Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Fear and Loathing in Lloydminster?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Canadians aren’t ignoring the threat of terrorism in this country. We’re just facing it in our uniquely Canadian way – and doing ourselves proud in the meantime.

Anne McLellan, the federal Public Safety Minister, wants to remind us that Canada is not immune to terrorism, and that The Great White North is a target in the cross-hairs of extremists both internal and external.

And while she’s under the impression that Canadians are living with our heads buried in the sand, we’re actually fighting back with the best weapon we have – living our lives in the best way we can.

There is more to terrorism than just shock and awe tactics. As we should, we get caught up in the immediate tragedy and emotion of an event. The graphic images of the London bombings tug at our heartstrings and we weep for the loss of innocent lives. And, for many of us, the events of September 11, 2001 will always be our Kennedy Assassination – a moment in time when we’ll always remember where we were and how we felt.

But these moments, no matter how shocking and tragic they may be, are just the initial wound. The true goal of terrorism isn’t to spill blood – it is to infect the very lifeblood that we cherish and destroy us from within.

A bomb blast turns the cameras of the world towards their cause. But once the cameras have moved on to the next story, that’s when the true effects of terrorism are felt. When an act of terrorism forces you to change the way you live your life, that’s the moment when terrorism wins.

No matter how tragic, a bomb blast is a moment in time – a means to an end. How we deal with aftereffects are what will determine whether or not we win the war.

The goal of terrorism is not the mindless slaughter of innocents – it’s a strategic tactic designed to destabilize a country. If a bomb blast can destabilize an economy and precipitate conditions to bring down a non-sympathetic government, then the terrorists’ job is done. It isn’t a question of fearing when biological weapons will be used – the recognition should be that they have, in a sense, already been deployed. If you can infect from within, sowing the seeds of doubt and fear, then eventually the body will fall. If our country succumbs to fear, then the insidious effects of terrorism will have taken effect.

Does that mean we’re turning a blind eye to terrorism? Do we blindly continue our lives believing that Canada’s a Utopia free from the threats and risks that plague the Western World? Not at all. Due diligence is need to ensure that we protect ourselves against the threats of terrorism as best we can.

But that doesn’t mean we need to live in fear. The moment someone in Moose Jaw sees a person of Arabic descent walking down the street and wonders, even for a passing moment, whether they’re a terrorist, then we’ve already started losing the battle. Yes, we need to do a better job monitoring our ports and borders, but the best weapon the average Canadian can wield is the ability to enjoy our freedom.

Just like a common cold, there is no immunization from terrorism. Sure, you could shut yourself up in a hermetically sealed room and avoid all contact with the outside world – but what kind of life is that? Similarly, do we need to live in a Canada ruled by fear – a police state wherein suspicion, not compassion, is the governing tactic?

As Ben Franklin said, “those who are willing to sacrifice essential freedom for security deserve neither.” Can we really say that our friends south of the border are winning the war against terrorism when there is a constant heightened sense of alert issued by the government? Even after a terrorist attack, the best way to fight back isn’t to restrict our lives (with a Patriot Act for example), but to go back to living our lives the way we were before it ever happened.

Despite Ms. McClellan’s beliefs, Canadians aren’t oblivious to the danger posed to this nation by terrorists. However, we’re not willing to change the way we live our lives and to spend our precious days on this Earth living in fear.

The moment we change the way we live our lives is the moment that the battle has been lost. Canadians don’t believe we’re invulnerable to terrorism, but we’re certainly not going to let fear be the driving force behind our lives.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Half-Million Dollar Hangover

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The fact that Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara has summarily dismissed a recent report on the future of the LCBO isn’t so bad – what has Ontarians in need of a stiff drink right now is that we’re left picking up the $500,000 tab!

I admit, it’s been a while since I’ve bought a case of beer, but the price hasn’t gone up that much, has it?

Instead of drowning their sorrows, Ontarians should be up in arms at the decision to essentially shelve The Beverage Alcohol System Review and ignore its recommendations. I mean, I get frustrated when it rains after I water the garden, thinking that I’ve wasted my time – but it’s not like someone’s paying me $1,000 a day to do it.

If the concept of privatizing the LCBO is too stiff of a drink to swallow straight up, there are a number of sub-sections that are worth the government taking a look at.

The tourism sector was represented with the idea of loosening the regulations to allow Ontario resorts to offer all-inclusive packages. Now, not too many people will be forsaking Cuba for Cambridge, but having the option of offering all-inclusive packages, including booze, would certainly be attractive to our vacation hot spots like the Muskokas and Niagara Falls. The ancillary benefits are high for taxpayers, but the idea is sitting on a shelf somewhere – now aging like a fine wine.

The concerns of small brewers are being ignored. Micro-Breweries have expressed their frustration with the difficulty of competing with the big boys for shelf space on the racks of The Beer Store and the LCBO outlets. Opening up the process would have enabled local retailers to prominently feature local products. Quebec is a prime example in that their microbreweries enjoy equal – if not, at times, preferential – treatment in certain retailers!

But these ideas won’t even be examined. As the report states, the market is changing but we’re using a system that was put in place in the 1920s. Producers, bars, restaurants, and other vendors are surviving in spite of the system – not because of it. To not even entertain other opportunities and possibilities is unconscionable.

Our retail environment is changing. The mom-and-pop grocery stores are, in large part, a thing of the past. Big box stores and mega grocery centres are popping up left and right. As the report states, this marketplace will eventually mature – will the LCBO be left behind?

One of the great misconceptions out there is that the report is advocating a complete deregulation of the system. This isn’t going to be like Quebec, where every dépanneur on every corner has a cooler full of booze ready for the taking. The proposal suggests that a maximum of 10 licenses be issued to the highest bidders who would have the right to market and sell alcohol across the province!

Unless the owner of Jimmy’s Corner Store has a few million burning a hole in his pocket, there’s no way that they’re going to be able to compete with the big boys – and that’s a good thing in this case. It will be the Wal-Marts and the Loblaws of the province that will have the means and the ability to distribute booze in their aisles. And they’ll also be the best equipped to police the situation.

Publicly, no one will admit it, but privately everyone knows that buying alcohol underage in Quebec is as easy as falling – drunkenly – off a log. In fact, at some corner stores it seems the age of majority is a foreign concept. But, Ontario’s proposal would allow the large companies with the wherewithal to monitor sales to benefit from it.

And what do we, as taxpayers get, as benefits? Increased convenience, more competition, a chance at increased revenue, and, potentially, better regionalization. Referring back to Quebec, between the SAQ, grocery, and convenience stores, a nice bottle of wine or a six-pack is only a short hop away – usually with more convenient hours.

But if the provincial government doesn’t want to entertain the concept of a more open marketplace, then that’s their decision. If they choose to shelve the entire project, burn a half-million dollars, ignore any potential solutions, and disrespect the time and effort put in by the study’s authors, then that’s the true travesty.

And that nauseated feeling we all have right now comes from a hangover brought about by lost opportunity.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Federal Liberals May Be Buoyed by Landry’s Resignation

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Navigating through the murky waters of a minority government and weighed down by the anchor that is the Gomery inquiry, Paul Martin has just been thrown a life preserver by the least-likely source possible.

Mr. Prime Minister, next time you’re in your home riding of Ville Emard, make sure you make a side trip to say merci to Mr. Bernard Landry.

The Parti Quebecois’ leader decided this weekend to step down after receiving a less-than-enthusiastic 76.2 per cent support from the party’s delegates during its leadership review. His decision to gracefully step away leaves a void in separatist leadership – a void that would probably best be filled by one man, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The lure of the PQ post may be too much for Duceppe to resist. While politicians for other parties often look to move from provincial politics to the federal ranks, Quebec separatists know the true seat of separatist power doesn’t lie on Parliament Hill – it is firmly entrenched in Quebec City’s National Assembly.

The call of the PQ leadership is enticing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Duceppe could take control of a party that is not in power. Quebec Liberal leader Jean Charest is under no obligation to 2008 and is not exactly enjoying exalted status in the province.

The Parti Quebecois is at its most effective when it doesn’t have to worry about little things like actually running a province. Without the distractions caused by the compromises and sacrifices that a ruling Party needs to make to effectively govern a province, Duceppe could ride his wave of popularity back into the province and spend the next three years promoting the sovereigntist cause without actually having to be accountable for anything. He could use his gift for rhetoric and charisma to chip away at the ruling Liberal government and to build momentum for the separatist movement.

