This column is an opinion from Andrew Leach, an energy and environmental economist at the University of Alberta.
In the 2019 election, Albertans were promised an energy “war room” that would “fight fake news and share the truth about Alberta’s resource sector and energy issues.”
With a $30-million-per-year budget, Albertans should have expected a lot from the Canadian Energy Centre, which is the war room’s official name. The outcome is a ripoff at any price, and should raise some big questions.
It’s hard to overstate the fiasco the war room has been.
Adding to the general air of incompetence about the place, we learned that the advertising agency hired to design the logo seemed to have also plagiarized its office dog.
The launch featured a series of good news stories about Alberta’s energy sector, but before long, it was the war room that had become the story, as its staff were conducting interviews masquerading as reporters without informing their subjects of the centre’s role as a government propaganda agency.
These stories alone would have made for an eventful first three weeks, but there were a few more unforced errors.
There were and remain unanswered questions about why the war room was not housed within government but structured as an external corporation, exempt from Freedom of Information and Privacy (FOIP) rules.
By February — the early logo fiasco and other misrepresentations a distant memory — war room general Tom Olsen again found himself apologizing for the centre’s activities.
A member of Olsen’s staff had accused the New York Times of bias and anti-Semitism and otherwise impugned the reputation of the 150-year-old publication in a Twitter tirade. This, it turns out, was not a great idea for a three-month-old, government-funded outfit, with bias as a mission statement.
Amateurish approach
By March, you’d have been forgiven for wondering if the sole mission of the thing was to make every other government expenditure seem like a bargain.
It’s true that the war room has corrected a few falsehoods about our energy industry, although on too many occasions it’s also been the source of those falsehoods in the first place.
An episode this month is emblematic of both the amateurish approach it’s taken to the file, and the perils of confirmation bias.
Armed with a third (yes, third) logo, the war room launched its new “When we work, Canada works” campaign to make the case that Alberta’s energy industry should play a role in Canada’s economic recovery.
It’s an important objective, as Alberta’s oil and gas industry has been hit hard by the combined effects of the pandemic and the oil price crash.
So, how did the war room make this pitch to Canada? It repackaged information posted on a new federal government energy facts website and, in doing so, introduced not only many of the same old, tired tropes, but a few new falsehoods for good measure.
What caught my eye first was a graphic claiming that oil and gas accounted for 10.6 per cent of Canada’s GDP, and was the largest sub-sector of Canada’s economy. Neither of these is true.
(Canadian Energy Centre)
Oil and gas extraction made up 6.6 per cent of real GDP in April 2020, and several sub-sectors (finance, manufacturing, real estate, public administration, health care and professional services, for example) all accounted for larger shares of Canada’s economy. The same was true pre-COVID, although you’d have to add construction to that long list of larger sectors in most years.
A Statistics Canada report from July 8, 2020, explains that for most of the past 20 years, the oil and gas industry has averaged about five per cent of Canadian GDP, and has comprised a much smaller (0.4 per cent) share of employment.
A claim that oil and gas is Canada’s largest sub-sector, or that it is 10.6 per cent of GDP, is simply not supported by the relevant data. Thankfully, the war room has since corrected its own fake news.
Comedy of errors
So, how did this happen?
It seems to have been another war room comedy of errors.
If you check the Natural Resources Canada site, cited by the war room, you’ll find the 10.6 per cent of GDP claim part way down the page, but the war room took the number out of context.
The 10.6 per cent refers to the share of GDP from oil and gas, electricity and energy sector supply chains combined. The irony that the construction costs of new solar and wind farms were used by the war room to goose the economic impact of the oil and gas sector is lost on no one.
You might be tempted to give the war room the benefit of the doubt if its source didn’t have the graphic shown below, which, in large letters, confirmed that oil and gas comprised 5.6 per cent of Canada’s nominal GDP in 2018. Hardly the work of a well-oiled, $30-million machine.
(Natural Resources Canada)
The point of the war room’s new campaign is to promote investment in oil and gas, and to that end the war room wants to create the impression that doing so would create jobs, and lots of them.
Now, don’t get me wrong: oil and gas employs a lot of people in Canada, and recent Statistics Canada analysis projects that as many as 200,000 jobs may be lost in Canada due to the oil price crash.
But oil and gas employs relatively few people per unit output or per dollar invested, because the industry is very capital intensive. For much of the past two decades, we’ve had a lot of oil and gas output and a lot of investment and so a lot of people have been employed.
(Canadian Energy Centre)
To make its case, the war room relies on an old crutch: the economic multiplier. Interest groups often abuse economic multipliers to argue that investments in one sector create jobs across the economy, while failing to account for all the caveats to those numbers.
Those caveats didn’t matter to the war room when it found out that Statistics Canada multipliers could be torqued to argue that five indirect and induced jobs are created for every one direct job created in the oil and gas sector. This comes from accounting for assumed impacts through supply chains and from employees spending their paycheques.
The war room’s analysis ended right there, presumably because six is better than one and the staff really like oil and gas. If you ask, they’ll likely show you that they’ve even got a T-shirt that says so.
What this statistic doesn’t do is make the case to the rest of the country to invest or to encourage investment in oil and gas as opposed to some other sector of the economy.
Why? Because if people start asking about the jobs ripple effect in other sectors, the war room is going to need to create another scandal just to distract from the answer.
Using the war room’s metric, investment in just about any other sector of the economy will generate more jobs than an investment in oil and gas, as shown on the graphic below (remember, it’s a terrible metric for any number of reasons).
Had the war room taken a moment to wonder why oil and gas accounts for only 0.9 per cent of national employment while making up 5.6 per cent of GDP, it might have picked a different fight. That information, by the way, is about half way down the Natural Resources Canada page of facts the war room used to build its campaign.
Maybe this is all nit-picking, but it’s part of a broader trend.
There is no sign the war room has done anything to convince opponents of Canada’s oil and gas industry to change their minds, nor to attract investment to Alberta.
Zurich Insurance recently decided not to renew its insurance on the TMX pipeline. Would another attack on columnists in the Medicine Hat News have changed that decision?
If Teck Resources, which is facing substantial pressure to lower its emissions, ever decides to reconsider the decision to abandon its Frontier oilsands mine proposal, will a woe-is-me article on how Canada can’t possibly meet its Paris targets provide the reassurance investors need that Alberta takes climate change seriously?
No. But that’s not the point.
Where is the money going?
Asking whether the war room messaging is working misses the real question. We should be asking what the money is really being spent on.
In late March, the government, in response to the COVID crisis, slashed the war room’s budget for three months to the annualized equivalent of $2.8 million. We still don’t know when (or if) full funding will be reinstated. And while it’s true that, in the grand scheme of government, the war room’s original $30 million per year budget might not seem like a lot, you can do a lot with that much money when it comes to energy information.
The war room budget is 2½ times more dollars per month than the UCP spent in the 2019 election campaign. I bet you remember hearing from them, certainly much more than you’ve heard from the barely visible war room.
The paltry amount of war room work we’ve seen to date, even accounting for substantial mismanagement, seems unlikely to have added up to more than a small fraction of this budget. Where’s the rest going, and why?
This column is an opinion. For more information about our commentary section, please read this editor’s blog and our FAQ.
OTTAWA – The New Democrats confirmed Thursday they won’t help Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives topple the government next week, and intend to join the Bloc Québécois in blocking the Tories’ non-confidence motion.
The planned votes from the Bloc and the New Democrats eliminate the possibility of a snap election, buying the Liberals more time to govern after a raucous start to the fall sitting of Parliament.
Poilievre issued a challenge to NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh earlier this week when he announced he will put forward a motion that simply states that the House has no confidence in the government or the prime minister.
If it were to pass, it would likely mean Canadians would be heading to the polls, but Singh said Thursday he’s not going to let Poilievre tell him what to do.
Voting against the Conservative motion doesn’t mean the NDP support the Liberals, said Singh, who pulled out of his political pact with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a few weeks ago.
“I stand by my words, Trudeau has let you down,” Singh said in the foyer outside of the House of Commons Thursday.
“Trudeau has let you down and does not deserve another chance.”
Canadians will have to make that choice at the ballot box, Singh said, but he will make a decision about whether to help trigger that election on a vote-by-vote basis in the House.
The Conservatives mocked the NDP during Question Period for saying they had “ripped up” the deal to support the Liberals, despite plans to vote to keep them in power.
Poilievre accused Singh of pretending to pull out of the deal to sway voters in a federal byelection in Winnipeg, where the NDP was defending its long-held seat against the Conservatives.
“Once the votes were counted, he betrayed them again. He’s a fake, a phoney and fraud. How can anyone ever believe what the sellout NDP leader says in the future?” Poilievre said during Question Period Thursday afternoon.
At some point after those comments, Singh stepped out from behind his desk in the House and a two-minute shouting match ensued between the two leaders and their MPs before the Speaker intervened.
Outside the House, Poilievre said he plans to put forward another non-confidence motion at the next opportunity.
“We want a carbon-tax election as soon as possible, so that we can axe Trudeau’s tax before he quadruples it to 61 cents a litre,” he said.
Liberal House leader Karina Gould says there is much work the government still needs to do, and that Singh has realized the consequences of potentially bringing down the government. She refused to take questions about whether her government will negotiate with opposition parties to ensure their support in future confidence motions.
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet hasn’t ruled out voting no-confidence in the government the next time a motion is tabled.
“I never support Liberals. Help me God, I go against the Conservatives on a vote that is only about Pierre Poilievre and his huge ambition for himself,” Blanchet said Thursday.
“I support the interests of Quebecers, if those interests are also good for Canadians.”
A Bloc bill to increase pension cheques for seniors aged 65 to 74 is now at “the very centre of the survival of this government,” he said.
The Bloc needs a recommendation from a government minister to OK the cost and get the bill through the House.
The Bloc also wants to see more protections for supply management in the food sector in Canada and Quebec.
If the Liberals can’t deliver on those two things, they will fall, Blanchet said.
“This is what we call power,” he said.
Treasury Board President Anita Anand wouldn’t say whether the government would be willing to swallow the financial implications of the Bloc’s demands.
“We are focused at Treasury Board on ensuring prudent fiscal management,” she said Thursday.
“And at this time, our immediate focus is implementing the measures in budget 2024 that were announced earlier this year.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
OTTAWA – Treasury Board President Anita Anand has been sworn in as federal transport minister at a ceremony at Rideau Hall, taking over a portfolio left vacant after Pablo Rodriguez resigned from cabinet and the Liberal caucus on Thursday.
Anand thanked Rodriguez for his contributions to the government and the country, saying she’s grateful for his guidance and friendship.
She sidestepped a question about the message it sends to have him leave the federal Liberal fold.
“That is a decision that he made independently, and I wish him well,” she said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was not present for the swearing-in ceremony, nor were any other members of the Liberal government.
The shakeup in cabinet comes just days after the Liberals lost a key seat in a Montreal byelection to the Bloc Québécois and amid renewed calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down and make way for a new leader.
Anand said she is not actively seeking leadership of the party, saying she is focused on her roles as minister and as MP.
“My view is that we are a team, and we are a team that has to keep delivering for our country,” she said.
The minority Liberal government is in a more challenging position in the House of Commons after the NDP ended a supply-and-confidence deal that provided parliamentary stability for more than two years.
Non-confidence votes are guaranteed to come from the Opposition Conservatives, who are eager to bring the government down.
On Thursday morning, Rodriguez made a symbolic walk over the Alexandra Bridge from Parliament Hill to Gatineau, Que., where he formally announced his plans to run for the Quebec Liberal party leadership.
He said he will now sit as an Independent member of Parliament, which will allow him to focus on his own priorities.
“I was defending the priorities of the government, and I did it in a very loyal way,” he said.
“It’s normal and it’s what I had to do. But now it’s more about my vision, the vision of the team that I’m building.”
Rodriguez said he will stay on as an MP until the Quebec Liberal leadership campaign officially launches in January.
He said that will “avoid a costly byelection a few weeks, or months, before a general election.”
The next federal election must be held by October 2025.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he will try to topple the government sooner than that, beginning with a non-confidence motion that is set to be debated Sept. 24 and voted on Sept. 25.
Poilievre has called on the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to support him, but both Jagmeet Singh and Yves-François Blanchet have said they will not support the Conservatives.
Rodriguez said he doesn’t want a federal election right away and will vote against the non-confidence motion.
As for how he would vote on other matters before the House of Commons, “it would depend on the votes.”
Public Services and Procurement Minister Jean-Yves Duclos will become the government’s new Quebec lieutenant, a non-cabinet role Rodriguez held since 2019.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
— With files from Nojoud Al Mallees and Dylan Robertson
OTTAWA – Several federal political parties are expressing reservations about the prospect of fresh regulations to prevent foreign meddlers from tainting their candidate nomination processes.
Elections Canada has suggested possible changes to safeguard nominations, including barring non-citizens from helping choose candidates, requiring parties to publish contest rules and explicitly outlawing behaviour such as voting more than once.
However, representatives of the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP have told a federal commission of inquiry into foreign interference that such changes may be unwelcome, difficult to implement or counterproductive.
The Canada Elections Act currently provides for limited regulation of federal nomination races and contestants.
For instance, only contestants who accept $1,000 in contributions or incur $1,000 in expenses have to file a financial return. In addition, the act does not include specific obligations concerning candidacy, voting, counting or results reporting other than the identity of the successful nominee.
A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians expressed concern about how easily foreign actors can take advantage of loopholes and vulnerabilities to support preferred candidates.
Lucy Watson, national director of the NDP, told the inquiry Thursday she had concerns about the way in which new legislation would interact with the internal decision-making of the party.
“We are very proud of the fact that our members play such a significant role in shaping the internal policies and procedures and infrastructure of the party, and I would not want to see that lost,” she said.
“There are guidelines, there are best practices that we would welcome, but if we were to talk about legal requirements and legislation, that’s something I would have to take away and put further thought into, and have discussions with folks who are integral to the party’s governance.”
In an August interview with the commission of inquiry, Bloc Québécois executive director Mathieu Desquilbet said the party would be opposed to any external body monitoring nomination and leadership contest rules.
A summary tabled Thursday says Desquilbet expressed doubts about the appropriateness of requiring nomination candidates to file a full financial report with Elections Canada, saying the agency’s existing regulatory framework and the Bloc’s internal rules on the matter are sufficient.
Green Party representatives Jon Irwin and Robin Marty told the inquiry in an August interview it would not be realistic for an external body, like Elections Canada, to administer nomination or leadership contests as the resources required would exceed the federal agency’s capacity.
A summary of the interview says Irwin and Marty “also did not believe that rules violations could effectively be investigated by an external body like the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.”
“The types of complaints that get raised during nomination contests can be highly personal, politically driven, and could overwhelm an external body.”
Marty, national campaign director for the party, told the inquiry Thursday that more reporting requirements would also place an administrative burden on volunteers and riding workers.
In addition, he said that disclosing the vote tally of a nomination contest could actually help foreign meddlers by flagging the precise number of ballots needed for a candidate to be chosen.
Irwin, interim executive director of the Greens, said the ideal tactic for a foreign country would be working to get someone in a “position of power” within a Canadian political party.
He said “the bad guys are always a step ahead” when it comes to meddling in the Canadian political process.
In May, David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at the time, said it was very clear from the design of popular social media app TikTok that data gleaned from its users is available to the Chinese government.
A December 2022 CSIS memo tabled at the inquiry Thursday said TikTok “has the potential to be exploited” by Beijing to “bolster its influence and power overseas, including in Canada.”
Asked about the app, Marty told the inquiry the Greens would benefit from more “direction and guidance,” given the party’s lack of resources to address such things.
Representatives of the Liberal and Conservative parties are slated to appear at the inquiry Friday, while chief electoral officer Stéphane Perrault is to testify at a later date.
After her party representatives appeared Thursday, Green Leader Elizabeth May told reporters it was important for all party leaders to work together to come up with acceptable rules.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
