Apparently Canada is open for business but closed to criticism, no matter how constructive. This is the clearest conclusion that can be drawn from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter to Canadians, in which he attacks advocates of responsible oil-sands development as “radicals” and dismisses the concerns of thousands of Canadians who want to have a say in the decision of whether to build Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

Thousands of Americans — many of them high-profile, law-abiding citizens — will be risking arrest over the coming weeks to send a message to their president about importing oil from Canada's oilsands: "Just say no."

While we commend the Government of Canada on finally committing to install an oilsands "smoke alarm," Canadians need to know if the government will heed the call to action when the alarm sounds.

In Canada, rising concern about climate change over the last two decades has coincided with a massive expansion of development in the oil sands. It's not hard to make the case that the development of the oil sands has stunted and disfigured Canada's approach to climate change.

Jen Grant explains how Alberta's draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan is missing many of the critical pieces required to protect land, air, water and ecosystems, protecting oilsands developers' interests more than it does the environment.

Which country possesses the world's largest oil reserves, occupies last place in the international Climate Change Performance Index, and complains most loudly about the Kyoto Protocol? Many followers of international affairs may have no difficulty naming Saudi Arabia.

In this op-ed, Matthew Bramley, director of Pembina's climate change program, explains why Canada's stance on climate change bears surprising resemblances to that of the OPEC giant.

Imagine going into a bank to apply for pre-approval for a mortgage. You don't have a steady income, so instead you present 10 cheques. They're one-time-only payments from anonymous sources and they don't amount to much of a down payment.

The bank would tell you to go home, get a steady job and come back when you've got long-term employment. Until then, you're wasting their time.

Tough on crime. Tough on people smugglers. Tough on prison pensions. The list of things the federal government is getting tough on continues to grow-with a glaring exception. If the intention is to project a "getting tough" image, we need to be consistent and get tough on polluters.

Imagine the City of Vancouver. Now imagine it covered in toxic sludge about two stories deep. That's how much toxic tailings waste you end up with after 40 years of unchecked oilsands production in northern Alberta. And that's what a flock of ducks came up against Monday night when they needed somewhere to land.

We've all seen the photos: northern Alberta's boreal forest marked by open pit mines, polluting smokestacks and growing tailings lakes. It's what oilsands mining looks like. With this big mess comes a big price tag and it looks like Alberta taxpayers might be left on the hook for the lion's share ($10 to $15 billion) of the cleanup bill, according to a report recently released by the Pembina Institute.

We're told not to lose sleep over oilsands reclamation though. After all, oilsands mine operators are required to clean up the land they disturb. Just in case operators don't follow through with that reclamation, the Government of Alberta collects what amounts to a security deposit to cover reclamation costs.

The problem is, it doesn't look as though the Government of Alberta has been collecting enough money to cover the cleanup - not anywhere near enough money.

Ongoing criticism of oilsands development in Alberta is wreaking reputational havoc on our province, culminating in an unfortunate hit to tourism operators with the recent Rethink Alberta campaign. We think a different response could level the criticisms.

We're not alone. U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson challenged industry to "do more to demonstrate how they're meeting the challenges of providing energy security while meeting their obligations of environmental stewardship."

That's not what's happening though. Instead, we're witnessing a self-defeating cycle of ramped up public relations from the Government of Alberta that never truly addresses the substance of the criticisms directed at the province's regulation of the oilsands industry.

It's been more than two months now that oil from BP's blown out Deepwater Horizon rig has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. A man-made disaster of epic proportions, some people are now claiming that it makes Alberta's landlocked oilsands look safe in comparison. In fact, that statement couldn't be further from the truth.

As oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico, the consequences of a spill from the proposed Enbridge oilsands pipeline and related tanker traffic are all the more real.

There are no toxic tailings lakes, dead ducks, heavy-hauler trucks or strip mines visible from space: there's none of that associated with in situ oilsands development. So, as industry tells us, in situ oilsands development is nothing to worry about, right? Not quite, according to a new report evaluating in situ oilsands' real impacts.

Marlo Raynolds argues that the real challenge for Canada's Prime Minister is whether he is able to create a made-in-Canada climate plan — or leave it to American lawmakers to decide our climate and, therefore, economic policy.

Wild salmon are in trouble in British Columbia, and they face yet another threat in the form of a pipeline proposed by Enbridge to bring oilsands products through their habitat to the coast.

Seven out of nine tailings management plans filed with the provincial Energy Resources Conservation Board do not appear to comply with ERCB rules. It is baffling that key players in our largest industry seem to think the rules developed to protect Albertans and the environment do not apply to them.

The recent decision by the governments of Canada and Alberta to charge Syncrude for the death of 500 waterfowl on a tailings pond confirms the seriousness of the environmental challenges facing the oilsands.

Canada's Conservative government has come a long way in acknowledging the importance of climate change. But will the government's proposed policies put a meaningful price on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? And what is the likelihood that those policies will actually be implemented?

Par Marlo Raynolds, Directeur général de l'Institut Pembina et Steven Guilbeault, Cofondateur et coordonnateur général adjoint d'Équiterre

Un sondage réalisé plus tôt cette année par l'Institut Environics révélait que les Canadiens croient que les changements climatiques et la protection de l'environnement constituent l'enjeu planétaire numéro un.