SUBMITTED BY MAC VAN WIELINGEN
Public Inquiry
ANTI-ENERGY CAMPAIGNS
March 31, 2021
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns - Request for Commentary
Thank you for the opportunity to offer my perspectives and comments to the Commission of Inquiry into Anti- Alberta Energy Campaigns (the “Commission”).
I will firstly note that I have read or at least reviewed the Commission Reports, as well as the additional publications which were forwarded to my attention.
These reports and documents are summarized below:
1. Cooper Report
2. Nemeth Report
3. Nemeth Report (Supplement)
4. Energy in Depth Report
5. Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel Report
6. Mines, Minerals, and Green Energy
In the letter of November 9, 2020, I was invited to address eight questions. I will speak to each briefly within this submission.
In a subsequent letter dated November 18, 2020, additional materials were provided, notably a November 11, 2020 New York Times article entitled “How one firm drove influence campaigns,” and responses published by Energy In Depth and FTI Communications. You asked certain questions relating to these materials which I will reference in my responses to the eight questions.
I wish to emphasize that most of my value add in this submission is probably in the realm of my experience in governance research and practice. As I explain below, I believe the issue of concern is policy-focused activism funded through private foundations (often foreign-controlled) subject to often limited public accountability.
Private funding of public activism is a governance issue
The essence of the issue is the potential misalignment of interests between the insiders of the activist agencies, large donors, and those with executive control, and the interests of those in the impacted communities. This problem is particularly serious if the donors and those with executive control are foreign, and thus may not be sensitive to the local, regional, and national interests within the countries where they are directing their actions. The worst circumstance is the foreign funding of activist agencies where there is limited or incomplete transparency and disclosure, and a lack of independent oversight to take into account the interests of stakeholders in the impacted communities. In my mind, this is the critical issue on the table for the Commission, for Albertans, and for all Canadians.
I want to be clear in saying that in my opinion, the problem is not activism. I see activism as an essential part of the functioning of an engaged citizenry. The problem is the possible misalignment of interests between the insiders of the activist agencies, large donors, and those with executive control, and impacted stakeholders. It is this possible misalignment of interests which turns the private funding of public activism into a governance issue. It is important to recognize that the governance issue can become particularly magnified and challenging if activism turns into extremism.
Activism that becomes extremism is a separate dynamic with unique characteristics that has the potential to seriously undermine good governance. Extremism represents a shutdown of open-mindedness and can limit and even prevent open inquiry into the conditions and impacts of desired change. Extremism thrives on narrow mindedness, divisiveness, the fracturing of interests, and often involves tactics to amplify polarization which can easily turn into aggressiveness, hostility, and dehumanizing behaviours of others who may have different views. This is a huge risk for governance integrity within a civil society, and it appears to me that Canada is increasingly moving in this direction.
A related perspective relevant to Alberta and Canada is the potential loss of full constructive partnering and collaboration. This is a perspective that is certainly relevant to me in offering this submission. I know from extensive experience in organizational leadership, both in practice and research, that the fundamentals of a strong culture – trust, accountability, commitment, and ethics – have a significant impact on the quality of decision making and the levels of collaboration essential for the success of any group of people seeking desired outcomes. Simply put, through working together versus tearing each other down, we can accomplish much more. This certainly includes the complex national and global initiative to decarbonize and reduce climate risk.
I am convinced that we need leaders within business, the not-for-profit sector, government and non-government agencies, and elected officials at all levels, who can hold the tensions of polarized positions and bring forth visions and strategies that are wholistic and unifying in ways that are ethical and respectful. This means resisting the temptations of political advantage seeking within polarization; resisting the pressures of aligning or opposing with “we/they” group identifications; and resisting the pressure to fall into attempts to diminish or delegitimize others who may have different views. We all have the opportunity to play a role in creating and maintaining a safe space for others to engage in civil discourse, including with those who have different or opposing views.
Question #1 - The Nemeth Report may be read as suggesting that environmental non-governmental organizations and activists are key players in a movement funded by well-endowed foundations and interested governments, which movement operates as a decentralized network that is aligned and ideologically motivated to act in concert to end the use of fossil fuels.
Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Nemeth’s conclusion? Why? From a policy perspective, what are your views on the role of foreign foundations and governments funding efforts in Alberta to reduce or end the use of fossil fuels?
