Mental health care for the few

By Ken Macqueen And Julia Belluz - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 8:28 AM - 14 Comments

Larry Macdougal/CP

On March 29, Maclean’s hosts “Health Care in Canada: Time to Rebuild Medicare,” a town hall discussion at the Winspear Centre in Edmonton. The conversation on health care, held in conjunction with the Canadian Medical Association and broadcast by CPAC, continues in coming months in Maclean’s and at town halls in Vancouver and Ottawa.

Mental illness, and what passes for Canadian mental health policy, has been called the “orphan of health care,” and perhaps that’s true. It’s also been called an invisible disease, but that’s not really the case. The mentally ill have many faces. They are in our schools, our homes, our emergency wards. They are in our jails, in our graveyards; they are on our Olympic team.

They are people with names. Jack Windeler, a Queen’s University student of great promise, began to miss classes, skip assignments, withdraw from friends. A year ago on March 27, he killed himself in his residence room. He was 18. BobbyLee Worm, a deeply troubled 24-year-old Aboriginal woman from Saskatchewan, has spent some three years locked in solitary confinement in a B.C. prison, counting the bricks of her cell. Speed skater and cyclist Clara Hughes overcame a troubled adolescence to compete for Canada at the 1996 Olympics. Afterwards, she fell into a profound depression, slogging “through quicksand and hopelessness.” She sought help. She fought back to become one of Canada’s greatest athletes, and the kind of role model who can shatter stereotypes and stigmas surrounding mental illness.

Continue…

It's my 'Dragon's Den' party, I'll cry if I want to

By Rebecca Eckler - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 8:19 AM - 6 Comments

Photograph by Cole Garside

On a recent cold and snowy Wednesday evening, 70 of Laura Berg’s closest friends and family gathered at a pub in Toronto to watch her appearance on the hit CBC show Dragons’ Den. Berg, founder of a company that teaches parents how to communicate with their babies using sign language, had gone on the reality show seeking financial backing for her business from the five “dragons”—Canadian multi-millionaires—way back in May. But for months, she had had to keep the results secret. Entrepreneurs who appear on the show “have to sign a contract: if they tell, we come and kill them,” joked a CBC media relations employee.

Like Berg, more and more contestants are opting for the big reveal: they host parties to celebrate their 15 minutes (or less) of fame, where their family and friends watch the show en masse to discover whether they landed a deal with the dragons. Or not, which—as the two million loyal viewers of the show know—is more commonly the case.

Hosting your own Dragons’ Den viewing party requires a degree of courage. First, contestants have no idea how long they will be on air. Though the pitches average 40 minutes, they are edited for TV to between 30 seconds and seven minutes. Pitchers also have no idea what the “dragons” said about them when they left the room (hint: it’s not always flattering). Even entrepreneurs who secured a deal have no idea how they will come off on television, which is not known as a forgiving medium.

Consequently, there’s an unmistakable frisson of tension at most viewing parties, and Berg’s was no exception. Her friends were nervous she might have bombed. “God, I really hope we’re going to get to party after this,” said one. When the show started at 8 p.m., the room fell silent. Berg huddled close to her husband near the giant TV, clutching a glass of wine, while everyone watched her pitch. After about six minutes, huge applause: the “dragons” had decided to invest in her company! Hooting and hugs all around.

As well as some surprise. “I’m shocked at how well she spoke,” one guest confided. “She’s very shy and quiet, so to see her speaking so eloquently on TV was amazing.”

Also surprising, to everyone including Berg: Brett Wilson, one of the show’s wealthy “dragons” (who has since left the show), turned up at her bash. Guests were floored, but Wilson said he’d been to “at least four or five” viewing parties. “I learn about them from local media. If I’m in the same city, I try to show up.”

Okay, but was he ever at a party hosted by an entrepreneur who did not get a deal? (One has to wonder if contestants would gather their nearest and dearest to watch them fail on national television.) “Yes,” Wilson said. “Even if you don’t get a deal, you get amazing exposure on the show. So people have parties and that brings them even more exposure.”

