The article correctly recalls what Martin did right (firing useless public servants, cutting spending, and off-loading fiscal responsibilities to the provinces), but glazes over the banking regulation mentioned, as well as assume that other first world nations were allowing their banks to be "unfettered".
There hasn't been a truly unfettered banking system in any country in recent memory, and any country that has dipped a toe in that pool undermined their attempts by ratcheting up government involvement in other areas. So, it is a misnomer to say that Canadian banks were more successful because of more regulation...that's bunk. If Canadian banks have been more successful it would be because, as Finance Minister, Martin happened to place regulation where it was needed or it made sense to place it, as opposed to say...the United States...who have had anything but "unfettered" banks, but rather plenty of regulation applied in all the wrong places.
And I take umbrage with Martin's assessment of the role of government. He says the government must invest in education, and in-so-doing contradicts the work he did as Finance Minister when he cut government spending in so many areas. You either believe in limited government or you don't. He says letting laissez-faire rule over education is wrong, so clearly he sees a line in the sand somewhere. To me, he displays a stunning level of ignorance to infer that the private sector would not provide higher quality education for less money than the government could ever hope to provide. And if that isn't what he is inferring, than one is to assume by his idea of the federal government "investing" in education, that he is in favour of taking money from the pockets of Canadians, and throwing it down a rat hole.