Pitting different groups against one another and encouraging an “us versus them” mentality is popular in Canada. People who are concerned about the impact of resource development on the environment are criticized as anti-oilsands or anti-Albertan, as are people who criticize the way those resources are sold. Meanwhile, the advocates of resource development are themselves criticized as not caring about the environment, or only caring about their own personal interests.
Federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is a classic example. Last year he was condemned in Western Canada for his claims that oil and gas development were responsible for the “Dutch Disease” that was supposedly causing problems for eastern Canadian manufacturers. He was also condemned this year for his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. These stances make Mulcair anti-Albertan, right?
Well, not exactly. “Dutch Disease” is not Mulcair’s only comment about the oilsands. In an article he wrote in March 2012 outlining his stance on resource development, Mulcair also stated that Canada would benefit if more of our bitumen was refined here in Canada, creating more jobs for Canadians. This is also one of the reasons he opposes the Keystone XL pipeline – Mulcair thinks we’d be better off building an east-west pipeline to send bitumen to eastern Canada.
What most people don’t realize is that shortly before his death, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed also spoke up against Keystone XL for many of the same reasons as Mulcair. Lougheed has also advocated that more of Alberta’s bitumen should be refined here, instead of shipping the raw bitumen – and the processing jobs that go with it – out of Canada. In advocating that more of the bitumen should be refined here in Alberta, Lougheed is voicing an opinion held by many other Albertans. What’s ironic is that he, and many of those same Albertans who support keeping the refining jobs here, are actually on the same page as Mulcair. Alberta Wildrose leader Danielle Smith was also one of the first to voice support for an east-west pipeline … which, again, puts her on the same page as Mulcair. Go figure.
But doesn’t oil and gas development just harm the environment anyway? Are we endangering future generations for our own personal gain? This is what many critics of the oil and gas industry are claiming. They contrast the oil and gas industry’s supposed obsession with short-term profits with the wisdom displayed by many Aboriginal societies who tried to determine how their decisions would affect not only them, but the next seven generations of their descendants.
Apparently no one told Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party. Manning is a passionate advocate of what he calls “green conservatism”, reminding his fellow conservatives that it’s just as important to live within our means environmentally as it is financially. Manning has made the case that “conserving” the environment is in fact a critical part of conservatism.
I remember hearing Manning speak at a conference in Cochrane in 2009, the Pathways 2 Sustainability conference. The conference was attended by people from all over Alberta who were concerned about the long-term viability of their communities and the environment. Many of them were politically conservative, but that didn’t mean that they only cared about themselves. They showed the same kind of consideration for the future that our Aboriginal kin have long tried to display.
Manning and Mulcair both demonstrate an interesting phenomenon in Canada. While there are political differences among Canadians, these differences are not nearly as big as some partisans would like to claim. As Canadians, many of us have much more common ground than we often realize. It’s too bad that this common ground is so often overlooked or ignored when we misunderstand each other.
Jared Milne is a St. Albert resident with a passion for Canadian history and politics.
