If you love Canada, do you also have to love Keystone XL? - Macleans.ca

If you love Canada, do you also have to love Keystone XL?

Thomas Mulcair goes to Washington and upsets Conservatives


Thomas Mulcair has gone to Washington and criticized the Harper government’s environmental policies and questioned the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline and this has upset Brad Wall, Ed Fast, Joe Oliver, James Moore and Michelle Rempel.

The “national interest,” of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

Premier Wall and the Harper government (and the Saskatchewan NDP) believe Canada would be better off with the Keystone XL pipeline. Thus, championing the pipeline is speaking in the national interest. The NDP’s position on Keystone XL, conversely, seems to be that the oil would be better put to use in Canada and that there need to be better policies governing the environmental impacts of the oil sands. Along those lines, Mr. Mulcair would probably argue that he is speaking in the national interest.

So is Keystone XL in the national interest? Shawn McCarthy looks at Mr. Mulcair’s logic on job creation. And Clare Demerse looks at the Harper government’s environmental record. President Obama, meanwhile, allegedly thinks “the Canadians” are going to get rich.

As for how an opposition leader should speak when abroad, that’s also a tricky matter. When Mr. Harper went to Washington in 2005, he criticized the Liberal government for not spending enough on defence, peacekeeping and foreign aid, spoke with the President about the possibility of missile defence and, at a news conference, suggested the Liberals were associating with groups that had terrorist affiliations. He probably could have claimed to have been speaking in the national interest in each case.


If you love Canada, do you also have to love Keystone XL?

  1. I guess all those times when Harper went abroad and trashed Canada on a variety of things including war….in speeches and on network TV….don’t count eh?

    Just when it’s Mulcair and an oil pipeline……

    • When Harper states abroad that Canada should be better able to defend itself, is that speaking against Canada’s interest?

      When Harper states abroad that Canada should participate in NA missile defense, is that speaking against Canada’s interest?

      When Harper states abroad that Canada should be worried when Canadian
      political parties associate themselves with terrorist organizations, is
      that speaking against Canada’s interest?

      Perhaps not. Perhaps it IS a good thing to let the US of A lead the
      defense of Canada and be on guard for terrorists parading under false
      names. It sure would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canada to let the US
      do the dirty work for us! Just ask how the Americans feel about that. .

    • EmilyOne, let me try and pick your smart brain once again:

      When Mulcair reasons the way he does (and you are familiar with his reasoning regarding the XL pipeline since you’ve commented on it) do you think that the export of potash by Canadians should be limited also, because potash too is a resource we cannot make more of.

      Many of us are waiting to see how smart you are. And we want to know how smart Mulcair is, of course. So why don’t you tell us how it all works out in real life?

  2. Well, to continue with Mulcair’s reasoning, let us then say that potash should no longer be exported because we have a lot of farmland to worry about and those farmers (OUR farmers) will need potash for many centuries to come. They don’t make more of the stuff, you know!

    What a dork!

    • So you believe it is better to export oil rather than build a pipeline east so that we can use it in Canada? why? do you believe that Government makes the same money, only we don’t waste dollars on overpriced imported oil and become self sufficient? I believe the term Dork has been misplaced

      • I believe you have not even tried to address the potash scenario I just placed before you.

        What? You also have trouble understanding Mulcair’s reasoning?

        I thought so. All people do!

        • Kind of a misleading comparison. Mulcair isn’t saying “don’t export at all”; he’s saying “Keep the processing jobs in Canada”.
          We should export finished rather than raw product, rather than letting the Americans do the processing. Given the choice between creating jobs for Americans or for Canadians, I know which I would choose.

          • No, actually Mulcair said that some of the oil resource should remain in Canada because we, as Canadians will need it for a long time to come.

          • One of us has misinterpreted Mulcair’s words; that’s not what I got out of what he said. I’ll go back & take aother look later; got real-life stuff to do at the moment.

          • I might look it up for you. Will post it when found.

          • I choose not to do real life stuff today, that’s why I’m here with France.

          • This from Mulcair’s speech to the Canadian-American Business Council on March 12, 2013: “We have never taken care of our energy security. We tend to
            forget that a 10-year supply to the U.S. is a 100-year supply to Canada.
            We are still going to need the energy supply to heat our homes and run
            our factories, whether it comes from the oilsands or it comes in the
            from natural gas. Fossil fuels are always going to be part of the mix.”

            I cannot find the text of the entire March 12 speech.

          • Your a tired old lady that (by your own words “painter all my life”) has never worked a honest day’s work in her life. Go complain about something important, you have the free time. You had the time to post thousands of comments here. Go write Muclair instead, go be useful and do SOMETHING, don’t tell me I’ve never done anything positive in my life. I have a job, a real job. I don’t paint pictures for money, I make sure people have electricity from a clean source.

          • She’s high on Muclair’s logic. It doesn’t matter if we should process or if we should sell it raw. She’s worried about the logic. I’m sure Muclair meant to keep fully refined oil in Canada for a really long time and that he didn’t mean to leave bitumen in the ground.

          • Are you sure that is what Mulcair meant because no one else is really too sure what he meant.

            Even Wherry is confused about what Mulcair really meant.

          • I’m not sure anyone knows. I think the bitumen should stay in the ground until it is really worth something. But that is not going to stop people from abusing oil use.

      • Is there any reason we can’t build 2 pipelines?

        • Specially since North America is full of pipelines being underground. Millions and millions of miles of it, without problems we can’t solve. Without the pipelines, the average citizen couldn’t even function in daily life.

          • No, you couldn’t function.

    • It should be value-added in Canada, if the costs are reasonable. Secondary production is a great money maker, when done efficiently. So why can’t we do it efficiently? Or why won’t we? Does all value-added production always need to be shipped south or west?

      I’ve often wondered the same thing about our vast gypsum resources, locally. The gypsum is mined here, put on built-for-purpose train lines, transported onto built-for-purpose carriers at a built-for-purpose port, shipped to the southern states (Carolinas, I believe), processed into wallboard, and then shipped back to Canada. Consumers bear the costs of all that shipping, and local workers/captains of industry get none of the benefit of the processing.

      • You are of the opinion that it should be value-added. But no one is stopping you or others from doing the value adding.

        • I’m not sure why there’s virtually no wallboard manufacturers here, but I do know that a plant in Point Tupper has had a hell of a time (for 20+ years) breaking into the wallboard market in North America, despite the advatage of a) being right next to the source of raw materials and b) the availability of less-expensive labour in the Port Hawkesbury area.
          I suspect that National Gypsum and Louisianna-Pacific control a protected dual monopoly, but I’d have to do serious research to back up such an allegation. And this is a comment board, so suffice it to say that I’m not doing that research.

          • Some good points raised by you. All very interesting and insightful. But at the end of the day, it must be said that one will find a world full of obstacles if one would dig deep enough.

            The point still being though, that no matter what: processing is still allowed to happen in this country.

  3. When Harper states abroad that Canada should be better able to defend itself, is that speaking against Canada’s interest?

    When Harper states abroad that Canada should participate in NA missile defense, is that speaking against Canada’s interest?

    When Harper states abroad that Canada should be worried when Canadian political parties associate themselves with terrorist organizations, is that speaking against Canada’s interest?

    Perhaps not. Perhaps it IS a good thing to let the US of A lead the defense of Canada and be on guard for terrorists parading under false names. It sure would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canada to let the US do the dirty work for us! Just ask how the Americans feel about that. .

    • Nevermind her, she’s off her meds again.

      • Is that what it is with Francie? I’ve always wondered.

        Her posts go straight into my trash….total airhead.

        • (psst….EmilyOne…….you must have read my posts before putting them in the trash…….you naughty girl, you!) lol lol lalalalalal la la la

          • Pssst Francie….this is the top….at least momentarily….of the threads. I look at the threads on Macleans. Rarely see you, and don’t bother reading them if I do

            Your posts to ME go to my Inbox at Yahoo….and straight into the trash.

            So unless I happen to see one on Macleans….sorry.

          • Oh, EmilyOne, you are such an easy target to put on display:

            Funny, and I mean funny! how you insist you don’t read my post but then reply to me exactly about the contents of my post which you insisted you didn’t read at all…….

            I wish it was possible for you to be able to look at yourself from a distance. That, at least, would supply you with a good laugh every now and then.

            (EmilyOne, don’t peek at the contents of this post….) LOL.

          • My gawd….whatever you’re high on….get off it!

          • EmilyOne, you peeked again! You really are a naughty girl. Who would have thought………

            ps: I will keep you posted. LOL

    • On missile defence, yes he was speaking against our interests. The Dew Line was a huge environmental disaster that we bore the cost of, and would have provided minimal protection to Canada. No thanks on the half-baked schemes.

      It certainly was not in Canada’s interest to join Bush’s war, based on the lies told by Colin Powell.

      I will agree that having a well-equipped miltary is in Canada’s interest. Bang-up job he’s doing on that front (not that Chretien did any better).

  4. It amazes me how quiet the comment board goes when a reasonable counterargument has been posted. Truly amazing that the likes of EmilyOne and the likes of BrainDrainXP don’t even put in an effort to expand on Mulcair’s extraordinary reasoning skills. Such a shame.

    Perhaps the pair would like to counter Wherry’s reasoning skills, just for the fun of it you know – less intimidating than trying to take on the big guy Mulcair…. :)

    • Let’s continue the reasoning a little further if I follow it. We should also build massive pipelines for LNG and ship as much gas oversea’s as we can so we can sell it at a loss.

      • But only if we allow the gas companies to frack so the water table becomes polluted. And only if the massive amount of electricity required for the fracking comes from burning said LNG for power so we can pollute the air as well. Just so we can line the pockets of Harper’s friends.

        • You poor, poor soul. Good thing many others don’t see our lives filled with that many negatives. If in the past, the Canada builders would have had such a negative mindset as yours, this country would not have flourished at all. By your standards we would still be living in mud shacks and raising horses for pulling along the plow and seed-drill. Oops, sorry, farmers should still be seeding by hand……………my mistake… lol

          • Because I service a 200million dollar truely green energy installation in the Canadian north? Make some sense, what have you done lately, troll this website?

