Coming soon to a bookstore (but not to the Public Safety Committee…)

Publishing houses McLelland and Stewart and Les Editions de L'Homme announced today that they will be bringing us Julie Couillard's autobiography. Les Edition de L'Homme is the publishing house owned by Quebecor Inc., which also owns the television network TVA where Couillard first spilled the beans about her relationship with Maxime Bernier. No word on when, but presumably we'll see it in time for the fall publishing season and, possibly, just in time for a fall federal election:

MONTREAL, June 20 /CNW/ – The autobiography of Julie Couillard will be published this fall by Canada's largest independent English-language publishing house, McClelland & Stewart, and the largest publishing house in Quebec, Les Editions de l'Homme. Her book will recount a unique life from her modest beginnings in a working-class neighbourhood of Montreal to her spectacular emergence on the national scene last May.

From her childhood experiences to her meeting with the President of the United States at the side of Canada's chief diplomat, and the tragic death of her companion in the infamous biker gang wars in the mid 1990s, Julie Couillard will reveal the details of a life marked by both tragedy and exhilaration.

Political season in review

OTTAWA — For all the partisan bickering and political posturing, there was one shining moment in the Ottawa political season that just ended: The residential school apology.

“The one thing I'll tell my grandchildren about is the special moment where the whole House came together and did the right thing,” said NDP Leader Jack Layton. “That was an absolutely powerful moment. And the good thing about it was that all parties came together around it.”

But beyond that, the last eight months of this minority parliament is notable mostly for its longevity. Few politicians or pundits thought that when Stephen Harper was elected prime minister in mid-winter of 2006 his government would make it halfway through 2008 let alone have a decent shot of getting all the way to its legislated end, a fixed election date in the fall of 2009. But it has done that and, by the end of the month, will have become the country's longest-serving minority government.

“What we have achieved over the fall and particularly over the spring, I think it's a remarkable record of achievement,” Harper said late last week during a stop in Huntsville, Ont. “We've achieved objectives which the Opposition vowed to defeat.” [Read the rest of the story]

For what it's worth, Don Martin and I seem to have come to roughly the same conclusions …

Blame Zittrain for Colbert thinking it's all about routers on ecstasy

Stephen Colbert tries to understand the Internet: “The routers are all the people high on ecstasy?” Actually, yes!

Harvard smart-guy and a Facebook friend Jonathan Zittrain gets a guest slot on The Colbert Report to plug his new book, The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It [you can download the book, for free with certain conditions, right here], and, among other things, uses the metaphor of a mosh pit to explain how “a guy named Jon, a guy named Vint [another Facebook friend, I might add…], and a guy named Steve” (Jonathan probably also meant to mention Len and he certainly wouldn't have wanted to leave out Bob but he definitely wouldn't have mentioned Al) invented a way to move data from this side of the network to that side of the network.

During the piece, Colbert admonishes his audience after they applaud the guys who invented Kazaa and Skype. “Applauding chaos,” Colbert frowns, as he wags his finger.

“I'd like to see a way of saving the good chaos of the Internet,” Zittrain says.

“But you're against the iPhone,” Colbert says. “How can you be against the iPhone? It's like being against warm bread!”

But seriously, Jonathan, who is also celebrating the 10th anniversary this year of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard which he co-founded, has some important things to say in his book:

The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity. Its salvation lies in the hands of its millions of users. Drawing on generative technologies like Wikipedia that have so far survived their own successes, [Zittrain's] book shows how to develop new technologies and social structures that allow users to work creatively and collaboratively, participate in solutions, and become true “netizens.”

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Micro-shuffle. Christian Paradis. Next week. Read on.

Feel free to add your cabinet shuffle speculation in the comments sections (especially if you happen to be a Mr. S. Harper, Mr. I Brodie or a Mr. G. Giorno)

Now 'not the time' for cabinet shuffle: Harper



HUNTSVILLE, Ont. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper squashed rumours Thursday that he is about to do a major overhaul of his cabinet though he is expected to soon name a permanent replacement for Maxime Bernier, who resigned as Foreign Affairs minister late last month.

“I believe that most of our ministers are just beginning to hit their stride in their portfolios,” said Harper during a visit to Ontario's Muskoka region, where he announced that Canada would host the 2010 G8 Summit at a resort here.

“I don't believe this would be the time for major changes to cabinet. We've made some incremental changes over the past couple of years. Obviously some would be made in the future but I see no need for a comprehensive overhaul now although I would concede there is still a need to fill the hole created by the departure of the former minister of Foreign Affairs and that will be dealt with in due course.”

That need, according to a source close to Harper, may be filled by Quebecer Christian Paradis (left), a young first-time MP who was named Secretary of State for Agriculture in January . . . [Read on]

How to ask a Prime Minister a question

Prime Minister Harper's press conference in Huntsville, Ont. today was broadcast live on two networks and so a friend in Ottawa heard me ask the PM this:

AKIN: Good afternoon, Prime Minister. I'll try and squeeze a two parter in here if I could.

PM: Sure.

AKIN: It being the end of the political season in Ottawa, I wonder if you'd care to comment on or reflect upon the goals you set out in the Throne Speech eight or nine months ago, highlights/lowlights of the season and, the second part would be [about] the position of foreign affairs and international trade. I know this is something you have to deal with. Are ministers free to travel this weekend? Will you be dealing with that particular item very soon?

Upon hearing that, the friend sent me a note on my BlackBerry: “Saw your Q to the PM today. Quite the lob ball.”

And indeed it was quite the lob ball or soft question but, as I mentioned to him, I was an equal-opportunity slo-pitcher this week, asking representatives or leaders of each of the four parties the same lob-ball question.

But that got me thinking that I don't think readers/viewers know a lot about what goes into a journalist's thinking as we prepare to ask our one question of the Prime Minister. When you get one question — and you drive 700 km round-trip as I did today to ask it — you think pretty carefully about what you want to say.

So I thought I'd write this note to give those who care a bit of the thinking behind these questions. My question today was one that was looking for a more contemplative response. It's not always like that.

If you watched that presser with the PM today, you saw my friend Richard Brennan of The Toronto Star take the debating point approach. After hearing the PM criticize Dion's green shift announcement, he wanted to know how his government was going to respond to the challenge of getting consumers to reduce their carbon footprint. In other words, he was saying, “OK, fella, it's all very well to run down the other guy's plan, but you're the prime minister! What are you doing about the problem?”

Reporters don't get lots of opportunities to ask this Prime Minister questions. Come to think of it: I've probably had a half-dozen in the last year and that's probably a pretty high number for the 300 or so Parliamentary Press Gallery members. We don't get much chance individually or as a group. Probably the last time a group of reporters put questions to him was three weeks in ago in Paris — and then we, as a group of reporters, were only allowed four questions. So, as I wanted to canvas all the party leaders about their impressions of the Parliamentary session that was wrapping up, I was going to have to travel if I wanted to get Harper. (He's in Saskatoon tomorrow, but that's too long a drive!) Also: When Harper is doing press conferences within Canada but outside of Ottawa, his handlers tend to let everyone get a question in. When it's just the Parliamentary Press Gallery — in Ottawa or on a foreign trip — things are a little more tightly controlled and not everyone who wants to ask him something is going to get that chance.

