122

Most Canadians oppose foreign ownership of critical mineral projects, survey finds (www.junonews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Scotty@scribe.disroot.org to c/canada@lemmy.ca

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While most Canadians support developing the country’s critical minerals, they don’t want to see it done by foreign companies, according to a new survey by the Angus Reid Institute.

Nearly 60 per cent of respondents said they considered losing sovereignty over such resources to be a larger threat to Canada than “missing out on development and jobs because of a lack of investment.”

...

“Three-in-five (60 per cent) Canadians believe Canada should limit foreign investment; one-quarter (25 per cent) would welcome it, in general. But even among those who welcome foreign ownership only one-third (35 per cent) say they would do so without restricting what resources are available for investment,” reads the study.

“There are also many countries Canadians would ban from ownership in critical resources outright. The top of the list are countries already under various levels of global embargoes – Russia (69 per cent would restrict ownership), North Korea (67 per cent) and Iran (60 per cent), as well as China (59 per cent), where investment has been discouraged by Ottawa in key areas for a number of years.”

Over a third of Canadians would also “bar the U.S. from investing in critical resources in Canada” at 37 per cent, even as the trade war persists between the two countries.

However, 66 per cent of Canadians said they would “prioritize lowering tariffs and guaranteeing value-added jobs (64 per cent) in exchange for U.S. access to critical minerals.”

...

Five of the 11 nation-building projects announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney for fast-tracking include critical minerals, such as nickel, graphite, and copper.

If approved by the Major Projects Office, the projects would be funded by both public and private dollars, with the majority coming from the private sector

...

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Well, yeah. All our natural resources are Canada's bread and butter. They should all be nationalized and sold at a price by the unit. Whether it's lumber, minerals, oil, gas, electricity, water, etc.

[-] dermanus@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

"In a follow up question as to whether they would support higher taxes to prevent foreign ownership, 95% said no"

Not an actual quote, but this is usually the problem when questions like this come up.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

other follow up, "would you prefer higher unemployment and recession while waiting for adorable and loving US partners to invest and manage our resources?"

[-] Threeskittiesinatrenchcoat@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Juno News is directly linked to the CPC and has on multiple, occasion been responsible for spreading misinformation, and disrupting our national debates during a federal election.

That said, I agree with the poll.

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago

Yet the pattern is that selling Canadian stuff to private investors will still happen. I hope it doesn't though. This era should be a sea change where we learn from our past mistakes, not make them all over again because it's easier.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago

Excluding US ownership, of course, because most Canadians are total imbeciles. Need to stop treating corporations as having some patriotic or values qualities. Canada needs investment. Stop caring where it comes from, but especially demand good deals for Canadians in terms of mineral rights/royalties.

[-] xploit@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Well, I also oppose local corporation "ownership" of critical minerals....or government for that matter cuz you just know they're just gonna fuck it up. Dunno about the indigenous, but at least get haven't dug it all up, destroying the nature in all those centuries they've been around sooo ...maybe?

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

OMG the nobe savage trope again. Why do people think natives are some nobel savage who cares about the enviroment? They are just humans and just as shitty as every other human on the planet.

[-] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

I, a colonizer by birth and person of average shittiness, care deeply about the environment, because I live in it. I'd have to be profiting pretty obscenely from destroying humanity's future to budge that balance of self-interest. But as a regular working-class person, nothing I earn in my entire lifetime could possibly outweigh -- nor secure -- personal access to clean air and water, healthy food, and the natural beauty of our land.

In this context, the only distinction I see between myself and a "noble savage" is that indigenous people have, if anything, a stronger and more legitimate sovereign claim to Canadian territory (along with a tradition of more direct reliance on it). Why wouldn't they care? And maybe they don't care more than anyone else, especially relative to how they're personally impacted. But whether from care or convenience, they are vastly over-represented among the people that actually show up and put their bodies on the line opposing environmental destruction. They're 5% of our population, yet as best I can estimate a plurality across front lines nationwide.

With the billionaire class consistently getting to do whatever they want to the planet, it's very easy to forget: Even in the face of so much pro-business propaganda permeating our media, environmental protection is actually one of the areas where the rest of the world is not very divided at all.

Besides...the more "civilization" I see, the more attractive the label "savage" becomes.