The letter Teck sent: A scathing rebuke of government

The original application from Teck Resources was made 9 years ago. That almost says enough right there. As environmental regulations changed, the company ‘optimized’ the project to ensure it would remain ‘commercially and environmentally viable’. The work with area First Nations communities was considered ‘ground breaking’ by those communities. Teck had already invested well over 1 billion dollars. But in the end, it appears Teck was not prepared to invest billions more in the environment of hostility toward major resource projects which Canada’s federal government has not been able to control.

Here’s the letter sent by the CEO of Teck Resources to Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change. This letter will do more to stir Western Canadian anxiety than any number of “Buffalo Declarations”.

—————————————

Letter to Minister Wilkinson

Dear Minister:

I am writing to advise that after careful consideration Teck has made the difficult decision to formally withdraw our regulatory application for the Frontier oil sands project from the federal environmental assessment process.

We are disappointed to have arrived at this point. Teck put forward a socially and environmentally responsible project that was industry leading and had the potential to create significant economic benefits for Canadians. Frontier has unprecedented support from Indigenous communities and was deemed to be in the public interest by a joint federal-provincial review panel following weeks of public hearings and a lengthy regulatory process. Since the original application in 2011 we have, as others in the industry have done, continued to optimize the project to further confirm it is commercially viable.

Teck is extremely proud of the work done on this project and the strong relationships that we have formed with local governments, labour organizations, scientists, researchers and many other stakeholders, as well as with affected Indigenous communities. We believe that our agreements with Indigenous communities on Frontier, and very recently the work undertaken by the Alberta government with Indigenous communities in the region, form an important foundation for the future, and we applaud them for this milestone achievement.

However, global capital markets are changing rapidly and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change, in order to produce the cleanest possible products. This does not yet exist here today and, unfortunately, the growing debate around this issue has placed Frontier and our company squarely at the nexus of much broader issues that need to be resolved. In that context, it is now evident that there is no constructive path forward for the project. Questions about the societal implications of energy development, climate change and Indigenous rights are critically important ones for Canada, its provinces and Indigenous governments to work through.

I want to make clear that we are not merely shying away from controversy. The nature of our business dictates that a vocal minority will almost inevitably oppose specific developments. We are prepared to face that sort of opposition. Frontier, however, has surfaced a broader debate over climate change and Canada’s role in addressing it. It is our hope that withdrawing from the process will allow Canadians to shift to a larger and more positive discussion about the path forward. Ultimately, that should take place without a looming regulatory deadline.

Resource development has been at the heart of the Canadian economy for generations. Resource sectors including the Alberta oil sands create jobs; build roads, schools and hospitals; and contribute to a better standard of living for all Canadians. At the same time, there is an urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions and support action on climate change.

As a proudly Canadian company for over 100 years, we know these two priorities do not have to be in conflict. Our nation is uniquely positioned with abundant natural resources coupled with strong environmental regulations and a deeply engrained culture of social responsibility. We can build on that foundation and be a global provider of sustainable, climate-smart resources to support the world’s transition to a low carbon future. And yes, that can include low-carbon energy produced from the Alberta oil sands from projects like Frontier, using best-in-class technology, which would displace less environmentally and ethically sound oil sources.

At Teck, we believe deeply in the need to address climate change and believe that Canada has an important role to play globally as a responsible supplier of natural resources. We support strong actions to enable the transition to a low carbon future. We are also strong supporters of Canada’s action on carbon pricing and other climate policies such as legislated caps for oil sands emissions.

The promise of Canada’s potential will not be realized until governments can reach agreement around how climate policy considerations will be addressed in the context of future responsible energy sector development. Without clarity on this critical question, the situation that has faced Frontier will be faced by future projects and it will be very difficult to attract future investment, either domestic or foreign.

Teck has not taken this decision lightly. It is our hope that the decision to withdraw will help to create both the space and impetus needed for this critical discussion to take place for the benefit of all Canadians.

Sincerely,

Don Lindsay
President and Chief Executive Officer
Teck Resources Limited

Up Next

Alberta’s response to Teck withdrawal

Don't Miss

Here’s your chance to help improve Alberta’s auto insurance system

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Coutts Three verdict: A warning to protestors who act as liaison with police

COVID-19 / 2 weeks ago

Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic

COVID-19 / 3 months ago

ArriveCAN bill at least $60 million. Opposition calling for investigation

Alberta

Canada’s postal service refuses to help with Trudeau’s gun ban buyback program: report

Published on May 5, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

According to a report, Canada’s mail service notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government crackdown on legal gun owners through a buyback scheme has hit a major roadblock after Canada Post, a federal-run institution, signaled it will refuse to participate in scooping up thousands of legally purchased firearms at the bequest of the government.

According to government sources in a recent Radio-Canada report, the Trudeau Liberals were hoping Canada Post would help collect approximately 144,000 “assault” and “military-style” firearms that were recently banned by the government. Canada Post currently delivers guns via mail that are legally purchased to those with firearms licenses.

