Environmental and left-leaning charities can breath a sigh of relief now that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instructed Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier to modernize Canada’s archaic charity law and clarify rules around allowable “political activity.”

The ministry should “allow charities to do their work on behalf of Canadians free from political harassment,” Trudeau wrote in a ministerial mandate letter Friday, “with an understanding that charities make an important contribution to public debate and public policy.”

The new mandate signals a remarkable change in tone from the at times aggressive stance of the former government.

In 2012 the Harper government allocated $13.4 million to the Canada Revenue Agency for the audit of charities to determine if groups were in violation of rules that limit their spending on “political activity” to 10 per cent of resources. The program also instituted new reporting for charities receiving foreign funding.

The audit program was launched in the wake of former Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s infamous open-letter in which he accused environmental organizations participating in the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings of being foreign-funded “radical groups” intent on “hijacking our regulatory system.”

Many environmental charities felt they were targeted by the investigation and said the sometimes multiple successive audits left them strapped for resources, intimidated and unable to carry out their mandates.

Environmental charities under audit included Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Tides Canada, West Coast Environmental Law, the Pembina Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Ecology Action Centre and Environmental Defence.

Critics also pointed out that right-leaning charities that clearly engaged in political activity, such as the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute, were spared from the audits even though their activity appeared to violate CRA rules.

A report prepared for DeSmog Canada and released by the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre in March 2015 found Canada’s charitable laws lack clarity and create an “intolerable state of uncertainty” for active charities. The report called for sweeping reform of Canada’s charitable law to clarify what constitutes “political activity” and to allow for more generous limits on allowable “political activity.”

Calvin Sandborn, director of the law centre, said he is “thrilled by this reversal of policy.”

“Whether or not government was directing audits against charities, a dangerous chill had fallen on environmental charities. People were afraid to speak out, and that was bad for Canada,” Sandborn said. “Charities need to be free to speak out for law reform related to their charitable mission. Charitable advocacy helps society recognize and actually respond to the problems that charities address.”

He added the political activities of the Canadian Cancer Society resulted in tougher smoking laws for public places and the political work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has saved lives by fighting for tougher drunk driving laws.

“If charities had continued to shy away from any political activity at all, public debate about how to solve society’s problems would have been seriously impoverished — as those with some of the best expertise on such problems would have remained silent,” Sandborn said.

"I think many people in the charitable sector will see this as a welcome development that the new government is keen to both take a little bit of the spotlight off charities and take a closer look at the regulatory environment for charities and not-for-profits,” Kathryn Chan, assistant professor of law and charitable law expert at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

Chan added there is some lack of certainty as to whether the audits were politically motivated or not, but said in some ways it didn’t make a difference.

“There was certainly a perception of harassment and sometimes that can do damage on its own whether or not it’s true,” Chan said. “I think there’s need to address that no matter what the exact factual situation was.”

Image: Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada Without Poverty, an Ottawa-based charity, is arguing the sweeping audits of charities by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) are a violation of human rights before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva this week.

Harriett McLachlan, president of Canada Without Poverty, told the CBC she will argue the contentious audits violate Canada’s international commitments.

The Canada Revenue Agency has targeted 60 Canadian charities in a $13.4 million audit program to determine if the groups are violating rules that limit their spending on political activities to 10 per cent of resources.

McLachlan told the CBC the political activity rules silence groups like Canada Without Poverty that advocate for increased government accountability. Charities in Canada are prevented from engaging in any partisan activity.

"If we want to write a petition, or be part of some kind of gathering, a protest, there's a fear there that we are stepping over the bounds," she told the CBC.

"There's a potential of a gag being put over my mouth."

In March the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre released a report that called for broad reforms to Canada’s charitable law.

Rules around political activity, considered by the CRA to be any activity that seeks to change, opposed or retain laws or policies, have created an “intolerable state of uncertainty” for charities, the report states.

“This has created a confused and anxious charitable sector and detracts from them carrying out their important work,” Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the Environmental Law Centre, said.

The report recommends Canada modernize laws to both establish clearer political activity rules and to allow for more advocacy work for groups working to protect the public interest. Many European countries place no restrictions on the political activities of charities.

In early March, 18 prominent Canadian charities including Oxfam Canada, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and Equiterre, wrote a letter to Canada’s political parties asking them for platforms committed to enhancing freedom for charities wishing to engage in public policy matters.

The groups argued in their letter that “without years of organizing effort by Canadian charities, Canada would not have dealt with issues such as addressing acid rain, promoting safe driving, reducing smoking and banning toxic chemicals.”

Recently federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced his party platform will include new rules to protect charities from political intimidation.

The UN Human Rights Committee selects a number of countries for review each year and this is the first time the Harper government will face the panel of independent experts.

Kairos and Amnesty International Canada will join Canada Without Poverty, raising concerns around Canada’s troubling failure to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women as well as the country’s legacy of child abuse in indigenous residential schools.

"There should be space for people to hold the government accountable on these issues, human-rights issues," McLacnlan told the CBC. "Poverty should not exist in a wealthy country like Canada."

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

When former environment minister Jim Prentice held his introductory lunch with U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson in November 2009, Prentice described to Jacobson how he had been shocked during a visit to Norway to find heated opposition to the Alberta oilsands during a public debate over state-owned StatOil ASA’s investment there.

This information was contained in a cable from Jacobson, which was obtained by WikiLeaks and posted by a Norwegian paper.

Prentice was clearly feeling the heat from a global campaign by environmental organizations to frame oilsands oil as “dirty” because of its energy-intensive extraction, which make for Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The public sentiment in Norway shocked him and has heightened his awareness of the negative consequences to Canada’s historically ‘green’ standing on the world stage,” the cable reported.

An Oilsands PR Makeover[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Given the dismal reputation of the oilsands, the government had three options: (a) clean them up by bringing in environmental legislation; (b) discredit the people creating the negative image; or (c) set up front groups to promote the industry, however dirty it may be.

In his discussion with Jacobson, Prentice suggested he would do (a): “impose new rules on oil sands.” But he never did. The federal government — which has promised to deliver oil and gas regulations since 2007 — offered no help.

Instead Prentice, along with the government of Alberta, got to work changing the oilsands’ image. The campaign began behind-the-scenes with intensive international lobbying focused on fighting the European Union’s proposed ‘dirty’ label for Albertan crude.

