I don't know why anyone pays any attention to the looney socialists. They wouldn't know sound policies if they came up and bit him in the face...

Beautiful John , truly beautiful to catch a poliltician in a lie. Your link proves he lied, time to get this on the supper newscasts.

Syncrude? Your really using the company that was involved the poisoning of hundreds of ducks as an example of environmental stewardship? The point that Jack made (past your gotcha politics) is that the biggest emitter of green house gas in North America (not just Canada) are the oil sand operations. That is the bigger issue. A moratorium on their break neck development is needed not simply to slow down global warming but to avoid the contamination of land and water for tens of thousands of people. Look for the bigger picture instead of trying to make a minor political point.

I seem to recall while living in Fort Mac for 23 years that the land populated by the bison herds south of the plant used to be a pit mine.

Sounds like the Jack hasn't set foot in Fort Mac.

Suncor has also reclaimed over 1,000 hectares:
http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx?ID=2163

Jack lives in a parallel universe. Facts from the real universe are therefore merely a minor inconvenience to him. When confronted with the facts, if they don't suit him (which they rarely do), he dismisses them as originating from the back pockets of the evil corporations. Jack has no idea how the world works. If he did, he wouldn't be a socialist, and he'd have some luck earning a living in the real world. In order to be a socialist, you have to believe in 50 impossible things, all before breakfast.

Great research John, proved this fool wrong !

And the Alberta Cancer Board fully investigated claims of a rising incidence of cancer around the oilsands. Result? Nada, nothing beyond normal incidence.

Jack Layton never did care much for truth, data, facts---or, for that matter, reason and common sense.

First of all John - great interview today with Jack Layton.

On the issue of reclamation, you raise a valid point.

Of the 47,832 hectares destroyed for oil sands, 104 hectares, or one square kilometre has been certified “reclaimed” from tar sands by the Alberta government. That's 0.2 per cent. We stand corrected.

When you're running for PM and you want to change the way things are done in Ottawa, you got to be big enough to admit that from time to time you can only be 99.8 per cent right.

Cheers

Here's a helpful link:
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1642

Brad Lavigne
Campaign Spokesperson
Jack Layton and the New Democrats
Campaign '08

Having a NDPer spout baloney, is the norm, not the exception.
Since it was said, it will be his comment that'll be the story line in the media’s coverage.
They don't have to check the facts; it's good enough to simply say, "as claimed by Jack Layton".
The headline will definitely say something like: NO TAR SANDS EVER CLEANED UNDER HARPERS WATCH!
This fits into the main stream media’s template of; Big Oil bad, western provinces bad, Harper bad and scary.
The fact that they have indeed been cleaned up will remain the sole knowledge of those of us who actually care to check crazy statements, and the so-called "professional" journalists and their manipulative masters.
The media's left wing agenda is all that’s important in today’s reporting.

John, You should know better than to take a big oil companies' work for anything!

Instead of sitting on your growing derriere and looking at the Oil Companies' CLAIMS of their attempts at environmental "sustainability" - it's time you pack your bags and go there in person, with a truly serious Environmentalist, even someone from the UofS and see exactly how little has been attempted, let alone accomplished!

Geez! I thought you, of all people, would take this site with a grain of salt and do the additional homework on it, before posting this rubbish on your blog, that is clearly misleading!

Pull yourself out of your little segregated cocoon and go check there to check it out for yourself! Ask questions, do some real investigative snooping and reporting that you tend to brag about almost incessantly!

Do you homework! AND THINK before your run off at the mouth!

Jack was wrong, I have walked on that "reclaimed" land (of course, it also depends on what you considered "reclaimed"). However, John instead of just saying Jack is wrong on the other issues he brought up, why don't you actually provide that data proving he is "dead wrong"?

Mr. Layton is as usual out to lunch on any affairs that are beyond his view of Greater Toronto. Perhaps he should really spend some time investigating the entire oil industry in Canada, not just Alberta. The environmental procedures in place are top of the block in Canada and Alberta and are perhaps the best in the world. Even a single oil or gas well site must be returned to the natural state it was before drilling began.

Just saw Brad Lavigne's response. Pretty funny and guess it wasn't quite as big a 'gotcha' as you thought...

Some of the mid east oil producers are looking at importing coal to run their own power plants. That will free up more oil for export.
We could have the scenario where we would export coal to them and import their oil. How would that reduce pollution overall?
They already import coal to burn in cement plants and for other industrial heat.
Coal costs about 1/5 as much as oil.

Oh my goodness people. The man wants to save the environment for future generations! Am I the only one who doesn't think he should be shot for this? Why is everyone so fiercing protective of the oilsands. Does anyone realize oil is a limited resource. Hello! It WILL run out someday! And what then? What will Alberta and Saskatchewan's economies depend on at that point? Apparently no one thinks ahead at all. Conservatives only think of the here, and now, me me me me me.. my wallet.
You all scare me. It's important to have a healthy society overall, insteading of focusing only on things like the success of the oilsands.

Look at the post by Brad Lavgine. That's a great answer to John's point. If you say it isn't, you have a completely closed mind.

Mr Lavigne,

The key word in your post is “certified”. Certification is what comes at the end of the very long reclamation process and it also means the firm who reclaimed the land losses access (some may reclaim & not certify in case they want access again, for example). Therefore is a very misleading statistic to quote.

Also, the Alberta Government requires companies to post a financial security ensuring they will reclaim the land. As of June 2008 the government held $721 million worth of these securities.

The Pembina Institute? Tee Hee. I'm surprised you didn't quote something more reputable, like Michael Moore.

as per usual the conservative bandwagon will take any shot they can get to jump all over the other side of the spectrum! So much for unbiased media! "Greenhouse gases? Baloney, i'ts all that hot air spouting off of the al gore types of the world that is causing global warming!" If you are quat qualifies as an investigative journalist these days after taking the company's word at face value, then i am ashamed to call myself a reporter!

Instead of all you Layton-Lovers spouting off to John here, please have Layton take deep breaths of air outside Front street in Toronto during 5pm rush hour and tell me how wonderful the environment is in Canada. Then, perhaps you can start throwing rocks out west.

Nice bit of red herring thrown in there John.

Layton is concerned about the amount of toxins getting into the general water shed now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, and you throw him a tidbit that distracts him from the point and you believe you scored a political point. Good for you, but you didn't refute what he said in any way.

Reclaiming land is something that is done after the fact, not during, it has no relevance to the state of the tailings ponds right now, or in the future while the site is active. Why would you bring up the dedication of the oil companies in reclaiming damaged areas (inactive ponds) when the rest of us are concerned with the possible dangers inherent in active ponds?

Now, can you show that the procedures taken by companies with their active ponds are adequate to limit danger to the watershed? Some citations would be good. I assume you've already done the research so you should have that information handy.

To "Beautiful John , truly beautiful to catch a poliltician in a lie"

As the George W. Bush sycophants have stressed for years, repeating something you are mistakenly convinced is true is not a lie. It may be stupid to repeat something of that nature without first checking, but it isn't a lie.

To "I seem to recall while"

You are aware I hope that you are spouting simple anecdotal evidence which is nothing but an opinion and settles nothing. Go find the research that states the sites are safe, then your opinion will be meaningful in the context you placed it.

M Shortreed:
The left wing media? Have you ever take a quick listen to News Talk 650? or 980? How about John Gormley Live? This radio station is so far right 6 left turns wouldn't get them headed in the correct direction. The guy spends 5 minutes venting about tolerance of people of different walks of life, but will smash "those crazy lefties" at every chance he gets? How about when John Gormley, who was told about a man whose wife was moved back and forth between multiple hospitals without his knowledge, said that there should be a patient advocate to look into this. Wasn't this the same John Gormley who spent days talking about "those greedy nurses" who wouldn't sign a contract for a 35% pay increase because they wanted the commities to watch over patient safety and look into any instances of this kind of event happening? John said he was going to look into that. I haven't heard a thing from him. I must be another one of those crazy lefties eh?

