reported that Tides Canada charged a 10 percent fee, ie. $100,000 on a $1 million transfer. That's a hefty cut.

In December of 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency reported on the results of its political activity audits, as part of a larger report. Of the 42 charities audited, 41 were somehow in the wrong. Only one charity was rated “No Problem Found" by the CRA. In keeping with the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, the names of the audited charities were not released.

In its interim report on the results of the CRA’s political activity audits, the CRA reported that it had found “delivery of an undue benefit to person involved with a charity.” That is precisely what I was concerned about back in 2010 when I first reported to the CRA that one of the charities in the Tides network, the Endswell Foundation, had made payments for more than $US 1 million to Interdependent Investments Ltd., a private company of Mr. Solomon.

In January, I sent a letter to Joel Solomon to inquire about whether Endswell has been under CRA audit, and specifically, about whether the CRA had found that Endswell was in the wrong for its payments to Interdependent Investments. Mr. Solomon could easily have answered “No.” But, he didn’t. Instead, Mr. Solomon replied, “Any assumption that my non-responses to your assertions implies agreement, is incorrect.” If Mr. Solomon and/or The Endswell Foundation is not in trouble with the CRA, why doesn’t he simply say so?

As I explain in a separate post, with regards to the results of the CRA’s audit of Tides Canada Foundation, the stakes are high, not only for Tides Canada but also for its U.S. funders, particularly the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation which has granted at least US$ 70 million to Tides Canada.

In June of 2014, I was told by a representative of the Moore Foundation that Tides Canada was in trouble with the CRA because of its Exchange Fund. However, at the time, with no documentation of that, there wasn't much to discuss. Now, there is.