Vivian Krause's attempts to get answers to her fair questions of Gregor Robertson and his acolytes continues in spite of the Mayor's refusal to provide a forthcoming response. This latest post from Vivian Krause's Fair-Questions.com website has a terse letter of response from Robertson, once again evading the questions.
In the letter Robertson says, "Your letter is asking several questions about business matters of third parties and as such I would encourage you to contact them for your answers." Those "third parties" are all the people who gave him money to get elected.
It was a big kiss-off from Mayor Gregor, but Vivian Krause promises there was no mistletoe involved.
See Thursday's Financial Post for another commentary piece by Krause based upon her recent experience speaking to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources. And now, Vivian's latest post...
Since July, I have sent a series of letters to Mayor Gregor Robertson to convey my concern that a substantial amount of his campaign finance (both with Vision Vancouver and with the NDP) may have originated from the Endswell Foundation, a registered charity that is intimately involved with Tides Canada.
Today, I received a letter from Mayor Robertson. He doesn't answer any of my questions.
Two of my main question are:
1) Campaign Finance from a Registered Charity?
Did $159,783 of Vision Vancouver campaign finance and $49,172 for his 2005 NDP campaign, originate from the Endswell Foundation, a registered charity that is intimately involved with Tides Canada? Since 2003, the Endswell Foundation spent $11.4 Million on overhead while 99 percent of Endswell's grants went to Tides Canada. What about the Vision Vancouver campaign finance from Interdependent Investments Ltd. - which was paid $1.2 Million by the Endswell Foundation (1997 - 2008)?
If Mayor Gregor Robertson is confident that none of his campaign finance originated from a registered charity, why doesn't he simply say so?
2) The "Strategic Plan" to Address B.C.'s Oil & Gas Industry
What is the "strategic plan" that Tides Canada was paid $70,000 to develop while Mayor Gregor Robertson was a director of Tides Canada? The stated purpose of that plan was "to address the oil and gas industry in British Columbia?"
- Did the "strategic plan" involve thwarting oil exports to Asia by blocking oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast - all in the name of marine conservation?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve Tides Canada or Tides USA funding a large number of organizations to campaign in concert against Alberta oil - as reported recently in the Financial Post and the Vancouver Sun?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve making HUGE payments to First Nations, such as the $27.3 Million that Tides Canada quietly paid to two, small First Nations, in 2008?
- Did the "strategic plan" involve supporting a particular political party, or a particular politician?
- post by Vivian Krause. Follow Vivian on Twitter @FairQuestions.
Read "Demarketing Alberta" in today's Financial Post
Here's an excerpt of Vivian Krause's op/ed published today from coast to coast...
Last week, Michael Ignatieff and 142 other Members of Parliament voted in favour of a motion to ban oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia. This week, Liberal MP Joyce Murray from Vancouver Quadra introduced Bill C-606 to put that motion into law by amending the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit oil tanker traffic on the north and central coast of British Columbia.
Ms. Murray and every single one of those MPs played right into the hands of the U.S. foundations seeking to block oil tanker traffic. Whether intentional or not, these actions will also stop oil exports to Asia. On the surface, this is about oil, Canada’s single most important export. More important, this is about the sovereignty of our country, which should be decided by Canadians, not foreign-funded campaigns.
The charge to pressure MPs to vote for a tanker ban was led by the Dogwood Initiative. In 2009, a U.S. foundation paid $30,000 to the U.S. Tides Foundation to fund the Dogwood Initiative “to expand an outreach campaign to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tankers.” Another U.S. foundation paid the Dogwood Initiative “to help grow public opposition to counter the Enbridge pipeline construction …”
In 2006, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid $100,000 to the Pembina Foundation and $100,000 to the Westcoast Environmental Law Research Foundation, “To prevent the development of a pipeline and tanker port that would endanger the Great Bear Rainforest.”