Fact Check: This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline. The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason. I stand united with our First Nations on this. What he isn't telling you is that Stephen Harper's FIPA exposed us to liabilities of being sued by China, because they had already given the Harper govertment money, and the Harper government cashed the cheque, and from that point, they tried everything to force it through, but they screwed-up it up in every imaginable way possible. It didn't help them when Canadians began to clue-up on the horrendous track record of pipeline leaks for those two companies. Anyone that believes Pierresite's idea of taking bitumen (the powdered milk of fossil fuels) and using the nothwithstanding clause to ram it through will have blood on their hands.

March 16, 2025•by TruthOrFake

VERDICT

Unverified

# Claim Analysis: Civil War Threat Over Pipeline and Canada-China FIPA ## 1. Introduction The claim suggests that a controversial pipeline project co...

Claim Analysis: Civil War Threat Over Pipeline and Canada-China FIPA

1. Introduction

The claim suggests that a controversial pipeline project could incite civil unrest in Canada, particularly in relation to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) ratified under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The statement expresses solidarity with First Nations and criticizes the government's handling of the pipeline issue, alleging that past agreements have exposed Canada to legal liabilities from China. The claim also invokes concerns about environmental risks associated with the pipeline and the potential use of the notwithstanding clause to bypass opposition.

2. What We Know

Canada-China FIPA

The Canada-China FIPA was ratified in 2014 and is designed to protect investments between Canada and China. It includes an Investor State Arbitration (ISA) clause, which allows Chinese investors to sue the Canadian government if they believe that new laws or regulations adversely affect their investments. This has raised concerns among various groups, including First Nations, who fear that it could undermine their rights and environmental protections 1 4.

First Nations Opposition

The Hupacasath First Nation filed a legal challenge against the ratification of the FIPA, arguing that the government failed to consult adequately with Indigenous groups about the potential impacts of the agreement 1 2. However, their bid was ultimately unsuccessful, as a federal court ruled against them in 2013 10.

Environmental Concerns

The claim references a history of pipeline leaks associated with companies involved in the project. Environmental groups and some Indigenous leaders have consistently raised alarms about the risks of oil spills and the broader implications of fossil fuel extraction on climate change and local ecosystems 4 5.

Political Context

The reference to the "notwithstanding clause" suggests a potential legal maneuver by the current government to override provincial or federal legislation that might impede the pipeline's progress. This clause allows governments to bypass certain constitutional rights, which has sparked significant debate regarding its ethical implications 6.

3. Analysis

Evaluating the Sources

The sources cited provide a mix of perspectives on the FIPA and its implications. For instance, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) article 2 critiques the FIPA as a detrimental agreement for Canada, while Maclean's 9 offers a counterpoint, arguing that fears surrounding the FIPA are exaggerated. This disparity highlights the polarized nature of the debate surrounding trade agreements and environmental policies.

The reliability of sources varies; while academic and established media outlets like CBC and HuffPost offer well-researched articles, some sources may carry biases based on their editorial slants. For example, the CCPA is known for its progressive stance, which may color its interpretation of the FIPA's impacts 2 4. Conversely, Maclean's may downplay the risks associated with foreign investments 9.

Methodological Concerns

The claim's assertion that the pipeline could lead to civil war is hyperbolic and lacks empirical evidence. While there is a history of protests and civil disobedience related to pipeline projects, framing it as a potential civil war may overstate the situation. The methodology behind such claims should be scrutinized, particularly regarding how "civil war" is defined and the thresholds for such a classification.

Conflicts of Interest

Some sources may have inherent biases due to their affiliations or funding, which can influence their reporting on environmental issues and Indigenous rights. For example, organizations advocating for Indigenous rights may present a more alarmist view of the FIPA's implications, while business-oriented publications may emphasize economic benefits 4 5.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified

The claim that a controversial pipeline project could incite civil unrest in Canada remains unverified due to a lack of concrete evidence supporting the assertion of a potential civil war. While there are legitimate concerns regarding the Canada-China FIPA and its implications for Indigenous rights and environmental protections, the framing of the situation as a civil war is hyperbolic and lacks empirical support.

The evidence presented highlights significant opposition from First Nations and environmental groups, as well as political maneuvers that could exacerbate tensions. However, the sources vary in reliability and perspective, which complicates a definitive conclusion. The polarized nature of the debate suggests that while there are risks and concerns, the claim's extreme characterization is not substantiated.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations in the available evidence, particularly regarding the definition and thresholds for what constitutes civil unrest or civil war. The absence of direct evidence linking the pipeline project to such extreme outcomes necessitates a cautious approach to the claim.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information themselves, considering the sources and the context in which claims are made.

