Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

A Political Lesson – What’s in a Name?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

What’s in a name? And does carrying one of the iconic surnames of Canadian politics hold any sway in today’s day and age? Justin Trudeau is hankering to find out, but chances are any victory he’ll enjoy in an upcoming federal election will be more due to geography than genealogy.

Love him or hate him – and there are few Canadians who are indifferent – it would be hard to vote against Pierre Yves Elliot Trudeau as the most dynamic politician ever produced in the Great White North. Prime Minister from 1968 to 1979 and again from 1980 until 1984, Trudeau guided this country through both its most defining and divisive period – ushering in the Constitution and dealing with the ramifications of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution and the October Crisis.

To this day, the name Trudeau inspires reverence in some and utter disgust in others. And it is into a wide and powerful wake that his son Justin has officially thrown himself, in announcing his intention to run as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election.

To his credit, the younger Trudeau has taken his time coming to this announcement. To many, the public’s seeds of interest were planted during Prime Minister Trudeau’s state funeral in 2000, wherein Justin delivered a compelling speech that prompted many to see that the elder’s gift for oratory had passed to his offspring. At that time, speculation began that Justin was planning a foray into politics – something he continually brushed aside as a concept that was before its time.

Seven years later, the time is now. The writing was on the wall even during the Liberal leadership convention where Justin was a dominant presence in the failed bid of Gerard Kennedy, and eventually joined Kennedy in throwing his support behind the eventual victor Stéphane Dion.

And now, Canadian politics again has the name Trudeau as part of its vocabulary. The question is, does that matter?

In certain levels of politics, name recognition carries an enormous amount of weight. Municipal politics, for sure, is one forum where a familiar name can sway those voters who haven’t taken an active interest in the issues or candidates. But federally the equation changes. At the federal level there’s a delicate balance between voting for the candidate and the party. In fact, we’ve seen recent examples of parties that have specifically counseled for strategic voting in order to keep a less-than-savoury party out of power.

So does the Trudeau name matter? In the end, no. But what it does do is put an enormous amount of pressure on Pierre’s eldest. It can be argued that Justin enters the political fray as an outsider with limited political experience, in addition to being the ultimate insider, privy to a familiarity that can only be bred by being born into the arena.

Because of that, there is a heightened requirement for the younger Trudeau to show that there’s more to him than a pretty face and iconic name. He will have to work harder than most to ensure that his policies are firm, the research behind them is solid, and his ability to clearly and directly express his points is at its peak.

To start, Trudeau has to win back a long-assumed riding for his party. After speculation that he would be parachuted into the safer confines of Outremont, a Liberal – and federalist – stronghold, Justin will now run in the Papineau riding of Montreal. In fact, he’s literally taking baby steps in his progression — according to the Government of Canada Website, it’s the smallest riding in all of Canada at only nine square kilometers in size.

However, it’s a riding that after years of Liberal rule fell into Bloc hands during the last election. Since 1957 the riding has been officially Liberal – and prior to that it was held by an Independent Liberal Adrien Munier (who later joined the official ranks). Only in 1949 did a candidate with Conservative leanings win the riding – Montreal mayor Camillien Houde. In the 2006 election, Bloc candidate Vivian Barbot wrested power for Liberal incumbent Pierre Pettigrew by less than 1,000 votes.

So with almost 50 years of Liberal ties – and a continued preference for left-leaning parties, it’s not as if Trudeau has been thrown into the lion’s den. It’s the perfect, safe, choice for the Liberal party to find out what’s in a name.

A teacher by trade, Justin now has time to learn the job on his own. Because as familiar as his name may be, when it comes to federal politics one’s birth certificate can only get you so far. And if he doesn’t believe it, he can turn to another former Montreal MP with political family ties for confirmation – Paul Martin.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Flip, Flop – If Only we Could Make ‘em Fly

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

We’ve been burned before, but somehow this transgression burns a little hotter and seems even more egregious than those in the past. With Independent, né Conservative, now Liberal MP Garth Turner jumping ship, any semblance of credibility and responsibility is lost amongst this nation of party hoppers.

Why is this particular floor crossing so bad? Because Turner was one of the most outspoken of all when it came to condemning party hoppers. Of course, in retrospect, this change of heart should come as no surprise – after all, even the staunchest critics learn to walk in step once the shoe is firmly on the other foot.

Over the years, I’ve been a firm advocate of the idea that elected representatives should have to run in a by-election in their riding once they’ve changed parties. After all, party affiliation is a significant factor in the decision-making process for a number of voters. And many average voters appear to agree with me – a fact I discovered when I decided to stop watching and start taking action.

An on-line petition that I started when Liberal MP David Emerson succumbed to the lure of a Conservative Cabinet petition drew roughly 1,000 signatures from across this country, and a significant amount of media attention. In most of my conversations, people felt that they had been deceived. In addition, this was the second such petition I championed. The first one I penned when my MP, Pat O’Brien, decided to leave the Liberal Party for independent status.

In both cases, I was against the idea of a voter’s voice being made to sing a different song than what first was intended. But while voter indignation remains, MP support seems to be blown aside whenever the winds of opportunity comes. During my attempt to make Mr. O’Brien do the right thing through letters and a petition, one of my staunchest supporters was Conservative MP Joe Preston.

This was the same Joe Preston who co-sponsored a private member’s bill by Helena Guergis which would have attempted to curtail activities like – at the time – Belinda Stronach’s defection. But oh what a difference a year makes. I e-mailed, repeatedly, Mr. Preston when the Prime Minister raided David Emerson. And guess what kind of response I got.

And now we come to Mr. Turner – a man who has staked his political reputation on integrity. A man who was expelled from the Conservative Party due to his unwillingness to toe the party line has now danced all over the concept of integrity.

How do you think the Conservatives in Mr. Turner’s riding — who probably weren’t too pleased with his independent status – feel about their votes being cast for someone wearing Liberal red? Is that their best representation?

The simple solution is to have a by-election. Allow the representatives in the riding to voice their opinion. If they feel that Turner is their best representative, then affording the constituents the opportunity to express their true feelings would validate his position. And if they choose to vote in another manner, then at least the riding will have the representation it chooses.

This shouldn’t be a matter of legislation. There shouldn’t be a law enacted to demand that any candidate who changes party must call a by-election. That’s why I choose not to start another petition – it’s time for politicians to choose to do the right thing instead of being forced to do so through legislation. It should be a matter of integrity and honesty.

Unfortunately, that’s something that seems to be in short supply. And actions like this – party hopping for opportunistic reasons, whether it’s for personal gain or to increase one’s status in parliament – simply undermines the integrity of all the MPs in Parliament. In addition, for a voting public that already has shown remarkable apathy towards the electoral process, actions like this that completely undermine the act of voting only serve to further disenfranchise the average citizen.

Simply put, if someone’s willing to jump parties for their principles, then they should also be willing to stand behind them. And when it comes to this issue, the only way to stand is to run – by calling a by-election and allowing the voters to have their say.

O’Brien, Stronach, Emerson, and now Turner. Who’s next? How many times must the parliament floor be crossed before one’s vote is rendered meaningless. When a Liberal vote can turn Conservative blue – and vice versa – on a candidate’s whim, what’s the point of casting a ballot?

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

What’s in a Nation?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff brought this particular Pandora’s Box to the party, it seems that the Bloc Quebecois is ready to pry that sucker open and unleash its contents on the country – for better or for worse.

The Bloc has submitted a motion to the House of Commons, to be debated on Thursday and voted upon early next week that reads: “Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation.” Simply put, the debate will be open as to whether the people of Quebec represent a nation.

… And with the children of Canada all tucked snugly in their beds, visions of Meech Lake and Charlottetown will dance through their heads!

But could this work? Could the age-old issue of Quebec separatism really be solved by a House proclamation that Quebec should be recognized as a nation? Will millions of Quebecois suddenly be comforted by being able to say “Canada is my country, but Quebec is my nation”? And if this motion doesn’t pass, does this mean that we’re headed down the path of another linguistic crisis?

Surprisingly, this latest round of the “My Canada includes Quebec” debate has largely slipped by unnoticed by the masses. And this has happened because the debate has been restricted greatly to the confines of the Liberal leadership debate. Ignatieff’s use of vocabulary to solve this challenge has been met with opposition – not with the concept, as such, but rather with the timing and the designation — by his fellow candidates, including noted federalist Stéphane Dion and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae. However, at last month’s meeting, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party did, in fact, adopted a resolution to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada and to call for the establishment of a body to determine how to best make this a reality.

The funny thing is that although this is truly a federal issue, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been able to tread lightly around the issue, not even dipping a toe into the water.

Well, it’s everyone in the pool now – and the Bloc have pushed Harper in with both hands. And once again the question is… what is the question? Perhaps we need Dion to draw up another Clarity Act because this idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation, while it does have merit, leaves too many Questions unanswered.

As shown by the lessons learned by Meech Lake, before it fell victim to the public relations nightmare of the use of the Notwithstanding Clause to defend Bill 178, the Canadian public is willing to acknowledge Quebec’s unique status within the country. However, it’s safe to say that special should not mean superior.

So what does the word nation mean in this context? And where do we stop? If Quebecers are a nation, are not the Cree of Quebec also considered a nation? In fact, we already have the First Nations, so where do we stop? Can it not be argued that Acadians are a distinct society within Canada and therefore deserve nation status? What about French-Canadians living outside of Quebec? Do those living in Ontario and Manitoba become part of the nation of Quebec, or are they simply living in exile? Heck, if Quebec becomes a nation, can those living in the Anglo bastion of Westmount not rise up and claim nation status for themselves?

During the last referendum the idea of partitioning came to the fore, the argument being that if Quebec was able to separate from Canada, then segments of Quebec should have the same right to leave Quebec – and any argument from Quebec against that would invalidate the initial separation argument.

The problem with this resolution is that it’s only a word. And the great thing about this resolution is – it’s only a word. You see, words are extremely powerful things. A word can be a source of pride and inspiration for an entire people! Look at the word Quebecois – it alone is a symbol of strength and fidelity for a significant portion of our population. While simply adding an extra meaning to a word that already exists in the Canadian lexicon may not be enough to satisfy the most ardent separatist, its recognition of the distinct society that Quebec is may be enough to bring those fires to a dull ember.

However, if we start bestowing nation status on a number of groups – and it’s hard to create an argument for one group of people without allowing those same rules to applied to another – then the value and power of that word becomes diluted. And, proportionately, the impact of the word is rendered negligible. In the end, recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada is a no-brainer and it should be done. It’s what happens next that matters most. But should this symbolic recognition should open up the topic of constitutional reform – ay, there’s the rub. Those who are so happy to toss the word nation may become strangely reticent when it comes to putting those words to paper and entrenching nationhood rights and protections into the very framework of our country.

In the end, like the song states, they’re only words and words are all I have to steal your heart away. In this case, the right word can also represent our country’s soul.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Blind Justice Doesn’t Mean Lack of Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Justice is blind. While the positive image behind this statement implies that all are equal in the eyes of the criminal justice system, the negative connotation is that our justice system also suffers from a horrendous lack of vision.

Yes, justice may be blind, but that doesn’t mean that the community as a whole will merely follow in blind allegiance to its principles – especially when dangerous criminals are increasingly benefiting from questionable calls by those in our justice system.

When Christopher Broad, an admitted sex offender, steps of the bus and essentially warns the community that they should be afraid for their children, the community has a right to be concerned. That fear is augmented by the fact that a Superior Court judge expressed certainty that this man would be before the courts again – moments before he sentenced him to time served and released him into the public.

And just recently, a man charged with multiple shootings in the downtown core gets released on bail – then promptly disappears. It’s enough to make one lose faith in the criminal justice system. And that’s one path we don’t want to find ourselves taking.

Obviously I’m not so naïve to believe that this 32-year-old sex offender — who pled guilty on Tuesday to forcibly confining a nine-year-old boy and possessing child pornography – is the only predator currently taking refuge in our fair city. And there’s something to be said for knowing who to watch out for. But none of us in this community relishes the idea of someone with this predilection coming to town, especially when he’s admitted that there is a potential that he can fall prey to his own demons.

The judge in Timmins who let him go expressed the belief that he’ll leave “a wake of tattered and shattered lives,” on his way back into the justice system. Parents throughout this community have to wonder why our children are being put at risk. Why does one more child have to have their innocence taken from them before the justice system does it job.

And what happens if someone makes the misguided decision that they will cure the disease that the justice system has inflicted on our community? Would any of us be surprised that this could happen? Should we?

Our system of justice and order is predicated on the belief that our police and legal system will catch the bad guys so that the good guys can live their lives in peace. We can safely go about our lives, not armed to the teeth, because we feel confident that there are those watching out for our best interests. But what happens when the community feels its protectors are abdicating their jobs? What happens when red tape threatens to cut off the Thin Blue Line from the community it’s dedicated to protecting?

Anger and fear are a toxic combination. And unfortunately hysteria can run rampant amongst the masses. Actions normally frowned upon can suddenly become much more appealing when the justifications hit closer to home.

I have two children and I don’t know how I’d react if they were abused by someone. I’d like to think that I would be content to let the justice system run its course. But I’m not sure I’m that good of a man. Just the thought brings my blood to a boil and sends hatred coursing through my veins. And if my child’s abductor was given a light sentence in return for the life sentence that they’ve inflicted on my son or daughter, the temptation would be strong to exact a measure of revenge. I like to believe that I’d stand behind the integrity of the justice system and support it to the ends – but I don’t know how I would react if that faith was put to the test. Do any of us?

Is it right? No. Is it primal? Yes. Is it reality? Unfortunately.

We’re not that far removed from the days of vigilante mobs. We’ve seen in this generation how fear and anger can make groups of people do strange things. The only thing that separates us from that type of mass hysteria and the evils that it can bring is the fact that we have a set of rules and laws that ensure we live in a civilized society.

The police do an admirable job with the resources at hand. We, as a public, can feel their frustration when criminals of this nature fall out of the system into their laps. And there’s also the need to understand that these criminals need to have the opportunity to get the help they need – to rehabilitate and reform in the hopes of becoming a functioning part of the community. But to do that, we have to trust that our lawmakers and justice system will do right by us. We need to know that our interests are being protected – otherwise it won’t be long until a misguided few will take matters into their own hands to protect their families.

Justice can remain blind, but it needs to have the vision to see what can happen when those who are supposed to be protected by its laws suddenly feel abandoned by them.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Headless Liberals Could Return Sooner Than Expected

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If Canadians are willing to throw their support behind a rudderless ship, can you imagine what will happen when the Liberals finally choose a leader to guide it into the next election?

Listen, we all know what dogs do to polls, but the latest one from Sun Media-SES Research is interesting that the top-driven, Stephen Harper-led Conservative Party now finds itself in a neck-and-neck struggle with the headless, directionless, confused Liberal Party of Canada in the hearts and minds of the voters. With a slim 34 per cent to 32 per cent advantage (which is wiped out thanks to statistical variation), the Conservatives may find that their stay at the helm of Canada may be brief.

The thing the Conservatives have going against them is that they represent only a small minority of Canadians. Most Canucks are socially left-wing, fiscally conservative, and looking for a party that’s willing to take progressive action on soft causes, like social growth and the environment. They also want a party that’s going to balance the books and ensure that the coffers are filled for the future.

Frustratingly enough for Elizabeth May, the Green Party seems to embody most of those ideals – it’s just too few Canadians are willing to seriously consider handing her party the keys to the country. Green policy may be solid in theory, but practically several Canadians hear Green and think Rhino. That’s not a good combination.

But when you look at the national support for Liberal (centre-left), NDP (left), Green (centre-left), and Bloc (get beyond the whole separation thing and you’ll find a big, squishy, socially conscious core), and it’s easy to see that the majority of Canadians don’t consider themselves small c conservative.

While Stephen Harper was able to benefit from Liberal disenchantment and a split left-of-centre vote, it appears this brief taste of Conservative governance has sent a few Canadians running back to the comfort of their social safety net – the left-wing parties.

When people think of Canadians, they think of tolerance, social consciousness, and environmental concern. And these are hardly the hallmarks of the Tories. Rightly or wrongly, many Canadians view the Conservatives as being nothing more than the Republican Party-lite. They see a party willing to cut literacy programs and spend more on military.

So just when everyone was writing off the Liberals as dead in the water for the foreseeable future, here comes the opportunity they’ve been looking for. And that makes the upcoming leadership convention, to be held in Montreal between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2, even more important to the future of the party – and this country as a whole.

Essentially, the delegates flocking to Montreal have an opportunity to elect the Prime Minister in Waiting. Canadians from coast to coast are looking for a party that reflects their values – but they want one that they can believe in. There’s a reason why the Liberal Party of Canada had a stranglehold on Canadian politics for years – and that’s because they represented a palatable compromise for voters from Newfoundland to B.C.

They were the party that would show compassion where it was needed, but still make decisions with the bottom line in mind. When that trust was breached with the sponsorship scandal and various other Liberal missteps, Canadians were left without a place to go.

Hence the minority Conservative government. For some reason in this country we’re not willing to hand the reins over to someone other than the Tories or the Grits. Many-a-time the comment of “well, I like the NDP, but I don’t think they can actually run the country,” has been uttered.

So with Canadians unwilling to embrace the NDP and Green in anything more than a secondary or advocacy capacity, it falls to the Liberals to be the standard bearer for the majority of Canadians. But will the voters agree that the Grits have suffered enough for their transgressions? Will they believe that an adequate lesson has been learned since the last election?

The new leader, whomever it may be, must take the opportunity to position the party as the Liberal party of old. One would think that would favour the Michael Ignatieffs or the Bob Raes who are coming in as relative outsiders, but regardless of who is chosen, they will have to commit to a new dawn of Liberal politics.

Getting back to the basics: fiscal responsibility and a social conscience. It’s a winning recipe for the Liberal Party of Canada and the political environment is ripe for a return to power. After all, when Canadians are willing to cast their ballots for a rudderless ship, imagine what would happen if that vessel was captained by someone with a clear vision and an appreciation of the best that the past has to offer.

Majority rules may come sooner than we all think!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved