Follow us on:
There's nothing ethical about false allegations
back to the issue
Click a term to initiate a search.
topics
- Tar Sands (44)
- Toxic Nation (44)
- Blue Flag (29)
- Just Beautiful (26)
- Great Lakes (23)
- Clean Energy (17)
- Lake Simcoe (15)
- Greenbelt (14)
- Good Green Jobs (9)
- Banning Bisphenol A (2)
Mar
22
2012
Today, we received word that an organization linked to the oil industry, that refuses to disclose its own sources of funding, has called for our charitable status to be revoked for what it incorrectly considers the breaking of charities law. The ...
Today, we received word that an organization linked to the oil industry, that refuses to disclose its own sources of funding, has called for our charitable status to be revoked for what it incorrectly considers the breaking of charities law. The allegation that we have violated our legal obligations under Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) policy is without basis in law or in fact. We abide by the letter and the spirit of the law and never engage in partisan activities. For 28 years, we have conducted research and education, partnered with academics and industry, and worked with politicians of all stripes to make positive environmental change a reality.
It's no secret that Ethical Oil differs with our stance on Canada's tar sands, but rather than engaging in a thoughtful debate, Ethical Oil has instead decided to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with it. This does a disservice to all Canadians who care about working towards a healthier, more sustainable energy future for our country.
We will continue our work to raise awareness among Canadians about the environmental risks of tar sands development, new pipelines and other projects that pose a threat to human health and the environment. We will engage with any organization, company or government that wants to have a meaningful discussion about Canada’s energy future.
According to Ethical Oil’s complaint, voicing dissent is a partisan activity. Democracy is about having the freedom to voice dissent, and environmental organizations make sure environmental perspectives are heard. We will not be intimidated by false allegations.
leave a comment
Mar
22
2012
Keep on Truckin Away.
cheryl huxted says:
stay strong and thanks for speaking for so many of us Canadians. Without groups like yours what a tangled web it would be!
Mar
22
2012
Dissent
John C says:
Your voices are ones of dissent based only on the premise that the oil companies, and other multi-national conglomerates, own public opinion, our societies and our governments. While the latter is apparent, the two former are not. Yours is not a voice of dissent, but of reason and hope. It is consistent with what people want and what our societies want. The dissenting voice in the equation is from those who would continue the rape and pillage of the land, the people and the environment all for the sake of their own greed.
Mar
23
2012
I agree with Ezra - you should not be allowed charitable status
c jones says:
Mr. Smith, I happen to agree with Ezra. You should not be charitable status. I think you were also proud enough to say you would take bags of money from "martians".
See you later.
crj
Mar
23
2012
Registered charitable status.
Susan Linkletter says:
Just because you disagree with the mandate of a charity does not mean that its charitable status should be revoked. If we went by that criteria every religious organization would have their charitable status revoked by atheists. If you don't agree with a charities objective then don't support it, but it should have the right to remain a charity whether we agree with its statutes or not - as long as it is not spewing hatred and intolerance.
Mar
24
2012
There are guidelines for assessing org's charitable status
F. White says:
Rick Smith writes: "The allegation that we have violated our legal obligations under Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) policy is without basis in law or in fact. We abide by the letter and the spirit of the law and never engage in partisan activities."
Simply making this assertion without citing the documentary evidence to defend it is not good enough.
In my opinion, Smith would have helped his cause considerably, as well as his request for a donation, had he referred to two government documents: (1) "The Guidelines for Registering a Charity: Meeting the Public Benefit Test", March 10, 2006 at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-024-eng.html; and (2) "CRA Policy Statement: Political Activities", effective Date Sept. 2, 2003, accessible at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-022-eng.html.
Part 4 of this latter document is particularly relevant to this disagreement between the two organizations: "4. The difference between political purposes and charitable purposes"
It's too bad that neither organization helped its supporters to reach their own decision regarding which position is more solidly grounded in the policy guidelines.
Mar
30
2012
A lesson in 'ad hominem'
Robert says:
Ethical Oil's attack clearly has no merit if you understand charitable law. It does not take a point by point explanation. Their attack is what is known as 'ad hominem' defined as:
"an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it"
They are attempting to silence Environmental Defence, as opposed to making rational arguments. Its a common enough tactic amongst crooks, liars and cheaters the world over.
Mar
23
2012
Conservative? Ethical?
S MacKinnon says:
We have come full circle. The only voices of reason now emanate from the so-called radical groups while our "leaders" and their controlling corporations continue down the radical path of destroying their own (and our) environment. Keep up the good work, we have so little time to make many massive changes in our society.
Mar
23
2012
Sounds like a SLAPP to me
Louisette Lanteigne says:
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation is a legal process used to deplete funding, in this case, it is clearly an attempt to deplete the funds of one of Canada's most successful environmental defenders. Are Canadians going to sit by and watch this happen? Heck no. I'm sending my donation in right now and I encourage others to do the same. It's time to rise up and show support.
Mar
23
2012
I'm finding it hard to see
Capt. says:
I'm finding it hard to see how an organization that's hounded both Liberal and Conservative governments on apolitical environmental issues -- and awarded environmental accolades to a former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister -- could be labelled "partisan". As both Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Minister of Environment Peter Kent have acknowledged on more than one occasion in the House of Commons, climate change results from human activities. Objective scientific evidence suggests that public policy decisions in Canada exacerbate the onset and effects of climate change. Exercising the Charter-granted right to free speech and drawing public attention to the disparity between public statements and public policy decisions is in no way political or partisan.
Hope this clears things up.
Apr
01
2012
charitable status
Anne Bauman says:
Given that a right-wing corporate apologist like the Fraser Institute has charitable status, you may be more comfortable without it. I don't think a tax deduction for donations is going to be of huge importance to Canadians who believe in your work, and if you don't have any favours conferred by Revenue Canada you're free to be as outspoken as you wish.
I followed your link to "ethical" oil's website and see that they're offering ideas for letters to newspapers, whose stock phrases include "politically oppressive and environmentally reckless regimes" and "conflict oil," also touting Canada as "one of the few that respects human rights, promotes peace, and upholds the rule of law." Tar humour!
Comments
We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy