Jean Chrétien

 

The Artful Juggler - The Most Remarkable Jean Chrétien

(20^th)

Date Elected to Parliament:	April 8, 1963
Date of Maiden Speech:	May 23, 1963
Date Sworn In:	November 4, 1993
Date Left Office:	December 11, 2003

No recent Prime Minister in Canadian politics (save perhaps Stephen Harper) can match the unlikely, contradictory yet, remarkable career trajectory of Jean Chrétien.

Jean Chrétien was recognizable from the first moment I spied him at a Liberal meeting in Montreal at McGill in 1962, racing about. He stood out in a crowd. Tall, thin angular, energetic, restless, with an oversized forehead, topped by a fraying disheveled forelock, charming, crooked smile, unruly hair dressed in a dark narrow lapelled suit with a dark narrow tie favoured at the time. He already had a reputation as an ambitious comer gleaned from my friends in University Liberal circles. Chrétien spoke from the side of his mouth, distorted from an early physical defect, in a fractured jargon with the unmistakable Quebequois nasal twang and equally fractured English where he was obviously struggling for fluency.

From the get-go, he was friendly, endearing, quick-witted, energetic, and patently, obviously, ambitious. Always in a hurry, rushing about, never missing a beat, always amiable, quick, and witty. Every encounter was mostly about his own recent encounters. Still, you couldn’t help liking him. There are leaders who are naturally amiable and those who are not. The amiable leaders possess a Teflon patina. Nothing bad seems to stick to them. Most are self-absorbed and narcissist, yet, some are more approachable and more likeable than others. Friends and foes easily forgive them for even their most egregious conduct which is overlooked in their sheen of amiability and studied mock humility.

The self-styled ‘Little Guy from Shawinigan’ was neither humble nor imbued with hubris. Yet, by keeping his ego in check, he appealed to a broad spectrum of the public on all sides of the deep political divisions in the country. He was shrewd, driven and believed early he was destined for great things. He overcame early challenges including a childhood disability. As a youth, he was competitive to the core in sports like hockey, skiing and swimming.168 Able to handle himself in rough house situations,¹⁶⁹ he loved to compete and push himself to the limit. His childhood sweetheart, Aline, also from humble stock from small town Shawinigan Falls,¹⁷⁰ was tough, self-possessed, attractive, perfectly coiffed, and shared his driving ambition to rise from their modest small-town roots. Both came from large working-class families with accomplished siblings.171 They never forgot where they came from or how far up the ladder of power and fame from whence, they had climbed together. They maintained a modest residence in Shawinigan Falls and travelled there often keeping in touch with their large talented families and their working-class neighbours and voters.¹⁷² Both had the common touch. Alene, his wife, always poised, elegantly dressed, and taciturn, was his closest advisor and critic. Any pictures taken of him to be circulated needed her scrutiny and approval. She was like Harry Truman’s wife. She was ‘the boss’. His often rough manners, his crudeness, and his dress came under her constant scrutiny and censorship. She never missed a detail.

When we first met in the early ‘60s, he was unpolished, unlike the studied urbanity of Maurice Lamontage, a favoured aide to Mr. Pearson or the powerful and articulate Maurice Sauve or the deep savvy labour roots of Jean Marchand or the quiet intellectualism of Jean Pelletier or the charisma and depth of intellectualism of Pierre Trudeau or the erudite internationally academically attained brilliance of Marc Lalonde, who after working for a conservative Minister of Justice Davy Fulton became a Cabinet Aide to Mr. Pearson or the luminous intelligent precociousness of Jean David, youthful editor of LaPress, or the coolness of blonde headed, handsome, suave, articulative Michel Robert later to become a brilliant judge or the polished sophistication of John Turner. Yet, Chrétien was an ‘original’ and authentic, never straying from his crafted persona.

Jean Chrétien, from small town Quebec, graduating with the help of his siblings, from college and law school with a boisterous reputation, rose through Young Liberal ranks, was easily elected an M.P. in the riding of Saint Maurice in his home region at the youthful age of twenty-nine and, slowly and steadily, like the tortoise, beat all of his early flashier Quebecois competitors, except Pierre Trudeau, to reach the highest pinnacle on the greasy pole, the Prime Ministership of Canada.

He never forgot his roots and regularly kept contact with a small circle of followers across the county to keep his finger on the public pulse. He was an excellent networker in every region of Canada.

Chrétien first burst to public attention as a young M.P. when his private member’s bill changed the name of TransCanada Airlines to Air Canada – the same in English and French.

Few would imagine that he was an avid reader of history,173 novels and yes, poetry. Or he had a fine eye for Canadian and Aboriginal art and he was an avid listener of classical music. These interests, he hid behind a mask of working man camaraderie. His hero, like others in his milieu, was Sir Wilfred Laurier. He sought the approval of his hard-working father ‘Wellie’ who was ever frugal with praise for Chrétien’s undoubted accomplishments.

Few, including myself, could have predicted his remarkable political success. From the outset, he sought to overcome his deficits. He was disfigured from an early childhood illness. He was a rural small-town member and never part of the so-called sophisticated urbane French clique or polished elites that inhabited the inner circles of the Liberal Montreal intellectual or academic elites or Anglo-French Jewish Montreal business establishment that filled the Federal Liberal party coffers. If he had a personal connection, it was with old friends from his home region or secondary school, university or law school and it was with the Italian immigrants like Pietro Rizzuto, a wealthy self-made businessman who he later appointed to the Senate or the small town Quebec Liberal influence peddlers he befriended. An early supporter was another Italian of immigrant origin, Antonio Gagliano, who spoke fluent Italian and French and comfortable English, who went on to be a Cabinet Minister, but who later became embroiled in misdemeanors that shrank his career and tarnished Chrétien’s reputation. Perhaps Chrétien owned a hidden inferiority complex that he camouflaged with his boisterous personality.

Aware of his policy deficits early on, he became an acolyte of a leading economic mandarin, Mitchell Sharp.174 Anxious to add economic ‘gravitas’ to his sketchy legal experience, Sharp became a lifelong mentor and Chrétien his loyal respectful student. He acquired two bright loyalists of his own from Montreal, John Rae, and Eddie Goldenberg, both with impeccable Liberal pedigrees – John, whose father was the distinguished diplomat Saul Rae, and Eddie, whose father was the notable economist, astute mediator and clever political advisor, Carl Goldenberg. Eddie became his most assiduous and durable assistant who Chrétien labelled his ‘computer’.

Chrétien enjoyed the first mark of a leader who could attract, and keep over decades, a smart ambitious loyalist group of confidents and advisors who would selflessly, whether called upon or not, give of their time and energy and in the process became longtime friends. Included was Richard Kroft of Winnipeg and his winsome attractive activist wife. Richard, who came from an accomplished and comfortable family, became Chrétien’s first ministerial assistant, then left public life to run his family business, returned when Chrétien appointed him to the Senate for his longtime loyalty, Michel Vennat, a Rhodes scholar and a bright gregarious Montreal lawyer and business man who after a stint as Mitchell Sharpe’s assistant in Ottawa and a stint as a federal bureaucrat kept in constant touch, Mike McCabe, an Ottawa operator who after time on the Hill as Mitchell Sharp’s notorious assistant and operative became a skilled and knowledgeable broadcasting lobbyist and went on to an excellent stint in the foreign service. Bruce Hartley, an astute gracious understated assistant came later and assured Chrétien’s schedule ran like a fine-tuned clock yet, open to sudden changes and sensitive to crucial access.

