A Canadian Honeymoon - VIA Rail Canada’s Rolling National Park

Bright Sunshine and Grain Elevators in Melville, SK

This June, my wife and I embarked on our honeymoon on Via Rail Canada’s The Canadian. For the uninitiated, this is an epic journey of four nights and three days that traverses Canada from East to West (or West to East) between Toronto and Vancouver (or Vancouver and Toronto.) We departed from Toronto’s Union Station on May 31^st and made the incredible journey through Muskoka and the Canadian Shield, into the deep boreal forest of Northern Ontario and Manitoba; through Winnipeg, and the gorgeous Qu’Appelle river valley (who said the prairies were flat?) to Melville, SK, Saskatoon and big sky country. From there it was on to Edmonton and into the Rockies at the astoundingly beautiful “gateway to the Rockies” at Hinton, AB. Charming Jasper follows and, shortly thereafter, we trundled past, what we thought would be the climax of our journey at Mount Robson 3954m, the highest Canadian Rocky Mountain of them all. The immense beauty of the Rockies and their towering glacial peaks was not lost on us, but as we departed Kamloops at dusk and started to wind our way through the Thompson and Fraser river canyons, I was riveted to my seat/bed (I couldn’t bring myself to lie down. My wife was fast asleep.) It was a good thing too because, even as nighttime fell, the groaning of the three locomotives and the screeching of steel alluded to the sheer cliffs and raging rivers through which our train was navigating. The shimmer of the full-moon and the bright lights of our train created a surreal, if not downright spooky mood as tunnels, bridges and snake-like bends led us through a spell-binding stretch of track. Although I slept well the first three nights on the train, I spent most of this night by the window. By the time we pulled into Pacific Central Station in the morning, I was cheerfully worn out from what felt like a magical night on the Polar Express. As I looked around at the other passengers, with whom we had become close over the previous few days, I saw many sad faces; not because they didn’t enjoy their trip, but because it was time to say goodbye. We all knew something special had just happened and weren’t quite ready for it to end.

Rack of Lamb: Enough Said

The Polar Express is a fitting comparison for this train, which rightly holds the name The Canadian. While Santa Claus wasn’t waiting for us at Pacific Central station, this train turned us back into children. We learned incredible amounts about the forming of Canada as a nation along the way. In fact, we both agreed that we learned more about Canada during this trip than either of us did in history class (sorry Mr. Smith.) Did you know that Winnipeg has one of the largest French communities in Canada outside of Québec? (Saint-Boniface is the neighbourhood.) How about the fact that fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains showing that their peaks were once at the bottom of vast oceans? It wasn’t all history and geology though. We met other couples that were celebrating honeymoons and 50th anniversaries. We met families, solo travellers and train connoisseurs from all around the country and the world. We witnessed late night scrabble games in the dome car and participated in tastings of

Dave and Margaret from Scotland celebrating 50 years
of marriage and us on our honeymoon!

local wines and beers from the different regions through which we passed. We counted the cars on the mile-long freight trains as they went by and three times a day we savoured the outstanding creations of the chef-on-board (the rack-of-lamb was the best either of us has ever tasted.) When the train stopped in small towns along the way we went for romantic walks and took sappy selfies with everything from grain elevators to the station name-boards. It was a step outside of a complicated world and into a new reality full of spellbinding scenery, friendly faces and simplicity.

Nighttime setup for the new Prestige Class

There is a wide-range of accommodation options aboard the Canadian, and while we opted for the well-equipped bedroom for 2, there is an affordable economy class, section sleepers (which are like a restaurant booth that transforms into bunk-beds at night), roomettes (which have just enough room for one, with a toilet) and the all-new, ultra-luxurious prestige class. We received a tour of the new prestige class and VIA has got everything right with this new product which has huge rooms with double-beds, large-screen tvs, minibars, private showers and a very modern, elegant design. If you have the money, take the plunge.

If you don’t have the big bucks for the prestige class however, the other sleeping class options are more than acceptable and come with access to a hot-shower, which was far beyond my expectations. The water was steamy, the pressure was strong and I didn’t fall down once as we cruised along at 80mph! (note: trains still operate in miles per hour)

Generally when you write about something you save the best for last, so I will conclude this article by mentioning personally the absolutely amazing staff at VIA. Linda who took our reservation and gave us many helpful tips, such as booking us into a cabin “F” which is larger than the other Cabins for 2, and suggesting the Canadian Rail Travel Guide by Daryl Adair which was invaluable to following along the various points of interest and significance along the way.

Lucy at Union station who went out of her way to make a personal connection with each passenger and make sure everyone had everything they needed.

Tim and Meghan, our hosts in the dome car who were knowledgeable, funny, motivated, and extremely acute in “reading the crowd” and striking the balance between interesting anecdotes, activities and giving us time to simply enjoy the scenery.

Denis and Sylvie the Service Managers were incredible as well, making sure we were happy, communicating clearly with passengers, arranging a tour for us of the prestige class and even arranging for a complimentary bottle of wine for our honeymoon.

In the Dome car with our complimentary wine
Thank you VIA Rail!

Last but certainly not least, to Luco, Leah and Colleen, the sleeping car attendants who prepared our cabins, told us jokes, and helped us with any questions we had (in both official languages), we are truly thankful. All of the staff was professional, incredibly informative and was a sterling example of how customer service should be.

As an addendum, there have been concerns of late that the Canadian might be targeted for privatization and that the Rocky Mountaineer would love to take over this storied and historic train. After travelling from Toronto to Vancouver across this country, which never would have confederated without the railway, we can see that this train should continue to be owned by the public. This is our train. In many ways, it is a rolling National Park that takes us through our past, shows us our present, which in turn will help us build our future. In the National Parks Act it is written: “The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This train is Canada. It is the Canadian. It is ours. If you have already made the journey, let the powers at be know how much it meant to you. If you haven’t, take the trip, and you will fall in love with your country all over again. 

If I Have Nothing to Hide, Why Would I Need to Lie?

It has been awhile since The Blog Journalists have been in action, but a recent event in Canadian News has re-kindled my journalistic fire...and boy is it blazing over this one.

The report last week that the CRTC is weakening the blanket ban on false news to now only cover "any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health, or safety of the public." is a decision that could destroy the integrity of the Canadian media. One could even put forth the arguement, as some already have, that lax regulations such as these (the American version of this law is more stringent than the one proposed by the CRTC) can create an enviroment of distrust that can lead to violence such as the horrific shootings in Arizona this month. I am reluctant to blame events such as the one in Arizona on the media because, as we know, random acts of violence do happen. On the other hand, the media* is the lifeblood of our society. When pure, it serves as a source of truth that flows through us all, reinforcing democracy. In the same vein, if polluted with pathogenic stories that serve the interests of a select few however, it is not a stretch that body of our society would start to decay. This change in regulation threatens to turn us into media junkies with dirty needles full of addictive half-truisms sticking out of our arms; being told what others want us to hear instead of what is true. It sounds extreme, but watch a half-hour segment on FOX News and you'll know what I mean.

(*I dislike lumping all media together like this because when we hear this label we often think of just television or newspapers, but there are so many different media and platforms for us all to have our voices heard, epecially since the advent of new media through blogging, podcasting and social media.)

We would all like to believe it will not happen; that nothing will change; that even if little wisps of untruths started to float onto our screens, that we would see them; that they would scream out to us, or at least come with a disclaimer read at the end "Stories shown on this program may not be entirely accurate representations of what may or may not have actually happened." Yet we know that it will not be like this. To our eyes, nothing will change. We will never know.

Ultimately, anyone who wants to be a journalist whether independent or working for a major media corporation, should be bound to the pursuit of the truth. Of course everything is tinted by our own beliefs, but this should only affect our opinions on a subject, not the actual facts at hand. People that think this regulation will not change anything and that all media outlets will put the search for the truth ahead of their own agenda should not be deceived. If I have nothing to Hide, Why Would I need to Lie? If they don't have a reason for lying, why would this regulation be changed? The CRTC cited that the current sweeping regulation is in conflict with our Charter of Rights and wouldn't hold up in court. My question is, why don't they take this issue to court then? Why are they trying to slip this regulation through as if it is nothing at all? If they were truly concerned about what was right, a careful analysis of the entire issue would be made and all the appropriate democratic steps would be taken.

Under the new CRTC regulation, I might be tempted to make a bold accusation as to who I thought might be behind these changes. It stinks of the same type of behind-doors decision making that has led to a number of controversial, but relatively hush-hush political decisions in Canada over the past five years. Proroguation of Parliament. Senate stacking. Massive negative-ad campaigns. Decisions to cut off funding to political parties hidden in with other bills, essentially paralyzing the opposition.

I won't point fingers though. It won't do any good. The people of Canada are the only ones to blame if this regulation passes. If we don't take note of the issue, condemn it and do all we can to stop it, we cannot complain.

So here it is, your chance to do something: www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

Write to the CRTC and tell them this is wrong. Tell them you want the truth and that anything less is unacceptable. Tell them that if this regulation is against the Charter of Rights, it should be discussed democratically in court, not changed without the slightest regard or consult of the people it affects.

This is about our country, our families and our lives. This is crucial. This is about the most precious thing we have: the truth.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

The Legislation of Discrimination

I have recently been applying for a number of jobs, with various levels of government and other institutions. A number of these jobs, and particularly those of the federal nature, have declared themselves to be equal-opportunity employers, and have cheerily invited me to self-identify as a woman, an aboriginal, a visible minority, or a person with a disability. I am confused as to why I am being asked this, since the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or for pardoned convictions. Part I, Section 7.b) states:

It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/H-6/bo-ga:l_I//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I)

Therefore me answering that question can have no bearing on my candidacy for the job. And yet, the only conclusion that I can draw from repeatedly being asked these questions, is that it must make a difference, which sounds an awful lot to me like discrimination.

Digging deeper into Canadian Law, one will come across the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 deals with equality, and 15[1] states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp402-e.htm#subsection152)

Here again, it would seem that discrimination is explicitly prohibited. But if one were to read further, they would come across 15[2]:

Subsection [15(1)] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So there it is. Discrimination is illegal, unless it is to the benefit of groups that have previously been disadvantaged because of race, etc. Affirmative action has been around in the United States since the 1960s, and Canada has had the Employment Equity Act since 1986.

I appreciate that racism and sexism continues to be a problem, and not one that can be dealt with by pretending they don’t exist. I understand that qualified people have been denied many opportunities, whether they be jobs or spots in universities or other such ventures, simply because of the colour of their skin. It appals me that the Canadian government is forced to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for equal work between men and women, and that in 2009 we are still discussing the issue. However, Employment Equity and self-identifying are not the ways to go about rectifying the situation.

Canada is a multicultural nation, and this diversity should be celebrated. Natives, French, English, Europeans, and more recently immigrants from a growing number of countries have come over and flourished. We all benefit from such diversity, as does humanity as a whole. From a young age in diverse educational environments, Canadian children learn about tolerance and inclusiveness, and how to live in a multicultural environment. (This isn’t even a conscious consideration when you’re five, and I consider a lack of a diverse environment another detraction against Catholic schools as I discussed two weeks ago: http://blogjournalists.blogspot.com/2009/03/question-of-religious-education-funding.html.)

If there are problems with certain groups or people in some parts of the country not reaching their full potential, then we must as a country and as a community come together to help give these people the tools to excel. Lowering standards and earmarking spots does not help anybody. Truly qualified minorities are seen in a lesser light if the implication is that they only succeeded because of preferable status. Underqualified minorities may secure a position but they are missing out on the possibilities that knowledge and education can present to them, and they may also not have to work as hard to get to where they are, which is a detriment to society, and a potential danger to coworkers working in dangerous environments. Such programs are also distinctly unfair to those passed-over, as it is unfair to assume that they all had the best possible opportunities, and treating people differently on any basis is inherently wrong and un-Canadian.

There is some suggestion that affirmative action programs are in place to redress past wrongs. Because Kluckers burned crosses in the Twenties, third-generation Canadians of Chinese decent are being granted special consideration in the job market. Perhaps I’m being facetious, but this is not the way to go about correcting past wrongs. Better and more beneficial ways to increase diversity in schools and the workplace would be to advertise and actively recruit qualified people in disadvantaged areas, or provide these people with the skills/education/engagement necessary to incorporate themselves into the workforce.

I am not claiming that I have not yet found a job because I am a white male. I am certain this is not the case, and I have full faith in my ability to secure a job (I instead blame the economy). I am not begrudging anybody who has worked hard and benefited from this program. I am simply putting forward the case that in 21st Century Canada, such tactics are not only discriminatory, but are counter-intuitive to what we should be trying to achieve as a civilization.

Russ MacDonald

Selfishness Sends Sity Spiralling Strikewards

I think my poetic licence may be revoked after that title. Oh well.

As was predicted in this space one month ago, the OC Transpo has reversed its decision on banning ads from the Freethought Association of Canada declaring the improbability of God’s existence, and encouraging people to enjoy their lives. I have also seen a marked reduction in the ‘Gods of Rock’ ads, although that just may be a coincidence. But alas, this is not the focus of today’s piece, although today still follows on the trend of buses.

As most Ottawans know, the OC Transpo strike came to an end on January 31st, after both sides agreed to go to binding arbitration with the impending threat of back-to-work legislation from the federal government. The arbitration hearing (or however that works) is set for the summer, I believe. Both sides seemed pleased, as of course did all of the citizens who rely on the transit to live their lives. You may recall that the most contentious issue on the table was that of scheduling. The city wanted to take more control of the drivers’ schedules, claiming they could save money, and then later changing their story calling it a safety issue. The drivers argued that it was about their quality of life, and being able to spend more time with their families by drawing their schedules the way they wanted based on seniority.

So for a month things ran fairly smoothly. The buses gradually got back on the roads, and service seemed to return to normal. Recently, the OC Transpo has begun to enforce federal safety standards requiring drivers to work no more than fourteen hours per day and requiring minimum eight-hour rest periods between shifts. These are standards intended to increase safety by reducing driver fatigue, although driver fatigue has never been an issue. Twenty years ago these regulations were waived by the federal government at the request of cities so that they would be able to run their systems more efficiently. Now, at the behest of the city of Ottawa, federal Transport Minister (and Ottawa MP) John Baird has announced his intention to overturn this exemption, to address driver fatigue (which, again, has never been an issue). This ruling will also affect transit systems in Windsor and Gatineau, as they are the only three systems that cross provincial or national borders.

In retaliation for these measures being taken unilaterally by the city, the Amalgamated Transit Union that represents the drivers has stopped their drivers from booking further schedules. Drivers are currently scheduled until April 17th, although the city has said that even if the dispute is not settled by then, the service will continue on the existing schedule. There is also an indication that some drivers have begun an independent and unofficial work-to-rule campaign, pulling such stunts as intentionally dawdling and delaying service, driving past people waiting to get on, in some cases buses have been reported as not showing up at all. Union leader and notorious jerk André Cornellier said about work-to-rule: “I’m delighted if they are, but I can say we didn’t ask them to do anything.”

I believe the real issue here to be about money. The city can claim safety all they want, but the exemption to the federal safety rules was put in place at their request. And, again, the city has admitted that driver fatigue has never led to an accident. The drivers on the other hand can claim quality of life all they want, but there have been reports of drivers earning six-figure salaries, by abusing and manipulating their schedules to produce the greatest amount of overtime. Now I’m not suggesting that workers shouldn’t be granted overtime pay, but surely the extra pay is compensation for extenuating and negative circumstances regarding your schedule, and when you are in charge of your own schedule, then perhaps you should not be granted the same level of overtime pay? Especially not when it comes directly at taxpayer expense.

So what we are left with again is another stand-off, but hopefully this time we have the tools to avoid another strike. The Conservative federal government is working with the right-wing mayor of Ottawa to try and save money and make the system more efficient, at the expense of the people who make the system run. On the other side is the union, ostentatiously standing up for overtime pay by leaving little old ladies at the curb as their buses fly past (and assuredly soak them with water; spring time is upon us, and this city has a terrible roadside drainage problem). And neither side is willing to admit that this is what they’re in fact doing: they both have thinly veiled claims to safety and quality.

And in the end the losers again are the people of Ottawa. We stand and wait for late, crowded buses driven by smug drivers, while the bureaucrats posture. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the boss would be in charge of scheduling their employees, in order for the system to run at its best. It also doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to give seasoned employees some say in this process, as they generally work hard at a tough job that occasionally requires driving the Midnight 95. However, employees who intentionally schedule their own overtime should not be entitled to the same level of benefits as others. You should not be able to artificially create overtime work, and if it were truly about quality of life, then this would not be an issue for the drivers.

Russel MacDonald

The Question of Religious Education Funding in Ontario’s Schools

On Friday John Tory announced he would be stepping down as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, after a humiliating by-election defeat to Liberal Rick Johnson in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, near Peterborough. The by-election was held after PC MPP Laurie Scott agreed to step aside and allow Tory to run in an attempt to gain a seat in the legislature, after he was defeated in his home Toronto riding of Don Valley West in the 2007 election. The rural Kawartha Lakes riding was considered a lock, after Scott had defeated Johnson in 2007 by 10 000 votes, but Tory’s career as party leader fizzled as lost by 906 votes. I almost feel bad for him.

The 2007 election was largely dominated by the single issue of funding for religious schools, after one of the most curious and self-defeating policy gaffes in recent memory. John Tory came out in favour of extending public funding to religious schools beyond the Catholic School Board, provided they met the criteria laid out by the province. This issue was met with huge backlash, and Tory later retreated to the promise of a ‘free vote’ if elected. Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty argued in favour of the status quo, with Catholic schools the only non-secular institutions receiving public funds, and the provincial Greens argued for a singular, unified secular board in Ontario. This is a large part of the reason why I supported the Greens.

To fully understand the issue, as with any issue, one must understand the history behind them (thus the importance of learning history). When Canada was created with the signing of the British North America Act in 1867, there were two dominant groups in the country; English Protestants, mainly in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and parts of New Brunswick; and the French Catholics, residing mainly in Québec. Education was inherently religious in nature, and incorporating and assimilating children into these dominant Christian faiths was seen as beneficial for society. Taken to the extremes, this resulted in Residential Schools, where native children were taken from their homes and indoctrinated with western values; abuse that we are still apologizing for.

But over the coming years, immigration increased, and from different parts of the world. Society diversified, and multiculturalism became an official national policy. The ‘English Protestant’ board gradually transformed into the inclusive, secular board we see today. A ruling by the provincial court in 1994 even officially declared the board secular, after certain religious groups asserted that the public education provided was ‘humanist,’ and ran in opposition to their views. Even in Québec did society become more secular, after the Quiet Revolution of the 1970s, with their school systems eventually becoming two secular systems, one serving the English population, and the other the French. Ontario and Alberta remain the only two provinces providing funding for Roman Catholic schools.

For those of us born in the 1980s in Ontario, fully funded Catholic schools will seem like the norm, but it must be realized that it wasn’t until 1985 that funding for Catholic schools was fully extended to include grades 11-13 to create a fully funded Catholic board. Waves of Catholic immigrants in the 60s and 70s had created an electorate that was 1/3 Catholic, and all three parties were vying for these votes. This decision came about after numerous court cases on various aspects of religious education had been filtering through the Ontario courts since 1928.

Mr. Tory is right. To continue to fund, at the expense of the public education system, only one separate school board providing education to one religious group is unjust. It is even a practice condemned by the United Nations, as it runs in contravention of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for discriminating in favour of one faith over others, even though it has repeatedly been declared not a violation of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With the ever changing face of Ontario and ever shifting societal values, public institutions must reflect these changes. Especially institutions fostering the development and growth of our children. By placing all children at an equal level in an inclusive, secular education system, they are all able to learn from each other and we best suit the needs of society. The opportunities and experiences presented to these pupils learning together is one of greater inclusiveness and social harmony. By dividing children and bussing them around the city based on religious lines will only lead to a further divided society.

A certain amount of upheaval would surely result from reducing our education system to one single publicly funded board, but in the interests of providing the best level of education for all of Ontario students, this is a step which must be taken. Similar factors were faced by the people of Newfoundland, with their public schools divided amongst many different Protestant denominations (and no secular board), and half-empty buses were shuttling students all across the cities to reach under-funded schools. A 1997 referendum in the province, moving to reduce the schools to one single public board, garnered 73% support, and has led to a better school system for all of Newfoundland’s students. With changing provincial values and demographics, and positive results seen in other parts of the country, Ontario must follow suit.

Russel MacDonald

Barenaked Ladies are Us

I wonder how much Kraft Dinner they eat now. When four twenty-year-olds from Scarborough piled into a Speaker’s Corner booth at Queen and John, they were beginning a twenty year odyssey from goofy Canadian indie folk to international rock stars. It’s been One Week (less a day) since a large chapter in that journey drew to a close. Last Tuesday, Steven Page announced he was leaving the Barenaked Ladies to further pursue a solo career, and the rest of the band would be carrying on without him.

They are saying all the right things about mutual decisions and continuing careers, and there’s really nothing to suggest otherwise, but after a year involving kids’ albums, cocaine, and plane crashes, cracks were beginning to show. Maintaining a creative relationship involving musicians as talented as Page and Ed Robertson can always have its complications. Let’s hope this provides Page an avenue to further explore his own creative ideas, and that the band can carry on without one of its founding members.

But speculation and hearsay aside, we should remember the Barenaked Ladies for what they meant to Canadian music and to many of us individually. Personally, it started as a kid, with my parents’ copy of Gordon with the original cover as the soundtrack to those car trips to Nova Scotia (it was a while before I learned that Mr Roboto was actually its own song). One of my earliest arena concert experiences was BNL at the ACC in high school with my friends, and then again as the second-to-last act at Live 8 in Barrie. When I first picked up a guitar a few years back, some of the first songs I learned were Brian Wilson, If I had $1000000, and The Old Apartment.

The Ladies also had a big impact on this country. Starting at Speaker’s Corner, they had a large relationship with their home town of Toronto, despite being kicked off the 1991 New Year’s Eve bill by Mayor June Rowlands for ‘objectifying women.’ They would go on to sing about their new place on the Danforth, sweet Jane (and) St. Clair, GO Trains, and Birchmount Stadium, Home of the Robbie, as well as giving nods to Halifax, Peterborough, Phil Esposito, and much more Canadiana. They would sing silly songs about Yoko Ono, Styx, and their hardships faced in Grade Nine (they called me Buckwheat!).

Reaching international fame with One Week and Stunt, they added to Canada’s already disproportionately large contribution to international music, and toured the world. Following Stunt and after Kevin Hearn’s battle with leukemia, they released a more serious album Maroon, spawning such hits as Pinch Me, and Too Little Too Late. Later albums would feature songs about Chimps, tunes for the holidays, and in 2008 a kids’ album called Snacktime, displaying an extremely versatile musical repertoire.

Perhaps most appealing about the band is their propensity for humour and fun. They never took things too seriously, and this shows in their songs and their persona. It takes a rare talent to be able to sing about eating too much Kraft Dinner and Yoko sings “Aoyoyoyoyoyoyo!” mixed with more serious numbers about preconceived gender roles and spousal abuse, all on the same album. To get a good idea of the fun Page and Robertson have, check out the Bathroom Sessions on Youtube, where the two of them and an acoustic guitar perform a number of their songs, and genuinely have fun. Ed also provides some 'How To' videos for a few songs, something that not a lot of musicians will make the time for or openly 'give away' their songs for free.

So, good luck to all parties with future endeavours. Here's looking forward to the reunion tour. In closing, some of my favourites moments from twenty years of making records:
Downtown record shops in the rain; demanding the nostalgic return of old mousetraps and dishracks; cruel green dresses; sprinklers and gym shorts; shopping carts in the ravine, foam on the creek like pop and ice cream; you’re the last thing on my mind; laughing at funerals; and if I filmed my sister walking, I’d yell stuff like: “Hey, get off the phone!”

Thanks, that was fun.

Russ MacDonald

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNVkEqy7lpI&feature=related $1000000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69cR9J-V-Qg&feature=related One Week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_snpe3QmzCc&feature=related Bedside Manor (they almost lose it laughing)

Time to Live a Simpler Life

Maybe Jesus was on to something…

The current economic crisis has started claiming its first victims and each day the signs grow grimmer for our consumeristic way of life. Of course it is the small that fall first; this evidenced in the recent government collapses in Iceland and Latvia as well as the news that GM would be feeding Swedish carmaker Saab to the pecuniary wolves.

Yet as the current uncertainty gives way to a certainty of worse things to come, it is hard ignore the way the superficiality of our the economy is exposed. Everything depends on continued consumption; something we all know is unsustainable, but something we are all unwilling to admit. The scary part is how reliant on this consumption we have become. If people were to stop buying unnecessary items, which ironically enough is also destroying the planet, the job market would dry up and millions of people would be left without work. This sounds like a travesty but I cannot help but see how people like this, including myself, are dependent on frivolity. In the US, each household has an average of 3, count it, 3 TVs. Think how many billions of dollars in revenue would be lost if Americans (and Brits, Canadians, French, Germans…) had, on average, one less TV in their house. TV manufacturers, cable providers, DVD player makers (each of those 3 TVs needs its own dedicated DVD player), video game makers and even the people that make all the parts for those TVs would face massive reductions in revenue and jobs would of course be the moribund currency.

And with apologies to those bible non-enthusiasts, a quote from your favourite book:

"Beware and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." Luke 12:13-15

Jesus makes a very clear distinction between “life” and “possessions.” What he means is that life is about people, not things. No matter how many TVs we own they will never become a part of our lives the way that friendship, love and our relationships to other people will.

Ultimately what this whole economic crisis is going to come down to, along with other crises such as climate change, is who is willing to make sacrifices and who is going to hold on to their possessions. Regardless of whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, CEO of a company or assembly-line worker, those that cling to their 3 TVs will go down with the ship. Those that value humanity, morals, knowledge and recognize the adequacy of one TV; they might just make it through.

And now to satisfy those that might not be a big Jesus fan; a quote from a popular beer commercial that some in Canada might remember:

“It’s all about balance.”

Whether you are talking about the balance between spending time with the guys and, well, watch the commercial here, or the sustainability of the world’s resources and quality of life, there is a lot of wisdom in the idea of balance.

All jokes aside, the economic crisis will no doubt have a major effect on the entire world, and it would be naïve to think that it will just be the little guys that will suffer. Everything is connected. Those that value their possessions need to learn that the future will not be about excess. It will be about balance. Just ask Bob. ("Thanks for gettin' me away from all that sex!") If people can learn that a simpler life might be the answer (something that, as always, is easier said than done), this crisis can be turned from black cloud into a silver lining that forces us to change our ways before it is too late.

Maybe Jesus was onto something...

Or maybe it was the beer guys.

Will Grassby

Obamamania

Today's post will be slightly different in that it will be more personal and more rant-like. However, I hope these factors will make it no less enthralling.

As I'm sure many people were aware, American President Barack Obama made his first foreign visit as president to Canada this past Thursday. It was quite the ordeal, and made us feel special again, after Bush's Mexico snub. The rest of the world must be green with envy. The requisite bus trips were planned from the GTA and around the country, and Obama Tees were on sale again. Multiple camera crews milled through the throngs asking people what the day meant to them, and CBC had a couple of hours of coverage, including some stirring images from the quiet, rainy, closed streets before the motorcade arrived. All this attention, even though Obama's schedule barely included time for a wave from his limo into parliament.

I actually made my way to parliament hill shortly after he arrived, but the excitement had mostly died down. There were still some cameras and sign-wavers, but many of the people had dispersed. Still there, however, were the snipers on various roofs around the parliament, which led to a discussion about how many innocent lives would be justified in being taken to protect the president. I fully appreciate the security concerns, and perhaps more so with Obama's unique circumstances. I also appreciate that these people have a job to do, and if there is an imminent threat to the president, then those responsible may have to die quickly. I don't have a problem with the snipers being there, nor was there any indication that they would hastily place anybody in harm's way. It was really more of a rhetorical debate about the circumstances.

My issue with the security came later in the day. We grew tired of waiting outside parliament in the drizzle, so we returned to grab our skates to play some hockey. We ventured across the frozen canal, and made our way to the Sandy Hill rink, only to find it still covered in snow. We decided to try our luck at Jack Purcell, which involved crossing back over the canal. It was when we arrived at Pretoria Bridge that we were informed we would not be allowed to cross until the motorcade had passed, which wouldn’t be for another forty-five minutes. We wouldn’t be allowed to cross anywhere.

Let me set the scene for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of Ottawa. The Rideau Canal runs from beside the parliament buildings down to Carleton University. This is about an eight kilometre stretch of the city, with Colonel By Drive following the east side. It was down Colonel By that the president would be travelling to get back to the airport, and therefore the road was closed. To everybody. I can understand keeping vehicular traffic off the street. A man who barely has time to wave can’t be held up by congestion, and I suspect exploding cars have the potential to do more damage that exploding people, even if you are in a bomb-proof limo. But to not let pedestrians cross the street half an hour before he is scheduled to arrive is a little bit ridiculous. Even more so when you consider that the street is eight kilometres long.

We were essentially stuck. The ever helpful police officers snidely suggested we pay for a cab to drive us across on the highway, but we are not in the habit of paying to cross the street, and we took no cash on our hockey excursion. We couldn’t even go home because we lived on the other side of the canal. The people skating on the canal were fine, and there were stairs leading up to the other side of Colonel By from the skateway, but those two lanes were impenetrable. There must have been twelve of us standing beside the road while nobody drove past, held at bay by two grouchy cops. When someone appeared on the other side from the canal, they were quickly attended to and told to stay where they were. (The cop crossed the street to do so.) There was even a police car that drove down the street with a megaphone instructing people to get off their balconies if they overlooked the road, which raised the attention of two cops stationed nearby who wandered towards the site of the people standing quietly on private property to check it out. I would have been tempted to find out what their response would be if I refused to go back inside. I don’t think ‘peacefully enjoying a winter’s afternoon on your balcony’ is a criminal offence.

I reiterate that I understand there are security concerns. I appreciate that they have to take precautionary measures. But I should remind you that this man is driving around in vehicle flown in for the occasion, encased in five inches of military grade armour, among many security specifications. I don’t think the good people living on Echo Drive are likely to be out there with nefarious intentions, and I would like to think that someone would notice a person setting up weapons extensive enough to harm the president. I also think someone with truly evil intentions could simply run back outside as the first cars in the motorcade drove by. Or perhaps those of us waiting to cross around the city could pull out our rocket-launchers just at the right second.

There are going to be security concerns, but you can’t account for everything. Especially in a country like Canada, where his approval rating has topped 80%, and our list of assassinated politicians is two names long in 142 years. Full credit to Obama for squeezing in some time to stroll around the Byward Market and buy a Beavertail and some trinkets, showing his appreciation and comfort in our nation. I suppose a truly clever assailant could have sprinkled some cyanide in with the cinnamon, but Obama was willing to take this risk. However, the Ottawa police were not willing to take the risk of letting citizens cross a major street spanning much of the city up to thirty minutes before the heavily armoured motorcade drove by, nor were they comfortable with people enjoying the presidential view from their balconies. I suppose on the plus side we got to glimpse the outline of his head through the thick tinted glass, but I don’t think that really makes up for the indignity served to the people of Ottawa.

Russel MacDonald

Public Space

For the next three weeks the city of Ottawa will be buzzing with the revelry surrounding the annual Winterlude festival. Winterlude is a three-week celebration put on by the National Capital Commission (NCC) in Ottawa and Gatineau, simply celebrating winter. Centred around the world’s largest (take that, Winnipeg) skating rink, the Rideau Canal, the festival includes skating, ice and snow sculptures, live music, and many other winter-related activities. In 2007, the event drew an estimated 1.6 million visitors to the various Winterlude sights, setting a new attendance record.

As a recent citizen of Ottawa, I have come to love Winterlude. It is truly a celebration of winter in Canada, which is something a lot of people would rather avoid. The greatest part of this event is the openness and inclusiveness. Activities are free and open to everybody. They span multiple sights and multiple provinces. The ice sculptures at Confederation Park are connected by the 7.8km skateway that is the frozen canal to the various events at Dow’s Lake, with this stretch opening up a large part of downtown Ottawa. Funded and run by the NCC, the event is not branded with a corporate slogan (although some of the activities are).

What this represents, to me at least, is a city embracing its culture and extending a culture of inclusiveness to its citizens. Events are free and family friendly, and run day-long on the weekends. The Canal is open for skating for most of the winter, and becomes a way for people to get outside and get some exercise when it would be too cold to do much else otherwise, and even becomes a mode of transit for many people going to work or school. It revels in the creativity of ice sculptors from around the world, and celebrates different parts of the country. (This year there is a giant lobster to commemorate New Brunswick’s 225th anniversary as a province independent of Nova Scotia.) Last year a very cold Joel Plaskett performed, and this year features Jim Cuddy among others. All free and outdoors.

What it really boils down to for me is a city’s use of its public space. Communal areas in a city should be open and free for all citizens, and when a city orchestrates an event like Winterlude, it is embraces this spirit. On a trip to Europe last summer I was impressed by the use of public space. Strolling along the Seine you are surrounded by public art, musical ensembles, and people playing bocce. A city that embraces this non-commercial, non-regulated use of its space for the betterment of its citizens is a city that I want to live in and be a part of.

Toronto and Ottawa (and I’m sure many other Canadian cities) do an excellent job with the maintenance of outdoor rinks by the dedicated staff. These rinks provide fantastic ways for children to get active and develop a love of sports and the outdoors. As a houseleague hockey coach in Ottawa, I have two players on my team this year who have never played organized hockey before, but both are doing exceptionally well because of the skills and the love of the game they developed playing outdoors. And there’s nothing quite like fresh skates on hard ice with the wind at your back and a friend to pass the puck to.

So, here’s to Winterlude; and public space; and outdoor ice; and people having fun in the city in which they live.

Russel MacDonald

Hats off to (Stephen) Harper

Full disclosure: I am not a Conservative. While I can perhaps understand and appreciate the philosophy behind smaller-government neo-liberalism and personal responsibility, any affinity I may have for right-wing ideology ends there. I do not believe in bigger jails and longer sentences, nor do I support increased military budgets, especially at the expense of education, healthcare, or other socially beneficial programs. I am even more so opposed to any brand of social conservatism, preaching vague moral standards to which everybody must adhere. With that in mind, my thesis may seem like a logical extension of that train of thought, but: I do not like Stephen Harper. I believe him to be as self-interested and power-hungry as his fellow parliamentarians he denounces so quickly, and he intentionally spreads misinformation to further his objectives. He seems to hold little interest in inclusiveness or genuine debate, and instead treats the Canadian people like dupes.

I am sure Stephen Harper is an intelligent man, and a man of some convictions (he apparently favours overtime to shootouts). In 1997 he left the Reform Party and joined the libertarian think-tank National Citizens Coalition, accusing Preston Manning and the rest of the Reformers of drifting towards social conservatism. He only returned to the national political scene in 2002 replacing Stockwell Day as the leader of the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance (CCRAP), err, Canadian Alliance, and went about uniting the right, in order to solidify the opposition forces and present a consolidated opposition to the majority Liberals, in much the same scenario presenting today’s left-leaning parties against the Conservatives.

Here Harper’s ascent has largely mirrored the fate of the Liberal party in the past decade, often with Harper critical of the similar moves when made by the Liberals. As mentioned he faced a divided right which he sought to unify to defeat the Liberals. He has also faced a minority parliament as leader of the opposition, when Paul Martin held a minority in 2004. When Martin’s government put forward its budget, Harper sided with the (gasp) separatists in an attempt to bring down the government. It was only through floor-crossing, independents, and all-‘round shenanigans that the Liberals managed to cling to power for a little while longer. The Liberals have since faced a divided left; Bloc support; and Conservative shenanigans that have allowed them to cling to power (for a little while longer).

But what displeases me most about Mr. Harper is his apparent disregard for the intelligence of the Canadian public (what displeased me about the Canadian public is their propensity to prove him right). Conservative seagulls have been pooping on Stéphane Dion from the day he was elected. While perhaps much of the blame should lie with Dion for failing to create his own identity for himself and his Green Shift, the Harper attack machine had been running in high-gear from day one. He was never interested in engaging Dion, but rather focused on the ‘tax increase’ and Dion’s language deficiencies.

But even more appalling is the way he has handled the ‘constitutional crisis’ we faced after his November 2008 fiscal update. Just seven weeks after an election in which he failed once again to secure a majority government, he presented a budget to the House of Commons that was riddled with divisive partisanship that he arrogantly assumed the opposition parties would be too weak to oppose. When they did stand up to him he was in full back-peddle mode, dropping epithets wherever he could and intentionally misleading Canadians. He immediately dismissed the Bloc Québécois as separatists (the same separatists he was looking for support from when looking to defeat the minority Liberals), and he derided the Liberals and NDP for seeking their support, even though I’m certain he would have welcomed their support of his budget had it been there. He even went so far as to suggest that the coalition was signed without the presence of a Canadian flag, which was either a bad metaphor gone awry or the first of many lies to come.

In the coming days, Harper derided the coalition as unconstitutional and without merit, and gained much public support for this view, and yet this is completely untrue, and the leader of our democratic country should not stoop to these levels. Whatever your thoughts on the coalition, it was completely constitutional and represented the proper functioning of a Westminster parliament under a minority government, and for the leader of the country to suggest otherwise is an intentional attempt to mislead the public. He did not merely express dissatisfaction with the coalition and implore Canadians and their elected officials to reconsider, but he directly said, in an address to the nation: “the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists”, and further suggested that “the opposition wants to overturn the results of (the recent) election.” A coalition would not be overturning the results of any election, as all elected MPs would remain, and the opposition is well within its democratic right to form a coalition with the consent of the Governor General, and these are both facts which the Prime Minister is fully aware of.

In fact, the most questionable constitutional manoeuvre was performed by Harper himself when he asked Michaëlle Jean for a prorogation of government in order to avoid a vote he was certain to lose. (I still haven’t made up my mind on her decision yet: I believe it was unprecedented and against the letter of the constitution, but at the same time it was probably the best move for the country at the moment. Whether that makes it a good move or a bad move, I’m still not sure.) He was a desperate man attempting to cling to power, just as he accused Dion of being a desperate man attempting to obtain power.

So for his actions alone in the face of this crisis which he brought upon himself, I oppose Mr Harper. That is to say nothing of his various discrepancies, such as an opposition statement of not offering special status for Québec, only to declare them a nation once in power; or appointing eighteen unelected senators when it appeared his government may fall, despite promising not to do this and instead rally for senate reform; or passing a law enacting fixed-date elections to prevent sitting Prime Ministers from calling snap elections to their own benefit, and then promptly calling a snap election to his own benefit. (There was actually a challenge brought forth by a legal group contending the 2008 election was illegal based on Harper breaking this law.)

So more than anything else I dislike Stephen Harper for the way he handled the coalition crisis. He brought it on himself with his partisan politics, and then attempted to worm his way out of it by intentionally misleading the public. He showed that he not only believes the opposition parties are weak, but that he believes the Canadian people are gullible and unintelligent. These are in no way actions befitting of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Russel MacDonald

To Sing or Not to Sing: But is That the Question?

A school principal in Springfield, New Brunswick (too bad his name isn’t Skinner) is making international headlines today and has sparked a national debate over the singing of O Canada in schools across the country.

Erik Millett, principal of Belleisle elementary school, is on the defence today as a decision he made over a year ago to do away with the daily sing-along has caused quite the flag-flap, and not just in Canada. Media outlets in both the U.S and in Europe have picked up this story, but why such a to-do over a daily tradition that is seen by many as un-necessary and outdated?

Ultimately it comes down to how you handle a situation, and Mr. Millett has provided us a Class A example of how not to make a statement. His response to the whole situation involved of a variety of different responses, not entirely consistent which each other.
Mr. Millett says that in 2007 a “couple of parents” had voiced their concern about the singing of the anthem and that: “We try to balance the needs of every student, and we want every student to feel welcome in our school.” Mr. Millett has also suggested that the song is “distracting” to students (could someone please explain that to me?) and that it takes too much time out of morning classes. Mr. Millett also went on to say that the playing of O Canada through a low quality PA system doesn’t do it justice and that the song loses its meaning when heard everyday. He also added by reserving the playing of O Canada for events such as assemblies helps to preserve its meaning.

At the risk of sounding irreverent and unpatriotic, I would suggest that the issue of singing the national anthem daily is not front and centre here. I can remember hearing O Canada at school played through the PA system and can’t say it was the most patriotic feeling in the world. The fumbling of cassette tapes, the clicking of the microphone on and off and the occasional “Due to technical difficulties there will be no O Canada today.” You knew when you heard this someone had forgotten to rewind the tape or someone had lost it altogether. But in a lot of ways it is not the a question of whether or not the song should be sung at schools every morning but instead about a personal agenda expressed inapproprietly. Mr. Millett claims he did away with the anthem singing because of the complaints of a couple of parents; complaints which he refuses the elaborate on; but what about the hundreds of students and parents who didn’t complain? Who are these parents to make them so powerful? For myself it doesn’t really add up. Ultimately it comes down Mr. Millett’s own values and beliefs. I’m sure he wouldn’t have been so quick to listen to these parents if he didn’t himself have some qualms with the anthem himself.

In actuality Mr. Millett did nothing wrong in doing away with the morning tradition. The law says it is up to each school’s principal to decide if O Canada will be played or not. The big to-do has to do with his motivation and the lingering sense that what he is saying is not completely the truth. If he had come out and had a story and stuck to it he might have saved him face, but his dithering on the issue and conflicting stories have left him looking more like a politician. (which he coincidently is as Mr. Millett has previously run for the Green Party)

Whether the national anthem should be sung or not (many countries, like Sweden for example, would think this practice unusual and over-patriotic) it now seems that Millett has more to worry about than “a couple of parents.” Is this negative press justified? Probably not; but one can’t help but think Mr.Millett brought it on himself.

Will Grassby

Check out http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/01/28/nb-o-canada.html?ref=rss for the full story.

A Political All-Star Team

Alex Kovalev is the All-Star MVP (I should get pool points for that), and the East beat the West in a shootout. Don't worry, the West still gets a single point for not losing that badly. This is all in the first All-Star game in Canada in nine years, and on the eve of parliament returning from a hard-earned and extended Christmas break.

With this imminent return to action, talk of last month's highly controversial coalition has been raised again. Smart money would suggest this is simply Liberal posturing to secure a reasonable budget, and prevent an otherwise messy and unappealing political coup. The New Democrats and Bloc, of course, see if differently, and continue to press the issue. Jack Layton is correct when he asserts that it really comes down to Iggy.

And what is Ignatieff to do? He has been notoriously cool to the prospect of forming the coalition, and probably rightly so for the sake of his political future. He was one of the last MPs to sign the proposal when it came out last month, but he has bandied the idea about much more than I expected this past month since his acclamation as Liberal leader. After the generally negative reaction to the proposed coalition; frantic Conservative back-peddling; lies and half-truths; and a prorogation and a new leader, much has changed in a month and a half, most of which would point towards the death of the coalition. However, Ignatieff has kept the door open.

He has done this to keep the Conservatives honest, as all opposition members of parliament must do in a minority government, and especially one playing such high-stakes partisan politics. Einstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’, and Ignatieff seems to echo these sentiments, suggesting the ‘country needs another election like it needs a hole in the head.’ An election would result in another long expensive process that would be unlikely to see any significant changes in the House of Commons, and after the public backlash may actually do more harm to the Liberals than any other party. So that would limit the Liberals options should they dislike what they hear from Jim Flaherty tomorrow.
In an interview with CBC this weekend, Jack Layton was asked about the coalition, and he remained staunchly in favour of it. When asked about the reaction it may receive amongst staunch New Democrats opposed to working with the Liberals, he said (paraphrasing) it was okay to like your team (such as Jerry and Elaine), but sometimes it is necessary and positive to create a political All-Star team (I'd give the Liberals the edge with the likes of Frank Mahovlich and Ken Dryden). He went on to say that even if the pending Conservative budget included all of the terms the coalition was looking for, he would be unable to support it because he has lost confidence in the government. Perhaps it’s just me, but it would seem an odd move to vote down a budget, rise to power, and replace it with exactly the same budget. A lot has been made about Jack’s attempt at power, with many believing it to be a self-serving grasp at a dream he is unlikely to realize on his own. With less to lose and less coverage overall, it is difficult to ascertain the direction he and the NDP are headed, but he does seem to remain at least philosophically in favour of a coalition.

So with the (second) Conservative budget dropping tomorrow, we will likely have another few days of constitutional discussion. Michaëlle Jean surely cannot grant another prorogation, so this is Harper’s last chance. If he fails again and relegates his party to opposition status or sends the country into another election, his performance as leader will surely be under review. So with that hanging over him, Ignatieff is smart to keep the coalition door open, with Jack and Jill (err, Gillies) peeking through the crack. There will still be those who argue that they did not vote for a coalition, but I will tell you had I known we were holding Presidential elections I would have voted differently. With an election the equivalent of a hole in the head, an unpopular coalition, Ignatieff’s first big move, and Harper’s political future hanging in the balance, this is sure to lead to an interesting few weeks and months again in Canadian politics. Certainly for his government to go down, this would have to be a thoroughly disagreeable budget, and he wouldn’t make that mistake twice. Would he?

Russel MacDonald