B.C.'s Christy Clark government is proposing to overhaul the Societies Act, and they've distributed a snoozer of a White Paper to let you know all about it.

If you've dozed off already, WAKE UP, because there's a massive zinger quietly planted deep inside. You can do something about it — more on that at the end of this post. But unmentioned in any preamble or executive summary, Section 99 allows any person (including corporations) to take any registered society to court that they believe is acting contrary to the public interest — whatever that is.

Here it is:

Complaints by public

99 (1) A person whom the court considers to be an appropriate person to make an application under this section may apply to the court for an order under this section on the grounds that a society

(b) is carrying on activities that are detrimental to the public interest.

In other words, environmental non-profit groups better watch their step because they're in the cross-hairs. Premier Clark is handing the legal hammer to Enbridge, Kinder Morgan, ExxonMobil, Koch, Encana, Chevron, Sinopec, Suncor and the entire B.C. LNG sector to tie non-profits up in court for years.

Section 99 looks like Clark's close advisor Gwyn Morgan drafted it up during half-time at last year's Grey Cup. Not a single competent lawyer within the Ministry of Justice could say with a straight face that it's constitutional. The clear intent is to silence and intimidate Canadian conservation and environmental non-profits with the threat of litigation. And if mere threat doesn't work, this legislation enables the corporate sector to bludgeon them into lawsuit bankruptcy.

This proposal is one of the most ill-conceived and draconian initiatives to see the light of day in a modern democracy, and reveals the extent of Clark's captivity by the oil and gas lobby. (And one more reason B.C. political leaders should be prevented from funding their election campaigns at the Petroleum Club in Calgary).

But as policy, it's also breathtakingly stupid. As if B.C. doesn't already have the mother of all court backlogs to cope with, the Clark government now proposes to fill up the system with disgruntled parents taking out their beefs in court against a minor hockey association or local elementary school parent advisory council. It will be open season on abortion clinics, LGBTQ organizations and mosques. Don't think for a minute that won't happen.

The real backdrop, of course, is that the Harper government has been on a tear against environmentalists for years, muzzling our scientists and attempting to discredit Canadian environmental NGOs.

The government has spent millions in fruitless CRA revenge audits hunting for a wholly imaginary conspiracy involving Canadian environmental organizations and U.S. scientific and charitable foundations. This vendetta has cost both the charitable sector and public purse untold funds in accounting and legal fees, over nothing.

Agree or disagree with the environmental movement, its members are entitled, as are all of us, to contribute vigorously to public debate over resource development. No one in a free and democratic society should be silenced or censored by fear of government-sanctioned reprisal. But that is precisely the purpose of this legislation.

Christy Clark would do well to remember that Canada is a free nation — our constitution says so. British Columbians, including non-profits, are free to do what we want, express ourselves freely and associate with whomever we choose to, unless it's for an unlawful purpose.

If government wants to limit that freedom it must abide by the Charter of Rights, not force citizens to meet a vague test like "public interest," which doesn't mean the same thing to any two people in the province. That would be the same Charter of Rights that Justice Susan Griffin pounded the B.C. government with during the teachers' dispute.

This White Paper is open to comments by the public until the end of day Wednesday Oct. 15. E-mail yours to the Financial and Corporate Sector Policy Branch here: fcsp@gov.bc.ca

Photo: Chris Yakimov.

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.

On March 25, 2012, the Compliance Division of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) received a letter from Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (aka JSS Barristers). In 11 detailed pages, JSS Barristers lodged a complaint against Environmental Defence, a charity registered with the CRA, on behalf of Ezra Levant’s brainchild, the Ethical Oil Institute. A month later, on April 24, the JSS-Ethical Oil team sent the CRA a second, similar letter, this one a 44-page imputation that the David Suzuki Foundation, like Environmental Defence, was “in contravention of the CRA rules surrounding registered charities and political activity.”

According to the CRA, and as echoed in the Ethical Oil Institute’s complaints against Environmental Defence and the Suzuki Foundation, a charity may not be created for a political purpose, and it can't "take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity." Specifically, the CRA states that charitable organizations must devote "substantially all" (i.e. 90%) of their resources to charitable activities, and that any political activity is "subordinate" to its stated purpose.

That's not to say that charities can't promote their work and educate the public about issues that have political implications. But in doing so they must ensure that public awareness campaigns aren't their "primary activity, and their information must be "well-reasoned." It goes without saying that they don't connect their views to specific political parties or candidates.

As an example, the CRA states that "a purpose such as improving the environment by reducing the sulphur content of gasoline would very likely require changes in government regulations. Generally, any purpose that suggests convincing or needing people to act in a certain way and which is contingent upon a change to law or government policy (e.g., "the abolition of" or "the total suppression of animal experimentation") is a political purpose."

Given all of this, and given the Ethical Oil Institute’s obvious concern about registered charities flouting CRA rules — namely, engaging in partisan political activity, or spending too much time and money influencing public opinion about laws, policies, or government decisions — it’s surprising that Ethical Oil didn’t send a third letter complaining about perhaps the most politically partisan of all Canadian charities — the infamous Fraser Institute.

“The problem with political ENGOs with charitable status is that they act like political advocates, and even partisans, but they expect the tax treatment of Mother Teresa,” Levant told the Vancouver Observer recently, adding that EthicalOil.org isn’t a registered charity. "We don't pretend to be in the same moral category as feeding the hungry or housing the homeless — and so we don't get an exemption from the Income Tax Act like registered charities do.”

But the Fraser Institute does. Variously described as “conservative” and “libertarian," Ethical Oil’s brother in arms works toward “a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility.”

While such rhetoric sounds great on the surface, there’s much more to it than meets the eye. The Fraser Institute has spent approximately $100 million since its inception in the mid-1970s to sanctify the neo-liberal principles of Frederick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman.

At once maligned (by the political left) and celebrated (by the political right), the Fraser Institute represents a free-market libertarianism popularized by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and embraced almost wholly by Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives and the Conservative Party of Canada. Although it vehemently maintains its independence and objectivity, the Institute focuses its research on lower taxes, smaller government, less market “interference” and privatized social services — all of which benefit the corporate sector.

“The Fraser Institute is a small cog in a global wheel of reaction designed to roll back the democratic gains of the 20th century,” says Donald Gutstein, a professor at Simon Fraser University and the author of Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Uses Propaganda to Manipulate Us (Key Porter, 2009).

And that makes it inherently a political organization, writes David Climenhaga, an author, teacher, trade union communicator and former journalist with the Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald.  

“The Fraser Institute strives to change Canadians' political attitudes so they will place far-right political parties like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in power, and keep them there. It works relentlessly to restructure our political architecture in ways that will make it difficult for citizens to seize back their own country. And it fields an army of ‘former researchers — Danielle Smith, leader of the far-right Wildrose Party here in Alberta is a prominent example — who play an overtly political role.”

As Climenhaga notes, its annual report reads like a who’s who of former conservative politicians, prominent businessmen, and pro-free market academics. Not surprisingly, the energy sector is well represented. Gwyn Morgan, former president and CEO of EnCana, is a long-serving supporter and member of the board of trustees. So are Steve Snyder, president and CEO of Transalta; W. W. Siebens, president and CEO of Candor Investments Ltd. and a Petro-Canada director since 1986, and John Hagg, former chairman and CEO of Northstar Energy Corporation and principal of Tristone Capital Inc — to name but a few.

Senior fellows have included prolific Calgary Herald op-ed contributor Barry Cooper and the University of Calgary's Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper’s former chief advisor and a key part of the Wildrose Party’s recent ascendance. Academic and former Alberta MLA Ted Morton was also a Fraser Institute fellow before he took office (and may end up back there given his loss in the recent Alberta election). Preston Manning was there, too, as was King Ralph Klein himself.

Even Ezra Levant, the political right’s unapologetic mouthpiece, cut his teeth with the Fraser Institute, writing Youthquake (a treatise arguing for smaller government, including privatization of the Canada Pension Plan) while a student intern in 1995.

Given these connections, it’s not surprising the Fraser Institute held its 30th anniversary gala at Calgary’s Hyatt Regency Imperial Ballroom, where then-Alberta premier Klein told 1,200 adoring libertarians and conservatives that, “The Government of Alberta is proud to adhere to the public policy direction of the Fraser Institute.”

But what of its purported political activity? Does the work of the Fraser Institute, a registered charity, contravene the Income Tax Act or CRA policy?

A few examples will suffice to make a case at least as compelling as Ethical Oil’s attack on Environmental Defence and the Suzuki Foundation.

First, it would seem that the Fraser Institute explicitly communicates to the public calls for laws and policies to be changed. The Fraser Institute’s recent report, Follow Indiana’s Lead: Canadian Provinces Should Give Workers Choice[PDF], urged Canadians to adopt "right-to-work" laws typical of those U.S. states south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Once Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party had won its long-sought majority, the Fraser Institute jumped into the fray to demand that he change Canada's election spending laws to "abolish" all per-vote subsidies for political parties.

Earlier this May, the Fraser Institute’s Mark Milke wrote (apparently without irony) that “Canada’s cartel-like supply management boards should be abolished,” because “they cement an undesirable nexus between politics and money,” among other reasons.

What about government policy about the Canada Pension Plan? The Fraser Institute says, change it! The Harper government obliged, increasing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67, but that wasn't good enough for the Fraser Institute, which demands yet more clawbacks.

What of Bill C-323, which would allow people anywhere in the world to use the Canadian courts to hear civil cases against, say, Canadian mining companies who violate international laws or treaties to which Canada is party? The Fraser Institute says bury it, because this “reckless” bill would leave Canadian firms vulnerable to huge risks and costs (if they are found to have violated the law).

There's also the little matter of offering "well-reasoned" positions, which the CRA defines as "factual information that is methodically, objectively, fully, and fairly analyzed." To cite just one example, the Fraser Institute's research on environmental issues appears to leave much to be desired. For instance, the Fraser Institute's annual Environmental Indicators report analyzes environmental trends, routinely concluding that "contrary to public opinion, in most instances objectives for protecting human health and the environment are being met, pollution and wastes are being controlled, and resources and land are being sustainably and effectively managed.”

Hilda McKenzie and William Rees (an award-winning ecologist at the University of British Columbia) were suspicious of such claims, so they vetted the 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2004 editions of Environmental Indicators. In "Analysis of a Brownlash Report," a 2007 paper in the journal Ecological Economics, McKenzie and Rees concluded the reports were fraught with errors, including "a narrow scope," and "various problematic omissions" and "distortions," which allowed the authors to draw overly optimistic conclusions and report recommendations that fit the Institute's small government, less regulation philosophy.

Lauded in the mainstream press for presenting "good news" about the environment, and for bucking the trend of "finding environmental gloom under every rock," such disingenuous "brownlash" analyses provide the public with incomplete or downright erroneous information, hindering, rather than helping, citizens and policymakers make sound, long-term decisions about how to balance economic activity and environmental protection.

Does the Fraser Institute deserve an audit? I’m no lawyer, but if JSS Barristers feel there’s a strong enough case to be made for an audit of Environmental Defence and the Suzuki Foundation, then the evidence seems to indicate similar treatment for the Fraser Institute.

Given the Harper government’s handling of the F-35 stealth fighter fiasco, and its relentless attack on environmental groups, a little transparency would go a long way. So why not throw the Fraser Institute on the CRA Black List too?

Ed. note: We're excited to welcome Jeff to the DeSmog team. He'll be a regular contributor going forward. For more information about the Fraser Institute, read Jeff's attached article "Mind Games" [PDF] from the March 2009 edition of Alberta Views magazine.

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.

EthicalOil.org’s new spokesperson, Kathryn Marshall, authored an insulting piece this week on the Huffington Post titled "Care About Women's Rights? Support Ethical Oil". Marshall’s piece is a response to the October 11 article by Maryam Adrangi at It’s Getting Hot In Here.  Adrangi argues that the underlying motive of the "ethical oil" campaign is to deflect negative attention from the tar sands, not to actually engage in a conversation about women’s liberation.

“If women’s rights were of genuine concern to EthicalOil.org” writes Adrangi, “then there would be a conversation about the impacts that tar sands extraction has on women”.

You’ll notice that Marshall’s attempted rebuttal fails to actually address the substantive criticisms made in Adrangi’s piece – Marshall never mentions the impacts of Alberta’s tar sands development on women, but instead repeats the same arguments and general hand-waving that sparked Adrangi’s criticism of EthicalOil.org's conservative pundits in the first place.

Marshall’s promotion of tar sands oil is framed around a central argument that if we care about women’s rights then we must support tar sands expansion, and by extension the Keystone XL pipeline, because Canadian women fare far better than women in petrocracies, such as Saudi Arabia.  But Marshall’s argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny for three major reasons.

The first is that increasing tar sands output will not hurt the Saudi sheiks' coffers. TransCanada’s own research proves that the Keystone XL pipeline was never meant to decrease our reliance on foreign oil, just to keep Gulf Coast refineries at capacity. As global demand for oil keeps going up, a marginal shift in Canadian and US consumption will be offset by growing demand from other countries, keeping prices high and continuing to enrich the oppressive Saudi regime. Expanding the tar sands just buys Saudi Arabia a bit more time to profit before we are compelled to shift away from oil addiction towards a clean energy future – the real 'ethical' choice.

This leads to the second major flaw in Ethicaloil.org’s argument: it presents the reader with a false choice. Marshall’s bait-and-switch suggests that we must make a choice between “conflict oil” and “ethical oil”. On the contrary, you can simultaneously support women’s rights and oppose Alberta’s tar sands. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, to say the least. If we really want to hurt the regimes of oppressive petrocracies, then the wise choice is to end our addiction to fossil fuels and move rapidly towards a clean energy economy, setting a model that the rest of the world can follow. EthicalOil.org's entire line of reasoning is a diversionary tactic designed to obscure this hard reality. It's a red herring, and a dangerous one at that.

Third, Marshall’s emotional appeal tells readers that because women’s rights are worse in petrocracries, then we needn’t concern ourselves with what’s happening in Canada. In Canada, we have female mayors and premiers. We are a liberal democratic nation that respects human rights. I agree that the plight of women in many petrocracies is grave, but that does not mean that the plight of many women in Canada deserves less consideration from Canadians. 

We can and should engage in critical discussions on women’s rights in Canada. And tar sands expansion forces us to explore some of these issues head-on.

In Alberta’s tar sands region in particular, rates of sexual violence towards women have increased and women working in the industry have reported sexual harassment and gender discrimination. With expansion of the tar sands industry, instances of domestic violence in Fort McMurray have spiralled upwards, and few women have safe places to go, forcing many to return home to their abusers.

Instead of pretending that expanding the tar sands will somehow help women in Saudi Arabia, let's talk about how we can help Canadian women impacted right here at home by tar sands expansion. 

Marshall boldly demands to know where Canadian women’s groups have been in speaking out against Saudi women’s oppression. Did she ever think to ask these groups? I did. For one, Jan Slakov, the National Secretary for Canadian Voices of Women for Peace, the organization that Marshall attacks in her piece, told me, 

"The Canadian Voice of Women for Peace has worked to support women's rights and well-being, not just in Canada, but around the world. Groups have raised funds to support programs in countires where women face systematic human rights abuses. We also work at the international level to support women's rights through the UN."

As a Women’s Studies graduate, Marshall should know that Canadian women's rights groups are engaged in this fight directly. Instead, Marshall, while claiming to be an advocate of women’s rights, erases the history of the women’s rights movement in Canada and its work in global solidarity with women living under oppressive regimes. I can’t speak for women’s groups, but I think it’s telling that we haven’t heard any credible organizations supporting EthicalOil.org’s message. I suspect they see right through EthicalOil.org’s insincere issue hijacking. 

"We recognize that extreme weather events associated with climate change disproportionately affect women, especially in the world's poorest countries.  This is one of the many reasons why we feel it is essential that Canada do its part to cut GHG emissions to the earth's atmosphere."

Marshall's attempts to disparage Canadian women's rights groups proves Maryam Adrangi’s point: “When we get attention, they get defensive and they look silly.” 

And what else frankly looks silly is Kathryn Marshall's connections to the oil lobby. Marshall learned her pro-oil talking points as an intern with the fossil fuel-funded Fraser Institute. Their internship program is funded in part by oil and gas money, including Gwyn Morgan of Encana and R.J. Pirie of Sabre Energy. Until July 2009, Marshall worked as Fraser's Development Manager and raised over $125,000 to promote pro-oil, free market thinking.

Given this, it's clear whose interests she's chiefly representing, and it isn't women's rights. It's the oil industry and its status quo profiteering without regard to the impacts of pollution on our planet, our familes and especially our women.

Ethicaloil.org,  if you really care about women’s rights, how about engaging in a real discussion of the impacts of the tar sands on First Nations communities and women? Prove you’re engaged in the advancement of women’s rights by joining the conversation about how to actually challenge oppressive Saudi sheiks –through a transition to a clean energy future. 

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.