Finance committee  That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say two things. One, that the money should be out in the open if it's coming from billion dollar foundations or hedge-fund billionaires, so there should be transparency.

Finance committee  Right, so they should say simply, “No, we're only funding opposition”. They shouldn't say we want all voices to be heard, when in fact that's not at all what they're doing. It's the inconsistency between what they're saying and what they're doing that concerns me. The other concern I have, having worked overseas for 10 years, is that charity is really important.

Finance committee  I've tried to say this before. I think there's broad economic interest. I have never seen any evidence of a specific commercial interest.

Finance committee  I'm trying to clarify. I think it's the broad interests of the American economy. It's a good thing for the American economy to have energy security so you don't have the volatility of gas prices with oil due to hurricanes and all sorts of other things. So it's not a specific company that would benefit.

Finance committee  Actually, I haven't written much about the money against the Keystone campaign, but there is. I could mention $5 million right off the bat from the Rockefellers, from the Oak Foundation, to 350.org and One Sky, which are the groups that Bill McKibben is involved with. But I want to just correct one thing.

Finance committee  I am convinced that if any of the first nations there were in favour of this pipeline, they wouldn't be getting a penny of this American money. On the one hand, we can't say that they're deliberately funding the opposition of the pipeline, but if these groups were in favour of it, I don't think they'd be on the gravy train.

Finance committee  No.

Finance committee  Yes, that would be about it.

Finance committee  The majority of the money has gone to the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation . For example, the largest grant was for $27.3 million, and the stated purpose of that was for environmental and conservation planning initiatives. My research was once misquoted in the Winnipeg Free Press, and I forced a correction of that.

Finance committee  Actually, I have never really raised concern about the political activity of non-profits. My initial concern was that charities are getting involved in marketing campaigns. The problem is that we need activists. Activists play an important role. Sometimes they jolt us out of our inertia and our apathy, and we need them to keep government and industry on their toes.

Finance committee  Also, West Coast Environmental Law was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation to prevent the development of a tanker port and a pipeline.

Finance committee  There are a number of things that just don't make sense. The best example I can think of is that the Hewlett and Packard foundations have put $1 billion over the last decade—$1 billion—into the development of the renewal energy strategy. Here's the thing. The Hewlett Foundation spent more than $50 million in British Columbia, the highest jurisdiction in the world for renewable energy.

Finance committee  Yes. Frankly regardless of the intentions, the net effect is that they've put $150 million into the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest, which is an area the size of Switzerland that's become basically a no-trade zone right smack on the strategic gateway to Asia. It happens to go all the way from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska.

Finance committee  So I think we need to ask ourselves whether that was intentional or not.

Finance committee  Who paid for my work?