Anti Oil Sands activists funded by US interests

[agentaqua]

The top tier at the Fraser Institute is filled with highly-respected economists and researchers whose names and faces are constantly present in national newspapers.

Fraser Institute's president, Niels Veldhuis, is a respected economist who has written over 200 commentaries in publications such as The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and The Globe and Mail. In March 2011, he co-authored an article in The Financial Post titled, “We need Scott Walker here.” Scott Walker is the Wisconsin governor whose campaign was heavily financed by the Koch Industries PAC, and sparked a lengthy and much publicized stand-off against public sector workers last year after trying to remove their collective bargaining rights.

The institute's director of health system performance studies, Nadeem Esmail, writes in National Post, Globe and Mail and the Wall Street Journal on health care policy and reform -- his writings repeatedly depict Canada's public health care as a financial sinkhole and urge privatization while warning readers in the U.S. not to emulate Canada's system.

For many, the Fraser Institute is a foot in the door to climb the ranks of conservative organizations in Canada.

A typical case might be someone like Candice Malcolm. She got her start in 2007 as the student programs assistant at the Fraser Institute, then went on to became a Koch Summer fellow, going through a “rigorous” public policy program in Washington, attending seminars at the Cato institute. She went on to work for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, (which paid blogger Vivian Krause her first honorarium), then rose to the executive assistant position at Alberta's Wildrose Party. She now works in Ottawa as the Parliament press secretary.

Grooming the next generation

So where exactly does the Fraser Institute find its conservatives? Some, like the Wildrose leader, are recognized for their potential and recruited by the Fraser Institute during university. But in recent years, the institute has been cultivating young minds from an early stage.

For starters, the institute devotes a lot of resources training and recruiting youth. According the Canada Revenue Agency, the Fraser Institute spent $1.6 million in grants and scholarships for the 2010 year and almost $2.1 million the year before that.

One of the institute's most effective tools are its free one-day seminars for youth across BC, which which writer and researcher Donald Gutstein describes as its “initial recruitment tool”. High school and post-secondary students participate in discussions on issues such as heath care and First Nations' rights, and listen to high-profile guest speakers including Ezra Levant, journalist (and former George W. Bush economic speechwriter) David Frum, and Danielle Smith. Anyone can participate, even if only to enjoy a free lunch at a swanky hotel.

For participants, the real fun begins as students break off into small groups and begin debating and discussing public policy. Recruiters take down the names of students who express views aligned with those of the Fraser Institute (the left-leaning ones are never contacted again) and get in touch with them for further orientation.

The institute also has a student video contest, and the chosen winners (who receive a $625 - $2,000 prize) are invariably those whose work promotes a right-wing, free-market ideology.

Last year, the Fraser Institute gave first prize to a video entitled “Government During Crisis: Help or Hinderance?” which claimed that government got in the way during crisis situations, and that the “most effective relief came from faith-based organizations" as well as local businesses. In the previous year, the top honours went to a video called “Canadian Health Care: a monopoly on lives” that harshly criticized public health care, while the second prize that year was based on the theme, “The nanny state: is government regulation threatening your personal freedom?”, which argued that well-meaning legislation such as the anti-cyber bullying laws disrupted personal freedom.

For educators who want to teach youth to “think objectively” about climate change and other issues, the institute offers free lesson plans online. In the lesson plan for "Understanding Climate Change", students are shown graphs used by climate change scientists to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature, such as the one that Al Gore showed in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In the "answer key," students learn that ”correlation is not causation”, and are fed the conclusion that climate change is not, in fact, caused by carbon-generating activities.

There's plenty of tools for latecomers to the program as well: an attractive student internship gives $2,000 to $2,500 a month for a four-month period during which interns take part in seminars and discussions while contributing to the Fraser Institute's work. Preference is given to strong writers and “candidates who are interested in educating students about economics and public policy”.

The "Economics for Journalists" course, meanwhile, uses reading material from the Fraser Institute publications to school future "opinion leaders" such as emerging journalists on free market principals. The course includes two "attitude surveys" to identify participants' economic views both before and after the course.

All of these initiatives are deemed "educational", but they are linked to a free-market agenda. Students and participants are armed with knowledge and arguments to debunk and discredit theories around climate change and public welfare as un-scientific or delusional, while actively pushing U.S.-style free market and privatization as the best option for Canada. And many of them have a powerful presence in right-wing-owned media to spread and legitimize their views.

The Left's answer to the Fraser Institute?

By contrast, the progressive movement in Canada doesn't have much of a counterpart to organizations like the Fraser Institute in terms of recruiting and training. In 2010, the progressive Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think tank had a total revenue of just $1,724,894 -- a far cry from the Fraser Institute's $10,834,410.

And people have started taking notice. An April 2011 newsletter from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives notes:

"For years, through its seminar and internship programs, the Fraser Institute has been identifying and training young conservative leaders. . . comprehensive education opportunities,which welcome youth into the movement and provide them with theory, mentorship, networking opportunities and skills development, are remarkably lacking in the world of social justice work."

In response, things are changing: rather than allow leaders for progressive politics to develop in an "organic" way, the CCPA's teamed up in 2007 with environmental organization Check Your Head to create Next Up, a youth leadership to help emerging leaders from the progressive movement.

A counter-movement is also growing with progressive organizations such as LeadNow.ca, but will it be enough to produce someone with as much influence or prominence as Danielle Smith or Ezra Levant?

Time will tell.

One thing's for sure: half a million dollars rarely comes without trust, or with no strings attached.

The Koch brothers know why they fund Fraser. The rest of us can guess.

Link: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/po...onaires-help-fund-fraser-institute-why-fraser

 

[agentaqua]

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/1...rauses-real-agenda-is-promoting-fossil-fuels/

Emma Gilchrist (UPDATED) : Vivian Krause’s real agenda is promoting fossil fuels
November 13, 2014. 4:05 pm

Vivian Krause enjoys spinning conspiracy theories, but it’s increasingly clear her agenda is to promote fossil fuels.

Her argument that a drastic increase in oil exports is the most important economic prerogative for Canada and for Metro Vancouver overlooks two inconvenient facts:

According to Statistics Canada, the oilsands account for only two per cent of the national GDP. And a study by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd. released this week finds Kinder Morgan exaggerated the short-term jobs associated with building the Trans Mountain pipeline by a factor of three and concludes the proposed expansion is not in the economic interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

Krause describes herself as someone who is asking “fair questions” about American funding of Canadian environmental groups. While Krause’s questions may be fair, it’s eminently clear she’s not searching for a fair answer.

She’s not interested in the fact that philanthropic dollars cross international borders all the time. She doesn’t care that Canada’s oil patch is full of foreign investors. And it doesn’t appear to interest her that Canada happens to be home to some of the last saveable landscapes on the planet.

No, once you have a vendetta, inconvenient facts don’t matter. And Krause’s vendetta against environmental groups has been in the works for a long time — ever since she worked in public relations for the farmed salmon industry.

It didn’t take long for Krause to cook up a conspiracy theory involving American foundations working to undermine Canadian farmed salmon interests — and then to expand that theory to any number of conservation issues in Canada, with a special focus on conservation campaigns that were inconvenient for the oil industry.

Now Krause has become the poster child of the fossil fuel industry and federal government’s anti-environment crusade. She admitted that since 2012 more than 90 per cent of her income has come from oil, gas and mining interests.

Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

While Krause spins another of her conspiratorial tales linking Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver to U.S. foundations, she overlooks the fact two of NPA’s largest donors — Peter Brown and Hassan Khosrowshahi — are key players at the right-wing Fraser Institute, a think tank that has received more than a million dollars in funding from U.S. oil billionaires David and Charles Koch and the Searle Freedom Trust, known for its climate change denial.

Perhaps Krause missed the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states that governments need to peak emissions, rapidly phase out fossil fuels and transition to 100 per cent renewable energy pronto? Rapidly expanding the oilsands and building new pipelines to serve that expansion doesn’t jibe with staying below two degrees of warming — not to mention the dire consequences an oil spill could reap on Vancouver.

If Krause disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, she really ought to state that up front.

In a recent op-ed in the Calgary Herald, Barry Cooper, a University of Calgary professor and critic of the scientific consensus on climate change, suggested that Alberta Premier Jim Prentice “use the government megaphone to publicize [Krause’s] analyses of the pernicious sources of enviro funding.”

While Krause may be the poster child of the pro-oil forces in Alberta and in Ottawa, her views won’t fly in B.C., where many people are opposed to oil pipeline and tankers.

Why? They know there’s a serious risk of spills and that we don’t have the technology to clean up oil once it hits the water.

That’s what I call a fair answer.

Emma Gilchrist is deputy editor of DeSmog Canada.

 

[Charlie]

"Anti- Oilsands Activists Funded By U.S. Interests"

Pretty simple - U.S. foundations representing U.S. interests actively fund groups in Canada which campaign against Canadian industry.

You have yet to show anything which counters that point.

CK... "IF" you wish... I WILL certainly enter this discussion.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Thanks for "linking those dots", AgentAnonymous.

I can clearly see your Koch Brothers strawman, and your inability to differentiate between types of "political" activity.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-022-eng.html#N1029B

"In order to serve the public, the information charities give on public policy issues should be presented in an informative, accurate, and well-reasoned way to enable society to decide for itself what position to take.

In addition, when charities choose to contribute to public policy debates, they are required by law to do so in a way that considers certain constraints. A charity cannot be established with the aim of furthering or opposing the interests of a political party, elected representative, or candidate for public office. Also, a charity cannot be formed to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country. However, charities may choose to advance their charitable purposes by taking part in political activities if they are connected and subordinate to those purposes."

"Under the Act and common law, an organization established for a political purpose cannot be a charity. The courts have determined political purposes to be those that seek to:
•further the interests of a particular political party; or support a political party or candidate for public office; or
•retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country."

"We presume an activity to be political if a charity:
1.explicitly communicates a call to political action (that is, encourages the public to contact an elected representative or public official and urges them to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country);
2.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; or
3.explicitly indicates in its materials (whether internal or external) that the intention of the activity is to incite, or organize to put pressure on, an elected representative or public official to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country."

 

[ClayoquotKid]

CK... "IF" you wish... I WILL certainly enter this discussion.

Oh, Charlie - having an American come on here to explain why U.S. foundations spend a disproportionate amount of time and money on attacking Canadian industry, while effectively ignoring activities with equal or worse impacts in their own country would be great.


Or, I might just walk away and let you guys arm-wave and copy-paste to your hearts content in your own little echo-chamber...

 

[agentaqua]

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CANPgHp7ALU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
People & Power - The Koch Brothers

 

[agentaqua]

Oh, Charlie - having an American come on here to explain why U.S. foundations spend a disproportionate amount of time and money on attacking Canadian industry, while effectively ignoring activities with equal or worse impacts in their own country would be great. Or, I might just walk away and let you guys arm-wave and copy-paste to your hearts content in your own little echo-chamber...

ya Charlie! Damn outsiders! Think I will walk along the walkway between my salmon pens - made in China - past the feed pellets manufactured from Peruvian and Chilean forage fishes - cash my check from a Norwegian feedlot - bought out by a Japanese Corporation - to my SUV vehicle - built by Mexicans - by a US/Japanese auto manufacturer - waving my arms clothed in a jacket made in Malaysia - shipped by a Taiwanese ship - crewed by Philippines - and spout off stuff I cut and pasted from a blog by a woman who says we shouldn't listen to anyone who dares to critique our impacts - because they have a head office somewhere outside of our country. HRRRRUMMMPPPHHH!

 

[GLG]

The wacky world of Vivian Krause. If this is the best CK's side can do then they are in deep trouble.
http://globalnews.ca/video/1601835/the-throne-speech-and-climate-change

 

[bigdogeh]

ya Charlie! Damn outsiders! Think I will walk along the walkway between my salmon pens - made in China - past the feed pellets manufactured from Peruvian and Chilean forage fishes - cash my check from a Norwegian feedlot - bought out by a Japanese Corporation - to my SUV vehicle - built by Mexicans - by a US/Japanese auto manufacturer - waving my arms clothed in a jacket made in Malaysia - shipped by a Taiwanese ship - crewed by Philippines - and spout off stuff I cut and pasted from a blog by a woman who says we shouldn't listen to anyone who dares to critique our impacts - because they have a head office somewhere outside of our country. HRRRRUMMMPPPHHH!

lol, great reply. this forum need a thumbs up or "like" button.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm..._intimidates_charities_into_silence_goar.html
Stephen Harper intimidates charities into silence: Goar
As Ottawa widens its crackdown on advocacy, charities retreat into defensive silence.

Two years ago, Stephen Harper's Conservative government, angered that environmentalists were tying up pipeline project in the West, tightened the regulation of charities.
ANDREW VAUGHAN / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Two years ago, Stephen Harper's Conservative government, angered that environmentalists were tying up pipeline project in the West, tightened the regulation of charities.

By: Carol Goar Star Columnist, Published on Tue Jul 15 2014

Voluntary agencies live in fear of the Canada Revenue Agency. If it decides they have stepped over the line between good works and political activity — pointing out the link between poverty and government austerity for example — it can revoke their charitable status.

That means they can no longer issue tax receipts to their donors. They fall off the list of “registered charities.” They lose their credibility and their funds dwindle.

Until 2012, this threat was largely theoretical. In rare instances, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) revoked an organization’s charitable status, but it was clear why they were de-listed: they siphoned donations into their founders’ own pockets, they provided a front for shadowy groups or they used most of their funds for administration.

Two years ago, the rules changed. The Conservative government, angered that environmentalists were tying up pipeline projects in the West, tightened the regulation of charities. It required them to provide a detailed account of their political activities, imposed tough penalties on those that spent more than 10 per cent of their funds on advocacy and gave CRA $8 million to conduct a special audit.

The announcement sent a ripple of unease through the non-profit sector, but there was no wholesale panic. Most charities assumed the government would target a handful of prominent environmental organizations and leave the rest alone. That was a reasonable interpretation of the signals Stephen Harper and his colleagues were sending at the time. Joe Oliver, then natural resources minister, had lashed out at “radical environmental groups” for undermining the economy. Former environment minister Peter Kent had accused of them of “laundering offshore funds for inappropriate use.”

But over time the scope of the blitz widened. CRA is now auditing churches, human rights organizations, animal welfare groups and anti-poverty coalitions. There are fears the two-year crackdown will be extended, putting non-profit organizations under an indefinite regime of increased surveillance.

Already charities are reviewing their plans, bringing in lawyers, avoiding the spotlight. Even those that are not in Harper’s crosshairs are affected. They are struggling to draw a line between their charitable and political expenditures (a task CRA admits can be difficult). They are learning to report their activities in language that doesn’t raise red flags in Ottawa. (A whole new vocabulary of anodyne terms has developed). They are warning their volunteers to watch their words. And they are brushing up on Tory ideology to avoid inadvertent slips.

The net effect, according to Gareth Kirkby, who just completed the first national study since the crackdown took effect, is an “uncharitable chill” in the political climate. The paper was originally intended as his master’s thesis for Royal Roads University in Victoria. But what his investigation showed was so troubling he posted it online.

Here are Kirkby’s conclusions: “I find that an advocacy chill is affecting charitable organizations that advocate on public policy issues though it varies in intensity and extent from organization to organization. I find that there is evidence in the data that the government is attempting, with some successes, to narrow society’s important policy conversations. Finally I find the data suggest that the current federal government is corrupting Canada’s democratic processes by treating as political enemies these civil-society organizations whose contributions to public policy conversations differ from government priorities.”

There is one development Kirkby noted but did not highlight. Many of the “political activity” audits launched by CRA since 2012 were triggered by complaints from Ethical Oil, a lobby group with strong ties to the Harper government and the petroleum sector. This is a departure for CRA. Unlike the random audits it has always conducted — approximately 900 a year — the new ones are susceptible to external direction, compromising the fairness and professionalism in which the tax department has always taken pride.

The use of tax audits as a tool to intimidate or punish groups critical of the government’s agenda is as troubling as the developments Kirkby brought to the fore.

Currently, 52 audits are underway. With 86,000 charities operating in the country, the number sounds almost negligible. The trouble is no one knows who will be next or how it became so risky to stand up for a fairer, cleaner, more compassionate Canada.

Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

 

[agentaqua]

An Uncharitable Chill: A Critical Exploration of How Changes in Federal Policy and Political Climate are Affecting Advocacy-Oriented Charities
by Gareth Kirkby
A major project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
Royal Roads University
June 2014
http://garethkirkby.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/G-Kirkby_UncharitableChill_ThesisPublicV.pdf

Abstract
Starting in 2012, the Canadian federal government deployed denunciatory rhetoric against environmental organizations and charities, increased enforcement of regulations governing resources that charities devote to “political activities,” and added environmental organizations to Canada’s anti-terrorism strategy as a potential national threat. Using grounded theory and in-depth interviews with leaders of charities that advocate on public policy issues and with charity experts, this study explores if, how, and why these organizations are affected by, and responding to, possible loss of charitable status. It finds Canada Revenue Agency audits target certain charities; communications and other functions are affected, along with the ability of these charities to maximize their socially mandated democratic work; and that government is abusing power by using state resources to treat charities as “enemies.” Though there are examples of contentious actions, groups are primarily using collaborative umbrella alliances to protect themselves from what they perceive as government abusing its authority.

 

[Dave H]

lol, great reply. this forum need a thumbs up or "like" button.

What he said.

Well done.


Take care.

 

[agentaqua]

http://donaldgutstein.com/follow-the-money-part-2-barrick-golds-peter-munk/

FOLLOW THE MONEY, PART 2 — BARRICK GOLD’S PETER MUNK

The Fraser Institute awarded Barrick Gold chairman Peter Munk its T.P. Boyle Founder’s Award at a gala dinner in Toronto in 2010. This is the think tank’s most prestigious award, which it gave to Munk “in recognition of his unwavering commitment to free and open markets around the globe and his support for enhancing and encouraging democratic values and the importance of responsible citizenship.” Equating “free and open markets” with “democratic values” is a long-standing neoliberal marketing mantra. It also epitomizes Munk’s vast charitable giving.

Munk doesn’t make the list of the hundred wealthiest Canadians. That means he’s worth less than the entry level $725 million.

The 87-year-old Munk leveraged Barrick into the world’s largest gold producer and remained the company’s chairman until retiring in 2014. He owns less than a quarter of a per cent of the company’s shares. And yet some still call him a billionaire.

Whatever his net worth, Munk is making effective use of his fortune to advance his name — Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Munk School of Global Affairs, the Munk Debates — and his ideology — the unfettered free market.

But while one initiative is high profile, the other is buried.

Munk has pumped $160 million into “good works,” as well as more dubious activities through his two foundations. The good works are funded by the Peter and Melanie Munk Foundation. At the top of the list is the controversial investment of $35 million in the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto.

The deal was controversial because Munk received a $16-million tax reduction. His net $19-million investment turned out to be less than 20 per cent of the total cost, according to Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks in their book, The Trouble with Billionaires. Taxpayers footed the bill for the rest, but had no say in naming the school or even in determining its policies. Munk got a major facility named after him and, according to the secret agreement with the university, would get to approve the school’s direction and scholarship.

Munk’s high-profile naming activities receive accolades in the corporate press. The donation “merited a fawning front page news story in the Globe and Mail,” McQuaig and Brooks observe. The Globe also staunchly defends Barrick’s dismal environmental and human rights record in South America, Africa and the Philippines (see here and here, for instance).

But all corporate media, the Globe included, are strangely silent when it comes to Munk’s donations to ideological causes. No corporate news organizations are following this money.

They should.

Munk’s second granting organization, the Aurea Foundation (“golden” in Latin), is responsible for the rest of the funding. Aurea grabbed public attention as sponsor of the Munk Debates, which pit high-profile liberals against conservatives to debate controversial topics such as: “I would rather get sick in the United States than Canada,” “Climate change is mankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response” and “Foreign aid does more harm than good.” The debates elevate conservative positions to parity with long-standing liberal viewpoints, crowding out progressive ones.

As to how seriously Munk takes these debates, consider the November 2013 question, “Be it resolved men are obsolete.” The Toronto Star‘s Jennifer Wells found this topic a bit hard to stomach when she looked at the make-up of Barrick’s board of directors: 12 men and one woman. And not just any woman. Dambisa Moyo is a neoliberal economist who must have caught Munk’s attention when she spoke for the affirmative in the Munk debate Foreign aid does more harm than good. Barrick had no women at all on its board at that time. Her message of investment, not aid, would likely be well-received by the all-male board.

The debates also mask the foundation’s more financially significant activities: doling out nearly $2 million a year to Canadian right-wing think tanks and advocacy organizations. Major recipients (2007-2013) include the Frontier Centre for Public Policy ($1.5 million), Canadian Constitution Foundation ($967,000), C.D. Howe Institute ($885,000) and Macdonald-Laurier Institute ($600,000). The Fraser Institute received nearly $2 million from Aurea and Munk foundations.

Most funding recipients don’t disclose where their Munk money goes. We can peek into this shadowy world at the Fraser Institute, where Munk money supports the economic freedom of the world project. The purpose of this project is to “prove” that economic freedom (and the free market) is more important than political freedom (and democracy). Freedom to mine should come before the rights of indigenous people. And the Fraser Institute can provide evidence for this.

Aurea also pays for the Fraser Institute’s Global Centre for Mining Studies to conduct research to “educate the public on the role that the mining industry plays in the prosperity of economies in Canada and in the developing world, and about the social and environmental effects of exploration and mining investment,” which, predictably, will be found to be minimal.

The Munk family obviously directs the money to the recipients it desires. It is assisted in this task by some knowledgeable outsiders. They include:

– Nigel Wright, Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, who was an Aurea director before going into the PMO

– Robert Pritchard, a former president of the University of Toronto and then president and CEO of Torstar Corp., publisher of the Toronto Star, who replaced Wright

– Ken Whyte, who moved from editor of the National Post, to editor and publisher of Maclean’s, to president of Rogers Publishing, to president of Next Issue Canada, Rogers’ online magazine service.

– Media pundit Andrew Coyne, whose Postmedia columns reach a nation-wide readership of 1.1 million.

That most arm’s-length Aurea directors are connected to the news media indicates that Munk considers it crucial to fund organizations adept in receiving good media play — without divulging the source of the funding.

This direction was reinforced in 2013, when Munk hired Rudyard Griffiths as president of both foundations. Griffiths had run the debates, leveraging maximum mileage from very little. He’s a long-time participant in the conservative propaganda wars as a co-founder and executive director of the Dominion Institute. The goal of this organization was to challenge the prevailing social-history approach taught in most schools, which emphasizes race, ethnicity, gender and class, and to replace it with the story of great men and important wars and events, an approach that fits comfortably with Stephen Harper’s agenda.

The propaganda function was central. “Everything we do at the Institute,” Griffiths explained at the time to the National Post’s John Fraser, “is done with an idea to how it will play in the media. We measure success in hundreds of media hits for each project.”

Griffiths is taking over a smoothly running operation: from Munk and his free-market ideology, to Aurea, to right-wing organizations that produce reports and engage in activities that further the conservative agenda, to positive reports in the corporate media. And no one is the wiser.

- See more at: http://donaldgutstein.com/follow-the-money-part-2-barrick-golds-peter-munk/#sthash.rqhY347w.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

http://donaldgutstein.com/follow-the-money-part-5-the-tobacco-papers-revisited/

FOLLOW THE MONEY, PART 5 — THE TOBACCO PAPERS REVISITED

Michael Walker, former executive director of the Fraser Institute, long denied that institute directors—the people who fund the institute’s work—can tell researchers what to do.

According to this rosy view of the think tank’s mission, Big Oil directors from Calgary, for instance, don’t tell Fraser Institute researcher Kenneth Green to produce studies denying global warming or proving that the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines are crucial for Canada’s economic survival. Green does these on his own because that’s what his research indicates.

Or so one would conclude from Walker’s denials.

We’d have to believe Walker’s claim if we didn’t have the Tobacco Papers—a series of letters Walker and his chief fundraiser wrote to a big tobacco company in 2000 asking for financial support for research that would “prove” second-hand smoke didn’t cause cancer.

This rare glimpse into the role of corporate funding in shaping Fraser Institute research was obtained as a result of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between 46 U.S. state attorneys general and Big Tobacco. A condition of the agreement was that the tobacco companies had to make public and post on dedicated websites, (see here and here) every document used in the discovery phase of legal actions brought by the states against the tobacco industry for Medicaid costs associated with smoking-related diseases.

More than 80 million pages of documents were posted. They include letters written by Walker and Sherry Stein, the Fraser Institute’s chief fundraiser, to the British American Tobacco Co., the world’s second-largest tobacco company and owner of Imperial Tobacco (Imasco), which controlled 70 percent of the Canadian market. The letters reveal that the Fraser Institute had set up a social affairs centre to promote free-market solutions to social policy problems like poverty, drug use, smoking and gun control. Tobacco company Rothman’s International was providing $50,000 a year for this work and Philip Morris, “generous support.”

With this funding, the Fraser published a book by two tobacco industry lobbyists titled Passive Smoke: The EPA’s Betrayal of Science and Policy, and held two day-long conferences in Ottawa. This package of initiatives was timed to coincide with bylaws being enacted by municipalities across the country to regulate smoking in public places. Such a bylaw had just come into effect in Victoria.

Big Tobacco was in a panic. Fraser Institute to the rescue.

The Fraser’s book argued that these bylaws were ill-considered because the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer had not been proven. (Not true.) The book attacked the landmark 1993 decision of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that declared second-hand smoke to be a carcinogen. It was followed by the two conferences, which worked in tandem, the first attacking the need for regulation at all and the second attacking regulation of smoking. Neither the book nor the conferences mentioned tobacco industry funding.

At the end of 1999, Rothman’s was bought by British American Tobacco (BAT), and the Fraser Institute lost this funding. It commenced a campaign to replace, and add to, the money.

Writing to BAT’s chairman Martin Broughton, Sherry Stein asked him to take over Rothman’s funding commitment and consider a new initiative for a risk and regulation centre. She asked for $50,000 a year for each centre. BAT funding for this new centre would help the Fraser “provide the factual information that will seriously counter the risk activists and their misleading and misguided propaganda,” Stein wrote.

Later in the year, Laura Jones, the Fraser’s director of environmental and regulatory studies (i.e., deregulation)—she’s now the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a deregulation evangelist—thanked Adrian Payne, BAT’s international scientific affairs manager, for “the most enjoyable dinner last week in Toronto.”

Then Michael Walker reiterated these requests in his pitch to Payne. Walker focused on the new Centre for Studies in Risk and Regulation. He railed against the “agitators for a ‘zero-risk’ society [who] have become increasingly successful in advancing their cause, often basing their case on exaggerated junk science scares.” The targets of these nasty agitators were pollution, second-hand smoke, pesticides and genetically modified foods. With BAT financial assistance, the Fraser Institute would set the record straight.

BAT would not be alone in supporting the new centre, Walker reassured Payne. The institute had already:

“met with a number of your colleagues in the industry to discuss this proposal and all are on side and have implied that they will support the Centre with comparable contributions. The companies they represent are Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd., JTI Macdonald Corp., and Rothman’s Benson & Hedges Inc. We have begun discussions as well with Philip Morris International Inc., and Brown and Williamson Tobacco in the U.S. Others we will approach for support are in the food, biotechnology, and chemical industries.”

Later in the year, Stein presented three proposals for BAT’s support. It could contribute: $30,000 for the launch of the centre, featuring guest speaker John Stossel, a well-known television personality and anti-regulation zealot; $42,000 to distribute an anti-regulation book called Safe Enough?; and/or $48,000 for a project that would show regulation was too costly to be effective.

The letters from Stein and Walker don’t indicate which, if any, of these projects BAT did support, but they all took place.

The letters also don’t indicate that Brian Levitt, the CEO of Imasco, BAT’s Canadian subsidiary, was a Fraser Institute director during this period.

Too bad there’s not similar transparency for the Fraser Institute’s work on school choice or privatized health care or any of the dozen other issues the institute beavers away at to prove the market always does better than government.

Its 2012 budget was $10 million. Where does this money come from? The institute won’t say.

There’s something seriously wrong—corrupt?—when an organization wraps its efforts to influence public policy in the deepest secrecy.

- See more at: http://donaldgutstein.com/follow-the-money-part-5-the-tobacco-papers-revisited/#sthash.YzZOxl0X.dpuf

 

[GLG]

One would think they would cut their losses and get out of the smoking debate after what has come to light.
But they don't because the money still flows and it's their job to provide a "fair question"
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uplo...ws/research/articles/economics-of-smoking.pdf

 

[Haliman]

There is nothing saying that this Common Sense group was funded by US sources.
In fact - weren't they required to disclose who their donors were?

 

[GLG]

There is nothing saying that this Common Sense group was funded by US sources.
In fact - weren't they required to disclose who their donors were?

 

[agentaqua]

Dying With Dignity Canada is too "political" - but the Fraser Institute gets to avoid submitting income tax forms...somehow...I wonder how?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dyi...atus-after-political-activity-probe-1.2919706
Dying With Dignity loses charitable status after political-activity probe

 

[agentaqua]

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2N8y2SVerW8?list=PLQ9B-p5Q-YOM4h_IeoMQRaOdL0dKUPohR" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Koch Brothers EXPOSED: 2014 • FULL DOCUMENTARY • BRAVE NEW FILMS

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...-charity-status-what-about-pro-life-charities
JAN 22, 2015 by PressProgress
The CRA stripped an end-of-life group's charity status. But what about pro-life charities?

Here we go again.

On Tuesday, one of Canada's leading organizations in the end-of-life care debate announced it had been stripped of charitable status after the Canada Revenue Agency determined the charity had been "registered in error" – this nearly 32 years after the organization was first registered as a charity.

According to Dying with Dignity Canada, the CRA told the group that they determined it does not actually conduct "any activities advancing education in the charitable sense."

This may seem strange to anyone who takes a quick scan of Dying with Dignity's website, which shows they provide a litany of educational resources, workshops and advance care planning kits – one would think that's evidence of at least some "activities advancing education," right? Well, apparently not:

"It is our position the organization's primary focus remains on advocating for alternatives to preserving human life and selectively informing the public in support of its political purpose to expand choice in dying," the CRA said.

As well, charities may not "engage in pressure tactics on governments such as swaying public opinion, promoting an attitude of mind, creating a climate of public opinion or exercising moral pressure."

But if Dying with Dignity conducted no "education in the charitable sense" and were "selectively informing the public" and "exercising moral pressure," as the CRA contends, what then of charities on the other side of the end-of-life debate?

Many pro-life groups who oppose physician-assisted death describe their mandate as being primarily one of "education." Here are just two examples:

Other examples can be found here http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...01&amp;n=P.E.I. RIGHT TO LIFE ASSOCIATION INC. , here, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...;n=LETHBRIDGE & DISTRICT PRO-LIFE ASSOCIATION here, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...;n=LETHBRIDGE & DISTRICT PRO-LIFE ASSOCIATION here, herehttp://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22quickview-eng.action?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dright%2Bto%2Blife%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue&fpe=2013-12-31&b=107896599RR0001&amp;n=THE%20RIGHT%20TO%20LIFE%20ASSOCIATION%20OF%20KITCHENER-WATERLOO%20AND%20AREA , here http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...12-31&b=118951318RR0001&amp;n=HALTON PRO-LIFE , here http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/...88957RR0001&amp;n=CHILLIWACK PRO-LIFE SOCIETY , and herehttp://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22quickview-eng.action?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fk%3Dpro-life%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue&fpe=2014-04-30&b=133488957RR0001&amp;n=CHILLIWACK%20PRO-LIFE%20SOCIETY .

Searching CRA's registered charity listing with keywords like "pro life," "pro-life" and "right to life" points to over 50 organizations with charitable status who take a social conservative view on issues related to reproductive rights and end-of-life care.

Overwhelmingly, these groups cite public education in describing their group's activities, including distributing information via websites, brochures and workshops – not substantially different from how Dying with Dignity described its own educational activities to the CRA.

So what then constitutes "education in the charitable sense?"

Here are a few examples of information and activities provided by pro-life groups:

1. Does a fact sheet that identifies negative emotional states like "guilt," "regret," "lower self-esteem" and "inability to forgive self" as "psychological effects of abortion on women" qualify as "education in the charitable sense"?

What about informing women "there is not a single scientific study that has shown abortion has ... produced any benefits to women"? That's not "selective," right?

2. Are articles about "pro-life" moments on the TV drama House considered "education in the charitable sense"?

3. Does educational curriculum that questions the basis of reality itself to teach kids the "marvellous reality of the development of the unborn" meet the standard for "education in the charitable sense"? Or is that more "an attitude of mind"?

The change in status for Dying with Dignity comes ahead of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling expected later this year on assisted suicide. The Conservative government opposes any change to Criminal Code prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The CRA's special political-activity audit on charities was announced by the government in 2012. Critics say it has unfairly targeted charities whose goals don't line up with Harper government policy.

Photos: Jcart 1534, Obiebmand, Mcaric. Used under Creative Commons licenses