The Webster Library of Concordia University carries an official biography of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, circa 1976, published by the Liberal Party of Canada. A scan of same, an ebook in PDF format, and a searchable transcript are free for download (157 MB zipped), together with additional documents.
At the top of page 7 of this official biography, we read the following statement:
“As the [1956 electoral] term drew to a close, Mr. Trudeau issued an appeal to the readers of Cité Libre to support the Liberals in the provincial election of 1960. With the Liberal victory, the democratic and social revolution seemed underway.”
(Perhaps the Communist revolution seemed well underway.)
For Pierre Elliott Trudeau is obviously not a “Liberal”, as anyone can tell who knows his pro-Communist background and his anti-Parliamentary activities while controlling Canada. Just read his 7-part series in Le Devoir, “I’m Back from Moscow,” on the 1952 Soviet Economic Summit, and you will understand that Pierre is a Communist. (See the Library tab under Articles for my exclusive English version.)
Therefore, the foregoing, and other statements in Trudeau’s “official” Liberal biography, were clearly intended to lull the public into believing that Pierre Trudeau was, and had long been, a “Liberal”.
However, election year 1960 disproves the claim. In fact, it links Pierre Trudeau personally and directly to the Communist penetration of Quebec, which he facilitated with his “vote Lesage” article in Cité Libre.
This is clear from Chapter 6 of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (for a Communist state of Quebec) entitled “The economic objectives of the plan”. Chapter 6 reveals:
“The notion of a Plan has been tossed around in Quebec. Since 1961, in one form or another, the elaboration of a development plan remained an objective for successive governments, except for the last which finally abandoned the idea. […] (p. 101)”
The idea of a Communist plan was not abandoned; but merely the attempt to do it while a Province of Canada. The Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 to “secede” were efforts to acquire all the powers necessary to pull one off.
1961 is year two of the Lesage “Liberal” government elected on the 22nd of June, 1960, in part at the urging of Pierre Trudeau. These are the very same “Liberals” linked by Chapter 6 to the economic goals of the “Quiet Revolution” in Quebec
“The desire to coordinate economic objectives and instruments of action was, at the beginning of the “Quiet Revolution”, all the more acute as Quebec had traversed the recession of 1957 to 1961 with difficulty.” (p. 101)
At page 102 of Chapter 6:
“The fundamental characteristic of a Plan is that all the principal agents of a nation’s economy agree periodically to confront their objectives, their projects or their proposals, then to render them compatible and to arrange their operations in consequence.”
At p. 103:
“What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study … The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty. As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile …”
“… the Plan will materialize only in an independent Quebec.”
It would seem that the “fundamental characteristic” of the “Quiet Revolution” was an attempt by the Jean Lesage “Liberals” to construct a Communist Plan.
Moreover, Jean Lesage had been a federal minister under Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson as prime minister of Canada, before Lesage swapped the federal “Liberals” for the provincial.
Charles Perrault, President of the Quebec Employers Council, interviewed on the concept of the 1972 manifesto by French CBC (Radio-Canada) on May 9th, 1972, points out the kind of Plan intended by the PQ, at which a first attempt was made in 1961 under Lesage:
À toutes fins pratiques, on va donner ici à l’Etat le rôle qu’il joue dans les pays socialistes de l’Est de l’Europe. On va centraliser la production, on va construire des plans — euh — coercitifs — et à toutes fins pratiques, comme je le disais, — euh — donner à l’Etat la gouverne totale. Et on doit s’attende à ce que le, le, l’économie progresse à peu près comme celle des Polonais ou des Czecks ou des Allemands de l’Est.
Ça ferait quelque chose dans ce genre-là.
For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government pretty much the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct coercive plans — uh — and for all practical purposes, as I said uh give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.
It would be something of that nature.
Ce n’est pas d’un plan indicatif qu’il s’agit ici. C’est clairement d’un plan coercitif — euh — qui ref — euh, qui représente la sorte de, de — de — euh — de système qu’on connaît dans les pays socialistes
Mais, sûrement pas, sûrement pas en Suède, et sûrement pas non plus en France.
This is not an indicative plan that we have here. This is clearly a coercive — uh — which ref — represents the kind of, of — of, uh — of system known in socialist countries.
But surely not, surely not (the kind found in) Sweden, and surely not in France, either.
Marxist sociologist Narcisso Pizarro, in the same radio round table, states without hesitation that the notion of a Plan in the 1972 manifesto is a reference to worker self-management — a form of Communism underway in Tito’s Yugoslavia since 1950:
“In another aspect, inspiration in the Yugoslav model: which is to say participation, co-management, self-management. Uh –”
In 1972, Yugoslavia still is Communist, under Tito.
Furthermore, the federal regime under Pierre Elliott Trudeau will “liberally” siphon federal taxpayers’ money to an organization called Praxis Corporation, infamous for promoting socialism by organizing “poor peoples’ conferences”. The 1970 conference proceedings of Praxis (Research Institute for Social Change) were published by Black Rose Books. The contents reveal that precisely the Yugoslav model of worker self-management (industrial democracy) is the model of Communism preferred by the Trudeau-financed Praxis for all of Canada. Says Chris Trower, United Steelworkers of America (Toronto) (p. 29):
“Yet the pursuit of this goal not just for ourselves, but for all mankind, is the only cause worth fighting for. It is in the belief that we are joined in that historic cause, that we must work to build an industrial democracy in Canada.”
At page 34, Comrade André Bekerman says:
“II. The Immediate Importance of Industrial Democracy in Canada
The idea of Industrial Democracy is not new to Canada, nor is it a foreign import unrelated to Canadian realities. It was advocated in the Regina Manifesto of the CCF and even earlier. It now needs re-introduction, however, because for several decades the unions have avoided challenging the fundamental issue of ownership and management’s rights to exercise authoritarian control over workers and production.”
The CCF, in case you didn’t know, is the original name of the party that became Canada’s NDP, our New Democratic Party, a full member, like the CCF before it, of the Socialist International, working toward socialist (Communist) world government. The NDP is Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s real political home in Canada, not the Liberals, whom he merely infiltrated like so many other Fabian Socialists.
Included in the Black Rose conference proceedings of the Praxis Institute for Social Change is an advocacy paper entitled “Industrial Democracy: Where do we go from here?” by none other than our respectable NDP’er, Edward Broadbent, M.P., and future NDP leader, influential in the administration of the Socialist International.
Industrial democracy is precisely the form of Communism framed in the pages of the 1972 PQ manifesto.
“Former” Marxist Lyndon Larouche’s Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) of July 12, 1977, Vol. IV, No. 28 (ISSN 0146-9614), referring to EIR’s own research, has alleged:
“A preliminary investigation of the actual nature of the Praxis Corp. network reveals it to be the centerpiece in a broad-based, largely Rockefeller-inspired, conspiracy directed at all phases of the Canadian policy making process. Information on Praxis and associated networks gathered in Canada and gridded against the extensively documented activities of the terrorist controllers at the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) both in North America and in Europe show the Praxis Corp. to be an IPS-Canadian front organization.”
The EIR concludes:
“This identification, matched in turn against known official Rockefeller policy options for Canada, allows the efficient assemblage of the complete profile of Rockefeller and allied network agencies of subversion directed at Canadian national sovereignty.”
The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank was a co-financier of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, along with Bankers Schiff, Warburg, Rothschild, and others.
Which raises the question: who, in fact, owns and operates Canada’s federal and provincial governments? For decades now, our federal and Quebec levels have colluded in illegal referendums to convert Quebec to Communism on the model advanced by the former Praxis, an alleged Rockefeller policy outlet.
Furthermore, the real goal of the Quebec “secession” front has been to restructure all of Canada through federal-Quebec “negotiation” following a referendum Yes.
The “Quiet Revolution” is not Over
The “Quiet Revolution” of the Lesage Red “Liberals” isn’t over. In his 2014 Liberty-Nation Project, Quebec city lawyer, “separatist” tactician and Communist co-founder of the Parti Québécois, Guy Bertrand, points out Quebec’s continued need for “sovereignty”. (It’s actually the Communists who need it.) However, the picture is shaping up.
The empty shells of the “radically revalorized municipal institutions” called for in the PQ’s 1972 manifesto (see “Democratic Communities, page 31) were created by the PQ in November-December 2000, without waiting to “secede”.
The PQ, as a rogue government legislating not for the governance of Quebec, but for the future dismantling of Quebec, created: “an array of regrouped and amalgamated municipalities” as called for (also on page 31) by its own manifesto of 1972. Obviously, that manifesto is current; it’s not passé or lapsed. In French, the PQ created “un ensemble de municipalités regroupées et fusionnées“. These are the “regions” that Bertrand is referring to in calling for a transfer of powers to them, aka “decentralization”.
This will indicate the determination of the Communists to in fact cause Quebec to “secede” to complete and implement these new Communist metropolitan regions. Which is what we really were forced to “vote” for in the 1980 and 1995 referendums. Not Quebec “sovereignty”. Not the independence of the ethnic French Canadians, but the dismantling of Quebec into a string of socialist banana republics, planned city-states on the model of Moscow.
With Bertrand, as with Parizeau and Lévesque before him, the real purpose of sovereignty today is not to defend the French Canadian people and their culture, but to transfer (decentralize) legislative powers to the new international, multicultural city-states, to replace Confederation. Says Guy Bertrand:
“2.5 Transfert de pouvoirs aux régions
La réforme des institutions politiques au Québec doit nécessairement passer par le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions, une fois modifié le statut politique du Québec. La décentralisation s’impose.
« La décentralisation, c’est le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions, avec, bien sûr, les ressources nécessaires pour les exercer, sans quoi il s’agit d’un transfert bidon. La décentralisation, précisons-le d’emblée, n’est pas un transfert ou une déconcentration de services, mais un transfert de pouvoirs. L’opération n’est pas de nature administrative, mais de nature politique. Il ne s’agit pas de réaménager l’Administration. Il s’agit de réaménager l’Etat.
“2.5 Transfer of powers to the regions
The reform of political institutions in Quebec must necessarily proceed by way of the transfer of governmental powers to the regions once the political status of Quebec is modified. Decentralization is the way to go.
“Decentralization is the transfer of governmental powers to the regions, with, of course, the necessary resources to exercise them, without which, it would be a useless transfer. Decentralization, let us stipulate at the outset, is not a transfer or a dilution of services, but a transfer of powers. The operation is not administrative in nature, but political in nature. It is not a question of restructuring the Administration. It is a question of restructuring the Government.“
Now, get this. Bertrand underscores that all the political parties in Quebec since the 1960 minority win of Lesage, have been planning to Communize Quebec the same way. At page 60, Bertrand says:
Même si tous les partis politiques au Québec, et cela depuis 1960 à aujourd’hui, « se sont engagés formellement dans leurs programmes officiels à effectuer des transferts de pouvoirs vers les régions », la décentralisation attend toujours. Pourquoi ?”
Even if all the political parties in Quebec, and that from 1960 to the present day, “were formally committed in their official programs to carrying out the transfers of powers to the regions” decentralization is still in the wings. Why?”
Why, indeed. The answer is in the PQ’s 1972 manifesto:
“[W]ithout the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study … The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty.” (103)
Those “missing instruments” are the legislative powers of the Province of Quebec, and of the Parliament in Ottawa, to be taken by UDI — a unilateral declaration of independence of the Communist state of Quebec, and handed over to the city-states, and to a new regional government, and undoubtedly, a world government.
Download a package of my exclusive English translation of parts of Guy Bertrand’s 2014 Liberty-Nation Project.
Trudeau: The Left must Vote “Liberal”
to put “democracy first”
First, said Trudeau in the opener to his pro-“Liberal” article entitled “Notes on the provincial election” (Cité Libre, Volume 11, Number 28, June-July 1960, p. 12):
Je n’avais pas cru, après l’élection de 1956, que la conjoncture électorale de 1960 serait aussi simple qu’elle l’est. [….]
Il suffit de rappeler ici que la Fédération libérale accepta la formule d’union des forces démocratiques, alors qu’à toutes fins pratiques cette formule fut rejetée par l’Action civique et par le P.S.D.
“I had not believed, after the election of 1956, that the electoral conjuncture of 1960 would be as simple as it is. […]”
“It suffices to recall here that the Liberal Federation accepted the formula of a union of the democratic forces, whereas for all practical purposes this formula was rejected by the Action civique and by the P.S.D.”
Trudeau says later, obviously to hide the fact that he knows Lesage et als are not really “Liberals”:
Je veux bien croire que les Libéraux bluffaient peut-être au moment où ils acceptaient de négocier, même en dehors du parti libéral, une formule d’union des forces démocratiques. Je pense aussi que depuis la mort de MM. Duplessis et Sauvé et le retrait de l’Action civique, les Libéraux sont vraisemblablement ravis que cette union ne se soit pas réalisée.
“I would truly like to believe that the Liberals were perhaps bluffing when they agreed to negotiate, even outside of the Liberal party, a formula of union with the democratic forces. I also think that since the deaths of Messrs. Duplessis and Sauvé and the withdrawal of the Action civique, the Liberals are truly thrilled that this union did not take place.”
However, in the next segment called “The Democratic Bet”, Trudeau tells his readers to vote “Liberal”:
En conséquence, cet électorat sera justifié, autant en théorie qu’en pratique, d’appuyer carrément le parti libéral aux élections prochaines.
“In consequence, this electorate will be justified, in theory as much as in practice, in squarely supporting the Liberal party at the next elections.”
At the same time, Trudeau impliedly offers “democracy first” as the cover for his Communist friend, René Lévesque, who “suddenly” got into “politics”, but with these so-called “Liberals”:
Je sais même qu’ils refuseraient aujourd’hui de se compromettre avec trop d’hommes de la “gauche” démocratique, voire même avec d’authentiques indépendants. […]
“I even know that they would refuse today to compromise themselves with too many men of the democratic “left” or even with authentic independents. [….]”
Et le corollaire, c’est qu’un René Lévesque — soudain désireux d’exercer une action électorale — se trouve dans l’impossibilité pratique d’agir ailleurs que dans le parti libéral.
“And the corollary is that a certain René Lévesque – suddenly wishing to get into politics – finds it practically impossible to act other than within the Liberal party.”
René Lévesque was apparently recruited by the Lesage Liberals; he didn’t find himself unable to run for office with one of the Red groupings on account of their failure, according to Pierre, to put “democracy first”.
It should be evident that Pierre Elliott Trudeau recommended voting for a party which he had to have known was going to attempt a Communist plan.
It must also be clear that if Quebec supposedly required “sovereignty” in order to acquire “[t]he missing instruments” to construct a Communist Plan, it is therefore and always has been in the direct personal interest of Pierre Elliott Trudeau — who urged his pro-Soviet readers of Cité Libre to vote for the Lesage “Liberals” — to find a way to dismantle Canada to construct that Plan.
And therefore, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the other Reds long at the federal level, would have to be aiming at restructuring all of Canada to facilitate “provincial” Communist planning.
Which is not to say that other motives are not afoot for the redistribution of legislative powers from Ottawa to Quebec. Without all powers in its hands, Quebec would be unable to redistribute them in turn … to a decentralized group of expanded and consolidated Communist metropolitan regions on the model of Moscow in socialist sociologist Maurice Zeitlin’s “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark” in a 1975 issue of the Communist Party of the USA’s Daily World.
It must therefore be clear that it is not “Quebec” that wants “sovereignty,” nor was Pierre Elliott Trudeau “fighting to save Canada”. He was working, in both the Justice department under Soviet agent prime minister Pearson, and then in his own regime as prime minister, to restructure Quebec and all of Canada for Communism, after a “Yes” in a referendum.
To cover his insider knowledge of the true nature of the Quebec Liberals, Trudeau demurs:
Il va sans dire, mais cela ira peut-être mieux en le disant, que je ne suis pas autrement fier d’avoir à faire ces constatations. Mais si je ne les faisais pas [ces remarques], je renierais le long manifeste publié dans le numéro sus-dit de Cité libre, et je reculerais devant la logique à laquelle je risquais d’être pris en jouant à “démocratie d’abord”. Car il est certain que si, par exemple, le P.S.D.
“But if I do not make them [these remarks], I would repudiate the long manifesto published in the above-mentioned issue of Cité Libre, and I would back away from the logic to which I risked being held by playing at “democracy first.” Because it is certain that if, for example, the P.S.D. had supported the union of democratic forces, and the Liberals had rejected it, I would today be justified in concluding that all sincere democrats would have to vote against the Liberals and support the P.S.D.”
And further on again:
Le résultat net, c’est que le parti libéral a obtenu à peu de frais le monopole des votes oppositionnistes.
“The net result is that the Liberal party has obtained at little cost the monopoly of the opposition vote.”
Pierre Trudeau’s official “Liberal” biography therefore links him directly to the Communist penetration of Quebec with a view to constructing a Communist Plan. It links him through his own article published in Cité Libre in 1960, “Notes sur l’élection provinciale” (translation: “Notes on the Provincial Election”) (Volume 11, Number 28, June-July 1960, p. 12 et seq.) in which he invites his readers of Cité Libre to vote for the Lesage “Liberals”.
The electorate who unintentionally will vote for the Communists in 1960 were not, however, without counsel. Both Robert Rumilly and Patrick Walsh are present, trying very hard to warn Quebec voters about the leftist inclinations of their “Liberals”.
In his quite excellent public lecture entitled (translation:) “June 22nd 1960 — the Election of Jean Lesage: “a change of life”?”), Éric Bédard explodes the myth of a backward Quebec still used today to justify the Lesage Liberals and their call for a “revolution”. However, in 2013, Mr. Bédard, like the voters in 1960, discounts the warning. Describing the 1960 electoral campaign, Bédard says:
Quant à l’épouvantail du communisme, il ne semble guère pris au sérieux par l’électorat. Durant toute la campagne, René Lévesque fut plusieurs fois présentée comme un cryptocommuniste. Dans un entrefilet du 1er juin, le Montréal-Matin expliquait que « Pat Walsh, chef anticommuniste bien connu, a annoncé qu’il ferait la campagne contre René Lévesque », comme s’il était normal de surveiller René Lévesque en tant que communiste !
As for the scarecrow of Communism, the electorate hardly seems to have taken it seriously. Over the course of the campaign, René Lévesque was depicted a number of times as a crypto-communist. In a brief report on June 1st, the Montréal-Matin explained why “Pat Walsh, the well-known anticommunist leader, announced that he would campaign against René Lévesque”, as if it were normal to view René Lévesque as a Communist !
Le dernier épouvantail, celui d’un Parti libéral résolument hostile aux valeurs religieuses et à l’Église, est également agité par des partisans de l’Union nationale. À la toute fin de la campagne, l’historien traditionnaliste Robert Rumilly fait circuler un pamphlet dans lequel il s’insurge contre la gratuité scolaire qui violerait les droits de l’Église. Les cibles principales de l’historien sont Jacques Hébert, Jean-Louis Gagnon 1 et René Lévesque. Le 19 juin, il offre une causerie sur ce sujet à la radio (diffusée dans 9 postes, dont CKAC et CHRC), annoncée la veille dans Le Soleil. Le titre de cette causerie commanditée par la Ligue pour l’Autonomie des Provinces est « L’infiltration gauchiste dans les élections provinciales ». La réplique de Jean Lesage fut cinglante. Selon ce que rapporte le journaliste du Devoir, le chef libéral aurait déclaré : « Il a dit qu’il n’a pas de leçon de catholicisme à recevoir de cet “importé”, que le peuple canadien-français a réchauffé sur son sein pendant trop longtemps cette “vipère” qui le darde aujourd’hui dans ses idées » !
The final scarecrow of a Liberal party resolutely hostile to religious values and to the Church, is also brandished by partisans of the Union Nationale. At the very end of the campaign, traditionalist historian Robert Rumilly circulates a pamphlet in which he rails against free schooling, which would violate the rights of the Church. The principal targets of the historian are Jacques Hébert, Jean-Louis Gagnon 1 and René Lévesque. On June 19th, he hosts a talk on the subject over the radio (broadcast from 9 stations, including CKAC and CHRC), publicized the day before in Le Soleil. The title of this talk, financed by the League for the Autonomy of the Provinces, is “The Leftist Infiltration of the Provincial Elections”. The ripost of Jean Lesage was withering. According to the report of the journalist from Le Devoir, the Liberal leader had declared: “He said that he had no lessons on Catholicism to learn from this “import” , that the French-Canadian people have for too long warmed this “viper” in their midst who today strikes it in its mind.”
Perhaps the intensity of Jean Lesage’s insult to Rumilly reflects the degree of accuracy of Mr. Rumilly’s political forecast with regard to the Liberals.
Almost as soon as Lesage got in, he kicked the Catholic church out of Education. 2 The nuns and priests who for centuries, and in Confederation since 1875, had propagated the culture of the French Canadians in their schools were no more.3 These, Lesage replaced with “imports”: a battalion of secular teachers of popularized Marxism.
(Just a couple of years ago, a French Canadian Catholic woman ruefully told me with what grace the nuns and priests had withdrawn from their historic roles on orders from the new Lesage government.)
There was no “Great Darkness”
The 2013 lecture by Éric Bédard, excerpted above, is an excellent off-the-beaten track background to the 1960 Quebec elections. It was first delivered under the auspices of the Quebec library and archives (BAnQ), with a transcript now online by the Fondation Lionel-Groulx.
Using the Liberals’ own statistics from a survey conducted by the Liberals at the time, Bédard explodes the “myth” that the Quebec of 1960 was “backward” and needed to be rescued.
The election of the Jean Lesage “Liberals” on 22nd June 1960 marks the beginning of the alleged “rescue”, i.e.: Quebec’s “Quiet Revolution”. The period prior to the “rescue” is often called “la Grande Noirceur” (the Great Darkness). However, Quebec of 1960, according to Bédard, was neither “backward” nor in “darkness”.
Therefore, what were the Liberals really doing when they merely pretended to rescue Quebec?
Were they simply trying to justify the revolutionary steps they planned to take, not even mentioned in their electoral platform, and thus not sought by the electorate? These included nationalization of hydroelectricity (Power Corporation of Canada came by a tidy sum of cash on that occasion; seven years later, it would found the Parti Québécois on its Montreal downtown business premises), secularization of the public education system, and a secret design (not mentioned by Bédard, which surfaced in my own research) to attempt to construct a Communist plan to run Quebec.
The “myth” of Quebec’s backwardness before the 1960 Liberal win still commands the airwaves at the Communist Broadcasting — I mean Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
At http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/jean-lesage-elected-premier-of-quebec, we find it at the very top of “The Story” of the 1960 election:
“It’s 1960 and Quebec is at the dawn of the Quiet Revolution. A progressive, urban and modern Quebec is quickly overtaking the old Quebec, characterized as conservative, patronage-oriented, rural and under the thumb of the Roman Catholic Church” …
Bédard’s lecture is well written, amply footnoted, and my additional reason for enjoying it is that two of my anticommunist “old friends” have shown up: Robert Rumilly and Patrick Walsh.
Is Trudeau Really a Democrat?
Trudeau’s pretext for telling his readers to vote “Liberal” on June 22nd, 1960, is “democracy first”.
It was the “Liberals”, Trudeau says, who alone were willing to form a coalition to force Maurice Duplessis and the Union Nationale out of office. Because the watchword is “democracy first”, says Trudeau, the provincial “Liberals” have earned his readers’ vote.
This is a very nice pretext, in particular since Pierre Elliott Trudeau cares little if anything for “democracy” (at least as we envision it in our supreme Westminster Parliament of 1867).
In his 1977 book Viva Chairman Trudeau, commencing at the segment entitled “NDP Rule by Proxy – 25 April 73”, we have a portrait of the extent to which Pierre Elliott Trudeau is attached to “democracy” as a principle to influence the vote.
Since the life of the Trudeau minority government depends on the 31 socialist votes in the Commons, what the New Democrats want they usually get.
The pattern of the informal coalition was set the very first day the 29th Parliament met.
From then on the Trudeau-Lewis organic understanding has been refined into a smooth symbiosis which is in fact giving the country NDP government by proxy. Quite an achievement for a party which polls about 17 per cent of the vote.
Handy Paradox – 19 Sept. 73
One of the paradoxes of the 1972 federal election is that the near defeat of the Liberal party has increased Trudeau’s operational scope.
Since his minority government needs the NDP votes in the Commons to stay in office, Trudeau can now explain his version of any portion of the NDP program as an inescapable tactical necessity to keep the Liberal party in power.
It wasn’t David Lewis or Tommy Douglas but Pierre Trudeau who hit upon the idea of using the Liberal party for pushing the country down the socialist drain. The fact that the scheme now needs open NDP support in the Commons simplifies, not complicates, matters.
Political Piracy – 20 March 74
Until the 1972 election, opposition of genuine liberals to Trudeau’s pre-conceived policies of armchair socialism managed to blunt or moderate the illiberal impulses of his administration. Since late 1972 this internal check has been rendered ineffective.
The survival argument smothers any objection to anything the Trudeaucrats present as necessary payment for NDP support. The slightest internal criticism of the Trudeau-Lewis symbiosis is easily silenced by a simple question: “Do you want our party to stay in power?”
Since keeping their party in power comes first with virtually all the ranking Grits, Trudeau is now free to impose on the country the framework of “socialist” policies he had trouble smuggling through in bits and pieces before the excuse of buying NDP support swept aside all objections.
The New Democrats find the arrangement ideal because it gives them more power than they could ever expect to get from their voting support, without at the same time burdening them with any of the responsibilities that go with exercise of power. What it all boils down to is political piracy.
Old Ties – 12 Dec. 73
A few observers are now coming close to my long-standing contention of Trudeau’s use of the Liberal party as a camouflage for NDP rule.
The latest discoverer of Trudeau’s capture and manipulation of the Liberal party for the socialists is columnist Charles Lynch.
“What we may be seeing,” writes Lynch, “is the re-emergence of Trudeau the convinced socialist, acting on the beliefs he held until he put them into mothballs when he joined the Liberal party at the age of 45.
“If this is so, as recent events suggest, it means that I have been misreading this minority … Parliament in supposing that a reluctant Trudeau was yielding to NDP demands against his will …”
A wisened Lynch then goes on to say that “the picture changes somewhat if we perceive Trudeau the socialist emerging from the Parliamentary woodword, using the threat of the NDP to bend, if not break, the moderate Liberals in his cabinet and his caucus, and happy to be getting on with the building of a Canadian New Jerusalem.”
This, of course, should have been obvious all along, and certainly since the 1972 election. Why, then, was the perception of virtually all our political commentators clouded for so long?
Lynch explains: “So much has been written about Trudeau the small-c conservative that we have almost forgotten his old political roots, which were closely intertwined with the latter-day CCF and the early-day NDP.”
It’s not the whole explanation. It leaves out the sad fact that writing about Trudeau’s political roots means risking ridicule, condemnation and ostracism.
Hypocrisy – 4 Jan. 74
Trudeau’s claim that the New Democrats are not directing the ship but following it is justified. He does not need them as navigators, because the general direction of their course has always been his own. But he needs them for a semblance of legitimacy of his continued command.
In that sense the ship of state has now been actually steered for over a year by the 31 official socialists in the Commons, for without their support Trudeau and his crew could not hold on to the controls after the 1972 election.
David Lewis’ claim that “we were elected to make parliament work” is cynical hypocrisy. Parliament represents the will of the people, not the will of any one of its members. In the 1972 election the will of the people signified rejection of the Trudeau regime, without conferring the mandate to govern on any other party. The New Democrats, who polled less than 18 per cent of the votes cast, certainly did not receive a mandate to defy the will of the majority of the electorate in nine out of Canada’s ten provinces.
Union Veto – 13 Feb. 74
By keeping in office a government rejected by the majority of the electorate in all the provinces but one, the New Democrats are not only in contempt of the democratic process but are now primarily responsible for the continued mismanagement of the country.
The Facade of Quebec “Separatism”
In closing, and in terms of a broader conclusion to be drawn from Trudeau’s 1960 support for the “Liberals”, the apparent “struggle” of the federal government of Canada, first under Pearson, then under Trudeau, and afterward under others, with a “separatist” Quebec, is a cleverly staged sham. It is meant to hide a confidence game and close cooperation among Communists top and bottom who have penetrated both the federal and provincial levels. They are manipulating their way toward dismantling Canada precisely to give each of the Provinces all the “instruments” necessary … to construct a Communist Plan.
And they are doing so with the full support of the family which has hijacked the Crown and Throne, and the democratic liberty of Canada.
1 Jean-Louis Gagnon was a Soviet agent, one of many exposed by Igor Gouzenko. Gagnon escaped the Canadian “spy trials” (he fled to Brazil) with the help of Mitchell Sharp, the latter a future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and a future adviser to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Gérin-Lajoie moreover knew full well what the effect would be of interfering with Education. In his 1951 article in French for the Canadian Bar Review (Vol xxix), “Du pouvoir d’amendement constitutionnel au Canada,” Rhodes Scholar Lajoie correctly observed (pages 1174-1175), translation:
L’intervention fédérale dans le domaine de l’enseignement pourrait saper à leur base toutes les institutions québécoises. L’octroi de subsides fédéraux pourrait à lui seul produire une petite révolution. Imaginons, par exemple, que le gouvernement fédéral décide de donner un octroi substantiel à certaines facultés universitaires à l’exclusion d’autres facultés auxquelles la province de Québec attache la plus grande importance, contrairement aux autres provinces. Les répercussions ne seraient pas lentes à se faire sentir dans l’orientation de la pensée, le sens des valeurs et, éventuellement, les institutions sociales.
Federal intervention in the field of education might undermine at their base all of Quebec’s institutions. The granting of federal subsidies alone might produce a small revolution. Imagine, for example, that the federal government decides to give a substantial grant to certain university faculties to the exclusion of other faculties to which the Province of Quebec attaches the greatest importance, contrary to the other provinces. The repercussions would not be slow to be felt in the orientation of thinking, the sense of values and, ultimately, the social institutions.
Il ne s’agît pas de représenter le gouvernement fédéral comme ennemi du Québec. Loin de là! Mais le danger existe qu’en étendant les compétences fédérales à des domaines qui ne sont pas purement économiques, la nouvelle législation soit orientée — bien inconsciemment, peut-être — d’une façon défavorable au Québec. Voilà pourquoi la province s’inquiète toujours des agrandissements des compétences fédérales, et pourquoi son gouvernement exige un droit de contrôle sur tout amendement à ce sujet.
This is not to depict the federal government as the enemy of Quebec. Far from it! But the danger exists that in extending the federal powers into fields which are not purely economic, the new legislation might be oriented — quite unconsciously, perhaps — in a way unfavorable to Quebec. That is why the province is always concerned about enlargements of federal competencies, and why its government requires a right to control all such amendments.
What happened in Quebec under Lesage and Lajoie after their 1960 win was far more devastating than federal intervention or a constitutional amendment. With no hint in their platform, Quebec’s Red Liberals implemented their own “revolution” against Quebec’s ancient institutions.
Lesage called new Quebec elections in 1962. Says Wikipedia:
“In an unusual move, the election was called just two years after the previous 1960 general election. Lesage sought a mandate for the nationalization of the electricity industry, declaring it a single issue important enough to stake his political career on it.”
Two other “single issues” leap to mind which are more important, and for which no mandate was ever requested:
1). destroy Quebec’s public education system, designed to preserve the cultures and peoples who had founded Canada’s ethnic federation in 1867;
2) intent of the Lesage “Liberals” to construct a Communist Plan to run the economy, an undertaking apparently quietly begun in 1961 according to page 103 of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois.
I can find no documented source alleging that the voters turfed out Lesage in 1966 over the education reforms. The only reference to the subject at all says the Union Nationale alleged that Lesage would remove the crucifix from the schools if re-elected. I sense that this reference probably hides deeper public discontent which the controllers of the “Memory Hole” have left unrecorded.
3 In Part 2 of his 7-part series on the Moscow Economic Summit penned by Trudeau for Le Devoir i 1952, Trudeau summarizes his own and the visits of other Summit delegates to the various places of worship of the different denominations. However, he had to admit that for want of religious instruction (no doubt suppressed in the Soviet schools), mostly only the elderly still attended religious services. The destruction of the French Catholic education system by the Lesage cabinet in the early 1960s would obviously have the same effect here. Indeed, in Montreal, once called the “city of a thousand bells,” the steeples of its many churches have fallen silent. Said Trudeau:
Or, les jours de grande fete, ces temples sont remplis à craquer, — mais uniquement de vieillards. La liberté de culte n’est donc pas éteinte; mais faute d’instruction religieuse cette chrétienté est amputée de sa jeunesse. Sauf en Georgie toutefois, où les jeunes paraissent encore assez dévots.
Now, on high feast days, these temples are filled to bursting — but only by the elderly. Freedom of religion is therefore not extinct; but for want of religious instruction this Christendom is cut off from youth. Except in Georgia, however, where the young seem still rather devout.
– 30 –