While those backroom meetings were taking place, another public strategy was being deployed to revive the image of the oilsands: demean those exposing the environmental disaster unfolding in Northern Alberta.

Shoot the messenger and undermine the message.

A Brief Chronology of the Anti-Enviro Movement  

Enter Vivian Krause.

When Jacobson wrote his cable, Vivian Krause — a former PR specialist for the aquaculture industry — was beavering away in relative obscurity investigating critics of farmed salmon.

Krause had previously worked as a nutritionist for the aquaculture industry, which routinely recruits nutritionists to tout the benefits of all salmon, farmed or wild.

She began attacking critics of aquaculture when she “unexpectedly came across a grant for an ‘antifarming campaign’ with ‘science messages’ and ‘earned media.’”

Within a year of the Prentice-Jacobson lunch, Krause switched to researching the funding of oilsands critics. She says the switch occurred “while going through the tax returns of American charitable foundations to try and figure out who was funding the campaign against salmon farming [when she] happened to notice many grants for a ‘Tar Sands campaign.’”

“That’s when I started to write about the campaign against Alberta oil,” Krause wrote on her blog, Fair Questions.

These claims may be true — “unexpectedly came across,” “happened to notice” — but the timing was fortuitous. It was a message Prentice and his replacements as environment minister, John Baird and Peter Kent, as well as the Harper government and the oilsands industry, all desperately needed, especially as opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline — a major thoroughfare for oilsands crude destined for Asian markets — was growing to unprecedented levels.

Krause was given a podium for her revelations in the pages of the National Post, where she wrote eighteen columns on the subject, magnifying her voice many times over. The Post featured her as “the girl who played with tax data.”

Repetition over the following year established the frame that because Canadian environmental charities are funded by American money, they are not acting in the interests of Canadians or the environment, but for American oil. The message dissolves on close examination, but few outside the environmental community were examining it closely.

Other, Fairer Questions

Some of the questions not being asked were just how Canadian is Enbridge, or the other proponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline? Or, more broadly, just how Canadian are the oilsands?

Enbridge is one of the largest energy transportation and distribution companies in North America. Its head office may be in Calgary, but its operations span the continent — 61 per cent of revenues are earned from American operations. Forty-four per cent of Enbridge’s shares are owned in the U.S.

Three major Chinese corporations, Petro-China, Sinopec and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, are all backers of the Northern Gateway pipeline and, since the project’s delay, have all become major investors in the oilsands.

A 2012 analysis calculated that 71 per cent of oilsands production was owned by foreign shareholders. Even ostensibly Canadian companies — such as Suncor or Canadian Oil Sands — are majority foreign owned.

The Canadian-versus-American oil interest frame just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Krause’s research was not difficult to carry out. Many Canadian environmental organizations have obtained charitable status so they can receive grants from philanthropic foundations. These foundations must disclose all the grants they make and this information is assembled in easily accessed web sites where it can be inspected.

Krause herself is not a registered charitable organization so she cannot receive grants from foundations — grants that would be publicly accessible. The money she does receive from corporations and individuals can stay anonymous.

A year after Krause launched her National Post commentaries, she burst onto the political scene. In November 2011, Prime Minister Harper gave an interview with Global TV in Vancouver in which he parroted Krause’s frame, warning that “significant American interests” would be “trying to line up against the Northern Gateway project” which would allow oil companies to export oilsands oil to Asia.

“They’ll funnel money through environmental groups and others in order to try to slow it down but, as I say, we’ll make sure that the best interests of Canada are protected.”

Later in the month, Jim Prentice, by then a vice-chairman at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, echoed this sentiment by telling the National Post that he thought “environmental organizations based outside the country [should] be required to reveal who gives them funding when they participate in Canada’s regulatory process to influence [Canada’s] internal decisions.”

In December, Enbridge president Patrick Daniel joined Harper and Prentice by wondering out loud why “U.S. foundations feel they need to come here to fund opposition to a project that is obviously not in the U.S. national best interest.”

And in the second week of January 2012, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver released his infamous letter warning of “environmental and other radical groups” seeking to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda,” referring to the many groups lining up to speak against the Northern Gateway project at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings.

Oliver’s letter was followed by a slew of ads attacking Canadian environmental organizations mounted by Ethical Oil, the oil industry advocacy group established by conservative gadfly Ezra Levant and Conservative party apparatchik Alykhan Velshi. Ethical Oil acknowledged Krause’s research as a source of information used in their ads as well as the inspiration for several complaint letters submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency questioning the charitable tax status of prominent environmental organizations. Following those complaints, the federal government launched a $13.4 million investigation into charities receiving foreign funding.

On the top of her resume, Krause credits herself for prompting the revenue agency’s audit of charities, which included seven of Canada’s top environmental groups. And a recent investigation by the National Observer argues Krause was given a leg-up by disgraced Senator Mike Duffy, who appears to have played a critical role in advancing Krause’s research in the political arena and connecting her to lucrative sources of industry funding (Krause maintains this is untrue).

Not bad for someone who just “happened to notice many grants for a Tar Sands Campaign.”

Krause insists her work is not funded: “I haven’t been funded by any industry, any company, any political party, any entity of any kind.” She does disclose honoraria she received for speaking to organizations such as the Association of Mineral Exploration in BC, Canadian Energy Pipelines Association and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Same goes for 2013 & 2014 (so far) "@Garossino: @FairQuestions conceded >90% of her 2012 income comes from resource sector speaking fees."

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Yes. “@Garossino: Are you saying speaking fees to industry also exceeds 90% of your 2013 + '14 income to date? Details?”

— Vivian Krause (@FairQuestions) April 27, 2014

Krause officially closed down her blog, Fair Questions, in June 2012 and wrote what seems to be her last National Post column in 2014. Krause continues to speak at industry-sponsored events.

The Snowball Effect

With Krause’s rise to prominance the work to discredit Canada’s environmental movement was far from over. Since her humble beginnings in 2011, several other organizations stepped in to carry on the “foreign-funded” attack on environmental groups.

One website named “Our Decision” went online the same week Joe Oliver came gunning after “radical” environmentalists who were trying to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline. The site provides no information about the people behind it although donations go to the Ethical Oil Institute, whose directors are Levant and Thomas Ross, an employer-side labour lawyer whose Calgary firm, McLennan Ross, boasts of a relationship with the oilsands industry that goes back to its origins in the 1960s.

The purpose of “Our Decision” is to collect donations to be marshalled in the war against environmentalists: “Will you help us fight against foreign-funded and controlled lobbyists interfering in Canadian affairs?”

“Follow the Money Trail” is a second web site that promotes the Krause conspiracy theory. The site went online in mid-2014 and is sponsored by British Columbians for Prosperity, a new organization which, like Ethical Oil, provides no information about its financial backers, directors, members or advisers. The site helps us to “follow the money trail and explore the U.S. foundation funding hypocrisy that’s impacting Canada’s sovereignty.”

The organization hired one journalist to do the research and another to disseminate the findings. The findings, such as they are, had already been found by Krause.

And on it goes. Repeat this message: American billionaires back Canadian environmental organizations opposed to oilsands expansion and pipeline construction, not because oilsands developments threaten the environment or add to global warming, but because they are detrimental to American oil interests.

A perfect bait-and-switch strategy.

Meanwhile, little light has being shed on the funding of citizen groups defending oil production and export.

Unlike environmental groups, whose spokespeople have a clear public profile and whose organizations have long-standing missions, publicly-known board members and financial records, the same cannot be said of pop-up defenders of oil interests such as the Ethical Oil Institute and British Columbians for Prosperity.

Their activities remain shrouded in secrecy.

Image Credit: Vivian Krause speaks at She Talks Resources. Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The release of a University of Victoria study calling for updates to Canadian charitable law created quite a stir last week.

The study, prepared for DeSmog Canada, was covered by the Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times Colonist, Canadian Press, Macleans, The Tyee, Yahoo! News and CFAX.

The report called for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to clarify rules around “political activities” — defined as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies — and to provide a more generous limit on allowable policy advocacy in line with other common law jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand. It also called for the creation of a politically independent charities commission to remove the potential for political interference in audits.

The findings were raised in the House of Commons by Victoria NDP MP Murray Rankin, who stated the report “analyzes the alarming lack of clarity in the rules governing political activities for charities.”

Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said the recommendations put “what’s going on in Canada in the context of what’s going on in other common law and western countries … It gives a sense of how far Canada is behind on these things.”

Do you think charity law in Canada deserves to be updated? Click the image above to share on Facebook.

Environmental Defence was one of 18 Canadian charities that called on the country’s politicians to enhance the ability for charities to engage in public policy debates earlier this month.

“The lack of a level playing field between business and citizens around public policy is particularly evident in the debate around climate and tar sands,” Gray told DeSmog Canada. “There’s massive spending going on by the oil sector to influence public policy and every dollar they spend on lobbyists in Ottawa or on television ads, they deduct from their gross income and therefore reduce the income tax that they pay to build roads and run hospitals.”[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Citizens who donate money to a charity only receive a 17 per cent tax benefit and charities are limited to spending 10 per cent of their resources on policy advocacy work, described as “political activity” by the CRA.

Fifity-two charities have been audited for their “political activities” under a $13.4 million audit program launched by the federal government in the 2012 budget.

“It’s already unfair and the rhetoric that’s out there right now is to say that that level of unfairness should be enhanced,” Gray said. “It would be a huge move to favouring involvement by corporations in public policy at the expense of citizens.”

Gray also said citizens are confused by the current talk around “political activities,” which many assume to mean “partisan activities,” which charities are banned from taking part in.

Bill Schaper, director of public policy and community engagement for Imagine Canada — which advocates for the charitable sector — said his group has been hearing more and more about re-thinking how we define charity over the last couple of years.

“It’s something that’s been percolating,” Schaper told DeSmog Canada.

But he also noted that there are risks associated with opening up charitable law for major changes. National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, for instance, has argued that we should get rid of charitable status altogether.

“As much as the grey zones are causing issues right now, sometimes grey zones are better than too much clarity because you might not like the clarity you get,” Schaper said.  

He noted that the charitable sector can do a better job of educating itself in terms of what constitutes “political activity” and said there would need to be much more discussion before Imagine Canada would push for specific changes to the law.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian civic-engagement advocacy group Samara just released its first-ever report card on the state of “everyday democracy” across the country. The result? Canada received a disconcerting ‘C’ grade.

What does that mean?

We’re failing on a lot more fronts than just voter turnout, according to Jane Hilderman, Samara Director.

“The political process now repels more citizens than it attracts — particularly young Canadians,” she said.

“While most evaluations of democracy focus on voter turnout, we need to better assess the relationship between citizens and political leaders beyond a trip to the ballot box every four years.”

The report found Canadians have very little trust in Members of Parliament and don’t believe MPs actually do their intended jobs.

Only 40 per cent of Canadians say they trust their MPs to “do what is right.” More startling, only 31 per cent of Canadians feel politics are relevant to their everyday lives.

Yet nearly half of all Canadians still donate to charities, volunteer and sign petitions, showing an underlying desire “to connect to causes rooted in and affected by politics,” the report found.

Canada ranks in the bottom fifth among democracies — with a voter turnout of 61 per cent in federal elections — according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Canada’s declining voter turnout can be almost entirely attributed to young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24. This group votes at nearly half the rate of elderly Canadians aged 65 to 74.

The report focused on three key points of political engagement — communication, participation and leadership.

To rebuild a sense of value in politics, MPs must increase reliable, two-way communication with citizens, citizens must become more politically active beyond the ballot box, and leaders must encourage involvement and demonstrate the power of politics to make a difference.

“Quite simply our democracy is not doing as well as a country as rich as Canada deserves,” the report states.

“Canadians are not participating in politics as much as they could, they don’t believe it affects them, and they don't see their leaders as influential or efficacious. To turn this situation around, Canada requires more than just higher voter turnout.”

Canada needs to experience a “cultural shift towards ‘everyday democracy’ in which citizens feel politics is a way to make change in the country and their voices are heard.”

“The grade of ‘C’ is not good enough in a country like Canada,” added Alison Loat, Samara’s co-founder and executive director. “A federal election presents a perfect opportunity for Canadians to turn this around.”

“Let’s get involved with campaigns, ask tough questions of candidates, and make a stronger democracy a theme in the upcoming federal election.”

Image Credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A report released today by the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre calls for sweeping reform of Canadian charitable law in line with other jurisdictions such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and England.

Current rules around “political activity” — defined by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies — are confusing and create an “intolerable state of uncertainty,” the report says.

“This has created a confused and anxious charitable sector and detracts from them carrying out their important work,” Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the Environmental Law Centre, said.

The report — prepared for DeSmog Canada — comes as 52 charities are being targeted in a $13.4 million audit program launched by the federal government in 2012 to determine whether any are violating a rule that limits spending on political activities to 10 per cent of resources. Those charities include Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada Without Poverty, Ecology Action Centre and Equiterre.

Australia and New Zealand, also common law jurisdictions, have modernized their laws in recent years to allow charities to conduct more policy advocacy in carrying out their missions.

The report, Tax Audits of Environmental Groups: The Pressing Need for Law Reform, calls for Canada to establish clearer rules about what constitutes “political activity” and provide a more generous limit on allowable “political activity.”

Canada’s Charities Law Urgently Needs Update: New @ELC_UVic report http://t.co/EUj828Va94 #UpdateCharitiesLaw #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 25, 2015

“U.S. charity regulation is superior to current Canadian law because it is less vague and more respectful of the value that charities bring to public policy debates,” the report states.

Many European countries place no limit at all on a charity’s political activities.

Earlier this month, 18 Canadian charities called on the country’s politicians to enhance the ability for charities to engage in public policy debates.

“Our society has evolved and our legislation hasn’t,” said Eric Hebert Daly, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, a group that signed on to the letter.

The new University of Victoria report calls on Canada to modernize the definition of what qualifies as charitable to rectify instances such as the CRA’s ruling that Oxfam can not have a charitable goal of “prevention of poverty.”

“In modern society the law should recognize that a poverty-relief organization can often relieve poverty more effectively by lobbying for affordable housing laws than by operating a soup kitchen,” the report says.

In October 2014, the Broadbent Institute released a report, which raised questions about whether the recent audits have been targeted at charities critical of the Harper government. The report said several right-leaning charities are reporting zero “political” activity while engaging in work that appears to meet the CRA’s definition.

There is a direct structural chain of command from the Minister of National Revenue to the charities directorate (which audits charities), the University of Victoria report notes before calling for the removal of any potential for political interference by establishing a politically independent Charities Commission like the one in England and Wales.

“Regardless of whether the audits are targeted or not, an obvious way to address this issue would be to reform the law to eliminate the potential for political control over CRA audits,” the report reads.  “This has been done in other jurisdictions.”

“The perception that audits may be targeted at charities critical of government policies creates a chilling effect,” the report says — adding that with such vague rules, charities can end up spending an “inordinate amount of energy and resources protecting themselves from an audit.”

The report also notes the contrasting treatment of business and charities under the Income Tax Act:

Since businesses can deduct advertising expenses from their income, they can lobby the public through advertising without any imposed statutory restrictions. A recent example has been the omnipresence of the multimillion-dollar [Enbridge] Northern Gateway radio, television, internet and newspaper ad campaign favouring the project. All of these advertisements would presumably be tax deductible and therefore subsidized by general taxpayers.

In contrast to companies’ tax-deductible political advertising campaigns, charities must carefully ensure that all activities of a political nature are kept within the 10 per cent limit. This contrasting treatment of business and charities under the Income Tax Act has the effect of encouraging businesses to take political action in support of commercial and private interests — while hindering the counterbalancing efforts of charities working to protect public interests.

The report provides the example of cigarette companies fighting smoking laws to defend profits while cancer societies advocated smoking laws for the public good (to prevent cancer). The “political activities” of the cigarette companies would have been tax deductible, whereas the charities advocating tougher smoking laws would have had to follow the ten per cent rule.

“This impairment of charities’ pursuit of the public interest has been magnified by the recent spate of audits and their repercussions on the charitable sector,” the report says.

Policy advocacy by Canadian charities has resulted in measures addressing acid rain, regulations on smoking, laws against drunk driving and regulations on toxic chemicals.

Canadian charities and non-profit organizations account for more than eight per cent of Canada’s GDP. As of the end of 2013, there were more than 86,000 registered charities in Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadians give more of their time to the non-profit sector than to organized politics.

While only 10 per cent have volunteered on a political campaign in the last five years, 55 per cent report having volunteered for a non-profit in the past year. An even larger proportion, about 58 per cent, report being involved with a non-profit community group.

Due to several troubling indicators of the health of Canadian democracy, my non-profit group Samara developed the Democracy Talks program to understand Canadians’ experiences with politics and the barriers they face to political participation.

A number of Democracy Talks participants explained that the social aspect and participatory nature of working with community groups makes them much more inviting than political offices or parties. In contrast to the frustration or power imbalance they’ve felt with political organizations, they feel welcomed and encouraged by community groups to make a difference on their chosen issue.

According to the 2013 Edelman Trust Barometer the non-profit sector is the most trusted sector in Canada, with 73 per cent of people saying they put some level of trust in non-profits. Only 58 per cent felt the same way about government. Given the confidence non-profit community groups enjoy, and the fact that many are formed around issues that are inherently political (such as neighbourhood safety, the environment or international development), non-profit community groups are well-positioned to help their members engage in political issues. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

By bringing discussions about politics into their programming, community groups can normalize such discussions for their members and reinforce the idea that political participation is socially acceptable and desirable. As community groups continue to provide these opportunities, the members who take part become more likely to translate their discussions into political engagement.

A recent American study clearly shows the impact that the non-profit sector can have on citizen engagement — in this specific case, on voter turnout.

In the 2012 general election in the U.S., the group Non-Profit Vote studied voter registration and found that turnout for those who had been registered by a non-profit was significantly higher than turnout in the general population — 74 per cent vs. 68 per cent. The group also found that because of non-profits’ reach and roots within communities, they were particularly good at mobilizing segments of the community who are usually underrepresented in politics.

It is well known that personally asking someone to vote is the most effective way to influence them to do so. However, because underrepresented groups are often seen as having a low propensity to vote, political parties tend to ignore them when registering voters. Non-Profit Vote’s study shows that non-profit community groups can effectively step in to fill this pivotal role.

Citizens Engaged With Non-Profits More Likely to Vote

Through Democracy Talks, we met two individuals whose experiences capture the impact that community groups can have on democratic engagement.

Uzma Irfan is a Pakistani-Canadian who has lived in Malton, Ontario, for 14 years. Today, she is a leader in her community and works with local city councillors and MPPs on a wide variety of initiatives. Yet she told us that only one year ago she felt “hesitant to talk to political leaders [due to] a lack of confidence.” Her turning point came when she joined a local group called the Malton Women Council. The council provided her with training, and trusted her with opportunities to represent their needs in high-level meetings with her political representatives. Now she says she can “talk to politicians easily.”

James Wattam had a similar experience. He joined an Engineers Without Borders campus group at his university in Saskatchewan, where he received specialized training in interacting with MPs. He says the training made him “more comfortable with raising [his] voice.” James now serves as the campus group’s vice president of advocacy, regularly meeting with MPs throughout the province and pushing forward Engineers Without Border’s international development goals.

Through their non-profit community groups, both Uzma and James learned the skills needed to engage with organized politics. Further, in both cases the non-profit group has provided them a platform from which to constructively contribute to public policy development. Their experiences illustrate an important pattern noted in Samara’s public polling: 73 per cent of those who report having been active in a non-profit group in the past 12 months also report that they voted in the last election. By contrast, just 62 per cent who had not been active with a group said they voted.

One Conversation at a Time

To be in the room during a Democracy Talk is to witness the impact that one conversation can have.

The comfortable spaces that community groups provide combined with a deep knowledge of issues that interest their members allows them to create empowering opportunities for those who might otherwise be frustrated, intimidated or hesitant to get involved.

Most research on the role of community groups in increasing political engagement has been done in an American context, while attention in Canada has largely focused on increasing voter turnout. The fact that turnout levels remain low indicates, however, that traditional approaches to mobilizing voters are not working as well as we might hope.

It is for this reason that Democracy Talks works with non-profit community groups on political education and mobilization between elections, starting with something as simple as an invitation to talk about politics.

In the coming years, Samara will work closely with community partners, settlement agencies, ESL teachers and campus groups to continue to facilitate conversations that open up the world of politics to Canadians who are too often left out of political discussions.

The proportion of the Canadian public engaging in public policy and politics over the past 30 years has been on the decline. By tackling the roots of citizens’ disengagement by connecting with citizens through non-profit groups, hopefully it won’t take another 30 years to turn things around. 

Alison Loat is the executive director and co-founder of Samara, a charitable organization dedicated to increasing political participation in Canada. Find out more about Democracy Talks online or contact John Beebe at john.beebe@samaracanada.com.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The university students sitting around the table at the Citizens’ Academy in Ottawa have never met before, but you wouldn’t know it from all the laughter. After the facilitator starts the meeting, all the students are asked to identify themselves and a social or political issue that concerns them. The students have a wide range of issues on their minds — rising tuition costs, international development, job security and employment.  

The last person to introduce herself is Lisa (participants names have been changed). She says she is concerned about the environment, then she laughs. “Really? Or you’re kidding?” the facilitator asks. “Really,” she says seriously, “I’ve written letters to the prime minister about it.”

As a child, Lisa tells the group, she travelled to Quebec and came across an old pulp factory emitting a terrible smell. When she expressed concern, her mother suggested she write to someone about it, so she did. Now, almost a decade later, she has written to three successive prime ministers about specific environmental concerns, and has yet to receive an answer that satisfies her.

“The responses I got back were just, ‘Oh we’re trying,’ ” she said. “One time they sent me a picture of themselves and a pin.”[view:in_this_series=block_1]

It has been a few years since Lisa tried contacting a government official. When asked if she ever would again she says, “I would, but it makes no difference.”

Lisa told her story at one of a series of conversations hosted by Samara, the non-partisan charity I founded in 2009 that is dedicated to increasing political participation in Canada.

In 2013, in partnership with a range of non-profit community groups, Samara conducted a first phase of facilitated discussions with nearly 200 Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia in an effort to understand their experiences with politics and the barriers they face to political participation. We call these discussions Democracy Talks, and from stories like Lisa’s we are learning a lot about what needs to be done to inspire more active citizenship in Canada.

The Power of Conversation

The health of a democracy depends on citizen engagement, which can take several forms. Citizens can engage with each other around public issues, as they do in many nonprofit community groups.  They may – as individuals or as groups – seek opportunities to share their views with their elected officials or public servants. But perhaps the most direct measure of citizen engagement is voter turnout.

Voter turnout in Canada has been sliding for a generation; the 2011 federal election saw the third-lowest turnout in Canadian history. Furthermore, Samara’s most recent public polling shows satisfaction with Canadian democracy is at an all-time low — in Samara’s fourth democracy report, only 55 per cent of Canadians reported being satisfied with the way our democracy is working. (*This paragraph has been corrected. The original story said that 65 per cent of Canadians reported being dissatisfied with the way democracy is working.)

These troubling indicators of the health of Canadian democracy led us at Samara to develop the Democracy Talks program. The premise of Democracy Talks is that there is a meaningful correlation between citizens’ engagement with each other on public issues and their political participation.

The challenge for Samara and other nonprofits that hope to increase political participation is that only 40 per cent of Canadians report they have even discussed a societal or political issue in person or on the phone in the last year. Only 42 per cent of Canadians reported discussing politics online in any way.

Democracy Talks is designed to encourage political participation by extending an invitation to talk about politics in an approachable, non-partisan space. Participants do not need to have a deep understanding of political parties or the political system to join in the conversation. They need only bring their personal experiences with the political system and their ideas for improving it. During this past year, Samara’s efforts were targeted at three demographic groups: university students, low-income youth and new Canadians. The one thing all of these groups have in common is that they’ve recently gained the right to vote.

For many participants, Samara’s facilitated discussions were the first time they had ever been asked to share their views on politics, to think critically about their relationship to MPs and political parties or to imagine what their role in Canada’s democracy could be. During the discussions, participants were asked about their personal experiences with politics and barriers to participation. They were asked for their advice on how to engage new voters like themselves.

Is Being ‘Political’ Un-Canadian?

The barriers that the new voter participants in Democracy Talks identified were at some times simple and at others surprising.

One topic that came up again and again in conversations with newcomers was the lack of civics education provided during the settlement process. One of the participants noted that her “Discover Canada” guide actually contained the same number of paragraphs on beavers as it did on political participation.

University students echoed newcomers’ concerns about their limited civics education. One student in Hamilton told us that her high school civics classes left her thinking citizens’ role in the system was “as voters and not much else.” Their uninspiring civics educations, combined with observations that political conversations are considered impolite in Canada, led both new Canadians and students to infer that “being political” just doesn’t seem like something Canadians value. As a result, there is little social encouragement, let alone pressure, to participate.

Another recurring theme in the discussions was participants’ frustration with the political process, and a general feeling that engaging with politicians is ineffective.

A number of participants in the groups of low-income youth and newcomers said they felt that not only were political powers unresponsive, but actively working against their interests.

One young participant poignantly stated: “I think, when you look at society, for example, the laws, the tax breaks for the big guys, [it] reflects who is important to the government and who is not important… They know about the problems the poor people face, but do they care?  If they did, we would see it.”

Those who felt that the political power deck was stacked against them seemed to feel it was a waste of time to even try influencing political decisions.

Is The Problem Apathy or a Broken System?

In general, participants expressed little faith in the political system, and found few incentives to get involved. While many pundits explain disengagement as apathy, Samara’s work with new voter communities suggests that declining political engagement is, at least in part, based on rational assessments of a political system that has provided citizens with concrete and disappointing experiences of politics.

Without a clear starting point or a friendly face to show them how to get involved, it is unlikely new voters facing these barriers will take steps to participate politically on their own. That is a problem that should concern all Canadians. Every voice that is absent from the political process ultimately lessens the legitimacy of Canada’s representative democracy.

Alison Loat is the executive director and co-founder of Samara, a charitable organization dedicated to increasing political participation in Canada. Find out more about Democracy Talks online or contact John Beebe at john.beebe@samaracanada.com.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Up next in this series: Do Non-Profits Hold the Key to Political Participation in Canada?

Image Credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Good public policy improves the lives of Canadians, and contributions from civil society groups can significantly improve the public policy that governments make. Despite the benefits of working well together — to both sides, and to Canadians overall — relationships between the sector and governments are not without challenges.

Note: the term "civil society groups" includes both nonprofits, which have no limits on their political activities, and charities, which have well-defined limits on their “political activities,” as described below.

In the last three years, many within the charitable sector have become concerned about Canada Revenue Agency audits focused on political activities, but few realize that controversy over the regulation of charities dates back decades in our country.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The current controversy revolves around 52 charites being audited in a $13.4 million program launched by the federal government in 2012 to determine whether any are violating a rule that limits spending on political activities to 10 per cent of resources. Some of those charities, including Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada Without Poverty, Ecology Action Centre and Equiterre, have gone public with the fact they are undergoing audits.

On February 6, 2014, CBC reporter Evan Solomon published a story and aired a segment on the television program Power and Politics about these audits. The news story raised the question of whether environmental charities critical of the government are being unfairly targeted for their “political activities” as defined by Canada Revenue Agency.

In October 2014, the Broadbent Institute further interrogated that question by releasing a report called Stephen Harper’s CRA: Selective audits, “political” activity, and right-leaning charities.

The Broadbent report examined publicly available CRA tax filings of 10 “right-wing” charities and cross-referenced these with their publicly available work. In each case, the charities had reported they had conducted no political activity between 2011 and 2013.

The Broadbent Institute’s report, which includes the Fraser Institute, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Focus on the Family, provides examples of activity for each of the charities that the report’s authors argue meet the CRA’s definition of “political activity.” It’s unknown whether any of these charities are currently under audit.

Flashback to 1978: Trudeau Government Accused of “Muzzling Charities”

Controversy around charities undertaking “political activities” is anything but new. Thirty-six years ago, in February of 1978, the Trudeau government issued Information Circular 78-3. It warned charities that any political objects or activities would be understood as contravening the Income Tax Act, and could result in the revocation of an organization’s charitable status. The document took a broad view on what constituted political activities, and clarified that none of a charity’s resources could be devoted to them.

Charities, the federal opposition parties and the press reacted strongly to Information Circular 78-3, arguing it contravened the right of free speech, unduly constrained charities in their pursuit of improving society and ran against the democratic values of Canadians. 

An editorial in the Toronto Star from April 18, 1978, captures the tone of the response, calling it “outrageous” for the Trudeau government to “muzzle charities” with guidelines that “take the narrow view that while charities can directly aid the needy, for example, they can’t advocate changes in public policy that might benefit the needy [because] this is considered political activity.”

The Trudeau government defended its actions by claiming the information circular wasn’t a shift in policy, but rather only a reflection of the imperfect case law according to which purposes and activities of charities must be interpreted. Under ongoing pressure, the Trudeau government eventually suspended the circular. 

In 1987, the Mulroney government released Information Circular 87-1, which advanced the now familiar approach of allowing charities to undertake ancillary and incidental political activities that are not partisan and limited to expenditures of 10 per cent of a charity’s resources. The 1987 policy statement also required that charities report on both exempt and political activities in their annual information returns.

The mid-1990s to early 2000s saw an unprecedented amount of activity oriented to improving the relationship between the federal government and the charitable sector. It culminated in June of 2000, when the Chrétien government announced the Voluntary Sector Initiative, a five-year joint initiative between the sector and the government set up to improve their working relationship. Among the many outcomes of the initiative was a Code of Good Practice on Policy Dialogue (2002), which makes explicit why and how the federal government and the sector should work together on public policy.

In 2003, based in large measure on the work described above, and after open consultation with the sector, the Charities Directorate of Canada Revenue Agency updated its guidance on political activities with the release of CPS-022, which is still in effect today. It is substantially the same as Information Circular 87-1, but is more explicit and makes greater use of examples than previous guidance.

A close reading of the guidance reveals that Canada Revenue Agency permits more latitude in terms of political activities than many in the sector appear to believe (see: 10 Ways Charities Have Improved Canadians' Daily Lives). It would seem that at least some of the purported “advocacy chill” often cited in the sector flows from charities themselves not fully understanding the range of activities permitted by the regulator.

While some of the “chill” may be caused by charities’ own lack of understanding of the law, there’s no doubt part of it can also be attributed to the perception of a crackdown on the environmental sector.

While a robust regulator that conducts regular audits is an essential element of a well-functioning charitable sector, being audited is a stressful, time-consuming exercise that distracts from a charity fulfilling its mission. And when you have a government that has openly accused Canadian environmental groups of  “money laundering,” it’s little wonder environmental charities are feeling a little on edge at the moment. Only time will tell how the current audits will go down in the history books.

Obviously, the challenges presented by imperfect case law and an arcane regulatory regime around charities persist today. The Charities Directorate has recently launched a series of tools to help charities understand the rules. And the Pemsel Case Foundation was recently founded with a mission to foster better knowledge and understanding of charity law and regulation by the Canadian public and voluntary sector organizations.

A number of funders, including Max Bell Foundation, have taken an active interest in supporting charities who do public policy advocacy. I would hope these initiatives and others like them will help warm Canadian charities to the idea of doing public policy advocacy — because the potential rewards for all of us are enormous.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Photo: Obert Madondo via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Few Canadians think about public policy, though it touches our lives in innumerable ways every day. Our collective safety and security, well-being and prosperity do not appear out of thin air. They are, in large measure, the outcomes of a vigorous public policy process.

Charities have a long history of playing important roles in that policy process. Here are just 10 examples of policies that have been shaped by the work of Canadian charities.

1) Laws against drunk driving. Mothers Against Drinking and Driving (MADD) Canada has long played a leading role in advocating for stronger policies against impaired driving. MADD Canada emerged in 1989 from an Ontario-based anti-drinking and driving group that was one of several early pioneer organizations that advocated against drinking and driving.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

2) Regulation of tobacco products. The anti-tobacco lobby in Canada dates back to at least the middle of the twentieth century, when the National Cancer Institute of Canada declared there may be a link between lung cancer and smoking. In the subsequent decades, dozens of charities have contributed to the effort to limit the sale and use of tobacco products.

3) Removal of bisphenol-A from baby bottles. In 2000, the Canadian Environmental Law Association turned its attention to the issue of toxins and human health. In the years following, dozens of charities — many of which joined forces in the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment — developed a sound research base and engagement strategy that contributed to a 2008 Health Canada ban on the use of bisphenol-A in baby bottles.

4) The effective provision of mental health services to youth in Ontario.  Starting with careful planning in 2004, Children’s Mental Health Ontario informed the development of a Child and Youth Mental Health and Addictions Strategy for the province. The organization worked for eight years to move the issue of children’s mental health up the provincial health agenda, and in late 2011 was rewarded for its efforts when the provincial government pledged significant funding to help support kids with mental health and addictions issues.

5) The Registered Disability Savings Plan. By the late 1990s, Al Etmanski and his wife Vickie Cammack had concluded that the charity they founded — Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network — needed to focus some of its energy on changing the policy framework to permit families of children with disabilities to better prepare for their children’s financial future. After years of developing credible research and building a constituency, they were rewarded with success. The Registered Disability Savings Plan was announced in the 2007 federal budget.

6) Increases to Alberta's Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped. Each year between 2005 and 2009, the Government of Alberta made increases to the monthly benefit under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. By 2010, charities on the front line serving Alberta’s disabled community believed a further increase was warranted. Dozens of charities — many of which coordinated their efforts through the Alberta Disabilities Forum — continued to make the case until the province announced an additional increase in 2012.

7) The development and delivery of high-quality early childhood care. The charities that have tirelessly devoted their energy to early childhood development and care are too numerous to mention. Canada’s public discourse on this issue is populated by a broad network of universities, service delivery agencies, think tanks and other charities whose most recent success is the emergence of child care as a central issue in the 2015 federal election campaign.

8) The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. While our governments at all levels are the central institutions of public governance, decisions made in the public interest don’t necessarily require government involvement. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement emerged from a long negotiation between the 19 member companies of the Forestry Products Association of Canada and seven leading Canadian environmental non-government organizations.  It aims to ensure sustainable forestry practice in more than 73 million hectares of public forests.

9) The measures that eliminated acid rain. The Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain was formed as a charity in 1981 by 12 member groups. By 1990, when the coalition achieved success with the passage of amendments to the US Clean Air Act, there were 58 member groups, all of whom had contributed to the research, advocacy and education that contributed to ultimate success.

10) The emergent green economy. Dozens of charities in Canada are contributing research, convening, organizing and education elements to a broad-based movement that aims to shift our economy to a more sustainable footing. With any luck, we’ll be able to look back in ten years time and easily identify some big wins.

The list could go on and on, and it’s as varied as the concerns Canadians have for their society, and the hopes they have for its future.

While the list of successes is long and should be celebrated, there is an even longer list of false starts, blind alleys and clear failures in the space between policy decision makers in government and policy advocates in the charitable sector.

No policy advocate can expect success all the time, but as a sector, and as a society, we can do better. And given the complexity of many of the challenges before us — both at home and in our relations with the globalized world — there is good reason to try.

Three Reasons Canadian Charities Are Vital to Creating Public Policy

There are at least three arguments in favour of Canadian charities engaging with governments in the public policy process.

The first invokes deeply held Canadian democratic values. The quality of a democracy depends on considerably more than citizens turning out to vote in elections. The extent to which elections are informed and motivated by citizens engaging with each other on issues they care about is an indicator of the overall health of our political system.

Many Canadian charities are elemental expressions of citizen aspirations to participate in caring for each other and governing ourselves. As such, these groups are an important platform for engagement between citizens and the elected officials and public servants who act on their behalf.

The second argument is that charities often have good policy advice to give. It is expressed very well in Canada Revenue Agency’s Policy Statement on Political Activities (CPS-022):

Through their dedicated delivery of essential programs, many charities have acquired a wealth of knowledge about how government policies affect people's lives. Charities are well placed to study, assess, and comment on those government policies. Canadians benefit from the efforts of charities and the practical, innovative ways they use to resolve complex issues related to delivering social services. Beyond service delivery, their expertise is also a vital source of information for governments to help guide policy decisions. It is therefore essential that charities continue to offer their direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates.

The third argument is that governments need good advice. Much has been written about the diminishing capacity of governments in Canada, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to do the kind of policy development necessary to respond to the challenges they face.

At the same time as their resources are shrinking, governments are facing heightened scrutiny and expectations from an electorate that is increasingly diverse. Canadian charities can help in a range of ways, including bringing front line knowledge to bear, convening stakeholders, facilitating and informing dialogue, delivering and assessing demonstrations and pilots, and providing neutral spaces for engagement.

But most of all, charities serve a vital purpose in bringing the public interest to the forefront of public conversations. Without years of lobbying by Canadian charities, we may well lack many societal features Canadians now cherish.

While charities’ work can have enormous payoffs in the public policy sphere, it’s seldom an easy path, and an arcane regulatory environment leaves many would-be advocates unclear how aggressively charities can lobby for policy change.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Image Credit: David Precious via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

He had no idea he was being taped.

So when influential Washington, DC, political consultant Richard Berman talked about strategy and tactics to the oil and gas industry’s Western Energy Alliance in Colorado Springs this past June, he didn’t mince words.  

“This is an endless war,” Berman said.

The secret tape was published in the New York Times a few weeks ago, released by a displeased oil industry executive, on condition of anonymity.

As he urged industry reps to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, Berman also made one emphatic point:

“People always ask me one question all the time, ‘How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?’ We run all of this stuff through non-profit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us. We've been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.”

The Western Energy Alliance, at whose June meeting Berman laid out his cold-blooded strategy, describes membership as “an investment in the future of the independent oil and gas community in the West.” Its members throughout the U.S. and Canada “share and support our commitment to improve business conditions, expand opportunities and move the industry forward.” 

The only government member of the 480-member Western Energy Alliance is the Canadian Consulate.

Deliberately Misleading the Public

What was Berman, chief executive of Berman & Company, doing talking to the Western Energy Alliance? He was there to raise $3 million from energy executives to pay for an advertising and PR campaign named “Big Green Radicals.”

Berman boasts of having more than 25 “non-profit” front groups that launder money from industry players of all sorts, including the fossil fuel sector, with no way for citizens to find out about this clandestine funding.

“I am religious about not allowing company names to ever get used … And I don't want companies to ever admit that because it does give the other side a way to diminish our message.”

Major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty,” he said.

That strategy sounds familiar back in Canada.

Here’s a deliberately misleading statement that would seem to come straight out of Berman’s manual: “For the fossil fuel industries, the battle with environmental activists is no longer David versus Goliath.”

But this wasn’t a statement from Berman — no, this is the final sentence of an article by Vancouver "researcher" Vivian Krause, who came out of the woodwork in the fall of 2009 when she first started writing a blog called Fair Questions, taking aim at the David Suzuki Foundation’s work on farmed salmon and the support it received from U.S. charitable foundations.

Fun fact: Krause is a nutritionist who worked doing PR for the farmed salmon industry. But it didn’t take long for her so-called “fair questions” to extend to many other environmental issues and organizations.

Instead of searching for a fair answer, Krause settled upon a conspiracy theory. It was to be a story she told over and over again — and it goes like this:

The corporate sector is beleaguered by rich environmental groups bolstered by money from U.S. charitable foundations with a hidden, self-interested agenda — not to do good in the world, or protect the environment, but to attack Canadian competition.

Krause wrote that U.S. foundations were funding work to “demarket” Canadian oil, so the U.S. can control the market. She attacked one of British Columbia's greatest conservation achievements, The Great Bear Rainforest agreement, as part of this conspiracy, calling the forest, "The Great Trade Barrier."

She pursued this theory with blinders on — ignoring all other money in the debate, ignoring all rational explanations for U.S. foundations funding work in Canada and ignoring organizations like Ethical Oil and British Columbians for Prosperity that tout Krause’s arguments but don’t disclose their own sources of funding.

Krause’s work is largely responsible for providing the federal government the ammunition it needed to earmark $13 million for the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct audits of charities’ “political activities.” Diverting the attention of environmental groups to decrease their effectiveness is another strategy out of Big Oil’s dirty PR playbook — as indicated in the Edelman documents outlining a strategy to do just that in the TransCanada Energy East pipeline debate.

Krause has maintained she’s working out of her North Vancouver basement apartment, driven by a sense of injustice to right a wrong. No one was paying her. In fact, she was living on her savings. It seemed an implausible story given the time she put into the work.  

Eventually, Vancouver businessperson and civic advocate Sandy Garossino managed to get Krause to admit on Twitter that more than 90 per cent of her income from 2012 onward has come from resource sector speaking fees.

But this hasn’t stopped her message being picked up verbatim by those who agree with it.

In July 2014, Krause’s work was published in the fossil fuel industry magazine, Alberta Oil, an updated version of the same-old-same-old story.

Her message — now also Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s message — is reinforced by other contributors in the issue of Alberta Oil. There’s Ezra Levant, the abrasive Sun Media host, and author of "Ethical Oil" who asserts: “Some organizations are on the payroll, like the Council of Canadians, that took $1.6 million from U.S. foundations to fight against fracking.”

The editor of Alberta Oil, Sebastian Gault, tells readers that Krause “uncovered an international sponsored scheme [he just about said “conspiracy,” didn’t he?] to stall energy development.”

He adds: “We now have a better understanding of the rise of Big Green and its influence over pseudo-grassroots organizations working against the resource sector.”

"Big Green?" Guess where that term comes from? Straight from Rick Berman, who vowed to wage a campaign he would call “Big Green Radicals."  

Embarrass them publicly, ridicule them, don't worry about playing fair or being honest, the goal is simple: win. That is Berman's message and Krause’s years of attacks on Canadian environmental groups seem to play from his book.

—

Editor’s Note:

We know that upon publishing this article, angry tweets and messages in the form of personal attacks will be aimed at damaging the credibility of DeSmog Canada. 

We know this will happen because this is what Krause and her followers do again and again, straight from the Berman script. This makes many journalists wary of challenging what Krause says and particularly intimidates those she directly attacks.

But DeSmog Canada exists to cut through the spin clouding the debate on important national issues such as natural resource development, the economy and democracy — and we wouldn’t be doing our job if we shied away from this topic. 

Next up: Digging Deeper into Vivian Krause's Disingenuous Anti-Environment Witch Hunt

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.