About that $11 billion

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 12:05 PM - 49 Comments

Economists consider Stephen Harper’s promised cuts.

Canadian Labour Congress chief economist Andrew Jackson said the Conservative spending exercise would likely cause cuts in programs because the obvious, easy cuts have already been made by the Harper government. He said the spending to be reviewed by the Conservatives — $80 billion in annual operational costs — has already been subjected to a round of savings reviews. “It’s a second kick at the can,” he said. “Those budgets have pretty well already been cut.”

'Not so fast, Jack'

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 11:02 AM - 67 Comments

The Liberals take a few shots at Mr. Layton’s side.

Welcome to the infomercial

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 10:38 AM - 90 Comments

To the Conservative campaign now, specifically to the Canadian Coptic Centre in Mississauga, where Mr. Harper wished to highlight his promise to establish an Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Behind him a Canadian flag, all around him, as the official news release describes it, “an enthusiastic and diverse crowd.”

After his announcement, the floor was turned over to questions from reporters. Said reporters were called by name to present their questions. As per usual, reporters travelling with Mr. Harper were permitted a total of four opportunities at the microphone. No supplementaries are officially permitted.

Mr. Harper’s answers were dutifully applauded by the studio audience. And when one of these reporters—the CBC’s Terry Milewski—dared to shout a supplementary question related to a particular Conservative candidate’s recent controversy, the crowd moved to drown him out with cheers. Mr. Milewski persisted, the crowd cheered louder, even chanting Mr. Harper’s surname. A member of Mr. Harper’s staff, standing nearby Mr. Milewski was quite enthusiastic in joining the applause.

Onward now to Comox and Campbell River.

Truth in advertising

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM - 41 Comments

While noting the Conservative campaign’s interest in factual accuracy, the NDP quibbles on various points raised in the new Conservative attack ad.

Coming off a week where the Conservatives were pretty testy about misquotes in TV ads, Stephen Harper released ads that were full of made-up stuff … Making stuff up in TV ads is more proof that Ottawa is broken.

Long But Seasonally-Appropriate YouTube Uploads

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 4:03 PM - 0 Comments

The long upload times that some YouTube accounts have access to (I don’t really know how this happened or even whether the site has clamped down on it yet) has led to some interesting stuff being uploaded without a break, including complete movies and concerts. As a seasonally-themed example, here’s a complete performance of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, presented last year by period-instrument conductor Philippe Herreweghe, who has made a specialty of this famous piece (he recorded it at least twice).

Commies leading Traitors! A special investigation!

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM - 107 Comments

Updated seat projections, reflecting Commies’ recent surge. Fascists still short of “absolute power,” Visitors going nowhere, and Traitors now the fourth party. Ewocs still without cigarettes.

Get out the vote

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 12:43 PM - 7 Comments

Those who are keen to cast a ballot or who won’t be in their riding on election day, can vote this weekend at advance polls.

Elections Canada has all the relevant information.

The highest compliment

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 138 Comments

The Conservative side directs an attack ad at Jack Layton.

'What he’s trying to do is elevate expediency into a constitutional principle'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 10:53 AM - 79 Comments

Ned Franks considers that which Stephen Harper considers debatable.

Parliamentary expert Ned Franks dismissed Harper’s comments as “constitutional nonsense.” “There’s only one requirement for being the government and that is you must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons,” said Franks, professor emeritus at Queen’s University. “It’s not a constitutional debate. Constitutionally, there’s absolutely no question. There are ample precedents both in Canada and abroad to support it.”

Franks accused the Conservative leader of trying to rewrite the Constitution for his own end. “He’s trying to change not just the Constitution in terms of what confidence means, he’s also trying to change it in terms of how governments are formed,” Franks said. “What he’s trying to do is elevate expediency into a constitutional principle.”

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, Apple tracks me

By Jesse Brown - Friday, April 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM - 13 Comments

If he had nothing to hide, he'd have nothing to worry about.

Okay, so Apple has been tracking your whereabouts through your iPhone or iPad without your consent for the past 10 months. So what?

No, really – so what? You don’t need to worry about Apple knowing where you’ve been. As they’ve explained (.pdf), they’re tracking you for your own good! By triangulating your whereabouts through cell phone towers,  Apple can vastly narrow down the range of your possible GPS coordinates, making your GPS-reliant apps run much quicker.  Feel better yet?

Maybe not. Okay, but consider this- even though your device secretly rats out your location to Apple every 12 hours, this data cannot be linked to you.  Apple assigns you a randomly generated number that changes every 24 hours. It’s this number that’s linked to your location history, not your name.  So even if law enforcement presented Apple with warrants, demanding the complete history of your whereabouts (as they routinely and successfully do with mobile carriers), Apple would be technically unable to drop a dime on you, even if they wanted to.

This guy stops at every Arby's.

So don’t worry about the fact that Apple has your location data. Instead, worry about the fact that you do.

Your iPhone or iPad automatically generates an unencrypted file called “consolidated.db” which contains the last 10 months of your location data with time stamps. Any computer synched to your Apple device also has this file.  Anyone who gets their hands on your gear can easily tap into the file and get an exact log of your movements. There’s already a handy app to turn this raw data into a pretty map.

U.S. Senator Al Franken has sent Apple a stern letter (.pdf) demanding answers on this flabbergasting revelation, and you can expect every privacy commissioner in the land to soon do the same.  In the meantime, here’s how the nervous among you can delete your consolidated.db files – so long as your iPhone is jailbroken.

Is Harper prepared to do a King-Byng?

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 10:49 PM - 217 Comments

Up to now, I think most of us have assumed Stephen Harper’s unwillingness to concede the right of the opposition parties to form a government in the event his government were immediately defeated on a confidence vote, or fell before governing for very long (say, within six months), was just sort of messing with the electorate’s head.

By his repeated attempts to impugn this perfectly normal constitutional procedure as “illegitimate,” we assumed, he was simply trying to demonize the opposition as power-hungry conspirators, hoping to scare the electorate into giving him the majority he seeks. It was so clearly contrary to all established constitutional doctrine, not to mention his own public statements and private actions over the years, that he couldn’t possibly be serious. It was just cheap, dishonest demagoguery, playing upon the public’s ignorance of constitutional conventions.

At that, there was a small shred of truth in it. If, that is, the opposition parties had only a bare majority between them, and if the votes and seats were so divided between them that no one of them could claim even half the Tories’ numbers — if, say, the distribution of seats in the House were 153-65-50-40 — they might well themselves shrink from trying, for fear that the public would find they had over-reached. Or the Governor General might deem the contraption too unstable — to say nothing of the questions surrounding the Bloc’s role — and refuse to call upon it, sending the whole mess back to the people to sort out. But that’s a very different matter than the unconditional ex cathedra edicts we have been hearing from Harper.

Indeed, so unyielding and dogmatic have his statements become, against the views of every constitutional scholar, that I have to wonder whether there is something else going on. That is, I wonder whether he is preparing the ground, not just to prevent the opposition from electing enough members to be in a position to bring his government down, but to thwart them should they make the attempt.

What he may have in mind is this: that after losing a vote of non-confidence, he would advise the Governor General to dissolve the House and call new elections, rather than call upon someone else to form a government. He would then dare the Governor General to overrule his first minister’s advice, something that Governors General are quite properly extremely reluctant to do.

He would, in short, be doing another King-Byng, provoking a constitutional crisis rather than yield power, hoping to intimidate the Governor General and/or rally public opinion to his side. If so this would be extremely disturbing, though not alas unprecedented.

Indeed, there is some evidence the government was prepared to do something similar in December 2008, had the then Governor General not acceded to his demands she prorogue. But at least in that case he had not yet been defeated in the House, and could with greater justice insist that she yield. To do so after having lost a confidence vote is surely unthinkable. Even King, let us recall, had not yet been defeated on a formal confidence motion.

So I think someone — the opposition, the media — should call Harper to answer: If he were to be defeated on a confidence motion within six months of the House’s return, would he advise the Governor General to call new elections? And if the Governor General were to refuse his advice, what would he do then?

Oh look, new Coyne v Wells

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM - 0 Comments

On Layton’s surge, and whether Harper’s fiscal plan is really decentralizing as all that.

The Maclean's/CPAC debate

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 9:03 PM - 5 Comments

Anyone who missed the outstanding debate last night (or wants to see it again!) between Jason Kenney (Conservatives), David McGuinty (Liberals), Peggy Nash (NDP) and Rebecca Harrison (Green Party), can watch it here.

Opening Weekend: 'Water for Elephants' and 'African Cats'

By Brian D. Johnson - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:51 PM - 0 Comments

Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon with Rosie in 'Water For Elephants'

This Easter weekend we’ve got a virtual zoo of wildlife offerings: an abused pachyderm plays a supporting role with  Twilight‘s heartthrob in the circus romance of Water for Elephants; a lioness and a cheetah mama fight to protect their families from predators in Disney’s African Cats. And in a smaller, urban documentary, Bill Cunningham New York, an octogenarian photographer stalks fashion as wildlife in the streets of Manhattan. My favorite of these films is Bill Cunningham, which I’ve written about in the magazine, a piece that’s now online. The other two movies are rather heavy-handed fables, but that’s intrinsic to the genre in each case. African Cats is kind of live-action documentary cartoon that’s aimed  at kids, and it gives narrator Samuel L. Jackson an opportunity to sink his teeth into a luxurious bedtime story about wild beasts.  Water For Elephants has the kind of Big Game narrative that John Irving might contrive, were he a woman. But while neither picture will win awards for being cool, both are engrossing yarns with lively narratives and rich visuals.

Water For Elephants

Based on the 2006 bestseller by Vancouver-born author Sarah Gruen, Water For Elephants is the Depression-Era tale of Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson), a veterinary student who is struck by a family tragedy as he’s on the verge of getting his degree. He hops a freight that turns out to be a circus train, and through that twist of fate tumbles into a picaresque world of lowlife showbiz and high romance. Pattinson delivers a solid, well-modulated performance that shows there’s a real actor lurking in the skin of Twilight‘s Edward Cullen, but you can’t help feeling he’s still playing it safe, and in danger of being typecast as the tragic lover. Reese Witherspoon lends a stylish period inflection to her role as Jacob’s love interest, Marlena, the equestrian star stuck in a bad marriage with August, the villainous Big Top boss and sadistic animal trainer. He is played by German actor Christoph Waltz, who delivers a more monochromatic version of his Oscar-winning tour de force as a Nazi fiend in Inglourious Basterds. As for Tai, the veteran 42-year-old elephant actor who plays Rosie, the show’s new star attraction, I can’t say enough good things. If there was an Oscar for animals, she would have a lock on it with that articulate trunk.

I wish I could get more excited about the movie, which is directed by Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) and scripted by Richard LaGravanese (The Fisher King). Framed by a flashback sequence starring Hal Holbrook as the elder Jacob, the story rattles along with the raucous momentum of, well, a circus train. But like that shabby roadshow, it’s built on some dramatic illusions that are not fully convincing. The looming ego behind Waltz’s performance tends to throw the rest of the piece off kilter. Finally I wanted more chemistry and substance to the Titanic-ish romance between Jacob and Marlena. And maybe three fewer happy epilogues slapped onto the end. Continue…

Coyne v. Wells on Layton’s chances in Quebec

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:31 PM - 13 Comments

Carrément, une première (presque)

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:26 PM - 18 Comments

Fun fact: If the NDP take a plurality of the vote in Quebec this election, as some recent polls indicate they would, Jack Layton would be, with one, somewhat arguable exception*, the first non-francophone party leader to defeat a francophone leader in any federal election in the province’s history.

Up until Sir Wilfrid Laurier, all federal elections were contests between anglophone leaders. Though Sir John A. Macdonald defeated Laurier in 1891, the Liberals took Quebec, beginning the party’s near-century long domination of federal politics in the province. Laurier held Quebec, narrowly, in his 1911 loss to Sir Robert Borden, and by a resounding 3-1 margin in the conscription election of 1917.

Francophones Louis St Laurent and Pierre Trudeau also held the province, effortlessly, though their anglophone successors were not so lucky. John Diefenbaker’s sweep of the province in 1958 was at the expense of Lester Pearson, while Brian Mulroney’s 1984 victory was over John Turner (besides, Mulroney was the more francophone of the two).

Jean Chretien failed to carry the province in 1993, 1997, and 2000 (though he did win the popular vote in 2000), but lost to francophones, first Lucien Bouchard and then Gilles Duceppe — who went on to win in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Of course, in one way Layton’s victory, if it came, would confirm the rule: though less francophone than Duceppe, he is easily the most francophone of the four national party leaders, and the only one born in Quebec.

*The exception: The Ralliement Créditiste, under leader Réal Caouette, in 1965, took only 9 seats, to 56 for Lester Pearson’s Liberals. The Créditistes were born of the breakup of the Social Credit party two years earlier. They contested one more election before rejoining Social Credit in 1971, with Caouette as national leader.

Andrew Coyne on the NDP surge in Quebec

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:26 PM - 3 Comments

Smiling Jack

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM - 16 Comments

The latest ad from the NDP.

Jack Layton on building the NDP's Quebec campaign surprise

By John Geddes - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM - 48 Comments

Photograph by Jessica Darmanin

With polls showing the NDP surging in Quebec, one of the big questions going into the election campaign’s stretch run is whether that spike in the party’s support is for real, or one of those fleeting campaign developments that have a way of evaporating by voting day.

Not surprisingly, Jack Layton told the Maclean’s editorial board Thursday morning that his party’s Quebec success is the product of carefully laid foundations, not some quirk of this particular race.  The NDP leader— who represents a Toronto riding, but grew up in Hudson, Que.—reminisced his own family’s deep roots in Montréal.

But beyond his own Quebec background, he spoke of how the NDP platform’s focus on hiring and training more family doctors, creating jobs and improving retirement security resonate in the province.

Layton even suggested that making progress on those sorts of issues might be the first step towards getting Quebec to sign the Constitution. “If we could be addressing those issues,” he said, “then we might find ourselves creating the conditions where we could come to that discussion about how to bring Quebec fully into the Canadian family.”

Continue…

The Bull Meter: Michael Ignatieff on the Conservatives' investments in health care

By Julia Belluz - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM - 29 Comments

"[Harper] has not added a new dime to the money committed [to health care] by [former] prime minister [Paul] Martin."

- Michael Ignatieff
April 17, 2011

In 2004, then Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin promised to “fix health care for a generation” by committing to a 10-year guaranteed six per cent yearly increase on health transfers from the federal government to the provinces and territories. This deal doesn’t expire until 2014, meaning Harper has not had to commit “a new dime” to health care—there’s a six per cent escalator built in to the agreement Martin negotiated in 2004. And the Department of Finance breakdown of federal support to the provinces and territories shows the Canada Health Transfer has indeed increased by 6 per cent annually over the past few years.

So the Liberal leader is being misleading when he says Harper hasn’t added a “new dime” to health care. As Morris Barer, director of UBC’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, put it, “It looks to me like Iggy is being a bit disingenuous by suggesting that the 6 per cent was an old commitment and that the feds would need to be committing to annual increases greater than 6 per cent in order for the Liberals to view any of it as ‘new money.’”

Heard something that doesn’t sound quite right? Send quotes from the campaign trail to macbullmeter@gmail.com and we’ll tell you just how much bull they contain.

Sources:

Michael Ignatieff in Vancouver

Department of Finance Health Transfers

From the magazine

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM - 4 Comments

Here is the magazine piece on Michael Ignatieff’s current situation. Here is the math.

In order to do so, the Liberals first need their supporters to return. According to analysis from Alice Funke ofpunditsguide.ca, the loss of Liberal seats in 2008 had less to do with other parties than with a drop in the Liberal vote from 2006 levels. The 800,000 voters that failed to materialize in 2008 are key to Liberal hopes in 2011. In tandem, the Green vote must decline—in 29 of the 31 ridings the Liberals failed to retain in 2008, Funke finds, Green support increased.

Even then, there is the small matter of the NDP and the current reality of political fragmentation. A plurality of Canadians—according to Innovative Research Group’s Canada 20/20 online panel for Maclean’s and Rogers Media—may agree with Ignatieff on student aid and a majority may agree with him on corporate taxes and pension reform, but while Harper is alone on one side of the argument, Ignatieff is competing for such voters. (For complete poll results see macleans.ca/electionpoll.) And NDP support has proved resilient. In the wake of Jack Layton’s performance in the leaders’ debates, the New Democrats have even risen in some polls.

Feds appeal Ontario ruling over pot laws

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:47 PM - 32 Comments

The federal government has appealed an Ontario Superior Court ruling that found marijuana cultivation and usage laws unconstitutional. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada filed an appeal stating that Justice Donald Taliano “erred in law” in concluding that access regulations for medical marijuana were not valid under the Constitution. Taliano’s decision last week gave the government 90 days to respond with a successful delay or re-regulation of marijuana. The ruling followed a constitutional challenge by Matthew Mernagh, who uses medicinal marijuana to cope with fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures and depression.

The Montreal Gazette

Stephen Harper's constitution

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:29 PM - 167 Comments

Peter Mansbridge interviewed Stephen Harper today—on a hockey rink no less—and, as expected, the conversation turned to the spectre of opposition parties uniting in some way to defeat the sitting government and form a new government.

Here is the exchange that follows Mr. Harper’s insistence that, short of a Conservative majority, the “other guys” would try to form government. Continue…

Andrew Potter on the impact of a Liberal-NDP coalition on Canadian business

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:20 PM - 2 Comments