A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister's Office threatened a funding agency if it didn't pull its support for the group.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper denies the allegations.
In a sworn affidavit released Tuesday to The Canadian Press, Andrew Frank says he was told by his supervisor at ForestEthics that a PMO official had referred to their organization as an "enemy of the state." The affidavit describes how staff were told their jobs were at risk after the official told Tides Canada, which supports the work of ForestEthics, that the government would "take down" all of the agency's projects unless it cut ForestEthics loose.
Tides gets most of its money from private foundations and assists a wide array of social and environmental charities in Canada — from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the World Wildlife Fund. It also partners with major corporations and governments, including federal government agencies.
Frank says he was fired from his job as communications adviser at ForestEthics on Monday over his plans to go public.
His affidavit details a series of conversations allegedly held in early January between ForestEthics and Tides staff.
He says ForestEthics employees were summoned to a meeting on Jan. 5 in which the group's supervisor, Pierre Iachetti, told them the CEO of Tides, Ross McMillan, had been given a period of time in which to stop contributions to ForestEthics or the government would "take down" all of Tides's charitable projects.
ForestEthics has been behind efforts to encourage U.S. companies to avoid using oilsands-derived fuel in their transportation fleets. A total of 14 companies and one city have made commitments of varying strength.
ForestEthics has also worked to get people to sign up to address a National Energy Board review currently underway into Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline between Alberta and Kitimat, B.C. More than 4,000 people have asked to appear.
Frank says Iachetti was attempting to find alternate funding sources to try to survive.
"The assumption was that Mr. McMillan had already decided to dissolve ForestEthics's public work in criticizing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway oil tanker and pipeline plan in order to save the rest of Tides's projects."
The next day, Frank says, he heard the same story directly from Merran Smith, energy initiative director for Tides.
"She said that...someone at the PMO had described ForestEthics as 'an enemy of the government of Canada' and 'an enemy of the people of Canada' and had then made the threat that if ForestEthics was not dissolved or removed, Tides would meet an undesirable fate."
Other ForestEthics management corroborated the story over the next few days, says Frank.
He says he met directly with McMillan on Friday to inform him of his plans to go public with the information. He says McMillan did not deny the story, but compared Frank's plans to "setting off a bomb in your own house."
"He and (vice-president Sarah) Goodman suggested there were better ways of fighting back."
Andrew MacDougall, spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, said none of the statements attributed to the government is accurate.
"The Prime Minister's Office denies making any of the allegations or saying any of the things that are outlined in that statement," he said.
He would not comment when asked if either Tides Canada or ForestEthics had been targeted by the government.
Tides Canada said no one from the organization would be doing interviews. In a statement, McMillan said he wouldn't comment on Frank's affidavit other than to say "his account of our conversations with government is inaccurate."
McMillan added: "The federal government has repeatedly and pointedly made its position clear regarding its concern about those voicing legitimate perspectives about the potential environmental and social risks related to the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal."
ForestEthics spokeswoman Valerie Langer said the group wouldn't comment on the accuracy of Frank's account. She did confirm that staff had been warned about a funding crunch.
"A lot of donors are getting scared that their giving to organizations will result in reprisals," she said. "Because of this it's made for a very uncertain outlook.
"The federal government has levelled its guns at our organizations."
More donors than ever are asking to give anonymously, Langer said.
In Canada, ForestEthics gets charitable status through Tides Canada. Tides also provides administrative support and some funding.
ForestEthics is supported by dozens of other foundations and thousands of individual donors, said Langer.
ForestEthics spokeswoman Tzeporah Berman said Tides and ForestEthics continue to have "positive" conversations.
The Commons finance committee is to begin a study later this month on the ways individuals and corporations donate and how to boost that generosity through tax incentives. The last federal budget recommended such a review.
There has been speculation about a Conservative crackdown on environmental and other foundations with charitable status that also do advocacy work.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has accused "environmental and other radical groups'' of trying to use money from "foreign special-interest groups'' to hijack the Northern Gateway hearings.
The Harper government has cut funding for critics before. In December 2010, the Canadian International Development Agency turned down a funding application by the relief organization Kairos.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney initially told an Israeli audience the group had been cut off due to its anti-Israel stance — an assertion Kairos said was patently untrue. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda contradicted Kenney, saying the group simply no longer met the criteria for CIDA's foreign aid priorities. But an internal memo later surfaced, signed by Oda and CIDA's top two officials, indicating that the agency had actually recommended Kairos's application be approved.
In an interview, Frank said he is motivated by concern over his civil rights.
"I think Canadians need to know that behind the scenes, the Prime Minister's Office has apparently attempted to silence a legitimate voice and a critic of the proposed Enbridge oil tanker and pipeline project," he said.
"At the very highest levels of this government, Canadians who have a legitimate concern about this oilsands pipeline are being called enemies of the government of Canada and enemies of the people of Canada. And that's the language of anti-terrorism.
"When a government calls its own citizens enemies, you've lost your moral authority to govern."
Related on HuffPost:
Canada's Top Polluting Provinces
As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, here's a look at the country's top polluting provinces.
(Mt CO2 eq refers to megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the standard international unit of measurement for reporting GHG emissions. It expresses all greenhouse gases emissions in terms of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, CO2. One megatonne is equal to one million tonnes.)
* Signatories to the Kyoto Protocol submit greenhouse gas emissions inventories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change annually, but the data itself lags two years behind.
** Facility-reportedemissions are those reported by large industrial facilities like fossil-fuel-powered power plants, mining
An activist wears a mask depicting the face of Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, during a protest in Durban on the sidelines of the UN climate talks, on December 5, 2011. (ALEXANDER JOE/AFP/Getty Images)
<em>With files from CBC</em>
7. Quebec - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 equivalent
Emissions target: 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020
2009* emissions:
- Total: 81.7 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: -1.9 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 11.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 8 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Cap and trade -- Quebec will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a cap and trade system for reducing emissions, effective January 2012. The first year will be a transition year in which participants are to get a feel for how the system works but are not obliged to comply with the caps.
Under the system, the province establishes an overall emissions objective and then sets specific caps on individual sectors based on average emissions in that sector or on a company by company basis.
Emitters whose emissions are below the cap will be able to sell emissions credits to companies whose emissions exceed the cap. Quebec will be part of the same cap-and-trade system as California since both are members of the Western Climate Initiative.
Some environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute, have said the auction price for emissions credits that Quebec has set --$10 per tonne in 2013 and $15 per tonne in 2020 -- is too low to motivate significant reductions in emissions and have urged the province to raise them.
Carbon tax -- Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon tax in 2007. The tax applies to about 50 fuel producers and distributors that use a large amount of hydrocarbons. The $200 million collected annually through the tax goes to fund projects that are part of the province's Climate Change Action Plan. The tax rate varies depending on the amount of carbon released during combustion:
- Gasoline: 0.8 cents/litre
- Diesel: 0.9 cents/litre
- Propane: 0.5 cents/litre
- Light heating oil: 0.96 cents/litre
- Heavy heating oil: 1 cent/litre
- Coke used in steel making: 1.3 cents/litre
- Coal: $8/tonne
Energy -- It's no accident that Quebec is one of the few provinces to have reduced its emissions from 1990 levels: 96 per cent of the province's electrical power comes from renewable sources. While hydro power is its biggest strength, it has also invested heavily in wind power and aims to develop 4,000 MW of wind-generated electricity by 2015. (Alamy)
6. Ontario - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020
2009* emissions:
- Total: 165 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: -6.5 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 23.9 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 20 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Energy -- The province passed the Green Energy Act in 2009, which set the course for the province's transition to cleaner sources of energy and greater energy efficiency. It came with financial incentives for the development of wind, solar and biomass power-generation projects and created the feed-in tariff program by which producers of renewable energy are paid premium rates to supply the province's power grid.
The Act also includes provisions to promote energy conservation and green construction in the public sector.
Coal -- The province plans to phase out all of its coal-fired electricity generation by 2014 and replace it with wind, solar and other clean-energy sources. A total of 19 units at five coal plants will be shut; eight have been closed already. In the past decade, the province has gone from relying on coal for 27 per cent of its electricity needs to seven per cent.
Cap and trade -- Ontario is part of the Western Climate Initiative and has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system but has not yet done so. In the last election, the Liberals said they were still committed to setting up the system but did not say when that might happen.
Fuel -- Along with the federal regulations on renewable content, Ontario has committed to reducing carbon content in transportation fuels by 10 per cent by 2020.
Emissions -- In 2009, Ontarioamended its Environmental Protection Act to allow greenhouse gas emissions to be regulated and laid the groundwork for a cap-and-trade system. As of 2010, any facility emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent has to report its emissions annually, but there are no limits on these emissions as yet. (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)
5. B.C. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target:33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020
2009* emissions:
- Total: 63.8 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: +28.1 per cent (2 per cent below 2007 levels)
% of Canada's total emissions: 9.2 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 5 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Carbon tax -- B.C. introduced a tax on fossil fuels in 2008. It started at $10/tonne and will rise by $5 a year until 2012. It is currently at $25/tonne and applies to gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating fuel, propane and coal -- and to peat and tires when used to produce energy. Revenue raised from the tax is put toward lowering other taxes. The tax covers about 70 per cent of B.C.'s emissions.
Electricity -- B.C.'s Clean Energy Act requires that 93 per cent of the province's electricity come from renewable sources and aims to make B.C. not only self-sufficient in terms of its electricity supply but also to be a net exporter of clean electricity.
Some have criticized the legislation, because it reverses B.C.'s past policy of generating only enough electricity to meet the province's own needs and allows the government to exploit rivers and the environment by selling surplus power.
It also mergers the generating and transmission sides of the electricity sector that past governments had taken pains to separate. This can undermine the oversight authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission, particularly its ability to reject certain hydro power projects, critics say.
Coal -- B.C. has abandoned coal-fired electricity generation in favour of renewables but is still Canada's biggest exporter of coal. In 2010, it exported about 23 million tonnes.
Fuel -- B.C.'s Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation has targets for reducing emissions from transportation fuels.
Its overall target is to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Carbon intensity measures the CO2 equivalent emissions of fuel per unit of energy. The regulations also stipulate that gasoline must have five per cent renewable content beginning in 2010 and diesel must have five per cent renewable content by 2012. The province is also testing a fleet of 20 fuel-cell buses that have zero tailpipe emissions. The $89.5 million federal-provincial project runs until March 2014.
Public sector -- In June 2011, the province announced it had succeeding in making government operations carbon neutral, meaning that by reducing emissions and purchasing carbon offsets for reductions made in other sectors, the net contribution to the province's emissions from the public sector would be zero.
Many have questioned the government's methodology in declaring itself carbon neutral, pointing out that it exempted some government-owned operations, such as BC Ferries, and didn't give credit to some institutions for reducing certain heavy-emitting activities, such as commuting.
Cap and trade -- B.C. is a member of the Western Climate Initiative formed in 2007 between several U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. The members of the initiative have agreed to set a regional target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions of 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is less ambitious than the federal target Canada and the U.S. agreed to under the Copenhagen Accord; and to establish a regional cap-and-trade program.
Although B.C. has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system and had initially said it would launch the program in 2012, the Liberal government under new leader Christy Clark has not committed to carrying out the plan and is currently reviewing whether a cap-and-trade model is the best way to meet the provincial target. So far, only Quebec and California have moved forward with the cap-and-trade plan. Both are to begin a trial year of operation in 2012.
Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, Canada, speaks during the World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit in Mumbai on November 14, 2011. (PUNIT PARANJPE/AFP/Getty Images)
4. Manitoba - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: none
2009* emissions:
- Total: 20.3 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: +9.6 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 3.1 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 1 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Emissions -- Under the NDP government of Gary Doer, Manitoba passed the Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Actin 2008, which committed the government to reducing emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
It abandoned that target this December, after Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol -- although, with 2012 fast approaching and Manitoba's emissions nowhere near six per cent below 1990 levels, the move was largely moot.
Carbon tax -- The provinceintroduced a small carbon tax of $10 a tonne of CO2 equivalent on coal-fired electricity generation in July 2011, but it only affects three companies that are large emitters of greenhouse gases.
Cap and trade -- Manitoba is a member of the Western Climate Initiative but has not yet laid the legislative groundwork for setting up a cap-and-trade system in the province.
Manitoba Legislature in Winnipeg. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezz/">Flickr: Jezz's Photostream</a>
3. Nova Scotia - 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020
2009* emissions:
- Total: 21 Mt CO2 eq.
- per capita: 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: +10.5 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 4 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Electricity -- Almost 90 per cent of Nova Scotia's electrical power comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal. In 2009, the province passed regulations limiting emissions in the electricity sector. It set caps on any facility emitting more than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.
Clean energy -- The province passed an Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act that sets targets for reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable fuel sources. The province aims to get 25 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.
Two Canadian bagpipers play in front of the town clock in Halifax. (Tim BREAKMEIE/AFP/Getty Images)
2. Alberta - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: 14 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050
2009* emissions:
- Total: 234 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
% difference from 1990: +36.7 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 33.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 47 per cent)
Alberta has also expressed its target as a 50 per cent reduction in emissions intensity below 1990 levels by 2020, which according to the Pembina Institute, translates to a reduction of 60 megatonnes in annual emissions below the business-as-usual level by 2020.
Emissions intensity doesn't measure emissions in absolute terms but instead factors in GDP to measure GHG as a unit of production. This means that if production increases, emissions can increase and the province can still meet its target.
Alberta's 2008 climate change strategy expresses its reduction targets as a cut in annual emissions of 50 Mt by 2020 and 200 Mt by 2050, a cut of 50 per cent below business as usual level.
LEGISLATION:
Emissions -- Alberta was the first province to implement regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions when in 2003 it passed the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. That act gave the province the right to regulate emissions, require mandatory reporting of emissions from certain facilities and set an overall provincial target of reducing emissions intensity to 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.
In 2007, the province added the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Under those laws, as of March 2008, existing facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year had to cap their emissions intensity at 12 per cent below the average for 2003-2005. Facilities built from 2000 on have a three-year reprieve before they have to start reducing emissions intensity by two per cent a year for five years.
Emitters can choose to pay a penalty for exceeding their targets of $15 for every tonne over their limit. The money goes into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which as of September 2011 had collected $257 million -- from about $40 million in 2008. In 2009, the province set up a Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation to invest the fund money into "emission reduction technologies."
They can also purchase credits to offset their own emissions from emitters that have already reached their reduction targets or from companies that are not subject to the regulations (i.e. those who emit less than 100,000 tonnes a year) but have voluntarily reduced emissions.
Environmentalists have criticized Alberta's emissions regulations for several reasons:
- Measuring emissions intensity instead of absolute emissions allows the province to keep increasing emissions. The Alberta Environmental Law Centre has said that studies have shown that the province will be able to meet its emissions intensity target of 50 per cent below 1990 levels even if absolute emissions grow by 60 to 80 per cent above 1990 levels. According to the Pembina Institute, between 1990 and 2009, Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions increased more than those of any other jurisdiction in North America.
- The regulations apply only to large emitters.
- The $15/tonne penalty for exceeding reduction targets is not high enough to motivate changes in behaviour.
Electricity -- Small-scale producers of renewable energy can feed the provincial grid and are compensated at the retail, rather than wholesale, price for electricity. As of 2005, almost all of the electricity in government buildings comes from renewable sources like wind and biomass, but overall, renewables still make up only five per cent of the province's total generating capacity. About 45 per cent comes from coal, and 40 per cent from natural gas.
Coal --About 59 per cent of the province's electricity generation is fuelled by coal. Alberta angered many environmentalists in August 2011 when it approved a new $1.7-billion coal plant at a facility near Grande Cache owned by Maxim Power. The company plans to build a 500-megawatt generating station next to its existing 150-megawatt H.R. Milner plant, which is to shut down in 2012. The Pembina Institute estimates the new plant will emit more than three million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year -- the equivalent of adding 590,000 vehicles to the road.
Source: Canada's 2011 national greenhouse gas inventory submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Aerial view of the Suncor oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta on October 23, 2009. (MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
1. Saskatchewan - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020
2009* emissions:
- Total: 73.1 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: +69 per cent
% of Canada's total emissions: 7.3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 9 per cent)
LEGISLATION:
Emissions -- The province passed a Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act in 2010 that allows it to regulate emissions but has not yet implemented emissions limits on facilities or required them to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations to that effect are expected to be introduced in 2012, with the first caps coming into force in 2013.
The province plans to set a price on carbon and have facilities that exceed the caps pay into a green technology fund similar to the one that exists in Alberta.
Saskatchewan's emissions have grown more than those of any other province since 1990, increasing by 69 per cent. This is largely due to the explosive growth in the province's oil and gas sector, which accounts for 37 per cent of its total emissions.
Saskatchewan is Canada's second largest producer of oil after Alberta and accounts for about 20 per cent of the country's oil production. Potash mining and the expansion of coal-fired power generation have also contributed to the growth in emissions.
Coal -- About 60 per cent of Saskatchewan's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. The province has no plans to phase out coal but instead aims to retrofit existing units to include carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions.
(<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justaprairieboy/">Flickr: Just a Prairie Boy's photostream</a>)
Canada - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq.
Emissions target: 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020
This is the target Canada agreed to under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which laid out the broad outlines of a possible agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol once it expires in 2012. It is a smaller cut over a longer period than what Canada originally agreed to under Kyoto, which would have required Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The target mirrors the one proposed by the U.S. during the Copenhagen negotiations.
After announcing on Dec. 12 that Canada will withdraw from Kyoto, Environment Minister Peter Kent said the government will stick to the Copenhagen target, even though it is not legally binding as the Kyoto target was.
Canada's 2009*emissions:
- Total: 690 Mt CO2 eq.
- Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq.
% change from 1990: +16.9 per cent
LEGISLATION:
Coal -- federal emissions limits for coal-fired power plants are to come into force in July 2015. They will limit emissions to 375 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced per year. Emitters will be able to use carbon capture and storage to meet their emissions caps.
The regulation will apply to any coal-fired unit commissioned after July 1, 2015, or at the end of its useful life -- which is the lesser of 45 years or the year 2020.
Some critics say this limits the effectiveness of the law since about two-thirds of Canadian coal plants won't be subject to the regulations until 2020, and nine plants won't have to comply until 2030. Some also fear that the 2015 starting date for newly commissioned plants could prompt a rush to get new coal plants online before then to avoid being subject to the regulations.
Indeed, one example of this already happened in Alberta, where Maxim Power received approval in August 2011 to build a new coal plant that won't have to comply with the emissions caps.
Canada has 51 coal-burning electricity plants, which account for 13 per cent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions; 33 of the plants will be at the end of their life by 2025.
Fuel -- In 2010, the government passed a regulation requiring an average of five per cent renewable content in gasoline and an annual average of two per cent in diesel fuel and heating oil.
It adopted fuel emissionsstandards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2011-2016 that mirror those introduced in the U.S. Cars and light trucks account for 12 per cent of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions (and 43 per cent of transportation emissions). The transportation sector as a whole accounts for 27 per cent of overall emissions.
Parliament Hill is blanketed in snow 18 December 2007 in Ottawa, Canada, (MICHEL COMTE/AFP/Getty Images)
A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister's Office threatened a funding agency if it didn't pull its support for the group.A spokesma...
A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister's Office threatened a funding agency if it didn't pull its support for the group.A spokesma...
A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister's Office threatened a funding agency if it didn't pull its support for the group.A spokesma...
A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister's Office threatened a funding agency if it didn't pull its support for the group.A spokesma...
Barely a week after President Obama rejected the contentious Keystone XL pipeline proposal and his relationship with environmentalists reached a "high water mark," protesters once...
Newt Gingrich is a fan of Stephen Harper. The Republican presidential hopeful gave the Canadian prime minister a shout out in his speech after winning...
TORONTO — Canada is looking at alternatives for exporting its oil since U.S. President Barack Obama announced he was blocking a pipeline from Alberta to...
The Canadian government says it is profoundly disappointed with the Obama administration for scrapping a multibillion-dollar pipeline project that would have carried oil from Alberta...
TORONTO - The need for Canadian oilsands is "overwhelming" and the government will work hard to combat misinformation about its environmental impact, the prime minister...
Any charitable organization that wants to enter the political arena should have all charitable donations tax credits, to be rescinded. Governments should not be in the business of funding political debates or organizations.
That includes churches and the Suzuki Foundation
Henk_Bos: Any charitable organization that wants to enter the political arena
The law is very clear that charitable organizations can participate in political endeavours, although limited to a specified percentage (I think 10%) of all activities combined.
Cognocit: The law is very clear that charitable organizations can participate
I get why the PMO would move to de-fund a group opposed to the tar sands and the Keystone pipeline - whatevsies - that's their prerogative. But why lie about it?
When it comes to a critical issue such as the environment, personally, I'm not going to base my position on the gospel according to Harper, but err on the side of caution, and heed the advice of scientific visionaries who track the alarming rate of extinction of animals, wildlife and their habitats. By ignoring the environment, we'll reap the cash rewards from oil, but what will we be purchasing? Plastic lawns, gardens, and replicas of extinct wildlife from China?
The bigger issue here, apart from what side of the fence you sit on, is the mounting evidence pointing towards our indoctrination by a government that undemocratically stifles opposing points of view. Anyone who cares to defend the PMO's actions, has already been brainwashed.
WeeTadBit: When it comes to a critical issue such as the
So it's okay for China's State owned Petroleum Company to "give" Enbridge at least $10 million dollars to promote the pipeline, but not for anyone to give money to Forest Ethics to oppose it???? Why do we import over a million barrels a day into Eastern Canada by oil tanker when we could be sending Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, to be refined in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadian use??? I think people had better start waking up to the fact that Harper's "good economic" record in Canada is due entirely to Canada's vast Natural Resources, and Harper is intent on selling them off as quickly as possible to the Chinese. Future generations will be left with no resources and a huge mess. It would appear the most valuable thing Harper is getting from the Chinese in return is their highly effective methods of dealing citizens who opposes the governments view!!! Everyone regardless of what their views on the pipeline are should be very concerned about Harpers increasing disregard for FREE SPEACH. We need more openness, transparency, accountability, & responsibility, from all our politicians, not less.
altarancher: So it's okay for China's State owned Petroleum Company to
I agree, it's pretty silly the way the Harper government is approaching this. It's going to result in them losing the next election!
"Why do we import over a million barrels a day into Eastern Canada by oil tanker when we could be sending Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, to be refined in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadian use??? "
Valid question. That is because not oil is the same, and not all refineries are created equal. Some oil can't be refined to be meet national standards at our refineries. Also, in many cases, it is a shorter distance to an American refinery - so a company will obviously "export" the oil to America to be refined to save on transport costs. Because of these reasons, there will always be a gap between supply and demand that needs to be filled with importing oil.
TwoZeroOZ: I agree, it's pretty silly the way the Harper government
It is trying to damage our economy, and having some success with the brain-dead.
All legal methods of forestalling ForestEthics, including sanctions against the parent entity are fully acceptable.
Screw them.
Why should the elected representatives of the people stand aside as agencies funded by foreigners throw a wrench into our economy???
Now, I dare the gov't to stand up and clearly, and publically announce it will use all legal methods available to undercut these idiots.
For the lefties.....imagine a pro-gun political campaign financed by the American NRA........it would be exactly the same idea.....except that might make actually increase our liberty....:)
colpy: ForestEthics IS an enemy of the Canadian people. It is
We DID have a pro-gun campaign financed by the NRA, where were you???
Your complaints are a bit like Mubarek telling NATO to back off while it abuses it's country's economy and ignores democratic process (like being in contempt of Parliament, and ignoring rulings by the Supreme court, you know). Not sure if you've noticed, but there are not actual borders in nature. Oil spoils dont see borders. Greenhouse gases don't stop at borders, and there's no one making money on a dead planet.
canfemlib: We DID have a pro-gun campaign financed by the NRA,
The pro-gun campaign was most certainly NOT funded by the NRA, except in the twisted delusions of the ignorant and paranoid left.
NRA executives attended a couple of dinners in their honour, and offered advice. NO NRA money was spent. I only wish the Canadian shooters' organizations had one thousandth of the money of the NRA.
Oil will be a mainstay for at least another 40 years. Get used to it. Or give up driving, and freeze in the dark.
Reality bites.
colpy: The pro-gun campaign was most certainly NOT funded by the
There is absolutely no question that this happened. Harper and his terroristic cabinet have made threats publicly by openly calling those who oppose the pipeline "radicals". The man is DANGEROUS, and I hope our justice system still has some independence from the PM's office because I have NO DOUBT that they will have to step in at some time to stop Harper from destroying the country.
To listen to (c)onservatives, you would think that the oil sands was a freshwater pond. They are LIARS and they deserve to go to JAIL for what they are doing to the country!
dclintn648: There is absolutely no question that this happened. Harper and
Since when has developing your resources been illegal?????
Since when has resisting foreign controlled unelected political action groups bound on destroying our economy been illegal???
The Conservative gov't is the democratically elected representative of the people of Canada.....who elected ForestEthics (now there's a giggle) to use every unethical stalling method possible to prevent the development of our nation?
Especially when the cash comes from the USA.
colpy: The justice system??? RIGHT! Since when has developing your resources
Since when is threatening people who donate money to organizations that oppose you, been illegal? Oh, that's right, it started once Harper became PM.
So what you're saying is that because Harper has a majority, mean that people must just bend over and take whatever Harper and the Cons do, without question? They should shut up and go with it? Forgot expressing any discourse? Forgot, criticizing? I believe there's a word for that... just bare with me here, it's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, yeah, Dictatorship.
Jason_Bullock: Since when is threatening people who donate money to organizations
They may have been elected but they are NOT following established democratic procedures. They lie to parliament, they muzzle the press, they act in the best interests only of oil companies and not the citizens they were elected to represent. Just because they were elected, doesnt mean sweet tween if they are abusing power, which Harper absolutely is.
canfemlib: They may have been elected but they are NOT following
I agree all "looney tunes" in the debate should be in jail. But that is a simpilton mind set.
The nice thing about a democratic state that we live in, is that we have the right to say what we think.
But for those who envy despot dictators and totalitarianism will call for those who have a diverse opinion should be locked up.
Whose calling the kettle black?
Henk_Bos: I agree all "looney tunes" in the debate should be
Gee, really, throw them in jail and I thought Canada was a free democracy were people have the right to voice their opinion, even when that opinion is different from that of the current government.
georgee2: Gee, really, throw them in jail and I thought Canada
No need to ask if you're benefitting financially from the oil sands... but your sociopathic post is frightening. I genuinely fear for Canada because of REAL terrorists like you who THREATEN OTHERS because they stand in the way of what YOU want.
YOU ARE TRULY DESPICABLE!!!
dclintn648: No need to ask if you're benefitting financially from the
Stop subsidizing oil Mr. Harper. Stop thinking you can hide the unethical behavior of your ministers and yourselves. Pictures of the fake lake said it all. It cost a fortune and didn't even look great. I mean Mr. Harper Canada has millions of lakes. The fake lake was merely visible evidence of the disinterest the Conservatives (previously known as the Reform Party) have in anything true and honest. Please quit Mr. Harper. I was a [roud Canadian but now I am an ashamed Canadian. Please Mr. Harper, I assume your personnal Bible was a real Bible upon which you took your oath after being elected. Please please Mr. Harper. Jesus did not want more jails or war planes. He wanted to help the poor. Mr. Harper attack ads are so unCanadian and you know you used foreign funds to pay for them. Mr. Harper, Jesus hated hypocrits. He hated the money lenders. So please Mr. Harper try to be an ordinary Chrisitan if not an exemplary one. Stop allowing anyone to call any oil ethical much less the bitumen from the tar sands. Please please please.
pinkibus: Stop subsidizing oil Mr. Harper. Stop thinking you can hide
I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm going to have to take colpy's side on this one; you really need to work on your communications skills.
TwoZeroOZ: I think I agree with most of what you're saying,
Great! Now anyone who says, writes, blogs, signs, texts, phones, yells or even whispers against anything the gov says could be an enemy of the state, a radical, an enviromental radical or worse an enemy of the state canadian enviromental radical. I'm beginning to understand why we are getting these new jails.
canuckistaneh: Great! Now anyone who says, writes, blogs, signs, texts, phones,
it's great to see someone taking on the enviornmental anarchists. Hopefully someone will draw attention to the millions of people who have suffered and died because of the hairbrained halfbaked ideas promoted by the czars who run these groups to line their pockets at the expense of the public.
And to perform their atrocities they enlist the help of the frail individuals who they brainwash into their cause using techniques well documented in any psychology book on mind control.
In my opinion these people are not only enemies of state, they are criminals who should be in jail for all the harm their interference and ignorance has caused..
jim_ky: it's great to see someone taking on the enviornmental anarchists.
"Hopefully someone will draw attention to the millions of people who have suffered and died because of the hairbrained halfbaked ideas promoted by the czars who run these groups to line their pockets at the expense of the public." -- WTF? That is total and complete nonsense. People dying of clean air?
canfemlib: "Hopefully someone will draw attention to the millions of people
Loading comments… 
CP Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
First Posted: 01/24/2012 4:44 pm Updated: 01/26/2012 11:15 am