M-T
The (Canadian Jewish News, Thursday, October 21,1993-Page 9
Jean Ghretien
Jean Chretien was bom in Shawinigan, Quebec on January 11,1934. After attending schools in Shawinigan, Joliette and Trois-Riveres. he studied law at Laval University. He was called to the bar in 1958.
Chretien was first elected to the House of Com-: mons in 1963 representing the constituency ofSt-Maurice-Lafliche. He was re-elected in 1965. In July 1965, he was appointed parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Leste'Y^Pearson arid in January 1966, to the Ministry of Finance. In 1967he became Minister of State attached to the Minister of Finance and in 1968 was appointed Minister of National Revenue.
He was returned to the House in the 1968 election, representing tfie new constituency of St-Maurice and named Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He remained in that post until 1974 when he was appointed President of the Treasury Board.
He was appointed Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in 1976. A year later, he became Minister of Finance. He held that post until 1979.
Chretien was returned to the House of Commons forasixth consecutive term in the May 1979 election.
After the Liberal victory in February 1980, he was appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and given the additional task of Minister responsible for constitutional negotiations. In 1982 he was appointed Minister oj Energy, Mines and Resources.
In June 1984, Chretien ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada but lost to John Turner He was appoimed Deputy Prime Minister arid Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the 1984 election, he was re-elected as the MP for St-Maurice and as a member of the Opposition was appointed Critic for External Affairs.
Chretien resigned from the House of Commons on February 27, 1986.
From March 1986 to June 1990 he was a law-\er with the firm of Lang Michener Lawrence and Shaw. ■
In 1990, Chretien was elected Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He won a by-election in the riding ofBeausejour and was sworn in as Le(uler of the Opposition in December 1990.
CJN editor Patricia Rucker and reporter Ron Csillag interviewed Chretien in Toronto following two well-received appearances by him in the Jewish community, one at the Primrose Club and another at the Bernard Betel Centre for Creative Living.
CJN: in which direction would Canada-Israel relations go under a government headed by you and would that constitute a shift from current policy?
Chretien: I don't know if it's a shift or not (but) what we favor is the full peace process in the Middle East and we're very "pleased with the developments of the last few weeks. It was an incredible moment when the prime minister (of Israel) and (PLC Chairman Yasser) Arafat were together, shook hands and after that, they had a )rivate meeting. So it's all extremely positive and hope it Will carry on. It's difficult for both sides, there's no doubt about it. We have to do everything we can as a country to help in that situation. The problem area will be that you have to help economically somewhat to have the two •communities prosper, to make life easier for everybody to live together and somewhat separately at the same time. And Canada should be there all the time to help. What they need today, I don't know. There have been no specific requests of Canada at this moment.
CJN: 77ie Canadian commitment (to the international financial package to help Palestinians in the territories) is $50 million over five years. Does that strike you as reasonable ?
Chretien: I'm in a campaign and we have a program. We have to be careftil with the taxpayers' money. It's not our money. And I don't know if the effort should not be bigger; We'll see. I'm very careful at this time in the campaign, (of not just saying) yes, yes, yes and trying-to buy votes. It's not my style. I think thiere's an understanding of the problem and there is a desire that we find — or they fiiid — a solution. We cannot solve the problem for them, living in this country. Is $50 million adequate? I don't know. If we are committed to $50 niiliion, I will respect that. If there is a need to increase it, and if we can find the money, fine. I know we'll have a lot of people in my caucus who are-very close to your community so, we'U do our best.
CJN: The Arab boycott is still in place and Saudi Arabia (and other Arab nations have) recently announced it will not be -lifted. Canada's opposition in principle to the boycott is welt known but would your government be willing to usie whatever influence it could to overturn it?
Chretien: To have peace, you have to have normal relations, on every scone. When there is trade among (Mideast nations), it will help bring them to peace, no doubt about it. So we believe that normal trade relations should be a normal follow-through of normal political relations. Of course, (Canada) is a player there; not a major one, but a player. When I was minister, we were always aware of the problems and still are. I want to have very normal relations among these nations. That is the best way to have peace.
CJN: There was a certain sense of disappointment in our community about your party's stand during the Gulf War (particularly) when Scud missiles fell on Israel. Do you think that was mis: understand in our comnumity?
CJN: Immigration, it seems, has not been a priority in this campaign. Do you think that's because there is a lack of interest in it or that is it not being raised that much because it's an explosive issue?
Chretien: No, it's not because it's an explosive issue;. The problem with immigration is based on the economic situation. Some people say we should not take many more (immigrants) because there is so much unemployment in Canada. My view, and I expressed it in die debates, is that we shotild always try to (allow in) close to one per cent (of the total population) a year because it's a country that needs growth. And when we need growth^ immigrants are not a burden, generally speaking, on any nation like Canada. They
Chretien: We did what senators in the United States — some very close to your community — did. We opposed the war at that time. There was an (economic) boycott going on. And the president of the United States vyas telling everybody that the boycott was working. And suddenly, in the middle of something like November (1990), they decided the boycott was not working anymore. So senators like Senator Nunn, Kennedy and all the Democrats voted against the War on a Friday. We voted on ia Tuesday and we voted like they did, (But) when the country was at war, we supported the war.
It's a question of judgment. Was the boycott working or not? When you're in opposition, you're not privy to any information. So there was no lack of support for Israel. There were a lot of people who feh that the best thing was an economic boycott and if the boycott did not work, you start a war. And that's exactly what happened. But when the missiles started to fly, we were on the side of the troops. You know that. So you cannot say what you just affirmed. When the missiles were flying, we,supported the war. Those Avho say the contrary are wrong.
But in terms of when to have a war, that was a big debate. (The resolution declaring war) passed the (US, Senate) 51 to 48. So for us, it was different because it was a week after (the vote in the United States). We had the vote Tuesday and the war was declared on Wednesday^. When we were at ^yar, I said,"Fine." If the president of the United States jnd the prime minister of Canada decided that is the time, we said, * 'Fine;— we're supporting the troops and supporting the war." (But) when there was a political debate about what is the best solution, we were like the 48 senators in the United States (who voted against war).
become consumers the first day they arrive. In fact, you take people who have a lot of education. You don't have to pay for that education; it's been paid by others. So I am positive on immigration. Theire is always debate on refugees and family reunification. But we've always been very positive on immigration.
CJN: /Ire you satisfied with the way the present process is working?
Chretien: For ine, there is hevei* a process that is satisfactory in public life. You put the law in place with the best intentions and there is always soine interpretation by bureaucrats or the public, and people abuse the system, and so on. So it's a constant review that we have to do all the time. There are sonie elements at this moment that probably need to be reviewed and if they need to be reviewed, the minister of immigration will come with some propositions. And if they make sense, we'll change (the rules).
CJN: Tied into the issue of immigration is the mUlticulturalism issue. The country seems to be very fractured during this election. Would you prefer to see the structure which has been proposed of having muhiculturalism under a Canadian Heritage ministry? How would you handle the whole issue of muhiculturalism?
. Chretien: This debate is always coming up. . . should We or should we not have a department of multiculturalism a:s such. There is big pressure on the nation to reduce the number of departments and to concentrate the operation with less rhinisters; to that I tend to subscriberThe cabinet under (Brian) Mulroney at one time was 40 or 41 and it was too many. The location is not what is at stake. It is the commitment: are we or are we not in favor of multiculturalism? ThTanswer is yes, and that is my political commitment.
You know, I was the minister of justice who put multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution in 198l-'82; and when you listen to my speeches, I'm always talking about tolerance and generosity and sharing. You know my values, and they are necessarily reflected in my thinking. The multiplication of departments under the administration of Mulroney caused other problems, because if the leadership is not committed, to have a minister means nothing. 1 will wait to be prime minister to organize my ministries . . . but I inscribed it (multiculturalism) in the Constitution and it is one of my great prides. I was the minister of justice who took the Charter of Rights and made it part of the Constitution. That was a giant step and I was instrumental in doing it.
CJN: There is an issue that may be small on the overall national agenda bitt that for, the Jewish community is still a very painful and important issue for a large segment of our readers — the pursuit of war criminals. Youmentioned that you were minister of justice,, you were the minister responsible....
Chretien: The first deportation that was ever made was done when I was minister of justice. I worked on that; at that time Bob Kaplan was solicitor-general and I Was minister of justice. So now, we have laws in Canada that should be enforced. I aim not privy at this moment, talking to you, to specific files. There will be a minister of justice and he or she will be under instructions to follow the law of the land.
CJN: Do you have any preference for deportation ? or prosecution in Canada
Chretien: It's probably preferable that these criminals be judged by the jurisdictions where they committed their crimes. That will be the norm, but in some areas it's hot possible; it was impossible at the time of the Soviet Union tq dream that Uiere could be any prosecutions there, so that is why we said if we want to do it, we'll do it here; but the normal law in society is that the criminal faces justice where he committal his crime.
CJN: National unity and the rights of minorities are very deep issues for the Jewish conimunity in.Quebec, as is the whole nature of nationalism in Quebec. They are afraid thdt they will not be included in any nationalist vision of Quebec, whether within Canada or .. .
Chretien: When M, Bouchard said I should not run in Quebec because I am too rnuch of a Canadian, 1 attacked him. 1 asked: "Is this the kind of society you want to haye in your country?" You heard me say: "I'm' Jean Chretien. T was bom in Shawinigaii, my father was Wellie Chretien, my mother, Marie Boisvert — in Canada, you can't have more French names than that. And I am a (Juebecer, a proud C^ebecer, a proud francophone, and a proud Canadian. Is this the type of intolerance you're proposing to have?" But I am fighting separatism and I am fighting always oh the basis of inelu.sion — the politics of inclusion, of generosity, of trust.
CJN: Quelle est votre reponse au cqmmeniaire de M. David Peterson, aricien premier ministre de 1'Ontario, qui a dit que le nationalisme que-becois ^stleproduitdel'humiliation queles Que-becois et Qu^becoises ont soutenue?
Chr(ftien: Je n'ai pas lu rentrevue qu'a donnee M. Peterson; done je ne peux pas rentrer dans les details. Mais je peux dire simplement que sou-vent dans les propos que M. Bouchard a employ^ a mon endroit, souvent ce n'^tait pas des propos ou la g^ri6rosit6 etait d^bordante. C'6tait plutot tr&s ^troit, parce que je suis un f6d6raliste et que: je crois au Canada, de me faire dire que je ne peux pas me presenter dans le comte ou je sUis n6, ce n'est pas iine; pens^e tr^s g^nereuse de la part deM. Bouchard. Ca, c'est une parole qu'il a eu.Et certains de ses candidats ont eu des paroles tr^s dures k mon^gard.
Parce que;je suis un Canadien, et fier de I'etre, je ne suis pas un traitre k la fraricbphonie. Au contraire, si la francophonie survit aujpurd'hui en terre d'Amerique, c'est parce que le Canada existe. Les Frangais de la Nbuvelle Angleterre ne parlent plus frangais maintenant, oil trfes peu. C'est parce qu'au Canada on a cette tolerance, cette g^nerosit^ qu'on a mis les deux langues officielles dans la Constitution canadienne. C'est pour ga que le franfais survit encore. Je suis au-tant francophone et autant francophile que lui, sauf que mon mecanisrhe pour le preserver c'est a I'int^rieur du Canada. Beaucoup d'entre eux
[Cont'd, on page 11]