Fact Check: "This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline..."
What We Know
The claim references a controversial pipeline project and the implications of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) signed by the Harper government. The FIPA, which came into effect on October 1, 2014, has been criticized for potentially allowing Chinese corporations to sue the Canadian government over regulatory decisions that could affect their profits. Critics argue that this could undermine Canada's ability to enforce environmental regulations and respect Indigenous rights (source-1, source-4).
The Hupacasath First Nation challenged the ratification of the FIPA, arguing that it violated their rights by not consulting them prior to its enactment. However, the Federal Court ruled against their application, stating that the potential adverse impacts were speculative and did not demonstrate a causal link to the treaty (source-3).
The claim also suggests that the current government, led by Pierre Poilievre, may attempt to push through similar projects using the notwithstanding clause, which could lead to significant public unrest. The reference to "blood on their hands" implies that such actions could lead to violence or civil unrest, a sentiment echoed by some critics of aggressive pipeline policies (source-5).
Analysis
The assertion that the FIPA could expose Canada to liabilities and lawsuits from Chinese corporations is supported by various analyses, which describe the agreement as heavily favoring Chinese interests and limiting Canada's regulatory capabilities (source-1, source-4). The criticism of the Harper government's handling of the FIPA ratification process, particularly the lack of public consultation and parliamentary debate, adds weight to claims of undemocratic practices (source-1).
However, the claim that the current government will "start a civil war" is more speculative. While there is significant opposition to pipeline projects, including from Indigenous groups and environmental activists, the characterization of this opposition as a potential civil war is exaggerated and lacks concrete evidence. The use of the term "nutjob" to describe a political figure is also subjective and reflects a bias rather than an objective assessment of the situation.
The sources used to support the claim vary in reliability. Articles from established news organizations like CBC provide factual reporting, while opinion pieces may reflect bias and should be interpreted with caution (source-3, source-4).
Conclusion
The claim contains elements that are Partially True. It accurately highlights the potential risks associated with the FIPA and the historical context of Indigenous rights and environmental concerns linked to pipeline projects. However, the assertion that such actions will lead to a civil war is speculative and lacks sufficient evidence. The emotional language used in the claim detracts from a more nuanced discussion of the complex issues at play.