Photographs by Cole Garside

Barb Stegemann of Halifax hosted a viewing party for her friends in early February. The founder of the fragrance company 7 Virtues says, “I started my business in my garage with a Visa card.” For her, the party was more of a shout-out for friends and family than an exercise in self-celebration. “They have put up with me,” she explains. “They all believed in me from the start. I’m so honoured to have these kinds of friends, so this party was to thank them.”

Stegemann had had a hard time keeping her fate on the show a secret. “I was busting at the seams,” she groans. “I love telling people everything and for me to not be able to tell something that could be the biggest life-altering experience in my life—it was killing me!” Fortunately, her friends, unlike Berg’s, didn’t attempt to pry the truth out of her. “They told me not to tell them what had happened because they couldn’t be trusted,” she laughs.

For her, the most nerve-wracking aspect of her viewing party was watching herself on television. She knew she’d cried during filming. And she knew she was going to cry again when she watched the episode with her friends. Tears of joy, this time: Brett Wilson had cut her a deal.

Essential Budget Terms

By Scott Feschuk - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:47 AM - 7 Comments

For all the luckless reporters heading into the lockup to read the budget, write their stories and listen to Andrew Coyne make his tut-tutting sounds, I dust off the list of Essential Budget Terms – as taken from Finance Canada – that I’ve been adding to over the years.

Alternative Minimum Tax The little-known process by which you can “pay your taxes” by allowing auditors to make out with your daughter.

Balance of Payments The formal term for rushing out to buy a new plasma after your wife admits she blew $600 on shoes.

Benchmark Bond The little-known brother of the famous spy, he was killed in a tragic securitization mishap.

Canada Foundation for Innovation Frankly, I’m not sure what this is, but I’m pretty confident we can rule out Stephen Harper’s barber as a member.

Capital Tax Compared with people in some other countries Canadians do not pay tax, they pay TAX.

Coercive Tied Selling The setting of unethical conditions, such as Continue…

Budget to meet two key NDP demands

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 7:11 PM - 11 Comments

Ottawa has lifted the veil on two measures that will be included in Tuesday’s federal budget a day early, both of which were on the NDP’s list of demands. Along with reviving the EcoEnergy retrofit program, the budget will also include money to entice doctors and nurses to work in remote areas. Under the terms of the new federal program, doctors will be eligible for up to $40,000 in student loan forgiveness if they relocate to rural or remote areas, while nurses can receive up to $20,000 if they do the same. According to a Globe and Mail report, the budget will also include a Children’s Arts Tax Credit, a program to help Canadian Forces members find jobs in the construction industry, $50-million for the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo and $4-million for the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute. It’s still not clear, however, whether the measures will be enough to convince the NDP to support the government and avert an election.

The Globe and Mail

The Commons: Who's laughing now?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 6:03 PM - 103 Comments

The Scene. In case anyone on the government side had forgotten, the leader of the opposition stood to recall where proceedings had left off a week ago and what else had arisen in the interim.

“Mr. Speaker, the government faces two RCMP investigations at once, one of them about Bruce Carson’s influence peddling right in the Prime Minister’s Office, and four members of the Prime Minister’s inner circle face accusations of election fraud that could result in jail time,” Mr. Ignatieff reported. “As if that was not enough, a committee of this House has found the government in contempt of Parliament.”

The government side chuckled at this last bit.

Democracy is, of course, a funny thing. An unruly, chaotic, competitive thing, compelled by unwritten rules and collective will, as much theoretical as it is practical and inherent. Ours is formally practiced in ancient dignity: “Mr. Speaker” this and “honourable member” that. A quirk that renders the proceedings both hallowed and peculiar, grounded and remote.