          • Sorry, Dawson James. I had no idea you were that special. You servicing a $200,000,000.00 green energy installation in the Canadian north? All by yourself?

          • There are six of us that work there. So no not by myself.

      • Why would we sell at a loss? Who is proposing we should sell our resources at a loss?

        • LNG is $3 right now, it was $15 last year. China is fracking every rock they can and buying our gas companies. China doesn’t get into gas for profit, they get into gas to power their economy which is where they make their money. The government at large is pushing for oil and gas development not regular Canadians. Regular Canadians don’t care if Harper’s friends make money of Canadian resources.

          • How many Canadian gas companies have the Chinese been able to buy? Please be specific.

            How much oil and gas do you currently consume? And how long do you think resource extracting companies could stay in business if they would not turn a profit?

            (profits are measured in an up and down market, but you understand that much, right??)

          • So two companies with not even holding a complete interest. Two companies bought into by the Chinese and you are saying that Canadians have given over control of our oil and gas to the Chinese?

            Oh, my, what exactly is the definition of paranoia?

          • Yea, they work on the ground and in the mines too. They make money and take our resources. Because they bought in, yes that’s right. You’d give it away if you could.

          • I work at a wind park and drive a diesel that gets 50mpg when I buy my gas at Suncor

          • Do I really care about a company like Apache or Halliburton and how well they do. I hope they go out of business. It’s not the multi-national company and there rich investors. I care about the people of Canada. If you think those companies care about your well being……..The people that work for those companies, the Canadians out in the field right now, they aren’t going anywhere. Why do you care about multi-nationals. Like you said to me earlier, go process something. We have a lot of people in Canada that can process and extract hydrocarbons. Why do we need Americians or Chinese or any other group telling us when and where they are going to take our resources? Because Harper’s in charge and he’ll sell the farm to get the crops to market.

  5. I agree our potash, our oil. Keep it in Canada Conservatives. Never in my life has Canada failed as a country for it’s people as it has under Harper.

    • It’s not about oil, or potash, or potatoes or anything else…..Harp is complaining because Mulcair said something nasty about Canada while outside the country.

      Just like Harper used to do. Until quite recently actually.

      • Harper uses misinformation and lies. Our banking system’s strength, nothing to do with the gov, it was the man who used to be in charge (who now work’s for Britain). The jobs created by the government aren’t Canadian jobs, they’re jobs for people from other countries working in Canada. Harper doesn’t believe in climate change, Harper believes if he cuts enough jobs in the gov sector’s of the environment and science his message will be understood.

        • I think he was counting on a big oil job after retirement, and that appears to be going up in smoke….maybe he’ll be back to the mailroom

        • Yup, Justin will win big if you and EmilyOne are to be indicators of the Canadian voter level of intelligence.

          Have you people ever considered using reason when commenting?

          • Why do you think I would vote for Justin or Muclair? Cause I’m not

          • Why would you not answer the question in regards to the potash and the export of lumber? See, Mulcair won’t answer that one either and neither will Justin. So, I was thinking that such none answers appealed to you enough to favour them.

            Sorry if I assumed incorrectly that you are a Justin or Mulcair supporter.

          • I just said not to export anything without turning it into a complete product here? Potash, trees, oil you can make alot of things using those products but we wouldn’t know that because all we sell are resources.

          • Then go ahead and start a processing plant of any kind (wood, oil, what have you). No one, and I repeat, no one is stopping you!

          • My full-time job providing energy to 60000 people with zero emissions is keeping me busy but I might build furniture in my retirement.

          • So why would you say that anyone is stopping you? You are free to pursue a career in processing. That you chose not to is your choice. But that is something different than believing that processing is not allowed in Canada.

            When there is a will there is a way, even in processing, even in Canada. How do you think Canada became what it is today? You think it was by people not having the will?

          • I’m a journeymen electrician. Not a politician or businessmen. I choose my career, I know you don’t have one. So why don’t you do it? I’m busy, your on Old Age Pension. You have time.

          • Actually, I work in processing. I am turning paint and canvas into a processed product. Anything else you feel a need to lie about? And some of my paintings are hanging in other countries so I am an exporter also.

          • No, your an artist. What you do does nothing to help your fellow Canadians, you paint to make money. Your Mick Jagger, might sound good, does nothing.

          • LOL, so given the choice to go and manufacture something, you choose to help generate electricity, a crude resource, which might even be exported!

          • Actually this is interesting. Under the wheat board, the durum wheat grower could not even process his own grains and turn them into pastas without having the wheat board involved.

            Under the wheatboard rules, the farmer has to buy back his own durum wheat from the wheat board before he could go ahead and produce pasta for export. Thank god those kind of obstacles have been removed by this government!!

          • I don’t care about pasta, I can’t even tell if you are been sarcastic.

          • No, I am not being sarcastic at all. I am as serious about the subject as they come.

            What, you don’t believe me about the old wheat board rules? You really are ignorant about what goes on in Canada.

          • I’m not a farmer so why would I know, but it sounds like the Wheat Board has had some problems for sure and you just highlighted one of them.

          • The point is that those wheatboard flaws have been highlighted for decades and only this government has had the courage to call an end to it.

          • This government also lies to it’s people.

          • tell me the lies…..tell me all of them if you want to. Let’s see what you consider a lie.

            Me, for instance, considers it a lie when someone says that oil refineries would not be allowed by government. Would you, for instance, consider that a lie?

          • “A lot of the developmental costs you’re reading in the United States, the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We’re very confident of our cost estimates and we have built in some latitude, some contingency in any case. So we are very confident we are within those measures.”

            Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/harper-says-canada-exempt-from-rising-f-35-costs-1.629143#ixzz2NYq1RukH

          • This government has no courage, they are a bunch of cowardly snakes.

          • Absolute nonsense Dawson. We export tons of services, finished products and lots of intermediate products as well. We’re still a major exporter of planes, cars, and many other manufactured goods. Look it up, seriously. Next, a lot of our ‘resources’ are intermediate. For example, the oil we export from the oil sands is already significantly upgraded. We start off with sticky dirt and turn it into crude oil. That’s not just selling a resource, that’s a lot of processing. The same with Pulp, lumber, etc.

            But the more important question is why does it matter? If we make more money, if we find out competitive advantage in selling less finished products, why is that bad? Shouldn’t we focus on a strategy that makes Canada as prosperous as possible? Isn’t that the point of an economy?

          • Have you left your house in the past year? My level of intelligence? Let me tell you something about intelligence. It’s over-rated, look at you, so smart. Painting your little paintings in your condo, trolling websites all day. Showing the whole world how smart you are. But you’ve never done anything. Oh your super smart, you’ve never done anything useful in your life that’s how smart your are. Go paint that picture genius.

          • Nice one mate. Arrogant people are the absolute worst. Of course he worships Harper the Hypocrite.

            Funny thing is that he’s a painter.

      • Actually, and this is the point, Mulcair didn’t say anything nasty about Canada, he said something not so nice about Canada’s current energy policy, which is to dump our entire economy into the single basket of selling our global warming tar sands down the river.

        *That* short-sighted policy, while it might benefit a few in the oil industry, and a few more in Ottawa, is decidedly against the best interest of Canadians as a whole in the long-term, not to mention the appaling ethics of risking the effects of climate warming on future generations for short-term gain.

        • Too late….now Harp is off on the ‘cop-killer’ thing.

    • Why stop with potash and oil? Why not stop exports on lumber?

      Ah, yes, you might say, trees will grow back so it is a renewable resource. But hey, to cut the trees down, to build roads in order to be able to reach the trees for cutting down, to transport the trees to the mills, to process the trees so the lumber can be stacked properly before being exported costs a lot of energy – oil and gas (and perhaps coal) to be exact. So why would it be ok to consume all of that oil resource to make the trees ready for export? Why would it be ok then to use oil for export……………………………………………………..

      (In the next post we could talk about another item to be placed on the list of none-exportable ones. Your pick.)

      • What NAFTA? The reason why the softwood lumber industry in BC was kicked in the gut and thrown of the bus? Yea, I said a long, long time ago that Canada should not be exporting raw logs to Asia just so we could by back it back as cheap furniture from the Brick.

        • But you are not addressing my point. Perhaps you don’t want to waste your personal energy. But why then waste your energy on given me a bogus answer to my question?

          I am not talking about the Brick. I am talking about export of lumber regardless of whether such exports come back to Canada in an altered form.

          Try and wrap your head around Mulcair’s logic and tell me why, by his reasoning, we should not limit other exports also. I think you can’t explain what Mulcair has just unleashed because you don’t get what his reasoning entails in essence.

          (Btw: I think a lot of Canadians don’t quite get that which Mulcair has just unleashed.)

          • Yea, don’t export anything without processing it fully here and selling it as a finished commodity elsewhere. Are you reading my posts?

          • But no one is stopping anyone from processing whatever they want in Canada before exporting to anywhere.

            No one is stopping anyone or anything except the free will of the citizens of this country. If there is no will to do the further processing in Canada to do the processing with, then there will be no further processing happening.

            Perhaps you have the will to do some of the processing in Canada since you are so keen on promoting it?

          • Because the government would not want to support the start up companies and our products can not be made as cheaply as they can in Asia because min. wage here is ten dollars. Not ten cents.

          • Oh, so you are saying that the government would not want refineries because the government does not want to subsidize them. But that has nothing to do with the fact that governments would not want refineries. You have two things mixed up considerably.One thing is about subsidizing and the refusal thereof, and the other thing is about refineries and the allowance thereof. Try to keep things honest here.

            This is an interesting conversation. I had always thought that Mulcair was against subsidizing the oil industry. So why would he or you want to subsidize refineries?

          • Francien…great posts, thanks. LMAO

          • Francien stop arguing with an NDP luddite who doesn’t understand basic economics and will never vote for a party that forms government.

          • Actually, it would be good for most Canadians to read about the real workings of our economy and how things happen (or not).

  6. You can go to the Woodrow Wilson Center website click on Canada and watch for yourselves what was talked about. At no time was Canada attacked what was clearly mentioned was the Harper Government inability to handle the big ticket items that both Canada and America need to tackle. Harper and the Dorketts are out of their league when it comes to the heavy lifting required.

    • Harper’s misinformation only works until people figure out the lies.

    • I’ve read the speech you refer to. That still does not answer my question as to how Mulcair’s reason can be explained. What to do with the export of potash?

      Let us see how fast you can outsmart the rest of us here on these comment boards. Tell us why, by Mulcair’s reason, Canadian potash exports should not be limited also??

    • Thank You

  7. Can I ask a simple question without being relentlessly attacked?

    What’s wrong with keeping the oil on Canadian soil so that WE may refine it here and create more jobs for Canadians?

    • Nothing it’s a great idea.

      • I would say the government would be the one’s stopping oil refining in Canada. But I’m not Big Oil or a friend of Harper’s.

        • What complete nonsense you are posting here. Perhaps that is your intent, to spout off as much nonsense as possible in the hopes that at least some of the readers will start believing in the nonsense you spout.

          You cannot show anyone or anything that this government would be stopping oil refineries in Canada. But if you still think you have some sort of proof that the government would stop refineries, I would suggest you show us such proof.

          • There are no refineries, there’s my proof.

          • What do you mean “there are no refineries??”

            Are you serious?

            Are you really that ignorant of the oil industry in Canada or are you merely playing a game here??

          • Where are they, two in Vancouver?

          • You really think I am going to look that up for you?

            You are a joke and I don’t want to be played by you.

            There are refineries in Canada. In fact, I have seen many with my own eyes. Perhaps you need to get out more! Or at least get up to speed with what’s going on in the real world!

          • You saw what you thought is a refinery, you are a housewife and wouldn’t know a refinery if they put it in your front yard.

          • Oh, now the personal accusations start flying because you have run out of reasonable arguments to counter me sufficiently?

            Nothing new again today. Same old, same old commenters, running out of anything reasonable to say. So predictable.

            Why don’t you ‘man up’ and give reasoning a try. It works well for anyone proven to be successful, including housewives.

          • Where are the refineries Sweetheart?

          • So you are successful trolling this website all day, everyday, you’ve changed the world?

          • What have you done lately?

          • You don’t even have a job.

          • I am not here every day. Yes, I’ve changed the world in a positive way. I don’t do the negative “we cannot do that” attitude.

            I dare say that my reasoning skills are a grade above yours and EmilyOne’s. If Canadians would merely read your comments and those posted by EmilyOne, one might wonder how this country could even function properly.

          • You have not reasoned anything. You think you have but choose not to listen to those that tell you “you don’t know what you are talking about”. If it were up to artist’s to run the country somebody would give you a call. But they don’t an you are useless in this society. Go paint an Ipad.

          • So let us go back to the first unanswered question: Why would Mulcair not limit the export of potash?

            You should have an answer by now. Or do you still not understand Mulcair’s logic?

          • I’m not talking about or for Muclair and never was. If I was Muclair I would limit potash exports.

          • I’m not the keeper of Muclair’s logic and don’t want to be, he grasping at straws.

          • The problem is that you (and so many others) don’t understand Mulcair’s logic. But that’s because if one would take his logic for real, it would mean that potash should not be exported any longer. And other Canadian resources should not be exported because we, as Canadians, might need them ourselves, in the future, and so how then to earn money for this country to survive? You think money grows on trees? If so, should we export that then??

          • I don’t care about Muclair and his logic. You do. I think we shouldn’t be giving anything away and I don’t care if it’s bad business. In fifty years, if we are all still here and we still have resources it won’t be bad business.

          • You are reasoning what Muclair’s reasoning was? And you’ve concluded nothing in your reasoning of his argument. What’s the reasoning behind that? I hope you don’t think that doing so is changing the world in a positive way?

          • In case I am Young Buck as well????? Whose paranoid? France when did I
            ever say that CN would never have made it to BC without the Chinese? The
            light at the end of your tunnel is burning dimmer and dimmer. The whole
            time we’ve been arguing you never stated your side, all you ever did
            was complain about Muclair’s logic. What do you think about the
            oilsands? You wanna sell it to the Chinese? You want to ramp up
            extraction and send it south? Do you want to leave it in the ground for
            ten years and see what the price is then? What do you think France?

          • Here’s a list of specific refineries that process bitumen into synthetic oil.

            Husky Lloydminster Upgrader Lloydminster, (Husky Energy), 75,000 bbl/d (11,900 m3/d)

            Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP – Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen

            Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

            Long Lake, Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

            Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

            Suncor, Fort McMurray, (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

            Now, if you’re so smart, you’ll realize that Alberta’s oil sands out put exceeds the listed capacities of the total refining capabilities, thus making the need for KXL greater.

          • I mean to say not to expand production (specifically extraction). My friends in the industry tell me that some those refineries do not fully refine bitumen into a finished product, ready to put in the tank. I was referring to fully refined fluids.

          • Why the need to always change your story? Earlier you pretended there was not refinery capacity within Canada. Then you said ‘Two in Vancouver??”

            Now Young Buck gives you a very informed answer and you decide to change your story once again.

            Like I said, how on earth does Canada make progress with the likes of you.

          • Well Canada has gone backwards since you got here. You don’t say anything you just make up things you saw once. You have proof of nothing just what other people say. At least I looked up the refineries in Canada. And if he says we need XL because we have reached capacity of partly refining bitumen maybe we should be trying to fully refine it.

          • Ok, I give up. You do not even understand a thing I have posted and now you are showing all to well that you don’t have a clue as to what Young Buck is talking about.

            But in case you are Young Buck as well, you are doing a poor job of trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

            Immigrants have contributed more to this country than you will ever realize.

          • LOL< my girlfriend moved to Canada 6 years ago, she was born in Poland. You been wrong everytime you try to guess something, because you just guess. You are a painter that knows only what other people say.

          • LOL, I’m a second gen Canadian.

          • So you are NOT an immigrant.

          • No but I’m not as old as you are either. I’m sure your kids aren’t immigrants.

          • You need to know how old I am before you can make that statement.

          • Because you under forty, never. You wouldn’t say and I’m not gonna ask

          • So you don’t know my age. So your statement earlier telling everyone that you are younger than me is based on nothing but guess work.

            I thought you didn’t like guesswork.

          • And why does every european that has moved to Canada that I’ve talked to always have to be right?

          • Probably because they were talking to you when they held that particular opinion. When talking to others, European settlers might be of a different opinion. So, it all depends who one talks to.

          • Settler’s LOL. No Serb’s, Poles and Brit’s….they can’t be wrong about anything. Especially the Dutch.

          • I’m not guessing, I’m younger, we both know it. But this being a comment section means all bets are out the window because either one of us could lie to be right.

          • Of course you are guessing because if you would know my age you would have posted it already.

          • I don’t know your age. I just know you are older then me.

          • In case I am Young Buck as well????? Whose paranoid? France when did I ever say that CN would never have made it to BC without the Chinese? The light at the end of your tunnel is burning dimmer and dimmer. The whole time we’ve been arguing you never stated your side, all you ever did was complain about Muclair’s logic. What do you think about the oilsands? You wanna sell it to the Chinese? You want to ramp up extraction and send it south? Do you want to leave it in the ground for ten years and see what the price is then? What do you think France?

          • I think I am not France. But you seem to think so. Have you ever been to France? Well, France is much older than me, and I know that without knowing how old France is. How do I know? Well, France was there already before I was born.

            Also, France is much larger than me.

            Oh, and France can’t type.

            Maybe you can tell some differences between France and me. Or maybe you really think you are talking to France. Who knows.

          • You don’t like being called France? What’s the deal? Because I call you France and not Francien you don’t want to argue anymore.
            You are France.
            Paris is at your centre, isn’t that where your name came from? Aren’t you from Europe. Your name could be Doug. This is a comment section. Your name probably is Doug and the a male college student, high on dope in Halifax?

          • Come on France

          • Don’t be a baby

          • Come on France. Tell me what you think

          • Why can’t you just say what you think about XL?

          • In case you don’t understand the economics of hydrocarbon processing here is some information…for a 50,000 bbl/day upgrader the cost is $5.1 billion dollars; now if you were to process this now synthetic crude into sellable product, you would essentially have to build a new refinery, most likely to the tune of an additonal $3 billion…

            USA already has the capacity to process heavy oil (bitumen) already built into existing refineries in the mid-west (BP Whiting) as well as the majority of Gulf Coast Refineries.

          • What I don’t understand is why we have to sell bitumen right now, why not wait?

          • Okay, here’s a simple question from a guy that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Why would we need to build more upgraders and refineries if we did not want to extract more bitumen then we currently extract? How about we extract less bitumen so we can do all the processing?

          • What type of economy and government wants to stay stagnant? Hydrocarbon exploration, extraction and processing is a major economic driver in this country. It creates jobs from east to west, and adds significant cash flow via equalization payments to the so called “have not” provinces.

          • Would the bitumen in the ground not be worth many times more in the future? I don’t understand why we have to sell all of it right now. Doesn’t it make sense to sit on it for a while?

          • Alberta has 170 billion bbls of oil reserves; Alberta’s output is approximately 2 MM Bbl/d. Safe to say we wont be exhausting our reserves anytime soon, so why would we sit on a valuable source of income?

          • Because it would be worth more in the future then it is worth now. I mean you know I’m dumb when it comes to oil and gas but if everyone else extracts, processes and exports their reserves wouldn’t that put us in a better position if we didn’t do that?

          • In case you dont understand, bitumen needs to be “upgraded” (hence the term upgrader) to make it into a sellable product to a refinery, where it is processed into gasoline, diesel, kersone, jet fuel etc.

            The output from the oilsands itself is greater than our UPGRADING capacity in Canada.

          • Yes and just because it’s upgraded doesn’t mean it’s refined, correct?

          • correct

          • So how about we leave it in the ground until we really need it?

          • And how do we live in the meantime? How can this country afford its programs if there is no money coming in?

          • Tough it out. Walk somewhere. Go chop some wood. You think I live in Dawson so I can depend on my government to save me? I don’t need programs you do.

          • Then tell me, why were so many Canadians upset when this government insists that the unemployed should accept work even if it is further away and even if the work is not of equal value as before?

            Why do you think Canadians think it is possible to have it both ways: to not have to generate money (by wanting to shut down the oilsands) and wanting to have a safety net in the form of unemployment for ever. Tell us, dear wise one, how that would work? Everyone is waiting to hear your answer on that one. You think telling Canadians to go an chop some wood will suffice?

          • LOL, you mean why did I move 1200 km for job? Because I didn’t want to work for less then $30 and I didn’t want to sell my soul to the devil. I don’t need unemployment, you do, you’re the painter.

          • Never, ever lived off public dole my entire life and proud of it. In fact, the price of my paintings is sufficient for the lifestyle I choose. Never had to sell my soul to the devil.

          • LOL depending on who bought your paintings.

          • Isn’t your wage dependent on who hires you?

          • No, I’m an electrician I can make $20 an hour in Vancouver or $30+ in Northern BC and I could make way more then that if I wanted to work for Oil and Gas (IE sell my soul to the devil)

          • I’m disappointed France, your the one in charge around here.

          • No!

            Upgrading bitumen means upgrading it to synthetic crude quality…refined means breaking down synthetic crude into the different fuels as I ahd alluded to earlier.

            There are two different terms you should understand before you start running your mouth…upgrading and refining.

          • I ain’t running my mouth I want to know what I’m talking about and your gonna help me.

          • Dawson might be confused about when the refining means a usable product, like the gasoline we put in our vehicles.

            I must say I am somewhat confused about the naming of processes as well. That’s why it is very interesting to read your refinement of the terms used. Thank you.

          • You mean you thought the same thing I did.

          • At least I am capable of explaining myself properly when wanting to further understand things.

          • Shouldn’t you explain yourself then. You never said anything except complain about Muclair’s logic. And isn’t it hard to understand things if you disagree with everything you hear and see? When do you start understanding, after you’ve told everyone why they are wrong?

          • What refineries?

    • No one is saying that oil cannot be, or is not allowed to be refined here in Canada. Who says Canadians cannot put up a refinery? There may be no will to do it but there certainly is no one stopping anyone if the will would be there to put up as many refineries as one would want.

      • There are twelve refineries in Canada. Germany has fourteen, how much oil does Germany produce?

        • Canada has 33 million people (roughly). Do you know how many people Germany has?

          It tells me that on average, the Canadian is more likely to put up refineries because on average Canadians (per citizen) have more refineries than does Germany.

          What is your point?

          • German’s are refining our oil.

          • Not much of our oil, if any. Europe depends on other countries for their oil imports.

          • Like us. Your trying to tell me how oil is distributed globally? Your a painter. What do you know about oil companies?

          • Well, when I lived in Europe I could see for myself where the oil and gas came from. I have always been aware of the environment I live in.

          • LOL, you just said German’s use imported oil. Where does oil and gas come from in Europe?

          • Look it up yourself. I know where the Germans get their oil from. I am not here to be your teacher. Basic information should be considered of value for everyone. What do you consider to be of value, when taking your own mind into consideration?

          • The only place Europe get’s oil and gas from is not in Europe, it’s in the North Sea. I know it’s been a really, really long time since you’ve been there.

          • My god, I am talking about where Europe gets its oil from coming in as import. And that ain’t Canadian oil, by and far………

            Europe’s need for oil and gas is much, much larger than can be supplied by North Sea explorations.

            (and btw, some European countries have natural gas under their earthy domains……………………..did you know that much?)

          • So they’ll start fracking the countryside in Europe. There is no countryside in Europe. People live everywhere in Europe. The only way they can frack here is because no one lives where they frack in Canada and people still complain.

          • Have a great day! May ignorance be bliss for you, forever!

          • You got nothing, you learned nothing. At least Young Buck told me something. You know nothing France. Except painting. Maybe

          • I don’t have to consult Wikipedia every time a question needs to be answered. I am lucky that way.

            I learn every day. I have learned today that Dawson James, as moniker and as a person, doesn’t have a lot to teach me. The other thing I have learned today is that hope springs eternal, but I already knew that. Let it be a reminder then.

            Groetjes :)

          • Come on, you give up on me like you did on Europe? Why am I wrong? Why aren’t you wrong?

      • Oil already is refined here, but I’m talking about the bitumen that’s being piped out of here and creating jobs in other countries when we could easily process it and THEN sell it on the international market.

        ALOT of people who oppose the pipelines are asking that same question, and that is their reasoning for opposing it.

        The pipelines seem to be the lazy way out.

        • Process it first and then send it abroad. Good idea. But you know anyone is free to do that right now. NO one is stopping anyone from processing anything before it goes over the border.

          Oh, I see, you and Tom Mulcair want to make special arrangements for our bitumen. If not processed further it should not be allowed to leave the country.

          Interesting, all that picking and choosing. Why not apply the ‘must be processed nationally’ rule to lumber? Tell the lumber industry that no more lumber shall be exported unless the lumber has been further processed.

          What about grain? Would Mulcair and you like to tell the Canadian farmers that grain can only be exported if further processed. So, you will tell the, turn your grain in forms of pasta first and then we will let you export your grains.

          What about potash? What about iron ore? What about all other raw-like materials?

    • We do not have the capacity to refine the oil in Canada, thus the reason we are selling bitumen at a discounted price. If we had the ability to refine our output capacity, then Keystone would not be such an issue. USA does have the ability to refine and process bitumen, and the market there is obviously much larger.

      And you cant just say “build a refinery”; the environmental approval, front end design and construction takes years (>7 years), where as the majority of approvals for XL are in place, materials ordered/delivered and construction of a pipeline is significant less time consuming than simply just building a refinery.

      • We do have capacity in Canada to refine oil. We do not have much capacity to refine the bitumen you are referring to. USA has good capacity for that in place. But that does not mean that within Canada they cannot be built. Of course they can be built here too.

        Yes, the environmental assessment is a lengthy and thorough process to go through (but isn’t that a good thing??) but the will to build refineries has as much to do with money and investment as it does with environmental regulations. If the industry is not confident enough that the refineries are a profitable enterprise over the long run, the will to build them is taken away rapidly. Governments must make sure, amongst other things, that the entrepreneurial environment stays healthy as well.

        • That’s not governments responsibility. That’s up to the businessmen, they need to play by the rules. If the industry doesn’t want to build then don’t built.

          • SP

          • And who sets the rules?

          • Harper’s friends in the senate and the US

        • Canada isn’t here to make other’s rich.

      • I’m well aware of the process needed to get new refineries.

        We have several refineries in Canada now, but wouldn’t it make sense to create more jobs by building more specifically for changing the bitumen into useful oil here instead of pumping more jobs into other countries?

        It seems to me that it would be better for Canada in the long run.

        Pipelines to the US seem like a short-term solution to make a quick buck to me.

        And since when did the Harper government care about environmental approval?

        • Building refineries requires “skilled labor”. Canada has a big shortage. Also, Mr. Harper doesn’t get a say in skipping environmental approval as most of the environmental rules are enforced provincially and locally.

    • Enviromentalist will go nuts when you try to open a refinery. And if harper was for it, then the whole left would be

  8. If Canada is losing billions of dollars due to not having the Keystone XL pipeline, being forced to sell at a discount to the US, it logically follows that the US is benefiting by the same amount.

    So, why would it be in the US’s economic interest to have it built?

    • I’ll go with that….I didn’t write it….but I’ll go with it

  9. Depends… if you don’t stand with the Conservatives, do you stand with the pedophiles?

    • Nice, straight outta Harper’s mouth

  10. The XL pipeline already exists with rail traffic to Galveston and Mississippi barge traffic if necessary. Canada doesn’t have the population base/economic mass to justify refining, period. Lead time on building a refinery to environmental compliance is decades, not years. The XL might even take the pressure off of the fracking/destruction of groundwater that is the giant aquifer it will be running over top of through the mid-west! Win; Win!

  11. I seem to recall Mulroney arguing that eventually the good and services involved in free trade would extend to people. You know, just like in the EU????? I haven’t forgotten that. Political arguments are selfish on all sides. We’re a village of 10% of the US population. That border is just a line on a map/ in 1905, within memory of my grandparents, there wasn’t a RECORD KEPT of Americans/Canadians crossing into the other country! Remember?

  12. I tried to follow the government, read about where politicians stand. And well, I still am confused. It feels like I had to read hundreds of articles. Less people are voting, people are losing interest in the goverment and just develop frustration. It seems like we are headed down the road of the U.S. And the comments below are filled with arguements, please stop hah.

  13. I think Mulcair has all the right to speak on Canadians issues. Which by the way are already well known to the Americans, (they do not need to be told was is going on here). The important thing is how near the true and which are the aims towards international and
    national issues, I hear the talk of Mulcair at Washington and I think it was
    very well delivered and he demonstrated wide understanding and knowledge of the Canada
    and the world.

    I also think that it is enough of the same old thing: liberals or conservatives (both are very similar indeed). It is time for alternatives.

  14. What I’m finding a little shocking in this discussion in general is that no one here has mentioned global warming or renewables. While these two issues are driving huge revolutions in the energy programs of many countries worldwide (Germany, Denmark, India, Spain, etc, etc), and every week there’s another announcement of another record-breaking renewable energy success story, folks here don’t even see it on the map or timeline.

    Global warming and renewables are *the* most significant issues of our era, and any discussion of tar sands and pipelines needs to be see in that light. And in that light, the idea that Mulcair’s speech is somehow unpatriotic is just absurd.