I generally agree with Dr. Nemeth’s conclusion. Environmental NGOs and activists are definitely key players who have serious influence on public opinion and policy development, as well as regulatory and political decision making in Canada. I think it is reasonable to describe the aggregation of these players as a movement and it certainly appears well-funded, with substantial funding coming from US foundations. Further, in my opinion, it is accurate to say that it operates as a decentralized network. It is not centralized in the sense of a government or a corporation where authority rests with an ultimate body such as a cabinet or board of directors. Although the players involved do not act in unity as one entity, there is a considerable amount of influence, direction, and coordination that occurs within that network. This arises primarily through the grant giving or donation process; in other words, it is the power of the money being directed to these different activist groups that heavily influences the direction and activities of these groups.
Here is an example of this from my own experience: When the anti-oil sands movement was gaining profile, I had numerous discussions in my boardroom with environmental groups about the initiative.
I often asked, “Why are you so focused on Alberta’s oil sands? What about coal? We all know coal is a much more serious problem in terms of environmental impact.” (Alberta’s power sector at that time was heavily reliant on the use of coal).
Eventually the response came back to me as, “Attacking Alberta’s coal companies and coal industry is not what our donors want. Our donors want us to go after the oil sands.” It was also confirmed to me that the donors they referenced were largely US-based.
With respect to acting in concert to “end the use of fossil fuels,” this is a logical deduction, and I am quite sure it is true at least within the extreme elements of the movement.
Another general theme in this movement that needs to be noted is the left/right political oppositional dynamic. By extension, anti-oil and gas is anti-development as almost all modern development can ultimately be linked, in one way or another to the use of hydrocarbons. Further, anti-development is, by extension, anti- business, as almost all development involves private sector business interests. More broadly, this anti-oil and gas, anti-development, anti-business mindset, has morphed into anti-capitalism, which is logically biased against, if not outright opposed to, any political party that has a constructive and supportive view of the private “free-market” sector (i.e. the republican or conservative side of the spectrum). Thus, the anti- hydrocarbons/anti-oil and gas movement has taken on the appearance of being a highly politicized, left-wing movement.
The movement can easily appear as the product of an organized conspiracy, and it arguably has elements of that, but there is a linking of logic that explains how all these different perspectives fit together and present as an integrated political movement. This is highly unfortunate, as in a certain way, it reduces the legitimacy of the climate movement and leads to policy making that may be more political than fundamental, and which may be misaligned with societal interests, and, in Canada’s case, misaligned with national interests.
Question #2 - The Nemeth Report suggests that the North American Tar Sands Coalition Strategy of 2008 was an early campaign of a movement to create a new energy paradigm for the world, and such campaign was not concerned with making Alberta or Canada suffer in particular, but rather was concerned about transforming western industrial economies and societies to shift off fossil fuels. The Nemeth Report may further be read as suggesting that in this context Alberta’s oilsands reserves were an easy target that gained prominence when they were acknowledged as a proven reserve, increasing Canada’s reserves to among the largest in the world.
Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Nemeth’s conclusion? Why?
There is no question in my mind that Alberta’s oil sands became a target because Canada is an open country and the oil sands are landlocked, which makes infrastructure decisions particularly vulnerable to regulatory and political process. Further, images of the oil sands offer the opportunity to create emotional impact and support often inflated, one-sided narratives. Also, the oil resource involved is one of the largest in the world. Attacking Canada’s oil sands could align with the self-interests of other oil suppliers who compete with Canada, notably those with a vested interest in the US oil sector.
I have had discussions with one of the original signatories to the Tar Sands Coalition strategy paper who confirmed much of this rationale.
There is another very important question about the motives and aspirations of the environmental groups involved. The idea of moving away from oil and gas to “save the planet” from emissions and climate change is a relatively new emphasis for the environmental movement. Although climate change was referenced a decade ago by some scientists and environmentalists, the main concern then was that oil and gas reserves were finite and depleting, and society would be left stranded (and would collapse) without a sustainable resource. This – not global warming – was the main argument for the push to renewables. As reality unfolded, the idea of consumers, households, and the industry being stranded because of a limited resource has been flipped, and now it is the resource which may be stranded because of reduced demand and substitutes.
An important question in the background is, what is it that really motivates and drives these environmental agencies? Is it purely to do good in the world? Is it ideology and value-based as some people argue? Or is it purely logic and functionality at a point in time, i.e., that oil and gas resources are finite and therefore we need to move off of them towards a renewable source of energy? That was certainly compelling logic at one point in time. Positive, if not admirable, intentions and compelling logic to solve societal problems are surely a large part of the reality, but there is another dynamic that is rarely addressed.
There is a strong argument that what motivates the individuals within these agencies is their jobs, income, and the survival of their entities in the turbulence of massive societal change. The risk and the limitation of these organizations is that they are generally single-purpose entities, for example environmental activism focused on blocking pipelines and opposing oil and gas. They are like small armies continually looking to mobilize themselves against a cause and they are prepared to adapt. These groups and organizations ideally need large, high-profile causes where they have a chance of proving that they can have impact and which provide a “use of funds” and justification for donor support, and indeed which justifies the existence of the agency. This is not a specific criticism of these entities; it is, in my opinion, a generalized truth that most of these organizations most of the time are striving to sustain themselves. As these environmental agencies adapt to the reality of external global circumstances, they are very willing to contort their stories to serve their own survival-based interests. As one environmental leader said to me, “We were being entrepreneurial; we went to foreign donors because they were prepared to fund us.”
This is not to say that ideology and values are not critical; but it is to say that organizational and professional self-interest is logically, and understandably, always present and colours the positions and actions of these agencies. Thus, the self-interest bias versus the interests of others is always present, within businesses, government, and non-government agencies pursuing a cause. This is one broad reason why good governance is so important to ensure the healthy and effective functioning of society.
Question #3 - The Nemeth Report may be read as suggesting that some advocacy programs are directed at children. Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Nemeth’s conclusion? Why? Do you believe that there are any compelling policy considerations that arise in regards to interactions between advocacy organizations and youth? If so, to what extent are these policy considerations different if foreign funding plays a role in such advocacy programs?
Advocacy programs directed at children are a problem particularly if they are narrowly focused and do not confer generalized benefit to all children and all people. If you look broadly at societal aspirations and values, we should also be educating children and all people about the importance of economics, the efficient allocation of resources in society, and the importance of savings and capital accumulation for our future. Young people coming out of school often do not understand this. There should also be a focus on social considerations relating to health, education, community well-being, and the link with economics to fund what can be thought of as “social prosperity.” Further, in my opinion, education must also include ethical concepts and principles that underlie societal governance relevant to all decision-making entities in society. This would include the importance of openness, transparency, honesty, and accountability. Education directed towards preserving the quality of our environment is clearly of vital importance, but it should be placed in the broader context of all essential societal needs and aspirations.
Specifically, there should be no role for foreign (or domestic) funding of narrowly prescribed advocacy programs directed at children. To me, it seems there is a horrible possibility that this is actually happening.
Question #4 - The Cooper Report refers to a “Design to Win” project advanced by certain foundations (see page 14), in which Dr. Cooper asserts that replacing existing electricity generation capacity with nuclear energy, and substituting natural gas for coal, appears to have been ignored. Instead, Dr. Cooper refers to a strategic objective of the project to mobilize public demand for legislative action, through what Dr. Cooper describes as alarmist rhetoric.
Do you believe that, as a general matter, issues related to the energy industry seem to be increasingly polarized and as a result, partisan debate is intensified? If so, do you consider this to be part of a deliberate strategy by any party or parties; and if so, on what basis do you draw this conclusion?
I have seen the same phenomenon that Dr. Cooper speaks to where substituting coal for natural gas, and using non-emission generating nuclear energy for base-load electricity is ignored or opposed. Similarly, technologies that remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere are often opposed by environmental activist groups. I have often wondered how those who embrace a short-term apocalyptic view of climate change reconcile their opposition to fast, relatively easy decarbonization by switching coal to natural gas, and the dramatic long-term emission-free solution of nuclear. If we are in a climate crisis and the “end is near” because of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, why don’t we do everything possible as soon as we can?
On the same theme, environmental activist groups appear generally uninterested in the reality that Canada’s oil and gas sector has among the highest, if not the highest, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards and performance among all significant energy suppliers in the world. Emissions from the oil sands have been high but are now clearly trending towards the average of all barrels refined in the US, and new oil developed in Canada is in fact now well-below the average. Further, our natural gas sector is arguably the greenest in the world. Broadly, we all know that the global transition to decarbonization will take multiple decades. Is it not in Canada’s national interest, and the interests of all our global customers, for Canada to stay in the energy market, albeit a market in transition and long-term decline, to provide the world with reliable, low carbon, high ESG energy products?
I will say directly that it appears to me that there is a narrowness of perspective in the views of most participants within the environmental community that do not align with sound strategy and policy that serves the long-term national interests of Canadians.
The concerns around polarization and political advantage-seeking within polarization are incredibly serious issues in Canada. Over my years of work in energy policy in Canada, it has become very clear to me that polarization persists because there are people and subgroups who perceive they benefit from polarization. In this connection, it is the national political parties that concern me the most who unquestionably design their electoral strategies around polarized elements within the electorate and are very prepared to amplify that polarization in order to serve their own electoral interests. The result may well be to weaken the integrity of democratic decision making in Canada. The second negative consequence is to undermine our national culture and the fabric of unity that is so critical to the healthy functioning of our country.
In my opinion, specific partisan interests are potentially being prioritized ahead of the integrity of our institutions and our national interests. Unique to Canada, this polarization and the reality of political expediency is intensely regionalized, certainly as it relates to energy policy, as our energy resource is based largely in Western Canada and national government control is based largely in Central Canada.
The temptation of the self-interest bias and advantage-seeking based on political regionalized polarization is a huge threat to the functioning of Canada. I believe the environmental anti-oil and gas movement is amplifying the divisions within Canada, profoundly influencing political activities and commitments, and making a difficult situation worse for all Canadians. The extent to which this influence is funded from foreign sources creates a highly sensitive and serious issue for all Canadians.
Question #5 - The Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel Report proposes the need for a new approach to environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting in Alberta and recommends the institution of a province wide system to achieve this (Recommendation 5).
Are you aware of whether any improvements to environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting in Alberta have been instituted subsequent to the Report? Do you believe that Albertans have sufficient access to reliable information regarding environmental monitoring, evaluation and reporting in the province? If not, what can be done to improve Albertans’ access to such information?
I do not have the knowledge or the awareness to offer opinions of substance relating to the Alberta environmental monitoring panel report. I have certain impressions that we are doing an appropriate, if not exemplary job, in most monitoring respects, but I do not profess detailed knowledge on this matter.
Question #6 - The Cooper Report suggests that certain organizations are involved in strategically funding activist organizations in Canada or organizations that are in the US but are opposed to Canadian interests. The Cooper Report may be read as suggesting that funds flow from these organizations to smaller organizations that are ideologically aligned, thus giving the appearance of a grass roots movement.
Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Cooper’s conclusion? Why? From a policy perspective, if the Cooper Report is correct on the flow of funds from foreign entities, what are your views on this claimed means of funding advocacy? Does this create any concerns regarding transparency of funding? If so, should measures be taken to enhance transparency? Are there negative consequences that would arise from enhanced transparency?
I agree with Dr. Cooper’s conclusion that funding organizations in the US are strategically supporting activists in Canada and in the US who are opposed to Canadian interests. In my opinion, the related funding decisions, however noble they may be in a global context or in the minds of the donors, lack a concern for the national interests of Canadians. The lack of transparency in the flow of these funds is extremely concerning, and the distribution of funds to smaller organizations to create the appearance of a grassroots movement is similarly concerning. It takes on a look of pure political mobilization and creates a distorted understanding of reality in the minds of the public.
The above comment must be put into context. It is not just a “left wing” phenomenon, but if it is, it shouldn’t matter. I am sure that there are equivalent strategies within the “right wing” side of the spectrum. The problem is that public opinion and policy is being influenced and manipulated without full disclosure of often interconnected sources of funding.
Question #7 - The Energy In Depth Report (page 25) refers to the role of a law firm with registered charitable status in a letter writing campaign encouraging BC municipalities to sue a proponent of Canadian energy projects, including projects relating to the transportation of oil and gas, for climate-related damages.
What, in your view, are the advantages and disadvantages, or broader policy issues, with permitting law firms with focused objectives to have charitable status, such that their funding qualifies as charitable donations for the donors? To what extent are these advantages/disadvantages, or policy considerations, different where the funding comes from foreign sources?
Activism through law firms who might have charitable status is, in my opinion, incredibly manipulative of public opinion. It sends a message that those who oppose the views of the law firm may be legally offside or that the views of the law firm in its charitable activities are representative of what is in fact legal and real. The occurrence of this reinforces the perception that private funding of public environmental advocacy in Canada seems out of control.
Question #8 The Reports generally may be read as advancing the proposition that a small number of extremely well-endowed foundations advance the philosophy of their funders, management or boards of directors to influence public policy, and that they are less publicly accountable than politicians or industry.
Do you agree or disagree with this proposition? Why? If you agree with the proposition, do you consider it to be problematic from a policy perspective? Why? What, if any, solutions might offer a fair and proportionate mechanism to address the policy concerns you consider to exist?
There is no doubt in my mind that a small number of extremely well-endowed foundations exercise enormous influence on public policy in Canada, and that they are less publicly accountable than politicians or the corporate sector. I view this as an overarching governance problem that is so large, we almost can’t see it. The fact that this funding is foreign-based heightens the concern.
Governance-related processes can be understood as an effort to reduce or manage the misalignment of interests of insiders or powerful stakeholders with the interests of the public and other stakeholders. The expansion of activism within the philanthropic sector poses a serious governance challenge. The major donors of these entities may have interests that are totally misaligned with the public interest where they
operate. This is a particularly sensitive issue if the major donors are in fact foreign, but yet operating within Canada and exercising their influence.
This issue is occurring globally in different ways and to an extent, within numerous countries. At the highest level, this is akin to the extreme concern that exists within the US and Western Europe relating to foreign interference in shaping public opinion and intervening in electoral processes. It’s hard to imagine that the interests of Europeans and Americans are somehow aligned with the interests of these foreign perpetrators of change.
Canada is experiencing this conflict of foreign agency interests and the risk of misalignment with Canadian domestic interests. Even if there is no misalignment of interests, the lack of “good governance” relating to this influence in our domestic affairs is in itself a problem.
An example of foreign-funded activism is the Great Bear conservation initiative in British Columbia which had the look and feel of a pure conservation project. However, it became clear that it was the product of a significant, well-organized initiative where a high priority was to block oil resource development in Canada. It is hard for me to believe that the lost jobs and income for Canadians, including Indigenous groups who supported the Northern Gateway pipeline, were given serious consideration by the funders behind the scenes.
It is complicated because the Great Bear project has considerable merit. What is not complicated though is the disturbing lack of transparency and disclosure, and the difficulty of tracing the flow of money from foreign funders to domestic Canadian actors, including those who intervened in Canadian regulatory and political process absent, in my opinion, full, true, and plain disclosure.
I am personally an example of a Canadian who was, in a sense, taken advantage of in this process. I was asked, along with certain other Canadians, to make a donation to this project, which I did. Canadian donors were needed to create some legitimacy for the overall project which was predominantly funded by foreign foundations. If I had more knowledge of the Tar Sands Coalition and of the larger plans of a group of foreign foundations to block oil development in Canada, and that the Great Bear project was part of this grand strategy, I never would have made this donation.
In conclusion, the key issue that I wish to emphasize is the need for accurate and reliable disclosure of material and influential content from the philanthropic sector. The corporate sector has a form of independent governance oversight for the accuracy and reliability of disclosure materials upon which stakeholders may make decisions. As relating to corporate entities funding what can be seen as political activities, major investment firms are pushing for more transparency and disclosure. Here is a relevant quote from the Top 100 Funds organization: “For asset owners, keeping a wary eye on the money trail is not only the right thing to do but also the sensible thing to do. Asset managers should require the companies and asset managers they work with to disclose corporate political spending … and hold them accountable for donations to groups and individuals that undermine democratic institutions.”
This concept applied to the corporate sector should apply to all who have stewardship responsibility for society’s accumulated savings, the management and disbursement (or investment) of all of society’s capital, whether within corporations or foundations and the not-for-profit sector. I see no such oversight process within most philanthropic organizations, including those involved in public policy advocacy.
I believe that serious consideration must be given to requiring all foundations and not-for-profits active in influencing public opinion, public policy, and regulatory decisions to have both a code of ethics, a disclosure policy, and internal independent oversight of all reporting, policies, and disclosure materials in a manner similar to a public corporation.
At the very least, there is a profound need for more transparency, disclosure, and accountability of foreign- funded philanthropic activity directed towards public opinion and policy in Canada. I specifically believe that foreign-funded philanthropic activities engaged in public policy activities must conform with the highest possible standards of transparency and disclosure.
Thankyoufortheopportunitytooffermycommentsandreflectionsonthisimportantmatter. Sincerely,
Mac Van Wielingen
Founder and Partner, ARC Financial Corp.
Chair, Viewpoint Investment Partners