Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Regulating Common Sense

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Again, another holiday weekend passes with thousands of highway traffic infractions, scores of drunk driving charges, and a few – a few too many – fatalities. And so it’s more evident than ever that if humanity isn’t enough, then technology must step in to fill the breach.

If we can’t regulate ourselves, then we need to have regulators. End point.

The technology exists, but it’s more politics than practicality that prevents automakers from installing drunk driving and speed regulators. And without the political pressure to do so, why would they incur any extra expense?

So how many more people have to die for us to get the point?

Every car should have an inhibitor that would prevent the starting of a vehicle when someone who is above the legal limit of alcohol is at the wheel. Currently those against the issue claim that having to blow into a testing device is too cumbersome and is punishing the innocent. To which I question what’s more inconvenient: having the comfort of knowing that everyone else on the road isn’t driving three sheets to the wind, or allowing the status quo and watching more and more people become irrecovably injured or killed?

Inconvenience me! Please.

In fact, where’s the argument? Unless you drive drunk, then you shouldn’t have a problem with this action? This isn’t a matter of Big Brother watching over you – it’s a matter of common sense. Unfortunately we’ve proven that common sense isn’t all that common.

As for speed, we have limits on the highway – and we have those who are willing to exceed those limits at all times. I admit, I’m one of them. In the city, I do my best to abide by the posted speed limits. But on our frequent trips down the 401 to Montreal and back, I can’t say I don’t cruise at a steady 120 or 130 kph, depending on the flow of traffic.

Of course, I’m also convinced that if I drove at 100 kph, the posted speed limit, I’d be posing more of a hazard than through my belief in keeping pace with the other vehicles around me.

So, raise the speed limit – and not just to 110 like Manitoba is proposing – but to 120 or 130. Our cars are faster, more responsive, and more effective than those that were in existence when the Trans-Canada highway was built. So let’s acknowledge that, raise the speed limit, and regulate vehicles so that they can’t exceed that speed.

Sure, that doesn’t affect the speeders in cities and on secondary highways, but it does reduce the need for police presence on the highways. It doesn’t eliminate it, mind you, as there are those who will continue to drive erratically – which is just as great of a danger – and those who will mechanically circumvent the regulator. But, for the rest of us, we’re good to go.

Naysayers point to the prohibitive cost of installing these tools, but that’s an argument rooted in fallacy and selective accounting. Yes, currently drunk driving regulators cost $1,000 US. But the simple economics of supply and mass production would mandate that if these regulators came standard with every North American produced car, then the cost would be minimized. Secondly, there are new and exciting technologies that would reduce the inconvenience factor as new tests will be able to detect the presence of alcohol through skin.

As well, insurance companies could get on board and would be able to reduce rates, knowing that there will be a precipitous drop in selective claims. Thus, any expenditure for a regulator could be made up – even within a year or two of vehicle ownership – through rebates and promotions from the insurance industry.

Finally, we would be able to deploy our already-stretched-thin police force in a more effective manner. Instead of wasting one of our finest on a day shift of pointing a radar gun at passing motorists, they could be better served tracking down people that are committing serious crimes! They could increase their presence in the cities instead of holding fort on a bleak stretch of paved shoulder on the highways of our nation.

Unfortunately, common sense isn’t all that common. And if humanity can’t take care of itself through organic means, then humanity has to protect itself through the magic of technology. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that would allow us to drive drunk. There is no human freedom that affords you the right to get behind the wheel after tying one on.

Arguments to the contrary? How about Transport Canada’s 2003 numbers that say that 902 lives were lost in accidents where a driver had been drinking. That’s 902 extremely compelling arguments – and those are just the fatalities. How many more people have been injured by drunk driving and excessive speeds?

How many more have to die before we realize that we have the technology to make a difference. We just need the political wherewithal to do something about it.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Respectfully, I Withhold my Support

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In light of the recent flap regarding the Department of National Defense’s demand to bring down a “Support Our Troops” billboard, one thing has been taken for granted – that all Canadians are on board with the idea of support.

I, for one, respectfully withhold mine. In the end, I respect our troops and their efforts – but I can’t support their war. And by lending my support to our troops, I’m tacitly endorsing their efforts – as anathema as they may be to me.

