Paul Martin Makes a Kerryism -- Sort Of

You know, Paul Martin's life would be a lot easier if he would admit to people that he occasionally trips over his tongue.

I don't mean changing policy; that's a whole other debate. I mean speaking before he thinks, and refusing to admit that he wasn't thinking when he was speaking. People do this sort of thing all the time, and it's not a sign of weakness to admit it. But the Liberals seem to think otherwise.

Take, for example, a comment he made on the Syrian situation:

Martin, answering a reporter's question, appeared to say that Syria was in Lebanon to keep the peace:

"It's clear that if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it's because peace has to be maintained and there has certainly been a failure," he said in French after a cabinet meeting.

The matter comes at a sensitive time, following Monday's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Hariri was killed in a huge bomb explosion in Beirut and many are pointing an accusing finger at Syria.

The implication of Martin's statement is that the Syrians are peacekeepers (i.e. UN blue berets) in Lebanon. That's a bit like saying the Iraqis were peacekeepers in Kuwait.

Now to be fair, Martin's reputation is based on domestic economics, not foreign affairs. And answering reporters' questions on the fly is always an iffy situation at best.

But the true extent of this gaffe is this exchange in the House of Commons (fisked for those who don't follow Canadian federal politics):

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote, “It is clear that if the Syrians are in Lebanon it is because it is necessary to keep the peace”. This is an irresponsible and damaging statement.
How will the Prime Minister explain this new position?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs, not to take remarks out of context. I clearly stated that Canada has supported the UN resolution and that Syria should withdraw from Lebanon.

[Okay. How many of us can remember, word for word, what we said 45 minutes ago? Apparently Paul Martin can't.]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Prime Minister said today.
The Prime Minister said that Syria was in Lebanon to keep the peace. Canada has supported UN Security Council resolution 1559, calling for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. This is a shocking and irresponsible statement.
Given that the very presence of the Syrian army in Lebanon is an illegal threat to peace, how could the Prime Minister commit such a gaff so out of step with international opinion?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that was precisely my point. It was a terrible explosion that took the life of the former prime minister, a man I knew. We all extend condolences to his family, and to the Lebanese.
Within the context of saying that this is certainly not the way one keeps the peace, the Syrians should retire and should withdraw from Lebanon. We support the United Nations resolution. Let there be no doubt about it. Let the hon. member not try to create confusion.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said this, and I will repeat it in English, “It is clear that if the Syrians are in Lebanon, it is because it is necessary to keep the peace”. That is what the Prime Minister has said at the very time when our allies and the international community are focused on a possible Syrian role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri.
Will the Prime Minister absolutely, unequivocally withdraw that statement and apologize for making it in the first place?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said in French and I have said in English that the Syrians should withdraw from Lebanon. I have now said it three times. How many more times need I say it? I think it is a strange way to try to keep the peace, by allowing this kind of explosion to take place. The Syrians should withdraw from Lebanon.
Does the hon. member now understand the position of the Government of Canada?

[Martin's first error: implied denial. He can't even admit whether or not he made such a statement.]

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, "la Syrie est là pour garder la paix."
That is what the Prime Minister said a little more than moments ago. Does he have any idea what he has done to Canadian credibility by standing here, just not that many moments ago, and saying that Syria is in Lebanon to keep the peace when every responsible thinking person and country in the world has said that it is not there to keep the peace? It is a threat.
Will he please retract that statement?

[At this point, the Minister of Foreign Affairs attempts to save Martin's backside.]

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, with great clarity, I expressed to both the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Syria, Canada's foreign policy, which the Prime Minister fully supports, as he just has done here in this House. Canada supports resolution 1559 calling for Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we are not questioning what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said last week. As a matter of fact, I listened to what he said and he was more or less on track.
It is the Prime Minister who has jumped the rails on this, who has taken the government right off track. Today, he stood in this building and said, “la Syrie est là pour garder la paix”. What did he mean by that? Syria is there to keep the peace is what he said, when even the United Nations has said that Syria has to get out of Lebanon. It is threatening the peace in the Middle East. Today, the Prime Minister said that it is there to keep the peace.
Please explain it or retract it.

At this point, the Minister replies, but the Opposition isn't interested in him:

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was very clear. The problem is not with him, it is with the Prime Minister.

[Translation: No Minister, we're not after the Government; we're after Paul Martin.]

I heard the Prime Minister's comments earlier. He stated his position both in French and in English. I should point out that he was just as confused in English as he was in French.
I would like the Prime Minister to explain to me what he meant when he said that the Syrians were there to keep the peace? What did he mean when he said that on television, less than a half hour ago?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said that the Syrians claim to be there to keep the peace. This is a strange way to do so, considering that a bomb took the life of a former prime minister in a terrible explosion. This is what I said.
I will say it again: Canada's position and my position are that we supported the UN resolution. The Syrians should withdraw from Lebanon. It is obvious they are not able to keep the peace. They should withdraw. This is what I said and I am repeating it.

[Martin's second error: the paraphrase after the fact. The problem with this strategy is all too clear:]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is repeating something he did not say. That is not what he said. I listened to him. He is the person who spoke on television earlier. And he was not talking to Gérard D. Laflaque, because this was during the news. He said very clearly that the Syrians were there to keep the peace. He did not say that the Syrians claimed they were there for that purpose. He is the one who said it.
I want the Prime Minister to explain something to me. How can he want the Syrians to withdraw if they are there to keep the peace? Let us hear his explanation about this confusion.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not want to understand, that is his problem. What I said is that the Syrians say they are there to keep the peace. We saw that there can be no peace with an explosion such the one that occurred. That is what I said. The Syrians should withdraw. This is quite clear.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Prime Minister is trying to correct the gaffe that he just made. This is what he is trying to do. He should at least have the decency to tell us that he made a mistake when speaking. It would not be the first time. But he should at least tell us that. He should tell us this is not what he meant. He said “the Syrians are there to keep the peace”. He did not say that the Syrians were there because they were claiming to want to keep the peace. He said “They are there”. I listened to the Prime Minister. Let him replay the tape. Perhaps he will understand himself, perhaps he will finally understand himself.
Will he retract and say that he misspoke? Let us hear him say that.

[At this point the Minister of Foreign Affairs attempts to jump in again. He probably shouldn't have bothered:]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expresses that position very well. I understand his problem at this time: he has to try to redeem the Prime Minister, who got it all wrong. And that is what he has done.
If the Prime Minister has the slightest idea what his position is all about, would he tell us he made a mistake and that was not what he meant to say. Such things can happen, but let him at least have the decency to admit that he has misrepresented Canada's position and that was not what he wanted to say. Perhaps that would restore some of his credibility. Otherwise, he will just keep on making one gaffe after another.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I was misunderstood, then I was misunderstood. But I said, and say again: “If the Syrians are there to keep the peace, it is a strange way to try to keep the peace.” That is Canada's position, was my position yesterday, and is today as well.

[Martin's third error: blaming the listener. "My statement was clear, you misunderstood me."]

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we just want to say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we support the kinds of things he was saying in the Middle East. We just wish his Prime Minister was supporting the kinds of things he was saying in the Middle East, instead of saying dumb things, then being even dumber and not retracting them. Instead of digging himself deeper, why does he not just get up and say that he misspoke and withdraw it?

The Speaker: I did not hear all that the hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona said but I think one of the words sounded out of order to me if I heard it right. The hon. member is an experienced member. If he said something out of order, he will want to retract it.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, anything I said I have heard said before and I never heard it ruled out of order. Some of the things the Prime Minister said about Syria should be ruled out of order and he should get up and retract those things.

[Just to be clear: According to parliamentary rules, you're not allowed to personally insult a member. You can say that a member said "dumb things," but you cannot say he's "being even dumber." Even if he is.]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very important aspect of Canadian foreign policy, one in which the government has been very clear and one in which I have been very clear.
If in speaking ironically about the fact that the Syrian's believe that they are there to maintain the peace and explosions of that kind occur, then that is not maintaining the peace.

[Martin's fourth error: claiming to be ironic. He's not David Letterman or even a Rick Mercer.]

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions on which the Prime Minister sent the Minister of Foreign Affairs in various incarnations outside to explain himself and to retract what he had to say, most of the time when he was saying the right thing.
Why does the Prime Minister not apply a little of his own discipline to himself, do what he often asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do when he says things that are contrary to government policy, and retract what he had to say about Syria being in Lebanon to keep the peace?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained the Canadian government's position today. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has explained it on a number of occasions. I really do not believe that on an important issue like this the opposition should play politics. If I was misunderstood, then I was misunderstood, and that is unfortunate, but I have now clarified it unequivocally.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): No, Mr. Speaker, he was not misunderstood. He misspoke. What we are seeing here is a Prime Minister who is incapable of acknowledging an error and apologizing and retracting.

Now, looking at all of this, one question comes to mind: would it really have destroyed Paul Martin to admit that he goofed up? This is the type of pride that ends up costing much more than it's worth. It's why the Canadian government winds up paying more money for the wrong type of helicopter.

This kind of misstatement isn't a Bushism. The Man Beneath Us can, at least, think on the fly, it's just that his mouth doesn't always click into gear. What we have here could be considered a Kerryism; taking a long time to explain something that was probably an error in the first place.