Chretien Attacks Martin in New Book
Oct 15, 2007 6:54:45 GMT -5
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 15, 2007 6:54:45 GMT -5
Go figure the odds! Same old Liberals with the same old conflicts. I posted a while back that I thought the decline of the federal Liberals started with the feud between Chertien and Martin. I still believe this today.
Martin was caught not once, but twice trying to consolidate his position. Won't be picking up a copy unless I see one on a yard sale or in a secondhand book store. I'm sure Martin will be an angle in his new book too (can't see how he won't publish one). But, I hardly think Chretien is the angle here either.
Chretien attacks Martin in new book
TANNIS TOOHEY/TORONTO STAR FILE
Oct 13, 2007 06:33 PM
SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA—Former prime minister Jean Chretien says in his new book that he should have fired Paul Martin as finance minister in 2000, more than three years before Martin went on to replace him in the job.
Chretien’s newly released memoirs are his fullest comments yet on the years of leadership intrigue with Martin during the Liberals’ years in power, and he makes no secret of his scorn.
The 435-page book, titled My Years as Prime Minister, is laced with shots at Martin, including blame for Canadian soldiers ending up in the more dangerous, “killing fields” of Kandahar in Afghanistan because “my successor took too long to make up his mind about whether Canada should extend our term” with the International Security Assistance Force in the country.
There are other references too in the book to how Chretien regarded Martin as indecisive -- on whether to take the finance job in the first place in 1993, for instance – and several other veiled digs about how Martin was too friendly with his advisers and aides.
Jim Pimblett, a spokesperson for Martin, said today after reading initial news report of the book’s contents: “Mr. Martin was not provided with an advance copy of Mr. Chretien’s book. He is therefore not in a position to react in any detail, nor is he inclined to do so today or in the foreseeable future. Obviously, it is disappointing to hear reports that old divisions are being revisited at a time when the Liberal Party needs to stand unified behind (Liberal leader Stephane) Dion.”
The breaking point in the Chretien-Martin relationship, Chretien writes, came in March, 2000, shortly after news reports of a secret meeting at a hotel near Pearson airport, at which Martin’s supporters were said to be looking for ways to push the Prime Minister into retiring. Chretien, who refers to the Martinites as “self-serving goons,” said he was ready to fire Martin on the spot, but he was talked out of it by his chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, and principal secretary Eddie Goldenberg.
In hindsight, Chretien says, Martin should have been ousted.
“I was annoyed enough for a day or two to think of removing him from Finance, firing the conspirators on his staff, and cancelling the government contracts with his friends and advisers at Earnscliffe, I was talked out of it by Jean Pelletier and Eddie Goldenberg, who were concerned about the financial community’s reaction,” Chretien writes. “Both were to regret their advice and I soon regretted my decision to keep him.”
Chretien confirms that his wife, Aline, gave him the green light to seek a third term in office right after this incident, in part as a response to the talk of mutiny. Martin did eventually leave Chretien’s cabinet, in June, 2002, after an intense weekend in which it wasn’t clear whether Martin was quitting or Chretien was firing him. In Chretien’s version, it was Martin who resigned.
The memoirs lay out Chretien’s growing frustration with how leadership was coming to be a dominant undercurrent in the latter years of his decade-long tenure. Chretien writes that Martin was increasingly becoming the champion of all those who weren’t getting what they wanted with the Prime Minister, whether on cabinet posts or on policy matters.
Wherever Chretien was saying No, Martin was saying a quiet Yes.
“No prime minister could live with this type of situation for long. All the confusion was extremely disruptive and potentially destructive.”
It was this, he said, that prompted him to deliver a now-infamous lecture to his cabinet in late May, 2002, ordering everyone to cease leadership jockeying. Martin announced that he was reviewing his options the next day, which Chretien said amounted to a resignation. But things hung in limbo over that weekend.
“All weekend the press was full of speculation that Martin was leaving. Bay Street and the international financial community were wondering what was going on in Ottawa. … Fed up and furious, I was determined that this nonsense had to end. When I finally got through to Martin on the phone in the middle of Sunday afternoon after he had failed to return a number of my calls, I told him that I had accepted his resignation. Later he claimed that I had fired him."
It’s unclear how it will land in the current political climate, with talk of disarray in Dion’s ranks and Liberals flagging in the polls. It could remind Canadians of when the Liberal brand was stronger, or it could be an unwelcome flashback for a party trying to put fractiousness behind it.
Martin, through his spokesperson, was trying to focus on unity today: “The relationship between the two may have been tested at times but their partnership in government generated tremendous achievements,” Pimblett said. “Certainly, Mr. Martin remains extremely proud of all that was accomplished by Liberal governments between 1993 and 2006. He looks forward to seeing a new Liberal administration under Mr. Dion take office soon."
The book displays Chretien as fiery and unrepentant on some of the bigger controversies of his time. He continues to portray the Quebec sponsorship scandal as an isolated case by a few bad actors and says he wanted to write a bit more about his “grave reservations” on how Martin called the inquiry into the affair – as well as his problems with the inquiry itself. But he decided to cut this out of the book because some matters are still before the courts.
Chretien is unrepentant as well about how he handled the transition of power to Martin, which saddled the new Liberal prime minister with releasing the explosive Auditor-General’s report on abuses in the sponsorship program in Quebec. Chretien insists that Martin let him know – through Privy Council clerk Alex Himelfarb – that he wanted to take over in late 2003, not February, 2004, as Chretien had planned. So Chretien decided to shut down Parliament early.
“Though I had neither seen Sheila Fraser’s report nor been briefed about it, I knew, like everybody else in Ottawa, that it was going to be tough. But I didn’t prorogue Parliament because I was afraid to face it or wanted to pass it like a kiss of death to my successor. It had always been my intention to receive Fraser’s report, thank her for her good work, and say what I had been saying over and over again for a year: if there is evidence of theft or fraud, let the police catch the crooks and let the courts put them in jail.”
This version of events appears to be at odds with Martin’s, according to his spokesperson. “Undoubtedly there are clear differences in recollection between the two men - not the least of which would appear to be Mr. Chretien’s decision to prorogue Parliament, and not accept the auditor generals report on sponsorship personally,” Pimblett said.
Chretien has no regrets either on how he dealt with former newspaper baron Conrad Black and his desire to be a British lord while still remaining as a Canadian citizen. Nor does Chretien dwell too long on the so-called Airbus affair, in which former prime minister Brian Mulroney sued Ottawa for libel for investigating his alleged links to kickback payments from German businessman Karl Heinz Schreiber.
Chretien only says, pointedly, that Mulroney agreed in his $2-million settlement that there was no political direction in the case and notes that it has been learned subsequently that Mulroney did accept $300,000 from Schreiber. There are many other instances in the book, however, in which Chretien acknowledges his mistakes while in office. He admits to underestimating the separatists and then Bloc Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard in the 1995 referendum, which the federalists only won by about 50,000 votes.
He says he should have established an independent ethics counselor, rather than have one report to him, as soon as he came to office and he regrets calling the 1997 election when Manitoba was suffering through the Red River floods.
He also wishes he had never made a joke about pepper spray at the 1997 APEC conference protests in Vancouver and he relates how his wife, Aline, was extremely displeased with him when he put a choke-hold on a protester at a Flag Day ceremony in 1996. Aline Chretien caught her husband laughing when he was told by phone that the Toronto Star had run a front-page article with Canadians’ favourable reactions to the incident.
“Jean Chretien,” she said, standing at the top of the stairs, “if you can find something funny in that story, I’d like to know what it is.”
The link
Martin was caught not once, but twice trying to consolidate his position. Won't be picking up a copy unless I see one on a yard sale or in a secondhand book store. I'm sure Martin will be an angle in his new book too (can't see how he won't publish one). But, I hardly think Chretien is the angle here either.
Chretien attacks Martin in new book
TANNIS TOOHEY/TORONTO STAR FILE
Oct 13, 2007 06:33 PM
SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA—Former prime minister Jean Chretien says in his new book that he should have fired Paul Martin as finance minister in 2000, more than three years before Martin went on to replace him in the job.
Chretien’s newly released memoirs are his fullest comments yet on the years of leadership intrigue with Martin during the Liberals’ years in power, and he makes no secret of his scorn.
The 435-page book, titled My Years as Prime Minister, is laced with shots at Martin, including blame for Canadian soldiers ending up in the more dangerous, “killing fields” of Kandahar in Afghanistan because “my successor took too long to make up his mind about whether Canada should extend our term” with the International Security Assistance Force in the country.
There are other references too in the book to how Chretien regarded Martin as indecisive -- on whether to take the finance job in the first place in 1993, for instance – and several other veiled digs about how Martin was too friendly with his advisers and aides.
Jim Pimblett, a spokesperson for Martin, said today after reading initial news report of the book’s contents: “Mr. Martin was not provided with an advance copy of Mr. Chretien’s book. He is therefore not in a position to react in any detail, nor is he inclined to do so today or in the foreseeable future. Obviously, it is disappointing to hear reports that old divisions are being revisited at a time when the Liberal Party needs to stand unified behind (Liberal leader Stephane) Dion.”
The breaking point in the Chretien-Martin relationship, Chretien writes, came in March, 2000, shortly after news reports of a secret meeting at a hotel near Pearson airport, at which Martin’s supporters were said to be looking for ways to push the Prime Minister into retiring. Chretien, who refers to the Martinites as “self-serving goons,” said he was ready to fire Martin on the spot, but he was talked out of it by his chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, and principal secretary Eddie Goldenberg.
In hindsight, Chretien says, Martin should have been ousted.
“I was annoyed enough for a day or two to think of removing him from Finance, firing the conspirators on his staff, and cancelling the government contracts with his friends and advisers at Earnscliffe, I was talked out of it by Jean Pelletier and Eddie Goldenberg, who were concerned about the financial community’s reaction,” Chretien writes. “Both were to regret their advice and I soon regretted my decision to keep him.”
Chretien confirms that his wife, Aline, gave him the green light to seek a third term in office right after this incident, in part as a response to the talk of mutiny. Martin did eventually leave Chretien’s cabinet, in June, 2002, after an intense weekend in which it wasn’t clear whether Martin was quitting or Chretien was firing him. In Chretien’s version, it was Martin who resigned.
The memoirs lay out Chretien’s growing frustration with how leadership was coming to be a dominant undercurrent in the latter years of his decade-long tenure. Chretien writes that Martin was increasingly becoming the champion of all those who weren’t getting what they wanted with the Prime Minister, whether on cabinet posts or on policy matters.
Wherever Chretien was saying No, Martin was saying a quiet Yes.
“No prime minister could live with this type of situation for long. All the confusion was extremely disruptive and potentially destructive.”
It was this, he said, that prompted him to deliver a now-infamous lecture to his cabinet in late May, 2002, ordering everyone to cease leadership jockeying. Martin announced that he was reviewing his options the next day, which Chretien said amounted to a resignation. But things hung in limbo over that weekend.
“All weekend the press was full of speculation that Martin was leaving. Bay Street and the international financial community were wondering what was going on in Ottawa. … Fed up and furious, I was determined that this nonsense had to end. When I finally got through to Martin on the phone in the middle of Sunday afternoon after he had failed to return a number of my calls, I told him that I had accepted his resignation. Later he claimed that I had fired him."
It’s unclear how it will land in the current political climate, with talk of disarray in Dion’s ranks and Liberals flagging in the polls. It could remind Canadians of when the Liberal brand was stronger, or it could be an unwelcome flashback for a party trying to put fractiousness behind it.
Martin, through his spokesperson, was trying to focus on unity today: “The relationship between the two may have been tested at times but their partnership in government generated tremendous achievements,” Pimblett said. “Certainly, Mr. Martin remains extremely proud of all that was accomplished by Liberal governments between 1993 and 2006. He looks forward to seeing a new Liberal administration under Mr. Dion take office soon."
The book displays Chretien as fiery and unrepentant on some of the bigger controversies of his time. He continues to portray the Quebec sponsorship scandal as an isolated case by a few bad actors and says he wanted to write a bit more about his “grave reservations” on how Martin called the inquiry into the affair – as well as his problems with the inquiry itself. But he decided to cut this out of the book because some matters are still before the courts.
Chretien is unrepentant as well about how he handled the transition of power to Martin, which saddled the new Liberal prime minister with releasing the explosive Auditor-General’s report on abuses in the sponsorship program in Quebec. Chretien insists that Martin let him know – through Privy Council clerk Alex Himelfarb – that he wanted to take over in late 2003, not February, 2004, as Chretien had planned. So Chretien decided to shut down Parliament early.
“Though I had neither seen Sheila Fraser’s report nor been briefed about it, I knew, like everybody else in Ottawa, that it was going to be tough. But I didn’t prorogue Parliament because I was afraid to face it or wanted to pass it like a kiss of death to my successor. It had always been my intention to receive Fraser’s report, thank her for her good work, and say what I had been saying over and over again for a year: if there is evidence of theft or fraud, let the police catch the crooks and let the courts put them in jail.”
This version of events appears to be at odds with Martin’s, according to his spokesperson. “Undoubtedly there are clear differences in recollection between the two men - not the least of which would appear to be Mr. Chretien’s decision to prorogue Parliament, and not accept the auditor generals report on sponsorship personally,” Pimblett said.
Chretien has no regrets either on how he dealt with former newspaper baron Conrad Black and his desire to be a British lord while still remaining as a Canadian citizen. Nor does Chretien dwell too long on the so-called Airbus affair, in which former prime minister Brian Mulroney sued Ottawa for libel for investigating his alleged links to kickback payments from German businessman Karl Heinz Schreiber.
Chretien only says, pointedly, that Mulroney agreed in his $2-million settlement that there was no political direction in the case and notes that it has been learned subsequently that Mulroney did accept $300,000 from Schreiber. There are many other instances in the book, however, in which Chretien acknowledges his mistakes while in office. He admits to underestimating the separatists and then Bloc Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard in the 1995 referendum, which the federalists only won by about 50,000 votes.
He says he should have established an independent ethics counselor, rather than have one report to him, as soon as he came to office and he regrets calling the 1997 election when Manitoba was suffering through the Red River floods.
He also wishes he had never made a joke about pepper spray at the 1997 APEC conference protests in Vancouver and he relates how his wife, Aline, was extremely displeased with him when he put a choke-hold on a protester at a Flag Day ceremony in 1996. Aline Chretien caught her husband laughing when he was told by phone that the Toronto Star had run a front-page article with Canadians’ favourable reactions to the incident.
“Jean Chretien,” she said, standing at the top of the stairs, “if you can find something funny in that story, I’d like to know what it is.”
The link
