Author Archives: Jay Menard

The Greatest Threat to National Unity

By Jason Menard

The greatest threat to National Unity doesn’t come from the Plains of Abraham or the Oil Sands of Alberta. No, the most divisive force our country faces comes once every four years.

That’s right, forget the Péquistes or those oil-rich Albertans, the cracks in our national mosaic widen each time the World Cup of Soccer rolls around. Those who are proud to call themselves Canadians every other day of their lives shun the Great White North each and every time the world’s best take to the pitch.

Already the rumblings have started. With the recent announcement of the brackets for the 2006 tournament in Germany, people have begun to scan the pools to see where their favourite squads are, and the gentle murmurs now will become a roar when June rolls around. And, although Canada doesn’t find itself in any bracket, not too many people seem to be too broken up about it.

When the World Cup comes about we cease to be a nation of hyphenated Canadians. We become a divided nation of displaced Italians, Brazilians, Portuguese, English, French, and Czechs. We cling tightly to the thinnest threads tying us back to whatever Old Country is taking the field. And we cheer with pride for their victories and lament each loss as a personal defeat.

All this for a sport that, in large part, we don’t really care about. North American soccer leagues struggle annually to attract fans. Club teams in cities across Canada play before almost empty stands, populated only by those whose familial obligations compel them to attend. Yet, schedules are changed, lives are rearranged, and World Cup soccer becomes must-see TV for those who normally wouldn’t know their Tottenham from smoked ham.

So why do many of us cast aside our Canadian identities the moment Italy versus Brazil shows up on the screen? Why, in cities small and large from east to west, do we find people waving other countries’ flags out the windows from their cars every four years? One reason is the fact that Canada’s national soccer program ranks behind such industrialized powerhouse nations such as Guinea, Qatar, and Albania. Before we get too down on ourselves, note that we would be slightly favoured in a match against Burkina Faso. Yes, when your team ranks 87 th in the world it’s hard to get stoked about the home side.

Since there’s no Canadian team to speak of on the global scene, soccer fans are forced to find other reasons for affiliation that extend beyond geography. As such, history becomes the defining factor. My wife, as French-Canadian as she comes, fiercely supports the boys from Brazil – all because of a two-year sojourn living and working in Brasilia.

Yet, for many of these national bandwagon-jumpers the allure of foreign dominance begins and ends with soccer. Rare is the flag-waving Italian-Canadian who will do the same when the field of play moves from the pitch to the ice. When it comes to a sport where we dominate, our national pride returns to the fore.

Which begs the question: are we a nation of front-runners, flipping affiliations depending on which way the victorious wind blows? Are we emotional mercenaries looking to back the winning side so that we’re certain to savour the fruits of victory?

Honestly, we’ll never know until Canada is able to field a national team that can kick its way out of a wet paper bag. Currently a national joke amongst those who cherish the sport, what would happen if we fielded a squad in which we could take pride? And what about if we were ever to ascend to the favourite status? Would those national affiliations continue to fall along the lines to which we’re currently accustomed?

Or would geography trump history? Would the people and nation we are now finally outweigh any ancestral ties we may cling to? Would Canadian soccer fans resemble their hockey brethren on an international stage? We may never know.

I’m a Canadian with both English and French heritage. And, more importantly, I don’t really consider myself a soccer fan. I’m not a weekend warrior watching the feeds from overseas during Championship League play. Yet, I can appreciate the grace and skill of high-level soccer played by elite athletes. I don’t live and die with any win or loss, nor do I have a favourite side in any match. Without the binding nature of ancestral tethers, I’m free to enjoy the games purely for their displays of athleticism and talent – but with no emotional attachment.

Well, at least until Canada fields a team. And, for me at least, I know where my heart will lie.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Some Mothers Do Have ‘Em

By Jason Menard

It’s a fact of life. Chances are that the larger your family gets, the smaller your circle of friends will be – and differing views and tolerances on child-rearing is often the catalyst for change.

Some mothers do have ‘em. It’s not just the title of a British television comedy – it’s a simple fact of life. There’s a reason why couples with children tend to lose friends over a period of time – friends can last through thick or thin, but differences in how you raise your kids can be the straw that permanently breaks the camel’s back.

There’s no way to determine how people are going to react to becoming parents. There’s no indication that you can gather during your youth or the formative years of the friendship that can give you any sort of inkling as to what their parental style will be and, more importantly, how that will mesh or clash with your own views when you both have children.

The biggest problem is that everyone thinks their way is the right way. And this intransigence can drive a wedge between the longest-standing of friends.

In any relationship, when forced to choose between your kids and your friends, your offspring will win each and every time. It’s a foregone conclusion. The best intended criticisms and suggestions will never be met with understanding when it comes to raising our children. So it’s almost better not to say anything except for the resentment that carries. Eventually that simmering pot will boil over and what happens is that the list of excuses as to why you can’t drop by gets increases, while the level of enjoyment of this shared time decreases.

Everybody has different standards for discipline and child-rearing expectations, and when those don’t mesh with your own, it creates an environment that’s intolerable. My wife and I know are strict with our children. We have high expectations for them and their behaviour, especially outside of our own walls.

Kids will be kids, but there’s a time and a place – and there are limits. We’ve set clearly defined limits for our children and we expect them to follow them – if they don’t there are consequences. We don’t hit our children, nor do we believe in corporal punishment, but we also aren’t afraid to express our displeasure with them when appropriate. We will raise our voice at times to indicate the gravity of a situation.

We’re not perfect and neither are our kids – nobody is. But we’re confident in taking our children out of the house. We know we can go to a store, visit friends and family, or enjoy a dinner out with the confidence that our kids will be well-behaved and respectful. We don’t expect them to be robots or sit poker straight and not talk – and we don’t ask of them anything we don’t expect of ourselves.

But that view isn’t shared by all of our friends – and this is the issue we couldn’t have anticipated. Whether it’s constant screaming, refusals to eat food, or rudeness and aggression, things that aren’t accepted in our household are tolerated in others. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Some people we know who condemn other people’s children for being unruly, undisciplined, and unwieldy are blind to the fact that their own little hellions are running around behaving the same way.

So what is one to do? Disciplining other people’s children – try it once and see how well that works! The only way to deal with it is for the parents/friends to be on the same page when it comes to child-rearing, and that’s a compatibility test we often don’t get to take until it’s too late.

Are we wrong? Are we too strict? Is it too much to expect that saying no to a kid 10 times may result in some action (or at least some appreciation from the other parent as to respecting the rules of our house)? Are we wrong in believe that while kids should be allowed to be kids, running around like free-ranged chickens with no restrictions is a little counter-productive towards their long-term development and appreciation of a life with rules and regulations?

As our families grow our circle of friends get smaller. We have friends lamenting the loss of their single friends without realizing that if their obnoxious offspring are taxing on those who already have children and understand the trials and tribulations, why would someone without the first-hand experience of child-rearing want to subject themselves to this torture? The visits become infrequent, the phone calls are fewer and farther between, and, eventually, they stop outright.

The same goes for those friends with children. Raising a family is tiring enough and subjecting yourself to a visit marred by unruly children and indifferent parents is not high on your list of things-to-do. So you withdraw little by little, distancing yourself from what you know is going to be a negative experience. Eventually, time and distance proves too much and you can cross one more person off your Christmas card list.

There are some lines that just can’t be crossed. While friends and family are the keys to life, they’re not always compatible. Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing that until it’s too late.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Remembering the Light

Remembering the Light

By Jason Menard

Dec. 5, 2005 — Too often in our lives we are touched by tragedy, either directly or indirectly. And while the events are remembered and the perpetrators vilified, the victims often are forgotten.

As we reflect on the violence at École Polytechnique de Montreal 16 years ago Tuesday, many will remember the name of the man who killed these bright young women for no other reason than their gender. But we must never forget the names of those who were lost, for that would be the greatest tragedy.

Today we remember:

  • Geneviève Bergeron (1968-1989)
  • Hélène Colgan (1966-1989)
  • Nathalie Croteau (1966-1989)
  • Barbara Daigneault (1967-1989)
  • Anne-Marie Edward (1968-1989)
  • Maud Haviernick (1960-1989)
  • Maryse Laganière (1964-1989)
  • Maryse Leclair (1966-1989)
  • Anne-Marie Lemay (1967-1989)
  • Sonia Pelletier (1961-1989)
  • Michèle Richard (1968-1989)
  • Annie St-Arneault (1966-1989)
  • Annie Turcotte (1969-1989)
  • Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (1958-1989)

But these 16 are not alone. Like Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey, their names become part of the back story, overshadowed by our infatuation with the macabre. Their killers’ names roll off our tongues, but the victims’ names are lost in the recess of our mind.

It’s time that we make an effort remember the victims. It’s time that we make the memory of their names more important than the existence of those who ended their lives. And perhaps by remembering what we’ve lost, we’ll work harder to prevent actions like this from ever happening again.

Maybe it’s just a human defense mechanism wherein, after a period of time, we have to push one tragedy into the recesses of our memories not only to make room for the next one that comes, but also to help us deal with the depths of these tragedies. When taken as a whole, the grief and sorrow that comes from empathizing with all the victims of society’s ills can be overwhelming.

But to help us find the positives in this world, we have to focus on the good. We have to remember the bright lights that have graced us with their presence – not the dark souls who have snuffed them out.

On this day, we need to remember the light that shone from these 16 women. We need to realize that they, and many other like them, are the fires that burn brightest in this world, illuminating the darkness and making this world a place to live – not just exist.

So as you hold your candle aloft, look deep into its flame and embrace its light and warmth. It’s the only defense against the darkness in this world.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Time for Raptors to Evolve

By Jason Menard

Is it too late to pick up the “loveable losers” tag from the Chicago Cubs because the 2005-2006 edition of the Toronto Raptors certainly need something to hang their hat on?

Alas, following a November that left the team 1-15 on the season is just pitifully bad. The eminently likeable head coach Sam Mitchell appears before the media’s cameras resembling Nero more and more, fiddling while the franchise burns behind him.

There are only so many times you can say your team is playing hard, working hard, learning well, developing in practice, or whatever other excuse Mitchell’s been using to deflect the fans from the hard and fast truth. This is a bad team.

Hope for the future is great and all, but we live in an instant gratification society. It’s easier to appreciate the aging of a fine wine when you’ve been able to taste a couple of batches along the way to test its progress. However, if you make that same wine aficionado abstain until the vintage is ready, chances are you’re going to have some cranky days along the way.

It’s fine and dandy to promise wins that will come one day, but the fans need the odd reminder of what a W looks and feels like.

Compounding this is the natural inferiority we, as Canadians, feel about our professional sports franchises. Whether or not we like to admit it out loud there’s always a feeling that these professional leagues, based south of the border, look at Canadian franchises as nothing more than annoyances better to be relocated to a more favourable environment. And it’s not a fear based on paranoia as NBA fans in Vancouver, MLB fans in Montreal, and NHL fans in Quebec City and Winnipeg will attest to.

Winning is the only way to ensure long-term financial security. The Toronto Blue Jays have started to figure it out, investing money into a franchise that’s not even a contender in its big-money game, but has a little potential for success. Remember, we Canadians support our teams win or tie!

But beyond fan support, the other aspect that we as Canadians have to deal with is American ignorance. Getting players to relocate north of the 49 th is as difficult as pulling teeth at times. So, once they’re here we want them to stay. Make ‘em happy, keep ‘em smiling and maybe more will come. Take a look at the World Series-winning Jays for example – they were a franchise that people wanted to play for, not a destination to be avoided at all costs.

Which brings us to the NBA’s Raptors. Blessed with the rights to a talented cornerstone upon which the franchise can be built in Chris Bosh, already the concerns are starting to rise. Will he stay once his rookie deal’s done? Can we keep him? Do we have the right management to build a contender before he bolts south of the border?

It’s not a lot of fun in Raptorland, either for the players or the fans. Despite the ever-gracious Bosh and fan-favourite Matt Bonner the team hasn’t been able to capture the fans’ imaginations as loveable losers – they’re just losers, and that has to stop.

It’s time for a complete overhaul of the franchise, only a decade into its existence. The team is burdened with a dinosaur-sized weight of past burdens left malcontents like Damon Stoudamire, Tracy McGrady, and Vince Carter, dismal seasons, and lost hope. The 2005-2006 Raptors have been crafted with the idea of starting from scratch and building together for a bright new future powered by Bosh and fuelled by rookies like Charlie Villaneuva, Joey Graham, and Jose Calderon. Why hamper their development by fitting them with ill-fitting clothes?

It’s time to finally make the Raptor extinct and create a new attitude and culture of winning. It’s not enough to just rearrange the furniture if the exterior looks the same. Open the concept of a new team name to the fans and let them feel some sort of ownership for the franchise. Choose a colour scheme and logo that kids can be proud to wear. And wipe the slate clean of the history of losing that the Raptors name carries with it.

The team has tried everything else: new managers, new upper management, new ownership, and new players. So why not start a new era with a new attitude and new mentality, prominently displayed by a new logo.

After all, the Toronto Loveable Losers doesn’t sound any worse than what they are now, does it?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tax Cuts Good, Just Choose the Right One

By Jason Menard

Stephen Harper, reeling after being undercut by his own deputy and lighting a fire under a long-cooled debate, is trying to right his ship by jumping on the bandwagon that all voters can agree on – cutting taxes.

Unfortunately, although the idea is good, he’s chosen the wrong tax.

As much maligned as the Goods and Services Tax has been since its inception in January 1991, it is Canada’s fairest tax. The GST is a consumption tax that actually offers the proportional taxation levels to which income tax aspires.

Simply put, the more you buy, the more you pay. Since those with more money tend to be the ones that buy the bigger toys more frequently, they end up paying more in GST over the course of a year. Conversely, those who are on fixed incomes aren’t at liberty to spend as much, so they don’t incur additional taxation in the form of this consumption tax. And because our financial leaders had the forethought to exclude basic staples from the grips of the GST, the essentials of life are generally free from this type of taxation.

So, in the end, Harper’s promise to cut the GST ends up being yet another tax cut for the rich – a far cry from the softer-sell conservative image that Harper’s been trying to put forth. Upon closer inspection, the GST tax cut benefits exactly the type of people that Harper’s been trying to distance himself from – rich, fat cats, and corporate interests. It distances himself from the very people of whom he needs to woo – middle to lower-income families, stretched to the breaking point under the burden of debt and taxes.

A reduction in the GST from 7% to 5% is a sexy concept that draws the big headlines. And, more importantly, a reduction offers the immediate relief that those who are in need of it the most will latch onto and can be a significant factor when it comes to going to the polls.

However, the problem is that this type of mentality is short-sighted. While paying less when heading to the store sounds great initially, the fact of the matter is that this lost income will have to be made up elsewhere. Whether it’s through increases in income taxes or through other venues, chances are we’re all going to be paying for it anyways. At least the GST allows the distribution of the burden to be placed proportionately amongst those who can best afford it.

Harper’s not a dumb man. As his campaign is reeling from early missteps and internal conflict, he chose to use the old magicians’ trick of deflecting our attention. We’re so enamoured with shiny little things and hot sound bites that we often fail to chew upon their ramifications. Those shiny statements tend to lose their luster upon careful reflection.

Real tax relief has to come from better management of the federal coffers, a reduction in income taxes, and sound investment. In fact, an increase of the GST would be preferable if it meant that our personal income tax burden could be reduced. The problem is that with our national rapid-fire attention span, any politician advocating an increase in a tax would be automatically vilified. The message of a lowered personal tax that would offer long-term benefits would be overpowered by that initial sticker shock of paying a few bucks more on a new TV.

So, in the end, Harper has spent a bit of capital earning our national goodwill through the concept of tax cuts. Unfortunately, that short-term capital is going to be paid off long-term with interest by the taxpayer. Compound that with the fact that we have grown accustomed to paying certain prices for products. Any short-term reduction in taxes will be quickly gobbled up by savvy business interests who realize that the upper limit of their product pricing has yet to be reached. Within a very short period of time, profit margins will eat up any relief brought by a reduced GST.

And what replaces the 1-2% GST monies that have been reduced? Increased income taxation? Reduced services? Increased federal debt load? It’s a simple concept that if you reduce the amount you take from one area, you’ll have to make up the shortfall in another.

The tax money has to come from somewhere. At least the GST lets it be a proportional burden.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved