Spin of convenience

Following up on one rebuttal to the Cons' shilling for the tar sands on the Gateway pipeline, let's point out one other area where the Cons' attacks apply far more strongly to their own side than to the voices they're looking to silence. Here's Joe Oliver's criticism of the First Nations, people who enjoy the outdoors and/or potable drinking water, and other Canadians who have expressed concerns about the Gateway pipeline:

Virtually all our energy exports go to the US. As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country.

So which party was it that just months earlier was desperately lobbying to further Canada's dependence on the U.S. as a purchaser of its oil by pushing another massive pipeline headed southward? Take a wild guess.

Of course, the common thread is that the Cons have been consistently working to serve tar-sands operators at a time when we're already dangerously reliant on natural resources whose prices can vary wildly based on factors entirely outside our control. And the question of which of Canada's neighbours might be wooed or bashed at any particular moment in that effort is utterly irrelevant to the Cons.

Which means that the more important clash underlying the Cons' latest move isn't between foreign or domestic interests, or U.S. or China as a purchaser of oil. Instead, it's the fact that the oil industry is once again being given precedence over the mere rest of Canada - and with the Cons having picked their side, it'll take a strong response to ensure that any interests other than those of the tar sands are heard over the next four years.