Canadians never knew the real Jean Chrétien. Book excerpt,

JTHE SHAWINIGAN ean Chrétien was a populist . ... But Chrétien’s brand of populism was not simplistic and was never destructive. He did not appeal to people’s fears or prejudices. His populism was grounded in optimism and faith in the judgment of the Canadian people. It was not because of ideology that Chrétien cut deeply into government programs and sliced the military budget. He did it because he knew that Canadians trusted him to eliminate the deficit.

His task as a politician, Chrétien said, was not to impose his views on voters but to understand and extract their wisdom. Since Canadians had no burning desire to change the constitution, neither did he. Québec premier Jean Charest said Chrétien understood what Canadians expected of him: “He knew the country was exhausted from Meech Lake, the GST, and the recession. He understood he was to be a transactional prime minister and not a transformational prime minister. He was content to fix the problems that were before him. He may have been lucky with his timing, but he made the most of it.” ...

Being a populist was an image Chrétien cultivated. That’s why he hid from view his taste in literature and music, interests most Canadians might associate with the glittering class. John Manley recalled meeting Chrétien at 24 Sussex where the prime minister greeted him at his desk: “Listen to this passage in French,” said Chrétien. “That’s Voltaire.” Manley asked if he knew how many Canadians thought of le petit gars de Shawinigan sitting in his office on a Thursday morning reading Voltaire? “Not too many because they would never vote for me, Goddamn it!” In many ways, Chrétien was not who Canadians thought he was. He thought and read more deeply than many appreciated, his tastes were more refined than many imagined.

Perhaps the most intriguing element of Chrétien’s populism is that he rarely gave anything away to increase his approval ratings. In many instances, he reduced the scope of government programs and scaled back public services. For Chrétien, the good of the country came before easy wins for his party. In fact, his political staff said he was not particularly political or partisan. This may explain why his biggest challenge came not from the electorate but from within his own party. To his political detriment, Chrétien was much more focused on his relationship with ordinary Canadians than he was with the inner workings of the Liberal Party.

Chrétien’s instincts told him that tooting his own horn or seeking to be the centre of attention would cost him votes. Unlike most politicians, he shunned the limelight. He thought voters would conclude that he was not doing his job if they saw him on television every FOX: HOW JEAN CHRÉTIEN DEFIED THE ELITES AND RESHAPED CANADA Jean Chrétien when he was prime minister addressing the Liberal party’s biennial convention 2000 in Ottawa. night. He did not seek attention in a crisis and often downplayed the seriousness of events. Chrétien told CBC journalist Don Newman not to expect many interviews, adding that Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney were always in the middle of things but they ended up being hated. It’s not an accomplishment, he said, for a prime minister (or president of the United States) to be in the news a lot . ...

Like all great leaders, Mr. Chrétien was grounded with a strong sense of place. He knew where he came from and he did not try to be something that he was not. He was a product of a working-class family from Shawinigan. He came from the riding of La Mauricie, a place, he said, where fun mixes with politics and where you can’t put on airs. He was a family man who lived a traditional lifestyle with conservative habits. He did not flaunt his wealth.

Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin wrote that, after ten years in office, the prime minister was still a misfit for the job: “It was as if he had been taken straight from the factory floor and plunked down under the chandeliers.” That assessment could not have made Chrétien any happier.

It’s an open question whether a different prime minister would have delivered a better or worse result for federalist forces on referendum night. There is a lot of blame to go around. We could blame Pierre Trudeau for patriating the constitution without Québec’s signature. We could blame Brian Mulroney for reopening the constitution rather than letting sleeping dogs lie. We could blame Newfoundland premier Clyde Wells for his decisive role in defeating the Meech Lake Accord. We could blame Québec premier Jacques Parizeau for asking a trick question. And we could blame Jean Chrétien for not anticipating and preparing for what turned out to be a razor-thin referendum vote.

What had looked to be a significant federalist victory a few weeks before the vote turned in favour of the separatists virtually overnight. At the time, federalists on the ground in Québec did not expect that Parizeau’s announcement that Lucien Bouchard would serve as Québec’s chief negotiator in the event of a Yes vote was much to worry about.

When the tide turned, Chrétien had little time to react, but he did not sit on much earlier. In fact, had the polls been close midcampaign, it’s unlikely that the Bouchard card would ever have been played. Their change in tactics was unplanned, almost slapdash. In fact, the Yes forces were deeply divided on the meaning of a victory. Would it be the first inevitable step to outright separation? Or would it be a strong bargaining position from which to gain more powers for Québec? A Yes vote would have thrown Québec and Canada into bedlam. The Canadian dollar would have fallen, stock markets would have crashed, and investment into Québec would have dried up.

Chrétien believed that game-changer. His plan was to move quickly, within a month or so, to ask Quebecers another question in another referendum: Do you want Québec to separate from Canada? If those voting yes had a clear majority — not just 50 per cent plus one but some unspecified threshold — he planned to hold a national referendum on what position the federal government should take.

Chrétien was not prepared to see the country break up on a trick question and a narrow margin of support. But he was prepared to ask Quebecers a direct question and live with the result. He had no doubt that if the question was clear and binary — leave or stay — Canada would never lose. 2006 election...

When Jean Chrétien arrived at the 2000 Liberal convention, he was greeted by young Liberals chanting “Four more years! Four more years!” During Chrétien’s remarks at a plenary session, most of the delegates were on their feet cheering enthusiastically. The Martin supporters sat on their hands. Former deputy prime minister John Manley said Martin’s team missed their chance: “Had they put up banners that said ‘thank you prime minister’ and praised him to the skies, he would have been gone at the end of his second term.”

The lack of respect made Aline Chrétien furious. While two terms as the wife of the prime minister was as much as she had bargained for, she wasn’t about to let her husband get pushed out the door. She was overtaken by anger . ... Seeing the disrespect coming from the Martinites, Aline joined in the chants of “four more years.” With her blessing, Chrétien quickly went into election mode:

Richard Mahoney chaired the Martin meeting at the Regal Constellation (the beginning of the plan to launch Martin’s leadership bid). He said the entire episode was a mistake: “We concluded that we couldn’t push Mr. Chrétien out the door. We wanted our supporters to dial it down. It was naïve on our part to think we could put that many political people in a room and expect they would keep it a secret. Rather than dialing it down our supporters went in the opposite direction and openly challenged the prime minister and his team. The meeting was a mistake and another bad turn in the Chrétien-Martin relationship.”

Chrétien wrote that he wanted to fire Martin and to “fire the conspirators on his staff, and cancel the government contracts with his friends.” Beyond the disloyalty, Chrétien was worried that Martin was sufficiently preoccupied with his personal ambition that he was distracted from his duties as a minister. But Chrétien was talked out of it by his senior staff who thought that the financial markets would react badly. In time, Chrétien regretted taking their advice.