Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

A Missed Opportunity for Political Reform

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

That’s it?

All this cloak-and-dagger intrigue? Everything he said about revelations from the back rooms that were going to be brought forth? All he had to say about how so many would not be happy with him on Parliament Hill?

And that’s it?

Former Conservative MP Garth Turner played the media like a rented fiddle and came out with the whopping announcement that he was tearing up his Conservative Party card and sitting as an independent!

OK. So he’s essentially said, you can’t fire me because I quit to Stephen Harper. And then he rattled on about sitting as an independent, how much more he’s been able to do as an independent, and a bunch of other statements, all of which were pleasant and all, but certainly nothing substantive.

The mysterious letters? Nothing more than the inner machinations of a jilted party deciding to turf one of their rowdier members. Sure, the fact that this means that they’re ignoring the will of a significant number of voters in Turner’s riding is noteworthy, but it’s not the first time it’s been done, now, has it?

No, in the end Turner missed out on a grand opportunity. He had a chance, and the forum, to call for real, substantive changes. He had a chance to rally a disenfranchised voting public around him and call for true reform to the Canadian political system. He had a chance to start the ball rolling for a future where MPs actually represent the best interests of their constituents.

And he dropped the ball.

He watered down his remarks, insisting that this was a cross-party issue. He stopped far short of calling out his own party, preferring to lob gentle accusations, the nature of which the public has known for months now.

On the bright side, Turner did announce the launching of a new Web site,www.promiseskept.ca, which at the time of this writing featured an image that looked like it was ripped from an inspirational poster – you know, the ones that say Determination or Focus – along with teaser text hearkening a new dawn for a public voice and political accountability in Canada.

But to what end? What should have been done? And if Turner’s serious about returning representation to the role of Member of Parliament, how should that be mandated?

The solutions aren’t simple and require a dramatic change in the way we look at politics in this country. Party politics are counter-productive and only serve to get parties elected. The system doesn’t actually work for representing the needs of individual groups or regions. You can vote in an MP, but if the will and intent of the riding contravenes that of the Party of which your elected representative is a member then Party trumps voters.

In fact, there’s even a role in politics that encourages this type of counterintuitive representation – the Whip. That’s the little weasel (or muscle, but I prefer to be derogatory when discussing this scourge on the political scene) who keeps the party members “in line.” It is the Whip’s role to let the party peons know what the big boys and girls – oh, sorry… I should have stuck to boys in this Old Boys’ Club… It’s up to the Whip to keep all the party members abreast of the voting preferences of the party leadership and ensure that all the members abide by that directive. And the directive of the voters, who may not agree? Not important to the Whip.

So what’s the solution? Abolishing party politics isn’t the answer. First off, the financial incentives for keeping this style around are too great, and secondly there are times when there is an advantage of having a group of similarly inclined politicians working together on common causes. So the key is to give MPs more freedom – the freedom to vote according to the will of the majority of their constituents.

Please note that I did not say they can vote on their personal beliefs, but rather any decision must be a fair representation of the constituency that the candidate represents. A plebiscite or poll on every question would be far too cumbersome, but there has to be a way for MPs to gauge the will of the people they’re supposed to represent.

The problem with this is that our system still encourages – in fact, is based upon – the notion that plurality of voters are all that’s needed to earn representation. No majority rule here, just more than the other guys. And that results, frequently, in a situation where the constituency is represented by someone for whom a majority of the constituents did not vote. How is that representative? And in that case how can any MP go to Ottawa thinking they represent the will of a constituency?

Is it not time to look at a form of proportional representation, wherein multiple representatives are sent from a region, reflective of how many votes were earned. At its simplest, a region could be large enough for 10 representatives, but instead of a winner-takes-all approach, seats would be allocated by votes. If Party A gets 60 per cent of the votes, they send six representatives. Party B earned 30 per cent and Party C got 10 per cent? Then you end up with 10 seats allocated as follows: six As, three Bs, and one C.

Every vote then truly counts. And every voice is represented. Logistically, it would take a lot of time – including re-drawing electoral maps so that our Parliament isn’t suddenly inundated with 10 times as many MPs. But it could be done.

As Turner said today, the current system – specifically party politics — doesn’t work. But what he didn’t do was go far enough. It’s time for a change in the way we’re represented in this country. And we need to ensure that every vote counts.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Eschewing Courtesy May Be “Right” Move

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

An empty seat waiting for the music to stop on the Liberal leadership’s game of musical chairs, a party leader without a seat looking to make history, a former mayor returning to the fray after six years south of the border, and a former city councilor and radio host with a history of community work. Why, it looks like the sleepy Forest City has received quite a wake-up call with Stephen Harper’s snap by-election call.

And because of the make-up of the contenders vying for this federal seat, his bold move may end up working out perfectly as his polarizing, right-wing candidate could benefit from a split vote on the left.

When former Liberal MP Joe Fontana stepped down from his London North-Centre riding to take a stab at the mayor’s office, there was much talk about which Liberal leadership contender would be parachuted in to legitimize their position within the House of Commons.

Who’d have thought that since that first hint of a parachuting candidate into the region, the skies would soon be filled with strategically chosen MP-wannabes airlifted in for a shot at what’s traditionally been a non-descript riding.

The riding, traditionally a Liberal stronghold, now faces a Nov. 27 th election without a Liberal candidate. And while the Grits are crying foul about how the Prime Minister didn’t respect good ol’ Canadian common courtesy, they still find themselves behind the eight ball when it comes to time. Suggestions have been made that if either Bob Rae or Gerard Kennedy win the Liberal leadership, they’d suddenly find a home in London North-Centre. However, those best laid plans have been skewered by Harper’s decision. So in the end, the Liberals are left scrambling for a warm body to step in as the immediate favourite for this riding that bleeds red.

What makes what is traditionally a dull by-election process intriguing are the contenders to the throne. The intrigue was started with the sudden announcement that former London mayor Dianne Haskett was coming back to The Forest City after a six year exile. Haskett’s sudden return from Washington, combined with Harper’s snap announcement, have sent the conspiracy theorists a-twitter with the idea that this scenario was created through back-room planning and cunning – and it’s probably not too far from the truth.

Adding to the excitement is the announcement that Elizabeth May, the new leader of the Green Party, will run in the riding in an attempt to enable her suddenly surging party to earn its first seat – and to give the federal leader a legitimate voice in Ottawa. With the most recent Decima poll indicating that the Green Party enjoys 10 per cent support of decided voters, May’s political star power may create some interest in a left-leaning community.

Finally, former city councilor Megan Walker has made her intentions known that she’s seeking the NDP nomination. While not as big name-wise as the aforementioned duo, Walker’s been a fixture in the community, working in radio and supporting a number of community organizations, specifically those supporting women’s issues.

And while it’s easy to write this riding off as a Liberal win, there are so many intriguing sub-plots to this election that no one can accurately predict right now where this is going to go. Through name recognition out the window – all the candidates (even the unnamed Liberal) have it. So other factors will play an even greater role in the final decision.

Haskett was a polarizing figure in London politics, which was no better evidenced by her choice to not issue a Gay Pride day proclamation, because of her personal belief – a decision led her to face the wrath of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In addition, Haskett also famously withdrew from campaigning for the last three weeks of the 1997 mayoral election – and still won. Love her or hate her, Londoners all have an opinion.

What works for Haskett is that she’s the only right winger in the region. And with a potential of three left-leaning candidates to split the vote, maybe Harper’s snap election call will turn out to be politically savvy.

After all, the Liberals are a rudderless ship for the time being, the Green Party is too green, and the NDP are the traditional bridesmaid – people seem to be willing to support their ideals, but not willing to hand them the reins of power. So what happens should none of Haskett’s opponents emerge as a candidate for left-leaners to rally around? The vote gets split, and the Conservatives can come up the middle to retake the riding that’s been Liberal since 1988.

Sure, the other parties may claim it’s not courteous, but I’m sure Harper will take victory over courtesy any day of the week!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Turner Fiasco Shows Tories Fuzzy on Accountability

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Good for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Nothing says openness and accountability in government better than censure!

Garth Turner, the Member of Parliament representing Halton, Ontario has been suspended from the Conservative caucus. The reason? Being too uppity and not toeing the party line. Funny, I thought the Tories ran their last campaign on bringing accountability back to politics. I guess that accountability doesn’t extend to an MP’s responsibility to their constituents.

His transgressions? Turner voiced displeasure with his party’s apparent about-face on party hopping when it because convenient for them in the form of David Emerson, seemingly swallowing the outrage that overwhelmed them when Belinda Stronach’s defection compelled Conservative MPs Helena Guergis and Joe Preston to bring forth legislation to prevent this sort of then-nefarious activity.

Turner also voiced opposition to the party’s fiscal and environmental policies. And, perish the thought, Turner regularly kept his constituents abreast of the inner workings of the political scene via his blog.

What it all boils down to is that Turner has been suspended for one simple reason – representing the will and interest of his constituents, and not making party politics a priority even if it swims against the tide of his electorate.

I suppose Mr. Harper can be excused for thinking that the voters of the Halton region were choosing a party, not a representative. But what we do through the very act of casting our ballot – whether municipally, provincially, or federally – is voting for someone who can go and represent our interests. Not the interest of the party necessarily, although those will sometime march in time, but more importantly the interests of the region.

So by suspending Turner for using the voice that his constituency gave him, he’s essentially silenced an entire group of voters. More despicably, he’s shown that he doesn’t value their opinions.

A representative is supposed to represent. Not just the few who drink the party Kool-Aid, but the entire constituency – even those who didn’t vote for him or her. They are commissioned, through the electoral process, to work diligently to ensure that our voices are heard loud and clear, and that everything is done to ensure that the needs and desires of our communities are heard on the national stage.

Of course, by forcing Turner to exit Stage Left, the residents of Halton no longer even have a voice in the chorus – they’re forced to watch this production from afar.

How exactly is that accountability? How is that more responsible government? In essence, we need more Garth Turners in Ottawa – and at all levels of government! We need more people who are willing to speak out for the interests of those who voted them into power, even if it means at times not toeing the party line.

And by suspending him from the Conservative caucus, Harper effectively has told Conservative voters in the region that they were wrong during the last election. These are people who voted for Turner, partly because of his Conservative affiliation – and now their voices, which they lend to Turner, will be forced to sing a different tune, whether that’s Green or Liberal, it’s not the same song that they originally requested to hear. And there better not be a peep out of one single Conservative if Turner jumps to another party – they’ve lost that right with Mr. Emerson. Of course, Turner himself may demand a by-election so that the constituents in Halton have an opportunity to have their true voices heard – not one that’s been distorted by the political machine.

Turner was duly elected as a representative first and foremost. Ideally, constituents are voting for the person they feel best represents them, regardless of party affiliation. Usually, a particular party will attract a particular candidate who appeals to the morals, values, and intents of those predisposed to vote a certain way. However, there are no absolutes. No matter what political party you support, chances are you’re hard-pressed to find any one candidate or party that perfectly embodies all your beliefs. There’s give and take.

Unfortunately, by getting the gift of accountability and responsible representation from the candidate for whom they’ve voted, the people of Halton have had their voice in Parliament taken away from them. For a party that preaches accountability, how do you account for that?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Toews Bats .500 on Crime

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While Justice Minister Vic Toews swung for the fences in tabling tough new three-strikes legislation, the fact of the matter is that he only batted .500 – making solid contact on getting tough with crime, but whiffing badly when it comes to effective prevention of future crimes.

Similar to “three strikes” legislation present south of the border, Toews new proposal would mandate indefinite prison sentences for violent and sexual offenders after their third occurrence. In addition, it would be the burden of the offender to convince a judge as to why they are no longer a dangerous offender as a condition of their release.

Whether it’s political posturing or not Toews’ motion is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it’s too much a step in the Right direction, with not enough consideration for the traditionally Left leanings. This three-strikes legislation focuses too much on punishment and not enough on prevention.

Simply put, you’d have to rape three people, or commit violent acts on three separate occasions to qualify for this strict punishment – and that’s three times too long. And nowhere are criminals compelled to deal with their tendencies while in prison. Instead, they’re able to sit in prison, fermenting their anger and rage, and learning new and interesting ways to commit new crimes from their prison cohabitants.

Where’s the prevention? Where are the measures to help people learn to integrate into society? And where’s the acknowledgement that we have to treat the disease, not just put long-term bandages on the symptoms.

Toews’ measure is a reflection of an increasingly agitated Canadian community that’s fed up with perceived leniency in the punishment of our society’s criminals. He’s preaching to a converted choir of disgruntled voters who are experiencing growing concern for the safety of their city streets. And while harsher sentencing may be an effective knee-jerk reaction, it’s one that’s going to end as effective as a kick in the teeth.

It’s not enough to put criminals away and forget about them. They must be dealt with and they must deal with the ramifications of their actions. First, longer prison sentences shouldn’t be where it stops. There should be life-long after-release monitoring for violent and sexual criminals. Just like we tried to do with Karla Homolka after the fact, we should in the future make regular police checks, inspections, and monitoring a part of all future sentences for violent and sexual criminals. If entering into a life-long relationship with your local police station doesn’t get some people to reconsider a life of crime, I don’t know what will.

Secondly, while in prison, violent and sexual criminals must attend and participate in psychological counselling and other programs designed to reintegrate them into the mainstream society. Unfortunately, our prison system is better at removing than rehabilitating and once one is released from jail, they often find themselves on a circuitous route back to their cell because they can’t cope with the pressures and temptations that await them outside the prison walls. Unfortunately, as most programs of this nature are currently voluntary, they don’t need to attend and won’t get the help that may assist them in their transition.

