Pipeline Politics Get Dirty

Apparently, some foreign money is more equal than others.

If you're a regular reader of The Mark, chances are you also stumbled upon Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's rant letter on the need to streamline the environmental review process to prevent "environmentalists and other radical groups" from hijacking development in this fine land. The Financial Post's Terence Corcoran lauds Oliver for his straight talk on the matter, declaring "what a welcome war this is" to have the feds "challenge the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language." Corcoran thinks its high time that the feds find a way to put limits on just how long public hearings for projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline can last, so as to prevent "logjams" in projects that will bring investment dollars to Canadian shores.

After all, say Corcoran and Oliver, there's only a logjam in the Gateway process because environmental groups funded by evil American dollars can now afford to send countless representatives to these hearings. Clearly only the oil lobby should be able to use foreign money to have their representatives seated at the decision-making table. Silly environmentalists!

The Edmonton Journal's editorialists are decidedly miffed to have the honourable minister represent the oil industry's interests so... vividly, shall we say? "By using assaults on the legitimacy and credibility of opponents instead of engaging with adult politeness, the government has given a clear signal which way it is leaning before the independent panel gives the first formal testimony a respectful hearing," they write. "Even worse, it has undermined its credibility by being inconsistent, if not outright hypocritical, on the subject of foreign participation in the debate." The Journal makes it clear that they're not opposed to the pipeline, nor to reasonable development of Canada's vast resource wealth, but as the editorialists note, "name-calling isn't how you win this argument; on the contrary it's a surefire way of getting your opponents even more committed to doing battle." We'd suggest that Oliver has certainly succeeded on that front.

Taking a more political view of Oliver's letter is Paul Wells of Maclean's, who sees it as the shot across the bow in a "big fight" against regulations, hearings, and environmentalists. "This is just a hunch, but I suspect the next massive round of Conservative Party advertising won’t be aimed against an opposition party," writes Wells. "This letter, certainly vetted by the PMO if it didn’t originate there, is the script for what comes next." Alongside organized labour, the gun registry, and the CBC, Canada's regulatory framework is clearly becoming the focus of much of the Conservatives' energy.

All those issues follow a similar script: Identify an issue close to the base's heart (grrr, unions! Bleeding-heart Liberals! Lefty journalists! Hippy greens!); wait for a rift to come along that could easily be solved with dispassionate discussion and compromise. Then, frame it as a black-white choice between what's good for the country vs. what's good for ideological foes. Next, bomb the media with inflammatory remarks geared to provoke shrieking criticism from the opposition, which in turn, feed the base's anger toward the original target. Finally, claim that anger is support for policy change, and presto change-o, another piece of the Liberal legacy is gone, for better or worse. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's a fine strategy if all you want is to get your way. In the process, you stand to alienate the vast, creamy middle of the Canadian electorate that can't hear the reasonable arguments from either side over the din caused by calling your critics (as did the fallen leaders of the Arab Spring) "radicals."