Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Out of the Playground, Into the Real World

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It certainly has been hard to be a proud Canadian over the past few weeks, hasn’t it? With our political leaders sniping, name-calling, and generally behaving like kids in a schoolyard, maybe it’s appropriate that the Queen has arrived to settle down her wayward children.

With Thursday’s vote, we saw the Liberal minority stave off its own extinction with the help of a high-profile defection and a lower-profile – but, ultimately, just as important – independent vote. Belinda Stronach may have grabbed the headlines earlier in the week, but it was Chuck Cadman who had the biggest spotlight shined on him during the actual vote.

But now, we turn our attention back to the principles – and the minute hand slowly ticks down on Mr. Cadman’s 15 minutes in the spotlight. The problem is, as usually happens in these types of skirmishes, is that few look good coming out of it.

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Coalition now look like nothing more than opportunistic schoolyard bullies. Flexing their muscles, using intimidation, and generally behaving rather badly to get what they want. But, like bullies, when the tide turns – and with Stronach’s defection, the Conservatives lost a lot of muscle – they tucked their tail between their legs and slinked off quietly, without much fuss.

If this is truly a fight against corruption and the belief truly was that the Liberals are evil, then you fight the good fight, no matter what the odds. You continue the rhetoric, you use every available means at your disposal (including enticing some fence-sitting MPs – paging Mr. O’Brien – to jump ship). But now it’s clear that this wasn’t a battle based on political principle, but political gain – an opportunistic grab for power that leaves a bad taste in some mouths.

The NDP’s Jack Layton continues to look like the cat who ate the canary, secure in the knowledge that – as he’s been trying to convince us for a while now – that the NDP are a legitimate power in Parliament. The previous Conservative/Bloc majority left the NDPs somewhat powerless, but now that the numbers are more even, his party has even more opportunity to flex its muscle.

The BQ deftly managed to stay out of the fray – Gilles Duceppe playing puppet master while Steven Harper took all the hits in the public. By remaining aloof, the Bloc gets to claim moral superiority, which it can use in a future election. Ironically, a group that’s allegedly tampered with election results in the past now gets to run on a platform built on accountability.

And where do the Liberals go from here? Well, the Liberals have to shore up their East Coast support, hold on to its power in Ontario (and probably pick up a few extra seats here and there), and work like mad to make some inroads in the West. And they have to forget about Quebec.

Sad to say, it’s done in Quebec for an election or two. The Liberals were granted a slight reprieve when the eminently likeable Paul Martin took power from the despised Jean Chrétien. But any goodwill has been washed away in this sponsorship scandal. Quebec’s stable of soft separatists are always looking for a reason to jump ship, and the findings from the Gomery inquiry are exactly the springboard they have been looking for. Add to that the miserable job Jean Charest has been doing propping up the Provincial Liberal name, and there’s little doubt that the BQ will pick up many, if not all, seats in Quebec.

Martin and his party have survived the flurry of the opening rounds. They’ve taken the Conservatives’ best shots and are still upright – however wobbly their legs may be. Yet the political rope-a-dope strategy needs to move into the next phase. The Liberals have absorbed the punches and, instead of waiting for its opponents to catch their breath, they need to come out swinging.

The Gomery inquiry needs to result in some rolling heads. Martin needs to show the electorate that the sins of the past will not be tolerated now or in the future. He needs to regain the trust of those Canadians who may be inclined to forgive and forget. The Liberals need to make a concerted effort to move forward with an aggressive and generous policy that creates a positive impression on the electorate. The new budget is a great start, but implementing it effectively is the key to long time success.

Like a veteran boxer, The Liberals have been through a number of these ring wars, so smart money says not to count them out. The second round’s just starting.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

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

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

A Lack of Pioneering Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Monday night’s meeting didn’t just see London City Council toss an extra $85,000 onto the pile that is the Fanshawe Pioneer Village – they managed to waste $300,000 by providing a brief stay of execution for the facility.

And hopefully it’ll be the last $300,000 wasted. It will be if Council has the guts to finally cut bait next year.

In a Utopian world, it’d be wonderful to support each and every artistic and historic venture that enriches the Forest City. However, the reality of the situation is that perhaps we’ve come to a time where we need to take a cold, hard look at what we have, and make the tough decisions required to maximize our return on our investment – and to stop chasing after a dream that will never come to fruition.

Now, before I get branded a cold-hearted right-winger who only looks at the bottom line, you should know that I’ve been on the left wing more often than Bobby Hull in his heyday! But what good is funding a service that people have shown, through their apathy, they don’t want.

The only time that the Pioneer Village arouses passion in the community is during the annual “Save the Village” scenarios. Where is this passion during the year? Can you show me where this vocal community that would hate to see such a valuable component of our community disappear has actually been backing up their words with their wallets? Perhaps if their support extended beyond the emotional to the financial, the Fanshawe Pioneer Village wouldn’t be trying to stave off the axe each and every year.

We’re not talking about a site that’s unique in Canada. Heck, I Googled “Pioneer Village” and had to wade through five pages before I even hit on a mention of Fanshawe Pioneer Village – and that was from a Free Press article! There are dozens of villages out there, so we’re not talking about eliminating the last of its kind.

And I propose we don’t totally eliminate it. We simply take a concerted look at what we have in London and try to maximize its impact.

London has more pressing needs than a Pioneer Village that doesn’t get support. It has a downtown that’s grip on survival is tenuous at best. I often walk the streets of Downtown London and see the empty storefronts, or the constantly changing vendors. We have the potential markets created by the John Labatt Centre’s events. We have a Market that needs to better market itself. And we have a rich history that many of our very own citizens know nothing about – much less care.

But, seeing as Easter’s just around the corner, what if we decide to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak. What if we consolidate our efforts and make Downtown London the focal point of the city’s history, culture, and – dare I say it – future?

Tutankhamen’s tomb is no less valuable or interesting to people because it’s been moved from Egypt and has toured the world, so relocating a few artifacts from the outskirts of London to a centralized display isn’t sacrilegious. Why not conscript some of those empty storefronts on Dundas, or rent out some areas of Galleria London and turn Downtown London into a living, breathing celebration of everything that London was, is, and can be?

Why can’t we intersperse our city’s history amongst its present? Co-ordinate efforts between Museum London, the Public Library, and our archeological caretakers and give people a reason to visit downtown. In doing so, people will hopefully be attracted to the Core, will patronize its shops, and draw new investment to an area that sorely needs it.

Obviously the status quo isn’t working, and has not for many years in the case of Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Our city and its heritage is something of which we should be proud. But it’s hard to feel pride, when we don’t know enough about our past.

A co-ordinated, consolidated effort to create a downtown core that’s rich in history, vibrant in its present, and optimistic about its future should be worth more to the City than throwing away money at a model that doesn’t work.

And then the responsibility would fall upon the shoulders that deserve it – those of the people of London. If they don’t support something that’s been tailor-made to meet their needs, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for what we lose

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Matter of Love

3 Replies

By Jason Menard

It’s at times like these when I’m embarrassed to call myself a heterosexual.

Here we are again, debating the validity of gay marriage with our political representatives debating how they will vote. Once again, we are being overwhelmed by a swarm of political rhetoric and religious posturing. And we have our elected representatives deluged with e-mails on the topic.

But somewhere in all of this, common sense and humanity have been thrown out the window.

We live in an allegedly tolerant society. In fact, the framework of Canada has been developed on the basis of a cultural mosaic philosophy – wherein we accept all comers and encourage them to embrace their ethnicity, history, and individuality. This, if anything, is our Canadian identity and is one of the largest things that set us apart from our neighbours to the south and their Melting Pot mentality.

Thus, if we are willing, and in fact encouraged to be tolerant to other races, religions, and creeds, why does the same courtesy not extend to the concept of sexuality?

Truly ask yourself what’s the worst thing that can come about from gay marriage? Where does the tear in our country’s moral fabric come from when you allow two people of any gender to express their love and devotion to each other before their friends, family – and should they choose – their God of choice?

And should a gay couple decide to embrace a child into their lives, I say more power to them! More than a male and female role model, children truly need to grow up in an environment of loving and caring. We’ve seen enough “ideal” heterosexual couples screw up their kids through neglect, violence, and anger to prove that simply being “straight” is not the best criterion for parenthood.

We have a responsibility as a progressive-thinking society to allow everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, and sexuality to enjoy the same benefits. Anything less is discrimination. It wasn’t so long ago that our neighbours south of the border had laws on the books banning interracial marriages for many of the same reasons that gay marriages have become an issue.

Dominion over marriage laws does not fall under any religion’s umbrella. The concept of marriage predates Christianity and, in our society, for a marriage to be legal it must be registered with the appropriate government department. Until otherwise those offices are supposed to be secular in nature.

So, that being considered, where is the secular reason for opposing homosexual marriages? And if two people of any gender want to enter into a legal arrangement to share their life to them, then I say more power to them. What makes us human is the ability to love.

If we choose to deny others the right to express that love – and by extension their very humanity — what does that say about us?

Simply being heterosexual does not provide a person with a position of moral superiority. In fact, history has proven to us that none of us entitled to stand as a moral judge of others based on race, sexuality, gender, religion, or political leaning.

As well, using the disapproval of another’s lifestyle is certainly a treacherous footing from which to stand on. There are no hard and fast moral rules to which we all, within this great Canadian cultural mosaic, ascribe. As such, one person’s delight is another’s disgust – and it can work both ways.

I have several gay friends and family members and I grew up in an environment of tolerance. As a parent, one of the things I’m most proud of is that my children are growing up in that same sort of environment where sexuality, race, and religious affiliation hold no weight on the value of the person. We stress that it’s the person’s character that’s important.

But what message are my wife and I sending to our son when we tell him not to tell others that some of the people that he cares most deeply about are gay? How do we explain that some of our friends aren’t “out” to the greater community because there are people that would look at them and react to them differently? What do I say to him when he comes home and tells us about how the kids at school are using derogatory terms to describe gay people or picking on kids who they accuse of being homosexual?

How do I tell him that we still live in a society where many remain closeted out of fear and in reaction to others’ ignorance? How do I tell him that being gay is not wrong when our country’s leaders are still debating whether homosexuals are allowed to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals?

Gay unions won’t diminish the concept of marriage. But this continued discrimination of homosexuals certainly shakes our concept of humanity to its core.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if people are in favour of supporting basic human rights, they should let their MP know. My own MP has stated that he will be voting with his conscience – but what our elected officials know is that they were not elected to represent their own wills, but rather the wills of their constituents. And if our country is truly so divided, then the decision should not rest with only our elected MPs – we need to have a national plebiscite to truly hear the voice of the people.

That way, we can truly hear from all Canadians – not just those who shout the loudest.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved