by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
June 21, 2004
Like many political debates, last Tuesday’s English language debate was not particularly helpful in adding much light on where the party leaders stand on the issues. Paul Martin sees reducing hospital waiting times as the main issue, Stephen Harper wants tax cuts, Gilles Duceppe wants sovereignty for Quebec and Jack Layton--well, Jack is just Jack. But the debate quickly shed some light on the true character of the Prime Minister.
The first question that was put to Paul Martin by CTV’s Craig Oliver was not the ordinary run of the mill softball question that journalists usually lob to Liberals. Oliver started by stating some facts--that Paul Martin had been part of the government since 1993 and for most of that time he was not only the Minister of Finance but was a senior Quebec Cabinet Minister. He denied that he had any knowledge of the scandal that saw millions of dollars diverted from the Canadian government to Liberal friendly Quebec advertising agencies. Oliver then asked, "Why should we believe you?" The answer that Martin gave revealed a lot about his character.
The Prime Minister said that since attaining office last December he took full responsibility and immediately changed the procedures on the way contracts are handed out. He added that he also ordered inquiries into the scandal. It’s hard to believe that even someone who is as arrogant as Paul Martin would expect any Canadian who has an IQ in double digits would accept his answer. Martin was like the criminal who goes on a spree, confesses to the cops and then expects to be rewarded for solving crime. Had Martin not been part of the Chrétien government, his comments would have been laudable. any leader coming in from the outside would be expected to take action to remedy the situation. But Martin refuses to take any responsibility or be accountable for any financial wrongdoing that took place while he was in office. He conveniently left out the fact that he promised to get to the bottom of the scandal before calling an election but then called one anyway. It was sheer, total arrogance for him to say that his responsibility started last December 12. His total denial of any responsibility during the time that he was a senior Cabinet Minister, singularly makes him unfit to lead.
although Paul Martin is not quite up to the level of fellow Liberal, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, when it comes to being accuracy-challenged, Martin is not above telling half-truths and lies when it suits his political purpose. During the debate he said over and over that sexual orientation was enshrined in the Charter of Rights, leading the uninformed to believe that it is part of the written constitution. It isn’t. The matter of sexual orientation was discussed prior to 1982 and was purposely omitted from the rights that were enshrined in the Charter. When it comes to same sex marriage, sexual orientation is only "enshrined" in three provinces, Ontario, Quebec and B.C. where superior court judges read sexual orientation into the document. The Supreme Court of Canada has yet to decide the issue.
Martin then became truly McGuintyesque when he said that a Harper-led Conservative government would make discrimination against gays and lesbians legal, taking away their rights when it comes to such issues of housing or employment. While Harper can be properly suspected of intending to use the notwithstanding clause to prohibit same sex marriages, accusing him of bringing back total and legal discrimination against gays is simply based upon nothing more than the desperation of Paul Martin. Martin will do anything or say anything in an attempt to hold on to power.
Martin’s tactic of simply avoiding any question that had to do with something that he didn’t want to have to be held accountable for showed the weakness of his character. The Prime Minister showed that he is a petty little man and a weak leader who shouldn’t be leading a pick-up hockey game, let alone a country. He has no vision unless you count reducing hospital waiting times. He has no reason for wanting to be prime minister, other than the fact that it was pre-ordained. He prides himself for his past successes but denies any responsibility for his failures.
as the media is so fond of saying, there was no knockout punch during the debate. But it was a good opportunity to observe the character of the man who desperately wants to remain as king.