Energy Inquiry Shows the Problem and the Way

If a public inquiry found that hundreds of millions of dollars was being funnelled by foreign entities to undermine Canadian industry, should we conclude there is nothing wrong? Remarkably, the […]
Published on November 1, 2021

If a public inquiry found that hundreds of millions of dollars was being funnelled by foreign entities to undermine Canadian industry, should we conclude there is nothing wrong? Remarkably, the public inquiry’s final report into anti-Alberta energy campaigns did the former and the media did the latter. In reality, the inquiry’s final report lays out important facts and key recommendations that would benefit the energy sector, Albertans and all other Canadians.

Researcher Vivian Krause blazed a trail by her examination of the Tar Sands Campaign launched in 2008. Backed by U.S.-based foundations, the campaign aimed to encourage divestment in the oilsands and undermine the development of infrastructure to support the industry. Deloitte did its own forensic accounting analysis for the inquiry, and according to the final report found “several additional entities” comprising “a broader movement of which all Albertans and Canadians should be aware.”

According to the anti-oil campaigners themselves, targeted efforts against financial backers of the energy sector and insurance companies led to over 1,000 divestments, representing $8 trillion. Keystone XL and the Teck Frontier mine are only two victims of seven campaigns directed against the Alberta oilsands.

In 2018, Canadian registered charities received nearly $2.5 billion in foreign funding, then held or re-granted the funds. Deloitte said it is hard to trace certain aspects of what funds are used for after this takes place. The reporting requirements of non-profits and charities are less stringent than those of industry, creating what the report called “an uneven playing field.”

Foreign funding of “Canadian-based” environmental initiatives was at least $1.28 billion between 2003 and 2019, and $925 million of it was spent in Canada. More than $54 million in grant descriptions specifically went to “anti-Alberta resource development activity.”

The real figures are likely much higher. Deloitte made those findings based on an examination of the 31 largest environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and six enviro-legal firms, though it is likely a broader examination would reveal even larger sums. Another problem is that once Canadian ENGOs re-grant the funds, they are not counted by the recipient entity as foreign funds received.

The report’s commissioner, Steve Allan, wrote that a “broader campaign” is being made by “networks of ENGOs [that] seem to work in concert, collaboratively advancing an agenda” and comprising an industry of its own. These organizations go from cause to cause to attract donations and maintain their existence.

Allan also identified “several attempts to influence decision makers—including those in federal and provincial governments.” In 2015, LeadNow openly stated its Vote Together campaign aimed to “select and support the best local candidates to defeat the Harper conservatives.” In 2016, the Corporate Ethics website boasted that their strategy blocked all of the proposed pipelines in Canada and added, “The Tar Sands Campaign…also played a role in helping to unseat the Conservative Party in Alberta and nationally.”

The report named 21 participants, 13 funders and two re-granters in its examination. Sixteen participants were Canadian, and all other entities were American. Yet, online media headlines ignored the demonstration of foreign economic and political subversion to emphasize one thing: none of this was illegal. “Alberta Energy Inquiry Says No Wrongdoing by Anti-oilsands Activists” read a Globe and Mail headline, echoed by Global News, CTV, the Canadian Press and even the New York Times.

Alberta’s energy minister probably said it best at a press conference announcing Allan’s findings. “The report didn’t suggest anything illegal was going on,” she said. “But if you ask people in Alberta who lost their job if anything wrong happened, I’m pretty sure they would say yes.”

Allan made six recommendations and all deserve attention. The first, not surprisingly, was more transparency, accountability and governance for the not-for-profit and charitable sectors that levelled the playing field with the corporate world.

The second was to advance dialogue with and between First Nations communities to encourage economic development alongside reconciliation. From 2003 to 2019, American foundations gave C$102 million to 28 Canadian First Nations, and those paid to protest energy projects and pipelines seem to get more publicity than those who sign on.

Allan also called for renewed collaborative efforts by stakeholders to make Alberta an international leader in science, technology and innovation to produce affordable low-carbon energy solutions. Further collaboration would establish world-class best practices for measuring and reporting GHG emissions data. Allan also thought the Business Council of Alberta should engage with the Business Council of Canada to develop a national resource development strategy.

This leads to the final recommendation: re-brand Canadian energy. This positive campaign could change the narrative and promote the environmental responsibility shown by the energy sector alongside its importance in helping people prosper worldwide. If there is “no wrongdoing” in the foreign campaigns to undermine Canadian energy, Alberta and the energy sector can fight back with similar immunity.

 

Lee Harding is a research associate for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Photo by Jonathan Aman from Pexels.

Featured News

MORE NEWS

The 15-Minute City: An Extraordinarily Bad Idea

The 15-Minute City: An Extraordinarily Bad Idea

The latest urban planning fad to sweep across Canada is the 15-minute city, which proposes to redesign cities so that all urban residents live within an easy, 15-minute walk of schools, retailers, restaurants, entertainment, and other essentials of modern life. This...

Why Did They Kill the Schools?

Why Did They Kill the Schools?

Why did they bludgeon the schools to the point of being nonfunctional while robbing a whole generation of normal education? I cannot stop asking this question. It’s the ultimate example of liberalism eating itself. The pandemic response was morally egregious and...