Do or die

By Jason Hayes
web posted February 16, 2004

In the rush of headlines questioning Paul Martin's possible
involvement in the sponsorship scandal, it is interesting to see
how his other glaring inadequacies are being set aside.

Not one headline today discussed the fact that the beleaguered
Martin has still not wavered on his refusal to allow a free vote on
funding for the firearms registry.
 
Martin has done nothing to address the distinct lack of
democracy in the Canadian Parliament, despite press releases
and other assorted smoke and mirrors claiming to have an action
plan to do so.

To be fair, his plate is rather full right now with fighting off the
media and picking fights with former Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien. However, short of a US-style impeachment or Martin's
resignation, Martin will be the prime minister for another four to
six months.

This means that when the furor over the sponsorship scandal
subsides and the daily workings of government resume, Liberal
MP's will still be incapable of representing the wishes of their
constituents. Prime Minister Paul Martin has purposefully chosen
to do nothing about this problem.

Roger Galloway (Parliamentary Secretary for Democratic
Reform) initially assured Canadians that the Martin action plan to
address the democratic deficit would allow a free vote on
funding for the firearms registry. However, news that a free vote
would see funding for the program stopped brought out Martin's
true intentions.
 
After several days of obfuscation both Paul Martin and
Government House Leader, Jacques Saada crushed the hopes
of Liberal MP's. Saada claimed that spending votes are akin to
budget votes, which are by necessity confidence measures. Short
version - Liberal MP's will toe the party line or face retribution.
Saada's assertion ignored the fact that last year the House voted
to freeze funding for the registry and the earth continued to spin.
 
In reality, the spending estimates are a line item in a budget, not
the entire budget. Allowing MP's to vote their conscience or the
wishes of their constituents on a line item would not harm the
integrity of the party or the goals Martin put forward in the recent
Throne Speech.
 
In fact, a free vote, resulting in a funding freeze for the Firearms
Act, would give Martin a greatly needed win on many political
fronts. Given his current feeble position in the media and the eyes
of the Canadian voter, some leadership and foresight on this
issue could do his camp some good.
 
If Martin could make a clear and decisive move to allow free
votes, he would actually regain some small measure of credibility
for addressing the democratic deficit. He could continue to save
face with the anti-gun lobby by publicly supporting the registry
and openly disagreeing with Liberal MP's who chose to vote
against it. He could win (a very few) points in the west and with
firearms owners for allowing the hated registry to be dismantled.
He would also recoup some points with fiscal conservatives for
stopping the mismanagement and waste of scarce tax dollars
inherent in the management of the Firearms Act. Finally, he
would be able to kick start his own legacy by committing to
create new firearms legislation to replace the Firearms Act.
 
This final point would have the added personal benefit for Martin
of further tarnishing the luster of Chrétien's legacy at the same
time as it bolsters his.
 
There is no serious immediate political downside for Martin in
allowing a free vote and "immediate" political impacts are what
must concern him with an election approaching and the
sponsorship scandal looming overhead.

Martin is at a key juncture in his very short tenure as prime
minister. He can choose to act like a leader and make a much
needed decision to allow democratic representation in this
country. Failing that, he can cling to his rapidly fading influence
and power for a few remaining months, refuse to address the
democratic deficit, and quite likely suffer the same embarrassing
fate as Kim Campbell did several years ago.

Given Martin's past decisions as Prime Minister, one does not
hold out a great deal of hope for any serious reform. However,
the potentially career ending reality of the sponsorship scandal
might be enough to encourage new thinking.

Decisions need to be made and for Paul Martin, it is time to do
or die.

Jason Hayes is an independent consultant who specializes in
environmental, policy, and tech issues. His blog is located at
www.hayz.ws/blog.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com