Talk:Paul Martin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Just in case

Rt. Hon. Paul Edgar Philippe Martin
Image:Paulmartin1.jpg
Rank: 21st Prime Minister of Canada
First Term of Office: December 12, 2003 - February 6, 2006
Predecessor: Jean Chrétien
Successor Stephen Harper
Birth: August 28, 1938
Place of Birth: Windsor, Ontario
Spouse: Sheila Martin
Profession: CEO
Political Party: Liberal
Religion: Roman Catholic

No need for Leader of the opposition box, just a mention. 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Need to improve the article

This is an example of an "off the top of the head" article. Paul Martin is a major Canadian political figure and may well be the next Prime Minister of Canada, As such, any article should tell more about who he is. Too, I personally find it in poor taste to refer to the Prime Minister as just "Chretien."

Although various people have tightened up the article since the above comment was written, the article still has weaknesses. I've done a preliminary edit, but there is more to be done.
By the way, I can find little to support the contention that he was unpopular as finance minister. In fact, he retained widespread popularity across the country in spite of his drastic measures--I never could figure it out. At present, his popularity is over 60% nationally and it is higher in the West (63%) than any other liberal politician in the past 40 years. Sunray 07:10, 2003 Dec 23 (UTC)
His support, as of December 2005, is in the mid thirties, ironically lower than the American approval rating of President Bush. In fact, both have undergone similar popularity declines since 2003.

Is he a Francophone or an Anglophone?

Can anyone explain how someone who grew up wealthy in Windsor, Ontario went on to represent a riding in working class Montreal? Also, I'm not even sure if he's supposed to be French or English Canadian (his name as a convenient ambiguity to it, and Windsor has a large francophone population). It seems the French think he's French and the English think he's English - quite a feat for a Canadian politician! -- stewacide 06:37, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've added a little bit on that. He's English, but his father was French, he went to French high school, and spent at least 14 years living in Montreal before entering politics. - Efghij 15:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
That did a good job of it. Thanx! -- stewacide

Is there some way we can mention that he pronounces his name in the English way, not the French? RickK 22:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He pronounces it in English when he's speaking English and French when he's speaking French, AFAIK. - Montréalais 04:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
He is not a Francophone . He speaks really good French but you can tell , its very obvious that he is not a Francophone. One sentence you can almost believe he is then the next it doest make any sense and he doest seem to realise it.

Martin's appointment as prime minister

I've rewritten the following: In accordance with the Canadian Constitution, Martin will become Prime Minister of Canada on 12 December 2003, when the current prime minister, Jean Chrétien, officialy resigns.

Apart from the spelling problems, an encyclopædia cannot state that because it simply isn't 100% certain. A crisis could delay Jean Chrétien's resignation, a scandal could erupt that would stop Martin taking over. A political crisis could bring down the government. Martin could die in the meantime. Yes all are theoretical and unlikely (though remember no-one expected Pope John Paul I to die after 33 days, Margaret Thatcher to be overthrown, and Ireland's Bertie Ahern was hours from certain election as Irish prime minister - he had even chosen his ministers - when it all fell apart and the opposition, to their own disbelief and shock, formed a government) but an encyclopædia cannot say 'x' will happen until it happens. All you can say is that it is likely to happen. It is elementary in encyclopædias.

I've reverted it to the suitably encyclopædic sentence

Martin is expected to be appointed Prime Minister of Canada on 12 December 2003, when the current prime minister, Jean Chrétien, retires. FearÉIREANN 20:44, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re # (cur) (last) . . 07:13, 22 Nov 2003 . . Snickerdo (sworn in, not appointed. He was elected by the party, after all.)

Incorrect. You are mixing up US constitutional theory with Canadian and Commonwealth constitutional law. A US president is sworn in by a judicial figure unconnected with the executive. The Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by the Governor General, the resident nominal chief executive of Canada and the representative of the constitutional nominal chief executive, the Queen of Canada. In installing someone as prime minister, the Governor General is formally appointing someone to head what is constitutionally his and the Queen's government. The Canadian pm is no more sworn in than the British pm is sworn in, the Irish pm is sworn in, or the French pm is sworn in.

The fact that he was elected by his party is constitutionally irrelevant. Canadian political parties have no constitutional status, just as British parties have no constitutional status, Irish parties have no constitutional status, etc. He is appointed not because a political party elected him but because members of parliament support him, he constitutionally thus being able to "carry on the Queen's government", to use a phrase from the Lascelles Principles. If, for example, the party chose one person as leader but MPs disagreed and supported someone else, the Governor-General would be duty bound to appoint the person supported by MPs because they have constitutional status, the party hasn't... (I)n constitutional theory the Governor General commissions the person most likely to gain the support of the democratic house to form a government. If the person so commissioned accepts the commission they are appointed, not sworn in. FearÉIREANN 21:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, what's this then:

Prime Minister Martin's oath of office: I, Paul Martin, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the power and trusts reposed in me as prime minister of Canada. So help me God. (from today's Toronto Star)

Sounds like he was 'sworn in' to me! 11:23, 12 Dec 2003 (EST)

To me too. He was "sworn in" in the sense that he took office by swearing an oath of office, which is true. How he got there is irrelevant to whether or not he was sworn in. (Also, it is certainly true he was appointed by the Governor General, but Ms. Clarkson didn't just choose him out of a hat... we shouldn't make any bones about how he came to be chosen.) - Montréalais 19:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Most prime ministers take oaths of office. But they are not described as being sworn in, which is a terminology associated with the inauguration into office by an office holder unconnected with the office (eg, judges swearing in presidents, etc.) Queen Elizabeth took an oath when being crowned, yet no-one would suggest she was sworn in.. . UK MPs also take the Oath, yet again no-one on the planet calls that 'swearing in'.

Most Commonwealth states operate under nominal chief executive models. In such systems heads of government are not described as being sworn in but appointed because that is what they are, appointed by the representative of the head of state to govern in the head of state's name. It is a bit disappointing to see Canadians aping United States terminology on the manner of entry into office, rather than use accurate terminology based on their own constitutional system... The least we can expect for wikipedia articles on Canada is a scrupulous attention to accuracy... FearÉIREANN 23:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, will you stop? My Canadian Oxford defines "swear in" as "induct into office etc. by administering an oath," which is exactly what took place. No constitutional business. You're straining at gnats. - Montréalais

Come on, Montrealais. This is an encylopædia, not a tabloid. The newspaper can afford to make sweeping simplistic generalisations (talking about the Queen of England, President of America, Irish Republic, King of Belgium, England, Holland Charles Windsor, etc) but this is an encyclopædia and it has to be very precise in its language. That is why we don't have an article on Holland but the Netherlands, why we don't have an article on Elizabeth II of England but Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (etc.)... If wikipedia is to have any credibility, it must go for factual accuracy, not colloquial misunderstanding. Which is why constitutionally swear in is wrong, appointment is right. Because in Canadian constitutional practice, there is no swearing in, but the taking of an oath as part for the appointment procedure... FearÉIREANN 00:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

...I quoted the Canadian Oxford. If there's a better authority on the English language as used in Canada, I'd like to know what it is. Can you at least admit that as part of being appointed, he was sworn in? - Montréalais

... The taking on an oath is a step in the procedure of appointment, it is not the appointment procedure itself. In the US the taking of the oath is the central feature of how a president takes office. In Canada as in other parliamentary democracies, it isn't the oath that is the central feature but the formal appointment procedure which contains the oath as a procedual part in it... FearÉIREANN 00:39, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order... I've finally found someone more anal-retentive than I am. ;) - Montréalais

...There are many areas where flexibility is required (usually were are differences in analyses or opinion) but absolute accuracy is a necessity in describing constitutional procedures which by their nature formalistic and unambiguous...

Saying Martin took the oath simply implies he filfilled one part of the procedure and doesn't make him pm. Saying he was appointed indicates all required procedures were followed and that legally he is now the valid pm... FearÉIREANN 22:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Listen, that's fabulous. Would you mind telling the fr:wiki? There are some people who are insisting that the article should be [[fr:Élisabeth II de l'Angleterre]] because she's often called that. Being anal retentive, I am naturally irritated no end by this. - Montréalais

A better picture?

Nice picture. It looks like he's straining on the toilet... Is that the best one we can find? dave

Martin's weblog

I found this: [1]. Is he the first world leader to have/had a weblog????? dave 21:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

World leader ? i think the word is pretty strong! governing 30 millions people out of 7 billions !? does that really make him a world leader ? i doubt so. The mayor of New-york as more things to manage then him hehe Most pop musicians or hollywood stars have more power than him.

Apparently not - Dennis Kucinich also has one: [2] Adam Bishop 19:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dennis Kucinich is not a world leader. But then again, is this important? And thanks for the note, Adam. I'll reply on your user talk page.Trontonian

Renaming Paul Martin, Jr.

Can anyone supply any references confirming that Mr. Martin either calls himself Paul Martin, Jr. or is so styled by others? Or that his father is called Paul Martin, Sr.? This is an uncommon usage in Canada (he's [the] young Paul Martin where I live), and certainly he is not usually referred to as Paul Martin, Jr. Trontonian 00:29, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it would be uncommon usage in Canada to call Mr. Martin "Paul Martin Jr." Usually the "Jr." is dropped when the senior dies... Probably the most authoritative source, though, is the man himself. See: Paul Martin's website. I propose that we change the name of the page from "Paul Martin, Jr." to "Paul Martin" and have requested a deletion of the redirect page "Paul Martin)" so as to be able to do that. Sunray 18:25, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)
Well, you have my support, although that's not worth much around here these days. I realize there is a problem with names as common as this one, but there must be some other solution than giving him a name he's never used. Trontonian 20:49, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I presume we would still use the term to distinguish him from his father, as in "Martin Jr. and Martin Sr. were both Cabinet ministers." Sunray 21:18, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

Jr. as a suffix is never used in the UK. I have no idea about Canada. Secretlondon 20:50, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Point taken. Would you accept rarely used in the UK? The Oxford English Dictionary does give usage of the word, usually written in full, or abbreviated as "jun." Sunray 21:19, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

It mayt not be used but it is universally understood. FearÉIREANN 22:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

IMHO keep the current name since his dad really deserves an article. Also, it seems to me that the majority of people are aware that he's a Jr. even if they don't call him that all the time.

Otherwise it'll end up being something worse like Paul Martin (1938-present) or Paul Martin (Canadian Prime Minister), and I don't think we want that. -- stewacide 03:01, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My point is that he is no longer a "junior." According to various style guides, it is incorrect to call him junior unless you are specifically distinguishing him from his dad. However, since his dad has the same name it would be logical to continue to refer to him as "Paul Martin, Sr." Otherwise, I agree that we would have difficulty distinguishing the two. Sunray 03:12, 2003 Dec 20 (UTC)

If you're going to have Paul Martin redirect to Paul Martin, Jr., you might as well have the article here. His father can be "Paul Martin, Sr." and any very important Paul Martins can be listed before the disambiguation link. I don't see what's the fuss. --Jiang 07:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The fuss is that Paul Martin Jr. is not the man's name. He is never called that. He's known as Paul Martin, and people should be able to find him under that name. The solution of leaving his father as Paul Martin Sr is not ideal, but what is, eh? It's reasonable enough. Trontonian 14:53, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

People don't call him Joseph either, I presume. I don't see what's wrong with inlcuding Jr. in the bolded title. --Jiang

There is a legal document which says his middle name is Joseph. Sheesh. Anyway, I said to have it your way – is there something unsatisfying about that? You can call him Tarzan King of the Jungle as far as I'm concerned, and with as much justification. Trontonian 15:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. There are two people called Paul Martin. Two politicians called Paul Martin. Two senior politicians who held cabinet office Paul Martin. As wikipedia has to cover both, it cannot simply use the name to mean one and not the other, without complex disambigulation pages... The claim that 'apparently now we don't call our prime minister by his right name' is nonsensical. It doesn't matter what Canada calls him. Canadians though personal experience and knowledge of their history are able to tell the two apart. Wikipedia is aimed at the world, not just Canada... [User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 23:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter what Canada calls him": Not as far as Wikipedia is concerned, anyway. Canadians are the hewers of articles and drawers of text as far as our fellow Wikipedians are concerned. The idea that any serious non-Canadian would assume that the minister of health in 1954 had become PM fifty years later is just a bit questionable, too. TronTonian 15:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Look. The main customer from an article on Paul is a Canadian. You sell to the main customer, the target market. It's just good marketing. I don't see your objection. - Zanimum
No. The main customer is a wikipedian. They may come from Canada. Or Italy... We have spent enough time trying to stop this encyclopædia become a US encyclopædia suited to US ears to have a special category of Articles aimed at Canadians. This is a world encyclopædia... FearÉIREANN 03:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To say our main customer is a Wikipedian is silly... Wikipedians are technically those who contribute to Wikipedia, not those who use it as a resource... Even if you classify readers as Wikipedians, most hits will be from Canadian IPs. As a Canadian, I'm more interested in Paul than Tommy Remengesau, president of Palau. A Palau reader would likely be more interested in Tommy than Paul.

I spent an hour or so looking for references to Paul from other countries than Canada and the US. Here's what I got:

[3] Australia- 33 results, 33 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr."..

[4] France- 1 result, 1 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr."..

[5] Israel - 1 result, 1 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr." Source was Ha'aretz.

[6] Mexico - 1 result, 1 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr." Source was the Juárez Journal, Digital.

[7] Pakistan - 6 results, 6 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr." Sources include the Herald, Hi Pakistan, PakTribune.com, and Pakistani Newspaper

[8] Russia- 4 results, 4 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr." Sources were Pravda, and the St. Petersburg Times.

[9] The UK- 99 results, 99 for "Paul Martin", 0 for "Paul Martin Jr."

In the US, dozens of papers called him "Paul Martin". [From the] Akron Beacon Journal... [to the] Wichita Eagle, KS

Radio Free Europe of the Czech Republic, UK's The Guardian and Sunday Herald newspapers, Aljazeerah, Daily Variety, Forbes and the Washington Times are some other publications... who all called him just simply "Paul Martin."..

In total, Google gave an estimate of 4,000 articles on "Paul Martin". Of those, we can subtract the 5 it returned in a seperate search for "Paul Martin Jr." Of the remaining 3,995 articles, it's easy to assume at least 1% were about cult leaders or chiefs of a Las Vegas area jail [10]. We're still left with 3955 (3955.05, to be exact) articles on the Right Honourable Paul Martin or in some cases, soon to be Right Honourable Paul Martin.

That's 791:1 in all the cases Google found, world-wide. And of the samplings taken from random countries, all called him "Paul Martin". How much more convincing do you need? - user:zanimum


The case for referring to "Paul Martin" and "Paul Martin Sr."

It has become accepted usage to refer to “Paul Martin,” when speaking of the current prime minister and “Paul Martin Sr.,” when speaking of his father. Here are some examples:

"On December 12, Paul Martin was sworn in as Canada's 21st prime minister... Martin is circumspect when speaking about his early years growing up in Ottawa while his father Paul Sr. sat as liberal backbencher." —CBC News Online INDEPTH: Paul Martin
"The Paul Martin Sr. Society was created by Ontario March of Dimes to honour Paul Martin Sr., the Canadian Minister of Health and Welfare in the 1950s… —Ontario March of Dimes, Paul Martin Sr. Society
"Paul Martin entered politics after a successful business career... His father, Paul Martin Sr., was a Liberal cabinet minister under four different prime ministers." —Canada Online
"Martin's father, Paul Martin Sr., ran three times in failed attempts to become leader of the Liberal Party. Since Martin was defeated by Chretien in 1993…" —The Washington Post

So? The argument here is ridiculous. In case you haven't noticed, the links you have put are current affairs. Wikipedia is not about current affairs, but current affairs, history, politics, international affairs, etc. So nomenclature used has to be applicable to all contexts, not just today's name recognition factor... This is a world encyclopædia, not a Canadian one. And this article no more than any other can be written only with the needs of the natives in mind. Nor can it be written simply to follow current affairs needs and nomenclature alone. FearÉIREANN 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

FYI, The case for referring to "Paul Martin" and "Paul Martin Sr." is a separate, previous argument to my own. Yes, I do certainly read more than just Canadian articles. Yes, I do certainly not consider Wikipedia not be current affairs. It's just that there's a grandiose chance of Paul Martin Jr being referred to in the history books as Paul Martin, if that is what the world is calling him now. You are a minority, thinking he needs the Sr on his name. - user:Zanimum
It's a rather moot debate. No one wanted to rename the Jean Chretien article to Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien or the Bill Clinton article to William Jefferson Clinton. At least I hope so. Aurang 06:41, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We ought to refer to him as Paul Martin II, as he has a son by the same name.--Meanie 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Meanie: This was discussed in December 2003 and resolved in favour of "Paul Martin" without additional qualification. It was further agreed to use Sr. or Jr. only when necessary to distinguish him from his father. We don't use numbers (Paul Martin, Paul Martin II, Paul Martin III) in Canada. Sunray 19:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Truth is Prime Minister Paul Martin's middle name(s) are different from his fathers middle name(s), as a result they're not Sr & Jr. Example of this is George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, they have different middle names and so aren't Sr & Jr. Mightberight/wrong 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

Did he jump or was he pushed?

Martin resigned from cabinet as far as I know. However, when I made that change, The Tom reverted it. How about some discussion on this? The thing is, he was organizing a leadership campaign--that we know for sure. Chretien obviously took a dim view of that. However, whether he jumped or was pushed from cabinet depends on one's perspective. We do know that he resigned. I would like to just state that. Sunray 01:32, 2003 Dec 25 (UTC)

The most widely held and accepted beliefe in Canada is that he was pushed, and indeed based on the way Chretien frequently behaved this is the most likely of the two to be true.--Meanie 17:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

He was pushed. I remember that weekend. Martin was on the road in his car (vacationing with family or something). He and Chretien had a phone conversation while Martin was on the road. Next thing we know, word all over the news is that Chretien pushed Martin. So yes, he was pushed. --CarrieD 11:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment for all Prime Minister pages

Is it really necessary for "politician" to be listed on as a profession for every single prime minister of Canada? This seems quite unnecessary.

Paul Martin deliberating asked Jean Chretien to remove him from cabinet. previously, Chretien warned his cabinet ministers against making deliberate remarks in the media about succeeding him until he announces his intention to retire. As a political move to force Chretien's hand, Martin publicly announced that he could no longer perform his duties as finance minister because he openly wants to pursue the leadership. Chre'tien was forced to remove Martin from the cabinet.

Moved "dithers" reference

I moved the reference to "Mr. Dithers" from the intro to the Minority Government section because in all fairness, an immediate reference to Martin's indecisiveness in the intro when is not quite NPOV. Furthermore, it is arguably more appropriate to place it in the minority government section since the instances that lead him to be called "dithering" occured after Parliament had reconvened in the Fall Session 2004.

POV

Wow -- the "Finance Minister" and "Rise to Power" sections read like hero worship! There is a marked emphasis on his "achievements" in pursuing conservative fiscal measures, but no mention of the cuts to services that were necessary to fund those record-setting tax cuts. Unfortunately I don't have the kind of details necessary to round out the discussion. Can someone bring some balance? In the meantime, I've changed the sentence "At the time, Canada had one of the highest annual deficits of the G7 countries and was on the verge of financial crisis" to read "At the time, Canada had one of the highest annual deficits of the G7 countries," since I think the "crisis" part is highly subjective (typically as assumption made by proponents of laissez-faire economics). If anyone would like to put it back in, I would ask that it include some indication of what the crisis is and who defines it. Wordie 18:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the two paragraphs under Finance minister certainly do read as a glowing account of Martin's achievements. I've tried to balance that somewhat by adding a paragraph on the costs of Canada's improved fiscal situation. I worked for the federal government at that time, so I'm aware of the extent of the decline in service delivery. However, I have tried to keep it general and fair. After all, Martin would not be prime minister now if the people had not approved of his actions while finance minister. Of course they weren't able to see the whole picture, but that is another story... and probably not one to be told by Wikipedia... yet. Sunray 18:59, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Martin on Chretien taking the fall

I've removed the following sentence from the article pending confirmation that Martin really did say this:

He has also publicly stated that maybe it was wrong for his political camp to force out his predecessor Jean Chrétien, and he should have let Mr. Chrétien take the political fall for the sponsorship scandal.


Could whoever wrote that please provide a reference? It doesn't sound like something Martin would say and readers will need to see the actual quote. Sunray 06:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Er... Someone fix the text that says (albeit misspelled) "Wrong, dishonourable" Paul Martin. "Right, Honourable" is an officially recognized title, whereas wrong, dishonourable, is not. I tried to do it myself, but found I couldn't. Someone with more knowledge of how to manipulate this website please fix it. -Lou 10:08 Pacific Time May 21, 2005

Is Martin a tax evader?

Hi, I have heard from many people who don't like Prime Minister Paul Martin that because of the locations his ships sail from (The Canadian Steamship Lines) do not require him to pay taxes to his own government. Is this true, and is he what you would call a tax evader?

I'm not exactly sure, but I do believe that some things that may seem to be "tax evasion" to poor and middle-class people are perfectly legal for the rich. If you want to find out more, I recommend reading Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad. --Metric1031 01:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Tax evasion is an illegal activity. Tax avoidance, which is what Martin's former companies have done, is perfectly legal. HistoryBA 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Now what is the difference between tax evasion, and tax avoidance?

