LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

An engaged populace is surely a good thing. Unless, perhaps, you run a government focused on reigniting the economy by cutting red tape and making friends with all and any potential business partners.

The Alberta government found out in recent months just how scary an engaged and enraged populace can be.  By throwing open doors to coal miners intent on scouring out a few mountain tops in previously protected lands, the UCP landed itself deep in a populist uprising of ranchers, farmers, environmentalists, country singers and town councillors.

This week Energy Minister Sonya Savage reinstated the provincial coal policy put in place in 1976 pending wider public consultations on a new policy.

"An important part of being a responsible government is to admit when you've made a mistake and to fix it," Savage said.

The government may have admitted its error but it certainly hasn't fixed the mistake.

In concrete terms, existing coal leases and those approved in the seven or eight months between the rescinding of the 1976 policy and now are not cancelled.  Exploration on some of those leases in ongoing.  And lease holding companies are still waiting in the wings for the new coal policy the government still plans to institute after it conducts some unspecified consultations.

The initial decision to try to sneak one past the people of southern Alberta also created some unintended consequences.  By messing with the policy, the government drew attention to coal mines that weren't even covered by the 1976 document.

A massive mine proposed for the Crowsnest Pass area is already at the provincial-federal regulatory stage, with a possible construction start date this fall.  It isn't in any way affected by Savage's announcement this week, but the controversy has put a huge spotlight on opponents who fear the affect the Grassy Mountain mine will have on water supplies coming out of the mountains.

Suddenly the average man on the street in Lethbridge, Alberta, is familiar with the potential water-tainting affects of selenium pollution from mine sites.

The federal-provincial regulators are now operating in a more charged environment than they might have been before the provincial government's misstep.

There is also a coal-development court challenge with rancher and First Nations involvement which isn't likely to be derailed by Savage's announcement.

The entire controversy has also given a voice to disgruntled municipal governments.  There has been a raft of irritating tax and funding issues chafing at the relationship between the UCP government and rural and urban councils.  But the possible fouling of drinking water and purple mountain majesty has galvanized councils even in traditionally rock-ribbed conservative regions to speak out.

Calgary City Council voted the day Savage issued her apology to demand cancelation or suspension of the coal leases that were granted between the revocation of the 1976 policy and its reinstatement.

Just to pour a little salt in the wound, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, not a favourite at any time of the provincial government, said the entire coal affair was "a good lesson" for the UCP on transparency and consultation.

Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that the international mining community is keeping a sharp eye on proceedings.  If the government buckles further to pressure and starts cancelling leases, companies will expect some compensation.

Suddenly doing business in Alberta, rather than an exercise in laissez-faire capitalism, has become a risky venture, replete with image-damaging environmental campaigns and protests.

And so the UCP government, with one ill-considered decision in May to spur the province's economy, has eroded the trust of many of its most stalwart supporters, given ammunition to its many detractors, and damaged the province's business reputation on the international stage.

That's a whole lot to fix.

The government needs to be very careful now how it makes good on its promise to start all over again on a new coal policy.  The public consultation must be truly open and transparent and its communication clear and devoid of the UCP's usual obfuscating spin.

Photo Credit: Alberta Venture

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


You may, like I have, wondered what has taken the government so long in announcing it would forgive CERB repayments for self-employed people it misled into applying for benefits.  Why, exactly, did it take so long to backtrack, especially after it became clear the government had given people bad information.

If you'll allow me a quick decent into cliched hackery: Unless you're Loblaws or SNC-Lavalin, this government doesn't care about you.  Regular people don't actually rate inside the halls of the PMO.

Is that too trite?  Perhaps, but what other excuse could there be?

Let's go back to the beginning, shall we?  At issue is the plight of some 400,000 self-employed Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) claimants.  When the CERB was extended to self-employed people — quite belatedly, I gotta say — it came with a minimum income requirement.  You had to have made at least $5,000 in 2019, or in the previous 12 months.

People were unsure exactly how this applied to them, whether it meant gross income (money earned before deducting expenses) or net income (money earned after deducting expenses).  So, they did what anyone would do: they went to the government's websites, where they didn't really find much clarifying information.  So, they called.

What the heard when they called really seems to have depended on who they ended up getting on the other end of the line with.  But, generally speaking, it boiled down to: use your gross income, and apply for the CERB.

At some point later, in the halls — or probably the homes — of the CRA, it was decided that, actually, the requirement was for net income, no matter what people had been told.  Sometime in mid-April, according to a Toronto Star report from the time, the CRA updated its Q&A to reflect this, without actually announcing the change.  (Always a good sign when a news organization has to give a possible range of dates for when a change could have been made.)

Then in early December, people started getting letters in the mail telling them they owed the CRA all the CERB money they received back, in some cases as much as $14,000.  The letters also gave the impression to many of the recipients that they needed to pay it back by the end of the year, though the CRA insisted in press statements that wasn't the case.

Anyway, a government responsive to the needs of its citizens, particularly in the midst of a generational economic and health crisis, might try and soothe the fears of people suddenly finding out they owe a huge sum of money.

Instead, they got this in a statement from the CRA to the Star after, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the department had been caught out for changing what its website said the eligibility requirements were: "there has been no change to this position during the life cycle of the CERB.  This requirement was publicized on Canada.ca since the beginning."  (Again, it had not been publicized.)

Days later when the union for the call centre workers called the government out, saying its workers had been provided incorrect information to give to people calling in with questions, the agency said it would work out repayment plans for people on a case by case basis.

And since then, Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough has been steadfast that no debt would be forgiven and the government would not make exceptions for any CERB recipients.

Finally — finally â€” after two months of this, the government reversed course.  If you applied and received the CERB based on your gross income, and you met all the other requirements, you don't have to pay back your benefits.  And if you've already paid back your benefits in the last couple months, that money will be handed back to you.

So, we must come back to this question of what took so long.

And I can't help but dip back into this well, but when SNC-Lavalin needed an out from bribery charges — charges they have since admitted guilt to in a settlement — the federal government led by the PMO moved mountains, to the point the government nearly destroyed itself, to get SNC what it wanted.

In this case people were facing a bill of more than $10,000 on incomes, you'll remember, that amounted to less than $5,000 over a year after expenses.  These people were left hanging from months.

The power disparity is obvious, and so is the effort put into solving the problem.

It is surely a coincidence the government waited until a credible class-action lawsuit had been filed to change course and do the right thing.

The incredible thing is how incredibly stupid this is politically.  It's not much of a secret the government is itching to fight another election and win back a majority in Parliament.

On one hand you have corporations hovering up hundreds of millions in federal COVID wage subsidies, making gigantic profits, increasing their dividend payouts to shareholders totalling billions of dollars, and still laying off their workers.  On the other you have a group of individuals who had received a few thousand dollars in relief after losing most or all of their meagre incomes having that money demanded back.  The constituency for this specific balance of corporate generosity and individual miserliness must be so small as to only constitute the federal Liberal caucus.

But that's the way it works with this government.  Lethargy and waffling will always be the response to an issue brought about by people without a lobbyist on retainer.

So it goes for the party of the ruling class, and those working hard to pull the ladder up behind them.

Photo Credit:  Saultonline.com

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.