4 ms·

> “There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists w

> “There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” Anti-Canada petroleum movement, or Canadian anti-petroleum movement? This doesn't seem like an accidental word re-arrangement.

Shivetya 12y ago
the suggestion is, as in the US, that a lot of groups are receiving support from outside their respective countries. There is a lot of money to be lost for other counties should the US and Canada develop their resources to their fullest and unlike many other current oil producers there is the ability to exploit freedom expression and movement to limit this expansion of resource development.
- glesica 12y ago
  I don't see how that can possibly be taken seriously when, in the US at least, politicians openly take donations and swear allegiance to foreign interests. Additionally, if money leads directly to terrorism, then why not also investigate the companies that stand to make money by exploiting these resources? There is a long, bloody history of companies committing violent acts (in the US at least) to protect their economic interests against peaceful activists and protests.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Commerce is king in the US, so it's "alright" for politicians to accept money from outside sources as long as it can even slightly be cast as "pro-business." Many common Americans don't agree with this necessarily, but there are enough that do or have been misled by propaganda that the "pro-business" agenda is given free-rein in this country.
    - glesica 12y ago
      That was my point, I don't see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that a protester taking a foreign donation is "dangerous". It is just an absurd excuse for the politicians to do what they want to do for their own, less publicly acceptable, reasons.
mikeash 12y ago
I'm sure it's not accidental. They either don't see the difference between your two alternatives, or see an advantage in intentionally confusing them. It's a standard tactic to paint your opponents as being unpatriotic.
agentultra 12y ago
It probably isn't. There is a large portion of the federal government that have tied up Canadian economic interests in the tar sands. Entire regions of the central provinces are literally propped up on tar sands extraction. Take that away and you'll have swaths of blue-collar workers with mortgages, debts, and families and no income. They will probably be pretty mad. Any group that harms tar sands extraction operations harms Canadian citizens... I can see the logic there. The scary thing is the wider implications of C51 and that it hasn't been voted out, just tabled. This sort of thing winds up being buried in another bill with more obscure language around it when everyone has moved on.
- jayfuerstenberg 12y ago
  'Harm' is such a vague word though. Could divesting of oil stocks be considered tantamount to terrorism going forward?
- Solarsail 12y ago
  As noted by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9063463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9063463 tabling a bill is not getting rid of it; Tabling a bill is the first step to passing it.
  - agentultra 12y ago
    Exactly; often the first of many. Industry lobbyists have no shortage of time and resources when it comes to pursuing the interests of their employers. With the copyright battle in Canada we went through several bills before an outcome was achieved [0]. Unfortunately for those corporations with assets tied up in the oil sands the market hasn't been terribly kind of late and people who moved out there for the industry jobs are beginning to see the effects of market demand slowing for their rather expensive goods. [0] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/06/canadian-copyfight-success/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/06/canadian-copyfight-succes...
- balabaster 12y ago
  The scariest thing is that this is just the "too big to fail" thing all over again, just in Canada now. We're doing something that's bad for the environment, just because it props up huge swathes of the economy. This is short sighted. No country should prop up significant portions of their economies with unsustainable activities. While it's profitable, the population pays. When it fails, the population pays. My Pediatrician made a particularly profound statement to me when I was trying to get my first child to sleep through the night and it applies when you're considering industry: Pay now or pay later, but one way or another you will pay. It might seem hard now, but the longer you leave it, the worse it's going to be.
slavik81 12y ago
I presume they mean international groups that oppose the import of Canadian petroleum. The Canadian oil sands are vast, but take a relatively large amount of energy to process into usable fuel. As such, Canada is particularly unpopular among some groups.

Shivetya 12y ago

the suggestion is, as in the US, that a lot of groups are receiving support from outside their respective countries. There is a lot of money to be lost for other counties should the US and Canada develop their resources to their fullest and unlike many other current oil producers there is the ability to exploit freedom expression and movement to limit this expansion of resource development.

glesica 12y ago
I don't see how that can possibly be taken seriously when, in the US at least, politicians openly take donations and swear allegiance to foreign interests. Additionally, if money leads directly to terrorism, then why not also investigate the companies that stand to make money by exploiting these resources? There is a long, bloody history of companies committing violent acts (in the US at least) to protect their economic interests against peaceful activists and protests.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Commerce is king in the US, so it's "alright" for politicians to accept money from outside sources as long as it can even slightly be cast as "pro-business." Many common Americans don't agree with this necessarily, but there are enough that do or have been misled by propaganda that the "pro-business" agenda is given free-rein in this country.
  - glesica 12y ago
    That was my point, I don't see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that a protester taking a foreign donation is "dangerous". It is just an absurd excuse for the politicians to do what they want to do for their own, less publicly acceptable, reasons.

mikeash 12y ago

I'm sure it's not accidental. They either don't see the difference between your two alternatives, or see an advantage in intentionally confusing them. It's a standard tactic to paint your opponents as being unpatriotic.

agentultra 12y ago

It probably isn't. There is a large portion of the federal government that have tied up Canadian economic interests in the tar sands. Entire regions of the central provinces are literally propped up on tar sands extraction. Take that away and you'll have swaths of blue-collar workers with mortgages, debts, and families and no income. They will probably be pretty mad. Any group that harms tar sands extraction operations harms Canadian citizens... I can see the logic there. The scary thing is the wider implications of C51 and that it hasn't been voted out, just tabled. This sort of thing winds up being buried in another bill with more obscure language around it when everyone has moved on.

jayfuerstenberg 12y ago
'Harm' is such a vague word though. Could divesting of oil stocks be considered tantamount to terrorism going forward?
Solarsail 12y ago
As noted by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9063463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9063463 tabling a bill is not getting rid of it; Tabling a bill is the first step to passing it.
- agentultra 12y ago
  Exactly; often the first of many. Industry lobbyists have no shortage of time and resources when it comes to pursuing the interests of their employers. With the copyright battle in Canada we went through several bills before an outcome was achieved [0]. Unfortunately for those corporations with assets tied up in the oil sands the market hasn't been terribly kind of late and people who moved out there for the industry jobs are beginning to see the effects of market demand slowing for their rather expensive goods. [0] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/06/canadian-copyfight-success/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2012/06/canadian-copyfight-succes...
balabaster 12y ago
The scariest thing is that this is just the "too big to fail" thing all over again, just in Canada now. We're doing something that's bad for the environment, just because it props up huge swathes of the economy. This is short sighted. No country should prop up significant portions of their economies with unsustainable activities. While it's profitable, the population pays. When it fails, the population pays. My Pediatrician made a particularly profound statement to me when I was trying to get my first child to sleep through the night and it applies when you're considering industry: Pay now or pay later, but one way or another you will pay. It might seem hard now, but the longer you leave it, the worse it's going to be.

slavik81 12y ago

I presume they mean international groups that oppose the import of Canadian petroleum. The Canadian oil sands are vast, but take a relatively large amount of energy to process into usable fuel. As such, Canada is particularly unpopular among some groups.