![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe two likely markets for the oil processed from the tar sands of Alberta are the United States and Asia. To export to the United States, a pipeline connecting northern Alberta with the United States' grid would be needed, the proposed Keystone Pipeline; to export to Asia, a pipeline to a harbour on the British Columbia coast where oil tanks would dock would be required, the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway. Both pipelines have encountered considerable opposition on environmental grounds, connected to potential damage from the pipelines themselves and to concerns over the environmental impact of processing the tar sands. The Keystone Pipeline is on hiatus right now, while the Enbridge Northern Gateway has embarked on what looks to be a long and controversial series of public hearings.
Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is upset. He wants the radicals threatening the pipelines to be stopped. Oliver doesn't only want to make the environmental assessment shorter, but he wants to go after the foreign interests that--he says--are driving it. And, shades of Hungary and Israel and Russia, there are rumours afoot that the Canadian government will go after foreign funding of Canadian environmental groups.
One group contacted in the article, the Pembina Institute, claims to receive just one-tenth of its funding from outside Canada.
All this alarms me.
The labeling of environmentalists and other groups opposing the Northern Gateway project as radicals I find risible. There probably are deep greens and NIMBYists active in the opposition to that project, and to the tar sands, but there are equally good, legitimate reasons to be concerned about both projects, or even just about the pipeline. "Radical" is simply a scary-sounding noun when used by Oliver, representing the decay of political discourse in Canada. (And why single out the economic cost of the project's non-development to families, specifically? Are singles fair game?)
The efforts to limit foreign support of troublesome NGOs threatening government priorities is something I find much more troubling. In Hungary, Israel, and Russia, governments of greater or lesser democratic legitimacy have lately decided to respond to certain critical domestic groups by going after the support--financial, material, and otherwise--these groups receive from outside foreign lands. "Our sovereign democracy is threatened by foreign intruders," the thinking seems to go, "we have to prevent them from supporting their proxies." Globalized civil society is rejected in favour of controlled domestic public opinion pruned of troublesome foreign influences.
This is not a good paradigm for any Canadian government to adopt. Civil society is increasingly global, of necessity, and all manner of causes are prosecuted on a global basis. This is particularly true in circumstances where a particular cause will affect people in more than one country, or where the balance of forces are such that help from the outside is needed and welcome, but it's generally true across the board. One world, people. Any Canadian government that claims the right to isolate Canada from global civil society deserves to be carefully watched.
Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is upset. He wants the radicals threatening the pipelines to be stopped. Oliver doesn't only want to make the environmental assessment shorter, but he wants to go after the foreign interests that--he says--are driving it. And, shades of Hungary and Israel and Russia, there are rumours afoot that the Canadian government will go after foreign funding of Canadian environmental groups.
Environmental and other "radical groups" are trying to block trade and undermine Canada's economy, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Monday.
Oliver's comments came one day before federal regulatory hearings begin on whether to approve Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which would deliver crude from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat, B.C., for shipment to Asia.
More than 4,300 people have signed up to address the proposed pipeline over the next 18 months.
"Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade," Oliver said in an open letter.
"Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams."
Oliver says the groups "threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda," stack the hearings with people to delay or kill "good projects," attract "jet-setting" celebrities and use funding from "foreign special interest groups."
Sources say the government isn't just talking, CBC's Margo McDiarmid reports, but will be targeting environmental groups when the House finance committee reviews charitable funding next month.
The committee could recommend changing the rules to stop them from getting U.S. money. Sierra Club's John Bennett says he's worried.
"This is just a way to undermine our credibility and sweep out all environmental protections in Canada," he said.
[. . .]
While Oliver took aim at foreign funding for environment groups, foreign investment is a major part of the oilsands. American, British, Chinese, French and Norwegian companies have all invested in the oilsands.
The difference, Oliver said, is that Canada needs the foreign capital.
"They’re helping us build infrastructure to help us diversify our market. Other groups are trying to impede … the economic progress; they’re trying to block development; they’re trying to block projects which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in government revenue and trillions of dollars in economic development. That’s the fundamental difference."
One group contacted in the article, the Pembina Institute, claims to receive just one-tenth of its funding from outside Canada.
All this alarms me.
The labeling of environmentalists and other groups opposing the Northern Gateway project as radicals I find risible. There probably are deep greens and NIMBYists active in the opposition to that project, and to the tar sands, but there are equally good, legitimate reasons to be concerned about both projects, or even just about the pipeline. "Radical" is simply a scary-sounding noun when used by Oliver, representing the decay of political discourse in Canada. (And why single out the economic cost of the project's non-development to families, specifically? Are singles fair game?)
The efforts to limit foreign support of troublesome NGOs threatening government priorities is something I find much more troubling. In Hungary, Israel, and Russia, governments of greater or lesser democratic legitimacy have lately decided to respond to certain critical domestic groups by going after the support--financial, material, and otherwise--these groups receive from outside foreign lands. "Our sovereign democracy is threatened by foreign intruders," the thinking seems to go, "we have to prevent them from supporting their proxies." Globalized civil society is rejected in favour of controlled domestic public opinion pruned of troublesome foreign influences.
This is not a good paradigm for any Canadian government to adopt. Civil society is increasingly global, of necessity, and all manner of causes are prosecuted on a global basis. This is particularly true in circumstances where a particular cause will affect people in more than one country, or where the balance of forces are such that help from the outside is needed and welcome, but it's generally true across the board. One world, people. Any Canadian government that claims the right to isolate Canada from global civil society deserves to be carefully watched.
