Top Stories -   

1
The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia. The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia. Joe Oliver, the minister of natural resource, appears on CTV's Power Play on Monday, Jan. 8, 2011. Several dozen First Nations groups have said they will oppose the Northern Gateway project over concerns about the impact on their land. A giant piece of pipeline is placed in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery in downtown Vancouver. (Jonathan Hayward / THE CANADIAN PRESS) The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia.

Pipeline critics hit back after Oliver warns of 'radicals'

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News Channel: Brent Shearer in Vancouver
A CTV News correspondent says the three-member panel hearings are underway, which will work to determine whether the pipeline is in the public's interest and meets environmental safety standards.
CTV National News: Heated twin pipeline debate
Environmentalists and developers prepare to square off at hearings in B.C. Tuesday over the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline. CTV's Vancouver Bureau Chief Sarah Galashan has the details.
CTV National News: Environmentalists vs. economy
CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife says the Conservatives are determined to fight what they call the Hollywood celebrity crowd from having the kind of success that they had with the Keystone project in the U.S.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (90) Facebook   

The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia. The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia. Joe Oliver, the minister of natural resource, appears on CTV's Power Play on Monday, Jan. 8, 2011. Several dozen First Nations groups have said they will oppose the Northern Gateway project over concerns about the impact on their land. A giant piece of pipeline is placed in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery in downtown Vancouver. (Jonathan Hayward / THE CANADIAN PRESS) The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia.

Photos

The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia.

View Larger Image

Date: Mon. Jan. 9 2012 9:55 PM ET

Canada's natural resources minister has entered the fray over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline with a controversial public letter accusing "radical" environmentalists of trying to delay the project and undermine the country's economic interests.

In an open letter released on the eve of the first public hearing on the proposal, Joe Oliver says environmentalists and other "radical" groups are trying to hijack the regulatory process.

More than 4,300 groups and individuals have signed up to speak at the regulatory panel hearings, which begin Tuesday in Kitimat, B.C.

"Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth," Oliver wrote in the letter. "No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams."

In an interview with CTV's Power Play on Monday, Oliver said he's concerned that some of the pipeline opposition groups are using American funds to further an "ideological" agenda.

Those groups are "attempting to game the system and create so much delay that the economic viability of the project would be undermined," he said, adding that Canada must expand its oil export market beyond the United States to take advantage of international prices.

The anticipated $5.5 billion Enbridge Inc. project would result in a 1,177-kilometre twin pipeline carrying crude oil from Alberta to an oil tanker port in Kitimat, B.C., for eventual export to Asia.

Oliver's letter was widely criticized by its targets and some policy analysts Monday, who said the minister should not be "demonizing" Canadians concerned about the pipeline's impact on environmentally sensitive land in British Columbia and Alberta.

In a letter responding to Oliver's comments, Sierra Club Canada executive director John Bennett said his group has worked with U.S. foundations on environmental campaigns that benefit both countries -- and there is nothing sister about that.

"The critical point to make -- and for Mr. Oliver to understand -- is the fact that Sierra Club Canada and other environmental organizations decide on policy and programs and then look for ways to finance them. It's not the other way around as Mr. Oliver suggests," Bennett wrote.

Several dozen First Nations groups have also said they will oppose the Northern Gateway project over concerns about the impact on their land.

Oliver said delegations should be whittled down to expedite the project approval process, especially if different groups are appearing before the panel with the same concerns and talking points.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told Power Play that those concerns are "legitimate" and nobody is trying to "foot-drag" the hearings.

The MP representing Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C. alleges it was a Conservative government "propaganda machine," not Oliver himself, who wrote the letter attributed to him.

She said the letter makes "wild accusations," including allegations of foreign funds used to stymie the pipeline project.

May said the Enbridge project ultimately cannot be approved because it faces a "fundamental problem": putting oil tankers on the ecologically sensitive B.C. coastline, which has traditionally been protected from oil industry activity.

Oliver said that's why hearings will be held to ensure the pipeline is safe for the environment and affected communities.

He said the economic benefits of the project are undeniable.

"We're looking at the possibility of well over $3 trillion in economic development, hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue in the form of taxes and royalty payments to help finance our social programs, like health care and education and to create well over 600,000 jobs.

"This is in the national interest and it's urgent."

Comments are now closed for this story

Bill
said

Everyone is ignoring a glaring point that should unite everyone.Who in their right mind supports sending energy to a communist regime who have stated they will go to war against the west to protect their interest in Iran?Reminds one of the Rothschild and Bush clan making deals with the Nazis.Get a grip people if for nothing else your own safety.


cixcents
said

these radical groups damn well know that it could be done safely, with measures in place. However, they are politically bitter with the conservatives from the beginning, and they will do everything to stop the government from succeeding on its plans to advance the country if that would equate to more hurdles for the opposition in the next election. If the PM was any smarter, he should starve this malicious groups out of existence.


leftwingpinko
said

terance from alberta said "I am sick and tired of living in a province with these great resourses, and our counterpart provinces dispute this, even though we may be providing their income( ie: Quebec)"get real alberta. i remember an alberta premiere (peter lougheed) saying "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" because he wouldn't sell alberta's oil to the rest of canada cheaper than he'd sell it to other countries. alberta has never done anything for anyone other than alberta.


Gary
said

I honestly can't see anything triggering jobs to give a future to those people who live in those areas. I gout out of high school during a recession and was blamed constantly for not getting a job but it was the economic conditions. It's a necessary evil. There must be something that can be put around the pipeline if there is a leak or some other kind of environmental protection. $5 billion is chump change to Enbridge so I say use everything to try to protect the environment. Besides the birds and animals will come back when the heavy machinery leaves. You can't live off love and sunshine to pay the bills.


David
said

Agree to register all of the complainers/protestors and they can no longer purchase oil products; with this agreement, there can only be hope for furture reduction of the demand for oil products which includes plastic bottles, pharmacueticals, clothing products like shoes etc. Best of luck!.


Kelly
said

While other nations with far greater populations, and a fraction of the land base, with limited natural resources are able to thrive economically as nations, why is it that Canada's economic diversification plan always leads to increased volumns in extraction of raw resources, and anyone who opposes that is deemed a tree hugger or right wing environmentalist radical, or someone who is a threat to jobs and economic sovereignty. The reality is that we are far more resourceful as a nation then being equipment operators and labourers. The mass deportation of jobs overseas as we extract our job opportunitis at value-added points of process is a root cause of our lack of diversified job base and stable economic infrastructure. It's about time that the Government structures start innovate rather then continue to follow the same remedial economic plans expecting different results. I have grown up in the heart of northern industry, and after years of education believe that we have the ability to stabilize our economic requirements to suit our social requirements - rather then constantly looking towards resource industry growth as if it were 'progress' and the value of a nation. It's time for Canada to grow beyond the position of colonial outpost, and the U.S.'s younger brother to be an Economically Sovereign Nation on our own terms. British Columbia has an extremely varied terrane, climate and ecological condition, through it's inland and coastal regions. It's also my view that these are values and natural resources not worth risking, nor are our resources worth wasting on endless production of cheep commodities in overseas factories.


Bob,Calgary,Alberta
said

Environmentalists oppose progress simply for the sake of opposing anything that develops hydrocarbon resources yet they offer no tangible solutions to the world's use of said hydrocarbons. We could have windmills coming out of the ying-yang and solar farms as far as the eye could see but this would not make a dent in the demand for hydrocarbons. Of course we should make the pipeline as secure and technologically sound as we humanly can but the world needs the oil resources Canada can provide. There is always a risk of environmental problems like Exxon Valdex or the Gulf Spill but posed against these risks is the risk of not having oil to power our society. I would rather chance the risks to the environment than see industry shut down and humans freeze to death or starve to death to satisfy the pipedream views of David Suzuki and his fellow travellers..


ouifyg
said

Most comments here are completely missing the point! This isn't about oil or the environment, this is about the government once again silencing the voices of the citizens of Canada! Delaying this construction a few months for public hearings isn't going to hurt anything. The price of oil only has one direction to go. What is so bad about hearing the concerns of the population?


AnnieM
said

It's terribly sad to see that my home country of Canada is had descended into a quasi-dictatorship. Open and honest discourse seems to no longer be welcome in Harperland....We're not in Kansas anymore Toto.


PINVIC
said

If you don't want to hear from the public, what is the point of public hearings! The public unfairly taints "environmentalists" are extremists.Some people concerned about the environment would love to see solutions that brought about economic prosperity along with protection of fresh water and animal habitat. When you go to countries like China where this goes unchecked, the plants are coated in grime and by early morning you can barely see across the street. I don;t think this is what Canadians want.Hopefully common sense will prevail and great, sound solutions will be brought forward for both sides.


Tom, Kamloops
said

We have 7 BILLION people on a planet designed for way fewer. How about an economic model that lets our population SHRINK to a level which the planet (air, water, soil) can sustain? We're on a rapid road to destruction. It's always about "more, bigger, faster". How about "enough"?


Earth First, $ Second in Nanaimo
said

Two words! Exxon Valdez ... Off the coast of Alaska, the damage has yet to completely disappear. this happened March 24, 1989. An estimated 250,000 seabirds and more than 2,500 sea otters are thought to have died in that accident. Over a dozen Killer whales disappeared.Keep your oil away from our waters and the Great Bear Rainforest, the worlds largest temperate intact rainforest.Stay away from our waters...or this will happen again!


Michael, Halifax
said

Some seem to hate progress and love social programs but are unable to accept the fact that they have to be paid for through tax dollars. This pipeline represents tax dollars Represents payments for future social programThey hate money but love what money will buy.


A Koster
said

Dec 8 2010 "MPs pass motion to ban oil tankers off B.C. coast OTTAWA The House of Commons has approved a motion calling for a permanent ban on oil tankers off British Columbia's coast. The NDP motion, introduced by B.C. MP Nathan Cullen passed Tuesday by a vote of 143-138, with the opposition parties supporting it and the Conservatives opposed. The motion is not binding on the government, which maintains a ban is unnecessary since a long-standing, informal moratorium on oil tankers off B.C.'s coast is already in effect." [canadian press]... there we have it... we have the word of the cons ... the BC coast is protected against an increase in tanker traffic and therefore no point in building the pipeline... what's everybody worried about? And while we're at it, those are some pretty fantastic numbers that Oliver is throwing out... wouldn't mind a little breakdown as to where exactly he thinks all those jobs and money are supposed to be coming from... I trust Oliver with these figures as much as I trust that Harper will stand behind the protection of the BC coast.


Shep
said

They could clear the mountains out of the way by nuking them. Then pave a mile wide path, run two eight-lane highways both directions. And run some trains, too.


dccoulson
said

Lets consider the long term economic benifits for Canadians and safety of our ecology. We need to refine the bitumen before it is sent thru the pipeline to the coast. Refining the product will create permanent jobs here in Canada. Refining the bitumin into finished product will make it safer to send in the pipeline , if there was a leak finished product is less damaging to the environment than raw black thick sticky ugly bitumen-


Chad
said

To those commenting about dictatorship for four years... dictatorship does not come with time limits. Look around the world at real dictatorships for some perspective. What we have here in Canada is parliamentary democracy. The government has a majority as determined by ALL the people of Canada, not just the loud-mouth sore losers. This system has taken us a very long way in a little under a century and a half, so why do we have so little faith going forward? We live in the best country in the world (and I have seen the worst places in the world- up close and personal- and everything in between). I am all for healthy criticism to get it right. But is there not a reasonable way for 4300 groups to organize themselves so that the best arguments are conveyed in a civil, constructive and educated discourse? I would suggest this is the goal of public hearings. For most of the moderate people in the centre of the political spectrum this is the heart of the issue. Come on- 4300 speakers- give me a break! Bullying can come from both the right and the left.


Eddiej37
said

Some people say that this will create many jobs for the local economy. If that is so then explain what happened to a local community just a couple years ago. A pipeline was being built near their town. Workers were hired to build it, the trouble is about 90% of those workers were from outside the area since they had to have special skills and training. The only benefit to the local economy was while the outside workers stayed in the local hotels and ate from the local restaurants. Same thing happened in Prince Rupert with the port expansion. Most of the workers used were from outside of BC and once they left there were only a handful of permanent jobs. Same thing will happen with a pipeline, work for skilled outside people for a while, then once they leave only a very small number of permanent jobs while leaving behind a permanent threat to the environment.
Also, it is nice for Enbridge to tell us that they will be as careful as possible. I am sure that they have always been as careful as possible, but just look at how poor their record is in responding to pileline leaks. Some people say that oil already travels by rail and truck so the risk is already there. That might be true, but if a truck crashes or a train wrecks then the hazard is limited to the amount of oil in the tanks, if a pipeline ruptures then the leak is limited to how much that pipeline can carry until the flow is stopped. Just a year or two ago it took close to 20 hours for a leak to be discovered in a pipeline in the US midwest.


Mike Bass
said

how is this urgent? Are the Alberta oil workers with their 50,000$ pickup trucks starving in the streets? Are the oil execs suffering in their mansions? The real "radicals" are these profit-at-all-costs, demonizing politicians and industrialists.


BC Guy
said

The NeoCons have hit a new level of hypocrisy even for them!!....how can they blame "foreign" money (??how about foreign concern for the environment?) for "derailing" and undermining our resources when out the other side of their mouths they allow the Chinese to buy entire oil sands projects?! They are Using the Bush doctrine of "either with us or against us" I will not stand for this type of NEOCON politics in my Canada!


Rich
said

I am one of the "radicals" set to speak against the pipeline. Mr. Oliver and many of the commentators here do not understand that many of us from Northern BC oppose this development no matter what our political beliefs. We live here, hunt here, fish here because it is one of the last beautiful wildernesses in the world. The costs of a spill would be momentous and no price tag can be slapped on it. Our fisheries, and tourism for the next generations can not be simply discounted. You want jobs in Alberta? Build some refineries and quit exporting Canada's raw resources.


JC from ON
said

Are the economic benefits worth the environmental risk? That is the questions. One is certain the other is hypothetical. Don't get spun by the machine you view it in. Think of both side, im sure a compromise is available!


John
said

Short term profits for a long term pain. Who is going to benefit from this? The 1% as usual. Since when did business become so entrenched in our government? It's no longer for the people, it's for corporate interests. Job creation? HAH. This project just gives blood to countries overseas to steal more of our jobs. It will be sad in 30 years when there is no more oil and we have a giant scar across what is left of our gorgeous province. Far be it from politicians to come up with a plan longer than their term though.


Dave in Edm
said

I'm curious to know if the pipeline is built, the oil goes to China, how many of the boats used to carry that oil will be built in Canada? How many of those boats will be crewed by Canadians?


peter fiander
said

this is a 100 year commitment, not some tomorrow thingy. As a nation , we need to take the time to read the tea leaves that include the environmental impact on the land through which this pipeline will pass, but also the impact on the people who are directly impacted both environmentally and economically who live on the land.

The other question that arises is "why are we not requiring the companies that want to ship out relatively cheap goods through a high cost pipeline to upgrade the goods to a higher grade and building more long term jobs in Canda?


EddieJ37
said

I find it interestingly hypocritical that there are people objecting to environmental organizations accepting funds from outside of Canada in order to halt the pipeline, but these people do not seem at all upset the oil companies that are involved in promoting the pipeline are mostly foreign owned and are spending their 'foreign' money in promoting the pipeline. I guess foreign interests are only ok when they match what you want to do. It is also too bad that surveys conducted by the pro-pipeline side get the vast majority of their results from people in southern BC when the proposal will go through the back yard of people in northern BC. Why not survey the people that will be impacted the most by the pipeline instead of those that will never even see it?


Steve
said

Mr Oliver, I am neither a radical or a special interest group. I am an ordinary working guy in BC. And I take great offense at your comments. Endbridge has yet to build a pipeline that has yet NOT leaked, so why would I want that in my beautiful province. If it is so fantastic, feel free to build right through your neighborhood. As for all the spin about foreign interests hi jacking the process, that has already happened with Oil companies from China and Britain pushing for this. Why should my province be polluted so they can make billions?


Richard
said

...see this as a big poker game being played out in slow motion... wasn't there a pipeline this pipeline supposed to go to the USA? ..but for US presidential re-election and other political reasons the approval process got deferred? ...so now instead of refueling US Hummers the oil will be sold to the Chinese, a one party authoritative dictatorship who's military leadership must be ecstatic with joy right now ...some of those guys aren't the most friendly (to the democratic process) folks in the world.


Kyle
said

The U.S. pretty much controls Alberta anyhow. Perhaps if they take us for our oil, like Japan took us for our raw logs, and the Western States took us for water and hydro, maybe they will stop killing middle easterners. At some point, you have to decide which point of the gun do you want to be on, and fight for things you can control, or persuade, like off-shore, which is more vulnerable to disaster.


Rick Crammond
said

Oil is the new tobacco. Oil for energy will be an obsolete concept before the pipeline is finished. Pollution-free plasma generators will be far cheaper to run.


Stop Leak
said

For those who is afraid of leaks from the pipelines, there are solutions to stop the leak and or minimize it, for instance build two or more smaller pipelines across the sensitive areas, build more check valves to detect leaks,enclose the pipeline with another pipe line, there are tons of solution to stop a leak


MARG MM
said

While I agree that there needs to be public input, I also think that the "Hollywood type environmentalists" are trying to sabotage any attempt to get oil from the Alberta oilsands and have it shipped overseas. I guess when you are a multimillionaire with private jets and gas guzzlers you can still have the" Hollywood lifestyle" while trying to make some sort of statement on the environment. Too bad some of them don't practice what they preach. Apparently many people prefer to go back to the cave man days, where they would be satisfied to live off the land, give up all their "tech toys" and become hunters and gatherers again. Unfortunatly not one of them including Elizabeth May would give up anything and they will continue to "spout off" and then get in their cars, or board a plane and jet off somewhere. We do need to make sure that a pipeline would be as safe as it could possibly be, and that the tankers are as well, but there has been a lot of progress in that regard since the first pipelines that criscross the country were built.Canada is fortunate enough to have the resources, so we need to make sure that they are utilized safely. Let the public hearings begin, but I hope that they are able to go ahead in a timely manner and won't be hijacked by those that have no business "butting in", like people from other countries that have their own agenda.


Morg
said

Radical Harper government, right wing nut bars!


fretless
said

The only thing more stupid than infinite economic growth, is thinking you can tie it to a finite resource, And the argument that this isn't the 1900 is a valid one but hey …. it's not the 70's either! Let's redirect the incredible technologies we've developed in the last four decades towards more intelligent projects. The sun produces enough harness able energy in an hour to power the world for a year and we're arguing about wringing oil out of sand! Guess that why it's called "bitchemen"


john
said

This line will not be built. the railways will cooperate and run tanker cars to the coast on CN and back on CP. there will only be jobs for railcar builders. Hmm lots of investment will not happen and we will tranpsort a million barrels per day on rail cars. far less safe than a pipeline. the greenies will not be able to stop that


lynne
said

Keep the oil in Canada, pipe it to eastern refineries if necessary, across the flat lands, rather than over mountains. And the pipes should be double walled, just like any ship in our waters should have double walled compartments for any tanks containing materials which could spill and pollute. the technology is there. Then start working on renewable energy, Canada should be a leader in this field, which can create far more jobs that carbon based fuel production..


Jonathan from Saskatoon.
said

Typical socialist patterns involve a lot of fear mongering, bogging things down in "process" (i.e. holding hearings in which you can line up as many as possible to repeat the same darn thing), either shut down or shout over anyone expressing an opinion contrary to yours, and ignore and/or deny the realistic consequences of their preferred outcome. With thousands already lined up to speak, the obvious solution to the ridiculous amount of time it would take to hear everyone repeating the same 3 arguments is to have them all register their talking points and the first registered gets to present each point once for all. Affected aboriginal bands can also get together to speak with one voice. The same goes for the other side. Industry all gets together to pitch the pros. Labour gets their turn, as do rural and urban municipalities, provincial and federal governments. Foreign buyers should also have a voice, as whether or not they get the oilsands bitumen will greatly affect their nations as well.All told the list should be whittled down from thousands to under a hundred, and take no more than a few weeks. Final report written within 3 months.


nanica ferthig
said

hey Jack and Jebus have you ever woken up in the great bear forest with the sun coming up.....be careful if economic prosperity is so important to you; what will do when fresh water is the only currency left?


john
said

PIXIE DUST economics of the left!!How clueless can these left wing posters be, along with the whole segment of society that adheres to Socialism. We live in Canada for GOD sake with a fairly high standard of living. That standard of living will be lost if the cancerous ideology of the enviromaniacal socialists have there way. Come on you sadly misguided sheep does GREECE not ring a bell. You all cry when there are waits in hospitals, when there is overcrowding in schools, when taxes go up. Blah, Blah. WAKE up already, This project will bring jobs, cash, taxes, prosperity. That is how we pay for our social services there you radical left wing K%8?ks. Can you try and reason it out. My god people


Bill Lee
said

If the pipeline is crossing public land, Dave, we are all shareholders.


Will
said

Marg, nobody is trying to push this through without proper environmental study or protection. We just don't want idiots and paid interference to interfere with the process.


Duke
said

If you like Keystone, you'll love Gateway.


Let Common Sense Prevail
said

So sad that some Canadians would choose TEMPORARY "economic development" over long term protection of the only intact rain forest left in this country. The area the pipeline is planned for is beautiful and worth saving. Money and greed seem to be this Government's #1 priority over our health. Enbridge has a horrible record of previous spills and disregard for safety. People that think this is the safest way to transport oil are misinformed.


Daniel Gies
said

Economic progress at the risk of the lives and well being of other people now or tomorrow is not something that should be done with out extreme scrutiny. If there were not an outcry, things like this would be executed unchecked, without the consideration of the people it affects and this world would be worse off for it. There is a middle ground and the only way to find it is in open forum. It is a disgusting and hopeless world that focuses on temporary profit over long term, stable development. I support development if it has been duly considered and if the worst case scenario is considered as a manageable reality not as an unlikely possibility.The best ideas survive even the harshest critics.


Lefty
said

It is interesting how everyone makes apolitical deal out of this. True, most left oppose and most right want to build. I for one voted left but on this matter I would have to agree to build the pipeline. If there are sensitive areas it crosses perhaps it may be best suited to run diagonally from the oil sands down further south in BC. This of course would add to the overall cost of the pipeline. It may also be an option to use thicker metal in building. This is smart from both an ecological point and a financial point as enbridge will take a 800 million dollar hit for the spill in the states. Either way I think we should build the pipeline but do every effort to make sure it is safe.


terance from alberta
said

I am sick and tired of living in a province with these great resourses, and our counterpart provinces dispute this, even though we may be providing their income( ie: Quebec) Get real Canada..... if you have any sensibility at all you will start to realize where we have to go and what is going to fund your health care...... if you have any sensibility at all you will support your country and get on board.... are you all insane?


Elmer in BC
said

Aww forget it and just leave our oil in the ground. Build more oil platforms in the gulf to leak out, and import more oil from Iran to fund their nuke bomb. Then make sure these people with their thumbs down are not using an ounce of oil product or byproduct themselves.


sdgreen
said

Environmentlists are Canada's number one enemy against progress, there is no doubt they would prefer us to adopt a cave and neandedrthal small thinking. The Northwest pipeline will provide much needed short term employment, and long term revenues for government at both the Federal and Provincial levels to re-charge our services to people. The notion that construction will kill off salmon and other natural things is toially bogus and is only an envornonmental clarion call of mis-information.


Marg
said

I can't believe those radical right wingers trying to push this through without proper environmental studies. Their tin foil hats are way too tight.


Frank
said

I propose we build a pipeline into Eastern Canada, upgrade and build new refineries. This will create long term jobs and will keep it in Canada. Also allowing our oil products to be sold to Canadians at a fair price (yeah right). I for one am sick and tired of selling our natural resources to foriegn interests and having them sold back to us at inflated prices. Isn't it time to build this country into a self sustaining enitity instead of selling it off at fire sale prices. Build for Canada and Canadians


Len
said

How can he criticize those who want to speak to the proposed pipeline and how this will hurt Canada's economic prosperity, especially that jobs will be cut (not created). Let him criticize his own government and his own boss for allowing many jobs to be shipped overseas, for allowing Canadian companies to be taken over by outsiders and jobs lost (Stelco, Caterpillar in London). Isn't he being a hypocrite?


Wes
said

Why is it ok to push though the LNG pipeline, but the Bitumen pipeline, going along the same line is not.Most of you tree huggers are not educated in what has happened already.


Havelock Heavy
said

Hey Bruno, I would say you got it just about right but let me offer a slight upgrade: The Cons and Big Oil = In bed together!


Guelph Observer
said

So according to Mr. Oliver anyone that has a legitimate concern is a 'radical'??!! Well, call me a radical then. There is no way in the 21 century that due public hearing process should be short circuited for any reason - especially because a dumb politician who is in the pocket of big oil and believes the fairy tale about 'thousands of jobs'. Mr. Oliver should make sure that the public hearing process is squeaky clean and all legitimate concerns are duly considered and properly addressed by the fed/prov governments no matter how long it takes. That God foresaken tar ain't going anywhere in the mean time.


saskguy
said

Wes, this is an oil pipeline, not a gas pipeline....I have few problems with a gas line, or the idea of an oil pipe down to the gulf coast, yes both have some environmental issues, but not that much. An oil pipe to the westcoast along places like the Skeena does not make sense to me, just way to much danger to the environment.


bcken
said

Sure Conservatives, push this down our throats, without proper consultation. It'll just be another nail in your political coffin come 2015.


Jebus Widowmaker
said

Well I guess oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria and Iraq that treat human life like garbage is better then the tar sands oil. Just sell it to China already. They want it.


devils advocate
said

Yep that tried and true and tired old ad hominem used anytime a conservative wants to get people angry with anyone who opposes them - "you're against families, you're against jobs". It is not against anything to ask for due diligence on something so critical. It is not against anything to demand that the corporations who will reap huge economic rewards are required to do things right and make this process as safe as possible. It is not against anything to require our government to weigh everyone's interests equally not just those who have cash to contribute to their party. Being pro-environment means just that - looking out for our unrivaled natural resources and breathtakingly beautiful land. Growing the economy and protecting the environment are goals that do not have to be mutually exclusive it's just that neither "side" can or should have it all their way. Diseminating such nonsensical divisive claptrap doesn't benefit either group the real solution to economy and environment lies in finding balance. But for some it is apparently easier and more desirable to holler insults and hope more people drink your koolaid than the other guy's.


John ON
said

A pipeline from the Oil Sands is preferable to deep sea drilling in say, The Gulf Of Mexico! The leadership of the environmental movement seems to constantly get it wrong, If they're not feeding us with false data, they're telling us China is now an environmentally friendly nation. I'm a biologist and I just shake my head when these guys go off on some wild tangent and ignore the real issues.


DC in AB
said

Mary Davidson: Actually, most of the jobs will go to BC an spin off projects around Canada. Yes, a good number will go to Alberta, but if you won't let us put our pipeline through your province, we'll take it somewhere else, and you'll get NOTHING. Here's your choice: Do you want trains to carry the oil, trucks, or a pipeline? Before answering, think about how many pipeline disasters you've seen versus derailed, leaking train cars, or spills from semis.... Besides, your economy in BC is relatively week, and we're trying to help you stimulate it... take your pick my friends... we're bringing it your way regardless...


RG
said

Isn't the oil already on and in the ground?If we ship it and it spills,does it not return to the ground?And if we don't ship it won't we cry a river about the lost income?Isn't the economy already in a mess from lack of income and overspending by just about everyone.Not that I really care one way or the other as the ordinary citizen will not benefit,only big oil and big politicians will benefit in the end.


RK in Coquitlam
said

Harper and Oliver are right when they state that there is a well-defined ideology behind environmentalists trying to stop the Enbridge project. That ideology is found in the field of environmental ethics. Google “Deep Ecology”, “ecocentrism” and “Ecojustice” to find what that ideology is. As part of its entry on Ecojustice, The Encyclopedia of Ethics by Becker had this to say:“Ecocentric environmental ethics, ecojustice theorists claim, will remain a mere academic pastime unless it unites with an equally new and revolutionary economic and political theory that offers an alternative to the prevailing identification of development with industrialization, freedom with unrestrained consumption, and democracy with corporate oligarchy.” Sound familiar in the context of various environmental campaigns?


Reece
said

Alberta's exhaust pipe lying on top of BC's pristine marine park. No thanks.

D in Wpg
said

I guess the solution is for the Canadian government (which is a proponent of the project) to change the rules and limit public input to a maximum number of speakers or a maximum time. It is a standard tool in Parliament. It would establish a legal precedant to limit public debate though in public hearings. Good or bad?


Wes
said

China produces around 20% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Canada, about 2%.China is largely dependent on coal. With this pipeline we could create jobs, and sell clean buring natural gas to China to help them reduce their carbon footprint.To all the tree huggers, why doesnt this make sense in the long run?


Jack @ Ottawa
said

It is unfortunate that many posters are so blinded by their leftist-socialist ideals that they cannot ( or chose not to ) understand the value TO THE COMPLETE CANADIAN ECONOMY of the Gateway Pipeline. What proposals do these people have to replace the thousands of jobs & millions of economic dollars lost if the pipeline is aborted? Just wondering but .............


ron in victoria
said

how is it possible that there are 4300 reasons to stop the development ??? who are these people ? sounds to me this is just another greenpeace propaganda farce- maybe get bridgit bardoe and barbara streisand to do a sit down srike on the right of way with a bunch of children


Mary Davidson
said

This route is going through the best salmon and sport fishing rivers in the world which contributes millions to the local economy and could be devastated by a spill but the jobs and money from this pipeline will mainly go to Alberta. BC must take a stand and say NO.


Shane
said

What about keeping north and bypassing BC completely? Pass thru the lower NWT and Yukon. Hit the coast in the Yukon and give local residents priority for jobs over those from other areas.Might cost bit more but the oil companies have made quite the killing last year in profits so I think they can afford it. Not to mention the profits once it gets built. For that matter why not just build big and talk with Russia about building a pipe line right across the straight and onto the other continent? No ships no coastal issues.


Bruno
said

The Cons and Big Oil = Friends


Danny
said

Hey protestors, we have some of the most strict laws regarding pipelines in our country. We can't live off the land anymore we live with the land. Wake up it is 2012 not 1905. Most of us like to work and this will create very good jobs. Green jobs do not produce enough work to keep all of us empoyed. Lets get the machines on the groud and get this project moving. Elisabeth May you are ridiculous by the way.


Dave in Courtenay
said

The wrong question is being asked. It is not just pipeline, yes or no. It should be do you want the oil transported by pipeline, railcars or trucks, and is your preferred port, Kitimat, Vancouver or Bellingham. The oil will be moved. It is just a question of how and where.


brian
said

Radicals, wow! Next they will be calling them "terrorists" Better warm up CSIS, JTF2 and revive the RCMP dirty tricks squad. The economic and national security interests of Canada are at stake. Think I'm joking?...


Desparado
said

Lets build the darn thing, do it right and make the security so tight around the pipeline that we won't have to about someone trying to sabotage it. This pipeline is good for Canada, it is good for everybody in this country because we'll all financially benefit from it.


Dave
said

Never mind economic interests, What about Canadians charting their own futures? If your not a land owner, Canadian Citizen or small business owner in the local community,then you my friend are NOT a stakeholder in any development anywhere at anytime in this country.


Mike @ Canmore
said

How ironic for Mr. Oliver to say ... "Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth," I have yet to see the jobs that the Harper government had promised to create despite the billions of $ spent, without accountability and no result to show. Canada is in record deficit. Unemployment rate remains high. It is so convenient to put the blame on "radical" groups and environmentalists for failure to create jobs.


Ed
said

The truth is that Green Peace and American & European celebrities do provide money to oppose these projects while jet setting across the globe. I doubt if any of the unemployed Canadians are opposing the pipe line. One wonders how Arabian oil gets to the U.S. without crossing the ocean!


Andy in Halifax
said

Well, I guess if you're an anti-science/climate change denying ignoramus, any form of environmentalism is "radical". This government is terrible!


JD, Ontario
said

I'd much rather the pipeline go through Canadian lands to ultimately provide more benefit to Canada, and an alternative to the almighty U.S. monopoly. We should open our markets to Asia and the hearing process being streamlined to avoid repetition is not unreasonable. 4,300 intervenors is unreasonable.


Incredulous
said

Someone must remind Harper that this is not Russia and that he doesn't rule of a kingdom. This bullying is getting absolutely ridiculous and must stop. Opponents to the Enbrige project are not radicals. They are concernes citizens who care about BC's coast and Canada's environment, and know too well what Enbridge's track record is with environmental safety. The only "radicals" here are members of the CRAP government who have decided they will do what they want, when they want, with absolutely no regard for Canadians.


Chris - Vancouver Island
said

What better way to derail a program in Canada than to feed a set of groups bent on crying foul. I think they call it lobbying. USA is well known for its tactics.


Albertas loss
said

I was listening to the radio today from one of the powers that be - I forget his name. He said this pipeline would inject over a trillion into Canadas revenue. If that is true, does this mean we will see a tax break? I there something appreciable to my household like tax breaks or oil royalties like they have in Alberta and Alaska? Otherwise, why should I care if the communist Chinese get our oil or not? The only thing that is free today is walking along Stanley Parks water front and enjoying nature interact with us and with the beautiful sunset. If my life isnt better because of this oil pipeline then why the heck would i allow you to risk my playground? Tourism brings billions of dollars to the West coast unlike Alberta - Alberta only has oil and has nothing to lose with oil spills because it simply is a frozen tundra...hence why the West coasters have a different opinion and why we cherish nature. You guys lives are all oil - its definately not about quality of life in Alberta.


Joan in Real World
said

Harper is trying to set the stage for stiffling any kind of debate about this project by demonizing anybody that opposes him. The opposition to the Enbridge pipeline is major. It includes a great number of citizens, 60 BC First Nations, environmental protection groups and a number of other concerned citizen organisations. The REFORMERS have no regards for the democratic process. -- We must stand strong and tall against this kind of bullying, or it is a dictatorship that we will have for the next 4 years. Pure and simple.


Helga Laval
said

Mr. Oliver is right because these radicals are the same types that expect Canada to be a socialist utopia for themselves yet what industry and who will be left to pay for their Wonderland entitlements they expect is their right by birth?


Marcel
said

Harper should pass legislation barring any non-Canadians and Canadian organizations getting money from abroad from any part in these hearings. With a majority government, he can change the terms of reference of the hearing process. Groups that can't find enough support in Canada to raise money, should not be calling for American and/or European interference in our affairs. We cannot have Canada's economic development be held hostage by these Luddites. In Germany, the two largest wind-power companies went bankrupt as soon as government subsidies were removed. Like it or not we need oil.


testy
said

the only "radicals" here are these REFORMERS trying to sell off Canada to the highest bidder without the smallest concern for our Country's ecosystem or environment. Now there "attack" machine is out to demonize anybody that doesn't hold their point of view, so they can push through their environmentally unsound project. They should be ashame.


Government Logic
said

If this is so important why not build it right through downtown Vancouver? That area is filled with boats and necessary shipping areas already. One more Canucks Stanley cup run and the rioters will blaze you a path.


Real in BC
said

Finally, politicians who acknowledge there is indeed a very real and active anti-industry element on the far left in this country that seems to want nothing to do with legitimate progress, process, or nation-building if it means progress like this pipeline, except to use it to stifle such progress. Thumbs way up for this government.


Jack @ Ottawa
said

Who is Elizabeth May?Is she the American activist who has appointed herself as the only person who knows what is best for Canada?She is a joke


Get Real
said

Stop the Endbridge pipeline: Instead buy your Oil from Iran and the Middle East, and the cumbayas will be able to keep blaming the U.S. and Canada to go to war for OIL in the Middle East,, gosh why aRE THEY SO BRAIN DEAD!! We have more Oil in Canada than anywhere else in the world, then let's exploit ours for a change, War will then come to an END. Prof Pye Chart, can you explain it to the cumbayas?


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Monday, May 28, 2012. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Federal government orders end to CP Rail strike

More   51 Comments 51    7 Video(s) 7

Dominic and Abby Maryk were found in Mexico four years after allegedly being abducted by their father.

Extradition sought in Winnipeg missing children case

More   4 Comments 4    3 Video(s) 3

Protesters opposing Quebec student tuition fee hikes demonstrate in Montreal, Sunday, May 27, 2012. (Graham Hughes / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Quebec, students resume talks on tuition hikes

More   26 Comments 26    1 Video(s) 1