2010 in Pictures: The Year That Was

Political Moment of the Decade: #3 No to Iraq

If you missed it, I asked readers to nominate, then vote, on Canada's top political moment of the decade. Over the first two weeks of January, I'm counting down the top 10 vote getters.



The biggest ovation Jean Chrétien got during his farewell speech at the 2003 Liberal Coronation Convention was when he talked about his decision to keep Canadian troops out of Iraq. If you read Chrétien or Eddie Goldenberg’s memoirs, you can tell they both saw it as a huge part of Chrétien’s legacy. And rightfully so.

While it seems like a slam-dunk in retrospect, it wasn’t at the time. The Americans were going, the British were backing them, and everyone was still in that post 9/11 mind frame. Public opinion was decidedly split, the Chrétien Cabinet was decidedly split, and the Premiers were decidedly split. There were rallies in the streets both for and against the war. And even though the man will deny it to his grave, Stephen Harper was urging Canada to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Americans.

So, yeah, it was a big moment for Canada. And, when you look at it in the context of the decade that was, it becomes a defining moment. You had Jean Chrétien making a difficult decision during his farewell tour. You had Stephen Harper opposing him, in a move that would be thrown back in his face in three subsequent election campaigns. You had Paul Martin dancing the hokey pokey.

It was a decision about the largest international conflict of the decade, and the politics behind it were closely tied up in the moment of the decade - 9/11. It marked a turning point in Canada-US relations, which would continue to sour throughout the Bush years, to the point where the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc often seemed to be waging election campaigns against George Bush, rather than Stephen Harper.

If you've been following along, you've figured out by now that the top two moments in this end-of-decade poll are all about process and politics, rather than policy. But process and politics are a means to an end, and the Iraq war decision showed that who we vote for actually matters. It's certainly worthy of finishing in the top 3 moments of the decade.

Moment of the Decade: #8 The Clarity Act

If you missed it, I asked readers to nominate, then vote, on Canada's top political moment of the decade. Over the next two weeks, I'll be counting down the top 10 vote getters.



When I first announced this contest, one of the e-mails I got argued against the inclusion of the Clarity Act on the list. The argument was that the Clarity Act was the conclusion to the national unity crisis that dominated the 90s, and really had little to do with the aughts.

But I think it’s a worthy finalist.

The Clarity Act, along with Jean Charest’s 2003 victory (which would have been my only addition to the Top 10 had I just done this list up myself) took the national unity card off table for much of the decade. Ha ha. OK, it didn’t take the card out of play because, this is Canada, a country where Paul McCartny concerts and the roster of Team Canada become national unity debates. But it did help shift the nature of the debate away from separation – even in the hay day of Adscam, no one really saw separation as a real possibility.

I’d like to think it also showed a tough-love approach vis-à-vis Quebec could work, but the 2004 Health Care Accord, 2006 Tory election platform, and the Nation debate make me question this. Still, these changes didn’t come about because there was a knife at Ottawa’s throat and, in the long run, that's a healthier environment to be having the debate about federalism in.

Still, as far as how it affected the decade, the direct cause-and-effect relationship is a little, shall we say, unclear. So how about this for a more direct link: Stephane Dion’s 2006 leadership win and, par consequence, the coalition crisis, would not have happened if not for the Clarity Act. Because, if not for the Clarity Act, no one would have ever taken Stephane Dion seriously in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Yeah, I know everyone thought it was cute that his dog was named Kyoto, and that might have still gotten him past Dryden, but sans clarity, he simply doesn’t win.

So maybe Stephen Harper still rides out the decade as Prime Minister and the only thing that changes is that the tag line in the attack ads goes from “Not a Leader” to “Bob Rae: Can we afford him again?”. But I do think the last half of this decade would have looked a lot different without Dion, who for better or worse, left his mark.

The Clarity Act, more so than the other two policies that cracked the top ten (Iraq and SSM), will probably go down as Jean Chretien’s greatest legacy. And, yes, by now, the Conservative commentators are already thinking of just how they will tell me to go shove it in the comments section because, as we all know, Stephen Harper was the real father of the Clarity Act. But, regardless of whose idea it was, it's hard to deny the Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation we've seen over the past 20 years.

Maybe the Clarity Act had little to do with the 00s – maybe it was the conclusion to the national unity crisis that defined Canada throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s. But if it actually was the conclusion of our long national unity nightmare, well, I’d say that certainly means it’s an event worthy of inclusion in the history books and worthy of inclusion in this list.

Moments of the Decade: #10 Paul Martin is Quit-Fired

If you missed it, I asked readers to nominate, then vote, on Canada's top political moment of the decade. Over the next two weeks, I'll be counting down the top 10 vote getters.



You wouldn’t expect a Cabinet Shuffle to make the top 10, but this was the culmination of a bitter feud that had defined the Liberal Party for a generation. Hell, even today, Liberals can’t agree on whether Paul Martin quit, or was fired.

So, in the interests of Liberal unity, it’s likely best to say: "Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ran against each other for leadership in 1990 and, yada yada yada, John Manley was named Finance Minister a dozen years later."

No one will ever really be able to agree on what happened during those yada yadas. Did the kids really think they were shouting “fondue”? What exactly happened at the Regal Constelation? Did Chretien do a third term out of spite? Would Martin have forced him out in a leadership review? Were the campaign finance rules a giant F U from Chretien to his successor?

None at that really matters because, through the beauty of politics, one of the biggest political feuds in Canada's history would simultaneously be the most successful PM-Finance Minister partnership this country has ever seen. Go figure.

That’s not to say it wasn’t ugly. The Liberal Party spent a dozen years eating itself alive, and the scars of this fight would be felt throughout the decade. It was the political version of the Jets and Sharks. In the words of Stephen Colbert – “we’re at war, pick a side”. I joined the Liberal Party my first year of University as a naïve kid who liked politics, and quickly had to decide which half of the party I would hate and which half I would go to war for. It was like that everywhere. In Alberta, you couldn’t get membership forms to sign up new Liberals if you didn’t support the right guy. Because, after all, the worst thing that could happen to the Liberal Party in Alberta would be getting more card carrying members.

And while it’s true this feud may have been more about the 90s than the 00s, the over-arching political story of the aughts was the fall of the Liberals and the rise of Stephen Harper. And Martin leaving Cabinet was the first domino in a series of events that would define the decade.

Later that year, the next domino – Chretien announcing his long goodbye – fell. That pushed over the CPC merger domino. And the Chretien-forced-out-early-leaving-Adscam-on-Martin’s-lap domino. Which hit the Mad-As-Hell domino, and the ’04 election domino and, well, you get the picture. The feud forced a lot of big names out of politics – Allan Rock, John Manley, Sheila Copps – changing the dynamics of the next two Liberal leadership races and the shape of the political decade that was.

On June 2nd, 2002, the first domino was pushed over. Or pulled itself down, depending on your perspective.

Merit

Queen gives Chrétien Order of Merit

Queen Elizabeth has appointed former prime minister Jean Chrétien to the Order of Merit, placing him in the exclusive ranks of such figures as Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela.

The award, founded in 1902 by King Edward VII, is given to "individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service," according to a news release from the press secretary of the Queen.

Given how few foreigners receive the Order of Merit, it's certainly quite the honour - the Queen certainly must think highly of the former PM.

For those keeping track, the Queen also awarded Pearson this honour in 1971, while Mackenzie King received the order from King George in '47.

Hello Newman

Far be it for me to disagree with a respected historian like Peter C. Newman but…I’m going to disagree with Peter C. Newman.

In Saturday’s Globe and Mail, Newman explains his theory of how Liberals choose their leaders:

If history doesn't exactly repeat itself, it sets significant patterns, such as the astonishing fact that the carpetbagging Mr. Ignatieff, after an absence from Canada for 30 years, finds himself after the briefest of apprenticeships in contention for the country's top political post.

Curiously, this has been the rule, not the exception. All of the Liberal leaders who became prime minister during the six decades between the 1920s and 1980s were also carpetbaggers - in the sense that they wrested the leadership from the party's veteran worthies, who were shoved aside for the newcomers.

Newman goes on to explain how Liberal leaders – from King to Martin, have fit into this outsider mould. And, at first glance, he does have a certain point. Like Ignatieff, St. Laurent, Pearson, and Trudeau were all recruited into politics and none of them were what you would call "typical" politicians. And in the case of Trudeau, like King, Newman's characterization of them wrestling the crown away from the “party’s veteran worthies” is certainly apt.

However, St. Laurent and Pearson were about as establishment as you can get. St. Laurent had 7 years in Cabinet before winning the party’s leadership in 1948, while Pearson had a decade as a Cabinet Minister before being anointed a decade later. These were not newcomers on the scene – rather, they’d been groomed as leaders-in-waiting for years.

Where Newman’s theory really hits pot holes though, is in recent times. Although he admits that Dion was a break from the pattern, he takes great pains to portray Turner, Chretien, and Martin as outsiders due to their brief breaks outside of the party (or, in Martin’s case, outside of Cabinet) before taking on the leadership. Yet all three were the embodiment of “veteran worthies” – lifelong Liberals, forever viewed as the party dauphin, who had 50 years in Ottawa between them prior to winning their respective leadership races. A few years at a Toronto law firm or on the party backbenches doesn’t change that in the least.

I also question how distinctly "Liberal" this leadership philosophy is. Stephen Harper and Newman's buddy Brian Mulroney were political outsiders when they inherited the Tory crown, while Kim Campbell and Joe Clark had only been MPs for four years when they took over. Sifting through the dust-bin of Tory leaders, you’ll also find that party’s habit of selecting provincial politicians over established Ottawa veterans.

But let’s put all that aside, and let Newman explain why this strategy has been successful:

All this hocus-pocus has been political sorcery of the highest order because instead of having to defend their predecessors' records, each freshly minted leader could innocently protest, "Who, me? I wasn't even there ..."

Again, portraying Louis St. Laurent as an agent of change after the King years seems like a bit of a stretch. And, hell, when you’re in power for 22 consecutive years and are considered the natural governing party, defending your predecessor’s record isn’t that hard to do. Yes, Paul Martin did try the “I wasn’t even there” line a few times, but that didn’t turn out so hot for him, now did it?

So, what’s the moral of all this? Ignatieff may mark a bit of a return to the party’s habit of recruiting from outside of its own ranks, but there’s no “secret Liberal recipe” to finding a good leader.

"You were the minister of the environment and you tried to be very sexy when you were there"

Ralph Klein guest hosted The House last weekend and it was a memorable appearance (how could Ralph on the CBC be anything but?). Sure, it was cheesy and Ralph's journalist skills seem to have rusted a bit since he left the biz 28 years ago but there were some great moments:

1. A cameo appearance by Mike Harris who quipped "blame it on me, everybody else in Ontario does".

2. Ralph complaining about his pink CBC hat because "I consider pink to be a commie colour".

3. A chummy interview with Ralph's "second favourite Prime Minister" Jean Chretien where the two old hacks reminisce about politics ("we had a big fight you and I") and talk nuclear power, climate change (Ralph is still skeptical about the science), the economy and just about everything else. Jean tossed out the story about Ralph saying he would have run for the Liberals in Calgary had Chretien beat Turner in '84, which certainly would have changed the course of Alberta politics during the 90s.

So, yeah, lots of fun from two political pros who always got along well, even when they were using each other as political straw men.

(hat tip: Dave and Dan)

Bart's Books - Straight From the Heart 2

After finishing up the Mulroney tome, it was time for another round of prime ministerial memoirs - Jean Chretien’s My Years as Prime Minister. Reading the two back to back means this review will likely feature a lot of comparisons between the books which might not be fair because the two are vastly different.

Mulroney approached his almost as a historical essay on his time in office, going into lengthy detail on most decisions and arguing his case vociferously with as much supporting evidence as he could find. Chretien’s book, meanwhile, is ghostwritten in the same folksy style as Straight from the Heart and you get the sense that he didn’t approach it with the same intensity that Mulroney did. From the start, he’s frank that his book isn’t a weighty account of his time in office since that “should be left to the historians and scholars”. The result is a book that is written at a lower political reading level than Mulroney’s; it’s clearly targeted more to the mainstream population than to political junkies. Elections and “inside baseball” government decisions are glossed over and content is grouped by subject rather than chronologically.

Because of this, My Years as Prime Minister cannot be considered the defining book on the Chretien years – there’s probably more meat in the Eddie Goldeberg, Lawrence Martin, or Susan Delacourt books. Where Chretien's memoirs excel is by treating the reader to very personal recollections of events like the break in to 24 Sussex, the “Shawinigan handshake”, and non-political conversations with the likes of Bill Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, Tiger Woods, and Fidel Castro. On the downside, major accomplishments of Chretien’s government like Same Sex Marriage recognition or the innovation agenda seem glossed over. Contrary to Peter C. Newman’s review, Chretien does use a considerable amount of ink on the various “gate” scandals that hit his government, although he does dismiss Adscam rather off handedly. It is a shame that the book ends with his resignation as Prime Minister, if only because Chretien recounting his “golf ball” testimony at the Gomery inquiry would have been quite enjoyable.

Chretien admits in the introduction that he couldn’t bring himself to write a “warts and all” recap of those close to him although he is certainly willing to point out the warts on Paul Martin. In his review, Cherniak concludes that Chretien’s jabs are uncalled for because Martin wasn’t planning a putsch. Well, maybe. And, if you’re in the 4% of the population who believe Martin wasn’t organizing against Chretien, you’ll probably find Jean a bit vindictive in this book. But really, he doesn’t dwell on it, he’s a lot nicer than Sheila Copps was, and, with the exception of his Afghanistan jab, you don’t get the sense that Chretien is going out of his way to smear Martin in this book the way Mulroney set out to attack his enemies. Instead, he tries to get his revenge by pushing hard on the story that he wouldn’t have run for a third term if Martin hadn’t been organizing against him – true, or not, (and I have some doubts) it is somewhat fitting to think of Martin’s over ambition as being the cause of his downfall.

Apart from Martin, the only former Cabinet Minister getting a noticeable amount of attention is Stephane Dion, who Chretien says nothing but good things about. This is probably partly to help the party out but you really do get the sense that Dion was his favourite Cabinet Minister. It was Aline Chretien who suggested he bring Dion into politics and the two men worked closely together on the unity file which was near and dear to Chretien’s heart. Like Mulroney, this was probably the issue he felt strongest about, even if his view was vastly different from Brian’s. Reading the two books back to back, it’s amazing just how different their recaps of the constitution repatriation, Meech Lake, and Charlottetown accord were…the two didn’t agree on much except from their disdain for Lucien Bouchard. It was also interesting to hear of Chretien’s frequent behind the scenes discussions with Trudeau on unity topics – although Trudeau appears to have influenced his former Cabinet Minister’s view of federalism, the two did disagree at times on the more pragmatic side of politics.

If you’re looking for a detailed recap of the Chretien years, then there are probably better reference sources. But Chretien has injected so much life into his memoirs that it will certainly make for an enjoyable read, even for those who aren’t huge political buffs. Because of that, I imagine Chretien’s book will find its way into more stockings this Christmas than Mulroney’s (also, it would take a really big stocking to hold Mulroney’s book).



Recommendation: Certainly worth asking Santa for it, even if you only have a passing interest in politics.



For more Chretien goodness, be sure to check out Jean and Rick's return to Harveys.



A copy of the book was provided by Random House for review

Wednesday Round Up

Municipal: On the municipal election front, things are heating up. Imagine my surprise when my Tuesday night joindave newsletter had veiled references directed towards the Go Alnoor campaign not once, but twice. The first was a response to Dave's proposal for six new taxes that Dave now says are not a "priority" [note to Love & co: How hard is it to just say no?]. The second was Dave explaining why he is losing the sign war.

On the policy front, Alnoor has released his 24 page platform. It's quite possibly the most detailed policy platform ever released for a civic election in Calgary and I'd encourage all potential voters to read it. Hell, even if you're not a Calgarian, for policy geeks, it'll be more exciting than Maxim.


Provincial: While I wish I had time to read through the 192 pages of the AG's report (and that's just volume one), it continues to draw headlines. Daveberta gives a detailed run down of Stelmach's refusal to fire his ministers. The same ministers who gave the auditor general the run around and didn't see anything wrong with deceiving Albertans.


Federal: I've got to tell you, I'm kind of digging the fact that no matter how much the Liberals screw up, they're still in a statistical tie with Harper. And bBringing in David Smith and John Rae to help with the next campaign is a step in the right direction for the grits.

Meanwhile, the man Smith and Rae helped win time and time again is recovering from heart surgery. Here's hoping he's up and running for the book tour.


And... for those who missed it, be sure to take a look at Conrad Black's Rick Mercer Report appearance from last night.

Birthday Wishes

For anyone feeling nostalgic, Don Newman had a good interview with Jean Chretien today (which you should be able to download here, sometime this evening). The main focus was on the Charter but, of course, talk drifted on to things like Harper, re-opening the constitution, the Liberal-Green deal, Dion's leadership and a host of other issues.

Le p'tit gars will be on Duffy tomorrow.

Bart's Books - The Way it Works

I just finished up Eddie Goldenberg’s behind the scenes look at life in the PMO – The Way it Works. For those not wanting to read the full review, I’d sum it up by saying it’s the kind of book a die hard political hack would enjoy but, unlike something like Paul Wells’ book, it’d be a pretty dull read for anyone with only a passing interest in politics.

Let’s start with what’s not covered in the book. There’s not much on Eddie Goldenberg’s personal life since, unlike Bill Clinton, he hasn’t earned the right to tack on 200 pages about his childhood. There are only three words on the Kyoto Accord, so you won’t get any more insight on Goldenberg’s latest machinations on the subject. There’s next to nothing on election campaigns as the book really does try to limit it’s scope to life in the PMO. And, at that, it is successful at giving a behind the scenes glimpse of the way it works. Goldenberg describes the decision making process for several major (and minor) decisions, giving a recap of the balancing between policy and politics which go into all of them. He’s quite blunt about having to consider the political ramifications about all decisions, just as he’s up front that certain appointments are nothing more than patronage. He also makes several references to the pork barreling desires of MPs with what he calls PIMBY (Please in my backyard).

Because of admissions like this, the book deserves to be taken a bit more seriously than, say, Sheila Copps' book. Goldenberg does admit that Chretien wasn't infallible, calling the GST reversal “a big mistake that would affect his credibility as PM”. At the same time, the understandable bias is still there and the book certainly paints JC in the most favourable light possible. Also receiving heaps of praise is Stephane Dion, which is a little surprising given that the book was released in the midst of a leadership race where Eddie was helping out Bob Rae. Dion is described as being like a son to Chretien and was one of the few ministers invited out to Harrington Lake with Jean.

Receiving quite a bit less praise than Dion was, of course, Paul Martin. Goldenberg doesn’t go out of his way to smear Martin at all, but he does get a few subtle digs in here and there (“very, very important”). He also claims that Martin opposed Meech purely for political reasons and that Tim Murphy once told him that “Paul’s people didn’t think it would be good for [Martin] to be associated publicly with anything in Trudeau’s memory”. Despite these less than flattering anecdotes, Goldenberg goes to great lengths to praise Martin’s work as Finance Minister and the good working relationship Paul had with his boss. And when describing things like the Martin/Tobin broadband battle during the 2002 budget, you really do get the sense that he isn’t taking sides.

As I said in the beginning, there are a few behind the scenes stories which political junkies will appreciate. Goldenberg recaps several meetings with George Bush, and tells of how Lucien Bouchard spent his entire meeting with Bill Clinton asking advice about private schools rather than talking about Quebec separatism. There are also a few surprises here and there in the book, such as the revelation that Ralph Klein was one of the federal government’s biggest allies during the 2000 Health negotiations. And I know I got a kick out of guessing who the cryptically described politicians in Goldenberg’s less than flattering stories are (for example, the “Toronto MP and future Paul Martin Cabinet Minister”).

Probably the most interesting thing about the book is to see what Goldenberg considers to be Chretien’s greatest achievements. And given the amount of ink he spills on different subjects, it’s clear to me that he sees the innovation agenda, the Clarity Act, the economic recovery, and, maybe above all else, the decision to stay out of the Iraq war, as the most significant accomplishments of Chretien’s decade in power.