Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

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

Graffiti Ban Targets Symptom, Not Disease

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Verily, I say to thee that London truly is a safer place today! Yes, a committee has put forth a recommendation before our esteemed council to wrest from the hands of our city’s youth the very implement they wield to pierce into our city’s soul.

A marker.

Oh, but not just any marker. A marker specifically targeted by these hooligans to deface our fair streets and mark their territory. In celebration I felt like running to where my four-year-old daughter was colouring, seizing her Crayola’s, and waving them in front of her, shouting “Verily, thine fiendish future ways have been thwarted, daughter of mine.”

Yes, we have eradicated the opportunity for these youths to purchase their weapon of choice! And, although they’re smart enough to do intricate work in public places without getting caught by the police, we can only hope that they’re not smart enough to hop in a car and drive to a neighbouring community that’s more writing implement friendly.

Honestly, does this seem a little short-sighted to anyone else? Do we honestly think that preventing under-18s from buying markers will stop the tagging and other acts of graffiti that pop up in our city? Do we honestly believe that only under-18s are the ones perpetrating this activity?

And are we so stuck in this white-bread mentality that we can’t see the beauty of the work that some graffiti artists produce?

Of course, it may all come for naught. In true Keystone Kapers fashion, the council neglected that discriminating based upon age may not be the most legally sound foundation for a by-law. But beyond that, this is a clear case of sweeping the issue under the carpet by dealing with the symptom not the disease.

As with most youth activities, including the very gang affiliation that some councilors attribute, graffiti and tagging are simply a crime of opportunity – or, more specifically, lack of opportunities. Many kids get involved in tagging for the simple fact that they’re bored. Yes peer pressure can be a factor, but in large part these are kids who have fallen through the cracks.

Listen, I’m not advocating a bleeding-heart approach where these kids are considered the victims, not the victimizers. But what I know is that an approach that’s designed to restrict access to the tools of the trade is only going to embolden these perpetrators to be more outrageous and outlandish in displaying their craft. After all, we know what happens when you tell a teenager not to do something – you’ve suddenly made the act far more appealing than ever before. Instead of reducing the number of tags on public property, a ban may in fact increase the frequency and prevalence of this type of graffiti.

The first step in the process has to be education. Start the kids young in elementary school by instilling a sense of what’s right and wrong. There are anti-graffiti colouring books and other materials that other communities have used, and we should be on the bandwagon. Secondly, we need to continue to hammer home this message throughout their schooling. As kids enter high schools, we need to show them the economic effects of tagging and – more specifically – how it affects their wallet. If we can draw the correlation between increased clean-up costs that get rolled back into increased product and service prices, not to mention taxes, maybe that will help.

We also have to have stricter punishments in place for those that are caught. A hefty fine or stint in jail may serve as an effective deterrent for some of the more thrill-seeking members of this community.

As well, these youth need to be engaged in finding the solution. Obviously the programs and services that are already in place aren’t meeting their needs, so why not involve them in the process of defining and implementing social programs that work? If we accept that graffiti can be a crime of boredom, where is the harm in engaging these youth in developing solutions that are stimulating and effective? The top-down approach, despite all its good intentions, is obviously not working.

And the final piece is that there needs to be recognition that not all graffiti is bad. By setting up graffiti walls in various parks and areas of the city, we can encourage these artists to showcase their wares in a public and accepted forum. Some graffiti art is an expression of social conscience and that’s something we should be encouraging more of in our community’s youth.

In the end, London may soon be the first city to ban the sale of these implements to minors, but that’s certainly not a distinction of which I’m going to be proud. I’d much live in a city that’s know for putting a premium on the participation of its youth in more constructive activities than for residing in one that simply banishes them to the corner.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Political Strength is Home Grown

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Is it any shock that Belinda Stronach has decided not to run for the federal Liberal leadership? After all, to do so at this juncture would have been committing political suicide.

Regardless of Ms. Stronach’s qualifications – and one would think having been in a management role in the multi-billion dollar Magna International would lend itself well to the managing of a country – she’s been caught up in the groundswell of anger over David Emerson’s defection to the Conservative party for a cabinet seat.

The fact of the matter is that the only difference between Stronach and Emerson’s respective party flopping is in the degree of brazenness that both parties displayed. Stronach, at least, put in a solid tenure with the Conservatives and was known as a Red Tory before she made the jump. Emerson’s defection reeked of opportunism. And while Stronach’s decision was validated in the recent federal election by her constituency, it’s hard to even suggest that Emerson’s electorate would afford him the same vote of confidence.

But, overall, the two politicians made similar moves, which not only have been met with disapproval within their own ranks, but they’ve served to cast doubt on the candidates’ very integrity and loyalty. Essentially, they’re not home-grown candidates and for that reason Stronach would be a liability in a leadership role – despite her qualifications.

And it’s for that same reason that Bob Rae should be pulling his hat tighter around his head instead of considering throwing it into the ring. Rae will always be NDP. His legacy will be that of a promising Ontario leadership bid that quickly descended into the land of mockery.

One of the things that Canadians look for in their leaders is fidelity. We want to believe that our leaders have bled the party colours, that their ideals and beliefs are ingrained – not buffeted and shaped by the winds of popular opinion. That’s why Stephen Harper can come across as a credible Conservative, while Jean Charest continues to see his True Grit tainted by Tory Blue.

It’s somewhat ironic that we want our politicians to be flexible, understanding of the differing opinions of the Canadian populace, and willing to change with the times – yet we vilify those who switch parties simply because we look at them as traitors to the cause.

That’s what sets apart the Pat O’Briens of the country from the Emersons, the Stronachs, and – potentially – the Raes: the decision to switch affiliation based upon strongly held personal beliefs as opposed to simply peddling their fidelity for a Cabinet position or a shot at a premium job.

Rae will never been convincing as a Liberal – not when he spent so many years in the NDP camp taking shots at the opposition. In essence, are we to believe that the Liberal Party has undergone such a philosophical shift to the point where Rae has not had to compromise his ideals? Or, more likely, will we believe that this is just another indication that everyone has his or her own price – and for our politicians influence outweighs integrity.

That’s why Stronach can’t run – at least not for the next couple of elections. Until she’s been accepted as a long-standing Liberal and not just a recent convert, she’ll be tainted with the stain of opportunism. A few years of being the good soldier and adhering to the Grit cause should make that year in the Conservative camp just a distant memory.

And that’s why the current Liberals need to either find someone from within, such as Gerald Kennedy, or someone with no prior political affiliation, like Michael Ignatieff, to lead their ranks into the next federal battle. In a country where our confidence in the political system has been shaken, voters need to feel that their potential leaders are committed to the cause and faithful to their party.

After all, we need to know that our leaders will work with our own best interests — not their own personal goals – at heart.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Stars Aligned for Martin to Pull a Trudeau

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Is it fair to say that Paul Martin got Kim Campbelled? And since we’re looking at former Prime Ministers, with a minority government always a sketchy and short-lived proposition, will he be able to pull a Pierre Trudeau and rise to power for one last legacy-making tour of duty?

As the Liberal leadership race slowly trudges along, time is running short for a suitable candidate to step to the fore. Big names like Frank McKenna and John Manley dropped out early in the process; others have question marks attached to their names – such as Michael Ignatieff, Belinda Stronach, and former Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae; and others, like Joe Fontana, David McGuinty, and Ken Dryden may choose to play the long-shot role in a wide-open race.

But time is not on the Liberals’ side. And if Stephen Harper attempts to be too aggressive with his budget and force a non-confidence vote, Canadians could find themselves heading back to the polls for the third time in two years. And, for Martin, the third time may prove to be the charm.

After 10 years of waiting – with a couple in exile – and a stellar reputation as a tough, but fiscally prescient, finance minister, Martin swam up to the head seat in the wake of Jean Chrétien’s departure from the PMO. Of course, as we found out, the waves created by the Chrétien government ended up drowning Martin and served as the anchor that dragged him and his party down.

Like Kim Campbell, who’s known less for being the first female Prime Minister, and more for being the final nail in the Progressive Conservative party’s coffin, Martin will be remembered for the brevity of his political reign. His entire Prime Ministerial legacy will be defined by his predecessor’s actions and how they stained his tenure.

That is, unless he gets another chance. If an election is called sooner than later, the Liberal Party might have to look to its past to resurrect its future. And it’s not unprecedented, even within the party’s own history.

Back in 1979, with a sliding economy, a public rapidly tiring of his perceived attitude, and increasing debt, Pierre Trudeau was forced to call an election in 1979. After suffering a defeat to Joe Clark, Trudeau announced his retirement, only to return to power after a vote of no confidence brought down the Tory minority. Trudeau’s return to majority prominence offered him the opportunity to polish his reputation, forge a new Constitution ratified by nine of the 10 provinces, and go into history as one of the country’s most dynamic leaders – love him or hate him. After a self-proclaimed long walk in the snow, Trudeau retired, on his own terms, in 1984.

Martin, on the other hand, spent the majority of his time fighting off the Mr. Dithers label that was placed on him by The Economist. However, a more apt title would have been The Fireman, as the beleaguered Prime Minister spent his 27 months putting out the myriad of blazes left behind by his predecessor: AdScam and the Gomery Report, Income Trust, and – of course – the perceived culture of entitlement that 13 years of unchallenged leadership had created within the Grit rank-and-file.

Now, the opportunity is there for Paul Martin to return to the ranks of the Liberal leadership, brandishing a humbled sword and commitment to honesty in the battle against a rapidly beleaguered Conservative Party with no natural ally in a fractured House of Commons. While the Liberals of the last Parliament could find some affiliation with the NDP and left-leaning views of the Bloc, the Conservatives are on their own island. Their skills in consensus-building will be put to the test if they are able to withstand the early assaults that will greet their minority status.

Of course, the other parties will also have to gauge the public’s appetite for yet another expensive election campaign. They’ll have to determine whether a less-than-ideal budget is more appealing than being blamed for causing even more political fatigue within the electorate. And, depending on how aggressively Prime Minister Harper plays his cards, they may have to ante up earlier in the game than they would like.

If that’s the case, look for Martin to be called back to the table, because no one else has shown that they’re ready to go all-in. They say that politics is a game and, for the foreseeable future, the Canadian version is looking more and more like a high-stakes came of poker.

And maybe, like Trudeau before him, Martin will get the chance to reshape his legacy into one that’s more appealing to him.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

National Patriotism Only at Half-Mast

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s fitting that Canadians, frequently referred to as quiet, shy, and unassuming, would let the anniversary of the birth of our flag with nary but a whisper. But the time has come to raise the Maple Leaf and celebrate our heritage.

And, hell, an extra statutory holiday in February wouldn’t be bad either, would it?

At the stroke of midnight on Feb. 15 th our flag flew for the first time. And while the design and the process created quite the ruckus 41 years ago, for many of us – my generation included – the Maple Leaf has always been a source of pride and distinction that helps to set us apart from the rest of the world.

The reveal of this flag, with its heraldic description reading gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first, did more than just sever the visual bonds to our colonial forebears, it – almost as much as Confederation itself – announced to the world that Canada was its own country.

And while people may have mocked its design over 40 years ago, one would be hard-pressed to find a Canadian today who doesn’t look in appreciation at the flag that represents us all. It is instantly identifiable amongst the world’s emblems and carries with it generations of goodwill around the world.

Yet our national day of recognition for this fine flag comes and goes with a majority of people paying scant – if any – attention to its significance. We have made Canada Day our de facto celebration of the flag, yet its mid-February official celebration passes in relative obscurity.

As a rule, Canadians bear their pride in their hearts, they don’t wear it on their sleeve like our neighbours to the south. We have an intrinsic appreciation of what it means to be Canadian and a pride in the quality of life we have and our general appreciation for those around us. However, we don’t often feel the need to shout from the rooftops and proclaim our love for our great nation. We either don’t possess, or choose not to show, the fervent passion that defines not just our American neighbours, but citizens of countries around the world.

