Paul Martin - Canadian History.
Publié le 03/05/2013
Extrait du document
«
VI CONFLICT WITH THE PRIME MINISTER
Martin’s success could not have been achieved without the support he received from Jean Chrétien.
Yet relations between the two men continued to deteriorate.
In partthis was because of their continuing disagreement about how best to deal with the separatist challenge in Québec.
In the 1993 election, a majority of Québec seats hadgone to the Bloc Québécois, and in 1994 the provincial separatist party, the Parti Québécois, won election on a platform promising to hold a referendum that would askvoters to approve separation.
When the referendum was held in 1995, the separatist option won the support of 49.4 percent of those who voted, among them amajority of the voters whose first language was French.
Martin believed that this result reflected the failure of the “hardline” Chrétien approach toward all forms ofQuébec nationalism.
In internal government policy discussions he continued to challenge the prime minister’s position on an issue that Chrétien regarded as the defining issue of his politicalcareer.
Another reason for their estrangement was that Martin’s success had brought him a personal prominence rivaling that of Chrétien.
Admirers in the Liberal Partyand journalists began to speculate about Martin as a future prime minister, and Martin made no attempt to conceal his ambition to succeed Chrétien.
As a resultChrétien and his supporters in the party began to see Martin as a potential threat to Chrétien’s leadership.
After the Liberal Party won a second election under Chrétien in 1997, in anticipation that the prime minister might soon retire, supporters of Martin began to build anorganization that could be mobilized for a leadership campaign.
This caused further strain in the relationship, particularly since there was growing evidence that Martinhad become more popular than Chrétien, both with voters and with a growing number of party members, including a significant group in the parliamentary caucus.
By1998 the party was clearly dividing between pro-Martin and pro-Chrétien factions.
In the fall of 2000 the Liberals won a third successive election.
After the election the prime minister said it would be his last, but he did not say when he would retire.This created a situation of increasing tension within the party caucus because there was now a large block of members of Parliament who felt Chrétien’s leadership hadbecome a problem for the party.
One reason was the growing feeling that Chrétien did not appear to have a clear sense of where he wanted to lead the government.Another was an accumulation of controversies about mismanagement of government programs and allegations of ethical misconduct, which Chrétien dealt withdismissively, refusing to acknowledge that they were significant.
A third reason was that many members of the Liberal caucus felt Chrétien had centralized power withinthe staff of his own office at their expense.
They believed he was increasingly disdainful of their views and had marginalized their role in his administration.
By early 2002, as discontent continued to grow within the caucus, Chrétien blamed Martin’s supporters.
Although he had told ministers they could begin to organize fora change of leadership, at a Cabinet meeting in May he ordered them to shut down their campaigns in a move that was interpreted as a direct attack on Martin.
This ledto a public break between the two men, and in June Martin was forced out of the Cabinet.
VII LIBERAL PARTY LEADER AND PRIME MINISTER
In forcing Martin from the Cabinet, Chrétien had actually given him an advantage over other ministers who wanted to run for leadership of the Liberal Party because itleft Martin free to conduct a campaign.
For more than a year all across the country Martin’s organization had been building support in constituency associations thatwould elect delegates to a convention.
Martin was now free to pursue this strategy without challenge.
By August 2002 it was apparent that Martin had control of amajority of these associations.
Faced with the likelihood that this support for Martin might now be turned directly against him, Chrétien finally asked the party executive to call a convention for 2003.Other candidates quickly discovered that Martin’s organization had built an insurmountable lead and withdrew.
Only one candidate persisted to the end, but when theballoting occurred in November 2003, Martin was elected with more than 90 percent of the vote.
On December 12, 2003, Martin became prime minister.
Martin brought a very different style of leadership to the party and government.
While Chrétien was a managerial leader with no broad program of long-term policyinnovations to achieve, Martin had always been intensely interested in policy.
He steeped himself in the nuances of policy across a broad range of issues and sought torelate them to an underlying and defining set of national values.
Martin believed it was his role as leader to set long-term policy objectives for the country and organizethe agenda of government to pursue them.
In summarizing this aspect of the differences between Martin and Jean Chrétien, one of Martin’s advisers described his leadership style as “intellectual” and Chrétien’sas “intuitive.” Martin was also different from Chrétien in his approach to conflict.
Chrétien had always described himself as a “fighter” who refused to back down in theface of adversaries.
He believed that he should take a stand and defend it.
Martin, on the other hand, was a leader willing to engage in discussion with those who heldopposing views and to accept their ideas if he found them convincing.
If he believed he had been wrong about a position, he was prepared to admit his mistake,apologize for it, and accept the political consequences.
A third difference lay in their approach to relations with members of the party caucus.
Whereas Chrétien centralized power in his office and insisted on the primacy ofloyalty to the leader, Martin believed members of Parliament who are not in the Cabinet should be given greater independence and increased responsibility.
This viewreflected his belief that the best decisions come from vigorous debate in which all of the participants, regardless of their positions, are treated as equals.
VIII MARTIN’S GOVERNMENT
When Martin came to office, his political foes in the opposition parties wanted to stress the continuity of his administration with that of Chrétien.
The purpose was to holdit accountable for the Chrétien government’s record, particularly its record on ethical issues.
In contrast, Martin was determined to identify his administration as a newgovernment.
Both were trying to appeal to what polling firms had identified as a widespread public desire for change.
To put a new face on the government, Martin appointed 22 new ministers, retaining only 15 from the Chrétien Cabinet.
He reorganized government departments andthe administrative structure of the Privy Council Office (the PCO), which is the central agency governing the federal bureaucracy, to emphasize a new set of policydirections.
In addition, he invested the second tier of the executive branch that sits in Parliament—parliamentary secretaries—with enhanced authority and gave itsmembers special responsibilities for carrying out reforms to which he had committed himself during his leadership campaign.
Among the priorities Martin announced when he first met with Parliament were plans to rebuild the infrastructure of Canadian cities, improve conditions for Canada’saboriginal peoples, reform Parliament to give its members more voice in the decisions of government, and appoint an independent ethics commissioner to build publicconfidence in the integrity of government.
Among the more significant changes in direction under Martin’s leadership was his approach to Québec nationalism.
He signaled his desire to find an accommodationwith moderate nationalists by appointing as his chief political lieutenant in Québec one of the Liberals who had left the party in 1990.
The difference in Martin’s style of leadership was reflected, as well, in his attempt to improve relations with the United States.
He created a new branch in the PrivyCouncil Office and appointed a parliamentary secretary to deal exclusively with Canada-U.S.
relations.
Martin did not disagree with the substance of the Chrétiengovernment’s policy toward the United States.
Rather, he felt that the resolution of disagreements between the two countries had been made more difficult by a lack of.
»
↓↓↓ APERÇU DU DOCUMENT ↓↓↓
Liens utiles
- Martin, Paul - biographie.
- Paul Martin - biography.
- Paul Martin.
- Acadia - Canadian History.
- Alexander Mackenzie - Canadian History.