Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Gas Pains

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

A few weeks ago, when I was in Montreal, the prices had risen to $1.04 per litre and I was only comforted with the thought that the cost per litre had to be less in Ontario. I knew that I would feel good about paying whatever the rates were back in London, because they couldn’t be worse than what I was paying in La Belle Province.

I’m not proud of my petroleum-fueled Schadenfreude, but it’s a fact of life that we’re willing to pay whatever price the gas companies set for us, as long as someone else is worse off! It’s all a matter of perspective. And, as I stated, paying in the low-90s is much more palatable once we’ve already broken the $1.00 ceiling.

Oh, what a difference three weeks make. We are now them. And the ridiculously high gas prices are starting to have an impact on the economy around us.

As predicted, people are now flocking to gas stations that are selling at prices that only a month ago seemed outrageous. The people who are dancing in the streets when gas falls under that buck a litre threshold are the very same who were bitching vociferously when the price of gas rose to the mid-80s.

But, more tellingly, the ancillary effect of these higher gas prices is that people are choosing to restrict their activities – to the detriment of industries that rely on the summer season and that increased revenue for their livelihood.

Several times now I have spoken to people who have decided that enough is finally enough, and their cars are going to be used only for the bare necessities – driving to work, getting groceries, and small errands. The idea of getting behind the wheel and driving out of town on a day trip just doesn’t appeal to some any longer simply because it’s hard to rationalize the financial expenditures that any sort of trip would demand.

In Canada, the summer tourist season is painfully short already. Stores, restaurants, and areas that rely upon out-of-town traffic will soon start feeling the pinch caused by cautious motorists. Add to that the fact that many people are restricting the number of little jaunts they take throughout the city, thus reducing the number of opportunities they have to engage in impulse buying – and it’s plain to see that the rising costs of gas are having an impact on and off the roads.

“Essence à Juste Prix,” a Quebec-based organization (and it’s no surprise that’s it started there, considering the premium Quebec drivers are forced to pay for their petrol), is calling for the federal government to look into the escalating costs of fuelling up. At the same time, federal transport minister Jean Lapierre has stated that the feds have no intention of dropping the taxes Canadians pay at the pump. In the interim our gas companies raise and lower their prices in unison, somehow avoiding the spectre of collusion, yet appearing by their actions to collude.

So where does that leave us? Boycotting doesn’t work because, literally speaking, the gas companies have us over a barrel. While some of the major metropolitan areas in Canada, specifically Toronto and Montreal, have efficient, timely public transportation, others of us in the country don’t have the luxury to leave our wheels at home and take advantage of alternatives.

When I lived in Montreal, I was able to cross the island in 15 minutes by commuter train and metro to get to work, which saved on a 45-minute to an hour-long drive had I tried to traverse the city. Living in London, a 10-minute drive to work would take over an hour by public transportation – and that’s assuming I don’t miss on of the oh-so-infrequent busses that run all throughout the city.

Driving is my only option. And it’s the only option of many Canadians who are forced to travel any distance to work. We can restrict, conserve, and search for alternatives all we want, but we need to find a solution.

If the federal will is not there to reduce gas taxes or place caps on prices at the pumps, then they have to divert money into public transportation. People will make the switch if the alternative is palatable. I would sacrifice an extra half-hour out of my commute if I knew that the option was there for me. But I live in a fairly sizeable urban environment. Others aren’t so lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view).

The answers aren’t so cut and dried – but unless some action is taken, and soon, fuelling our cars won’t be our biggest problem, fuelling our economy will.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Courting the Governor General

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Phew. I’m glad that’s over. Michaelle Jean has come out of the closet finally. After much hand-wringing and back and forth debate: Is she or isn’t she? Was she or wasn’t she? Our governor general-designate has finally come forth to say her and her husband are proud, flag-waving Canadians.

Thank goodness that’s been decided. Now the position can go back to its irrelevance and Jean can assume her place in the annals of Canadian historical trivia.

Interestingly enough, many of those who claim that Jean’s alleged support of separatist causes would undermine the integrity of the position are the very same people who were ready to abolish the whole post in response to Adrienne Clarkson’s free-spending ways during her tenure. Suddenly a position that was no more than a benign, but necessary, growth on our system of constitutional monarchy turned into a malignant growth that threatened the very political life of our Prime Minister.

While the uproar over Jean’s alleged nationalist leanings may have its basis in simple politicking, part of it reeks of our Canadian need to be loved and validated. With separatists factions gaining steam in the West due to its economic prosperity, and dissatisfaction with Jean Charest’s Liberal government fanning the flames of nationalism in Quebec, maybe those on Parliament Hill are just looking for someone to tell them they love them.

Like an insecure lover, Canadian federalists need to hear that their expressions of amour are reciprocated. There’s nothing worse than professing your love, getting hitched, and then finding out that the object of our affection has a wandering eye and her heart is somewhere else.

Of course, there are the whisperings from the Prime Minister’s camp that the seeds from which the rumours of separatist sympathy have grown were actually sown by nationalist forces in Quebec. Essentially, the idea is that sovereigntists are acting like jealous lovers — if separatism can’t have her, then nobody can. And that they don’t want to see a federalist Quebecker in a position of prominence as she may be able to effectively woo soft-separatists or swing voters in the province towards the Canadian cause.

But let me tell you, if these first few days are indicative of Jean’s tenure, then I may hop on board the pro-Governor General bandwagon. Essentially a patronage appointment, this office has long been looked down upon by many Canadians. Viewed as a necessary, but largely irrelevant, position in modern Canada, the Governor General’s office is a reminder of our Commonwealth affiliation and attachment to an absentee sovereign.

So when you combine the outgoing Governor General’s penchant for being free with the ol’ taxpayer-filled wallet with the questions over the incoming Governor General’s loyalty to our nation, maybe the motivation will be there to take a good, solid look at the role of the monarchy in our day-to-day lives.

Maybe instead of courting the Governor General, we’ll decide as a nation to walk away from the position entirely. The fact of the matter is that the Queen’s presence in this country – well, not her physical presence of course – is cause for debate in our society. While not a front-burner issue like separatism, sponsorship inquiries, or human rights, it is, nonetheless, a simmering pot heating up on the back burner.

Perhaps the passions that have been incited by our two most recent appointees will finally fan the flames of that debate and cause it to boil over. If that’s the case, we’ll finally able to engage in a nationwide debate on the role of the Governor General, the monarchy, and what it means to be a Canadian.

Then, at least, we’ll be able to say that the Governor General is far from irrelevant.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Justice For All — But No Carte Blanche

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

With the Linda Shaw murder case drawing to a close, many are looking at it as a case of what’s wrong with our penal system. However, combined with this summer’s release of an infamous Canadian killer, perhaps the motivation to change the system – and a partial solution – is now at hand.

Last week, the name of Linda Shaw’s killer was released to the public. Shaw, a student at the University of Western Ontario, was found murdered near London on the side of the road, and the mystery went unsolved for 15 years. DNA linked the crime to a now-deceased offender, and the case goes on the books as solved. However, at a time where Shaw’s friends and family should be able to enjoy some closure on the incident, instead they are forced to deal with a slew of questions as to how the murderer – a two-time killer out on parole – was allowed to re-enter society and re-offend. Shaw’s killer served only 12 years.

Twelve years behind bars – just like another infamous Canadian, Karla Teale, who was released earlier this summer.

As Teale re-enters Canadian society somewhere in Quebec and tries to put her past behind us, many Canadians live in fear of if and when she will strike again. The Deal with the Devil got Teal out in 12, and now there are those that are wondering who will eventually pay the price. Here’s hoping that Teale has been rehabilitated, is able to move on with her life, and put the past behind her to become a functioning, contributing member of this society. Here’s hoping that she is able to live in this world free of whatever demons drove her to commit such horrible acts in the past.

However, Teale’s release is not without strings attached. She is under strict restrictions as to when and where she can go, how often she must report to the police, and with whom she can associate. She can’t even change her hair colour without notifying the authorities.

But while Teale may protest the restrictions placed upon her since her release based on the fact that they were not part of the originally plea bargain deal, the fact of the matter is that these strict restrictions should be the norm, not the exception in Canadian justice. Any violent offender in our society should not have the slate wiped completely clean once their jail time is served. The debt to society may have been paid behind bars, but interest upon the original principal is still owed – and that must be paid off for years after their release.

Our rights in our society are not to be taken for granted. They’re earned through our actions. When you choose to act in a way that runs counter to the accepted rules, norms, and values of the society, then you have by your own actions forfeited your claims to equality. By breaking society’s rules your actions imply that they have no domain over your life – so the attempt to reclaim them and use them as the foundation upon which to build your freedom is shaky at best.

Once you have committed a crime against society, you are no longer to the same freedoms that law-abiding citizens enjoy. You’ve proven that you can’t play our game, so don’t complain when we change the rules. You do not come out of jail with a slate wiped completely clean. Prison removes you from society for a time, with the idea that you can be rehabilitated to become a functioning member of society. But that doesn’t mean that you simply can walk out the prison gates and blend into society with no transition.

Teale’s restrictions are exactly what we need to do with all violent offenders. Criminals of this sort need to be strictly watched throughout their reintegration into our society. Yes, they should be allowed to enjoy certain freedoms – the right to live their lives, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to carte blanche. They forfeited that right of their own volition.

There are those who will look at the increased financial costs that this type of continued enforcement and monitoring would require and find them prohibitive. But terms and conditions of release similar to those applied to Teale would act as a deterrent to reoffending. Our current system, while not terrible, could be improved.

When it comes to the financial costs, concerns about those must be tempered with an examination of the human costs. No system is perfect, and those who are truly driven to commit a crime will do so no matter what deterrent is in place. However, if the knowledge that committing a crime will result in a lifetime of scrutiny and forfeiture of a significant amount of freedom that we currently take for granted, perhaps that will be enough to prevent just one murder.

And if you’re still not convinced of the need to invest more, simply ask Linda Shaw’s family today if the additional costs would have been worth the chance that Shaw’s killer would not have been able to reoffend.

It’s not to say that her killer wouldn’t have struck regardless of increased scrutiny. But he may not have, and that’s more of a chance than we have right now.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Tale of Two Cities

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Apparently, winning in London depends on which side of the Atlantic you’re on.

Yesterday London, England surprised many and plucked the 2012 Olympics out from under France’s nose. And, in a cosmic balancing of franco-anglo relations, Montreal edged out London, Ontario for the rights to the Shiners Children’s Hospital.

So while they break out the party hats on Downing Street, there will be a noticeable lack of fezzes on display in The Forest City. And instead of developing a new site to help sick kids, Londoners on this side of the Atlantic will have to find a cure for bruised egos.

But once the shock and disappointment of losing what was, at one point, professed to be a sure thing passes, North American Londoners will have to realize that it’s time to strike while the iron is hot and capitalize on whatever increased recognition the city may have earned from this five-year process.

However, London’s representatives at the conference almost erased any goodwill with an inflammatory video that alleged the proposed site of a new Shriners Hospital in Montreal’s Glen Yards – next to McGill’s planned superhospital – is contaminated. That game of dirty pool has put London behind the eight ball in terms of public relations.

While all parties were making nice afterwards and saying the right things about mending fences and working together in the future for the benefit of the children, the fact of the matter is that London and Montreal’s delegations have acted more like kids themselves during this process.

Whether it was questionable accusations about contaminated land or supercilious dismissals over the status of London as a major player in the medical game, both sides haven’t come out of this unscathed. But with the right attitude going forward, London’s loss could end up being a win-win-win situation for all parties involved.

Win #1 – The city of Montreal retains the Shriners Hospital, and whether they choose to renovate the existing Mount Royal location or invest in building a new site, the city is assured of remaining a hub for specialized pediatric care in North America.

Win #2 – The Shriners, despite what Londoners may think, made the right decision. Essentially, they were taken for granted by the powers-that-be in Montreal, who ignored requests for concessions until it was almost too late. In the end, the Shriners were able to use London’s efforts to woo them to work a better deal with their existing city while continuing 80 years of tradition.

Win #3 – And this is the trickiest of all. The clock is ticking on London’s 15 minutes of fame. As it stands now, we’ve proven that our existing facilities are worthy of international recognition – so much so that we were almost able to wrest away the prize of a Shriners Hospital from much bigger competition. But the key is to be able to build on that fame and entrench it into the minds of the masses.

It’s not enough to be respected – London needs to work to be revered. Respect means that those in the industry know what your city has to offer in your chosen field. London’s got that already – our hospital system is on par with any other in the country and, thanks to the University of Western Ontario and its research facilities, we’ve earned a solid name in the medical and research communities.

But reverence? That’s something difference. To be revered means that Joe (or Jean) Average knows who you are. Reverence means that perceived transportation issues – like those that allegedly helped to sink London’s bid – are a non-factor because you’ve got that name recognition to back it up. It’s all about how you market yourself.

Londoners are blessed and cursed by our self-importance. Internally, the city’s leadership believes The Forest City is a major player on the Canadian landscape – but externally, we’re really not much more than a spot on the map. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver – they can get away on name recognition alone. London has to work at promoting itself as a haven for the medical community.

There’s room for smaller cities to make their mark in this nation. One needs to look no further than down the 401 to see how the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge region has become an international star in future technologies and research, powered in large part by RIM.

London needs to market itself less for its forests and more for its forceps. The Shriners’ decision shouldn’t be lamented as a loss, but rather recognized as an opportunity. The city has stepped onto the national and international stages, the audiences are waiting – now it’s time to make others see what Londoners believe: that London is, and will continue to be, a legitimate player in the theatre of Canadian health.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Signs Point to Excess

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. With all due respect to The Five Man Electrical Band, kudos to the Green Party’s Monica Jarabek for taking steps to bring common sense into election campaigns and trying to do something about the proliferation of unnecessary campaign signs.

Jarabek has proposed that all the candidates in the London West riding agree to do something about the insidious overpopulation of election signs that dot the landscape each and every election campaign. Under her proposal, all the candidates will publicly agree to post election signs only on private property. It just makes too much sense not to work – which is probably why it won’t.

The fact that a candidate from a less-prominent party is making this suggestion actually makes it carry more weight. Jarabek and her cohorts would seem to have more to lose than the big boys and girls of the political spectrum with this proposal. A significant portion of these smaller parties’ road-side advertising comes from campaign signs on public property. But it appears Jarabek’s willing to sacrifice what’s best for her for what’s right – although the publicity this proposal has created is a welcome benefit, no doubt.

Think back over the past few election campaigns. How many times have you driven down the street and been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of campaign signs, dotting an open land space like a field of untamed dandelions? It’s not unusual to see a dozen or two signs for the same candidate sitting side by each, covering a formerly green area with a wash of blue, red, green, or yellow.

It’s a scene that repeats itself in every city across Canada, during every election. Municipal, provincial, federal – no matter what the campaign, the prevailing wisdom is that more is better.

Actually, the abundance of political signs actually serves as a rather appropriate metaphor for election campaigns in general. Volume outweighs individuality. We’re so accustomed to see intelligent debate devolve into a shouting contest that we’ve come to accept the same from our visual campaign materials. Where one sign would actually do the trick, by plastering the landscape with multiple versions, parties end up engaging in a laminated cardboard shouting match!

Jarabek’s proposal has one significant benefit for the voters of Canada. Simply put, if candidates choose – or are forced – to abstain from putting campaign signs on public property, then they’ll have to work hard to woo voters into believing in their cause enough to put a sign on their lawn. That means that the candidates will have to explain their position better to their constituents, and more people will be engaged in the political process.

In a way, it evens out the game. The smaller guys, like the Green Party and the NDP, will be able to compete, at least visually, on a more even playing field with the big boys. It’s the message and the ability of the candidate to sell it to constituents that will play a defining role in earning the right to advertise on a lawn. The depth of commitment to the riding will outweigh the depth of a Party’s wallet.

And, as a voter, a campaign sign on my neighbour’s lawn will mean more to me than a couple of dozen non-affiliated signs on a highway turn-off. When the signs are placed by actual voters, it can stimulate conversation and engage the average voter in the electoral process by encouraging discussion and debate of political views and candidate benefits.

There are a number of other benefits to this proposal as well. A sea of campaign signs can, in fact, pose a hazard to drivers and pedestrians alike, obstructing views and creating new blind spots. As well, there are the environmental and financial concerns that this overkill creates. By adopting Jarabek’s idea, we’d not only be reducing the amount of redundant campaign material that ends up in the trash, we’d help to reduce the exorbitant cost of elections. Those signs have to get paid for eventually – and it usually comes from the tax payers’ wallets.

But why just stop in London West? Why not make this a country-wide endeavour. What’s stopping the parties from either entering into a gentleman’s agreement to only put campaign signs on private property or even enacting legislation?

It’s an idea that makes sense. In fact, the writing’s on the wall – only the view’s been blocked by far too many signs. When it comes to the next election, let’s just hope that less really will be more.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved