Your LACK of a position is clear, CK. ENGOs (the "E" stands for "Environmental") focus their efforts on "environmental" issues - duh!, eh? There are negative "environmental" effects from all industries. ENGOs (both domestic and foreign) bring those issues to the public's attention - as is their purview - and it obviously does not work in the MULTINATIONAL industries best interests to do so. I don't see anything novel in any of this. I don't understand the argument of Krause's that we should ignore the ENGOs content because they - like the oil companies - have a head office somewhere besides Calgary. If it is - in fact - an argument - it is a hypocritical one.
Anti Oil Sands activists funded by US interests
- Thread starter Haliman
- Start date
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
You seem to be having a little trouble with this one AgentAnonymous.
By your logic these groups would then place equal weight on the fossil-fuel activities of California and Texas.
Since that is simply not the case, the argument leans heavily in favour of the scenario Krause describes.
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
If U.S. foundations wish to target Canadian industry (like Alberta oil, or BC farmed salmon), they are welcome to do so under the laws set out by the CRA in regards to "charitable" activities.
If there is a question about the "charitable" nature of their activities, it should be investigated in order to ensure that their actions do not result in a detriment to Canadian economy favouring U.S. interests compounded by a tax-free status benefitting those in control of the foundations in question.
It's pretty simple.
Oh! You mean like this?
Attachments
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djc...47aa5084abb01a7&at_ab=per-3&at_pos=2&at_tot=5
The Fraser Institute: 100% political and still a registered charity! Explain, please...
BY DAVID J. CLIMENHAGA | FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Other than Canadian political parties themselves, the Fraser Institute must be Canada's most intensely political organization.
Notwithstanding its pious mission statement -- "to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals" -- essentially 100 per cent of the Fraser Institute's activities are 100-per-cent political.
As such, the far-right, market fundamentalist "think tank" plays a key role in what author Donald Gutstein terms the "corporate propaganda system" that purports to churn out unbiased research but in fact works tirelessly to hijack our democracy for the benefit of Big Business and the ultra-wealthy families that control it.
The Fraser Institute strives to change Canadians' political attitudes so they will place far-right political parties like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in power, and keep them there. It works relentlessly to restructure our political architecture in ways that will make it difficult for citizens to seize back their own country. And it fields an army of "former researchers" -- Danielle Smith, leader of the far-right Wildrose Party here in Alberta is a prominent example -- who play an overtly political role.
Nor is there much that is fair or scientific about the Fraser Institute's research, despite the claim it is subject to "a rigorous peer review process." Saskatoon health policy consultant Stephen Lewis brilliantly deconstructs the Grade 9 methodology behind the "institute's" annual report on hospital wait times and exposes it as "skewed estimates on a hot-button issue," retailed as hard data, and intended "to lure Canadians to the promised land of private medicine."
"Never mind the 16-per-cent response rate in 2011, which alone cashiers validity," Lewis writes of the Fraser Institute's effort. "Even more fundamentally, the questionnaire asks respondents for neither the sources of their estimates, nor whether they consult any real data to support their responses."
So, as Nova Scotia Finance Minister Graham Steele put it: "The Fraser Institute produces junk. It is not a serious institution. It is a political organization."
Steele was two-thirds right. The Fraser Institute is serious all right, although its research is not serious in the normal sense of transparency and lack of bias, no matter what it claims. But it surely is political. Indeed, the Fraser Institute is all politics, all the time.
As it turns out, this is important, because the Fraser Institute is also a registered charity, meaning that those Canadians who do pay taxes are in effect subsidizing its purely political operations. Indeed, to go a step further, we are also subsidizing those wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that bankroll the Fraser Institute's propaganda efforts to work directly against the interests of ordinary Canadians.
Alert readers will be aware that charitable status for organizations that take controversial positions on the issues of that day is currently a highly contentious issue -- at least when the registered charities in question do not support the Harper government on such issues as bitumen pipelines to the West Coast, climate science and uncontrolled oilsands development.
So, for example, Charles Adler, Canada's self-styled "everyman" and a bloviator for Canada's real state broadcaster, the Sun (Non)News Network, columnized last month about how "there's no shortage of radical greens getting generous tax breaks from the federal government."
"Under the law," Adler opined, "these supposed charities can only spend 10 per cent of their budget on advocacy activities. I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."
Others on the government side of this debate take a more extreme view. An email now in circulation originating somewhere within the Online Tory Rage Machine accuses an Alberta-based environmental group of being part of a "treasonous and underhanded" conspiracy "to destroy our Alberta oil industry."
And last month, the Globe and Mail reported that the Commons Finance Committee's review of the charitable sector is expected to attack the charitable status of Canadian environmental organizations.
So it is interesting that when it comes to one of Canada's most intensely political organizations, which boasts on its website about the controversial nature of the positions it takes, its charitable status passes uncontested among these same far-right actors, including the ones in government.
Now, the Canada Revenue Agency's rules governing political activities by charitable organizations are not quite as clear-cut as Adler makes them sound, but he has the gist of it right. Depending on their annual income in the previous year, registered charities may contribute between 12 and 20 per cent of their resources to political activities in the current year.
However, "a registered charity cannot be created for a political purpose and cannot be involved in partisan political activities," the CRA states. "A political activity is considered partisan if it involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, a political party or candidate for office."
Elsewhere, the CRA goes on to define political activities quite broadly, including the following: "explicitly communicates to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained (if the retention of the law, policy or decision is being reconsidered by a government), opposed, or changed…" The CRA even defines as political activities as "attempts to sway public opinion on social issues."
So, obviously, from any common sense position, the Fraser Institute fails to meet this broad test and clearly should lose its charitable status.
When a charity files its annual income statement with the Canada Revenue Agency, it is always asked: "Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period." Yet in each year between 2000 and 2010, according to a recent Access to Information request by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Fraser Institute answered "No."
"Any rookie observer of Canadian politics knows this is nonsense," the AFL wrote in its Jan. 17 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations. "The Fraser Institute is actively involved in the Canadian political landscape. Any reporting or suggestion otherwise is a sham."
In 2010, for example, the Fraser Institute explicitly communicated to the public calls for laws to be changed, thereby engaging in politics as defined by the CRA. So the Fraser Institute column, "Reject Unions and Prosper," which was published on Sept. 10, 2010, urged Canadian provinces to adopt "right-to-work" laws typical of those U.S. states south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
"Provinces would do well to adopt worker-choice laws (called right-to-work laws in the United States), which would allow workers to choose whether they want to join and financially support a union," the article, which is found on the Fraser Institute's website, states.
Clearly this article meets the standard for political activity set by the CRA. There is no shortage of similar examples.
Indeed, one day after last year's federal election, in which the political party clearly backed by the Fraser Institute won a majority, they were at it again, pushing Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party to change Canada's election spending laws to eliminate all per-vote subsidies for political parties.
So, never mind why the media treats the Fraser Institute's dubious findings with such respect, the question most often asked about this organization. That seems obvious enough considering who owns the media.
A better question is: Given its responses to the CRA, can Canadians have any confidence that the Fraser Institute is staying within the 12 per cent of its allowed limit for political activities?
Moreover, it is fair to wonder: Is anyone at the Canada Revenue Agency paying attention or even raising concerns about the Fraser Institute's constant political activities, let alone questioning its charitable status?
As Adler said, "I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.
The Fraser Institute: 100% political and still a registered charity! Explain, please...
BY DAVID J. CLIMENHAGA | FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Other than Canadian political parties themselves, the Fraser Institute must be Canada's most intensely political organization.
Notwithstanding its pious mission statement -- "to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals" -- essentially 100 per cent of the Fraser Institute's activities are 100-per-cent political.
As such, the far-right, market fundamentalist "think tank" plays a key role in what author Donald Gutstein terms the "corporate propaganda system" that purports to churn out unbiased research but in fact works tirelessly to hijack our democracy for the benefit of Big Business and the ultra-wealthy families that control it.
The Fraser Institute strives to change Canadians' political attitudes so they will place far-right political parties like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in power, and keep them there. It works relentlessly to restructure our political architecture in ways that will make it difficult for citizens to seize back their own country. And it fields an army of "former researchers" -- Danielle Smith, leader of the far-right Wildrose Party here in Alberta is a prominent example -- who play an overtly political role.
Nor is there much that is fair or scientific about the Fraser Institute's research, despite the claim it is subject to "a rigorous peer review process." Saskatoon health policy consultant Stephen Lewis brilliantly deconstructs the Grade 9 methodology behind the "institute's" annual report on hospital wait times and exposes it as "skewed estimates on a hot-button issue," retailed as hard data, and intended "to lure Canadians to the promised land of private medicine."
"Never mind the 16-per-cent response rate in 2011, which alone cashiers validity," Lewis writes of the Fraser Institute's effort. "Even more fundamentally, the questionnaire asks respondents for neither the sources of their estimates, nor whether they consult any real data to support their responses."
So, as Nova Scotia Finance Minister Graham Steele put it: "The Fraser Institute produces junk. It is not a serious institution. It is a political organization."
Steele was two-thirds right. The Fraser Institute is serious all right, although its research is not serious in the normal sense of transparency and lack of bias, no matter what it claims. But it surely is political. Indeed, the Fraser Institute is all politics, all the time.
As it turns out, this is important, because the Fraser Institute is also a registered charity, meaning that those Canadians who do pay taxes are in effect subsidizing its purely political operations. Indeed, to go a step further, we are also subsidizing those wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that bankroll the Fraser Institute's propaganda efforts to work directly against the interests of ordinary Canadians.
Alert readers will be aware that charitable status for organizations that take controversial positions on the issues of that day is currently a highly contentious issue -- at least when the registered charities in question do not support the Harper government on such issues as bitumen pipelines to the West Coast, climate science and uncontrolled oilsands development.
So, for example, Charles Adler, Canada's self-styled "everyman" and a bloviator for Canada's real state broadcaster, the Sun (Non)News Network, columnized last month about how "there's no shortage of radical greens getting generous tax breaks from the federal government."
"Under the law," Adler opined, "these supposed charities can only spend 10 per cent of their budget on advocacy activities. I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."
Others on the government side of this debate take a more extreme view. An email now in circulation originating somewhere within the Online Tory Rage Machine accuses an Alberta-based environmental group of being part of a "treasonous and underhanded" conspiracy "to destroy our Alberta oil industry."
And last month, the Globe and Mail reported that the Commons Finance Committee's review of the charitable sector is expected to attack the charitable status of Canadian environmental organizations.
So it is interesting that when it comes to one of Canada's most intensely political organizations, which boasts on its website about the controversial nature of the positions it takes, its charitable status passes uncontested among these same far-right actors, including the ones in government.
Now, the Canada Revenue Agency's rules governing political activities by charitable organizations are not quite as clear-cut as Adler makes them sound, but he has the gist of it right. Depending on their annual income in the previous year, registered charities may contribute between 12 and 20 per cent of their resources to political activities in the current year.
However, "a registered charity cannot be created for a political purpose and cannot be involved in partisan political activities," the CRA states. "A political activity is considered partisan if it involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, a political party or candidate for office."
Elsewhere, the CRA goes on to define political activities quite broadly, including the following: "explicitly communicates to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained (if the retention of the law, policy or decision is being reconsidered by a government), opposed, or changed…" The CRA even defines as political activities as "attempts to sway public opinion on social issues."
So, obviously, from any common sense position, the Fraser Institute fails to meet this broad test and clearly should lose its charitable status.
When a charity files its annual income statement with the Canada Revenue Agency, it is always asked: "Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period." Yet in each year between 2000 and 2010, according to a recent Access to Information request by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Fraser Institute answered "No."
"Any rookie observer of Canadian politics knows this is nonsense," the AFL wrote in its Jan. 17 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations. "The Fraser Institute is actively involved in the Canadian political landscape. Any reporting or suggestion otherwise is a sham."
In 2010, for example, the Fraser Institute explicitly communicated to the public calls for laws to be changed, thereby engaging in politics as defined by the CRA. So the Fraser Institute column, "Reject Unions and Prosper," which was published on Sept. 10, 2010, urged Canadian provinces to adopt "right-to-work" laws typical of those U.S. states south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
"Provinces would do well to adopt worker-choice laws (called right-to-work laws in the United States), which would allow workers to choose whether they want to join and financially support a union," the article, which is found on the Fraser Institute's website, states.
Clearly this article meets the standard for political activity set by the CRA. There is no shortage of similar examples.
Indeed, one day after last year's federal election, in which the political party clearly backed by the Fraser Institute won a majority, they were at it again, pushing Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party to change Canada's election spending laws to eliminate all per-vote subsidies for political parties.
So, never mind why the media treats the Fraser Institute's dubious findings with such respect, the question most often asked about this organization. That seems obvious enough considering who owns the media.
A better question is: Given its responses to the CRA, can Canadians have any confidence that the Fraser Institute is staying within the 12 per cent of its allowed limit for political activities?
Moreover, it is fair to wonder: Is anyone at the Canada Revenue Agency paying attention or even raising concerns about the Fraser Institute's constant political activities, let alone questioning its charitable status?
As Adler said, "I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."
This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.
Last edited by a moderator:
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
So you took a screenshot of my post 5 days ago on another thread and hung onto it in the hopes of using it somewhere on this forum, CK? I guess I should be proud that you are my biggest fan - although it is a little creepy...
GLG
Well-Known Member
Was not sure if he was stalking you or me... LOL
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
Actually, AgentAnonymous, I was wondering how long it would take for you to digress into full Harper Derangement Syndrome.
I just figured I'd grab that ad hominem from the other day since it shows your default position so well.
You have nothing to counter Krause's research showing U.S. interests actively targeting Canadian industry.
GLG
Well-Known Member
You know CK you could just look here for the Harper witch hunt of those big bad engo's you types are afraid of.
The list is large but you won't find what your looking for to prove your argument....
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/dtng/nws_rlss-eng.html
Why is that?
The list is large but you won't find what your looking for to prove your argument....
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/dtng/nws_rlss-eng.html
Why is that?
ClayoquotKid
Active Member
You guys are hilarious.
I, for one, am truly thankful that "you types" don't get to decide what's best for the rest of us.
Oh yeah, Go Harper!
http://www.conservative.ca/cpc/were-better-off-with-harper/
I, for one, am truly thankful that "you types" don't get to decide what's best for the rest of us.
Oh yeah, Go Harper!
http://www.conservative.ca/cpc/were-better-off-with-harper/
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
As a Canadian, I thank these foreign funded radical organizations from the bottom of my heart who spend their hard earned dollars protecting my Canadian values: to cherish, protect and live in balance with nature. If our own government won't stand up to the foreign funded companies destroying the Canadian environment for profit, who will? I am just glad that there are kind people in the world willing to help us out like that.
CK, any changes at work lately? It's always interesting how things change or stay the same when a big part of a Canadian industry changes from one foreign owner to another foreign owner. In this case, Mitsubishi has just created the 2nd largest seafood company on the planet by purchasing Cermaq.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...rmaq-stake-to-mitsubishi-for-799-million.html
CK, any changes at work lately? It's always interesting how things change or stay the same when a big part of a Canadian industry changes from one foreign owner to another foreign owner. In this case, Mitsubishi has just created the 2nd largest seafood company on the planet by purchasing Cermaq.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...rmaq-stake-to-mitsubishi-for-799-million.html
GLG
Well-Known Member
Just love how that url got truncated... LOL
/were-....f-with-harper/
Them big bad engo's be afraid ...... LOL
GLG
Well-Known Member
Yup we should be concerned
[HDPaRKXoVeA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDPaRKXoVeA&list=PL03F32CB28BF4D712&index=117
Schedule 7: Political Activities - Fraser Institute Foundation
The charity did not complete Schedule 7, Political Activities.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...26amp%3Bt%3D%2B%26amp%3By%3D%2B%26amp%3Bp%3D1
The charity did not complete Schedule 7, Political Activities.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...26amp%3Bt%3D%2B%26amp%3By%3D%2B%26amp%3Bp%3D1
http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2009/09/fraser-institute-who-are-they-anyway.html
Fraser Institute. Who are they anyway?
The Fraser Institute has provided its version of appropriate economic policies since 1974. These views are always based on what Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described as a belief "that markets always work and that only markets work." The founding economic principles were similar to those later blended into Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
The Fraser Institute was initially funded by MacMillan Bloedel. BC's then largest forest products company was frightened by the social democratic government of NDP Premier Dave Barrett and keen to encourage pro-business opposition.
From the beginning, the Institute has been less a researcher than a marketing agency, working to sell ideas that suit client interests. It calls itself a non-profit educational organization with 100% emphasis on research - for which it pays handsomely - but it is predictable in seeking to promote only information that reinforces its unchanging raison d'etre.
Geoff Turner recently presented The Fraser Institute's Message Machine, an article published by The Tyee online magazine. Turner writes that the think tank "consistently punches above its weight" by distributing ready-made media content, something always enjoyed by budget starved news editors struggling with slashed resources.
Enabled with $13 million in assets and revenues above $1.1 million a month, this registered non-profit asks for donations from people who understand the importance of "impartial" research. (It has reported holding more than $10 million in assets NOT used for charitable purposes or administration.) Of course, donors should support less government intervention, private schooling, private medicine, industry deregulation (except to preserve monopolies and oligopolies), free trade, uncontrolled firearms, voluntary compliance with environmental standards, elimination of tobacco restrictions, etc.
I believe that the Fraser Institute's contributions are welcome in the universe of ideas. But people ought to consider these with knowledge that the think tank speaks and writes on behalf of its benefactors. For example, Directors of the Institute include representatives of private healthcare organizations that lust for destruction of public universal medical care. Others represent pharmaceutical companies, which might explain why the think tank does not talk about how enhanced competition and reduced patent periods could bring down extravagant drugs costs. Most strongly represented though is the oil and gas industry. Environmental regulations and taxation are like kryptonite to these operators so we little wonder why they finance free market anti-government opinion makers.
I looked at the Fraser Institute's website to determine those who compose the present Board of Directors. After a little searching, I added short biographies of the individuals from already published sources. I certainly welcome any additions or corrections that readers can submit through comments.
As one commenter at The Tyee wrote:
These guys don't just speak FOR Business, they ARE Business. (Yes again, with a capital B.)
Fraser Institute. Who are they anyway?
The Fraser Institute has provided its version of appropriate economic policies since 1974. These views are always based on what Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described as a belief "that markets always work and that only markets work." The founding economic principles were similar to those later blended into Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
The Fraser Institute was initially funded by MacMillan Bloedel. BC's then largest forest products company was frightened by the social democratic government of NDP Premier Dave Barrett and keen to encourage pro-business opposition.
From the beginning, the Institute has been less a researcher than a marketing agency, working to sell ideas that suit client interests. It calls itself a non-profit educational organization with 100% emphasis on research - for which it pays handsomely - but it is predictable in seeking to promote only information that reinforces its unchanging raison d'etre.
Geoff Turner recently presented The Fraser Institute's Message Machine, an article published by The Tyee online magazine. Turner writes that the think tank "consistently punches above its weight" by distributing ready-made media content, something always enjoyed by budget starved news editors struggling with slashed resources.
Enabled with $13 million in assets and revenues above $1.1 million a month, this registered non-profit asks for donations from people who understand the importance of "impartial" research. (It has reported holding more than $10 million in assets NOT used for charitable purposes or administration.) Of course, donors should support less government intervention, private schooling, private medicine, industry deregulation (except to preserve monopolies and oligopolies), free trade, uncontrolled firearms, voluntary compliance with environmental standards, elimination of tobacco restrictions, etc.
I believe that the Fraser Institute's contributions are welcome in the universe of ideas. But people ought to consider these with knowledge that the think tank speaks and writes on behalf of its benefactors. For example, Directors of the Institute include representatives of private healthcare organizations that lust for destruction of public universal medical care. Others represent pharmaceutical companies, which might explain why the think tank does not talk about how enhanced competition and reduced patent periods could bring down extravagant drugs costs. Most strongly represented though is the oil and gas industry. Environmental regulations and taxation are like kryptonite to these operators so we little wonder why they finance free market anti-government opinion makers.
I looked at the Fraser Institute's website to determine those who compose the present Board of Directors. After a little searching, I added short biographies of the individuals from already published sources. I certainly welcome any additions or corrections that readers can submit through comments.
As one commenter at The Tyee wrote:
These guys don't just speak FOR Business, they ARE Business. (Yes again, with a capital B.)
Similar threads