5. Sources

Canada-China Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Agreement. Wikipedia. Link
Harper sneaks through Canada-China FIPA, locks Canada in for 31 years. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Link
Harper OKs potentially unconstitutional China-Canada FIPA. Vancouver Observer. Link
Harper Sells Canadian Human Rights to China. HuffPost. Link
Harper Government Ratifies Controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Deal. The Narwhal. Link
FIPA agreement with China: What's really in it for Canada? CBC. Link
Trudeau may have bought Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid Chinese lawsuit. Daily Hive. Link
China Trade Deal a '31-Year Ball and Chain' on Canada. The Tyee. Link
Don't fear the FIPA. Macleans.ca. Link
First Nations loses bid to block Canada-China FIPA treaty. CBC. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:

"Coffee helps you live longer"

✓100% Free

✓No Registration

✓Instant Results

Comments

Loading comments...

Check another claim

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Unverified

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline. The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason. I stand united with our First Nations on this. What he isn't telling you is that Stephen Harper's FIPA exposed us to liabilities of being sued by China, because they had already given the Harper govertment money, and the Harper government cashed the cheque, and from that point, they tried everything to force it through, but they screwed-up it up in every imaginable way possible. It didn't help them when Canadians began to clue-up on the horrendous track record of pipeline leaks for those two companies. Anyone that believes Pierresite's idea of taking bitumen (the powdered milk of fossil fuels) and using the nothwithstanding clause to ram it through will have blood on their hands.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline. The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason. I stand united with our First Nations on this. What he isn't telling you is that Stephen Harper's FIPA exposed us to liabilities of being sued by China, because they had already given the Harper govertment money, and the Harper government cashed the cheque, and from that point, they tried everything to force it through, but they screwed-up it up in every imaginable way possible. It didn't help them when Canadians began to clue-up on the horrendous track record of pipeline leaks for those two companies. Anyone that believes Pierresite's idea of taking bitumen (the powdered milk of fossil fuels) and using the nothwithstanding clause to ram it through will have blood on their hands.

Mar 18, 2025

Unverified

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline. The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason. I stand united with our First Nations on this. What he isn't telling you is that Stephen Harper's FIPA exposed us to liabilities of being sued by China, because they had already given the Harper govertment money, and the Harper government cashed the cheque, and from that point, they tried everything to force it through, but they screwed-up it up in every imaginable way possible. It didn't help them when Canadians began to clue-up on the horrendous track record of pipeline leaks for those two companies. Anyone that believes Pierresite's idea of taking bitumen (the powdered milk of fossil fuels) and using the nothwithstanding clause to ram it through will have blood on their hands.

Mar 18, 2025

Unverified

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline. The road less travelled is less travelled for a reason. I stand united with our First Nations on this. What he isn't telling you is that Stephen Harper's FIPA exposed us to liabilities of being sued by China, because they had already given the Harper govertment money, and the Harper government cashed the cheque, and from that point, they tried everything to force it through, but they screwed-up it up in every imaginable way possible. It didn't help them when Canadians began to clue-up on the horrendous track record of pipeline leaks for those two companies. Anyone that believes Pierresite's idea of taking bitumen (the powdered milk of fossil fuels) and using the nothwithstanding clause to ram it through will have blood on their hands.

Mar 16, 2025

🔍

Partially True

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025

Partially True

Fact Check: Over the course of 36 hours since the start of the war against Iran, the Israeli air force has eliminated Iranian air defenses that could threaten Israeli fighter jets on their way to Tehran.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Over the course of 36 hours since the start of the war against Iran, the Israeli air force has eliminated Iranian air defenses that could threaten Israeli fighter jets on their way to Tehran.

Jun 14, 2025

Needs Research

Fact Check: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed to have attacked 150 targets inside Iran since the start of the conflict, using hundreds of munitions.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed to have attacked 150 targets inside Iran since the start of the conflict, using hundreds of munitions.

Jun 15, 2025

Explore All Fact Checks

Claim Analysis: Civil War Threat Over Pipeline and Canada-China FIPA

1. Introduction

2. What We Know

Canada-China FIPA

First Nations Opposition

Environmental Concerns

Political Context

3. Analysis

Evaluating the Sources

Methodological Concerns

Conflicts of Interest

4. Conclusion

5. Sources

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

More Fact Checks to Explore

Fact Check: Over the course of 36 hours since the start of the war against Iran, the Israeli air force has eliminated Iranian air defenses that could threaten Israeli fighter jets on their way to Tehran.

Fact Check: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed to have attacked 150 targets inside Iran since the start of the conflict, using hundreds of munitions.