Tag Archives: federal

Teflon Liberals May Slide to a Majority

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If the Liberal Party of Canada wants to find a creative way to raise money for the coffers this year, perhaps they should think about releasing a line of non-stick fry pans under their moniker. Simply put, the Grits are more effective than Teflon when it comes to having things slide off them.

A recent Leger poll found that the Liberals enjoyed the support of 40 per cent of respondents. That’s the same type of numbers that propelled them to their last majority government. The opposition Conservative Party has seen its numbers plummet 10 per cent to a disappointing 24 per cent support.

Despite anger over the sponsorship scandal, despite increased chatter over separation both in the East and the West, despite bad feelings caused by the federal government’s lack of action over the price of fuel, the Liberals have been able to keep their heads down, roll with the punches, and are ready to come out swinging in the next election.

Unfortunately for the Liberals’ opponents, things appear to be falling into place for a significant majority the next time Canadians are called to the polls, which is expected to be in the spring. And the main reason why the Grits are on their way back into power is simply the perceived lack of a viable alternative.

For the Conservatives and their supporters, this was their moment to regain the reins of power that they lost back in 1993. Buoyed by the allegations levied in the Gomery hearings, they were to ride that wave of anti-Liberal sentiment and outrage to a crushing victory. Alas, the Tory train derailed somewhere along the way, and continues to wind its way down a dangerous track with several supporters waiting to replace its conductor, Steven Harper.

Conversely, the New Democratic Party has chosen to remain self-satisfied with its ability to integrate reforms to the recent budget by promising to prop up the embattled minority government. But instead of building upon its gains and making a move for greater penetration into the Canadian populace, the Party appears to be pleased with the status quo, as if it realizes that being a key cog in a minority is the best that it will get.

And both opposition Parties have missed the key opportunity that the recent turmoil in the Liberal ranks has brought about – the ability to show Canadians what the alternatives to Liberal governance truly are. Both Parties have focused on the Gomery allegations to the exclusion of developing, refining, and presenting their Party platforms. Like the schoolyard squealer that runs around pointing fingers, they’ve forgotten that it’s not enough to point out what’s wrong – you need to identify what steps can be taken to make it right.

The Liberals, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin, appear to have understood this. They have addressed the issue by setting an ultimatum on a date. One month following the now-delayed release of the Gomery report, the government will call an election. Canadian voters have appeared to be appeased by this action. Now that the initial furor over the scandal has died down and the rhetoric has been digested, Canadians are choosing to take a wait-and-see approach with the results and will base their decisions on facts, not speculation.

Canadians have grown tired of the childish name-calling and dragging through the mud. However, instead of taking this opportunity to put forth a calm, rationale, and well-thought-out alternative plan for Canadians to embrace, the opposition Parties chosen to rest on their laurels and continue to sling accusations, respectfully.

It’s time to move on. The spring is not too far away and, unless the opposition Parties take this opportunity to let the Gomery investigation run its course and focus their energies on explaining to Canadians what there alternatives are, then it’s their own fault if Canadians aren’t able to see the way to change.

For a Canadian populace that wants stability and effective government, we’re left with only one readily apparent alternative for governance. And, unfortunately for the opposition Parties that proven entity is the same one that’s been in power for the past dozen years.

As the election race heats up, it’s hard to bet on the Party with the Teflon coating. To win the opposition needs to start cooking an appealing alternative that Canadians will find palatable.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Signs Point to Excess

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. With all due respect to The Five Man Electrical Band, kudos to the Green Party’s Monica Jarabek for taking steps to bring common sense into election campaigns and trying to do something about the proliferation of unnecessary campaign signs.

Jarabek has proposed that all the candidates in the London West riding agree to do something about the insidious overpopulation of election signs that dot the landscape each and every election campaign. Under her proposal, all the candidates will publicly agree to post election signs only on private property. It just makes too much sense not to work – which is probably why it won’t.

The fact that a candidate from a less-prominent party is making this suggestion actually makes it carry more weight. Jarabek and her cohorts would seem to have more to lose than the big boys and girls of the political spectrum with this proposal. A significant portion of these smaller parties’ road-side advertising comes from campaign signs on public property. But it appears Jarabek’s willing to sacrifice what’s best for her for what’s right – although the publicity this proposal has created is a welcome benefit, no doubt.

Think back over the past few election campaigns. How many times have you driven down the street and been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of campaign signs, dotting an open land space like a field of untamed dandelions? It’s not unusual to see a dozen or two signs for the same candidate sitting side by each, covering a formerly green area with a wash of blue, red, green, or yellow.