Tax avoidance is lowering ones tax liablity through mechanisms which are perfectly legal (e.g. valid loopholes, trusts, various types of offshoring, etc.), whereas tax evasion is the same thing accomplished by illegal means (e.g. outright failure to decalare income). Fawcett5 13:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The CSL website states that the ships are only taxed in Barbados to keep a more competive business structure not to boost personal profits. In fact it also states that the Canadian economy will make more money this way --Vancouver123 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin does not currently control CSL, and instead it operates under a trust. However, when he did run CSL he ran them out of the Bahamas and under other Flags of convenience such as those of Liberia, Vanuatu, etc. Canada receives little or no taxes from the company currently. This is a move made by many other companies that wish to evade the higher taxes of their home nations. It is not illegal by any means, but it is certainly ethically questionable. -- John Hawke 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethically questionable? When the entire shipping industry does the same thing? Paul Martin's company was simply conforming to the industry standard. Let's be careful what we're trying to project here. The tax holes exist, companies make use of them, just as average citizens take advantage of tax breaks/loopholes. --CarrieD 11:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

A couple minor POV changes under finance minister, eliminating "Notably" and changing "achievements" to "record." Also, changed the FTA and GST promise of being "scrapped" to "altered," since the 1993 election promises were to "renegotiate" the FTA and "replace" the GST (source: 1993 English-language federal election debate).

Though I haven't changed it, I wonder how true it is that the FTA and GST were major contributors to deficit-reduction, given that both were in place 5 years before Martin's first budget (though I guess NAFTA was more recent). Didn't the FTA involve reducing/eliminating tariffs, meaning a reduction in revenue? If the argument is that the FTA was good economics and thus the gain was greater than the loss of revenue, that seems to be POV based on economic theory. It seems that the deficit-reduction relied more heavily on program cuts than anything (and if I remember correctly, they actually raised taxes $1 for every $7 in cuts initially, plus we were coming out of a recession, plus interest rates went down).24.64.223.203 06:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense but those people are really dumb because the tax money that they would pay just goes back to the goverment (posted by anonomous user, 8 December 2005)
The Mulroney government always claimed that the GST would bring in no more revenue than the hidden sales taxes they were abolishing. I agree that the bulk of deficit reduction was accomplished through cuts, both to social programs and to provincial transfer payments (which in turn resulted in further cuts to social programs). HistoryBA 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The GST most certainly brought in a huge surplus of money to the government. Unlike provincial sales taxes, where only some things are taxed, and at varying rates, the GST taxed EVERYTHING for EVERYONE. And it continues to. Thank your Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney for that. --CarrieD 11:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo

It is prudent that you find a more high quality and better looking photograph. Must I compare it to Bush's? --Vancouver123 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the official photo from the Privy Council Office website - if you can find a higher-resolution version of it, go ahead and put it up. I put it there to replace one of a series of unflattering photos that were chosen to make him look bad (admittedly, he doesn't photograph well). Geoff NoNick 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I'd say his best photo's are either from parliament or conferences, (like when he points his fingers). I'd have to sincerly admit the fact that the man just can't look good in a offical photograph. I wonder how his offical portrait will turn out? Here is a decent photo, tell me what you think? [[11]] --Vancouver123 01:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me - certainly gives a better impression of what he looks like than mine. Geoff NoNick 18:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

All though it's not an offical photo, it certainly conveys a more positive attitude towards him. So I added it, This should be temporary though. --Vancouver123 20:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you guys decide to change the photo, don't use the last one in front of the office...it's just terrible.Habsfannova 15:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of this photo - I realize it's official, but it's damned unflattering. Any objections if we go back to the campaign photo (smiling in from of the Liberal banner)? Geoff NoNick 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the man just can't get photographed well...the one here is one of the better ones. Official photos seem to be the standard. A new one could work, but the one in front of the office was terrible. I think that Pierre Trudeau's photo is in need of more attention then this one, however.Habsfannova 03:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI that if the anonymous IP user reverts the photo once more on 6 November he/she will be in violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for a period of time. 23skidoo 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Corner Gas

I added a paragraph regarding Martin's unexpected appearance tonight on Corner Gas. I am 99% certain my statement that he is the first sitting PM to appear on a sitcom is correct, but am willing to be corrected if anyone can find evidence that any PM before him did likewise while in office. I believe Chretien and maybe Mulroney appeared on Air Farce or 22 Minutes or some such show during their terms, but those aren't sitcoms. 23skidoo 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Time to lock the article

This revert war regarding the photo is ridiculous. The close-up shot is better than the long-shot and it is the official bio photo to boot. If people keep messing around perhaps it might be time to lock the article from editing for awhile. 23skidoo 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo debate

The photo the anonymous IP user keeps adding in makes him look like a cross between someone in front of a firing squad and a dummy in Madame Tussauds. (It is also off centre.) Please stop adding it in before we get sued by him for visual defamation! lol [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 00:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if there isn't an anti-Martin agenda at work regarding the photo. The close-up shot is a perfectly reasonable headshot that is also consistent with the format of other prime minister photos in Wikipedia. The shot of him up against the wall is uncomplimentary, makes him look like he just farted, and on top of it all is not consistent with the way the PM photos are treated. 23skidoo 01:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Photo of Adolf Hitler added by IP:192.245.224.238 to replace portrait photo. Another user reverted the article to correct the problem. --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that was a quiet couple of weeks. I see someone's trying to post the "up against the wall" photo again. 23skidoo 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

National debt and Martin related?

I always mavel at how people connect national debt with a leader. Its really painful if you think of it. I am not saying he is an idiot, but would it be any different if any of the other three leaders were prime minister? To me, its just a matter of luck, being in the right place at the right time.

The whole debt issue is driven more by commodity market trends than the leadership. Oil, gold, platinum you name it are selling at the best price ever. This mean more money to pay off debt and has nothing to do with leadership brains. The same thing happened with Bill Clinton, but I could help feeling it was unfair as the tech boom should be credited to Regan. Is say that because its research investment in Regan time that drove the 90s madness. What will we remember Clinton for?

I am not a conservative at all by the way. But please, its insulting to pull the above assertion. (Posted by anonymous user, 20:21, 30 November 2005.)

You make some good points, but let's not pretend that leaders are powerless. If that were the case, how would you explain that only Canada, among the G7 countries, posted budgetary surplusses throughout the late 1990s, when they were all facing the same broad economic forces? HistoryBA 20:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the whole Liberal period of 1993-1997 was very much the "putting the fiscal house in order" period. It wasn't just the economic upswing that made the defecit disapper: Many programs that were once sacred were cut, many sacrifices that other nations would never make were made. The Surplusses here were very much created by the government. Whether they are a good thing (As the Liberals say) or bad (Too much social cuts, or too much taxes) is a matter of debate.Habsfannova 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. HistoryBA 13:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I do agree with what you are saying, but what you miss is that all the other six countries pruned their social programs deeply. I mean look at EU. They are even privatizing health care, thanks to the EU commission. What other social program could be more sacred than that? What I am trying to say the other leader have tried to be frugal. What help this guy is that Canada is more heavily commodity based than the rest six. In the 90's tech drove all the seven countries, while commodity was dirty cheap. Comes 2000 and the tech exploded while commodity took off. Canada economy was able to ride both picks while the others weren't that lucky. One thing I would like someone comment on is, would you agree that Canada economy is more heavily dependent on commodity that the other 6 G7?
We seem to be getting away from the issue at hand, which is what the article should say about Martin's role in eliminating the deficit. HistoryBA 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
THe "Commodity" explanation is thin, as the defecit was dying during the tech boom as well. Martin had so much control over the defecit slashing, even cutting poltiically important programs (Just look at Nova Scotia in the 1997 election). "Defecit Reduction" has been Martin's schtick, and his actions as finance minister did it. What Canadians are asking now is, "At what price".Habsfannova 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


--Good Point, Habsfannova. John Hawke

Martin quote

I'm concerned about the removal of the "goddamn Red Book" quote. If it's a genuine quote, it should be there. If it was said in a "fit of anger" as HistoryBA says, then this context should be provided as a footnote. My concern is that by removing this quote this article could be seen as displaying a bit of pro-Martin/pro-Liberal bias by trying to remove a "wart" from his profile. I'm no conservative supporter so there's no agenda here on my part...but I just came back from voting to defend an article on criticisms of Wikipedia (currently up for AFD) in which Wikipedia is being criticized for alleged bias. If the quote is fictitious, then by all means delete it. If it's not, and if it has been printed in other media, it needs to be kept, and if there is doubts as to its veracity, then this should be noted. I'm not desiring to start a revert war so I'd rather see discussion and consensus about this. 23skidoo 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion over whether the quotation should be included. I do, however, strongly believe that the context (including Martin's propensity for shooting off his mouth in fits of anger and saying things that he does not believe) must be included. Whether or not it is a "genuine quote" seems irrelevant to me. After all, we don't include everything Martin has ever said, only things that we believe are relevant. HistoryBA 21:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the quote (and I have seen it before, just don't know where but in print media I know for sure) merits being included in the article in order to give a balanced view of Martin and his "propensity for shooting off his mouth" as HistoryBA put it is part of him. Put context in with the quote to reflect it being said in anger but don't sanitize his record by omitting it for that reason.--Kalsermar 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it is unfair to suggest that I am wanting to "sanitize his record." I am merely asking that we only include items that are significant and that we put them in a proper context. We should portray the man in a generally accurate way, warts and all, and not include details that, however accurate, would create a false impression. HistoryBA 22:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise might be to lengthen the excerpt somehow, either including more of the quote, or an introduction to provide context? Alternately, perhaps there is a quote in which Martin addresses his earlier comments? 23skidoo 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another solution might be to include a section in the article itself on Martin's temper. The quotation could be included in that section as an illustration. It could also say that his staff members called his tirades "beatings." HistoryBA 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Both the above solutions sound fine. To HistoryBA, I wasn't singling you out in the least when I said sanitize his record, I meant it in a general sense.--Kalsermar 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but at the same time, I hope you understand that I would naturally assume you were responding to me when I was the only one questioning the inclusion of this quotation, the specific issue we were discussing. HistoryBA 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, under the rubric of "be bold", I have attempted to implement the solution I proposed above. Edit away! HistoryBA 02:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are the quotes of Martin on Iraq being taken off, they all are sourced? If one is out of context than add it into context, instead of deleting every single one because you dislike what he had to say.

Next time you add quotes, make sure you don't put them in a way that they could be misread. I've put the quote in context and added what was said after his first statement. I'd rather they be removed, however.Habsfannova 03:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

His religion?

Does anyone know his religion? Mikeee

RC. HistoryBA 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Officially" Roman Catholic, although his beliefs are not in line with some of the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion, homosexuality, etc. John Hawke 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

His post nominals are a mess on the site

I think that they are entirely in the wrong order, I have never known LLB, as a academic title come after MP. Plus, Martin isn't a peer so why is it necessary to have PC as a post nominal also. --David_Ferrers 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you certain about that? My understanding is the Prime Minister automatically becomes a member of the Privy Council once he/she takes office. 23skidoo 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Further to the above, according to [12] Paul Martin has been a Privy Council member since 1993. 23skidoo 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I know he is a member of the Privy Council, but I thought that the prefix the Rt Hon. was enough for a non-peer, not with the additional PC post nominal as well. --David_Ferrers 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Membership in the Canadian Privy Council confers only the "Hon." style. In Canada "Rt. Hon." (with a couple of exceptions) is only for GGs, PMs, and Chief Justices. All of these Rt Hons are PCs (probably), but the Canadian custom is to use both "Hon"/"Rt Hon" and the PC postnomial. Indefatigable 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Expansion, Corrections, and Revision of Article

I have taken the time to expand, revise, correct and update the article on the Prime Minister. As the article is an "off the top of the head" article, I have attempted to make it sound more professional and comprehensive, and in addition to enure that it is completely NPOV. I have updated the sections on the Atlantic accord dispute, the crossing of the floor by Belinda Stronach, the 2004 Federal Election, the Gay Marriage vote, and the current election campaign dispute between Martin and the US in order to expand the knowledge contained in this article. I feel that these edits provide a more comprehensive look at the events referenced, and that they provide a diversity of views from various sources on all the issues, which will help maintain the neutrality of the article (which, as you all know, is always difficult to do in an article about politics and politicians). If you have any suggestions as to the corrections and to the expansion of the knowledge contained in the article, I would be happy to discuss them here with you. These edits are completely NPOV and all information provided can be backed up upon request, so do not revert the article because of partisan politics. John Hawke 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Metis ancestry

An anonymous editor has deleted the line about Martin being of Metis ancestry. Does this mean this is incorrect? I personally had never heard of this before, but I haven't heard it's not true, either. 23skidoo 05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I removed that line a while ago but it was reverted along with a bunch of other "vandal's" work that was all around my edit. I've never heard of it and I can't seem to find it anywhere. So until someone does, I'm removing it again. Bravado 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

January 23rd can't come fast enough

... not because I want to see Martin lose, but with any luck it'll put an end to all those morons who keep vandalising this article. 23skidoo 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, except that if by some miracle Martin wins, the vandals will be even worse! So, anybody in the free world reading this article....Canada has an election going on right now and it's pretty ugly. So don't take this article as gospel. At least until 2007 maybe. --CarrieD 11:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm afraid I agree with you. I just wish these vandals would realize they're making everyone - Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP supporters alike - look like fools. 23skidoo 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lock this article?

Well, this isn't going anywhere. Let's take it off the Current Events list and have it locked. At least then we will not be undoing vandalism every other day--CNSW 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait 36 hours first till the election is over. 23skidoo 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's probably worth mentioning at this point that Martin will remain the Prime Minister for up to a month following the election, during which time he may be able to cobble together a coalition government with another party even if the Liberals don't get a plurality of seats . All this to say, that infoboxx won't be changing any time soon no matter what happens today. Geoff NoNick 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)