I’ve read the draft report in its entirety.
Yes, it concludes no conspiracy or shadowy figured behind the scenes.
It makes no findings of wrongdoing or false, misleading or fraudulent activity.
1/
Yes, it concludes no conspiracy or shadowy figured behind the scenes.
It makes no findings of wrongdoing or false, misleading or fraudulent activity.
1/
I was gratified to see Deloitte used the @CandidDotOrg database as I recommended when I met them.
They also used @canadiancharity’s data, which is another excellent Canadian focused source, though only for registered charities, not non-profits.
2/
They also used @canadiancharity’s data, which is another excellent Canadian focused source, though only for registered charities, not non-profits.
2/
But nowhere did they interview the funders or grant recipients, obtain original grant applications, reports, receipts, audit data or correspondence.
In drawing inferences about funder or recipient intent—the crucial missing piece of this entire controversy…
3/
In drawing inferences about funder or recipient intent—the crucial missing piece of this entire controversy…
3/
…the inquiry committed exactly the same errors, in exactly the same way, that caused serious mistakes in the first place.
They relied on Google, which was like repeatedly following a map to the wrong place in the dark.
And they won’t ask where the lights are. 4/
They relied on Google, which was like repeatedly following a map to the wrong place in the dark.
And they won’t ask where the lights are. 4/
There are big serious errors.
One of the biggest is how a key woman & Canadians, yet again & as always, are minimized, while their US contract employee who answered to them, is credited with directing everything because he put his consulting company name on a slide deck. 5/
One of the biggest is how a key woman & Canadians, yet again & as always, are minimized, while their US contract employee who answered to them, is credited with directing everything because he put his consulting company name on a slide deck. 5/
Like, there’s a reason that trial judges insist on hearing from eye-witnesses & original documents directly, not from Google searches.
Another interesting feature is how Ducks Unlimited got redacted from the list of grant recipients, despite being by far the largest Cdn ENGO beneficiary of US grants.
Their grants went to benefit the Boreal Forest project, which Allen found to be an Anti-Alberta campaign.
Their grants went to benefit the Boreal Forest project, which Allen found to be an Anti-Alberta campaign.
So why redact Ducks Unlimited & impugn Tides Canada for the same project?
Because they’re hunters?
Because they’re hunters?
The other noteworthy fail is how Allen misconstrued his Terms of Reference.
Ie, he found any environmental or conservation project that has the effect or potential of limiting O&G development or transport as being Anti-Albertan.
Ie, he found any environmental or conservation project that has the effect or potential of limiting O&G development or transport as being Anti-Albertan.
Thus, conservation projects that in planning were wholly unrelated to oil or pipelines were deemed anti-Albertan—
Though Allan hastened to qualify that anti-Albertan wasn’t a bad thing.
As if the term were not a transparently political invention by Jason Kenney.
Though Allan hastened to qualify that anti-Albertan wasn’t a bad thing.
As if the term were not a transparently political invention by Jason Kenney.
The ToR were much more narrowly circumscribed than Allan used—ie campaigns that “ATTEMPT to… delay or frustrate” AB O&G development.
Ie, you have to prove purpose & intent, not just ancillary effect.
Using that test, only the Tar Sands Campaign wd qualify.
Ie, you have to prove purpose & intent, not just ancillary effect.
Using that test, only the Tar Sands Campaign wd qualify.
By the way, I know it was Ducks Unlimited that was redacted because I found their grants during my own research 2 years ago.
It was always curious how little heat they draw from the right, given how huge their US grants are.
It was always curious how little heat they draw from the right, given how huge their US grants are.
All this is available on the @CandidDotOrg database. Not secret.
And if the other funders & recipients did nothing wrong, why redact the names of others?
And if the other funders & recipients did nothing wrong, why redact the names of others?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
