Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Premier Kenney escalates Alberta’s response to Amnesty International with a new scathing barrage

Published

19 minute read

Premier Jason Kenney

From the Province of Alberta

Amnesty International: Statement from Premier Kenney

Premier Jason Kenney has sent the following letter to Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada:

“Dear Mr. Neve,

“Before responding to your open letter, titled “Human rights concerns regarding the Government of Alberta’s “Fight Back Strategy,” I would like to offer a note of sympathy. Honestly, it can’t be easy being the long-time head of Amnesty International Canada (AI), stuck in annoyingly free and peaceful Canada, having to work yourself up into high dudgeon to denounce a democratically-elected government peacefully standing up for its citizens.

“On the other hand, your insistence that the burning human rights threat in Canada right now is – to use your description – the “establishment of an energy ‘war room’ devoted to defending the oil and gas industry in Alberta and a public inquiry into the foreign funding of groups who oppose or criticize energy developments in the province” can hardly pass unchallenged. Relentless misinformed attacks against our oil and gas industry have cost us thousands of jobs and hurt families from every region of our province. The cost in investment and jobs has been incalculable. Our government won the largest democratic mandate in Alberta history in part on a promise to stand up to those attacks. I will not apologize for keeping that promise.

“Again, I understand it must be hard for you. When you look around the world and see the rise of authoritarian governments, civil war, human trafficking, genocide, and other gross violations of human rights, it must be a tall order to find something, anything to denounce here in our gelid but placid Dominion.

“You see your colleagues in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia standing up to a government that “severely restrict[s] the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly” and “extrajudicially executed” and dismembered a prominent journalist (those are all quotes from the AI country profile).

“You see your counterparts in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela facing a regime under which “hundreds of people were arbitrarily detained” amid “reports of torture and other ill-treatment, including sexual violence against demonstrators” and “the Attorney General was dismissed under irregular circumstances.” (That last part rings a bell – you might want to look into it.)

“You see your confrères in Russia fighting “further restrictions to the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly,” “harassment and persecution” of religious minorities, “torture,” and a regime that systematically sabotages Western democracy, while your greatest challenge is … a provincial government speaking out in defence of its economy and in defiance of an active campaign against it.

“This is a double pity. It can’t be much fun for you and, more seriously, it undermines the credibility of what was once, and still could be, an important organization. As I have written before, when I joined Amnesty International as a teenager it was to defend the rights of political dissidents like Andrei Sakharov and to oppose totalitarian regimes like those currently in charge in most major oil-producing countries. I am disappointed to see that you continue to squander the moral authority accrued in those brave campaigns on smearing the most responsible and rights respecting major oil-producer in the world.

“There was a reason I singled Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela for comparison. They – along with Iran – would be major beneficiaries of a moratorium on Canadian oil production. No one will cheer your letter harder than Vladimir Putin, the Houses of Saud and Al Thani, the caudillo Nicolás Maduro, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. OPEC’s oleo-gopolists will be chuckling from their gilded palaces at your naïveté.

“Demand for oil is not going away soon. Every credible estimate shows several more decades of strong oil demand, and the world is going to get it from somewhere. Shutting down Alberta’s oil industry means more global supply – including much of the oil imported to Canada’s east coast – will be sourced from the world’s worst human rights abusers, instead of from the most ethical and best-regulated industry in one of the freest countries in the world. The net result of the campaign to landlock Canada’s oil and gas reserves, in which (to use an old but apt term) you are playing the role of useful idiot, will be to take money out of the pockets of Alberta workers to line the silk pockets of men who commit enough human rights abuses before breakfast to keep Amnesty International busy for a year. If you are truly concerned about human rights, look at where the world’s oil will come from if we don’t export it from Canada.

“Although your letter is repetitive and scattershot in its criticisms, I will respond to your main points in turn. Not because you raise serious issues, but because your hyperbolic bill of particulars is all-too typical of critics of Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It demands a rejoinder in the interest not just of our province, but of accuracy. Ironically, your letter is a perfect illustration of just why Alberta needs a way to respond to common misconceptions – and the decade-long campaign to discredit the Canadian oil and gas industry – with facts.

“For example, you allege that our plan to correct inaccuracies about Alberta’s oil and gas industry will “have particularly serious implications for advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in the province.” What out-of-touch balderdash. In fact, I received your letter while I was meeting with the leaders of northern Alberta First Nations, whose people have enjoyed prosperity precisely because of their partnerships with Alberta oilsands producers and who strongly support our government’s efforts to respond to the campaign to landlock Canadian energy.

“Shortly after I was sworn in as Premier, I hosted the first Government-First Nations gathering in years, which was attended by 46 of the 48 Alberta First Nations Chiefs. The overwhelming – I would say, unanimous – consensus was that Alberta’s First Nations want to be partners in the prosperity that flows from the responsible development of our shared natural resources. They have seen first-hand that Alberta has Canada’s highest level of Indigenous employment because of our energy sector, and especially our oilsands. And they have had enough of foreign and urban do-gooders telling them how they should steward their traditional lands – a phenomenon BC MLA and former chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, Ellis Ross, and others acidly refer to as “eco-colonialism.”

“That is why we proposed unprecedented steps to partner with First Nations in defense of our shared economic interests through the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC). This $1 billion commitment, backed with the full faith and credit of the Alberta government, will encourage First Nations participation in resource development. The AIOC will be a first-of-its kind policy, a creative solution to the challenges that many resource-rich but capital-poor First Nations face in owning or co-owning major oil and gas projects. We have heard from dozens of First Nations inside and outside Alberta who are eager to access this support, and the federal government has expressed an interest in becoming a financing partner.

“We have also launched a $10 million Indigenous Litigation Fund to help First Nations defend their own economic development rights in court when they are threatened by government actions like the West Coast tanker ban or the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline – both decisions taken by the federal government without consultation and over the strong objection of many B.C. and Alberta First Nations.

“You may be surprised to hear that I agree that “Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is a Legal and Moral Imperative.” I use the same language myself, calling the need to partner with our First Nations, the first custodians of our rich trove of resources, a “moral imperative.” We know that there are still too many Indigenous people in Canada who do not enjoy the prosperity that natural resources development has brought. In that spirit, I hope that you will join me in cheering the fact that there are at least four consortia of First Nations bidding for a major stake in the Trans Mountain pipeline. Projects like this represent real economic opportunity for Canada and our First Nations and are a step towards meaningful reconciliation of which we should all be proud.

“Separately, I appreciate your concern for vulnerable individuals who you worry will be harmed by government advocacy. I am pleased be able to reassure you that you fundamentally misunderstand the context and purpose of the “fight back” strategy. In fact, I am sure you’ll be relieved to know that you have it exactly backwards: our energy industry and the jobs across Alberta and Canada that depend on it are not threatened by isolated or vulnerable individuals but by well-funded family foundations like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, whose fortune was made in part from coal mines.

“Those would be the Rockefellers whose fortune was made by the Standard Oil monopoly and the Packards of Hewlett-Packard fame, whose foundation has assets over US$7.5 billion and who recently rewarded Tzeporah Berman, a former advisor with the previous government, with a US$2 million prize for her anti-oilsands activism. When I joined Amnesty International, it was because you fought for prisoners of conscience in dictatorial regimes. Today, you are fighting on the side of foreign billionaires trying to shut down an industry on which hundreds of thousands of hard-working men and women depend. Forgive me if I express a concern of my own: that Amnesty International may have drifted somewhat from its core mission.

“As for your concerns about freedom of expression and association, those rights are not threatened by our government telling the truth about our energy industry. Our intent is to counter misinformation, exaggerations, and outdated information with facts and evidence. You acknowledge this when you say that the “narrative that has accompanied the launch of the ‘war room’ focuses on ‘uncovering the truth’ and ‘tackling misinformation.’” That’s exactly right.

“There is a great story to tell about Alberta’s oil and gas sector. It’s a story of innovation, of world-leading research and development, of decreasing emissions, of cleaner technology. Most importantly, it is the story of an industry that has been an engine of social progress for people of all education levels from across the country, including women, new Canadians, and Indigenous peoples. How you can twist this good news story into a threat to human rights confounds comprehension.

“Speaking of exaggerations, your claim that “by any measure, oilsands development in Alberta is a major source of global carbon emissions” is exactly the sort of distortion that makes this project necessary. Canada is responsible for 1.6% of global GHG emissions and the oilsands account for 8% of that, or about one tenth of one percent of global emissions. Your claim would be wildly inaccurate even if the oilsands were ten times their current size. This is not to diminish the importance of Alberta showing leadership in GHG reductions. Our government is committed to lowering emissions, including by putting a price on large emitters and funding technology that will lower emissions both here and around the world.

“The second part of that plan is particularly important. While we will reduce emissions here in Alberta, our greatest contribution to the global challenge of climate change will be come from developing and exporting new technology and our cleaner natural resources, especially natural gas, to displace the coal-fired electricity in the world’s largest and dirtiest emitters. The reduction in global emissions we can achieve by exporting our know-how and resources to the developing world dwarf any reductions the anti-oilsands campaign could ever hope to achieve. Contrary to your letter, we may not be a big part of the problem, but we are determined to be a big part of the solution.

“As for the rest of your accusations and insinuations, they only make sense if you deny that there is a well-funded campaign against Alberta’s natural resource industry and a concomitant need to rebut it. This would be the campaign that you dismiss as “vague conspiracy theories about the hidden goals of US based foundations.” I assure that if their goals are hidden it is because they have worked hard to keep them that way. One of the original strategy documents of the Tar Sands Campaign, from 2008, actually stressed that “the [Tar Sands Campaign] Coordination Centre shall remain invisible to the outside” (their emphasis). Unfortunately, the Tar Sands campaign is real and anything but vague. Under the heading “Tar Sands Campaign Strategy 2.1,” that same document lays out step-by-step, in precise detail, the “tar sands termination agenda” to “embarrass Canada” and “delegitimize” the oilsands.

“As if that weren’t enough, the North American energy industry is also being targeted by a sophisticated social media and cyber campaign funded and coordinated by Putin’s Russian government. A 2018 report from the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology concluded that “Russia exploited American social media as part of its concerted effort … to influence domestic energy policy” and specifically “targeted pipelines, fossil fuels [and] climate change.” It’s a coalition of the bleeding-hearted and the bloody-minded.

“This is the threat Alberta has faced for more than a decade. It is an existential threat to our economy backed by American billionaires and coordinated through dozens of foreign and Canadian environmental organizations and advocacy groups. Their success can be measured in tens of billions of dollars in lost investment and thousands of lost jobs. That is why in the recent election we told Albertans that “We will fight back against the foreign funded special interests who are trying to landlock our energy.” Having received an historic popular majority, we intend to keep our word.

“Albertans deserve a government that will not roll over in the face of foreign-funded special interests. Our commitment to stand up for Alberta is the furthest thing from a threat to human rights; it is a pledge to meet myth with fact and misinformation with evidence. If Amnesty International Canada really cannot see the difference, then I am sorry – the organization I joined as a teenager had a clearer sense of purpose and a better moral compass.”

Before Post

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Alberta

Ottawa-Alberta agreement may produce oligopoly in the oilsands

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The federal and Alberta governments recently jointly released the details of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which lays the groundwork for potentially significant energy infrastructure including an oil pipeline from Alberta to the west coast that would provide access to Asia and other international markets. While an improvement on the status quo, the MOU’s ambiguity risks creating an oligopoly.

An oligopoly is basically a monopoly but with multiple firms instead of a single firm. It’s a market with limited competition where a few firms dominate the entire market, and it’s something economists and policymakers worry about because it results in higher prices, less innovation, lower investment and/or less quality. Indeed, the federal government has an entire agency charged with worrying about limits to competition.

There are a number of aspects of the MOU where it’s not sufficiently clear what Ottawa and Alberta are agreeing to, so it’s easy to envision a situation where a few large firms come to dominate the oilsands.

Consider the clear connection in the MOU between the development and progress of Pathways, which is a large-scale carbon capture project, and the development of a bitumen pipeline to the west coast. The MOU explicitly links increased production of both oil and gas (“while simultaneously reaching carbon neutrality”) with projects such as Pathways. Currently, Pathways involves five of Canada’s largest oilsands producers: Canadian Natural, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips Canada, Imperial and Suncor.

What’s not clear is whether only these firms, or perhaps companies linked with Pathways in the future, will have access to the new pipeline. Similarly, only the firms with access to the new west coast pipeline would have access to the new proposed deep-water port, allowing access to Asian markets and likely higher prices for exports. Ottawa went so far as to open the door to “appropriate adjustment(s)” to the oil tanker ban (C-48), which prevents oil tankers from docking at Canadian ports on the west coast.

One of the many challenges with an oligopoly is that it prevents new entrants and entrepreneurs from challenging the existing firms with new technologies, new approaches and new techniques. This entrepreneurial process, rooted in innovation, is at the core of our economic growth and progress over time. The MOU, though not designed to do this, could prevent such startups from challenging the existing big players because they could face a litany of restrictive anti-development regulations introduced during the Trudeau era that have not been reformed or changed since the new Carney government took office.

And this is not to criticize or blame the companies involved in Pathways. They’re acting in the interests of their customers, staff, investors and local communities by finding a way to expand their production and sales. The fault lies with governments that were not sufficiently clear in the MOU on issues such as access to the new pipeline.

And it’s also worth noting that all of this is predicated on an assumption that Alberta can achieve the many conditions included in the MOU, some of which are fairly difficult. Indeed, the nature of the MOU’s conditions has already led some to suggest that it’s window dressing for the federal government to avoid outright denying a west coast pipeline and instead shift the blame for failure to the Smith government.

Assuming Alberta can clear the MOU’s various hurdles and achieve the development of a west coast pipeline, it will certainly benefit the province and the country more broadly to diversify the export markets for one of our most important export products. However, the agreement is far from ideal and could impose much larger-than-needed costs on the economy if it leads to an oligopoly. At the very least we should be aware of these risks as we progress.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Trending

X