ONE year ago last weekend, after more than a decade of political conniving, Paul Martin finally grasped the brass ring of Liberal leadership with a promise to transform Canada, federal-provincial relations and the practice of Canadian politics itself.
Twelve months later, it is almost impossible to remember the expectations that came with the ascension of the 10th (11th if Joseph Howe is counted) leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the most successful electoral political machine in the western industrialized and democratic world.
The question was not whether Martin would sweep into government but whether he would beat Brian Mulroney’s 1984 majority.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
The question was not whether Martin would transform Canada’s political culture but how quickly.
The question was not whether Martin would turn Liberal fortunes around in Western Canada but how dramatically.
Of course, the answers have fallen short.
On June 28, Martin led his Liberals from majority to minority. The western breakthrough was tepid to non-existent and his performance in government has been less visionary than wobbly, weak and confused.
In short, the country has fallen out of love with the leader who as finance minister seemed to promise everything and to embody the dreams of everyone.
In the months leading up to his overthrow of Jean Chrétien, Martin touched down briefly in farm country, promising that he would “revolutionize” the way the federal government relates to the farm sector.
The promise came during a period when relations between Ottawa, symbolized by bullyboy deputy minister Samy Watson and inflexible minister Lyle Vanclief, and most farm groups were tense and dysfunctional.
It was a promise of a more flexible, understanding and sympathetic federal government. On that file, how has Martin done? The fairest assessment is that it is a mixed result.
Martin first appointed Bob Speller as agriculture minister but voters fired him June 28 before it was clear if his inability to say no to agricultural lobbyists would translate into an ability to creatively say yes.
Andy Mitchell has followed and in the early going, his stance seems to be that of the prime minister – damn the centre, what does it take to win praise from the regions and the provinces?
Mitchell in his four months on the job has been the epitome of flexibility and finding funding solutions that work for the provinces. He has assured farmers “all wisdom” does not reside within the department.
He also has promised to change the national farm safety net if a review finds changes are required. And the Martin government has promised more than $1 billion in BSE aid and worked to open the border.
So far, so good.
But at the core of the farm income stability conundrum remains the fact that the support model accepted by the Martin government, inherited from Chrétien, is one that covers farmers for past losses, calculated on the basis of historical income averages that are among the worst in farming history.
Martin could “revolutionize” his government’s farm relations by pledging to find a support system that recognizes current rather than historic losses.
The farmer-government revolutionary has been silent on that fundamental issue.
