Fact Check: "This nutjob will start a civil war if he tries to ram through this pipeline..."
What We Know
The claim discusses the potential for civil unrest related to pipeline projects in Canada, particularly in the context of First Nations opposition and the implications of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) signed under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The FIPA, which came into effect in 2014, has been criticized for allowing Chinese corporations to sue the Canadian government over regulatory decisions that could affect their profits, thereby limiting Canada's ability to enforce environmental protections and respect Indigenous rights (source-2, source-5).
The claim also references the historical context of Canadian pipelines, including incidents of leaks and public opposition, particularly from Indigenous groups (source-7). Public sentiment towards the government and pipeline projects has been increasingly critical, especially as awareness of environmental impacts grows (source-6).
Analysis
The assertion that civil unrest could arise from pipeline projects is grounded in the historical opposition from Indigenous groups and environmental activists. The claim that the Harper government’s FIPA has created liabilities for Canada is supported by various analyses that highlight how the agreement restricts Canada’s regulatory capabilities in favor of foreign investors (source-3, source-4). Critics argue that the deal undermines Canadian sovereignty and could lead to significant legal challenges against the government if it attempts to impose stricter environmental regulations (source-8).
However, the claim's language, particularly the term "nutjob," introduces a subjective element that detracts from the factual basis of the argument. While it is true that there is significant opposition to pipeline projects, labeling individuals in such a derogatory manner can undermine the credibility of the argument.
Furthermore, while the historical context of pipeline leaks is relevant, the claim does not provide specific evidence that current pipeline proposals will lead to civil war, which is an extreme assertion. The potential for unrest exists, but it is contingent on a variety of factors, including government responses to Indigenous rights and environmental concerns.
Conclusion
The claim contains elements that are grounded in fact, particularly regarding the historical context of pipeline projects, Indigenous opposition, and the implications of the FIPA. However, the extreme language used and the assertion of an impending civil war are not substantiated by evidence. Therefore, the verdict is Partially True; while there is a basis for concern regarding civil unrest and legal liabilities, the claim's more sensational aspects lack sufficient evidence.
Sources
- Canada–China relations
- Harper sneaks through Canada-China FIPA, locks ...
- Harper Government Ratifies Controversial Canada-China ...
- China Trade Deal a '31-Year Ball and Chain' on Canada
- FIPA agreement with China: What's really in it for Canada?
- Did Canada buy an oil pipeline in fear of being sued by ...
- How Harper triggered a First Nations legal war over ...
- Canada's Secretive Treaty With China Further Diminishes ...