How American Charities Skew Public Debate Over Public Resources in Canada

 

In today's interview with Ezra Levant, we discussed Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent statement that he expects "significant American interests" to line up against the Northern Gateway pipeline because it is not in U.S. interests.  We also discussed the "strategic plan" that Tides Canada was paid to develop by the San Francisco-based William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, and how the Hewlett foundation, since paying $70,000 for the development of that plan, has granted $26 million for projects to tackle the Canadian oil and gas industry.

The central problem here, as I see it, is that American money is going only to one side of the public debate over big decisions about pipelines, mines, salmon farms and so forth. All this foreign money is going only to Canadians whose views align with American interests: those who are against these projects.  This gives an advantage to one side of the debate only. That's unfair. When it comes to important decisions like whether to build a pipeline or a mine, every Canadian has a right to have a say. No individual or group should have unfair influence because of access to millions of dollars of foreign money that isn't out in the open. 

As I mentioned, Tides Canada has not answered my questions but I have heard from their lawyers. For more about that, see: Tides Canada Throws Legal Muscle at Vivian Krause

Lastly, we talked about how the David Suzuki Foundation spent its money in 2010. In 2010, the David Suzuki Foundation reported spending 40 percent of total revenue on charitable programs. That's unusually low compared to previous years. More to follow.

NOTE: The grant for $27.3 million from Tides Canada was not for First Nations to oppose the Enbridge pipeline. In several instances, grants that specifically mention Enbridge have been made by U.S. foundations but the grant for $27.3 million is not an example of that. The stated purpose of the grant for $27.3 million was "to fund conservation planning initiatives and conservation projects of the Nuxalk and the Lax Kw’alaams."

Comments

[Colin Nielsen]

Interesting how, in your opinion, it is wrong for money to come into Canada to aid those opposed to rapidly expanding the output of the Oil Sands and supporting infrastructure, yet the companies that stand to profit mightly from further development of the oil sands and pipelines, which have extremely deep pockets to put out their message, is, in your opinion fair. Big Oil commpanies are multi-national - their interests are soley their own, they are not aligned with any particular country - they do what is best for their bottom line and for their investors, the majority of whom are not Canadians. Money expended by the likes of CAPP, an organization dedicated to the Oil Industry, come from many producers, the largest of whom are foreign. Their pro-oil sands ads appear regularly on TV trying to get the larger public to buy into their position. Try being a bit more balanced in your opinions. If Harper wants further development of the oil sands he needs to make sure Canada's interests come first - that is getting a fair return in the form of corporate taxes and royalties and making sure that the toxic mess in the Fort McMurray area is cleaned up as development progresses. Ditto for the Alberta Government and there better be something substaintial in this for British Columbia, the Province with the most to loose.