Author Archives: Jay Menard

Swinging for the Fences on a Decentralized Canada

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Generally, in an election campaign, you win by promising to do more. However, Conservative leader Stephen Harper may have finally connected by, of all things, promising to do less as Prime Minister of Canada.

Of course, instead of hitting a home run, his blast went just to the outside of the foul pole – but at least he was swinging for the fences. The idea of provincial autonomy is good. The idea of Quebec representing itself in international organizations, like UNESCO, is not.

Decentralized government has been the buzz word in federal-provincial relations for the past few years. The idea of provinces having more autonomy on spending and resource management is a great deal for certain areas. Alberta, for example, would have no trouble with the idea of federal hands being removed from their pocketbooks.

And on a national unity level, increased provincial autonomy over matters of state would go a long way towards quelling separatist movement in the province of Quebec. That’s the whole basis behind the much-ballyhooed distinct society clause – recognizing Quebec and its predominantly French population as unique and worth preserving.

But how much is too much? Individual provinces representing themselves at International organizations, trade functions, and the like only serves to marginalize the country as a whole and reduce our ability to bargain from any position of leverage. Would the have and have not provinces sit around the same table, undercutting each other for the right to new contracts, simply because they only have their own interests at heart?

There still needs to be a strong federal presence in the global marketplace. The power of one clear voice outweighs that of 10 separate voices all clamouring to be heard over one another.

So if not on the global stage, where should the provinces earn the right to do more? Where it counts most – in their own backyards. Once upon a time, the federal government allocated lump sums of money to the provinces in the form of transfer payments, with which the provinces could do as they pleased. Need a little extra in health care this year? Fine. How about taking some of that public works pot and balancing out the education budget? Great!

But that transfer payment pot has been steadily shrinking. An increase in no-strings-attached transfer payments from the feds to the provinces would allow the provinces to meet the region’s priorities on a local level – not dictated by a federal overseer.

This country needs to be run like a business, with the provinces acting as franchises. A decentralized government at its best would oversee the national social programs, national trade, and the laws of the land, while leaving the more administrative duties to the provinces. As managers of their own regions, the provincial leaders would be able to take their federal funds and channel them towards the programs and issues of most demand for their constituents.

Overall, the various franchises will continue to work together to ensure that that brand as a whole – Canada – is stronger than the sum of its parts! You won’t see one McDonald’s bad-mouthing another franchise down the road, just to boost its own sales, so why would we want to encourage that type of behaviour in inter-provincial relations?

We need that federal presence to ensure we remain a country. All this talk from provinces such as Ontario and Quebec who complain that they’re either paying too much or receiving too little from the federal-provincial relationship miss the point that confederation isn’t an equal-in, equal-out proposition. If we decentralize to the point of provincial autonomy, we will lose this national support network and focus on Canada. We will become little enclaves, standing up for only our own best interests instead of that of other Canadians.

That’s not a Canada in which I want to live. If my overtaxed Ontario dollars are going to subsidize a less fortunate Atlantic region, then I can live with that. In the grand scheme of things, we want to make this country stronger as a whole – not just select regions of prosperity.

So while Mr. Harper’s first swing at a renewed concept of federalism may have resulted in a foul ball, a few adjustments in his stance and keeping his eye on the big picture may see him hit a home run with an idea for a new Canada.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Right Vote Requires 20/20 Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

With all the nation’s eyes – OK, with a handful of eyes (and some of them heavy-lidded at best) – glued to the televised debates between the Canadian political party leaders, one important component of any election decision continues to be lost in the front-page shuffle.

Each and every time we head to the polls we develop an acute case of hyperopia. Issues of national interest rightfully grab the headlines, but they shouldn’t affect us to the point where we forget about our own backyards.

It’s hard enough to get Canadians to the polls and we do so in woefully inadequate numbers. People feel distanced from the political process because many think that these issues on The Hill won’t affect them personally. But that neglects the fact that we don’t elect a Prime Minister – we elect individual candidates to represent our constituencies. Those numbers then determine who runs the show.

So why do so many people have trouble identifying the candidates in their own riding, much less than what they actually stand for? We can identify basic themes from the national campaign that filter down and affix themselves to the local candidates, but I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of voters have only a sketchy idea of what their individual candidate stands for in their very own riding.

Although this is a federal election, its foundation is built on the local. And that’s where we, as responsible voters, must start to build the rationale for our decision when it comes time to mark our ballot.

Unfortunately, there are rarely televised debates between candidates in a riding. More often than not, they’re running their campaigns independently of each other, preferring to leave the cross-party sniping and broadsides to the captains of their respective political ships. But the key thing that we as citizens must realize is that while each candidate generally falls in line on the big issues of national importance, there are local issues unique to their riding that can have a direct impact on how you live your day-to-day life.

And that’s where your vote truly matters. When it comes to elections, we’re all pretty much selfish people wondering what’s in it for us – and that’s why campaign promises are made. But nowhere are you more directly impacted than by the decisions and ideas put forth by the person vying to be your local Member of Parliament.

In this day and age, there’s really only one reason why someone can step up to a ballot box completely ignorant of their local candidates’ beliefs and platforms – laziness. Almost every candidate – and certainly those of the big three parties – have Web sites that offer the meat of their party platform. But those sites are also spiced with the regional flavour of local issues.

As well, most candidates are more than happy to answer your questions – or at least have one of their minions do it for you. A phone call to a riding will be returned, an e-mail will be responded to, and a public photo-op/meet-‘n’-greet is only a day away!

There’s a reason why when we put our addresses on things we write the city, the province, and the country – it’s because all three levels impact us. So too should these distinctions carry equal weight in an election campaign. To vote based solely on a broad federal platform ignores your local needs. And, conversely, the overriding philosophy of a federal policy will have some weight on the choice of a local candidate.

This election campaign has been described as choosing the lesser of all evils. But it only has to be that way if we ignore our local constituencies. By talking to our local candidates and finding out where they stand on the issues that directly affect us, we are creating a situation wherein we’re choosing the best person for our own, personal situation. And really, isn’t that what an election is about? We are choosing a person to represent US in Parliament, so why wouldn’t we want that person to accurately reflect the riding, its beliefs, and its unique situation.

In the end, this election is about much more than Gilles Duceppe, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, and Paul Martin – it is about the hundreds of candidates vying for the right to represent individual ridings. And we can’t let the bright lights of the federal stage blind us to the issues affecting us in our own backyards.

To make the right choice we need to restore balance in the way we look at our candidates, because a myopic perspective is no better than suffering from hyperopia. It may mean a little work, but the right answer for all of us will be easier to see with 20/20 vision.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Putting the Care Back in Healthcare

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If Hippocrates was alive today, he’d be greatly ailed by the state of our health care system. Of course, good luck on him for actually finding a doctor that would treat him.

Healthcare in this country has rapidly deteriorated to the point where the concept of a house call is little more than a quaint memory – akin to a Normal Rockwell painting hanging on the wall. Care and compassion have been replaced by productivity, efficiency, and billable visits.

Healthcare is extinct and in its place has risen the concept of Health Management. And we have no one but ourselves as patients to blame for this devolution of care.

We have deified our medical professionals. We have come to accept their judgments as the final authority, to be accepted without question. Our great failing is that we no longer look at doctors as humans, with their own frailties, trials, and tribulations.

Due to one person’s wish to get to their destination just a little quicker, my wife and I have been deeply immersed in all aspects of the health management system. And we have seen the best and the worst. We have seen great displays of compassion, caring, and adherence to the basic ideals that Hippocrates set out when he crafted his oath.

Yet those qualities have not been displayed by those with the letters M.D. after their name. Rather, it has fallen to practitioners of so-called alternative medicine to fill in the gaps. They, the chiropractors and physiotherapists, are the ones who now display the bedside manner so often lacking in our coolly efficient doctors. They are the ones who understand that a caring ear attuned to our frustrations is just as therapeutic as any prescription that can be written. Yet many continue to write them off as quacks and opportunists, despite the fact that they’ve made a commitment to caring for their patients.

Recently I attended a seminar presented by an insurance broker who explained that, in order to maximize profitability, doctors and other medical professionals ascribe to a five-minute window of treatment. Three minutes of face time, followed by two minutes of paper work. Many of us have walked into a doctor’s office to be greeted by signs indicating that only one issue will be dealt with per appointment. Any other concerns must be addressed in another, billable, appointment. The situation has deteriorated to the point where new doctors in the region where I live have the audacity to make potential patients apply for their services.

These doctors should feel shame! They should apply for the right to treat us! When it comes to my health and life, I should have the right to choose amongst my doctors for the one who gives the best care – not just be forced to take whatever table scraps are left, and to be thankful for it.

Doctors have a difficult job, I understand that. Especially in this region of southwestern Ontario, they are overwhelmed by work, dealing with funding cut-backs, and stressed beyond imagination.

But could part of that stress come from a lack of enjoyment in their job? There is no longer the sense of familial relations that we once shared with our doctors. The personalized care, understanding, and knowledge have been replaced with the medical equivalent of working on a factory line. It has become repetitive, productivity-driven, and – most importantly – soulless. One would hope that the majority of people were called to the medical profession because of a desire to help people – not just line their pocketbooks. So can this new age of medicine truly be fulfilling?

Louis Lasagna, the academic dean of medicine at Tufts University in 1964, penned the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath. In it he said, “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care for the sick.”

Yet, more often than not, patients are made to feel like they are nothing more than the sum of the numbers on their health care card. We are a necessary, but unwanted, imposition upon the lives of those to whom we turn for help.

We need to change the focus back from health management to health care. We need to work with our medical professionals to petition the government for more funding to ensure that we have a system of which we can be proud. The focus has to be on quality of care, not on quantity of care. Our doctors must feel able to spend more time with a needy patient, rather than watching the seconds tick by on their watches.

Most importantly, as patients we must demand to be treated as humans, not just numbers.

The modern Hippocratic Oath ends with the phrase, “may I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”

To experience joy, one must have a soul. Our medical system needs to find it.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Healthy Dose of Anti-Americanism Goes a Long Way

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Congratulations Mr. Wilkins! You just earned yourself a spot on top of Paul Martin’s Christmas card list this year.

David Wilkins, the United States’ ambassador to Canada – and the spokesperson for President George Bush north of the 49 th – issued a stern warning to Canadian politicians about using North American relations as a campaign. Without naming names, it was clear that Wilkins was referring to Martin and his recent tough stand on American issues.

What he doesn’t realize is that, for many Canadians, a little anti-Americanism goes a long way. And by building the platform for the Liberal leader, he’s created another pulpit from which he can preach that he’s the true defender of Canada. Let’s face it, we Canadians are a touchy lot at the best of times when it comes to the elephant to the south – and when they start saber-rattling, then we really get our backs up.

What does it mean to be Canadian? First and foremost on many people’s list is that we’re not American. Sure, it may say something about our national self-confidence that we choose to define ourselves by what we’re not, as opposed to what we are, but the fact remains that Canadians are fiercely proud of not being Americans.

It’s a social superciliousness that extends through all walks of our lives. From our social programs to our foreign affairs, we Canucks love nothing more than to look down at our American neighbours.

Of course, that pompous nature and constant exhortation of all that is better about being Canadian belies our true fears. When it comes to North American life, we ride shotgun. Whether we talk, shout, or pout, really we’re riding shotgun to wherever the U.S. decides to steer the continent. As independent as we like to think we are, we know we’re beholden to our American friends for such important issues as defense and trade.

And what makes us feel even worse is that we know we’re powerless even when we’re right. Take, for example, the softwood lumber ruling. We knew we were in the right and the world’s court agreed with us. Yet, like a schoolyard bully holding our lunch money, they basically dared us to come and get it!

Of course, the schoolyard bully didn’t have designs on our overabundant supply of fresh water. And there’s no principal to step in and ensure fairness. When it comes to life, politics, and global economics, fair is only in the eye of the beholder.

So, with many Canadians harbouring an inferiority complex that would have Carl Jung salivating, any verbal spankings issued by our American cohorts is going to have us, as a nation, in a fighting mood! In fact, we’ll get downright ornery, kick our heels, wring our hands, and look for someone to champion our cause.

And in comes Paul Martin. The same Paul Martin who has been talking tough on softwood lumber for months. The same Paul Martin who has been throwing stones at the Yanks over Kyoto – despite living in a remarkably see-through house. And the same Paul Martin who can now turn attention away from beer-drinking, popcorn-popping mothers towards the more friendly confines of standing up against the Americans. Should Stephen Harper, who many see as the northern incarnation of George Bush, or Jack Layton step up and say anything, Martin now has the requisite foundation to call them out as profiteers looking to jump on the anti-American bandwagon.

Is it a risky game? Not for Martin. Any opposing sentiment suggesting a more mollifying touch with the United States would simply come across as weak pandering to the Americans. By spending a little of the trade capital earned south of the border, Martin’s able to exchange it for a much more valuable currency in the Great White North.

Christmas came early for Paul Martin, and the many wearing the bright red suit was named David Wilkins. And, as evidenced by the way he’s pounced on any of Harper’s gaffes this election campaign, Martin is not one to look a gift horse – or ambassador – in the mouth.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Cookie Cutter Constituents Don’t Exist

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

When will the political parties learn that cookie cutter constituents don’t exist? By overplaying to one particular sensitivity, they run the risk of offending one’s other sensibilities and losing potential votes because of their high school clique mentality.

For example, I’m dying to take the New Democratic Party seriously in this federal election. My left-o’-centre heart is looking for a champion to take a stand on the social issues that I deem important and – on the surface – the NDP looks to share many of my ideals. That is until they open their mouths and drown in rhetoric.

What spews forth isn’t political discourse – it’s nothing more than high-school put-downs and the perpetuation of naïve stereotypes.

Until the NDP’s supporters learn to tone down the propaganda, they’ll never been taken seriously by the majority of Canadian voters. Until that happens, like a despondent surfer they’ll continue to miss being able to ride the wave of discontent that the ruling Liberal Party has left in its wake.

For some reason unbeknownst to me, I receive an NDP e-mail newsletter in my e-mail in-box. I could unsubscribe, but the content is just so amusing that I’m compelled to read each and every missive, right down to the “Yours in Solidarity” ending. Unfortunately, instead of being a reasoned, intellectual discourse, it more often than not reads like a high-school newspaper: filled with rah-rah stories for the home side and “My First Socialist” idealism.

For the NDP to succeed it needs to grow up and stop catering to the wannabe revolutionaries. Too many people view the NDP as a party for the financially challenged and the environmentalists. That’s great if you’re a poor tree, but the key to winning an election is having broad-spectrum appeal.

Possessing that campaign attitude is why the Liberals have been so successful over the years. No matter what you are: fiscally conservative, socially liberal, or anything in between, you’ll find something to appeal to you in their campaign literature. Call it what you want, but this one-size-fits-all platform appeals to a broad cross-section of voters – and the proof is in the results.

Contrast that with the feelings you get when you read a line that drips with sarcasm, such as “The NDP doesn’t receive the $5,000 cheques that the other two parties get from their corporate friends.” Makes you wonder how exactly is the party trying to extend its reach and appeal to a wider demographic?

The fact is, we live in a corporate society and many of us are part of the corporate machine. We want a party that’s going to be inclusionary. Canadians want to be competitive financially, yet remain socially conscious. The NDP’s brand of rhetoric echoes those high school years. You know, the cool kids would shun the Goths and geeks, who would in turn apply wide-sweeping stereotypes to the jocks and rich kids. And the cycle would go on and on!

That type of clique mentality is painful enough in high school – this is the real world of politics. It’s time to stop trying to make everyone fit into one single classification. The fact is, many of the things I believe in are far left. But when it comes to funding and fiscal resources, I lean a little to the right. Where do I fit? Am I a tree-hugging hippie, or a heartless corporate shill? Or am I a little bit of both? Aren’t we all?

We need that type of rapprochement between all the candidates. We no longer live in a world where we all support one party to the exclusion of the others, so it’s time for a Breakfast Club-esque meeting of the minds. The next debate should not be moderated by some TV talking head – we need John Hughes to script it!

Blue, red, yellow, and green – we all share more than we differ. We’re all Canadians and we’re all wanting the same thing: to make this the best country possible and to grow together sensibly, productively, and with compassion.

The party that figures it out. The party that understands that not all voters are going to drink the Kool-Aid and follow blindly with whatever their leader says has the best chance of winning. When they learn to reach out to others, instead of shunning them, their political futures will become far rosier.

It’s not enough for the NDP to paint corporate interests with the same brush. They need to accept the differences and search out the compromises. Once that common ground has been breached, then the NDP will finally be a viable alternative for many Canadians.

Until then, they’re looked at as the idealistic younger brother who needs to grow up and learn that not everything is black and white – there are shades of red, blue, green, and yellow.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved