My Years as Prime Minister Hardcover – Oct 16 2007
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.
About the Author
The Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien was first elected to Parliament in 1963, at the age of twenty-nine. Four years later he was given his first Cabinet post and, over the next thirty years, he headed nine key ministries. From 1993 to 2003 he served as Canada's twentieth prime minister.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Not long ago, in April 2007, I was in Moscow to attend the funeral of Boris Yeltsin, the former president of Russia and a person whom I greatly admired. He was a good man who spoke the truth, and his convictions changed the course of history, not only in his own country but around the world. The ceremony, full of dignity and beauty, took place in the cathedral that had been rebuilt to mark the return of freedom of religion in what had been the Soviet Union. Even a heathen would have bowed before the priests dressed in their majestic robes, and everyone present was moved to hear the old hymns of Mother Russia that so pierce the soul.
Looking around, I saw many former world leaders, now plain citizens, come to bid farewell to the one-time enemy who had later become their brother in arms. There was the elder George Bush, whose son I had gotten to know so well, and at his side foreign kings and presidents who seemed, in this holy place, mere mortals, as were we all. I said hello to John Major, the ex-prime minister of Great Britain, and we were joined by another famous retiree, though younger than either of us, Bill Clinton. When Bill and I shook hands on the steps of the church, I felt as though we were two parishioners meeting after Mass on a Sunday morning back home. With us was Lech Walesa, the former president of Poland, who had captured the imagination of the world when he was nothing but a courageous electrician from Gdańsk daring to defy the might of the Soviet Union. We talked of the good old days and of the present, which didn’t seem so bad either, and swapping stories about our friend Boris reminded us of our own impermanence. The friendships and the memories warmed us in the cold spring air of Moscow, just as they continue to warm me in my advancing years. They are what propelled me to write this book, not to puff up my reputation but to record a moment in the all too brief span of time we human beings are given on earth.
Whether foreign or domestic, I’ve always had a passion for politics. The other day I heard a young man say on television that he was standing for election because he wanted to serve. I said to myself, “My friend, you seem nice, you have some charm, but you’re not telling the whole truth. Going into politics is both simpler and more complicated than that.” To be frank, politics is about wanting power, getting it, exercising it, and keeping it. Helping people comes with it naturally, because you’ll never be elected if you treat people badly. But no one will ever convince me, with all the experience I’ve had, that the motivations are strictly altruistic. No – we throw ourselves into politics because we love it.
Politics is a sport in which the desire for victory is everything, because the ultimate reward is the power that lets you do some good for your constituents as a member of Parliament, for the stakeholders as a minister, and for the entire country and maybe even the rest of the world as prime minister. The more you succeed and the higher you climb, the more the wish to win becomes an obsession that consumes you day and night – but also gives you satisfactions too numerous to count, from helping the unemployed in your riding find a job to sending Canadian peacekeepers to the rescue of besieged Bosnians. It’s in that sense, I suppose, that you can say that you’re in the game to serve, since politics gives you the opportunity to help others.
I was fortunate to have been given that opportunity. The joy of serving, to pick up on the young man’s idea, allows you to forget all the miseries that come too – when you freeze your feet campaigning from door to door; when the doors slam in your face; when the hand you extend is refused; when the neighbour you’ve known all your life pretends not to see you across the street; when old friends betray you or laugh at you when you meet or, worse, behind your back. A dirty business, you say to yourself in those moments. I’ve known many of their kind, but I’ve also known how quickly the next victory erases them from memory.
This book picks up the political story of Canada, as I lived and breathed it, from where the updated edition of my earlier memoir, Straight from the Heart, left off, following my return to politics in January 1990 after a fouryear absence, my election as leader of the Liberal Party the next June, and my time as leader of the Opposition until the autumn of 1993.
It is hard for most Canadians to remember how bleak our days looked at that point in our history. To be frank, Canada was in terrible shape – exhausted, demoralized, and fractured. The federal, provincial, and municipal governments were virtually bankrupt, and their combined debt was greater than the country’s total GDP, its gross domestic product. Unemployment was stuck at 11.4 per cent. Our interest rates seemed permanently fixed higher than U.S. rates, despite our lower inflation rate, and many of our best scientists, researchers, and scholars were leaving for greener pastures. Though none of that was solely the fault of nine years of Progressive Conservative rule, Ottawa had to bear the blame for creating a “made in Canada” recession – one of the worst since the 1930s – through its ideological monetary policy and its failure to help Canadian industry adapt to the new realities of free trade, financial globalization, and rapidly changing technology.
Moreover, because Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had defeated the Liberals in 1984 by promising to restore prosperity, reduce the debt and deficit, and create “jobs, jobs, jobs,” his government’s record of broken promises, coupled with a string of corruption charges, ministerial resignations, and patronage appointments, produced a feeling of cynicism and betrayal that plunged public respect for Canada’s politicians and democratic institutions to a historic low.
Even so, in my opinion, Mulroney might have survived to fight and win a third term if he hadn’t also put the country in a constitutional pressure cooker, as though reopening the Constitution Act of 1982 was somehow going to solve the real problems we were facing as a people. He and I used to joke with each other in the House of Commons about the great fight it would be, him against me, and he had a twinkle in his eye whenever he spoke about winning the triple crown of a third majority. Instead, by using exaggerated rhetoric and divisive tactics to try to sell two successive constitutional packages to Canadians – and then failing to deliver either one – he reignited separatist sentiments in Quebec and rekindled a sense of alienation in Western Canada. As a result, his close friend and key lieutenant Lucien Bouchard quit the Tories and launched the Bloc Québécois, which was dedicated to advancing the cause of Quebec independence within the federal House; Preston Manning funnelled Western discontent into his populist movement, the Reform Party; and Mulroney himself, with his personal popularity level lower than the percentage of people who believed that Elvis Presley was still alive, decided to retreat from the field in February 1993.
Ten years later, at my retirement from public life on December 12, 2003, Canada was enjoying the longest period of economic expansion since the 1960s, Ottawa was on the verge of announcing its seventh surplus budget in a row, unemployment had fallen to around 7 per cent and was still dropping, the Parti Québécois had been defeated in Quebec, Western Canada had never been more prosperous, Canada’s international reputation as an economic miracle and independent force for peace in the world had never been higher, and the Liberal Party of Canada was guaranteed by every poll and pundit to be ready to win its fourth consecutive majority. So how did this remarkable turnaround happen? What critical decisions or mistakes did we make along the way? Why did we choose one solution rather than another?
My intention is not to produce a weighty, comprehensive account of the “Chrétien years.” I’ll leave that task to scholars and historians. Instead, I want to write an informative and highly personal recollection of my decade as prime minister – to tell it as I saw it, to share a few entertaining stories as I do with my friends, to correct the record where necessary, to brag a bit, and to be as candid as possible. That said, I hope readers will understand and forgive me if I refrain from going into my family’s private matters or commenting unnecessarily on the foibles and failures of individual personalities. No human being is perfect, and there are always more than enough people ready and eager to remind politicians of that fact every day of the week. I couldn’t bring myself to write a wartsandall description of the members of my staff and Cabinet or even of my political opponents. If that proves a weakness in the book, so be it, but it’s a strength in life – and especially in politics – to learn to take people as they are and accept what they are not.
Another caveat: I have also limited myself to writing about events that occurred during my period in office. Except in a few places where I felt it necessary to mention what happened after December 2003 (and even there without much comment or detailed analysis), I don’t believe that these memoirs are the proper forum in which to air my thoughts about subsequent political issues. In earlier drafts, however, I was prepared to jump ahead in time and write at some length about my successor’s decision to launch the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program under Mr. Justice John Gomery, partly because I understood the public’s curiosity about my views, but mostly because I wanted to make use of the opportunity to express my grave concerns about the commission, its findings, and its ramifications. Unfortunately, by the time the...
Inside This Book(Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Top Customer Reviews
But then, no-one would confuse the serenity of a muse with the almost lovable rogue and scrapping tactician from Shawinigan.
Of course, the many anecdotes in this book, which would have sounded even more amusing, no doubt, if delivered orally, are highly entertaining.
In Jean Chrétien's account of dealings with President Clinton and Mr. Blair, something of the situation of Canada with regard to the US and the UK is undoubtedly seen: they are generally warm and constructive, but they also reveal that Canada stands apart just a little.
Mr. Chrétien's understated (mock?) deference to his predecessor-but-one, Brian Mulroney is devastating, leaving aside the question of who was right about the Mulroney/Schreiber money troubles. He is just as gently devastating about Paul Martin, Jr., also.
If there are serious, constructive points from this man who learned English when he was aged 30, among them one must be that he believes that the place of Quebec is in Canada. That much we may deduce, coming from someone who would not be mistaken for an Anglophone Ontarian.
His treatment of the Conrad Black peerage issue is somewhat disengenuous, because, in discussing Robert Borden's views of the subject of peerages, nowhere does he mention the peerage which another Canadian Prime Minister, Richard Bennett, later received after leaving office.
Anyway, he had been around for so long that when he finally showed at Sussex Drive (which is the period covered by this volume of his memoirs) it was as if people knew to expect more of the same.Read more ›
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Well written book, easy to read and packed with insightful information.
I based the evaluation on who had most squandered Canada's great wealth of natural and human resources to the mania of economic liberalism and the other fads of post national and post structural culture.
Both administrations had the taint of corruption, but I came to the conclusion that Chretien even outdid Mulroney in the sell out of our national potential and identity, only in part by lying to us about his intention to reject NAFTA.
Free Trade, Monetarism, Deregulation and Privatization profoundly contravened the National economic policies which had built Canada from Confederation.
Here we are 17 years after Chretien's first election. The revolutionary paradigm set in place by him and his predecessor is still in effect. The country is increasingly de-industrialized, its scientific and technological infrastructure being dismantled.
We have the first generation in perhaps its history that is substantially poorer than that of their parents. Single income families, lifetime employment, pensions and benefits have become things of the past (MP's excepted!).
The empty aphorisms of the 'knowledge economy' have replaced that of the integrated industrial economy. The latter's high wages and high expectations have been replaced with transient, dead end, low paying service jobs for all except a small segment of highly trained specialists in abstract disciplines.. perhaps 20% of the workforce, leaving millions in the dustbin of the New Economy.
Our 'progress' now means our children must compete with the most desperate Maquilladora Free Trade Zones, the other half of the Free Trade profit equation, for productive wages, the real legacy of his 'Team Canada' trade junkets.
Canada is left in the tidal wash of a chaotic international financial order where greed infused derivative instruments of no productive value can devastate the lives of millions.We have been laid bare to the fangs of the wolves of international finance by their running dogs in government.
We have seen a vast polarization of wealth. A steady drumbeat of repeals of social guarantees so hard won to ensure an equitable sharing of the nation's wealth. The taxation system has become regressive and consumption based (another forgotten campaign promise of Chretien's).. slanted toward an ever narrowing, parasitic and grotesquely rich oligarchy that is picking from the spoils of an unravelling society.
The country sees its primary institution of marriage reduced to an absurdity, its respect for life undone by the elevation of the prime directives of radical individualism and moral relativism, as the basis for a 'freedom', beyond any commensurate responsibility to the most vulnerable and voiceless of our society. All of this formalized and orchestrated under Chretien, levered into place by an unelected and unfettered judiciary of immense intellectual mediocrity, like their sponsor (none more so than Bev McLaughlin, the radical 60's era feminist Chretien appointed as Chief Justice).
Chretien supported the divisiveness of the Charlottetown Accord with its 'distinct status' which proved he had none of the backbone of Trudeau in constituting the indivisibility of the country, while portraying himself as an undiluted Federalist.. hypocrisy disguised as pragmatism.
So here you have Chretien's response to these charges. It is not surprising that it is shallow, ego centric, chauvinistic to party politics, bitter towards opponents and shows no trace of vision or understanding of deeper moral currents.. which he freely admits to having little interest in, in the first place.
Having none of these, he drifted, blown by the surface breezes of an amorphous, sentiment saturated sophistry without structure or integrity. What we are left with here is a gloating pride in his ability to discern the direction of the trade winds of the time and turn that into political success, free of the anchor of principle.
The poblem we have now is the stays of our economy and society have been knocked out from under us. And there is no political impulse at the present time to reverse the disintegration of our country. Does a country get the leadership it deserves. If so this era is a sad reflection of our current state in comparison to promise framed by the founders and builders of our nation.
This folksy populist has proved himself little more than a petty Free Market and New Age ideologue, without the imagination or wherewithal of character to discern the deep harm and pain his policies have inflicted on the country. He is a legend in, and only in, his own mind.