EthicalOil
 

Why is Ottawa funding the foreign anti-oil lobby?

February 1st, 2012  |  By: Kathryn

You can tell that ForestEthics has a foreign point of view: the things they say sound so utterly foreign to reasonable Canadians.

Take Tzeporah Berman, a founding member of ForestEthics, the radical environmental group behind publicly bullying fortune 500 companies into swearing off Canadian ethically produced oil . She recently accused the federal government of trying to “silence dissent” in the debate over the Northern Gateway pipeline project proposal.

Right. That’s why the government’s regulatory hearings are scheduled to hear testimony from more than 4,500 interveners and testifiers — a huge contingent of which are from environmental groups opposed to the pipeline, many of them funded by foreign dollars. One foreign-backed group, The Dogwood Initiative, claims that as many as 40% of those speakers are people they signed up. The government has invited powerful, moneyed foreign interests to dispatch their lobbyists to sabotage our energy policy decisions, and that’s “silencing dissent”?

ForestEthics is, by the way, one of those foreign-funded groups. It’s not only being allowed to meddle in Canada’s regulatory decisions, it’s actually being funded by Ottawa to do it.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) has set aside $2.8 million to fund 50 groups looking to testify at the pipeline hearings. Forest Ethics has bellied right up to the trough and helped itself to $60,000 of taxpayer dollars, even though the group is collecting a fortune — more than $1 million — from its rich American backers to campaign here in Canada.

You read that right: Ottawa is using taxpayers’ money to subsidize the very same groups — the lobbyists of rich American billionaires — so they can sabotage our energy projects.

It’s not only outrageous, it’s lunacy. This federal government has talked a very good game, standing up for the importance of a Gateway pipeline, and criticizing the foreign radical groups trying to hijack our energy decisions. But if Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver and the rest of the Conservatives really want to stop this attack by foreign-funded radicals, a place to start would be to cut off their federal funding.

 

 

 

  • Disco16.9

    You clearly have no idea how regulatory hearings work. Intraveneing takes time,energy and resources and is in the public interest. How can regulators decide if this project is in the public interest if they only hear from those with money. Rural landowners also get money to talk if they are impacted by an energy project.

    I also love how you crticize the forest ethics for saying they are being silenced and then you call them foreign-funded radicals. Please go back on cbc again, that was awesome.

    • Gfletcher

      Disco: Intravenors do not have to take as much time as the Hearing panel has allotted them. 16 people saying the same thing as 1 can be done by one person……duh!! All else is playing into the Rockefeller plan to delay via volume intravenors. This is a major mistake provided by the Chair – Ms. Leggatt.

      Forest Ethics is using the “we are being silenced” lie to attract more members and money. And they ARE funded by the Rockefeller radicals.

      What’s your point?

      • Disco16.9

        Well I think my point is that the GOC has made it clear that this pipeline will happen regardless of the independent process that has been set up to determine if it is in the ‘public interest’. Harper continually uses the rhetoric that the market determines our energy strategy but when he gets any opposition, he uses the GOC to undermine environmental organization and everyday citizens who have a stake in this pipeline. To bad its backfired and the pipeline has more media and opposition then it did 2 months ago. Meanwhile, this website and those associated have lost serious credibility.

  • Disco16.9

    A small ENGO ‘bullied’ a Fortune 500 company… give me a break.

  • Gigi

    I cannot believe how much you people suck as human beings.

  • Jen Tao

    The continual focus on spinning your propaganda is wearing thin. All you have accomplished is to polarize the two sides of this issue; you are preaching to the converted. Your transparent and embarrassing two faced argument has helped environmental groups; donations are way up. The rest of us middle grounders dislike being treated like children who cannot make a decision based on facts and data which, as a good propaganda campaign requires, are lacking.
    You say you support the process of environmental review yet in the same breath speak of streamlining the process so big projects aren’t held up by people and groups who oppose them. Your blame on foreign hijackers is so two faced, any one who takes the time to research is disgusted with your attempts to use this excuse to cut funding to CANADIAN environmental groups because they receive foreign backing. Meanwhile, billions of dollars have gone into developing a project before environmental reviews were completed. This seems like bad business to me unless the government plans to ram it through regardless of the environment and

  • Jen Tao

    Nice attempt at distancing yourself from the government, the wheels are spinning in propaganda land. I’m done. If this project is in the best interest of all Canadians why can’t you show facts-hard data? Have a site to answer real questions, like why did Canadians pay over 75% of our total tax revenue in 2011 when ALL corporate taxes only generated about 13%? I with the job creation stats just released I’m not convinced that having so many tax breaks for oil companies in a benefit to Canadians. Please, convince me otherwise, with facts. another question you can answer for me-if an American oil and gas company can build a pipeline from ft st John to chicago, why can’t we send gas to the east and reduce or eliminate out dependency on foreign oil? canada should not have to buy close to half of our gas from outside Canada. I have many more questions and if you could

  • Kleiniken

    These eco gangs like forest ethics continually try to pervert democracy against the will and benefit of the Canadian people. I have long thought that hearings for regional issues like pipelines should adopt similar procedures to municipal land use planning. Specifically adopting some concept of standing. In municipal land use planning you must live within a certain radius of a development for you to have standing. All these wacko groups with propoganda arms that would make Hitler proud should be precluded from speaking at these hearing as they have no interest in these pipeline projects other than to pervert democracy and destroy the Canadian way of life.

EthicalOil