Charities urge Peter Kent to retract 'laundering' accusation


CDNBear
+1 / -1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

How is it for lobbying against Canada's interests in fact?

So you don't actually know what you're arguing about, gotchya. I'm also not surprised.

Quote:

It is for the support of like minded Canadian organisations.

This only confirms you are unaware of political lobbying, funded by charities.

Quote:

What can possibly be wrong with that?

Foreign interests with agenda's, using charities as a front to lobby Ottawa, that may run contrary to Canadian interests.

Quote:

Oliver, btw, has specifically withdrawn the charge that the money is laundered money. It does not matter that he was not the originator of the charge.

Yes it does, you pretty much made him the author of it.

Quote:

I don't think that you should try to make this as a contravention of the Rule of Law or as being anti-democratic by environmental groups.

I didn't.

Quote:

If that is raised as an issue, then the preponderance of evidence will be against this government.

Did you mean to say the burden of proof will be on the gov't?
 
Tonington
+1 / -1
#32
Kent is sliding down the slippery slope. There are plenty of charitable organizations that use contributions to lobby. Though Kent and our government at the moment are only focused on one sort of group that does that. In fact, they were fine with foreign organizations spending money in Canada when the NRA spent money on ads leading up to the gun registry votes. That is fundamentally the same thing as National Resource Defense Council spending money on lobbying against pipelines leading out of the Athabasca oil projects. They are OK with corporate donations and other charitable donations funneled through Friends of Science, but not ok when the same thing is done with Sierra Club Canada.

I'm fine with them changing the rules about charitable organizations-there is far too much astroturf out there-but apply it evenly.
 
wizard
+1 / -2
#33
... yes! laundering! precisely! but not the charities, we know who's doing the laundering in canada now don't we?
 
CDNBear
+2 / -1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I'm fine with them changing the rules about charitable organizations-there is far too much astroturf out there-but apply it evenly.

As long as there isn't any interference at the CRA, it should be.

Quote: Originally Posted by wizardView Post

... yes! laundering! precisely! but not the charities, we know who's doing the laundering in canada now don't we?

No, but please do enlighten us.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+3 / -1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post


No, but please do enlighten us.

 
Tonington
-1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

As long as there isn't any interference at the CRA, it should be.

The bosses are still politicians. They wouldn't interfere or apply the law unevenly now would they?

As an addendum, not all charities with stakes in the environment are against the proposed changes for charitable organizations:
http://tidescanada.org/news/tides-ca...ederal-budget/
 
CDNBear
-1
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The bosses are still politicians. They wouldn't interfere or apply the law unevenly now would they?

The last time that happened, a Justice slapped a politicians peepee. Rightly so.

Quote:

As an addendum, not all charities with stakes in the environment are against the proposed changes for charitable organizations:
The 2012 Federal Budget: Tides Canada Responds | Tides Canada

Cool. Is there something special about that?
 
Cabbagesandking
No Party Affiliation
-1
#38
What you are overlooking, Bear, is that you are arbitrarily deciding what is "Canadian Interest." The environmental consequences of the kinds of developments that this Canadian government is determined will not be subject to assessment are international in scope. The inhabitants of Tuvalu have as much right to protest them as any Canadian. The citizens of Ontario who are losing jobe throught the economic fallout have the right to protest.

Be that as it may, there is no evidence at all that the CPC is correct in its charges. How interesting that they are made in the public forum without any supporting evidence.

That, though, is the normal practice of that Party, is it not. Lie; smear; demonise.

The anger at the few thousand people who wanted to speak to the assessment of the pipelines should give the government pause to consider what it is doing; not to shut them down. The vasr majority of those are Canadian citizens who are being shut out of the process - their Freedom of Speech and right to participate in decisions affecting the Canadian environment, denied.

For those who are not Canadian among them, they also have the right to speak to what affects the world.

Or should we wait until Harper is appearing at the Hague?
 
CDNBear
+1 / -1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

What you are overlooking, Bear, is that you are arbitrarily deciding what is "Canadian Interest."

No I'm not. But it's funny you should say that, because you made several references to Canadian interests elsewhere on these boards.

Quote:

The environmental consequences of the kinds of developments that this Canadian government is determined will not be subject to assessment are international in scope.

I don't care about environmental charities, I care about all charities, especially ones that use funds to lobby the gov't for special interests.

Quote:

The inhabitants of Tuvalu have as much right to protest them as any Canadian.

That's great, their leaders have the privilege of addressing our gov't directly.

Quote:

The citizens of Ontario who are losing jobe throught the economic fallout have the right to protest.

I'm sorry, can you show me where I said the unemployed from Ontario shouldn't protest?

Better yet, explain to me what that has to do with the topic at hand?

Quote:

Be that as it may, there is no evidence at all that the CPC is correct in its charges.

There isn't?

Quote:

How interesting that they are made in the public forum without any supporting evidence.

Why do you get to hold Kent to a standard you don't hold yourself to?

Quote:

That, though, is the normal practice of that Party, is it not. Lie; smear; demonise.

The only one facing a defamation suit, is the NDP's Pat Martin.

Quote:

The anger at the few thousand people who wanted to speak to the assessment of the pipelines should give the government pause to consider what it is doing; not to shut them down. The vasr majority of those are Canadian citizens who are being shut out of the process - their Freedom of Speech and right to participate in decisions affecting the Canadian environment, denied.

You still don't know what the changes are.

Quote:

For those who are not Canadian among them, they also have the right to speak to what affects the world.

No one is being stopped from speaking. Charities that engage in political lobbying, have restrictions on how much they can spend on it.

Quote:

Or should we wait until Harper is appearing at the Hague?

I already knew you were an ideologue, there was no need to present anymore evidence.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2 / -1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

How is it for lobbying against Canada's interests in fact? It is for the support of like minded Canadian organisations. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Oliver, btw, has specifically withdrawn the charge that the money is laundered money. It does not matter that he was not the originator of the charge.

I don't think that you should try to make this as a contravention of the Rule of Law or as being anti-democratic by environmental groups. If that is raised as an issue, then the preponderance of evidence will be against this government.

Eco groups protest every resource extraction project that comes along. Clearly that is not in the National interest or in the interests of working people.
 
Tonington
+1 / -1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The last time that happened, a Justice slapped a politicians peepee. Rightly so.

It happens all the time. Though not all charities have the kind of dollars needed to challenge departmental rulings. Think of small charities like local watershed groups. With the coming changes to assessments and the Fisheries Act, groups like that are hand-cuffed more so than the large charities who can afford to break the rules and fight it out in court.

Quote:

Cool. Is there something special about that?

Special? Not really. It's just some more context; not all charities involved with environmental causes feel that the changes were a bad thing. Not so much an addendum to my reply to you, but an addendum to my comments in general. The Tides Canada foundation was one of the charities former Conservative Campaign director, and now Senator Doug Finley targeted.
 
CDNBear
+1 / -1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It happens all the time.

It does?

Quote:

Though not all charities have the kind of dollars needed to challenge departmental rulings. Think of small charities like local watershed groups. With the coming changes to assessments and the Fisheries Act, groups like that are hand-cuffed more so than the large charities who can afford to break the rules and fight it out in court.

Hand cuffed? How many small watershed charities have the power and money to actually lobby?

I know the Saugeen group I work with occasionally, don't. They apply for their licenses, make appointments with local MP's, MPP's and continuously ask the MNR to use it's head.

Ya, they lobby, but just how much money do you need to lobby?

Quote:

Special? Not really. It's just some more context; not all charities involved with environmental causes feel that the changes were a bad thing. Not so much an addendum to my reply to you, but an addendum to my comments in general. The Tides Canada foundation was one of the charities former Conservative Campaign director, and now Senator Doug Finley targeted.

Ahhh, gotchya.
Last edited by CDNBear; May 7th, 2012 at 08:59 PM..
 
mentalfloss
-1
#43
Ottawa should halt its smear campaign against pipeline detractors

Environment Minister Peter Kent’s unsupported accusations of “money laundering” involving foreign and Canadian environmental charities are part of an apparent campaign of the Conservative government to smear and intimidate groups opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Mr. Kent’s accusation in Parliament and media interviews, and the pattern they are a part of, suggest the government is improperly taking sides between the environment and business – trying to discredit those who raise environmental concerns in a public-hearing process mandated under federal law.

This pipeline may well prove a financial boon to Canada, but there are legitimate environmental concerns that need to be heard, including the danger of oil spills in environmentally sensitive waters. The pipeline will take bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., before it is loaded on ships bound for Asia. Business and the environment do not exist on two separate planes, where one matters and the other doesn’t.

The Environment Minister has accused unnamed environmental charities of criminal activity, and yet provides no specifics, except to point to the work of Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton. “There is political manipulation,” she said. “There is influence peddling. There are millions of dollars crossing borders masquerading as charitable foundations into bank accounts of sometimes phantom charities that do nothing more than act as a fiscal clearing house.” There is paranoia, there is partisanship, there are wild allegations. But evidence? No.

The Conservative smear campaign started when Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, on the eve of environmental hearings into Gateway, wrote a public letter flaying “environmental and other radical groups” who “use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada's national economic interest.” Later, the Conservatives found $8-million for Revenue Canada to do extra audits and other compliance work with the charitable sector, focused on political activity and foreign sources of funds. And now Mr. Kent says foreign environmental charities are “laundering” money through Canadian charities.

Charities give money outside of national boundaries – so what? Canada even offers tax credits to Canadians who donate money to certain overseas charities. Religious, cultural, relief and, yes, environmental charities, all operate over borders. An environmental disaster on Canada’s West Coast would concern people outside of Canada, especially Americans. If there is anything nefarious here, it is hard to see what it is. The only nefarious thing in sight at the moment is a government bent on quashing a legitimate debate.

Ottawa should halt its smear campaign against pipeline detractors - The Globe and Mail
 
petros
+2 / -1
#44
Pipeline detractors need to learn about the industry and then they wouldn't be so detractive.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1 / -1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Pipeline detractors need to learn about the industry and then they wouldn't be so detractive.

There's 2 reasons why this won't happen.

  1. There's no money in it for suzuki if he understands and communicates this reality
  2. The truthers and eco-fascists will have no one to slake their fury at.
 
petros
-1
#47
Try this sometime. Anytime you see the use of "eco - - - - -", replace eco with "ego" and you get a good laugh.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#48
Government deal with charitable group scuttled after Enbridge pressure

OTTAWA - The Conservative government cancelled an agreement with a charity that supports environmental causes eight months after energy firm Enbridge Inc. lobbied against the deal, The Canadian Press has learned.

The federal Fisheries Department said last September it would no longer use an $8.3-million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, a U.S.-based environmental trust. The foundation donated the money through charity Tides Canada, which was to distribute the funds with federal oversight to support a departmental marine-planning initiative.

The reversal came almost a year after Ottawa accepted the deal, and scrapping the arrangement went against the advice of public servants, documents show.

The grant was to provide the bulk of funding for consultations launched by the department, paying for scientific research and to gather advice from stakeholders on balancing conservation with economic use of ocean waters on British Columbia's north coast.

The public-private consultations are helping the department draft a plan to govern the marine area, which includes waters oil tankers would travel on to reach a marine terminal for Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Harper government recently targeted Tides Canada and other groups it says are trying to block the pipeline by stacking regulatory hearings. The pipeline would carry Alberta oilsands crude to a northwest B.C. port for export.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver singled out Tides Canada in January, saying the charity funnels foreign cash to pipeline opponents who "threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda."

Enbridge lobbyists used a similar argument to criticize the department's deal with Tides Canada in a December 2010 meeting with a senior bureaucrat in the Fisheries Department, according to documents obtained via Access to Information.

Lobbyists argued in a slide show presented to the department's director general for oceans that the charity opposed the Northern Gateway project, and that Tides Canada's involvement in the consultations would see the process "hijacked" against the pipeline.

Enbridge denies any part in the decision to end the agreement, while the Fisheries Department says the deal was cancelled to conclude the consultation process by the end of 2012, as scheduled.

In its presentation, Enbridge raised concern about Tides Canada taking an administrative role in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) initiative as part of the grant deal.

"The PNCIMA administrative support role of Tides Canada in areas such as stakeholder engagement and information gathering while actively working to stop expansion of the Oil Sands, prevent a west coast oil terminal from being developed and stop tanker traffic on the PNC (Pacific North Coast), will seriously impact the credibility of any PNCIMA plan which recommends zoning restrictions on tankers in the region," says one slide.

The consultations are partly to advise the department on the creation of marine-protection areas that would likely be declared off-limits to oil tankers.

The slides indicate Enbridge worried Tides Canada would influence suggestions on location of the zones as a way to choke tanker traffic to the proposed pipeline terminal.

Another slide cited an unspecified report that Tides Canada-distributed funds had previously gone to " 'mobilizing' First Nations against oil sands development."

Enbridge lobbyists pointed to previous Tides Canada and Moore Foundation grants to First Nations groups on the committee, including co-chair Coastal First Nations, an alliance of local bands that has opposed the pipeline project.

Sarah Goodman, a vice-president at Tides Canada, said the lobbyists mischaracterized the organization's stance on the pipeline and oilsands expansion.

"Tides doesn't have a specific position on the oilsands," she said.

"It's clear that there were narrow corporate interests lobbying the government behind the scenes to undermine the process," Goodman added, "and with it the ability of all the stakeholders, including other economic sectors, to participate in a robust planning process."

She said about three per cent of its grant money goes to groups involved with oilsands campaigns, some of which publicly raise concerns about the possible environmental impact of the Enbridge pipeline project.

Tides Canada funds a wide range of social and environmental projects picked by donors, and partners with major corporations and governments, including federal government agencies.

Government deal with charitable group scuttled after Enbridge pressure - Winnipeg Free Press
 
TenPenny
+1 / -1
#49


Are those supposed to support your bizarre claims that cosmetic companies use dead babies to make facial creams?

You're off your freaking meds, man. I think you should go jump off a bridge.
 
Tonington
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

They apply for their licenses, make appointments with local MP's, MPP's and continuously ask the MNR to use it's head.

Ya, they lobby, but just how much money do you need to lobby?

Well, it ranges from not much to quite a bit depending on what you're lobbying against. The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act for example remove habitat protection which was added in 1986, and without habitat protection it is very difficult to get an adequate impact assessment that will assess the risks to any aquatic species from proposed developments. That means a large uphill battle for conservation groups that have spent much of their time and money putting in digger logs to increase fish habitat and planting trees along river banks for thermal refuge, as just two of the most common examples.

If they cannot give their expertise on the subject matter at a hearing, and their habitat improvements are destroyed, what other options do they have but to lobby? This is a difficult position to be in if you're part of any group that wishes to maintain habitable rivers that pass through developed or developing areas.
 
CDNBear
+2 / -1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Well, it ranges from not much to quite a bit depending on what you're lobbying against. The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act for example remove habitat protection which was added in 1986, and without habitat protection it is very difficult to get an adequate impact assessment that will assess the risks to any aquatic species from proposed developments. That means a large uphill battle for conservation groups that have spent much of their time and money putting in digger logs to increase fish habitat and planting trees along river banks for thermal refuge, as just two of the most common examples.

If they cannot give their expertise on the subject matter at a hearing, and their habitat improvements are destroyed, what other options do they have but to lobby? This is a difficult position to be in if you're part of any group that wishes to maintain habitable rivers that pass through developed or developing areas.

I hear you, and I can relate to what you are saying on this aspect. But where I take issue, is with the groups whose lobbying practices are meant to coerce the gov't to act in a way that is seen by many as counter to the national interest. Groups that want Canada to get into Kyoto schemes being the best example.
 
DaSleeper
-1
#52
Money laundering charities : all : Search SunNews Video Gallery
 
Tonington
+1 / -1
#53
Foreign money not flowing to charities | The Chronicle Herald
The Conservatives have taken some Canadian environmental charities to task for accepting money from wealthy foreign donors to finance their campaigns against oil and gas projects.

But tax returns filed to the Canada Revenue Agency show most of the foreign money that fills the coffers of Canadian charities does not go to the environmental groups now in Tory crosshairs.

An analysis by The Canadian Press of charities’ 2010 tax returns found only one of the top 10 foreign-funded charities could be considered a conservation group.

That group is Ducks Unlimited Canada. Tax returns show it has reported receiving more than $33 million from foreign sources, making it the fifth-largest recipient that year of money from outside the country.
...
The CRA database shows only 1,998 of the 85,000 or so registered charities now active in Canada have reported any foreign income in 2010. Most are aid organizations, religious groups or schools.
Hmmm. Those radical duck hunters. Clearly the best way to kill a duck is with a toxic settling pond!
 
mentalfloss
-1
#54
Oilsands critics put spotlight on foreign ownership

Anti-oilsands activists hit back at recent criticism of foreign funding of environmental charities Thursday by releasing a report showing oilsands companies are overwhelmingly foreign-owned.

ForestEthics Advocacy — a spin-off of ForestEthics, which is a registered charity — released a shareholder analysis conducted using Bloomberg statistics that found 71 per cent of all companies operating in the Fort McMurray, Alta., area are not Canadian.

Of the remaining companies that are headquartered in Canada, many are largely foreign-owned, the group says. For instance, while Husky Energy is a Calgary-based company, 91 per cent of it is owned by foreigners, most notably Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing.

On top of that, ForestEthics Advocacy (FEA) cited Statistics Canada numbers that showed 118,000 people were employed by oilsands production, accounting for less than one per cent of Canada's working population.

The group also tackled the issue of foreign funds going to Canadian charities.

"The percentage of foreign support, support from other countries, for Canadian environmental charities is very low compared to the philanthropic donations from Canadians," FEA's Tzeporah Berman said on a conference call Thursday.

Berman also defended the use of outside financial help, noting that if it weren't for cross-border support "we wouldn't have stopped acid rain."

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers took issue with the way FEA presented its numbers.

"What is important is control and benefits back to Canadians," CAPP spokesperson Travis Davies wrote to CBC News.

He noted that 60 per cent of oilsands companies are Canadian controlled, meaning their boards and employees are largely Canadian and most decisions are made in Canada. Davies added that the companies pay billions of dollars in taxes and royalties to provincial and federal governments.

And while Davies did not dispute FEA's figure on the number of oilsands industry jobs, he said it was unfair to view that "in a vacuum."

The number employed in oilsands production "ignores the over half-a-million Canadians that depend on the oil and gas industry for their employment," argued Davies.

The FEA report comes after weeks of attacks on environmental charities by the Conservative government.

Environment Minister Peter Kent has accused unnamed groups of laundering foreign funds. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has called them "foreign-funded radicals." And Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton referred to green charities as "master manipulators who are operating under the guise of charitable organizations in an effort to manipulate our policies for their own gain."

The war of words began in January, the day before the Joint Review Panel was to start hearings into Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline.

The government argument rests on the belief that environmentalists are working against the national interest and threatening Canadian jobs by opposing development of the oilsands. The Conservatives defend foreign oil companies by saying they are investing billions in Canadian infrastructure.

The government has accused environmental charities of abusing their tax-exempt status by engaging in more political advocacy than they are allowed to under the law. Tax laws are now being changed to give the Canada Revenue Agency more powers to investigate charities.

Environmental charities have reacted relatively quickly. ForestEthics spun off an advocacy arm last month so the parent organization would no longer engage in political activity. ForestEthics Advocacy is not a charity.

Oilsands critics put spotlight on foreign ownership - Politics - CBC News

.. and in accordance with Tonnington's post..

Environmental charities don't top list of foreign-funded groups - Politics - CBC News
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+4 / -1
#55
There are Qualifying Donee rules and they need to be followed, they are put in place to prevent 'money laundering'. Charities don't file tax returns, they file information returns and a lot of things end up reported in a lump sum amount.

It's ridiculous though because I've seen or heard of so many small, and essentially well meaning, charitable organizations that have had their status revoked by CRA due to non-compliance, mostly out of ignorance of the rules. Yet larger groups skirt so many rules and get away with it. No different than anything else I suppose, money talks and big money talks the loudest.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Hmmm. Those radical duck hunters. Clearly the best way to kill a duck is with a toxic settling pond!

The timing of the comment from Kent and then the CRA audit of Tides makes me question the government's position that they have no involvement in which charitable organizations get selected for these audits. Only one environmental group is in the top 10, Tides just won an award for openness and transparency, and they were already audited less than 2 years ago.

None of this seems to be pointing toward a random and uninhibited selection process on the part of the CRA. The government will wash their hands of this with that claim (and that is fine), but I don't think the public is going to buy it considering their reputation for secrecy.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1 / -1
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The timing of the comment from Kent and then the CRA audit of Tides makes me question the government's position that they have no involvement in which charitable organizations get selected for these audits. Only one environmental group is in the top 10, Tides just won an award for openness and transparency, and they were already audited less than 2 years ago.

None of this seems to be pointing toward a random and uninhibited selection process on the part of the CRA. The government will wash their hands of this with that claim (and that is fine), but I don't think the public is going to buy it considering their reputation for secrecy.


The timing issue is probably heavily influenced by the rash of political commentary that has accompanied issues related to p/l's and the oilsands. As there are a number of vocal groups that have pushed themselves to the forefront, the gvt and/or CRA has looked into their statuses.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The timing issue is probably heavily influenced by the rash of political commentary that has accompanied issues related to p/l's and the oilsands. As there are a number of vocal groups that have pushed themselves to the forefront, the gvt and/or CRA has looked into their statuses.

Right, but the government claims that the audits are part of an initiative for all charities and that they have no part in which ones are being picked. CRA just audited Tides 2 years ago and found nothing wrong. In fact they just won an award for openness and governence.

It just makes no sense that they would be picked if this is completely random and the government has no part in it.
 
Cabbagesandking
No Party Affiliation
-1
#59
Two very interesting pieces. The first raises the suspicion that the NRA might be contributing to Ducks to assist in the lobbying for the abolition of Gun control. The second reveals what is obvious but what is never brought to public attention. Foreign ownership and the myth of jobs for Canada from the oil sands.

The serious issue, however, is the continuing practice of demonisation of whatever interest or opponent stands in the way of the CPC march to authoritarian government.

They get scarier by the day.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

Two very interesting pieces. The first raises the suspicion that the NRA might be contributing to Ducks to assist in the lobbying for the abolition of Gun control. The second reveals what is obvious but what is never brought to public attention. Foreign ownership and the myth of jobs for Canada from the oil sands.

The serious issue, however, is the continuing practice of demonisation of whatever interest or opponent stands in the way of the CPC march to authoritarian government.

They get scarier by the day.


Why are you spraying me with reddies in this thread?

Edit: Why are you spraying everyone with reddies?
 

Similar Threads

2
Laundering your dirty air
by Unforgiven | Aug 14th, 2008
3
DeLay Now Indicted for Money Laundering
by Vanni Fucci | Oct 21st, 2005
no new posts