Author Archives: Jay Menard

Losing Confidence May Send Voters to Safety

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

One key to any successful venture is to know your audience. With that in mind, the opposition parties who are frothing at the mouth to take a bite out of the minority Liberals may find that voters prefer the security and safety that comes from numbers.

And, with no viable governing alternative on the horizon, those swing voters may decide that a majority Liberal government that is capable of working is better than no government at all.

A generation of voters has grown up not knowing what life in a minority government is like. With the last minority formed in 1979 and disbanded in 1980, anyone under the age of 40 can reasonably be expected to have fuzzy memories of the process. That being said, our first taste of minority governance has not been sweet.

As voters, we’ve been forced to swallow the bitter rhetoric of parties waiting for the most politically opportune time to press the issue. We’ve watched as the country has essentially been stuck in neutral, rendered impotent and ineffective by its minority status. All the benefits of a minority government – greater accountability, coalition building which ensures the needs of a wider variety of Canadians are met, and the opportunity for negotiation – have flown out the window.

So a generation of voters is left thinking, is this all there is? Do we want to go through this again? Do we want to waste another year waiting for the inevitable downfall of another minority government? Or do we go back to the ol’ tried-and-true majority format?

And that’s a question that the opposition parties don’t want to have asked.

For many, a Liberal majority would be simply the lesser of all evils. A minority government, no matter who’s at the helm, has been rendered ineffective by our culture of political opportunism and infighting. The NDP is looked upon as an acceptable opposition party, or social conscience, working best in a secondary role but not ready for Prime Time.

So that leaves two choices (sorry Bloc voters, but even the Bloc admits they have no interest in forming a government that has to work FOR Canada – their mandate is Quebec. And Greens? Well, you really didn’t do much for that four per cent of the nation that voted for you and gave you funding rights, now, did you?) Do we go Liberal or Conservative?

Do we choose between a Liberal party that still receives support across the nation, has recently been in power, and is running on a campaign of renewed integrity and honesty? Do we believe those statements or are the wounds from the sponsorship scandal still festering? By re-electing them to a majority are we tacitly approving their pattern of patronage, or will we accept their promises of accountability at face value?

Or do we make a jump to the Conservatives? A party that’s rife with internal turmoil and appears to be uncertain of the abilities and capabilities of its leader – and, as we know in politics, appearances are everything. Are Canadians ready to make that leap of faith and put their future in the hands of a party that can’t even show faith in its own leadership?

Most importantly, are we ready to take a chance again on the unknown, now that we’ve been burned so badly by our experiment with a minority?

How deep is the conviction of those voters who voted New Democrat instead of Liberal in the last election? Are they willing to continue to support this party at the expense of the security that comes from a majority rule? And how about those small-c conservatives who threw their support behind Steven Harper last time around? Has there been anything over the past year to reinforce their decision?

Or will we eschew the unknown in favour of security? As they say, the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don’t – and Canadian voters much prefer an active demon to one whose hands are tied by its minority status.

The opposition parties should remember that 1979 was a long time ago and much has happened since then – including the birth of an overwhelming number of voters, for whom a minority government has meant nothing but headaches.

So as they band together to bring down the Liberal minority, they should remember the old caveat of being careful for what they wish – they may just get it.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Waiting for Dawn

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The old adage states that it’s always darkest before the dawn, but when life has the feel of a recurring nightmare, is it any wonder that one can wonder when the sun will shine again.

In relative terms, my wife and I have a pretty good life. And, in the good Ontario Calvinist fashion to which we’ve been exposed, we can put up a good front on the outside, refusing to share our troubles and, in doing so, keeping others at bay.

However, internally, enough is enough. It’s hard to maintain a positive attitude throughout overwhelming negativity. Can one really be expected to keep turning the other cheek when no matter which way you look you get slapped? In this life, you can never expect a hand up or a hand out from anyone – but at least you can hope that the hands will be off your throat once in a while.

Recently my wife was in another car accident. Again, another accident that was not her fault, was unavoidable, but leaves lasting damage. But more than the physical aches and pains, it’s the emotional damage that is more devastating. It’s the weight of yet another negative experience that threatens to crush our will.

Until you’ve experienced a serious car accident, you can never understand the full ramifications of an event of this nature until you’ve experienced it first-hand. It’s not the impact that hurts the most – it’s the aftershocks, and they can reverberate much longer. That’s what we’ve found from our own experience, starting two years ago and continuing to this day.

Over two years ago we were in a severe head-on collision. Ironically, while the accident totalled our car, it set the wheels in motion for a continual test of faith, attitude, and commitment. As a result of the accident, both my wife and I have suffered continual pain. Despite treatment, medication, and therapy, my wife’s arm is still in severe pain and only seems to be getting worse. My shoulder is still damaged and I have my good days and bad days.

This initial accident has changed our lives immeasurably, in almost every aspect of our existence. From social to financial to emotional, a split-second impact has had lasting repercussions. It’s a physical embodiment of the old adage states that dropping a small pebble in the ocean will eventually cause a ripple effect that will carry waves across the world.

The initial accident has given us years of a unique perspective on the world, allowing it to unfold before us and display its true colours. It has allowed us a new perspective on friends and family – the former, in many cases, we had overestimated, and the latter we had previously grossly underappreciated. And it has exposed us to the best and worst of human nature. From expressed and unexpressed doubts and looks of bewilderment, to offers of support and callous dismissals, to hearty displays of support and gentle commiseration, we have seen the best and worst of life.

Yet, throughout all of these trials, the one fact that has stood out above all the rest is that at the end of the day, we have each other.

No matter how well prepared you are to deal with the after-effects of guilt, what you can’t prepare for are the lasting effects of guilt. No one can understand the eroding force that guilt can have on your life – slowly and steadily wearing away your resolve – until you’ve had reason to experience it first-hand. For example, my wife continues to feel guilty for being a burden – her words – on me as she’s unable to participate in the household chores, work and bring in income, or be the wife she wants to be. Yet her guilt persists despite the fact that I appreciate what she is able to bring to me. My doing a few extra dishes, assuming the housekeeping chores, and cooking the family meals are small prices to pay for the joys that she brings by being in my life.

Of course, it’s also a small price to pay on the guilt that I feel. Although I’ve been told ad nauseum by officers, doctors, and my wife that the initial accident was not my fault, it’s hard to not feel some culpability when the woman you love is continually in pain for an accident in which I was behind the wheel. I know I am innocent of any culpability, but yet one still can play the old what if game. Guilt doesn’t have to be rational. I know the full weight of that initial accident lies on the shoulders of the other driver but, as a husband who loves his wife, I can’t help but want to do everything in my power to make her life easier, more comfortable, and more enjoyable so that she can eventually get better. Those vows say for better or for worse, in sickness and in health – they’re not empty words.

Since that initial accident, our lives have been beset with a number of challenges. Guilt gets in the way of moving on simply because you want to help the other so much. Pain has restricted our lives; it has prevented us from doing what we need to live our dreams. The accident has added a variety of stressors to our lives, whether they are legal, financial, or emotional.

Yet, in the end, through all the darkness there has been some light. As we’ve been forced to turn inwards and turn to each other for support, we’ve developed a greater appreciation for what we have. We are blessed with two children, a roof over our head, and food on the table. And we are blessed to know that, no matter what, we’re in this together and supportive of each other unconditionally. Any of our previous skirmishes and arguments now seem petty. We have grown up immeasurably and are looking forward to a brighter future together.

Yet, still it’s hard not to feel that we’re being punished for something – as if these continuing trials are some sort of Karmic retribution for past transgressions. Is this some sort of punishment for the sins of our past? Are we not to be judged on the person we are now? In my youth, I was much more cynical, much more callous, and much more flippant. I was egocentric and certainly not as sensitive to others’ feelings and needs. But I was also young and was learning my way through life — protecting myself and my development from others by putting up a façade.

Since the birth of my children I have mellowed. I’m not so angry at what I perceive are the world’s wrongs. I am more understanding and more compassionate towards others. I have learned what it means to live and to love. Mistakes were made, but they’ve been acknowledged and learned from. So when do we get to move on?

Life doesn’t always go as planned. And, obviously, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But no matter what cliché you use, the fact is that it’s hard to be a good person when you see others who don’t treat life with the same respect succeeding. My wife and I truly try to be good people, positive roll models for our children, and – in good Cub Scout fashion – leave the world a better place than what we found it. But it’s so hard to be positive when negativity seems to hang over you like a cloud.

So now we come to another accident: another jarring impact that stops life for a time. But where will those ripples lead us? We will spend our time fighting the current and trying to keep our head above water, or is it now time for us to coast on the waves to a better, more positive, experience?

Either way, no matter where life takes us, we’re going to continue to be positive, going to continue to look for the good in life, and continue to appreciate the fact that no matter what happens we have each other to support. Life owes us nothing more and has already given us so much by allowing us to find each other.

And if that realization is the first rays of sun filtering through the darkness, then I say it’s time to bring on the morning – we’re ready to tackle the day and make the best out of life!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Going Out on Your Own Terms

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Nov. 3, 2005 — Let’s hear it for Gary Hames for choosing to go out on his own terms.

Hames, a Londoner who was recently diagnosed with terminal lung and lymph cancer, chose to hold his wake before he actually shuffles off this mortal coil. A celebration of life while still living – and an opportunity to appreciate the friends and family around him.

Too often we wait too long to say what we feel. Whether it’s an “I love you” to a parent or telling a friend how special they are, we often wait until the person is no longer with us to say how we feel. Hames wasn’t going to give people that opportunity.

Normally, when attending wakes, we’re placed in that uncomfortable position of having to view the deceased in an open casket. To take a few moments to say our goodbyes with our words falling on deaf ears. We make idle talk with each other, commenting on how natural the deceased looks – only because death is a natural part of life.

In my own family, my wife is at her grandmother’s bedside along with her sister and mother, doing their all to ensure that her final moments are filled with the peace and serenity that comes from knowing that she’s surrounded by those that love her. Despite her inability to respond, they spend their time reminiscing, talking of great-grandchildren, and sharing memories of a life well lived.

And saying good-bye.

It’s a hard thing to do. To see a loved one pass on, knowing that despite all the platitudes and condolences, in the end you’re left with a void where once a vibrant person stood. The process of aging and watching health fail doesn’t make it any easier. There is no preparation and there is no way of being ready. We may say outwardly that we know it’s for the best, attempting to assuage our grief with the knowledge that our loved ones’ pain is ending. But deep inside we’re selfish and we’re never truly ready to let go.

It is when presented with death that we best learn to celebrate life. We learn to appreciate the very gifts of which we’ve taken for granted for too long. All the petty squabbles, the frustrations of the past, and the hurt feelings seem so minor when faced with the finality of death. It is at the end of a life when we truly see and feel the good in everyone – but that realization comes far too late.

Which is why Hames should be lauded. We all have an expiration date, Hames is just more aware of approximately when his will come. And instead of waiting for people to celebrate his life after his passing, he took the bull by the horns and decided to join in the party before it was too late.

I often joke with my wife about what I want to happen after my death. I don’t like the concept of an open-casket visitation, because I want people to remember how I was when I walked this earth – not how I look once I leave. So, to lighten the mood I make jokes about having an animatronic corpse – so that I can sit up in my casket and greet people as they walk in. I’ve even suggested making people come by in a certain order so that I can have a pre-recorded videotaped greeting for each person – that’s one way to get the last word.

And despite my attempts at levity, my semi-serious suggestions of taxidermy – although dad as a coat rack may warp the great-grandkids – in the end all I really want is what Hames decided to have: the comfort and knowledge that there are people in this world who care for him and feel that his was a life worth celebrating.

No matter how tough we pretend to be, or how much of a loner we want to imagine ourselves, the fact of the matter is that we all want to know that we’re loved and that we’ve mattered. We want to know that our existence has made a difference in people’s lives.

And it’s a knowledge that needs to come before it’s too late.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Gomery Report Buoys Liberal Cause

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

That’s not the Liberal Way.

It’s a message Prime Minister Paul Martin has hammered home over the past few months, and reiterated ad nauseum during the reveal of the Gomery Report findings. And it’s certain to be a common theme in the upcoming election – a platform built upon the very report the Liberals’ opposition was hoping to bring down the government with.

With Justice Gomery absolving Martin of any responsibility in the sponsorship scandal and placing the blame on the previous regime, the Liberals have been given a new lease on life – and the opposition partys’ golden chance to topple the mighty Grits may have come and gone.

Already Martin is working to purge his party of any ties to the former regime. He’s created a Terrible 10 list, banning a selection of the allegedly worst offenders from the Liberal Party. He’s running as the man who chose to turn the light of introspection on his own party, forcing it to be accountable for the sins of its past. And, most importantly, he’s using this particularly nasty bit of Party history as the launching point for a more successful future.

And why? Because, as he states, corruption, patronage, and underhanded deals are not the Liberal Way.

Far from being Mr. Dithers, Martin has moved decisively and authoritatively during the Gomery report. By announcing that an election would be called within a month of Gomery’s recommendations, Martin not only staved off an election call that his Party could not be sure of winning, he also conscripted the Gomery report as a Party platform.

Obviously the final statements haven’t been written, but common sense dictates that Gomery’s recommendations are going to be for more independent accountability when it comes to doling out funds from the public purse. It’s going to insist on checks and balances, and a transparent tender process for any future contracts.

It’s the way a government should be run, it’s what Martin would have promised anyways, and it’s what Canadians want to hear. Exactly how are the opposition parties going to attack a platform built on truth, especially if they don’t want to come across as petty.

By asserting throughout the process that those responsible will be held accountable – and by following this up with a 10-fold banishment – Martin’s appearing strong before a country weakened by a minority government. By standing up and taking the reins and driving government to a new accountability, Martin may show voters that he has the strength, ability, and conviction needed to steer the entire country to a brighter future.

He added to this impression with the announcement that the Liberal Party itself would be repaying $1.14 million in squandered government funds. And, if that wasn’t enough, by turning the dossier over to the RCMP and requesting that chairs and boards of Crown corporations look at taking punitive action against any employees involved in the scandal, Marin is allowed to come across as the man with the big broom – sweeping corruption from the Canadian government and leading the way for a brave new world of accountability.

But in addition to Gomery, Martin also needs to thank the Canadian media, who has done much to ingrain the concept of a Martin/Chrétien rift over the past few years. While one may have trouble swallowing that a former Finance Minister wouldn’t have an inkling about some improprieties in the spending of federal funds, the fact that Gomery lays the blame at the PMO and its independent spending lends credibility to Martin’s declared ignorance of the scandal. It certainly doesn’t take much suspension of disbelief for the average Canadian to think that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien would keep his bitter rival in the dark about these activities – especially when the goal was the glory of bringing this country together.

In the end, the opposition parties are left with the option of chasing ghosts. Any volleys lobbed at Martin can simply be bumped to the past. While the Liberals opponents can claim that the sponsorship scandal is indicative of the party itself, Martin can turn around and say that it was the result of the neglect and corruption of a previous regime – issues which the current government tackled head on and with a goal of cleaning up the house.

And maybe, thanks to Gomery, the Liberal Way will once again lead to victory.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Hockey’s Game of What If

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

What if?

That’s the question we have to ask ourselves now that we hockey fans have been exposed to the new brand of hockey – complete with its free-flowing action, unimpeded displays of skill, and – for the first time in years – excitement from the drop of the puck to the final buzzer.

And it’s the question we have to ask ourselves now that some of the greats of our game have moved on to less-frozen pastures. Just this year we’ve seen The Golden Brett and now the Russian Rocket hang up their skates. Rugged stalwarts like Scott Stevens and Mark Messier have succumbed to a mounting injury toll and the effects of Father Time respectively.

But the what ifs will remain.

The fact that we’re seeing the grace, speed, and beauty of the game the way it’s meant to be played, akin to the glory years of the late 70s and 1980s when the Flying Frenchmen gave way to the New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers – all franchises that combined dazzling speed, superlative talent, and enough toughness to keep people honest. But what did we lose during those intervening years?

We lost enough that we have to strive as fans to make sure it never goes back that way again – which means that we have to be as vigilant about the referees as they’ve been in calling the game to date.

Despite the greatness that these four players – and others who plied their trade during the same epoch of hockey – displayed, the fact remains that many more goals, many more highlights, and many more memories were prevented from ever appearing because of the NHL’s willingness to tolerate hooking, holding, and interference.

Too often the blame falls on the New Jersey Devils or, more specifically, their coach Jacques Lemaire who now toils behind the Minnesota Wild’s bench. But Lemaire refined a system that worked. He, along with Scotty Bowman, Dave Lewis, and the bunch in Detroit, determined that the left-wing lock, the neutral-zone trap, and whatever other obstructionist tactic, were the best way to maximize your talent and minimize the effect of your opponent’s gifted players.

It wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t immoral. It was intelligent. While the Lock and the Trap weren’t 100 per cent effective on their own, the fact that they were augmented by clutching and grabbing simply made those practices more effective, and more appealing, to other teams in the league.

And so the league devolved into one where defense ruled with an iron – and closed – fist. And the officials looked away, ironically to not disturb the flow of play — despite the fact that there was no flow of which to speak.

But now we’re here. We’re seeing the best of the best ply their trade on a clean and unimpeded surface. Defensemen need to refine their technique, not their tackling. Teams need to develop puck control strategies, zone defences, and positioning to prevent the puck from entering the net. And speed is at a premium.

We, the fans are winners, even if we can never know what we lost. But imagine players like Brett Hull and Pavel Bure being allowed to display their full range of talents, without a stick digging into their stomach or a hand grabbing their jersey. Think of how many more scoring chances would have been created, how many more potential goals could have been scored, and how many more moments of breathless anticipation the fans would have enjoyed. How unstoppable would Messier and Stevens have been if they were truly allowed to display their combination of speed, size, and skill?

And, most importantly for the league, how many more fans would have been drawn to the game? That’s the biggest What If of all. As the league hemorrhaged fans across North America, as teams struggled to find their footing in shaky markets, and vacated formerly strong ones, how would the NHL landscape look if the game was played then as it is now?

So now, as some of the old guard starts to bluster about the state of the game and the difficulties teams have defensively, the league needs to remember that the fans, overwhelmingly, love it. They don’t want to see coaches and systems rule the game. They have their place, but the games should be decided on the ice, not the chalkboard.

The only reason we want fans’ butts out of their seats is because of an exciting rush or a spectacular save – not because they didn’t bother to show up because they’re bored of the game. As such, the league must ensure its referees are more vigilant, not less, as the season progresses.

Because the question now is what if the next generation of Hulls, Messiers, Bures, and Stevens are allowed to fully shine on the NHL stage? That’s a question each and every hockey fan wants to see answered.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved