Rethink Campaigns

Renewal Partners Investments: New Hampshire Pizza, Re-cyclable Maxipads, Real Estate in Nashville Tennessee, Etc.

"The difference with Solomon and Newell, both born and raised in the United States, was that they focused their investments in one region to make the most sweeping change possible on a social, business, environmental, and political scale.  The area they chose was Metro Vancouver, where the pair has been responsible for millions and millions of dollars in various types of business investments, charitable contributions and, more recently, enthusiastic backing for the city's new left-leaning mayor, Gregor Robertson."

- Lori Culbert, Vancouver SUN, 8 August 2010.

 

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

NOTE:  This post was up-dated on May 24, 2011 on the basis of a reader's comments, posted at CityCaucus.

In Vancouver's 2008 municipal election, the biggest financial backers of the winning political party were Renewal Partners and Strategic Communications, a P.R. company that says that it is a "partner" of Renewal Partners. According to the Vancouver Sun's on-line database, Renewal Partners contributed $70,469 and Strategic Communications contributed $83,314. Considering their financial heft in Vancouver's most recent election, its fair for the public to inquire to some extent about these companies.

One of first things that surprises me is that both Renewal Partners and Strategic Communications are "extra-provincial." Renewal Partners is registered in Halifax and Strategic Communications, in Ontario.

Renewal Partners describes itself as a seed-capital investment firm and says that it invests in "new products and services needed for sustainability, such as organic food production and distribution, responsible investing, independent media, and greener consumer products."  Whether or not those are the products and services that are most needed for sustainability, is a separate issue. Nonetheless, that's what Renewal Partners says that it is investing in.

Renewal Partners says that it has invested in "over 75 companies." At the web-site of Renewal Partners, I could find the names of only 26 of these companies. For one of these 26 companies (The Nimble Company), I could not find a B.C. company summary or any other on-line information about the existence of this companies.

Renewal Partners says that it has invested "heavily" in British Columbia. Of the 25 companies for which I could find information, only eight are or were located in Vancouver. A further six companies are in Canada but not based in Vancouver. Ten of the 25 companies - close to half - in which Renewal Partners has invested are based in the U.S.  One company, Altrushare, may or may not be the company in which Renewal Partners has invested.  As of May 24, 2011, I'm still trying to find out.

Why so much investment in the United States?

Joel Solomon talks about Vancouver as his crucible for social change. "Vancouver is the city that Solomon believes is best positioned to move to a new plane," Solomon told Vancouver journalist, Frances Bula. If so, why is it that Renewal Partners has invested in more companies in the United States than in Vancouver?

Joel Solomon has been asked these questions since September 13, 2010. No reply has been received.

The American companies in which Renewal Partners reports that it has invested are:

• a pizza company and an organic yoghurt company in New Hampshire 
• a cosmetics company in New York 
• an environmentally-friendly cleaning products company in Vermont
• a packaged goods company in San Francisco 
• a wild seafood company based in Altos, California 
• a music publishing company in Colorado 
• a company that sells solar-powered battery chargers, based in Berkeley 
• a seed-capital investment firm in Vermont.

All of these companies may be helping to make the world a better place, but if Joel Solomon and Renewal Partners' primary interest is in making Vancouver a model for social change and sustainability, why are they investing in companies in New Hampshire, New York, Colorado, Vermont and California?

To lead a shift towards sustainability - as Joel Solomon and Renewal Partners aim to do - aren't there higher priorities than fruit juice, cosmetics and grocery delivery? Of all the "green" products that Renewal Partners could invest in, why pizza? Why re-usable maxipads?

Two of the companies in which Renewal Partners has apparently invested, are real estate companies: Renewal Land Company and Village Real Estate, based in Nashville, Tennessee. According to U.S. tax returns, Joel Solomon has 10 percent ownership in Village Real Estate. If true, what this means, if I'm not mistaken, is that Renewal Partners has invested in a company in which Joel Solomons has partial ownership.

Another entity which the Endswell Foundation says that is has supported, is Hollyhock, an ocean-front facility on Cortes Island.  B.C. company summaries show that the president of both Hollyhock Farm Ltd. and Hollyhock Centre Ltd. is Joel Solomon. During the summer of 2010, Hollyhock had at least 10 employees who provided "bodywork" services which cost from $85 to $170 per hour. Bodywork is offered by Hollyhock Farm Ltd., a for-profit corporation that operates on the grounds of Hollyhock, the ocean-front charity facility.

Prior to entering B.C. politics, the  treasurer of Hollyhock Farm Ltd., in 2004, was Mayor Gregor Robertson. The only other two officers of this company, at the time, were Joel Solomon and Martha Burton, the current treasurer of Vision Vancouver.

Vancouver-based Companies:

• Communicopia - a P.R. company. For info, click here.  

• Lunapads International Products Ltd. - cloth maxipads to wash and re-use. For info, click here.  

• Happy Planet - part-owned by Mayor Gregor Robertson, 60% owned by Naheb Mathoo, according to Business in Vancouver. For info, click here. 

• Horizon Distributors - household delivery of groceries, specialized in organic foods. For info, click here.

• Small Potatoes Urban Delivery - household delivery of groceries, specialized in organic foods. For info, click here.  

• Inhance Investment Management Inc. - Vancity? 

• Jorg. & Olif. - now in the U.K. 

• Shared Vision - in hiatus as of April 2009 

B.C.-Based Companies:

• Renewal Land Company. For info, click here.  

• New Society Publishers. For info, click here.  

• Saltspring Coffee. For info, click here.

• Eat More Sprouts.   

Canadian Companies Outside of B.C.:

• Investeco Capital Corp. 

• Jantzi-Sustainalytics. For info from Renewal Partners, click here.   

U.S. Companies:

• Alter-ecos Americas - packaged goods, specialized in fair trade & organic products

• Better Energy Systems LLC - (www.solio.com) - solar-powered batter chargers

• Blue Horizon Foods - a wild seafood company, based in Aptos, CA 

• Peacekeeper Cause-metics - a cosmetics company in New York  

• Rustic Crust - a pizza company in New Hampshire  

• Seventh Generation 

• Sounds True Inc. - a media publishing company, based in Colorado  

• Stonyfield Farm - an organic yogurt company in New Hampshire. For info from Renewal Partners, click here.   

• Underdog Ventures - based in Vermont 

• Village Real Estate - based in Nashville, Tenessee. For info, click here.

Is Tides Canada Behind Open Media?

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer 

Open Media says that it is working to advance and support an open and innovative communications system in Canada. Back in February, I wrote a post at this blog in which I tried to raise questions about whether what Open Media is doing is charity or lobbying. 

In a letter that I received from Tides Canada's lawyer, he says, "Tides Canada does not fund Open Media" and "Open Media is not a project of Tides Canada."  I find this difficult to reconcile with some of the information that has been posted at the web-site of Open Media, and has since been REMOVED OR RE-WRITTEN. To read more, click here.

"ZERO" Expenditures for Political Activity Reported (2009) to Revenue Canada by Tides Canada

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

As shown in the excerpt below, in the publicly available Canadian tax returns, Tides Canada reported ZERO expenditures for political activity, for 2009.

Click on the image below for a larger, more legible version.

For the publicly available tax returns of Tides Canada where this information is reported, click here for Tides Canada Foundation, and here for Tides Canada Initiatives Society.  See Line 5030.

"ZERO" Political Activity?

The reporting from Tides Canada that it did not spend any money on political activity in 2009 is difficult for me to reconcile with what Tides Canada Foundation reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in its U.S. tax return for 2009. Three reasons:

• One of Tides Canada's projects is Organizing for Change for which Tides Canada paid at least $90,125 in 2008/2009.  As has been published in The National Post and in The Vancouver Sun, this project of Tides Canada sought to influence the leadership picks of both the Liberal and the NDP political parties in British Columbia.

• Tides Canada is a partner/supporter of The Dogwood Initiative which seeks to get the federal government to legislate a ban on oil tanker traffic on the north coast of B.C.  Tides Canada paid at least $46,639 for the Dogwood Initiative, in 2009. An American foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, paid The Dogwood Initiative "to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tankers."

• Open Media has referred to itself, at least that's how it seems to me, as a project of Tides Canada.  Open Media mobilized nearly half a million Canadians to oppose user-based billing. "You've moved politics!", Open Media announced. Tides Canada's lawyer has stated that Tides Canada does not fund Open Media and that Open Media is not a project of Tides Canada. However, based on what was posted at the web-site of Open Media, I find that hard to believe. That information has since been removed but it can be seen here.

In addition to the above, I also note that in 2009, Tides Canada paid $5.3 million to 25 organizations, some of which appear to me to be involved in various forms of advocacy.  For example, Living Oceans Society runs six campaigns that tell people to write letters to government. Pacific Wild also provides information on writing letters to government and encourages the public to "take action."

At least one organization, PETA, suggests that because of its advocacy work, it doesn't qualify as a charity so it receives donations through Tides Canada instead.  PETA says, "Heads up, Canadians! For your retirement accounts, and donations and bequests to PETA in general, you may want to consider giving through the Tides Canada Foundation-PETA  Fund. Tides Canada is a registered Canadian charity (http://tidescanada.org/), 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." For information about the PETA Fund at Tides Canada, click here.

Tides Canada itself may not have been politically active, but as it appears to me, several of the organizations that are funded by Tides Canada, especially the organizations that receive the largest grants, are politically active.  In my opinion, this raises a fair question: Does it make sense for a foundation that funds politically active organizations to claim that it is not politically active itself?

In previous years, Tides Canada Initiatives Society reported a total of $266,226 on political activity. Which political activities did Tides Canada support between 2004 and 2008?  And why did Tides Canada report political activities during 2004 to 2008, but not in 2009?

Excerpts from Canadian Tax Returns:

  

 

$1.3 Million Paid by Tides USA & Tides Canada to Cortes Island Organizations (2000-2009)

Please read: Copyright & Disclaimer

According to my calculations based on U.S. and Canadian tax returns, since 2000 Tides Canada, Tides USA and the Endswell Foundation have granted at least $1.3 million to various organizations on Cortes Island.  Of that, approximately $445,000 was granted to Hollyhock, an ocean-front charity facility with which Joel Solomon and his wife, Dana Bass Solomon, are intimately involved. Ms. Solomon is the CEO of Hollyhock. Joel Solomon is the chairman of the board.

The Linnaea Farm Society received at least $700,000 and other organizations received at least $143,000. From 2000 to 2005, the president of the Linnaea Farm Society was Amy Robertson, the wife of Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson.

The $1.3 million dollar figure is only for the grants for which I have found documentation. This figure may be a substantial under-estimate of the total amount that has been granted by Cortes organizations, for two reasons: 1) the amounts granted by Tides Canada are not included for 2000 - 2005, and for 2007. This is because, to the best of my knowledge, no information about the amounts of individuals grants made by Tides Canada is publicly available for these years, and 2) Between 2003 and 2009, Endswell made 99 percent of its grants to Tides Canada, for a total of $8.7 million.  How much of that went to Cortes Island is not reported. 

As I have reviewed the U.S. tax and Canadian tax returns for Tides Canada, Tides USA and the Endswell Foundation, I have not found any other place in Canada where these foundations have spent as much money on a similar number of organizations over a similar period.  In my opinion, this raises a fair question:  of all the places in Canada, why have Tides Canada, Tides USA and Endswell chosen to focus on Cortes Island - a place where it just so happens that Drummond Pike and Joel Solomon own private property? 

Below, here are the excerpts of U.S. and Canadian tax returns on which the above table is based.

Canadian Foundations That Have Paid Tides Canada $27 Million (2000-2009)

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

According to my analysis of Canadian tax returns and on-line records, since 2000 at least 27 Canadian charitable foundations have paid $100,000 or more to Tides Canada Foundation (TCF). The total paid by these 27 foundations was $27 million.  Of that, $21.4 million (79 percent) was granted by eight foundations: Endswell, Bealight, Simons, Richard Ivey, North Growth (Rudy Growth), Illahie, Mastercard and the Royal Bank of Canada. 

Here's the question that this raises, in my opinion:  Why are these charitable foundations funding Tides Canada? Considering that they themselves are charitable foundations, why don't they make grants directly to the grant recipients that are ultimately paid by Tides Canada?  Why use Tides Canada as an intermediary or, for lack of a better term, a "middle man?" Tides Canada has been asked these questions by e-mail but as has declined or refused to comment.

The table below lists the 27 foundations that have granted $100,000 or more to Tides Canada since 2000, according to Canadian tax returns and on-line records. 

Below, links are provided to the web-pages with the information on which the above table was based.  These web-pages are from Canadian tax returns for Canadian charitable foundations.

1) $10,118,965  from the Endswell Foundation:

• $475,000  in 2000 (Click here and scroll down).
• $588,825 in 2001 (Click here and scroll way down to H1).
• $2,000,004 in 2002 (Click here and scroll way down to H1).
• $744,242 ($563,500 according to publicly available info in Canadian tax returns)
• $1,323,000 in 2004
• $1,208,166 in 2006
• $1,227,400 in 2007
• $2,353,525 in 2008
• $633,632 in 2009

2) $4,156,878 from the Bealight Foundation:

• $4,051,878  in 2002
• $50,000 in 2004
• $50,000 in 2007
• $5,000 in 2009

3) $3,311,845 from the Simons Foundation:

• $99,244 in 2004
• $476,210 in 2005
• $80,035 in 2006
• $111,439 in 2007
• $507,917 in 2008
• $2,037,000 in 2009

4) $1,000,000 from the North Growth Foundation (Rudy & Patricia North)

• $833,333 in 2008
• $1,666,167 in 2007

5) $870,500 from the Richard Ivey Foundation

• $130,000 in 2009
• $170,000 in 2008
• $379,000 in 2007
• $121,500 in 2006
• $ 50,000 in 2005
• $150,000 in 2004

6) $652,068 from the Illahie Foundation:

• $80,000 in 2001 (Click here and scroll down to H1).
• $65,000 in 2002 (Click here and scroll down to H1).
• $71,568 in 2003
• $65,000 in 2004
• $82,500 in 2005
• $74,000 in 2006
• $11,000 in 2007
• $79,000 in 2008
• $75,000 in 2009

7) $550,000 in 2009 from the Mastercard Foundation

8) $500,000 from the Royal Bank of Canada, according to Tides Canada

9) $542,330 in 2008 from the Lundin for Africa Foundation

10) $507,000 from the Lichen Foundation

Note: The charitable status of the Lichen Foundation was voluntarily revoked as of Feb. 26, 2011.

