Author Archives: Jay Menard

A Conservative Gambit, An Uncertain End Game

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Circling the battered and bloody Liberal carcass like vultures, the Tories and the Bloc have used the trickle of information flowing from Gomery inquiry to fuel a campaign to shut down our Parliament in the hopes of riding a wave of public distrust to an election victory.

But by masking political opportunism with the façade of public concern, will their plans blow up in their respective faces? The next election may come down to how each voter answers the question, “Is the devil you know better than the devil you don’t?”

As the Bloc and Conservatives work themselves into a lather about the alleged misappropriation of funds in the Sponsorship Scandal, voters will have another number in the back of their minds — a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s approximately how much last year’s election cost Canadians, through donations and dipping into the government coffers – which are filled with our tax dollars.

Voters will have to reconcile how parties preaching from a pulpit built on fiscal responsibility can employ tactics to shut down the Parliament, prevent it from doing its duty to its constituents, force another election down our throats, and stick us with the bill. Might that cause some resentment in the electorate?

How will voters react to the potential scrapping of one of the most humane budgets we’ve seen in ages? Will voters be resentful that the so-called deal with the devil — which saw the Liberal Party plugging the holes in its political dyke with a band of New Democrats all-too happy to sell their allegiances for fiscal concessions, finally able to leverage their legislative presence for power — trampled by a stampeding conservative caucus racing towards a chance at power?

And how will those disaffected swing voters upon whom the Tories are counting, reconcile the presence of that Unholy Trinity – separatism, the alleged hidden right-wing conspiracy, and George Bush? If we thought last year’s campaign was ugly, when the Liberals went into the election somewhat confident of the outcome, how will this wounded animal, fearing its very survival, fight back during this year’s campaign?

As the Bloc enjoys the swelling bandwagon from soft-separatists just looking for a reason to jump back on board, the Liberal Party will raise the spectre of political turmoil and financial instability caused by an emboldened sovereigntist movement. And to counter the right-wing parties, will the Liberals float the rhetorical balloon invoking mass cuts to our social programs, attacks on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and any number of insidious inferences to a hidden small-c conservative agenda? As well, if there’s one thing that many Canadians will agree on is its general antipathy towards the President of our neighbour to the south. By tying Stephen Harper to Bush Jr.’s politics, the Liberals are well aware – as they were in the last election – that they can play on Canadian fears of increased Americanism in our social and financial policies.

Already we see the public’s initial venom towards the Liberal Party is dissipating. There is any number of polls showing any number of results, but as we’ve seen time and time again, polls aren’t worth the time and effort it takes to get them. Canadians will be vociferous in their opposition when it doesn’t count, but the act of marking a ballot prompts sober reflection and fear of the unknown. If the current Liberal Party is able to distance itself from these accusations – or find someone who will fall on their sword – they may be able to convince the electorate that this scandal will usher in a new era of accountability.

Most importantly, can the resurgent right fight the hardest battles of all – voter fatigue and apathy? Last election, only just over 60% of Canadians went to the polls in an election that was rife with intrigue. Indications are we may see even fewer as voters express their resentment of being called to the polls yet again. And, as the pundits like to say, poor voter turnout favours the incumbents. Can the Conservatives win over the hearts of an electorate that really doesn’t want to have an election? If not, can the right effectively translate the anger of those outraged voters into fuel for an election win?

The final question is whether or not the status quo is the best option available? The Conservatives and Bloc have shown that they wield the power in Parliament, and can demand greater concessions from the Liberal minority. By refusing to play nice now with the Liberals, does that set up a culture of retribution should they be voted in as a minority government in their own right? Is turnabout fair play? It would seem that forcing an election is an all or nothing gamble – anything less than a majority government would result in a Parliament paralyzed by Liberal and NDP opposition, and an emboldened Bloc Quebecois concerned only with its own best interests with added clout to back it up.

The pawns are in motion but will the Conservatives’ gambit eventually lead to their desired end game, or will their bold move to wrest power backfire? The Tories are banking on a nation that hates politicking but loves its politics forgiving such a brazen power grab. Yet, Canadian’s love their politics from afar, and when it comes to consummate the affair, they generally shy away from actual commitment.

Who said politics was boring? This year’s pending election stands to be one for the ages.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

On Life and Death

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It is somewhat vexing to me that my thoughts are tinged with the spectre of death. Hold off the calls to the suicide hotline – that’s not what I mean here. It’s just that with the recent prominent deaths of Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo, much of our day-to-day conversation has centred around the issue, and it does give one pause to consider one’s own mortality.

So, on this day as I ponder my place in the world, you will forgive me if I indulge in a little self-reflection. I have no interest in making this site a blog where I bore you with the details of my life, but today I’ve chosen to stray from that carefully held tenet and open the window to my soul just a crack.

In light of all these aforementioned events, I realized that I am afraid of death. The sense of loss, the sense of displacement overwhelms me. And, with a family of my own, the pervasive fear runs deep.

I realize how easy it is to just be paralyzed by fear to the point where you no longer live. It is possible to love so much that it becomes restrictive. As humans, balancing the physiological and emotional need to love with the instinct for self-preservation is a daunting task, but one that must be undertaken to ensure our happiness.

I consider myself a deep man, but I choose to keep that to myself. To the outside world, the façade I present is one of cool intelligence, liberally mixed with cynicism, biting humour, and stoicism – and a lot of that is actually me. Inside, however, there is more depth, more love, and more emotion than could be guessed by my supercilious exterior.

Most importantly I’ve experienced first-hand the joys and unprecedented heights that love can bring. My wife and kids have opened up a world of experiences and sensations that, in a more cynical youth, I never expected to exist. Their gift of unconditional love has enriched my life in ways beyond expectation, and has made me more aware of my feelings. Despite not saying it to them often, I am more aware of the importance and depth of love that I feel for my parents, family, and close friends.

I believe we all, in one way or another, mature and develop that understanding. But with that understanding comes an increased apprehension towards the concept of death. As I grow and appreciate those around me more, the thought that it can all be taken away in an instant threatens to impose its will on my emotional attachments.

So do we embrace death as a natural part of life, or do we fight it tooth and nail, kicking and screaming the whole way? Is it better to throw ourselves wholeheartedly into our lives, opening our hearts fully knowing that, eventually, we could experience hurt like we’ve never felt before? Or do we hold back, steel ourselves against the future by detaching ourselves from the present?

And that’s where the fear of death comes. It is not my own death that I fear, because I know that – in the end – my death would affect me the least. It is the death of those around me that I fear. Losing a parent, a spouse, or a child would be devastating, and the pain it would render would be incapacitating.

To resolve this conflict I’ve turned to my wife for inspiration. Her grandfather, an integral figure in her life, passed away back in November and his birthday passed recently. At the time of his passing and off and on since then, a word, and image, or a memory will bring on a fresh onslaught of tears. Is it worth the anguish, I thought, to care about someone that much? But, eventually, that pain will subside. Instead of lament, her reminisces will be coloured with good memories.

Instead of recoiling from emotion, I choose to embrace it. I choose to love my parents while they’re here, love my wife fully and more deeply than ever before, and love and enjoy my children as they grow into their own personalities.

In the end, I still fear death. But, should something happen, I know that the pain will eventually fade away and I’ll be a richer man for having the honour of sharing my life with these people.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Whither or Wither the CBC? Look to Quebec for Inspiration

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Black Monday has come and gone. The axe has swung and the jobs of 33 TV and radio public relations employees have been lopped off in its swath. Yet, this is clearly a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face, because the CBC’s problems run much deeper than ineffective public relations.

The Canadian Broadcasting Commission – its English wing — has been at a crossroads for years, ineffectively balancing the desire to be both an educator and an entertainer. But now it’s long past time to pick a lane and stick to it, because trying to be something to everyone has resulted in the CBC being nothing to most.

Oh, how it pains me to say this, but maybe it’s time for the CBC to stop presenting Canadian shows simply because they’re Canadian, and let the strong survive. OK, here we go: Canadian Content regulations are bad. They need to be stopped, and the CBC needs to be at the vanguard of this change.

Whew, that feels better. And I don’t feel less patriotic at all. The fact of the matter is that CanCon regulations encourage mediocrity. Why aspire to create a better show, or why try to make something entertaining when you’ll get your exposure and funding as long as you can show you’re from the Great White North?

The CBC and the CRTC’s CanCon regulations are intended to improve and support our Canadian artistic community. What they end up doing is providing it a crutch upon which to lean and, as such, so why would one learn how to walk on their own when there’s no need? Well, that’s if the CBC would actually show a Canadian drama.

Dr. Who ? Coronation Street? What, did we get recolonized? Is it part of the Commonwealth agreement that we have to show British shows each and every evening? Then, in Prime Time, we’re inundated with mini-series, movies, and the odd Canadian drama. What? Have we given up the fight already? Is the competition from the American networks, CTV, and Global so stiff that they give up already?

If that’s the case, why even keep up the pretense of being a viable commercial entity and simply go the route of PBS? And is there anything wrong with that? PBS has a dedicated, passionate viewership that actually invests itself into the station. If the CBC has given up the fight against its commercial brethren, would this not be a better alternative for our Public Broadcaster? Not everyone has to play on the same field. Let CTV and Global continue to brand themselves as nothing more than American extensions into the Great White North (even the most noted CanCon, the wildly – an inexplicably – popular Canadian Idol, is just a cheap knock-off of the American, and British, phenomenon) and the CBC can merrily go on its way and explore the best and brightest of Canadiana, without the pressures or expectations brought about by those middling ratings and advertising requirements.

In fact, we’re already there to a large extent. Some people wear the CBC like a badge of honour. They intersperse their conversations with references to the witticisms uttered on Radio One, or they giddily recount a skit presented on the Mercer Report – usually to an audience of blank stares. Maybe those CBC viewers can commiserate with their US counterparts who regale their colleagues with the latest discovery outlined on Nova to a less-than-enthusiastic response. It has become a niche broadcaster trying to appeal to a mass market.

But, better yet, why doesn’t CBC English try to compete against the commercial big boys? The CBC can turn its attention east and look to its French language sister station, Radio-Canada, for inspiration. They’ve actually developed buzz-worthy shows including: La Fureur, a karaoke-style competition that features noted Quebecois artists; Toute le Monde en Parle, an entertaining talk show that Ralph Benmergui and Alan Thicke could only dream of hosting; and Virginie, a soap opera that ISN’T imported from England!!!

The key thing that SRC has been able to do is encourage the development of a French-Canadian star system. Sure, at times it seems that every film, every TV show, and every radio drive-time show is filled with the same people, but these people are supported by the community. Their images are plastered all over the province’s entertainment magazines, and their shows and films are wildly successful.

And SRC doesn’t need no stinkin’ CRTC regulations. Even if the CanCon restrictions were lifted, that doesn’t mean that the airwaves would be flooded with imports from France. Quebec-produced shows would continue to survive and flourish because the viewers enjoy not only the stars involved in the show, but the quality and excitement of the shows.

It’s not a question of highbrow versus lowbrow, because SRC – and its sister news station RDI – also produce a tonne of exciting, dynamic, and informative news and magazine-style programs that appeal to an intellectually stimulated demographic. They truly do offer something for everyone and they’re not afraid to push the edges of the envelope. Whereas, the CBC seems to want to do anything it can to avoid offending the ex-pats or the conservative (small c, please) taxpayer.

The CBC needs to be effectively edgy, and by that I mean it needs to create shows and personalities that appeal to the targeted demographic. There are few things worse than seeing an advertisement aimed at today’s youth that just butchers the rap genre, simply because some stuffed suit decided that he or she could “get down with the kids,” and provide them with something “from the street.” Maybe if the street we’re talking about is Sussex Drive, but not when you’re trying to appeal to today’s media-savvy generation.

Commercial success for the CBC can be done – all they need to do is brush up on their French and tune in. Of course, even if they did make these changes for the better, who would be left to promote it?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Federal Politics – The Party’s Over

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

As the combination of the sponsorship scandal and a minority government combines to send Canadians to an early – but not unexpected – election, perhaps it has come down to the time when we should say the Party’s over.

Essentially, the sponsorship scandal is about patronage – a tradition that’s as old as government itself. And while all the focus is currently on the Liberal Party of Canada, it’s not outrageous to say that with a little sniffing around, you’d find a foul stench or two emanating from all our political parties.

The party system has created various groups that are beholden, in part, to any number of special interest groups. Whether it’s labour organizations, religious groups, financial and business interests, or those who have been generous donors to the cause, each political party knows on which side their bread is buttered. And the only group to which these parties should be beholden – the voters – are left by the wayside.

As it stands now, the vast majority of Canadians don’t vote for a person. They vote for a party and in support of the ideals to which it supposedly ascribes. However, by voting for a national power, we compromise our individual needs for what we hope is the greater good.

It once was so easy. If you leaned left, you headed to the NDP, if you were small-c conservative, then the PC party was your choice. And if you preferred not to go to either extreme, the Liberal Party was a comfortable place to place your vote. But those differences aren’t so cut and dried any longer.

But our political landscape has changed drastically over the past two decades, moving towards regional representation – and now it’s time to complete the journey and abolish party politics entirely.

With the emergence of political entities like the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, we saw clearly the importance that voters placed on protecting their own interests. Frustrated Western Canadians, tired of perceived preferential treatment of Ontario and Quebec, embraced a party that they felt was more in tune with their needs. While Quebecers, both separatist and federalist, were and are attracted to the Bloc’s unwavering focus on promoting Quebec’s best interests on a federal level.

What this shows is that people are desperate for actual representation from their Members of Parliament. And by abolishing the party system, we would be able to create a new system wherein our elected representatives would have only the interests of their constituents at heart – not those of the party to which they ascribe.

As it stands now, many people don’t exercise their right to vote simply because, rightly or wrongly, they feel that their individual vote doesn’t matter on a national level. In addition, because their vote generally goes for the party, not the candidate, they feel disconnect between the needs of their riding and the party’s overall goals.

But think of how much more interest you would have in an electoral process that sees voters choosing the individual they feel best represents their riding. Instead of looking at the party, voters would have to look at the candidate – their platform, their beliefs, and their qualifications. And then, every four years, they’d be held accountable for their activities on behalf of their riding.

Instead of one party forcing through a mandate that may be unpalatable to a significant number of Canadians simply based on majority rule, a completely independent House of Commons would have to work together, navigating the waters of governance through negotiation, debate, and – perish the thought – common sense. Best of all, this would encourage our elected representatives to continually meet with their constituencies to gauge the electorate’s opinion on issues. The average citizen’s voice could be heard more clearly by the use of plebiscites on hot-button issues!

Our government could still have cabinet members handling various portfolios and committees would still be in place to ensure continuity and effective management of government initiatives and departments. However, these cabinet positions and committees would be elected positions (by the Members of Parliament), not appointed.

And the Prime Minister? There are a number of ways to handle this. We could have interested people receive nominations to run for the post and they are voted on separately from the MPs. Or, taking inspiration from the Vatican, we could have our MPs sequester themselves to choose a Prime Minister from within their midst – signified by a puff of red smoke emanating from the Peace Tower.

Sure, there are major bugs to be worked out, such as how do we handle election funding to ensure that each and every Canadian has access to the process, and how do we balance representation by population with representation by geographic area so that urban and rural Canada exerts fair influence over the political process?

But the goal of this exercise is to develop a government of the people for the people. And really, if our politicians have to be beholden to someone, would we rather it be to us – their constituents?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Modern Sports Just Not Very Sporting

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I’d like to show you a vision of the future, if you don’t mind. Today’s sporting landscape is so out of whack, I can’t imagine how we’re going to explain it to our kids and grandchildren. I’m guessing that it will go a little like this.

“Grandpa Jay, what was the juiced ball era in baseball about?”

“Well, that was a time in the late ‘90s and early 2000s when people had suggested that Major League Baseball had fiddled with the actual balls, making them easier to hit out of the park. It turns out that it wasn’t just the balls that were juiced, but, allegedly, it was the players as well!”

“What do you mean by players being juiced?”

“You see, there are these things called steroids, which help people work out harder, get bigger, and, once again for all you lawyers listening out there, some players allegedly took them and started whacking the baseball out of the park on a more and more regular basis.”

“Well, that sounds a lot like cheating.”

“You may say that. Ironically, little one, the side effects of these steroids, which may have been responsible for the juiced ball era, probably were responsible for the Shrunken Ball era that followed after – but that’s a different story.”

“Wow. Was it just baseball players that used steroids?”

“No, it wasn’t. Certain football players allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs. And then there were the Olympic athletes that routinely got caught.”

“Oh, the Olympics, didn’t we have one of those in Vancouver?”

“Yes, we were proud to host the 2010 Winter Olympics. But, unfortunately, they didn’t live up to our expectations?”

“But I thought everybody loved Vancouver.”

“Without question, little one, and they put on a great show. But it kind of felt like having a birthday party and all your friends going home with your gifts.”

“I don’t understand.”

“You see, the Olympics are all about sports that the majority of Canadians only care about every four years. And, as we built up to the event, there was much hand-wringing and government discussion about providing more funding for our athletes so that they could compete better. Unfortunately, as you know with the government, all it came out to was a lot of talk, and these athletes – who don’t get any support from the public during the other three non-Olympic years, just couldn’t compete with better-funded, better-supported athletes from other countries.”

“So we didn’t win any gold medals?”

“Why, we didn’t win any medals. Although the International Olympic Committee did present President Gretzky with a nice Participant ribbon – kind of like the ones they give away at school.”

“Speaking of President Gretzky, how come we didn’t win Olympic gold in hockey? Weren’t we good at that?”

“Well sure we were. But with the NHL lockout going on to its seventh year, the players and owners decided that they were just warming up and didn’t want to break their momentum by actually hitting the ice.”

“Is that because they don’t want a salary cap? Baseball doesn’t have a salary cap and it’s doing well, isn’t it?”

“Sure. It is now. Especially since the other 28 all merged into one, barnstorming, mega team so that their salaries could match the Yankees and Red Sox’s payrolls!”

“You know, sports in your day just didn’t seem to be much fun, did they Grandpa. I think I’ll go read now.”

“That’s probably for the best…”

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved