Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Contradiction? What contradiction?

Prime Minister Harper in China on the tarsands:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper blasted “foreign money and influence” behind critics of Canada’s oil sands even as he welcomed Chinese investment in Canada’s energy sector…At the same time, he made clear he does not equate Chinese foreign investment in oil sands development with the unwanted “foreign money” behind environmental groups, and that he sees no irony in the contradiction.

He isn’t even trying anymore to hide what seems to many to be obvious hypocrisy on this position – and this article  isn’t even mentioning other multinational or US based oil companies that spend millions promoting the tarsands to Canadians as being the greatest thing since sliced bread – a pittance compared to what donations environmental groups receive from donors in the US.

I note however a key “rival” missing out of this tirade – and that would be the First Nations groups, who many believe will be able to scuttle this, if it does meet with approval from the regulators. I’m waiting for that shoe to drop – though I have my doubts Harper can make any “foreign money” influences stick with them.



8 comments to Contradiction? What contradiction?

  • Dictionary Guy


    oil: An oil is any substance that is liquid at ambient temperatures…

    tar: A dark, oily, viscous material, consisting mainly of hydrocarbons…

    Which is why they are properly called tarsands.

  • Roll Tide

    Equalization payments come from Alberta not because of cattle. The left needs to be real, we have a resource the world needs. If Obama is too stupid to see this, fine. Let him buy it from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.
    Build the gateway and sell it to Asia, they have brains. That way we get to reap the rewards with jobs, and healthcare funding.

  • Mark McLaughlin

    RE Stig;

    Wealth, as in wages given to employees in exchange for hard work, expertise and time. The latest census numbers proove my point. The per capita income in Alberta is the highest in the country. Sask and BC owe much of their wealth to their natural resource “exploitation”.

    From top to bottom, salaries still make up the bulk of expenses for these evil capitalist multinationals. Even the spending on the ‘capital’ side is for machinery built by companies whose salaries make up the bulk of their expenses.

    Basic economics has never been the strength of the activist left.

    All development has tradeoffs. Your wood framed, vinyl siding house wouldn’t have been built without chopping down Gaia’s trees or sucking out her oil. Most of us don’t want to go back to the stone ages.

    • Beerbob

      If you were trying to respond to someone, why not, you know, respond? It’s only politicians who use a question as an excuse to grind an axe.

  • Stig

    Canadian wealth Mark?. Perhaps, if an actual wealth fund existed, or even a national energy strategy, like all other oil producing countries have, then your comment might have some weight and bearing to it. And if only bitumen was just plain old sandy oil, not!. With but a few clicks of the keyboard, you can find the term polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, pop up, not to mention a host of other toxic to life materials, such as mercury, and arsenic, which from my understanding Canadians get to keep, along with the sand. Wealth?. Where is it and what really are the external costs involved?. Canadians deserve to know, not simply asked to cheerlead!.

  • stan

    It’s oil sands BTW, if you can’t even get the simple facts correct….

    Who is spending millions promoting the oil sands?
    Got any proof of that?

  • stan

    Now you are admitting the green groups shouldn’t be funded by foreign interests?
    It’s nice you finally see the light!

  • Mark McLaughlin

    Foreign investment is to our collective national benefit (jobs, taxes, GDP) and lead to an increase in Canadian wealth. Unless profit is more than 50%, the majority of foreign investment money is to the direct benefit of Canadians.

    Activist money that funnels towards groups who chain themselves to trees or cover themselves in oil and yell at public officials does nothing to advance the properity of the country.

    Oh, and there’s no such thing as tarsands. It’s oilsands. Tar comes from coal or from pine trees. Using the prejorative diminishes the environmentalist’s occasionally valid points.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.