Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Tax Cuts Won’t Address the “C” Word

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Rampant calls for a reduction in federal taxes on gas may make for good sound bites, but it doesn’t appear that any of our political parties have the teeth to deal with the real problem.

As Finance Minister Ralph Goodale states, any tax reduction at the pumps would be brief at best. Any gains would be lost within hours because the actual issue would continue to go on unchecked – the relatively unfettered ability of the oil companies to set their own prices.

No one wants to bring up the dreaded “C” word when it comes to the inner machinations of Big Oil, but it’s hard for the average taxpayer, who finds themselves paying more and more at the pump, not to believe that there is some form of collusion and price-fixing taking place at a higher level.

If, as the powers-that-be state, there is no collusion in the Canadian gas market, then we need to see transparency in the process for how fuel prices are set. We need to know what market forces go into the rapid fluctuations at the pump, because what we see on our street corners doesn’t necessarily reflect what happens in the market.

What frustrates consumers is that they feel like they’re being held hostage to speculation. Instead of dealing with the realities of the market, we’re driving to work each morning to see a price based on fear, anticipation, and opportunism. We’re paying today’s market price for previously purchased gas that’s already in the tanks. The average consumer is fed up of paying $65 a barrel premiums for fuel made from crude that was purchased at $55.

Generally, one would think that if you purchased a product at one cost, you’d retail it for a little higher price. Then, once your supply ran out and you were forced to purchase more, your new price would reflect what your actual costs were. Instead, the purchase price seems to have no bearing on the actual price at the pumps. For all we know, the gas in the tanks could have been purchased at $40 a barrel, but the second that there’s a hint of a hurricane, we see some opportunists push the $2 a litre threshold, without any real rationale for doing so, other than speculation.

Conversely, the laws of a free-market economy don’t appear to be holding any sway over the gas industry. As a business-owner, one would think that a gas company would entertain the idea of dropping prices or offering premiums to entice people to purchase gas from their institution. Essentially, in any other sector, one would find certain providers willing to swallow some profits in order to gain market share. Considering the howls of anger and the sense of powerlessness that the average consumer has shared, think of the goodwill that a gas company would earn by reducing the price of their product to meet the needs of the community.

If that precipitates a price war, then so be it! That’s what the market’s supposed to be about: freedom to choose, freedom to set your own price, and freedom to compete with others in your industry. Yet, we find the opposite taking place. Instead of companies competing with each other, we find them magically reaching the same conclusion when it comes to setting the price of their product. And it appears the higher the better.

Generally, if it looks like a colluding duck and it walks like a colluding duck, then the conclusions are evident. If that’s not the case, then the government has an obligation to prove that to its populace.

But let’s be honest. We know that no party is going to risk upsetting that giant elephant in the corner known as Big Oil. There is little political wherewithal to confront this powerful lobby group head-on and address the problems at their source.

So instead of curing the disease, we’re railing against the symptoms. Instead of truly dealing with an issue of interest to Canadians, we’re presented with catchy sound bites advocating ineffective tax cuts. It’s political opportunism at its worst at a time when we need true political leadership.

Calls for tax cuts and sniping across the House of Commons only prove to the Canadian public that our elected representatives are only looking out for their own interests and those of their party. By not dealing with the actual problem, they’re showing that the game of politics trumps the realities of life and the needs of their electorate.

Demanding accountability and transparency from Big Oil is not the easy fight, or the safest one – but it’s the battle that we want fought. And the party that takes up the call should find that they’ll be fuelled by voters’ gratitude in the next election.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Family Squabbles Threaten to Undermine Liberals

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Generally, to run a government, you need your finger on the pulse of the populace. However, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals’ style of governance has seen that same finger used to point out blame at each an every opportunity.

To date, the modus operandi of the Ontario platform has been to find the best scapegoat and deflect criticism. But when you build your foundation on shifting blame, can you really be surprised when the whole house collapses?

Now that the statute of limitations on blaming the Harris/Eves government for all the provinces ills has expired, McGuinty has found a new target towards which to deflect criticism – the federal Liberals. Whether it’s the variance in gas prices in Ontario or the injustices of an allegedly unfair equalization program, McGuinty has worked hard to demonize the federal Liberals and cast them as the source of many of the provinces ills.

While the “I’m doing the best with what I can” platform may work in some cases, it can be a fatal recipe when you’re casting blame within the same family. Like it or not, the average voter sees little difference between the federal and provincial bodies of the respective Parties. And, for the most part, the defining policies and beliefs that guide these Parties is the same.

So, when you’re all painted with the same colour, why would you be surprised when your differences all begin to blend together? Instead of tearing each other apart, Liberal supporters of both the federal and provincial variety need to understand that to ensure the continued strength and political success that the Party has enjoyed, it needs to work to support one another. Essentially, whether you’re on the Varsity squad or in the Juvee ranks, you have to remember that you’re pulling on the same sweater and playing for the same team.

While McGuinty may have able to ride his focus on Ontario’s gap between what we contribute to the nation and what we receive in return to improved short-term ratings, has that been done at the long-term expense of undermining Party credibility?

Of course, this isn’t a one-sided argument. Ontario is arguably the most important province when it comes to deciding who wins federal elections. The composition of the existing minority government just goes to prove the power that Ontario can wield over the nation. As such, it’s imperative for Prime Minister Paul Martin and the federal Liberals to patch up the Party’s differences to present a more unified front going forward.

The federal Liberals can’t afford to look down their noses at provincial politics. They can’t run the risk of treating McGuinty as nothing more than an uppity kid brother who doesn’t know his place in the pecking order. His arguments need to be respected and action has to be taken if they want to continue to obtain the overwhelming support that the province has given to them.

But, while the risk is there, the lack of strong, powerful alternatives in the federal ranks means that there’s a little more wiggle room. At the provincial level, there is no such room. Despite being trounced in the last election, the Conservative party has enjoyed recent support. And the NDP remains a viable choice for those finding themselves on the centre-left range of the political spectrum. In fact, in 2004 the Hamilton East riding went overwhelmingly NDP (63.6 per cent) in its by-election to replace the seat vacated by the passing of Liberal Dominic Agostino.

Unfortunately, a significant number of people in our society don’t get to know their individual representatives or appreciate the unique aspects of each candidate’s platform and beliefs. They look to the example set by the Party leaders and the generic stances and beliefs that the Party is known for when it comes to casting their ballots. As such, how can confidence in a particular Party not be undermined when the respective wings can’t co-exist to get their house in order?

By targeting criticism at his federal brethren, McGuinty is essentially cutting of his nose to spite his face and runs the risk of cannibalizing votes in future elections. By undermining the credibility and integrity of the federal Party, McGuinty runs the very real risk that electors will apply those negative Liberal feelings to the provincial ranks.

It’s the basic laws of nature – when you annoy those who are farther up the food chain and nip at the bigger fish, you often end up finding your way to extinction.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Teflon Liberals May Slide to a Majority

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If the Liberal Party of Canada wants to find a creative way to raise money for the coffers this year, perhaps they should think about releasing a line of non-stick fry pans under their moniker. Simply put, the Grits are more effective than Teflon when it comes to having things slide off them.

A recent Leger poll found that the Liberals enjoyed the support of 40 per cent of respondents. That’s the same type of numbers that propelled them to their last majority government. The opposition Conservative Party has seen its numbers plummet 10 per cent to a disappointing 24 per cent support.

Despite anger over the sponsorship scandal, despite increased chatter over separation both in the East and the West, despite bad feelings caused by the federal government’s lack of action over the price of fuel, the Liberals have been able to keep their heads down, roll with the punches, and are ready to come out swinging in the next election.

Unfortunately for the Liberals’ opponents, things appear to be falling into place for a significant majority the next time Canadians are called to the polls, which is expected to be in the spring. And the main reason why the Grits are on their way back into power is simply the perceived lack of a viable alternative.

For the Conservatives and their supporters, this was their moment to regain the reins of power that they lost back in 1993. Buoyed by the allegations levied in the Gomery hearings, they were to ride that wave of anti-Liberal sentiment and outrage to a crushing victory. Alas, the Tory train derailed somewhere along the way, and continues to wind its way down a dangerous track with several supporters waiting to replace its conductor, Steven Harper.

Conversely, the New Democratic Party has chosen to remain self-satisfied with its ability to integrate reforms to the recent budget by promising to prop up the embattled minority government. But instead of building upon its gains and making a move for greater penetration into the Canadian populace, the Party appears to be pleased with the status quo, as if it realizes that being a key cog in a minority is the best that it will get.

And both opposition Parties have missed the key opportunity that the recent turmoil in the Liberal ranks has brought about – the ability to show Canadians what the alternatives to Liberal governance truly are. Both Parties have focused on the Gomery allegations to the exclusion of developing, refining, and presenting their Party platforms. Like the schoolyard squealer that runs around pointing fingers, they’ve forgotten that it’s not enough to point out what’s wrong – you need to identify what steps can be taken to make it right.

The Liberals, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin, appear to have understood this. They have addressed the issue by setting an ultimatum on a date. One month following the now-delayed release of the Gomery report, the government will call an election. Canadian voters have appeared to be appeased by this action. Now that the initial furor over the scandal has died down and the rhetoric has been digested, Canadians are choosing to take a wait-and-see approach with the results and will base their decisions on facts, not speculation.

Canadians have grown tired of the childish name-calling and dragging through the mud. However, instead of taking this opportunity to put forth a calm, rationale, and well-thought-out alternative plan for Canadians to embrace, the opposition Parties chosen to rest on their laurels and continue to sling accusations, respectfully.

It’s time to move on. The spring is not too far away and, unless the opposition Parties take this opportunity to let the Gomery investigation run its course and focus their energies on explaining to Canadians what there alternatives are, then it’s their own fault if Canadians aren’t able to see the way to change.

For a Canadian populace that wants stability and effective government, we’re left with only one readily apparent alternative for governance. And, unfortunately for the opposition Parties that proven entity is the same one that’s been in power for the past dozen years.

As the election race heats up, it’s hard to bet on the Party with the Teflon coating. To win the opposition needs to start cooking an appealing alternative that Canadians will find palatable.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Secular Society Means No Sharia

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In our attempt to be good Canadians, we have gone too far in Ontario by considering the incorporation of Shariah tribunals to settle family disputes in Muslim relationships.

One of the sacred cows we have in this country is that everyone should be allowed the freedom of religion. We encourage all who come to this great land of ours to retain their individuality and we welcome the cultural mosaic that is woven from this inclusionary belief. However, that acceptance of others’ cultures, religions, and beliefs stops at the moment it contravenes the accepted law of the land.

As we have seen with the same-sex marriage debate, marriage is a secular institution, no matter how much religious groups wish to believe otherwise. As such, the institution of marriage is bound and governed by the laws of our land, and its moral compass is guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So if that’s the case, why should the dissolution of marriage fall under a different set of circumstances? If marriage is secular at its root, why should divorce be any different?

We all like to quote the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and say that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. But the State has every right to assert its presence in its boardrooms and courthouses. Unfortunately, the government has painted itself in a corner with past precedent. Since 1991, the Province of Ontario has allowed Christian and Jewish families to practice religious arbitration. To deny the use of Sharia tribunals would reek of discrimination.

The answer to all of this is to eliminate all faith-based resolutions from our mediation practices.

We have a separation of Church and State in this country and we need to reinforce that belief by eliminating the existence of religious influence in its practices. This is not to denigrate any one religion, but rather to ensure fairness and equality for all, as is defined by the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to assert that being Canadian comes with a set of expectations for all. Being Canadian means adhering to the laws and conventions of the land.

Being respectful of other people’s faith does not mean we have to compromise the integrity of our Church/State divide. This is not a country that is ruled by Islamic, Jewish, or Christian law, so we are under no obligations to accommodate those practices in our legal and governmental systems.

By adhering to our Constitution and our Charter, we are not denying rights to anyone. We are defining what it means to be Canadian. If a person wants to live in a place where Sharia law is enforced, then that is their prerogative. But nowhere does it say that, to avoid the spectre of discrimination, Canada has to be that place.

The fact of the matter is that we have, as a society, shown a preference to Christian and Jewish institutions. But with the rise of a Muslim population and an increasing understanding and sensitivity to their needs, we have to understand that our past practices just don’t cut it in today’s reality. That’s why the practice religious arbitration, established by the NDP government, must be abolished. We can still support these services as a society, but without the decisions being binding upon our Court of Laws. Should a family choose to go to faith-based arbitration on their own as a part of the dispute resolution process, then that is their prerogative. But in our secular society there is no place for religious decisions to supersede the laws of the land.

There are many Canadians who are religious, but religion does not define Canada. We need to accept that the matters and teachings of faith are welcome in the homes, churches, synagogues, and mosques of this country, but we must draw the line at their presence in our courthouses.

The rhetoric spouted by some of the issue’s opponents goes too far. Aligning Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty with the Taliban is inflammatory at best and obstructionist at its worst. This idea of incorporating Sharia mediation is not an error borne of malice – it’s an error on the side of being inclusionary, especially when past precedent is factored in.

But it’s an error nonetheless, and one that should be put to rest. Whether or not you believe that, in the end, we answer to a higher power, when it comes to the governance of our country, the laws of Canada should be the final word.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

An Animal is Most Dangerous When Cornered

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

They say an animal is most dangerous when cornered. With that in mind, if we continue to chase after Karla Homolka, at this rate, the public as a whole will bear part of the responsibility if she lashes out again.

Canadians, who believe that the plea bargain that Homolka, who now goes by the name Teale, signed was a deal with the devil that should be rescinded, have zealously attempted to ensure that she can never return to a normal life. Instead of placing our faith in the justice system and hoping that the demons that drove Homolka to commit such horrible crimes have been exorcised during her incarceration, Canadians are taking out their fury against Homolka and resorting to vigilante tactics.

But to what end? What does the constant chasing down of Homolka do in the long run? What does forcing her from one home in Montreal to another do? How does chasing her out of one job to another benefit us? Most importantly, if we don’t let Homolka live her life in the light of day, why should we be surprised if she finds solace and comfort in the dark underground?

What Homolka did to the French and Mahaffey families, and her own kin was and is horrific, unforgivable, and sub-human. However, what we’re doing with our frenzied hunt for Homolka is driving her to exactly the element that she should not be associated with. If she cannot find acceptance, as limited as it may deserve to be, in regular society, why would we be surprised if she finds comfort in the darker segments of our society? We’ve seen what happens when Karla is influenced by dark, so why are we working so hard to drive her back there?

We want her in the light of day, trying to remake her life, and subject to the strict terms of her release. Our anger against a judicial system that, in retrospect, made a significant error in judgment clouds the fact that that very same system has tried to make amends for its earlier error by enforcing strict restrictions against Homolka’s freedom.

Forced to notify the authorities of every move she makes, down to changes of her appearance, Homolka’s freedom is not as absolute as the angered masses believe it to be. Yes, she’s no longer behind bars, but her emotional and social prison extends wherever she goes. In this brief period of time since Homolka’s incarceration has ended, we’ve seen what type of life that she’s going to be subject to. Whether it’s co-workers, employers, or casual contacts who are ready to run to the media for their 15 minutes, or a media eager to continue publishing photos and stories on a grizzly topic that’s captured the Canadian interest, Homolka will never truly be free.

That may be small comfort to the families who were irreparably damaged by Homolka’s actions, but, as hard as it may be for those in our society who feel cheated by Homolka’s plea bargain and light sentence for such horrific crimes, we have to let go of the anger and trust in our authorities. What we have to remember is that we have the animal caged, albeit not behind bars. However, if we keep poking the animal with a stick, why should we not expect it to lash back out of anger and frustration?

When we resort to vigilantism, we become no less of a monster than Homolka and Paul Bernardo are or were. This escalation of anger can have no positive resolution. And, if someone decides to go to the extreme and chooses to perform a violent in retribution for the loss of life, then we truly have lost our humanity. There is no greater good that would ever justify an evil act.

We, as a society, do not have to forgive or forget what Karla Homolka did. But what we have to do is live with the situation as it presents itself. Whether or not we agree with the actions of the police, the judicial system, or the penal system during the time of the trial or since, what was done is in the past, and we have to deal with the present. We don’t have to turn a blind eye to Homolka, but we have to make sure that we don’t poison the situation with a jaundiced one. While we can’t rewrite history and atone for the mistakes of the past, we will have to live with the consequences of our actions for the future.

No amount of harassment, hounding, or vigilante justice towards Karla Homolka can bring back Leslie Mahaffey, Kristen French, or Tammy Homolka. But if we continue to use these tactics, why should we be surprised if the animal strikes again? And who would we have to blame, other than ourselves?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved