Green B.C. Liberals foiled Kevin Falcon's leadership bid by backing Christy Clark in final round
Some B.C. environmentalists are taking credit for stopping Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Kevin Falcon from becoming premier.
During the recent B.C. Liberal leadership campaign, conservationists infiltrated the party to defeat Falcon, a former transportation minister who spearheaded major road-building projects. On the final ballot on February 26, Falcon ended up with 48 percent of the points compared to 52 percent for the winner, Christy Clark.
The previous day, a volunteer group called Conservation Voters of B.C. urged voting environmentalists to rank Falcon last on the B.C. Liberals’ transferable ballot. A group calling itself B.C. Green Liberals issued the same recommendation to its members.
“I would say that we had the effect of helping to keep Falcon from becoming the premier of B.C.,” Kevin Washbrook, a director of the Conservation Voters of B.C., told the Georgia Straight by phone.
Another director of the group, Will Horter, told the Straight by phone that the campaign “dramatically shifted the vote” in certain constituencies.
He guessed that between 3,000 and 5,000 environmentalists joined the B.C. Liberals during the leadership campaign, and he estimated that they controlled about six percent of the weighted vote. According to Horter, they were concentrated more heavily in constituencies on Vancouver Island, Vancouver, and in the Kootenays, which are mostly represented by NDP MLAs.
Most of those ridings leaned heavily toward Clark in the final round. In Vancouver-Fairview, where MLA Margaret MacDiarmid endorsed Falcon, Clark ended up with 70.1 percent of the points in the final round. In Alberni-Pacific Rim, Clark collected 68.8 percent of the points. And in Kootenay West, she got 60.3 percent.
The B.C. Liberal party gave each of the 85 constituencies 100 points, regardless of the number of members. Horter explained that environmentalists could have a greater impact in ridings where there weren’t many B.C. Liberal members.
In the end, 42 constituencies were targeted: each had either as many identified supporters of environmental groups as the Liberals had members or at least half as many supporters as Liberal members.
“When I did a quick analysis, 14 of the 20 ridings where Falcon polled the lowest were in our target,” Horter said. “It’s pretty clear that we suppressed his vote dramatically.”
Falcon, who was supported by 11 cabinet ministers, did not return a message from the Straight to discuss the outcome of the vote.
Meanwhile, Richard May, a political consultant to the B.C. Green Liberals, told the Straight by phone that more than 4,000 party members followed his slate’s recommendation. Like the Conservation Voters of B.C., his group ranked Mike de Jong first, George Abbott second, and Christy Clark third.
“It’s not like any of the B.C. Liberal candidates were great,” May admitted.
After the second count, Falcon had 30.17 percent of the points and Clark had 42.05 percent. Third-place finisher George Abbott, who won 27.78 percent of the points, was removed from the ballot for the third round.
Abbott had previously announced that his second choice was Falcon, but not enough of his supporters went along with that recommendation to give Falcon a victory.
“It would have added up to 58 percent if all of Abbott’s supporters had followed Abbott’s request for them to vote for Falcon,” May said. “If you look at what did actually happen, Falcon got 48 percent instead of 58 percent, which means 10 percent of the round-two voters”¦who voted for Abbott failed to vote for Falcon.”
Another member of the B.C. Green Liberals caucus, filmmaker Jon Cooksey, told the Straight that the B.C. Liberals made it easy to influence the outcome. That’s because the membership fee was only $10 and people could register online.
“The unifying notion was to prevent Kevin Falcon from becoming premier of the province because he was seen as being so antigreen that he was the worst alternative,” Cooksey stated.
It began with him and some friends sending out e-mails. With a laugh, Cooksey recalled how one friend responded that he couldn’t believe he was joining the party, but later signed up 12 friends with the help of “copious amounts of alcohol”.
Washbrook said that during the campaign, Clark said she is willing to sit down with TransLink to discussion how to fund regional transportation priorities.
He added that Falcon, on the other hand, made it clear that he was going to continue with a "bully pulpit approach to TransLink", whereby it would have to raise money by property taxes or other means to fund projects.
Though that may seem like a small difference, Washbrook described this as "a huge step forward for regional transportation funding and governance".
"So I have high hopes for her on that file," he said.
In addition, Washbrook said there was also a subtle difference in their positions around the carbon tax.
"Falcon was clearly taking his talking points from the business council with the whole pause-and-reset thing, whereas Clark spoke positively about B.C.'s actions to date," he noted. "Now our caveat is B.C.'s emissions have continued to go up."
However, Washbrook, May, Horter, and Cooksey all pointed out that Clark wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to overrule an earlier decision not to proceed with the Prosperity Mine near Williams Lake.
"I don't know how you square that with a families-first policy," Cooksey commented. "Does that not include First Nations families who will lose their culture because you're going to fill up Fish Lake with mine tailings?"
Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups under the umbrella name Organizing for Change sent a questionnaire to all the B.C. Liberal and B.C. NDP leadership candidates.
Spokesperson Lisa Matthaus told the Straight by phone that this “nonpartisan” campaign promoted voter education. Organizing for Change is funded by the Tides Canada Foundation, a registered charity that receives money from U.S. charitable foundations.
“We don’t tell people who to vote for,” Matthaus emphasized. “We don’t rank the candidates or anything like that, but we give people information so they know how to engage and that they have the information to make choices based on environmental records or commitments or statements that politicians have made.”
The Dogwood Intiative, Wildsight, West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, and Georgia Strait Alliance participated in the initiative, according to Matthaus, who is also a director of the Conservation Voters of B.C.
Horter, who is also executive director of the Dogwood Initiative, said that the “untold story” of the B.C. Liberal leadership race is the environmental movement’s ability to flex its electoral muscles.
A North Vancouver researcher, Vivian Krause, has pointed out on her website that the Tides Canada Foundation’s U.S. tax returns show it contributed $90,125 in 2008 and 2009 to Georgia Strait Alliance to fund Organizing for Change.
She has also revealed that the Dogwood Initiative, which opposes the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline, has been funded by at least four U.S. foundations: Wilburforce, Brainerd, Hewlett, and Tides.
Horter claimed that no U.S. funding was directed toward the Conservation Voters of B.C. and no U.S. money flowed into the Dogwood Initiative to influence the B.C. Liberal leadership race.
“The funding that we’ve gotten is just general funding from Americans who agree with the work we’re trying to do here in British Columbia,” he declared. “The argument that there is this U.S. funding coming in here to influence the election is just a bunch of crap.”
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.





Tax-free status for Dogwood Intiative, Wildsight, West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, and Georgia Strait Alliance to name a few, should be revoked and penalties assesed.
Using BC environmentalists to launder millions in US interest revenues is wrong and the system must change.
Ask yourself, "Why are these US groups so interested in BC?"
As for this, U.S. Foundations provided some funds. There is no evidence those funds came with instructions or strings.
This was an idea hatched by Canadians, sent to other Canadians, to join a Canadian political party, which for reasons I outline above, I think was dumb political strategy. Some funding was provided by private U.S. citizens, not the U.S. government. If you want to argue these private citizens are acting as proxies for the State Dept. or some corporate interest be my guest, but please provide evidence.
People should think very very carefully about what the [unintended] consequences might be of eliminating the already narrow ability of charities to engage in political activity. In would not just be environmental groups affected.
As for Vivian Krause - there is a link b/w the People's Republic of China, who owns the Sinopec Oil co., who is a member of the Northern Gateway Pipeline consortium, who donated significant funds to the BC Liberal Party. She's never shown any concern with that.
US interests seek to stop BC oil from going to Asia and keep it going into the US
By demarketing BC farmed salmon they support the Alaskan "Wild" fishery
By stopping development of resource extraction in BC by covering it in a "Green blanket" they can ensure that we do not compete with their own businesses.
BC is kept under wraps until a time when it is appropriate for them to access the vast resources for themselves.
Conspiracy theory?
I don't know, but I am more willing to throw my hat into that ring than follow the likes of Gregor Robertson and his "support"
A bad day for the environment.
It is interesting to note that the BC NDP Leadership Campaign is immune from similar grass roots initiatives, because its membership was closed, many months before the vote.
I'm worried here that the party that operates as a closed club (the NDP) seems to be rewarded (keeping control) for its behaviour, whereas some in the traditional BC Liberals members could argue that they were punished (lost of control) for their openness.
In the end, party's that try to control their membership become irrelevant and die. Parties that are organic and open, thrive. This would point towards the reelection of the BC Liberal Government.
However, it is some what ironic that the environmental movement has to use the openness of the Liberal party as a vehicle to advance their agenda, while their more natural cousins in the NDP keep their door closed.
Does the Green Party have a closed or open membership? Just wondering.
James Green
I have to admit I was taken aback by this. I had always assumed the Fraser Institute was a non-profit. But no, I just checked, it's a registered charity. You learn something everyday. The Fraser Institute clearly engages in political advocacy.
So here's the scorecard according to the Canadian Revenue Agency:
Fraser Institute: Charity!
Organizing for Change: Not a charity!
Groups that support Organizing for Change...
Tides Canada: Charity!
BCSEA: Not a charity!
CPWS: Charity!
Dogwood Initiative: Not a charity!
EcoJustice: Charity!
Georgia Straight Alliance: Not a charity!
Pembina: Not a charity!
Forest Ethics: Not a charity!
Sierra Club: Charity
West Coast Environmental Law: Charity!
Wild Sight: Charity!
What the Canadian Revenue Service has to say about charities and political activity:
A charity wishing to carry out activities that go beyond the limits permitted by the Act may establish a separate and distinct organization that will not be a registered charity and therefore not able to issue charitable receipts. No limitations are placed on the political activities of such a body; it has complete freedom within the law to support any cause it chooses.
Organizing for Change clearly fits that description. You might think the rules needs changing...but then it's quite likely the Fraser Institute will no longer be able to supply endless op-eds to the Vancouver Sun.
Hmmm...I might take that trade.
@Steve Y: Most of the U.S. Foundations that support the tanker ban and efforts against the Gateway Pipeline also support efforts at the Alberta-Gulf Coast Keystone pipeline, as well as off-shore oil platforms in Alaska. It's almost as if they are behaving as...environmentalists.
Organizing for Change received foreign funding, both directly and indirectly. One of the founders of MICROSOFT funded Organizing for Change through a foundation that he created (Wilburforce). U.S. tax returns for Tides Canada show that Organizing for Change may also have been funded by the Bullitt Foundation, but that's not yet clear.
Organizing for Change was also supported indirectly through GROUNDWIRE, a Seattle-based organization that runs at least 60 web-sites and 44 databases for environmental organizations in the Pacific Northwest - including the Dogwood Initiative, Conservation Voters of BC, and Organizing for Change. Since 2000, GROUNDWIRE has been paid at least $2 million by the same US foundations that are funding initiatives that would block oil tanker traffic and Canadian oil exports to Asia.
Take a look at what Lisa Matthaus says in GROUNDWIRE's annual report for 2009. Lisa is the co-ordinator for Organizing for Change. She is quoted as saying, "Groundwire is much more than technical support. They provide us with strategic advice, coaching and tools..."
In its annual report for 2006/2007, GROUNDWIRE says that GROUNDWIRE "provided leadership to the coordination of the Organizing for Change initiative with strategic guidance, support for the priority campaigns, and the delivery of government-relations assistance."
As Spartikus shows, campaign donations from foreign foundations seem to be disclosed. In contrast, the extent of foreign funding through registered charities hasn't exactly been out in the open - unless one reads the annual reports of the American organizations that have been supporting Organizing for Change, for years.
For more info:
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/02/strategic-adv...
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/02/groundwire-go...
Carthage Foundation $50,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $168,221
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $30,000
John M. Olin Foundation $10,000
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $95,080
Sarah Scaife Foundation $225,000
Exxon Mobil $120,000
John Templeton Foundation $500,000
Via Media Matters
1) From the Union of Concerned Scientists, 1992:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html
2) Statement from the board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005:
"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning. Human
activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted."
http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf
Or this one from Matt Simmons, a former Republican oil guy who spoke out about peak oil and Canada's tar sands before passing away last year:
"If I were a Canadian, I'd make it illegal to use precious natural gas and potable freshwater to turn gold into lead in the tar sands."
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/08/30/MattSimmons/
Or the news this week:
"Earth's creatures are on the brink of a sixth mass extinction, comparable to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. That's the conclusion of a new study, which calculates that three-quarters of today's animal species could vanish within 300 years."
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/are-we-in-the-middle-of-a-...
What a wonderful world we are passing on to our kids and theirs in the name of short term profits and growth. N'est-ce pas Ms Krause?
Unlike the Annual Report of, oh, the Fraser Institute, which doesn't list it's funders.
This isn't true. The other members of the Northern Gateway Consortium have not been revealed.
Gina Jordan, a spokeswoman for Enbridge, would not speak about Sinopec’s relationship with the Calgary-based company. “Northern Gateway will not provide names of its funding partners,” she said.
Just to be clear, Northern Gateway's donation isn't against the rules. But neither is the funding of Organizing for Change.
1) The David Suzuki Foundation - U.S. tax returns show that since 2000, the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid at least $US 10 million from U.S. foundations. If one were to include the U.S. money that has gone through Tides Canada to the David Suzuki Foundation, that total would be higher.
In its annual reports, the David Suzuki Foundation lists U.S. foundations but for years (until I started asking questions, back in 2007), these U.S. foundations were listed as having provided "more than $5,000" or "more than $10,000." The fact is, the actual amounts of the grants were far higher, eg. $250,000 to $400,000.
2) Greenpeace - A Greenpeace web-site against Alberta tourism, was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc., through Tides Canada. The logos of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Tides Canada are no where to be seen.
See: http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/02/kevin-libin-g...
Pages