I suggest that we, like the DND when faced with media pressure on this issue, do an about-face and change the mantra to “Respect Our Troops.” At the very least, that’s what they deserve. Support, respect – it may seem like nothing more than semantics, but like Elvis sang, “words are all I have to steal your heart away.”

Am I less patriotic due to the fact that I won’t utter the words support? Does that make me admire our soldiers any less for the rigors they face on a daily basis? No. But that’s not a display of support – that’s me showing my respect for their activities.

Unfortunately, any sort of commentary against the sentiment of “Support our Troops” will bring vociferous opposition and brandings of anti-Canadian. That’s far from the reality. True patriotism doesn’t mean blindly following the will and expression of our leaders. True patriotism comes from questioning every action that our nation takes and making sure we’re the best country we can be.

Why is military exempt from this criticism? Environmentalists go into each and every action with the best intentions, but their efforts and practices are subject to intense scrutiny. Disagreeing with David Suzuki doesn’t make you a closet industrialist willing to rape and pillage the earth for your own misbegotten advancement. So why are any words uttered against our military presence in other countries likened to treason?

We can respect our soldiers and appreciate their efforts to — quoting an overused sentiment – fight for our freedoms. But does that appreciation write a blank cheque for any and all military actions? I’m afraid not.

Canadians can be proud of their military and peacekeeping history. And, for some, our role in Afghanistan is a signal that our international presence still has some meaning. But, for others, our role in a foreign dispute is questionable. The Afghanistan situation is ripe for scrutiny, in light of the history of conflict in the region. When Soviet tanks rumbled through the streets of Kandahar, where were the North American forces? Tiptoeing a line and supporting the Taliban behind the scenes.

So, although many of the arguments that justify our current involvement in Afghanistan were there then – such as the oppression of the people, we didn’t make any move until it was politically appropriate to do so (and we wouldn’t run the risk of escalating Cold War sensitivities). For that reason alone, our involvement is questionable.

Simply put, a just war is just at any time – not just when the political environment is right.

Can each and every Canadian look deep inside their hearts and know, without any shadow of doubt, that our involvement in Afghanistan is the right thing? Can we really believe that war – and lets be real, this is peace-making, not peace-keeping – is the best answer to the region’s problems? If there’s a shadow of a doubt anywhere in your mind, how can you lend your wholehearted support to the effort?

And if you shout from the rooftops to support our troops, is that not what you’re doing. The argument that we’re supporting our soldiers, not necessarily the war doesn’t hold water. “Our soldiers” are involved in a war. Their actions are defining the combat as it takes place – one can’t be removed from the other.

That’s why I’ll respectfully withhold my support from our soldiers. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their efforts and admire them for their determination and their willingness to lay down their lives for the cause. I just hope they believe more in the cause for which they’re willing to make the ultimate sacrifice than I do.

Respect Our Troops. Now that’s a sentiment that I could get behind 100 per cent.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Looking for Skeletons in Harper’s Closet

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Could this be it? Could this be the moment we’ve all been waiting for? Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that a free vote on same-sex unions will be held in the fall. But by opening that particular closet, will this be the time that a few right-wing skeletons come tumbling out?

Remember, this ain’t your father’s Conservative Party. The Conservative Party of Canada, as helmed by Mr. Harper, is the (some would say unholy) union of the Progressive Conservative and Alliance Party – the old Reform. And let’s just say the past has been peppered with some interesting comments.

For example:

  • Garry Breitkreutz, MP for Yorkton-Melville was quoted in a press release saying, “ In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence, now it’s a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.”
  • Art Hanger, MP for Calgary Northeast uttered these bon mots, “Homosexuality, to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the last decade of effective propaganda by the gay lobby, is unnatural. It is a repudiation of nature. … Homosexuality is nihilistic. It protects nothing, it defends nothing, it continues nothing, and it sustains nothing.” Now, admittedly, that was back in 1995 – so maybe a decade has tempered his views. You think?
  • And how about Mr. Stockwell Day, who followed the natural train of thought when discussing why the protection from discrimination from religion, ethnic origin, and gender should not extend to same-sex couples… “What about the next step? Those who lobby for sex with children?”

Yes, is there any wonder why Mr. Harper’s running the government like an Orwellian Ministry of Truth? Now, to be fair, these quotes – and others like them – are compiled on the official Web site of Egale, a national organization which aims to advance equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-identified people and their families across Canada. But we these quotes out there, Harper, when considering his own political future, must be thinking, ‘With friends like these who need enemies?’

And that’s the problem with this debate. The Conservatives know it too, which is why some members of Harper’s own party have come out recently with concerns about not letting sleeping dogs lie – even if they choose to lie together despite having the same genitalia.

You’ve got to have the feeling that the more right-wing members of Harper’s Caucus (is that too homoerotic for them?) have been patiently sitting on their hands, allowing the Prime Minister to go his way knowing that their position as a minority government is precarious at best. But will the bait be too tempting for them not to slip up? Harper, like a frantic plate spinner, has been taking on all the responsibilities himself to ensure that nothing leaks from the back benches. He’s running ragged, desperately trying to ensure that not one plate falls, shattering the silence, by assuming the brunt of the public responsibility himself.

This will be the test. There are many out in Canada believing that old habits truly do die hard. And they’ve been waiting for any sign of the sheep’s clothing to slide off these presumed wolves. The gay marriage debate may just be the issue that does it.

One has to wonder if Harper even has an interest in fighting this battle, knowing that he’s probably going to lose. The NDP and Bloc are certain to vote against rescinding the existing legislation that permits same-sex marriage. And the majority of Liberals will probably do the same. But in an attempt to showcase his good points – the willingness to live up to his promises, he’s running the risk of showering his party with negativity.

In provinces such as Ontario and Quebec, where the Conservatives are desperately trying to show their compassionate Conservatism can mesh with the left-leaning tendencies of these provinces and their major, vote-rich, urban areas, Harper can’t come across as a discriminatory Redneck.

In the end, even if he loses, he can come out better than when he went in. If Harper’s willing to engage in a respectful debate, avoid name calling or downright offensive behaviour, and keep the chatter from the back benches to a dull whisper, he can come out of this debate as a better facilitator. Harper can stand up and say that he’s a willing representative of the will of the people, and that he was able to keep his promises.

But that’s only if those skeletons stay in the closet. And right now, the door’s wide open.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Idea for Perfume Ban Stinks

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Does the nose know best? Or have we lost all sense when it comes to scents. The proposal by a citizen’s group in our nation’s capital just shows that common sense is just not all that common anymore.

Ottawa city councilors will be debating the merits of a proposed action designed to minimize the use of perfumes and other scents in public places. This action is well-intentioned as it’s an attempt to diminish the discomfort for those with breathing challenges and allergies.

But you know what they say about how the road to hell is paved… Although at least Ottawa’s off-ramp will be sweet smelling.

Odiferous or odious? Well, that’s really a matter of personal choice now, isn’t it? And can you truly legislate against personal preferences? Is that a road that we really want to go down? Already certain businesses and health care institutions have implemented low-odour or no-odour policies due to health concerns, but should this really be in writing, punishable by a fine? Will people be sent to jail for fragrances?

Will we come to the day in Canada when Passion, Contradiction, Escape, and Truth will be crimes? The Calvin Klein versions, of course.

Personally, the idea of any government body spending more than a nanosecond debating this is frightening as it means we’re almost at the point where we’ve totally relinquished control over our own actions. We’re on the verge of abdicating the right to think for ourselves in an attempt to ensure that no one’s rights are trampled upon.

Like a number of you, I’m not a fan of that wall of scent that greets you as you walk into certain department stores. You hold your breath as you rush through the flowery – yet still fetid – air, eyes watering at the intrusion of the aromatic waves. In this case, these floral notes are all wrong – yet I’ve made a choice to enter that store, knowing full well what I’m going to be walking into. But if we’re willing to get tough on the purchasers, should not the vendors be subject to the same scrutiny?

And what about other issues? What about offensive body odour? If we’re willing to investigate legislation regarding sweet-smelling perfume, should we not also look into what can be done about people with personal hygiene issues?

Just as noxious as the over-sprayed is the under-washed. How many times have you been in a grocery or department store, minding your own business, when – as Vincent Price so eloquently put — the funk of 40,000 years wallops you in the face and sends you reeling? Male or female, fetid body odour knows no bounds. Yet where is the proposed legislation over that? Are allergies any more important than retching?

Maybe instead of spending time and money on potential legislation and/or information campaigns, we should be hoping that common sense and common courtesy will prevails.

If you work in an environment where someone has taken liberties with the spritzer, then you have the right to request a toning down of the scent. Similarly, if you work with other people – especially those with compromised respiratory issues, asthma, or allergies – then you have an obligation, as a human, to not be offensive.

That’s it, that’s all. Simple as that. No need to enact new laws, no need to criminalize people for wanting to smell better. All it takes is a little common courtesy and willingness to work in a group dynamic. Yet we seem to be incapable of taking this simple action. We’re so focused on ourselves that we refuse – or are unwilling – to take others’ needs into consideration.

The fact that this situation is being discussed in Ottawa isn’t the problem. The real joke is that it needs to be discussed at all. People say you can’t legislate common sense, but what does it say about us when our governments at least have to try.

Despite all the perfume in the air, something still smells foul – perhaps its our lack of respect for each other.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Less May Not Be More

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

With the budget announcement looming and the income tax filing deadline just in the past, it’s an interesting time to consider what Canadians want from their government.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty states that Canadians are facing an “excessive” tax burden. And, while that may be true, do we really want it to change? What are our alternatives? Is less taxation the answer?

Or are our elected representatives simply not asking the right question?

For many Canadians the issue is not simply one of too much tax, but rather the fact that our taxes are not being properly used. The much-debated one per cent cut of the GST is a simple sound-bite ready move to offer immediate sating our immediate ravenous appetite without tackling the larger issue of our hunger.

The GST, which due to the fact that it’s a consumption tax and therefore is actually one of our fairest taxes, is despised not for its existence, but for the fact that it was never applied as specified. Initially levied in order to cut down the country’s crushing debt, the GST has become just another cash cow from which our federal government can milk Canadians’ wallets.

However, if the funds were applied as prescribed, our deficit eliminated, and the debt paid down, would Canadians object? Would a minority that wields an inordinate amount of power in our first-past-the-post system of elections be swayed in an election to offer a negligible cut in a valuable tax?

Probably not. But we’re not being asked that questions now, are we?

The addition of $100 per month for child-care expenses? Great for those of us with stay-at-home spouses, not so good for those who truly need daycare. When in Quebec, we were able to take advantage of the then-$5-a-day system. Coming to Ontario and facing $30-ish costs per day, that $100 would simply provide us with a week’s worth of care.

Am I going to look a gift $100 in the mouth? No. But would I rather that my money go back into the creation of an effective system? You’re damn right!

And that’s the key. Canadians don’t want less taxes, they just want to make sure that we’re getting the most value for our buck. We don’t want duplication of effort, multiple levels of bureaucracy eating up funds and delaying processes between federal and provincial governments. Nor do we want to throw money after proven ineffective business models.

We, as Canadians, are proud to have access to universal health care and are willing to pay a premium through taxations to do so. We, as Canadians, in large part value our social programs and see the benefit in providing support for various segments of our society that may need it. We see the value of education, we see the value of environmentalism, and we see the need for a social conscience.

But what we also see is the fact that a significant number of those tax dollars are being misspent. We see hospital emergency rooms closing as school classes bulge due to lack of funding, yet more and more money is being siphoned from our wallets.

So, as Flaherty prepares to wow us with a budget that promises a reduction in our taxes, do we have any faith that the government is suddenly going to become astute money managers and be able to do more with less? No.

Canadians may be one of the most taxed nations in the world, but we’re fine with that as long as we get what we pay for. The question shouldn’t be one of whether we’d like to pay less taxes, but rather one of would we rather our government does a better job with the taxes it gets now?

And that’s an answer I’m sure we’re all in agreement on.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved