Tag Archives: election

Tories a Political Trojan Horse

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

At the rate we’re going, this country is going to wake up with one heck of a hangover on Jan. 24 th. Of course, when you sleep with the Conservatives, don’t be surprised when you wake up with blue balls.

Canadian memories may be long, but they’re selectively so. While this orgiastic flagellation of the Liberal Party of Canada continues for the sins of its past continues, we are crossing into a dangerous new area – especially for left-leaning Canadians. In the zeal to punish the Grits we’re setting the stage for a Tory majority government.

We remember the Liberal transgressions because they’ve been thrown in our faces repeatedly by the opposition. We forget the steps the Party has taken to clean things up and the measures for greater accountability that have already been put into place. And that’s fine because, as an electorate, we have the right to feel swindled. We have the right to choose to go another way in government. But for those on the Left, is letting the Right into absolute power the right thing to do?

Since we’re on the topic of memory, let’s not forget where the Conservative Party came from – Reform. This party, just a scant few months ago, was watching its leader bleed out from the knives in his back. And the hidden right-wing agenda is not so hidden, but Stephen Harper and his handlers have done a masterful job of taming the wolf and parading him around in sheep wear.

In fact, some Canadians view the Conservatives as a gentle, moderate alternative to the ruling Liberals. They believe Canada will be the same as it ever was. But these are not your father’s Conservatives. People are forgetting the opposition they felt for the Reform and its offspring, the Alliance. Those parties were dismissed as too right wing, yet when the swallowing of the old PC party by the newer Reform/Alliance was finally complete, only the old PC guard – your father’s PC party – was upset about the merger, because they knew the moderate small-c conservative voice was silenced.

Yet, in this election campaign, another voice has been silenced – or gagged, as you may have it – in that we’ve yet to hear the annual right-wing outburst that would shed light on the truth behind the image. A friend and astute political observe recently said to me that his concern was that the right-wing hawks have had the gaffer tape stretched across their mouths for the duration of the campaign, and it’s only a matter of time after an election for the tape to come off.

The Conservatives have done a masterful job of defining the media coverage. Their policy-a-day platform has kept the media interested on what’s next, without leaving the time to delve into backstory. The campaign promises of a GST tax cut have been well received by those who will be most negatively affected by it – the poorer members of society. And, finally, when all else fails, they’ve effectively rallied the public against the concept of Liberal corruption.

But what are we forgetting? Are we forgetting that Harper eagerly swallowed Bush’s weapons of mass destruction claims in Iraq and would have sent Canadian troops into a questionable war with no definable exit strategy? Are we forgetting that Harper has gone on record supporting a continental economic and security integration with the U.S. that would include a broadened continental energy strategy? Are we ready for that?

Consider what appear to be the issues facing this world in the next few years. The back-burner flames that are Iran’s nuclear issues appear to be on the verge of raging. With his support of the U.S. stance on Iraq, do we expect any different when and if the U.S. unilaterally decides to take proactive measures against Iran? What about our richest natural resource – water? Already the U.S. is looking for additional supplies of fresh water and we have more than we can imagine. Water is going to be the new oil in a few years, but do we want someone so eager to cede control of our natural resources in charge? Gay rights? Abortion? Social programs? Do you really know what you’re getting, or is this “at least it’s not the Liberals” conviction enough to base your vote upon?

You don’t want the Liberals in, fine. But don’t go thinking that the Conservatives are a moderate, closer-to-centre alternative. A Conservative minority may not be a bad thing, as long as there’s a solid NDP/Liberal presence to hold them in check. But are we ready for a full-scale paradigm shift in the House of Commons to the right? Remember, a majority means five years – FIVE YEARS – of right-wing leadership with limited opposition.

Thanks Jack Layton for being Harper’s most effective campaign tool. You’ve been so effective in bashing the Liberals that the Conservatives are now on their way to a majority. And your decision now to target the front runner may be a case of too little, too late.

So what is a left-leaning Canadian to do? Do you hold your nose and vote for the Liberals because they’ve at least proven that they can effectively manage a country? Do you cast your ballot for the NDP, which has never had an opportunity to show what it can do at a federal level? By splitting the left-wing vote are we allowing the Conservatives to pass in the far-right lane?

The Conservative Party is a political Trojan Horse for Canada. The Tories appear to be a gift for those voters disenchanted with the Liberals – but we all know how that gift worked out for the Trojans.

We have to choose the Canada we want, but when it comes to who will rule ad mare usque ad mare, we have to keep in mind another Latin phrase – caveat emptor, buyer beware. Personally, I’ll choose to live in Soviet Canuckistan over America North any day.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Latest Poll a Test of Lefty Faith

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While some may look at the latest Decima Research poll as the final nail in a long-delayed Liberal coffin, it may in fact be the defibrillating jolt that the Grits need to breathe new life into their campaign.

It’s serious now for many Canadians. The debates are out of the way, the holidays are past, and the dull grey January weather is the perfect background for playing out this political drama. And with the latest poll results showing the resurgent Conservative Party enjoying a nine-point lead amongst decided voters and those who are leaning in one direction, we’ve come to the time when the left-leaning voters have to make their choice.

It’s a test of faith that will decide the outcome of the next election.

Nine points is nothing to laugh about. At 39 per cent of the decided voters, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are sniffing a majority government. Alone on the right, they’re not only enjoying voters’ lack of trust in the Liberals, but also their apparent belief in the power of Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party. Even in Quebec, the Conservatives appear to be working their way back from the brink of extinction to become an actual viable alternative, as evidenced by their six point increase of support that comes courtesy of the Bloc’s precipitous drop of 11 per cent support.

So the path of the current election is clear. If voters hold true to their stated intentions, the Conservatives will ride to a majority and the Liberals will be swept from power. But in this majority scenario, so too does the left-of-centre influence find itself on the outside looking in.

That’s where those left-leaning voters have to do a gut check and see where their priorities lie. And it’s the only hope the Liberals have to retain any semblance of power.

As Layton has expressed repeatedly through the campaign, he feels the Conservatives are just wrong on the issue and he appears to be angling for a stronger role for his NDP candidates in the next House of Commons. This campaign strategy is all fine and dandy when we’re looking at a minority government because, as he’s shown, a smaller party can have a disproportionate impact on the fortunes of the government. But in a Conservative majority, how much influence will those powerless MPs really have? In essence, Layton could find himself with more NDPs in the House of Commons, but with less power than he enjoyed in the last House with fewer representatives.

In last year’s election, polls pointed to a dead heat between the Conservatives and Liberals as voting day approached. Apparently, once voters got to the polls, they chose to vote strategically and not with their heart as NDP support migrated to the Liberal camp in order to keep the Tories and their alleged right-wing agenda out of power.

If lefties were scared last year when the polls showed a neck-in-neck race, they must be quaking in their boots now at the prospect of a Conservative majority.

Best of all, for the Liberals, is that the numbers are so striking the average Canadian can easily do the math and draw their own conclusions. There’s no need for the Grits to unleash the smear-and-fear strategy – the writing’s already on the wall and the voters don’t need anyone to spell it out.

Unfortunately for Layton, it appears that most Canadians view the NDP as a wonderful party to act as the country’s conscience, but not one to actually take Canada’s reigns and guide it in the next House in a leadership role. So that leaves the tried-and-tested Liberals.

Those soft-NDP voters, and even those disgruntled right-wing Liberals who have drifted to the Conservatives, have to take a look at the strength of their convictions. The reality of a government dominated by a right-of-centre party is upon us and they have to choose what they want their Canada to look like.

Much like Quebec, where elections are less about parties than ideologies, this federal election is shaping up to be a battle not between individual candidates, but rather a contest pitting right versus left. The battle is at hand and the right has their champion. The leftist camp has to decide whether to continue to split its forces, or consolidate their power into one front.

Voting with their hearts or their minds – it’s a test of faith for the left in which the country’s future rests.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Time for Greens to Think Big!

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Many of out there would dream of supporting a political party that’s fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and committed to improving our environment. Yet, even though one party professes to have those issues at the forefront of its platform, they are no more than an afterthought for Canadian voters.

And while the Green Party of Canada can blame voter apathy and the tendency to fall back to the tried and tested when push comes to shove, the fact remains that they have only themselves to blame. In the words of the immortal Elvis Gratton, it’s time for the party – and prospective voters – to “Think Big, ‘sti!”

For many Canadian voters, the Green Party is thought of as nothing more than a novelty act – akin to the old Rhino Party. And, while they’re not advocating the concept of flying naked to reduce the risk of terrorism or turning Montreal’s Rue Ste-Catherine into the world’s longest bowling alley, they get lumped into the same fringe candidate stew as the Marxist-Leninist, Marijuana, and Communist Parties of Canada.

Yet, last election, over four per cent of Canadians cast a ballot for this party’s candidates. Despite being lumped in with the so-called fringe, they did, in fact, receive over three times as many votes as the seven other registered fringe parties, independents, and non-affiliated candidates combined!

In fact, the New Democratic Party of Canada received just 3.7 times as many votes, and the Bloc only garnered 2.9 times as many votes, yet they’re recognized as legitimate contenders, earning 19 and 54 seats in the House of Commons respectively. Yet, this is not intended to be an argument for a more representative democracy – that’s another argument for another day. But it does bring up the question as to why are some parties regarded as legitimate contenders to the throne, while others are amusing afterthoughts.

The answer? Credibility, and the Green Party to date has blown it. In fact, one could suggest that their one true chance to make a mark on the Canadian political landscape is in serious danger of being wasted.

In the last federal election, the Green Party of Canada was able to win the votes of over four per cent of the Canadian population, which entitled them to federal funding as a party. They received $1.1 million from the feds but what have they done with it?

I’m sure they’ve put the money to good use, but they’ve failed to penetrate into the social conscious. Forget being in the leaders’ debates, how about having a significant number of Canadians knowing who your party leader is?

In a recent e-mail conversation with a local Green representative, this person apologized for their lack of polish, as they are a volunteer-driven, grass roots organization. But the time is now to reach for the sky. As they say, one must strike while the iron is hot, and with the funding received from their impressive showing, the Green Party needs to get the message out to the voters.

The perception remains that the Green Party is a one-issue party. Even worse, there is still the perception that these people are nothing more than raving tree-huggers chucking their fair-trade hats into the political ring only to further their own far-left-wing causes.

Yet, when you look at the platform, you realize that, despite an overriding goal of social and environmental responsibility, there is no clear definition of “sides.” They are neither left-wing nor right-wing, but rather searching for the right answers to each and every topic as it arises.

While other parties, such as the Marijuana and Christian Heritage parties, are defined and motivated by one issue, one would be hard-pressed to look at today’s Greens and think the same thing. Perhaps in the past the accusations were fair, but the party appears to have grown up and may, in fact, be a legitimate voice for a number of Canadians. The only problem is that they don’t seem to be getting their message heard.

And that’s a pity, because it’s a message that many Canadians would take to heart. Unfortunately, the game of politics isn’t won on ideas alone – reputation, consistency, and proven ability to lead all factor into the decision, and the Green Party has yet to prove that it’s ready to make the jump from the minor leagues.

So should anybody vote Green? Well, that’s a decision we all have to make based upon policy, the local candidate, and your personal beliefs. But at least they should be in consideration as a legitimate option – not just left on the fringe, stuck on the outside looking in.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

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