Mr Kenney Responds to the Supreme Court of Canada

Posted on March 28, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

“Parliament acted within its jurisdiction.” – Supreme Court of Canada Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

On Mar 25 Premier Kenney issued a statement followed by a press conference to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) ruling that the federal carbon tax is constitutional.

My first thought was: Did he run his comments by the lawyers?  

Apparently so, they briefed him on the decision that very morning.

My second thought was: Yikes!

Recap

Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan vehemently opposed the Fed’s carbon tax and asked the SCC whether it was constitutional.

The SCC replied: Yes, the Feds have the jurisdiction to enact the carbon tax as a matter of “national concern” under the peace, order and good government (POGG) clause of s 91 of the Constitution.

Mr Kenney reacted the way he always does when things don’t go his way. He spouted righteous indignation sprinkled with misinformation and innuendo.  

Mr Kenney

Did the Supreme Court run amok?  

Kenney said the SCC had “discovered a new federal power that erodes provincial jurisdiction and undermines our constitutional system”. He hoped this unprecedented intervention into provincial jurisdiction by the SCC is “a one-time only carbon pricing exception to the constitutional order.”  

New federal power? Exception to the constitutional order? Wow, them’s fighting words, let’s grab Alberta and hightail it outta here.  

No wait, we don’t have to do that.

What the SCC actually said was the Feds have the jurisdiction to enact this law “as a matter of national concern” under the POGG clause (see above) and that “national concern is a well-established but rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law” and its application is “strictly limited.”

So no, the SCC didn’t invent something on a whim. It did not rewrite the rules of the Constitution. The national concern doctrine has been around since 1867. The fact it’s rarely used doesn’t mean it’s new.     

Next?  

So what’s Kenney going to do?

Is he going to create a made-in-Alberta carbon tax after spending years telling Albertans the carbon tax kills jobs and punishes people for filling up their gas tanks and heating their homes?

Who knows. All Kenney would say is he’d consult with Albertans and the allied provinces Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick who fought valiantly by Alberta’s side to rid Confederation of this the latest example of federal tyranny (sorry, that was over the top, all this talk of allies puts Ms Soapbox on war footing).

But seriously, it’s not as if we didn’t see this coming. Did no one in the Kenney brain trust put their minds to what they were going to do if the SCC ruled against them?

(Maybe he couldn’t bear the thought that Rachel Notley was right).

 “Ottawa elites”

Kenney stumbled further down the east vs west rabbit hole when he insinuated the SCC would never treat Alberta as generously as it had Quebec because, based on his experience in Ottawa, it was clear to him the “Ottawa elites” were much more sensitive to provincial jurisdictional issues emerging from Quebec than those coming from the West.

Who are these shadowy “Ottawa elites”? Is he referring to the nine judges presiding over the highest court of the land? If so, does it matter that some lived in the west before they moved to Ottawa to take up their positions as SCC judges?

Perhaps he’s referring to “elites” in the Harper sense of the word. In that case would someone remind Kenney that of the nine SCC judges, 3 of the 6 who upheld the Fed’s carbon tax were Harper appointees and 2 of the 3 who dissented were Trudeau appointees.

Tilting at windmills

Kenney took a moment to put the “clever commentators” in their place. Oh sure they said he was tilting at windmills and this lawsuit was just a political ploy, but let’s not forget he won a “decisive” 4 to 1 victory at the Alberta Court of Appeal and a third of the SCC validated his position, and six provinces representing 80% of Canada’s population thought this was a good idea.

So what.

Winning at the Court of Appeal but losing at the SCC is like winning in the semi-finals and losing in the finals—you still lost the championship.

Ditto for picking up 3 out of 9 SCC judges, a minority does not a majority make.

Lastly, the fact that the six “allied” provinces represent 80% of the population is irrelevant.

What matters is how they vote. In 2019 63% of Canadians voted for parties that supported a carbon tax.   

Onward!!  

Predictably Kenney’s press release/conference bristled with “fight” and “defend” language.

He said he’s very concerned that the SCC opened the door to “the potentially unlimited exercise of federal reserve powers over areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction” and he’s not going to back down. He’ll continue to defend our jobs, our economy and our powers under the federation.

I guess that’s Kenney 2023 election slogan—jobs, economy, constitutional authority!

It will keep the lawyers employed if nothing else.

Posted in Climate Change, Crime and Justice, Energy & Natural Resources, Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 69 Comments

The Bigfoot Blog

Posted on March 21, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

“Here’s a Hollywood production that depicts an oil company … as wanting to murder children to oppose environmental progress…The NDP, that’s who they’re defending…They’ve always been against our largest industry.” – Jason Kenney doubling down on the War Room’s anti-Bigfoot campaign

Sigh.

Here we are, bracing for the third wave of a global pandemic, slogging through an economic slowdown and facing massive job losses…and Jason Kenney is railing on about a kids’ cartoon.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the poor man hasn’t completely lost his mind; let’s put his outburst in the context of a politician who is willing to risk ridicule to defend the War Room for trying to defend the oil and gas sector.

Mr Kenney and the Bigfoot Family

This might have been okay if the War Room delivered results, but it doesn’t.

Kenney created the Canadian Energy Centre, aka the War Room, as part of his promise to deliver “jobs, economy, pipelines” and usher in a new age of prosperity for Albertans.

The War Room’s job is to defend Alberta’s natural resources by promoting energy literacy, research, and rapid response. The anti-Bigfoot campaign is part of its rapid response activities.

War Room CEO Tom Olsen objected to the cartoon’s message saying it is one-sided and polarizing because it “creates no room for conversation.” Remember that statement, we’ll come back to it later.  

Assuming Olsen’s characterization is correction, how effective is calling out a kid’s cartoon at supporting Kenney’s campaign promise to deliver jobs, economy, pipelines.

Short answer: It’s not. Because the loss of jobs and the negative impact on Alberta’s economy are the result of consolidation in the industry in response to changes in the global market, not the negative impact (assuming there is one) of a child’s cartoon in which an oil executive is plotting to blow up an oil field and kill the Bigfoot family and their cute little pets.  

Consolidation and job loss

The energy sector has been in consolidation/restructuring mode for years.

Last year Cenovus announced its takeover of Husky would result in a cut of up to 25% of its workforce (2,150 jobs) and Suncor announced plans to eliminate up to 15% of its workforce (2000 jobs).

This is part of a global pattern. Royal Dutch Shell is cutting up to 9,000 jobs worldwide, BP is cutting up to 10,000.

Consolidation and restructuring results in fewer jobs, but make the companies more profitable, so this trend will continue.   

Kenney’s response to these announcements is we should not be surprised, the oil companies have already “compressed costs.” He implored the companies to do everything they could “to keep the workforce intact” and reminded them that these hardworking employees helped deliver record profits in the good times which, he assured the companies, would return. Then he hammered the Federal government for not doing more to keep the energy companies happy.

It’s unfortunate Kenney didn’t listen when Suncor explained exactly why these cuts were necessary.

Suncor said the unprecedented drop in oil prices, the global pandemic and economic slowdown, and market volatility accelerated its plans to make “permanent structural workforce reductions.”

These permanent structural workforce reductions are possible because the companies are relying more heavily on data and technology than they have in the past. And guess what, they’re not going to return to a less efficient way of working if or when the price of oil goes up.     

A meaningful conversation        

Tom Olsen, the War Room’s CEO, was right about one thing, we need to talk, not about stupid things like Jane Fonda wearing a nylon jacket when she complained about the oilsands or whether North Face was wrong not to sell jackets to an oil company.

Instead, the premier should be talking about how to diversify Alberta’s economy, strengthen its educational institutions, and use its existing infrastructure and workforce to move Alberta’s economy into the 21st century.      

He should not be squawking about a kid’s cartoon or before you know it we’ll be putting taxpayer dollars into campaigns attacking Disney for wicked stepmother movies (in Cinderella her evil stepmother turns her into a scullery maid) and evil hunter movies (in Bambi a hunter called “Man” kills Bambi’s mother and sets the forest on fire).

Really, premier, it’s time to grow up.

Posted in Climate Change, Culture, Economy, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 75 Comments

Hey Doc, Ya Wanna Work in Alberta?

Posted on March 14, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

“Nice business you got here, be a shame if something happened to it.” – Gangster in a B-grade movie   

Alberta’s doctors are tired. They’ve been fighting covid for over a year while at the same time fighting with the Health Minister, Mr Shandro, who has filled their lives with misery.        

In Feb 2020 Shandro ripped up the original AMA agreement (the AMA launched a lawsuit to protect their charter rights). He created chaos by cancelling programs, screwing up billings codes, bringing in Telus/Babylon to provide virtual doctoring, and shifting administrative responsibilities from the AMA to Alberta Health.

Then he reversed some of these decisions, but still rammed through changes to physician compensation (including reducing Business Cost Program payments, changing Z-codes and eliminating stipends) that caused nothing but heartache.  

Mr Shandro

Now when the doctors are physically and mentally exhausted from battling the worst public health crisis ever, he’s pushing them to ratify a new AMA agreement by the end of the month.  

This is like the gangster who trashes your store and says he’ll keep trashing it until you give him what he wants.   

Sign here…

Many doctors think the new Agreement is a bad deal. They’re understandably fearful, wary, and concerned it will negatively impact them and their patients.

They are not alone.

Albertans are also concerned and suspicious. We’ve seen how Shandro treated our doctors in the past and have no confidence he’ll treat them any better in the future.

So why would any doctors want to ratify this agreement?

Perhaps they take comfort in the language that says Shandro will “consult” and “discuss” matters with the AMA, but the right to consultation and discussion is meaningless given the Health Minister retains the sole discretion to do whatever he likes, including withholding physician payments if expenditures exceed the physician budget.

Would the Health Minister abuse his discretion?

Gosh I don’t know: the Health Minister has a statutory obligation to engage with the AMA in “good faith” and yet Shandro ripped up the original AMA agreement last February when negotiations weren’t going his way.

The AMA took Shandro to court to enforce its right to binding arbitration. The government says it will table legislation by December 31 that will prevent the Health Minister from ripping up this Agreement like the last one, but that doesn’t stop Shandro from ripping up any other agreements he may sign or even this Agreement in the nine months between now and December 31. Meanwhile he insists the AMA drop its lawsuit.

I don’t know about you, but I see this as a Checkpoint Charlie situation. I wouldn’t drop my lawsuit until the government passed (not just tabled) legislation protecting the AMA Agreement and any other agreements Shandro signed with the AMA. The fact Alberta doctors need legislation to enforce the sanctity of their contracts with the UCP government is mind boggling.        

Good faith and trust

Some doctors argue the new Agreement has some good points.

For example, it says the $200 million in covid-related underspending in last year’s budget will be redirected to physician programs and overruns in this year’s budget. It brings a level of certainty to the budget question, it returns the programs that were shunted off to Alberta Health back to the AMA, and it buys time for further negotiation on Z-codes and clinical stipends.   

They also worry that failure to sign the new Agreement will encourage the government to continue its aggressive agenda, keep cutting, shift the $200 million in covid-related spending elsewhere, and take away what little the AMA has gained.  

Yes, this is a risk, but at the end of the day this Agreement is about trust, it is not about making the best of an abusive relationship.  

The real question is this: Do Alberta’s doctors ratify the Agreement and trust Mr Shandro to exercise his discretion compassionately, or do they refuse to ratify the Agreement and trust Albertans to have their backs if and when Mr Shandro decides to escalate his fight with Alberta’s doctors.

Obviously I’m not a doctor, so if I’m missing something important here please let me know and I’ll post your comment below.    

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , | 81 Comments

Mr Toews Advises the Feds on Economic Recovery

Posted on March 7, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

The UCP government is nothing if not brazen.

Having failed to explain how the UCP government was going to set Alberta on the path to economic recovery Mr Toews, Alberta’s finance minister and treasury board president, decided to lecture the federal government what it must do to get the country back on track.  

Yes, the UCP is now preaching to all Canadians, not just the poor souls stuck here in Alberta.   

This is Toews’ four point plan.  

Competitiveness & productivity

Toews said Canada’s economic recovery is entirely dependent on its ability to attract private-sector investment. Entirely!

He failed to explain how Canada can attract such investment but it’s safe to assume his advice to the feds would mirror his advice to Jason Kenney—slash corporate taxes.

Finance Minister Toews

We all know how well that turned out.

Alberta’s corporate tax rate dropped from 12% to 8%, billions of dollars disappeared from the government’s coffers, the deficit got worse…and corporations used the tax break to pay down debt, buy back shares and pay dividends to their shareholders.

The one thing they did not do was invest in the economy.

Get out of the way

Toews said the feds must get out of the way of economic growth (ie deregulate) and points an accusatory finger at Bill C-69 (“no more pipelines”) and Bill C-48 (“west coast tanker ban”) to support his argument.

Bearing in mind that Toews is advising Canada on how to reignite its economy and energy contributes only 10.2% to Canada’s GDP, a less Alberta-centric example would have been appropriate.

Nevertheless, let’s consider how well Toews’ “get out of the way” strategy (also known as cutting red tape) is working in Alberta.

So far it has not delivered the promised economic growth; it has however exposed the province to increased environmental degradation. The most recent example is the government’s spectacularly stupid decision to resurrect the coal industry by revoking (and temporarily reinstating) the Coal Policy thereby allowing Australian coal companies to turn mountains into open-pit mines.

Cut support for unemployed Canadians. 

Toews admits temporary income support to Canadians during the pandemic was important but says “to move the economy forward, Canadians must have every incentive to return to work.”

Apparently 27% of small firms say some of their laid-off staff have refused to return to work. Instead of quantifying how many employees he’s talking about or why they refuse to return to work, Toews concludes Canada’s employment insurance plan is too generous and needs an overhaul.

Don’t pick winners and losers

Toews said the government must avoid “interventionist programs” and “market-distorting initiatives”—all political-speak for showering tax dollars on one industry participant but not another. He went even further stressing that governments “must use taxpayer dollars as if they are our own—with the greatest care and responsibility.”

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!  

Give me a moment to catch my breath!

Toews and his boss embarked on a multibillion dollar “interventionist program” when they gave TC Energy $1.5 billion in equity and $6 billion in loan guarantees to support KXL, only to have President Biden cancel its permit.

Toews has absolutely no credibility on this point. None.

A broader perspective

Toews concludes that this is a pivotal time in our history. In that he’s correct, but he’s misguided if he thinks the government’s response should be a single-minded focus on creating “an environment that positions the private sector for growth.”

The pandemic has had a profound social and cultural effect in addition to an economic impact on our society. We’ve learned a lot about our dependence on others and the value of community.

It’s time to acknowledge the importance of robust public services—solid K-12 public school funding, sufficient post-secondary funding to ensure students are prepared for the future and not buried in debt, public healthcare, and government support for seniors and other vulnerable citizens.

If we’re going to come out of this stronger and more resilient we need to learn from past governments that took bold action to recover from major crises like the great depression and WWII.

Why? Because authors like Robert Kuttner have shown that after the great depression and WWII governments that regulated the financial and business sectors, strengthened unions and supplemented good labour income with robust public services were rewarded by economic growth and full employment.*

And political scientists like Robert Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garret have shown economic growth results from a reduction of income inequity.**

This is the time for visionary leadership, not a trite rehash of failed conservative policies.  

*Robert Kuttner, Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?  

**Robert Putnam & Shaylyn Romney Garret, The Upswing

Posted in Economy, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 43 Comments

Budget 2021

Posted on February 28, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

“…if you don’t mind my sayin’ I can see you’re out of aces. For a taste of your whiskey, I’ll give you some advice”—Kenney Rogers, The Gambler

If there is one thing we should take away from Finance Minister Toews’ budget presentation last Thursday it’s this: the Kenney government has run out of aces and they refuse to let anyone give them any advice because they’re afraid they’ll lose the next election.  

How’s it going so far?

We are halfway through Premier Kenney’s term and despite everything he’s done to create “jobs, economy, pipelines” nothing has worked.  

He slashed corporate taxes, relaxed regulations, flung the doors open to coal companies, cut public services (causing tremendous damage to education and healthcare), reduced support for municipalities, and foisted more costs on to Albertans…and for what? At the end of Kenney’s term Alberta will be stuck with an $8 Billion deficit and a $133 Billion debt.

Minister Toews

Despite the pain, there’s been no gain.

Naturally Albertans want to know what Kenney intends to do about it.

The go-forward plan

The answer is: not much.

The government will spend $3.1 billion next year on various sectors including energy, tech, tourism, pharma and life sciences but details are sketchy and a significant chunk of the money is slated for ongoing projects, not new initiatives. Even the Jobs Now program that Kenny announced with great fanfare is a federal-provincial grant program that’s been around for years.

So what’s new?  

The only part of the Budget document that offers specificity is the bit that gripes about the Feds not doing enough for Alberta and the 5 page discussion of the government’s policy to support ESG.

You remember ESG (environmental, social and governance considerations), the thing Kenney once referred to as the “flavour of the month.”

Well now the Kenny government is going to support the energy sector’s ESG efforts by piggy-backing on to the Feds’ climate change mitigation efforts (assuming Kenney isn’t fighting them in court) and allocating $1 Million to an ESG initiative that will hold entities who view Alberta’s ESG story “unfairly” to account.

Yes, that’s the War Room and the Anti-Alberta Public Inquiry’s job, but hey, what’s another million among friends.

The ESG initiative will be run by the Kenney executive council (ie Cabinet). These folks are responsible for the botched War Room, scrapping the 1976 Coal Policy (and bringing it back temporarily), suspending environmental monitoring during covid, selling off, then not selling off Alberta’s parks, cutting staff and “red tape” in the department of Energy and the Alberta Energy Regulator, etc.

 In other words, the go-forward plan is a zombie version of the existing plan, which Mr Toews readily admits isn’t good enough.   

Oh wait…

Could it be that Alberta can’t balance its budget because its fiscal structure is flawed?

For decades Alberta has relied on oil and gas royalty revenues to balance the budget. Royalty revenues are ridiculously unstable, yo-yoing up and down and wreaking havoc on Alberta’s budgets.

Economists and the Business Council of Alberta say a more stable, reliable revenue source is necessary (sales tax? did someone say sales tax?)

Mr Toews says oh no, not now. The government must wait two to three years when it will have “more economic clarity” at which time it might, maybe, set up a “revenue panel” to review the “efficiency and appropriateness” of Alberta’s revenue structure.  

(Mr Toews graciously avoids saying Mr Kenney could have done this in 2019 when he asked the MacKinnon panel to review Alberta’s fiscal structure but restricted the review to the expenditure side only).

So, let’s talk about Mr Toews’ concern about the lack of “economic clarity.”

Have you read the 2021 Budget document?  It’s chock full of statistics, forecasts, and energy and economic assumptions; assumptions the Kenney government says are prudent and solid enough to support the conclusion that there will be an $8B deficit at the end of Kenney’s first term.

The issue isn’t a lack of clarity but a lack of political will to set up a revenue panel because this would signal to Albertans that that the UCP government’s economic strategy failed and it’s time to consider a sales tax.

Besides there’s always the (tiny) chance Alberta will be blessed with another oil boom which would allow the Kenney government to slip off the hook it created for itself when it wiped out billions in corporate tax revenues, billions in carbon tax revenues, and propped up KXL by gambling Trump would win the US presidential election.

And yes, covid has kicked the stuffing out of Alberta’s economy just as it’s ravaged the economies of the other provinces and territories across Canada, but no, those jurisdictions are not making things worse for themselves by clinging to what the Business Council calls an “outmoded mythology” ie. Alberta hasn’t had a sales tax for 60 years and god damn it it’s not going to have one now.  

The Kenney government is going to play out its hand. Albertans will have a chance in the next election to tell the Kenney government it’s time to fold ‘em and walk away.

Posted in Climate Change, Economy, Energy & Natural Resources, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 65 Comments

It’s been one of those weeks

Posted on February 21, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

This has been one of those weeks, full of highs and lows, birthdays (yay) and covid tests (boo). The Soapbox family came through it all just fine, but as a result of the ‘distractions’ there is no blog this week.

Have a safe week everyone and we’ll talk again next Sunday.

Posted in Alberta Health Care, Celebrations, Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Minister Savage on Coal Policy

Posted on February 14, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

What did we learn from Energy minister Savage’s press conference announcing the so-called reversal of the government’s unbelievably bone-headed decision to cancel the 1976 Coal Policy?  

Well, Ms Savage has some good speech writers. The “thank you for your passion” and “we made a mistake” bits were nice touches, but her speech did little to dig the government out of the hole it dug for itself.

Old policy?     

When the government cancelled the Coal Policy it imposed a 120-day moratorium on accepting new lease applications for Category 2,3, and 4 lands to give itself time to process pending lease applications. In early 2020 there were 506 leases awaiting approval.*     

Ms Savage made a big deal about issuing a directive to the Regulator not to process any new applications, what she didn’t tell us was how many applications had been processed between the end of the moratorium and Feb 8 when she reinstated the Coal Policy.

Energy Minister Ms Savage

Bottom line: With the exception of the cancellation of 11 leases which account for on 0.2% of Category 2 lands, there has been no roll back as a result of the government reinstating the Coal Policy, furthermore exploration activity for 6 projects in Category 2 lands will continue.   

Mountain top removal

Ms Savage announced there will be no mountain top removal in Alberta.

The operative word here is “will”.

Ms Savage is talking about the future mining activity, not ongoing mining activity. Furthermore, the directive she suggests supports the blanket prohibition on mountain top removal only applies to Category 2 lands, so is mountain top removal for projects like the Grassy Mountain Project on Category 4 lands still okay?

Context

Ms Savage gave us “context” to explain how her government screwed up so badly.

She said the Coal Policy was “outdated” and “obsolete.” It didn’t address climate change. It was cancelled for administrative reasons so the Dept of Energy could issue coal leases the way it issues oil and gas leases. And the government failed to anticipate the “unintended effect of removing the coal categories.”

Whoa. She just went from the Coal Policy was outdated to the government didn’t understand the effect of removing the coal categories.  

First, the policy could have been updated by adding language to address climate change.  

Second, the removal of the land categories wasn’t an administrative change. Coal companies identified coal lease applications in Category 2 as a substantive regulatory risk. They welcomed the government’s decision to make this risk go away.  

Third, the rationale that coal should be managed the same as oil and natural gas is hardly reassuring given the government’s lackadaisical oversight of the oil and gas sector including its decision to cut staff at the Alberta Energy Regulator, suspend reporting requirements due to covid, and its failure to require companies to set aside sufficient funds to reclaim orphan and abandoned wells.  

Bottom line: the context of the decision to cancel the Coal Policy is the government thought they could get away with it by slipping it in over the May long weekend during covid.    

Importance of coal mining

Ms Savage said coal mining has been an important part of Alberta for decades, the world is looking for steel making coal and Alberta businesses can meet the increasing demand for steel and provide good paying jobs.

Some specifics would be helpful here.

The total number of Albertans employed in the energy sector in 2019 was 138,372. At its peak, the coal sector employed a total of 2,985. Today it employs 1,542. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the coal industry’s place in the energy sector hierarchy.

Who are the “Alberta businesses” that would meet the rising demand for steel by producing more coal? Teck, Canada’s leading metallurgical coal producer (headquartered in BC by the way, not Alberta) abandoned its Mackenzie Redcap project in 2019. Who’s left? Australian companies like Atrum and Hong Kong penny stock companies like CST Group?

The only “Alberta businesses” that will “benefit” from digging up Alberta’s coal will be sole purpose subsidiaries formed by foreign companies to shield them from liability when coal mining becomes unprofitable and the cost of reclamation is too high.

As far as meeting the increasing demand for metallurgical coal, Canada accounts for 1% of the world’s coal reserves and 1% of the world’s coal production. 35% of this 1% is produced in Alberta. You do the math, the world will not stop spinning if Alberta does not allow foreign companies to dig coal out of the Eastern Slopes.

Bottom line: expanding the coal industry by allowing more coal mining will not significantly improve Alberta’s economy, but it will make foreign companies and their shareholders richer.

Consultation

Ms Savage said the government wants to hear from Albertans “as we move forward with a modern coal policy”. 

Based on what she said in her press conference at a minimum Albertans should expect to provide input on a proposed policy that:

  • Beefs up the land category restrictions with additional “strength and vigor”
  • Eliminates the exceptions that allowed 4 current projects on Category 2 lands to be approved under the 1976 coal policy
  • Includes climate change mitigation measures
  • Effectively incorporates environmental and other regulations to protect our mountains, headwaters, foothills, parks and recreation areas (which means these regulations will have to be strengthened as well)
  • remedies Alberta’s lack of recourse when a company becomes insolvent and defaults on its reclamation obligations (perhaps a bond similar to the $6 billion loan guarantee Mr Kenney gave to KXL would be in order).  

Or we could simplify the consultation by asking a threshold question: Should Alberta expand coal development or wind it down?  

Over to you Ms Savage.

*For an excellent overview of the Coal Policy and related issues see Nigel Bankes https://ablawg.ca/2021/02/09/what-are-the-implications-of-reinstating-the-1976-coal-development-policy/

Posted in Climate Change, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , | 25 Comments

Kenney’s “Dead Letter” Coal Policy

Posted on February 7, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

Dead letter: something that has lost its force or authority without being formally abolished – Merriam Webster

On Feb 3, 2021 Jason Kenney said he rescinded Lougheed’s coal policy which blocked open-pit mining on the eastern slopes and the Rockies because it was “a dead letter.”

He said the eastern slopes and the Rockies would be protected under existing regulations and all this public outrage was fueled by condescending city-folk who had it in for rural folk who were simply trying to put food on the table.

Two days later his energy minister, Sonya Savage, was thrust into the limelight to clean up Mr Kenney’s mess. (This is becoming standard procedure in Kenneyland).

Ms Savage said the government would issue a new coal policy this week because her government had no intention of changing “any of the restrictions or any of the protections in the eastern slopes” when the Lougheed coal policy was rescinded.

Apparently the “dead letter” wasn’t so dead after all. It actually preserved our mountains and protected our environment and our water. All it took was thousands of Albertans protesting for months in the middle of the pandemic to convince Mr Kenney of this fact.  

Questions?

Mr Kenney insists the Lougheed coal policy is unnecessary because the existing regulations will protect our mountains and environment.

Let’s borrow one of the regulator’s tools, a process known as Information Requests (IRs) test the rationale Mr Kenney has offered in support of his position.*

IR#1: Mr Kenney, you say coal mining is the “lifeblood of several Alberta communities and employs thousands of Alberta workers.” Please identify the “Alberta communities” referred to and confirm or correct Stats Canada data that says there were 2,985 coal mining jobs in Alberta at the peak of the industry and only 1,542 jobs today.   

IR#2: You indicate coal will be developed “responsibly under strict regulatory standards and processes” that protect “air, land, water, and wild species from harm.” Please identify which regulatory standards and processes you are referring to and explain how they prevent harm as effectively as the Lougheed coal policy which stopped open pit coal mining all together.       

IR#3: You indicate “scientists, not politicians, make the environmental decisions.” Please advise whether Cabinet can override the Regulator if the Regulator rejects a mining application for environmental reasons?

IR#4: You suggest the world is not moving away from coal. Please rationalize your position with the fact mining giants like Rio Tinto, BHP, Vale, and Teck have or are in the process of unloading their coal assets and Blackrock, the world’s largest financial manager ($8.7 trillion) warned that any company that fails to speed up its transition to a clean economy will be flagged for “potential exit” because they present risk to Blackrock’s clients’ returns.      

IR#5: Please explain how land reclamation and environmental regulations will protect mountain landscapes after they have been destroyed by decades of open-pit mining.  

IR#6: Please explain how you will enforce the regulations referred to in IR#5 if a coal mining company becomes insolvent.  

IR#7: Please explain why public consultation pursuant to the AER process is sufficient to ensure all Albertans have been consulted on opening up the eastern slopes and the Rockies to open-pit mining when not all Albertans meet the AER requirement that they be “directly affected” by a specific project. Will you amend the law to make province-wide consultation mandatory before any coal mining project may be filed with the regulator?

IR#8: Please explain why you said the Lougheed coal policy was a “dead letter” when the coal industry and investors in coal companies specifically highlighted the coal policy as a roadblock to open-pit mining and lauded your government for working to change the policy.

IR#9: Energy minister Savage said mountain top mining was a no-go. Please define “mountain top mining” and confirm it includes surface mining, strip mining, mountain top removal, and any other activity that touches those parts of the eastern slopes and the Rockies that were protected under the Lougheed coal policy.

IR#10: Please advise whether your government will engage in a province-wide consultation before it implements the new coal policy. Please confirm whether the government will reinstate the Lougheed coal policy until such consultation is complete.  

IR#11: Please comment on statements like the one made by Mantracker star, Terry Grant, who said the new coal policy would be a “stream of garbage” and “another distraction” to create the impression the government has addressed the public’s concerns.

Dead letter

These IRs are not as rigorous as real IRs, however they illustrate the point that Albertans deserve more than a hastily stitched together “replacement” policy and a quick pat on the head that everything will be okay.  

The right thing for Mr Kenney to do is to reinstate the Lougheed coal policy. Anything less demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for Albertans and the province they love.

So going back to the definition of “dead letter” – something that has lost its force or authority without being formally abolished – perhaps the real dead letter here isn’t the Lougheed coal policy but the Kenney government.

*Mr Kenney’s position is drawn from his public comments and the Coal Hard Facts brochure.    

Posted in Climate Change, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , | 72 Comments

Kenney’s Coal Facts and Myths

Posted on January 31, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

The Economist considered a number of cover illustrations for its Making Coal History edition before settling on a lump of coal on display under a bell jar like an artifact in a museum.

While The Economist was chronicling the demise of coal the Kenney government was busy cancelling Lougheed’s Coal Policy to give the industry a shot in the arm.  

When the public got wind of the Kenney government’s machinations it demanded Mr Kenney reverse course. He responded with a PR brochure setting out the “myths” and the “facts” of coal mining in Alberta. It was intended to set our minds at ease, it did the opposite.

Myths?  

Kenney* said it’s a myth “the world” is moving away from coal because metallurgical coal is used in steel and steel will be critical for post covid recovery. He cites an S&P report in support.

Fact: 80% of all coal consumption occurs in Asia, 50% in China and 11% in India. North American and European consumption is plummeting. Coal was never high in the energy mix in South America and Africa in the first place.** So unless “the world” means China and India, Kenney is wrong.

Furthermore, the S&P report quotes one Australian coal executive saying coking coal will be crucial to Asia’s post covid recovery. Kenney facts hinge on the dreams of one coal executive trying to shore up support for the Olive Downs project in Australia because the IEA says global coal use will never surpass its pre-covid peak.    

Kenney said it’s okay to lift the Coal Policy protection on Category 2 lands because coal mining in Category 1 lands is still banned and coal mining in Category 3 lands is regulated.

Fact: This blurs the difference between Category 2 and Category 3 lands.  

When Kenney cancelled the Coal Policy, he removed the stipulation that open pit mining “would not normally be considered” in Category 2 lands (although exceptions could be made under certain conditions). This flipped Category 2 lands from “no” (like Category 1) to “yes” (like Category 3).  

It’s like when your kid asks for the car. You can say “No, not unless I’m having a heart attack and you have to drive me to the hospital” (Category 2) or “Yes, as long as you bring it back with a full tank” (Category 3).

Coal development in what was once Category 2 lands will be allowed, subject to regulation, just like it’s allowed in Category 3 lands. The extra protection offered by the Coal Policy is gone.  

Kenney said coal mines will not “forever change our mountain landscapes” because companies are bound by land reclamation and environmental rules.

Fact: This is ridiculous. Leaving aside the issues around reclamation and environmental rules (see below), even a two-year old knows a mountain has a peak and a wild landscape while a chunk of rock that’s undergone decades of open pit mining does not.     

Kenney said it’s not true that cancelling the Coal Policy has deregulated Alberta coal development.

Fact: Cancelling the coal policy removed Category 2 lands from protection from open pit mining. These lands like the category 3 and 4 lands will be regulated by the Alberta Energy Regulation (AER).

The AER has been plagued with scandals and its new CEO, Mr Laurie Pushor brings the baggage of his own multi-million dollar land scandal in Saskatchewan. Pushor will supervise the downsizing of the AER (270 gone at last count) and implement $147 million in budget cuts to meet Kenney’s promise to cut red tape and open Alberta up for business.

Yep, we’re in good hands.  

Kenney said water quality and key headwaters are not at risk because the Environmental Enhancement and Protection Act will protect our water supply and the AER will take care of the selenium issue which, he notes, wasn’t even mentioned in Lougheed’s Coal Policy.  

Fact: Kenney’s assurance that selenium, water quality, and the headwaters fall into the purview of the environment minister Jason Nixon who has a troubling track record and the AER’s Pushor is hardly comforting.

Kenney said it’s a myth that a coal lease means a coal mine is on its way because coal projects must go through a strict regulatory and consultation process.

Fact: In addition to the concerns already expressed about Alberta’s regulatory process there’s the fact that Atrum, an Australian coal company, told investors the UCP government is “engaged and supportive” of its plans to develop its “flag ship asset” a large-scale project with multi-mine potential in Category 2 lands.

Right, it’s the UCP government, not the regulator they’re worried about.  

Kenney said it’s not true his government is abandoning the federal/provincial plan to phase out thermal coal.

Fact: Fine, but we’re talking about coking (metallurgical) coal, not thermal coal. This is a red herring.  

Kenney said it’s a myth the government didn’t cancel all the leases affected by his decision to cancel the Coal Policy. They cancelled 11 leases. Other leases resulted from requests made while the Coal Policy was in place.

Fact: The issue here is the cancellation of the Coal Policy, not the cancellation of old leases granted while the policy was still in place.  Also, the fact the government cancelled 11 leases doesn’t mean it won’t approve any more that come along.    

Bottom line

The coal companies will benefit from Kenney’s cancellation of the Coal Policy.   

Atrum expects a post-tax internal rate of return of 25 to 26% with payback within 3.9 to 4.4 years.

It identified five key risks: stakeholder support, selenium, westslope cutthroat trout habitat, Category 2 zoning (a risk eliminated by Kenney when he killed the Coal Policy) and regulatory approval timelines (also mitigated by Kenney when he appointed Mr Pushor to head the AER and gutted its budget, leaving only the federal timelines in play).

Alberta will not benefit from Kenney’s cancellation of the Coal Policy.   

Which brings us back to Peter Lougheed. When he implemented the Coal Policy he said the beauty of this province and the eastern slopes would not be destroyed to satisfy Ontario’s desire for cheap electricity.***

And here we are 45 years later watching Kenney destroy the beauty of this province and the eastern slopes to satisfy an Australian company’s desire for windfall profits.

It boggles the mind.

*“Kenney” is used here because the PR piece was presumably drafted under the direction of the man who holds the pen.

**The Economist, Dec 5, 2020 p 28

***Hansard, Oct 14, 1976 starting at 1339

Posted in Climate Change, Economy, Energy & Natural Resources, Environment, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , , | 67 Comments

Kenney’s (Bombastic) Response to Biden Cancelling KXL’s Permit

Posted on January 25, 2021 by susanonthesoapbox

On January 20 when the rest of the world was congratulating President Biden on his inauguration, Jason Kenney was attacking Biden’s character and threatening trade wars because Biden revoked Trump’s executive order approving KXL.

Not satisfied that he’d made his point, Kenney appeared on Fox TV and other media outlets to condemn Biden’s disrespectful treatment of “a Canadian government,” an ally and a friend.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that Kenney’s characterization of Alberta as “a Canadian government” is misleading—Alberta is a “subnational” government or “provincial” government, it is not the federal government and notwithstanding what Fox viewers may think, Kenney does not speak for Canada. Or all Albertans for that matter.  

The Premier and the President

So what did he say?

Biden did something wrong

Kenney said Biden retroactively vetoed an existing pipeline.

Trump’s executive order approves the KXL border crossing facility (a 30” diameter pipeline including the first shut off valve or pumping station and appurtenances). This is part of an incomplete project, it is not an “existing pipeline.”  

The order says it may be terminated, revoked, or amended at any time “in the sole discretion” of the President. Lawyers may argue about the meaning of “sole discretion” but it looks like Biden has the power to do what he did.  

Kenney is fighting for Alberta’s energy industry and the jobs KXL would create

Let’s start with Alberta energy industry. Not one major oilsands producer has issued a press release condemning Biden’s actions.

While TC Energy issued a press release saying it’s “disappointed” and will consider its options, TC Energy’s CEO is not all over the airwaves complaining about being mistreated.         

If Biden’s decision was such a big blow to the industry why isn’t the industry standing shoulder to shoulder with Kenney calling Biden out.  

Ah, but what about all those lost jobs?  

Kenney job loss numbers include American jobs and are overstated. He said 2000 people lost their jobs. TC Energy said it’s 1000, and many of those jobs were in the US.

Kenney said over 59,000 new jobs would have been created. TC Energy said of the 59,000 indirect jobs, only 17,000 were Canadian jobs, the remaining 42,000 were in the US. But hey, Mr Kenney, feel free to start a trade war over American jobs.

It’s Trudeau’s fault

Kenney said Biden wouldn’t have concluded Canada wouldn’t stand up for the industry if the federal (Trudeau) government had responded “with strength” when President Obama refused to issue the presidential permit in 2015.

Stephen Harper was prime minister when Obama rejected KXL’s new route in Jan 2012. Harper was PM when Obama vetoed the GOP bill approving KXL in Feb 2015. Trudeau was elected 2 days before Obama rejected the presidential permit for KXL in Nov 2015.

Harper had three years to bring Obama around. Trudeau had 2 days and by then it was too late. So tell me again which federal government failed to respond “with strength” to Obama’s intransigence.   

The kitchen sink

In addition to arguing Biden disrespected Alberta by failing to consult with Canada prior to revoking the permit (this from the man who didn’t consult with Albertans on revoking the Coal Policy, teachers’ pensions, school curriculum, etc.) Kenney said:

  • Biden’s climate change concerns are non-existent because the oilsands have reduced carbon emissions intensity per barrel by 30%. True, but total emissions increased by 23% between 2000-2018 due to a 53% increase in activity.
  • Canada’s emissions goals are more stringent than Biden’s. Not true. Canada was ahead of Trump’s standards but will fall behind when Biden reinstates the policies Trump gutted, enacts new fuel-efficiency standards, new methane emissions standards, and a new “social cost of carbon” metric as part of the cost-benefit analysis of government regulations. (Meanwhile back in Canada Kenney is trying to kill the federal carbon tax in the Supreme Court of Canada).       
  • Trudeau should fight Biden as hard as he fought Trump over NAFTA and the steel and aluminum tariffs. The analogy doesn’t fit. Trudeau was not able to stop Trump from renegotiating NAFTA or imposing tariffs, all he could do was negotiate hard to get the best outcome for Canada. There is no room for negotiation with respect to the KXL permit, it’s either revoked or it isn’t.  
  • If Trudeau fails to act, Kenney will go further on his Fair Deal demands. What’s left? Secession?  

Damages/compensation    

Kenney invested $1.5 billion in equity and put up $6 billion in loan guarantees repayable after KXL was completed. KXL is dead. The $1.5B and whatever was drawn against the loan guarantee is gone.  

Kenney says he’ll sue for damages or compensation. Legal scholars say he’s unlikely to succeed.

Even if TC Energy succeeded in a NAFTA challenge and Kenney recouped some of his losses, KXL would not be built and all those jobs and oil revenues would not magically reappear.

What really happened

Kenney said he invested in KXL to offset the “political risk” of Trudeau not completing TMX, but he’s also admitted he’s “cautiously optimistic” TMX will be completed. The Trudeau political risk was not real.    

Kenney said if he hadn’t invested in KXL the project would have died (so he boldly went where no sane investor would go?).

Kenney invested in an enterprise that was exposed to the risk of an election in a foreign jurisdiction where Democratic presidential hopefuls like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were vying with Joe Biden for the leadership of the Democratic party.  He placed a $1.5 billion dollar bet that regardless of who became the Democratic nominee, Trump would win the election.   

Now that Biden has revoked the presidential permit—both TC Energy and the Building Trades of Alberta union say this was “predictable”—Kenney is desperately looking for someone to blame for his imprudence and hubris.

Well guess what, Albertans may have been distracted by Covid, the revocation of the Coal Policy, and a million other things, but we know Kenney’s bluster is not about the loss of jobs and oil revenues, it’s about the loss of Kenney’s credibility as a prudent financial manager and steward of Alberta taxpayer dollars.

It’s a simple as that.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy & Natural Resources, Law, Politics and Government | Tagged , , , , , , | 70 Comments