BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Father Raymond J. De Souza
National Post

Editor's Note:

The following article published January 24, 2006, in the National Post by its regular columnist, Father Raymond J. De Souza, explains what occurred when former Prime Minister, Paul Martin, sought to retain political office. It is an accurate assessment of Mr. Martin's tragedy.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

CALGARY - The election campaign was the final step in the corruption of Paul Martin.

Since his "Mad as Hell" post-Adscam tour two years ago, Martin spent his time in the Prime Minister's Office insisting that he was the one who had cleaned up the corruption left by his predecessor. His exoneration by Judge Gomery was trumpeted as the independent confirmation of his argument: Paul Martin was not corrupt, even if some Liberals on some occasions in some ways had been somewhat corrupt.

And yet the charge maddeningly stuck. During a CBC town hall broadcast during the Liberals' worst week of the campaign, Peter Mansbridge addressed the stench of corruption around Martin directly: "I understand [your claims of exoneration], but the fact is that you still wear it. It's not about responsibility, but you're sort of still dragging it around."

He wore it to the end. Perversely, even as Judge Gomery said Martin wasn't responsible, the PM's own conduct led voters to become more convinced that he may well have been. It wasn't his suit, but it fit well. And if it does fit, you can't acquit.

Martin and his advisors failed to grasp that there are two types of corruption in politics. They were so busy distancing themselves from the first type that they did not realize that they were immersed in the second.

The first type of corruption is exemplified by the sponsorship scandal -- the use of public offices and money for private benefit. Political scandals are generally of this vulgar kind -- jobs given as favours, contracts given to friends, illegal payments, inflated invoices, fraudulent accounts, kickbacks. The Adscam envelopes stuffed with cash just put the finishing touches on a scandal as brazen as they come -- the governing party helping itself to government money.

It was on that point that Martin was exonerated. The Gomery inquiry did not accuse him of taking a penny of public money, nor of knowing that his colleagues in the Liberal party were doing so.

There is, though, another type of corruption. It's not so vulgar, but more subtle and more soul-destroying. It is not about using political office for one's own gain. It is about compromising oneself to grasp and retain political office. It is about power for power's sake. And it is this corruption which consumed Paul Martin.

If getting power meant undermining his predecessor, he would do it. If heading off Adscam meant throwing his predecessor's allies overboard, he would do it. If winning the 2004 election meant trashing Stephen Harper in hysterical terms, he would do it. If keeping power meant allowing the NDP to rewrite the budget, he would do it.

If it meant embarrassing himself with petty outbursts against the Americans, even after promising to improve Canada-U.S. relations, he would do it. If it meant allowing his chief of staff to negotiate tawdry deals to induce opposition MPs to cross the floor, he would do it. If it meant trafficking Cabinet seats to win a non-confidence vote, he would do it. If it meant engaging in a pre-election spending spree completely contrary to his well-earned reputation as a fiscal manager, he would do it. And finally, if it meant conducting a near-maniacal election campaign -- disgorging smears, proposing constitutional amendments on the fly, playing fast and loose with national unity, and descending into a caricature of the man who will say anything to win a vote -- then he would do it in spades, and have the chutzpah to declare that this election was about his values.

Vulgar corruption asks at what price a man can be bought, or at what price an office can be sold. The more pernicious corruption born of the lust for power acknowledges no price as too great to stay in office. As Martin descended from the noble heir apparent to the unprincipled king, Canadians began to see a man whose corruption was so deep that they lost their trust in him.

The pre-Martin Liberal party, having achieved office, was not above using it for a little private gain here and there. For the new "Paul Martin Liberals" there was no level to which they were unwilling to sink to hold onto office itself. As that became evident over the past 18 months, voters decided that the distinction between the two types of corruption was without a meaningful difference in this election.

The unspoken rationale for Martin's long assault on the leadership of the Liberal party was that he deserved Jean Chrétien's job because he was the superior man -- the urbane businessman rather than the grubby political hack. The tragedy of Martin is that his long grasp for power turned him into a man who knew only, in the end, how to grasp for power. And when that transformation was made manifestly evident in this campaign, and his corruption was complete, he lost the job for which he had paid a very heavy price -- his integrity.

The cruel irony is that, for the most part, the principal agents in the sponsorship scandal kept their jobs and the money. Paul Martin lost both his job and his principles. His corruption was total.

2006 Federal Election

© National Post 2006

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS