by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
Friday, March 4, 2005
While running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and while campaigning during last year’s election campaign, Paul Martin said that he would work towards developing a better relationship with the United States. Since the election of George W. Bush, Jean Chrétien and his cronies, not the least of whom was MP Carolyn Parrish, were subjecting our southern neighbours to a barrage of silly and childish anti-american comments. Martin, the party’s Great Elderly Hope, was going to change all of that.
When Paul Martin came as close as he ever has to actually taking a position, he favoured joining the United States in their missile defense program. He was in support of joining the U.S. right up to the time that he announced that Canada would be having nothing to do with it. as John Kerry might say, Martin was for missile defense before he was against it.
Martin has come under some criticism for not trying to sell the benefits of working with the United States in the furtherance of the defense of North america to the usually squeamish Canadians. Instead of arguing his position he simple observed the mood of the country. although Martin often said he was in favour of the missile defense program, he made no strong arguments to convince those who were against joining or who were undecided, that cooperation with the americans on missile defense was in Canada’s best interests.
Martin had two positions on missile defense but at least that was, in round numbers, two more than Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper had. There was a time when a party that called itself conservative would be in favour of doing what it could to defend the country from possible threats with our close ally. But Harper refused to make a decision; he dawdled. He refused to take a position until he saw the details of what the americans had in mind for Canada if this country joined them in their proposed defense of North america.
This notion that you cannot take a position on an issue as important as the defense of the country until you have an opportunity to read the fine print is of course, nonsense. If that theory was used on other issues, the government would come to a standstill (which, come to think of it, might not be such a bad thing). Positions have been taken on a range of issues from free trade to same sex marriage without all the details being known. Harper could have announced that he was in favour of missile defense and if there was something in the details that he didn’t like, argue for changes. Opposition parties are sometimes known for arguing that changes should be made. and if the requested changes were not made, and Harper considered them important enough, he could then change his mind and justify the change based upon new details.
Canadian Press revealed last week that not only did George W. Bush put pressure on Paul Martin to join the United States program when he visited the nation’s capital but that he "scolded" Harper for not pushing for missile defense. It must have come as somewhat of a shock to the U.S. president that a party that calls itself conservative would put internal politics over Canada’s security.
Harper equally dawdled on the issue of same sex marriage. although he said he was against it and argued about how the government can get rid of all those provincial appellate court decisions without resorting to the notwithstanding clause, he dawdled on making substantive arguments about why the traditional definition of marriage should remain.
Stephen Harper dawdles for the same reasons that Martin dithers. Harper doesn’t want to offend any potential voters. In Harper’s case it’s those Ontario Liberals and Quebeckers who might one day get mad enough at the Liberals because of their sleaze and corruption to give him the majority government that the Conservative leader no doubt fantasizes about.
So this is what it has come down to in 21st century Canada — Prime Minister Dithers and Opposition Leader Dawdles. With opposition leaders like Stephen Harper, we could save the taxpayers a bundle by just declaring Paul Martin to be "Prime Minister for Life".
a better alternative would be if we could somehow manage to get a party on the political right of the Liberals who could actually function as an opposition party.