Perhaps it’s Canada’s Commonwealth Heritage that impedes our expression of pride. We retain a bit of the stiff-upper-lip mentality that is so stereotypical of the British and their colonies. Compare that with the rampant passion for the Fleur de Lys in Quebec. Is it the Gallic blood that boils hotter? Is there a reason why I’ve experienced more excitement and dynamism at a Fete Nationale parade (formerly known as St-Jean-Baptiste Day) than I ever have at any Canada Day celebration?

That shouldn’t be. We should cast off the shackles of our reservations and proclaim our pride for our country for all to see. Yes, we can still be frustrated with our government. Yes, we can continue to find things to improve within the country. Yes, we can ascribe to the philosophy that good enough just isn’t! But what we need to do is be appreciative not only for what we have, but for who we are.

Without sounding like a beer commercial, Canada truly is a great place to live. We have a great respect for life and for each other – despite our differences in politics, religion, and lifestyle. We have a respect for personal freedom combined with the need to ensure the best interests of society as a whole. We display a level of compassion and a capacity for understanding that’s world-class.

So why not celebrate all that we have? Why not raise the flag and let it fly high for all to see. Why not take pride in this visual representation of who we are.

The world looks at Canada’s flag and appreciates its unique nature – why can’t we do the same for ourselves. Why is it so hard to be a proud Canadian when we have so much to be proud of?

Maybe, just maybe, if we dedicate a day to recognizing how special our flag is, we’ll start to understand how special we all are.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Forcing Voters to Sing a Different Tune

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

Apparently l’affaire Emerson shows that the real game in politics is the ol’ bait and switch – and we still don’t seem to care.

The Conservatives were the ones who worked themselves into an almost apoplectic lather back in the day – you know, when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. So how will they react now that the shoe is on a much more familiar foot? How will the public react?

More importantly, why do we let our elected representatives get away with this? Why do we have such a low expectation towards honesty?

As a public, we question the integrity of newspapers if they accidentally misquote someone, or misrepresent the person’s intentions in text. Yet, when an elected representative misrepresents him or herself throughout an entire campaign, we sit back, grumble a bit, but don’t really do anything about it.

How do you think David Emerson’s constituents feel? Cheated? Lied to? Played for fools? How do you think they feel now that the voices they lent to him are now forced to sing a different tune.

When we cast a ballot during an election, we are not giving our elected representatives carte blanche to do what they want. We are consciously giving them the right to represent us as constituents based upon the will and desire of the electorate – not personal preferences. Emerson’s actions essentially took all those Liberal votes – many of which were probably cast in opposition to the Conservatives, not just because of a coin flip – and turned them into Conservatives.

This action is no different than either the aforementioned Stronach or former London-Fanshawe Member of Parliament Pat O’Brien. All three assumed the voters of their region voted for them personally, not for the party. And that’s an assumption that’s plain wrong.

In large part, many of the voters of Canada vote by party or by leader. They are not sufficiently aware of the individual nuances of the candidate’s platform or personality. And, while this doesn’t excuse voter disinterest, it does place an added burden on the successful candidate to understand that a significant reason behind their election is the federal party platform and leader.

So what’s the solution? Simple. If they’re not going to do it on their own, we need to force our candidates to be accountable to their electorate. Understanding that philosophies change, life changes, and opinions change, candidates should be allowed to cross to another side, or run as an independent. But – and this is a big but – the voters should have the right to cast their ballot based upon these new factors.

The candidates were voted into Parliament with the voices of the electorate – and they must to ensure that those voices are heard when any change of affiliation is made. The best way to do that? Mandate the calling of a by-election within one month of a candidate’s decision to change party affiliation. That way, if they truly have the will of the people behind them, then their new stance will be granted the added validity of an expressed vote of confidence. And if their actions runs counter to the will and desire of the constituency, then they should be forced to be accountable to their new situation.

We have election campaigns so that voters can inform themselves about the issues and stances of each party. But when a candidate then changes their stance, it invalidates that previous vote because the candidate has run on false pretences.

This isn’t about Right or Left – this is about doing the right thing. This is certainly not a partisan issue and it’s essential that action must be taken to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

Of course, if we let this slide by again, we deserve the government we get. If you want to make a difference, please sign my on-line petition athttp://www.petitiononline.com/Canvote/petition.html and make your voice heard.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved