LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Well, that worked out pretty well.

Rachel Notley announces an 8.7 per cent production cut and the Western Canada Select price starts bobbing up immediately.  Never mind that the curtailment of Alberta oil production doesn't actually start until January.

Crisis averted.

Take a breather and relax.

But the heavy lifting is just beginning.  Politicians must recognize the need to come to grips with the changing narrative of Alberta's golden age of oil.

In elementary English education we were taught that the arc of a plot runs something like this: crisis, crisis, crisis, climax, denouement.  Alberta is on about its third crisis and headed for the climax.  And after that, without some long term diversification and readjustment of the province's economic model, it's all denouement from here.

The end of the current story of Alberta's economy pump the crude out of the ground, or dig the bitumen out of the sand, and ship it by pipeline directly to a single market — is clearly looming.

Uncertain oil prices, uncertain export pipeline timelines, and in the long run, uncertain oil demand could weaken the business sector's interest in continued development of Alberta's hard-to-access, hard-to-transport resource.

Notley and her government recognize that.  So did the governments of Peter Lougheed, Don Getty, Ed Stelmach, Alison Redford, and even, to some degree, Ralph Klein.

And most Albertans get it too.

Even just zeroing in on the oil sector itself, the need to add value, diversify the petroleum-based products Alberta produces and spread out the export market risk is clearly evident.

"It's a multigenerational conversation — around many, many kitchen tables throughout this province — around the need to do more in upgrading," Notley told CBC's Anna Maria Tremonti this week.

Upgrading and pipelines that allow for export to other markets are required to move forward, says Notley.

She and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are appealing to the prime minister to add western Canada's huge oil price differential as an urgent item at this week's first ministers' meeting on the economy.

The response was sort of a vague 'whatever'.  A federal spokesman said the issue would pop us within the broad topic of "job creation in all sectors, trade diversification and competitiveness."

Surely Justin Trudeau has been taking a hard enough political hit in western Canada over the failure of pipeline approval strategies that he could show a bit of flexible leadership by adding the issue to the agenda.

Notley's message to the rest of Canada that the oil patch malaise hitting Alberta hard actually affects the rest of the nation's economy as well is compelling.  A discussion on the health of that sector should be an obvious priority on a national level.

The current gaping oil price differential is eventually going to resolve, between Notley's curtailment and natural sectoral fixes, like the reopening of U.S. refineries idled for maintenance.

But there are many more structural issues.  While the focus has been on the Trans Mountain Pipeline, it too is really only a piece of the longer term puzzle.  Notley's discussion of upgrading, refining and diversifying the oil economy into finished products should also be on the table.

Strictly on the provincial scene, successive governments have flirted with the upgrading question but still haven't cracked that nut to any significant degree.

What will it take to spur industry to add value to Alberta's resource?  What can a provincial or a federal government do to increase the upgrading sector?

Surely the combined brain trust of the nation's leaders could jump into the debate and provide ideas as well as sympathy.  Just add the topic to the first ministers' economic plate.

Beyond the present oil patch difficulties, Alberta and federal leaders should be looking at the much wider question of Alberta's longterm economic trajectory.

While the province is busy looking for a suite of fixes to keep the energy sector afloat, a parallel and equally urgent discussion should be occurring about the end of the oil economy and what comes next.

Alberta premiers at election time and finance ministers at budget time toss in obligatory mentions of economic diversification but the big picture cohesive plan for how that diversification will come about gets lost in the tight focus of the four-year electoral cycle.

Economic councils come and go, but still the province's fiscal health balances to a huge degree on the wellness of the oil and gas industry.

Without some real progress on balancing the economy, both Alberta and Canada will continue to fear the next oil crisis on the horizon.  Without some planning and vision now, the sequel to the current story could be a disappointment.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


At this week's NATO summit in London, it took some aggressive questioning from U.S. President Donald Trump before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally admitted that Canada will not meet its defence spending target of 2 percent of GDP this year.  Use this point to bring up the fact that Canada has serious gaps in its national defence capabilities, and you'll probably hear one or more of the following objections:

"Because NATO set a made-up target?  Why should we listen to them?"

"Because Donald Trump says so?  He doesn't even know how NATO works."

"Why should we trust the federal government with defence funding?  They keep screwing it up."

"Why should we spend more on unjust wars like Afghanistan?"

"What war are we planning to fight, exactly?"

Let's focus on that last one.  Most wars are unforeseeable from more than one or two years away.  Yet since World War Two, Canadian forces have been sent to Korea, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Libya, and ISIS territory, as well as Afghanistan.  If we have a sacred duty to our veterans when they return from foreign soil, we have an equally sacred duty to our troops while they are still on it.  That duty is to ensure that they can get the maximum utility out of their equipment, their weapons, and even their uniforms.  Otherwise, we burden our allies with pleas to borrow any spare parts they have lying around.  Or troops die.

Canada has a long and proud tradition of failing at military readiness.  In World War One, our then-minister of militia, Sir Sam Hughes, selected the Ross rifle as "the perfect tool for his soldiers."  Those soldiers soon discovered that the Ross shed its bayonet when fired, jammed constantly from dust and dirt, and was too long and heavy to be useful in the trenches.  They ended up tossing aside their Rosses in favour of discarded Lee-Enfields from their fallen British comrades.

In 1935, a report from Major-General A.G.L. McNaughton, then Canada's Chief of the General Staff, identified the following gaps in Canada's equipment and ammunition supply resulting from "barely sufficient" funds: no service aircraft "fit to employ in active operations"; no modern anti-aircraft guns; no air bombs; no coast defence guns that could fire more than "a dozen or so" rounds; no practice firing of these guns "for some years"; and "obsolescent" stocks of field gun ammunition left over from WWI.  The only piece of equipment available in abundance was the harness.  Yes, the kind worn by horses.

After WWII began, a March 1940 report from the British Ministry of Supply found that, because "Canadian firms were not competent to produce tanks" and "Canadian industry as a whole was . . . drastically underutilizes for the first eight months of the war," Britain would have to supply Canadian forces with tanks.  After France fell, there was no chance of Britain supplying tanks for any forces but its own.  In desperation, Canada bought 265 WWI-era tanks from the U.S., so "hopelessly obsolete" for ground combat that they were only useful in training exercises. (Read that entire article. It gets worse.)

Plus the maritime helicopter thing, and the fighter jet, and the submarine thing, and the Jeep thing, and the supply ship thing, and the icebreaker thing, and the thing with the combat boots.

This is not a record befitting one of the wealthiest and most advanced economies in the world.  A state of military readiness is not something we can simply throw together on the day.  It should be something we maintain for whenever we may need it.  That requires both sufficient funding and the ability to spend it wisely two things Canada has lacked for over a century.

2 percent of GDP is indeed an arbitrary target.  But it is an indicator, however imprecise, of how seriously NATO's member states take the very notion of readiness.  Whatever your opinion of the arguments in favour of Canada's next entry into a war, the one thing it is guaranteed to involve is a large number of human beings putting their lives at risk.  Those human beings should expect to go in underequipped, underarmed, and underdressed, and Canada should not expect to go in as an object of ridicule and pity.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Political communications staffers of Canada—unite.  Let us all agree to ban the below compendium of horrible, no good, very bad communications faux pases.

I like words.  They matter.

I speak English, workable French, and have a passing fluency in Christian-ese, legalese and bureaucrat-ese based on my upbringing, my legal education and working in government.  This means I am trained to hate particular jargon.

Political communications speech is particularly vexing, relying on clichés, overused phrases and some horrendous, but commonplace, errors.

Here are a few examples we need to expunge from our lexicons.

"I am humbled to…"

No, you are not.  I mean, unless you are, in which case we should be clear you mean you are "lowered in dignity or importance" or "decisively defeated".  What you almost certainly mean is you are "honoured".  So get this right, please.

"MP Trudeau"

This is wrong.  "MP" is not a title.  It is not like "Councillor" or "Dr" or "Mr".  The correct way to use this post-nominal honorific is like "MD": as in, the "Rt Hon Justin Trudeau MP".  The "MP" part comes after the person's name, not like some sort of title.  There's a reason it's called the "House of Commons": the people in it aren't given titles.

This issue is bad in writing, but it is particularly bad when spoken aloud.  So, call your boss "Minister" if they're a minister, otherwise "Mrs", "Ms", "Mr" or "Dr", if that is their actual title.  And never — please, never — "Mr Prime Minister".  That is redundant, and American.

"X group is the backbone of Y…"

This isn't so much wrong as overused, comically so.  See, for instance, Mr Will Ferrell in "The Campaign".  I'm grateful to a former manager and editor for teaching me this.  It's an easy thing to slip into but please do avoid it, and think of a better, unique way to pander to the group in front of you about their outsized national importance.

"I am proud to announce…"

You may be proud of the policy, but pride isn't a virtue.  Pride is a vice.  Hell, it's one of the Seven Deadly Sins.  Why would you admit to a vice?  Why would you use a vice as if it was a virtue?  Don't do this.  Just don't.

"Our government is committed to…"

This is both overused, and sounds funny.  If you use "committed to…" more than once per year, I honestly think you should be committed to an institution for remedial communications training.

"I am delighted to…"

This one is overused, too, but it isn't a huge mistake per se.

But it can be.  The tweet is since deleted so I'm paraphrasing here, but former Ontario Opposition Leader Patrick Brown — yea, that guy — once tweeted something to the effect of "Delighted to discuss Ontario's job losses".  No doubt he was delighted to make political hay out of a poor jobs report.  But this is what the psychologists call a Freudian slip, and frankly Mr Brown should avoid any affiliation with Freud.

The word "that"

Think about this word.  I promise you, nine times out of ten, the word is not necessary.  Train yourself to delete it.  Use your computer's search function as a final edit and go through.  If the sentence makes sense without the word "that", delete it.  There, this means I just saved you a few words on your word count (you're welcome).

These are my particular pet peeves; no doubt there are others.  In this day and age, when MPs read prepared statements from a piece of paper or an iPad into the Hansard record with the enthusiasm of hostage videos — but for their vigorous standing ovations, I suppose — expunging such incessant errors is an act of public service.

So, once again, communications professionals of the world — let us unite to raise the discourse by excising these basic, persistent and very bad communications issues.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.