The inside source, who chose not to be named, noted that Canada Post notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.

According to the source, Canada Post is still talking with the federal government, with one idea being to allow it to transport guns but not oversee getting them from their legal owners.

“It’s a challenge, but we do not think this jeopardizes our timetable or the government’s desire to move forward,” said one source, adding, “We want the discussions to continue.”

As for the Trudeau federal government, it continues to say that having Canada Post be involved in the gun buyback is the “most efficient” as well as “least costly” way to get the guns back from owners.

Trudeau’s gun grab was first announced after a deadly mass shooting in Nova Scotia in May 2020 in which he banned over 1,500 “military-style assault firearms” with a plan to begin buying them back from owners.

Late last year, the Trudeau government extended the amnesty deadline for legal gun owners until October 30, 2025. It should be noted that this is around the same time a federal election will take place.

The Canadian government’s controversial gun grab Bill C-21, which bans many types of guns, including handguns, and mandates a buyback program became law on December 14, 2023, after senators voted 60-24 in favor of the bill.

Alberta and other provinces promise to fight Trudeau’s gun grab tooth and nail

On the same day news broke that Canada Post said it would not participate in Trudeau’s gun buyback, Alberta chief firearms officer Teri Bryant last Wednesday issued a statement saying, “We urge the federal government to abandon this ill-advised program and meaningfully consult the provinces as we work to address the actual causes of firearms crime.”

“Canadians are still waiting for concrete details about the federal firearms confiscation program that has been in the works since 2020, and Canada Post’s refusal to participate in the federal government’s firearms ‘buy-back’ program is just one more example of how little forethought or engagement has gone into implementation of this program,” Bryant said.

Bryant noted that the buyback will not “significantly improve public safety” because it does not target those “involved in criminal activity and gun violence, and Albertans can be assured that our government will continue to advocate for our law-abiding firearms community.”

“We believe in a principled and informed approach to firearms policy that preserves public safety and recognizes the immense responsibility that comes with firearms ownership,” she noted.

Bryant observed that the federal confiscation program is not only causing uncertainty for many firearms businesses, but it is also “pulling attention and resources away from programs and initiatives that would help address public safety.”

“It is also undermining public confidence in the fairness of our entire firearms regulatory scheme,” she added.

Indeed, LifeSiteNews reported in February that despite Trudeau’s crackdown on legal gun owners, Statistics Canada data shows that most violent gun crimes in the country last year were not committed at the hands of legal gun owners but by those who obtained the weapons illegally.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, along with premiers from no less than four additional provinces, are opposed to C- 21.

Late last year, Smith promised she would strengthen the gun rights of Albertans because of Trudeau’s gun grab.

Alberta

Alberta threatens to fight Trudeau government restrictions on Canada’s plastics industry

Published on May 4, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector”

Alberta has rejected the Liberal government’s “unconstitutional” federal plastics registry and production limit.

In an April 25 press release, Alberta’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz promised to take Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault to court over his proposal to create a plastics registry, mandating companies to report their plastic production and implementation.

“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector,” Schulz declared.

“This unilateral announcement is a slap in the face to Alberta and our province’s petrochemical industry, and the thousands of Albertans who work in it,” she continued.

Guilbeault’s plan, set to be implemented in September 2025, would mandate that businesses record how much plastic they place on the market in addition to the amount of plastic waste generated on their commercial, industrial, and institutional premises.

Companies would then report that amount to the federal government. The plan exempts small businesses which produce less than one tonne of plastic each year.

However, Schulz explained that the registry would negatively affect Alberta, as “plastics production is a growing part of Alberta’s economy, and we are positioned to lead the world for decades to come in the production of carbon neutral plastics.”

“Minister Guilbeault’s proposal would throw all of that into jeopardy and risk billions of dollars in investments. This includes projects like Dow Chemical’s net-zero petrochemical plant in Fort Saskatchewan, a $9-billion project that will create thousands of jobs,” she warned.

“If the federal government limits plastic production in Canada, other countries like China will just produce more. The only outcome that this federal government will achieve will be fewer jobs in Canada,” she explained.

Schulz’s statement comes after the November decision by the Federal Court to rule in favor of Alberta and Saskatchewan, declaring that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government overstepped its authority by classifying plastic as “toxic” and banning all single-use plastic items, like straws.

Essentially, the ruling overturned Trudeau’s 2022 law which outlawed manufacturing or importing plastic straws, cutlery, and checkout bags on the grounds of government claims that plastic was having a negative effect on the oceans. In reality, most plastic pollution in the oceans comes from a few countries, like India and China, which dump waste directly on beaches or in rivers.

The November ruling was only one of two recent court rulings that have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws.

The second ruling came after Canada’s Supreme Court recently sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Trudeau’s law C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.