Proof by wilful blindness

Jim Prentice claims that everybody must be gung-ho about unfettered tar sands development, because he won't admit to having heard anything to the contrary:

Speaking to the Toronto Star last night midway through a series of key meetings with his American counterparts, Environment Minister Jim Prentice insisted Canada "is on the same page" with President Barack Obama's climate advisers.

"There have been no protesters at any of the meetings I've been at today. From my perspective, we're very much on the same page. And the proof positive are the excellent meetings we are having."

There's just one problem: the protests whose absence Prentice cites as evidence were in fact well-documented. And that includes activity which was well within range of Prentice's meetings:

Privately, one Canadian official told the Star "we are getting killed on oil sands" by the deepening concentration of protests highlighting both Alberta's oil sands and the U.S. coal industry.

Yesterday, an estimated 2,000 campaigners, including at least 50 Canadians, converged on Washington to highlight the twin issues. The midday rally marched on the capital's last remaining coal-fired power plant, which provides the steam that keeps America's political leaders warm at work.
...
Earlier yesterday, native Canadian groups chanted "Stop tar sands now" outside John Kerry's office as Prentice met inside with the prominent Democratic senator.

At best, one could take Prentice's statement at face value and suggest that he managed to stay insulated in the Cons' publicity bubble to avoid hearing any of the actual protests. Which would at least make it possible for his statement to be true, even if it amounts to trying to prove a fact based on his own ignorance.

Or more likely, one could surmise that Prentice was well aware of the protests, and is simply wishing them away as the Cons seem to be doing with everything that doesn't fit their PR scheme.

But either way, there's every reason to think that the rest of Prentice's message is every bit as implausible as his argument that the non-protests in his mind trump the real protests in Washington as a measure of public opinion.