It is funny when everyone is so happy about6 catching a politician in a lie so what about 800 million for sask or no election until next year for starters

The actual reclamation rate for surface mined Oilsands leases is 13.6% and not 0.2%.

When you get past the Pembina Institutes press release referred to above by Brad Lavigne of the NDP and dig a little bit deeper into the actual study carried out by Pembina, you find that the Oilsand's companies have in fact reclaimed 6,498 hectares out of that total of 47,832 hectares. That represents a reclamation rate of 13.6%. These are the numbers provided by Alberta Environment to the end of 2006. The 104 (0.2%) hectare figure quoted in the press release represents the land area that the Oilsand companies have requested a reclamation certificate for and been granted by Alberta Environment.

See page 7 of this document http://www.oilsandswatch.org/pub/1639.

The NDP states that only 104 hectares have been certified as reclaimed. I have no doubt this is true. However, what they don't mention is that the Government of Alberta, together with other groups, are still trying to figure out what "certified as reclaimed" means. Syncrude and Suncor have reclaimed a lot of land but not much has been certified because the standards are still being developed. This doesn't mean the land hasn't been reclaimed, just that the government's environment department hasn't certified it. And, as we all know, until the government says that the environment has been reclaimed, well its just a toxic dump. Government clearly knows all, and the dippers know more.

Get off your butt and see what the companies are doing. Give them criticism if it is deserved but lies and half-truths show what the NDP and their arguments are really made of.

To totally ignore the implements to produce energy, (oil, coal, and nuclear are dirty and take a lot of other "energies" and environmental risks), is a disservice. Gormley is just being old and ignorant. Meaning, pretty close minded and typical Saskatchewan.

God, who cares if John Gormley watches Oprah or not? This is just another reason people my age ARE NOT STAYING HERE.

You caught him dead to rights. This is the opening shot in the disparagement of the West to Nationalize ( Read taker over.) our resource Monies for Ontario & Quebec's use during their economic troubles. Its Layton’s in to the lucre pie, using the Federal government to socialize all the oil Industry with its money for Eastern votes. Another NEP rape of Western Canada only it won't just be Alberta this time. Of course Quebec Hydro & Power corp. are sacrosanct from touch. Once a Dipper always a Dipper.
Nice catch Mr. Gormley.
I love it when the politicians get a bad case of biased turrets syndrome. Than comes the remorse of the mouth from the cerebral constipation just enacted. Not a lick of sense shown by Layton trying to sell this horse pucky to the “Hinter Landers“.

JMO

Instead of blasting at someone who is raising awarenesss of a problem and trying to do something about it, why not spend a little bit of your babble time on the radio berating the current lying politicians to get our $800 Million per year back in Saskatchewan?
That seems to take a back burner when the governing party lies and steals our money, but jump all over someone who who is 99% correct in his statement and leave out those that are 100% wrong.
It's too bad that only the Conservatives have a radio show....I sure hope you don't get this party elected too!

The thing is I did a search and never found any of these oilsand sites that have been 100% reclaimed. In the past companies would just abandon these sites and there is a lot of land that has been left inhabitable. The scariest part of the oilsands are the tailings ponds that are created from the procees of extracting the oil. These ponds are found to be as big as lakes and they seep into the ground affecting ground water. Some are even very close to the Athabasca river a major drinking water source. Ya the oilsands are great for the economy and I would want these projects to go forth. Without the proper environmental plan, which includes a reclemation plan the government should not let these companies run the oilsands. Without these plans we can look forward to a wonderfully contaminated province and our future generations will have to deal with our mistakes, just like we are dealing with the mistakes of our ancestors. Everyone in this province have to stop and think maybe we should be responsible and not just greedy.

He accused oil sands operations of giving people cancer. In a perfect world, he and his party would be sued into oblivian.

I am a soil scientist and environmentalist and surprisingly not opposed to oil sands development on the Saskatchewan side of the border. I say this, of course, with a BUT... I have done work in the oil sands in Alberta, and agree that SOME reclamation has taken place, but not even close to the scale that the mining has occurred. This is only due to the fact that in recent years a consciousness about the detriment to the environment has become exceedingly important. I think that if we are to develop and/or expand the oil sands that it be MUST done with an environmentally sound approach. What I mean is that Saskatchewan MUST learn from mistakes that have been made with regards to the Alberta oil sands development over the last 40 years. At present, Saskatchewan only has a few ‘rules and regulations’ regarding soils prior to disturbance, which in turn plays a role in their reclamation following development. Rules set by government means that big business MUST follow them, and without these ‘rules’, at present, people will not pay for or consider the part of the environment that is extremely important to everything, which includes water quality, vegetation/habitat, and wildlife. Without healthy soils, nothing is able to grow and flourish. Plants require 'healthy' microbiota to ensure success. These microbiota play a role in contaminant degradation and nutrient transformations in soil, among other things, which allow for successful plant establishment and subsequent growth. Microbes can also influence and maintain water quality, and ensure remediation success. It will take our government establishing the proper ‘rules’ regarding soils to ensure the reclamation success of these sites, following extraction of the oil sands or any major mining or gas development (a good example is the criteria used for soils in Alberta). The approach that I believe must be taken is A) to properly assess what is there prior to any activity (with the ‘rules’ laid out by government so that people will follow them), B) to reclaim as we go, and C) to ensure that the appropriate SCIENCE is behind the decisions made by big business.

I am a wildlife biologist and an environmentalist. I have intimate knowledge of oil sands development and reclamation having conducted two years of research in the oil sands region of Fort McMurray. I am not against oil sands development because I realize how important it is to the maintenance of our economy. However, there are many environmental concerns that I feel need to be addressed before more oil sands projects are approved, either in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. Of primary concern to me is the toxicity of the oil-sands produced water (i.e. water that is used in the extraction of the oil from the oil sand). This water is highly toxic to some plant and wildlife species and to date there has been no success in reducing the toxicity of this water. Produced water from 30 years ago still has the same toxicity as fresh produced water. Fish are not expected to survive in wetlands created with produced water. Over 1 billion cubic meters of this produced water is expected to be generated by the year 2025 and government regulations does not allow this water to be released from site. Therefore, this water must be stored in huge holding ponds (tailings ponds), some of which are located right at the edge of the Athabasca River.

Another concern is the lack of terrestrial reclamation success that has occurred so far in Alberta. So far only grass species have been successfully planted on oil sands lease sites. This is in spite of the fact that oil sands lease sites are located in the middle of the boreal forest. The large amount of land that is cleared is certain to affect many boreal forest species that rely on forested habitats. Also, when the land is cleared to mine the oil sand many bogs and fens are also dug up. These wetlands cover approximately 20% of the boreal forest landscape but will not be replaced with reclamation since peat development takes thousands of years to occur. Instead, these valuable and natural wetlands will be replaced by soil-based marshes, which may have an effect on wildlife abundance and richness.

Before more oil sands projects are approved governments must come up with rules regarding reclamation. Policies must also be developed to make oil sands companies more responsible for their actions in regards to environmental degradation.

just becuase you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that it causes cancer doesn't mean that it doesnt. there are also other theories about cancer causing agents like, chemical addatives in food and living next to electrical stations that cannot be proved either but we still think twice about what we eat or where we live. chemicals, any chemicals are bad for you, period. especially in great quantities and when released into the air, whether they cause cancer or not. But then again the oilsands bring in the bucks so lets just sacrifice our health, the one thing that cannot be baughten back with all that momeny!

OK people, I just have to know - how does reclamation prevent "water pollution, more cases of human cancer and poisoned fish"?

Are you seriously saying that pollution, human cancer and poisoned fish would only occur if reclamation did not happen?