Setting the bar

By-elections are sometimes a chance to preview the strategies and tone of any future, general election campaign. If that's the case with regard to the by-elections currently under way,  I think it's worth paying some very close attention to some of the tactics on display. Politicians get away with this garbage when people are tuned out and disinterested. If you want a higher level of discourse from your politicians, you have some responsibility to keep them honest too. 

I'm talking in particular of a disgraceful little episode involving the Winnipeg Free Press this week. How the Free Press  participated in the mud-dive is probably another story in itself, but let's look at what we do know:  

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff gave an interview to the Free Press, in which he delivered some remarks that the paper (for who knows what reason) twisted into a racist slur against the Filipino community in Winnipeg. Ignatieff was slammed in an editorial. Highly unusually (and bravely), a Winnipeg Free Press reporter wrote a story to assert that Ignatieff had not said what the editorial alleged. The Liberals issued a transcript of the interview. The Winnipeg Free Press formally apologized and retracted. 

But the Conservatives have decided to ignore the apology and retraction, and repeatedly are issuing statements to condemn Ignatieff for his alleged slur against Filipinos. Why? Because they think it will work.  Backbenchers such as Shelley Glover and Joy Smith have used their time in the Commons before Question Period to condemn Ignatieff as a foe of tolerance and the Filipino community.  Political operatives may have many  names for this tactic, but you know what your parents would call it if you tried it in the schoolyard and you probably have a vague idea how it would be treated in a court of law. And don't get me started on how this would be treated in a church, which many of these government MPs purport to embrace.

Once upon a time, the Commons was regarded as equivalent to a legal forum; people didn't deliberately tell mistruths in there. Contempt for political foes is one thing -- contempt for the institution is breath-taking. 

 And just to put the icing on the cake, Glover also used a government announcement yesterday to accuse Ignatieff of advocating marijuana use for young people, again, exploiting a cynical twist on partial quotes.  Your taxpayer dollars paid for that news conference; you should be demanding that the Conservative party foot part of the bill. 

I don't particularly care who wins the by-elections, but as a long-time observer of politics, I can tell you that this isn't business as usual. If this is the kind of campaigning that is allowed to stand, if we just shrug, Canada will get the base, cynical politics it deserves. 

 

Senate reform meets climate change

I'm covering the reaction/outrage today over the Conservative senators' defeat of the climate-change bill. The Pembina Institute has been circulating a blog post that serves as good explanation to the fallout today. Because they seem to be having trouble with their website, I'm reposting it here, instead of just linking to it.

Canada’s only climate legislation defeated by government Senators

By Clare Demerse

Nov. 17, 2010

We got sad news last night about Canada’s Climate Change Accountability Act, a private member’s bill that could have helped move Canada into a leadership role in tackling global warming.

Before it even had a chance to be debated, the bill was defeated by Conservative Senators in a surprise vote.

MPs from all three opposition parties have supported the legislation, known as Bill C-311, so it passed its final vote in the House of Commons in May. Conservative MPs voted unanimously against it then and have opposed it every step of the way.

Late yesterday, after months of delay on discussing the bill, C-311 came up for a snap vote. It’s virtually unprecedented to hold a vote at that stage of considering legislation — before a bill has even been debated — and the move certainly took the bill’s sponsor by surprise.

The bill was defeated 43–32 along strict party lines (with the exception of Independent Senator Anne Cools, who voted with the government against the bill). More than 15 Liberals were absent from the Senate yesterday, as were two Progressive Conservatives and one Independent. Among those missing was the bill’s Progressive Conservative co-sponsor.

Pembina is a non-partisan think tank, but I don’t think there’s anything partisan about saying how disappointing yesterday’s vote was for us. C-311 would have set a science-based national greenhouse gas emissions target for Canada for 2050. It would then have required the government to adopt annual plans and implement policies to reach the target, and to report on their progress.

Anyone who’s serious about cutting greenhouse gas pollution would agree that we need a long-term goal and a transparent plan to meet it. Indeed, that’s exactly why the bill has won consistent support from all three opposition parties, who have passed nearly identical versions of the bill twice now (the first version was lost due to the 2008 election.) Polls have consistently shown that Canadians worry about climate change and want to see their government take stronger action to tackle it.

In the Senate, the bill was championed by a non-partisan duo of Alberta Senators, Liberal Grant Mitchell and Progressive Conservative Elaine McCoy. (The two House of Commons versions have been introduced by NDP MPs Jack Layton and Bruce Hyer.) Support for the bill came from environmental groups, youth, labour, and faith communities across Canada.

The loss of C-311 leaves Canada without any federal climate legislation on the table. Unless there’s a dramatic announcement, our government will head into the UN negotiations in Cancun later this month without any kind of a credible plan to meet its target, a point that columnist Jeffrey Simpson makes very clear in today’s Globe and Mail.

It would have been difficult to watch the Senate defeat this groundbreaking legislation under any circumstances. But to see it lost in this way is even tougher: C-311 was defeated without any debate, without the chance to call a single witness to explain what it offered, and at a moment when key supporters of the bill happened to be away from the Senate.

I think that Canadians deserved better. 

It is What It Is... and what politics isn't

In today's paper, I have a story on whether federal politics is becoming terribly uninteresting. Yesterday, thanks to an organizing effort by Macleans' Paul Wells, I took a tour of the National Gallery's new, biennial exhibit: It is What It is.  There may or may not be a connection between these two things. 

First of all, we were lucky enough to have Marc Mayer, the gallery's charming director, as our guide. His enthusiasm for all these works -- Canadian contemporary art, purchased by the gallery -- was a bracing antidote for the November gloom that seems to have settled on our political world.  We couldn't believe how lucky we were to see these works through his eyes: to hear the stories and insights behind the creations.

What struck me was how many times the art made me smile or laugh outright (in a good way.) If you're looking for sombre, earnest Canadiana, you may be well advised to steer right past the gallery and head directly to that majestic stone pile on Parliament Hill. More on that in a bit. 

Things I learned: The big creative hubs right now for art in Canada are in the usual spots -- Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, but also in Winnipeg (!) and the North.  One whole room in It is What it Is features works from Winnipeg artists. Mayer isn't sure he can explain what it is about Winnipeg that's made it such a creative capital in Canada. 

I was delighted to hear that the PopLife exhibit, which I wrote about in a political context earlier this year, attracted healthy numbers this summer and more significantly, a lot of first-time gallery-goers and a staggering amount (counting for nearly half the attendance) of young people. Mayer says that "dead Europeans" are still the big crowd-catchers -- and to that end, you can look forward to a Van Gogh exhibit in 2012 -- but it's heartening to know that young people and new art are an emergent force at the gallery. 

Things I liked (in no particular order, and with no offence intended to pieces/artists I don't mention.) 

• Chris Millar's "Bejewelled Double Festooned Plus Skull for Girls" -- an elaborate, hand-crafted contraption that sort of resembles a dollhouse or that old Mousetrap game.  You could spend an hour looking at the tiny components of this work and keep finding reasons to grin or giggle. 
• Rodney Graham's "The Gifted Amateur" triptych, depicting an artist at work in his PJs (cigarette hanging out of his mouth) in his suburban home, circa 1970. In its acute detail, it's totally true to its era, right down to the dates and stories on the newspapers lying on the floor, and the artifacts in the living room. 
• Shary Boyle's "The Clearances" and "Skirmish at Bloody Point." Stay in the room for the lights to go out. It's like standing in the middle of a fairy tale, in the Grimm sense of things. 
• James Carl's "jalousie" sculptures, created out of Venetian blinds. Mayer says these are among his favourites too and he had a hand himself in acquiring them for the gallery, even before he officially started as director in February, 2009.  
• Benny Nemerofsky Ramsay's video, showing the artist performing a song through snippets of a surveillance video. One of our little group said: "Is that a Madonna song." Yes it is. 

In the notes introducing the exhibit, we're warned not to look for an overall narrative in this exhibit. It is What it Is. "Narrative," as you may know, is what everyone in politics wants to have these days.  When you walk around this  show, however, you may idly wonder if good things such as spontaneity, originality and creativity and yes, humour, are being stifled in this political effort to stuff everything into some poll-tested, please-everybody narrative. And if the gallery is doing a better job than politics in attracting young people and new interest, perhaps it could teach the politicians a thing or two.  

At any rate, if you're able, you should go see the exhibit. It's new, it's Canadian, it belongs to us -- and it's not earnest or gloomy or mean, as much of politics is these days. 

 

 

Listen up

The Prime Minister has launched a "listening tour" today and helpfully, we've been sent a transcript of the event. (See below.)  As my colleague Jim Travers has pointed out to us, it's interesting to note that the transcript contains only what the PM said, not what he heard. To be fair, no one's actually said who's supposed to do the listening here. So we may be splitting hairs. 

I would be curious to hear from anyone who attempts to ask a question  along the way during this tour; whether it is possible to simply show up, ask Mr. Harper what's on your mind, without having to go through a rigorous content vetting or pre-embarrassment check before you get to the microphone. Please send your stories to sdelacourt@thestar.ca  If you do manage to accomplish this feat, you may have a career  ahead in the exciting world of parliamentary journalism. Just not under this particular government.  (By the way, I did not write the headline on this transcript and I'm assuming that there's one typo, involving the letter t, and not the letter f.) 

PRIME MINISTER LAUNCHES ECONOMIC CONSULTAIONS MUDDRUCKERS

 

Winnipeg, Manitoba

November 9, 2010

 

 

PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER: Ok.  Well, first of all, I want to thank you all for being here.  I know that your time is precious.  I want to thank Doug Cook of MuddRuckers in particular for hosting us here today.  This is the kick-off, chaired by Ted Menzies, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.  This is a kick-off to our pre-budget consultations.  For the next year, Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty will be heading that across the country.  I’ll be doing some of that, Ted’ll be doing some of that, and other ministers and members will be doing that, but we’re kicking it off right here with a group of workers, small business owners, to get a sense of what the national pulse is and what people’s judgement is on economic policy as we go forward. 

 

The economy remains the number one priority for our government.  As you know, we’re entering a new phase, though.  The stimulus programming that we’ve been undertaking for most of the past two years is largely coming to an end.  Going forward, like ordinary hard-working Canadians, governments are going to have to live within their means to control expenses.  We’re going to invest in priorities, yes, but only in a way that keeps the budget moving towards balance, and also keeps our taxes down.  We want to listen to the wisdom, guidance and common sense of the Canadian people as we move forward, not only as we craft the next budget, but as we look at Canada’s longer term economic action plan.

 

Just...if I can, ladies and gentlemen, just a comment on where we are.  You know, the last two years things have been, frankly, a lot better than some of us thought they would be.  If you look back two years ago, the world certainly avoided the depression that a lot of people thought it was going to slip into in 2009.  Growth and employment in our country, in Canada has been significantly better than most other advanced economies.  Our banks are obviously must stronger, and even after two years of borrowing on the economic stimulus program, our deficit and debt levels are well below other G7 countries. So these are all strengths to build on.  But the recovery is fragile.  I’m going to hear your views in a few minutes, obviously, but our general views of where we need to go are the following: we need to focus on the recovery, secure the recovery and it will require us to do several things: to restrict the growth of spending severely, to keep the deficit going down rapidly, and as I said before, to fight any notion that we are going to raise taxes as a way of dealing with our economic challenges.  I think if we make the right decisions, we will continue to see Canada be well positioned in the global economy, but obviously that does depend on the decision, decisions that Parliament ultimately takes. 

 

So I do want to thank you for being willing to spend some time here with us today and give us your thoughts and your ideas and your own assessment of the economy in your areas of work or your areas of business.  Now, as I mentioned, I’m just going to spend a moment.  I know I’m in the Winnipeg area here, and I’ve noticed every time I’ve come through here, I see stories about local crime, and I notice there are a couple of stories today.  I’m obviously not going to comment on particular stories or particular court cases. 

 

What I do want to say is this: one of the priorities our government has had since we were elected in 2006 is cracking down on violent crime in this country. We have a series of important legislative measures before Parliament, and those measures have been slowed down for some years.  One of the important measures, for example, are our proposals to toughen the young offenders act.  It is important that we take on the issue of violent and repeat young offenders.  That’s one of the things that we believe we have to do.  I know that is not consistent with the NDP, Liberal, Bloc Quebecois philosophy, philosophy in the opposition coalition, but it is what Winnipeggers want, Manitobans want, Canadians want, so I just want to use this opportunity to urge Parliament to pass that legislation.

 

Et je peux brièvement répéter mon message en Français.  Juste pour commencer ici aujourd'hui à Winnipeg, nos consultations pré-budgétaires, c’est le commencement de processus d’ici le prochain budget.  C’est très important de développer les prochaines étapes de notre plan d’action économique, et je remercie les travailleurs, les propriétaires et les gens d’affaires de nous aider aujourd'hui.  Aussi, j’ai mentionné que c’est important.  Je suis à Winnipeg, j’ai remarqué des articles sur le crime.  Il est important que le Parlement adopte nos mesures contre le crime et surtout nos mesures contre les jeunes contrevenants violents et récidivistes. Cette législation conservatrice est devant la Chambre depuis longtemps, et je demande à la coalition de l’opposition, le NPD, les libéraux et le Bloc québécois de faire adopter ces mesures. 

 

So thank you very much, everybody.  Appreciate your time, and appreciate your time, ladies and gentlemen of the business community, for being willing to give us your advice. 

 

UNIDENTIFIED: Ok, thank you everybody. 

 

Access journalism

Three days since word surfaced of an extended troop commitment in Afghanistan and Canada's Prime Minister has yet to pronounce on what he's thinking. Perhaps he will today, when he departs (along with an entourage of reporters) for the NATO summit in Lisbon.  Let's be blunt here -- the way this decision has unrolled has made it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister wished to announce this in a way where he's evaded questions, either in Parliament or in the media.  I have not seen one Conservative spokesperson offer a credible alternative to this conclusion on the various TV appearances they've been making in the PM's absence. (I think my favourite was that  the PMO  was forced to comment publicly, because word was "leaking out" in the media -- through off-the-record leaks from the PMO.) 

Coincidentally, as it became clear yesterday that the PM wasn't going to speak on this issue (despite making a public appearance on Parliament Hill), I was going over a tape of an interview last week on CBC's The Current. Host Anna-Maria Tremonti was interviewing Chris Hedges, the former New York Times reporter,  about his new book,  called Death of the Liberal Class. It helps explain in part why the PM feels he doesn't need to face any hard questions from the media in Ottawa  and why no one  appeared to ask  Dimitri Soudas yesterday: "Why are YOU telling us this, not Stephen Harper?" As long as these political TV shows are dependent on the good graces of the PMO -- for getting cabinet ministers, statements, blackberry messages, etc as part of their broadcasts -- they're not going to risk antagonizing the party in power. There's also been a tacit acceptance of the Conservative spin that if you make the PM's life in any way uncomfortable, you must be a Liberal/enemy of the troops/satan etc. etc. etc.  (This should only bother journalists if they need the PMO to do their jobs. Personally, I've worked here for  more than 20  years and never particularly needed any special help from any PMO -- Mulroney's, Chretien's, Martin's etc., to file stories day to day. As one colleague I much admire says: they should be the last call of the day -- for comment --  rather than the first. Note too that the CBC At Issue panel, most respected for its  brave independence of views, contains no panelist based in Ottawa. This is probably a separate post. I digress.) 

Read Hedges' comments on The Current. He talks about the decline of journalism in the United States, specifically excepting Canada from his analysis. (I'm not sure I would.) Tremonti offers a bonus insight on why citizen journalism has rushed in to fill a vacuum. The whole interview, by the way, is available here and really is worth a listen. 

AMT: What is the relationship between the media and the liberal class in the United States? The lamestream media, as Sarah Palin calls it.

 

CH: Well the media, you know, has failed us, unlike Canada. The commercial media in the United States has been utterly destroyed in terms of journalism. It’s all trivia, celebrity gossip, the latest saga about John Edwards’ love child or whatever. They’re just mini soap operas. The print media is dying. Many major metropolitan dailies, the Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle and others, are in bankruptcy or just coming out of bankruptcy or taken over by hedge funds and being harvested. And that has created a kind of crisis within the traditional press, because they lose circulation and as they lose advertising they become even more craven in their service to the power elite, because they’re terrified of offending those who have the resources to continue to fund their operations. So at a very moment when we need a vigorous press, we have a press that is incredibly timid.

 

AMT: We saw that in the Iraq war.

CH: We saw that in the Iraq war and of course I was there at the time, working on the investigative unit, with Judy Miller. But we also saw it with the collapse of the global economy. The New York Times has a very large and robust business section and yet they completely missed the story. Because instead of going out to low-income neighbourhoods, where people were being given sub-prime mortgages that those who were lending them, were giving them these mortgages knew they could never repay, they (the reporters) were running off and having lunch with Robert Rubin at Citibank. And too much of American journalism, especially elite journalism, is defined by access. Okay, you may have access to Lewis Scooter Libby, and you may have access to Robert Rubin, but you in fact, you don’t know anything.

 

AMT: That’s interesting, because the experiences of regular people in journalism has been almost displaced by journalists telling their own stories. Right? It becomes every journalist’s big adventure, as opposed to talking to citizens. Which is why I argue that citizen journalism is so hot, because you can’t get your own story on so many media outlets – you have to tell your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standing up for the troops

Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't answer reporters questions at all in Ottawa anymore, basically. Yes, I know, boo hoo, so sad for us --  all we do is whine about it. 

But I would like to draw people's attention to the way we're hearing of a possible extension in Canada's commitment to Afghanistan.  It first emerged in news reports from "senior government sources" over the weekend -- here in the Star and elsewhere, for instance.

Had this been a week that the House was sitting, the Prime Minister might have been called upon to speak on this issue in the Commons.  He does still speak there, unscripted,  from time to time. Instead, Harper appeared at an anti-Semitism conference taking place on Parliament Hill, made some brief remarks, and vanished, leaving it to his spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, to explain the matter on television and elsewhere.

Soudas, unless I've missed the news of a coup or something, doesn't make decisions about Canada's military commitments. Not too long ago, I recall hearing that he was too junior to be called to a Commons committee -- that this government believed in the notion of ministerial accountability and staff would not forced to explain their bosses' actions. 

"It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada," then Government House Leader Jay Hill told the  Commons. "Public servants and staff support ministers' authority; they do not supplant it."

 

So I ask, seriously, on this most important of issues -- putting Canadian troops in harm's way, even if it's just a training mission in Afghanistan  -- why the heck are we putting up with Harper's silence on this today? It took a certain amount of chutzpah this morning to surface in public and not speak about it.  And I guess it takes a certain amount  of whining to point it out.   Never mind reporters, though.  Citizens, and Canada's troops, deserve better. You might consider telling him yourself.

The Dryden conversation: cont'd

 Ken Dryden, thanks to his new book out this fall, has become a recurring name on this blog, and here -- a little later than I planned -- is the latest instalment in the conversation.  Dryden, for those new to the discussion, has written a book called Becoming Canada, in which he is urging citizens to update their own image about this country. 

Dryden believes, with some justification, that political reporting might not be up  to the challenge of prodding this conversation, and about a week or so ago, I wrote a bit of a response to that assertion.  What follows here is Dryden's email reply to  that post, which I'm  putting here on the blog  with his permission.  If you do have thoughts on this subject, I'm sure he'd be keen to hear them. Becoming Canada now has its own Twitter account, which you can find by clicking on that link or going directly to @BecomingCanada.

Here's Ken's note. (Oh, and in case you're wondering why I waited so long to post it, I just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the sea of other political debates last week over potash, Prentice and premiers. It's a quiet week right now - fingers crossed -- so I'm hoping that people have a bit more time to take in what Dryden is saying.) 

I didn’t say that the political media are ill-suited to the kind of conversations we need about Canada, nor do I believe that.  And I’m not saying that I have thought more about these questions than you in the political media have, because I do not believe that.  You see the country; you talk to people; you are in the incredibly privileged position of being able to knock on almost any door, phone up almost anybody, and have them talk to you about what they’re doing, feeling, hoping.  My point is that political reporting, for the most part, day-to-day, whether because of dictate, habit, tradition, evolved instinct, ease – I don’t know why – doesn’t reflect this.  Instead, it’s about Harper charges this, Ignatieff complains that, and as much as we – politicians and political media – find all this fascinating, most Canadians do not.  Who’s to blame is not the point.  I think, in fact, we – politicians and political media – bring out the worst in each other.  (You may or may not know that about 8 months ago I decided to take myself out of the regular political formats – Question Period, scrums, interviews etc. – because I hated what I sounded like to myself).  I don’t know if readership for politics is down; you would know.  But I do know that voter turnout at elections is way down, and for younger people it is even further down.  And that is a big problem.  And how many people now who do vote do so only out of a sense of citizen’s obligation. You hear it, and I hear it, everyday, people who are very interested in Canada and very interested in the world who say, I’m not interested in politics anymore.  We are doing something wrong, and this is no good for anybody.

 

My disappointment with the coverage on my book so far is not about the good or the bad (that might very well be ahead), it’s that most of what’s said comes to be through the filter of everyday politics.  This book is not about politics.  Politics is only a context.  The book is about Canada, what we are, what’s in us to be, and therefore in everything we do, in business, the arts, education, sports – in anything – and in politics too, what aspirations, what ambitions we might have.  What roles we might play in Canada and in the world.   I also write about this, in part, because as I say in the book, I think it is only if we focus on some bigger story, some bigger aspiration, that we can reduce our political sniping at each other.  There is so much more in you – the political media – and there’s so much more in us – the politicians – and there needs to be.  That’s my point.

 

Briefly, on the piece you wrote in 1998 – as you know in my book I talk about Canada and Canadians in many of the same ways you do.  And I say that it’s these very qualities of listening, patience, the willingness to discuss, negotiate, work through – what you collectively describe as “empathy” – that we have had to learn and develop because of all of the differences that have made up our existence – originally among our aboriginal peoples; then the French and English; now people from almost every country on Earth.  It is these qualities and this training that have allowed us to make our diversity work, our multiculturalism work, and enable us to create, as I call it, a multiculture, a global culture, which is different from anywhere else, which we are building together and which makes us matter in today’s increasingly global world. 

 

I would argue, however, that there is no contradiction between empathy and winning.  In many ways, the instinct for empathy, I think, the willingness to get inside the skin of a subject, or a co-worker or an opponent, to make some one or some thing else more important than you are, is at the heart of winning.

 

What I hope is that the conversation can move away from politics and the political media and back to us as a country.  That is what matters.  It’s time.  It’s time for Canada.  I think in Canada we’re building a multiculture, which makes us different from any other country, and that in a global world makes us matter.  What do others think?  We need to talk to each other.  And if, as a country, this is what we are, as a government, as businesses, as artists, as teachers, as NGOs – as any thing and any one – what does that mean we should do?  Whether we’re going to live 20 more years or 70 more years, this is our country.  What Canada do we want?  This is the conversation we need to have.

 

Anyway, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding; but I’m not sorry for the conversation that this has generated between us.  I think the next one can start in a different place.  I look forward to it.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

Post-ambassadorial politics

South Carolina's new governor Nikki Haley has chosen the person in charge of her transition team and it's a name very familiar to Canadians, we're pleased to report.   It's actually been quite a good few weeks for David  Wilkins, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada -- he's also been working closely with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who emerged victorious from last week's showdown on potash. Here's today's announcement from South Carolina:

 

At a news conference this morning, South Carolina's Governor-elect Nikki Haley, announced she has tapped David Wilkins to chair her transition team.   Wilkins is the former US Ambassador to Canada and long-time member of the South Carolina House, having served 25 years – 11 of them as speaker of the House.  Haley was elected to the House when Wilkins was serving as speaker.

 

Nikki Haley is the first woman and the first Indian-American to win South Carolina's  top office. The 38-year-old mother of two said Ambassador Wilkins, who has seen the transition of five SC governors, brings years of experience and insight to the transition job.  The role of Wilkins and the transition team is to make recommendations to the new governor on whom to place in top Cabinet and administrative posts.

 

In accepting the position, Ambassador Wilkins said, "It's our goal that the governor-elect's transition team work – and work hard – to establish a foundation of strength in which Governor Haley can confidently begin her work on behalf of our state."

 

Haley will  assume the governorship officially upon her Inauguration in January.

Ghost town

Anyone who works around Parliament Hill, and those who visit the capital, cannot help but notice that  our seat of federal power has  basically been turned into  a construction site.  In the process,  we're convinced that business and tourism has to be suffering.  Earlier this year, CBC Radio did an excellent series on the disaster of Sparks Street. (Click here for one part of it.) 

Meanwhile, I've been a little obsessed with the state of Wellington Street, one block in front of Sparks, which is also a disaster area. Beautiful old buildings are deserted and empty, and the cancellation of the portrait gallery is only part of it. 

So this summer, I went on a little heritage tour of two blocks on Wellington Street and wrote it up for Policy Options, courtesy of local architecture expert David Jeanes.  (I also, in the process,  got confirmation of a neat little anecdote I heard a long time ago about Brian Mulroney.)

The article appears in the newest issue, now available on line. Click here if you want to take a walk down the ghost street in front of Parliament. (It's a PDF document if that makes any difference to you.) 

Something from Saskatchewan

Because this issue is hot in the news today, I interrupt all this commentary and speculation for a very Canadian anecdote -- one of my favourites.  

Back in 1994, when Jean Chretien conducted his first Team Canada trade mission to China, he liked to tell a story about the tour's significance in the eyes of the Chinese government. In fact, he said, the  Chinese leadership saw the Canadian visitors as so important that they dispatched their minister of trade to accompany the tour as it made its way through China. Chretien joked that he could never remember/pronounce  the minister's name, so he simply gave him a nickname related to the minister's top-of-mind concern. Potash. Chretien called the minister: Mr./Monsieur Potash. 

Flash forward a month or two after the tour and Chretien was out in the West, giving a speech. He pulled out the anecdote, now oft-told. Except that this time he couldn't remember the nickname he gave to the man whose name he couldn't remember. (Chretien's  forgetfulness around names was legendary.) So he said instead: "I called him.... [long pause] something from Saskatchewan."  

This is the part of the story I love. The crowd started tossing out suggestions. "Wheat?" a couple of people in the audience prodded. "No, no," Chretien said, "not wheat." 

Finally, someone yelled out: "Potash?" 

"That's it," Chretien said. "I called him Mr. Potash." 

I think I like this story so much because it says so much about Canadian generosity, and even some forgiving affection toward their politicians. Rather than boo or taunt the prime minister who couldn't remember names or a vital Saskatchewan resource, they leaped in to help. It's an anecdote with only a tenuous connection to today's events, but it's fun to have even a flimsy  excuse to put it down in writing.