View All News Items

WILL THE REAL PAUL MARTIN PLEASE STEP FORWARD? - Monday, December 15, 2003 at 10:20

PUBLICATION:  The London Free Press 
DATE:  2003.12.13
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  Opinion Pages 
PAGE:  F1 
BYLINE:  LINDA WILLIAMSON, SPECIAL TO THE FREE PRESS 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILL THE REAL PAUL MARTIN PLEASE STEP FORWARD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we there yet? Have we reached the point where it's safe to declare Paul Martin's political honeymoon over -- or do we have to give him at least a week?

After all, Martin's prime ministership didn't begin with yesterday's swearing-in ceremonies -- it started as far back as 16 months ago, when Jean Chretien began his marathon farewell tour.

So it's well past time to start asking the tough questions -- like why did he deserve the job in the first place? And now that he finally has it, what's he going to do for us?

Let's at least get past this idea the Chretien-Martin handover marks the start of a new era, when it is merely the continuation of one.

It's one thing for Martin to trumpet himself as the guy who's going to "change the way things work in Ottawa," as he put it yesterday; it's quite another for Canadians to buy it.

Sounding more like a victorious opposition leader (which I suppose he was, in effect), Martin promised "a new sense of national purpose" and "a new agenda of change and achievement."

Are we really going to buy this? The latest polls suggest we are.

Most Canadians are thrilled with Martin taking over; it's as though we appreciate the convenience of getting a brand new government without having to vote (or, as some squeamish Ontarians might think of it, without having to do the unthinkable and vote anything other than Liberal).

Part of Martin's "change" agenda apparently involves the smelly legacy of scandals uncovered by the auditor general during the Chretien years. (Another AG's report should have been out by now, but Chretien stalled
it.) In a major fundraising speech in Toronto last week, Martin admitted the AG's reports of the past few years belonged in the "horror" section of bookstores.

"We're going to put (such scandals) into the ancient history section," Martin declared.

Great. But wait a minute. Isn't Paul Martin the same guy who was the finance minister for all those embarrassments -- the billion-dollar boondoggle at Human Resources, the gun-registry fiasco, the Quebec advertising sponsorship debacle, the home heating rebate foul-up, the regional development subsidy mess . . . ?

It's fair to ask, which Paul Martin are we getting as prime minister?

Is he the saviour of cities who wants to find new ways of helping them finance transit and roads? Or the guy who slashed provincial transfer payments to the bone -- cuts that were in turn downloaded onto cities?

Is he the deficit-slaying, tax-cutting fiscal conservative who balanced the budget for the first time in decades, and promises economic prosperity ahead? Or the big spender whose final budget abandoned further tax cuts and debt repayment while ramping spending up to record levels -- and stashing billions of tax dollars into untouchable funds and foundations? (Not to mention the guy whose extra "deficit-fighting" tax on gasoline we're still paying at the pumps to this day.)

Is he the sensible leader who favours a stronger, better-defended Canada and has created a new super-ministry of homeland security for his faithful deputy, Anne McLellan? Or the guy whose post-9/11 "security budget" offered an insulting pittance to security and defence?

Is he the reformer who wants to return ethics and transparency to Parliament, complete with strict rules on freebies for his ministers? Or the guy who shrugged off his own free trips on private jets with Canada's corporate elite, bristling that these hugely powerful millionaires are his personal friends and, well, he's not giving up his friends?

With the ceremonial stuff out of the way, we will now have a chance to judge Martin on his actions rather than his characteristically vague words.

I give him full marks for his first act: sweeping his cabinet clean of ineffective, embarrassing ministers such as David Collenette, Elinor Caplan, Jane Stewart, Martin Cauchon and Wayne Easter.

Trouble is, his new club of loyalists is still far too big, and there's no guarantee it'll be any better.

Look at it this way. Martin's long-suffering supporters now have a chance to show what they can do -- that is, if they can do anything other than wish and gripe from the backbenches.

Perhaps they'll surprise us. If not, the rest of us have a chance to ponder whether a real change of government could be any worse.