At a time when ever-evolving Trump threats are encouraging all Canadians to put aside their differences and stand united Tim Houston’s divisive rhetoric is troubling.
In continuation of a theme that began a few weeks ago Nova Scotia’s premier regaled the PC party’s annual general meeting this past weekend with an evidence-free attack on the “special interests” (presumably environmentalists) allegedly holding back resource development in the province.
As the Halifax Examiner reported, Houston repeated to the 600-strong audience of Tories that his advice to “special interest groups and the professional protestors that we see showing up around the province is ‘join us in putting Nova Scotia first and moving the province forward.’”
Except for introducing the bogeyman of “professional protesters” it was the same message Houston has been putting out since Donald Trump celebrated his January 20 inauguration by issuing tariff threats against Canada and Mexico.
In a leaked six-page memo to the PC caucus, later condensed to a full-page front-page ad in the Chronicle-Herald, the recently-re-elected Nova Scotia Premier used the possibility of tariffs to execute what NDP leader Claudia Chender aptly described as a bait and switch.
In the same way that Trump promised lower grocery prices and an end to inflation to get elected, the “bait” Houston dangled before the electorate in the fall was a bland “Make it Happen” platform. That ho-hum, business-as-usual approach lulled Nova Scotians into states of indifference or acceptance sufficient to deliver to Houston some 78 percent of the seats in the House of Assembly.
The “switch” is a manifesto that calls for aggressive resource development, accompanied by the demonization of anyone that stands in the way. And in a weird twist, this Trumpian approach is being justified as a response to the threats to our economy and fiscal stability posed by Trump’s autocratic regime.
It is not only his strategy that mimics Trump, so does Houston’s verbal hyperbole and combative tone. His basic message – that Trump’s threats have increased the need for economic self-reliance – is something that some will embrace. However, his prescription for achieving that is based on – like most of Trump’s utterances – a lot of vainglorious hooey.
Assessing the opportunities
According to Houston, Nova Scotia is “blessed with countless opportunities” but these these are untapped because previous governments lacked the courage to take on “special interests (which) have captured too many parts of our economy and have had an out-sized voice in policy creation.” These special interests must be overcome in order to “take the ‘no’ out of Nova Scotia.”
A few of the “countless opportunities” mentioned by Houston include offshore wind and tidal power, “green hydrogen” and mining of critical minerals, including lithium for the batteries that make electric cars run. Although they remain speculative, there is nothing inherently controversial about those examples. What has stirred things up – besides his slagging of undefined special interests – is Houston’s questioning of long-standing bans on uranium mining, fracking for on-shore gas and, for a short while, the moratorium on offshore drilling on Georges Bank.
Houston makes it sound like bans are a big, prosperity-stifling deal. “Outright bans of entire sectors are lazy public policy and we will reverse bans and focus on meaningful, mature discussion,” he says. “We can’t expect Nova Scotia to prosper when we ban industry after industry.”
The reality does not match Houston’s rhetoric. Prosperity through natural gas and uranium seems even more far-fetched than dreams of green hydrogen or tidal power.
For natural gas, the likelihood, as I described in 2014, and again in 2018, is that Nova Scotia’s onshore petroleum resources are too limited to justify the environmental risk from fracking. As for uranium, legally banned for 15 years following a 30-year moratorium, it doesn’t even make the list of potential critical minerals identified in the government’s 2023 Critical Minerals Strategy. Lithium’s on there, along with 14 others, but no mention of uranium.
And the notion that the bans are the result of undue influence by, as Houston would have it, 2% of the population, is not supported by the historical record. Rather than examples of “lazy public policy”, for both uranium and fracking, the moratoriums followed lengthy public consultations. With the exception of the 2014 fracking ban, opposed by Houston and the opposition PCs when it was introduced in the legislature by the McNeil government, there has been all-party support for the measures.
Georges Bank bungle
Houston showed his ignorance or indifference towards history when he suggested ending the ban on drilling for oil and gas on Georges Bank, one of the most lucrative fishing areas in the province. That prompted an immediate outcry from the fishing industry, confounded by the fact that Houston’s government had recently passed legislation renewing the federal-provincial moratorium on drilling on Georges. Houston quickly backtracked at the behest of that special interest, but in another Trump-style move, blamed the controversy not on his own bone-headed comments but on – you guessed it – some other special interests.
In a letter to PC MLAs, Houston denied ever wanting to consider opening up Georges Bank to drilling for oil and gas. “This narrative grew because special interests aligned to promote falsehoods,” he wrote. “We will respect the moratorium because we want to protect our traditional industries while we grow new ones.”
Falsehoods? In a news briefing following the leak of his first memo to caucus, reporters asked specifically about the moratorium and whether it was one of the development bans he wanted to revisit. “I will look at everything. What can be done safely – that’s the lens,” Houston said at the time. ”Just think about this: right now, if somebody mentions Georges Bank and we’re nervous to have a discussion – we have to have a discussion.”
But blaming others for his own mistakes was not enough. His damage-control message to caucus amped up the scapegoating. “My call to action is about the many new-to-Nova Scotia industries like hydrogen, wind, and critical minerals that can be done safely… That’s where the discussion lies,” the Premier wrote. “Special interests have captured many parts of our economy and have had an out-sized voice in policy creation. They aren’t happy this is about to end. They will try to frighten Nova Scotians to achieve their goals.”
And that’s not the end of it. Even though the next provincial election is years away, party fundraisers are asking supporters to chip in now to “help us stand up to the NDP and the special interests…that have held Nova Scotia’s economy hostage for too long and are desperate to stop us from developing our resources.”
The newly-elected legislative assembly sits later this week. It will be interesting to see whether there will be a continuation of the hostile tone that has been animating the government in recent weeks. The PCs have been attacking those who allegedly want to keep the “no” in Nova Scotia. I’ll be looking to see whether “Progressive” creeps back into “Progressive Conservative” or if Houston and his party continue down the divisive Trump-lite path they are on at the moment.
-30-
