Rethink Campaigns

“Stop interfering in Canada’s domestic affairs” Canadian Senator Nicole Eaton warns foreign foundations

NOTE:  This is a press release issued by Senator Eaton's office.

Ottawa – February 28, 2012

Senator Nicole C. Eaton (Ontario) today began an Inquiry* in the Senate of Canada aimed at curtailing interference by foreign foundations in Canada’s policies.

“This Inquiry is about how billionaire foreign foundations have quietly moved into Canada and under the guise of charitable deeds are trying to define our domestic policies” explained Senator Eaton.

“Cleverly masked as a grassroots movement, these interests are audaciously treading on our domestic affairs and on Canadian sovereignty, all under the radar.”  

After many months of research, Senator Eaton is convinced that there is more to these activities than concern about the environment.

“Is it coincidence that they are so fixated on the very sectors that strengthen the Canadian economy?” demands Eaton.

If we follow the money trail of financial contributions to Canadian charities and NGOs we will understand why foreign foundations are spending so much money in Canada.  Could it be about something much bigger, much more profitable than the environment?” questioned Senator Eaton.

The Inquiry will expose the growing number of groups that are blatantly taking advantage of our income tax laws to attack Canadians’ confidence and hurt the Canadian economy. It is about how these groups will go to great lengths to undermine the credibility of the Canadian brand and our Canadian identity. 

Contact: Krystyna Rudko, Policy Advisor to Senator Eaton, 613.947.4047 

Notes:

Senator Nicole C. Eaton was appointed to the Senate on January 26, 2009 for Ontario.

A Senate Inquiry calls the attention of the Senate to a particular matter for the purpose of informing the Senate of that matter or having it considered or examined by the Senate.

Why I Disagree That Tides Canada Has "No Position" On Alberta Oilsands

In an recent recent interview with CBC's As It Happens, Tides Canada indicated that it has no position on the Enbridge pipeline and the Alberta oilsands.  Considering the American foundations from which Tides Canada has accepted $62 million over the years, and considering the positions and the activities of some of the organizations that Tides Canada has funded (eg. the Dogwood Initiative), this doesn't ring true for me. Here's why:

1) Tides Canada has funded the Dogwood Initiative and other environmental organizations and First Nations that have a clear agenda to stop the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and thwart the Canadian oil industry. By my analysis, during 2008 and 2009 alone, Tides Canada granted at least $7 million to 20 organizations that are involved with or supportive of such campaigns in various ways, large and small. For example:

• The Dogwood Initiative - U.S. tax returns show that in 2008 and 2009, Tides Canada granted $US 87,293 that was specifically ear-marked for the Dogwood Initiative's coastal tanker campaign.  Since Dogwood re-designed its web-site, its list of its partners and supporters is no longer found at its web-site.  However, internet archives show that Tides Canada was listed among the partners and supporters of the Dogwood Initiative as of July 4, 2008. (Click here). (Note: As of July 2008, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation were also listed as partners of the Dogwood Initiative. These two U.S. foundations alone have granted $45 million to Tides Canada since 2000. Other documents show that Tides Canada was still a partner of the Dogwood Initiative as of March 3, 2011. For that document, click  here.

• In 2009, Tides Canada paid $US 783,603 to Forest Ethics Canada and $US 848,966 for Rainforest Solutions, a joint project of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Forest Ethics. Tides Canada's CEO recently acknowledged that Forest Ethics is a project of Tides Canada. Tides Canada also paid  $US 532,882 directly to the B.C. chapter of the Sierra Club. Forest Ethics, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are all active in campaigns that seek to thwart the Canadian oil industry. Tides Canada also granted $US105,000 to Environmental Defence Canada Inc. for its "Toxic Tar Sands" project.

• I can not find one single environmental organization that Tides Canada has funded that is supportive of the Northern Gateway Enbridge pipeline.

2) Tides Canada has accepted substantial funds from American foundations that have a clear agenda to thwart the Canadian oil industry. For example:

a) The Bullitt Foundation

Over the years, Tides Canada has been granted at least $137,000 by the Seattle-based, Bullitt Foundation, according to the Bullitt Foundation's on-line database. In addition, Bullitt granted $US 564,000 to the U.S. Tides Foundation for projects of Tides Canada (eg. The Dogwood Initiative, Canopy, and the Tyee Solutions Society).

One of the grants from Bullitt to the U.S. Tides Foudnation was $US 30,000 "... to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tankers ..." Shortly after I testified about this grant to a House of Commons Standing Committee in December of 2010, Bullitt quietly re-wrote this grant. (American foundations aren't supposed to mobilize voters in a foreign country). Bullitt also granted $US 30,000 to the Dogwood Initiative, another project supported by Tides Canada, "to strengthen and enforce a 34-year moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the mid and north coast of British Columbia, and to prevent expansion of oil and gas infrastructure in Georgia Strait and the lower Fraser Basin."

b) The Brainerd Foundation

The Brainerd Foundation has paid at least $US 71,000 to the Dogwood Initiative, including $3,000 specifically ear-marked "To help grow public opposition to counter the Enbridge pipeline construction and the risk associated with increased oil tanker traffic in B.C.'s north." Brainerd also granted at least $US 80,000 to Tides Canada during 2007 and $80,000 from 2002 to 2004. 

c) The Wilburforce Foundation

Since 1999, Wilburforce has granted at least $21 million for environmental campaigns and initiatives in British Columbia and Alberta. None of the recipient organizations are favorable to the Enbridge pipeline and the development of the Alberta oil industry. Of the $26 million, at least $US 536,000 was for projects that specifically mention oil, fossil fuels, energy or the Dogwood Initiative. Wilburforce also granted at least $4 million in support of the Great Bear Rainforest Initiative.

d) The Hewlett Foundation

In 2004, Hewlett paid Tides Canada $70,000 to develop a "strategic plan to address oil and gas development in British Columbia.  Since then, Hewlett has poured $26 million into various projects to tackle the Canadian energy sector.  Hewlett has paid at least $14 million directly to Tides Canada for  various projects, particularly in conjunction with the Great Bear Rainforest and the north coast of B.C.  Internet archives show that Hewlett has been listed as a supporter of the Dogwood Initiative though no grants specifically for the Dogwood Initiative have been found.  Hewlett's Environment officer  has referred to the Alberta oil industry as  "a nasty business."  In an interview, he once said, "One place where all our worries come together is in northeastern Alberta, Canada. There, in an area the size of Florida, is a massive deposit of oil mixed with sand. It's the second largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia, and work has begun to extract it. Processing these so-called tar sands is a nasty business that involves large amounts of water and natural gas. It's hard to imagine a worse situation." The web-page with that statement was removed from Hewlett's web-site after it was mentioned at this blog. For a .pdf of this web-page, click here.

e) The Oak Foundation

Since 2005, Tides Canada has accepted at least four grants from the Oak Foundation ("Oak").  Oak has granted US$16-million to Canadian environmental organizations since 2005, including US$900,000 to Tides Canada.

Oak's grants include US$97,000 paid to the 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... The desired result would be a permanent legislative tanker ban and cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline," Oak says at on-line.

Oak also paid US$300,000 to Forest Ethics USA. Oak says that with Oak funds, Forest Ethics will work with at least ten Fortune 500 companies to publicly disavow Tar Sands fuel. With Oak Funds, Forest Ethics will also "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 will "stop Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline." Forest Ethics Canada is a project of Tides Canada.

Oak also paid US$436,675 to Greenpeace Canada for a project titled, "Phase Out Tar Sands Campaign" and US$424,373 to Greenpeace Canada for another project titled, "Stop the Tar Sands Campaign." "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. This will result in 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; and the end of tar sands subsidies from the Government of France," says Oak at its web-site.

For their "Tar Sands Campaign," Oak also paid US$700,000 to the U.S. Tides Foundation in 2009 and US$426,857 to Environmental Defence Canada Inc in 2010.

Last year, Oak paid Tides Canada US$200,000 to develop "a new energy vision for Canada" with "a plan and a pathway to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050."  Oak also paid Tides Canada US$50,000 for an "Energy Initiative," including "a five-year strategic plan to begin to convince Canada to accept the long-term goal of dramatically lowering the country's GHG emissions." As part of this initiative, Tides Canada will "determine the feasibility of creating a Canadian Energy Fund, similar to the Energy Foundation, with a budget of up to US$30-million sourced from 100 to 200 high-net worth Canadian and international donors," Oak says.

Would the Bullitt Foundation, the Brainerd Foundation, the Wilburforce Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the Oak Foundation have funded Tides Canada - millions of dollars over the past decade - if Tides Canada has, as it says, no position on the Enbridge pipeline and the Alberta oilsands? Would the Oak Foundation have funded Tides Canada to develop "a new energy vision for Canada" and a pathway to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050, if Tides Canada has, as it says, "no position" on the oilsands?

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

20 Questions for Tides Canada

Below, here are the first ten of  20 questions that I would ask of Tides Canada if given the opportunity. Most of these questions have been asked in the correspondence that I have tried to have with Tides Canada since the summer of 2007.

Background:

With 250 employees and payroll of $10 million, Tides Canada has become a powerhouse, especially in British Columbia, and yet many  people have never heard of it.  To put these numbers into perspective, consider that Tides Canada has about twice as many employees as two other well-known Vancouver-based institutions combined:  The Vancouver Foundation (57 employees) and the Fraser Institute (71 employees).

Tides Canada has supported projects that have had a substantial political influence at the municipal, provincial and federal level. For example, with funds from an American foundation, Tides Canada supports the Greenest City Initiative, a project of Vision Vancouver, the municipal political party of Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. Another project of Tides Canada is Organizing for Change which sought to get voters to temporarily join the B.C. Liberal party prior to its leadership vote in the spring of 2011. Tides Canada has also funded the Dogwood Initiative which seeks a federal ban on coastal tanker traffic on the strategic north coast of British Columbia and to some extent, Tides Canada has apparently supported Open Media which mobilized half a million Canadians to oppose a CRTC ruling on user-based internet billing. These examples show that Tides Canada has a broad scope of influence and yet this is not well known.

Considering the nature of the activities of Tides Canada and that it may be one of the most influential, behind-the-scenes organizations in Canada, I believe that it is fair to inquire about the funding and the activities of Tides Canada.

1) Tides Canada's U.S. Tax Returns

Recently, the president and CEO of Tides Canada called for an "honest debate over the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline." As groundwork for an "honest debate,"will Tides Canada please post its American tax returns at its web-site so that Canadians can see for themselves what Tides Canada has been funding over the years? If not, why not?

2) $62 Million from American Foundations

According to my analysis of U.S. tax returns and on-line databases, since 2000 Tides Canada has been granted at least $62 million by American foundations. This includes some grants that have been granted to the U.S. Tides Foundation for projects specifically in Canada. Of this $62 million, $50 million came from three U.S. foundations:  the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation ("Hewlett"), the David & Lucile Packard Foundation ("Packard") and the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation ("Moore"). Most of this money has been ear-marked for projects in British Columbia, especially on the strategic, north coast of B.C. - Canada's gateway to Asia.

To whom did Tides Canada re-grant the $62 million from American foundations, and in particular, who are the recipients of the $50 million from Hewlett, Packard and Moore?

Of the $50 million from Hewlett, Packard and Moore, how much did Tides Canada spend internally on staff and consultants? To put it bluntly, to what extent has Tides Canada's staff and core, internal activities been funded by these American foundations?

3) Staff Size

Tides Canada has two entities:  Tides Canada Foundation (TCF) and Tides Canada Initiatives Society (TCIS). The total number of employees at both TCF and TCIS was 251 in 2010, up from 37 employees five years earlier. What this means is that Tides Canada has experienced spectacular growth in recent years and become a very large non-profit and yet most people have never heard of Tides Canada.

Since 2005, Tides Canada's annual payroll has tripled from $3.2 million to $10.5 million. Most of the increase in staff was at Tides Canada Initiatives Society where the number of people on staff increased from 26 to 187 (from 2006 to 2010). From 2009 to 2010, in the space of only one year, the number of employees at Tides Canada Initiative Society more than doubled from 72 employees to 187 employees. How has Tides Canada been able to increase its staff size so dramatically? How many of the new employees added to the payroll at Tides Canada, are funded from the $50 million that Tides Canada has received from the Hewlett foundation, the Packard foundation, and the Moore foundation.

4) The Founders of Tides Canada: Carol Newell & Drummond Pike

For more than ten years, Tides Canada has consistently reported to the C.R.A. that its "founding chair" is Drummond Pike. Pike was also the founder of the U.S. Tides Foundation and was its CEO for 34 years before he quietly stepped down in September of 2010.

Tides Canada has said that its "founder" is Carol Newell and that she "placed over $60 million in organizations, individuals, and businesses working toward sustainable economic development and social and environmental justice throughout Canada." Was that $60 million from Carol Newell's personal wealth or was that $60 million money that was "placed" by her on behalf of others? And if so, who?

When Tides Canada says that Carol Newell "placed" $60 million, is Tides Canada referring to the $60 million that Tides Canada has received from American foundations? Why doesn't Tides Canada simply say that Carol Newell "gave" that $60 million rather than say, ambiguously, that she "placed" the money?

How was Tides Canada able to increase its assets from $2 million in 2000 to $39 million in 2010?

5) Tides Canada's Largest "Canadian" Funder:  Endswell

According to my analysis of Canadian tax returns, the single largest Canadian funder of Tides Canada is the Endswell Foundation. The chairman of the board of Endswell is Drummond Pike.

Carol Newell and Joel Solomon are said to be the "founding partners" of Endswell. Tides Canada has said that Carol Newell is its "founder".  Individuals by the same names also appear on the payroll of Endswell. A person by the name of Carol Newell was paid $49,921 as "secretary" in 2009.  Joel Solomon was paid $929,527 by Endswell over the years, including payments to "JSCO" which appears to be an abbreviation for "Joel Solomon's Company." His salary reportedly increased from $144,142 (2006) to $186,189 (2008).

Are Carol Newell and Joel Solomon the founders/benefactors of Tides Canada and the Endswell Foundation? Or are they paid staff?  Or both?

6) Tides Canada and The Endswell Foundation

Considering that the senior leadership of Tides Canada and the Endswell Foundation is the same, including the long-time treasurer (James Morrisey), and considering that between 2003 and 2009, that Endswell appears to be the single largest "Canadian" donor to Tides Canada, and that 99 percent of Endswell's grantmaking went to Tides Canada, and that Carol Newell is apparently the "founder" of both Endswell and Tides Canada, is it fair to say that Tides Canada and Endswell are part and parcel of the same operation? Is it also fair to say that to some degree, the activities and operations of the Endswell Foundation reflect on Tides Canada - even though the two are legally distinct entities?

7) The $11.4 Million Dollar Question

Between 2003 and 2009, while Endswell simply transferred 99 percent of the value of all grants to Tides Canada (a total of $8.7 million), why did Endswell need to spend $11.4 million on over-head expenses?  Why did office and staff expenses increase dramatically over these years even though Endswell didn't make one single grant to any organization other than Tides Canada?  During the years when Endswell didn't make one single grant to any organization other than Tides Canada, what were the staff doing?

8) Interdependent Investments Ltd.

Interdependent Investments Ltd. is a company of which the only two officers for many years were also directors and senior staff of Tides Canada (Joel Solomon and Martha Burton). Between 1999 and 2009, Interdependent Investments Ltd. was paid $1.4 million by Endswell.

If Endswell is part and parcel of Tides Canada, it follows that an entity of Tides Canada (Endswell) paid $1.4 million to the company of one of its board members, Joel Solomon, and one of its "senior advisors," Martha Burton.

What charitable services were provided by Interdependent Investments Ltd.?  Why did payments to IIL Ltd. spike sharply after 2004?

Not only Martha Burton is the vice-president of the charity, Endswell, and is involved in both "investment firms" that contributed substantially to Mayor Gregor Robertson's 2008 municipal election campaign, Martha Burton is also the treasurer of Robertson's municipal political party, Vision Vancouver.

In the spring of 2011, days after Vancouver's Mayor, Gregor Robertson, was asked questions about campaign finance contributions from Interdependent Investments Ltd., Martha Burton was quietly removed from the list of directors of Interdependent Investments Ltd.

Finding no sources of revenue for Interdependent Investments Ltd. other than the Endswell Foundation, the question that I was asking - and still am - of Mayor Gregor Robertson, is whether campaign finance contributions that were reportedly from Interdependent Investments Ltd. had, in fact, originated from the Endswell Foundation. In other words, was the charity funding the political party through the "investment firm," Interdependent Investments Ltd?

9) Joel Solomon, Tides Canada's Vice-Chair Paid $929,527 by Tides Canada's Largest Donor (Endswell)

Joel Solomon, the vice-chair of Tides Canada has allowed himself to be portrayed by the Vancouver media as a millionaire philanthropist. In fact, he's been described by the media as 
"a modest version of the later generations of the Kennedy/Rothschild/Rockefeller class."

At the web-site of the Endswell Foundation, Solomon says that he is one of the "founders" of Endswell, Tides Canada's single largest "Canadian" donor. U.S. Tax returns, however, tell a somewhat different story.

U.S. tax returns show that Joel Solomon has been paid $929,527 by Endswell over the years. Yearly payments to Joel Solomon increased sharply after 2004. A total of $631,094 was paid to Joel Solomon between 2005 and 2008. That includes payments to "JSCO" which appears to me to be an abbreviation for Joel Solomon's company.

Not only Joel Solomon was paid a handsome salary by Endswell, in fact, all of the staff at Renewal Partners, the so-called "investment firm" of which Joel Solomon is president, also received salaries from Endswell - to the tune of $2.3 million since 2004.

Why has a significant donor to Tides Canada (Endswell) been paying the salaries of the staff at the "investment firm" of Tides Canada's vice-chair? Is this "investment firm," Renewal Partners, also part and parcel of the operations of Tides Canada? What kind of "investment firm" has its staff salaries paid for by a charity? A charity-subsidized "investment firm?"

Renewal Partners

Joel Solomon is president of Renewal Partners. Solomon has said that Renewal Partners has invested in 75 companies. However, only 26 of these companies can be found and of these, more are located in the U.S. than in Canada. One of these companies, Village Real Estate, is a real estate company in Nashville, Tennessee, the home state of Joel Solomon. U.S. tax returns say that Solomon had 10 percent ownership in this company as of 2007.

10) The Great Bear Rainforest

Located on the strategic north coast of British Columbia, right smack where oil tankers export bound for Asia would need to travel, there is a 21 million hectare park-like area that is now known as The Great Bear Rainforest. This park is the size of Switzerland and it was created thanks in large part to Tides Canada and its allies among First Nations, environmental organizations and American foundations. The Great Bear Rainforest is Tides Canada's signature and largest project to date. This area is one of the largest remaining temperate forests in the world so interest in protecting the integrity of this area is reasonable.  

But, why is it that the area designated as the Great Bear Rainforest extends all the way from the north tip of Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska even though the area that is the traditional habitat of the kermode bear (now known as the Great Spirit Bear) is only a very small part at the center of this huge area?

Would it be possible for the Great Bear Rainforest Initiative to protect the kermode bear and its traditional habitat while at the same time leaving open a passageway somewhere along the coast so that some oil tanker traffic could get through, thereby allowing Canada to diversify our customer base for our single largest national export? To put it bluntly, is it really necessary to shut down the entire north coast of British Columbia in order to protect the kermode bear and its habitat?

The Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation alone have contributed at least $55 million towards the creation of the so-called Great Bear Rainforest.  Why are these American foundations spending so much money to put a park on a relatively small but very strategic part of Canada's coastline - the Gateway to Asia - rather than in other parts of the world that are far more in need of American philanthropy than Canada?

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

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

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

A bit of background about John Gormley....

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

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

Shine Light On Money For Oilsands Debate

From The Edmonton Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

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

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

For my written notes, click here. 

 

$95 Million For Ducks (?) And More

From: The Financial Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To continue reading, click here.

 

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

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

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

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

From: Richard Telofski, The Daily Capitalist

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

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

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

Vivian who?

Exactly.

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

To continue reading, click here.

Forest Ethics Paid to Stop Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

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

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

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

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