The 40th Parliament has an expiration date

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM - 69 Comments

After some degree of procedural wrangling this afternoon, the way is now cleared—barring, conceivably, a last minute deal on the budget or a trip by the Prime Minister to Rideau Hall to dissolve Parliament himself—for the Liberal motion of non-confidence to fell the government on Friday.

My Korean Deli: How I Risked My Career And Mortgaged My Future For A Convenience Store

By Jessica Allen - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 5:05 PM - 0 Comments

A New York City deli is as essential for a New Yorker’s survival as the subway. In fact, writes Ben Ryder Howe—a former senior editor at The Paris Review—it’s not uncommon for customers to visit their local deli five or six times a day to get their fix of cheap coffee, lottery tickets and tall cans of Bud Light. The thirtysomething author ought to know: his wife Gab bought (with the money the couple had saved for a down payment on their first house) her hard-working Korean parents a deli in Brooklyn as a gesture of thanks for all their self-sacrifice. What follows is a series of both comic and tragic vignettes that will leave the reader as surprised as the author about how emotionally invested you can get in a deli.

Helping Howe harness the drama is sweet Kay, his 55-year-old chain-smoking “frighteningly strong compulsive non-procrastinator” mother-in-law who is the convenience store maestro. But because Kay can’t single-handedly run the deli, Ben and Gab, who’ve had to move into the basement of her parents’ home on account of their savings being depleted, chip in when they can. For Ben, that requires hoofing it from his in-laws’ to George Plimpton’s Upper East Side townhouse, which doubles as the Paris Review’s office—a chasm “like going from the set of a Korean Married with Children to one of those three-page fold-out magazine advertisements for Ralph Lauren,” and then to Brooklyn in the evening to man the deli’s cash register. These disparate worlds, along with the culture clash between Ben’s WASP roots and his in-laws’ no-nonsense mentality, makes for great storytelling. Throw in a cast of Seinfeld-like deli regulars and Ben and Gab trying to start a family in a crowded household that doesn’t care for knocking on doors, and the result is a tender comedy of errors. Howe, who only falters near the end when he leaves too little space to wrap up too many story arcs, delivers a smartly written narrative about love, literature, and the lengths one goes to for family, which turns out to be epically far.

Aaron Wherry on why we're heading to an election

By Claire Ward - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 4:22 PM - 5 Comments

Shot and edited by Claire Ward

The last great bookshop

By Nancy Macdonald - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM - 7 Comments

Photograph by Brian Howell

For new visitors, the reaction rarely differs. After pushing through the front door, they stop, momentarily, in their tracks. On this rainy winter Sunday, an American tourist, dressed in purple Gore-Tex, lets out a gasp. “My God,” she says, to no one in particular, “I’ve never seen so many books in my life.” At MacLeod’s Books in downtown Vancouver, packed bookshelves stretch almost to the cathedral ceilings. Books are piled all over a worn, red Persian rug. “Please find the Faulkner paperback collection on the floor,” a note helpfully directs. A ladder leans haphazardly against a stuffed shelf. More books are stacked on its steps. “Is there any semblance of order at all?” asks a middle-aged man with tight black curls and John Lennon glasses. There is, of course; the finely ordered chaos is one of the marvels of MacLeod’s. There isn’t a computer in sight, but staff know exactly what they own, and where to find it. Within seconds, the churlish customer has the Tolkien he was after.

Behind him, a MacLeod’s regular, his wiry brown hair standing on end, rushes in and out, lugging suitcases filled with books into the store, adding to a pile stacked near the front. “He’s been buying books from us for years,” says the shopkeeper, as the man hurriedly retreats backwards, spilling out apologies, a farewell, a promise to return. “Now he’s leaving for Spain, and he wants us to buy them all back. I haven’t even agreed,” Don Stewart, the legendary—at least in the tight circle of Vancouver bibliophiles—owner of the bookshop adds with a shrug.

Continue…

The end: Cayle Vivian Chernin | 1947-2011

By Kate Lunau - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM - 1 Comment

Illustration by Team Macho

Cayle Vivian Chernin was born on Dec. 4, 1947, to Sol and Beryl Chernin, a dentist and homemaker in Glace Bay, N.S. When Cayle was six, the family picked up and moved to Stephenville, Nfld., “a bustling community that needed a dentist,” says Franky Chernin, Cayle’s younger sister (sisters Barbara and Nancy followed). Back then, “there was no public school system; there were Catholic and Protestant schools,” Franky recalls. “So we went to the Catholic school, and of course, we were Jewish.”

A bright, animated child, Cayle “was acting from the time she was born,” says Franky, who shared her bedroom. “We used to go visit my grandparents in Cape Breton, and we’d create shows and perform for them.” When Cayle was 12, they moved to Toronto, where she started acting classes. Sometimes, she’d skip school, “head downtown and watch movies,” says actor Dwight McFee, who later became her husband.

Cayle met Jayne Eastwood in her acting class, and the two became fast friends, sharing an apartment in Rosedale. “She was my first real girlfriend in show business,” Eastwood says. The two young actresses attended an open audition for Goin’ Down the Road, a movie about friends who travel from Nova Scotia to Toronto, looking for a better life. Both were cast—Eastwood as the love interest of one of the male characters, Cayle as her best friend. “We were so excited,” Eastwood says. “We were preparing for the film, doing odd jobs so we could stay alive.” Released in 1970, Goin’ Down the Road is considered a Canadian classic.

Continue…

The cheaper option

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 3:33 PM - 51 Comments

The difference between what the NDP asked for and what the government’s budget offered in terms of aid for seniors is $400 million.

If the government declines to renegotiate the budget in the next 48 hours, the election that will result from the defeat of that budget will cost approximately $300 million—the last campaign cost an estimated $288.2 million to run.

Gadhafi's air force reportedly crippled

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 3:14 PM - 8 Comments

The skies over Libya are free for allies to roam now that Moammar Gadhafi’s air force “no longer exists,” according to Vice-Marshall Greg Begwell of Britain’s Royal Air Force. The British commander said that allied forces will now focus their pressure on the Libyan armed forces, who would be attacked “whenever they threaten civilians or attack population centres.” Allied aircraft have flown over 300 sorties and fired more than 162 cruise missiles since Operation Odyssey Dawn began on March 19. Heavy fighting continues near the rebel-held city of Misrata, where new air strikes were launched and sniper fire was reported. One Misrata resident said pro-Gadhafi snipers were targeting civilians. On Tuesday, Gadhafi addressed a crowd of supporters in Tripoli, urging “all Islamic armies” to join his forces. NATO has also begun its blockade of the Libyan coastline, and will search vessels for arms shipments in order to enforce a UN embargo against the Gadhafi regime.

BBC News

There's a Hole In My Pocket Where My Money Should Go

By Jaime Weinman - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 2:48 PM - 0 Comments

I hope to get back to the King of the Hill reviews soon (as part of a resolution to make this blog more upbeat, and there are few things in television I’m more upbeat about than seasons 2 and 3 of KotH), but I might add that you can see why, as a King of the Hill fan, I’m a Parks & Recreation fan. They’re not the same show, of course, and Parks as it’s gone on has developed as much in common with Green Acres and Newhart as it has with any other shows. (One thing I think is a clue to the show’s evolution is that even though it started as an office sitcom, it seems to spend an awful lot of time outside the office, and is actually funnier the more it goes outside, to town events, meetings, and the horrible small-town media.) But you can see plenty of connections in the types of stories being told and the way it glorifies — while simultaneously satirizing — a lead character who, on any other show, would be the villain.

And then you had the Native American character on the most recent episode, who was actually played by the guy who voiced John Redcorn from KotH. He also got some similar jokes, since both characters simultaneously resent white people’s ignorance of Native American culture and exploit it (in this case, to create a fake “curse” rather than to score with women). I hope he comes back sometime; one thing a crazy-small-town comedy benefits from is a roster of crazy or unscrupulous townspeople who can come back on a recurring basis. (Newhart had a lot of these beyond Larry, Darryl and Darryl; the characters played by actors like Jeff Doucette, Kathy Kinney and Todd Susman were not regulars but kept coming back for a line or two.) We already have some, like Mo Collins’ evil reporter character or the conservative “family” activist who appeared in one second-season and one third-season episode. It’s harder than it used to be for a show to keep bringing people back without signing them as full-time regulars, or for an arc, but some of the best moments on these shows are seeing townspeople pop up who haven’t been on for a while.

Jack Layton's health: more of what he's said

By John Geddes - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 2:45 PM - 31 Comments

As a reporter, I’m used to posing unwelcome questions. It’s often a fun part of the job. But I felt uneasy, when interviewing NDP Leader Jack Layton for this story, asking him repeatedly about his health. It felt like prying, even though this seemed so clearly a matter of legitimate public interest as we headed into a very likely spring election campaign.

Apparently, I’m not the only reporter who feels this way. When Layton took questions in the foyer of the House earlier today, CBC’s Laurie Graham prefaced her query about his health by saying, “It seems very personal, and I apologize for that.” Then Graham asked if Layton—who was diagnosed with prostate cancer early last year, underwent treatment, and then had hip surgery early this month—is still being treated for cancer. His answer:

Well, I work with my doctors on an ongoing basis like most people with cancer to monitor the situation. They’re happy with how things are going. And like so many people with cancer, you go off to work every day and provide for your families and get the job done. And I draw a lot of inspiration from Canadian people who are in that situation, hundreds of thousands of them, probably.

I reported in Maclean’s on the gist of Layton’s answers about his health. But with an election all but inevitable now, I thought there might be interest in a fuller transcript of that part of our exchange. We spoke in an NDP meeting room just off Parliament Hill on March 11, and I asked about his health before moving on to other questions:

Q. How did you break your hip?

A. I don’t know and the doctors don’t know. When I first began to feel the pain they did an X-ray and they literally could barely could see any fracture. They said it might be a fracture, why don’t we just take the weight off it and see if it heals up. Unfortunately, the bone was not able to handle the fracture. It just got worse. And before you knew it the only option was surgery. It wasn’t going to heal itself.

Q. Are you’re up to campaigning?

A. Of course if we have a campaign I’ll be starting in the recovery cycle from hip surgery. But we all know people who have gone through hip surgery, and they universally tell you that the first week or two is difficult because the tissue is healing up—you’ve had surgery.

Q. What did the surgeons do, put in a pin or something?

A. That’s too much detail.

Q. You don’t want to get into that?

A. No.  I will probably fire off the security. There’s metal in there now and I’ll have to show them a picture. I played a lot of squash for a lot of years. Could that have been the origin of the problem? Who knows? It’s like your favourite old car. A part will wear out. So there’s metal in there.

Q. Is the hip problem unrelated to your cancer?

A. They don’t draw a link because they literally can’t figure out how it happened.

Q. So you’re good to go on a campaign?

A. Yeah. Actually, you make major progress in that first week [after hip surgery]. I’m already way ahead of where they would have expected me to be. The physiotherapist—what did she say?—‘You’re a prodigy.’

Q. Before your hip problem you were getting over prostate cancer treatment. When were you in treatment?

A. Well, I was diagnosed on Feb. 2 [2010], so a little over a year ago.

Q. And has the cancer treatment gone well?

A. It has gone very well. For people who follow this sort of thing, my PSA is virtually undetectable and it has remained at that level. So that’s why we have a high level of confidence about where we are on that.

Brand-name drug prices rising faster than ever

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:58 PM - 0 Comments

In the U.S., prices for brand-name drugs are soaring, just as patents expire on some blockbuster medications like Lipitor and Plavix and as the pharmaceutical industry watches for the future of healthcare reform. Prices for the 15 best-selling drugs rose by much higher rates in 2010 than over each of the last five years, but $25.4 billion in U.S. drug sales will face generic competition this year as patents expire on big name medications. About $26.1 billion in sales, which represents 9 per cent of a $300 billion market, will lose patent protection in the next year. IMS Health estimates the U.S. healthcare system will get at least $70 billion in savings over the next four years as generics move in to replace higher cost brand names.

Reuters

In conversation: Gail Asper

By Jonathon Gatehouse - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM - 26 Comments

Photographs by Marianne Helm

Canada’s Newest national institution, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, isn’t scheduled to open until 2013, but it’s already a subject of controversy. Over the last decade, Gail Asper has shepherded the project from a far-fetched dream to an almost reality.

Q: Your late father Izzy Asper was the driving force behind the Human Rights Museum. What was his initial vision?

A: His vision stemmed from his own background, as the child of immigrants who came to this country seeking freedom. From the idea that this is a great country, but one, he was concerned, that is pretty complacent. Canadians are indifferent to how their rights have evolved. People like me, who didn’t understand that women weren’t always persons, or that Aboriginals couldn’t vote until the 1960s. He wanted people to understand how this country came to be the tolerant country that it is now, and more importantly, to understand that if you are not vigilant with human rights, they can be lost.

Q: Since you took over the project after his passing in 2003, has that vision changed?

A: No, not at all. The vision that was first presented to the world back in 2000 is the same vision that was adopted by three different prime ministers, two premiers, two mayors and 6,000 donors. The whole goal was, and is, to inspire visitors to take personal responsibility for the advancement of human rights here in Canada and around the world.

Q: There has been controversy about some of the plans for the museum. Ukrainian and German-Canadian groups have complained that the sufferings of indigenous peoples and Jews during the Second World War are getting a “disproportionate share” of exhibit space. Has the backlash surprised you?

A: Nothing that is being said now is any different from the concerns and hopes that were being expressed even before the museum existed. We have worked with all sorts of groups. The idea wasn’t that we were going to impose a human rights museum on Canada. The idea was that we were going to listen to what Canadians wanted and work with them to deliver something that everyone could embrace. The inclusion of an exhibit on the Holodomor [the Stalin-induced famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s] was always part of the plan. That is still the plan. But there is a tiny minority that have taken a more acrimonious position on this. And that’s been disappointing.

Q: The Ukrainian-Canadian Civil Liberties Association has charged that one horror—the Holocaust—is being “elevated” above all others at the museum. What’s your response?

A: This is not a museum of genocide. The purpose is to explain what human rights are and how they can be lost. There is no better example of this than the Holocaust. A country like Germany, that was so cultured and educated, and had a democratic government—don’t forget, Hitler was elected—was still able to descend into genocide because people were not vigilant. All the experts agree that no human rights museum could ever be established without a full examination of the Holocaust. It was fundamental to our notion of human rights today, the catalyst for the world coming together to say “never again,” precipitating the anti-genocide conventions and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Holocaust really shows how good people can be convinced to do bad things.

Q: Do you think that anti-Semitism is playing a part in this?

A: I haven’t come face to face with the group that is saying this, and I wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism.

Q: Now politicians are getting involved, with several Liberals, and Joy Smith, the Winnipeg MP who was your champion in the Tory caucus, calling on the museum to rethink its plans. Doesn’t this open the door to all sorts of complaints? Is there a danger of this becoming a museum of human wrongs?

A: No. This has really been the only group out of the dozens and dozens who were approached for their support who have had any problems. The museum has been incredibly consultative and respectful of people’s desires. If you’re going to make people mad, why bother doing this?

Q: It’s not a traditional museum—it’s meant to provoke and inspire and even upset people. Is there content in this museum that you are going to find personally challenging?

A: I have no doubt that there will be certain slants and presentations that I won’t agree with. That’s exactly what we want this museum to be. But the expectation is that whatever is in this museum has to be truly well-researched and balanced. The architect, Antoine Predock, has built in an outdoor amphitheatre, and the expectation is that’s where people will be protesting from the moment the doors are opened. I’m open to that. We’ve got free speech here.

Q: Your job now as the campaign chair is to enlist private sector support for the project. How has that been going?

A: The museum is a Crown corporation, but because of our genesis, and the fact that this will be the first national museum outside of Ottawa, our funding structure is very different. The federal government is providing less than a third of the capital cost. The majority of the costs, $150 million, will come from the private sector. We’re closing in on $130 million, and we’ve got 6,000 donors, from grassroots fundraising to multi-million-dollar donors. We’ve been through a tough recession and it could have been an opportunity for people to renege on their gifts, but thank heavens, we’ve had virtually no loss.

Q: There are some concerns about the museum’s ability to pay millions in property tax to Winnipeg each year. Ottawa is providing $21.7 million annually in operating expenses, but said it won’t pay more. Who’ll cover the gap?

A: Prime Minister Harper broke with decades of precedent to develop a national museum in Winnipeg and took on the operating costs—without which this museum would not exist. Museum management is in positive discussions with the city and the province for additional funding. They know they are getting a windfall here—a great project that’s going to provide a lot of tourism and employment and taxes for a small investment.

Q: You mentioned tourism. Do you think it will draw people to Winnipeg for a weekend?

A: I totally do. The conservative estimate is that this will draw close to 250,000 people a year from outside Winnipeg. We hired the finest museum planners to do a very thorough feasibility study. They came back and said this can be a very popular and important attraction for people around the world. There’s the cultural tourists—a growing demographic—who are thirsty for knowledge and want something that is spiritually challenging. The other component is architecture. We were told unequivocally that an architecturally significant building will attract people. People wonder why there’s a “Tower of Hope.” We were told that it would drive visitors. I’ll never forget the report saying “people may not give a hoot about human rights, but they love to go up towers.” With the right marketing, I believe we have an unassailable tourism opportunity here.

Q: The Aspers, through your family foundation, have given $20 million, making you the largest single donors. But your family has gone through a reversal of fortune with the failure of Canwest Communications. Has that had any effect on the foundation’s commitments?

A: Not at all. My dad was very smart when it came to running his business and managing his assets. As Canwest’s fortunes rose, he put money into this foundation. Our $20 million is virtually paid.

Q: You’re still in fundraising mode. What’s your best succinct pitch?

A: I think that Canadians should be grateful for all this country has given them, and for all those who have come before them and put their passion and, sometimes, lives on the line to fight for the rights we all enjoy. This is a celebration of who we are. My dad was always afraid that Canadians reach for the middle, that we aim for mediocrity. He said that this museum has to reach for the stars or it’s not worth doing. In order to do that we need the funds to achieve the depth and the excitement of the planned exhibits. We can’t do that without the support of people from coast to coast. This is Canada’s museum.

In Japan, radiation in water creates risk for infants

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM - 1 Comment

Radioactive iodine has been detected in Tokyo’s water supply, prompting a warning that infants in Japan’s capital city and surrounding areas shouldn’t drink the tap water, the New York Times reports. Iodine-131 has been detected at levels of 210 becquerels per liter, and the recommended limit for infants is 100 becquerels per liter (it’s 300 for adults). The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was severely damaged after an earthquake and tsunami on March 11; the public has also been warned against farm produce from areas around the power station due to contamination. The Health Ministry has said it’s unlikely that infants who did drink the water would be harmed, but said it should be avoided if at all possible.

New York Times

'At a time of economic uncertainty'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM - 98 Comments

The Conservative side deviated momentarily from its unwavering focus on the economy last night to put together another attack ad.

Opposition says it will support Liberals' non-confidence motion

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:22 PM - 43 Comments

The Liberals have announced they will bring forward a non-confidence motion against the Conservative government on Friday which both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP plan to support. The move sets the stage for what Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already characterized as an “unnecessary” election. In a statement released Wednesday morning, Harper lamented that opposition parties “didn’t take the time to read [Tuesday's] budget before they decided [to defeat it],” and economic uncertainty would be compounded by a federal election. If, as expected, the Liberal motion gains the approval of the House, Harper will then be forced to ask Governor General David Johnston to dissolve Parliament and call an election likely slated for May 2, 2011.

CBC News

Elizabeth Taylor, dead at 79

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM - 0 Comments

Elizabeth Taylor, one of the most famous movie stars of all time both for her onscreen and offscreen lives, has died of congestive heart failure at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. Born in England to American parents, she moved to California at an early age and was signed up as a child actress by the Hollywood studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. She soon became one of America’s biggest child stars, playing the lead role in the hit movie National Velvet. After developing into a beautiful young woman, Taylor appeared in movies like Father of the Bride and became a major adult star when she was loaned out to Paramount for the movie A Place In the Sun, where her role as an irresistibly beautiful, wealthy socialite defined her public image for most of her career. In the late ’50s she started to get new acclaim as an actress in hits like Giant, Suddenly Last Summer, and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; in the ’60s she won two Oscars, for Butterfield 8 and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Offscreen, she was married multiple times and her private life was a favourite subject of tabloid journalists: the death of her producer husband Mike Todd in a plane crash (and the cold that kept her from getting on that plane with him); her famous breakup of the marriage between America’s-sweetheart couple Eddie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, and the even more famous breakup of her marriage to Fisher when she met Richard Burton on the set of Cleopatra. Her tumultuous relationship with Burton played out in two separate marriages and many screen and stage appearances together. After a string of flop movies in the ’70s, Taylor reduced her film appearances but continued to make news for her marriages (including Virginia Senator John Warner), and her friendships (particularly with Michael Jackson). She was also an early advocate for AIDS research and gay rights, campaigning to raise awareness of AIDS after the disease killed her friend and co-star Rock Hudson. She was also a well-known collector of jewelry, whose husbands frequently presented her with expensive jewels, and launched a best-selling perfume, “White Diamonds.” She was 79.

Los Angeles Times

The CMHC: Canada's mortgage monster

By Chris Sorensen And Jason Kirby - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM - 62 Comments

David LePoidevin isn’t the first person to suggest Canada’s roaring housing market is headed for a U.S.-style crash. But he is a rare breed of money manager for daring to point a finger at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the country’s biggest mortgage insurer. In a fall 2009 note to his clients, LePoidevin questioned what was underpinning the country’s skyrocketing home prices, aside from rock-bottom interest rates. “The stock market was sure not providing huge capital gains to the masses,” he wrote. “Did the banks all of a sudden open up the lending spigots? In fact banks have actually reduced the number of their mortgages held from the peak of third quarter of 2008. The smoking gun is the CMHC and its securitization policies.”

As mainstream economic commentary in Canada goes, it was damning stuff. And it provided ammunition to critics who argue the Crown corporation’s policies have inflated a housing bubble. The CMHC is arguably the most influential player in Canada’s $1-trillion housing market. Its main function is to provide mortgage insurance for prospective homeowners who put less than 20 per cent down on their houses, protecting the banks in the event of defaults. The CMHC also helps to spread risk by finding investors to buy CMHC-insured mortgages that have been pooled together into so-called mortgage-backed securities. All of this is guaranteed by the government.

Almost immediately, LePoidevin’s bosses at National Bank leapt to the CMHC’s defence. In a letter to an Ottawa newspaper that had referred to the commentary, co-chief executive Ricardo Pascoe said the Vancouver portfolio manager’s views were “personal” and “do not reflect the views of National Bank Financial Group.” When reached by Maclean’s, LePoidevin declined to talk about the public rebuke or the CMHC in general. A National Bank spokesperson justified its actions, saying the company “felt that the commentary was treading on social and political issues.”

The apparent unwillingness of the country’s sixth-largest bank to challenge the CMHC is curious given the role similar U.S. institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—quasi-government agencies that securitized mortgages—played in the U.S. housing crash. But it’s far from unusual. Several other critics, including economists, realtors, lawyers and analysts contacted by Maclean’s, say they have also been the target of attack. One bank economist who once publicly raised fears about a housing bubble says he didn’t dare openly criticize the CMHC because of the agency’s reputation for snuffing out dissent—an allegation the CMHC denies. The economist spoke on the condition his name not be used.

Continue…

'The House has lost confidence in the government'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM - 47 Comments

Mr. Harper has now appealed for the opposition parties to reconsider their objections to the budget, while Mr. Ignatieff has announced that the Liberals will table the following motion to be voted on Friday.

The the House agrees with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian Parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government.

Mr. Layton says he is still open to working with Mr. Harper to amend the budget, but if Mr. Harper is not so interested, the NDP will support the Liberal motion.

The Prime Minister’s statement is here.

The difference between passage and defeat

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM - 19 Comments

The Globe chronicles Jack Layton’s decision.

The NDP Leader says what he found in the budget wasn’t even close to what he’d requested. He’d asked for money to pay for new family doctors and nurses. Instead he found $18-million to entice doctors and nurses to move to rural areas. “I don’t see rural Canadians saying they can take them away from urban areas.”

He’d wanted $700-million to lift low-income seniors out of poverty through the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Tories offered $300-million. Mr. Mulcair suggested the paucity of money for seniors was what clinched it for the NDP, comparing the money the Tories had committed in previous budgets for business tax cuts to what was delivered for older Canadians Tuesday.

More from the Star.

A government's responsibility

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM - 30 Comments

From the Finance Minister’s news conference during yesterday’s lock-up, in response to questions about whether the budget had met the NDP’s demands.

The idea is not to craft a package that suits party A, party B, party C.  The idea is to craft a package that’s a good budget for Canadians, that Canadians can support and that we can legitimately put before Parliament and say this is a package, read it all, look at it in a balanced way that suits the needs of the country at this time … the job of the government is not to appease opposition parties. The job is to analyse what they put forward, be respectful, try to make Parliament work.

What now?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 10:02 AM - 36 Comments

There are myriad scenarios now as to how and when the government could be defeated in the House: most pointing to Thursday or Friday as the day of defeat. For the sake of history, it might matter most whether the opposition can formally find the government in contempt before a budget-related vote or a potential vote of non-confidence (or a visit by the Prime Minister to Rideau Hall) brings about an end to the government’s time.

First though, the Prime Minister is set to speak to reporters in the foyer at 11:30am this morning. Michael Ignatieff is then due to speak on the Hill at 12:05pm and Jack Layton will make a statement at 12:15pm.

About last night

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 8:56 AM - 3 Comments

Stephen Gordon critiques the boutique budget.

As noted here, most of the federal government’s spending consists of writing cheques to persons, to governments and to bondholders, and cuts to these items have been ruled out. The projected decline of spending as a share of GDP is due entirely to the announced freeze on program spending. This decline – along with the increase in PIT revenues is projected to eliminate the deficit in the next three of four years. This scenario seems implausibly optimistic.

John Geddes reviews the budget in print and video. Canadian Business consults economists. Andrew Potter laments for a budget about nothing. Paul Wells looks forward to the election.

2012 came a little early this year

By Paul Wells - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 10:08 PM - 178 Comments

So apparently we’re going to have an election. Here’s your primer.

In the past seven weeks we have run substantial new profiles of three of the national party leaders. John Geddes and I produced a very long retrospective of Stephen Harper’s years in power here. I explained why Michael Ignatieff had actually become eager to face the electorate here. John profiled Jack Layton, posing a question about the New Democrat’s nerve that has since been answered, here.

I have remarked for more than two years on Stephen Harper’s eagerness to frame this election as a choice between a Conservative majority and an opposition coalition. Even today, the Conservatives were circulating talking points saying the Liberals, NDP and Bloc have “united once again as a Coalition.” My best attempt to explain this choice by Harper appeared six months ago here.

Andrew Coyne got very angry at the Conservatives, here. Then he got very angry at the Liberals, here. He proposed a new political party here.

I like to be surprised by the way a campaign begins. I haven’t the faintest idea how this one will end. We’ll have some fun.

The lame-duck budget of 2011

By John Geddes - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM - 98 Comments

Jack Layton wasn’t buying it.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered a budget this afternoon that contained, not everything the NDP leader had asked for, of course, but at least one significant nod in his direction. But Layton defied expectations that he might wait until tomorrow and only pass judgment on the fiscal plan after consulting with his caucus. Instead, he came into the foyer of the House late this afternoon breathing fire.

“Mr. Harper had an opportunity to address the needs of hardworking middle-class Canadians and families, and he missed that opportunity,” Layton declared, reasserting a moment later his assessment that budget didn’t “give middle-class families a break.”

With that, he declared that his MPs would, with those of the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, vote against the budget. That would defeat Harper’s minority and force an election. The vote could come on Friday, and might set the stage for a May 2 election. Asked if he saw any chance of negotiating a last-minute deal with the Conservatives to save their minority, Layton said, “It’s difficult to imagine that.” Moments later, Flaherty said there was “zero chance” the government would amend the budget.

Strangely, perhaps, the budget that set all this in motion is a cautious document throughout. Flaherty expended as much energy boasting about Tory management of the Canadian economy through tough times as he did laying out a blueprint for future actions. And he had credible case to present. By most measures, Canada is enjoying the fastest growth of the major developed countries. Jobs shed during the global recession came back faster here than in most industrial nations. Flaherty is able to boast that more than 480,000 jobs have been created in Canada since the economy began to recover in the summer of 2009.

But if the way he framed recent experience sounded campaign-ready, the quiet new measures he unveiled don’t seem likely to give Tories much momentum out on the hustings. The most eye-catching new spending items were those that appeared designed to coax Layton on-side—and failed utterly.

Here are some of the key budget initiatives organized by the three big themes under which Flaherty packaged them—and one that he didn’t include: Continue…

The Commons: Rendered moot

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 9:25 PM - 73 Comments

To Jack Layton’s credit, he waited for the Finance Minister to finish. Only after Jim Flaherty had tabled the federal budget in the House of Commons and concluded with his half hour explanation of such, did Mr. Layton hobble into the foyer with the assistance of a cane and render it all more or less moot.

Around a podium, a small mosh pit of cameras and microphones and people with press credentials had surrounded a portable podium to hear what the NDP leader might say. Looking indisputably pale, Mr. Layton squeezed through the crowd to his appointed spot. He recounted first how he had spoken with the Prime Minister a month earlier and for a moment it seemed he was about to claim victory, to proclaim the government’s concession of “practical solutions” he’s quite fond of talking about. And then that narrative turned. Continue…