• $40,000 in 2003
• $360,000 in 2004
• $50,000 in 2005
• $15,000 in 2006
• $25,000 in 2007
• $17,000 in 2008

11) $$401,840 from the Rasch Foundation:

• $138,072 in 2005
• $43,768 in 2006
• $100,000 in 2007 (of a total of $147,218)
• $120,000 in 2008 (of a total of $159,313)

12)  $375,000 from the Lewfam Foundation:

• $50,000 in 2004
• $200,000 in 2005
• $125,000 in 2006

13) $302,500 from the Tom and Gail Kaneb Foundation 

• $248,500 in  
• $54,000 in 

14) $285,000 from the J.W. McConnell Foundation.

• $10,000 in 2003
• $275,000 in 2006

NOTE: In 2007, the J.W. McConnell Foundation made grants for a total of $20,264,815 (scroll down to E3) but whether funds were granted to Tides Canada in that year is not reported in publicly available Canadian tax returns.

15) $280,000 from the McMillan Family Foundation

• $140,000 in 
• $140,000 in 2008/2009

16) $275,000 from the Hamilton Community Foundation

• $125,000 in 2006
• $150,000 in 2009

17) $250,000 from the Royal Bank Financial Group - not confirmed.

18) $244,972 from the Cloverleaf Foundation

• $60,847 in 2004
• $53,000 in 2007
• $68,000 in 2008
• $63,125 in 2009

19) $209,000 from the Somerset Foundation:

• $93,000 in 2007
• $100,000 in 2006
• $8,000 in 2004
• $8,000 in 2003

20) $191,246 from the Plan Institute for Citizenship and Disability

21) $150,000 from the Frank J. Flaman Foundation (for Room to Read)

22) $137,136 from the Oakville Community Foundation:

• $48,047 in 2006
• $61,089 in 2008
• $28,000 in 2009

23) $120,750 from the Laidlaw Foundation:

• $50,000 in 2008
• $70,750 in 2009

24) $100,000 from Claudine & Stephen Bronfman Family Foundation

25) $100,000 from the Borealis Foundation

26) $100,000 from the Maytree Foundation ($60,000 in 2003 and $40,000 in 2004)

27) $100,000 from the Koffler Foundation

Spreadsheets on which the above figures are based:

• Figure 1  27  Top Canadian Donors to Tides Canada (2000-2009)
• Figure 2 (pie) Canadian Donors to Tides Canada (2000-2009)

HALF of Tides Canada's Grants for B.C.'s North/Central Coast (2009)

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

According to my calculations and analysis, shown below, during 2009 Tides Canada made grants for a total of $9.4 million.  Of that, about half (48 percent) was spent on projects targeting B.C.'s north/central coast, my analysis finds.

In 2008, the percentage of Tides Canada's total grants that was ear-marked for B.C.'s north/central coast would have been even higher since Tides Canada made a mega-grant for $27.3 million to the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation, a  non-profit that benefits exclusively, a select group of First Nations on the north/central coast of B.C. That one grant alone accounted for 73 percent of the total funds that Tides Canada granted in 2008.  For 2010, Tides Canada's U.S. tax return is not yet publicly available and has not been provided by Tides Canada. 

This analysis suggests to me that of all the places in Canada, and of all the issues that Tides Canada could tackle, Tides Canada has chosen to focus a large proportion of its resources on a small but strategic part of the coastline of Canada:  the north/central coast of B.C.  This happens to be right smack where freighters and oil tankers would need to travel in order to allow Canadian oil and other products to be exported to Asia.

It may be that Tides Canada's focus on the north/central coast of B.C. has nothing to do with oil exports. Regardless, by providing such a large amount of money to a large number of organizations that oppose oil tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast, Tides Canada appears to me to be playing a role in making possible a concerted effort that would landlock Canadian oil within North America, and continue the U.S.'s virtual monopoly on Canadian oil exports.  Its  easy for me to see how this benefits the United States, and may be in the interests of Tides Canada's U.S. funders. However, I do not see how this is in the best interests of Canada nor other countries.  My analysis of U.S. tax returns shows that American foundations have paid Tides Canada at least $57 million since 2000.

Worksheets:

• Tab & Fig(pie) TCF Geo Analysis 2009

• Tabs TCF TCIS North Coast & Energy 2009

$7 Million from Tides Canada for 20 Organizations & Campaigns that Would Thwart The Canadian Oil Industry

Please read: Important Notice and Disclaimer

According to my analysis of U.S. tax returns for 2008 and 2009, Tides Canada paid $7 million to 20 organizations and campaigns that would block Canadian oil exports to Asia or tackle the Canadian oil industry.  In most cases, it is unclear how much of the total grant was spent specifically on projects directed towards the oil industry; that amount may be small or zero.  

The 25 organizations and campaigns and the amounts that they were granted by Tides Canada, are listed below along with excerpts from the U.S. tax returns for Tides Canada.

$3.2 million to organizations involved in the Great Bear Rainforest:

Environmental organizations object to oil tanker traffic on the north coast of B.C. because they say that it would endanger the Great Bear Rainforest.  In essence, the Great Bear Rainforest has become the Great Trade Barrier to Canadian oil exports to Asia.

• $848,966 was for the Rainforest Solutions Project, "in support of ongoing work to implement ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest."  The groups that make up the Rainforest Solutions Project are Forest Ethics Canada, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club of B.C. 

• $505,134 for ongoing work of the Turning Point Initiative (Coastal First Nations) "to implement ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest."

• $783,603 "for capacity building support of Forest Ethics Canada" 

• $532,882 ($341,198 and $191,684) to the Sierra Club of B.C.

• $306,494 for Ecotrust Canada

• $264,262 in support of Pacific Wild, a project "to protect the lands and waters of the Great Bear Rainforest." Pacific Wild has a No Tankers/No Pipeline campaign

$1.7 million to members of the PNCIMA Initiative:

Member organizations of the PNCIMA Initiative object to oil tanker traffic in the Great Bear Rainforest.

• $684,839 to the Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society
• $377,586 to the David Suzuki Foundation
• $339,378 to Ecojustice
• $336,379 to the World Wildlife Fund

$1.3 million to members of Pipe Up Against Enbridge:

• $328,378 to Skeena Wild Conservation Trust
• $251,049 ($149,900 and $101,049) to QQS (Eyes) Projects Society
• $91,697 "for the Oceans Initiative's acoustic habitat quality for northeast Pacific marine mammals research project." Living Oceans Society says that it is funded by the Oceans Fund at Tides Canada.
• $74,432 ($73,000 and $74,432) to the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research Society
• $49,149 ($30,649 and $18,500) to the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation

For the list of partner organizations in Pipe Up Against Enbridge, click here.

In addition to the above, the U.S. Tides Foundation paid the Turning  Point $US 27,000 "to hire a co-ordinator to engage with government, industry, environmental groups, media and the public regarding the proposed Enbridge Gateway tar sands pipeline."

$835,397 paid to organizations that are supportive of a coastal tanker ban, according to Forest Ethics:

• $248,246 and $167,397 for the Headwaters Initiative
• $167,397 ($93,917 and $73,480) for the Driftwood Foundation 
• $90,125 for the Georgia Straight Alliance
• $16,625 for the Yukon Conservation Society

$324,808 for organizations involved in Various Campaigns Against Developing the Alberta Oil Sands:

• $321,619 ($202,608, $105,000 and $14,011) for Environmental Defense which has a "Toxic Tar Sands" campaign.
• $9,750 for an indigenous tar sands educational campaign
• $7,450 for the "Prairie Chapter Tar Sands Campaign"

Other campaigns and projects that tackle the Alberta oil industry:

• $391,773 ($200,000 and $191,773) for Ducks Unlimited, a member of the Boreal Songbird Initiative. The Boreal Songbird Initiative runs an Alberta Tar Sands Initiative which publicizes negative information about Alberta's oil sands.
• $62,510 "for general support of Rainforest Action Network Canada." This project calls itself "Environmentalism With Teeth." Rainforest Action Network is a member of RETHINK ALBERTA
• $87,293 for the Dogwood Initiative ($40,654 and $46,639)
• $13,629 for the Westcoast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WELRF) for "Mobilizing First Nations Against Climate Change." WELRF was also paid $100,000 by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc.  "... to prevent the development of a tanker port and pipeline that would endanger the Great Bear Rainforest."

Not included in the above are:

• $133,763 paid to the University of Toronto “in support of an independent university platform to develop and disseminate peer-reviewed information about the interplay between tar sands development and continental water availability and use, with particular focus on the effects this expansion will have on water quality and quantity, specifically in the Great Lakes basin.

• $307,581 "for general support of Canadians for the Climate Leadership project."  This project is part of or involved with Power Up Canada, an initiative led by Tzeporah Berman to get the federal government of Canada to enact laws and policies with regards to global warming.

• $5,823 for Check Your Head which, according to Forest Ethics, is also supportive of a ban on oil tanker traffic.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Tides Canada Initiatives Society received $26.2 Million but re-granted only $116,240. What happened? Where did the money go?

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Background:

Tides Canada has two active entities:

• Tides Canada Foundation (TCF)

• Tides Canada Initiatives Society (TCIS).

Both TCF and TCIS are federally registered charities and file tax returns in Canada.  TCIS dates back to 1990 while TCF was goes back to 1999. TCF has equivalency status in the United States and files tax returns with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) whereas TCIS does not.

According to my calculations based on Canadian and U.S. tax returns, since 2002 Tides Canada Foundation has granted at least $26.2 Million to Tides Canada Initiatives Society.  As I see it, in essence, this is money that Tides Canada is simply passing from one pocket to another.  Of the $26.2 Million that Tides Canada Initiatives Society received from Tides Canada Foundation, only $116,240 was re-granted to other organizations.  In my opinion, this raises a series of questions:

• What happened to the $26.1 million that TCIS received from TCF but did not re-grant to other organizations?  How was that money spent?

• Where did the $26.2 Million come from that Tides Canada Foundation (TCF) granted to Tides Canada Initiatives Society (TCIS) during 2002 - 2006, 2008 and 2009?

• How did TCIS spend the $26.2 million from TCF? Did TCIS use the $26.2 Million mostly to pay for staff and consultants?

Tides Canada has been asked these questions by e-mail.  No reply has been received.

The above questions are based on the information below.

Between 2002 and 2009, Tides Canada Initiatives Society had total revenues of $40,286,165. Of that, $8,699,972 was revenue in 2007.

Calculations based on Canadian and U.S. tax returns indicate that since 2002, TCF granted a total of $26.2 million to TCIS - not including any grants that may have been made in 2007. For that year, grants from TCF to TCIS are not mentioned in publicly available tax returns filed in either Canada or the U.S.

$26.2 Million Granted from TCF to TCIS:

• $250,000 in 2002
• $3,252,984 in 2003
• $2,515,458 in 2004
• $2,058,741 in 2005
• $3,307,207 in 2006
• $8,478,608 in 2008
• $6,404,899 in 2009

For the years since 2002 for which I have obtained information (2002 - 2006, 2008 and 2009), the total revenues of TCIS were $31,586,193.  Of that, grants from TCF accounted for $26,266,897, fully 83 percent of the total revenues of TCIS over those same years.

While TCF grants millions of dollars to other organizations, TCIS does not.  Since 2002, the total amount granted to other organizations by TCIS was only $116,240 ($7,084 in 2005, $57,734 in 2008 and $51,422 in 2009).

While TCIS did not make relatively large grants to other organizations, TCIS did spent tens of millions of dollars on staff and consultants.  In fact, according to Canadian tax returns, since 2003, TCIS alone spent a total of $37.4 Million on staff and consultants. Of that, $14.4 million was for staff and $23 million on consultants.  Annual expenditures on consultants increased from a low of $1.4 million in 2004 to a high of $6.5 million in 2008.  

In addition to the $37.4 Million that TCIS spent on staff and consultants, TCF also spent $8.4 Million and the Endswell Foundation spent nearly $5.2 Million.  All combined, between 2003 and 2009, TCF, TCIS and the Endswell Foundation spent a total of $51 Million on staff and consultants.

Spreadsheets on which these figures are based:

• Figure 4. Tides Canada Foundation Grants to Tides Canada Initiatives Society: $26 Million

• Figure 3. $51 Million for Tides Canada Staff & Consultants

NOTE: Tides Canada also has a third entity called the Tides Canada Centre Society but it has never reported revenues or expenditures.

Grants from Tides Canada Foundation to Tides Canada Initiatives Society For Approx. $5.3 Million in 2009

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

The questions raised here are:

• Why does Tides Canada Foundation (TCF) fund projects indirectly through Tides Canada Initiatives Society (TCIS)? Why doesn't TCF fund all of its projects directly? 

• Would the grants that TCF made to TCIS be acceptable to TCF's Canadian funders? Would the grants that TCF made through TCIS be acceptable to the I.R.S.? Note: TCF reports to the IRS but TCIS does not. Put simply, does TCF fund these projects indirectly in order to provide some measure of distance or insulation between these projects of TCIS and the original donors?

Tides Canada has been asked these questions by e-mail.  No reply has been received.

Background:

Since 2002, Tides Canada Foundation (TCF) has granted a total of at least $26,266,897 to Tides Canada Initiative Society  (TCIS), according to my calculations based on Canadian tax returns. That includes all grants from 2002 to 2009, with the exception of 2007.  (I have not found any publicly available information about grants from TCF to TCIS could be found for 2007).

In 2006 and 2009, grants from TCF to TCIS accounted for more than half of the total grants made by Tides Canada. Apart from the $27.3 million paid by TCF in a single grant, in 2008, this also holds for that year.  Put simply, what this means, in my opinion, is that a very large part of the "grants" made by Tides Canada is money that is simply passed from one entity or one part of Tides Canada to another. 

Of the $26 million that TCF has granted to TCIS, TCIS has re-granted only $116,240 ( 0.5  percent) to other organizations.  That included $7,084 in 2005, $57,734 in 2008 and $51,422 in 2009. 

For 2009 only, the manner in which TCIS spent $5.3 million of the money that it received from TCF, is clearly outlined in TCF's tax return.  However, for the remaining $20.8 million of the total of $26.2 million, I have found no publicly available information about how TCIS spent the money. This is because the only year for which I could find a list of the stated purposes and amounts of grants from TCF to TCIS, is 2009.

According to TCF's U.S. tax returns, in 2009 TCF made a total of 25 grants to TCIS for a total of $5.3 Million. 

In general, I have a question about the basis on which TCF made these most of these 25 grants to TCIS.  As I understand, registered charities are allowed to make grants to what are called "qualified donnees," commonly understood to be grant recipients.  Revenue Canada provides specifications as to the criteria that must be met for organizations to be deemed a "qualified donnee."  Shown below, a "qualified donnee" must be a registered charity, a registered amateur athletic association or national arts service organization, a housing corporation, a municipality and so on.

For most if not all of the projects below for which TCF provided funds to TCIS, I wonder how the ultimate beneficiary, in other words, the ultimate payee of TCIS, meets the criteria to be considered a "qualified donnee," according to the definition of Revenue Canada.

For each of the 25 grants that TCF made to TCIS in 2009, the details that are listed in U.S. tax returns, are provided below, in italics and quotation marks.  In some cases, additional information is also provided and questions are raised.

The 25 grants that TCF made to TCIS in 2009, for a total of $5.3 million, are listed below, and excerpts from Tides Canada's U.S. tax returns for 2009, are provided:

• 1) $848,966 was for the Rainforest Solutions Project, "in support of ongoing work to implement ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest."  The groups that make up the Rainforest Solutions Project are Forest Ethics Canada, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club of B.C, according to the project's web-site. 

• 2) $783,603 "for capacity building support of Forest Ethics Canada." 

• 3) $505,134 for ongoing work of the Turning Point Initiative (Coastal First Nations) "to implement ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest."

• 4) $404,565 "for various conservation initiatives of Canopy." Canopy is a market-based initiative that says that it aims "to protect the world's forests, species and climate by helping publsihers, printers and paper producers adopt green practices."  Whether this project is purely charity, or whether this is marketing, is not clear to me.

• 5) $350,270 - "to provide research materials to local communities or groups, providing advice, consultation and resources to existing projects and the development of new ones with the focus on job creation via a contract with Social Capital Partners."

• 6) $342,918 "for the charitable work of the Contact Project."  At its web-site, the Contact Project says that it was founded in 2006 "to explore the concept of delivering a personal development programme to social change activists and innovators in Canada." The Contact Project says that suports, "The Inner Activist" which is, according to the Contact Project, a "project" of Tides Canada. Participation in this program is contingent upon acceptance into the program.

• 7) $307,581 - "for general support of Island Conservation Canada." At the web-site of Tides Canada, the web-page for this project links to http://www.islandconservation.org/, based in California.

• 8) $306,924 "for general support of Canadians for the Climate Leadership project."  This project seems to be one and the some, or part of, Power Up Canada, an initiative led by Tzeporah Berman to get the federal government of Canada to enact laws and policies with regards to global warming.

• 9) $264,262 in support of Pacific Wild, a project "to protect the lands and waters of the Great Bear Rainforest."

• 10) $248,246 "in support of conservation work of Klabona Keepers in the Sacred Headwaters region."

• 11) $202,608  "for the Tar Sands Education project"

• 12) $192,648 "to advance conservation in the Taku via the aquisition and operation of Taku Safari."

• 13) $177,919 "in support of Rivers Without Borders work with the Taku Tlingit for conservation of the Taku watershed."

• 14) $91,697 "for the Oceans Initiative's acoustic habitat quality for northeast Pacific marine mammals research project." Living Oceans Society says that it is funded by the Oceans Fund at Tides Canada.

• 15/16) $83,609 "in support of the Hollyhock Leadership Institute and for general support of the Hollyhock Scholarship project."  Hollyhock is an ocean-front facility in an idyllic setting on Cortes Island. Part of Hollyhock is a for-profit business, and the facility is also used, apparently, to run non-profit programs.  "Bodywork" at Hollyhock runs from 

• 17) $62,510 "for general support of Rainforest Action Network Canada." This project calls itself "Environmentalism With Teeth."

• 18) $48,162 "for general support of SVP Toronto (Social Venture Partners Toronto)."

• 19) $28,617 - "for the Tyee affordable housing research project and the creation of a climate change news desk"

• 20) $17,513  - "for general support of the Naramata Conservation Initiative"

• 21) $13,135 - "for general support of Change Medium project."

• 22) $11,180 - "for general support and in support of reel Youth Film Festival."

• 23) $10,305 - "in support of Urban Youth Riding Project's leadership and horses programs with Aboriginal youth" 

• 24) $7,185 - "in support of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network's "Not in My Fridge - Not in Our Future" project."

• 25) $6,034 - "to support the charitable activities of the World Peace Forum Education Project in providing educational and cultural activities and an opportunity for broad segments of the population to discuss global peace issues." 

A Rough Overview of Non-Profits in Canada: Assets, Revenues & Expenditures (1997-2009)

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Background:

This blog tries to look at how environmental organizations and their campaigns are funded. In doing so, its important to consider the broader context of the non-profit sector as a whole.  With this in mind, a few months ago, I obtained access to a complete set of the tax returns for non-profit organizations in Canada. This information is publicly available from Revenue Canada.  Its a very large dataset: over 1 million tax returns for nearly 119,000 non-profit organizations over 12 years.  This post presents the first of my preliminary analyses of this data.

In looking over what I present here, please bear in mind that these are very rough, preliminary analyses. The reason that I say "rough" is because to some unknown degree, missing and incorrect values remain in the dataset, including typos made by Revenue Canada upon entering the data. For example, in 2007 three typos alone, if uncorrected, would have have inflated the amount of money given away by churches, by more than $3 BILLION. Indeed, Revenue Canada states at its web-site, "Please note that the information displayed below has been manually entered by the CRA from the registered charity's T3010, Registered Charity Information Return. This information has not been verified for accuracy or completeness by the Charities Directorate."

With this caveat in mind, the figures and information presented here are intended as a rough, sketch of trends - as I see them - based on the preliminary calculations and analyses that I've done to date. Precise, accurate figures are important but providing them isn't the purpose of this exercise. Rather, the point here is to look at trends to get some preliminary rough, impressions of what's going on in the non-profit sector in Canada.

Total Assets of the Non-Profit Sector: Approx. $260 Billion (2009)

As shown below, the total assets of non-profit organizations in Canada have increased substantially over the past decade, from roughly $120 billion to $260 billion.  What this means is that the non-profit sector in Canada currently has more than a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in assets.  This is not small by any measure!

 

Health & Education: Approx. 75%

By far, the largest components of the non-profit sector in Canada are hospitals, universities and colleagues.  This is clearly indicated in the breakdown of the total revenue of the non-profit sector, for 2009. 

As shown in the pie chart, in 2009, about three quarters of the total revenue of non-profit organizations in Canada is accounted for by health and education organizations, primarily hospitals, universities and colleges. Health related organizations had in the ballpark of $87 billion in revenue while education organizations had roughly $73 billion, according to my preliminary calculations. However, it must be noted that, as I mentioned earlier, these figures are based on data that has not been entirely cleaned of erroneous values.

While the total revenues of other sub-sectors of the non-profit sector were substantially less than health and education, they were none the less substantial.  For example, religious organizations as a whole had total revenues of approximately $15 billion in 2009, according to my preliminary calculations. Even if this figure is out by a few billion, it remains clear that religious institutions have enormous resources. Same goes for community organizations as a whole.

 

Non-Profits Have Nearly Tripled Revenue & Expenditures, Since 1997

Since 1997, revenues and expenditures of Canadian non-profit organizations have nearly tripled. Total expenditures increased from approximately $70 billion to $192 billion in 2009. Again, even if this number is out by a few billion, we're nonetheless talking about a lot of money being spent in the non-profit sector.

 

Health & Education Organizations Out-Paced Other Sectors

Since 1997, revenues of health and education organizations appear to have nearly tripled whereas revenues of welfare-related organizations have doubled, according to my preliminary, rough analyses.  Total expenditures of health organizations appear to have tripled from about $30 billion to nearly $90 billion.  Religious and welfare organizations have also seen substantial increases in revenues, but not to the same extent as organizations working in health or education.

Government Funding of the Non-Profit Sector

Another general trend that I notice is that government funding of the non-profit sector has increased substantially over the past decade, as shown below. My rough calculations suggest that government put about $130 billion into the non-profit sector in 2009; this includes funding of hospitals, universities and colleges.

By far, the largest share of government funding comes directly from the provincial level. But whether that money originated from provincial revenues, or from federal transfers, is unclear. According to my rough calculations, about 88 percent of government funding was provincial; 7 percent was federal and 5 percent was municipal or regional.

As shown below, government funding also appears to account for a higher percentage of the total revenues of the non-profit sector, up from about 53 percent in 2000, to about 63 percent in 2009. 

Comparison to other studies

The most recent, comprehensive, published study that I have found of the economic significance of the non-profit sector in Canada, is a study done based on data from 2003: Cornerstones of Community: Highlights of the National Survey of Non-Profits and Voluntary Organizations.  This study was based on 161,000 non-profit and voluntary organizations.  The study estimated that total revenues of the non-profit and voluntary sector, at the time, were approximately $112 billion of which about one third was accounted for by hospitals, universities and colleges.  Nearly half (49 percent) of total revenue of non-profits was from government. Of that, funds from provincial level governments accounted for only 40 percent. In comparison to this study based on 2003 data, government now seems to be a much bigger funder of the non-profit sector than it was a decade ago. This is what is referred to by some as "off-loading" of public services.

CONCLUSIONS

These rough analyses suggest that the resources of the non-profit sector are substantial and that a lot of government funding (read: taxpayers' money) is involved.  Over the years, government funding of the non-profit sector appears to have increased substantially, and may have doubled since 2003 from approximately $60 billion to as much as $130 billion, in 2009.  

Proper analysis, which is well beyond the scope of this post, could be done in order to derive accurate figures.