It’s a scene that repeats itself in every city across Canada, during every election. Municipal, provincial, federal – no matter what the campaign, the prevailing wisdom is that more is better.

Actually, the abundance of political signs actually serves as a rather appropriate metaphor for election campaigns in general. Volume outweighs individuality. We’re so accustomed to see intelligent debate devolve into a shouting contest that we’ve come to accept the same from our visual campaign materials. Where one sign would actually do the trick, by plastering the landscape with multiple versions, parties end up engaging in a laminated cardboard shouting match!

Jarabek’s proposal has one significant benefit for the voters of Canada. Simply put, if candidates choose – or are forced – to abstain from putting campaign signs on public property, then they’ll have to work hard to woo voters into believing in their cause enough to put a sign on their lawn. That means that the candidates will have to explain their position better to their constituents, and more people will be engaged in the political process.

In a way, it evens out the game. The smaller guys, like the Green Party and the NDP, will be able to compete, at least visually, on a more even playing field with the big boys. It’s the message and the ability of the candidate to sell it to constituents that will play a defining role in earning the right to advertise on a lawn. The depth of commitment to the riding will outweigh the depth of a Party’s wallet.

And, as a voter, a campaign sign on my neighbour’s lawn will mean more to me than a couple of dozen non-affiliated signs on a highway turn-off. When the signs are placed by actual voters, it can stimulate conversation and engage the average voter in the electoral process by encouraging discussion and debate of political views and candidate benefits.

There are a number of other benefits to this proposal as well. A sea of campaign signs can, in fact, pose a hazard to drivers and pedestrians alike, obstructing views and creating new blind spots. As well, there are the environmental and financial concerns that this overkill creates. By adopting Jarabek’s idea, we’d not only be reducing the amount of redundant campaign material that ends up in the trash, we’d help to reduce the exorbitant cost of elections. Those signs have to get paid for eventually – and it usually comes from the tax payers’ wallets.

But why just stop in London West? Why not make this a country-wide endeavour. What’s stopping the parties from either entering into a gentleman’s agreement to only put campaign signs on private property or even enacting legislation?

It’s an idea that makes sense. In fact, the writing’s on the wall – only the view’s been blocked by far too many signs. When it comes to the next election, let’s just hope that less really will be more.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Federal Liberals May Be Buoyed by Landry’s Resignation

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Navigating through the murky waters of a minority government and weighed down by the anchor that is the Gomery inquiry, Paul Martin has just been thrown a life preserver by the least-likely source possible.

Mr. Prime Minister, next time you’re in your home riding of Ville Emard, make sure you make a side trip to say merci to Mr. Bernard Landry.

The Parti Quebecois’ leader decided this weekend to step down after receiving a less-than-enthusiastic 76.2 per cent support from the party’s delegates during its leadership review. His decision to gracefully step away leaves a void in separatist leadership – a void that would probably best be filled by one man, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The lure of the PQ post may be too much for Duceppe to resist. While politicians for other parties often look to move from provincial politics to the federal ranks, Quebec separatists know the true seat of separatist power doesn’t lie on Parliament Hill – it is firmly entrenched in Quebec City’s National Assembly.

The call of the PQ leadership is enticing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Duceppe could take control of a party that is not in power. Quebec Liberal leader Jean Charest is under no obligation to 2008 and is not exactly enjoying exalted status in the province.

The Parti Quebecois is at its most effective when it doesn’t have to worry about little things like actually running a province. Without the distractions caused by the compromises and sacrifices that a ruling Party needs to make to effectively govern a province, Duceppe could ride his wave of popularity back into the province and spend the next three years promoting the sovereigntist cause without actually having to be accountable for anything. He could use his gift for rhetoric and charisma to chip away at the ruling Liberal government and to build momentum for the separatist movement.

And Quebecers’ collective memories are long. With a federal government in turmoil, a provincial Liberal party that’s struggling to make inroads with the soft separatists, the PQ is poised for a return to power – and Duceppe knows that it may be time to strike while the iron is hot. Who else has the record and the charisma to take the reins? Certainly not Pauline Marois and her $400,000 taxpayer-funded renovated bathrooms (complete with silent toilets). Anyone else is just a pretender to the throne should Duceppe decide to accept his coronation.

After all, how much more can he do on the federal level? He has shown that he is a competent statesman and an effective thorn in the side of the government. He has displayed the poise and grace that his federal counterparts only wish they could — Duceppe’s performances in the two national debates left his three opponents choking in his exhaust. And he’s raised the profile of the Bloc, with the help of some Liberal blundering, to lofty heights. A virtual sweep of the province of Quebec would be almost assured in the next federal election should he remain at the helm.

But therein lies the problem. By leaving the federal forum for the provincial arena, Duceppe would be filling one void only to create another. A fall federal election would likely coincide with a fall PQ leadership convention. Duceppe would have to make the choice, and should he make the politically savvy move to provincial politics, he would leave his federal party struggling to find a leader in its time of need – a scenario that would play right into the Liberals hands.

The Bloc and the PQ are parties that thrive on charisma. Rene Levesque had it, Lucien Bouchard had it, and Duceppe has shown he has it as well. But there’s no one else on the horizon that displays the same je-ne-sais-quoi that the position requires. And the loss of that X-factor on the federal level could make the difference in a handful of ridings – which could make all the difference in a fall federal election.

The ideal situation for separatists is to convince Landry to retake the reigns and guide his party through the coming federal election. With no provincial vote on the horizon, there is no urgency for a change in leadership. Landry could steward the PQ through the federal election, which would allow Duceppe to focus on continuing the momentum the Bloc has enjoyed up to now.

After the election, Landry could announce his resignation and Duceppe could, at that time, ride in on his white horse to spin his magic with the provincial party. But would Landry be able to subjugate his pride for the betterment of his party? That’s a question only he can answer.

If he doesn’t, then Prime Minister Martin should make sure Landry’s added to his special Christmas card list – along with Belinda Stronach – of former adversaries who have helped keep his government afloat.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Putting New Words in the Electorate’s Mouth

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

Pat O’Brien’s decision to jump ship from the Liberal Party hasn’t silenced the voices of his constituency – his actions have his electorate singing a different tune, and some of his electorate may be choking on the words.

When does one’s obligations to their constituents outweigh the need to satisfy one’s personal beliefs? The line is often blurred when we look at the actions of our politicians. Elected on a specific mandate – usually determined, in large part, by their Party affiliation — our elected representatives convene on Parliament Hill to debate our nation’s future.

However, at times the ideals of an elected official outweigh their mandate to represent their electorate. Or the beliefs of the Party run counter to the representative’s personal opinions. It is with that conflict, based upon his disagreement with the Liberal Party leadership over the issue of gay marriage that London Fanshawe MP Pat O’Brien has chosen to leave the Liberal Party of Canada and sit as an independent.

While I disagree with O’Brien’s politics, I commend him for standing up for his beliefs. However he did not do enough. To be fair to the constituents who elected him as a representative of the Liberal government he must not simply continue his term as an independent, but rather resign his seat and request a by-election.

Our electoral system, however flawed we may feel it is at times, is based in large part on Party representation. An unfortunate number of the electorate couldn’t tell you who their Member of Parliament is, but are well aware of the differences between the various political parties. They vote red, blue, orange, or green – not for individual candidates.

As such, federal representatives like O’Brien and, on the flip side, Belinda Stronach, have deceived a large number of people who cast their ballots based on the belief that party-hopping was not on the agenda. Instead of working to affect change from within, these politicians – and others like them in the past – have flipped sides for their own advantage, not for the benefit of their constituents.

Both O’Brien and Stronach have not just ignored the voices of those who have voted for them in the past – they have bastardized their message and converted it to a cause that may be anathema to their voters’ personal beliefs. A Conservative supporter who voted for Stronach, no matter how centre-left she appeared to be, has every expectation that their vote for the Conservative candidate will be just that – and it won’t eventually evolve into support for the opposition!

The voice of the electorate has not just been muted – it’s been completely changed and words have been force-fed into the mouths of the voters. To make sure the right message is heard, it is imperative that the electorate in these particular ridings are allowed to opportunity to participate in a by-election.

That way, those who voted for Mr. O’Brien – the man, would be able to do so again, either as an independent candidate or, more likely, under the guise as the Conservative candidate he’s always appeared to be and seems destined to become. And those who voted for Mr. O’Brien – the Liberal, need to have the right to continue to support their party with their votes, as they believed they had during the last election.

Both Belinda Stronach and Mr. O’Brien need to do the right thing and step down. If they truly represent the will of the people, they will be duly elected by their constituency and can then – in good conscience – govern with the mandate of the people.

Both of these candidates made their respective jumps because they felt the need to stand up for what they believe in. But we did not vote these people in to act as freelance contractors, jumping from side to side depending on which way the political breeze is blowing. O’Brien and Stronach have forgotten that they are elected representatives – and that they represent voters who made their choices based upon now-flawed logic and expectations.

If these candidates are truly so high-minded in their belief of doing the right thing, then surely being fair to their constituents should not be too much to ask?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Conservative Gambit, An Uncertain End Game

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Circling the battered and bloody Liberal carcass like vultures, the Tories and the Bloc have used the trickle of information flowing from Gomery inquiry to fuel a campaign to shut down our Parliament in the hopes of riding a wave of public distrust to an election victory.

But by masking political opportunism with the façade of public concern, will their plans blow up in their respective faces? The next election may come down to how each voter answers the question, “Is the devil you know better than the devil you don’t?”

As the Bloc and Conservatives work themselves into a lather about the alleged misappropriation of funds in the Sponsorship Scandal, voters will have another number in the back of their minds — a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s approximately how much last year’s election cost Canadians, through donations and dipping into the government coffers – which are filled with our tax dollars.

Voters will have to reconcile how parties preaching from a pulpit built on fiscal responsibility can employ tactics to shut down the Parliament, prevent it from doing its duty to its constituents, force another election down our throats, and stick us with the bill. Might that cause some resentment in the electorate?

How will voters react to the potential scrapping of one of the most humane budgets we’ve seen in ages? Will voters be resentful that the so-called deal with the devil — which saw the Liberal Party plugging the holes in its political dyke with a band of New Democrats all-too happy to sell their allegiances for fiscal concessions, finally able to leverage their legislative presence for power — trampled by a stampeding conservative caucus racing towards a chance at power?

And how will those disaffected swing voters upon whom the Tories are counting, reconcile the presence of that Unholy Trinity – separatism, the alleged hidden right-wing conspiracy, and George Bush? If we thought last year’s campaign was ugly, when the Liberals went into the election somewhat confident of the outcome, how will this wounded animal, fearing its very survival, fight back during this year’s campaign?

As the Bloc enjoys the swelling bandwagon from soft-separatists just looking for a reason to jump back on board, the Liberal Party will raise the spectre of political turmoil and financial instability caused by an emboldened sovereigntist movement. And to counter the right-wing parties, will the Liberals float the rhetorical balloon invoking mass cuts to our social programs, attacks on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and any number of insidious inferences to a hidden small-c conservative agenda? As well, if there’s one thing that many Canadians will agree on is its general antipathy towards the President of our neighbour to the south. By tying Stephen Harper to Bush Jr.’s politics, the Liberals are well aware – as they were in the last election – that they can play on Canadian fears of increased Americanism in our social and financial policies.

Already we see the public’s initial venom towards the Liberal Party is dissipating. There is any number of polls showing any number of results, but as we’ve seen time and time again, polls aren’t worth the time and effort it takes to get them. Canadians will be vociferous in their opposition when it doesn’t count, but the act of marking a ballot prompts sober reflection and fear of the unknown. If the current Liberal Party is able to distance itself from these accusations – or find someone who will fall on their sword – they may be able to convince the electorate that this scandal will usher in a new era of accountability.

Most importantly, can the resurgent right fight the hardest battles of all – voter fatigue and apathy? Last election, only just over 60% of Canadians went to the polls in an election that was rife with intrigue. Indications are we may see even fewer as voters express their resentment of being called to the polls yet again. And, as the pundits like to say, poor voter turnout favours the incumbents. Can the Conservatives win over the hearts of an electorate that really doesn’t want to have an election? If not, can the right effectively translate the anger of those outraged voters into fuel for an election win?

The final question is whether or not the status quo is the best option available? The Conservatives and Bloc have shown that they wield the power in Parliament, and can demand greater concessions from the Liberal minority. By refusing to play nice now with the Liberals, does that set up a culture of retribution should they be voted in as a minority government in their own right? Is turnabout fair play? It would seem that forcing an election is an all or nothing gamble – anything less than a majority government would result in a Parliament paralyzed by Liberal and NDP opposition, and an emboldened Bloc Quebecois concerned only with its own best interests with added clout to back it up.

The pawns are in motion but will the Conservatives’ gambit eventually lead to their desired end game, or will their bold move to wrest power backfire? The Tories are banking on a nation that hates politicking but loves its politics forgiving such a brazen power grab. Yet, Canadian’s love their politics from afar, and when it comes to consummate the affair, they generally shy away from actual commitment.

Who said politics was boring? This year’s pending election stands to be one for the ages.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved