. . . those pesky 'radical' environmentalists!

[Oscar]

Senators take notice of your letters

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panthe ... e/2012/03/
senators-take-notice-of-your-letters/

March 29, 2012 |

Thanks to all of you who responded to our call to write to Canadian senators and MPs, telling them to stop attacking people who care about the environment. Within days, more than 10,000 of you sent letters. Judging from the reaction, your letters made a difference.

It didn't take long, though, for some media pundits and senators to misinterpret the issue, charging, among other things, that we are afraid of scrutiny.

We wouldn't have a problem with Sen. Nicole Eaton's inquiry into the "Involvement of Foreign Foundations in Canada's Domestic Affairs" if we thought it were a sincere attempt to examine the wide range of foreign involvement in Canada's affairs, or even the donations to all Canadian charities from international sources.

We believe in transparency, which is why the David Suzuki Foundation publishes on its website details about who donates, how donations are used, and our policies to ensure that money comes from ethical sources — something some of the senators failed to notice.

That some senators are willing to sling mud and make inaccurate accusations without even checking the websites of the non-profits being criticized is enough to make any thinking person question the motives behind this Senate inquiry.

Rather than fostering an honest discussion about foreign influence in matters of the national public interest, which would include the selling of our resources and resource industries, the aim seems to be to demonize and silence people and organizations that question their policies.

We believe charitable organizations of all kinds have made great contributions to Canada and Canadians. Environmental groups have protected human health, natural areas, and numerous species of plants and animals when governments and the corporate sector failed to take into account important values. We've seen it in everything from the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer to the Species at Risk Act.

It may not be convenient when hundreds of thousands of Canadians demand a real discussion on massive pipeline or resource projects before the government rubber-stamps them. But that's what democracy's about.

Read more about the Senate inquiry and reaction to your letters:

Transcripts of Senate debate:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/
Debates/060db_2012-03-13-e.htm#37

Sen. Grant Mitchell's response:
http://senatorgrantmitchell.ca/news/15630.aspx

Sen. Nicole Eaton news release:
http://nicoleeaton.sencanada.ca/en/p102731/

Environment Minister Peter Kent reaction:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/
2012/03/20120322-175226.html

Peter Foster Financial Post article:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/22/
peter-foster-suzuki-vs-the-senate-whos-silencing-whom/

[Oscar]

QUOTE: "The decision by the Harper government to step up its attack on advocacy, and punish groups seen as left-leaning or progressive, is a dangerous slide into a world in which advocacy only matters if it coincides with the political agenda of the government in power."

Why the federal government picked a fight with charities

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/
federal+government+picked+fight+with+charities/6399676/story.html

By Michael Orsini, The Ottawa Citizen April 3, 2012

- - - - -
Michael Orsini is an associate professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He specializes in health policy, and the role of civil society organizations in policy processes.
- - - - - -

It is not the first time governments have tried to rein in charities. This time, however, it's personal.

Buried in the so-called "austerity" budget and its overhaul of Old Age Security, among other big-ticket items that elicited media attention, is a direct attack on charities and what they do.

The budget opines that there are concerns "that some charities may not be respecting the rules regarding political activities." The Harper government has empowered the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to monitor closely the activities of groups that claim charitable tax status, to ensure that they are not spending too much time being, well, political.

People in the charitable sector have, no doubt, heard this song before. The "10-per-cent rule" stipulates that organizations that want to retain their charitable tax status must devote no more than 10 per cent of their time to political activities. Who decides what constitutes political activities? How do you quantify how much of the group's energy is spent engaging in the offending behaviour? Big questions for which we have only partial answers. The bottom line, it seems, is that the CRA can make those judgment calls. The job of charities is to follow the guidelines provided, in which there are examples of acceptable, minimally acceptable (not more than 10 per cent), and forbidden activities.

Charitable groups have been quick to point out that it is difficult to distinguish advocacy from charity. While the CRA's guidelines are explicit that any partisan activity (such as declaring support for or opposition to a political candidate) crosses the line, organizations that feel passionately about an issue sometimes view political activities as the only legitimate way to express their displeasure with policy changes or to represent the individuals on whose behalf they might speak.

It is not a coincidence that this government has chosen to pick a fight with charities. As Maclean's columnist Paul Wells reminded us in a recent column, earlier this year Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver decried the "environmental and other radical groups" who were trying to block resource development in Canada, aided, it was suggested, by, drum roll please, "foreign special interest groups." Special interest groups are pesky enough. Foreign ones, it seems, are doubly disconcerting. And that's why the Harper government believes we need tight rules to restrict their attempts to unduly influence Canadian groups. [ . . . ]

= = = = = =

No green future in Conservative budget, say Tides and Nature Canada

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/03/29/
no-green-future-conservative-budget-say-tides-and-nature-canada?page=0,0

Critics say they’re concerned about the 2012 federal budget’s focus on resource development, and its vague promises to “streamline” environmental reviews.

Alexis Stoymenoff Posted: Mar 29th, 2012

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s 2012 budget seems to be moving Canada toward a dangerously high-carbon future, say environmental groups.

"There doesn't appear to be anything in this budget that will move Canada toward the low-carbon clean energy future,” Tides Canada’s Energy Initiative director Merran Smith said in an email to the Observer.

“In fact, it does quite the opposite. We need to start putting in place plans, policies and investments needed to ensure we will compete in a world that has slashed its dependence on our petroleum."

The "least green budget"

In addition to hundreds of millions in cuts to environmental protection programs, Flaherty’s plan includes $8 million to crack down on green groups and charities, so that the Canada Revenue Agency can monitor and restrict “political action” by environmental organizations. The government also announced the elimination of an
important federal advisory group—the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NTREE).

Of course, the substantial tax incentives offered to the oil and gas industry remain untouched by the new budget.

The CBC’s Chantal Hebert called Flaherty’s plan the “least green budget since the creation of the ministry of the environment”, and since the announcement, green groups across the country have chimed in with similar commentary.

Environmental policy direction not surprising

Liberal MP Joyce Murray (Vancouver-Quadra) said that Flaherty's budget speech signals a policy direction that’s deeply concerning with respect to the environment.

But was she surprised? Hardly.

The Vancouver MP was referring to the budget’s clear focus on resource development, and what many see as an attempt to undermine the environmental assessment (EA) process through funding cuts and impending legislation changes.

“I’m not surprised that the Conservatives are really trying to change that balance and tip it towards development. To me, it’s not something that I believe Canadians will accept,” said Murray, on the road Thursday afternoon from Penticton, BC. [ . . . ]

______________________________________

Tough times for research foreseen

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/7950 ... h-foreseen

March 31, 2012 - 4:23am BY MICHAEL GORMAN TRURO BUREAU

Dalhousie University scientist calls federal budget ‘inaction plan for the environment’

A researcher at Dalhousie University is forecasting a difficult road ahead for environmental researchers in the wake of Thursday’s federal budget.

Thomas Duck, a professor of atmospheric science, called the budget "an inaction plan for the environment" that he believes is an attack on dissenting opinions for projects such as oil, gas and mining.

"What (the government) wants to do should be able to stand on its own merits," he said. "It should be able to withstand criticism. Instead of making their arguments, they’re just looking to eliminate dissent."

The budget repeatedly uses the term "while protecting the environment" when talking about development, which is ironic, Duck said, given that Environment Canada stands to be cut by $53.8 million.

The government has said all departments must look for savings in order to get the federal books in order. But Duck contended Environment Canada is facing a disproportionate level of cuts to the point of inhibiting the department’s ability to fulfil its mandate.

"When you start cutting more, what you’re ultimately doing is you’re cutting into core programs that protect the health and safety of Canadians," he said.

Although the budget includes a number of announcements for research grants and funding, Duck said they will not be accessible for people who do environmentally related research.

The budget, he said, emphasizes research with commercial applications and those researchers are able to rely on the private sector for help. That isn’t the case for those studying the environment.

"That’s not the kind of research program that industry funds," he said. "It’s pretty much the sole role of government to fund research in the public interest, research like monitoring the ozone layer, monitoring pollution, monitoring climate change."

The budget also includes funding for research infrastructure, but Duck said that amounts to a waste of taxpayers’ money if there is no one to staff such facilities and use them to their full capabilities. [ . . . ]