"We have to change the way we go about the nation's business. Canadians have a new confidence that positive change is possible. But they have come to doubt that their representatives share their sense of enthusiasm and purpose. They fear that power has become too concentrated. That Parliament has become too distant. This must change. Parliament must again be where the great debates of our day take place."

- Paul Martin, Nov. 14, 2003

It's been nine months since Paul Martin addressed federal Liberals to mark his coronation as their leader and our incoming prime minister. Long enough to get a clear sense of how he believes the nation's biggest questions should be addressed. And long enough to determine that his definition of "great debates" leaves something to be desired.

It was one thing for Mr. Martin to come to office lacking the sort of activist agenda that could revitalize public discourse. From someone who'd spent years alluding to his disappointment with stagnant policy development, that was bad enough. But what's making matters far worse for him -- and, more important, for Canadians' trust in his government -- is his failure even to take ownership of issues that fall directly into his lap.

There are plenty of examples, but one in particular stands out.

Canada is immersed in a highly contentious debate over whether to fully participate in plans by the United States to build a North American missile defence shield. Or, at least much of our country is. Columnists and editorial boards argue back and forth, talking heads do likewise, and various interests do their best to make their voices heard. But the most important voice of all - the one belonging to the person who will ultimately decide the issue - has been virtually silent.

By all appearances, Mr. Martin intends to offer George W. Bush our full co-operation. That's what he implied before replacing Jean Chretien, it's what U.S. and Canadian sources keep whispering to reporters, and it seems to be the logical next step now that it's been made official that Norad's missile-warning function will be available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.

But assuming that's the direction we're headed, the prime minister steadfastly refuses to make the case for why he's doing so. Instead, he gives the impression that even he doesn't think it's such a hot idea, and that he feels no compulsion to explain to Canadians why he's pressing forward on it anyway.

If this sounds familiar, it should: After all, it's been the Liberals' modus operandi - under both Mr. Martin and Mr. Chretien - on just about every quarrelsome issue of the past couple of years.

No proper case has been made for either same-sex marriage or pot decriminalization; instead, the government appears to be reluctantly backing into them courtesy of court decisions. No impassioned case was made, at least at the time, for skipping the Iraq war; it just sort of happened that way. And now, no case is being made for signing onto an expensive and controversial U.S. defence scheme; we're just sliding into it.

This is terrible leadership. On each issue, Mr. Martin (or his predecessor) has had a chance to rally Canadians around the direction we're taking, or at least to put his position on the table and allow for a full public dialogue. And each time, he's steadfastly refused to do so.

The result is the impression of a fly-by-night government careering from one issue to the next with little purpose and even less backbone. And even good policies - gay marriage, in my opinion, or missile defence in many others' - wind up looking like bad ones because the people putting them forward aren't standing up to their critics.

On nation-defining issues, especially those of national security and sovereignty, leaders must be seen to be taking strong, principled stands and to be motivated by some overarching sense of purpose or direction. That means actually selling their policies - not just trying to slide them through the back door when nobody's looking.

Mr. Martin wants to know why Canadians are increasingly disconnected from their government - or, in his words, why they fear that "Parliament has become too distant"? Simple: It's because, far from engaging them in its most important decisions, the government has done everything it can to avoid doing so.

If he believes in missile defence, let Mr. Martin make an impassioned case for it. The same goes for same-sex marriage and anything else that could fundamentally change our country and the way we see ourselves.

When it comes to the decisions that will help define us as a nation, it's long past due for our prime minister to start boldly leading us into the 21st century, rather than meekly backing us into it.