Tag Archives: campaign

Swinging for the Fences on a Decentralized Canada

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Generally, in an election campaign, you win by promising to do more. However, Conservative leader Stephen Harper may have finally connected by, of all things, promising to do less as Prime Minister of Canada.

Of course, instead of hitting a home run, his blast went just to the outside of the foul pole – but at least he was swinging for the fences. The idea of provincial autonomy is good. The idea of Quebec representing itself in international organizations, like UNESCO, is not.

Decentralized government has been the buzz word in federal-provincial relations for the past few years. The idea of provinces having more autonomy on spending and resource management is a great deal for certain areas. Alberta, for example, would have no trouble with the idea of federal hands being removed from their pocketbooks.

And on a national unity level, increased provincial autonomy over matters of state would go a long way towards quelling separatist movement in the province of Quebec. That’s the whole basis behind the much-ballyhooed distinct society clause – recognizing Quebec and its predominantly French population as unique and worth preserving.

But how much is too much? Individual provinces representing themselves at International organizations, trade functions, and the like only serves to marginalize the country as a whole and reduce our ability to bargain from any position of leverage. Would the have and have not provinces sit around the same table, undercutting each other for the right to new contracts, simply because they only have their own interests at heart?

There still needs to be a strong federal presence in the global marketplace. The power of one clear voice outweighs that of 10 separate voices all clamouring to be heard over one another.

So if not on the global stage, where should the provinces earn the right to do more? Where it counts most – in their own backyards. Once upon a time, the federal government allocated lump sums of money to the provinces in the form of transfer payments, with which the provinces could do as they pleased. Need a little extra in health care this year? Fine. How about taking some of that public works pot and balancing out the education budget? Great!

But that transfer payment pot has been steadily shrinking. An increase in no-strings-attached transfer payments from the feds to the provinces would allow the provinces to meet the region’s priorities on a local level – not dictated by a federal overseer.

This country needs to be run like a business, with the provinces acting as franchises. A decentralized government at its best would oversee the national social programs, national trade, and the laws of the land, while leaving the more administrative duties to the provinces. As managers of their own regions, the provincial leaders would be able to take their federal funds and channel them towards the programs and issues of most demand for their constituents.

Overall, the various franchises will continue to work together to ensure that that brand as a whole – Canada – is stronger than the sum of its parts! You won’t see one McDonald’s bad-mouthing another franchise down the road, just to boost its own sales, so why would we want to encourage that type of behaviour in inter-provincial relations?

We need that federal presence to ensure we remain a country. All this talk from provinces such as Ontario and Quebec who complain that they’re either paying too much or receiving too little from the federal-provincial relationship miss the point that confederation isn’t an equal-in, equal-out proposition. If we decentralize to the point of provincial autonomy, we will lose this national support network and focus on Canada. We will become little enclaves, standing up for only our own best interests instead of that of other Canadians.

That’s not a Canada in which I want to live. If my overtaxed Ontario dollars are going to subsidize a less fortunate Atlantic region, then I can live with that. In the grand scheme of things, we want to make this country stronger as a whole – not just select regions of prosperity.

So while Mr. Harper’s first swing at a renewed concept of federalism may have resulted in a foul ball, a few adjustments in his stance and keeping his eye on the big picture may see him hit a home run with an idea for a new Canada.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Right Vote Requires 20/20 Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

With all the nation’s eyes – OK, with a handful of eyes (and some of them heavy-lidded at best) – glued to the televised debates between the Canadian political party leaders, one important component of any election decision continues to be lost in the front-page shuffle.

Each and every time we head to the polls we develop an acute case of hyperopia. Issues of national interest rightfully grab the headlines, but they shouldn’t affect us to the point where we forget about our own backyards.

It’s hard enough to get Canadians to the polls and we do so in woefully inadequate numbers. People feel distanced from the political process because many think that these issues on The Hill won’t affect them personally. But that neglects the fact that we don’t elect a Prime Minister – we elect individual candidates to represent our constituencies. Those numbers then determine who runs the show.

So why do so many people have trouble identifying the candidates in their own riding, much less than what they actually stand for? We can identify basic themes from the national campaign that filter down and affix themselves to the local candidates, but I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of voters have only a sketchy idea of what their individual candidate stands for in their very own riding.

Although this is a federal election, its foundation is built on the local. And that’s where we, as responsible voters, must start to build the rationale for our decision when it comes time to mark our ballot.

Unfortunately, there are rarely televised debates between candidates in a riding. More often than not, they’re running their campaigns independently of each other, preferring to leave the cross-party sniping and broadsides to the captains of their respective political ships. But the key thing that we as citizens must realize is that while each candidate generally falls in line on the big issues of national importance, there are local issues unique to their riding that can have a direct impact on how you live your day-to-day life.

And that’s where your vote truly matters. When it comes to elections, we’re all pretty much selfish people wondering what’s in it for us – and that’s why campaign promises are made. But nowhere are you more directly impacted than by the decisions and ideas put forth by the person vying to be your local Member of Parliament.

In this day and age, there’s really only one reason why someone can step up to a ballot box completely ignorant of their local candidates’ beliefs and platforms – laziness. Almost every candidate – and certainly those of the big three parties – have Web sites that offer the meat of their party platform. But those sites are also spiced with the regional flavour of local issues.

As well, most candidates are more than happy to answer your questions – or at least have one of their minions do it for you. A phone call to a riding will be returned, an e-mail will be responded to, and a public photo-op/meet-‘n’-greet is only a day away!

There’s a reason why when we put our addresses on things we write the city, the province, and the country – it’s because all three levels impact us. So too should these distinctions carry equal weight in an election campaign. To vote based solely on a broad federal platform ignores your local needs. And, conversely, the overriding philosophy of a federal policy will have some weight on the choice of a local candidate.

This election campaign has been described as choosing the lesser of all evils. But it only has to be that way if we ignore our local constituencies. By talking to our local candidates and finding out where they stand on the issues that directly affect us, we are creating a situation wherein we’re choosing the best person for our own, personal situation. And really, isn’t that what an election is about? We are choosing a person to represent US in Parliament, so why wouldn’t we want that person to accurately reflect the riding, its beliefs, and its unique situation.

In the end, this election is about much more than Gilles Duceppe, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, and Paul Martin – it is about the hundreds of candidates vying for the right to represent individual ridings. And we can’t let the bright lights of the federal stage blind us to the issues affecting us in our own backyards.

To make the right choice we need to restore balance in the way we look at our candidates, because a myopic perspective is no better than suffering from hyperopia. It may mean a little work, but the right answer for all of us will be easier to see with 20/20 vision.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Cookie Cutter Constituents Don’t Exist

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

When will the political parties learn that cookie cutter constituents don’t exist? By overplaying to one particular sensitivity, they run the risk of offending one’s other sensibilities and losing potential votes because of their high school clique mentality.

For example, I’m dying to take the New Democratic Party seriously in this federal election. My left-o’-centre heart is looking for a champion to take a stand on the social issues that I deem important and – on the surface – the NDP looks to share many of my ideals. That is until they open their mouths and drown in rhetoric.

What spews forth isn’t political discourse – it’s nothing more than high-school put-downs and the perpetuation of naïve stereotypes.

Until the NDP’s supporters learn to tone down the propaganda, they’ll never been taken seriously by the majority of Canadian voters. Until that happens, like a despondent surfer they’ll continue to miss being able to ride the wave of discontent that the ruling Liberal Party has left in its wake.

For some reason unbeknownst to me, I receive an NDP e-mail newsletter in my e-mail in-box. I could unsubscribe, but the content is just so amusing that I’m compelled to read each and every missive, right down to the “Yours in Solidarity” ending. Unfortunately, instead of being a reasoned, intellectual discourse, it more often than not reads like a high-school newspaper: filled with rah-rah stories for the home side and “My First Socialist” idealism.

For the NDP to succeed it needs to grow up and stop catering to the wannabe revolutionaries. Too many people view the NDP as a party for the financially challenged and the environmentalists. That’s great if you’re a poor tree, but the key to winning an election is having broad-spectrum appeal.

Possessing that campaign attitude is why the Liberals have been so successful over the years. No matter what you are: fiscally conservative, socially liberal, or anything in between, you’ll find something to appeal to you in their campaign literature. Call it what you want, but this one-size-fits-all platform appeals to a broad cross-section of voters – and the proof is in the results.

Contrast that with the feelings you get when you read a line that drips with sarcasm, such as “The NDP doesn’t receive the $5,000 cheques that the other two parties get from their corporate friends.” Makes you wonder how exactly is the party trying to extend its reach and appeal to a wider demographic?

The fact is, we live in a corporate society and many of us are part of the corporate machine. We want a party that’s going to be inclusionary. Canadians want to be competitive financially, yet remain socially conscious. The NDP’s brand of rhetoric echoes those high school years. You know, the cool kids would shun the Goths and geeks, who would in turn apply wide-sweeping stereotypes to the jocks and rich kids. And the cycle would go on and on!

That type of clique mentality is painful enough in high school – this is the real world of politics. It’s time to stop trying to make everyone fit into one single classification. The fact is, many of the things I believe in are far left. But when it comes to funding and fiscal resources, I lean a little to the right. Where do I fit? Am I a tree-hugging hippie, or a heartless corporate shill? Or am I a little bit of both? Aren’t we all?

We need that type of rapprochement between all the candidates. We no longer live in a world where we all support one party to the exclusion of the others, so it’s time for a Breakfast Club-esque meeting of the minds. The next debate should not be moderated by some TV talking head – we need John Hughes to script it!

Blue, red, yellow, and green – we all share more than we differ. We’re all Canadians and we’re all wanting the same thing: to make this the best country possible and to grow together sensibly, productively, and with compassion.

The party that figures it out. The party that understands that not all voters are going to drink the Kool-Aid and follow blindly with whatever their leader says has the best chance of winning. When they learn to reach out to others, instead of shunning them, their political futures will become far rosier.

It’s not enough for the NDP to paint corporate interests with the same brush. They need to accept the differences and search out the compromises. Once that common ground has been breached, then the NDP will finally be a viable alternative for many Canadians.

Until then, they’re looked at as the idealistic younger brother who needs to grow up and learn that not everything is black and white – there are shades of red, blue, green, and yellow.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved