Maclean’s and Citytv are hosting the first National Leaders Debate of the 2019 election calendar, to take place on Thursday, Sept. 12 starting at 8 p.m. EDT (5 p.m. PDT).

The two-hour debate in English, moderated by Paul Wells, will centre on four major themes: the economy, foreign policy, Indigenous issues and, lastly, energy and the environment. After the main segment of exchanges, each leader will have 90 seconds for a closing statement.

The leaders of the Conservative Party, the Green Party and the NDP have confirmed their attendance. The Liberals have not yet confirmed Justin Trudeau’s participation but an invitation remains open and the debate will go forward regardless. Here are more details on how to watch.

What are your questions for the leaders participating in the debate? Fill out the form below to submit your question—we might use it during the debate.

The post Now’s your chance. Submit your questions for federal leaders. appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The replacement: After 220 days with no Canadian ambassador to China and relations between the two countries seriously strained, the Trudeau government named Dominic Barton — the former head of Justin Trudeau‘s economic advisory council —  to the post. Business leaders cheered the news. The last guy to hold the post is less effusive. “Obviously Dominic Barton is a very able person but I really don’t want to comment,” former ambassador and longtime Liberal MP-turned-Liberal diplomatic headache John McCallum told the Globe and Mail. (Globe and Mail)

Who knew: Beijing was given a heads up about the Barton pick by Chrystia Freeland last month. The foreign minister spoke with  her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi at the ASEAN summit in Bangkok last month and floated Barton’s name to make sure Beijing wouldn’t oppose his appointment. That’s more notice than the Liberals gave the NDP or Conservatives opposition parties, according to sources who spoke to CBC News, who were kept in the dark despite the announcement coming just weeks before the federal election. (CBC News)

Here’s a look at Barton’s views on China — and his belief that Canada could exert influence on China on issues like human rights if only we had deeper economic ties — from the more halcyon days of 2016 when, you know, that country wasn’t arbitrarily detaining Canadian citizens and launching retaliatory blockades of Canadian agricultural exports.

Patriot ACK!: Maybe it was Justin Trudeau’s endless pursuit of celebrity cool that led him to appear on Netflix’s Patriot Act, hosted by left-wing American comic Hasan Minhaj. (You can watch it here.) Whatever the case, the flaying he received in the episode titled “The Two Sides of Canada” should be a wakeup call.  As Andrew MacDougall writes, did the Trudeau braintrust not realize that any fatal blow—if one is to come—will come from someone who is ideologically simpatico?

For one, it proved that even though Justin Trudeau is indisputably politician cool, he’s not celebrity cool. Or comedian funny. He’s just a good-looking bloke who happens to be a politician. A politician with a record. A spotty record at that.

To his credit, Minhaj went through that record and found that, once you strip away the rhetoric and spot-on social media presence, there isn’t as much there as you’d expect from someone who was branded as the saviour of global liberalism. Indeed, there’s a lot of the opposite. Hard questions on the environment, Indigenous relations, Quebec’s Bill 21, and Saudi arms sales elicited nothing but waffle from Trudeau. Minhaj’s trenchant critique shows just how beatable Trudeau could (and should) be to a competent progressive politician. (Maclean’s)

Up for a challenge: Construction on the taxpayer-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project may have resumed last month, but a Federal Court of Appeal decided Wednesday to allow six of 12 court challenges against the pipeline to go ahead. The challenges are restricted to Ottawa’s consultation with Indigenous communities since August 2018 when the court tossed out the Trudeau government’s earlier approval of Trans Mountain. The court isn’t letting the challenges drag on though — “The court has ordered that the challenges proceed on an expedited basis. Short and strict deadlines for the steps in the litigation will be set,” it said in a statement. (CBC News)

The race in New Brunswick: The decision by 14 members of the provincial NDP in New Brunswick along with a national party executive to switch to the Green Party on Tuesday was a blow to Jagmeet Singh‘s efforts to turnaround his party’s flagging fortunes, but much of the attention since has focused on their motives. While the party-swappers chastised Singh for failing to ever visit the province in his two years as leader, Jonathan Richardson, a former executive with the federal NDP who defected, also said some candidates were reluctant to run because they doubted people in the province would vote for a guy in a turban. “That was probably a major, a reason that they felt people wouldn’t want to vote for them because that would hold them back.”

Singh fired back Wednesday: “[Elizabeth May] is taking in candidates that have kind of openly expressed their concern around someone looking differently and that being a challenge. If she is accepting people that are suggesting things that are not accepting of people’s diversity, then the Green Party has a lot to answer for.” And just like that May, who a day earlier had been boasting about her party’s feat, was forced to issue a statement Wednesday saying “there is no room for any kind of racism” in her party. Speaking on CBC’s As It Happens later in the day Richardson tried to recast his earlier comments, stating he wished Singh would have come to the province because “a lot of the people in that region may not have had any exposure to people from different cultures. … If he would have taken the time to come in and meet in these different communities, after meeting him myself, I know that that would have made a difference.” (CBC News)

Max finds a floor: For those wondering how low People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier might be willing to go after calling 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg “mentally unstable,” Bernier seems to have found his limit amid an intense backlash over his comments. He attempted to walk back his earlier tweets with a new series of non-apology apology tweets calling her “brave” and saying that his “goal was absolutely not to denigrate her” but still ended up calling her a “pawn” in the climate debate. (Twitter)

The post Dominic Barton: From Trudeau economic advisor to China relations repairman appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Andrew MacDougall is a London (U.K.) based columnist, commentator and consultant. He was formerly director of communications to Stephen Harper.

Memo to Justin Trudeau: any danger lurks to your left, not your right.

It’s a memo the Prime Minister ought to keep in mind as he recovers from his flaying at the hands of the left-wing American comic Hasan Minhaj.

Minhaj, host of the Netflix series “Patriot Act,” tore Trudeau apart in an episode titled “The Two Sides of Canada,” a segment that put more dents in the Trudeau record in 30 minutes than NDP leader Jagmeet Singh could manage in thirty lifetimes. If you haven’t yet watched it, take the half-hour. You won’t regret it. We’ll wait.

Forget the cheap embarrassment of Trudeau not recognizing his fellow world leaders. Ignore the unfavourable re-hash of the SNC Lavalin scandal, complete with a piercing dig at Trudeau’s feminism. Clear away the cringe of Trudeau citing his 1/16^th (or was that 1/32^nd ?) Malaysian heritage in response to being labeled the ‘White Panther of Wacanada.’ That’s all window dressing.

MORE: Trudeau experiences labour pains in Hamilton union march

What Minhaj managed to do is scythe through Trudeau’s credibility and celebrity in a way his many right-wing critics could never do. And in a format that was vastly more entertaining than a recent and critical long-read look at the Trudeau record in The Guardian. It was devastating.

For one, it proved that even though Justin Trudeau is indisputably politician cool, he’s not celebrity cool. Or comedian funny. He’s just a good-looking bloke who happens to be a politician. A politician with a record. A spotty record at that.

To his credit, Minhaj went through that record and found that, once you strip away the rhetoric and spot-on social media presence, there isn’t as much there as you’d expect from someone who was branded as the saviour of global liberalism. Indeed, there’s a lot of the opposite. Hard questions on the environment, Indigenous relations, Quebec’s Bill 21, and Saudi arms sales elicited nothing but waffle from Trudeau. Minhaj’s trenchant critique shows just how beatable Trudeau could (and should) be to a competent progressive politician.

MORE: Justin Trudeau, Melania Trump and the air-kiss heard round the world

Surely Trudeau’s people realize this vulnerability too, which makes their decision to offer the boss up to Minhaj a head scratcher. Where was the potential win? Who watches “Patriot Act” already who doesn’t vote for Trudeau? Did the Liberal brain trust not think they had the ‘celebrity cool’ vote cornered? Weren’t Vogue and Rolling Stone enough? More to the point, do they not realize that any fatal blow—if one is to come—will come from someone who is ideologically simpatico?

In the Liberals’ defence, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Trudeau went (back) to the well of celebrity because it’s been a long time since he was able to draw any of its water. Minhaj was his attempt and it backfired.

Thankfully for the Liberals, none of this is likely to matter and it will probably all soon be forgotten. What an American comedian says about Trudeau matters far less than what his fellow Canadians have to say about him. At best, people will watch the “Patriot Act” segment and conclude that Trudeau might not be as advertised but Andrew Scheer would be worse (Minhaj’s conclusion). At worst, they’ll take a hard look at Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh. And with 14 NDP politicians in New Brunswick choosing to abandon their party in favour of the Greens this week, the momentum appears to be with May.

MORE: #TrudeauMustResign vs. #IStandWithTrudeau

May’s decision to rule out propping up a future minority government on climate grounds is another statement of intent. If climate change is the grave threat we say it is, May is saying, then Justin Trudeau’s half-way there plans to not meet Canada’s Paris targets (to say nothing of Scheer’s) isn’t good enough. Or, to use Minhaj’s words: “There are realities about Canada and Trudeau that we cannot ignore.”

If the Liberals were thinking of leaning on celebrity in the upcoming campaign Minhaj should force them to think again. They need to consolidate the progressive vote, not risk losing it to principled and funny critiques. To keep progressives in the tent the Liberals should instead stick to attacking Scheer through the Canadian press, a much more reliable means of transmission.

The post Why the Liberals and Netflix don’t mix appeared first on Macleans.ca.

pic.twitter.com/uRoLwalAho

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) September 3, 2019

A rare Resting Rees-Mogg pattern spotted in sterling. Bearish. pic.twitter.com/VtsWq7IYJn

— Tracy Alloway (@tracyalloway) September 4, 2019

Jacob Rees-Mogg's Accidental Renaissance. pic.twitter.com/GSDbKc7vR4

— Kevin Cannon (@multikev) September 3, 2019

He’s for the high jump #ReesMogg #tories @EtonOldBoys pic.twitter.com/vRt51XKFly

— Tom Tom (@tightropetom) September 3, 2019

MORE IMAGES OF THE WEEK:

• Justin Trudeau, Melania Trump and the air-kiss heard round the world
• Help! I’m trapped on a stage with Boris Johnson
• Greta Thunberg: A message in a racing yacht
• These stranded B.C. salmon are in good hands

The post Jacob Rees-Mogg, the U.K.’s sleepiest MP appeared first on Macleans.ca.

There’s no slow winnowing at the Banff International String Quartet Competition (BISQC), which has been taking place every three years since 1983. There are 10 quartets on the first day, all musicians under 35, most in their early 20s. They play round after round for a distinguished jury of chamber-music veterans. Haydn and 20th-century music in the first round. Then the 18th-century Romantics. Then a newly-commissioned piece played 10 times in a row, in a single concert, and let me just say you haven’t lived until you’ve heard the same piece of abstract music played 10 times in two hours. Then Schubert and whatever else each group feels like playing to fill out a 40-minute program.

Only then, at the end of the sixth day, does the jury cut the field to three finalists. A bit brutal. But part of the charm of the thing for the quartets that don’t make the cut is that there’s only one cull, it comes late, and in the meantime you can’t say you didn’t get a chance to show your stuff.

The goal is to find a group that can shine no matter what they play. The reward is — vast. Hard to quantify. A career on a platter, if the young winners can handle it. The $25,000 first prize is nice, but the solid year of touring in more than 40 North American and European venues is nicer still. And this year for the first time, there was a new prize: a two-year residency at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. String quartets often take up residencies at universities, the better to teach younger musicians while continuing to learn from older. And to have a life, which is harder to do if you never stop touring. Now the Banff championship would come with its own residency.

But for whom? For the final round, you had to play a quartet by Beethoven, a pretty obvious ultimate test for any musician. Of the three finalist quartets, one was skilled but nondescript. The other two seemed like rebuttals of each other’s style.

Britain’s Marmen Quartet, named for its corn-blond first violinist Johannes Marmen, was cool and deliberate, its members often understated in their delivery but also visibly touched by the beauty of the music unfurling under their fingers. Earlier in the week I’d put an asterisk next to the name of the group’s tall and bearded Welsh cellist, Steffan Morris, as elegant and responsive as any young musician I’ve heard.

The Viano Quartet, from the Colburn School in Los Angeles, was made up of two Vancouverites and two Americans. They couldn’t be more than a couple of years younger than the other groups, but they came off bright, excited, all primary colours and gleeful virtuosity.

The Viano make a show of dedicated egalitarianism. The group’s fabulously geeky name advertises their desire to play their assorted instruments that start with a “v” — two violins, viola, violoncello — with all the unity of a piano. Violinists Lucy Wang and Hao Zhou took turns playing the first-violin part all week, a rare but not unprecedented show of refusing to establish a hierarchy between the two violinists.

The Viano Quartet

But there is nothing any of them can do about the fact that Zhou, 22, is a howitzer, an astonishing virtuoso with a bright, hard instrumental tone and an unpretentious physical exuberance that makes it hard to look at anything else while he’s playing. This spring he won the Concours international musical de Montréal, an international competition for violin soloists. He’s going to be a star. To some extent the question of the week was whether he could fit in with his colleagues without letting them harsh his buzz.

These contrasts are why, for a dedicated audience of hundreds who travel to Banff every three years for the BISQC, it’s so much fun to pit string quartets against one another, Barry Shiffman, the competition’s executive director, told me. In 1992 Shiffman was a member of the St. Lawrence String Quartet, which won the competition. He left the St. Lawrence to run the competition in 2006.

“There’s no other combination of instruments, strangely, that has the range of possibilities that two violins, a viola and a cello have,” Shiffman said in an interview. That’s counterintuitive. Quartets rehearse obsessively. They put great energy into phrasing together, attacking notes the same way, keeping their instrumental tones compatible. They manage personality differences with a peculiar intimacy couples or families would find familiar. And if they don’t manage differences, they don’t last.

But anyone who’s heard two string quartets on the same day knows any good quartet has its own personality, stately or racy, mannered or irreverent. Shiffman said there’s something about them that’s like sports cars, and it’s true, but part of the point of sports cars is that a Mustang isn’t much like a Jaguar.

If it seems odd that this modernist campus in a national park in the Rocky Mountains is a world headquarters for a musical form that was codified in Central Europe in the mid-18th Century, then that’s just the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity doing what it does. Founded in 1933 as a theatre school, it has grown into an accredited post-secondary institution that spends $70 million a year helping artists do their thing.

There are many things. It’s kind of a glorious jumble up here in the mountains. The jazz program, once run by Oscar Peterson and later by figures as important as Dave Holland, Steve Coleman and Dave Douglas, is the country’s—perhaps the continent’s—leading finishing school for young jazz musicians.

This year’s literary journalism program wrapped up shortly before BISQC. Its director in recent years was Susan Orlean, the veteran New Yorker feature writer who was portrayed in the movie Adaptation by Meryl Streep. Stories from the Banff literary journalism program won National Newspaper Awards like clockwork over the years, until a rule change made it harder for such intensively workshopped features to be entered.

Journalists come to the mountains with drafts of long feature articles, read them aloud, critique one another in good grace, retreat to cabins in the woods to work on new drafts.  There are isolated practice cabins for musicians as well, and signs all over the campus warning about bears and elk. Sometimes it can be hard to tell where the wildlife stops and the wild life starts.

Banff has a playwrights’ lab, a sound mixing workshop, a “puppet theatre intensive” run by Peter Balkwill of Calgary’s Old Trout Puppet Workshop. There’s a literary translation centre and a growing cluster of Indigenous arts and crafts. An Opera in the 21st Century initiative will send a version of Puccini’s La Bohème, directed by Joel Ivany of Toronto’s Against the Grain Theatre, on a tour of bars and taverns this autumn.

Even amid all this, the BISQC is important for the Banff Centre because it’s so unabashedly audience-facing. A lot of what goes on here is for practitioners only. It’s a place for them to try new things, to rehearse, overhaul, maybe abandon flawed but promising productions. To screw up without fear. There’s a constant tension between the Banff Centre’s artist-development role and its public mandate. The centre’s management needs finished and crowd-pleasing shows, to justify its existence for governments and for philanthropic donors who are concentrated in Calgary. Some of its faculty and students are at Banff precisely because their stuff isn’t ready for audiences yet.

So it’s with relish and a hint of relief that the Banff Centre throws itself into such a crowd-pleasing event as the string quartet competition every three years. The 950-seat Eric Harvie Theatre sells out for most of the week. The event’s core audience — retirees, empty nesters, amateur musicians or parents of musicians — rents dorm rooms and meal plans, attends more than a dozen concerts and auxiliary lectures and demonstrations, debates the merits of the participating quartets late into the night at the centre’s Maclab bistro.

A rough consensus among musicians holds that competition for financial prizes is not the purest or most exalted way to pursue musical goals, but it’s not wholly bogus either. The repertoire any serious musician needs to know is immense. Thousands of pages of music from 300 years of lore. And you can’t sort-of play it either. If you know you have a competition coming up, it helps keep your concentration and endurance up. A competent jury can’t be snowed by performances that aren’t truly musical. This year’s jury was stellar, with members from the genre’s most pedigreed ensembles, including the Emerson, Kronos, Tokyo and New Zealand Quartets.

It was hardly clear how they were supposed to choose on Sunday. Viano, the young West Coasters, played Beethoven’s Quartet No. 9, the third of three he wrote in 1806 for the Russian ambassador to Vienna, Count Andreas Razumovsky. It’s the work of a 35-year-old at the top of his game, blustering and exuberant. Beethoven might as well have written its last movement for Hao Zhou. It’s a fugue at horserace tempo, long lines jetting in and out among the four instruments for more than five minutes, nearly ending a half-dozen times before darting off again. The music challenges every player, but the starring role goes to the first violin. Zhou chewed the scenery like a champ. The audience roared.

The Marmen Quartet chose a work from 20 years later, Beethoven’s Quartet No. 14, or Opus 131. It’s nearly the last thing Beethoven wrote, at 56, stone deaf but free of the expectations that defined lesser composers’ work. It’s a third longer than the piece the Viano chose, seven movements where most quartets have four. Nowhere flashy. More of a reverie than a race. It’s cocky for young musicians to play it, precisely because it gives them no chance to sound cocky. It leaves a quartet all kinds of room to stumble. Once or twice the Marmen misstepped or seemed bewildered by the scale of what they were attempting. But mostly they were letting the audience in on a secret of terrible beauty.

The Marmen Quartet

Three hours passed before the jury came out, and the three finalist quartets, and Shiffman, all arrayed on the stage. Shiffman finally admitted the jury couldn’t decide between the Viano and the Marmen. For the first time in the competition’s 36-year history there was a tie for first place.

The two quartets will split the prize money, sweetened by the $8,000 that would have gone to a third-place winner. They’ll divide up the tour dates, although most venues will be happy to hire them both. They’ll share the residency at Southern Methodist University, and another extended visit to Stanford that Shiffman’s old band, the St. Lawrence String Quartet, offered to the winners out of nowhere. Fortune favours the bold, as anyone who ever took a cello and three friends into the mountains to play Schubert among the elk could tell you.

MORE BY PAUL WELLS:

• The McLellan report would have ended the SNC affair before it began
• Such stark statements: the ethics commissioner faults the PM
• How Jeremy Broadhurst plans to get Trudeau re-elected (with help from Gerry Butts)
• Canada’s Brexit talks with the U.K.: There are none

The post In the Canadian wilderness, the ultimate battle of the string quartets appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Harry has always taken on causes that appeal to him. He created the Invictus Games after seeing how sport helps military veterans wounded by war. Harry and older brother William became deeply committed to mental health causes, especially among youth, in part because of the anguish they endured after the death of their mother, Diana. And Harry has spent weeks in Africa doing conservation work.

Now, with Meghan as his partner in both life and work, he is more consciously focusing on the expanding their Sussex Royal brand, launched in April when their Instagram account by that name went live. It now has 9.3 million followers and is where he announced that he and Oprah Winfrey are co-producing a mental health series for Apple TV.

READ MORE: Harry and Meghan’s baby will be a non-royal royal—and that’s a good thing

As well, the Sussexes have put space between their life and that of William and Kate, Duchess of Cambridge. The once-inseparable brothers split apart their joint household of royal staff, and, in July, Harry and Meghan incorporated their own Sussex Royal foundation. The Sussexes added physical distance by moving away from the Cambridges’ home in London and into a newly renovated house near Windsor Castle.

With the freedom that comes from being sixth in line to the throne, Harry can follow the paths of his father’s siblings who have traditional supporting royal roles. Or Harry and Meghan can carve out a life more independent from his family, one that sees them build a high-profile global presence, a future that is distinctly Sussex Royal rather than merely royal.

At the moment, they are royal rock stars; everything they do (or are rumoured to do) generates headlines—just look at how her guest editorship of the September issue of British Vogue was analyzed around the world. Its theme was “forces for change;” Meghan wanted to create an issue “that would speak not just to where we are, but to where we hope to be.”

The degree of independence sought by Harry and Meghan will determine their future, as both members of the royal family and people whose voices can influence change around the world. The Queen and Prince Charles privately finance the rest of the working royals because their duties are in support of the monarchy. If Harry and Meghan radically break away from that model, then their position as full-time royals may need rethinking. As it is, Harry, who chafes at formal royal events, regularly undertakes less than half the official workload of his father.

RELATED: The extraordinary wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Would the rich and famous donate as generously to his causes if Prince Harry wasn’t a full-time Windsor, and will his family, whose purpose is the continuation of the monarchy, financially support his efforts? In a sign of the limits to how far the Sussexes can push the gilded envelope, their new, Buckingham Palace-based media operation, unlike the independent ones of Charles and William, reports to the Queen’s communications secretary, just like those of other working royals.

Until Harry fully defines himself and his new Sussex Royal role, he leaves himself open to criticism, however well-intentioned his efforts. Recently, critics have noted the stark contrast between his strong environmental talk—“There cannot be any more excuses…we are ready to translate our awareness into action,” he stated last year in Australia—and his carbon-heavy actions, such as taking a private jet to deliver a passionate speech at Google’s celebrity-packed global warming summit in Italy, followed by several more private flights to exclusive European hotspots with Meghan and Archie.

This autumn, in addition to celebrating his birthday, he and Meghan will take Archie to South Africa. Originally mooted in the press as a months-long sojourn on the continent, it will be a traditional royal tour, with Harry travelling on to Angola and Malawi. It also marks the first big test of the new Sussex Royal brand.

MORE ABOUT ROYALTY:

• The royal nightmare that is Prince Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein
• Archie’s christening was good news, but a self-inflicted jab for his parents
• Royal christening 101: FAQs about Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor’s big day
• All hail the Queen’s favourite (hint, she’s not Meghan or Kate)

The post Prince Harry must decide what kind of royal he wants to be appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Singh tries to get back in it: Breaking from the directionally-themed campaign slogans chosen by the Liberals (“Chose forward”) and the Conservatives (“It’s time for you to get ahead”), the NDP revealed the tagline they’ll take to voters next month: “In it for you.” The announcement coincided with the launch of a French-language ad campaign in Quebec, where the NDP is facing an uphill battle to hold onto its 14 seats, in which Jagmeet Singh addresses head on his Sikh faith and turban in a province where the majority of the population backed legislation banning civil servants from wearing turbans, kippas and hijabs. The ad, which begins with a scene showing Singh’s long hair down before he wraps a turban around his head, can be seen here. (National Post)

It’s all part of Singh’s effort to revive momentum in his struggling campaign, and to that end he vowed to close the gap with the other parties in terms of the number of candidates the NDP has in place — at last count the party has candidates named in just 181 of 338 ridings. (The Conservatives are fully stocked while the Liberals have candidates in 276 ridings.) Visiting St. John’s, Singh said the party would boost its candidate count to 302 by the end of next week. (CBC News)

Not in it for him: But on a day choreographed by Team Singh to change the narrative around the federal NDP’s prospects, Elizabeth May’s Green Party hijacked the plot. A group of 14 New Brunswick NDPers as well as a member of the federal party’s national executive announced they’re ditching the Dippers and shifting their allegiances to the Greens. “In New Brunswick, the NDP does not have a path to victory,” said Jonathan Richardson, a member of the federal NDP election planning committee, to reporters. “There are no candidates for the NDP in New Brunswick or P.E.I. for the federal election. “I actually just received a call from the organizer, you know, pleading for my help to keep finding these candidates and I said, you know, at the end of the day this is the decision I’ve made.” (CBC News)

The news made May’s day: “It certainly puts more wind in our sails.” (CTV News)

Hey big spender: As David Akin, the one-man government-spending monitoring service notes, the Trudeau Liberals have blanketed the country with taxpayer dollars, focussing particularly on those parts of the country they’ll be targeting for votes. Last Friday Conservative MP Peter Kent lodged a complaint with Canada’s Elections Commission, accusing the Liberals of “criss-crossing the country making partisan announcements where they have been weaving campaign narratives into official government speeches and news releases.” Akin collated Trudeau’s summer of splurge, including 4,545 new spending commitments worth a combined $12.8 billion in August alone, and exactly where the money went. (Global News)

Stay on target: Picking up that thread at Maclean’s, former Conservative comms director Andrew MacDougall writes that with the Liberals stacking the deck and pulling neck-and-neck with Andrew Scheer’s Tories, the Conservatives need to stick to their campaign script of helping ordinary Canadians get ahead:

By appealing directly to voters with a paid message of empathy on the cost of living, the Conservatives are hoping to catch the eyes and ears of Canadians who are fed up with their politicians bickering about issues that are marginal to their bottom line.

In other words, the Conservatives are counting on people who feel the deck is stacked against them not caring how the Liberals have stacked the deck to ensure their reelection. (Maclean’s)

A modest proposal: If Albertans want the rest of Canada to take their issues more seriously, they’ll have to do something even more radical than pushing for separation—they should stop voting Conservatives, writes Max Fawcett:

They don’t have to do that forever, mind you, and they certainly don’t have to vote Liberal. Asking an Albertan to vote for Trudeau in 2019 is a bit like asking an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. But as long as Albertans reflexively vote Conservative at the federal level, they are inviting said federal Conservatives to take their votes for granted and focus on winning the ones in relatively vote-rich Quebec and Ontario. Stephen Harper’s tenure as Prime Minister offers a useful illustration of that. (Maclean’s)

Click the down arrow next to the tweet and then “delete”: No, Britain is not planning to send convicted child-killer Jon Venables to Canada to save money, as first erroneously reported by U.K. tabloids, and yes, Scheer’s tweet implying that under Trudeau, Canada would be a “dumping ground for murderers, terrorists, and perverts” still remains online. (Canadian Press)

The post How not to plot a political rebound, Jagmeet Singh edition appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Kacey Wong is one of Hong Kong’s most beloved and celebrated artists. He’s an award-winning sculptor, visual artist, lecturer and creator of provocative works of performance art. For several years, he’s been a leading figure in what you could call Hong Kong’s impeccably non-violent democratic cultural resistance. But Wong says he’s fed up with the complaints he’s been hearing from the world’s liberal democracies about the violence that has lately emerged at the front lines of the most dramatic popular unrest since the semi-autonomous former British colony was ceded to Beijing in 1997.

“These people who are complaining about the violence, they have no idea,” Wong told me by telephone from Hong Kong this week. “They have no idea about when to use force and how much force to use. What you are seeing with the young people, they are practising uncivil disobedience with high discipline. They have nothing to lose. Already they can’t afford housing, already there is no freedom, already life is not worth living. You can get arrested for anything now. They see that the law is already unjust, so they mask up, and they say ‘don’t get caught, do the right thing,’ and it is quite an advanced practice. It is more like a sentiment of ‘liberty or death’.”

Now in its 13th week, Hong Kong’s tumult took a dramatic turn last Friday after several prominent activists and lawmakers were rounded up and charged with a variety of offences, including incitement to riot and obstruction, and the Hong Kong Police Force banned a mass protest that was planned by the Civil Human Rights Front for Saturday.

RELATED: While Hong Kong fights for democracy, Canada goes silent

Throughout the weekend, tens of thousands of angry people marched in a series of unauthorized protests. The malls, the train stations, the parks and the approaches to Hong Kong International Airport were scenes of pitched battles between police and young radicals. For the first time, police deployed water cannon, having dyed the water blue to assist police in tracking people fleeing the confrontations. Molotov cocktails were thrown at police barriers. Riot squads poured into the Metro stations, and truncheon-wielding police were captured on cell phone cameras engaged in vicious acts of brutality. This was particularly so at the Prince Edward Station in the Mong Kok district of Kowloon, where baton-flailing police targeted protesters, neighbourhood residents and regular transit users alike, while medics were refused entry and ambulances waited outside.

“What we’re seeing is uncontrolled use of force by the police,” Wong told me. “We’re seeing real brutality. And the hatred, the real hatred of the police is there now. There are mass arrests, and the abuse of police power, and in this process people will probably get killed. We are going down in a spiral. It’s like sitting on a time bomb, waiting for people to die. Some of the protesters are already writing their wills, but instead of killing themselves, they go out and fight. This is the shared ideal among the hardcore people on the front line. It is not nihilism. It is about a citizen’s right and responsibility to do the right thing.”

The recent protests began in early June in response to an extradition law that would have incorporated the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region into the judicial system of the People’s Republic of China, where dissent is criminalized and the courts boast a 99 per cent conviction rate. While the bill was suspended in Hong Kong’s pseudo-democratic legislative council, Chief Executive Carrie Lam refused to withdraw it completely, and the protest demands were expanded to include amnesty for arrested protesters and a fulfillment of the promise in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the “Basic Law,” for universal suffrage—one person, one vote.

RELATED: Inside the fight for Hong Kong

Saturday’s rally was to mark the fifth anniversary of Beijing’s decision to renege on that promise—one of several dramatic encroachments on Hong Kong’s autonomy in recent years. Hong Kong’s semi-independent status was a key condition of the 1984 Sino-British declaration that led to the 1997 handover, but this summer, three weeks after the protests began, Beijing dismissed the declaration as an “historic document” with no practical force and effect.

Civil unrest continues this week. Tens of thousands of workers, university students and returning high school students staged strikes and gathered in rallies. While shocking incidents of police brutality are stiffening the resolve of the pro-democracy movement, Chinese propaganda videos are being broadcast showing dramatic anti-riot drills carried out by the Peoples Liberation Army across the border in Shenzhen.

Reinforcing the widespread view that Lam is a mere puppet of the Chinese Communist Party, the Reuters news agency obtained an audio recording in which Lam concedes that her refusal to meet protesters’ initial demands has caused “unforgivable havoc,” but that the matter is now out of her hands because Beijing has elevated the issue of Hong Kong’s turmoil to a matter of national security.

“It is impossible to know who is really making the decisions,” Yvonne Leung, a key leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement protests for universal suffrage, told me. “The decision to arrest certain people last Friday, for instance, when all those leading figures were arrested by police, this couldn’t have been a decision by police by themselves. They would dare not do that without the authority of high ranking people.”

RELATED: When the democratic world turned its back on Hong Kong’s freedom fighters

Umbrella Movement leaders Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, Civic Passion party leader Cheng Chung-tai, district councillor Rick Hui and Hong Kong National Party leader Andy Chan were among the prominent figures picked up in Friday’s swoop. Hong Kong police officials say it was just a coincidence that the arrests occurred on the same day. The head of Hong Kong’s public prosecutors’ association called on the justice minister to instruct police to stop “telling lies.”

It is not for nothing that this summer’s mass protest movement is leaderless. Four of the five young leaders who tried and failed to negotiate the 2014 Umbrella Movement’s demand to replace Hong Kong’s gerrymandered constituency system with genuine universal suffrage ended up in jail.

“There is no longer ‘one country, two systems’ for Hong Kong,” Yvonne Leung told me. “The insides of the system are rotten.”

The political situation in Hong Kong is now intractable, with neither side willing or able to back down from their respective positions. Even so, it is unlikely that popular fears of a repeat of the 1989 Tiananmen massacres will be realized, Leung said. For one thing, it won’t be necessary. Beijing has already insinuated itself so deeply into Hong Kong’s affairs that more “elegant” means of repression, or at least something not as barbaric as Tiananmen, will likely be viable, she said.

The key to a resolution of the Hong Kong crisis is in the hands of the world’s liberal democracies, like Canada, Australia, the European Union, and perhaps even Donald Trump’s America, Leung said. “It is really important for these countries not to take the threats from China. Civil societies in liberal democracy countries are doing a much better job for us than their governments. It is very important for those citizens to make their governments take a very hard line.”

At the very least, citizens’ groups, universities and business groups should refuse to engage at any level with delegations from Chinese embassies and consulates. “They could boycott government officials, and don’t invite them as guests. This is something that could be very easily done. It is the very least you could do for Hong Kong people.”

Kacey Wong says the same.

“How to stop this repression, it will not be the voices of Hong Kong people. It will be the voices outside Hong Kong, the leaders of foreign countries. It will happen when the problem becomes immediate and real,” Wong told me. “Right now we are trying to escalate everything to the foreign affairs level. It is only through that, in my mind, that we have a slight chance.”

And Hong Kong’s democratic spirit will not spread to other Chinese cities, at least not unless and until liberal democracies put their avowed ideals about human rights and the rule of law ahead of the narrow interests of western corporations that have enriched the Communist Party elites. China will not democratize until the Chinese economy begins to implode.

“Freedom will not spread to China. It will be the other way around. I see the oppression of freedom and liberty spreading throughout planet earth,” Wong said. With Chinese corporate and state interests increasingly entrenched in western democracies, and democratic politicians increasingly compromised by their own countries’ integration with the Chinese economy, “Hong Kong is the foreshadow of what will happen to the western world that you know. Whatever happens here is like the first chapter of the rest to come.”

MORE BY TERRY GLAVIN:

• The real election threat is China
• When the democratic world turned its back on Hong Kong’s freedom fighters
• Whose side is Jean Chrétien on?

The post Hong Kong protestors to democratic leaders: Stand up for us before it’s too late appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Why isn’t it the answer? In large part because the province’s new United Conservative government mandated the task force to figure out how to balance the provincial books without raising taxes. A group of financial thinkers was told that raising taxes couldn’t be the answer—lo and behold.

For ages, the irritatingly black-and-white question has rung out over Alberta: does the province have a spending problem or a revenue problem? Wise economists groaned out their answer: Argh! It’s both! Alberta has long been the magical province that pretty much spends the most and taxes the least, performing that dual feat thanks to the perennial fairy-dust dump of oil and gas royalty revenues. That gusher dried up around the time Rachel Notley’s NDP government came into power, and nobody expects it to return anytime soon. Which means that if Alberta wants to cease racking up some of Canada’s largest annual deficits and fastest-rising debt, it can stop spending like it did in the boom days, or it can stop letting residents have the low taxes it did in the boom days.

RELATED: Why Albertans should stop voting Conservative

To produce Kenney’s convenient guidebook to balancing Alberta’s books by referring to only one side of the ledger and never uttering a word about a provincial sales tax, his government tapped Janice MacKinnon. She’s a Saskatchewan NDP finance minister from the 1990s, who went on to become a go-to researcher for right-leaning think tanks and advisor for conservative governments. The former vegetarian selected to a livestock ranching task force.

The findings: Alberta spends more per person on its public sector, and compensates its teachers, doctors and other workers more generously, than other major provinces. It’s the same story on the half of the budget equation MacKinnon was forbidden from inspecting—Alberta forgoes more revenue than other provinces due to the generosity of its tax regime—but never mind that. More than a decade ago, a more moderate Tory government gave public employees double-digit pay increases to keep pace with the private sector’s booming wages. Now, MacKinnon echoes her past advocacy of wage rollbacks by saying that it was always wrong to compare an Alberta nurse’s pay to an petroleum engineer’s; she told reporters Tuesday they should be compared simply to other provinces (differing economies be damned), reasoning that the nurse will more likely make the geographical leap than switch professions.

MacKinnon prescribes that Kenney legislate the changes to pay, rather go through that bother of negotiating with pesky unions.  They may not adopt such a draconian measure, but Kenney and his cabinet should thank her for the gift of a spiked club to wield in delayed labour talks. Add in recommendations for lifting the post-secondary tuition freeze, various measures to slash health-care costs and government-wide program reviews, and Kenney has ready justification for many of the moves he would have enacted anyway, in a budget that’s eight or so weeks away from release and likely mostly set down before this report’s release.

RELATED: 6 things we’ve learned about Jason Kenney and the Alberta UCP

Notley’s NDP, now in opposition, mashed the panic button and predicted that downsizing Alberta’s spending to the national average will mean a swift 20 per cent spending cut. This alarmist response is also a gift to Kenney, who can now say that whatever he ultimately does is peanuts compared to what the NDP warned about. (The report gives Notley credit for doing some of the work of reining in the massive year-on-year hikes to health spending her Progressive Conservative predecessors delivered. The NDP began to control physician compensation, and now Kenney will be tasked with going much further, complete with more ideologically amenable private-sector service delivery.)

Kenney’s upcoming budget, which he’ll politely not deliver until after fellow Conservative Andrew Scheer runs in the Oct. 21 federal election, will draw immediate comparisons to Doug Ford’s Ontario. A key distinction: the inexperienced Ford rushed to develop and execute an agenda after winning a hastily convened leadership contest and hopping to Queen’s Park—the result was jarring and replete with back–pedalling. Kenney, one of the conservative movement’s most cunning operators, has plotted these reforms for the last three years. There will be howls over his cuts, and a bloody war with organized labour. But he’s betting that after years of wage rollbacks and cuts in the oil patch, there’s public buy-in for some pain to be felt by the oft-protected civil service.

Yet he feels the need to give himself the political cover of an experts’ panel instructing him to do all these big, bad things. MacKinnon’s look-at-just-spending committee was but one. A former Edmonton police chief who’s fretted over the community impact of safe drug consumption sites is leading a review into that very issue, and the Alberta minister in charge ordered the panel not to bother looking into the life-saving benefits of harm reduction, because there’s already research on that. (Whereas there’s surely no research on Alberta’s provincial spending, one must conclude.)

RELATED: Alberta budget: Rachel Notley’s NDP looks anxiously over its shoulder

Kenney’s government struck another panel looking into the minimum wage, featuring small-business lobbyists and economic professors who have already bemoaned Alberta’s hike to $15 per hour. But to prevent the ugly spectacle of being instructed to slash low-income Albertans’ pay, the only thing panelists can recommend is whether alcohol and restaurant servers should make less. Kenney government may as well have announced a task force on nutrition, populated it with children and ice cream manufacturers, and limited their mandate to determining what we should eat for dinner.

MacKinnon’s fiscal panel—despite its marching orders and its conservative-friendly composition—couldn’t help but reach longingly for its forbidden fruit: “While the panel’s mandate is not to opine on the make-up of revenues, to successfully manage the province’s finances, steps need to be taken to increase stable sources of revenue and decrease the reliance on the volatile non-renewable resource revenues.” Translation: reap more income taxes and other stable sources to ease reliance on oil and gas revenues. Asked about this at the news conference, MacKinnon said this was necessary future business for Alberta, though she wriggled away from suggesting that meant any rate hikes that go against the ideological religion of Kenney, a former leader of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation.

Eventually, somebody was going to have to figure out how to reconfigure Alberta’s budgeting for the post-bonanza age. Kenney, evidently, is perfectly happy being told how to do half of this messy job.

MORE BY JASON MARKUSOFF:

• Justin Trudeau, Melania Trump and the air-kiss heard round the world
• Oops: The curious case of the wrong judge
• Why Calgary council drank the publicly subsidized Kool-aid on arenas
• The Tory premier who plays nice and doesn’t sound very blue

The post Jason Kenney’s convenient blueprint to fix half of Alberta’s fiscal house appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The Liberals have certainly been busy bees this summer.

Doling out billions upon billions in pre-election spending across the country? Check. Keeping an unpopular Doug Ford in the news? Check. Having the country’s top union rep—and advisor on the government’s new media bailout fund—tell his members he will keep attacking the Liberal government’s enemies in the media? Check. Testing the attack machinery (and the opponent’s defences) using an old speech of Andrew Scheer’s on gay marriage? Check. Keeping shtum on a controversial bill in a key battleground province? Check. Unveiling the party’s campaign slogan? Check.

Thanks to these efforts the Liberals remain neck and neck with Scheer’s Conservatives, despite the pesky Ethics Commissioner weighing in with his damning report on Trudeau’s law breaking on the SNC-Lavalin affair. It might not be where Trudeau hoped to be entering his bid for re-election, but it’s better than he feared he’d be after this spring’s slew of damaging SNC stories.

By deploying the enormous advantages of incumbency, the Liberals have indulged in cynical and time-tested politics. They have stacked the deck as much as possible and now it’s time to play their hand in the general election.

MORE: Jerry Dias wants to make an enemy out of Andrew Scheer

The Liberals’ summer activity ledger also happens to double as a rap sheet of Conservative pet peeves designed to provoke responses that get them into trouble. The Tories hate Trudeau’s spending but want to avoid being tagged the ‘austerity party.’ Team Scheer definitely doesn’t want to get caught out on social issues but have nothing to say capable of shutting down the debate absent a more personally credible intervention from their leader. In Ontario, Doug Ford was once hailed as an advantage in the quest to retake the province federally, but the Premier’s populist performance in office has been putrid. And how do the Conservatives speak about Bill 21 in Quebec without either angering their supporters in la Belle Province or invoking memories of the niqab ban in the rest of Canada?

All the more reason, then, for the Conservatives to stick to their campaign script and keep the conversation on affordability and helping ordinary people get ahead. Here they’ve had some recent help from Trudeau, with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna pirouetting on the head of a very small pin as to whether she’d hike the federal carbon tax beyond the current plans for $50 per tonne. Current answer: we have a deal with the provinces until 2022 (when you and I both know it will be hiked).

The Liberal inconsistency on one of their main campaign offers—protecting the environment—makes it harder to take their planet-saving claims seriously. If the carbon tax rebate really is so painless (and the carbon tax really so necessary), why not hike that sucker up to planet-saving levels and reap the electoral reward? (The answer: because a rebate comes once a year while the cost of the carbon tax is felt every single day.)

MORE: Where the Liberals are spending taxpayer money in the dog days of summer

The lack of Liberal clarity on the carbon tax opens the door to a Conservative attack. Or it should do, anyway. The trick now will be for the Conservative war room to do a better job slipping Liberal attacks to free up the airspace to fight on their terms. Hiding the leader for a week and complaining about the media covering the obvious Liberal jabs on social issues won’t cut it. Nor will whataboutism. Yes, Justin Trudeau is also personally opposed to abortion, but he’s also kicked out or neutered all of the pro-life members of his caucus. His ruthlessness might not be fair, but it at least has the benefit of being unambiguously clear.

Back to deck stacking. The Liberal advantage on social issues lies in the fact the media (largely) see things their way. That deck will never get un-stacked so the Conservatives need a better plan to dealing with the future attacks senior Liberals are privately bragging will come.

Part of the answer will be launching their own attacks, or at least seizing on those made by others. The rapid defenestration of Hassan Guillet, the now former Liberal candidate in Saint Leonard–St. Michel, for espousing anti-Semitic views, is a case in point. The first week of the campaign will rely heavily—to quote the philosopher Michael Wernick—on the vomitorium of social media as candidates get strung up for outré things they’ve said in the past. In other words, it will be a bubble fest.

MORE: The question to ask about Andrew Scheer and abortion

And that suits the Conservative brain trust just fine, thank you very much.

A bubble fest keeps the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the partisan ultras on Twitter busy and outraged, respectively, but it won’t reassure ordinary hard-working Canadians that anyone is listening to their concerns.

Enter Andrew Scheer and his Conservative Party.

By appealing directly to voters with a paid message of empathy on the cost of living, the Conservatives are hoping to catch the eyes and ears of Canadians who are fed up with their politicians bickering about issues that are marginal to their bottom line.

In other words, the Conservatives are counting on people who feel the deck is stacked against them not caring how the Liberals have stacked the deck to ensure their reelection.

Now it’s time to call the election to see who’s right.

The post Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Like a lot of Albertans these days, Michelle Rempel is frustrated with the rest of the country. In a Globe and Mail story last week, Rempel made the case for why people living in Toronto and Montreal need to care more about what’s going on in Calgary. “The message I would like the rest of the country to hear is it doesn’t matter where you live in the country, oil and gas and the Alberta economy need to be a ballot question for you,” she said. “Our national campaign has to talk about Alberta.”

Her frustration with the rest of Canada, and that of many Albertans, is understandable. They’ve contributed many billions of dollars to the federal treasury over the last two decades and received little more in return than a growing sense of hostility towards the source of said funds. But that frustration doesn’t resonate in the rest of the country, where the intricacies of the equalization program aren’t nearly as popular a topic of conversation, and where Alberta’s long-standing habit of rubbing its prosperity in the face of the so-called “have-not provinces” has left the people who live in them a bit cold to its recent plight.

This stew of economic pain and political alienation, and the willingness of certain politicians to continue stirring it, helps explain the recent outburst of western separatism. But if Albertans want the rest of Canada to take their issues more seriously, they’ll have to do something even more radical than push for separation: stop voting Conservative.

MORE: Imagining a federal election without Alberta or Quebec

They don’t have to do that forever, mind you, and they certainly don’t have to vote Liberal. Asking an Albertan to vote for Trudeau in 2019 is a bit like asking an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. But as long as Albertans reflexively vote Conservative at the federal level, they are inviting said federal Conservatives to take their votes for granted and focus on winning the ones in relatively vote-rich Quebec and Ontario. Stephen Harper’s tenure as Prime Minister offers a useful illustration of that.

Here was a Prime Minister from Calgary, who gave important cabinet posts to other Albertans, and who ostensibly had Alberta’s best interests in mind. And yet, during his nearly decade-long time in office, Mr. Harper and his government consistently made decisions that were at odds with those interests.

For example, his government changed the tax treatment of the income trust structure that dozens of oil and gas companies in Calgary had come to depend on, breaking a campaign promise and vaporizing billions of dollars of shareholder value in the process. His government blocked takeovers of oil sands companies by Chinese state-owned enterprises in 2012, a decision that closed a door that a number of smaller oil-sands companies had been planning to use. And it was his government’s ham-fisted approach to building pipelines that played a major role in transforming them from mere pieces of energy infrastructure into metaphors for the carbon economy.

MORE: The rise of Alberta’s unapologetic petro-patriots

But perhaps the most conspicuous decision the Harper government made was the one involving equalization. There was no overhaul of the formula, no reorientation of its basic purpose in a way that favoured Alberta. Instead, the Harper government resigned itself to minor tweaks so as not to upset voters in Quebec or Ontario.

Indeed, the formula that it adopted in 2007 actually had the effect of increasing Quebec’s take, and of turning Ontario into a have-not province (one that would start receiving equalization benefits). It’s no wonder: Harper knew he could count on the 28 seats in Alberta remaining reliably Conservative, and he understood that the majority government he was trying to cobble together depended almost entirely on winning more seats in central Canada. In 2011, he earned that majority.

This is the electoral calculus that Albertans have to break if they want their issues to be taken more seriously by the rest of the country. If the 34 seats in Alberta are never in play, there’s no political incentive for anyone—Liberal or Conservative—to put its issues at the forefront.

MORE: Trudeau looks to pick up more Alberta seats despite backlash

It’s been 70 years since Alberta’s federal seats were up for grabs, when Social Credit and the Liberals ended up with 37.4 per cent and 33.8 per cent of the vote, respectively. Since then, there have only been three occasions where Alberta sent more than three non-Conservative MPs to Ottawa: four in 1968, four again in 1993, and a whopping five in 2015. Other than that, it’s been blue wave after blue wave, with Conservatives routinely pulling more than 60 per cent of the popular vote.

The odds of Albertans actually voting strategically in this fall’s election and putting the province’s federal Conservatives on notice are about the same as Maxime Bernier crossing the aisle to join the Liberals. But it’s something they might want to start thinking seriously about.

After all, as Einstein famously observed, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. And if recent history is any indication, voting Conservative isn’t going to get them the results they want.

The post Why Albertans should stop voting Conservative appeared first on Macleans.ca.

 
Michael, now 49 and still working with Coquitlam SAR, remembers that day like it was yesterday. “I was feeling perfectly healthy,” he recalls. “I was in good shape. I rode my bike everywhere. I was a vegetarian. I remember thinking, ‘How could something be wrong with me?’ But I also remember the nurse looking at me very sternly and telling me I needed to see a doctor right away.”

Following a battery of tests, Michael was diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease (PKD), one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases. About one person in every 500 suffers from PKD, which equates to about 66,000 cases in Canada alone. And, as things stand today, there is no cure.

Staring down progressive organ failure

The disease manifests as cysts that grow inside and on the surface of not only the kidneys, but also sometimes the liver and the pancreas. PKD is a progressive disease and, when untreated, kidney function ultimately declines over a period of years until dialysis and transplantation are often necessary. “The cysts can be as small as the tip of a pin, as large as a golf ball, or even larger,” says Jeff Robertson, Executive Director of the PKD Foundation of Canada. “There can be hundreds or thousands of cysts in and around each kidney. The cysts grow and manifest over time, filling with fluid, and, as they take over the affected organ, that organ can begin to fail.”

In addition to high blood pressure, other early symptoms of PKD include frequent urinary tract infections, blood in the urine, kidney stones, and pain in the lower back where the kidneys are located. But, as PKD is hereditary, the most important red flag remains a family history of the disease. Michael, however, was adopted at birth and had no way of knowing that the disease was already manifesting in his birth father and would later affect his half-brother as well.

Today, Michael’s kidney function has declined to the point that things are becoming critical. He remains in good spirits, but has also had to face the reality of his situation and adjust his life to match. “By 2017, I started really feeling the effects,” says Michael. “When it started getting bad, I was at the top of my field doing helicopter rescues in the mountains. It was hard to stop working on the helicopter team, but I knew I wasn’t 100 per cent and the last thing you want to be in a situation like that is a liability. So now I spend a lot of time in the command truck, directing people as an SAR manager.”

Early detection may lead to more options

Michael’s disease has progressed to the point where transplantation is going to be necessary sooner rather than later. But he wants others, whose PKD may be less advanced than his, to know that early diagnosis today could mean a different path. Early intervention has the potential to reduce the growth of cysts in the kidney and slow the decline of kidney function. “The focus on early detection is a major shift in PKD care here in Canada,” says Robertson. “The sooner a patient can be in the care of a nephrologist or a specialist, the better. This is a disease where it can be easy to miss important signs of progression if you aren’t under specialized care.”

It’s too late for Michael to receive the benefit of the intervention, but for a great many more Canadians living with PKD, that door is still open. And, for Michael, the promise of innovation for the next generation is very personal. “My son was born in 2010 and we know that there’s a possibility that he’ll have the disease as well,” he says. “And because we know it’s a possibility, we can be confident and prepared to do what’s best for him. If he does have PKD, he’s fortunate that he’s growing up in a time where options are available.”

The importance of self-advocacy 

Today, while Michael endures the difficult wait for a transplant, he reflects on how his experience in the mountains of BC has provided valuable perspective on what it means to take an active role in his own health even when faced with uncertainty. “This whole journey has given me insight into what it means to need rescuing,” he says. “I’ve been on the other side of that equation so many times, and now I know what it’s like to have to put aside your ego and ask for help. Yes, there’s a level of embarrassment, but there’s also a huge level of gratefulness. And with PKD, as with SAR, the sooner you ask for help, the more effective that help can be.”

Michael and Jeff are both committed to inspiring those at risk of PKD to ask for help early, and empowering those newly diagnosed to take an active role in their health, to understand their management options, and to live their best lives. “PKD is a life-threatening disease, but it isn’t a death sentence,” says Robertson. “There are patients who live long and healthy lives with this disease and some never require dialysis or transplantation.”

If you’re looking for additional resources, the PKD Foundation of Canada is solely dedicated to fighting PKD through research, education, advocacy, support and awareness. Please visit www.endpkd.ca to learn more.

Connect with us:

Facebook: @endPKD
Twitter: @endPKD

The post Michael’s PKD journey: From uncertainty to self-advocacy appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Hammer time: There’s really no other place for an aspiring prime minister to be on Labour Day than the union heartland of Hamilton, Ont., and so the three main party leaders brought their unofficial campaigns to steel city Monday. Andrew Scheer joined former Hamilton Tiger-cat Peter Dyakowski, running as a Conservative in one of the city’s five federal ridings, to watch the team beat the Toronto Argonauts. Jagmeet Singh, having pledged earlier in the day in Toronto to bring in legislation blocking companies from replacing striking workers with temporary ones, headed for the city’s annual Labour Day picnic. (Canadian Press) 

As for Justin Trudeau, his effort at displaying worker solidarity hit a snag. While marching with a local chapter of the Labourers International Union of North America, he ran into a group of protesters with a different view of his labour bonafides chanting, “Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer, same old b——t, different year.” After being held up for more than half an hour Trudeau skedaddled and rejoined the group a couple blocks later. (Hamilton Spectator) 

Look out below: The latest 338Canada poll projection is looking seriously grim for Singh. While the Liberals have climbed to an average of 165 seats, just five short of majority, the NDP slipped further behind. As 338’s Philippe J. Fournier writes:

Poor numbers for the NDP have been piling on lately and one wonders where this could lead the party. … In the best case scenario according to current figures, the NDP would barely win more than half of its 2015 seat total.

The worst case scenario? Barely a handful of seats. (Maclean’s)

No deal: In contrast to Elizabeth May‘s Green Party, Singh last week ruled out the idea of the NDP propping up a minority Conservative government, no ifs, ands or buts. Tom Parkin writes that it was the right decision for Singh to take and will strengthen his hand:

The threat to walk down the hall and cut a deal with the Conservatives is a bluff—and everyone at the table knows it. When everyone knows it, there is no leverage. So Singh has turned it down.

Probably nothing unifies social democrats more than antipathy toward Conservatives. Scheer’s party wants to pull-down everything Singh’s social democrats want to build up. But it’s more than that. It’s personal. Scheer threatens to hurt the people who are part of the social democratic electoral coalition. Singh’s no-deal stance makes him the unambiguous defender and unifier of that coalition. And that clear anti-Scheer position contrasts well. (Maclean’s)

Meanwhile Singh praised his brother, Brampton East MPP Gurratan Singh, for his response to a far-right protestor who confronted him at Mississauga, Ont.’s MuslimFest over the weekend and demanded he declare his views on Shariah law and “political Islam.” Like the elder Singh has in the past, the Ontario politician refused to counter that he is indeed Sikh and not Muslim, and instead responded that “We don’t need that kind of racism in Canada.” (CBC News)

Dating game: We’re in the final stretch of the unofficial campaign before Trudeau advises the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and things get real, something he has until Sept. 15 to do. The CBC takes a look at the history of gaming the writ, and notes two factors favouring a Sunday Sept. 14 writ-drop: Manitoba is caught up in a provincial election campaign that doesn’t wrap up until Sept. 10 and past prime ministers’ visits to the GG have often (though not always) fallen on a Sunday. (CBC News)

But think of those carrots!: Who could look at the biggest ecological and humanitarian disaster in history and get excited for the economic opportunities? Former Conservative finance minister Joe Oliver, for one. Oliver is giddy at the prospect of climate change extending the Canadian growing season, as projected in a report by Moody’s Analytics that sorted countries as likely winners and losers of climate change based on economic models. Even putting aside the significant sums of money Oliver has received from energy industry opponents of carbon pricing, Stephen Maher writes that Oliver’s position is thin:

For one thing, he is seizing on a single report, which relies on the kind of computer modelling that he pooh poohs when he disagrees with the conclusions. And the Moodys report doesn’t factor in the impact of increased fires, flooding, coastal erosion and other climatic horrors. Consider that the Fort McMurray fire alone cost an estimated $10 billion. This year’s fires have so far burnt almost 900,000 hectares in Alberta—one and a half PEIs.

Scientists believe climate change is making those fires worse, but they would find it hard, no doubt, to convince Oliver of that. (Maclean’s)

Yes, he went there: While we’re on the subject, Oliver’s former cabinet colleague Maxime Bernier is taking a different approach to opposing efforts at combating climate change: cyberbullying a teenage girl. After attacking 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg as “mentally unstable” over the weekend, the People’s Party of Canada leader followed up yesterday with a barrage of unhinged tweets completely unworthy of repeating (though they’re here if you really really need to read them). It is worth remembering at a time like this that the “people’s” candidate is unable to garner even three per cent of voter support. (Global News)

The post Trudeau experiences labour pains in Hamilton union march appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Voting day is scheduled for Oct. 21, a full seven weeks from today. With 49 days and several debates to go, we present today the state of the race according to the available data.

Let’s recap the past week:

• Early last week, the Angus Reid Institute unveiled its August federal numbers indicating that the Conservatives held a four-point lead over the Liberals. ARI had the Conservatives ahead by as much as 13 points last spring and 8 points in July.
• On Saturday, a new poll by Léger published in Le Journal de Montréal showed a tied race nationally between the Liberals (34 per cent) and the Conservatives (33 per cent). Even though this is technically a statistical tie between the two main parties, it was the first time Léger measured the Liberals in first place since late last fall. Additionally, Léger placed the NDP as a distant third (tied with the Greens) with only 12 per cent of national support and a meager 7 per cent in Quebec.
• Finally, EKOS released its latest federal numbers on the 338Canada Blog on Sunday. According to this poll, the Liberals have taken a national lead of four points over the Conservatives (37 to 33 per cent). The Liberal gains appear to be mostly at the NDP’s expense—EKOS measured NDP support at only 7 per cent nationally—the lowest the party has polled all year. As it was mentioned in this analysis, this specific figure may well have been an outlier, but abnormal data have seemed to only go one way for the NDP of late.

Consider the following graph. The coloured bars are the 338Canada popular vote projection confidence intervals and the black dots are the latest polls’ results:

[AR: Angus Reid; LE: Léger; EK: EKOS.]

When we calculate the weighted average of all the latest polls, we see that the Conservatives and Liberals are essentially tied at 34 per cent apiece. As we will see below, according to current ranges of numbers, a near-tie vote between the Liberals and Conservatives would give an edge to the Liberals in terms of seats.

The NDP slips to an average of 13 per cent. While we notice that EKOS may be somewhat off on its NDP figure, Léger (12 per cent) and Angus Reid (14 per cent) generally agree on where the NDP stands—almost seven points lower than its 2015 result.

The Green Party remains stable with an average of 10 per cent nationally. Maxime Bernier’s PPC stands at 2.9 per cent.

In Quebec, the Bloc québécois climbs to 20 per cent support (4.7 per cent nationally).

Seat-wise, the Liberals climb to an average of 165 seats, just 5 seats short of a majority. The Conservatives are not far behind with an average of 142 seats. Notice however how the confidence intervals overlap significantly:

Strong numbers for the Liberals in Canada’s two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, partly explain why the LPC holds the advantage over the CPC despite polling similar levels of national support. For the Conservatives, polling at or above 60 per cent in Alberta may inflate their national figures, but it doesn’t win them any more seats (the CPC is projected ahead in all 34 Alberta seats).

For those wondering why the confidence intervals are so wide, the reasons are two-fold: 1) Polls do not agree on where major parties stand; just last week, we saw the Angus Reid Institute with a 4-point CPC lead, EKOS with a 4-point Liberal lead, and Léger somewhere in the middle; 2) The model accounts for the possibility of polls being wrong by a few points. The coloured bars’ extremes are the absolute worst—and best-case—scenarios or each party. The extremes are not as likely to occur as figures near the middle.

The Bloc québécois currently has the third highest projected seat average with 14, above the NDP, which falls to an average of 12.5 seats. Poor numbers for the NDP have been piling on lately and one wonders where this could lead the party. Take another look at the NDP projection’s confidence intervals: In the best case scenario according to current figures, the NDP would barely win more than half of its 2015 seat total.

The worst case scenario? Barely a handful of seats.

Here is the NDP seat probability density:

The higher the bar, the more likely the seat result is, meaning that the NDP is currently more likely to win 5 to 10 seats than 10 to 15. If the NDP doesn’t turn things around soon, losing official party status would not be an implausible scenario.

When we compile the results of all general election simulations, we see that the Liberals now hold the greatest odds to win the most seats (66 per cent):

We expect Justin Trudeau to visit Governor General Julie Payette sometime next week to ask her to dissolve the 42nd legislature.

We will follow the numbers closely all the way to election day.

MORE ABOUT 338CANADA:

• The latest 338Canada projection: The Liberals keep hanging on
• SNC-Lavalin may not be a ballot box winner for Scheer
• A new 338Canada/Maclean’s projection: Could SNC-Lavalin hurt the Liberals again?
• The rise and fall of Justin Trudeau’s political honeymoon

The post This week’s 338Canada projection: Is the NDP on the verge of collapse? appeared first on Macleans.ca.

As Hurricane Dorian descended on the Bahamas, Oliver advised Canadians to focus on the good news about a changing climate: a longer growing season for Canadian farmers!

Oliver was citing a recent report from Moodys Analytics that sorted countries into likely winners and losers based on economic models. Moodys concluded that, with a longer growing season, Canada’s farmers would benefit, even as the Indian economy dramatically shrinks.

When it comes to climate science, Oliver is a cherry picker, someone who seizes on a fact, takes it out of context and builds an argument around it. You can tell that’s what he’s doing because, as the facts change, his conclusion is always the same: nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the Canadian fossil fuel industry.

On Sunday, as host Mercedes Stephenson politely quizzed him about the upside of a warming global climate, he quickly pivoted to his key message: there is no point cutting Canadian emissions. “The point is, it isn’t the dire catastrophe that you keep hearing about,” he said. “Canada would in fact be a beneficiary but we only represent 1.6 per cent of global emissions, and even if we devastate our economy we wouldn’t have a measurable impact on where the global temperature would be  … We can’t make a difference.”

READS MORE: Climate change is making wildfires in Canada bigger, hotter and more dangerous

Oliver is echoing a view from the most strident Canadian oil executives, who argue that because Canadians produce a small share of global emissions, we would be foolish to do much to cut them. (They never mention, by the way, that we have among the world’s highest emissions per capita.)

This is a fallback position. They previously argued, and Oliver seemed to agree, that the cause of  climate change was unproven, just as cigarette manufacturers long argued that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking caused cancer.

As the tobacco industry gave up on the pro-smoking argument and started instead warning the public about the dangers of tobacco taxes, the fossil industry is now abandoning the scientific debate and making arguments about what we should do about the situation: not much.

“I don’t think we should be terrifying our children and devastating our economy based on extreme projections, which have been made I guess for the last 25 years,” Oliver told Stephenson. “I mean, 40 years ago was global cooling and that was going to destroy us. Now it’s global warming.”

Oliver’s familiar, avuncular presence is soothing, but his arguments could hardly be weaker.

For one thing, he is seizing on a single report, which relies on the kind of computer modelling that he pooh poohs when he disagrees with the conclusions. And the Moodys report doesn’t factor in the impact of increased fires, flooding, coastal erosion and other climatic horrors. Consider that the Fort McMurray fire alone cost an estimated $10 billion. This year’s fires have so far burnt almost 900,000 hectares in Alberta—one and a half PEIs.

Scientists believe climate change is making those fires worse, but they would find it hard, no doubt, to convince Oliver of that.

And, anyway, how hard-hearted do you have to be to look at the biggest ecological and humanitarian disaster in history and think of the economic upside? Only the most flinty-eyed analyst can relish the opportunities created for Canadian farm producers if heat and water shortages make much of India uninhabitable, creating new opportunities for pulse exporters once our Indian competitors have been forced out of business.

Oliver’s arguments are so thin, his conclusions so predictable that he risks losing the respect traditionally accorded to statesmen opining on matters of public importance. To be sure, there are arguments to be made for proceeding cautiously on emission reductions, particularly so long as Donald Trump is president. And we do have to be conscious of the risk of carbon leakage. If we increase the price of pollution too quickly, we might force out companies who will set up shop in less civilized areas, like Michigan, and pollute as much as ever, which would mean we are damaging our economy without reducing emissions.

But there are lots of smart people debating these issues who don’t have a conflict of interest, as Oliver does. In 2016, a year after he lost his Toronto seat, Oliver joined the board of High Arctic Energy Services, a Canadian oil drilling company. The company is headed by Michael Binnion, a Calgary petroleum executive who plays a key behind-the-scenes role funding conservative third-party groups and advocating forcefully against climate policies that threaten the interests of his industry.

Toronto Stock Exchange records show that Oliver has received stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work for Binnion’s company. I don’t question Oliver’s sincerity, but I am more interested in hearing from commentators whose financial interests are not tied so closely to the industry that has created this terrifying crisis.

MORE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE:

• For David Koch, the earth is his funeral pyre
• We must have our beef
• A commitment to covering climate change
• This Ontario town is trying to be Canada’s first carbon-neutral community

The post The problem with Joe Oliver’s soothing words on climate change appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Imagine that you are 8-years-old. Your parents just downloaded an app for you called Kurbo, Weight Watcher’s new weight-loss app for children. When you open it, you’re asked to pick between the following: eat healthier, lose weight, make parents happy, get stronger and fitter, have more energy, boost my confidence, or feel better in my clothes. You’re excited; maybe even encouraged. Maybe you were the one who asked your parents to download it.

After all, you’re a kid in the 99^th body-mass-index (BMI) percentile and you’ve been relentlessly bullied about your weight at school. When you visited the Kurbo website it proclaimed that you could reach a healthier weight. You tap on “lose weight,” and because you’re so motivated, you next rank your confidence level as a nine out of 10. So what are your chances?

Not good, and that’s not a generalization.

MORE: Obese kids will soon outnumber underweight kids in the world

According to Weight Watcher’s Chief Science Officer Gary Foster, Kurbo’s data on 1,120 enrolled Kurbo children, who were a mean age of 12 and in the 96.6^th BMI percentile, saw them lose an average of less than a kilo over 21 weeks. It’s important too to point out that these results aren’t unique to Weight Watchers or the Kurbo app. When it comes to the treatment of childhood obesity, there has yet to be found a reproducible and powerfully efficacious program.

These are not surprising findings, especially when considering young kids who not in charge of their choices in dietary offerings. Outcomes of weight-loss programs for young children aren’t like the success stories advertised in Kurbo: A 14-year-old boy named Manny is reported to have lost 46 lbs, or 14-year-old Juliana, who lost 40 lbs and reduced her BMI percentile by 44 points. Also not mentioned in Weight Watchers’ Kurbo advertising is the long-term effectiveness of their adult programs. Two years after completing the program, the average Weight Watcher is well on their way to regaining the 7.7 to 13 lbs they lost their first year.

However, one can’t look down on Kurbo’s data. Any program that stops kids from gaining weight as they grow is laudable, and having kids ‘stretch’ into their weight is something many parents desire. But the real question is, at what cost?

MORE: Hormone may hold clue to weight loss, N.B. professor says as he launches study

Much of the criticism of Kurbo to date stems from considering that these children—despite the best of parental intentions—are now operating under the premise that thinking about their weight and restricting “red-light” foods will provide them with confidence and make their parents happy. In turn, the worry is the potential for Kurbo to increase children’s risk of developing eating disorders as well as its ability to erode their self-esteem, body image and relationship with food.

Whether this is a fair concern isn’t clear. It’s important to remember that Kurbo is not just an application. Trained coaches are there to presumably help steward children and their parents away from maladaptive thinking around weight and food. But what percentage of those who download the app will sign up for the coaching, which costs $69 a month? And what to make of an app where at least one small study revealed that only four per cent of users actually bothered to use its features to track more than 75 per cent of what they ate or did?

Maybe Weight Watchers is taking the tidal wave of criticism they’re receiving to heart. After revisiting Kurbo’s website, the message, “reach a healthier weight with Kurbo” is gone, and in its place is “eat healthier, move more, feel great.” Still, hover to the asterisked “results-not-typical” member stories and seven out of nine are about dramatic weight loss. So while Kurbo has changed its verbiage, it’s not changed its tune.

MORE: Senate committee declares war on obesity

I asked Weight Watchers’ Chief Scientist Dr. Foster about the “results-not-typical” stories, and more pointedly, I wanted to know how Weight Watchers justified advertising these stories, considering their own data suggesting less than a kilo of weight lost per child.

According to Foster, focus groups of parents and children wanted to see weight-loss success stories, and Weight Watchers’ rationale for using them was to provide inspiration, which “qualitatively captures people’s attention,” he said. So too does the email message I received from Kurbo the day after I downloaded it: “Don’t wait. Join other Kurbo families to help your child succeed!” It writes. “Remember, 90 per cent of kids lower their BMI within three months with a Kurbo coach.”

Ultimately children aren’t in charge of their own lives; they’re passengers in their parents’ cars. There is a great deal of nutritional misinformation out there, as with Kurbo’s own reported outcomes. If parents are motivated and have the means to spend both time and money on changing their children’s lifestyles, I’d recommend that they—without their children—work with a registered dietitian on affecting small, sustainable changes to improve their family’s health as a whole.

And if a registered dietitian isn’t an option, parents might consider checking Ellyn Satter’s books, Your Child’s Weight: Helping Without Harming and Secrets of Feeding a Healthy Family, along with Marci Warhaft-Nadler’s The Body Image Survival Guide for Parents: Helping Toddlers, Tweens, and Teens Thrive, out of their local libraries.

Regardless of what road parents choose, I would argue that the most important ingredient in affecting and encouraging their children to embrace healthier lifestyles is to do so free from any talk or consideration of weight. This will protect children from any risk of disappointment if weight isn’t dramatically lost, and will prevent them from learning the poisonous message that scales are an accurate measure of health, happiness or success.

The post The Kurbo app does everything wrong appeared first on Macleans.ca.

IN: Casino

Ahead of The Irishman dropping on Netflix, Casino is well worth revisiting. Though overlong, it features another terrific performance from Robert De Niro, who portrays Ace Rothstein, the Jewish manager of Las Vegas’s largest casino in the 70s. Raging Bull’s Joe Pesci, similarly explosive, plays his volatile sidekick.  Sharon Stone plays the femme fatale who comes between these fiery friends. It’s quite far from Taxi Driver or Raging Bull or Goodfellas. But Casino has its marvellous moments, like the arresting opening scene, scored to Bach’s “St. Matthew’s Passion”. Director Martin Scorsese again chooses ace collaborators. Robert Richardson (photography) and Thelma Schoonmaker (editor) are especially dynamic, building an involving visual weave. Casino is the eigth partnership between Scorsese and De Niro; here’s hoping they still have more to come post-The Irishman. Casino comes to Netflix on Sept. 4.

IN: Elena

With The Return, Leviathan, Loveless and Elena, Andrey Zvyagintsev is one of the great contemporary Russian directors. (Only The Banishment disappointed.) Like Loveless, Elena is an atmospheric and compelling portrait of Moscow’s middle-class malaise. Vladimir (Andrey Smirnov) is an elderly Moscovite who seems to have acquired his wealth through dubious means. Elena (Nadezhda Markina) is his former housekeeper, since upgraded to spouse. It’s far from a a banner relationship. Vladimir’s home is rather opulent, but there’s not a lot of human warmth here. The duo’s children are parasitic on their parents, too. At once spare and tight, Elena is impressively written, acted and directed. From its marvellous opening image, Elena is gorgeously photographed and edited, with long shots that linger in your memory. Phillip Glass is also on form with a moody, melancholic score that heightens the tensions. Elena comes to Netflix on Sept. 1.

IN: Aziz Ansari: Right Now

The creator of the excellent series Master of None had to step away from the entertainment spotlight for a while. Recently, Aziz Ansari came storming back with a new special Aziz Ansari: Right Now. Ansari riffs engagingly on the sex controversy that laid him low; white people woke Olympics coming across as silly and obvious; and how social mores have changed quickly in recent years. As in Master of None, Ansari’s take on diversity is wise and real. It’s all smartly and stylishly lensed and directed by Her’s Spike Jonze. As someone who also has a grandparent with dementia, I found Ansari’s sequence on the importance of spending time with elderly relatives and living in the moment very moving.  Aziz Ansari: Right Now is streaming on Netflix now.

IN: Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Following the potential suggested in Spy and Bridesmaids, Can You Ever Forgive Me? is Melissa McCarthy’s best, weightiest role, and it’s based on a true story. She plays obscure biographer and journalist Lee Israel. When her uncommercial style of writing goes out of fashion in early-nineties New York, Israel makes a packet forging letters of literary icons such as Dorothy Parker and Noel Coward. Israel is very funny; she is also thoroughly misanthropic, preferring the company of cats to people. A rare exception is her dandy gay friend, Jack Hock, a hilarious and willing man who knows how to enjoy New York. Hock is played by Richard E. Grant, with the flamboyant wit one expects from Withnail and I’s star. “Maybe she [Julia] didn’t die? Maybe she just moved to the suburbs? I always confuse those two. No, that’s right. She got married and had twins.” Marielle Heller directs this idiosyncratic bohemian rhapsody with grit and gusto, crafting a potent sense of place and period. Can You Ever Forgive Me? is, like Seinfeld, a paean to the old Manhattan where curious artistic types could afford to live and create. Fine queer cinema, and one of my thirteen faves of 2018. Can You Ever Forgive Me? is streaming on HBO Canada now.

The post Best of Netflix Canada in September 2019: The three things you should watch this month appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Since none of these services are up and running yet, this September’s lineup on Netflix Canada is still mostly the usual mix of original material, semi-recent movies, and complete seasons of shows from other networks. But there are also signs of a new approach to come, including the arrival of a creator that Netflix spent a lot of money to lure away from broadcast and cable – not to mention the rival streaming services to come.

What’s coming and going on Netflix Canada in September

The Walking Dead: Season 9

(available Sept. 1)

This is something that is familiar from the traditional, licensed-content world of Netflix: they get the most recent season of the zombie franchise (in more ways than one, because there are no plans to end it) to help build the hype for a new season on its parent network. This year, though, it may be extra important to catch up with this show, for one big reason: now that Game of Thrones is over, people on Twitter need to find another show to complain about, and The Walking Dead, which lost some of its buzz to its equally violent but much sexier HBO rival, may make a comeback as the show everyone seems to watch while seemingly criticizing everything about it. AMC will premiere the 10th season in October, so you have a month to catch up on the show and get ready to join in the griping.

The Spy

(available Sept. 6)

Another espionage drama? Yes, but, to be fair, the co-writer and director of this six-episode limited series, Gideon Raff, helped start this whole spy boom when he created the Israeli show “Prisoners of War,” better known in America as the source material for “Homeland.” This time he’s combining that with another trendy TV sub-genre, the biopic: it’s the story of Eli Cohen, a Mossad agent who spent much of the 1960s working undercover in Syria. The international cast is headed by another Cohen, Sacha Baron Cohen, and it’s always intriguing to see his occasional forays into serious drama. But as with most shows about real people, the biggest philosophical question is: does it count as a spoiler if we mention that the main character is currently dead?

The Ranch: Part 7

(available September 13).

An unexpected development in 2010s TV was the return of the serious multi-camera sitcom, where the studio audience often falls silent while characters have heartfelt conversations. This Netflix original, where Ashton Kutcher moves back to Colorado to help run the family ranch, was one of the most unexpected of the bunch: though it comes from writers of Two and a Half Men and features some of the sex and pot jokes you’d expect, it’s also serialized, frequently dramatic, and lit in a style closer to film noir than sitcom. (The cast also includes Sam Elliott as Kutcher’s dad, but not original co-star Danny Masterson, who was fired in late 2017 due to multiple sexual assault allegations.) The combination doesn’t always work, because there aren’t enough big laughs to balance out the seriousness, but like many other shows from co-creator Don Reo (Blossom, The John Larroquette Show), it takes a conventional sitcom setup and turns it into something quite individual and strange.

Between Two Ferns: The Movie

(available September 20)

Zach Galifinakis’s hipster comedy parody of interview shows premiered in 2008 and became one of the defining shows of the Barack Obama era, which President Obama himself acknowledged by going on the show in 2014. Parodying the robotically scripted nature of most celebrity interviews, it helped prove that web-only content could be as influential as anything on regular TV—something that Netflix would soon prove on a much larger scale. Now, in an America very different from what it seemed to be in 2014, Galifianakis and co-writer/director Scott Aukerman are reviving it as a direct-to-Netflix feature film, a behind-the-scenes look at the character Galifianakis plays on the show: he’s humiliated that what he intended as a serious talk show has been mistaken for a comedy, and he goes on a journey to do new interviews with celebrities who are still unannounced as of this writing.

The Politician

(Netflix Original)

The premise of this satirical comedy series sounds a bit like a gender-flipped, upscale Election: Payton (Ben Platt) is an ambitious rich kid who sees his high school Student Body President election as the first step in his plan to eventually run the entire country. What makes it significant even before it airs is that it’s Netflix’s first production in their five-year deal with one of TV’s biggest producers, Ryan Murphy (American Horror Story). Murphy got a reported $300 million, which, even in Hollywood, is a lot, and it may be part of Netflix’s strategy to make the transition we discussed earlier: by signing eight-figure deals with super-producers such as Murphy, Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy) and Kenya Barris (Black-ish), Netflix gets lots of prestigious original content and keeps creators away from the likes of Disney+. The new show will use a variant of the seasonal-anthology format Murphy helped pioneer, with every season focusing on a different election in 20 years of Payton’s life, which may explain why everyone in this first season looks like they’re too old to be in high school.

Coming in September

Sept. 1

Awakenings

The late Penny Marshall’s most serious movie, with the late Robin Williams and the happily not-late Robert De Niro.

Black ‘47

A period drama set in 1847, about the terrible impact of Ireland’s Great Famine.

Blow

Johnny Depp stars in this 2001 film about a drug smuggler who helped get America hooked on cocaine.

Dirty Dancing

The film that made Patrick Swayze a star and inspired the educational video “Learn the Art of Dancing Dirty.”

Elena

A prize-winning 2011 Russian film about the country’s rampant income and class inequality, told through the story of a nurse who marries her wealthy, elderly patient.

Family Guy, season 17

This is the 2018-9 season, and as with The Simpsons, it’s hard to remember which episode is in which season, but we think it’s the one with Trump jokes.

For the Birds

A documentary about a woman who lives with about 200 birds, and also a husband.

Geostorm

The man who wrote and produced Roland Emmerich’s disaster movies writes, produces and directs his own disaster movie, which made critics nostalgic for Roland Emmerich.

It

There are so many movies and series called “It” that we’ve kind of lost track of which one this is. Probably not the one that made Clara Bow a 1920s sex symbol.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

The ultraviolent, irreverent sequel to the ultraviolent, irreverent spy movie from 2014. Watch it before they release the ultraviolent, irreverent prequel.

Letters to Juliet

This 2002 romance features Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Redgrave looking for love in Verona, Italy, and hopefully having better luck than Juliet did.

Mune: Guardian of the Moon

A French computer-animated film where the guardian of the moon is forced to switch things up and go on a quest to bring back the sun.

Olmo & the Seagull

Olivia Corsini stars in a drama about a pregnant actress who is getting ready to star in Chekhov’s “The Seagull.”

PAW Patrol: Mighty Pups

A special double-length episode of “Paw Patrol.” Don’t know what that is? Ask some kids. They’ll know.

Premonition

Sandra Bullock finds herself living through days in the wrong order, including the day her husband will die.

Second Act

Jennifer Lopez can’t get a good job because she doesn’t have a college degree, until a fake social media profile gets her a job that will change her life.

Spookley the Square Pumpkin

Revisit the world of 2000s direct-to-video computer animation with this tale of a square pumpkin who experiences racism from his round brethren.

The Beguiled

Sofia Coppola’s adaptation of a Civil War tale about a Northern soldier in a seminary full of Southern women, with Colin Farrell in the role played in a previous version by Clint Eastwood.

The Blind Side

Sandra Bullock won an Academy Award as the affluent white woman who adopted the future NFL offensive lineman Michael Oher. Discussion of the film helped mainstream the term “white saviour.”

The Book of Henry

This original drama, about a precocious child and his elaborate scheme to help a classmate, director Colin Trevorrow’s first directorial effort since the success of Jurassic World. Also, to date, his last.

The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That! Season 1

An educational animated children’s show based on the classic Dr. Seuss character, voiced by Martin Short.

The Dark Tower

Idris Elba stars in this 2017 adaptation of Stephen King’s famous fantasy novels. If this doesn’t work for you, then there’s a TV series version coming from Amazon in 2020.

The Mothman Prophecies

Richard Gere plays a reporter investigating supernatural doings in a small West Virginia town.

The Natural

Robert Redford, in his late 40s, plays a baseball player as he ages from his teens to his 30s.

The Walking Dead: Season 9

The Notebook

The Ryan Gosling/Rachel McAdams romance, based on a book by Nicholas Sparks, that defined love for half the world and replaced The English Patient as an easy punchline for the other half.

Sept. 2

Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir: Season 2: Parts 1 and 2

The internationally popular children’s cartoon about teenagers who turn into superheroes to battle evil in Paris, presumably because all the other superheroes only care about America.

Sept. 3

Mapplethorpe

A biographical film about Robert Mapplethorpe (Matt Smith), whose transgressive photography made him one of the most controversial artists of the 1980s.

Sept. 4

Casino

A Martin Scorsese crime movie that isn’t as famous as the other Martin Scorsese crime movies.

Scarface

Al Pacino and Brian De Palma remake an older Hollywood crime movie, with equally cheesy accents but a lot more blood.

Murdoch Mysteries: Season 12

In one of Canada’s longest-running hit series, William Murdoch (Yannick Bisson) continues to solve early 20^th-century crimes using late 20^th-century technology.

Pitch Perfect

Elizabeth Banks co-produced and co-starred in this movie, which is about an all-female singing group, and not baseball.

Pitch Perfect 2

Still not about baseball.

The Purge

The first film in the popular horror franchise about a night when all crimes are legal. Nothing is scarier than government-sanctioned horror.

The Purge: Anarchy

The first sequel to The Purge, which is similar, but with more anarchy.

The Tale of Despereaux

A 2008 animated film written and produced by Gary Ross (Pleasantville) based on Kate DiCamillo’s children’s book about a mouse trying to rescue a princess from rats.

The World We Make

A young woman who loves horses (Rose Reid) and a young man who loves football (Caleb Castille) experience prejudice due to their interracial relationship.

Sept. 6

Archibald’s Next Big Thing

Arrested Development actor Tony Hale produces this animated adaptation of a children’s book he co-authored, about a chicken who travels the world in search of his “next big thing.”

Elite, season 2

A drama series about working-class Spanish teenagers transferred to a private school for wealthy kids. In the new season, everyone reacts to the violence that broke out at the end of the first season, and prepares for the violence that is probably on its way.

Hip-Hop Evolution, season 3

This award-winning Canadian documentary series about the history of hip-hop music has already covered the 1970s and the 1980s. Now they’re taking on the 1990s, the decade that never ended, with a focus on star rappers such as Tupac, Lil’ Kim, and current NFL consultant Jay-Z.

Jack Whitehall: Travels with My Father, season 3

Season 1 of this documentary comedy followed Whitehall and his father as they travelled through Southeast Asia, and season 2 took them from Germany to Turkey. Now the British comedian and his dad will be touring the U.S. West for another mix of culture clash and generation gap.

The Spy

See comments at top of this post

Leaving Netflix Canada on Sept. 6

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Remember when Jason Segel was a big star and Judd Apatow produced every movie ever?

Happy Gilmore

Remember when Adam Sandler’s movies didn’t go direct to Netflix?

Kindergarten Cop

Remember when an Austrian bodybuilder was reinventing himself as a family comedy star?

What’s coming to Netflix Canada on Sept. 7

Dragons’ Den, season 13

The hardy Canadian reality series that tells us it’s possible to start a business in this economy, but only if we go on TV and beg for it.

Sept. 8

The Bletchley Circle: San Francisco, season 1

A continuation of the series about women in the 1950s who use their code-breaking skills to solve mysteries; it’s a co-production between the UK and Canada, but it takes place in the U.S.

Cupcake & Dino – General Services, seasons 1-2

This Brazilian/Canadian animated series is about a talking cupcake and a talking dinosaur, but we can’t remember which one is named Cupcake and which one is named Dino.

Sept. 10

Bill Burr: Paper Tiger

(Netflix Original)

The American comedian’s sixth stand-up special was recorded at London’s Royal Albert Hall, where he gives the English his perspective on things like male feminists, relationships, and, in a change of pace from Barack Obama jokes, Michelle Obama.

Evelyn

(Netflix Original)

Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Orlando von Einsiedel (Virunga, The White Helmets) makes a documentary about his own family. 12 years after the suicide of his brother, Von Einsiedel and his siblings try to come to terms with the loss by taking a walking tour of the places they used to visit with their brother.

Terrace House: Tokyo 2019-2020

(Netflix Original)

The most recent entry in the Japanese reality TV series, one of the many reality shows revolving around six strangers picked to live in a house together. The show has gotten favourable reviews for being more serious and less exploitative than viewers have come to expect from this setup.

Sept. 12

The I-Land

(Netflix Original)

Neil LaBute writes and Kate Bosworth stars in a seven-part event series about ten people trying to fight their way out of a mysterious and dangerous island, with no memory of how they got there. It isn’t trying to hide that it wants to be Lost for the modern era, though the teaser trailer also makes fun of 2017’s disastrous Fyre Festival, suggesting a somewhat more ironic tone.

The Mind, Explained

(Netflix Documentary)

Emma Stone narrates a documentary about the secrets of the human brain and how it produces things we all take for granted, such as dreams and anxiety.

Sept. 13

Bumblebee

The Transformers spinoff movie about Transformer in the form of a Volkswagen Beetle, who looks like Herbie the Love Bug, but, sadly, isn’t Herbie the Love Bug.

The Chef Show: Volume 2

(Netflix Documentary)

In a non-fiction follow up to the fiction film Chef from director Jon Favreau (Iron Man), Favreau and real-life chef Roy Choi visit their celebrity friends and prepare great meals for them.

Head Count

A horror film about teenagers being stalked through a desert by a shape-shifting monster.

Hello, Privilege, It’s Me, Chelsea

(Netflix Documentary)

Comedian Chelsea Handler explores “how white privilege impacts American culture” and confesses her own white privilege.

Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress: The Battle of Unato

(Netflix Original)

The last of three feature film spinoffs of the successful 2016 anime series where the good guys use a train, the Iron Fortress of the title, to battle zombies.

Tall Girl

(Netflix Film)

Ava Michelle stars as a teenager who has always been self-conscious about her height, until she falls for a guy who is taller than she is.

Unbelievable

(Netflix Original)

An eight-episode miniseries about two detectives (Toni Collette and Merritt Weaver) who investigate the truth behind a rape allegation that a teenager (Kaitlyn Dever) made and then recanted.

The Ranch: Part 7

See comments at top of this post

Leaving Netflix Canada on Sept. 14

17 Again

A 2009 comedy where 38 year-old Matthew Perry magically transforms into 17 year-old Zac Efron.

Drug Wars: Season 1

Originally airing on Fusion TV in 2015, this documentary series follows law-enforcement officials as they, well, enforce drug laws.

What’s coming to Netflix Canada on Sept. 15

Los Tigres del Norte at Folsom Prison

(Netflix Documentary)

50 years after Johnny Cash’s famous concert at the California prison, this Mexican norteño group performed a concert at the same site, including an authorized Spanish-language version of Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues.”

Edge of Darkness

Mel Gibson stars in a 2010 Americanized version of the English TV series, where a detective investigates the murder of his daughter and uncovers a conspiracy.

Flipped

Rob Reiner directed this adaptation of Wendelin Van Draanen’s novel about two kids who develop feelings for one another.

Homeland: Season 7

The final season of the show that helped make espionage dramas cool again.

Ravenous

French-Canadian horror film about a zombie apocalypse and a few zurvivors in a small Quebec town.

Steal a Pencil For Me

A 2007 documentary about Holocaust survivors whose love managed to grow even in concentration camps.

The Other Woman

Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann and Kate Upton realize they’re all being cheated on by the same man, so they team up to destroy him.

Sept. 17

Clive Davis: The Soundtrack of Our Lives

A 2017 documentary about the Harvard law graduate who brought rock ‘n’ roll to the staid Columbia records in the 1960s, and went on to shape the careers of artists such as Barry Manilow and Whitney Houston.

The Last Kids on Earth

(Netflix Family)

An adaptation of Max Brailler’s children’s book series about kids who are pretty darn well-adjusted considering their town has been hit by a zombie apocalypse. It’s been described as “Diary of a Wimpy Kid Meets the Walking Dead.”

Sept. 20

Vagabond

A cute stuntman (Lee Seung-gi) teams up with a cute secret agent (Bae Suzy) to investigate the secret conspiracy behind a plane crash that killed the stuntman’s nephew. The South Korean stars previously teamed in the supernatural drama Gu Family Book, and now they’re back with what sounds like The Fall Guy meets Lost. That’s not a criticism.

Criminal

(Netflix Original)

A police procedural with a twist: each of the 12 episodes takes place entirely in a room where police interrogate suspects, but there are four different rooms in four different European countries, each in the language of that country and with its own local cast.

Disenchantment: Part 2

(Netflix Original)

The second batch of episodes for the fantasy-comedy animated series from creator Matt Groening and many of his former Futurama and The Simpsons writers.

Fastest Car: Season 2

(Netflix Original)

The reality show that repeatedly tests the question: can old or weird-looking “sleeper” cars beat a sleek modern supercar in a drag race?

Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates

(Netflix Documentary)

Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) directs this three-part look at Bill Gates and his post-Microsoft career as a philanthropist, trying to use his famous brain to solve the seemingly-insurmountable problems of the world.

Las del hockey

(Netflix Original)

Spanish series (“The Hockey Girls”) about female roller-hockey players tying to save their team.

Sept. 20

Between Two Ferns: The Movie

(Netflix Film)

Zach Galifianakis dreamed of becoming a star. But when Will Ferrell discovered his public access TV show “Between Two Ferns” and uploaded it to Funny or Die, Zach became a viral laughing stock. Now Zach and his crew are taking a road trip to complete a series of high-profile celebrity interviews and restore his reputation.

Sept. 23

Team Kaylie

(Netflix Family)

Bryana Salaz stars in this series as a spoiled rich girl forced by a court order to supervise a wilderness club for a bunch of inner-city middle-school children.

Sept. 24

Atomic Blonde

Charlize Theron produced and starred in this stunt-filled spy film, based on Antony Johnston’s graphic novel, about a secret agent (Theron) on the trail of double agents during the last days of the Cold War.

Jeff Dunham: Beside Himself

(Netflix Original)

In his second Netflix special, ventriloquist/comic Jeff Dunham continues to do what made him the most popular stand-up comedian in America in the 2000s: using the classic technique of using dummies to say things that he couldn’t get away with saying as himself.

Sept. 25

Abstract: The Art of Design: Season 2

(Netflix Documentary)

A look at the multi-disciplinary nature of design, which takes in the “art, science and philosophy” that informs the work of the great designers featured in the film.

Birders

(Netflix Documentary)

A look at birds on near border walls, where they can freely move back and forth, but the people on opposite sides can’t.

Glitch: Season 3

The all-new season of the Australian overarching-mystery drama about seven people who mysteriously come back from the dead.

Lethal Weapon: Season 3

Read that carefully: this is not Lethal Weapon 3, it’s the third and final season of the TV series based on Lethal Weapon.

This is Us: Season 3

More episodes of the breakout NBC hit that managed to combine Parenthood-style family drama with Lost-style time hopping.

Sept. 26

Explained: Season 2

(Netflix Documentary)

The second season of the documentary series from Vox, which uses the website’s format of providing “explainers” on a wide range of topics, each narrated by a different celebrity.

Grey’s Anatomy: Season 15

This is the season during which the story of Meredith Grey surpassed ER as the longest-running prime-time medical drama (but no one can surpass General Hospital).

Sept. 27

Bard of Blood

(Netflix Original)

In this eight-episode spy drama, an adaptation of the novel by Bilal Siddiqui, Emraan Hashmi plays a former intelligence agent who is starting a new life as a Shakespeare professor when he is called out of retirement for one last, very personal, mission.

Dragons: Rescue Riders

(Netflix Family)

A computer-animated show aimed at pre-school children, a spinoff of the “How to Train Your Dragon” films, about two children named Dak and Leyla who can talk to dragons

The Good Place: Season 3

The next-to-last season of the afterlife comedy that tries to make philosophy hilarious.

In the Shadow of the Moon

(Netflix Film)

A serial killer mysteriously strikes every nine years, and a cop (Boyd Holbrook) becomes obsessed with finding the killer and explaining how he keeps re-emerging.

The Politician

(Netflix Original)

The first show to emerge from Netflix’s five-year deal with TV super-producer Ryan Murphy. The comedy series, whose premise sounds like a gender-flipped Election, is about Payton (Ben Platt), a wealthy teenager who sees a high school Student Body President election as the first step in his plan to eventually run the entire country.

Skylines

(Netflix Original)

A German series where a young hip-hop producer goes to work for a major record company in Frankfurt, only to discover that the music industry is more connected to organized crime than he was led to believe.

Sturgill Simpson Presents Sound & Fury

(Netflix Anime)

An animated visual companion to the country music star’s new album of the same name, which will be released on the same day.

Vis a Vis: Season 4

(Netflix Original)

A Spanish drama series (non-literally translated as “Locked Up”) about a women’s prison. In this season, the prison gets a new boss, and a former jailer comes back as a prisoner.

Sept. 29

Nerve

A 2016 film starring Emma Roberts as a teenager who gets into an online game truth-or-dare game where the dares can be murder.

Tiny House Nation: Volume 2

(Netflix Original)

A second batch of episodes from the 2010s cable series where two renovation experts travel around the U.S. proselytizing for the Tiny House Movement and helping people build and live in small, often portable homes.

Leaving Netflix Canada on Sept. 29

Dear John

Another Nicholas Sparks romance, starring Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried. It’s not to be confused with the British sitcom about a man whose wife has left him, or the American remake about a man whose wife has also left him.

What’s coming to Netflix Canada on Sept. 30

Mo Gilligan: Momentum

(Netflix Original)

Netflix’s last comedy special of the month stars the young English comedian (the first Black British comedian to get a Netflix special) talking about topics like family life and dancing.

Bad Moms

Overstressed suburban moms rebel against the all-powerful PTA of their kids’ school.

Chip and Potato: Season 1

Canadian animated series about a talking dog named Chip and his friend Potato, a talking mouse.

Rush Hour 3

The last (to date) of the popular buddy-cop movies starring Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Robert Rodriguez’s sequel to his film of Frank Miller’s neo-noir comic books.

Storm Boy

A film version of the Australian children’s book about a boy who adopts three pelicans.

What Men Want

A remake of What Women Want, only instead of Mel Gibson being able to hear the thoughts of women, Taraji P. Henson can hear the thoughts of men.

Wonder Park

Computer-animated feature film about a girl whose fantasy of a talking-animal amusement park comes to life.

Leaving Netflix Canada on Sept. 30

Midsomer Murders: Seasons 1-19

This entire British murder-mystery series is leaving Netflix, and it’s been on since 1997, so you have a lot of catching up to do.

The post Netflix Canada in September 2019: What’s coming and going appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Often in politics, you’re condemned to play the cards you’re dealt. But last week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh turned down a hand and dealt himself a new one.

When an old video surfaced of Conservative leader Andrew Scheer speaking in opposition to same-sex marriage, Singh condemned Scheer for “disgusting prejudice.” Then he reached for his new cards. If this fall’s election results in a minority parliament, his New Democrats would never help Scheer become prime minister, Singh vowed.

Singh’s new play has been criticized by Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who has said she could support Scheer—if he gives her what she needs on environmental issues. May counter-argues that playing against two bidders raises the price of support. But that’s a misread of power dynamics.

There is no deal to be had between social democrats and conservatives. Singh’s positions on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights are clear. Scheer’s are at best very suspect. Singh wants to expand medicare and build housing. Scheer wants to cut taxes and shrink government. Singh wants a green new deal to create jobs and cut carbon. Scheer wants to end carbon pricing and his climate policy includes no projection of its carbon impact.

There is nothing in Scheer’s conservative hand that plays on the cards Singh holds. And without negotiations based on mutual gains, the only basis of a deal would be in sacrificing people’s rights to Scheer’s executive power. The power to enforce the Canada Health Act. The power to fund lobby groups. The power to appoint judges. The power to prorogue. None are subject to the Commons.

READ MORE: What the first ads say about the election campaign

The threat to walk down the hall and cut a deal with the Conservatives is a bluff—and everyone at the table knows it. When everyone knows it, there is no leverage. So Singh has turned it down.

Probably nothing unifies social democrats more than antipathy toward Conservatives. Scheer’s party wants to pull-down everything Singh’s social democrats want to build up. But it’s more than that. It’s personal. Scheer threatens to hurt the people who are part of the social democratic electoral coalition. Singh’s no-deal stance makes him the unambiguous defender and unifier of that coalition. And that clear anti-Scheer positions contrasts well.

Singh’s NDP can remind Canadians how, in the last minority, Liberals chose to prop-up Harper rather than work with New Democrats. After the 2008 election, the Liberals and NDP inked a coalition deal to oust the Harper minority. Then Harper prorogued, the Liberals switched leaders—and backed out of the coalition deal. When he recalled the Commons and tabled a new budget, Liberals propped-up Harper, as they did for most of the next two years.

New Democrats can’t be naïve about the nature of the Liberal Party. The Trudeau majority has amply proven that, left to find their own habitat, Liberals migrate to corporate boardrooms where they devour just about anything the lobbyists’ ample load of fertilizer will grow. On that point, Liberals are no different than the Conservatives.

What is different is the NDP can leverage the Liberals because of their common interest in a key electoral demographic: Liberal voters who like NDP proposals. Canadians have benefitted from this NDP leverage, resulting in in universal health care, public pensions, foreign investment review and host of other reforms federally and provincially across Canada.

And in this campaign, Singh starts with some strength. Polls repeatedly find universal pharmacare, green new deal and higher taxes on the very wealthy are popular. Singh has strongly advanced these proposals while Trudeau’s record on them is weak.

But the challenge for Singh’s NDP is to drive Trudeau off his constant comparisons with Scheer into a comparison with his popular proposals. Singh’s no-Scheer stance opens a way. Singh has declared Scheer is unacceptable. That’s something Liberals and New Democrat voters can widely agree on.

Despite that, the core of Trudeau’s campaign is about comparing himself to someone unacceptable—and finding his weak record is better than not unacceptable. What a dispiriting, small campaign concept for a great, aspiring country. In 2015, Trudeau campaigned on “better is always possible.” By 2019 he’s just possibly better than unacceptable.

If Scheer is just unacceptable, New Democrats can demand the comparison voters deserve—between Trudeau’s record and Singh’s proposals. That’s not just a win for Singh, it’s a win for Canadians.

MORE ABOUT FEDERAL ELECTION 2019:

• What the first ads say about the election campaign
• The question to ask about Andrew Scheer and abortion
• If I’m listening to Justin Trudeau it means others are too
• Where the Liberals are spending taxpayer money in the dog days of summer

The post Jagmeet Singh’s minority government calculus appeared first on Macleans.ca.

After eight days of conspicuous silence while oppo research-fuelled controversy swirled over his beliefs and intentions around big social issues, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer spoke to reporters on Thursday. A Conservative government would not reopen the abortion debate, he said, but as leader, he would allow backbench MPs to “express themselves” on issues of conscience and through private member’s bills on the issue.

As for his views on same-sex marriage—under the microscope after the Liberals dug up a 2005 video of Scheer disavowing the notion in rather dehumanizing terms—Scheer faced repeated questions but stopped short of saying his views had changed. “My personal views are that LGBT Canadians have the same inherent self-worth and dignity as every other Canadian and I will always uphold the law and always ensure that they have equal access to the institution of marriage as it exists under the law,” he said. [Canadian Press]

The opening salvos in the election advertising war have been fired. Along with focusing squarely on voters’ wallets, the Conservatives’ “It’s time for you to get ahead” slogan implies that someone else has been getting a leg up while ordinary people have gotten the shaft—say, someone with the initials S-N-C? And the Liberal “Choose Forward” tagline nods to the fact that voters want to hear what you’ll do for them next, not what you’ve already done, while flicking at the implied threat of a fall backwards into the Stephen Harper era. [Maclean’s]

A new school year has already started for some students and lies in wait for the rest, and in Ontario, after months of furious rhetoric, protests and consultation do-overs, elementary classes will learn a sexual health curriculum that is…remarkably like the old one?

Lauren Bialystok, an associate professor in educational ethics at the University of Toronto, originally writing for The Conversation, pinpoints what she argues the whole sex-ed brouhaha was really about:

This debacle is not only about longstanding culture wars, but, more tellingly, about the place of expertise and professionalism in our democracy. Ford rose to power using populist rhetoric that echoes U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-establishment tropes. Claiming to be “for the people” and, specifically, on the issue of educational policy “for the parents,” Ford has framed democratic policy-making as an adversarial struggle between “the people” and “the elite.” [Maclean’s]

Meanwhile, new polling from the Angus Reid Institute adds to the evidence that the ethics commissioner’s finding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke conflict of interest rules—which landed like a bomb in the August sleepiness of the Ottawa bubble—was met not with a gasp but a shrug from voters. Nationally, it puts the Conservatives at 36 per cent support and the Liberals at 32 per cent—a high-water mark in Angus Reid surveys this year. However, more than one-third (36 per cent) of those who supported the party in 2015 say they’ll park their vote elsewhere in October. [Angus Reid Institute]

Two Montreal companies, Group AXOR Inc. and Axor Experts-Conseils Inc., have admitted to making $115,000 worth of illegal donations to the federal Liberal and Conservative parties between 2004 and 2009. For the sins they have admitted to the commissioner of Elections Canada, the firms will have to pay $248,712 and $199,163, respectively—the equivalent of three times their offside donations, plus some of the cost of investigating them. [CBC]

The latest report from the Public Policy Forum’s Digital Democracy Project finds that the environment is a top concern for Canadian voters—but they remain unwilling to put their wallets behind that. The report’s authors point out that saying something matters while blithely avoiding any personal sacrifice to improve it is just human nature. But they also posit that it could be the highly visible, quantifiable—and election-torqueable—nature of a carbon tax makes it especially likely here. [Toronto Star]

And finally, newly released Access to Information documents show the Liberal government denied funding to about two dozen organizations for student summer jobs this year, after tweaking the rules that caused enormous controversy in 2018. Last year, organizations that applied for Canada Summer Jobs grants had to attest that their core mandate did not infringe on human rights, including access to abortion, regardless of the job being filled. This  year, that was adjusted to ask if the organizations actively worked to infringe on those rights, and the approval process appeared more targeted. [Canadian Press]

The post Andrew Scheer explains his plan for that pesky so-con agenda appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The first ads of the election campaign didn’t just reveal flashy campaign slogans, they’ve set the stage for a contest where the ad war will yet again be the difference maker for the winning team.

This week, we learned some of the slogans. “Choose Forward” for the Liberals and “It’s time for you to get ahead” from the Conservatives. That we don’t know Jagmeet Singh’s is likely equally telling. You can learn a lot from a campaign slogan. They’re the ultimate distillation of the modern campaign for a tl;dr (too long, didn’t read) world. They boil down every event, speech, social media post and ad into just a few words that are then slapped on everything from the side of an airplane to a podium.

The best slogans tee up what campaign insiders call the “ballot question”. By that, they mean it’s what they want voters to be asking themselves as they cast their ballot. And if they’re asking the question you want them to, chances are they’re voting for you. That’s why you’re going to be mighty sick of “Choose Forward” and “It’s time for you to get ahead.” Mighty sick, indeed.

So what do they tell us about the Conservative and Liberal campaigns? First, they’re going to be very different but they will share one important thing in common. Attacking each other is a key piece of the puzzle for them both.

The Tories have gone all-in on a cost of living and affordability message. It’s not about grandiose promises or a sweeping vision for the future. It’s about putting money into your pocket right now, and responding to a top concern for many voters that they’re just not getting ahead. A recent Abacus Data poll found 56 per cent of Canadians say that’s one of their top issues.

READ MORE: If I’m listening to Justin Trudeau it means others are too

The Liberals are more vague, but their slogan acknowledges that elections are often referendums on the future. Voters rarely reward past performance. Instead, they look forward to what’s next. If you wonder whether a record matters, consider that months after leading Britain to victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War, Winston Churchill was sent packing.

But back to what they both share: a not-so-subtle attack message. Implicit in the Conservative slogan is that while you might not have gotten ahead, others have. The insiders at SNC Lavalin or Justin Trudeau taking vacations on a billionaire’s private island.

The Liberals, conversely, make a not-so-subtle jab at going back to the Harper years. And after having broken his promise on changing the electoral system, Trudeau’s banking that progressive voters will fall in line simply to prevent a re-run of the decade that was. As for the NDP, their invisible slogan only makes that easier.

So what’s going to be different this time? First and foremost, how they are advertised will change even from just four years ago. This is important because advertising is usually the largest single expenditure of an election campaign, about half of the budget. Or about $12 million.

And thanks to the sweeping change in a media industry disrupted — and in some cases destroyed — by social media giants, more and more of that $12 million will go to digital advertising, which matters more than ever. In the 2011 election, it played only a role. In 2015, it made a difference. Now, it’s the biggest playing field. Not to mention the new frontier of paid text messaging this cycle. Hi, Sarah!

What this means is in place of a few dozen radio and television ads, voters will be bombarded by hundreds—maybe thousands—of ads. Most, with micro targeted messages customized and tweaked for every imaginable demographic and geographic consideration.

And if you live in the suburbs, look out. Especially if you’re a mom. You’re going to be very popular. If there’s going to be a ground zero for this campaign, it will be the mom of three in Whitby, Ont., or White Rock, B.C.

Which argument will win? Time will tell on that front. Will the Greens finally make a breakthrough they’ve threatened to so many times before? Too early to say. What we do know is that in a close election, ads can make all the difference.

But only if they cut through the clutter, which is why it’s important to remember that creative truly is king. Watch someone scrolling through their phone one day. That’s how long an ad has to make an impression. So expect them to be loud and in-your-face because ads only work if the slogan sticks with voters.

MORE ABOUT FEDERAL ELECTION 2019:

• The question to ask about Andrew Scheer and abortion
• If I’m listening to Justin Trudeau it means others are too
• Where the Liberals are spending taxpayer money in the dog days of summer
• The latest 338Canada projection: The Liberals keep hanging on

The post What the first ads say about the election campaign appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Ontario has been embroiled in controversy over sex education since 2015 when updates to the province’s health and physical education curriculum drew vocal opposition from a minority of parents.

As is typical for such policies, the loudest critics are those who feel that religious or traditional values are threatened by mandatory learning about sexual decision-making and LGBTQ identities. While educators and sexual health experts in Canada and at UNESCO are united on the evidence in favour of comprehensive school-based sexuality education, it has been a struggle to bring educational policies into line with their recommendations, even with strong public support.

The 2015 curriculum introduced by Liberal Kathleen Wynne, the former Ontario premier, was a major step forward, with substantial updates to the material on sexual development and diversity, and new sections on sexting, bullying and consent.

MORE: Ontario reverting to old sex ed curriculum in fall, education minister says

But Conservative Premier Doug Ford, deferring to the traditionalist wing of his party, repealed the elementary curriculum as soon as he took office in 2018 and reinstated the version from 1998.

Now that Ford has unveiled a new Grade 1-8 curriculum that is strikingly similar to the maligned 2015 version, many Ontario residents are understandably confused about the politics of sex education.

I began studying the controversy over sexuality education in Ontario in 2015 and found that the terms of the debate shifted as soon as Ford ascended to power. Rather than articulating concrete objections to the curriculum or citing religious values, the Ford government claimed that there had been no consultation on the 2015 curriculum.

In fact, thousands of parents and 70 health organizations had been consulted, and a study conducted in 2014 found that 87 per cent of Ontario parents considered the topics in the curriculum to be “important” or “very important” to teach in schools. The curriculum had democratic support and was developed through appropriate processes.

Ford also claimed that he needed to repeal the curriculum to consult teachers.

MORE: How to save Doug Ford’s government

However, a survey we conducted after the release of the 2015 curriculum found overwhelming support among teachers for the more thorough, inclusive and up-to-date curriculum. In case it wasn’t clear what they thought, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario protested the retraction of the curriculum and, along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, brought a Charter challenge against the government.

In other words, notwithstanding the predictable objections of a small constituency, there was no compelling reason to repeal the 2015 curriculum.

To make the move seem justified, Ford undertook public consultations in the fall of 2018 with great fanfare. Months of suspense and $1 million later, the results showed what we already knew: the majority of Ontarians support all the topics that had appeared in the 2015 curriculum, in more or less the same grades.

The repeal of the 2015 curriculum was also accompanied by the creation of a “snitch line” to report on teachers who didn’t adhere to the outdated materials. As the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario argued in court, this unprecedented threat of surveillance and disciplinary action had a chilling effect in the classroom, which is consistent with research on teachers’ apprehensions about teaching sexual health. Jacqueline Cohen, Sandra Byers and Heather Sears of the University of New Brunswick found that anticipated negative reactions from parents and a perceived lack of institutional support affected Canadian teachers’ willingness to cover sexual health education.

MORE: Doug Ford, liability

Teachers in Ontario last year were particularly likely to self-censor on topics related to sexual diversity and gender identity, which were not addressed in the 1998 curriculum.

Indeed, despite the significant continuity between Wynne’s 2015 curriculum and Ford’s 2019 reboot, “gender identity” is a major casualty of the transition. Previously introduced in Grade 3, the critical topic will now be postponed until the end of Grade 8, well after most students have started puberty and begun thinking about gender.

In the court challenge heard earlier this year, we learned that teachers were free and, indeed, required to address sexual diversity in an inclusive fashion, irrespective of the menacing rhetoric from the government. This meant that the challenges to the repeal were ultimately dropped, but only because legal protections for sex and gender minorities made Ford’s threats toothless.

The 2019 curriculum, which is consistent with Canadian law but out of step with research on gender development, can be seen as Ford’s attempt to have it both ways. The new curriculum also requires all school boards to develop a policy for parents to easily opt their children out of sex education classes—an olive branch to those who consider their values to be at odds with evolving liberal norms.

This debacle is not only about longstanding culture wars, but, more tellingly, about the place of expertise and professionalism in our democracy. Ford rose to power using populist rhetoric that echoes U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-establishment tropes. Claiming to be “for the people” and, specifically, on the issue of educational policy “for the parents,” Ford has framed democratic policy-making as an adversarial struggle between “the people” and “the elite.”

MORE: Doug Ford does the low-poll (cabinet) shuffle

Ontario teachers have been positioned by the Ford government both as a stakeholder group whom Wynne had failed to consult, and as a subversive class who need to be monitored by “the people.” Ford has no teaching experience or medical expertise (neither do his past or present education ministers) but he flagrantly rejected the advice of both educational and health experts. This kind of anti-elitism has been linked to the rise of right-wing populism across North America and Europe.

The larger political context may help explain why Ford, with no record of social conservatism, manoeuvred “sex ed” into a signature issue that he expected to bear political fruit. He courts voters across the spectrum while pursuing a hard-right agenda. In fact, while presenting himself as a champion of effective education and defender of the public interest, Ford has announced harrowing cuts to education that will balloon class sizes and lay off thousands of teachers.

The premier now seeks credit for “modernizing” health education, despite the havoc he created by resuscitating a 20-year-old curriculum.

The new curriculum is progressive in many ways, and contains several important new topics, such as cannabis, vaping and concussions. But these updates could have been pursued without repealing the entire 2015 curriculum for a year and promoting antagonism toward teachers, experts and sexual minorities.

The sex-ed saga may be over for now, but the era of populist policy-making may have just begun.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The politics behind Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Whatever the provenance of the newly kindled conversation about Andrew Scheer’s views on abortion—fine, the Liberals started it—Michael Coren wonders in Maclean’s if Scheer’s Catholic faith would compel him to pursue an anti-abortion agenda should he become Canada’s next prime minister. The big question is this:

If someone is morally, religiously, and scientifically certain that abortion is the killing of a child, should we believe them when they tell us that once they have the opportunity and power to prevent or reduce abortion they simply won’t do so? [Maclean’s]

Yes, we’re still making pot puns: In one of the great ironies of the Trudeau era, most of the ridings where Canada’s cannabis boom is creating jobs will go solidly blue on election night. It’s almost as predictable as it is ironic: pot companies need wide open spaces, and they find more of that in right-leaning hinterland, not left-leaning cities. As 338Canada’s projections make clear, rural Canada ain’t high on Trudeau. [Maclean’s]

Speaking of polls, Narrative Research has a new spotlight on how Atlantic Canada would vote today. The takeaways: Liberals are solidly in first after a dip in the spring, and outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Greens have supplanted the NDP as third choice. [Narrative]

Chrystia Freeland spent yesterday in Havana, where she met Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla, Cuba’s foreign minister. The post-meeting “readout” said Freeland and Parrilla “noted their different perspectives“—aka agreed to disagree—on the democratic crisis in Venezuela. This was Freeland’s third meeting of the year with Parrilla.  [Readout, RCI]

Yesterday, PM Justin Trudeau spent the day in “private meetings” in Ottawa, according to his public schedule. Today, he’s on the other side of the country in Surrey, B.C., with Premier John Horgan and Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal fisheries minister. (The Liberals hold all three Surrey ridings, but 338Canada projects one of them leans Conservative—and only one is safely red.) The setting of choice tomorrow is the BC Hydro Trades Training Centre. [The PM’s itinerary, 338Canada]

B’bye, NEB: The National Energy Board, the federal regulator of major resource projects so often in the news when pipelines are approved (or not), has been replaced. A warm welcome to the new Canada Energy Regulator, helmed by CEO Peter Watson, who makes the jump from his job as NEB chair and CEO. [Announcement, Biographies]

That was predictable: Doug Ford’s crew is taking Ontario’s carbon-tax fight to the Supreme Court. Just days after the premier appeared to muse about abandoning the legal battle if Trudeau were re-elected in October, Ford’s cabinet apparently decided it still believed the federally enforced carbon price was unconstitutional. On to Ottawa, then. [CBC News]

A former Stephen Harper economic advisor, Sean Speer of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, just published a paper that warned of a potential populist wave that could wash over Canada. The culprit, Speer says, is a commentariat of politicians, economists and journalists who focus too much on topline economic trends—and not enough on people left behind. We offer our own analysis on Canadians who don’t feel heard: John Geddes on our anxiety about personal finances, and Nick Taylor-Vaisey on what focus groups told the government about their biggest economic fears. [Postmedia]

The first debate: That’s how HuffPost officially characterizes the upcoming Maclean’s-CityTV national leaders debate (mark your calendars for Sept. 12 at 8 pm ET!). They asked the Liberals if they’ll send Trudeau. The answer is still neither yes nor no. Rest assured we’ll let you know as soon as we know. [HuffPost]

The post Let’s not pretend pot puns will ever go out of style appeared first on Macleans.ca.

But Toronto’s unique system of steep valleys and dells—which cover 17 per cent of the city—are at the edge of an existential crisis, according to a study released last year by the University of Toronto. Invasive species, from Japanese knotweed to Norway maples, are taking over the native ecological composition, the study warns, accelerating soil erosion by leaving the forest floor, once covered with seedlings, virtually barren.

“When you ask the people to look around, their jaws drop, and they go, ‘oh my gosh.’ All the vegetation is invasive, dog-strangling vine and all this garlic mustard—all these toxic plants,” says ecologist Eric Davies, one of the co-authors of the study. “Our data showed that there’s this really steep decline in the health of the forest and the biodiversity living in it. A full ecological collapse.”

READ MORE: For Peter Wohlleben, trees and humans aren’t so different

Walking through a ravine with Davies, you can see the extent of invasion: thickets of knotweed and Norway maple—until recently prized as ornamental plants in the city’s homes and gardens—suffocate or “shade out” the native undergrowth, leaving soil vulnerable to erosion while fatally exposing the native maple and oak to harsh winter. As the native trees died off, “birds declined, mammals declined, and you can see just a real visible destruction,” Davies says.

Dale Taylor, a naturalist who in 1977 co-authored with his friend Paul Scrivener an original study looking at the state of flora in the ravines, was born and raised along those in the Rosedale Moore Park area. “Toronto’s really unique among cities in that kind of ecology,” Taylor says, “and ravines are very important. They are the great respirators; they cool in summer. They are Toronto’s green lungs.”

They’re also a powerful bulwark against natural disasters, notes Scott MacIvor, a University of Toronto professor who researches biodiversity conservation through urban planning. Their main function is to mitigate flooding by moving water.

In 2014, Toronto-Dominion Bank estimated the value of the ravines in their natural state at $7 billion because, among other benefits, the vast tree-covered space absorbs air pollutants, captures particulate matter such as dust, ash and dirt, and efficiently stores rainwater.

Alas, says Davies, they’re providing “a small fraction of their ecological, economic and social potential.”

The city, meanwhile, has initiated a partnership with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority through a community stewardship program in which volunteers monitor the growth of invasive species and plant native trees to protect and maintain the ravines.

But to Davies, Toronto’s low-budget strategy isn’t good enough, given the scale of the crisis. “When it comes to the environment, we still treat it as a hobby. Can you imagine if we had the same approach with our health care?” he asks. Comparing the environment and human medicine is useful, he adds, because understanding how an ecosystem functions is no less complicated than understanding a living being.

One solution, Davies and other advocates believe, is to mobilize scientists and a public-private partnership to foster large-scale restoration. Similar efforts are being made in New York City, where the Central Park Conservancy has raised more than $1 billion through private donations to replenish the park’s ecosystem.

RELATED: A century after the Halifax explosion, grim reminders can still be found in trees

“We’re never going to be able to eradicate invasive species entirely, but we need to manage them so that their impact on the local environment is minimized,” says MacIvor. “It’s critical to educate and engage the public to not only identify invasive species but ensure that they’re contacting the authorities to deal with them.”

In Toronto, the battle goes beyond reversing complex ecological damage or merely cleaning up the forests. It speaks to local people’s deep psychological and emotional connection to the ravines.

“Ravines are the chief characteristic of the local terrain, its topographical signature,” wrote journalist Robert Fulford in a 2000 column describing the impact of the ravines on the city’s culture and evolution. “They are both a tangible (though often hidden) part of our surroundings and a persistent force in our civic imagination. They are the shared subconscious of the municipality, the places where much of the city’s literature is born.”

Lawrence Warriner, a trail runner who founded a grassroots group that clears the ravines of garbage each year, was born right above one of the urban dells and has explored them since he was a child. He says ravines like the one carved by the Don River offer an inimitable place where you can escape into the natural world for the sake of preserving mental health and reconnecting with nature.

“You’re immersing yourself, and everything else vanishes. You get to use those trails for as long as you want. It’s a completely democratic space,” he says. “You’re there in the moment, away from the city noise. Your identity starts to become part of the Don. It’s amazing.”

This article appears in print in the September 2019 issue of Maclean’s magazine with the headline, “A slippery green slope.” Subscribe to the monthly print magazine here.

MORE ABOUT ENVIRONMENT:

• West-coast water foragers turn off their taps—and go straight to the source
• The fearless rescuers who save right whales from certain death
• Where to find the best weather in Canada 2019
• The plan to save Canada’s rapidly-melting Arctic ice

The post The fight to save Toronto’s ravines from invasive species appeared first on Macleans.ca.

But here’s where the implausible enters the debate: that Catholic faith demands the holding of specific positions on highly controversial issues, and while in the past the Conservative leader had little problem declaring his opinions, he’s now trying to obfuscate and dodge.

Arguably the most prominent of these themes is abortion, with Scheer’s church stating that, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

So it’s hardly surprising that during the Conservative leadership contest, Scheer was eagerly interviewed by the pro-life group Right Now. He told them that while his party wouldn’t officially reopen the issue, “I’ve always voted in favour of pro-life legislation … I can assure you that I support the right of individual MPs to speak out and bring, introduce matters that are important to them.”

READ MORE: What Andrew Scheer believes about same-sex marriage

The group itself then issued a concluding statement to its community, and it’s extremely significant: “Andrew Scheer has said that the government will not introduce legislation on abortion. When leadership candidates (or even elected leaders) of political parties say that, it means the cabinet. Let’s say the Conservatives win 180 seats in the next federal election and of the 180 MPs, 30 of them are in cabinet. That means 150 other Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce a private members’ bill on this. He also never said that he would whip his cabinet not to vote for pro-life motions or bills nor did he say he himself would not vote for them either.”

Opponents of abortion went on to support Scheer during the contest, and their votes were—to the surprise and often chagrin of many—sufficient to catapult him above Maxime Bernier in the 13^th ballot.

This is all rather different from Stephen Harper, who is often misread, especially by his critics. Contrary to what some people insist, he wasn’t particularly socially conservative, was not theologically committed as a politician, and saw the abortion issue as not only a digression but also a danger. He and his office developed a firm grip on pro-life backbenchers, controlling the message and making sure that the Liberals and NDP weren’t given an opportunity to paint his party as a threat to women’s choice. Stockwell Day, an ardent Pentecostal, was a different story, but he was not as close to power as is Andrew Scheer.

Much of this is about the mud of party politics and electioneering, but there’s a more profound point. Putting judgment on this most divisive subject aside, the central if not exclusive justification to be anti-abortion is the belief that life begins at conception, and that the procedure is taking the life of an unborn child, killing a human, or as is frequently said today by pro-life activists, the crime of murder. Scheer hasn’t used the latter hyperbole, but he has certainly associated with people who do.

This leads to two inevitable, invincible questions. If someone is morally, religiously, and scientifically certain that abortion is the killing of a child, should we believe them when they tell us that once they have the opportunity and power to prevent or reduce abortion they simply won’t do so? Remember, even the relatively progressive Pope Francis recently described it as a “grave sin”.

Assuming that Scheer is being honest, if he is so sure that abortion is homicide, what does it then say about him that he is prepared to ignore the issue when for the first time in his life he has the power to do something about it?

When, in Robert Bolt’s magnificent play A Man for All Seasons, the unscrupulous politician Richard Rich is made Attorney-General for Wales for perjuring himself to convict Thomas More, the soon to be executed More says, “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?” But for Sussex Drive?

I’d be shocked if Andrew Scheer, if victorious, would introduce an anti-abortion bill, but equally so if he dissuaded others from doing so, even if they pursued their goals incrementally and circuitously. The culture and climate of choice can be dented gradually and carefully, and just as Andrew Scheer has the absolute right to his beliefs, those who have fought for so long for abortion rights need to know where potential prime ministers genuinely stand.

MORE BY MICHAEL COREN:

• What Andrew Scheer believes about same-sex marriage
• Thomas Tobin can’t hide behind the Bible on LGTBQ issues
• I’m 60 and I just graduated
• Inside the global persecution of Christians—and why it’s only getting worse

The post The question to ask about Andrew Scheer and abortion appeared first on Macleans.ca.

There are many accounts of slaves, thralls, and even spouses and kin sacrificed in servitude to the world’s rich and deceased throughout human history. The veracity of some of them is in dispute, but the theme is more or less the same: wealthy rulers can’t just die. They must also drag the souls of their subjects across the funeral pyre with them.

For obvious reasons, the modern world no longer tolerates human sacrifice. And yet, as the global mean temperature continues to rise, glaciers melt, plastics and pollutants saturate waterways, and wildfires blaze uncontrolled across the Amazon, it’s difficult not to wonder what ibn-Fadlan might have made of the supernatural reach of today’s billionaires, and the undying devotion of their vassals.

MORE: Turning back on Trump, Koch brothers’ network focuses on Senate

Take the recently departed David Koch, for example. The details of Koch’s life, and his family’s century-long pursuit of wealth,  power and right-wing political capture are well-documented. From the astroturfed Tea Party campaigns that drove the Republican party even farther right after the election of Barack Obama to the establishment of a school-to-policy pipeline for libertarian thought to the funding of climate-denialist organizations (much less the Kochs’s profiteering in the oil and gas industries), David and Charles Koch used their endless hoard of wealth to reshape not only politics, but the fate of our planet, for the worse.

And yet the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Koch’s alma mater, memorialized him as a “prominent supporter of cancer research,” despite the Kochs’s endless strategizing and influence peddling to dismantle the Affordable Care Act while also preventing a ‘Medicare-for-All’ program from ever materializing. Elsewhere, Koch was lauded as an arts patron, even though his powerful network of billionaire donors and captive legislators pushed to privatize public education in several states while starving public schools with an austerity agenda.

Koch is far from alone in this regard. There are plenty of examples on our side of the border, but let’s go with Peter Munk. Just under a year after the death of the Canadian gold-mining magnate, his legacy conglomerate Barrick (as well as its Chinese partner firm Zijin Mining) was hit with a multi-billion dollar arbitration lawsuit in Papua New Guinea, over alleged breach of contract and alleged environmental damages related to its Porgera gold mine.

MORE: Brian Mulroney: From scandal-adjacent elitist to magnanimous statesman

Barrick’s record in the global south doesn’t seem to have tarnished the image of Munk himself, who once brushed off rape allegations against the mine’s security personnel as a “cultural habit.” Munk’s massive philanthropic contributions not only gained him effusive praise in business, politics and the press, but multiple institutions⁠—the Munk School for Global Affairs, the Munk Debates and the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre⁠—carry his namesake. And at what price for near-universal adulation from Canada’s political class? Well, if you were to ask the numerous environmental and Indigenous groups that have fought to hold Barrick accountable, they would likely tell you it has been quite high indeed.

Before long, it won’t be far-away people feeling the effects of this rapidly settling environmental calamity. In the lifetimes of people old enough to read this article, it is distinctly possible they will see the collapse for themselves. Perhaps you will too. And maybe that’s what the ultimate purpose of human progress has been in the centuries since ibn-Fadlan made his way to Vulga Bulgaria: we’ve managed to shrink the world just small enough for our nobles to build the greatest pyre in history.

Speaking of that chronicler and that funeral: while the boat and its deceased occupants burned, a Rūs standing nearby said to ibn-Fadlan’s interpreter: “You Arabs are fools.”

MORE: Charles and David Koch: most despised monsters for the left

When ibn-Fadlan asked why he would say that, the Rūs responded, “because you put the men you love most, and the most noble among you, into the earth, where the worms and insects eat them.” To the Rūs, the idea of a rich man’s body nourishing the ecosystem that once nourished him, seemed the most preposterous thing he’d ever contemplated.

“We burn them in an instant,” said the Rūs said to ibn-Fadlan, “so that at once and without delay they enter paradise.”

To witness the agenda of environmental plunder and devastation that the richest and most powerful among us are wreaking on our planet, and to witness our political class as well as much of our media offer tacit assistance bordering on ghoulish, paradise seems far too generous a guess at where the souls of our dead nobles are going.

Wherever they wind up though, they do seem hell-bent on taking us with them.

The post For David Koch, the earth is his funeral pyre appeared first on Macleans.ca.

“The marijuana industry is currently the largest single private-sector employer in Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston,” Reid says of his riding in eastern Ontario. “It did not make sense when alcohol was prohibited. It does not make sense for marijuana.”

A vivid illustration of what the business has done for Reid’s riding can be seen in the abandoned Hershey’s chocolate factory in Smiths Falls, which now is taken over by Canopy Growth and transformed to a sprawling marijuana grow-op and production facility. The company employs 1,300 people in the former manufacturing town about an hour’s drive southwest of Ottawa; it’s now the largest pot company in the world, with a market value of more than $11 billion.

RELATED: Could legal weed revive small towns hit by resource losses?

In short, the Liberal government’s decision to push forward with legalization has proved a lifeline to the Smiths Falls, filling a void as manufacturers scaled back their workforces or picked up and left town. But if you thought the Liberals were about to reap votes in the region for their efforts, you’d be wrong. Poll averaging provided to Maclean’s by 338Canada.com suggests the riding is a virtual lock for Reid and the Conservatives, with just seven weeks to go before the election.

It’s a peculiar irony playing out across the country. In the handful of ridings where marijuana production has brought much-needed jobs and economic activity, voters are leaning to the Conservatives or other parties. Langley-Aldergrove has enjoyed a rapid rise in marijuana-industry operations in B.C.’s Fraser Valley, including an eye-popping 12-hectare greenhouse complex built by Canopy. But it is currently likely to go to the Conservatives to the tune of 44.5 per cent, according to 338Canada.

The Tories also enjoy a comfortable lead in Chatham-Kent-Leamington, where Aphria Inc. is running nearly two million sq.-ft. of greenhouse space, hiring more than 650 workers. In April, a medical marijuana producer with links to Canopy, PharmHouse, announced it was building a$150 million facility, also to be located in Leamington, and held a job fair to fill 100 positions.

It’s the kind of economic boost for which campaigning politicians love to take credit: the near instantaneous creation of a fast-expanding industry. In 2017, before legalization, about 1,400 people were working in the cannabis sector across the country, according to Statistics Canada; this year, there are 9,200 and counting—a near-sevenfold increase.

Why, then, aren’t the Liberals seeing any political payoff?

RELATED: Why French’s ketchup is here to stay (sorry, Heinz)

In part because of a longstanding fact of Canadian political geography. Rural Canadians are, on balance, less likely to vote Liberal than their urban counterparts. And big grow-ops tend to locate in the countryside and small towns. They need open space, along with a ready supply of agricultural supplies and labour.

Still, the inability—or reluctance—of the Grits to capitalize on one of their signature legislative achievements is curious. Kayley Kennedy, the Liberal candidate for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, grew up just outside Smiths Falls. She can rattle off departed employers Canopy helped replace—Hershey, Shorewood Packaging, Stanley Tools.* But getting voters to link that success with her party has proven a challenge. “We have to make the connection that it was our Liberal government that was responsible for the legalization,” she says, “and it’s having a direct impact on our community.”

One problem for candidates like Kennedy: neither Prime Minster Justin Trudeau nor any other senior Liberal seems keen to talk about the policy. Perhaps because the rollout of legal marijuana, left mainly in the control of provinces and municipalities, has been rocky at best. In some places, the black market continues to provide superior supply and quality of cannabis. In others, local residents worry about the proliferation of pot shops and public use of the drug, a sign that the social stigma around marijuana is still strong.

On a more practical level, it’s an indication of how limited the bandwidth of a campaigning party tends to be—especially the governing party. “Scandals that break out during the election season almost always shape the messaging,” say Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor at the University of Toronto. “So, explosions, as we had with the SNC-Lavalin [affair], usually dominate the narrative and become a defining issue.”

RELATED: The marijuana nightmare: Trudeau is legalizing weed, but it hasn’t been pretty

Wiseman also notes that in the last election cycle, marijuana legalization motivated a lot of young people to vote for Trudeau. Now that it’s legalized, he says, the issue is largely “water under the bridge;” the Liberals need new ways to stir those voters, or they must woo different voters.

The good news for them is that Scott Reid is an exception that proves the rule. Most Tory candidates are in no position to capitalize on industrial cannabis growth, having opposed legalization or voted against the Trudeau government’s legislation.

That’s true in Chatham-Kent-Leamington, where Conservative MP Dave Van Kesteren was a fierce critic of legalization, arguing that “youth as young as 18 will be able to legally purchase marijuana from government outlets, and use this drug with virtually no restrictions.” Van Kesteren took that position at a time when Leamington—situated on the shores of Lake Erie and known as the tomato capital of Canada—was reeling from the departure of Heinz Ketchup, an employment mainstay in the community for more than century.

Van Kesteren announced about year ago that he plans to retire from federal politics. But Katie Omstead, the Liberal candidate in the riding, is doing her best to remind everyone of his stance on weed. “I’m out on the doorsteps every day, and there is a lot of gratitude that cannabis legalization finally happened,” she says. “It’s important for voters to recognize that this could have been a lost opportunity in our riding economically, that we currently have an MP who was vocally against this.”

RELATED: If I’m listening to Justin Trudeau it means others are too

Maybe, but the new Conservative candidate, David Epp, isn’t about to make the same mistake—not with Aphria saying it plans to ramp up its operation and add hundreds of new jobs in response to a countrywide supply shortage and anticipated global demand. (The company had its first profitable quarter in early August, thanks to a 75 per cent increase in sales over the previous quarter.)

“I see opportunities there, and certainly that is what kickstarted that industry in our region,” says Epp, a third-generation farmer from Leamington. “We have the largest concentration of greenhouses, and with the largest concentration of greenhouses, we have a lot of expertise.”

All of which leaves Liberal candidates reaching for ways to make use of their party’s biggest legislative win. Omstead, for one, thinks the party should push on with the cannabis revolution, touting its plans to provide clemency for those with criminal convictions for possession and to cut off a longstanding source of income to organized crime. “With new economic opportunities comes new talent who are moving into our region and reconnecting with rural roots,” she adds.  “It serves as a good example of how to revitalize our rural communities.”

She might be on to something here, and looking back, it’s hard to dispute the enormity of the government’s achievement—it led to one of the greatest legal and cultural shifts in recent memory. In some places, the benefits are already starting to flow. The question is what, on the morning of Oct. 22, the Liberals will have to show for it.

CORRECTION, Aug. 28, 2019: The original version of this post misstated the names of Shorewood Packaging and Stanley Tools.

MORE ABOUT CANNABIS:

• The beginner’s guide to opening a pot shop
• Conservatives should pitch radical changes to Liberals’ weed plan
• Defending the demon weed to John Diefenbaker
• Clearing pot charges from Canadians’ records would be a good start—but it’s not enough

The post Why the Liberals can’t get any political buzz out of legal weed appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Reopening the question what ‘not reopening’ means: Questions about Andrew Scheer’s stand on abortion have dogged him going back to his winning run for the Conservative leadership in 2017. He’s often repeated a clear pledge that if he was prime minister, his government would “not reopen this issue.” But would his let a Conservative MP propose an anti-abortion measure as a private member’s initiative? His Quebec lieutenant, MP Alain Rayes, said Tory MPs wouldn’t have that freedom—then had to recant. But Scheer himself hasn’t addressed the matter in plain language, leaving him open to Liberal attacks. Andrew MacDougall, who was on the staff of former prime minister Stephen Harper when he was keeping issues like abortion and same-sex marriage (on which Scheer has also come under unflattering scrutiny lately) from bursting into flame, wrote in his must-read Maclean’s column on what makes him uneasy:

“I’m listening to the Liberals because I look at Andrew Scheer and can’t quite take the measure of the man. Other people I speak with can’t either. Call us Red Tories. Call us whatever. We’re the people who believed it when Harper said the social conservative bits were permanently off the agenda but can’t quite buy the same lines coming out of Scheer’s kisser.” [Maclean’s]

Scheer’s so-con dilemma looks especially uncomfortable since Justin Trudeau seems to be having a moment as an international figure. In the wake of the G7 summit in France, a Mainstreet poll has Trudeau outstripping Scheer as the best leader to represent Canada abroad. Nicely timed to underscore that finding, respected former Harper cabinet minister Rona Ambrose told Canadian Press she disagrees with Scheer’s repeated charges that Trudeau “capitulated” to Donald Trump in the NAFTA renegotiations [CBC News]

What Scheer would undoubtedly much rather the late-summer news focused on is the transparently self-serving federal spending spree now being rolled out by Liberals in preparation for the fall election campaign. Among Parliament Hill reporters, David Akin of Global News keeps closest watch over this sort of ground-preparing largesse: he’s tallied 275 announcements between Aug. 16-23 alone worth $2.8 billion. Maclean’s turns a spotlight on 10 ridings to offer some telling details on what’s getting funded in different political contexts. [Maclean’s]

Of course, let’s not forget the NDP: Remember them? Don’t beat yourself up if they slipped your mind. Polls show Jagmeet Singh’s party struggling to stay in view. The latest projection, based on publicly available polls, from our Philippe Fournier contained grim news for Singh: “The NDP wins on average 21 seats, less than half its 44-seat total of 2015 under Tom Mulcair.” And yet there’s news out there that theoretically could play to NDP themes, if the NDP could somehow inject itself into the mix. For instance, Singh stresses the NDP’s determination to crack down on offshore tax havens, and CBC has a big story on the family of B.C. billionaire brothers Caleb and Tom Chan:

“The records show the Chan brothers were part of a group of more than 20 wealthy Canadians whose families had at least $5 million to invest in a sophisticated KPMG tax dodge first developed out of the accounting firm’s Vancouver office in the late 1990s. The KPMG offshore tax dodge helped wealthy clients set up shell companies on the Isle of Man, a tiny tax haven in the middle of the Irish Sea. It promised clients they could pay “no tax” on their investments and hide money from their ex-spouses.” [CBC News]

The post Tory confusion reopens the question of ‘not reopening’ debates appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Fearful because of Papa’s unpredictable temper, one day I snuck out and took the bus to see you and Bill, the father of your child and soon to become your husband of more than 60 years. I have a black-and-white snapshot on my bookshelf of Bill, young and thin, in a suit, his arm around me. I’m wearing a flared skirt with removable pockets telling the day of the week.

Ours was a home that married two cultures, our French father strict and often explosive, our English mother the quiet mediator. Papa corrected our table manners by swatting us with his napkin from the head of the table. We could never wear pyjamas to breakfast. The chaos of his moods marred special occasions. I can picture the gâteau St. Honoré mother had made that he threw in the garbage on his birthday, a mush of puff pastry, dribbled chocolate and whipped cream.

READ MORE: A writer to her dying sister: ‘We tell ourselves lies to survive’

But there were splendid times, too. The whole family drinking champagne. Papa popping the cork up into the air with great ceremony to join other corks on top of the tall French buffet. Him playing the accordion with tears in his eyes. You and I swaying in the back seat on Sunday drives as Papa waltzed the car down country roads to the tune of The Blue Danube. In the winter, we would skate on our tennis court after Papa flooded it to make an ice rink. We danced in the basement to Louis Armstrong, and you twirled me until I was dizzy.

After you were banished, our parents sent our middle sister, Christine, to boarding school, not wanting her going to the same high school you had attended because of the family disgrace. That created a lifelong distance between Christine and me. With you both gone, special times were dismal.

Four years later you came back into my life. Papa had been promoted to vice-president of a large cement company, and we moved to a house bordering Lac-Saint-Louis. You had moved from Baie-Comeau and were accepted back into the family. How young you were with two small children. How beautiful. I was entering the teen years. I came to you with questions about life, boys and sex. You answered them as we washed clothes in the wringer washer at your apartment in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. You taught me to iron. Even now when I iron a shirt, I think of you.

Papa’s temper became intolerable. At 17, I escaped to Carleton University and never returned home. You fled, too, but I always found you. One summer I stayed with you and your children on a farm you were renting in rural Quebec. Bill was away. What fun we had driving from farm to farm drinking coffee and exchanging gossip with the neighbouring wives. We made pies and laughed as you molded the pastry dough into naughty shapes. I confided in you about my boyfriends and my dreams. To this day, you hold my secrets.

RELATED: A sister’s letter to her big brother: ‘You teased me but secretly I adored you’

When my marriage failed, I decided to move to B.C. with my children to teach French immersion. When I visited, you would play the piano and we’d sing. Cheap red wine helped us reach the high notes. We’d play cribbage. When you weren’t looking, I would move my peg ahead, a bratty little sister.

Your life was often hard, but you made it beautiful. You knitted sweaters, made dolls, baked, created a wonderful garden and more. Your home was and is a special place for me. We promised each other we would never let the family dramas destroy our love.

Now I am 72 and you’re 79. You and Bill have five children, 11 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. You’re in Quebec, I’m in B.C. When I visit we still sing, dance and drink red wine. The piano is gone and you have a cane. We have survived many storms. When we are happy, we phone. When we are sad, we phone. You will always be my big sister and I the little sister who looks up to you. Before you go, I want you to know how much I love and admire you. You are my very closest friend.

This article appears in print in the September 2019 issue of Maclean’s magazine with the headline, “Dear sister…” Subscribe to the monthly print magazine here.

The piece is part of Maclean’s Before You Go series, which collects unique, heartfelt letters from Canadians taking the time to say “Thanks, I love you” to special people in their lives—because we shouldn’t have to wait until it’s too late to tell our loved ones how we really feel. Read more essays here. If you would like to see your own letters or reflections published, send us an email here. For more details about submitting your own, click here.

The post Dear sister: ‘Your life was often hard, but you made it beautiful’ appeared first on Macleans.ca.

It is ironic, albeit unsurprising, that the Chinese government demanded that Canada “stop meddling in China’s internal affairs” when Canada’s leaders voiced support for the right of Hong Kong citizens to peacefully protest. After all, China sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body whose mission is to promote human rights and address violations by all UN member states.

Canada has also criticized egregious human rights violations on the mainland. One million Turkic Muslims are being arbitrarily detained in political education camps. An unknown number of human rights activists, lawyers and writers across the country are languishing in prison for their peaceful criticism of the Chinese government. China’s internet censorship regime is being increasingly tightened to suppress dissent.

This criticism isn’t meddling. Human rights, including the rights to peaceful assembly and free expression, are universal and inalienable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds UN member countries that they have pledged to promote universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thus, it is crucial for governments to speak out when human rights are violated, regardless of where the violations take place.

MORE: Forget the Canada-China conflict, it’s about human rights

But Canada is no longer just defending the rights of people in China; the challenges are closer to home. Canadians have been increasingly plunged into the black hole of China’s criminal justice system.

In late 2018, Chinese authorities detained two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, in what is widely viewed as an act of retaliation against Canada for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, an executive at the Chinese tech giant Huawei. Some 200 days later, the two men have still not been allowed to see a lawyer or their families. In January, a Canadian national, Robert Schellenberg, was sentenced to death following a rapid retrial filled with irregularities, another apparent response to Meng’s case.

But long before these incidents, Canadians have suffered from China’s complete disregard of the rule of law.

Since 2006, a Uyghur-Canadian Muslim cleric, Huseyin Celil, convicted on vague terrorism charges, has been languishing in a Chinese prison without consular access. Chinese-Canadian businesswoman and Falun Gong practitioner Sun Qian was arrested in 2017 for allegedly “using cult to disrupt the implementation of law,” a crime frequently levelled against followers of the religious group, which is banned in China. That year, mainland police seized Chinese-born Canadian billionaire Xiao Jianhua from his Hong Kong hotel apartment, a serious breach of the Hong Kong handover agreement. Xiao is awaiting trial on charges of bribery and stock price manipulation.

There are around 300,000 Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong, many of whom are active in the pro-democracy protests. If there’s a crackdown on the demonstrators, Canadians could be among those prosecuted by the increasingly politicized Hong Kong justice system, which convicted leaders of the peaceful Umbrella Movement.

MORE: What China hopes to get by detaining Canadians

Even on Canadian soil, many immigrants from China, including Canadian citizens, feel they cannot exercise their constitutional rights to free expression and assembly, fearing that doing so would provoke Beijing’s wrath.

Uyghurs in Canada fear that speaking openly about the severe repression in Xinjiang would send their relatives in China straight to detention facilities. Chinese in Canada worry that if they criticize the Chinese government, their job prospects, business opportunities, and chances of going back to China would be affected, or that their family members back home would be harassed.

Some Chinese in Canada have told me that even in relatively private spaces, such as classrooms and meeting rooms, they are afraid of expressing themselves. The threat is real, as the Chinese government has a long history of monitoring and conducting surveillance on students and immigrants from China around the world.

China is increasingly using its growing global influence to undermine human rights protections internationally.

At the UN, it has worked consistently to silence criticism of its human rights record and has taken actions to weaken central UN human rights mechanisms. The country has also exported surveillance and censorship technologies and know-hows to other authoritarian governments, helping them enhance their ability to control people. In countries where China has invested heavily through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), local governments—under pressure from Beijing—have arrested critics of the Chinese government and cracked down on peaceful protests against environmentally-harmful BRI projects.

Instead of feeling attacked by Beijing’s angry allegations, Canadians should feel pride in upholding universal values. They should urge their government to stand firm in supporting peaceful protesters in Hong Kong, to speak out for fundamental freedoms for everyone in China, and to oppose Chinese government repression from spreading all the way to Canada.

MORE ABOUT CHINA:

• Huawei’s pitch to Canadians: Keep your friends and family close
• The real election threat is China
• What a trade war with China would do to Canada
• Trudeau’s unrequited love for China

The post China’s disregard for the rule of law strikes too close to home appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The Liberal Party is speaking to me.

Or rather, they’re trying to speak to me. About abortion. About gay marriage. About the fact that Andrew Scheer might not be someone a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, foreign policy hawk like me might want to vote for come the October election.

And I’m listening.

Not because I’ll be voting. I won’t be. I live in the United Kingdom now and have no plans to leave. Our daughters were born here. We’re (heaven help us) looking for a property. Our lives are here. Even if the here we’re inhabiting in the United Kingdom c. 2019 isn’t the here I signed up for in 2013.

And I’m not listening because I think Justin Trudeau is better, or the answer. When your major policy accomplishment is admitting that Stephen Harper was right on direct support for parents, and then adding a bit to the cheque at the expense of the deficit you promised would be gone, you’re not doing that well, legal weed be damned. And then there’s the repeat law breaking, not something I look for in a Prime Minister.

Not that Jagmeet Singh would be better. The NDP bought their leader at Peak Trudeau and as a result have the only guy less qualified than Trudeau to be PM. As far as I can tell, Singh exists to make Trudeau look good. Don’t believe me? Just ask the droves of long-standing NDP MP’s that aren’t re-offering in 2019 even though Trudeau has let progressives down in a big way. This election should be a Trudeau turkey shoot for the left and the NDP have picked a chap whose only marketable skill is pumping lead in his own feet, as evidenced by last week’s genius of throwing away a post-election bargaining chip by saying he would never support Scheer in a minority scenario.

READ MORE: What Andrew Scheer believes about same-sex marriage

What about Elizabeth May? Well, full credit for May for putting her policy in the window in advance of an election. Too bad it’s a potpourri of pas puissant. Anyone who begins their political manifesto with the words “at heart, I’m an optimist” is Bambi heading for the buzzsaw called reality. The platform’s lack of reality might be why Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott decided to run for re-election as Independents instead of becoming the wind beneath May’s wings following their ejection from Liberal caucus for having the temerity to challenge Trudeau’s shameful behaviour on SNC-Lavalin.

The paucity of plausible progressive alternatives is undoubtedly of comfort to Trudeau, but he’s clearly not resting on his (largely invisible) laurels. Hence the abortion chat. Hence the re-surfacing of Scheer’s speech against gay-marriage in 2005. Forget positive politics for a second; first Trudeau needs to scare everybody back into his tent.

And that includes making a play for people like me.

I’m listening to the Liberals because I look at Andrew Scheer and can’t quite take the measure of the man. Other people I speak with can’t either. Call us Red Tories. Call us whatever. We’re the people who believed it when Harper said the social conservative bits were permanently off the agenda but can’t quite buy the same lines coming out of Scheer’s kisser.

Perhaps it’s because that kisser looks uncomfortable when it’s talking about gays. What you thought about same-sex marriage in 1993 or 1999 or 2005 isn’t as important as what you think about same-sex marriage now. I’m not asking anyone—especially Scheer—to renounce their Christian faith, only to admit that Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t appear on Canadian shores because two dudes or two women were granted the ability to get hitched. A Canadian Prime Minister shouldn’t have difficulty celebrating peoples’ happiness.

I get that none of this is central to most Canadians’ concerns at the moment. I have absolutely no doubt the Tory braintrust have their finger on the pulse with their message about affordability and helping people get ahead. I just wish Scheer could be more at ease telling people he’s not bigoted toward gay people. Because the lack of comfort is giving the Liberals the room they need to keep the conversation on Trudeau’s one strength, and away from his many, many weaknesses. A little candor from Scheer on the topic would go a long way to introducing him to Canadians.

Because rest assured: Trudeau and Team Liberal will keep hammering on doubts about Scheer in the days and weeks ahead. At least until the writs are issued. Once things get started the Liberals could well flip to positivity because they need to excite the country again; a low turnout election would favour the Tories and their more committed base.

If the Tory base were big enough to win a majority on its own the question of how desperate and shameless the Liberals are being with their negative politics would be academic. But it’s not. Scheer needs to rustle up another 7 to 10 per cent of the vote to seize power. Sticking to legalese on gay marriage might not lose Scheer the election, but it might prevent him from forming a government if people like me stay home on election day.

MORE BY ANDREW MACDOUGALL:

• Justin Trudeau went along but hasn’t gotten along
• The Prince of Lightness returns
• Trudeau should try walking the walk on climate change
• How to save Doug Ford’s government

The post If I’m listening to Justin Trudeau it means others are too appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Teaching connected-style handwriting, otherwise known as cursive handwriting, has fallen out of fashion on many school curricula. Older generations have sometimes been shocked that some younger people today can’t sign their names on official documents or even read a handwritten note.

Canadian provinces have seen a decline in teaching and learning cursive. In Ontario schools, for example, teachers might introduce cursive, but it’s not mandatory. Such a development is reflective of larger trends, which focus less on teaching and assessing handwriting for itself and more on what it’s communicating.

Alberta’s kindergarten to grade 9 curriculum, for example, stipulates that students learn to “listen, speak, read and write” and also envisions outcomes that require printing, such as connecting prior ideas. But the curriculum doesn’t mandate assessing printing skills themselves. In Alberta’s 2018 new draft curriculum yet to be implemented, cursive is mentioned, but it’s not identified as a competency.

MORE: Is To Kill A Mockingbird still relevant to Ontario students?

Beyond a nostalgia for the pre-digital age, there are good reasons why cursive handwriting needs to make a comeback. As a researcher who has studied the relationship of handwriting to literacy, along with other scholars, I’ve found that developing fluency in printing and handwriting so that it comes automatically matters for literacy outcomes. Handwriting is also an elegant testimony to the human capacity for written literacy and an inspiring symbol of the unique power of the human voice.

In today’s age of digital literacy, many think handwriting is irrelevant altogether and a waste of precious instructional time. But touching a “d” on the keyboard, for example, does not create the internal model of a “d” that printing does. Keyboarding can wait.

Some may associate cursive with any number of outdated formats of handwriting that may have indeed seemed like a curse to master—loopy, twisty and hard on little hands in terms of muscle movement and also for visual memory. But handwriting is only difficult if it is not automatic and, in turn, offloaded into long-term memory. Evolving research in the neurosciences underscores the importance of developing automatic skills in relation to what educational psychologists call the “cognitive load.”

Lessons learned from sports or the performing arts highlight the importance of establishing neuronal connections that promote fluid movement. With reading and writing, too, the keys to unlocking creativity or interpretation of story elements are also related to being able to write automatically.

MORE: How to help students in distress

By grade 4, the cognitive demands of curriculum quickly accelerate: students must produce more, faster and better. Students who have fluent handwriting consequently have more working memory capacity available to plan, organize, revise and retrieve sophisticated vocabulary.

In a study I conducted with my colleagues of about 250 grade-4 students in an Alberta school, we found that only about half of the students in our study achieved the necessary threshold in handwriting.

These children’s handwriting was insufficient to communicate the complexity of vocabulary and ideas expected in grade 4. Most students had vocabulary they were not able to mobilize onto the page. Students’ failure to reach the required threshold of expression at this level is associated with a phenomenon recognized by researchers as the grade-4 slump, a drop in outcomes from which students may not necessarily recover.

Schools must and can do better, starting early. The key is not only teaching cursive, but a greater focus on all printing to cursive handwriting, spelling instruction and fine motor skills. These developments are essential for literacy foundations in the kindergarten to grade 3 years. Building on these earlier skills, the key to improving academic outcomes in grade 4 is teaching young students to connect their letters, resulting in a style of handwriting that is legible and fluent.

Similarly, an example from early literacy scholar Sibylle Hurschler Lichtsteiner of Germany shows a transition from manuscript letters to joined letters. It evolves naturally, with support, from children’s initial style of print in grades 2 to 3. Once young students have internalized stable, mental models of letter shapes, they can generalize and recognize various types of cursive script with a bit of practice.

Steven Graham, an expert in special education, writing and literacy at Arizona State University, advocates for beginning with printing or “traditional manuscript” and transitioning to what he calls mixed mostly manuscript, whereby the child is learning a continuous stroke.

MORE: To Doug Ford, being ‘for the students’ means reckless OSAP cuts

Testimonies draw attention to the power of cursive handwriting. The film Saving Private Ryan made famous the historical Bixby letter written to the mother of sons killed in the American Civil War. While historians debate whether Abraham Lincoln or a member of his staff actually wrote the letter, ongoing interest in the letter through history suggests how human handwriting conveys personhood, care and captures imagination.

In our own era, Malala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Peace Prize laureate ever, reminds us that “one child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world.” Although Yousafzai first came to global attention through blogging, through her book Malala’s Magic Pencil she suggests a connection between the elegance and craft of a child’s handwriting and their personal agency.

Yousafzai’s handwriting has become a symbol of her advocacy. It demonstrates the power of written literacy, its intimate relationship to human identity and existence and its potential to remind the world of ultimate belief in human agency for good. Generations before, the young diarist Anne Frank did the same.

Our society impoverishes children if we don’t learn from those who have gone before us. People who learn how to spell and to develop legible, fluent handwriting will have tools at their avail to confidently express themselves and circumvent inconveniences like losing power on one’s digital device. It’s high time to put cursive skills back on the curriculum across Canada.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Should we bring cursive writing back to schools? appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The routine is simple. A local Liberal MP, or maybe even a cabinet minister, shows up at a podium with a provincial cabinet minister or nearby mayor. They applaud the cooperation it took to get to where they are, announce federal funding and explain what it will build or fix, and then pose for a photo-op. The projects are typically approved by bureaucrats, the funds drawn from an existing program on the books; everything is above-board procedurally, and only the timing is convenient.

The dollars add up. Global News journalist David Akin has tracked the spending closely for years, and he calculated 275 announcements in the seven days between Aug. 16-23 worth a combined $2.8 billion. More than half the announcements were in Ontario, he reported, while almost half of the funding went to Quebec.

We’ve dug into 10 ridings that received money last week, during a typical pre-election midsummer stretch, each a snapshot of a city or town with businesses or infrastructure in need and a federal government armed with some cash to help out. We’ve also offered the electoral context in each case, and noted the 338Canada projection as of Aug. 23.

Kitchener-Conestoga, Ont.

What’s the project?

The feds are spending $704,375 to rehabilitate a 130-year-old bridge in Conestogo, which the local mayor said pairs “modern convenience with historical significance.” Eight other road-improvement projects in the area also scored federal money.

When was it announced?

Aug. 19

Who announced the money?

Bardish Chagger, Government House Leader and the MP for Waterloo

How much are the feds spending?

$7.7 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Conservatives won by 0.53 points

Which party came second?

Liberal

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Harold Albrecht has won four elections in a row, but nearly lost in 2015. Tim Louis, the Liberal runner-up, is on the ballot again.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Leaning Conservative

Burnaby North-Seymour, B.C.

What’s the project?

SkyTrain riders in Burnaby who live near the Brentwood Town Centre station will eventually see new stairs, escalators, security cameras, as well as a resurfaced mezzanine and better lighting, among other improvements, when they enter or exit the station. The changes aren’t coming soon: work is only expected to start in late 2020.

When was it announced?

Aug. 19

Who announced the money?

Terry Beech, the MP for Burnaby North-Seymour

How much are the feds spending?

$6.1 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won by 6.48 points

Which party came second?

NDP

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Svend Robinson, a former NDP MP, is attempting a political comeback—and is campaigning hard against the Trans Mountain expansion. The Tory candidate is occupational therapist Heather Leung.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Toss-up

West Nova, N.S.

What’s the project?

Annapolis residents will soon have a new watermain on Hillside Drive, and nearby Digby’s wastewater treatment facility will get an overhaul—new pumps, electrical components and lift stations. The feds say the new infrastructure will “position communities for growth.”

When was it announced?

Aug. 20

Who announced the money?

Colin Fraser, the MP for West Nova

How much are the feds spending?

$429,950

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won by 36.9 points

Which party came second?

Conservative

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Chris d’Entremont, a five-term Progressive Conservative veteran of the Nova Scotia legislature, will try to return the riding to the Tories (who held it from 2008-2015). Fraser isn’t running again.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely Liberal

La Prairie, Que.

What’s the project?

La Ferme Vallée Verte 1912, a dairy producer based in Saint-Jean-de-Matha, a small town north of Montreal, will automate its milk and yogurt packaging lines—and increase its milk processing capacity by 130 per cent. A press release says the company will also hire five more people.

When was it announced?

Aug. 20

Who announced the money?

Jean-Claude Poissant, the MP for La Prairie

How much are the feds spending?

$120,950

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won by 10.22 points

Which party came second?

Bloc Québécois

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

This riding, new in 2015, comprised two former districts that joined the Orange Wave in 2011. The NDP wasn’t a factor in 2015. Former Parti Québécois MNA Alain Therrien is the Bloc candidate.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely Liberal

Hamilton Centre, Ont.

What’s the project?

Hamilton’s port, which the feds call a “primary export gateway for Ontario-grown grain,” will see new covered storage space and docking space meant to reduce shipping delays. Federal funding will also create an estimated 110 jobs.

When was it announced?

Aug. 21

Who announced the money?

Filomena Tassi, the minister for seniors and the MP for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

How much are the feds spending?

$5.5 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The NDP won by 12.17 points

Which party came second?

Liberal

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

David Christopherson won five elections for the NDP, but he’s not running again. Matthew Green, a former Hamilton city councillor, will try to hold the riding. Jasper Kujavsky is the Liberal challenger.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely NDP

Charlottetown, P.E.I.

What’s the project?

Charlottetown’s library will move downtown and “incorporate the latest in modern technology and design.” Dennis King, the province’s new Tory premier, was at the announcement.

When was it announced?

Aug. 21

Who announced the money?

Sean Casey, MP for Charlottetown

How much are the feds spending?

$6.3 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won by 33.13 points

Which party came second?

NDP

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Sean Casey ran away with this riding in 2015, but Greens took three Charlottetown ridings in the recent P.E.I. election. Darcie Lanthier is that party’s candidate.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Leaning Liberal

Thornhill, Ont.

What’s the project?

Global Plas, an auto-parts supplier that’s currently making door and fender parts for Toyota’s RAV4, will add new production lines, molding machines and automation equipment. The federal money is expected to create 50 jobs.

When was it announced?

Aug. 22

Who announced the money?

Francesco Sorbara, the MP for Vaughan-Woodbridge

How much are the feds spending?

$2.5 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Conservatives won by 24.8 points

Which party came second?

Liberal

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Peter Kent, a three-term incumbent and former environment minister, will look to continue his winning streak. His Liberal challenger is non-profit executive Gary Gladstone.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely Conservative

Lac-Saint-Jean, Que.

What’s the project?

Inotech, an equipment supplier for the lumber industry, will be able to “install CNC machining equipment, purchase specialized software, expand and refit its building, and revamp the company’s portal and website.”

When was it announced?

Aug. 22

Who announced the money?

Richard Hébert, the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean

How much are the feds spending?

$563,400

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won a 2017 by-election by 13.58 points

Which party came second?

Conservative

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Jocelyn Fradette, a teacher and Alma city councillor since 2005, will try to wrench the riding away from the Liberals. Tories held this from 2007-2017.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely Conservative

Regina-Wascana, Sask.

What’s the project?

The Globe Theatre’s home in downtown Regina, the Prince Edward building, is more than a century old. The federal money will upgrade masonry, electrical and mechanical systems, and structural columns.

When was it announced?

Aug. 23

Who announced the money?

Ralph Goodale, public safety minister and the MP for Regina-Wascana

How much are the feds spending?

$10.8 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Liberals won by 24.86 points

Which party came second?

Conservative

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Ralph Goodale has held this riding for the last 25 years. Liberals aren’t polling well on the Prairies, though. Tory candidate Michael Kram is looking to win a rematch.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Toss-up

Cariboo-Prince George, B.C.

What’s the project?

The Cariboo Highway section of Hwy 97, which runs through Quesnel, B.C., will get new traffic signals at both Racing Road and Quesnel-Hydraulic Road. The federal money will “significantly increase driver safety.”

When was it announced?

Aug. 23

Who announced the money?

Francois-Philippe Champagne, minister for infrastructure and communities

How much are the feds spending?

$7.7 million

Who won the last election—and by how much?

The Conservatives won by 5.15 points

Which party came second?

Liberal

Who’s the main Liberal competition?

Todd Doherty won a three-way race after longtime Conservative MP Dick Harris left office. Tracy Calogheros, the CEO of the science centre in Prince George, will try to win a rematch for the Liberals.

What’s the 338Canada projection?

Likely Conservative

The post Where the Liberals are spending taxpayer money in the dog days of summer appeared first on Macleans.ca.

The slogans aren’t strong: Nobody who really loves politics can resist political slogans. They’re inherently silly and reductive. And yet, telling. “The land is strong” perfectly captured the arrogance of Pierre Trudeau’s nearly disastrous ’72 campaign. Certain words resonate across the political spectrum: Margaret Thatcher and Barack Obama both made hay with “hope.” Now, the main Canadian slogans for 2019 are out. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals ask voters to “Choose forward.” It’s concise but not convincingly catchy. Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives declare, “It’s time for you to get ahead.” That might describe the moment, but it doesn’t quite promise the outcome. We’re still waiting for the NDP catchphrase. [CBC News]

Duelling nails on chalkboard: Ottawa happens to be home city to both the Liberal MP whose voice most drives Conservatives up the wall, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, and the Tory MP whose every utterance most irritates Liberals, Pierre Poilievre. Their latest war of words rewards some close listening, for those who can stand it. Poilievre says McKenna let slip in a Globe and Mail interview that Liberals might boost their carbon tax higher than the $50 per tonne it’s slated to hit by 2022. McKenna countered that there is “no secret agenda.” It’s just that her current carbon price deal with the provinces only runs to 2022. After that, she said, “Any decision would be taken in discussions with provinces and territories and stakeholders.” Here’s a generous chunk of video of her fielding reporters’ repeated questions, perhaps a foretaste of how Liberals will finesse a major election point of dispute. [CityNews]

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and there’s need of money: G7 summits are notorious for producing wordy communiques and not necessarily a whole lot else. The one that just wrapped up in Biarritz, France, however, delivered an unusually short document—and, at least from Canada, some real money for a pressing emergency. Trudeau anted up $15 million and dispatched Canadian water bombers to help fight the horrific forest fires in the Amazon. Host Emmanuel Macron, the French president, also announced a US$20-million commitment from the G7, but part of that was earmarked for long-term rainforest-protection. John Kirton, director of University of Toronto’s specialized G7 Research Group, summed up what happened this way:

“After phone calls from Macron and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro agreed to send his army to fight the fires. G7 members would immediately act to stop the fires by providing the specialized firefighting personnel, equipment and aircraft needed there. At the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York of September 23, they would work with the countries of the Amazon Basin, coordinated by Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, to produce a medium-term preventive and reforestation plan.” [University of Toronto]

Will Trudeau get a bounce from what was generally seen as an error-free performance in Biarritz? It can’t hurt to look competent on the world stage, and that contribution for South America’s forest fire challenge looked resolute. Still, the latest Angus Reid Institute polling suggests Trudeau is still fighting to win back Canadians who backed him in 2015: 

“Troubling to the Liberals, they find themselves competing for a significant portion of their own 2015 voters. One-third of current uncommitted voters (35 per cent) say they supported the party in the last federal election, but will not yet commit to the party again, while one-in-five (20 per cent) voted for the New Democratic Party. Notably, a considerable number of uncommitted respondents say they did not vote in 2015 (14 per cent).” [Angus Reid]

The post Hope and the hard work of coming up with a decent slogan appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Leacock had captured the English-speaking Canadian’s attitude almost perfectly. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 had given Canada control over its foreign policy, but loyalty to the British Empire remained strong, especially among Anglo-Canadian elites. They believed that if England was at war, Canada was, too. But Leacock had said nothing about the very different French-Canadian attitudes to war. There was not much loyalty to Britain there, and Québécois remembered the bitter fights over conscription in 1917 and the vicious anti-Quebec election of that same year. To get English- and French-speaking Canadians on the same page as war again approached seemed a near impossibility. To do so was Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King’s task.

King himself had no doubt that Canada should go to war if Britain did. The prime minister believed in British principles and values, and he feared that Adolf Hitler might become an aggressor. He had visited Germany in 1937 and met Hitler, who had impressed him as “one who truly loves his fellow man.” That was foolish, but King was no fool. He did not want Canada to go to war again, but as he watched the Nazis rearm, violate treaties and absorb Austria, he understood clearly that his nation once more had to stand with Britain if war came. His problem was how to unite a divided population and take it into war.

READ MORE: As Nazi symbols echo, remember who we fought on D-Day

First of all, King prayed that war might be avoided, and the British and French policy of appeasing Germany naturally appealed to him. If war could be avoided by throwing the bones of small countries to Hitler’s Germany, that would avert problems for Canada. But if not, he would fight. Hitler’s demands in the summer of 1938 for Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to be turned over to Germany horrified King and, as he wrote in his diary, “I would stand for Canada doing all she possibly could to destroy those powers which are basing their action on might and not on right, and that I would not consider being neutral in this situation . . . .” Some in his Cabinet and caucus disagreed, but the Munich agreement of late September 1938 among Germany, Britain, France and Italy gave the Sudetenland to Germany. Appeasement seemed to have prevented war.

Mackenzie King—and most Canadians—breathed a great sigh of relief after Munich, but Hitler soon violated the deal by swallowing all that remained of Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939. Appeasement seemed a dead letter. What then?

The prime minister spoke to the House of Commons on March 20, telling members of Parliament and the country that if there was any danger of bombs falling on London, Canada would step forward to Britain’s aid. Ten days later, however, King told the House that, “The idea that every 20 years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas . . . seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.” That did not sound as if Canada was going to war if Britain did, and King agonized in his diary that his words might not be “immediately helpful” to Britain. Still, he added, they were “the kind of thing that will keep the country together . . . .” In the same speech, however, King stated that in the event of war, there would be no conscription for overseas service. One step back, one half-step forward seemed to be his policy.

But there was another voice on the Liberal front benches, that of Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe, King’s Quebec lieutenant. The day after the prime minister’s address, Lapointe offered a vigorous attack on the very idea that Canada might be neutral in another war. As King had done earlier, he rejected neutrality, asking of his fellow countrymen “whether they seriously believe that this could be done without a civil war in Canada.” If there was no conscription, Lapointe clearly implied, French Canada would acquiesce in Canada going to war. Taken together, King said in his diary, the two speeches created “a sort of trestle sustaining the structure which would serve to unite divergent parts of Canada, thereby making for a united country.”

RELATED: Why Canada’s casualties were so high in Normandy

There was much truth in this. Lapointe’s address reassured English-speaking Canadians that Quebec would not resist a declaration of war should Britain—and Canada—have to fight. King’s speech and its promise of no conscription, on the other hand, gave French Canada the assurance it needed that any war would be fought by volunteers alone. A trestle to unite the country, indeed.

But London still worried about the Canadian government’s response in the event of war. In late April 1939, King told the British high commissioner that he disagreed with London’s pledge of support for Poland and Romania, and “He could not forecast in advance of Parliament what line Canada would take if the United Kingdom went to the help of one of these countries and as a result were herself attacked.”

The next month George VI and Queen Elizabeth toured Canada, and Mackenzie King, like all Canadians, happily wallowed in the orgy of royalist and Anglophile sentimentality. Watching from London, Lester Pearson noted that the British now had the “conviction that all this talk of Canadian isolation and neutrality is academic eye-wash.” The royal visit had confirmed that “the great heart of Canada is sound.”

So it was to be proven. Hitler’s war drums had been beating against Poland for months, and his stunning pact with the Soviet Union on Aug. 23 made a general war appear certain. The Canadian cabinet met the next day to consider its position, and Mackenzie King expressed his gratification “that on the all-important matter of Canada’s participation in the event of Britain being drawn into war we were of one mind and united.”

Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, and Britain and France declared war on Sept. 3. Canada had already begun to mobilize its pathetically small and ill-equipped military but was not yet at war, and Mackenzie King waited for Parliament to express its support. The declaration of war duly came on Sept. 10, George VI issuing the proclamation one week after Britain. Canada had made an independent decision to go to war, one taken with scarcely a voice raised against it in Parliament. A year earlier that had seemed inconceivable.

Did you have to go to war if England did? Leacock’s hypothetical Canadian would have said no, but yes. Mackenzie King understood that Canada had to go to war, and with his toing and froing, and his pledge against conscription, he ultimately brought a united country into war at Britain’s side, giving the Canadian public a policy that not only was right for him, but that seemed right to them.

J.L. Granatstein is a former Director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum and author of many books, including Canada’s Army: Waging War and Keeping the Peace.

MORE ABOUT THE SECOND WORLD WAR:

• These mysterious wartime letters nearly ended up in the trash—until fate intervened
• Law, not war: A Nuremberg trial prosecutor on why we need the ICC

The post How Mackenzie King convinced Canada to go to war in 1939 appeared first on Macleans.ca.

In the last year, “plant-based” has become the new “gluten-free.” That was the last empty buzzword used to sell us stuff we don’t need and to simplify the complicated choices about what we put in our bodies. Previous iterations were “local,” “organic,” “craft,” “small-batch” or “superfoods” like pomegranate and acai berries, all promising to make us healthier and benefit the environment.

Part of what makes the term plant-based so magical is that it doesn’t have to mean anything; everything is made out of plants. Our cotton clothes are plant-based. Our cardboard boxes are plant-based. Even gas for our cars are plant-based, having been formed by fossilized plants treated to heat and pressure over millions of years. So “plant-based” means as much on a package’s label as “molecule-based” or “made in the Milky Way.”

MORE: What the skyrocketing popularity of Beyond Meat means for our planet

The products that launched this plant-based trend are the Impossible Burger and the Beyond Meat burger. And they did it brilliantly. First, these companies sunk huge funds into developing products with the flavour and texture of beef. Next, they partnered with the fast-food chains that have deep connections with consumer taste.

In the U.S., Burger King now serves an Impossible Whopper. Last year, the Beyond burger became available at A&Ws in Canada. This primed consumers for supermarket retailing of these products. It has created a peripheral market demand for plant-derived protein alternatives that closely mimic animal meat—like New Wave Food’s plant-based shrimp or Right Treat’s omnipork (not yet available in Canada)—rather than their veggie burger ancestors. And it has opened the floodgates for the wave of imitators looking to cash in on the trendiness of the term.

Every week I get a new pitch about a “plant-based” product or restaurant. This week it was a vegan ice-cream company that now uses plant-based containers. Were the previous pints wrapped in schnitzel? A just-released trailer for the plant-based extreme athlete documentary The Game Changers features Arnold Schwarzenegger exposing a pro-meat conspiracy in the world of bodybuilding. The movie posits that meat is bad, not out of compassion for animals or the environment, but that it’s just not as good at building muscle as we think. What a strange reason to join this bandwagon.

I just received another release for “Canada’s first ready-to-consume adaptogenic superdrink,” and great news: it’s plant-based.

MORE: Climate change is making wildfires in Canada bigger, hotter and more dangerous

Hucksters are going to huck. There’s no stopping that. But while they’re busy diluting the value invested in plant-based research and marketing, we should stop to ask what value this has to begin with, and to what extent we are watching another boom-and-bust trend like with quinoa and “clean eating.”

The purpose of these products was supposed to be to provide an alternative for people who care about the environmental impact of beef production or the welfare of animals but aren’t ready or willing to give up meat. And as far as becoming the methadone of our cattle problem, they’re successful.

Currently, the retail cost of plant-based burgers is about double the price of good ground beef. In a recent Toronto Star article, a Beyond Meat spokesperson committed to a five-year timeline for lowering the price of at least one of their products below the cost of meat. To achieve that, and to continue the pursuit of replicating beef’s flavour, smell, texture and cooking properties, they keep tinkering with the recipe. Which is good. Because when we say that these things successfully taste like beef, we mean mediocre beef.

MORE: Yes, climate change can be beaten by 2050. Here’s how.

No one is claiming that they taste like a good burger. Reaching for the quality level of an A&W burger means you’re still on the bottom rung of the culinary ladder. Presently, the Beyond burger closely replicates the texture of beef much more than the flavour. The products are constantly being revised, but changing the formulation makes it difficult to stabilize the supply chain through commitments to growers.

Meanwhile, the UN says that our window to do something about the looming threat to the earth’s food security is closing. If we could eliminate our use of land to raise cattle for beef (and replace pastures with forests) we would have the time we need to solve climate change. And while these burger substitution products provide a market-demand solution, the massive undertaking in R&D and marketing is a long drive around the block to find a parking space that was right in front of the building—we could simply stop eating beef.

Obviously, that’s not going to happen.

MORE: The European Union can help save the Amazon

Our addiction to burgers reminds me of the guy with the rash on his arm. His skin is flaking off, all the way up to his elbow. His doctor can’t help him. And a series of dermatologists can’t figure it out. Finally he gets an appointment with a brilliant doctor in Sweden. He travels there to see this expert. The doctor looks at his arm and asks if he uses it for work.

“Sure, doc. I work in the circus,” says the man. “My main job is giving enemas to the elephants. For that I have to get my whole arm up the elephant’s butt.” The doctor shakes her head and tells the man that he just needs to quit his job and his arm will be fine. Outraged, the man asks, “You want me to give up show business?”

Politicians wasted a decade pretending they didn’t believe the science of climate change. Since then, they’ve hidden behind economic defenses for their inaction. And the fools that we are, unhappy merely with chicken, pork, fish, tofu, beans, nuts and the plentiful sources of protein available to us, yet we’ve got to have our burgers. And if we can’t have our burgers, we’ll science our way to replace them. Anything but abstinence.

Even the most optimistic growth of the plant-based meat market projects sales of $27.9 billion by 2025. That’s huge. But it stands in the face of the $383.5 billion beef sales expected in the same time frame. Meanwhile the Amazon rainforest, which produce so much oxygen it is known as “the planet’s lungs,” burns. And as the middle class in China grows, with it comes an appetite for beef. So the displacement of beef by plant-based meat is not happening fast enough.

There’s no point arguing against incrementalism if you end up advocating for doing nothing. A product that enables consumer choice to displace one-tenth of a destructive practice is great. That still leaves a lot riding on policy change.

Yes, we should absolutely stop eating beef—and immediately. Plant-based meats are a step in the right direction. But we need to do more than replace beef with a product that is merely adequate, high-cost, and available only to a minority.

The post We must have our beef appeared first on Macleans.ca.

This is when Reuters lensman Christian Hartmann managed to freeze history unfolding. Ostensibly, U.S. first lady Melania Trump’s destination was to the other cheek of Canada’s Prime Minister, though the deft closeness of their gesture makes one—especially the ones on social media—wonder where Melania’s mind was at this point, as world leaders arrived for a family photo at the G7 Summit in Biarritz, France. While her hand remains in Donald Trump’s clutches, the most powerful man in the world casts his eyes downward as his wife makes nice with the neighbour.

Video of the scene reveals that the U.S. president had just leaned in to let Brigitte Macron a peck his cheek while he kissed the coastal air. At 66, she’s a quarter-century older than her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, and just a few years Donald Trump’s junior—though the thrice-married Trump has yet to remain married to somebody past the age of 50. Melania, at 49, is 24 years—a whole generation—younger than her presidential partner, and just 18 months older than Trudeau. Time is slipping past the septuagenarian Trump, who is more than halfway through his presidential term. A man whose fame was built as much on owning the spectacle as on the concrete foundations of his self-branded towers lost control of this moment, like so many other ones over the past couple years.

MORE IMAGES OF THE WEEK:

• Help! I’m trapped on a stage with Boris Johnson
• Greta Thunberg: A message in a racing yacht
• These stranded B.C. salmon are in good hands
• Field of broken Boeing dreams

The post Justin Trudeau, Melania Trump and the air-kiss heard round the world appeared first on Macleans.ca.

Photographer Tim Smith was driving on an August evening when he saw a fleck of movement across a Manitoba field. Children from the Spring Valley Hutterite Colony were skipping along a pyramid of hay bales, playing tag. After asking permission from the colony’s minister, Smith rushed back to take photographs. It had just rained and a rainbow appeared, splayed perfectly across the background of his shot. “It was stunning, and frankly, the photo doesn’t do it justice. You can never plan for or predict these moments. But if you put yourself in the position for them to happen, sometimes you get lucky,” he says. Smith has spent 16 years capturing moments like these across the Prairies. His mission is to chronicle an underrepresented part of the country and the diversity of rural life, from First Nations communities to the Hutterite colonies.

“Summer in western Manitoba is brief and beautiful, but just long enough to wash away our collective memories of the brutal winter behind us and the impending cold to come. There is an urgency to summer on the prairies. You’re obligated to make the most of it and I try to do that photographically. Also I think there is a perception that there isn’t a lot going on in our wide open spaces,” says Smith. “I like that I have to put work in to find the beauty and the interesting narratives being played out. They don’t necessarily present themselves to everyone, just those willing to look hard enough.”

The post Manitoba’s fleeting, stunning summer caught on camera appeared first on Macleans.ca.