Mike Powell Fanclub

Welcome to the real December: it is cold, and Christmas is around the corner! Adam and I will be on air at our usual time, 7am to 9am on 93.1FM or www.ckcufm.com.

So, OCtranspo might be on strike tomorrow. Don’t worry, the city has a plan! At least we won’t be short a bridge. What? Shit.

Governor General prorogues Parliament. Liberals return to infighting.

Remember when the tories had an expensive consultant look into contracts issued under the Liberals?

H.M. Dies: a man that could never know how important he was.

Competition Bureau acts against Rebate price advertising.

Greyhound ups security. It’s not too bad: don’t lose your head.

Ted Rogers dies.

Jean Charest re-elected to historic third mandate.

I have not had a chance to work through the proposed budget yet - that is saved for this weekend, so as to prepare in advance of some meetings next week- but it is worth a quick comment on the proposed cuts to arts funding.

Now, city funding might be needed for such organisations to look for funding from other levels of government, and some organisations (I’m looking at you, Bluesfest), are probably large enough to survive without direct subsidy, even if it means reducing the profile of some of the acts. If it goes, I will miss Centretown movies, but admittedly have seen exactly one show in the last 3 years (Khaaaan!).

But, as it is with most of the proposed cuts, it is worth figuring out what the actual per-household costs of such programs actually is. In 2006, there were 350,917 households in the city. So, with $4.1 million in proposed cuts, that works out to a per-household cost of $11.68.

Let’s say that again, but this time in bold: $11.68.

Obviously, that’s assuming each home pays the same, the vagaries of property taxes would mean that something different. But I think that the question should be whether an extra 12 bucks a year per household (or a little more than $4/person) is worth having the sorts of arts programs we are about to cut. I also think that is a fair question as we look towards other cuts and, more importantly, as we look towards other spending. The game shouldn’t be getting the budget to a magic number, it should be about making sure that we are getting value for our money.

With these arts programs, I’m comfortable with the cost.

More to come (Or not- remember, big dreams, easily distracted), but a quick note:

Lui Temelkovski, as David Akin informs us, had the most votes of any Liberal.

And he lost.

A nailbiter, maybe. But, with more than 41% of the vote, he lost.

Draw conclusions from that as you will.

It’s been almost 11 months since I interviewed Warren Kinsella about his book The War Room, and this is just one of many of the interviews I have in queue to be posted pending me writing something down about them- I’m a man of great ambitions, but easily distracted. Anyway, this seems as good a time as any to get this one up.

My abrigid thoughts: I really enjoyed the book- Kinsella is an engaging story teller, and this book aptly shows that. It was pitched at the time as more of a “how to”, and to an extent it is, but the “how” is all in a series of anecdotes and examples, mostly from his own experience, but some from elsewhere, notably James Carville. Essentially, if you dig his blog, you’ll probably like this.

As an aside- remembering that this was recorded 11 months ago- note that Kinsella suggests that there is a certain amount of foolishness in how the Tories were prepping their War Room. That seems pretty prescient after a month of election.

 Warren Kinsella on the War Room [15:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

This past Tuesday, Adam and I had a discussion with Carleton representatives from the Liberal, NDP, and Green Parties. We had also invited the Conservatives, but they were unable to attend.

 Carleton Campus Party Reps on the 2008 Election [36:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

This morning I spoke with Ottawa Centre MP Paul Dewar about his thoughts on the past session of Parliament, the prospects of a fall election, and a handful of bills that will be hot topics in the fall.

 Paul Dewar on the past, and coming, sitting of Parliament: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I like games, so let’s play one:

Let’s assume for the moment that Stephen Harper has his majority, and it is 6 months from today. Don’t panic! It’s just a game! Access to abortion, gay marriage are still around. But, that’s really the only conceit of this game. Everything else is as it is.
That means that the composition of the Senate is still largely the same. So, when Harper passes the exact (or perhaps more draconian tougher) crime legislation as is being proposed now, the Senate is in just as much position to delay, examine, filibuster, or reject it.

Which is why the latest gambit in the election calling process is as ridiculous as ever, and should be called for what it is: a desperate and transparent attempt to justify dropping the writ as soon as possible. Remember, the only way an election will make the Senate more likely to play nicer on this issue is if it produces a government that doesn’t have the same affinity for mandatory minimum sentences and other crime fighting legislation that don’t actually stop crime. It’s a real shame that the CBC doesn’t call them on this, choosing instead to give a precis of the press conference.

Incidentally, none of this artifice would be necessary if the tories didn’t stupidly commit themselves to a fixed election date.

Dear Jason,

Canadians actually have had freedom of expression for some time, not just since 1982.

As an example, you may wish to look to the Bill of Rights, passed by Diefenbaker in 1960. Ineffective? Probably. But we also had an implied bill of rights, inherited from Britain with all the other unwritten parts of our Constitution. So, we had freedom of expression in 1981 in the same way that we had a Prime Minister as head of government, and not some unelected grandmother in Britain. (Here’s a fun game: see how many times the word “Prime Minister” is mentioned in that document.) Also, as a good Nova Scotian, I’d be remiss to not point out Joe Howe.

Splitting hairs? Perhaps. But, you see, it bothers me when people start talking about how the Charter created rights like freedom of speech. It didn’t. Trudeau and 9 premiers didn’t suddenly realize that it would be awesome if people could speak there minds, they reaffirmed something that the law had long ago recognized: that the right to expression is innate and can only be taken away, not given. That’s why the very first clause in the Charter limits your right to speech.

It’s also important to remember that the charter can be changed, hence Paul Martin’s famous hail mary pass about removing the notwithstanding clause. When we start thinking that we are given things, rather than already having them, we become more comfortable with them being taken away.

Also, there is an important difference between a Private Member’s Bill and a Motion. One becomes a law; the other indicates that the house believes something should be the case. Warren should know better too. That doesn’t mean that Keith Martin’s motion isn’t stupid.

Steyn and Levant? Levant likes attention, which is why he published cartoons that anyone could find on google faster than they could find a copy of his poorly-read magazine. Steyn’s article was a waste of paper, but I’m not sure it advocated hate. Steyn probably should be fined for abusing his thesaurus in describing the awesomeness of Conrad Black, but that’s another story. That both are getting attention is dangerous not because they are specious complaints, but because it undermines the important and good work that HRC’s and hate crime restrictions do.

Three posts in a day. Crazy.

This morning, Adam spoke with Carleton Journalism Professor Elly Albiom about last week’s dismissal of Linda Keen, who had been head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Professor Albiom talks about the (distant) precedents of this sort of action, and what it means for other civil servants.

 Prof. Elly Albiom on the firing of Linda Keen: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

In our ongoing series of interviews regarding new book releases, I (Adam Coombs) talked with Richard Gwyn regarding his new biography of John A. Macdonald, entitled John A: The Man Who Made Us. This is the first volume of a projected two volume biography on Macdonald. The interview first aired in October and is available at the end of this post.

In the 1840s Britain began to move toward complete free trade. Combined with a worldwide economic downturn, manufacturers and farmers in the United Provinces of Canada began to rightly fear economic ruin. Over a three year period, property values in Montreal had fallen by over 50% while Canada’s exports had fallen by over 40%. In response, over 1000 Montreal businessmen, including two Molsons and two Redpaths, supported annexation into the United States. During this period John A. made no speeches nor did he write letters to a sympathetic newspaper. Rather, in typical fashion, he quietly helped to organize the British America League which argued for unrestricted reciprocity, or free trade, with the United States. By the time the group disbanded in 1850 the same Montreal businessmen had embraced the idea of reciprocity. Macdonald had never made any definitive statement regarding his own beliefs yet the current crisis was averted.

The entire annexation crisis and Macdonald’s reaction exemplify both his leadership style and the political culture of pre-confederation Canada. Macdonald was, by supporters and enemies alike, called “old tomorrow” for his strategy of avoiding taking positions on issues and delaying decisions until a suitable result was achieved. Fiery speeches and declarations caused division and in the multi-religious, multi-lingual patchwork of 1850s Canada and a successful politician could never afford to be divisive. Furthermore, Canada as such didn’t exist yet and was constantly threatened by both internal tensions and the ever preset specter of the United States. It is both the personal style of Macdonald and the challenges threatening our early country which Gwyn focuses on.

In popular culture and Canadian historiography, John A is portrayed either as the loveable drunk who was utterly corrupt or as a the mythic figure that created our nation with his own bare hands. Gwyn seeks to deal with both these perceptions and create a new version of Macdonald. Unlike other biographies of Macdonald, Gwyn focuses on the man’s personal life beyond simply his drinking. There are engaging accounts of his attempts to care for his sick wife Isabella and of his attempts to re-connect with his estranged son Hugh John. These snippets of his personal life serve to add much needed depth to a man who is too often portrayed as someone devoid of true human characteristics. Gwyn doesn’t minimize Macdonald’s accomplishments but rather seeks to allow the reader to understand the man behind the Canadian myth.

The largest complaint about the book is it is pop academia. While it is extremely well written and engaging, the lack of footnotes, for a history geek like myself, occasionally got annoying. As well anyone well versed in Canadian history will find many of the sections which provide context as dull. Gwyn even warns readers with a basic knowledge of early Canadian politics to skip certain sections. If you are expecting a scholarly, in depth biography then you will be disappointed. However if you want an entertaining and engaging read then this book is certainly highly recommended.

Adam Coombs

 Richard Gwyn Interview: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

« Previous entries Next entries »