Elections Canada warns environment groups that calling climate change real could be c


petros
+4
#1  Top Rated Post
OTTAWA — A pre-election chill has descended over some environment charities after Elections Canada warned them that discussing the dangers of climate change during the upcoming federal campaign could be deemed partisan activity.

An Elections Canada official warned groups in a training session earlier this summer that because Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, has expressed doubts about the legitimacy of climate change, any group that promotes it as real or an emergency could be considered partisan, said Tim Gray, executive director of the advocacy group Environmental Defence.

Any partisan activity — including advertising, surveys, or any kind of campaign costing at least $500 — would require a charity to register as a third party for the election, an onerous requirement that could jeopardize a group’s charitable tax status, Gray said.

It is “discouraging” that Environmental Defence and other charities may have to zip their lips about climate change being real during the campaign period “because one party has chosen to deny the existence of this basic fact,” he added.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...s-partisan/amp
 
taxslave
+4
#2
That will seriously cut into the fake news during the election.
 
petros
+3
#3
And meddling but moonbats are upset they can't meddle.

Who do they think they are? Putin?
 
Twin_Moose
+4
#4
One way to reduce US meddling
 
Curious Cdn
#5
Maybe, the Greens are worrying the Liberals in a few ridings, eh?
 
Jinentonix
+4
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Maybe, the Greens are worrying the Liberals in a few ridings, eh?

Nope, this is because of 2015 when certain "charities" were spending their money on political ads and shit. It's also to try and prevent a repeat of all the illegal third party "campaigning" that went on.

But ultimately, I see an admittance there. Climate change is real. The problem is when leftists say 'climate change' what they really mean is AGW and THAT claim is highly debatable pertaining to GHG emissions.

And let's face it, Canada is getting shit on for doing better than Europe. In 2017 Canada generated 81% of its power from emissions-free sources. The EU managed a paltry 30% and yet they're regularly praised for it while WE get told we're not doing enough.
No other country's resource sectors have been attacked like ours has either. And I don't just mean oil.

Sorry man, but I'm just getting sick of the goddam lies about Canada. The only thing that makes it worse is the number of Canadians who are helping to propagate those lies. Including various members of our govt.
 
Curious Cdn
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Nope, this is because of 2015 when certain "charities" were spending their money on political ads and shit. It's also to try and prevent a repeat of all the illegal third party "campaigning" that went on.
But ultimately, I see an admittance there. Climate change is real. The problem is when leftists say 'climate change' what they really mean is AGW and THAT claim is highly debatable pertaining to GHG emissions.
And let's face it, Canada is getting shit on for doing better than Europe. In 2017 Canada generated 81% of its power from emissions-free sources. The EU managed a paltry 30% and yet they're regularly praised for it while WE get told we're not doing enough.
No other country's resource sectors have been attacked like ours has either. And I don't just mean oil.
Sorry man, but I'm just getting sick of the goddam lies about Canada. The only thing that makes it worse is the number of Canadians who are helping to propagate those lies. Including various members of our govt.

When does man-made climate change become real? It was a scam, apparently when there were 5 billion of us. It is fake news now that there are 7 billion of us. What? It'll be a fairy tale when there's 12 billion of us?

Never. Eh? We can fill the planet up shoulder-to-shoulder and never affect the climate because random Internet Neo-Nazis say it can't happen.

I knew that there must be a good reason.
 
DaSleeper
+4
#8
Then any family with more than two kids are the real contributors to climate change?


Fine the bastards and leave the rest of us alone....
 
Jinentonix
+4
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

When does man-made climate change become real? It was a scam, apparently when there were 5 billion of us. It is fake news now that there are 7 billion of us. What? It'll be a fairy tale when there's 12 billion of us?
Never. Eh? We can fill the planet up shoulder-to-shoulder and never affect the climate because random Internet Neo-Nazis say it can't happen.
I knew that there must be a good reason.

Yep, that's exactly what I said you illiterate, uncomprehending neanderthal.
Show me where I said we make zero impact. Go on, I can wait.

The major AGW push is about emissions and human generated emissions are the least of our problems climate-wise. Do you Drink coffee? Eat chocolate? Use touchscreen technology? Congratulations, you contribute to climate change. Do you drive an ICE powered vehicle? Do you Barbecue? Is there ANY room in your home that doesn't have something that is derived from oil?

I'm not saying these things to imply that you're a hypocrite. I'm saying them to try to get people to understand that if we want to have the things we have, and need, it's going to cost us environmentally on some level.
And the only internet neo-nazis I know of on here are MHz and Torchy boy. But see, that's the level of argument you pathetic leftwads have to resort to.

Despite all the yap yap yapping, other than words and poorly labeled chart axes, (when there's any labels at all), no one and I mean NO one has yet brought forward definitive proof that humans are the primary driver via GHG emissions. And your 32% "consensus" just isn't a compelling enough argument.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Yep, that's exactly what I said you illiterate, uncomprehending neanderthal.
Show me where I said we make zero impact. Go on, I can wait.
The major AGW push is about emissions and human generated emissions are the least of our problems climate-wise. Do you Drink coffee? Eat chocolate? Use touchscreen technology? Congratulations, you contribute to climate change. Do you drive an ICE powered vehicle? Do you Barbecue? Is there ANY room in your home that doesn't have something that is derived from oil?
I'm not saying these things to imply that you're a hypocrite. I'm saying them to try to get people to understand that if we want to have the things we have, and need, it's going to cost us environmentally on some level.
And the only internet neo-nazis I know of on here are MHz and Torchy boy. But see, that's the level of argument you pathetic leftwads have to resort to.
Despite all the yap yap yapping, other than words and poorly labeled chart axes, (when there's any labels at all), no one and I mean NO one has yet brought forward definitive proof that humans are the primary driver via GHG emissions. And your 32% "consensus" just isn't a compelling enough argument.

Random Internet guys know.
 
spaminator
+1
#11
Politicians say elections law restricting partisan ads is 'absurd,' 'lunacy'
Canadian Press
Published:
August 19, 2019
Updated:
August 19, 2019 7:31 PM EDT
A farm tractor and baler sit in a hay field on a misty morning near Cremona, Alta., on Aug. 30, 2016.Jeff McIntosh / The Canadian Press / Files
OTTAWA — The man whose position on climate change is at the centre of a controversy over partisan campaign rhetoric weighed in Monday, saying Elections Canada is stifling free speech if environmental groups can’t produce ads that describe global warming as a real crisis borne of human behaviour.
Maxime Bernier, leader of the nascent People’s Party of Canada and an outspoken climate-change denier, was responding on Twitter to the agency’s warning that ads that discuss the legitimacy of the phenomenon — including paid social media placements — could be considered partisan simply because of the position of the People’s Party.
In a word, Bernier summed up Elections Canada’s position as “absurd.”
“The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name,” he said.
The Canada Elections Act does indeed restrict any third-party advertising. During the pre-writ period before the campaign officially begins, the law only affects advertising that specifically mentions a candidate or party, which the Act calls “partisan” advertising. As soon as the writ drops, the restrictions also apply to advertising that takes a position on an issue a party or a candidate has given, as well as those that mention a party or candidate by name. This is referred to in the Act as “election advertising.”
Once the costs of such ads hit $500, the third party must register with Elections Canada, produce records and financial reports and limit the amount of advertising it undertakes.
“There are hundreds of potentially contentious issues that could be considered partisan if this rule were to be applied consistently,” Bernier said.
Natasha Gauthier, a spokeswoman for Elections Canada, said the climate-change warning was just an example of an ad that could fall into the “election advertising” category, and that any decision about specific ads or activities would be decided on a case-by-case basis and only if there is a complaint. That decision also will be made by the commissioner of Canada elections.
Elections Canada does not know in advance what issues might come up during the campaign, Gauthier added, but said if a party or candidate takes a position on something, any organization that advertises or does work on that issue will need to make sure they comply with the law. For example, an association promoting the benefits of forestry jobs could find its ads offside if a party suddenly makes forestry jobs a campaign issue, she warned.
Third parties should “be careful, because it depends on the situation,” Gauthier said, adding that the rules around advertising are not new.
Even so, the agency’s decision to cite climate change as a specific example has left environment groups feeling muzzled, and others wondering how far partisan labels will go.
“This is lunacy,” said Green party Leader Elizabeth May. “Elections Canada is not a lunatic organization so I trust they will clarify and eliminate this ruling.”
If Bernier were to suddenly say he believes smoking is good for people, May wondered aloud, would any organization that promotes the health dangers of smoking suddenly be deemed partisan? Others on Twitter questioned whether the earth being round could suddenly become a partisan statement if a candidate were to publicly insist the earth is flat.
“It’s not partisan to discuss the single greatest threat faced by humanity,” NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said of climate change.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he will look very closely at what Elections Canada has said, but added that he trusts them to make independent decisions about the Canada Elections Act.
“We will always respect Elections Canada’s role and responsibility to independently apply electoral law,” Trudeau said.
“But I think the whole question highlights the fact that it is so frustrating that there are still conservative politicians in this country who don’t think climate change is real and certainly don’t think we should be doing anything to fight it.”
Several organizations say they now are planning to withdraw any advertising during the writ period that may discuss the scope of climate change, even though it doesn’t mention any party or politician by name.
“We’re screening everything we post or boost online,” said Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada. “Greenpeace Canada will continue to talk about climate change but we won’t be paying to boost that online or take out ads in newspapers.”
Stewart said Greenpeace registered last time, but described the process as onerous and time consuming — not worth it in 2019 for the roughly $2,500 worth of ads they did in 2015.
Greenpeace is not a charity, but there is added pressure on environmental groups that are who fear a Canada Revenue Agency audit should Elections Canada suddenly deem their activities to be partisan, Stewart said. The CRA has rules on partisan behaviour, and even if charities believe they are in compliance, the cost and time associated with an audit could cause them to rethink their campaign activities, he said.
Maxime Bernier tells party faithful he will make it into leaders’ debates
NDP turfs MP Pierre Nantel for considering election run with Green party
Canadian food supplies at risk if climate change not slowed, new UN report shows
New rules in legislation passed by Parliament last year also created new limitations on third-party activities that are not related to advertising. Restrictions on partisan activities could prevent organizations from assessing party policies or platforms, for example, something that was often done in the past.
While the rules don’t bar such activities entirely, they do require an organization to decide when the cost exceeds $500, and trying to determine the staff costs and overhead associated with responding to a platform is difficult enough that many organizations simply might avoid it entirely.
Trevor Melanson, a communications manager at Clean Energy Canada, said under the new rules, his organization resisted issuing a statement when Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he was going to get rid of the clean fuel standard being introduced by the Liberal government. Melanson said the standard is an issue his organization has spent years studying, and felt restrained from speaking out about it.
“It has a very real chilling effect on us,” he said.
Stewart said he has some sympathy for Elections Canada “trying to deal with growing concerns with third parties trying to manipulate elections.”
But turning facts into partisan fodder isn’t something the agency should tolerate, he added: “The aggravating thing here for me is science is not partisan.”
http://torontosun.com/news/national/...-absurd-lunacy
 
petros
+1
#12
So, is the politics of climate change settled or not?
 
pgs
+4
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So, is the politics of climate change settled or not?

Yes , warmer temperatures require more tax dollars , cooler temperatures require more tax dollars .
 
Jinentonix
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Random Internet guys know.

Says some ironically challenged random internet guy.

P.S. 32% =/= 97% no matter how hard you try to spin it.
 
Curious Cdn
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Says some ironically challenged random internet guy.
P.S. 32% =/= 97% no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Can't get much more random that you, Sonny.
 
spaminator
+1
#16
Elections Canada climate advertising guidelines puts chill on green groups' advocacy
Reuters
Published:
August 20, 2019
Updated:
August 20, 2019 3:41 PM EDT
Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, announced Edmonton and area candidates for the upcoming federal election, at the St. Albert Inn and Suites on Tuesday July 9, 2019.LARRY WONG / POSTMEDIA
Canadian environmental groups fear losing their tax-free charity status if they run paid climate change advocacy adverts ahead of the October national election, after a warning from the federal election watchdog.
Elections Canada, a non-partisan body that manages federal elections, has said that such advertising campaigns could be interpreted as partisan politics.
The watchdog strictly regulates advertising during campaign periods, and one small right-wing party running in the October election – the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) – denies climate change is man-made.
Because of this position, the issue would be considered as affiliated with a party or candidate, making advertising that takes a stance on it forbidden under the Canada Elections Act.
The guidelines have been in place for 20 years, but never enforced on the issue of climate change because Elections Canada has not received any complaints that triggered an investigation and penalties.
The Canada Elections Act does not “make a distinction between facts and opinion,” Stephane Perrault, chief electoral officer of Canada, said in a statement. “It is not Elections Canada’s role to make that distinction, no matter how obvious it may appear.”
The potential enforcement of the guidelines has sent a chill through environmental groups in the lead up to the federal election.
“This is lunacy, and Elections Canada is not a lunatic organization, so I trust they will clarify and eliminate this ruling,” federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said.
Surveys show that some Canadians consider climate change one of the top issues ahead of the vote.
Only the PPC, which is polling at less than 5%, rejects it.
PPC leader Maxime Bernier, much like U.S. President Donald Trump, has said it is a natural phenomenon.
But even Bernier, who broke away from the Conservative party last year to start his own bloc, said Elections Canada was misinterpreting the rules.
“The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name,” Bernier said on Twitter.
Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said environmental groups would have to register as a third party if they spent more than $500 on an ad campaign about the issue because of PPC leader Bernier’s position, a step he described as “onerous” and complicated for tax reasons.
Liberals complain to elections commissioner about conservative groups’ co-ordination
Canada Strong and Proud registers as third party for fed election
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he respected the independence of Elections Canada but told reporters that the issue “underlines how frustrating it is that we are still debating whether climate change is real or not and whether we should act or not.”
Trudeau introduced a federal carbon pricing program scheme and is talking up his plan to tackle climate change ahead of his Oct. 21 re-election bid.
“I never would have thought saying climate change is real would be considered to be elections advertising,” said Keith Stewart, senior energy advisor at Greenpeace Canada, adding he hoped Elections Canada will soften its stance on the issue.
http://torontosun.com/news/national/...roups-advocacy
 
captain morgan
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

Canadian environmental groups fear losing their tax-free charity status if they run paid climate change advocacy adverts ahead of the


This is exactly what happened to that tool david suzuki.


Was glad that he got caught and am glad that these foreign sponsored lobbies are getting made useless
 

Similar Threads

12
The REAL Human Cause of Climate Change
by Jinentonix | Jul 25th, 2019