I have made mention before of the alarming tendency of Tim Houston to respond to the Trump threat by behaving like him. As reported here and here Houston has been eager to exploit the economic challenge posed by Trump’s tariffs and general mayhem to launch pre-emptive strikes against any Nova Scotians who would dare to question new natural resource projects. 

Houston began those attacks as soon as Trump took over the White House, and he’s still at it.   

In a Trumpy move he recently took issue with the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s refusal to rule whether the federal government has exclusive  authority over the Isthmus of Chignetco. The judges correctly described the case put before them by Houston’s government as “an attempt to enlist the Court in a political dispute – that is – who is responsible to pay for the remediation of the Isthmus.”

Legally, that was the end of the matter, but Houston couldn’t let it go without taking a shot. “When the Court is asked a question about interprovincial affairs, it should answer it,” he huffed. 

Appeal Court judges are appointed by Ottawa, so Houston’s ability to bully the court, a la Trump, is limited.That’s not the case with municipalities.The provincial government has plenty of leverage over municipal councils, and Houston has not hesitated to point out that reality to council members in Pictou and Hants West who balked at the prospect of uranium mining in their areas. He has written to both municipal units asking them to support resource projects, while listing in detail the discretionary money the province spends in their communities. (“Nice municipality you got here – be a shame if you forced us to de-fund it.”) 

Houston is not alone among provincial leaders in riding the wave of Trump trepidation to give themselves the power to steamroll over opposition to resource projects or other controversial measures. The trend even crosses party lines. In February B.C.’s NDP  Premier David Eby announced plans to fast-track 19 resource projects, primarily renewable energy and critical mineral extraction. And Doug Ford’s Ontario Conservatives passed legislation setting up Special Economic Zones where species at risk, conservation and treaty rights will not be allowed to interfere with mining of critical minerals.

Now the Feds

And now the same approach has spread to the federal level. Fresh from making nice with Trump and India’s Modi at the G-7 meeting in Alberta, Mark Carney – with the help of the Conservatives – brought in two pieces of legislation that trample over democratic rights with an ease the aforementioned authoritarian pair might admire. 

The Building Canada Act – part of Bill C-5 – is a follow up to the June 2 meeting in Saskatoon where First Ministers were gung-ho on accelerating major projects of national interest. The act allows cabinet to pick the projects it deems to be in the national interest and then over-ride any laws, regulations or public objections impeding such projects. 

Projects are supposed to fit the following criteria:

  • Strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security;
  • Offer undeniable benefits to Canada and support economic growth;
  • Have a high likelihood of successful execution;
  • Are a high priority for Indigenous leaders;
  • Have clean growth potential, such as the use of clean technologies and sustainable practices.

Those guidelines look somewhat reassuring, but the issue for many is that Carney and a small group of cabinet ministers would be the ones deciding whether these often subjective criteria are met. As for Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, it makes it more difficult for refugee claimants to stay in the country. The legislation also gives the authorities, acting without a warrant, the right to order service providers to hand over information about internet, telephone or health care clients. 

There has strong reaction against the two proposals from non-Conservative opposition MPs, the Assembly of First Nations, environmentalists and human rights and refugee advocates. Although the Liberals decided to delay passage of C-2 they went ahead with the Building Canada legislation, insisting they will maintain environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights.

But the government is unapologetic about ramming the bill through, with house leader Steven MacKinnon insisting the public showed support for fast-tracking of resource projects in the recent election. “We just had the ultimate democratic test, and you know what we heard. Get the country moving. We need a response to the threats from the south.”

If the Liberals had any doubt about the post-election public mood, a poll released last week would give them confidence they are on the right track. Spark Advocacy – run by self-acknowledged Carney supporter Bruce Anderson – conducted 2500 interviews from June 6-9, asking participants whether they approved or disapproved “of the way in which the federal government led by Mark Carney is handling its responsibilities.” Approval was 67 percent, disapproval 33 percent with approval coming out on top in every province, including Alberta where the margin was 51 to 49.   

It could be that negative reaction to the way the Liberals rammed through the Build Canada Act will chip away at Carney’s approval rating, but if the Tim Houston experience is indicative, Carney has little to worry about on that score. The Nova Scotia premier has been behaving like a Trumpian bully longer than just about anybody and his approval ratings have gone up. 

Takes one to fight one?

Houston led an unusually partisan election campaign last fall and followed up this winter with controversial resource development initiatives never mentioned during that campaign. Unlike the Carney Liberals he cannot claim to have received a mandate to impose uranium mining and methane fracking upon Nova Scotia communities. And while the Carney Liberals have been careful to pay lip service to sustainable growth and Indigenous consultation in their legislation, Houston went ahead without even talking to First Nations while attacking as “special interests” anyone questioning unbridled resource development. 

If the polling is to be believed, the Nova Scotia public is okay with this behaviour. 

The latest quarterly premier approval ratings from the Angus Reid Institute show Houston with a positive rating of 58 percent, second best behind Manitoba’s Web Kinew and 14 percentage points higher than his rating one year ago. The Angus Reid report is corroborated in a survey of 400 Nova Scotians conducted last month by Narrative Research. It found 60 percent of respondents were completely or mostly satisfied with the performance of the Nova Scotia government, up 16 points from a year earlier. 

We may be witnessing something similar to the early months of COVID-19 when Justin Trudeau and most of the provincial premiers enjoyed massive spikes in public approval – for example Nova Scotia’s Stephen McNeil rose to 63 percent from a rock bottom 28 percent rating between March and June of 2020. So like COVID, Trump is regarded as a threat, and being seen as standing up to him on behalf of your province or country is good for ratings.

However, standing up to Trump shouldn’t mean adopting some of his tactics the way Houston and some of his fellow leaders have. And when we see that behaviour being greeted with public acceptance there may be something deeper at play.  

In 2012 philosophy professor Aaron James wrote a short book entitled Assholes, A Theory and followed it in 2016 with an even shorter Assholes, A Theory of Donald Trump. Describing the type, James portrays the asshole as someone who “systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.” 

The Trump type succeeds in politics not only from their own sense of entitlement but also because of a dysfunctional political system that fails to meet public expectations. “In a system chock-full of assholes, you need an even bigger asshole to bring them to order,” is how Aaron James described that phenomenon.

James made that observation several years before Trump’s 2024 re-election to a second term. That shocking event provided support for James’ theory while, more importantly, setting up a challenge to preserve democracy by weeding out the assholes who put their own interests ahead of the public good.  

-30-