Nigel
Keith Stewart climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace only learned of the existence of a 44-page RCMP document titled “Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry” while perusing an article in Montreal’s La Presse which concerned an RCMP document on the monitoring of the Quebec cultural charter debate. Three sentences in the piece on the charter debate referenced a detailed document regarding the “anti-petroleum” movement which Stewart proceeded to track down. The content astounded him.
“When I first read it I actually started laughing” says Stewart from Toronto. “This is the RCMP wearing tinfoil hats. Which is kind of scary but also kind of humorous.”
The report — half of which is made up of appendixes — concerns the “growing highly organized and well-financed anti-Canadian petroleum movement” that is “encouraging” and “increasingly threatening” politicians and oil companies to “cease all actions which the extremists believe contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.” The use of “anti-petroleum” is odd enough Stewart say but he suggests the use of hedging phrases such as “claim” and “believe” is even more troubling.
“The RCMP only have to wander over to Environment Canada and ask them what they think and they’d find out it’s not Greenpeace who’s claiming this” says Stewart. “It’s the world’s scientists.”
Stewart notes the report would be “funny/sad” if it wasn’t for Bill C-51 the hotly debated “anti-terrorism” bill that grants considerably increased power to the Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS). The proposed legislation’s especially concerning says Stewart because of the lack of oversight in regards to CSIS — unlike the RCMP which has to justify its actions in court CSIS can operate much more covertly. But he remains optimistic.
“Given the amount of fuss there’s been in the last two weeks I think there’s a decent chance that some amendments might be made at the committee stage” he says. “What I’m hoping is some of the worst parts of this bill will get smoothed off. This was introduced as an election bill: they’re going to stay they’re tough on terrorists and who could be opposed to that?”
