Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Orphan well alert

Posted on by

A story that did not get enough attention yesterday was out of Alberta, where the organization that is tasked with cleaning up abandoned oil wells is sounding the alarm that the provincial regulator’s rules are not sufficient to prevent the creation of more of these “orphan” wells – at a time when more companies are offloading assets to smaller companies. This is the kind of practice that usually results in the orphaning of these wells in the first place – that the smaller companies start losing money when the price of oil tanks, and they can’t live up to their obligations to clean up the abandoned ones with the money they’re making from the active ones they’ve bought along with them.

This issue was the subject of a Supreme Court of Canada decision last year, where the court said that bankruptcy trustees who take up these companies with the orphan wells can’t simply abandon these obligations under their bankruptcy proceedings as they’re trying to sell the active wells to new buyers – that their environmental obligations can’t be jettisoned because it’s inconvenient for them. (More on the underlying issues here). This also reinforces the polluter-pays principle, which governments say they’re in favour of – except when it’s inconvenient. Like right now, for Jason Kenney.

Why this issue deserves more attention is because Kenney (and to a lesser degree Scott Moe, who is following the pattern set out for him by Brad Wall) has been demanding that the federal government spend their dollars on cleaning up these orphan wells under the rubric of it being job-creation, or good for the environment. Kenney’s demand for retroactive stabilization funds as an “equalization rebate” (which is ridiculous) has been cited on more than one occasion as a means of using the funds for this purpose, which would essentially be offloading the responsibility onto the federal government because the regulator hasn’t been doing an adequate job when these sales happen, and the provincial government hasn’t created strict enough regulations to prevent these wells from being orphaned in the first place. That’s something that we should be holding him – and the industry – to account for, but that means cutting through the obfuscation. There should be no reason why the federal government should be taking on this expense, but this is what they are being asked to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Framing for controversy

Posted on by

I try to give my brethren in the media the benefit of the doubt as often as possible, but yesterday there were two egregious examples of places where they framed a quote in a way that gave it a particular perception, and then went and tried to make news about that perception. The first example was to take a quote from Trudeau from the Global News interview from the night before, and tried very hard to make it look like Trudeau was blaming Trump for the deaths on Flight PS752.

“If there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” said Trudeau. “This is something that happens when you have conflict and war. Innocents bear the brunt of it and it is a reminder why all of us need to work so hard on de-escalation, moving forward to reduce tensions and find a pathway that doesn’t involve further conflict and killing.”

If you notice, the focus was – quite rightly – on the fact that civilians get caught in the crossfire of war. But the various outlets in this country (and the US – Fox News in particular) tried to frame this as Trudeau blaming Trump, which he didn’t actually do. And then, CBC had their Washington correspondents getting reaction to the “perception” that Trudeau was blaming Trump, even when he wasn’t, and in interviews, kept aggressively going after the perception of the comments, without actually acknowledging that they were trying to create that very perception with the very frame they put around those comments. The lack of self-awareness and self-reflection was entirely galling.

The second incident in a single day was taking a comment that Stephen Harper made, where he called for “change in the nature of the government” in Iran, and headlined it “calling for regime change” which has a very specific meaning, and got their reaction quotes based on the notion that he called for regime change – again, putting a frame around comments which were so bland as to be not worth reporting. (Note: CBC was not the only offender here, and they had to issue a “clarification,” which was really a correction, as a result; the CTV piece eventually changed their headline and lede, but didn’t note that they had made the correction).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1217233046908416000

Two instances of torqueing quotes and placing dubious framing devices around fairly innocuous quotes to spark controversy in a single day. Not good, guys, and like Robert Hiltz said, this is the kidnd of thing that erodes trust. Let’s be better than this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Officially on the way to Canada

Posted on by

It’s official – Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, will be splitting their time between Canada and the UK as they “transition” to private lives, according to a statement from the Queen – and that has a bunch of coverage already in a bit of flurry. Despite a UK outlet erroneously reporting that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already agreed to pick up security costs for the couple in Canada, Bill Morneau stated that the matter hasn’t been discussed yet (which didn’t stop certain media outlets in this country from trying to make it sound like it was a fait accompli, because there’s nothing they love more than cheap outrage stories – never mind that if they’re no longer senior royals, they may not be entitled to the same protection that they currently have). Even if we were to cover it, at $1.7 million per year, that’s still a fraction of what we paid for when Barack Obama visited Ottawa for an afternoon, so let’s keep that cheap outrage in check.

BC premier John Horgan said he was very excited about the possibility of the couple moving to BC, and suggested some potential jobs for them in the area. (I have some suggestions of my own, which should be on macleans.ca later today). Here is some analysis of the results of the meeting with the Royal Family as to the next steps for the couple in the wake of the announcement. As well, here is some media analysis to show how Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, has been treated differently from Meghan, and it’s proof of how framing devices absolutely matter in media in how stories are presented.

Continue reading →

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 →

Roundup: Convention confusion

Posted on by

The Conservatives announced over the weekend that their policy had convention had been postponed to November in order to give more time to their leadership contest – but then had to spend the rest of the day explaining that no, this didn’t mean that the leadership was going to be held in November, and no, they hadn’t made any final decisions on the leadership, and so on. Because it would have been great if they’d actually said that in their press release.

With this in mind, I figured I would do my best to clarify what part of the problem is here, which is that they don’t actually have leadership conventions anymore, but “leadership events” where all of the mailed in ranked ballots get counted up in a dramatic way to try and replicate the fun and excitement of a delegated convention. One might assume that they might try to kill two birds with one stone and have both events at the same time, but we’ll see if that is actually the case.

This having been said, we also need to remember that so long as we have a system where there is direct election of party leaders by their membership, and that those leadership candidates are running on policy slates as though this were an American presidential primary, it starts making party policy conventions into a bit of a farce. Why? Because so long as leaders feel empowered to move ahead with the policies that they have a “democratic legitimacy” to enact, then what does the grassroots policy preferences matters? We’ve seen this erosion across parties for years, and it will continue apace under this Conservative system just as it has with everyone else so long as we keep up this bastardized system of membership votes for leaders.

Continue reading →