Ross Fitzpatrick from BC, who worked his way through school, an early astute laid back understated West Coast assistant who left politics to become a super successful businessman, was later appointed by Chrétien to the Senate. Kroft, Vennat and Fitzpatrick, all became lifelong friends, and my good acquaintances. Patrick Lavalle, an ebullient Liberal from New Brunswick became the head of Chrétien’s two leadership drives. Former political assistants shared a common narrative and enjoy each other’s war stories.

Many Prime Ministers get off to a rocky start as the leader’s electoral crew morphs into the Prime Minister’s staff and attempts to become acclimatized to the constant avalanche of problems, expected or surprised that assail any government leader. One key to this dilemma are the judgment and skill of the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff – formerly called ‘Principal Secretary’. Chrétien’s office settled down when Jean Pelletier, who was a boarding school and law school buddy, became Chief of Staff in 1993. Jean, a lawyer and former Mayor of Quebec City, political organizer, and defeated Liberal candidate was initially a member of Union Nationale. Pelletier brought ‘gravitas’ to the position, an ability to listen and decide quickly knowing he had the full confidence of Chrétien.175

The tribal aspect of Liberal politics was ever evident in the Chrétien entourage. And he was the centre of the overlap in the Mitchell Sharp loyalist circle who worked arduously for Sharp election to Parliament in the Toronto riding of Eglinton and then when Sharp, his mentor became a Cabinet Minister, Chrétien served as his assistant, first in Finance under Sharp, then went on to nine ministries of his own including Indian Affairs, Treasury Board and Minister of Finance (the first French Canadian to achieve this post), and finally Minister of Justice with a hand in constitutional affairs under Trudeau.¹⁷⁶ These two groups, the Sharp circle in Toronto and Chrétien’s own network of assistants and Quebec friends – overlapped and bonded to support Chrétien’s long drive to become Prime Minister in the late ‘80s after Sharp’s short and abortive attempt in 1968 to succeed Mr. Pearson.

At the heart of this Sharp-Chrétien Toronto team was large shaggy good natured Toronto lawyer David Anderson from P.E.I. who came to cultivate the legal vineyards of Toronto and his wife at the time Doris, the acerbic editor and leading feminist who together gave both Sharp and Chrétien a bridgehead into the newer Liberal and Toronto cultural and business elites, building on Sharp’s earlier and older connections to the Toronto business community especially Brascan enterprise that had built commercial ties to Brazil that temporarily became a resting place for former Liberal cabinet notables like Sharp and Robert Winters. Added to this group was Bob Nixon, robust likeable farmer, son of a former Liberal Ontario Premier, who became Leader of the Liberals in Ontario. This was a minority slightly right leaning Liberal tribe divided from a larger group of so-called Toronto ‘progressive’ liberals led by an unlikely figure, Walter Gordon with the quiet musty-looking establishment mien, striped shirts, high pinned collars, and light greying military precise mustache who was not only an unlikely progressive, in both social policy and economic programs, but an ‘economic nationalist’ and a ‘protectionist’ in the old conservative mode who, in a perverse way, developed a singular bias against US ownership and U.S.A. banks that coloured his economic outlook.

Walter Gordon, a generous quiet spoken man of the old school, masked his deep ‘progressive’, ‘small liberal’ instincts and became an outspoken Canadian nationalist and protectionist. Thus, Gordon’s opposition to ‘free trade’ rooted in Manchester Liberalism was contradictory to classic Liberalism to say the least. Gordon and his acolytes like Keith Davey were the architects of the renewal of the Liberal Party after the St. Laurent debacle and the Pearson missteps that led to the Diefenbaker romp in the late ‘50s. From a distinguished family of leading Canadian accountants, Gordon, or Mr. Gordon as we called him, became by his personality, generosity, loyalty, and self-effacing personality,177 the natural leader of the ‘progressive wing’ of the renewed Liberal Party just as Robert Winters and Mitchell Sharp, and to a lesser extent Paul Hellyer, were the natural leaders of the conservative wing of the renewed Liberal party under the oscillating leadership of Mr. Pearson who bent from side-to-side to the pressures of these two powerful factions who were fused in their undoubted loyalty to Mr. Pearson.

Jean Chrétien demonstrated the same split political personality that he called ‘balance’ – moving from one side of the ideological divide to the other pretending to be forced to govern on the ‘right’ where he was, as Jim Coutts once admitted, more comfortable. So, his instinctive policies were ‘conservative’ while his politics veered ‘progressive’ in a line sculptured by his mentor Mitchell Sharp. Chrétien was, at heart, a master pragmatist and a superb administrator.

Chrétien had a rocky start as Minister of Indian Affairs with a flawed ‘Beige’ Paper policy mandated by the policy that obsessed Trudeau and preoccupied the first Trudeau Cabinet. Chrétien quickly regained his own footing and left with a fine record, establishing ten new national parks including one park near his home riding in Quebec after a skillful negotiation with the Quebec separatist government. He was proud of his skill to avoid controversies in this accident-prone ministry. Chrétien also got off to a wobbly start as Minister of Finance. He was undercut by Pierre Trudeau and Jim Coutts, Trudeau’s chief assistant. Without advising him, Trudeau announced a two billion cut in public expenditures. It was Coutts idea to insert the two billion number for greater dramatic public effort. Chrétien considered resigning, but he knew from history that quitters rarely win. His skill as Minister of Justice in the first Referendum Campaign with the grudging support of Claude Ryan, the Quebec Liberal leader, showed how he could keep his temper and pride under control despite slights by Ryan and the demeaning Quebec media and some political colleagues. These slights infuriated him, but he grudgingly kept his cool.

Chrétien was anxious to emulate Pierre Trudeau, like all his successors, on the world stage. As Prime Minister, he invested serious capital into the G7, especially as it applied to Africa, the quicksand of tribalism, fragmented unity and ever-present corruption. He led in establishing a considered unified approach to Africa at the G7 Summit held in Kananaskis. This act of leadership laid the groundwork for coherent plan of increased aid from the developed world to that troubled continent.

In March 2011, I encountered Chrétien after we had both left public life in an unlikely setting. He served as Chair and Key Note Speaker at conference on water sponsored and organized by the Walter Gordon Foundation in Toronto, now headed by one of Walter Gordon’s leading acolytes, the irrepressible Tom Axworthy with his ever-present smile and now ever-expanding girth. When I entered the cozy conference room on the University of Toronto campus crammed with national and international water experts, I was amazed to see Chrétien in fine form chairing a most distinguished panel of experts from the UN, France, Jordan, Canada, and an expat Canadian woman who styled herself an international legal water expert now teaching in Dundee University in Scotland. A bubbling, almost effervescent personality, she suggested that since Canada is the repository of the largest [in fact, the second largest] fresh water resources in the world and because of its leading water policies should host a world summit on water. I immediately glanced at Chrétien whose eyes were turned to the screen emblazoned with power points and seemed unaware of the irony of this proposal that met with quiet approbation except by Adele Hurley, the leading water expert at the Munk Centre in Toronto that was cohosting the event, who rolled her eyes at the suggestion and Janice Stein who had headed the Munk Centre for Global Affairs and who in part because of Canada’s laggard leadership on water notwithstanding our apparent abundance of water was dismayed because much of our fresh water was polluted, had established under Adele’s capable leadership an underfunded, but vibrant, program on water policy, still a work in progress.

So, the artful juggler was at it again. In Canada, two-thirds of Canada’s Aboriginal communities had been earmarked by the Auditor General as continuing high risk polluted sources of drinking water. Every province had numerous boil water advisories each year that were kept local and never aggregated or collected to demonstrate how badly Canada had managed, or rather, neglected and mismanaged our drinking water where many outposts in the newly oil-rich province of Newfoundland still required to boil their water daily. Chrétien had been Minister of Indian Affairs and little had been done to fix the dire water situation on reserves during his watch.

Dear reader, before you doze off, I return to the artful juggler and my decade long crusade as a Senator to change that fundamental neglect of clean drinking water by two rather nifty private members bills that I introduced into the Senate following the disastrous small town water pollution scandal in Walkerton in South Western Ontario. I had followed that crises and hearings that followed and discovered, to my amazement, that every province and the federal government was almost criminally negligent in enforcing a strict health regulation for drinking water, lagging well behind Europe and the U.S.A. in creating a regulatory regime to protect citizen health from its most basic need of six to eight glasses of water a day. Of course, the lack of drinking water in most Aboriginal communities was the most egregious and neglected. The Federal Food and Drug Act regulated popsicles, water on planes, trains and federal parks, and soda pop, but not clean drinking water on Aboriginal reserves or elsewhere.

So after much research, especially the Walkerton judicial enquiry report into the polluted water crisis in that small community, I crafted, with the help of Mark Audcent, the most professional and skilled senate parliamentary counsel, a private member’s bill to amend the federal Food and Drug Act to include a provision to cover supervision of community drinking water systems over a given size. This surgical amendment was, I thought nifty, because it overcame the biggest barrier to federal programs – Quebec. Since the Food and Drug regime was never challenged by Quebec based on the clear-cut federal crime power, I thought I had drafted a simple change to the existing regime and an end run around Quebec perennial objections to any nationwide program. As well, it replicated the American legislation passed in the early ‘70s that mandated the Federal Government act as an oversight of ineffective state water regulatory regimes. Clearly there was ‘a clear and present danger’ to Canadian health where the Departments of Health, federal and provincial, had never tabulated the costs to health from bad drinking water. But there would be a blowback, both federally and provincially, because of the estimated costs of training and infrastructure, and which estimated costs that failed to take into account the cost to the health system and provincially because of enmity to new federal oversight, the costs of which would fall to the provinces and the false provincial pride that though they failed, they were primarily responsible. Give us more dough and we will do the job, they said, and when they got it, nothing changed.

On the federal side, the power was responsible for drinking water on trains, planes, and federal parks and clearly responsible for clean drinking water in Aboriginal communities that were in crises. Chrétien, as long term Minister responsible for Indian Affairs and then as Prime Minister, with knowledge of the dire health problem in the Aboriginal communities and elsewhere in the north, had chosen, as he did, if not dodge it, not to ameliorate this egregious condition.

It came as a mild surprise that I received serious objections unstated, of course, by the Liberal leadership in the caucus and less surprise of course from Quebec and some Alberta senators from the Conservative side in the Senate who used subtle techniques of adjournments and delays in speaking in debate rather than confront the stunning facts I had assembled from the public reports, judicial enquiries, various experts articles and even auditor general reports. To my experience, I learned that persistence and repetition paid off. My private member’s bills after studies and reports by Senate Committees finally were approved despite Chrétien’s government’s objections and several deaths, passed the Senate no less than three times, only to die on the order paper in the Commons when elections were called, and Parliament was prorogued. Alas.

My sister private bill was legislation to map the watersheds and aquifers in Canada slated to be completed in 2035 by the government but accelerated under my bill and then with restrictions on utilization without specific case-by-case approval, fared even worse in the Senate due to Conservative opposition, especially from the west farming interesting, and avoidance by repeated adjournments on all sides from the leadership and others and successive governments both Liberal and Conservative.

It was painful to experience in the slogging daily process of Parliament as an energy drainer, but more so because of ingrained opposition to needed and obvious reform. Was not clean drinking water a ‘right’? I argued. Clean drinking water, it seems, had never caught public attention despite the clamour for climatic changes.

So, it was delicious irony to ask two brief questions at the Toronto seminar of the Canadian expert when Chrétien caught my hand in the air during the Q&A and called upon me at this elite seminar.

Two brief questions I rose to ask. Why are two-thirds of the Aboriginal communities in Canada still with highly polluted drinking water and secondly, why has the federal government not regulated drinking water when it regulates soda pop and popsicles? The Canadian expat expert demurred saying she was teaching abroad and wasn’t up to speed on domestic Canadian law. Chrétien feigned disinterest, but there was a slight flicker of recognition of the issue in his eye as the panel was adjourned for lunch.

Immediately after, I approached Chrétien where I was warmly greeted and asked his views about the federal election about to be called because the Liberals under Ignatieff had signaled their refusal to support the Harper budget that morning and astute as ever, he pointed out the tactical and strategic shortcomings of ‘Iggy’ which would play out exactly as Chrétien had predicted.

But to go back in time, to the most exciting period and my initiation into Ottawa politics was 1965-1966 when I spent a year as Turner’s assistant and when Pearson appointed all three on the same day into the cabinet – Trudeau as Minister of Justice after serving as Pearson’s Parliamentary Secretary, Turner as Minister of State as Registrar General responsible for the Great Seal, etc. soon to be transformed into the first Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in North America, and Chrétien as Minister of State for Financial Affairs attached to his mentor Mitchell Sharp.

Chrétien was not considered in the first string of Francophone players but was seen as a hard-working dependable second-stringer worker, great at grass roots and capable as a Junior Minister and Minister who rarely got in trouble. He had a talent as a capable and efficient administrator, so he held nine complex ministerial portfolios some with memorable reforms, yet with many solid improvements and no political errors or patent mistakes, or singular gaffs.

He listened, learned, and improved his skills and confidence178 in each chosen post and gained grudging success and plaudits from the ever-skeptical mandarins who he worked with and heeded their advice. Initially, he was, by nature, a Quebec conservative in his instincts married to the liberal rhetoric and reform of the day and so evolved with the times. He exceeded where his other more sophisticated Quebecers failed. There was a bevy of brilliant Quebecers that Mr. Pearson attracted to the Liberal party and to government. Of course, the most notable were Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier, Pierre Trudeau, Maurice Sauve, Maurice Lamontage, and public servants like Pierre Juneau and former political assistants like Marc Lalonde. In this crowd of star personalities, Chrétien was not seen as an equal player. In the end, other than Pierre Trudeau, Chrétien eclipsed them all. He was a quick study and a prodigious worker, taking on every complex task and sorting things out. His political instincts were unmatched. Jim Coutts once gave a speech separating the Prime Ministers into two categories – visionaries and administrators. Clearly, Chrétien was the top of the heap when it came to government administration. He reorganized the PMO and Cabinet making them both more efficient and quick footed. A gifted political tactician, perhaps the most gifted of modern Prime Ministers, he was a master of ‘wedge politics’. He could quickly read any crowd, and especially, his opponents. He had a deep appreciation of what motivates politicians, especially those he opposed.

I got to know Chrétien and his entourage better during my first stint in the ‘60s in Ottawa as Executive Assistant to John Turner who represented St. Lawrence-St. George in the heart of Montreal in the mid ‘60s. Chrétien was seen as a rural outlier to the sophisticated lawyers and businessmen who were part of the Turner Montreal crew. Their opinion of Chrétien was condescending and I kept my opinions about Chrétien to myself who I admired for his tactical skills and never-ending energy which prepared him to undertake any party task, large or small, as he kept his bursting ambition alive. He had astutely sized up each of his competitors and one-by-one, he passed them, exceeding everyone’s low expectation of his hidden grit, tactical skills, and especially his ever-present common touch with people from all walks of life.

Chrétien was loyal to Mitchell Sharp views in the 1966 Liberal Convention. The divisive issue was Medicare. The Liberal Party was divided. The economy was unsteady, and Mitchell Sharp was the Minister of Finance and Finance was hesitant. Pearson wanted party support for the immediate introduction of Medicare. Winters, Sharp, and others lined up against it. Chrétien, loyal to Sharp, supported Sharp’s view, that Medicare would ultimately trigger runaway federal costs and so should be postponed before implementation until better economic conditions. On the other side was Allan MacEachen and John Munro led by Walter Gordon. David Smith, Lloyd Axworthy, and I were the three designated as floor managers for the pro Medicare vote at the Convention. We lost. Medicare was delayed with a motion added the words ‘with regret’. Mr. Pearson was upset and so were we. Mr. Pearson felt the immediate introduction would help the Party’s standings. In the end, due to Mr. Pearson’s insistence and persistence, Medicare was introduced and funded early in 1968 as a footnote to the Pearson era and helped with Trudeau’s swinging victory later in 1968.

I admired Chrétien even more when I learned that he had adopted an Aboriginal as his son when he was Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs where he and many of us learned about how vast and beautiful and untouched our capacious northern frontier was. Chrétien’s troubled son caused him, and his wife, no end of concerns which he kept private within the confines of his family.

I saw Chrétien through the lens of a small town Jewish liberal activist of equally modest circumstances who was also on the make, but never aspired to the heights of Chrétien. Chrétien had a fiery temper, seen by his close friends and he could veer off course for any slight and, like Diefenbaker, the Kennedys, Nixon or Clintons, he harboured a disloyalty list as he had a long memory for any act of disloyalty, or worse, any hint of condescension. Later on, he began to imitate the icon he revered the most, himself and then he sounded ‘tinnie’ and false. But during his rise, he kept his ambitions to himself, making fast friends and allies along the way that finally came together after his loss to Turner in the leadership convention when Trudeau resigned and Turner took his short disastrous turn as Leader and Prime Minister.179 Chrétien and I encountered each other regularly during this period. We sat on a special Joint committee of the Senate and the House on Foreign Affairs. I took committee work seriously, attended assiduously, prepared carefully, read the materials, listened to the witnesses, and prepared succinct questions. Chrétien would burst in late, sit beside me, and ask me for a good question or two which I did for him to get on the record. After he finished his questions and listened to the answers, he left as the committee hearings continued. After doing this twice to me, I whispered to him to prepare his own questions. He laughed and raced off not before he asked another question – that I had given him. I could not help laughing to myself about his verve and ‘chutzpah’. Who could fail to like Chrétien? He was a man always in a hurry.

During the 1968 leadership race to succeed Mr. Pearson, Chrétien was the first aboard the Sharp short-lived abortive run for leadership after Mr. Pearson suddenly resigned. When, as I predicted, Sharp quickly and pragmatically folded his cards and jumped aboard the Trudeau bandwagon before the formal launch of the campaign, as Sharp along with Chrétien joined the Trudeau team. One of the tasks Chrétien was assigned at the convention was to act as the conduit to the Turner campaign and I chose to be the Turner designate to the Trudeau leadership team, recognizing that the campaign might devolve into a tight race where instant action would be necessary.

Turner had agreed to stay in the race until he won, or came last on a ballot, and was dropped according to the convention rules. One exception which Turner had agreed to. If the ‘right’ as represented by Winters, who was late in the race, threatened to take the Liberal leadership, Turner and team would combine with Trudeau to ensure that would not happen – if Trudeau was ahead. Trudeau had agreed with me that he would do the same if Turner was ahead. This I had agreed to privately with Trudeau even before he entered the race. The convention was closer than Trudeau and his cohorts anticipated. After each ballot, Chrétien approached me and said, “The boss wants to know. When are you coming aboard?” One myth about that leadership was that Trudeau had the youth delegates. Due to the efforts of David Smith, Lloyd Axworthy, and myself, we had nailed down the overwhelming majority of the youth vote at that convention. Turner had rigorously attended Young Liberal and University Liberals meetings, gained their loyal support and allegiance even before Trudeau decided to enter the race. And they stayed committed and stayed loyal to the end. I urged Chrétien to remind Trudeau of our mutual private commitment. Still, Trudeau grew increasingly agitated as the balloting continued. Finally, on the fourth ballot, Turner ended his campaign still with 195 votes, mostly youth. Trudeau went on to win. Trudeau was upset with me, and when he became leader on Saturday afternoon, I left Ottawa that night, Trudeau was displeased with me and our friendship frayed until the 1972 campaign.

Meanwhile, Turner became Minister of Justice under Trudeau, an office he had long coveted. Chrétien continued on an amazing variety of cabinet postings, nine in all where his administrative skills and political instincts kept him out of trouble. In the end, he was the most prepared politician ever to become Prime Minister. Travelling often to every corner of Canada, he wanted to examine the work of each aspect of the Department minority he led at firsthand. He prided himself on his honed skills and his desk was clean and empty allowing him to concentrate at the problem at hand. He worked hard on his dossiers and his small skilled staff kept him well and concisely briefed on every issue. He didn’t enjoy long briefing papers. He preferred short executive excerpts. Cabinet meetings were well scheduled and tightly led unlike with Pierre Trudeau who relished long discursive Cabinet debates. Chrétien left no paper trails conducting business orally and quickly. I experienced this first-hand on numerous occasions. Two anecdotes to illustrate. Before I was appointed Senator, I was a member of the PetroCan Board of Directors. I had checked and discovered I could continue to serve on that while a Senator, provided I did so without remuneration. Chrétien was the Minister of Energy at the time. My first act as Senator the day I was appointed was to prepare an undated letter of resignation and arrange a meeting with Chrétien in his House of Commons office. After question period, I attended his office and he greeted me warmly and congratulated me on my appointment. He asked if there was anything he could do for me. I reminded him that I was on the board of PetroCan and as a Senator, I could continue to sit provided I received no remuneration and I handed him the envelope containing my undated resignation saying he could fill in the date anytime and just advise me by telephone. Chrétien took out the letter, read it, smiled, and said, “Fill in the date today.” This came as no surprise to me. For Chrétien repeatedly said he did not like being trapped, caught in a situation. I laughed and dated the letter. We then had a brief but pleasant chat about my work plan in the Senate and parted as he escorted me to the door and asked to be kept up to date as I settled in Ottawa as a Senator.

Allan MacEachen once cautioned: “Never find yourself in the way of saying no to a Leader.” He implied it would stunt your growth in the Party and Liberal government as indeed it did for me with Jean Chrétien.

After John Turner lost the office of Prime Minister and his error prone run as Leader of the Party and tenure as Prime Minister, I decided I had had enough of electoral politics. I intended to devote all my future political efforts to be a hard-working and hopefully effective Senator. I liked and admired Paul Martin and had been approached by him, but I felt Chrétien was more experienced and deserved the job. I wanted to stay out. But it was not to be. Keith Davey called as he did regularly and asked why I had not joined the Chrétien Leadership team. While I had no negative feelings for Chrétien and rather admired him, I explained to Keith that I was burned out after the Turner experience and decided to focus on Senate work and stay away from electoral politics. “You can’t do that. Chrétien wants to talk to you. Will you take his call?” “Of course, I will take his call, I like Jean,” I said to Keith.

Earlier that week, I had been sitting on the stone wall in front of the Senate commiserating about the Turner campaign with Andre Ouellette who had been a staunch Turner supporter. Jean Chrétien happened to walk by and got into a scuffle with Ouellette who Chrétien felt had betrayed him by supporting Turner in the Leadership and not him as they had been old comrades and friends. Chrétien took Ouellette’s support of Turner personally and viewed it as an act of disloyalty. I parted the two who were about to slug it out and pulled Chrétien into the hallway of the Senate entrance. Chrétien said, “I have no argument with you, Grafstein, you worked for Turner, but Ouellette was my friend and he betrayed me.” I told him, “That will change, so cool off, calm down, and forget about it.” In time, frayed tempers were settled. Ouellette and Chrétien renewed their old relationship. Andre served with his usual calm professional skill in Chrétien’s first Cabinet.

Chrétien called shortly after Keith rang off. In his jovial and endearing manner, he cut to the chase. “Jerry, I want to see you. You have to be with me. I am coming to your office.” “No, Jean, not necessary, I will come and see you right away in your office.” I immediately walked through Parliament hallways to his office adorned with elegant Aboriginal prints, stone sculptures, and a large clean desk. Jean rose to greet me and beckon me to sit. “Would you like coffee?” he graciously asked. “No, I’m fine.” “Well,” he immediately asked, “Why aren’t you with me?” “Jean, I have no problem with you but after the last election campaign with Turner, I am burned out.” I explained that the last campaign with Turner “was the toughest of my life and I needed a rest”. “You will be fine after a little time off. But I need you to be with me.” He emphasized the ‘with me’ part. “You are a militant. You can’t quit. This is an important time for Liberals, and you are a loyal Liberal.” Jean had the Lyndon Johnson ability to sit close and not take no for an answer when he wanted something. I assumed as a staunch and visible supporter of Turner, Chrétien wanted to make sure he could unite the Party, always a challenge for any Leader. “If you can’t unite the Party, you can’t unite the country”, Keith Davey regularly preached, and he was right.

“Ok, I will join up and get motivated on two conditions that you should know.” “What are they?” he quickly asked, his eyes now narrowed as he became more focused and cautious. “First Israel. I am a Zionist and staunch supporter of Israel.”

Relieved, Chrétien relaxed and said, “I am a great supporter of Israel. I have good friends in Israel and, look at my staff.” Chrétien’s Chief Staff Adviser was Eddy Goldenberg180 and his astute adviser John Rae, a selfless and brilliant political operative who served as Chrétien’s Executive Assistant and a good friend was also a staunch supporter of Israel, the son of Saul Rae, leading diplomat who was one of the first Jews to climb the thin oxygen heights of the External Affairs never noted for its Israel friendly policies.

“Second”, I said with a long pause. Again, Chrétien’s smile turned grim and his eyes narrowed with intensity. “I am a believer in One Canada. I don’t believe in ‘special status’. I don’t believe in ’claims by Quebec. Quebec is a special province but so is Newfoundland. In this, I agree with Louis St. Laurent and Pierre Trudeau.” This was the core of my political belief and that one reason why I became a devout supporter of Trudeau’s ideas – policies about a ‘One Canada’ and why believe it or not, I had secretly admired Diefenbaker.

Again, Chrétien’s taut body immediately relaxed. “So am I. I have always believed in One Canada. My best speech is about ‘One Canada’” – which indeed it was. “I will never accept special status ideas for Quebec. It’s not good for Quebec and not good for Canada.”

With that, he abruptly stood up as I did. We shook hands. I knew he was always busy. Still, I was charmed that he took the time to sign me up. I helped in his leadership campaign. Afterwards, Chrétien asked me to see him. He was planning ahead. He wanted me to run Red Leaf, the Liberal advertising consortium as I had led for Trudeau and Turner. I told him that you have to know when it’s time to turn over party work to younger, better people. I felt I was burned out. He was not happy. I undertook to find a replacement which I did – Kevin Shea and I promised to keep an eye on the work. I did as I promised. Shea was named Head of Red Leaf. I kept in touch, but I believe Chrétien resented my refusal to continue.

Jean Chrétien was a wonderful stump speaker in his fractured English or French. But you always knew what he wanted to say. As the title of his autobiography averred, he could speak, Straight from the Heart.

Stump speeches are an art form given without notes to make direct contact with the audience. A great stump speaker speaks directly – simply with repetition for emphases, always with humourous asides and a healthy dose of self-deprecation. Chrétien was the master of this political art form. His favourite topic was based on the idea of ‘One Canada’. Once my longtime friend Dennis Mills, running for Parliament in the Danforth Riding in the east end of Toronto, invited Chrétien, then the Leader of the Liberal Party in the federal campaign to speak in his east end, heavily ethnic, riding of Danforth on his behalf. Dennis, whose grandfather had founded Chairman Mills where Dennis cut his teeth as an ‘event’ supplier of tables, chairs, china, and glasses. Dennis was an experienced event master himself amongst his other undoubted great political skills. Dennis chose a dark, dingy restaurant basement on the Danforth in east Toronto for the campaign event. Chrétien got a sense of the dismal low ceiling in the room and spoke about Canada, ‘One Canada strong and free’. The room was jammed with immigrants, mostly Greek, who own small businesses on the Danforth. They were both the ethnic mix that made Toronto great and the heart of the Liberal Red Machine supporters – Toronto that Pearson, then Trudeau had so carefully cultivated and enlisted to the Liberal Party cause. Immigrants from Greece, Italy, Portugal, Korea, Hong Kong, Jamaica, and then the Mid-East and East Africa swelled Toronto’s population. A polyglot group of every stripe and ethnic origin were all fervent supporters of Dennis in the Danforth.

After a simple, but successful, welcoming remarks by Dennis, culminating in introducing Chrétien as the next Prime Minister of Canada, he turned to Jean Chrétien. Chrétien leapt onto the low stage and in the darkish, dim-lit room with bare light bulbs, Chrétien started to speak with humility and humour, building on his humble Quebec roots to a crescendo in praise of ‘One Canada’. There wasn’t a dry eye in the room. Standing behind me was Jim Coutts, an inveterate crier, and Dennis whose bright eyes were moist, and I must confess, so were mine. Chrétien’s popular touch never ceased to amaze me. I admired his ability to connect with any type of audience. He had the gift! He had the common touch. After he became Leader, I helped organize an event at a private Jewish Club in Toronto and introduced him to a tough, mostly Conservative leaning group of successful businessmen and their wives. Chrétien’s charm spoken without a note won over the hard-boiled businessmen and their especially astute wives in the room. Afterwards, Chrétien shook every hand in the crowded room. Chrétien was a ‘natural’.

The toughest campaign for Jean Chrétien was the second Quebec Referendum Campaign now that he was the Prime Minister of Canada. He put together a coalition of Provincial and Federal politicians of all stripes and his involvement was tightly tailored to suite each coalition partner needs. Yet, he was hamstrung in a serious way and not allowed to campaign at grass roots level where he excelled as freely as he would have liked. His coalition partners felt he was too tainted by the Trudeau federalist brush and would be counter-productive as the vote appeared to be close. Pierre Trudeau, now in retirement, but following events closely, in turn was not invited to participate. Outside of Quebec, other Liberals such as myself and others from Toronto were told to stay away.

