Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for August 28, 2018

Host: Connie Walker

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I believe the President is on the phone. Enrique, a lot of people waiting. Hello.

CONNIE WALKER: A little phone trouble yesterday as U.S. president Donald Trump tried connecting with his Mexican counterpart, ahead of their big announcement. The U.S. and Mexico have struck their own trade deal and now Canada is left wondering what the message is for us. First up today, we're exploring that issue and my guests will include the Mexican ambassador to Canada, Dionisio Perez Jacome. Then, to a humanitarian crisis that's entering its second year.

SOUNDCLIP

Sounds from Rohingya protest chanting genocide.

CW: Rohingya Refugees from Myanmar inside Bangladesh have been protesting in recent days and they're chanting the word, genocide. Now the United Nations is using that same powerful language. In half an hour, I'll speak with Canada's envoy to Myanmar, Bob Rae. And in an hour Anna Maria Tremonti's interview with former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. You'll hear the little guy from Shawinigan's thoughts on everything from life after office to pipelines and NAFTA and even the infamous sponsorship scandal.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You know what is a scandal. Five guys were found guilty. Four of them never had a card of the Liberal Party. Madame, it's better for you to check the facts.

CW: I'm Connie Walker and this is the summer edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

Trump needs a trade deal win — and that could help Canada, says former ambassador

Guests: Dionisio Perez Jacome, Michael Kergin

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: They used to call it NAFTA. We're going to call it the United States Mexico Trade Agreement. We'll get rid of the name NAFTA, has a bad connotation because the United States was hurt very badly by NAFTA for many years and now it's a really good deal for both countries.

CW: A really good deal for both countries, but what about Canada?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We'll give them a chance to probably have a separate deal. We can have a separate deal or we could put it into this deal. We will see whether or not we decide to put up a candidate or just do a separate deal with Canada, if they want to make the deal. The simplest deal is more or less already made.

CW: Yesterday U.S. President Donald Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto announced that the two countries had agreed to a new trade deal. And so after 24 years, the NAFTA we know may be replaced and it isn't clear where Canada stands. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland cut short a visit in Europe and is in Washington today, after weeks of Canada being on the sidelines in the negotiations. And while some see the US-Mexico deal as a positive step, many are wondering how a trilateral agreement was agreed upon bilaterally. For answers on NAFTA and how Mexico plans to proceed with or without its Canadian partners, I'm joined by Mexico's ambassador to Canada Dionisio Perez Jacome is in Ottawa. Good morning.

DIONISIO PEREZ JACOME: Hello Connie. Good morning. It's a pleasure to be with you and with your audience.

CW: Well thank you for joining us. I want to ask you how do you interpret President Trump's comments about Canada yesterday.

DPJ: Well let me say first, that yesterday was a very important day for us. We reached an understanding with the U.S. that is Mexico and the U.S. on bilateral topics and on the broad maps agenda. And we now are in a new stage in which we are expecting as of today, Canada to get back to the conversations. Our objective Connie, as was mentioned yesterday in the call that you made reference between President Trump and President Pena Nieto. Our objective and political decision is to have Canada back and join the agreement in principle that we have discussed with the United States, so as to have a trilateral agreement. I think that was reiterated by President Pena Nieto at least four times yesterday.

CW: Well President Trump maybe was not quite as clear on that and in fact saying that you know he hopes Canada can join, but maybe is not necessarily as committed. Would Mexico support a bilateral deal in leaving Canada to negotiate a separate deal with the United States?

DPJ: Well we will do everything we can, as we have done since the beginning to have Canada onboard. We have had several discussions and we have expressed that publicly in the recent months. Again yesterday, we made a point on that. Our team is in Washington right now and will be in Washington this week. The whole week being as constructive as possible to in order to have Canada back on the table. Now there are some variables that we control, some variables we do not control, such as those that have to do more with the Canadian-US issues. So we certainly hope that at the end, those variables that we do not control, can lead us to this objective of having a trilateral agreement.

CW: So as we mentioned, Canada has been on the sideline of these negotiations for the last few weeks and the discussions between Mexico and the U.S. were described as bilateral agreements. But clearly yesterday, there were some trilateral issues that were negotiated. Should Canada have been invited back to the table sooner?

DPJ: Well I think also yesterday we were very clear in saying that everything that was agreed in principle yesterday, everything that has to do with bilateral issues between Mexico and Canada, that is agreed on. But we think that it's of trilateral nature, it's a proposal actually for Canada to look at it and hopefully to be able to join during this week of negotiations.

CW: So they were talking about this week because there is a deadline on Friday that some people are mentioning is important. How realistic do you think it is to come to an agreement on some of those trilateral issues before this Friday deadline.

DPJ: Well we believe it's possible. We believe actually, we see what happened yesterday as a very important progress because we were able to break some of the gridlocks that had been present in the conversations for some time now and we certainly hope that once Canada is back on the table and looks at this progress that has been actually described as encouraging progress, they would be able to join. For example, in topics very important such as the automobile sector or the so-called sunset clause that was changed or eliminated and substituted by you by an evaluation and extension clause, for example to name a few.

CW: Those are trilateral issues that Canada has also taken a position on. President Trump said yesterday that the U.S. plans to submit the deal to Congress as early as Friday of this week because of that deadline. If the U.S. puts this bilateral deal to Congress without Canada, what is Mexico's position?

DPJ: Well yesterday our secretary Videgaray, Secretary for Foregin Affairs, was very clear in saying once again, as the president said, we want Canada back on the table. We want Canada to be part of this trilateral agreement, but again we have certain variables which we do not control. So what we want and we expect and it's our political discussion is to do everything we can to have Canada back on the table. If not, if it was not possible this week, well then there could be and there would be opportunities further along to bring Canada on the table to bring Canada along.

CW: President Trump said yesterday that there is no NAFTA anymore and it has a new name for the agreement. Is Mexico also gearing up to abandon NAFTA?

DPJ: I think it's premature as was also mentioned yesterday in the press conference to actually talk about what the name of the agreement will be. I think the name is secondary. What's important right now is to have agreement on the substance, on the important elements that we have been discussing for months, in order to reach a more competitive region to benefit the three countries and to create employment and attract investments and also development in the three countries. So I think.

CW: Oh sorry. Given what was announced yesterday, what is the most important gain for Mexico in this new agreement?

DPJ: I think what's very important for us is it was a comprehensive understanding yesterday on all the topics and that it grants certainty. Certainty for all the economic actors. I believe at the end of any negotiation, this is a balance of the interests between the different parties and that's what we had yesterday. And understanding in principle that takes that balance has sort of keeps the interest of both countries, but at the end, the main objective is that it grants certainty.

CW: OK. Well thank you very much Ambassador, we really appreciate you joining us for this discussion.

DPJ: Well thank you very much, Connie and it was a pleasure being with your audience.

CW: Dionisio Perez Jacome is Mexico's ambassador to Canada. He is in Ottawa. We also invited representatives of the Canadian and American governments, no one was made available. With Mexico's seemingly one step ahead of Canada in getting a trade agreement, what do our own negotiators need to do to join the party? Where might Canada offer some flexibility and where is it most likely to hold fast? Joining us from Ottawa is Michael Kergin. He was Canada's ambassador to the United States from 2000 to 2005. He is now a senior advisor with the law firm Bennett Jones, focusing on Canada's relations with the U.S. Hello.

MICHAEL KERGIN: Good morning, Connie. How are you?

CW: I'm fine. Thanks Michael. Thanks for joining us. First let me ask you, what stands out for you in what we just heard from the Mexican ambassador?

MK: Well Connie I think that we really have a few advantages on our side here that haven't really been stated. One is that, while the negotiations have been going over on the auto and some of the other issues between the Americans and the Mexicans, our negotiators I think have been very well aware of the details because in a negotiation you always have communication between delegations and so forth. So my guess is that our negotiators won't be coming or Minister Freeland coming to Washington today will have any very large surprises. The second thing I think is important to underscore is that much of what's been discussed between the Mexicans and the Americans in a formal way, have moved these negotiations very much towards the Canadian position on a number of issues. Autos for example, on The National last night, you had Jerry Dias saying this is the best he's seen for NAFTA in 24 years. So much of the labour issues, the content questions with respect to Canada and North America are very much parts of the areas that we have put on a table before and we're accepting of. The Sunset clause has moved tremendously from five years drop dead situation with no negotiation to a situation where 16 years or the six year renewal and a review process. So that's moved a lot in our direction. Much of the issues on border taxes for example, which is a big issue for us and how much a cross-border shopping you could bring back into Canada from the U.S., I noticed in the Mexicans it's gone up to $100-150 dollars which is actually still pretty modest and very much I think a Canadian position as well. So there's a lot there that I think we've put on the table earlier that has been negotiated very much in our favour.

CW: But it has been negotiated without Canada sitting at the table. That we've been on the sidelines for the last few weeks. And President Trump said yesterday that he plans to submit this deal to Congress as early as Friday. What kind of bargaining pressure does this put on Canada?

MK: Obviously it puts a lot of pressure on Canada and the two outstanding issues are our supply management, which is going to be an area where I think the Canadian government is going to have to make some fast decisions on. Again, it's not a black and white issue, it will be a situation where we negotiate a transition period over time to phase out of supply management, if that's kind of where we're faced with a decision and provide certain subsidies to the dairy and poultry farmers. On this whole issue of chapter 19 and the few settlement mechanisms, we'll have to do some discussions there with the Americans. So yes, there's no question it puts pressure on Canada. That's for sure, but that's exactly the way the Americans want to play it. They want to play, get some agreements from the Mexicans, which are very much in favour of what Canada wanted and now turning to the Canadians. OK, we've got this much with the Mexicans, we want you to push, push you a little further on your files and that's what's going to have to be discussed over the next three or four days.

CW: The fact that so many trilateral agreements were discussed in these bilateral talks between the United States and Mexico, was this a successful divide and conquer strategy by the U.S.?

MK: Whether it's successful, we'll have to find out on how much we give up. It certainly was the strategy. There's no question. Because obviously the Americans you know put on the table, more than just the auto discussions. Again, that's not naive though, but many of the issues that were discussed between the Mexicans and the Americans were also issues that we have put on the table earlier on in our negotiations. So there's a pretty good appreciation of what Canada's counterproposals will be and what our bottom lines are. So while we weren't actually at the table, much of these outstanding issues beyond the auto, I think were areas where all negotiators had a pretty good sense of where we are. And our own people I think had a pretty good look into what the Mexicans and the Americans were discussing because these contacts, these communications continue even if we aren't formally at the table. And one other thing I'd like to mention too is I think that Mr. Trump probably has a very strong interest to try and get an agreement because he's under a lot of pressure. The McCain issue has obviously set him back politically in the U.S. He's got problems with the Chinese. Those talks are completely stalled now and his issues with North Korea are problematic. So he's facing a number of issues where he hasn't made much progress. So I think he's got a fairly strong incentive to try and declare victory and say I've got a new agreement with the Canadians. We've had them you know cave on this and the other in fact, whether we do or not, but he will spin it that way. And they say I've got a triumph here. We've now got a new agreement, economic agreement amongst the three members of North America. So I think there's a certain pressure that he's under to try and make some success out of this as well. And it's much better with Canada in the agreement as the second largest trading partner the United States, than if it were just bilateral Mexico-United States.

CW: Was it a mistake for Canada to be away from the table for these last few weeks, just very quickly before we have to go.

MK: I don't know if we had an awful lot of choice, Connie. Obviously the Americans set that table. Again, I would argue that we were very much aware of what was going on between those two countries as they were negotiating, but you can't break in the door, if the door is you know very firmly closed in a formal sense. But informally, I suspect we were very much present in the back rooms talking to both the Americans and the Mexicans as the progress they were making as they went through those last four five months.

CW: All right, well thank you very much for joining us to offer your insight.

MK: My pleasure, Connie. Always. Thank You.

CW: Michael Kergin is a former Canadian ambassador to the United States. He was in Ottawa. In speaking about Canada yesterday, President Trump singled out one potential action he says he's prepared to take.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I think with Canada frankly, the easiest thing we can do is to tariff their cars coming in. It's a tremendous amount of money and it's a very simple negotiation that could end in one day and we take in a lot of money the following day.

CW: Well according to my next guest, President Trump's tariff plans could be a case of easier said than done. Flavio Volpe is President of Canada's Automotive Parts and Manufacturers Association and he's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

FLAVIO VOLPE: Thank you for having me.

CW: So what's your reaction to that statement from the president yesterday about 25 per cent tariffs on cars imported from Canada?

FV: Well, it's not new rhetoric from the president. You know what we have is for the first time in history, you're looking at a U.S. president that negotiates publicly. And you know they put tariffs on steel and aluminium, but one of the things that we forget in the analysis is that American consumers pay those tariffs. So when the president says yesterday, you know we put tariffs on and then tomorrow we'll be collecting money. Well he'd be collecting money from American consumers of American cars, made with American parts in Canada.

CW: Well that certainly hasn't deterred his tariffs on steel and aluminum necessarily, but how seriously do you take that threat?

FV: Well we take it very seriously. On NAFTA, he's got to go to Congress. On NAFTA he's got to sign things with his partners. On this use of the Section 232 tariffs, he can do it from his desk and through the Commerce Department. And in spite of the fact that we think that this is, we know that this is all related to pressure on NAFTA, we do take the threat seriously and we're preparing for it.

CW: In terms of the auto sector, what was positive about the details of the agreement that was reached between the United States and Mexico yesterday?

FV: The USTR put out a fact sheet yesterday and it was bereft of details, but it had a couple in there for auto. 75 per cent regional value content, so that means 75 per cent of the vehicle has to come from parts of, any parts of the three countries. And 40 to 45 percent, a high wage labour content. Those were the numbers that were last on the table when Canada was last at the table in May.

CW: So that's good news for Canadian auto manufacturers as well.

FV: Right. Well you know the issue in May was that the Mexicans had a very strong issue with that high wage labour content. So I'm glad that the Mexicans and Americans worked that out and that they've come to a conclusion whatever trade off the Mexicans made and I think perhaps it's on the Sunset.

CW: Does anything concern you about what was announced yesterday?

FV: From an auto perspective, no, but you know we'd like to see more detail and you know we're not in the last dance here. And so I'm sure that, I know that our negotiators are there today and we'll see more details soon.

CW: What concessions is Canada being asked to make in terms of the auto sector?

FV: You know right from the beginning, the Americans said they wanted to see higher content coming from North America. Their initial proposal was half of that content had to come from the U.S. U.S. industry stood up and said, look that doesn't work for us, regardless of Canadian and Mexican interests, we're heavily invested in those two countries. You're going to disrupt our businesses. What we've seen is a number climb from 62 and a half per cent to 75 per cent and then how you count that, go from a list of 29 parts categories to something we're still negotiating that might be doubled that.

CW: So just to get back to the threat of these tariffs, what recourse does the auto sector have if President Trump goes ahead and slaps a 25 per cent tariff on cars imported from Canada?

FV: You know the tariffs are, it's a use of a legislation that the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 says there's a section there that the president can determine that imports from a country are a national security threat. Commerce Department does the investigation, they put together a report and he decides. You look at that report and you look at that argument and you always have an option. Companies have done this both on steel and aluminum. You can show up in U.S. district court and you can challenge it. Certainly, you know when I was at the White House about a month ago, meeting with officials, they said well this is all part of the same NAFTA negotiation. Of course, we have our own governments getting back to the table and closing on NAFTA. I think it's going to make the tariff threat disappear.

CW: Alright, well we'll continue to watch this. Thank you very much for joining us today.

FV: Thank you for having me.

CW: Flavio Volpe is the President of Canada's Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. He is in Toronto. The CBC News is next. Then, I'll be joined by Bob Rae, the former Ontario Premier and Liberal Party leader is Canada's special envoy to Myanmar. And a new report from the United Nations has used the word genocide to describe that country's treatment of the Rohingya minority. I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Aung San Suu Kyi 'bears some real responsibility' for Rohingya crisis, says Bob Rae

Guests: Bob Rae, Steven Butler, Payam Akhavan

CW: Hello. I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to this summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

CW: Still to come, President Trump may be threatening to tear up NAFTA, but according to one former Canadian PM, some things may be just too difficult to undo.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: So we have a common market for automobile with the Americans since 1965. You know the problem is you can not undo a number.

CW: Coming up in half an hour, Anna Maria Tremonti's feature interview with former Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. But first, a continuing humanitarian crisis.

SOUNDCLIP

[Cries]

VOICE: Din Mohammed says, they were firing in my area and even called us out from our home and then slit my father's throat.

CW: It was this time last year that the world watched in horror as Rohingya Muslims fled Myanmar with stories like his. Parents and children were slaughtered, women raped and mutilated. Entire villages burned to the ground. Yesterday, United Nations investigators called for the military leadership of Myanmar to be held accountable and they used the strongest language to date to describe the violence.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: The mission has concluded that criminal investigation and prosecution is warranted focusing on the top Tatmadaw generals in relation to the three categories of crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

CW: The United Nations Security Council meets today to discuss the issue and it has the power to refer those charges to the International Criminal Court or set up a special tribunal. But getting an agreement on that won't be easy. Joining me to talk about this is Canada's special envoy to Myanmar, Bob Rae. His own report on the Rohingya crisis was released in April. Bob Rae, hello.

BOB RAE: Hello, Connie.

CW: So what's your reaction to this new UN report on Myanmar?

BR: I think it's a very, very substantial piece of work. I feel quite positive about what it's been able to do, the work that the panel has been able to do is quite remarkable. Not having had any access at all to getting into Myanmar, but they've been able to talk to a lot of people and I think it adds to the evidence to this accumulation of facts, which are clearly pointing in one direction.

CW: And you also went on your own fact finding mission in Myanmar. How closely would you say this report's findings track your own?

BR: Certainly going in the same direction. I mean they had more resources. I was, it was me. So I went into the camp and talked to a lot of people and came away very, very affected by what I saw and what I heard. I've been back three times, confirming a lot of the information that is now in this report.

CW: What are some of those things that you heard from the people who fled?

BR: That was a group of women who were very reluctant to, they would have to be specially organized and made it clear that I wasn't writing anything down or anything and just wanted to hear from people what had happened. And some really terrifying accounts of sexual violence and abuse and villages being burned down, children being killed and husbands being killed. It's terrible. And as I was listening to it, I felt that it was just horrendous that this would be happening and that people would be saying, oh it never happened. Nothing like that happened. These are people that are just making it up and frankly, I think the UN report shows very clearly that there's just too many different stories, there's too many people coming forward, there's too much evidence to say that it's just made up. To use the current, awful vernacular, "fake news." This is not fake. This is a real human tragedy, reflecting an enormous amount of violence and clearly a determination to put an end to the Rohingya presence in Myanmar.

CW: A number of observers are seizing on the fact that this report uses the term genocide to describe what happened in Rakhine state. How significant is that in your view?

BR: I think it's, I personally think that crimes against humanity is a broad group of crimes this. Is the most serious crime against humanity because it involves the attempt to destroy a people and I don't think we should say, well you know everybody, nobody else has used the word. I used the word in my report. I said you know, we need to understand the investigation of a potential genocide has to continue to be done in terms of gathering the evidence and looking at it. Since my report came out, more evidence has come out. So if you say to me, are you shocked that the word genocide was used or that it was particularly said that there needs to be an investigation as to whether or not a genocide has taken place because there seems to be, what the lawyers call a prime aphasia case that something like that must have happened. I'm not surprised at it at all. I don't think anybody should be. It doesn't mean that you, it's not an accusation of genocide, it's a way of saying let's not be afraid to investigate the whole thing, including the possibility of genocide.

CW: So let's talk about the next step. The report recommends that the UN Security Council refer the situation to the International Criminal Court or to create an Ad hoc tribunal. How likely is that to happen in your view?

BR: It's a tough challenge. I don't think anybody should underestimate it. Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty. The Security Council is deadlocked on this question of a referral. So it is difficult, but I do think that the more evidence is gathered and there will be more evidence. There'll be more reports. There'll be more investigations. There'll be more reviews. The more it takes place, the harder it gets for any country to say, well we shouldn't be pursuing this in a tribunal. Of course we should be. If it has to be an Ad hoc tribunal, it would be. The Myanmar government has set up a a domestic and foreign combined tribunal, but I don't think a lot of people are satisfied that that's going to be able to get to the root of the issue.

CW: What specifically can or should the Canadian government do?

BR: Well we just continue to do what we are doing and that is more assistance for the the refugees. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that they're still living in very, very difficult and dire circumstances. More effective leverage to deal with the issues of what's happening inside Myanmar in Rakhine state and more aggressive approaches on this question of accountability.

CW: So the report also calls for targeted sanctions and travel bans for against a number of top officials in Myanmar, as well as an arms embargo. How effective do you think those actually be?

BR: It all depends in any embargo, any sanctions depend on everybody coming in. The problem has been the number of countries that are not prepared to engage. Canada does not sell arms. Canada has already taken steps to name people. We now have additional names, we have to decide how many more names we add in terms of not coming to Canada and freezing of assets. And we need to work with other countries to make sure that we are working together in that way.

CW: The UN report is sharply critical of Aung San Suu Kyi. How much responsibility do you think she bears for the violence?

BR: Well that's going to have to come out. I mean that's the question of who is responsible is something that any tribunal would ultimately determine. I think it's fair to say that the civilian government failed to protect the Rohingya population. She's the leader of that government. I think it's fair to say that the civilian government has not been as effective or aggressive as it needs to be in dealing with this question of responsibility and she leads that government. So yeah, I think she bears some real responsibility for what's happened. We need to understand that at the same time you know a good deal of the problem lies in the broader issue of Myanmar public opinion and that is if the dismissal or the discrimination against the minority is politically popular, what does a government do in that circumstance? It takes a lot of courage and gumption to say, I know you don't agree with me people, but these people are part of us and we can't simply expel them or treat them badly. So far the government has not been willing or prepared to do that. And I think that's a source of great sadness to a great many people in the world because until you begin to deal with the underlying causes of hatred and the underlying causes of discrimination, you can't really expect to get to a solution.

CW: Well thank you very much for joining us today.

BR: Thank you. Nice to be with you, Connie.

CW: Bob Rae is Canada's special envoy to Myanmar. His own report on the Rohingya crisis was released in April and he was with me in our Toronto studio. This new report from the UN has caught the attention of Rohingya refugees living here in Canada. We reached out to Ahmed Ullah who came to Canada back in 2009 for his story and his reaction to the latest language from the UN.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I was born in the refugee camp in 1993. Very shortly after my parents moved to Bangladesh trying to find a better life. It's shocking in a good way. Something finally is being said by the United Nations. I mean I have been very, very critical of them because they haven't been saying anything. They haven't been doing anything. I am frustrated in many, many ways because finally after a year later, they're saying oh we have listened to the eyewitness, we have seen satellite imageries and photographs and videos. You know, it has been, that's been there for years now. And after so long, after the Burmese government had enough time to cover up their tracks, you know, like this comes out. Like I'm happy in a way of I'm disappointed that it took this long to come out. I have lost many, many family members in process of it. Some of my family members are in Bangladesh refugee camp. Some of them we don't even know where about. They could probably be dead. They could be in a concentration camp. We don't know where they are. My heart cries out, bursting in tears seeing all these little kids and mothers and how they're being treated like animals. There's no justice in Bangladesh. There's no justice in Myanmar. These people have no place to go.

Ahmed Ullah arrived in Canada as a Rohingya refugee in 2009. My next guest travelled to the main Rohingya refugee camp on the Bangladesh-Myanmar border in June. Payam Akhavan was there to assess evidence for a potential international criminal court case. He is a professor of international law at McGill University and a former UN war crimes prosecutor. We've reached Payam Akhavan in Thornhill, Ontario. Hello.

PAYAM AKHAVAN: Good morning.

CW: What do you make of the frustration that we heard in that clip by Ahmed Ullah that this UN report comes too late?

PA: I fully appreciate from the perspective of the victim population, the tremendous frustration and outrage at the inaction of the international community. And it recalls for me the experience of the former Yugoslavia, the Srebrenica genocide, the Rwandan genocide, Darfur and it seems that the vows of never again on the part of the world community, have become every day as we fail again, again and again to confront mass atrocities. So I think this is a really fundamental moral challenge to the international community.

CW: You've investigated that genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda among other places, based on what you've heard from Rohingya refugees at the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, how does this compare?

BR: I would say this is among the worst of the worst. It's a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. It is a policy, which amounts to genocide, a deliberate intention to annihilate an entire human group. So I think it's one of the central human rights challenges of our time.

CW: Tell us about some of the individual stories that you heard in that refugee camp.

PA: Well I was in Kutupalong, which two years ago was a wildlife refuge in Bangladesh. Today it has become the largest refugee camp in the world with some 700,000 Rohingya refugees. And I can best describe it as a sea of misery. People who are deeply traumatised, who have horrible stories of violent persecution. I met with separately with a group of male and female survivors. Among the male survivors, I've met children some of them 7-8 years old with bullet wounds, with missing limbs. Men retold horrible stories of the Tatmadaw. The Myanmar military coming to their village, systematically killing, torturing, raping, burning and pillaging. Among the female group of victims that I spoke with, were a group of women who had fled around September of 2017 and they were all about eight months pregnant and their husbands had been killed. So we connected the dots and realized that many of them had become pregnant, probably as a result of rape. So it was really deeply distressing to see the accounts of inhumanity and suffering and even more frustrating to realize that the international community isn't doing nearly enough to confront this policy of what I can best describe as radical evil on the part of the Myanmar leadership.

CW: Well now the UN has come out with this report and said that this is genocide, inciting genocide. What is next?

PA: Well I should say, that although the report is very useful and very comprehensive, it is nothing new. We already had the special rapporteur of the United Nations on the human rights situation in Myanmar and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speak about ethnic cleansing and genocide several months ago. This is simply a more elaborate version of a previous report and I hope that it can be used to awaken the conscience of the international community and put this issue squarely on the agenda of the Security Council, but one of the central issues is accountability. There must be a cost attached to the commission of crimes against humanity and one of the proposals is a referral by the Security Council acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to the International Criminal Court, which was done previously for Sudan in 2005 in relation to Darfur and in relation to Libya in 2011. Of course there is the problem of a veto by China and possibly Russia, which would prevent this referral. But at present, the prosecutor of international criminal court is looking into another means of establishing the court's jurisdiction. Although Myanmar is not a party to the statute of the court, Bangladesh is and the crime of deportation actually originates in Myanmar, but is completed on the territory of Bangladesh upon crossing the Myanmar-Bangladesh border. So there is a theory at least that the court would have jurisdiction over the crime of deportation, which affects up to 1 million people and that matter is presently pending before the courts for a decision.

CW: Some are asking how much responsibility Aung San Suu Kyi bears here. What do you think?

PA: I think that we have to distinguish between moral and legal responsibility. There is no question that as someone who's been entrusted with a Nobel Prize, she must act with moral courage, even if it's politically inconvenient. In terms of legal responsibility, that's a more complex question. But I think the focus has to be on the military chain of command in the Tatmadaw, beginning with the commander in chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. And under the commander in chief is a special operations bureau and in particular, under that is a western regional military command, which has been responsible for the ethnic cleansing in the Rakhine state. And the head of that regional military command until June was Major General Maung Maung Soe, who is the only person subject to targeted sanctions under Canada's Magnitsky Act. He's also been subject to sanctions by the United States, by the European Union and I think it's a promising sign that he was dismissed by the Myanmar military in June. So I think that we should not underestimate the importance of the case that is now pending before the International Criminal Court. The mere prospect that there could be arrest warrants in the future has definitely concerned the Myanmar leadership. So I think we need to reinforce steps in the direction of ensuring that the court somehow, whether through the Security Council or through the theory that I described, based on the territory of Bangladesh exercises jurisdiction and I think that will have an effect possibly in deterring continuing atrocities against the roughly half million Rohingya that remain within Myanmar.

CW: Alright, well this is something we'll continue to watch. Thank you very much for joining us today.

PA: Thank you.

CW: Payam Akhavan is a professor of international law at McGill University and a former UN war crimes prosecutor. He was in Thornhill, Ontario. We're going to stay with Myanmar for an update on another story that has captured international attention. In December 2017, two Reuters reporters, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested in Myanmar. They've been behind bars ever since. This weekend the two were expecting a verdict in their case, but that didn't happen. To tell us more I'm joined now by Steven Butler. He's the Asia program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. And he's in Washington, D.C. Hello.

STEVEN BUTLER: Good morning, Connie.

CW: So we'll get to the details of the case in a moment, but I'm wondering if you can tell us a bit about these two reporters?

SB: Well, they're both young reporters. The one I know most about is Wa Lone. He grew up in a village, in a farm village of 500, surrounded by fields. When he grew up he decided he wanted out of the village life. He went to Yangon, the commercial capital and for a while he worked as a welder. He did that for a few years and then he moved south toward the Andaman Sea, where for a time he was unloading vegetables in a market. And very interesting, he began to study at the British Council office. So he learned English and he learned to write through programs sponsored by the British government. And then later he returned to Yangon and began work as a cub reporter. Before he joined Reuters, he worked for three years at the Myanmar Times and he distinguished himself as a reporter, particularly covering ethnic issues. And Reuters brought him on board then.

CW: So they've spent now both Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo have spent eight months in detention. How are they holding up?

SB: When we see them, when they appeared at their court hearings they appear confident and you know relatively healthy. They are able to see their families briefly during those periods and they speak very confidently about having done the right thing as journalists. And it's obvious that they get a lot of energy from the tremendous international support that the committee, the you know community of journalists worldwide has shown to them.

CW: Can you take us back to December 2017. What were they working on when they were arrested?

SB: Well it was well known, the two of them they had been investigating a massacre that was carried out by the Myanmar military in the Rakhine State and they had acquired some photographs of ten individuals who were lined up kneeling on the ground alive at that point and then pictures of them having been slaughtered in a mass grave. And that was the story that they were working on, which Reuters eventually put out after they were put into jail. So they had found some documentary evidence of these accusations of mass murder by the Myanmar military.

CW: And what have they been accused of doing?

SB: They've been accused of violating the Official Secrets Act, which is a colonial era piece of legislation that the military has used over the years to try to you know prosecute journalists or other people who they perceive as a threat to the regime.

CW: So obviously, I mean this is illustrative of the conditions that reporters are working on, but what effect has this case had on other reporters and other media in the country in reporting on this?

SB: It's difficult to know exactly, except that what you have not seen is the kind of aggressive reporting on the activities of the military that these two really brave journalists pursued. Now I think it's particularly telling that the circumstances of their arrest, there have been multiple reports, both from these two and also from a police officer, that documents were planted on them and they were immediately arrested afterwards.

CW: So just very quickly, just wondering, what happens next in this case?

SB: We're expecting a verdict on the 3rd of September, that's next Monday. The possibility is that they will be acquitted. There's another possibility that they will be sentenced to time served and I think the possibility most people expect is they will be convicted and sentenced to a long period in jail.

CW: Well thank you very much for updating us on this case, Steven. We appreciate it.

SB: Thank you.

CW: Steven Butler is the Asia program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. We reached him in Washington, D.C. Coming up in our next half hour, Jean Chretien. Stay tuned to hear Anna Maria's far ranging interview with the former Canadian prime minister, who has not mellowed with age. I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Trump and the Trans Mountain pipeline: What would Jean Chrétien do?

Guests: Jean Chretien

CW: I'm Connie Walker and you're listening to this summer edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I wanted to stay minister of finance because I've been there only two years and a half and I wanted to do the job. But Trudeau said, I want you to do the referendum. And he says home is burning Jean. Home is burning. I said give me the hose.

CW: He's been out of office for nearly 15 years. But the distinctive voice of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien still brings to mind many of the landmark moments in this country's history.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Fasten your seat belt, it's going to be a hell of a ride. Ladies and gentlement, I want to give you my experience. I want to lead the Liberal party. I want to serve this country and I need your help. Vive le Canada! Merci.

CW: The little guy from Shawinigan went on to lead the Liberal Party of Canada to three consecutive majority governments, had a front row seat on to Quebec referendums on separation, the patriation of the Constitution, one of the largest political scandals in Canadian history and his share of debate over trade and relations with the United States. Earlier this year, the 84-year-old was profiled in a new documentary film titled, "The Man. The Story. Jean Chretien: In His Own Words." Jean Chretien joined Anna Maria Tremonti from the CBC's Montreal studio when the film first aired in May.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Hello.

AMT: Once you have been prime minister what is it like when you are no longer prime minister?

JEAN CHRETIEN: Oh you're just citizen Canadien. That's it. You know the day you quit you quit and you do something else. You know you turn the page and you enjoy life and it's what I've done in the last 14 years and a half.

AMT: You're still really active in politics behind the scenes, though, aren't you?

JEAN CHRETIEN: Not much a little bit. Anybody wants to call me and ask for my views. I'm not shy. I will say what I think. They do whatever they want after that.

AMT: Do you ever talk to Justin Trudeau?

JEAN CHRETIEN: Sometimes But not- I don't want to talk to him too often I had to deal with his Dad. You know I said to Trudeau the father when I became prime minister, he said 'Jean, don't feel obliged to ask me all the time because' he said 'Do it your way'. He said 'you're a very different person than I. And I know you work in a very different way but I know you have the right values'. Because we've been together for you know he became a member in 1965 and I became a minister the same day than I in 67. So 'do it your way and you have the right values and I think you will do well and I wish you good luck'. So I said the same thing to Justin.

AMT: Well welcome back to today's politics but I want to talk more about Jean Chretien, growing up. We are reminded in this documentary that you have been a scrapper since your youth. Tell us about your appendix operation as a child.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Oh. Come on. You know it's not very important. I Wanted to quit the boarding school and I had to find a good reason. And I fake I had an appendicitis, and when I arrive home my dad suspected that I had been a bit mischievous. And my brother was a doctor came. So I kept repeating the same story. So that took me to the hospital and they took out the appendicitis, that was not needed to be taken out.

AMT: So they went all that way before they realised that you were not telling the truth.

JEAN CHRETIEN: -Of Course when the doctor - my brother was not the surgeon but the surgeon that opened they saw that it was quite in good shape but they took it over anyway because it's useful not to have it anymore.

AMT: That just says how determined you were.

JEAN CHRETIEN: I was a bit determined yes indeed.

AMT: And you took that into politics.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Of course. Yes. But you know I was like that all my life I wanted to do things and I was a kid that was 12 years old and I have my own team of a hockey band time. I was a player, I was the coach, and the manager and the youngest of the team. So you know it was me. I loved to get involved in and run a few things to. that's what I've done all my life.

AMT: And of course when you got into politics, elected in nineteen sixty three for the first time on Parliament Hill, right. You come from Parliament Hill.

JEAN CHRETIEN: April 63.

AMT: You didn't even speak English at the time.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Not much. My first speech I was having some anglophone in my writing they had a meeting and I said 'ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming. If you vote for me and I'm elected I would be bilingual in four years'. That was my speech. So many years later I was at a party and I told that story and Trudeau was there. I was his minister of finance and Trudeau said you never keep your word on that, because I still speak with a French accent. There was only Maurice Chevalier and I, who ever had to practise to keep the French accent.

AMT: [Laughs] Well Jean Chretien as you got into government you very quickly to come cabinet portfolios. In 1968 you were appointed Minister of the department that was then called the Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Yes.

AMT: That was an important portfolio to you.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Oh it was very important because there was a government within the government. In those days every day and it was decided in Ottawa. There was no council you know there was a ban. There was a reserve manager who was always a white man named by the bureaucrat from the Department of Indian Affairs. There was virtually no election of chiefs in those days. There was no band council in operation. In the north, in the Northwest Territories, most of the members of the consuls were appointed by the minister. The budget of course was approved by the minister and they had Parks Canada created 10 new national parks when I was there he had Historic Sites and Monuments. I had the Wildlife Service. I was a very busy job and travelling the land all the time. So I was there six years, two ,months three days and four hours more or less.

AMT: Remind us what happened in 1969 when you released what was known as the white paper?

JEAN CHRETIEN: But I had consultation when I became the minister. And I would go to meet the natives, the Indians, and they would always have the same speech. You know we live in an apartheid system, we live on the reserve, we have a Department of Indian Affairs, we have Indian Act and it is a apartheid system. You don't respect the treaties and we don't control our land as we should. So my answer to that was the document I presented was: fine we would make you equal with the others, with exactly the same powers, the equality, the land is yours. There would be no more Minister of Indian Affairs. You're a minister according to the laws that exists in the provinces and the federal government like any other citizen. That was in response to what they were demanding but when they realized that the answer meant that there was to be no more Indian reserve, no special protection anymore, they said it would be a cultural genocide. But I said you can't get it both ways. So I withdrew my paper. But after four years of that, because I was travelling like crazy and going to Yukon, Northwesterns, all the reserve from the west coast of B.C. to Cape Breton and so on, Trudeau felt he says 'it's too much work. You have a family.' And so he wanted to know where we are and he said we discuss another portfolio. He called me back and he said 'JEan, I cannot move you'. I said how come. But he said' the chiefs they want to keep you. So would you accept to keep serving?' I said if you asking me I will keep serving. So when I met the chiefs, said 'What the hell is going on? You knw me. You keep giving me hell all the time and you want to keep me as your minister?' They said we prefer to deal with the devil we know the devil we don't know. And I stay there for more than six years.

AMT: It was in that time that you and Aline adopted your son Michel from an in Inuvik orphanage. Why was it important to you both to adopt him?

JEAN CHRETIEN: But it is a family affairs. We were coming from large families and we adopted this on them, you know. And he is our son and we love him. He is 15 now, 49. So it's a long way. It's 50 years ago.

AMT: You stood by him during some tough times, huh?

JEAN CHRETIEN: You Know what a father and mother do all the time, should do all the time.

AMT: You know. Today we hear a lot of Indigenous adults speaking about their adoption by white parents. I'm wondering how you process the conversation that's going on about that issue now.

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know when there is a mother and the father don't to take care of a baby, you know when you want to have a baby. And in the case of Indians my wife was in the plane with the judge in the Northwest Territories and he said we cannot find any families who wants to take Indian boys. They take Indian girls but they would have Chinese baby coming from Latin America from Africa but they were not adopting the Indian boys. My wife said we will adopt an Indian boy. It's what we did. So they can come. My son, every day, he's very grateful that we have adopted. Perhaps he's an exception. I don't know.

AMT: The conversation around Indigenous issues more broadly is very different now in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission than it was during your tenure as minister. How do you see the evolution of the conversation?

JEAN CHRETIEN: I don't want to comment on that because I'm not there anymore and I did it my way and apparently the natives were kind of happy with me. I'm very happy that some native still come to see me and discuss with me. But I don't want to get involved in a public debate. It's not my job.

AMT: I want to talk to you about your time as prime minister. Halfway through your first mandate., in October of 1995, the country nearly came apart during the second Quebec referendum. How pivotal was that time for you?

JEAN CHRETIEN: But it was important but I had the occasion after that to introduce the Clarity Act because you know the question was so crooked, the two questions, that was the referendum the day after Quebec was not gone. So the decision of the Supreme Court on that. You know you do don't break a country because you want a vote. You have negotiations. You have problem to resolve. They have tried that to do it unilitrally in Spain with very little success. It has to be done. There's some guidelines and the guidelines in Canada exist because I made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is possible but it is not something that you do lightly. You don't want this with one vote. Canada was over. I remember during the last campaign the NDP was saying that. I said 'really? One Vote? So that means that I would not have been a Canadian any more because one of my friends in Shwaningan had forgotten his glasses at home and he had voted to the wrong line. You think it is serious?' I said the NDP name is illegal. They called themselves the New Democratic Party are under law, it's false advertising because of 60 years they are the new Democratic Party. So it's not very new. And they wanted to change their name at one time and they failed. You know why? Because they didn't have two thirds of the vote in the Assembly. They'll peak you get back if you want you have a spetial meeting of the council, they need to turn their members to agree. And you would break the country with one vote? And they were claiming that I was a Nazi Democrat because I thought it makes no sense. In any large of corporations you have to take care of the minority. You know you don't do a lot of things you cannot do under the laws if you don't have the means to protect the minority shareholders. And one vote suddenly become I was c onsidered as a Nazi Democrat because I would not accept that nonsense, to break a country where one vote. Come on. [Unintelligible] I could not believe that when you did two t hird of the vote to change the name of your party that seriously you would consider to let go without negotiation the country with one vote? I would not vote for a guy where he's one like that, not very responsible.

AMT: Well along with that time around the Clarity Act you also created the federal sponsorship program to boost the image in the federal government in Quebec. You know it became one of the biggest political scandals in modern history...

JEAN CHRETIEN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What is a scandal? Five guys were found guilty, none of them were in politics, four of them never had a card of the Liberal Party, the fifth one had stolen money from the Liberal Party. He was a liberal. So to call me that it was the biggest scandal in Confederation, Madame, it's better for you to check the facts.

AMT: Okay fair enough. But as you know, there was great anger as the inquiry into that came forward and the Liberal Party paid a big price for it.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Yes but you know the problem is the police has to do these things. These commissions is good for the press because you have a lot of news free of charg,e but you know your name appear in a commission and you are guilty.

AMT: Well you were ,never implicated personally.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Because I've done nothing wrong and none of the ministers have done anything wrong. Not one staff person has filled his pocket. But when you appear you know they make big things. They even make big things because my staff has bought for 900 bucks of golf balls one time. Usually they were using the balls at my organisation had ran out of bars so the guy in the office bought 900 balls, for 9 of the dollars a ball that we were giving to the bodyguards of the other country when I was playing golf and so on. And I receive some, you know, that story that was a fun page of The Globe and all the press. Scandal as it was. Come on.

AMT: Would you do anything different now because of the fallout around that?

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know you think you will blame me because I wanted the Quebec people to know, through publicity, that they were living in a good country called Canada and they would blame me for me to do that. When at that time the United Nation was proclaiming every year the best country to live in the world was Canada 9 times out of ten when I was prime minister, that I would not want to to tell the people of Quebec that they were privileged to be Canadians. I would not take any blame.

AMT: It's important to hear what you have to say about this Mr. Chretien.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Yes. But you know but tell, as I you, you know that was one of my problem. I was raised speak my mouth. I don't have 20 guys next to me here in the studio to tell me what to tell you.

AMT: I do want to ask you about Quebec now. It's a different place. It seems that some of the biggest divisions are not so much about questions of sovereignty but questions of accommodation; growing tensions around newcomers, we saw the mosque shooting. Is this a Quebec you know? How do you interpret this?

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know that's it. Because they don't want to talk about the real problem. For me, I don't know. I'm not very offended if I meet somebody who has a veil on the head. If she likes it she likes it. When I would go to see the Pope, my wife had to have a veil on their head and she was still very good looking. And you know, come on, you know, [unintelligible] the nuns of my youth, the way they were dress. They have had [unintelligible] stage one over the other. You know we would have been offended if somebody had said in Africa you cannot wear it. Some like it but for me I would not have worn it easily.

AMT: I want to ask you as well about what you see in the political back and forth right now between Alberta and B.C. and the whole issue of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. How do you see that? What are you watching? What are you thinking?

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know I was giving an interview a few minutes ago in French and they caught me in 1971 speaking about the pipeline that we needed to build. And I said you have to have a one corridor it has to be safe for no pollution. You have to protect the environment and you have to create jobs for the natives. I said that in 1971 and they still the same truth today. It's not Trump truth. It is a one single truth. The way [unintelligible] it is oil. Will we be silly enough, having these resources not to sell it. They will burn oil as well that will come from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and so on. And we wouldn't not have the money of that wealth that we have. So we will not have the money to pay for CBC for example. So come on. It has to be done safely. I was looking at a program of pie the other day during the First World War, more than a hundred years ago. There were building pipelines. There was a fight between the Russians and the Germans to takeover by coup in Azerbaijan for the oil and they have pipelines at that time. So of course it's dangerous but many things are dangerous in life. ,

AMT: How do you react to those who say this could undermine national unity could undermine the whole the whole nation of Canada confederation. You've heard those concerns, how do you respond?

JEAN CHRETIEN: I am telling you my friend I will sleep tonight. you know. Come on. If you want to exaggerate, you can exaggerate. Here you have two NDP government. That's my fun to watch it fighting, you know and they tear up their shirts and so one for this problem. Alberta wants a pipeline, B.C. 60 percent of the people in the B.C. want a pipeline. But the poor Premier has made a deal with the Green. So he always is afraid of losing the vote of the Green. When you are Premier you do what is right. And if he is defeated there will be an election. He will win or no wins. It is not the end of the word in democracy because when you were elected you know that someday you might be defeated. I was lucky I was elected 12 times and never lost but one of the few. I went three majority government. I was pretty lucky to work a bit for that.

AMT: Some might say you're pretty smart.

JEAN CHRETIEN: I don't think it would break the country. Come on. Don't exaggerate that way. I know [unintelligible] think like that.

AMT: You know it's people saying that. I'm jsut asking you what you think.

JEAN CHRETIEN: People. Who is the people? Name them.

AMT: Well various pundits, but will keep going. You make the point...

JEAN CHRETIEN: If I had listened to all the pundits during all my life I would have been a very miserable person. And look I'm joyful I am still today.

AMT: You say you're not losing sleep over this one, but does anything make you lose sleep? What do you worry about when you look at what's going on in the world?

JEAN CHRETIEN: I have one problem I think that the last Globalization has been very good for increasing the wealth in the world. The problem is not well redistributed. You know take China for example during my career when I read news that there was starvation in China, hundreds of thousand people sometimes were dying. Now it's become quite the prosperous nation. They have increased the wealth of the world and it's good. The problem is we don't distribute it the proper way. And it's complicated because if you don't have - I'm not a communist I don't believe that the government can run everything. We have experienced that for a long time and they are all equally poor. So it's not the solution but if it is too much capitalism it's not enough well distributed it. I wrote it. I have over a book coming out in the fall and I wrote about it. And when I say that- remember Harper wanted to erect a monument for the victim of communism, but you didn't want to elect one victim of capitalism. Come on. The problem is why I'm a centrist. Sometimes solutions are on the right. Sometimes the solution are on the left and if you are a radical centrist like me you know you take what is good and laugh and you take what is good on the right. Some people were telling me you're stealing my ideas and I was saying if you want me to. Not to steal your ideas. Shut up. Don't get me do this and when they do that, you blame me. You have to be reasonable in life and I think that you have to find solution. And when you go around the globe, I used to say that in my speech. There's millions and millions of Canadians who gave everything they have to come and share our so-called miseries in Canada. We're doing very well as a country. But in public life there is always debate and it's difficult and this is why we talk and so on, but we have to have confidence in the judgment of the people. And collectively the Canadians have shown judgment in the last 150 years because we started as a poor little colony, former colony of France and now we are former colonies of both the Brits and the French. And we look like one of the best country in the world. So it's why I'm proud to be a French Canadian. I am both French and Canadian and I am proud.

AMT: I want to ask you a little bit more. You talk about capitalism and what's happening with China. We are in NAFTA negotiations right now. President Trump has called Canada spoiled. I'd really be interested to know what kind of conversation you would have with Donald Trump?

JEAN CHRETIEN: I will listen to him talk. And you know the problem is he cannot undo a [unintelligible]. They Autopack was signed in 1965. So we have a common market for Mobey with the Americans since 1965 and we always had problems. I was Minister of Industry and Commerce, Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board. I was involved in many of these discussions. We had to make adjustment once in a while. Sometimes we have too many jobs in Canada. Sometimes we have not enough job in Canada and we'll talk with the industry you know and on the whole it worked pretty well. And Trump said it's the worse deal we ever made and he's gone in a month. Remember? He's still there. Why? Why, because it's good for them. You know I was talking with Bill Clinton the other day, and he said to me that his wife was clobbered in rural Arkansas. 80 percent of the vote voted for Trump not for the wife of the former president coming from Arkansas. But now they don't want to lose NAFTA because it's based on agriculture and they sell a big part of the produce to the damn Mexicans. So it's why cannot move, you can undo an omelette. So I dealt with them when I was minister. I can tell you many story. The American are big and slow and we're small and fast. And we survive.

AMT: This is true. What would you say to Donald Trump?

JEAN CHRETIEN: Bonjour, and he will not understand. He's the president of United States. I would not have voted for hi, it'sm clear but it is our [unintelligible] how to have him as president. So that's democracy. You live with that. And it is an American problem. It's not a Canadian province. And I remember when I said no to the war in Iraq, the business community, some of the Liberals in my caucus, the so-called business liberals were afraid of my decision. They were afraid that the Americans were to retaliate. It's a hell of responsibility when I said no it was not unanimous in the caucus or indignation it was 50 50 in the polls. So I said to the business delegation one time came to see me, I said okay, you're afraid. Give me the list of all the goods and all the services that the Americans are buying from us and they don't need. I'm still waiting for the list because they buy nothing from us they don't need. And we buy nothing from then we don't need. And it's like that. So it's a good deal. We lost jobs because of that and we gained jobs.

AMT: Do you think it'll survive'

JEAN CHRETIEN: Of course it was. It will have to be modified. And I'm telling you if we change one comma, Mr Trump would say it is the biggest historic victory that ever America ever had and we say yes sir. Mr. Trump.

AMT: So you think we should humor him and stick to our guns.

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know we negotiate, we are in that deal since a long time so there's always a need for changes. And I know it's a problem. The problems occur in public life. You know it's difficult to be a battle. But I enjoyed doing that. I remember my brother in law telling me when they said 'Jean, I don't understand how you can do that, with all the problems you have you have to decide things every day'. He said here we're four our house and we're discussing since three months, where do we go from are all of these next summer. So you have to decide eventually. You have to listen but you have to do what you think is right. And when you're satisfied in your mind and in your heart that you're right, you do it and trust the judgment of the people. And they if they throw you out, politics is over and your wife is up.

AMT: So what's your favorite thing to do now that you're not prime minister? What makes you happy?

JEAN CHRETIEN: Talking with you.

AMT: Beyond That.

JEAN CHRETIEN: No, I am a lawyer. I'm advising people. And now I'm not responsible. I gave my views. If they do what I tell them to do, fine. If they don't do it, fine. I'm not responsible anymore.

AMT: Well, Mr. Chretien thank you for speaking with me today.

JEAN CHRETIEN: My pleasure. Thank you. Bye bye.

AMT: Thank you. Bye bye.

CW: Former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, spoke with Anna Maria Tremonti from Montreal in May. You can watch the documentary about him on the CBC website. It's titled, The Man. The Story. Jean Chretien: In His Own Words. Find the link on our website at cbc.ca/thecurrent. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Guest host Ali Hassan speaks with Alexander McCall Smith, author of the number one ladies detective agency novels. And remember you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It lets you browse through past episodes of our show and start listening in just a few seconds. You can search for stories you've missed or want to hear again or listen live to your local CBC station. That's right from your smartphone or tablet. I'm Connie Walker. Thanks for listening to this summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Aug. 28, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This