Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

Politics columns that appeared on Jason Menard’s previous Web site, Menard Communications.

Martin Targets Ontario with Gun Law Proposal

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In order to keep the title he so dearly covets, Prime Minister Paul Martin is taking his best shot – by making it harder for Canadians to shoot. In doing so, he’s drawn the line in the sand and showing just which Canadians he’s targeting in his bid for re-election.

Essentially, by suggesting that guns should be restricted in Canada, Martin knows that he’s released an opinion that’s not going to fly in Alberta. But, the politically savvy Prime Minister knows that it’s a winning formula for B.C., Quebec, and – most importantly – Ontario.

Toronto is being subjected to daily stories of gun violence, in large part perpetrated by gangs, and the citizens are fed up. And, as Toronto goes, so too does a large part of our Hogtown-centred media. In smaller communities, such as London, any gun violence gets tied directly to the rise of crime in Toronto – and the fear-mongering begins.

As evidenced by the past few elections, Ontarians are looking for a reason to vote Liberal. No matter what the scandal, the citizens of Canada’s most populous province are apparently willing to forgive all transgressions in order to ensure the Liberal influence remains dominant in the House of Commons. Overall, Ontario can be categorized as centre-left, and restricting guns and getting tough on crime will be well received here.

If there’s one issue that Canadians are passionate – and polarized – about, it’s the issue of gun control. While Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tried to exhume the long-cooled body that is the gay marriage debate, Martin decided to take just as strong of a stance against another polarizing issue – but one that’s more appealing to the swing voters which both parties covet.

This election is going to be won down the middle. The idea of rescinding rights on marriage that have already been given remains the domain of the right. By bringing the gay marriage issue up, Harper released the spectre of the “hidden agenda” to rule over this campaign. Those wavering around the centre are generally not the type to be opposed to granting rights to all Canadians.

Gun control is just as polarizing, but without the spectre of treading on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In large part, we Canadians aren’t prone to bringing up the ol’ Right to Bear Arms argument that our friends to the south will trot out. And those that will are so set in their ways that they’ll search for any excuse to keep their beloved firearms.

Whether it’s the farmers demanding the right to bear arms against critters in their fields or sport shooters who use handguns for recreation, there will be those whose opposition to this idea is set in stone. Martin knows this and he’s aware that people that hold this ideal generally are going to vote Tory regardless of his stance. So, instead of appealing to the right, Martin’s wooing the far left by introducing a policy that will appeal greatly to Liberal and NDP supporters alike. And, more importantly, it will appeal to those undecideds wavering between Red and Orange.

But since the opportunity’s at hand, let’s make this a gun law with some teeth. Ban outright all handguns. Create strict penalties for anyone found possessing an illegal firearm in this country. And, most importantly, ensure that anyone caught using a firearm during the committing of a crime is sent to jail for a very, very long time. A firearm offense should result in a minimum 10-year sentence automatically tacked on to any punishment levied for the original crime.

If a criminal thinks they can get two years for robbery, that’s not much of a deterrent. But if they know that sticking up a store with a firearm’s going to add a dime to their ride – then the situation changes.

There can be no opposition to this. Guns kill. It’s their sole purpose. Rifles, while not much better, have their use in hunting, culling, and sport. Handguns don’t. They’re designed to kill. In a civilized society, we don’t need the spectre of handguns hanging over us. It’s time to do the right thing and remove them from society.

The people of Toronto will agree – and that’s exactly what Martin’s counting on. Ontario’s the key battleground. And while Harper’s policies have missed the mark on this vote-rich province, Martin’s anti-gun rhetoric is right on target.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

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

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

The Cost of Doing Business

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I’ve never been a knick-knack person. I don’t understand them, but I’ve grown to appreciate them. Despite my protests, I’ve come to realize that, beyond the depth and scope of my understanding, we have a need in this world for pretty things.

That’s why criticizing our elected and non-elected representatives for their spending can, at times, be counter-productive.

Recently former Royal Canadian Mint president David Dingwall and Governor General Adrienne Clarkson have been pilloried in the press for their questionable spending habits, ranging from lavish expenses on trips to seemingly petty reimbursements for coffee and doughnuts.

Yet, looking at the nature of business alone, these expenses warrant no more than a shrug. And, when you factor in the inflated cost of pomp and circumstance, then these expenditures are almost downright understandable.

Why does the average person get so angry at Dingwall’s spending, when we all do the same thing, when afforded the opportunity? When travelling on business, don’t we expense each and every item, meal, and out-of-pocket cost back to our company? I do. I’m doing business on company time, away from my home, without billing for extra time, so why shouldn’t my expenditures be compensated?

Or does the fact that this money is coming out of our own pockets in the form of tax dollars make all the difference? Ironically, many of us in the public have been demanding that government conducts itself in a more business-like manner – yet, here’s an example of business practices and we’re up in arms. And you don’t think those business expenses incurred in the private sector hit you in the pocketbook? Of course they do – they’re rolled into the cost of sales and are transferred to you in the purchase price of the product or service you’re buying. It’s just that we aren’t privy to the behind-the-scenes machinations of private enterprise.

When it comes to the office of the Governor General, there is a matter of pageantry that must be factored into any cost. Government officials, heads of state, and other elected and non-elected officials are not just selling Canada to the world – they’re selling an image of the country. You can’t do that on the cheap.

Throughout my life I’ve watched my father, who works for a major multi-national, travel on business meeting with vendors and various corporate interests. And, without getting into detail, I’ve been aware of the expense of doing business. Sure, you could take your clients to Taco Bell, but should you? Comping a fine meal may cost more initially, but the potential return on the investment is far greater. You don’t think that applies to anyone? Well, try taking your wife out to Burger King on your anniversary, justifying it by saying a meal’s a meal… Let me know how you make out when you regain the use of your fingers.

It sounds cliché, but in the world of business you truly do have to spend money to make money. Whether it’s communicating with clients, rewarding your staff, or travelling to trade shows or meetings, there is an expense that needs to be incurred for a business to have any chance of success. But, because it’s the government, we feel we have the right to do things on the cheap.

Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, money does make the world go ‘round. We can’t expect to compete on our merits and merits alone. We need the flash and dazzle, we need the glitz and glamour, we need the pomp and circumstance – essentially, we need those little pretty things to draw attention to ourselves, so that the substance behind the style can stand out.

We live in a global marketplace and we have to move at the speed of business to compete. It’s an investment in our future where only the bottom line matters. Did Dingwall’s cost of doing business harm the Mint? No, in fact it turned a profit under his stewardship. We need to look at the return on investment and not just the initial expenditure when weighing our public representatives’ spending habits.

No, they shouldn’t go unchecked and there should be financial checks and balances to approve these expenditures just like in any private enterprise – which there were. But the public needs to strain their vitriol through a filter based on the reality of doing business.

It’s the knick-knack theory of economics. While decorations aren’t integral to the existence of a home, they certainly make living there much more appealing – so why should we sell our country short? Politics is a business and we should treat it as such – there’s no difference between private expenditures that are rolled into your retail price and government expenses, except visibility.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Trying to Be Green is Making Me Blue

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

I recently signed up for the One-Tonne Challenge, but now I’m feeling like the weight’s all on my shoulders, and there’s no way to get it off.

Simply put, trying to be an environmentalist in this area (and this era) is making me blue. And with the appearance that doing the right thing and trying to be green costs too much green may result in our environmental efforts failing before they’ve even had a chance to get off the ground.

For years, we’ve been bombarded by environmental doomsday prophets (Hello, Mr. Suzuki) who have waxed poetic about the declining state of our Earth. Everything we do is bad, and there’s no hope for our poor planet. Wow, there’s a way to rally the troops and move forward.

What environmentalist have ignored for too long in the fight is that the very armies they’re trying to conscript are lazy. We have grown accustomed to a lifestyle and we’re consumed by pursuit of the pocketbook. We’re not going to revert to an agrarian, self-sufficient lifestyle, without the modern comforts and amenities, so stop asking. We’re not going to give up our cars and walk to work unless it makes sense to do so.

So, the true challenge of the One-Tonne Challenge, and of similar environmental activities, is to make it make sense.

Instead of dreaming of Utopia, environmental activists have to exist in reality. Tugging at our heart strings hasn’t worked so far – so make a play for the pocketbook. The green army may be lazy, but it is easily roused when it’s time to fight for its own interests.

The city in which I currently live, London, ON, is plagued by an ineffective and impractical public transportation system. Even if I wanted to take the bus, it’s not feasible for me to do so. But, instead of focusing on improving the quality and level of service, the City prefers to focus its efforts on marketing. What the City appears to be forgetting, and to keep in the environmental vein, is that no matter how pretty the marketing package is, when you’re promoting compost it’s still compost.

I have been a vehicle owner for well over a decade. Yet, when I was living in Montreal I was an avowed proponent (and rider) of the city’s public transportation. Why? Because it made sense. A trip across the island to where I worked took 15 minutes. A trip by car, down the Expressway and through downtown traffic, could take upwards of an hour and a half. For the cost of a metro pass, roughly $50, I could get anywhere I wanted, unimpeded by traffic. When compared to the amount I’d have to pay in fuel costs, parking fees, and wear and tear, the decision was a no-brainer.

The economics made sense, the environmental benefits were secondary. But now, the tables are turned. A 10-minute car ride (roughly eight kilometers) would take me well over an hour by bus. No matter how much I want to help the environment, it’d be nice to see my family once in a while too.

If we’re to make a change, we need to change the economics of environmentalism. It shouldn’t cost more for my wife and daughter to travel to Ottawa by train than by car, but it does. A round-trip for two on our nation’s rail carrier set us back about $400. That same trip, along with the ability to travel around, visit the city, and even head to Montreal, would cost us under $200 in gas by car – and my son and I would be able to come along.

Is there any sense in advocating for the use of a service when the service inconveniences us? We need to stop thinking that people are going to choose what’s best for the environment over what’s apparently best for themselves. As a society we’re willing to sacrifice some comforts in the name of altruism, but our environmental benevolence only goes so far.

So how can this work? How can we leverage economics to benefit the environment? Take the example of energy efficient light bulbs. At first, we can look at their price and suffer some sticker shock as they’re so much more expensive than their incandescent cousins. But a $5 energy-efficient bulb, which could last up to seven years, turns out to be much cheaper over the long run than the department-store standards, costing $2 a pack, but needed to be replaced anywhere from seven to 15 times over that same time frame.

There are very real cost advantages immediately displayed – not to mention the reduction that comes from lowered electricity usage and hydro bills.

Don’t tell me how much greenhouse gas we’re emitting by idling for over 20 seconds – tell us how much gas and money we save. Don’t tell us how bad pesticides and chemical fertilizers are for the environment, show us how much cheaper it is to go natural with mulching and compost – and how our lawns can look just as good.

For us to succeed at the One-Tonne Challenge the burden of environmentalism has to be taken off of our hearts and placed squarely where it will have the most impact – in our pocketbooks.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved