VIDEO: On the importance of flipping burgers and doing groceries

By Macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:14 AM - 0 Comments

“Flipping burgers, how is that political work? It’s quite amazing. This summer, I fully realized the value of overhearing conversations at home — not in a creepy way. But even just being in a cafe and hearing what people are talking about, or being in the grocery store and hearing a family talk about the next time peanut butter is going to go on sale. That is important political work to understanding what is happening in your riding. And you can’t replicate that unless you’re at home.”

Our View from the Hill

Video series: Paul Wells in conversation with … 

Ralph Goodale on troubles in the House: (Son of omnibus, come on down)
“There is concern about the House’s inability to perform up to the quality standards that Canadians would expect, but it’s still a place that is the central focus — the central crucible — of Canadian democracy and I think that people hope for the best.”

Michael Chong on thinking local while in Ottawa
“Being a good constituency MP involves two things. The first is that you’ve got to help constituents out with access and government services, with listening to their concerns, with being in touch with them and having a sense of what’s going on on the ground … with being local, with understanding local issues — even if they’re not necessarily federal issues. The second thing a good constituency MP does is that in each and every decision they take up here on Parliament Hill, that they’re always thinking about what the voters back home would think and what they would want you to do.”

John Baird on playing the bulldog and reaching out 
“What gets media attention is the discord and disagreement. Whenever something is hot, it leads on the news, but there’s a good number of folks you can work across the aisle with … you can work collegially with. There are some people though that are a lot tougher to work with, so sometimes personal and political differences get in the way. But that doesn’t happen as often as you might expect.”

Bob Rae on the evolution of QP (more scripted and partisan)
“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

Joe Comartin on QP, rules and decorum (or lack thereof)
“There’s ways of making Parliament function for you if you know how the rules function — what the dynamics are in there, including the personalities that you are dealing with. Building that close relationship with other people is important — whether they’re in your party or others.”

VIDEO: The trouble with the House? Omnibus bills, to name one

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:13 AM - 0 Comments

“There is concern about the House’s inability to perform up to the quality standards that Canadians would expect, but it’s still a place that is the central focus — the central crucible — of Canadian democracy and I think that people hope for the best.”

Our View from the Hill

Video series: Paul Wells in conversation with … 

Michael Chong on thinking local while in Ottawa

“Being a good constituency MP involves two things. The first is that you’ve got to help constituents out with access and government services, with listening to their concerns, with being in touch with them and having a sense of what’s going on on the ground … with being local, with understanding local issues — even if they’re not necessarily federal issues. The second thing a good constituency MP does is that in each and every decision they take up here on Parliament Hill, that they’re always thinking about what the voters back home would think and what they would want you to do.”

Megan Leslie on the importance of flipping burgers and doing groceries
“Flipping burgers, how is that political work? It’s quite amazing. This summer, I fully realized the value of overhearing conversations at home — not in a creepy way. But even just being in a cafe and hearing what people are talking about, or being in the grocery store and hearing a family talk about the next time peanut butter is going to go on sale. That is important political work to understanding what is happening in your riding. And you can’t replicate that unless you’re at home.”

John Baird on playing the bulldog and reaching out 
“What gets media attention is the discord and disagreement. Whenever something is hot, it leads on the news, but there’s a good number of folks you can work across the aisle with … you can work collegially with. There are some people though that are a lot tougher to work with, so sometimes personal and political differences get in the way. But that doesn’t happen as often as you might expect.”

Bob Rae on the evolution of QP (more scripted and partisan)
“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

Joe Comartin on QP, rules and decorum (or lack thereof)
“There’s ways of making Parliament function for you if you know how the rules function — what the dynamics are in there, including the personalities that you are dealing with. Building that close relationship with other people is important — whether they’re in your party or others.”

VIDEO: On thinking local while in Ottawa

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:13 AM - 0 Comments

“Being a good constituency MP involves two things. The first is that you’ve got to help constituents out with access and government services, with listening to their concerns, with being in touch with them and having a sense of what’s going on on the ground … with being local, with understanding local issues — even if they’re not necessarily federal issues. The second thing a good constituency MP does is that in each and every decision they take up here on Parliament Hill, that they’re always thinking about what the voters back home would think and what they would want you to do.”

Our View from the Hill

Video series: Paul Wells in conversation with … 

Ralph Goodale on troubles in the House: (Son of omnibus, come on down)
“There is concern about the House’s inability to perform up to the quality standards that Canadians would expect, but it’s still a place that is the central focus — the central crucible — of Canadian democracy and I think that people hope for the best.”

Megan Leslie on the importance of flipping burgers and doing groceries

“Flipping burgers, how is that political work? It’s quite amazing. This summer, I fully realized the value of overhearing conversations at home — not in a creepy way. But even just being in a cafe and hearing what people are talking about, or being in the grocery store and hearing a family talk about the next time peanut butter is going to go on sale. That is important political work to understanding what is happening in your riding. And you can’t replicate that unless you’re at home.”

John Baird on playing the bulldog and reaching out 
“What gets media attention is the discord and disagreement. Whenever something is hot, it leads on the news, but there’s a good number of folks you can work across the aisle with … you can work collegially with. There are some people though that are a lot tougher to work with, so sometimes personal and political differences get in the way. But that doesn’t happen as often as you might expect.”

Bob Rae on the evolution of QP (more scripted and partisan)
“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

Joe Comartin on QP, rules and decorum (or lack thereof)
“There’s ways of making Parliament function for you if you know how the rules function — what the dynamics are in there, including the personalities that you are dealing with. Building that close relationship with other people is important — whether they’re in your party or others.”

VIDEO: On playing the bulldog and reaching across the aisle

By Macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:13 AM - 0 Comments

“What gets media attention is the discord and disagreement. Whenever something is hot, it leads on the news, but there’s a good number of folks you can work across the aisle with … you can work collegially with. There are some people though that are a lot tougher to work with, so sometimes personal and political differences get in the way. But that doesn’t happen as often as you might expect.”

Our View from the Hill
Video series: Paul Wells in conversation with … 

Ralph Goodale on troubles in the House: (Son of omnibus, come on down)
“There is concern about the House’s inability to perform up to the quality standards that Canadians would expect, but it’s still a place that is the central focus — the central crucible — of Canadian democracy and I think that people hope for the best.”

Michael Chong on thinking local while in Ottawa
“Being a good constituency MP involves two things. The first is that you’ve got to help constituents out with access and government services, with listening to their concerns, with being in touch with them and having a sense of what’s going on on the ground … with being local, with understanding local issues — even if they’re not necessarily federal issues. The second thing a good constituency MP does is that in each and every decision they take up here on Parliament Hill, that they’re always thinking about what the voters back home would think and what they would want you to do.”

Megan Leslie on the importance of flipping burgers and doing groceries
“Flipping burgers, how is that political work? It’s quite amazing. This summer, I fully realized the value of overhearing conversations at home — not in a creepy way. But even just being in a cafe and hearing what people are talking about, or being in the grocery store and hearing a family talk about the next time peanut butter is going to go on sale. That is important political work to understanding what is happening in your riding. And you can’t replicate that unless you’re at home.”

Bob Rae on the evolution of QP (more scripted and partisan)
“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

Joe Comartin on QP, rules and decorum (or lack thereof)
“There’s ways of making Parliament function for you if you know how the rules function — what the dynamics are in there, including the personalities that you are dealing with. Building that close relationship with other people is important — whether they’re in your party or others.”

VIDEO: On QP, rules and decorum (or lack thereof)

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:13 AM - 0 Comments

“There’s ways of making Parliament function for you if you know how the rules function — what the dynamics are in there, including the personalities that you are dealing with. Building that close relationship with other people is important — whether they’re in your party or others.”

Our View from the Hill
Video series: Paul Wells in conversation with … 

Ralph Goodale on troubles in the House: (Son of omnibus, come on down)
“There is concern about the House’s inability to perform up to the quality standards that Canadians would expect, but it’s still a place that is the central focus — the central crucible — of Canadian democracy and I think that people hope for the best.”

Michael Chong on thinking local while in Ottawa
“Being a good constituency MP involves two things. The first is that you’ve got to help constituents out with access and government services, with listening to their concerns, with being in touch with them and having a sense of what’s going on on the ground … with being local, with understanding local issues — even if they’re not necessarily federal issues. The second thing a good constituency MP does is that in each and every decision they take up here on Parliament Hill, that they’re always thinking about what the voters back home would think and what they would want you to do.”

Megan Leslie on the importance of flipping burgers and doing groceries
“Flipping burgers, how is that political work? It’s quite amazing. This summer, I fully realized the value of overhearing conversations at home — not in a creepy way. But even just being in a cafe and hearing what people are talking about, or being in the grocery store and hearing a family talk about the next time peanut butter is going to go on sale. That is important political work to understanding what is happening in your riding. And you can’t replicate that unless you’re at home.”

John Baird on playing the bulldog and reaching out 
“What gets media attention is the discord and disagreement. Whenever something is hot, it leads on the news, but there’s a good number of folks you can work across the aisle with … you can work collegially with. There are some people though that are a lot tougher to work with, so sometimes personal and political differences get in the way. But that doesn’t happen as often as you might expect.”

Bob Rae on the evolution of QP (more scripted and partisan)
“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

VIDEO: ‘The House has become a much more scripted and partisan place’

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:13 AM - 0 Comments

“The House is much more partisan, scripted place and I don’t think it’s an improvement. I think it’s a deterioration in the quality of parliamentary life. I really do. I think things are getting worse.”

Parliamentarian of the year, 2011: Bob Rae

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:12 AM - 0 Comments

(Photography: Andrew Tolson/Maclean's)

Shortly after Bob Rae was first elected in 1978, John Diefenbaker, the former prime minister who remained a MP until his death in 1979 at the age of 83, imparted two pieces of advice: “Don’t take any s–t from anybody,” and “Go for the throat every time.”

VIDEO: BOB RAE IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

These might be words to live by, but Rae looked elsewhere for inspiration—to Allan MacEachen, the legendary Liberal, and Tommy Douglas, the patron saint of the NDP. MacEachen was a commanding presence who taught Rae you couldn’t be yelling all the time, that you had to have “more than one gear.” Douglas was disciplined and practical. He cracked jokes and didn’t hold grudges. And it was Douglas who told him to eschew notes when speaking in the House. “Because as soon as you start to do it, he says, you lose all the spontaneity and all the effect,” Rae recalls.

Here are the makings of a master of the House.

Continue…

Parliamentarian of the year, 2011 (most knowledgeable): Joe Comartin

By Emma Teitel - Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 1:09 AM - 0 Comments

Photography: Peter Bregg/Maclean's

Joe Comartin reads for roughly two hours each day—often 10 minutes squeezed “here and there”—but he says he longs to read more. There’s always more to know. “I think I read only about half what I’d like to,” the NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh tells Maclean’s. The former criminal lawyer is up by 6 a.m. and on the Hill by 7:30 every morning. “I begin my day with preparatory work,” says Comartin, “and paperwork—which accumulates constantly.” Comartin, an expert on House procedure, intelligence services and criminal law, says he prepares extensively for speeches, debates and procedural motions, but often feels unfulfilled when they’re over. “I never feel comfortable we’ve covered enough,” he says. His love of learning makes him an obvious choice for “Most Knowledgeable MP,” and his perspective isn’t limited to politics.

VIDEO: JOE COMARTIN IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

Comartin is a Margaret Atwood fanatic and counts Saskatchewan-born authors Alistair MacLeod and Guy Vanderhaeghe among his favourites, though he can’t pronounce the latter’s name, he’ll freely admit. And he’s a long-time “military buff,” he says, having spent time in the reserves in his youth. The ancient Romans and Mongols, particularly their wartime tactics, are a favourite area of study. When he’s not working—which is extremely rare, he notes—he likes to spend time with his grandchildren or travelling with his wife, often visiting “historical sites that may show up in a novel or article.”

Parliamentarian of the year, 2011 (best represents constituents): Michael Chong

By Jen Cutts - Monday, November 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM - 0 Comments

(Photography: Peter Bregg/Maclean's)

Michael Chong’s guiding political rule is: always pay attention to your constituents. “The least we can do for people who have disagreements with the government is to relay those concerns to Ottawa,” he says. “They want to know that, at the very least, they’re being listened to.”

VIDEO: MICHAEL CHONG IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

Perhaps best known for resigning from the Harper cabinet after refusing to support a government motion recognizing the Québécois as a nation, the Tory backbencher remains a hometown hero in Wellington-Halton Hills, the riding in which he grew up, and now represents. This past spring, the self-described “Wellington County boy” took nearly 64 per cent of the vote in his fourth straight electoral win; few of his opponents bothered putting up signs, or showing up for all-candidates’ meetings.

While knocking on doors during the campaign, Chong, the son of a Chinese father and a Dutch mother, says he got an earful about the sorry state of our democratic institutions. That inspired him to renew his crusade for decorum in the House. Last year, Chong tabled a motion seeking improvements to question period-capping answers at 35 seconds, setting schedules that would put the prime minister on the hot seat for 45 minutes every Wednesday, as in the U.K., and allotting days to specific ministries, like Finance Fridays. Chong, who turns 40 this week, is hoping to table the motion, which died on the floor after the election call, as soon as he has the opportunity.

As for his birthday plans, he celebrated early, with his wife Carrie, and three young boys; on the day itself, he’ll be in Ottawa, working for his constituents.

Parliamentarian of the year, 2010: John Baird

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 19, 2012 at 11:45 PM - 0 Comments

(Photography: Peter Bregg/Maclean's)

On a sweltering morning one week ago, the standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics convened in Parliament’s West Block to hear the testimony of Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister’s director of communications. Only the government, in a new test of parliamentary democracy, had decided it would no longer allow its staff to appear at such hearings. And so, in Soudas’s place, the Prime Minister’s Office sent John Baird.

VIDEO: JOHN BAIRD IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

What followed was a great tempest. But while opposition members fumed—”This in my view is a subversion of Canadians,” snapped Liberal MP Wayne Easter—there were caveats for Baird. The Bloc’s Carole Freeman lamented that he was not who the committee had asked for, but welcomed Baird personally: “I’ve got nothing against Mr. Baird attending the committee. I even find it charming.” That adjective was then seconded by the NDP’s Bill Siksay. “I think,” offered Conservative Pierre Poilievre at one point, “we could probably pass a motion to that effect if it were so moved.”

Continue…

Parliamentarian of the year, 2009 (best rookie): Megan Leslie

By John Geddes - Monday, November 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM - 0 Comments

Like a lot of the MPs elected for the first time last fall, Megan Leslie didn’t have quite as much time as she might have liked to prepare to take her seat in the House. It resumed sitting exactly one month after the Oct. 14 election, an unusually short time for rookies to get set up. “I was a sitting MP without an office,” the Halifax New Democrat says. “Without staff. Without pens.”

VIDEO: MEGAN LESLIE IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

Not only was Leslie obliged to plunge into Parliament, Parliament itself was soon plunged into turmoil. Last fall’s crisis—when Prime Minister Stephen Harper narrowly averted being unseated by an Opposition coalition—was a frenetic introduction to life on the Hill.

But those unlikely first weeks didn’t seem to throw Leslie, 35, off balance. In less than six months in the House, she has attracted an unusual amount of notice—enough to win her the best rookie MP title in the Maclean’s poll of her peers. She speaks with a passion on subjects like energy efficiency, and she sees potential to make an impact where others bemoan the ordinary MP’s impotence. “It’s really remarkable to see how much influence you can have if you are prepared, understand the issues well, and are confident,” she says. “I’ve seen MPs walk into committees and say, ‘This is the way we should be going,’ and other MPs—it doesn’t matter which party—say, ‘Yeah, I agree with that.’ ”

Continue…

Parliamentarian of the year, 2006: Ralph Goodale

By John Geddes - Monday, November 19, 2012 at 11:38 PM - 0 Comments

(Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Ralph Goodale is not the sort of politician who generates a lot of chatter. He lacks the hint of mystery of, say, Michael Ignatieff, or Stephen Harper’s ideological edge, or Jack Layton’s partisan intensity. By contrast, Goodale has those stolid, dependable qualities we often claim to crave from our politicians, just before turning our gaze back toward more complex and divisive figures.

VIDEO: RALPH GOODALE IN CONVERSATION WITH PAUL WELLS

But Ralph Goodale is the best MP in Canada according to his colleagues, who voted him the honour in an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted for Maclean’s, L’actualité and the Dominion Institute. And his story is gripping in its own way—a classic Canadian survival saga. He’s a farm-bred Saskatchewan Liberal, a rare Prairie species that often looks as vulnerable as the swift fox. He suffered humbling setbacks that almost ended his political career in the 1980s, but rode the victories that followed to very near the pinnacle of federal power. Then, after doggedly building and rebuilding a career based on personal credibility, he saw that precious reputation for incorruptibility and competence put to a painful test in last January’s election.

He’s the enduring type. Goodale has the frame of a man who’d be handy to have around when you need to move a sofa bed up a flight of stairs. He hits the gym as much as he can, has bench-pressed 180 lb., and reputedly once lifted the end of the Miata he was about to ride in a Regina parade. (He neither confirms nor denies the legend.) Asked about the essence of his appeal, friends often use Goodale’s stocky five-foot-seven-and-a-half build as a metaphor for his character. Stable. Not to be knocked off course. “Some people, you seem to be able to tell their values just to look at them,” says David Herle, another Liberal from Saskatchewan and one-time top adviser to Paul Martin. “Ralph’s one of those people.”

Continue…

#Herb50: Liberals in Ottawa paint town Gray for party hero

By macleans.ca - Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:20 PM - 0 Comments

#Herb50: Not for the first time, Liberals paint the town Gray

The Liberal Party of Canada celebrated past and future Monday at the Chateau Laurier. The gathering, which marked the kickoff of the LPC leadership campaign, also honoured Herb Gray, who served as MP for Essex West for four decades. The event is underway as we type, but here’s a peek at festivities:

Storified by Maclean’s Magazine · Tue, Nov 20 2012 02:47:12

Politics on TV: Starring Mark Carney, Gary Doer and David Jacobson

By Dale Smith - Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM - 0 Comments

Message of the day

“The Americans need to deal with the ‘fiscal cliff.’”

Questions not answered

• How long until we can expect a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline?

Mark Carney:

Power & Politics interviewed Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, who said that in the aftermath of the U.S. election, with a strong mandate for Obama and the Democrats holding the Senate, there is now the need to address the “fiscal cliff.” Carney said that the “cliff” of tax hikes and spending cuts was set as an incentive for deals to be struck, and while each side will be looking for a political advantage, it’s in everyone’s best interests make a deal. As for our economy, Carney said that we could provide stimulus on the monetary side or have other measures, but there is no need to do so in anticipation of what may or may not happen with that deal. Carney also spoke about the new polymer $20 banknotes that went into circulation today, which Carney calls the most advanced currency in the world, and that they are cheaper, greener, and safer than old banknotes.

Continue…

Taking the shine off those gold-plated pensions

By macleans.ca - Monday, October 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM - 0 Comments

ADRIAN WYLD/CP IMAGES

Hypocrisy has rarely found firmer footing than in the matter of politicians’ pensions. Rule-makers in Parliament have long exempted themselves from the very rules they imposed on the rest of us. Last week, however, Ottawa finally established a more realistic and austere pension plan for federal politicians.

The changes to MP pensions, pried out of the Conservatives’ latest omnibus bill and given swift all-party approval on Friday, will shift the age of eligibility for MPs from 55 years to 65. This is a significant move in terms of fairness, particularly given Ottawa’s plan to raise eligibility for Old Age Security to 67 years for everyone else. Annual pension contributions will also rise substantially—from the current $11,000 to almost $39,000, which amounts to nearly a quarter of an MP’s basic salary. And in a symbolic move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has cut his own post-political haul by hundreds of thousands of dollars. A little-known prime minister’s allowance, paid to former prime ministers who’ve served at least four years, has been significantly reduced and the changes made retroactive to when Harper first took office.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which has quite properly derided “gold-plated” political pensions across Canada for years, called the moves “the most significant reform to MP pensions we’ve seen in our 22-year history.” While MP pensions are still rather more attractive than the average Canadian’s retirement package—they kick in after just six years of service, for example—the federal government has brought an appropriate balance to this tricky business.

Any discussion of MP pay and benefits must recognize that democracy is improved when Canadians from a variety of occupations, income brackets and viewpoints are able to enter politics. But middle-class aspirants can’t simply skip their best earning years to seek office if the job of MP is not appropriately compensated. It’s worth noting the C.D. Howe Institute recently recommended any hikes in MP pension contribution rates be accompanied by MP pay increases to compensate for the extra expense, something the current reform package avoids. So the changes are actually a bit more parsimonious than some critics demanded. Perhaps the perennial issue of MP pensions has finally been retired.

For those of us in the business, last week’s announcement of the demise of Newsweek’s print edition feels almost like a death in the family. But while Newsweek may have given up on the printed word, Maclean’s most certainly has not.

Newsweek, with a history stretching back to 1933, will shortly be subsumed into online news site The Daily Beast and cease to exist as a paper publication. “We’ve taken the big digital step,” editor-in-chief Tina Brown said in announcing the move.

But it’s a mistake to draw any broader lessons from the death of Newsweek. The magazine suffered sharp declines in readership of late (and according to the latest report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, its circulation fell 53 per cent between 2007 and 2011). Maclean’s, on the other hand, has seen our overall readership improving in the last few years. We now boast 2,474,000 total weekly readers—and among the supposedly fickle 18-34 age demographic, our readership has held steady at approximately 25 per cent.

Any proper eulogy of Newsweek must note its death looks to have been largely self-inflicted. Its editors seemed to have given up on the printed page long before last week’s decision. A recent double-issue of the magazine contained just 68 pages. Maclean’s, on the other hand, has been steadily increasing the amount of content we offer readers; the regular weekly issue weighs in at 84 pages and our upcoming special editions, such as the widely anticipated University Rankings and Newsmakers issues tip the scales far beyond that. Further, readers’ appetite for the newsweekly format remains strong, a fact proven not only by our numbers but the continued success of other international brand names such as The Economist and Der Speigel.

Of course everyone in the industry recognizes digital delivery is becoming increasingly important, and Maclean’s is firmly committed to our online and tablet editions. This week, in fact, our digital coverage earned gold awards in news, social media and cross-platform programming at the Canadian Online Publishing Awards. And we’re equally excited about our new range of ebooks, which permit lengthier, in-depth examinations of topics from Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee to the Shafia honour-killing trial.

However you choose to read us, Maclean’s plans on delivering the best in news and opinion for another 107 years.

Letters

By macleans.ca - Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 6:10 AM - 0 Comments

Peter Bregg for Maclean’s

The son also rises

For the sake of the federal Liberals I sincerely hope Justin Trudeau is thick-skinned, Teflon-coated and has several ounces of the same charisma that catapulted his father Pierre Trudeau not only as the Liberal leader, but indeed as a world leader on the international stage (“On his terms,” National, Oct. 15). Anything short of these political ingredients shall spell catastrophic disaster, dismay and disillusion for the aimlessly wandering and waning Liberals.

Chodu Ostrovaski, Mississauga, Ont.

When I opened my Oct. 15 copy of Maclean’s, all these silver spoons fell out of it. Why is that?

A.J. Comstock, Toronto

Any doubt as to whether the next Liberal leadership convention would be a legitimate race or a coronation has certainly been settled with Maclean’s characteristic lucidity. Thanks for the 26-page spread on Prince Justin. If that ain’t royal treatment, I don’t know what is!

Pat Gracey, Dundas, Ont.

Justin Trudeau has only been an MP for three years; before that he was a schoolteacher. Remember Barack Obama also came from a whole three years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was a community social worker; his performance as President has been disappointing to even his most ardent supporters. Since Trudeau’s appearance as a politician, your magazine has dedicated a substantial amount of coverage to him. While other potential Liberal leaders languish in the background despite having achieved substantially more during their careers, it seems that Maclean’s is eagerly holding the crown up over Trudeau’s head in anticipation of his coronation next April.

Allan Garber, Markham, Ont.

Conservatives should all stand up and support Justin Trudeau in his run for the leadership of the Liberals. If an impuissant environmentalist like Stéphane Dion, or an American academic like Michael Ignatieff didn’t fire up the Conservative base in opposition, just wait until the spawn of Canada’s greatest spender takes the helm of Canada’s greatest-spending party.

Mischa Popoff, Osoyoos, B.C.

I look forward to more 26-page spreads should Marc Garneau or Mark Carney decide to run for the Liberal leadership (“The right contender,” National, Oct. 15).

Alan Wainwright, Ottawa

Unchain your daughters

Pat Brown’s book How to Save Your Daughter’s Life (“Lock up your daughters,” Help, Oct. 15) is another manifestation of victim-blaming culture that plagues girls and women across the globe. Victim blaming promotes the idea that a girl should be held partially or fully responsible for a sexual assault or abuse committed against her. Proposing ways to regulate a girl’s behaviour—whether it be disguised as parenting advice or not—to keep her “safe from perverts and psychopaths” is absolutely no different. To shift the focus onto what a girl should do only serves to chastise the victims while condoning the criminal behaviour. Really, “never allow your daughter to be alone with a controlling boy”? Perhaps our sons cannot be trusted and should not be permitted out of the house. As a criminal profiler, Brown should stick to patrolling the behaviour and minds of bad people—not our daughters.

Özlem Eskicioglu, Ottawa

Both Pat Brown’s book and the article about it are based on unresearched, fear-mongering drivel for parents who are just trying to do the right thing.

Dr. Trina E. Read, Calgary

Pat Brown’s “advice” supports the notion of overbearing and oppressive helicopter parents. These parents are raising incapable, completely dependent young adults, while society berates a generation that is babied and is unready for the world at large. She suggests oppression of girls to fight the evils of the world, rather than empowerment, engagement and proper parenting. Home schooling, knitting and stamp collecting completely demean the skills that truly protect daughters: problem solving, assertiveness and self-confidence in social settings. Brown’s tips create girls unprepared for the real world, which neither begins nor ends at the age of 18. If Brown wants to protect a generation of young women, she should influence attitudes away from oppression and toward empowerment.

Megan Beretta, Ottawa

As a teenage girl reading the article about Pat Brown’s new book on raising daughters to be safe from “perverts, psychopaths, drugs and depression,” I was completely horrified by her views on parenting. Maybe I have been too privileged being raised by parents who trust my judgment and common sense enough to let me have basic freedoms boys my own age are allowed, like learning to drive or choosing who I want to date. Instead of locking up your daughters, teach your sons not to hate and rape women.

Monica Mason, Toronto

Not so, Ed Fast

Ed Fast, our minister for international trade (Interview, Oct. 15), claims net 19 per cent improvement in trade with China in 2011. But look at Industry Canada’s manufactured-goods data. Trade deficit with China 2007 to 2011: net 22.4 per cent increase since Stephen Harper took office. In same time period, the manufacturing trade deficit with all foreign countries almost tripled. The only possible conclusion? Harper’s trade record is dismal. How can we believe claims of benefits in proposed new trade deals with the EU and the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Our manufactured goods trade deficit in 2011 was $92.4 billion, $2,679 for each Canadian. If we kept this money working in Canada, rather than hemorrhaging out to foreign countries, we would have plenty of money for investment.

Edward J. Farkas, Toronto

Such innocuous words: “non-tariff trade barriers.” What Minister Fast fails to mention is that those barriers can include environmental regulations, labour laws and food safety practices. That is why Canadians should keep an eye on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We must demand details be made public before we sign on the bottom line. I am neither anti-trade nor anti-investment, but I do want to know exactly what I am paying for before I buy it.

Kevin Conway, Ottawa

Corporate tax cuts, public pain

Lower taxes on corporations bring more investment to Canada—that’s pretty much a no-brainer (“A few kind words for corporate tax cuts,” From the Editors, Oct. 8). But what’s the end result? Are people in general better off, or just the corporate heads and their investors? And please, don’t tell me this is about jobs—there are good jobs and awful jobs. Are people able to put decent food on the table? To look after their children and their own health? Have a decent place to live? I’m much more interested in those statistics than in how much investment there is in Canada, or how many jobs there are.

Chris Purton, Farleigh Lake, B.C.

All-or-nothing stance on abortion

It seems the reasoning behind choices to terminate female fetuses or ones with Down’s syndrome has less to do with “selection” than Emma Teitel opines (“A system of selective mercy,” Opinion, Oct. 15), and are more about cultural values, socio-economics and survival. If female fetuses grew up to be higher-income wage earners like male fetuses, and adequate funding went into care and support for children with special needs, many women would likely choose differently. It’s money at the root of this “evil,” not a medical procedure.

Danica Loncar, Toronto

Emma Teitel is right to point out that our current utilitarian calculus for defining personhood is illogical and impossible to apply without morally repugnant results. She continues to reason validly to the conclusion that “abortion is an all-or-none paradigm.” Her next statement about how the debate must be framed, however, begs the question, in that it accepts as a premise the tired formulation that abortion is principally about a woman’s “right to dominion over her own body.” Respectfully, that is not the question at the heart of either Stephen Woodworth’s bill or the larger abortion debate. The critical issue is instead whether the fetus is human. If it is, it is by definition a (human) body of its own, not part of its mother’s.

Dr. Philip Toman, New Hamburg, Ont.

Rushdie was right all along

Having just finished Salman Rushdie’s new book, Joseph Anton, I would like to congratulate Brian Bethune on his review (Books, Oct. 15). As Bethune points out, its publication is unfortunately timely, given the recent violence over an anti-Muslim film. But there is another coincidence even more relevant to us now: the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from Canada. Joseph Anton is full with moments when Iranian embassy officials were linked to threats to the author and to some of the nastiest press he received in Britain. We should not be naive about the pressures that may be exerted on émigrés here, or the propaganda aimed at media or at university groups. The weak-kneed responses of some among the liberal-left are already notorious, as is their excuse of cultural relativism.

Eve Schnitzer, Ottawa

Service with a smile

I was thrilled to read your article on dentists providing Botox (“Brush, floss and Botox,” Society, Sept. 10). My patients are grateful for this welcome addition to my practice. Administering Botox couldn’t be a more natural extension of my dental school training, which involved rigorous anatomy courses, including dissecting a cadaver with emphasis on neural pathways and muscle groups, all key to understanding this procedure and achieving the desired results. Dentists are extremely comfortable with injections; we give upwards of 10 or 20 or more per day. My profits from Botox are no more than what I make otherwise per unit time. I find it extremely rewarding that I can contribute to making my patients look and feel their best.

Dr. Rebecca Booker, D.D.S., Nanaimo, B.C.

Baby gadgets

I was flabbergasted after reading “Tablets for toddlers” (Business, Oct. 15). Obviously, for technology companies this is a great niche, as there are plenty of parents begging for more products to entertain their kids and keep them quiet. Why do these parents decide to have kids just to have them vegetating with those little screens all the time? I would at least expect them to not complain later when their kids show ADHD-type syndromes or inability for social interaction, let alone negligent, violent behaviour toward others.

Miguel Flores, Mississauga, Ont.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty resigns, prorogues legislature

By macleans.ca - Monday, October 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM - 0 Comments

Ontario Premier McGuinty resigns, prorogues legislature

At an emergency caucus meeting on Monday evening, the Premier of Ontario made two surprise announcements in this order: 1. The Legislature has been prorogued. 2. He is resigning as premier and party leader. Reporters and politicians were caught off guard by the announcements:

Storified by Maclean’s Magazine · Mon, Oct 15 2012 15:55:06

CPC vs. PBO, John Baird, the Liberal race: The Maclean’s View from Parliament Hill:

By macleans.ca - Monday, October 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM - 0 Comments

John Geddes, Aaron Wherry and Paul Wells review the week in Parliament. In today’s briefing: Kevin Page, would-be leaders and Canada’s foreign minister.

Nate Silver crunches the numbers

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:00 AM - 0 Comments

When a string of new polls came out this week showing Mitt Romney making major gains on the heels of his aggressive debate performance against a subdued President Barack Obama, there was a sense of panic among the President’s supporters. “Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever?” fretted commentator Andrew Sullivan. “On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.

Democrats mourned and Republicans gloated, but one voice stayed calm amidst the furor.

Nate Silver, a 34-year-old Brooklyn-based statistician and blogger who correctly predicted the results of 49 out of 50 states and every Senate race in the 2008 election, tried to cool emotions on Monday. “According to Twitter, Barack Obama went from a huge favorite at 1 p.m. to a huge underdog at 4 p.m.,” Silver tweeted. “Get a grip, people.”

Silver’s blog, FiveThirtyEight.com (named for the number of electors in the U.S. Electoral College system that technically elects presidents), was licensed by the New York Times after his 2008 success. In a post on Sunday, he counselled caution in over-interpreting the latest polls: “Polling data is often very noisy, and not all polls use equally rigorous methodology. But the polls, as a whole, remain consistent with the idea that they may end up settling where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama ahead by about two points. Such an outcome would be in line with what history and the fundamentals of the economy would lead you to expect.”

Continue…

Elect Big Brother

By Tamsin McMahon - Saturday, October 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM - 0 Comments

Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute

Canadians were rightly alarmed earlier this year when details of a secretive figure named Pierre Poutine first came to light. Using an auto-dialing service in Quebec, an anonymous partisan operative allegedly sent voters identified as non-Conservatives to the wrong polling stations during the 2011 federal election. But while the so-called “robocall affair” exposed the underbelly of today’s political campaigns, it also opened a door into a world where political parties exploit our ever-growing webs of personal data.

Mobilizing your supporters and discouraging your opponents, the bread and butter of any election campaign, was once a matter of recruiting enough volunteers to canvass neighbourhoods and drive people to the polls. These days, it’s increasingly the work of data analysts and behavioural scientists who collect reams of publicly available personal information and use computer algorithms to exploit it. Their goal: nothing short of pinpointing the fears and hopes that motivate individual voters, and using that information to target them for donations and votes on election day.

How you vote may seem like the last bastion of individual agency, but political campaigns say they can predict what messages will move you with unnerving accuracy by studying everything from your home address, to your magazine subscriptions, to what you like to watch on TV on a Saturday night—or even whether or not you own a TV in the first place. Dubbed “microtargeting,” these new techniques promise to have profound implications for the political process. “The idea of Pierre Poutine, it was funny,” says Carleton University professor and former Reform party pollster André Turcotte. “But the real story is in what parties are doing and not doing with their data and about how that technique is hijacking the political process.”

Continue…

Trudeau-mania 2.0?

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM - 0 Comments

Wrongs and rights: how did Quebec’s student standoff come to this?

By Emmett Macfarlane - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM - 0 Comments

Ryan Remiorz/CP Images

Reasoned debate is off the table. The student protesters and the Charest government are sharply at odds – in fact, they despise each other – but they’ve collaborated in one respect: each side has acted to ensure that rather than a robust public discussion about how to fund the province’s universities we get an ugly, protracted battle about the right to protest.

Why has the situation deteriorated so miserably? There is no shortage of finger-pointing on either side.

From the government’s perspective, too many protesters engaged in unacceptable tactics, including blocking non-protesting students from attending classes, vandalism, intimidation and violence. Some critics assert that the peaceful majority failed to condemn, in strong enough words, the hooliganism of those in their midst. Then, last week, classes on one campus were literally invaded, in defiance of court injunctions.

From the protesters’ perspective, the government has been obstinate, initially refusing to meet with student groups and then offering a fishy-looking compromise they quickly and roundly rejected. Peaceful, legitimate protests were often broken up by police. Then the government passed a law which, as I wrote here a few days ago, criminalizes peaceful protest in ways that are likely unconstitutional.

It is this latest decision by the Charest government that has guaranteed consecutive nights of tension, violence and arrests for the foreseeable future. By passing, in hurried and thoughtless fashion, a bill that casts its net so widely, that contains vague provisions and harsh penalties, and that does next to nothing to address the real lawlessness that supposedly necessitated it, the government has legitimated the sense of victimhood that so thoroughly saturates the rhetoric adopted by student leaders.

If much of the blame falls to the government for exacerbating the situation, the protesters – especially the student leaders – are by no means exonerated. That their response to unacceptable legislation was to label it a declaration of war was no heat-of-the-moment exaggeration. Well before the Charest government crossed the line, the movement had declared itself the “Quebec Spring,” with protesters likening themselves to revolutionaries battling a totalitarian state.

It is this mindset that impoverishes our political discourse. It is emblematic of a shift away from policy debate, political compromise and democratic deliberation. It is an attitude that infects people of all political persuasions, although it tends to be more intense among the less moderate on either side.

Some of the protesters’ critics have dismissed the entire movement as representative of a “culture of entitlement.” I think this is problematic, largely because it ignores the reasons and justifications for their legitimate position (even if I happen to disagree with them). There should be room for the policy debate, for the expression of legitimate concerns about access, equality and universality with respect to post-secondary education.

The real problem is the increasing tendency to replace policy discussion and political debate with the invocation of rights. Invoking rights is the equivalent of playing a trump card. It leaves no room for compromise. It denies the validity of other perspectives or alternatives. It reduces political discourse to the making of demands. It subjugates other values, policy ideas or arguments about the distribution of resources. It risks replacing logic and deliberation with emotion and threats.

Now, lest anyone think I’m arguing otherwise, let me state the obvious: fundamental rights are imperative for any functioning democracy. More specifically, the right to free expression and free assembly (including the right to protest) must be fiercely protected.

That said, not everything is a right. In the face of a bylaw regulating unkempt lawns, for example, it would be incorrect to claim one has a “right” to let his or her grass grow three feet tall.

Even more significantly, the fundamental rights we do enjoy also come with limits. This is a fact which almost never emerges in debates about rights. My own research has demonstrated, for example, that media coverage of Supreme Court of Canada decisions concerning the Charter of Rights often ignores the extensive analysis the Court engages in about whether rights limitations are reasonable under the law. The very first section of the Charter is a statement that the rights within are subject to reasonable limits and limitations analysis is often the core feature of Charter cases.

The problem is not that Quebec’s student protesters have asserted the right to protest. The problem is their rhetoric and actions are premised on the notion that a tuition increase constitutes an unreasonable violation of their fundamental rights. They believe their concerns about accessibility and universality override other concerns, like sustainability or quality of education.

Many of those who support the student protests will find this argument unpersuasive. They’ve pointed to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, which includes free public education under its social and economic rights, conveniently ignoring the language of the section (“to the extent and according to the standards provided by law”).

More generally, critics’ response to my argument that the debate should not be about rights often amounts to “of course it should, unless you don’t believe in social justice.” The problem with social justice, like rights-based arguments, is that everyone favours it but have legitimate disagreements about what counts as social justice. For example, proponents of the tuition increase have pointed out that rather than functioning as a progressive policy, subsidizing tuition is in fact a regressive policy that disproportionately benefits the middle and upper classes.

Unfortunately, that policy debate has been taken off the table. Thanks in part to a foolish law passed by a government that has bungled its response to the protests from the beginning, the rights narrative dominates. And look at how productive it has been.

Emmett Macfarlane is a political scientist at the University of Victoria. You can follow him on Twitter: @EmmMacfarlane

Quebec’s protest crackdown: It’s not just rights that make it wrong

By Emmett Macfarlane - Saturday, May 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM - 0 Comments

Ryan Remiorz/CP Images

If you’ve listened to some of the commentary about Bill 78, emergency legislation purportedly designed to deal with the out-of-control student protests in Quebec, you’d assume the government has thrown a match onto a powder keg.

Some may have hoped that in the midst of its massive, ongoing failure to deal with the protests these past few months, the Charest government might finally turn the corner by passing a law to settle things down. This was sadly – though somehow not surprisingly – optimistic. Apparently no one knows how to sour a lemon like Jean Charest.

Legal experts and critics have pounced on the bill to declare, with all the subtlety of a window-smashing tuition-phobe, that it represents “mass repression” and constitutes “the worst law since the War Measures Act.” One student leader declared the bill “an act of war.” Such rhetoric is about as helpful as smoke bombs in a metro station.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some obvious Charter of Rights problems with this law. One of the worst provisions, which would have treated as guilty anyone who by “omission” or “encouragement” helps or induces a person to contravene elements of the bill, has reportedly been removed.

Another section requires anyone organizing a demonstration of more than 10 people (now amended to more than 50) in a “venue accessible to the public” to report the date, time, duration, and venue to the police at least eight hours ahead of time.

As Andrew Coyne has pointed out on Twitter, many other jurisdictions in the rest of Canada, the United States and Europe have similar reporting requirements. But these often apply to events like planned marches on public streets. Canadian courts are unlikely to find the very broad language here acceptable. Not all public demonstrations are public disruptions, nor are all publicly accessible spaces equal: it may be a reasonable restriction on freedom of assembly to require reporting and impose other limits on street protests. Imposing the same limits on demonstrations in parks or empty fields may not meet the threshold of reasonableness.

Many commentators have also expressed displeasure at the harsh fines in the bill but there’s no reason to believe the penalties themselves lack constitutionality.

Does the bill, even after amendments, overreach? Possibly. The language is too vague in some places, and a reverse-onus clause in the section dealing with the civil liability of student groups and institutions might be a problem. Does the bill compare to the War Measures Act? Not even close.

But in several important respects, the potential Charter issues aren’t the main reason this bill represents a major failure on the part of the Charest government.

First, the bill does nothing to address the lawlessness that has characterized tactics used by certain elements of the protest movement. All of these activities – flagrant defiance of court injunctions, violence, vandalism, intimidation and assault – were already illegal. The problem up until now has been a lack of enforcement, not a lack of legislation.

Second, by casting its net so wide, the bill threatens to criminalize the largely peaceful activities of a majority of the protesters. Given the current climate, this is a bad idea.

Third, the bill cancels (okay, technically it postpones) remaining classes. For people who blandly titled a bill “An Act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend,” I think the policy geniuses in Quebec City have an inappropriate flair for irony.

Finally, the bill encourages the protesters, media and critics to continue to frame the story as the Quebec state versus the right to protest. Such a narrative provides only a partial picture of the debate and of the rights that have been trampled during this saga. The majority of students in Quebec have not joined the protests; rather, they have sought to continue their classes. They have that right, or at least they did, until the government of Quebec failed to protect it

Emmett Macfarlane is a political scientist at the University of Victoria. You can follow him on Twitter @EmmMacfarlane

Quebec’s student protests: righteous anger, shame about the execution

By Martin Patriquin - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Chiasson/CP Images

At last, it's come true!

About a year and a half ago, sister mag L’Actualité published a rebuttal issue to our fun and frameable Bonhomme cover entitled Quebec: The Most Corrupt Province In Canada. Their cover picture depicted a pack of righteously outraged Bonhommes armed with (I think) vuvuzelas, marching in the street against corruption. The idea, of course, was that Quebecers were furious with corruption-addled Liberal government, and weren’t going to take it anymore.

I thought it was a neat-o picture. My friend/colleague Patrick Lagacé, not so much. “Bah,” he said when he saw the cover. ”Quebecers don’t protest in the streets unless it’s over a hockey team.”

Ouch.

And yet, he’s right, isn’t he? Despite being in power for nearly 10 years, most of which in the doldrums of public opinion, there has been no large-scale, grassroots protest against the Charest government. This is even more incredible given the numerous scandals (here, here, here and most recently here, for starters) over the last three or so years.

In fact, far from protesting the government, Quebecers keep re-electing it to office: Jean Charest’s Liberals are the only government since Duplessis to win three consecutive terms. If, as the polls suggest, Quebecers aren’t happy with the Charest government, they certainly haven’t done much about it. Meanwhile, the only blue march we’ve seen was a festive affair to (playfully) cajole the NHL into anointing Quebec City with a hockey team. Several thousands attended. And yes, there were plenty of vuvuzelas.

Which brings us to the current protest over tuition fees waging in the streets, Metros and, in an exceptionally unclassy episode today, in the classrooms of the province. I’m not sure when, exactly, it happened, but at some point the scope of the strike became larger even as those remaining on the street diminished. It’s at the point where CLASSE, the more radical of the four groups representing striking students, had its legitimacy challenged by Force étudiante critique, which counts among its members at least one of the alleged Metro smoke bombers.

The anti-capitalist group known as CLAC has incorporated “the fighting students” into its ranks of  ”radical feminists”, “anti-capitalists, anarchists, communists” and “those who are pissed off, and are at the end of their rope.” There are huge problems with their tactics and their rhetoric, but it remains that those students (and many non-students, surely) are the only ones to wear their discontent with the current government on their sleeve. Everyone else has stayed on the couch.

Of course, their boorish tactics and yawn-inducing nihilist spiel have only alienated these noyau dur protesters from a population that might otherwise feel a certain kinship to their cause. They aren’t humanitarians, freedom fighters or anything approaching such romantic connotations. At best, they are discontents; at their worst, thugs. Perversely, they add legitimacy to the government’s argument for a special law to end the strike. Yet there isn’t an ounce of apathy to their cause. The same can’t be said for the people watching them.

There is a much better outlet for their energies: work to vote the bums out. There are two political parties that at the very least support the broad strokes of the student movement. One of them, the Parti Québécois, stands a good chance of forming the next government—and its MNAs wear the red square on their lapels! Both these parties—the other is Québec solidaire—have histories of advocating broad social change, and together occupy a huge chunk of Quebec’s left political flank. Conveniently enough, there has to be an election within the next year and a half.

Marois and company, who know a thing or three about electoral pandering, need to be held to account on their pro-student rhetoric; meanwhile, Québec solidaire needs to elect more than one MNA. The low voter turnout, fueled largely by younger people staying home on election day, only helps the incumbent Liberals.

But no. There are injunctions to break, and windows that need smashing.