It's strange.
Often, people from California tell us how terrible we are because we develop oil sands. However, many deposits in California leave a larger carbon footprint than the oil sands. There's a notion that easily accessible oil resources exist, and that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for oil sands. If you read the history of petroleum products, you learn that no deposits have ever been easy to reach.
When I spoke about Gesner, it was before the first oil wells were dug. The first oil wells went about 20 metres underground. Salt mining techniques were used. It was expensive, and there was a great deal of pollution. A century and a half later, we go four kilometres through the sea, two kilometres underwater or four kilometres underground, for example. The price isn't higher than the best deposits available in 1870. People forget the fact that, as a result of technological development, today we can exploit resources that are difficult to access in a way that is just as ecological as the deposits considered of good quality a generation ago.
To answer your question, I think Canadian oil's bad reputation is undeserved. In any case, the actual impact of all this is felt when we use gas in our vehicles, for example. Even though the oil sands leave a slightly higher carbon footprint than the other deposits, once we've taken into account the fact that the real carbon emissions come from using fuel in our vehicles, the difference is actually minimal. I think there are people who need to complain. I think people are unfair when it comes to Canadian deposits.