So take away the choice. Weekly mandatory therapy sessions for the duration of one’s prison sentence should be the norm. That way we can ensure that whatever issues have driven these people off the path that most of us take, at least we can do our utmost to steer them back on track.

Any complaints? Too bad. Criminal lose the right to be protected by our society and our laws due to the very fact that they’ve shown an inability to play by our rules. You can’t contravene the expected norms of our society and then expect that same society to protect you. Hey, you can’t play by our rules, don’t be upset when we change the game.

Finally, why do we have to wait for three strikes? Why do more people have to be victimized before we act? Why not make an effort before someone gets to this point, so that other innocent members of our society don’t have to have their lives shattered. Let’s work to root out the cause of this type of violent activity and put in place measures to counter it. Whether that’s support lines, safe houses or centres for those about to commit an act of violence, or programs to help people deal with their emotions in a productive and socially acceptable manner, we have to invest in the security of our society.

Yes, the measures will cost more in the short-term, but the long-term benefits for our society are priceless. Locking them up and throwing away the key won’t work – finding the key to unlock their inner demons and helping them deal with it might.

In baseball parlance, three strikes means you’re out – but wouldn’t it be better if everyone in our society was playing on the same team?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tory Cuts: You Win Some, You Lose Some

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While it pains the left-leaner in me, I have to say I’m half-heartedly pleased with the cuts announced by the Conservative government on Monday. Now, it’s only half-heartedly due to the fact that for every good measure taken, there was another that shouldn’t have been done.

But that’s the way it is with politics – you win some, you lose many more.

First the good. The decision to end the visitor rebate program that saw tourists able to walk into the country, spend to their hearts’ content, and receive a GST rebate on all purchase is the right one. Tourism is an integral part of our economy, and an additional seven – oops, six going one day to five per cent isn’t going to dissuade people from visiting The Great White North.

At least not in the way that the never-ending passport issue will. Can we get that fixed?

And the fact that the $78.8 million in expected savings – part of a larger, two year, $2 billion dollar cut – will go towards reducing the national debt is good. However, it might have been nice to see some of that funding go towards promoting tourism to our various regions as part of an overall strategy that could have offset expected criticism from retailers and tourist bureaus who undoubtedly will – wrongly – assume that this rebate will mean less tourism. Hey, maybe that $78.8 could got towards making passports easy, affordable, and accessible to all Canadians – just a thought.

A $46.8 million dollar savings just from a pre-announced cabinet reduction? Also good. After all, few would doubt that government is bloated. But this is just the start. The government needs to undertake a serious review of the duplication of effort and redundancies in all levels of government. It’s not enough to simply lop off the top – we must maximize the return on our investment, which means eliminating much of the bureaucracy in our bureaucracy.

Imagine, a well-run, efficient, accessible government? Why, that’s worth an investment right in itself.

Now the bad. Administrative reductions to the Status of Women, and end to medical marijuana science funding, and cuts to museums assistance all reek of the same conservative short-sightedness that many Canadians feared when Harper took the helm.

Listen, I’m fully supportive of the idea that museums must find creative ways to maximize their funding. And, yes, I’m an advocate that if people don’t support the arts, they can’t expect the government to bail them out totally. However, we have to understand the social and emotional impact that supporting the arts has on our communities at large. We can’t live in a world that’s only guided by the bottom line. Quantifying the value that the arts offer our country is almost impossible – but qualifying it in terms of how they enrich our lives is undeniably easy. Unfortunately it seems the Conservatives have simply fallen back on the old standby of cutting from the social fabric of our society. And it’s for that reason that the Status of Women get their cut. Using the euphemism of administrative reductions, what that simply means is less money, less jobs, and – in the end – less effectiveness. And unlike the aforementioned reductions in government, there doesn’t appear to be much fat to slice away from here.

In the same way that social funding cuts are par for the conservative course, so too does the elimination of medical marijuana science funding seem like nothing more than scratching a long-irritating itch for our boys (and girls) in blue. While medical marijuana has shown promise in alleviating the symptoms for those with Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain either from various disorders or as a result of other diseases, that progress means little. Much like Republican opposition to stem cell research south of the border, this decision sounds more like a policy of principal than of science.

Finally, the ominously worded “efficiencies” in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., accounting for $45 million. Sounds like those “efficiencies” are going to result in a lot of pink slips in the near future.

Other cuts were mentioned, but these were the big five. A mixed bag of sorts, which has been carefully crafted to avoid any sort of vehement dissention that could upset the delicate apple cart of this government. For everything left-leaners could complain about, there was something that they could support.

Slow and steady wins the race, and the Conservatives are slowly integrating their beliefs into the Canadian landscape, without raising any red flags. You may not like the players, but you have to admire their game.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved