Canadian Minister Tells Enviros to F**k Off on Oilsands Obstructionism

In a no-holds-barred open letter, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver tells environmental radicals to take a hike, preferably off a high cliff. 

Canada is on the edge of an historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo.

Virtually all our energy exports go to the US.   As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear:  we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country.  We must expand our trade with the fast growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.  Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry.  No mining.  No oil.  No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.  They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.  They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.  Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach:  sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further. They do this because they know it can work.  It works because it helps them to achieve their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.

Wow.

That bit about the "quintessential American approach" hurts only because it's true.  

So what did President Obama do in the face of environmentalist agitation? He caved. Our bravely decisive president tried to put off deciding on the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline which would link U.S. refineries to the Canadian oilsands production until after the 2012 presidential election. But as part of the deal to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, the Republicans in Congress set a deadline for President Obama to decide by February 21 whether or not the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest. So which Democratic interest group will the president choose to alienate? The unions or the environmental lobby? 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    O'Bummer let me keep $40 a month for the next couple months.

    He's swell.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But not swell enough to make it a full year...

  • Zeb||

    Then he wouldn't have that stick to beat repubs with. It's a good one because if repubs go against any bill that the next extension gets attached to he can call them out on being against a tax cut.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm betting the unions are going to win this one. With an election coming, the big BO is going to go for the cash. I do expect he'll throw a bone to the enviros in the form of some regulatory change.

    This is what happens when your political platform has no uniting principles other than Hope and Small Change.

  • ||

    Can I get tree fitty?

  • ||

    Damn squirrels will let that through but not the one that would have actually made sense. wtf?

  • ||

    I wonder what would happen if Alberta took its oil money and left the confederation.

  • Tim||

    Develop nukes and block the straights of Hormuz...

  • ||

    They'd join the US if they left. The Republicans would welcome the extra 2 red seats in the Senate, while the Dems would think that Canada's general left lean relative to the US would at least give them an extra congressional seat, at least between Calgary and Edmonton.

  • ||

    Are Albertans really conservative? Wow, never knew. Nice.

  • ||

    Only in the Canadian sense.

    With the oil money, Albertans have a welfare state that would make a Scandinavian envious. And they get really techy if anyone tries to meddle with it.

    And the Public Service Unions have deals that their Minnesota counterparts can only dream of.

  • ||

    That's not going to happen, but if it did, it would make sense to add Puerto Rico as a state at the same time as a Dem balance.

  • ||

    Don't they have an actual conservative Governor who might be a VP candidate?

  • ||

    All ridings (electoral districts) in Calgary are held by the Conservative Party. All but one riding (out of eight) in Edmonton are held by the Conservatives as well. It's actually weird to see from the American perspective big cities voting for a center-right party.

  • ||

    Dick Luger was mayor of Indianapolis. Not to mention Herr Giuliani.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Notice how Oliver strategically worded his message to avoid any extra u words like behaviour or endeavour? Yeah, he knows not to get too Canadian when dissing the United States.

    Given the choice, Obama will piss off the environmentalists. He can't survive without union votes and I think they're more likely to stay home, although the leadership of both is too self-interested to leave the plantation for even one election.

  • ||

    I also see no reference to Kraft Dinner or french fries with gravy. Well done.

  • Tim||

    He's got his balls in the wringer. Good thing for him he never uses them.

  • ||

    Michelle keeps those in a dresser next the bed.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I think the President will piss off the unions. It's no-lose: the unions are never going to support anyone else, and he most likely views union workers as low-class useful idiots for the cause. In his heart, the President is anti-development.

  • ||

    The unions might vote republicans. The enviroweenies ar

  • tarran||

    Carter pissed on the unions, and unions broke for Reagan.

    Clinton refused to support some unions' calls for protectionism, and they broke for GWB who happily used protectionist tarrifs (such as the one one steel) to shore up their support and ensure his reelection.

    The unions are willing to vote Republican or to withhold their vote from Democrats. I expect that the Democratic party knows this and will fuck over the environmentalists at the most opportune moment.

  • kinnath||

    Can you say "Reagan Democrat" ;-)

  • Mike M.||

    "In his heart, the President is anti-development American".

    There, fixed it for you.

    Yes, he is probably going to side with the enviro loonies. He has been signalling for months now that he intends to run as what he is: a full-fledged lefty.

  • ||

    Or to translate your spittle - "The President is anti-redneck".

    Go back to licking Rush's balls.

  • ||

    Needs more Christ-Fag.

  • shorter shrike||

    Don't talk about my boyfriend!

  • ||

    And I'll continue licking Obama's balls.

  • ||

    Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm!

  • Mike M.||

    Do the world a favor and step in front of a train.

  • ||

    Everyone knows what you mean by "anti-American" so go fuck yourself.

  • Mike M.||

    I swear to God, I wish so much that you would get hit with pancreatic cancer.

  • Tom Nutall||

    shrike sucks cock by choice.

  • ||

    I don't know what he means shrike?

  • ||

    Its funny how the anti-Kelo people are pro-Keystone XL when the latter will force the taking/seizure of 56 different individuals property for a private enterprise.

    (as of 12/01/2011 there were 56 eminent domain lawsuits on behalf of Keystone)

  • ||

    Apparently, you don't understand what was wrong with Kelo.

  • Bradley||

    That, uh, it wasn't an oil pipeline?

  • ||

    That's my problem with it, too. If you want to build a pipeline, find a route that goes throw the property of people that are WILLING to give it to you.

  • ||

    The project could be approved without approving the use of eminent domain. The federal government could easily come back and say that the permits are contingent upon not using eminent domain. However, it's also true that eminent domain for easements to run public utility lines is quite different from easements for private benefit.

    I'm not familiar with many Kelo opponents claiming that they ought to be able to stop the power company or water utility from running service to their neighbors' if they want to.

    It's also funny that the same people on the enviromental left that tout temporary construction jobs on rail slag jobs on the pipeline for being temporary, and vice versa on the pipeline. As noted elsewhere here, the "jobs" argument is a poor one.

  • ||

    The "quentissential Amercan approach" bit really is more indicative of an unflattering Canadian bigotry towards all things American.

    Other than that, though, the Minister is dead on.

  • ||

    I think that it is a factual comment regarding the differences between our legal systems.

  • rts||

    No, it is standard Canadian politician speech to poison the well. In any campaign, each party will accuse the other of "American-style" something or other ("American-style health care", "American-style gun control", "American-style justice for the rich only", etc.), and this plays well for the majority of Canadians, unfortunately.

    As for me, I could only dream that we get "American-style gun control", or even "American-style health care", which has its problems but still beats ours by a country kilometre.

  • ||

    "country kilometre." I like that.

  • ||

    The part about the litigation is true. But using "American" as a pejorative for a process, shows that the writer things that by labeling something "American" he will automatically inspire an adverse reaction. Which shows a kind of reflexive prejudice that Canadians really should be better than.

  • ||

    Well, we do the same thing in a more limited manner. Like Canadian cuisine.

  • ||

    I hope someone molests you into a coma with a boot full of poutine, you filthy Anti-Canadite!

  • ||

    Hey, Canada gave us the Shat, so I'll always have a soft spot for the Great White North.

  • ||

    But they also gave us Bryan Adams...

  • ||

    Worse. Justin Beiber.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Rush makes up for all.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Dude, poutine is one of most delicious things ever. Ditto peameal.

  • WTF||

    What body parts are 'poutine' and 'peameal'?

  • ||

    You and I wish. It's rudimentary Canadian anti-American bullshit.

    MetER and colOr, mother-fuckers.

  • ||

    Yeah, Canadians really hate Americans. It drives them insane that in return, we really even don't think twice about them.

    I had an English roommate for 3 years. When she lived in Canada, she eventually just screamed at her roommates about how she just was sick and tired that every night was spent drinking and then slagging off Americans. And she was very mild-mannered and didn't particularly have any fondness for Americans either, but the routine just bacame too tiresome for her.

  • ||

    If America didn't exist, Canada would have to invent us.

  • WTF||

    I guess they need someone to blame for their shortcomings.

  • Zeb||

    If Canada didn't exist, we'd have more expensive oil and softwood lumber, but no one in the US woudl be able to figure out why.

  • ||

    This is why I left Canada. After living in the US for three years, and coming back and having to listen to what a bunch of bigots Canadians really were, while simutaneously priding themselves on how superior they think they are. It's appalling. If anything, it made me like America more.

  • rts||

    I also lived in the US for three years and moved back (after three years in the UK). Family is pretty much the only reason I don't move back south.

  • ||

    finally... a fellow Canadian--and a politician at that--with the balls to call a spade a spade. He will expend a lot of political capital dealing with the brain-dead Canadian political left on this one though... In the end, I wonder if the catharsis will make it worth the cost?

  • Zeb||

    Wow. Lots of Canadians here.

  • Paul||

    Sad, it seems like Canada is trying to be even more anti-science than the Republicans.

  • ||

    ?

    Just what part of the letter quoted is "anti-science"?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Paul,

    Sad, it seems like Canada is trying to be even more anti-science than the Republicans.


    I don't understand. How can letting oil companies exploit shale oil deposits be construed as being "anti-science"?

    Do you understand what "science" means, in the first place?

  • Zeb||

    Of course he doesn't know what science is. Very few people do. But the worst are the ones who thing that science can tell you what you (or even worse, government) should do.

  • ||

    You jumped over remedial stupid and went straight to nuclear. I feel sorry for whatever woman is saddled with you as a mate.

  • ||

    I feel sorry for whatever woman sheep is saddled with you as a mate.

    Corrected.

  • Paul's Little Wool Whore||

    I don't mind. He never talks politics while we're fucking, and he has a really soft touch.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He's not Joel Pile, is he?

  • ||

    So which Democratic interest group will the president choose to alienate? The unions or the environmental lobby?

    The enviro lobby won't break his legs.

  • Room 237||

    The issue is that the President is not going to met some costruction worker. He hangs out though with Darryl Hannah. He will chose the enviros so that he can still hang out with Darryl Hannah

  • ||

    Fair Enough.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. The hollywood types still love him despite his breaking just about every other campaign promise.

  • ||

    I bet he will appease the enviros. It has the added benefit of being the anti-business, keep gas-prices high and tax revenue low strategy. All important stuff for Obama.

  • ||

    the only way to Obama's wet dream of $5 gas is blocking the pipeline and letting the Iranians block the Hormuz

  • ||

    Actually, I believe the particular project this letter refers to is a pipeline from the oil sands to Kitimat on the West Coast, which would allow tankers to take Alberta Oil to China.

    The "Greens" are trying all of the tactics he lists in an effort to kill it.

    BTW: I believe this quote:

    They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.

    is more aimed at Americans than the crack about litigiousness.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    At least in this area, a lot of the rank-and-file union members are socially conservative. The only reason that they vote for Democrats is for the economic benefits. If they aren't even getting those anymore, they will vote Republican. On the other hand, the enviros will never vote for a Republican, so if Obama pisses them off, the worst they will do is vote for some third party or not vote at all. The obvious choice then is to side with the unions.

  • ||

    It only took the unions a couple months to abandon Obama after he just gave them the stimulus which was only the biggest public works project aimed at paying them off in history. They are as greedy as the corporations they claim to loathe. Maybe worse.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Definitely worse.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, I wish the people promoting XL would stop trying to claim it's about "job creation". People have been making plainly bogus claims and quoting absurd numbers about jobs created by XL.

    Those numbers are handily refuted, which results in some people then saying, "That means there's no real need to even build it."

    They say this because they are either:

    A) morons

    or

    B) liars

  • Old Mexican||

    Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver tells environmental radicals to take a hike, preferably off a high cliff.


    I mean between this and Ron Paul wanting to take us back to Slavery (or something equally stoopid that Soledad O'Brien insinuated yesterday,) this libertarian streak is getting to be really frightening!!!

    I mean... What took you so long to grow a pair? Why NOW?

  • Old Mexican||

    I better stop starting sentences with "I mean"...

  • ||

    My sense is that the president will choose jobs.

  • ||

    I agree if you mean fewer.

  • ||

    Why is it up to the president to decide whether or not a Canadian oil company and some American refineries can build a pipeline?

  • ||

    You can thank the American Public for voting in legislators who legislated themselves plenty of unconstitutional overreach to delegate.

  • ||

    wrong "reply to this", supposed to be @ SugarFree's question. Coffee has failed me once again.

  • Brandon||

    And yet you'll keep going back to it like the enviros to Obama, you mindless sheep!

    This message approved by Tea. For a better America. For a better future.

  • ||

    We at the Coffee Advancement Fund For Economic Investment in Natural Enhancement would like to remind you that Tea is a tool of British Imperialism.

    The Redcoats are coming, and they want to fuck with your breakfast. No Caffination Without Representation.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You can thank Congress for that. They delegated all of their environmental regulatory power to the EPA during the 70's.

  • ||

    Why was it up to Congress to decide whether or not a Canadian oil company and some American refineries can build a pipeline?

  • ||

    Commerce Clause?

  • COMMERCE CLAUSE||

    COMMERCE CLAUSE!!!! SMMMAASSHHH!!!!!

  • ||

    Which, of course, is why the State Department was making the call.

  • ||

    You'd think the Commerce Clause would be used to facilitate trade not impede it. Otherwise, what do we need a federal govt for?

  • Barack Obama||

    Brcause, fuck you. That's why.

  • Bok Sux||

    Union members are looking out for their own financial interests and are thus open to persuasion. Enviros are religious extremists that are capable of anything. Obama will risk pissing off the unions.

  • ||

    So which Democratic interest group will the president choose to alienate? The unions or the environmental lobby?

    Here's to hoping for the bifecta.

  • Room 237||

    The issue is that the President is not going to meet some costruction worker. He hangs out with Darryl Hannah. He will chose the enviros so that he can still hang out with Darryl Hannah

  • Darryl Hannah||

    I want the pipeline to be re-routed directly to my plastic surgeon's office to be used towards the upkeep of my face.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    The Canadian actually wants his country to succeed and be a better place. Obama don't give a shit. He wants power. The well being of the country or its citizens is incidental.

  • ||

    The well being of the country or its citizens is only of concern as far as their ability to contribute to his campaign.

    ftfy.

  • International Faggotry||

    There's no jobs on a dead planet!

  • ||

    We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.

    Burn the heretic!

  • BO||

    That deadline is unconstitutional, as it restricts my constitutional executive authority to be indecisive.

  • ||

    But as part of the deal to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, the Republicans in Congress set a deadline for President Obama to decide by February 21 whether or not the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest.

    Uh, yeah. Just like that deadline for getting Congressional approval for the use of force in Libya.

  • ||

    And the Federal Budget - required by "law".

  • Cytotoxic||

    Gotta say our federal government hasn't been totally shitty as of late. Which is pretty by comparison to the past and to our neighbour.

  • ||

    "Neighbour" looks so funky. Not it a bad way or anything, but it's unusual for me.

  • ||

    The law requires the EPA to do a proper environmental review of this project (or any others like it) and there's not enough time (60 days) to accomplish that review. If this minister supports the rule of law (as most other Canadians do) he should support our president in proceeding with our process as dictated by US law.

  • ||

    The construction of the pipeline is clearly advantageous for both countries and if the US doesn’t support it other countries will most certainly avail themselves of such a great opportunity. And I don't think that the Chinese government would succomb to the protests of some enviromentalist organizations. The latest studies reveal that the energy sector in Canada has recently been on the rise and it may contribute a great deal to the economic recovery of the country in upcoming years so there’s no reason to pass up this very first chance and let others make a profit.

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement