When the “Midnight Movie” was in its heyday, the actual movie was a mere side dish to the experience of going to a theatre at midnight and encountering whatever low-budget oddity was currently in vogue. One of the best movie trailers of all time is for John Waters’ midnight movie breakthrough Pink Flamingos (1972). The trailer shows not a single frame of the film; instead, we see interviews with people exiting the theatre, still reeling from what they’d seen and calling the film things like, “The most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life.” Kinda makes you want to see what all the fuss is about, right?The trailer for Paranormal Activity—a much buzzed-about horror film with a $11,000 budget, or just about $1,000 more than that of the 37-year-old Pink Flamingos—works much the same way, featuring supposed night-vision documentary footage of a preview audience being jolted and shocked by spooky happenings of the film. Through a brilliant Blair Witch-style ad campaign, word of mouth has been spreading to the point where last weekend the film hit number four on the Box Office Top Ten, despite playing on only 160 screens (a gargantuan $49,379 per-screen average).Oren Peli is a first-time director, and so far out of left field that at press time he didn’t even have a Wikipedia page (I gleaned from his sparse IMDb profile three facts: he emigrated from Israel to the U.S. at age 19; he studied graphics and animations; and he has a spouse whose name is unlisted). As with Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity has benefited from the various myths and tall tales that have sprung up around it. According to lore, Peli was inspired by strange goings-on in his own home: the story of a couple that films their room while they sleep to monitor for supernatural activity is reportedly based on an experiment Peli himself performed. And get this: no less than Steven Spielberg reputedly believed the DVD was haunted when his bedroom doors “locked by themselves” while he was watching the film.Fun stuff, but to his credit, Peli is much more interested in the nuts and bolts of filmmaking than perpetuating any myths. Key to the strength of a mockumentary horror film such as this, he stresses in a phone interview, are naturalistic performances. “I knew from the very beginning that once we had actors that could pull it off, which was not easy to find, we wanted to make sure that they could speak freely and naturally. So we gave them a little bit of an idea of what the scene is and a little bit of guidelines, but by having them come up with their own dialogue we were able to make sure that everything feels very natural in the setting and doesn’t feel like it’s some sort of a scripted, theatrical performance.”Peli became interested in the film when he realized the vulnerable state we enter during sleep. “I knew that by placing the setting of all the scary things that are happening in the people’s bed, in their bedroom, that’s the one thing that you can’t really escape. And after people watched The Blair Witch Project people said, ‘I’m never going to go camping again.’ Or after Jaws people said, ‘I’m never going to go swim in the ocean.’ But if you set up the setting for all the horrific things in someone’s bedroom, then that’s what you’re going to be thinking about when you’re lying in bed trying to fall asleep.”The Blair Witch Project is invariably mentioned in any discussion of the film, a comparison Pelin takes in stride. “It was definitely an influence. Blair Witch is the most successful movie that employed this kind of style, the cinema verité mock-umentary style, but I’ve been a fan of that since before Spinal Tap.”“I think the style is similar,” he continues, “but the story and most of the other elements are different. So it’s still a different story. And I love that people say that it’s unique and original.”Will Paranormal Activity really make you afraid to go to sleep at night, as many of its fans contend? “When people tell me they have trouble sleeping after watching the movie I take it as a compliment,” Pelin says.A pause. “Hopefully it’s not going to become like a real medical problem for anyone where they… you know, they can’t sleep at all.”
Paranormal Activity frightens horror purists
What ever happened to Marshall McLuhan?
In 1964, Marshall McLuhan published Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, and completely transformed the way we understand communications. With his memorable aphorisms “the medium is the message” and “the global village,” McLuhan was one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century.Many of McLuhan’s predictions have come true with the onset of globalization, the rise of the Internet, and continued technological advances in the areas of computers and telecommunications.With such success, one would assume that the University of Toronto, where McLuhan spent most of his teaching career, would have a larger think tank dedicated to probing the implications of his work—or at least a college named after him, like his spiritual mentor, Harold Innis, has.Sure, St. Joseph Street is known as “Marshall McLuhan Way,” and there is a small plaque about him pinned to a red brick house on the same street.His legacy continues here at U of T with the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, which explores the nature and effects of the things we conceive and create in all media. A group known as the Coach House Institute, the stewards of the program, announced their plans for the program at a seminar at the Faculty for Information Studies on Oct. 14.But the most tangible symbol of McLuhan’s legacy is a quaint but crumbling building at 39A Queen’s Park Crescent that houses the McLuhan Program. The Coach House, as it is affectionately known, seems inadequately modest in comparison with the ideas of its former occupant. If the medium is indeed the message, then the message from U of T appears to be one of apathy.After his death in 1980, U of T shut down McLuhan’s program and re-opened it only after worldwide protest. Furthermore, it took former program director Derrick de Kerkchove over three years to attach McLuhan’s name to his own graduate program. And even after that heroic effort, the program only received a $20,000, non-renewable, one-year grant.Fortunately, subsequent directors of the program have been able to extend its intellectual influence beyond the modest appearance of its home. It has been mainly through their efforts that McLuhan has not faded from view. The program receives significant institutional support from the Faculty of Information Studies at U of T as an independent research and teaching unit. It has also carried out several educational and academic projects inspired by McLuhan’s work, and continues to operate along the same guidelines as it did when it first opened in the 1960s.That causes some relief for this unapologetic McLuhan-atic, but I still feel more needs to be done to promote McLuhan’s legacy—namely, educating the public about his continued influence. McLuhan understood that Canada, as a country detached from the epicent of world affairs, is the perfect place to study communications. Hopefully, the Coach House Institute will be able to shed more light on this and on “Canada’s Intellectual Comet,” so that he can shine more brightly in the future.
When ‘Black’ became ‘Bilk’
As you can probably tell by the title, Conrad: Lord Bilk of the Crosspurposes isn’t necessarily geared towards a university-age audience. When I took my seat in George Ignatieff Theatre, packed to capacity on opening night, I was pretty sure I was the only person there younger than the eponymous lord. But the charming fellow in the seat next to me, who turned out to be playwright Jim Bacque, is anything but stuffy. Before the play started, he had time to tell me a story from his student days at Trin in the 1950s, when he was able to convince the Varsity cheerleaders to dance for a photo-op on a table in Hart House’s Great Hall. He’s teamed up with former classmates Peter Russell and Martin Hunter for his latest work of mischief, this one directed at a target notoriously uncomfortable with criticism, Conrad Black.Conrad picks up where most of the media left off, telling the story of the unflappable newspaper baron and his wacky friends and associates, all of whom share similarly skimpy pseudonyms. Bilk is haunted, Scrooge-style, by his former headmaster, who introduces himself as Bilk’s conscience and orders him to get his hands above the sheets. He is also treated to visits from his devoted and frivolous wife, and former PM Lady Thrasher (Margaret Thatcher), who—in the funniest bit in the play—defeats a block full of leering prisoners with her withering glare. The scheme Bilk eventually develops to buy the jail he’s stuck in makes more of a joke out of the American legal system than it does of Bilk. However, the plot takes a turn for the sinister when Bilk develops a scheme to privatize war.Although this is, of course, not a realistic or tender portrayal of the man, actor Thomas Gaugh captures the weird charisma of the longsuffering know-it-all that inspired the play. Likewise, the poised and dignified Kay Montgomery offers an enjoyable caricature of the scariest British lady alive. The one character who would have benefited from a little more depth is Lady Bilk, who spends most of her time discussing her wardrobe and planning the redecoration of her husband’s cell. The real Barbara Amiel has generated plenty of poignant, interesting thoughts as a columnist for Maclean’s magazine. (She also contributed to The Varsity in the 1960s—Ed.)Director Martin Hunter does everything he can to make Conrad’s jail cell, where most of the play is set, roomy. The obviously simple set consists of a wall (with graffiti that unfortunately does look as though it was composed by the play’s seventy-something creators), bed, and toilet. For all its highbrow references, some of the play’s most interesting humour stems from the peculiar social situation of talking to business associates in the place where you pee. The other prisoners, among whom Conrad finds an eager audience for his lectures on business, exist as disembodied voices shouting from offstage.The play begins and ends with musical numbers, an anachronistic Gilbert & Sullivan parody that commands respect if only for successfully rhyming “slamma’” with “Obama.” The closing piece, also a parody, is not as strong, but is saved by a kick-ass solo from Lady Bilk, played by Martha Spence.Though the audience was laughing through most of the show, Bacque and producer Peter Russell had difficulty finding a theatre willing to test out the potential legal minefield of portraying the lawsuit-happy prisoner in an unflattering light. You can’t really blame them, especially seeing that much of the play revolves around the main character’s legal machinations.Russell, a pleasant 76-year-old who eagerly guided patrons to their seats, says there was a definite libel chill among a few theatres. Bacque has written a book about trying to get his work onstage, Putting on Conrad, due to be released in January. “People who do big things have big character flaws,” says Russell. It occurred to him that the story of Conrad Black would make a great play as he was watching Black’s melodramatic Chicago trial in 2007. As for the feelings of Conrad himself, which (such as they are) get a lot of attention in this play, Russell isn’t worried. “We think he’ll probably get a tickle out of it,” he says cheerfully.Trinity College’s Theatre Month celebrates the 30th anniversary of the George Ignatieff Theatre. For more information on this month’s performances, which include Saints Alive! and No Exit, visit www.trinity.utoronto.ca.
Obama talks the talk, but true peace building is more than words
President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock to the world. Unlike most stories, this news was truly ripe for punditry. Disregarding their knowledge of the Peace Prize committee’s criteria or of Obama’s specific deeds and words, anyone could—and did—express an opinion. Many argued that Obama simply had not done enough to deserve this honour, without spelling out what they expected from him and when. The world is right to expect Obama to make good on his promises to revitalize America’s role as a global diplomatic leader after the moral depravity of the Bush years. However, these expectations have not yet become reality.Obama has said the right things. No president, Democrat or Republican, has ever declared the intent to eliminate nuclear weapons. This pledge is significant not because it will be realized within Obama’s presidency, but because it symbolizes his commitment to set America on the path of a renaissance. No president has flown to Cairo, the heart of the Arab world, to assure Muslims that democracy and Islam are compatible, even complementary ideas. No president has so clearly and publicly stated what he thinks it takes to move Middle East peace talks forward. For this he should be lauded and encouraged to continue.His deeds, however, have yet to advance the cause of international peace. While drastically reducing American involvement in Iraq, Obama has stepped up the war in Afghanistan with serious consequences for Pakistan. Debates continue to rage in Washington about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama has yet to restore America’s prominent role in the United Nations or to pledge support for the International Criminal Court, the moral legitimacy of which will remain only partial until America joins the ranks. Strong words on climate change are meaningless unless backed up by clear American commitments on emissions target negotiations at Copenhagen this December.Obama is certainly a leader unlike any America has had in recent decades. But this does not mean that the world will or should expect only words. The expectations, foreign and domestic, that the president faces are tremendous, but no president has inspired so many fine minds into public service. If anyone can restore America’s role in the world, it is Obama. But this prize should be seen as a challenge, rather than an affirmation that he is inevitably on his way there.
It’s about time
As the Varsity Blues football team marched onto the York Stadium field on Oct. 3 to take on the Lions, they passed two mascots, a drum ensemble, a paid hype-woman, and a male dance troupe that dwarfed U of T’s entire cheerleading squad. A raucous crowd of 1,155, mostly dressed in Lions red, jeered as the Blues took their place for the opening kickoff. On the opposite end of the bleachers, a small but equally strident contingent of Blues fans—led, of course, by the engineers—blared their horns and, between plays, chanted, “If you can’t go to college, go to York.” The Lions took their place on the field after the coin-toss, signaling the start of the grudge match between the cross-town rivals. The stage was set. The game was on. The fans roared.If you closed your eyes for a moment, you’d almost swear they were cheering for good teams.They weren’t, of course. The 45-27 win is U of T’s only victory so far this year, as the Blues (1-5) suffered a crushing defeat against the McMaster Marauders the following Thursday. Coming into the game against York, the team was 0-4 on the season, a record that includes a couple of anemic offensive showings against Windsor and Wilfrid Laurier. And while the victory over the Lions—who went winless last season—offered some consolation, it did little to reassure, as the Blues repeated many of the same mistakes that saw them spend the better part of the last two seasons as bottom-feeders.“There’s still a lot of things that we’re doing that we need to correct,” said Blues head coach Greg DeLaval. “We really need to clean up the mental errors. Other teams would chew us up.”Quarterback Jansen Shrubb, a Queen’s University graduate and U of T MBA student, made his first start of the season in the York game. He threw for 321 yards on 20-for-31 passing, a particularly impressive feat considering he sat in favour of rookie Jordan Scheltgen for much of the fourth quarter.Shrubb got the call again later in the week against McMaster, throwing an impressive 250 yards in a losing effort. So far in the season, Shrubb has completed 77 passes, good enough for fifth amongst the OUA’s most accurate passers. Third-year Andrew Gillis, the Blues’ starting pivot for the first half of the season, did not dress for either game.In both matches, U of T’s rushing game was notable for its absence. Without an effective running back, the team has had to rely primarily on the passing game, which only blossomed with Shrubb’s play as of late. The team’s leading rusher for the first six games of the year, despite competing in just four of them, is quarterback Andrew Gillis.The Blues host the Waterloo Warriors this Saturday, in their final home tilt of the season. It was a victory over Waterloo that saw the Varsity Blues snap their 49-game winless drought last season. Both teams will enter the match with identical 1-5 records, with Waterloo coming off a 43-21 trouncing at the hands of the first-place Queen’s Golden Gaels.
Nobel win is just the beginning for Obama’s peace efforts
Many people were dismayed when Barrack Obama was announced as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Questions regarding what Obama has contributed to world peace, or even domestic reform, began swirling soon after the news from Oslo. Health care reform is still stuck in Congress. The American economy remains the dullard of the industrialized world. Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be conflict zones, and Gitmo stays stubbornly open.Yet Obama has brought about a significant amount of peace building in his short time as president. He has accepted the fact that the United States can no longer unilaterally project its power, and he has sought a total elimination of nuclear weapons. He has re-engaged the United States with Russia, and though significant differences still exist between the former Cold War rivals, Russia appears willing to work with the U.S. on major issues such as a nuclear Iran and North Korea.Naysayers might argue these warm and fuzzy feelings are irrelevant, as they have brought about no actual change. But in the case of Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for a change in tone, as it has been given in the past. Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik was in its infancy when he won the Nobel Prize, and Al Gore’s win was more about a movie than results on climate change. Kellogg and Briand won the award for their pact that simply renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy.Yet war has continued, just as the climate continues to warm. This doesn’t mean that Gore, Kellogg, and Briand’s wins were not deserved. These prize-winners all introduced concepts to the international community that altered the status quo. Obama’s presidency has brought about a significant shift in how the U.S. engages with the rest of the world, and how the world views the United States. No longer do people (well, except for Republicans and FOX news) throw eggs at the presidential motorcade or curse the American president. If that change isn’t deserving of the Nobel Prize, I don’t know what is.
The cup stops here
The first Friday of October saw the return of a long-standing U of T sports event: the World Cup of Clubs Tournament. U of T students took to King’s College Circle in the cold and early morning hoping for a warm victory, and as the rain started coming down, male and female athletes, undergrad and grad alike, slid through the muddy field, their club jerseys plastered to their backs.The soccer tournament, founded by the University of Toronto Italian-Canadian Association, has been running for over a decade, bringing together a number of U of T clubs to fight for the championship. This year’s teams were all culturally oriented: competing with UTICA were the Étudiants Francophones de l’Université de Toronto, the Chinese Undergrad Association of U of T, the university’s Korean-Canadian, Portuguese, Croatian, and Greek students’ associations, and the Iranian Students’ Union. The tournament is not restricted to cultural clubs, though it began as an imitation of the World Cup with four competitors: Italy, Portugal, China, and Croatia.Vince Messina, assistant coach of the Portuguese team, explained that due to restrictions, the tournament’s organizers are forced to give priority to teams that have participated in previous years, making it difficult to expand the event to include other kinds of university clubs.The mentioned restrictions include, notably, space and play time. “The play time is short, standard time being only forty-five minutes, and the field should get more protection,” said Chinese undergrad student Richard Yako-Ming, who was playing for the second year and was disappointed by the conditions. The season’s rainy weather made the open Front Campus field, in one student’s words, “a mudpie.” “The Office of Space Management doesn’t give us enough time on the pitch,” said Antonin Mongeau, coach of the EFUT team. “We want to expand the tournament to draw in more students, but the administration seems to resist that. OSM needs to step its game up.”Increased university support, with a designated field dedicated to the event for an entire day, would allow a broader range of clubs to participate, and help develop a more colourful event.Nonetheless, the only regulation demanded of this year’s participating teams was that 11 players be on the field at all times, and that at least one of those players be female. Francesca Imbrogno, an Italian student originally playing for UTICA, switched to the Croatian team during one of their matches in order to help them fulfill the female player regulation and stay in the game. “I think it’s a great rule that one girl has to be on each team,” Imbrogno said. “It brings balance to the teams and gives some real star female players a chance to shine.”Attention to detail on the part of the organizers resulted in a successful event and good sportsmanship from the participants. Relations remained friendly although the players showed a great deal of dedication, many of them not having had the opportunity to play in a league since high school. “After years of playing pick-up, the World Cup of Clubs gives these guys a chance to get competitive,” added Imbrogno.According to Massimo Rotondo, UTICA member and alumni advisor, the advantage of such an event is that “it’s not just about soccer. The idea is gaining membership, exposing clubs.”As many students have learned, at a university with such large campuses, clubs are an important way to find solidarity and a sense of community. In one of the most multicultural cities in the world, the tournament is a way to combine school spirit with personal cultural pride. Each team had a gathering of supporters screaming words of encouragement through the rainy fog. “I came out to support my team because it’s an opportunity to see people I know and meet new people,” said Silvija Metelko, a member of the Croatian club. For many students the game carries more weight as a cultural event within U of T than as a sports championship.The final game between Korea and Greece ended in a 4-2 victory for the Koreans, breaking a tug of war between Italy and Croatia and marking Korea’s first year as the champion club. Andrew Park, coach of the winning team, embodied Korea’s gracious approach to the game. “We’re very excited and we’ll definitely be back next year,” he said. The tournament’s character can be best judged by the reactions of the Greek coach, Dimitri Kyriakakis, who smiled under the tumbling rain after a tough defeat: “16 players came out at 7:30 a.m. on a Friday morning, we played two to three girls at all times, we brought out very passionate, young players, most of whom were first-years, we had an excellent turnout, and we’re very proud of everyone.”
Q&A: Michael Ignatieff
In the late 1960s, Michael Ignatieff was a student at the University of Toronto and an editor at The Varsity. Now, more than 40 years later, he is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada facing a potentially volatile parliament. In August he stated his intention to challenge the Conservative government on matters of confidence, possibly forcing an election this year—though the Bloc and New Democrat support for the government, and the Liberals sinking poll numbers, make this prospect unlikely. With this new break in the action, Ignatieff had time to answer a few questions via email for The Varsity about national identity, the current situation in parliament, and his experience as an undergraduate at U of T.The Varsity: Thanks for speaking with us. First, on a personal note, do you have any memories from your time at our newspaper—or our university—that you could share with us?Michael Ignatieff: I was at U of T in the late sixties. It was probably the most exciting time to be a university student in the last century. Vietnam was on. Mike Pearson had just kept Canada out. There was a culture of passion and protest that was everywhere you looked on campus. We started doing these teach-ins, which were sort of half-lecture, half-protest, with a good amount of conversation thrown in. And there we were, in our late teens and early twenties, arguing the biggest issues of the day and never trusting anybody over thirty. It was incredibly exciting. And I had the most incredible friends, who became co-conspirators in all this stuff—Bob Rae and Jeff Rose and others.TV: A common theme in your newest book, True Patriot Love, is the notion that Canada is somehow an “unfinished project.” You assert that Stephen Harper has approached the country as a finished product and that this has been one of his failings as prime minister. In the last 30 years, Canada has faced fundamental challenges to the character of its federalism: two referenda on Quebec sovereignty, the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and the recent constitutional crisis, among others. Could you comment on the underlying problems facing Canadian federalism and on the “unfinished” nature of Canada as a national project?MI: For as long as we’ve existed, Canada has been a country of epic undertakings and national dreams. In my great-grandfather’s day, it was the transcontinental railroad. Since then, we’ve had the Trans-Canada Highway, universal health care, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Big ideas, big projects—and, above all, national projects—that pull the whole country together to say, yes, we can get this done together.We’re a big country. Vast. And very different, from one end of the country to the other. And when you’ve got a federation as big and broad as Canada, you can start to pull apart if you focus on the differences. The story of Canada is the story of resisting that, of pulling together. Our national unity is the biggest national project of them all.So these great national endeavours are some of the adhesive that holds this big country together, that keeps us moving forward together, that unites us—not in spite of our differences, but because of them.We need to set ourselves new projects, new national undertakings. I’ve talked about high-speed rail and West-East power grids. We live in a great country, the best in the world, but as soon as we let ourselves believe that our work is finished, we’ll start falling behind.TV: You’ve spent much of your career as a journalist and scholar exploring some of the most troubled regions in the world. Countries in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East are still affected by conflicts between secular, religious, and ethnic forms of nationalism. True Patriot Love begins with a passage about the meaning of national feeling as an “act of imagination” defined collectively by a series of competing viewpoints. Is the conflict between different conceptions of a nation the symptom of a healthy country or of an unhealthy one?MI: This is the magic of Canada. The immigrant who was born somewhere else but moved here, or someone who’s worked abroad and come home, or someone who’s been here all their life—we all imagine Canada in different ways. You can be Quebecois and a Canadian in the order that you choose. Or Acadian or Jamaican or Indian or Chinese. Our diversity is our greatest strength. We’ve built a country where our different viewpoints are more than the sum of their parts—they add up to a richer country. This isn’t just healthy, it’s what makes us Canadian.TV: You also comment in your book that Canadian political culture has a somewhat anti-rhetorical tradition when compared to, say, that of the United States–a country whose tradition of rhetoric has perhaps reached its apex in the age of Barack Obama. First of all, what do you think accounts for this difference? Is it a strength or a weakness?MI: Pierre Trudeau made “reason before passion” his motto, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t passionate. Far from it. He channeled his passion through his actions, through the arguments he made in defense of his policies. I think Barack Obama is similar in that respect.In Canada, we talk about peace, order, and good government. It’s a philosophy that puts our collective wellbeing, the health of our whole society, first. Americans talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is a more individualistic take. I think that’s where the difference between our rhetorical traditions begins. Americans look for presidents who can rally and inspire the nation to greatness. Canadians look for prime ministers who take their inspiration from our whole society, and who will move us forward together.TV: One of our country’s most respected political journalists, Chantal Hébert, concluded the introduction of her recent book, French Kiss, by saying: “On the left and on the right, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, the old coalitions that saw Canada through the twentieth century have broken down. The next majority government in Canada will belong to whomever is the most adept at reassembling the pieces of the federation before it is broken up for good into irreconcilable blocks.” Canada is in the midst of a unique period in its political history: three successive minority governments and the recent crisis in which, in your own words, “the prime minister pitted region against region, province against province.” Are we destined for an age of more minority governments, or do you believe majorities are attainable in the present circumstances?MI: I’ve said that we’re a big, broad country, and that our diversity is our strength. But there’s a deep consensus among many Canadians that we want government to lead in growing the economy, we want Canada to have a respected voice in the world, and we want to be united as one great people sharing one great country. That’s the vision we’re going to offer Canadians in the next election, and it’s very different from what we’ve got from Stephen Harper.TV: The Liberal Leadership convention held in Vancouver in early May was different from other conventions that have been held by your party in the past. What was the overall mood, and what were some of the most important things to emerge from the gathering?MI: The convention was part of a long process of renewing and uniting the Liberal Party. In Vancouver we came together as party and we came out of that weekend with a resolve to do politics differently. Vancouver was about refocusing our energies on being the party of our national unity and our national purpose. We also moved to a one-member, one-vote leadership process so that every Liberal will have a say in who leads our party.TV: Pierre Eliot Trudeau is often criticized for alienating the western provinces through his national energy program. In one of your first major speeches as leader you said that the Liberals had made mistakes with Alberta in the past. What kind of relationship should the Liberal Party try to cultivate with that province?MI: Alberta and Western Canada should never feel like they’re left out of the debates that shape our country’s future. I’ve spent a lot of time in Alberta, and I work closely with a good number of Albertans. They’re some of the most fiercely proud Canadians you’ll ever meet. The whole country has benefited from Alberta’s entrepreneurial, risk-taking, cutting-edge spirit. We need as much of that Alberta spirit as we can get, if our economy is to grow and create the jobs of tomorrow.TV: Both the Liberals and the NDP had a pretty strong showing in Atlantic Canada during the last election. Nova Scotia has just elected the first New Democratic government east of Ontario, and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams remains one of Stephen Harper’s most vociferous critics. Though your party supported the Conservative budget, you allowed your MPs from Newfoundland to vote against it. Could you comment on this decision and on the broader picture that exists in that part of the country?MI: Stephen Harper used a federal budget to settle a personal score with Premier Williams. That’s no way for a prime minister to behave, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were justifiably angry. So were we. We needed to send a message to Stephen Harper, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we did.We listen to Atlantic Canadians. We hear what they expect from their federal government. And Liberals are ready to deliver for Atlantic Canada.TV: Lastly, parliament resumed on September 14 and Senator David Smith indicated at the time that the question of EI Reform is “not a defining issue that merits bringing the government down.” How will the Liberal Party position itself on EI Reform, and is there still the possibility of an immediate election even if this issue is no longer central?MI: We believe in regional fairness for EI. We want more Canadians who pay into the EI system to be eligible for benefits if they lose their job through no fault of their own. The bill that the Conservatives finally brought forward on EI falls well short of these goals.Our experience in trying to make progress on this issue with the Conservatives tells us two important things—two things that go well beyond EI, and that Canadians should consider when they’re asked to choose their next government. The first is that the Conservatives have no real interest in making parliament work for Canadians. They’re only interested in holding on to their own jobs. The second is that helping laid-off workers isn’t just a matter of compassion for Liberals, it’s an integral part of our economic recovery. It puts stimulus in the hands of people who will spend it immediately to provide for their families while they find their next job, and it helps to ensure we don’t leave people behind as our economy recovers. But EI is just another political bargaining chip for Stephen Harper.Canada can do better. That’s why we oppose this government.