So I get to Huntsville and, as usual, Harper's deputy press secretary Dimitri Soudas starts compiling his list of reporters so he can moderate the press conference. He tells us everyone there is going to get a question but just one. Dimitri puts me on the list but I ask him to come to me last. The reason there is: When I'd left our bureau in Ottawa that morning, I knew that the big story of the day, of course, was going to be Dion's Green Shift announcement and we would definitely need Harper's reaction to that. There were other 'news-of-the-day' stories as well that reporters throughout our system would want to hear the prime minister speak to. But the way it works is, you only get one question. So if I was up early in the press conference, I'd probably have to ask about one of those breaking stories. But I was betting, correctly in this case, that other reporters — from the Star, CBC, CTV and elsewhere — also wanted to ask news-of-the-day questions. So with all the bases covered by the time it was my turn, I could use my question to head off in a different direction for a separate story I hope to write. You'll notice, if you look back at my question, I actually squeezed in two questions — my “two-parter” because I knew I could only speak once. Sometimes the PMO folks will let you get away with that so long as you're mighty brief with your second part … [The second part, about the cabinet shuffle, I needed for a story a story that's up online now.]

So that's an important lesson for reporters working in a group question: Use your one question wisely by listening to your colleagues and co-operating with them.

Part of using your question wisely is figuring out how to ask a real smart question. A smart question elicits an answer that moves your subject off the scripted response, that might move the dial on a particular story or that gives you some new or unique insight into your subject's thinking on a particular issue. It could be one of those infamous “gotcha” type questions. “Gotcha” questions are awfully tough to pull off because you're essentially trying to show up your subject and prove you're smarter than they are. More often than not, the 'gotcha' question backfires and the reporter looks like a dope. But smart questions are usually ones that show your subject you know the basics of the file at hand, that we've moved beyond laying out the facts, and now we're ready to go up to the next level, to talk about the hows, the whys, the alternatives. It takes a lot of homework to ask one of those smart questions.

If you can figure out a smart question for Harper, you'll likely be rewarded with a decent answer. Harper is arguably the best politician I've ever seen at handling reporters in a q-and-a session. He's very well briefed; almost never gets flustered and, except for one notable exception in the basement of a Laval motel in the dying days of the 2006 election, doesn't say things he's not supposed to. (Come to think of it, I'd probably say the same thing about Michael Ignatieff — he's pretty sharp in a q-and-a, too. I haven't been in enough scrums yet with Stephane Dion to have formed an opinion of how he handles q-and-a sessions.) Harper got asked once in Ottawa about economic development in Atlantic Canada and started explaining in detail about the difference in economic performance between rural New Brunswick and urban New Brunswick and how that affected the policy response. You learn stuff, usually, when you go to one of these. Reporters who come away from a Harper q-and-a often have two or three more stories than they showed up to ask about. [An aside on this point: Because Harper is so strong handling reporters, it's a bit puzzling why he doesn't get let out more often – once a week? once a fortnight? — to do these things.]

Now I don't want to sound like it's all sweetness-and-light with the PM cuz it isn't. We still have issues. Sometimes you have to track down his motorcade and yell at him as he gets in and out of the car. He usually doesn't respond but, hey, it's my job to ask the questions when and where I can; it's his job to choose to answer or not. And every now and again, it's kinda fun, in a cathartic way, to yell after the prime minister of the country.

Sometimes, on issues he clearly thinks are a waste of time — the Couillard affair, for example — he gets short and just retreats back to the same old lines he uses in the House of Commons. Of course, these issues aren't unique to Harper — there is tension between every politician and the pack of reporters that follow the person around.

In any event, knowing that Harper is well-briefed and tough to surprise, a smart question, in my view, is one that forces him to think on the spot a bit, to move away from the prepared lines and, if you're successful, to get him to open up a bit more about a given issue. I find he responds in interesting ways to questions that challenge his thought processes. The CBC's Keith Boag is good at those kinds of questions — finding a logical inconsistency in a set of assumptions behind a policy response and using that to probe deeper on a given issue. I'm a big fan of questions that begin “Describe … ” or “Can you reflect on …” because their open-ended and the PM or any subject tends to start riffing in unforeseen directions. That's good for learning new things. The aforementioned Brennan is famous for his “let's cut the b.s. and get straight to the chase” kind of questions that will come — loudly — out of nowhere from the back of a scrum that's losing steam. Weird-o questions from left-field sometimes work and here's a good example:

