Has Martin Finally Gone Too Far?

"I'm not particularly interested in talking to somebody who wants to break my country up."--Paul Martin, June 23, 2004.

- - -

Well, that was then. Today, the Prime Minister stands accused of designating just such a somebody to represent the Queen in Canada. Of course, it's possible that the somebody in question has changed her mind since 1995. It's possible too that her past views have been misreported, misconstrued, or misrepresented.

All that is known for sure, after all, is that the new Governor-General's husband, Daniel Lafond, wrote a movie together with Francis Simard, worked with him for years, and considered him--along with former FLQ members Jacques Rose and Pierre Vallieres--among his very closest friends. Simard is one of four FLQ terrorists convicted of the murder of Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. Laporte was strangled to death--garroted I believe is the precise term--with a religious medal he wore. Simard has never expressed remorse for the crime.

But really, so what? Surely it is possible for a filmmaker to work closely for many years with an unrepentant terrorist killer without sharing his views, isn't it? Especially since Lafond hinted in a 1999 interview that he was open to the argument that Simard was not a killer at all, but an innocent man: that it was indeed the government of Canada that murdered Laporte as part of an elaborate plot to discredit separatism.

Prime Ministerial spokesman Scott Reid has urged Canadians not to worry their little heads and to trust Paul Martin's choice: "When the Prime Minister says Madame Jean and her husband are committed Canadians, you can rest assured they are committed Canadians." Yet this "trust Paul" tactic may not be the cleverest line of defense: The last time Canadians were surveyed on the question, back in May, 61% of them said that Paul Martin would lie if it would help him politically; 63% rated him the most dishonest of the four major party leaders.

"Canadians are just going to have to take that to the bank," Reid continued. Another unfortunate expression. As many Canadians may remember, a great many Quebec Liberals spent the past decade taking many tens of millions of misappropriated taxpayer dollars to the bank. The excuse given for the whole sponsorship scandal was the vital need to avoid a reprise of the separatist near-win in 1995. But if the 1995 referendum was important enough to justify $100-million in waste and fraud, why isn't it important enough to justify one clear answer to one simple question: Which side was the next Governor-General on?

Is this an improper question? Reid insists it is. "We are not going to turn over people's underwear drawers." If Canada's future de facto head of state voted to break away from Canada, if her husband consorted with anti-Canadian terrorists--why those are purely private, personal matters that nobody has any right to investigate. I'm surprised that Reid neglected to charge that anybody who pressed the point was a racist. But it's August, and probably his mind is not fully on the job.

As it is, the Jean appointment is turning into a classic Paul Martin botch-up. First comes the bold, visionary announcement: An agenda for the cities! Redressing the democratic deficit! Canada's first black Governor General! Then comes the cold shock of reality. The Martinites next try to bluff their way through by demanding that Canadians trust them (that's the stage we're at now). Then they're caught lying. Then they call their opponents nasty names, cut dirty deals, and violate constitutional rules all to escape the mess they themselves created by their own weird combination of vanity and fecklessness.

How costly will this botch-up prove? Probably not all that much in the end--Canadians do not take the job of Governor General very seriously. (By contrast, the Australians have chosen a string of excellent GGs. The current Queen's representative is Major General Michael Jeffrey, a former deputy chief of the Australian General Staff, a decorated veteran of Malaya and Vietnam--and incidentally a former head of Australia's counter-terrorism service. General Jeffrey and Daniel Lafond should have a lot to talk about at Commonwealth gatherings.)

On the other hand, it's also true that this scandalous appointment has stirred something in Canadians. I received more e-mail about last week's column on her than I have on any other piece I've published in this newspaper this year. Again and again my correspondents make the same point: Other recent Governor General appointments may have been cynical and partisan--indeed, as with Romeo LeBlanc, rather more so--but there is something especially troubling about this one.

It is an appointment that expresses so much contempt for Canadian institutions. It is wrapped in so much dishonesty and pretense. It so nakedly seeks to exploit Canadians' racial generosity and goodwill to stifle deserved criticism. It is, perhaps, just one outrage too many for Canadians to swallow from this prime minister and this government.