He’s not just a strong and courageous
leader. Prime Minister Paul Martin looks more like Don Quixote fighting
windmills.
If you’ve been listening to his
latest rants, Canada is under attack from enemies on the inside and on the
outside. And, of course, Mr. Martin is touting himself as the White Knight
ready to defend the princess.
It’s typical of a campaign
lacking vision. Martin’s strategists are resorting to the past, wrapping
themselves up with the federalist and nationalist flag, and demonizing or
belittling their opponents. Whenever they need more reinforcements, they
also become the defenders of Medicare and the Charter of Rights.
They would have you believe
Quebec sovereignists are on the verge of ripping the country apart from
within, while Washington is preparing to re-enact the American Revolution or
the fight against the British General Isaac Brock who defeated the American
forces in 1812 and secured the Canadian frontier at Niagara-on-the-Lake. Of
course, all this is just "a crock of sheer nonsense" the late Dalton Camp
would say.
However, let’s pretend for a
moment that it’s true: would you trust the individuals bivouacking at
Langevin Block leading the fight for our independence, our unity and our
social programs? National unity. The opinion polls said the "separatists"
were dead in Quebec before Mr. Martin’s gang took power. After two years in
government, it is the Liberal Party who is comatose in La Belle Province.
Not bad for a leader who wants to defend unity.
Relationship with the
Americans. Let’s ask ourselves a question: What did the Martin government do
to upset the Americans? This is the funny part: nothing! All the
controversial decisions were made by his predecessor Jean Chrétien.
He was the one who said no the
war in Iraq, he was the one who isolated the Americans over the Kyoto
protocol and environmental policies, Mr. Chrétien started the fight over the
softwood lumber issue, and he set the stage for making Canada’s foreign
policy sharply contrast with the Americans, in regions like Central-South
America and in developing countries.
The former prime minister
ruffled some feathers at the White House, but he skillfully found a balance
in defending Canadian values and, at the same time, Canadian economic
interests.
The new Liberal team stepped
into Langevin Block like an elephant in a China shop. They approached
international diplomacy with the language of a drunken sailor in a bar. The
only decision they made was unnecessary; they said no to the U.S. missile
defence plan. Make no mistake: I’m not at all suggesting that they should
have joined the Americans in this costly and dangerous plan. Nobody believes
in it‹not even the Americans.
This plan is only an internal
U.S. issue used by Republican presidents to score political points. Remember
Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars. It never happened because it was too costly, and
the technology just wasn’t there.
Pushed aside by president Bill
Clinton’s Democrats, the plan was reintroduced by George Bush. Again, they
still don’t have money to implement the plan‹at least not during the Bush
administration’s mandate. Paul Martin had every reason not to step into
American electoral posturing. He only needed to use the same tactic used by
Jean Chrétien and by most of the European Countries: wait and see. Martin,
instead, decided to flex his muscles, turning down the Americans on a plan
that exists only on paper. In fact, has anyone heard anything about the
"American proposal" since Martin boldly turned them down? Social issues.
Then we have the Liberals paladin of Medicare.
Again, the stage was set by
Jean Chrétien with an agreement with the provinces. Paul Martin has merely
added more money into the pot. Some were expecting him to attach some
strings to the money. He did not. Now he says that he is the only leader who
wants to defend Medicare from privatization.
How? When? And then there’s the
Liberals’ warriors for the Environment. Again, the plan for Kyoto was
prepared by Jean Chrétien. The only thing Martin’s government did was to
pour in some money that was already committed.
So how does he have the moral
authority to go on stage in Montreal and lecture foreign leaders about
having a "global conscience" on the environment? Why did he single out the
American administration knowing that his record was worse? Why did he leave
out Europeans Countries with records that were even worse than Canada and
the United States? If this is not electoral posturing, what is it? One final
observation about Paul Martin, the defender of the Charter of Rights. This
is the first time I saw him acknowledging the record of one of his
predecessors: Pierre Trudeau.