And Quebecers’ collective memories are long. With a federal government in turmoil, a provincial Liberal party that’s struggling to make inroads with the soft separatists, the PQ is poised for a return to power – and Duceppe knows that it may be time to strike while the iron is hot. Who else has the record and the charisma to take the reins? Certainly not Pauline Marois and her $400,000 taxpayer-funded renovated bathrooms (complete with silent toilets). Anyone else is just a pretender to the throne should Duceppe decide to accept his coronation.

After all, how much more can he do on the federal level? He has shown that he is a competent statesman and an effective thorn in the side of the government. He has displayed the poise and grace that his federal counterparts only wish they could — Duceppe’s performances in the two national debates left his three opponents choking in his exhaust. And he’s raised the profile of the Bloc, with the help of some Liberal blundering, to lofty heights. A virtual sweep of the province of Quebec would be almost assured in the next federal election should he remain at the helm.

But therein lies the problem. By leaving the federal forum for the provincial arena, Duceppe would be filling one void only to create another. A fall federal election would likely coincide with a fall PQ leadership convention. Duceppe would have to make the choice, and should he make the politically savvy move to provincial politics, he would leave his federal party struggling to find a leader in its time of need – a scenario that would play right into the Liberals hands.

The Bloc and the PQ are parties that thrive on charisma. Rene Levesque had it, Lucien Bouchard had it, and Duceppe has shown he has it as well. But there’s no one else on the horizon that displays the same je-ne-sais-quoi that the position requires. And the loss of that X-factor on the federal level could make the difference in a handful of ridings – which could make all the difference in a fall federal election.

The ideal situation for separatists is to convince Landry to retake the reigns and guide his party through the coming federal election. With no provincial vote on the horizon, there is no urgency for a change in leadership. Landry could steward the PQ through the federal election, which would allow Duceppe to focus on continuing the momentum the Bloc has enjoyed up to now.

After the election, Landry could announce his resignation and Duceppe could, at that time, ride in on his white horse to spin his magic with the provincial party. But would Landry be able to subjugate his pride for the betterment of his party? That’s a question only he can answer.

If he doesn’t, then Prime Minister Martin should make sure Landry’s added to his special Christmas card list – along with Belinda Stronach – of former adversaries who have helped keep his government afloat.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Putting New Words in the Electorate’s Mouth

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

Pat O’Brien’s decision to jump ship from the Liberal Party hasn’t silenced the voices of his constituency – his actions have his electorate singing a different tune, and some of his electorate may be choking on the words.

When does one’s obligations to their constituents outweigh the need to satisfy one’s personal beliefs? The line is often blurred when we look at the actions of our politicians. Elected on a specific mandate – usually determined, in large part, by their Party affiliation — our elected representatives convene on Parliament Hill to debate our nation’s future.

However, at times the ideals of an elected official outweigh their mandate to represent their electorate. Or the beliefs of the Party run counter to the representative’s personal opinions. It is with that conflict, based upon his disagreement with the Liberal Party leadership over the issue of gay marriage that London Fanshawe MP Pat O’Brien has chosen to leave the Liberal Party of Canada and sit as an independent.

While I disagree with O’Brien’s politics, I commend him for standing up for his beliefs. However he did not do enough. To be fair to the constituents who elected him as a representative of the Liberal government he must not simply continue his term as an independent, but rather resign his seat and request a by-election.

Our electoral system, however flawed we may feel it is at times, is based in large part on Party representation. An unfortunate number of the electorate couldn’t tell you who their Member of Parliament is, but are well aware of the differences between the various political parties. They vote red, blue, orange, or green – not for individual candidates.

As such, federal representatives like O’Brien and, on the flip side, Belinda Stronach, have deceived a large number of people who cast their ballots based on the belief that party-hopping was not on the agenda. Instead of working to affect change from within, these politicians – and others like them in the past – have flipped sides for their own advantage, not for the benefit of their constituents.

Both O’Brien and Stronach have not just ignored the voices of those who have voted for them in the past – they have bastardized their message and converted it to a cause that may be anathema to their voters’ personal beliefs. A Conservative supporter who voted for Stronach, no matter how centre-left she appeared to be, has every expectation that their vote for the Conservative candidate will be just that – and it won’t eventually evolve into support for the opposition!

The voice of the electorate has not just been muted – it’s been completely changed and words have been force-fed into the mouths of the voters. To make sure the right message is heard, it is imperative that the electorate in these particular ridings are allowed to opportunity to participate in a by-election.

That way, those who voted for Mr. O’Brien – the man, would be able to do so again, either as an independent candidate or, more likely, under the guise as the Conservative candidate he’s always appeared to be and seems destined to become. And those who voted for Mr. O’Brien – the Liberal, need to have the right to continue to support their party with their votes, as they believed they had during the last election.

Both Belinda Stronach and Mr. O’Brien need to do the right thing and step down. If they truly represent the will of the people, they will be duly elected by their constituency and can then – in good conscience – govern with the mandate of the people.

Both of these candidates made their respective jumps because they felt the need to stand up for what they believe in. But we did not vote these people in to act as freelance contractors, jumping from side to side depending on which way the political breeze is blowing. O’Brien and Stronach have forgotten that they are elected representatives – and that they represent voters who made their choices based upon now-flawed logic and expectations.

If these candidates are truly so high-minded in their belief of doing the right thing, then surely being fair to their constituents should not be too much to ask?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Time to Give the Queen the Royal Wave

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Victoria Day’s just past, the Queen’s kicking around the Canadian West – things have been feeling positively regal in the Great White North. But once the Windsors leave our fair country, is it not about time to give them the Royal Wave once and for all?

Canadians as a whole are divided right down the middle on the issue of keeping our ties to the Monarchy. It’s a debate that’s certain to ruffle the features of both sides, and there seems to be no common ground from which to build a consensus. But as we continue to search for our Canadian identity, maintaining artificial ties and ceding independence – even if it is only superficial – to another foreign sovereign should be a thing of the past.

We are, as a nation, Canadians. In our ever shrinking world, ties to a faded Empire mean less and less, and our ability to forge our own identity and carve a niche in this world is integral to cementing our relevance on the international stage. Yet, by continuing to hold the hand of an absentee mother, we prevent ourselves from taking the necessary steps to be our own country.

The sad fact is that the Monarchy doesn’t really do anything for us as a country, its relevancy is diminishing, and it is – in one serious manner – having a negative impact on the development and unity of our country.

England holds a special place in the hearts of our grandparents’ generation. And, for some, that tie extends to the baby boomer generation. But for many of today’s youth, pledging allegiance to the Queen rings hollow. And future generations will be even further removed. The Governor General is not respected as the Queen’s representative, but rather lambasted as an unnecessary – and expensive – ceremonial position.

Our place in the Commonwealth isn’t dependent upon our allegiance to the Queen. Nor is our national reputation buoyed by our affiliation with England. In fact, I would say we’ve gotten to the point as a country wherein the majority of the world’s population would not draw a connection between Canada and the Monarchy.

And, most importantly, allegiance to an English Queen can be perceived as an insult to our French Canadian population. And as we try to move forward as a unified nation, forcing a significant segment to recognize the authority of a foreign sovereign smacks of modern-day colonialism, especially for a people who have embraced their own form of nationalism.

We, as a nation, have a history of which we should be greatly proud. Yet even our money features an image of the Queen, as opposed to focusing on those icons that make Canada great. The Monarchy is a part of our history – but it does not define it. In a world where symbols speak volumes, this tacit deference to England prevents us from embracing our own individuality.

So how do we move from a constitutional monarchy to a representative democratic republic? To start, the position of the Governor General, largely ceremonial in itself, could be eliminated and replaced with an elected position that would represent the people of Canada – not the Queen. Obviously, the concern has been raised that eliminating the monarchy simply drives us closer to the U.S., but that’s just not the case. There’s no rule that says we have to have a President – we can choose the term that’s most palatable to the electorate. We’re already well along the way with our Parliament and Senate systems, and the existence of our Supreme Court.

The fact is that we don’t have to follow our neighbours to the south for leadership in this matter. If the U.S. form of a republic is repellent to many Canadians, then we can look to the examples set by a number of other countries, such as France, Germany, and India, for guidance.

Canadians, by and large, suffer from a national inferiority complex. And while this is often attributed to the effects of sharing a continent with the economic and social juggernaut that is the United States, much of our inferiority in fact comes from our artificial reliance on England and our absentee sovereign.

Eliminating the Monarchy is a step we, as Canadians, need to finally stand on our own and forge a strong, independent identity. Cutting our ties to the Queen doesn’t make us more American. In fact, it allows us to become what we’ve always wanted – more Canadian.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved