Pipeline plan not financially sound

Proposal won't stand up to informed scrutiny, so they resort to emotions

We, the low and middle income taxpayer, are already subsidizing the tar sands to the tune of over $5 billion per year.

Now the Harper government wants us to further pay for this project with more environmental devastation, fewer long term jobs throughout the country, reducing our capacity for food and energy self-sufficiency as well as increased social inequity and the political instability that goes with that. No thanks.

This plan is not economically sound or sound on any other front except relatively short-term profit for global corporations and the government members that enable these global entities to fleece the Canadian people.

Also, would someone please give Joe Oliver a dictionary! His definition of “radical” is merely a description of what the Harper Conservatives themselves do on a regular basis.

Could Oliver’s use of this term, together with Harper’s claim these “foreign” interests want us to be one big park, be attempts to emotionally manipulate us, as they know this proposal does not stand up to informed scrutiny?

Y.A. Zarowny

 

Qualicum Beach

 

 

Be Among The First To Know

Sign up for a free account today, and receive top headlines in your inbox Monday to Saturday.

Sign Up with google Sign Up with facebook

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reset your password

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

A link has been emailed to you - check your inbox.



Don't have an account? Click here to sign up
Pop-up banner image