@parker @Shlomo @grey

> t was the the native reserves that were involved with the pipeline. They're not a bunch of hippies that want to run free with the buffalo.

Sure. And they wanted a cut if they were going to have their areas put in danger, and most of them were willing to negotiate if the government gave them the ability to do so rather than just putting the pipeline on their land with no input (see: what harper would have done and what people like nugger would probably think the government should do). But the economics of actually negotiating with them didn't make sense, which is why TC dropped the idea.

> Conversely, it was American organizations funding much of the opposition to that pipeline. Because they profit from our dependence.

As they should, because the atmosphere doesn't stop at the border.

> All your doing is repeating lines developed by foreign interests under the guise of environmental sustainability.

You know I was invited to work on the green party of canada's strategy team during that period of time, right? We were the ones developing those lines. Thunder Bay, which had a green MP at the time, was where the opposition happened.

> Quebec not wanting Alberta oil didn't mean they stopped using oil.

They also didn't accelerate as much as cheap albertan oil would have allowed, either.

> They've been more than happy to import from foreign countries with less environmental regulation.

Again; alberta systematically undermines environmental regulation both nationally and internationally do not feed me this bullshit

> Being dependent on and subject to foreign interests

Meanwhile Alberta allows and encourages direct investment from KSA and elsewhere and is basically a foothold for foreign influence in canada. Try this bullshit on someone who doesn't live in oil country.