Monthly Archives: January 2020

Roundup: Giddy or furious?

Posted on by

The potential move of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to Canada is causing a great deal of media speculation, and a share of boneheaded headlines in international papers (the New York Times being particularly egregious in citing that Canadians are “giddy” – in the very week that we have been in mourning over the downing of Flight PS752 – that they could be adding some “razzle dazzle” to our “bone-chilling” country). And then there are all the polls demanding that Harry be made Governor General, or the speculation that we could make him Kind of Canada if we wanted (which we really don’t). Nevertheless, Philippe Lagassé had a few thoughts on the whole matter:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215618283812069377

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215619724404494337

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1215627487377600513

At the same time as we’re allegedly giddy, we’re also apparently “furious” about potential security costs. Which, could very well be, nothing at all, really. And in the coming week or two, I suspect these stories will be all the more absurd.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A cover-up leads to an admission

Posted on by

The day was largely spent fretting over the state of the investigation into downed flight PS752 – particularly given the news that Iranian officials had already bulldozed the site before international investigators could arrive, ensuring a cover-up was underway. The Ukrainian government was insisting to the Iranians that Canadians be involved, and we got word that a mere two visas had been issued for Canadian consular officials so far (though François-Philippe Champagne did say that he was expecting more to be approved soon). Champagne later announced the creation of an international working group, comprised of the countries whose citizens were all killed aboard the flight, to press Iran for answers, while in the back channels, there is talk that Canadian officials are telling the Americans that they should have been informed of their plans to kill the Iranian general, given that we’re coalition partners. Amidst all of this, mourning continued across the country. (The National Post compiles profiles of the victims here).

And then, something surprising happened – Iranian officials, including their president, admitted publicly that it was indeed one of their missiles that shot down the aircraft accidentally, and that it was human error that they plan to prosecute those responsible, as well as profound apologies and expressions of regret (while taking a swipe at American “adventurism” in the process). It was a marked change of tone after days of denial, insisting that it was “impossible” that they could have shot it down, and what looked to be a cover-up in the making. One suspects that this will have a profound shift in the narrative in the days ahead, and that Iran will be prepared to pay some kind of compensation, just as what happened in 1988 when the Americans admitted they accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner.

Meanwhile, Adnan R. Khan walks through how the accidental missile strike could have happened, while Colby Cosh offers more parallels and reminders to the 1988 incident of the Americans shooting down the Iranian plane then, how it is remembered differently in the West than it is in Iran, and how our amnesia to is affects the reactions – particularly from those who are howling about “murder” and demanding the prime minister be angry about it. As if to prove the point, Heather Scoffield demands some righteous indignation from Trudeau, and for some of that to be directed to Trump for what his recklessness has cost us – as though that would help the situation or not cause even more problems for Canada down the road.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A likely missile strike

Posted on by

It was another day of shocking revelations as Justin Trudeau held another press conference yesterday to confirm that intelligence from many sources – including Canada’s own – gave a strong indication that it was indeed a missile that brought down flight 752 outside of Tehran, though it may not have been intentional. He struck a very somber tone, and continued to call for Canada’s participation in the investigation – while Iran’s spokespeople are denying that it was a missile, and so far only limited access is being offered to Canadians (though they are apparently approving the necessary visas for consular access). It’s also important to note that Trudeau specifically referenced Canadian intelligence sources, because it’s less likely (historically speaking) that it would be manipulated for political purposes, than if we simply relied on American intelligence.

Another term cropped up several times yesterday, which was the call for a “credible” investigation – another important consideration as it is likely that Iran may be trying to obfuscate and obscure part of the investigation in order to ensure that they can avoid the culpability for the incident, though we are hearing that lessons learned from crashes like MH17 over Ukraine has helped investigators learn more when one side (Russia, in that case) is not cooperative – and Trudeau did note that he reached out to the prime minister of the Netherlands to learn more about how they dealt with the crash of MH17, as they were the lead investigators there. Maclean’s has a bit more here about investigations and what it may look like.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne glumly notes that there is little that Canada can actually do it if is proved that Iran shot down the plane (presumably deliberately as opposed to accidentally), in particular because we have outsourced our defence to the Americans for so long. Likewise, Matt Gurney goes into more detail about just how limited Canada’s options are when it comes to responding to the worst-case situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Downed planes and disembarking royals

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was obviously the crash of Flight PS752 outside of Tehran, with some 63 Canadians aboard (about half of those from Edmonton) – a large number owing to the limited travel options to go to Iran because of the loss of diplomatic relations with Canada, as well as US sanctions. Canada is hoping for a role in the investigation, but without any diplomatic relations or consular access, it limits our ability to do so (thanks to the belief of the Harper Conservatives that diplomacy is a cookie for good behaviour and not how countries communicate even when relations are strained). That lack of access will also make repatriating bodies more difficult, especially as Iran doesn’t recognize dual-citizens. In a press conference yesterday, Justin Trudeau would not categorically state that it was or was not a stray missile that brought the aircraft down – it’s still too early and the investigation has only just begun – but there is already talk that it may have been some kind of engine fire. Trudeau also mentioned his call with Donald Trump, but would not offer much in the way of specifics as to whether or not he agreed with the American plan to kill the Iranian general that touched off the attacks on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, Justin Ling suggests that NATO take Trump’s suggestion and do more heavy-lifting in Iraq. Colby Cosh is reminded of when the Americans accidentally shot down an Iranian plane in 1988. Paul Wells notes how minimally this government seems to have acted in this crisis – and the weeks post-election – and suggests it’s time they get back to work.

Prince Harry and Megan

The other big news, in a day full of news, was the announcement that Prince Harry and Megan, Duchess of Sussex, plan to step down as “senior royals” and split their time with “North America” (which most are reading as Canada) and the UK, and focus more on certain patronages and charitable endeavours while looking to be more financially independent from the royal family (even though that could mean independent from the Sovereign Grant while still getting funded by the Duchy of Cornwall). And then Buckingham Palace said that this was “early days” and they were still discussing things – because it’s going to be a lot of details to work out.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214992623942983680

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214996433587331072

It has been noted that if Harry in particular wants to go through the Canadian citizenship process, he may have some difficulty given that he doesn’t have a university degree, so that could limit his points – even if they do have connections to Canada. My own half-joking suggestion is that we could set them up in Rideau Hall, because it’s not like anyone is living there currently.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1214998671420469249

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland on tour

Posted on by

For the past two days, Chrystia Freeland has been in Alberta to talk to the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary, as well as premier Jason Kenney, and she is continuing her tour there today, heading to the north of the province, where she grew up. There have been a couple of themes emerging from her tour from those she’s visited – from the mayors, it’s a sense that it’s great that she’s there to listen and hear their concerns, and from Kenney, it’s a bit of a sense of impatience that there haven’t been enough “concrete” actions yet.

I was struck after the meeting with Edmonton’s mayor on Monday about the talk of his trepidation that Kenney’s “Fair Deal” plans would make it harder for cities to deal with the federal government to address their priorities, and that he was looking for some particular assurances – and indeed, we’ve heard for the past couple of years that cities were frustrated that federal dollars weren’t flowing because the provinces were holding things up in what appeared to be some partisan pique (given that most of those provinces now have conservative governments). The federal government has been looking at more ways to deal with cities directly, and this appears to be more confirmation of the need to do just that.

This having been said, I am curious as to when Freeland is going to start further calling Kenney’s bluffs with regard to his “demands” and his threats around them. Justin Trudeau fairly effectively cut the legs out from under Scott Moe’s equalization fairy tales, and one imagines that it’s a matter of time before Freeland starts to – very diplomatically – do much the same with Kenney and some of his utter nonsense. Those “concrete actions” Kenney wants – retroactive fiscal stabilization funds, unrealistic demands related to the former Bills C-48 and C-69 (which are now law) – will eventually need to come to a head and Kenney will huff and puff and claim separatist sentiments will explode, but he doesn’t have too much room to manoeuvre himself – his cuts have proven very unpopular, and the patience of his constituents is going to run out, no matter how much he tries to distract them by fomenting anger at Ottawa. Freeland knows this, and I’ll be curious to see how she manages it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Testing names in the field

Posted on by

Over the weekend, I got a call from a public opinion research company who was doing a survey on the Conservative leadership race. While many of the questions were fairly loaded or leading when it came to things like carbon pricing, and there were a lot of questions relating to just how progressive one thinks a future Conservative leader should be, I was most fascinated by the testing about potential candidates. There was an open-ended opportunity to provide a name that one might think could entice voters to switch to the Conservative party, followed by a list of names where one was invited to rank how much it would make you switch your vote for the Conservatives. That list: Gerard Deltell, former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, Jean Charest, Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Pierre Poilievre, Erin O’Toole, and Christy Clark. The inclusion of Carney is a head-scratcher considering that there was a Big Deal a few years ago about his apparently sniffing around the Liberals about a possible future leadership bid, while the fact that Michael Chong was left out despite his previous leadership run and the fact that he has stated he is seriously considering another go of it. So anyway, make of the list what you will, but those are the names that someone is testing.

Meanwhile, the first “official” declared candidate is Bryan Brulotte, a one-time Progressive Conservative staffer and failed candidate, who is pitching a negative income tax and “luxury tax” in lieu of a carbon price. Pierre Poilievre is also planning to announce his candidacy today, with John Baird chairing his campaign – though one wonders if that will conflict with his post-mortem report on how the party botched the election.

On that note, here’s Jess Morgan’s argument why he would be the absolute worst thing, while Paul Wells sizes up what we know of the race to date, and what kinds of choices the party faces in the process.

Continue reading →