And from that do we arrive now at a finding—or at least a formal recommendation to that effect—of contempt. Continue…

Gingrich goes to New Hampshire while Palin heads for India and Israel

By John Parisella - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM - 11 Comments

This is a tale of two potential front line candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012: Newt Gingrich, who may be announcing soon, and Sarah Palin, who may not announce at all. It is an illuminating story because it illustrates the current pitfalls facing the Republicans and the effect Gingrich and Palin are having on the early stages of the race by dominating news coverage of the GOP.

What it also shows is how the approach most often adopted by the Republicans is not to offer an alternative and or a compelling vision. Rather, it is behave in a way that works to the advantage of the White House incumbent.

Continue…

Where You Winning? Barcelona

By Jaime Weinman - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM - 0 Comments

Today the first rumours started to float that CBS boss Les Moonves still hopes to get Charlie Sheen back. (Sheen met with executives from Fox about a possible reality show, just to demonstrate to Moonves that there is a real threat of losing him to another network.) Will he be back? Probably not, but it would be pretty hilarious if, after all this, he came back and Chuck Lorre had to go concentrate on his other two shows or something.

Meanwhile Jon Cryer is doing what every TV supporting player seems to be doing in April: appearing in the New York Philharmonic’s semi-staged concert of Stephen Sondheim’s Company. The star is Neil Patrick Harris, almost ideal for the lead role of Robert, and Patti LuPone is there because it’s the law that she should appear in these concert things whether or not she’s right for the music. (But she’s much more appropriate for “The Ladies Who Lunch” than she was for, say, Pal Joey or Ethel Merman roles.) The rest of the cast, consisting of the hero’s married friends plus three of his lovers, will consist of mostly of TV names like Katie Finneran, Craig Bierko, and Christina Hendricks from Mad Men (she’ll sing “Barcelona” with Harris). Best of all, Stephen Colbert will play the part created on Broadway by Murphy Brown‘s Charles Kimbrough, singing the song “Sorry/Grateful.” I can’t wait to see how he incorporates this into his show. There’s so much potential Colbert material in explaining his involvement in musical theatre.

NBC: Winning Through Failing

By Jaime Weinman - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM - 8 Comments

I forgot to mention the third reason NBC renewed Community (which, I am now given to understand, is revolutionary because it uses a formula). We know the two main reasons: it’s one of very few good shows NBC has, and its ratings were not as bad, given the time slot and the young and affluent audience, as they might seem. The other reason is that the network’s comedy development slate in 2010-11 was one of the worst in living memory, essentially giving Community a reprieve because the network sank so much money into so many terrible new comedies.

To understand how bad NBC’s comedy pickups were, look at the network’s announcement of its summer lineup. Reality shows, mostly, but what’s not there are three shows that NBC picked up and produced for the 2010-11 season. Love Bites, an hour-long quasi-anthology comedy that was retooled several times, and the half-hours The Paul Reiser Show and Friends With Benefits, aren’t even being given the indignity of a summer burn-off yet. That hurts so much. The new NBC comedies that actually made it to air were Perfect Couples, which is doomed, and Outsourced, which has arguably been treated a little shabbily: it was doing OK, in a time-slot-hit sort of way, after The Office until the network decided to move it to 10:30 after 30 Rock, effectively killing it. It’s not a great show but it’s not terrible either, and was certainly the best of the new NBC comedies this Continue…

Raymond Lavigne quits the Senate

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 4:03 PM - 6 Comments

Raymond Lavigne has resigned from the Senate. The disgraced, now-former senator was convicted more than a week ago on charges of fraud and breach of trust in connection with his improper use of taxpayer funds. Lavigne was appointed to the Senate by the Liberals in 2002, but was expelled from the Grit caucus in 2007. Lavigne nevertheless managed to rack up about $700,000 in salary and office expenses in the three years following his expulsion.

CTV News

In the House's hands (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM - 16 Comments

The procedure and House affairs report is now available here.

In light of the testimony heard by the Committee on this matter referred to the Committee by the Speaker on March 9, 2011, the Committee concludes the following: 1) That the government has failed to produce the specific documents ordered to be produced by the Standing Committee on Finance and by the House; 2) That the government has not provided a reasonable excuse; 3) That the documents tabled in the House and in Committee do not satisfy the orders for production of documents; nor do they provide a reasonable excuse; 4) That this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions; and 5) That the government’s failure to produce documents constitutes a contempt of Parliament.

'We expect all participants in public life to adhere to a similar code'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM - 41 Comments

In response to criticism of its attack on Michael Ignatieff’s familial heritage, the Conservative side asserts that it has not and will not do any such thing.

“We have not and will not comment critically on the personal or family life of anyone in public life or their families,” the Tories said Monday. “We expect all participants in public life to adhere to a similar code.”

Slow progress at Fukushima plant

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM - 1 Comment

While Japanese officials are reporting progress at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, nuclear workers and technicians still have a long way to go before stabilizing the plant’s damaged reactors. Four of the six reactors have been connected to the outside power grid, which would restore power to the reactor cooling systems. But because the reactors had tones of water dumped on them in the frantic effort to keep exposed fuel rods cool, some of the reactors devices are will not work when they receive electricity. In addition, reactor three continued to release radioactive steam into the air on Monday. The government has been criticized for its slow response to the disaster, after it took several days for the full mobilization of Japan’s military and emergency response services to be engaged after the earthquake and tsunami left up to 21,000 people dead or missing.

Wall Street Journal

Canadian jets join UN mission in Libya

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM - 22 Comments

Canadian CF-18 fighter jets have flown their first mission to enforce a UN no-fly zone over Libya Monday. Departing from a base in Trapani, Italy, the jets did not participate in a bombing mission yet, but that could happen as early as Monday night. The involvement of Canada in a united front—with the U.S., British and French forces—against Libya is expected to trigger a debate in the House of Commons on Canada’s role in the military intervention. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois have expressed support for the CF-18 deployment, but have also expressed reservations about a broader involvement. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party supported “air interdiction” but was not in favour of Canada committing ground troops. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said in an interview with CBC Radio that Canada is “open to all options” in responding to the Libyan crisis. When asked if that includes “boots on the ground,” he said if that were required to “protect citizens that are being literally murdered by [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi, that’s what the resolution calls for.”

CBC News

MPs: Conservative government should be found in contempt of Parliament

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM - 32 Comments

In an unprecedented move, a committee of MPs decided Stephen Harper’s Conservative government should be found in contempt of Parliament today. The move could trigger a non-confidence motion and a spring election. After a morning spent hashing out a draft report and making a series of amendments, the procedure and house affairs committee said the government is in contempt over its refusal to fully disclose the costs associated with its tough-on-crime agenda, corporate tax cuts and plans to purchase stealth fighter jets. A formal vote is likely Thursday, though the government could try to delay it since Conservative MPs on the committee did not support the finding. They plan to produce a dissenting report. The committee is separately considering a possible contempt citation against International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda for misleading Parliament.

CBC News

In the House's hands

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM - 15 Comments

Shortly after Question Period today, a report will be tabled from procedure and House affairs committee recommending that the government be found in contempt of Parliament for failing to turn over budgetary and financial information related to various pieces of crime legislation and the proposed purchase of 65 F-35 jets.

A separate finding of contempt against International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is still to be decided, but it appears Ms. Oda may have the sympathy of Pat Martin working in her favour.

Al-Jazeera: we'll furnish the war AND the pictures

By Colby Cosh - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM - 18 Comments

I was impressed and humbled with the performance of the al-Jazeera news network during the recent revolution in Egypt. As CNN floundered and Fox News simply ceased to have even vestigial relevance, al-Jazeera seemed, for a moment, to be living up to its promise as a bridge between the Arab world and the West—if not transcending that promise and becoming something greater: a tribune of the Arab peoples and their neighbours; an influential, omnipresent witness of precisely the sort that the students in Tiananmen Square lacked; and, perhaps, one of the world’s essential institutions of news.

That potential is still there. The world is certainly a very much better place with al-Jazeera than without; it would be better still with five al-Jazeeras. But the time has come to raise an abstruse, nitpicky ethical point that reflects back on some of the Western journalists who have gone to work for al-Jazeera, and some of the Western leaders who have praised it so effusively. It’s this: is it quite all right for a news agency to have its own army?

I ask because it is a little difficult to disentangle al-Jazeera, which is owned by the Qatar Media Corporation, from the autocratic Qatari state. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani is as nice as absolute dictators get—a man arguably in the tradition of the enlightened despots of Europe’s quite recent past, who shared outstanding personal qualities, a common commitment to education and equality, and a dedication to advancing liberal ideals, albeit by undemocratic means. It’s traditional, in enlightened autocracies, for the required oppression to officially be deemed temporary, and for this pretence of temporariness to be kept up at all costs. Official U.S. sources, keen on avoiding offence to an important ally, advance Qatar’s claim to already be a “constitutional monarchy”. (Since the current emir took power in a coup, and permits no democratic national assembly, political parties, or elections, this is the grossest imaginable insult to an actual constitutional monarchy like our own. But since our planes sometimes need places to land in that part of the world, perhaps it is best to shrug it off.)

Al-Jazeera may represent Skeikh Hamad’s ultimate defence at the bar of history, as Bach’s Musical Offering and Lagrange’s Mécanique analytique are Frederick the Great’s. The channel is described as the personal brainchild of the emir, the head of Qatar Media Corporation is one of his cousins, and the whole shebang is funded by a series of “loans”, which may or may not ever be paid back, from the Qatari treasury. It treads softly in covering Qatar’s domestic affairs, while being brave and unflinching and professional, as we have seen, in covering the more momentous ones of its neighbours. That’s a good deal for the Western consumer, and al-Jazeera is being looked at by U.S. cable companies now, thanks to a sudden spontaneous demand for its perspective.

But now Qatar has gone to war with one of the major subjects of al-Jazeera’s recent reporting.

Doha, March 20 (BNA)–Qatari Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shaikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani said Qatar would take part in the military operation being carried out against Libya. He also added in an interview with Al Jazeera following Paris summit yesterday that the aim of the Qatari decision is to stop mass killing of citizens in Libya. “Qatar will take part in the military operation out of belief in the need for Arab states to contribute for the situation has become unbearable in Libya,” he said describing the situation as a declared war and urging to stop it very quickly.

This Sheikh Hamad is not to be confused with Sheikh Hamad the emir, his uncle, or Sheikh Hamad the head of QMC, a cousin from a cadet branch of the al-Thani ruling family. And, yes, the names are a hint that al-Jazeera is tied up with the Qatari state and its vendettas in a way that, say, the BBC is decidedly not with the government in Westminster. Pro-government forces in Libya have killed at least one al-Jazeera journalist and have detained four more. The on-air talent was already starting to lose its well-bred reserve before the boss scrambled the jets:

While some people ask where are the Arab jets, the international coalition – for now at least – has a more powerful weapon on its side: the al-Jazeera television channel.

The Qatar-owned al-Jazeera had highlighted the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as American aggression against Muslims, but in the case of Libya, the popular channel has supported the revolution.

Presenters refer to those killed by the Libyan regime as “martyrs” and to the air strikes as “western military operations” by an international coalition.

No worse journalistically than the worst of Fox News, you say? Well, Fox News doesn’t have its own air force. Yet. As much as we enjoy having our Western liberal pieties confirmed by al-Jazeera—without thinking too much about how the sausage is made—there are obvious questions about the viability of a news network whose owner can ring the palace and order up a bombing.

One would be “Can you rightly call it a ‘news network’ at all, except in the vestigial sense in which one might use the term to apply to the North Korean Central News Agency or the old Soviet-era TASS?” Another would be “Isn’t this the sort of thing that is likely to compromise al-Jazeera’s vaunted access to Muslim regimes pretty quickly?” And the most awkward of all: “If the reporting activity of al-Jazeera correspondents is implicitly backed up by the threat of hellfire from the sky, isn’t it justifiable for governments to regard and treat those people as enemy agents?”

Harper's popularity slides in leadership poll

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM - 46 Comments

A new poll shows that trust in Stephen Harper has declined in recent weeks following a series of political scandals. The Nanos Research poll shows Harper’s leadership index score has fallen from 99 in February to 83 in March. Michael Ignatieff did not benefit much from the drop, as his score only increased from 37 to 40. Meanwhile, NDP leader Jack Layton’s score jumped from 44 to 51. Harper’s decline in the poll is mainly attributed to a spate of political scandals, including party officials being charged with breaking election financing laws, and revelations that Bruce Carson, a former Harper aide, lobbied for dodgy water contracts that would have benefited him and his fiancee, a former escort. The government is also facing the prospect of being found in contempt of Parliament over two separate incidents.

The Globe and Mail

Allied air strike destroys key building in Tripoli

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 11:50 AM - 1 Comment

An administrative building said to be one of Col. Moammar Gafhafi’s command centres has been bombed by French, U.K. and U.S. air forces. Allied forces continue to strike targets in Libya in order to enforce a no-fly zone and prevent pro-Gadhafi forces from targeting civilians. While the building was destroyed, it was not clear if there were any casualties. Killing the Libyan leader is not allowed under the UN resolution authorizing them. In the city of Misrata, there were reports civilians are being used as human shields to deter further air strikes. Qatar is the latest coalition partner to send planes to the region in order to enforce the no fly zone. At least 64 people have reportedly been killed since air strikes began on Saturday, but the number could not be verified.

BBC News

'It is a mythical tree spirit, the true, fragile nature of which only Stephen Harper understands'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM - 64 Comments

Tabatha Southey listens to the Prime Minister, imagines a world in which democracy is an actual threat to the welfare of the nation.

During Canadian federal elections, neighbourhoods are canvassed by hoards of zombies. These zombies do not just put fliers through your mail slot – they zombie-knock at your door while you’re trying to make dinner. They often ask you if you have any issues that are of particular concern to you. And after inquiring about whether you’re properly registered to vote, they ask you if you need a ride to the polling station, and then they eat your brains. It’s intrusive.

Meanwhile, investors are surprisingly unpanicky about the possibility of an election.

The post-party era

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 11:08 AM - 25 Comments

Donald Savoie laments for the decline of the political party.

The problem is that the economic and political interests of the political, intellectual and economic elites are heard at the expense of the broader community. The power and influence of political parties and even formal policymaking processes have given way to powerful individuals and actor-centred institutionalism. This, in turn, has made it virtually impossible for many elected representatives, let alone ordinary citizens, to play any meaningful role in shaping public policies or even holding government to account. We ought not to be surprised at voter apathy and the growing cynicism about government in society.

The democracy election

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 36 Comments

The Star sizes up a potential campaign.

The swirling ethical questions were enough to prompt Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to say he would be “delighted” to challenge the Tories’ democratic record in an election.

Parliamentary expert Ned Franks said issues around the government’s approach to democracy should get an airing on the campaign trail, especially given Harper’s dismissive response to the findings his government has abused parliamentary procedure. “Ultimately what you’re saying as prime minister is ‘I don’t give a damn what Parliament does. I’m going my way,’ ” said Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen’s University. “You can get away with it for a time but we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship,” he said.

A majority of respondents to a recent Ipsos Reid poll put “honest, open and trustworthy government” ahead of “economic recovery” as the top issue.

Is Parliament about to make a comeback?

By Andrew Coyne - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 82 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

On second thought . . .

Perhaps there’s a more hopeful way to look at what’s happening in Canadian politics, or at least in Parliament. Maybe all of the indignities Parliament has suffered of late—ministers lying to committees, governments refusing to produce essential documents, all the way back to prorogation and the coalition crisis, or indeed to Paul Martin’s abuse of the confidence convention in 2005—maybe these are, in a way, the good news.

Maybe, that is, we are seeing the first stirrings of a parliamentary rebirth. Maybe things have come to such a pass, maybe Parliament’s weakness has become so obvious, that Parliament now has no alternative but to stand and fight. Indeed, almost in spite of itself, that is what the opposition majority in Parliament has begun to do.

Last year’s historic ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons in the matter of the Afghan prisoner documents was a watershed moment. Though constitutional scholars were vastly in agreement that Parliament’s powers to send for “persons and papers” was unconditional and unlimited, the issue was hardly uncontested—see the Justice Department lawyer’s letter claiming national security as an exception—nor had it been subjected to such a clear test in recent times. The Speaker’s ruling, unequivocal and unanswerable, will be studied not only in Canada, but in parliamentary systems around the world.

Indeed, it has already served as precedent, invoked by the Speaker himself in last week’s ruling indicting the government yet again for withholding documents it should properly be providing to Parliament, this time with regard to the costs of its crime bills. Though ultimately it is up to Parliament itself to decide whether its privileges have been breached, the Speaker found there were sufficient grounds to send the matter to the Commons procedure and House affairs committee, which will decide whether to put it to a vote of the full House next week—as it will with regard to whether Bev Oda misled, intentionally or otherwise, a parliamentary committee.

Continue…

The week ahead

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 16 Comments

The 40th Parliament began with a moment of unprecedented democratic intrigue and may soon end similarly. The House returns this morning at 11 and there are various pieces in play, or potentially in play: a budget, a contempt finding against the Harper government, a contempt finding against International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, a budget amendment, a motion of non-confidence and a vote on the government’s financial estimates.

Oh, and there’s a military campaign against Libya to be discussed.

Greg Weston has a comprehensive accounting of what may happen when.

Big Love, American Style

By Jaime Weinman - Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 3:25 PM - 2 Comments

Tonight is the series finale of Big Love, one of the key shows of what we might call the HBO interregnum — the period after the first generation of drama hits went away (it was a year after the end of Six Feet Under and a year before the end of The Sopranos) and it seemed unable to come up with new shows of the same impact. Big Love is sort of a transitional show. It follows the pattern of those HBO successes: a stylish melodrama with a sense of humour and a commitment to showing the dark side of a typical TV genre (in this case, the family drama). But it got broader and soapier than they did, and seemed to use stories as metaphors for topical issues almost in the way that science fiction shows do. That’s a format that True Blood would eventually use, but Big Love arguably got caught in the middle of that transition, never quite sure if it wanted to be a serious drama or a crazy soap.

This all came to a head in the controversial fourth season, which tried to cram an incredible amount of craziness into only nine episodes. Bill Paxton, who defends the season for its ambition (though ambition, as always, doesn’t equal achievement), seems to think that the negative reactions cost the show the chance to have a longer run:

I grant you that last season may have tried to put too big a foot in too big a shoe, but they were cramming those episodes chock full of great stuff. I was surprised that we were so taken to task for it. And it did not help us keep the show going. If [people] would just watch it again, they’d realize that we put too many ingredients in the stew, but the show’s always been so ambitious and so well written and so full of stuff. I personally grew to resent that whole brouhaha and I think that it ultimately killed the show. Again, I don’t know the political ins and outs of that, but I know that it didn’t help us going into Season 5.

Of course it could be that the show was simply unlucky that there wasn’t a polygamy craze in pop culture to compare with the vampire craze that helped lift True Blood to smash hit status. In any case, in preparation for tonight’s finale, Jace Lacob collects together 10 memorable moments from the run of Big Love, most of them from the third season.