The very first question Harper fielded as the 2006 campaign got underway was from my friend Allan Woods, then writing for Canwest but now for The Toronto Star. Allan had lined up first behind the reporters' microphone in the House of Commons foyer and I was standing right behind him. Allan's first question was: “Mr. Harper: Do you love Canada?” I'm sure I immediately rolled my eyes and thought, what a dumb question. But then I heard Harper's answer and I thought, wow, what a smart question! (Many Conservatives were outraged we'd ask such a question) This question, of course, was one no one had prepped him for and why should they? It's simple enough, right? Wrong. Harper hummed and hawwed and tried to take a rational, cerebral approach to the question. In the end, I don't even know if he said he did love Canada. The Liberals, kicking off their campaign, had great fun with this. Harper had the last laugh, of course, when the campaign ended but I go back to that as a good example of a question that elicits an answer that gets beyond the spin and the highly scripted performances because it showed, in a pretty demonstrative way, that Harper was still having a tough time with the “retail” side of politics, the regular guy stuff that helps a politician connect with voters. The rest of the questions that day, on policy issues, he batted out of the park. (And he finished that particular press conference by laying out the same-sex marriage strategy, a smart strategic move that got that controversial issue out of the way on day one of a long campaign.) I hope Allan gets the first question in the 2009 campaign and asks that one or one like it again!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Paris: A miracle of urban design …

Roger Scruton writes about “Cities for Living”

American visitors to Paris, Rome, Prague, or Barcelona, comparing what they see with what is familiar from their own continent, will recognize how careless their countrymen often have been in their attempts to create cities. But the American who leaves the routes prescribed by the Ministries of Tourism will quickly see that Paris is miraculous in no small measure because modern architects have not been able to get their hands on it. Elsewhere, European cities are going the way of cities in America: high-rise offices in the center, surrounded first by a ring of lawless dereliction, and then by the suburbs, to which those who work in the city flee at the end of the day. Admittedly, nothing in Europe compares with the vandalism that modernists have wreaked on Buffalo, Tampa, or Minneapolis (to take three examples of American cities that cause me particular pain).

Media coverage of agriculture and rural issues in Canada

To be honest, I likely would have ignored a press conference yesterday some senators held to address rural poverty but, two days ago, when Canwest's political editor saw the notice for the press conference, he encouraged me to attend and his instincts were spot on. Our coverage ran in National Post, The Vancouver Sun , The Ottawa Citizen , The Edmonton Journal , The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and The Nanaimo Daily News.

OTTAWA – The federal government should send thousands of its employees to live and work in rural Canada, says a Senate committee studying the issue of rural poverty.

In a sweeping report with 68 recommendations aimed at revitalizing rural Canada, senators also said a new Department of Rural Affairs ought be created; that financial support for a host of rural programs should be increased; and that hedge funds and commodity traders be investigated to see what, if any, role they are playing in driving up fuel and energy prices.

They also recommend that FedNor, the federal government corporation set up to spur economic development in northern Ontario, take responsibility for economic development in the entire province.

“It is time to address rural-urban disparities,” said Alberta Senator Joyce Fairbairn, the chairwoman of the standing Senate committee on agriculture and forestry . . . [Read the rest]

One of the big concerns this committee of Liberal and Conservative senators had was that they believed that rural Canada had lost any political clout and that Ottawa was ignoring rural issues. I asked Liberal MP Wayne Easter about this. Easter was candid about the federal government's perceived inaction on rural issues but he also noted, quite rightly I think, that others need to pay attention:

I don’t mind admitting at all that I do think there should have been more emphasis by the previous government of which I was a part of on rural Canada and there certainly should have been by this government.

And I’ll say this very clearly as well, the media that are around here pay no attention to agriculture and rural issues. It’s a problem in the news centres in Toronto and other places that those major resource industries are not paid enough attention to in terms of their problems and solutions by the national media itself. So I think it spreads right through this town, not just with the political parties but also with the bureaucracy and the media.

Easter wouldn't have known this when I spoke to him but I was one of just two out of 300 or so members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery that attended that press conference put on by the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. (Other out-of-town reporters had dialed in on a conference call) The committee had just wrapped up a two-year study on rural poverty (PDF) and the cost of farm inputs and was releasing their final reports.

Half of America plays digital politics

A new report out from the folks at the Pew Internet Project finds that 46 per cent of Americans have used the Internet or cellphones to do some politicking. The survey of 2,251 Americans also finds that the number going online for political news and information has doubled in this election cycle compared to the 2004 race, from 8 per cent to 17 per cent.

Not surprisingly, the poll found that use of new digital technologies to campaign and to learn about campaigns tends to be greatest among younger voters. Supporters of Obama tend to have higher online profiles than McCain's supporters, the poll says.

Also of note: It seems that American voters seem to like using the Internet to get around media filters. The poll found that 39 per cent of online Americans are using the Internet to get access to original campaign documents or video of speeches and announcements.

Technorati Tags: ,

BCE vs bondholders underway

The Supreme Court has begun hearing oral arguments in the matter of BCE Inc et al vs lots of bondholders.
Lawyer Guy Du Pont is leading off for Bell. He is getting quizzed by justices about the concept of “reasonable expectations” and whether the transaction as proposed puts unreasonable risk on bondholders.
Du Pont has the floor to 1040. After that, lawyer Benjamin Zarnett will argue on behalf of a numbered company that wants the deal to proceed.
Then at 10 am it will be Raynold Langlois for intervenor Matthew Stewart. Lawyers for the bondholders begin their arguments after that: Markus Koehnen at 1010 and John Finnigan and Avram Fishman at 1040. Then Christian Tacit for intervenor Catalyst Asset Management. Du Pont and Zarnett will each have 5 minutes for reply.
And then at 1130, the court will wrap up.
Legal beagles hanging around the court say it's possible the Supremes (minus Justices Fish and Rothsten who are not sitting today) will render a verdict today but if they do, it will likely be after markets close at 4 pm.

UPDATE: And sure enough, judgement has been “reserved”. It's anyone's best guess how long it will take the 7 justices to make decision.

Supremes are today's hot ticket

It was just after 7:30 a.m. this morning when I arrived at the west end of the Parliamentary Precinct. This is the end of that few square blocks around Parliament Hill where you find the national archives, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court building, set well back from Wellington Street, is normally a quiet place but not today. BCE Inc., the country's largest telecom company, is fighting with its bondholders to sell itself to a group led by Ontario's retired teachers. This morning, their battlefield is the main courtroom at the Supreme Court and a few hundred are all lined up outside the court to watch.
The courthouse doors opened at 8:15 a.m. and the 200 or so lined up outside began moving through security.
Most of those in line were white men, well-groomed, wearing expensive-looking suits and ties. I asked a few in line who they were and why they were here. Sure enough, they were lawyers. Some readily conceded that fact while others had to be gently prodded into that admission saying they had been instructed not speak to the press and so, could not say more. Some of the lawyers watching were representing  groups of shareholders (they want BCE to win) or bondholders (they want BCE to lose).
The lawyers actually arguing the case — and there's an army of those — come in a separate entrance through another lineup and security screener.
One fellow in our line, though, was in jeans and carried a bike helmet into the court. In his late 50s, he was an actual BCE shareholder and he thought he'd come to see what was going on. He'll make a lot of money if BCE wins. The shares were trading yesterday at about $33 and if BCE wins, the Teachers will buy him out for $42.75 a share. “Plus,” he said, “I've lived in Ottawa for 30 years and I've never been to the Supreme Court!”