Dear editor,
I saw a colleague of Stephen Harper and John Duncan referring to outside interests financing “radical” environmentalism.
Most interesting. Canada is a free country and we do have the right to express our views. If some outside groups wish to provide some funding, what is the problem with that?
When foreign interests provide aid to demonstrators in Egypt, Syria, etc., no one seems to be getting out there objecting except maybe the president of Syria and the former president of Egypt. There have been any number of outside groups involved in Iraq, Canada included.
Didn’t see any objections there, beyond the supporters of Saddam Hussein. I would suggest people are considered “radicals” depending upon whose ox is being gored.
Having watched Mr. Harper referring to these “outside interests,” it would lead me to conclude this is the new “talking point” for Mr. Duncan and other cabinet ministers.
I am not fooled but I am entertained. I always wondered what I would be like at 62. Now I know!
I am maybe considered part of a “radical” group, by no less than the P.M. of my country. I am so excited. I’m not old after all!
I didn’t see any objections when Christy Clark was handed almost a billion dollars by foreign interests (Chinese business consortium) to explore the potential for mining in B.C.
Can either the prime minister or my MP explain to me the difference between this and some unnamed environmental group providing funding for protests against the oil sands, pipeline, and tankers on the west coast of B.C.?
If the prime minister appears to be expressing concerns regarding “foreign radical” environmentalists providing funding for like minded Canadians than why are foreign corporations permitted to invest/own Canadian companies.
No one seems to concerned about the foreign ownership and investment in the Alberta oil sands or mines and forests in B.C. Quite frankly I would be much more concerned about outside interests owning our natural resources.
As it currently is progressing, the oil is not even refined in Canada. It is on Canadian soil, owned by foreign corporations, sent offshore to be processed and then we the taxpayers and customers have to buy it back for our own use.
There is something quite wrong here, well at least in my opinion. If oil is considered one of those diminishing natural resources, why are we trying to send it to other countries instead of keeping it in the ground for future generations?
The oil sands may be providing jobs for a few thousand but what happens when a pipeline ruptures? What happens when a tanker breaks up off shore?
I guess we could say that too will provide jobs but not the type most Canadians want.
Here in the Comox Valley there are any number of local politicians advocating water meters in order to “conserve” water, yet in other parts of B.C. and Alberta water is used in the millions of gallons for “fracking.” Is there more water in those areas than the Comox Valley?
E.A. Foster,
Comox