The Referendum Campaign didn’t go well. The Separatists under Rene Levesque, were well organized, well-funded, and united in message, were gaining momentum as the campaign entered the final stretch. Many of us in Toronto felt handcuffed. Brian Tobin (later called ‘Captain Canada’), a populist energetic Member of Parliament from Newfoundland who enjoyed organizing events as I did, took matters into his own hands and organized a giant rally on the streets of Montreal. This rally was based on the plan and organization for bringing Canadians across Canada actually devised by Dennis Mills who first developed the idea of organizing Canadians from outside Quebec to show their passion and interest of One Canada, along with energetic Liberals like Sheila Copps and others from across Canada that helped turn the tide or least slow the Separationist momentum. Still, I felt it was not enough! The polls were too close. It was anybody’s guess.

Suddenly, I came up with a great cost-effective idea that I felt could make a difference – Pierre Trudeau – who had been the absent, uninvited, silent guest during the bitter Referendum Campaign. I discovered that the paid media campaign came to an end on Saturday midnight before the Referendum vote day on Monday. Saturday mid-morning, I went to visit Jim Coutts in his small, elegant, book-filled home in downtown Toronto to try out my ‘Hail Mary’ idea. Concisely put, on Sunday morning, Pierre Trudeau would go for a walk in a park near his stylish art deco house in Montreal. He would sit on a park bench. The national and local media would be notified. Trudeau could then make his pitch alone directly to the Quebec public and he would own the airways for free that weekend of the ‘blackout’. Jim thought it was a great idea. I had invited David Smith to join us at Jim’s small house off Avenue Road just north of Bloor. David also thought it was a solid idea. I had also figured that it would take me, along with Jim and David, to convince Trudeau, who I knew was unhappy being sidelined on the key issue of his political legacy, to participate at the last moment.

I asked Jim to contact Trudeau at his home in Montreal. Jim immediately gave me Pierre Trudeau’s home telephone in Montreal. “You can call him…it’s your idea.” It was noon on Saturday at the time – two days before the vote. I dialed immediately, got Justin and asked if I could speak to his father. Justin said his dad was not home. He had gone up to his cabin to spend the weekend alone tracking through the snow-covered woods and do physical chores around the cabin. Justin told me I could get him now because Trudeau was punctual in his habits and would come back to the cabin for lunch at noon. I got the number from Justin and immediately called. Trudeau picked up the phone. I told him I was at Jim Coutts’s house (Jim had been a close trusted confidant, advisor and Chief of Staff to Pierre Trudeau since mid-1974). With me was David Smith who Trudeau knew and liked for David’s political savvy and organizational skills as well. David had served in Trudeau’s Cabinet and had been enlisted to lobby English M.P.’s during the Constitutional Repatriation battles. I quickly sketched out the idea. Trudeau listened quietly. There was a pause.

“Interesting idea but the Referendum Campaign managers don’t want me to participate. And if I do and the Separatists win, I will be blamed for the loss.”

“If we lose the Referendum, Pierre”, I quickly retorted, “You will be blamed any way. So don’t say no, just say I will think about it and we will contact the campaign managers to get their agreement.” Trudeau said, “Ok, let me think about it. Get back to me in an hour.” As soon as I rung off, I called Eddy Goldenberg who was negative to the idea but said he would get back to me. After a half-hour wait and no response, at the suggestion of Jim Coutts, I called John Rae in Montreal who was also deeply involved in the campaign. John was most polite. “We have just checked the recent polls and we are ahead”, he volunteered. I told him that Jim, David, and I disagree. Marty Goldfarb who I had spoken to regularly also disagreed. It was too close to call even though the ‘No’ side was ahead 20% at the start of the campaign. We, too, knew how to read polls and we thought they were close but just behind. Trudeau would be worth at least five points. John Rae, always the gentleman, said, “Let me think about it. I will get back to you.” There was silence for another hour. Finally, we agreed that I call Pierre who had been patiently waiting for my return call. I brought him up to speed on the calls with Goldenberg and Rae and then the silence of no return calls. Trudeau said quietly, “I thought so. But thanks to all there for the idea which I thought was interesting.” We hung up. The ‘Yes’ Referendum Campaign beat the Separatist ‘No’ vote by just over 1% (49.42% to 50.8%), a squeaker if there ever was one.

To be fair to Chrétien and his team, the ‘No’ team had publicized a picture of Trudeau and Chrétien laughing after the first Referendum that he won comfortably that helped the ‘No’ side. At the start of the Second Referendum Campaign in 1995, the ‘Yes’ vote had surged ahead. It was even closer to call than we believed.

A last footnote to the Chrétien Referendum saga. On the Thursday before the vote, in desperation, Chrétien went on French TV to promise to support Quebec as a ‘distinct society’ in a vote in Parliament after the Referendum. I was aghast. Chrétien had broken his word to me. It was plain and simple – an act of desperation. I understood the pressure he was under to make his last-minute gesture, but still I felt it was unnecessary.

Some months later in Parliament, true to his word, Chrétien introduced a Resolution in the Commons, a non-binding vote of a Resolution supporting Quebec as a ‘distinct society’. When the Resolution passed in the Commons by a strong vote, the same Resolution was introduced by the Liberal leader in the Senate, Allan MacEachen. After a Senate caucus that indicated all Liberal Senators supported it except me. I demurred. Immediately, Allan and Keith were on me. MacEachen quietly and painstakingly pointed out that Chrétien was pledged to make the Resolution in the Referendum Campaign and after all, it was not legally binding but just a reflection of Parliament at a moment in time. I agreed but it was not my reflection. Both urged me to reconsider. The implication was that it would hinder my career in the Senate. I called Pierre Trudeau in Montreal at his law office for advice. I recounted the background. After Pierre Trudeau had resigned, I had lunched with him in Montreal quarterly and kept in touch on contentious issues to seek his counsel. Trudeau followed everything in Ottawa assiduously and kept up-to-date but kept his silence.

In his laid-back fashion, Trudeau asked, “What would you like to do?” “To make a big speech”, I reply. “So, do what you would like to do. Make a big speech.” So ended our conversation with the usual pleasantries.

I immediately called Allan and then Keith that I have decided to make ‘a big speech’. Both tried to convince me not to. Allan suggested I not appear for the vote in the Senate. Keith, more bluntly, suggested that I should disappear the day of the vote.

At a Liberal caucus event that evening, Chrétien approached me and urged me not to attend the vote. I reminded him of our first conversation on this issue, then he turned and said, “Look at my back. I have scars on my back for my support of a ‘One Canada’ in Quebec. Do me a favour, just don’t show up for the vote. Besides, Trudeau is in favour of the Resolution.” I was shocked. I didn’t believe it. I had just spoken to Trudeau the day before. The following morning, I called Pierre Trudeau in his law office in Montreal. He immediately came on the phone. I told him I had heard he was in favour of the Resolution. “Who told you that?” he curtly asked. “The Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, told me that last night.” “That is not correct” he said quickly. “And what do you intend to do? To make a big speech?” he queried. I was noncommittal. Again, we ended the call pleasantly.

Now I started to sweat. On one hand, my two great mentors, Allan MacEachen and Keith Davey had urged my support as had Prime Minister Chrétien. There was an unspoken menace that my Senate career would be stunted if I stood by my refusal to support a resolution that Chrétien had urged me to support or just duck.

I sought my wife’s advice and she promptly answered, “Do what you think is right.”

In the end, I satisfied no one, not even myself. I balked. I spoke in the Senate. I made the shortest speech I have ever given. “Canada is a distinct society. All the rest is commentary.” Then I abstained from the vote.

Chrétien always learned from his mistakes. With the help of Stéphane Dion, he cobbled together the Clarity Bill to ensure that a proper question was sent to the electorate if separatism raised its ugly head again. While I supported his effort, I abstained because the Bill did not include the Senate in the deliberations in Parliament on framing the ‘question’.

And so, it was during the balance of the Chrétien government, I never received the one appointment I craved in the Senate – the Chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Rights Committee that I had served and prepared for during my entire tenure as Senator.

I was told by Dan Hays, the Senate Liberal leader, that when the vacancy opened that the appointment had gone to Peter Stollery and I had been passed over. “Why?” I ask Dan. “Why?” I ask the Liberal leader in the Senate. Dan Hays, an honest and admirable Senator and old colleague. “Because of Langevin Building”, i.e. because of the Prime Minister’s office across the street from Parliament. Chrétien never forgot an act of what he considers disloyalty. It was loyalty to the leader he believed that kept the Liberal tribe together, a belief he himself did not always practice.

There was also bad blood between the two rivals to Liberal leadership, between John Turner (who I worked for during his leadership as a loyal supporter) and Jean Chrétien. Chrétien had lost to Turner on his first leadership run. It boiled over during Turner’s difficult period after he had lost the leadership. Turner had abruptly resigned as Minister of Finance during the Trudeau administration when Trudeau sought to set up a group of senior economic advisors that Turner took as a slap of his tenure as Minister of Finance. In the result, he resigned and returned to his successful law practice in Toronto. During this period, we kept in touch. Then Turner did something to Chrétien that deeply offended him. Chrétien as Minister of Finance was doing a credible job. John Turner supported an influential newsletter put out by his law partner Bill MacDonald that criticized Chrétien’s policies as Minister of Finance. Chrétien felt Turner was behind this public act of disloyalty and unfairness. He harboured a grudge and when his turn to reciprocate came around, he did. Turner faltered in his short tenure as Prime Minister. One of Chrétien’s close supporters, Ron Irwin,181 a likeable M.P. from northern Ontario circulated a secret letter signed by twenty-two Members of the Liberal cause voicing lack of confidence in Turner’s leadership. Other M.P.’s were involved including Brian Tobin and Sergio Marchi.¹⁸² It was considered, by Turner, a near fatal stab in the back. Turner was astounded. “Who was behind this? Why did it happen?” he asked me. I knew nothing about it. Nothing. Chrétien had got his revenge and helped weaken Turner and Turner’s weakness would catapult Chrétien to the Liberal leadership.

What comes around goes around. That letter tore up the unwritten policy of the Liberal party – loyalty to the leader. Paul Martin Jr. returned the favour as Jean Chrétien had never supported Paul’s father’s political aspirations. Though a good, loyal, and excellent Minister of Finance, Paul Martin and his tight team of loyalists, who thought Chrétien did not support him enough, began to undermine Chrétien at every opportunity to make Chrétien look inept as Prime Minister. Chrétien had reportedly agreed to resign early which he did not. Tribalism in the Liberal Party burst into the open. Both were hotly competitive and now, didn’t trust each other. So, Martin’s entourage attacked Chrétien’s leadership in the caucus that led, in part, to the premature departure of Jean Chrétien. Had Chrétien continued to take the heat for the political scandals as Chrétien argued; Martin might have had an easier tenure as Prime Minister. Instead, Martin called a public judicial enquiry which Chrétien was compelled to attend and defend his record. Paul Martin gave evidence as well. It was awful.183 But that was a tribal war and the Liberal Party did not recover until the remarkable rise of Justin Trudeau who reunited the Party when he won as leader and took the office of Prime Minister as a well-deserved prize. If you can’t unite the Party, you can’t unit the country. True today as it was then.

Perhaps the most dramatic decision Jean Chrétien took during his term as Prime Minister was not to support President George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq over weapons of mass destruction. Chrétien was trapped and he knew it. Who was right remains to be seen. His instincts, perhaps buried in his Quebec genes, was against war. The repeated UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s horrific conduct and actions, whether about human rights or weapons of mass destruction, appeared clear. International law and the UN sided with Bush. Chrétien was caught. Yet, secretly, he marshalled others to oppose the Iraq War hoping not to offend the United States, Canada’s major economic partner, involving billions in trade. It was perhaps the toughest decision he took as Prime Minister and he later surfed on public support for his stand. History has yet to be written on this chapter.

After 9/11, I was unhappy that Chrétien shrank from attending the site of devastation of the Twin Towers that the world had observed on TV. Canadians had lost their lives. Other world leaders attended, including a Prince of Japan, yet, for some reason, Chrétien hesitated to go. At the time, I was co-chair of the Canada/U.S.A. Inter-Parliamentary Group composed of all-party Canadian Parliamentarians and Members of Congress. Our group met regularly to discuss, and solve if we could, endless lists of irritants between Canada and U.S.A. As a result, I had called and written to our fellow members in both Houses of Congress, many of whom had become good friends. When I raised the question in caucus, Chrétien strangely offered that he didn’t want to compound America’s unease. Clearly, he felt uncomfortable attending this tragic site.184

His refusal upset me. When I came home that weekend, Carole said, as she usually did, “If you can do better, go do it.” We agreed to pull together a small group of volunteers to organize a small group to take up Mayor Giuliani’s invitation rendered at the UN. “If you want to help New York City, come and spend a weekend with us”, Giuliani implored. We decided to rent a small venue, the Roseland Ballroom, for a small event and meeting point in mid-Manhattan that those Canadians who came could meet briefly and then enjoy a weekend in New York. The idea caught fire across Canada. In the end, over 25,000 Canadians from every corner of Canada showed up at the Roseland Ballroom, lining the New York City streets of 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, and 64 Streets waiting to get in. So, we closed down 52^nd Street beside the Ballroom (that could only hold 3,500 at best) and set up large TV screens to view the short covered and program in the Ballroom. Still inside and out, only about 8,000 people could be reached. Chrétien was visiting Los Angeles that Friday when he heard about Canadians streaming into New York. He suddenly decided to fly over night, and we agreed for him to meet me at the Ballroom side doors at 11 A.M. From there, we went up and down both streets of the New York streets crowded with waiting Canadians and apologizing to them that there would be room to get in by those who lined up. No one complained. Chrétien was cheered as he walked the lines with me and other volunteers. After a brief ceremony with Mayor Rudy Giuliani and short concert in the Ballroom, Chrétien took centre stage and his short remarks were pitch perfect. On his way out, he left to large applause. Aline, his wife, came back to say goodbye and to thank my wife and the other key volunteers graciously as always and then took her leave.185

In the winter of 2003, as Jean Chrétien was wrestling with Paul Martin to sustain his leadership, an epidemic of SARS broke out in Toronto and nothing was being done on the provincial and government side to get out the message that the epidemic in Toronto was contained and the city safe. Hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues virtually closed down.

When a small unit of the hospitality workers union visited me, they were desperate. Concerts began to cancel. Fifty percent, over 45,000 of these low-paying workers, had been laid off. I called the Mayor, the Premier, and the Prime Minister to no avail. Dennis Mills, an M.P. for Danforth, was getting the same response. Hotels, restaurants, and bars were empty. Together we decided we needed a message to send to the world that Toronto was safe and sound and open for business. At Dennis’s suggestion, we contacted Michael Cohl, an old friend of both of us and convinced him to bring the Rolling Stones, who loved Toronto, and produce an all-broadcast live concert. A five-million-dollar deposit from Molson’s to underwrite the preliminary costs was obtained. The concert was called Molson Rocks.186

In the event, over 500,000 people attended Downsview Park, the largest event of its kind in Canada, and the message went out over the internet and airways that Toronto was safe and sound and open for business. All this was done without government funding. Sometimes personal persistence proves more effective than government.

Finally, three postscripts to our personal relations that continue to be warm and respectful. When I retired from the Senate after twenty-six years of service, a large dinner was organized by old friends and comrades in arms Senators Serge Joyal and David Smith in Ottawa. All former Liberal leaders were asked to speak. Chrétien was out of town but sent a three-minute clip. In it, he said that I was always a great Liberal, but I could also be ‘a pain in the ass’. Steve Paikin, who attended, did a farewell interview with me on his Ontario TVO show and asked how I felt about that comment. I told him, “I took that as a great compliment since Chrétien could also be ‘a pain in the ass’.”

Another Chrétien anecdote while Chrétien was Prime Minister. When the art deco American Embassy across Wellington Street was vacated, I thought it would be an ideal location for a Portrait Gallery modelled on the Portrait Gallery in London. I had visited the National Archives across the river in Quebec that stores thousands of portraits of Canada’s great figures that would never be seen by Canadians. I enlisted Serge Joyal to help in the effort. We both decided the key would be to convince Chrétien, then Prime Minister. Serge came up with a persuasive idea – to put together a small brochure of great portraits. In the process, we discovered an early lively picture of Chrétien that we appended to the last page of the brochure.

We attended Chrétien in his office in Parliament Hill. As always, his desk was clear except for a small card on which some notes had been written that he would glance at, obviously a briefing note for our visit. As we made our pitch, he glanced through the brochure which he said had ‘punch’ when he turned to his photo, he smiled, and we knew we had his attention. We quickly plowed through the details. At the end, he said he was interested, provided we could get Sheila Copps support, his Minister of Heritage. He rose, congratulated us on our initiative and then took the briefing card, ripped it up and placed the bits in his waste paper bin. He smiled and said, “See? No record.” Chrétien was a careful astute politician.

In the end, true to his word, after we got Sheila’s approval, his government established the National Portrait Gallery funding and set up an architectural contest only to be dismantled by Harper when he became Prime Minister as he chose to erase Chrétien and his Liberal Party’s legacy. Nothing new. It happens all the time in politics.

Chrétien attained an easy relationship with most other foreign leaders especially Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Nelson Mandela, Jacques Chirac, George Bush, Shimon, Peres187, Fernando Cardoso of Brazil, and especially Boris Yeltsin in Russia. Chrétien was a democratic realist in foreign affairs. He refused to publicly condemn autocratic leaders in China for human rights abuses or elsewhere believing he could be more effective in criticizing them in private, a lesson still not adequately understood by his successors.

All in all, Jean Chrétien was a unique and authentic leader, who in return, gained the lasting respect and affection of the Canadian public and his peers for his remarkable and assiduous public service to Canada.

•Straight from the Heart by Jean Chrétien (Key Porter Books, 1985)

•My Years as Prime Minister by Jean Chrétien (Knopf, 2007)

•My Stories, My Times by Jean Chrétien (Random House of Canada, 2018)

¹⁶⁸Later, when he became a Minister and then Prime Minister, he took up golf and while not a top golfer, he was hotly competitive and didn’t like to lose. Chrétien liked to fish and made some spectacular catches.

¹⁶⁹As Prime Minister while on a political jaunt, he was closely accosted by a young man and Chrétien instinctively grabbed him with two hands by the throat and threw him aside. Thereafter, that was known as the ‘Shawinigan Handshake’.

¹⁷⁰Actually, Chrétien was born on a tiny French speaking suburb of Shawinigan called ‘Begoville’.

¹⁷¹Chrétien was the 17^th of 18 children and the Chrétien clan were ambitious and achievers.

¹⁷²He even invested in a small golf club that later caused him problems.

¹⁷³His historic muse was Sir Wilfred Laurier and he relished sitting behind Laurier’s desk in the Prime Minister’s office.

¹⁷⁴Pearson had astutely made Chrétien Sharp’s ministerial assistant to hone Chrétien’s economic credentials. Pearson had an early sense of Chrétien’s ambitions and skills.

¹⁷⁵Later when Pelletier left Chrétien, Chrétien appointed him head of Via Rail. He became embroiled in a petty scandal and was fired by Paul Martin. It took Pelletier ten years in court to vindicate his name and reputation, gaining substantial damages for wrongful dismissal, loss of reputation, and costs. He died shortly thereafter from a heart attack.

¹⁷⁶No Prime Minister enjoyed this astonishing array of Cabinet posts, nine in all, with a remarkable trouble-free record of accomplishments. In each portfolio, Chrétien gained a deserved reputation as a superb administrator.

¹⁷⁷Walter Gordon attracted fierce loyalty within the Liberal Party. One example. When Maurice Lamontagne got mired in a furniture scandal when a modest unpaid bill was discovered in a bankruptcy, Gordon attended his office immediately and wrote Lamontagne a cheque to cover the cost of this embarrassment.

¹⁷⁸Chrétien, by regular tutoring even whilst Prime Minister, became fluent in English, still with a distinct Quebecois accent that he chose not to change and even reveled in as he poked fun at himself about it. That endeared him to his followers. Chrétien always displayed a sense of humour.

¹⁷⁹One of Turner’s key mistakes was not to choose Chrétien as Quebec leader, a job Chrétien craved. I had fervently urged Turner to appoint him, but Turner and his Montreal circle were not fond of Chrétien. This was a crucial mistake by Turner.

¹⁸⁰Eddie Goldenberg’s father was legendary Carl Goldenberg, a lawyer, mediator, law professor, and advisor to three Prime Ministers – McKenzie King, Pierre Trudeau, and Chrétien – who was appointed to the Senate by Pierre Trudeau.

¹⁸¹Ron Irvin got his reward when he was appointed Canadian Ambassador to Ireland.

¹⁸²Sergio Marchi also got his reward when he was appointed to a post in Europe.

¹⁸³Chrétien went to court and was later exonerated from any egregious conduct.

¹⁸⁴As Co-Chair of Canada-U.S.A. Interparliamentary Group, I attended Washington with Chrétien during one of his visits to the White House. He asked me to accompany him to Congress to introduce him to key members of the House and the Senate I knew. One memorable visit was with Speaker Gingrich. Chrétien was hesitant to engage. I started the conversation by asking the Speaker about China. Both Chrétien and I were astonished by the Speaker’s knowledge and insight into China as it began to emerge as an economic power.

¹⁸⁵For a fuller account, read The Miracle on 52^nd Street: Canada Loves New York Weekend in Parade: Tributes to Remarkable Contemporaries by Jerry S. Grafstein (Mosaic Press, 2017) or in Chicken Soup for the Canadian Soul by Jerry S. Grafstein, edited by Raymond Aaron, Janet Matthews, Jack Canfield, and Mark Victor Hansen (Health Communications, Inc., 2002).

¹⁸⁶For a fuller account, read Romancing the Stones in Parade: Tributes to Remarkable Contemporaries by Jerry S. Grafstein (Mosaic Press, 2017).

¹⁸⁷I personally observed Chrétien with his easy camaraderie in Ottawa with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Shimon Peres, when he beckoned me and introduced me to each as an active Liberal with a smile. I was also introduced by Chrétien to Fernando Cardoso, President of Brazil on a trip to Brasilia, the capital of Brazil. Chrétien demonstrated warm camaraderie with Cardoso who also became a good friend of Chrétien. Chrétien had a warm long-standing relationship with Queen Elizabeth from whom he received the Order of Merit, one of the Royal’s highest honours, after he retired.

 

Jean Chrétien - Maiden Speech