Month: December 2011

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister John Duncan today said that the “third party manager” appointed to manage the affairs of Attawapiskat is Jacques Marion from BDO Canada LLP.

Duncan’s office also issued the following “fact sheet” on the issue:

Continue reading Federal government's "fact sheet" on Attawapiskat

Say what you want about Garth Drabinsky, he was terrific at promoting his theatre shows, finding every niche he could to maximize free publicity — otherwise known in the trade as “earned media.”. Case in point: the tradition in Toronto theatres is that the press are invited round to opening night which is usually held on a Wednesday or a Thursday. This would make sense as the reviews would then show up in the papers on Thursday or Friday theatregoers were planning what to do for the weekend. Continue reading Lessons in PR: The merits of staging news events on Sunday afternoons

The federal government — god bless 'em — has launched what it calls its new Open Data Portal, a pilot project in which the feds will put a bunch of datasets online.

I think this is going to be a great resource, not only for journalists, but for researchers, educators, and anyone else with an interest in information about our country. Here's one neat dataset: History of the Federal Electoral Ridings, 1867-2010. I downloaded the data and thought I'd run this quick check: What are the most common occupations of all of those who have sought election to the House of Commons since Confederation? Answer: Lawyer. (you could probably guess that one.) But what's second? Or third? Wonder no longer!  Here's the list of the most popular occupations, as reported by the 36,000 candidates who have stood for office in all the general and byelections we have had. (this data set does not include the 41st general election held on May 2, 2011). I note that “Journalist” makes the top 10 while “Housewife” is number 21.

1. lawyer (3730)
2. farmer (2587)
3. teacher (1415)
4. merchant (1194)
5. businessman (1125)
6. physician (999)
7. barrister (981)
8. parliamentarian (817)
9. student (795)
10. journalist (497)
11. retired (476)
12. manufacturer (425)
13. manager (355)
14. Member of Parliament (353)
15. administrator (298)
16. accountant (271)
17. consultant (268)
18. contractor (267)
19. notary (224)
20. engineer (223)
21. housewife (196)
22. salesman (195)
23. insurance agent (190)
24. professor (186)
25. secretary (179)

Now, remember what I said about “housewife” cracking the Top 25 most common occupations so far as candidates go in our history? Well, a lot of “housewives” may have run, but they have not been that successful. In fact, though 196 housewives have run for Parliament, just 13 have won in our entire history. Check out the next list: It's the most popular occupations of the 11,000 people who have actually been elected to the House of Commons in our history. (11,000 and only 13 housewives among them!). Lawyer and farmer are still 1-2. Journalist drops to 11. And I am pleased to see that Canadians elected 56 MPs who, when asked for their occupation, simply replied “Gentleman.” Very nice. So, here the 25 most popular occupations of our MPs.

1. lawyer (2046)
2. farmer (1023)
3. parliamentarian (702)
4. merchant (604)
5. physician (511)
6. businessman (448)
7. barrister (435)
8. teacher (278)
9. Member of Parliament (210)
10. manufacturer (200)
11. journalist (184)
12. notary (123)
13. lumber merchant (90)
14. editor (89)
15. barrister-at-law (79)
16. politician (78)
17. manager (76)
18. administrator (73)
19. contractor (70)
20. lumberman (67)
21. retired (58)
22. gentleman (56)
23. insurance agent (56)
24. accountant (55)
25. insurance broker (55))

Now this is a very rough cut at the data. Because “occupation” is self-reported, there's a lot of data that needs cleaning up here. For example, 2 MPs identified themselves as “broadcast journalist”, 3 as a “reporter” but, of course, they should all be lumped in in the “journalist” category. Nonetheless, an interesting chunk of data worth additional probing…

Last little data slice: In our electoral history, candidates who list “lawyer” as their occupation have garnered 19.1 million votes in our electoral history. Those who said they were “farmers” have garnered 7.4 million votes. Housewives: 178,447 votes.

The first debate of the NDP leadership campaign was held in Ottawa this afternoon and its theme was the economy.

All the questions put to the candidates were chosen by the party (not sure why two journalists — the excellent Stephen Maher and Jöel-Denis Bellavance — were chosen to be moderators given the fact that they had no role in questions or follow-ups) and, as a result, some important but difficult questions about how an NDP government would manage Canada's economy were avoided.

On one important issue, for example, we have very little information: What marching orders would an NDP government give the Bank of Canada? We heard nothing, unfortunately,  about this fundamentally important issue during today's debate.

I first explored this issue last month in a column published in our newspaper chain:

“… a group of NDP MPs has been quietly signalling that a New Democratic federal government would almost certainly give new marching orders to the Bank of Canada by asking it to make jobs and wage growth the key objectives of monetary policy rather than the bank’s current obsession, keeping inflation pegged at around 2% a year.

… the NDP is signalling that it is open to changing the bank’s obsessive focus on price stability, a change that would represent one of the biggest shifts to a policy that has been a cornerstone of business planning for governments, businesses and consumers alike.

Why would the NDP do this? Because many New Democrats and, quite probably, many other Canadians, think low inflation should not be the end-all and be-all for central banks and governments. Instead, full employment should be the overriding goal of both monetary and fiscal policy.

In other words, who cares about 2% inflation if you don’t have a decent job?

“Monetary policy has absolutely exacerbated increasing inequality in society,” Jim Stanford, the economist for the Canadian Auto Workers, told the Commons finance committee . . .

You can read the transcript of that Commons finance committee here. While no NDP leadership candidates are sitting on that committee, the lead NDP MP on Finance is Peter Julian, a senior and influential New Democrat. Reading between the lines of his contribution and the contribution of other New Democrats at this meeting, it seems that, at the very least, the NDP would like to re-examine the role of Bank of Canada in Canada's economy. And that, alone, should make it more of a focus in the current NDP leadership debate.

 

University of Chicago economist Gary Becker and judge and legal scholar Richard Posner are both considered two of America's leading conservative intellectuals.  At their blog, they ask: “Does America imprison too many people?”. They both answer in the affirmative.

Here's Becker:

“…it is a strong “yes

Imprisonment is the right policy for anyone committing heinous crimes like rape, assaults, robbery at gunpoint, and many other crimes where victims are badly harmed both physically and mentally. Imprisonment is the wrong punishment for crimes without victims, or where other punishments are more effective. The sale of drugs is the prime example of a “victimless” crime for understanding the data on imprisonment. Buyers of drugs for the most part enter into voluntary transactions with sellers. Yet almost one quarter of all persons in US prisons are there on drug-related charges. In addition, studies indicate that many others are there because they committed crimes to finance their expensive drug habits since drug prices are kept artificially high by US drug policy . . .

Imprisonment should be rarely used also for other victimless crimes, for crimes that do not greatly harm victims, and for crimes where victims can be adequately compensated by fines and other monetary punishments. In these cases, punishment should consist of fines, probation, and other ways that do not require imprisonment. Eliminating imprisonment for drugs and other victimless crimes,and for many other crimes would cut greatly the US’ bloated prison population,reduce the spending on prisoners, and cut down the depreciation of the market skills of offenders who did not commit serious crimes.

And here's Posner:

Some statistics: the incarceration rate had been 118 per 100,000 in 1950, and actually fell in 1972 to 93 per 100,00. By 2000 it had reached 469 and only since the advent of the economic crisis has it begun to decline as states try to reduce expenditures. Between 1950 and 2000 the white imprisonment rate increased by 184 percent and the black imprisonment rate by 355 percent; today 40 percent of prison and jail inmates are black, although blacks are only 13 percent of the overall population. Even though the U.S. crime rate fell by a third in the 1990s (and by two-thirds in many large cities)— the murder rate by more than 40 percent—the inmate population continued growing during this period, an increase that cannot be explained by population growth, since the population grew by much less than a third in the 1990s . . .

The fact that instead the U.S. imprison more persons in prison than foreign countries do, yet has no lower a crime rate, calls for explanation. If the demand for crime in the U.S. were no higher than in those countries, and the supply price no lower, we would expect the the United States to have a lower crime rate if it imprisons more persons. So the fact that our crime rate isn't lower requires investigation. The investigation might show for example that we criminalize more activity, which is the equivalent of increasing the demand for crime. If an activity is criminalized, this increases the amount of crime unless the criminalization of the activity drives its level to zero . . .

The comments of these scholars are of some note as Canada, through the passage of bill C-10, is about to “criminalize more activity” and, presumably, increase the rate of incarceration of its citizens.

 

 

 

The first NDP leaders debate is tomorrow. Below is a call to action from the Paul Dewar team to fight for their guy on social media. We've seen political operatives take to Twitter, Facebook and other social media in the federal election leaders debate last May and in debates during subsequent provincial election campaigns this year. As a journalist, watching those Twitter wars between dueling partisans is informative because it can give you a sense of what the campaigns think of how the debate is going.

But in all the debate battles earlier this year it Conservatives vs Liberal vs New Democrat (or their provincial equivalents). Tomorrow it's an all Orange-on-Orange fight. So far, it's been tough (for me, at least) to differentiate any candidate from the other. Each candidate is reluctant to take shots at another candidate or even mention another's policies. There was almost a division over the number of debates and Nathan Cullen has tried to stir it up with a bold (if, apparently unpopular) proposal for some form of co-operation — but not a merger — with the Liberals in order to defeat the Conservatives

But beyond that, the NDP leadership campaign has been marked by a remarkable unanimity on major issues. Anyone like the idea of continued corporate tax cuts? None of them do. Anyone ready to bust up publicly funded health care? Are you crazy? Who hates the idea of a national public transit strategy? They all love it!  National daycare anyone? Bring it on!

On all of those issues — and many more — all nine leadership candidates would find little to argue about.

But now we have the first debate where there will be significant national attention. The Dewar team — and others, I suspect — are being called into action. So even if the candidates keep it polite and respectful — and despite the call from Dewar's team to stay “positive” —  I'll be looking to Twitter and Facebook to see if anyone wants to drop the gloves and start making a move to help their champion win the NDP crown.

Here's that call to action from the Dewar team:

Paul needs you tomorrow.

While he debates under the hot lights of the Ottawa Convention Centre; you and the online team will be needed to take to Twitter and Facebook and push what he is saying there.

The goal is simple: to flood the twitter feed with positive reaction to Paul’s performance and to post good things on Facebook. 

So what you do is very simple—just watch the coverage (2:00 PM ET on CPAC or live streamed on NDP.ca) and tweet things that you are impressed with—even quote him (if you can in 140 characters). 

Remember to use the hashtag #ndpldr and #dewar4ndp. That way the folks following the debate will see what you are saying.

If you haven’t already you should probably start following some of the National Political reporters and even some of our NDP tweeters.  You can find a pretty good list here: http://www.davidakin.com/politicaltwits/media.htm

Also look out for other good tweets and retweet them. 

Keep the posts as positive as you can—no need to attack the other candidates, put down what they are saying or make cheap shots—and avoid all twitter fights. 

Facebook is a good tool before and after the debate.  In the lead up posting any good story about Paul will help as will posting any stories that come out afterwards.  

Tomorrow is an important moment in the campaign. Your help will be crucial in maintaining the momentum of our campaign. 

You're going to make the difference.

My Parliamentary Press Gallery colleagues Jöel-Denis Bellavance of La Presse and Stephen Maher of Postmedia have been invited by the New Democrats to be the event's (bilingual) moderators. I'm sure they've got some great questions prepared but let me put forward these for consideration ( I asked Peggy Nash some of these questions on my television program, The Daily Brief, on Sun News Network on Friday and also put some to Brian Topp when he appeared on the program recently):

1. Many of the leadership candidates have cited strong fiscal records of provincial NDP governments as evidence that New Democrats can run a balanced budget. But New Democrats have never been in charge of monetary policy — telling the Bank of Canada what to do. Recently at a House of Commons Finance Committee meeting, CAW economist Jim Stanford was highly critical of the agreements that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have struck with the Bank of Canada. Those agreements say the objective of Canada's monetary policy should be to keep inflation at 2 per cent. Mr. Stanford told the committee: “Monetary policy has absolutely exacerbated the inequality in our society.” So: If you led an NDP government would you force the Bank of Canada to consider a higher inflation target — Mr. Stanford suggest 4 per cent or 5 percent — or would you ask the Bank to consider the effects of employment levels when it sets interest rates in addition to or instead of inflation?
2. Recently, CAW President Ken Lewenza told Bloomberg News that not only should Canada not sell its ownership stake in General Motors but that the federal government should seek out other opportunities to buy ownership positions in other Canadian manufacturers such as Bombardier. What do you make of Mr. Lewenza's suggestions?
3. The current Conservative government distinguished itself as economic nationalists in refusing to approve the takeover of MacDonald Dettwiler and Potash Corp., the first occasions when foreign takeovers were rejected since the Liberals brought in the Foreign Investment Review Act. Did you agree with these decisions and why? Would you tighten or loosen Canada's foreign investment regime? How would you attract foreign investment?
4. Canada's economy is heavily dependent on exports of energy, be it carbon-based energy such as the oilsands or hydro-electric energy. Would encourage or discourage exports of Canadian energy? How would you do this?
5. Many economists argue that the best way for governments to raise revenue, comparatively speaking, is through consumption taxes rather than income taxes. How do you feel about this? Does the federal government have the right mix between consumption taxes, income taxes and other kinds of taxes?
6. The preamble to your party's constitution reads, in part: “The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit.” Do you believe in the principles of socialism and that, for entrepreneurs and business owners in Canada, profit ought to be a secondary consideration after “meeting the social and individual needs of people”?

Twitter enthusiasts are finding all sorts of ways to take advantage of the micro-blogging service. If you're not yet a Twitterer, here's how it works: You post short messages to your Twitter timeline that can be no more than 140 characters long. Your timeline is displayed at your Twitter home page (my Twitter posts, for example, are here). You can also choose to “follow” other Twitter accounts. “Following” an account makes it easier to keep track of those who you think post interesting Twitter content. You can sort those you follow into lists, get an account's Twitter feed via RSS, or use third-party apps like TweetDeck and HootSuite to manage all the Twitter content you want.

So with that:

An Oxford University history grad named Allwyn Collinson is using Twitter to 'live-tweet' the events of the Second World War as they are happening. He just started earlier this year which means that so far as his Twitter account @RealTimeWWII is concerned it is November, 1939 right now and the Russian army is advancing through central Finland. I talked to Allwyn about this project on my television program during Remembrance Day week. This Twitter account already has more than 165,000 followers (that's a lot in the Twitterverse).

Meanwhile, the Laurier Centre for Military, Strategic, and Disarmament Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. has set up the Twitter account @BattleOfOrtona where, next week, this Second World War battle — a bloody one where Canadian soldiers played a significant part — will be tweeted out in real-time.  So far, this account has just 147 followers

In any event, regardless of the followers, I think this is a great way to teach history or get people interested in these events.

Some other “This Day in History” type of accounts you might like to follow: This Day in History and History Day