News-Slanting and Communist-line Propaganda on the CBC

Category:  Historical reprints
Source:  Brief of Ron Gostick.  Cover:  This brief deals with alleged news slanting and communist line propaganda on the C.B.C.  Brief #145, ex. 285

Download scans of the original Brief from the National Archives, together with a few more related vintage news items:&nbsp: https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZkVfeZBJNB4XlG1f43QH4kUshSBp8TnD37


 

Nota Bene:  My discussion of this Brief follows below. (Admin. NSIM)

 


 

BRIEF

respecting

News-Slanting and Communist-line
Propaganda on the CBC

 

Presented to:    ROYAL COMMISSION ON BROADCASTING,
                          Ottawa, Canada

by:     RON GOSTICK of Flesherton, Ontario,
          Editor of The Canadian Intelligence Service
          and director of The Canadian Anti-Communist League

April 13, 1956

 
The Free World is spending immense financial resources combatting the international Communist conspiracy which already holds in slavery over 900 million souls.  In Canada the struggle is yet a ‘cold’ one — a psychological, ideological battle for the minds and souls of men.  Our defence, therefore, requires not only military preparedness, but full information and a thorough understanding of Communist strategies, tactics and propaganda.

The CBC should be our most powerful cold war weapon in the defence of this nation and Christian civilization.  Yet, it is a disturbing paradox that as we spend billions of dollars in defence against the Communist conspiracy, the Number 1 weapon in our ideological arsenal, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, more and more reflects the leftwing, pro-Communist propaganda line.

Communist Propaganda Line

Perhaps the best approach to this question is to lay down the Red propaganda line, and then compare the CBC’s line with it over a period of years.  The Communist ‘line’ in recent years has included:

1.  Promoting of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and trade with Red regimes.

2.  Disparaging Chiang Kai-shek and demanding ‘recognition’ (diplomatic facilities and privileges) and a UN seat for Red China.

3.  Smearing and ridiculing of anti-Communist leadership throughout the world, while praising the fence-sitters and neutralists in the cold war.

4.  Popularizing of a smear vocabulary — including such terms as:  guilt by association, hysteria, witch-hunt, fascist, book-burning, reactionary, etc. — to be hurled at those who effectively oppose Red activities.

The CBC Propaganda Line

While it would take weeks of this Commission’s time to study even a summary of all the Red-slanted CBC propaganda of recent years, following are a few typical examples.

Oct. 15/50:  Harold Isaacs promoted recognition of Red Chinese regime and its admission to the UN.  Reds pictured as agrarian reformers (a few days later they carried their ‘agrarian reform’ into Tibet and then into Korea).

Nov. 12/50:  Max Freedman expressed opposition to anti-Communist Senator Hickenlooper of Iowa:  lamented defeat of anti-McCarthy Sen. Tydings; spoke glowingly of Mrs. Helen Gahagen Douglas, California darling of the leftwing clique, and disparagingly of Sen. Nixon (his committee exposed Alger Hiss) who defeated her at the polls.

Nov. 21/51:  Mrs. Dorothy Steeves advocated that Red China (then at war with Canada) should be admitted to the UN and given Formosa, at the expense of anti-Communist government of Chiang Kai-shek.

The CBC, in the cultural field, during 1951 sponsored several speakers, including Dr. Brock Chisolm, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Anna Freud, Dr. Ewen Cameron, Professor Fred Hoyle, and Dr. Carl Binger — who attacked religion, Christian ethics and morality.

And during the past five years such propagandists as Max Freedman, Matthew Halton, Alexander Uhl, Frank H. Underhill, James McConaughy, Murray Balantyne, Maxwell Cohen, and many others, have used CBC “Capital Reports” and “Week-end Reviews” to attack and smear Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fight against Reds in the US Government.

June 14/53:  Charles Woodsworth (Capital Report) attacked anti-Communist Syngman Rhee.

July 19/53:  Anne Francis advocated ‘recognition’ of, and a UN seat for, Red China.

Jan. 17/54:  Roger Baldwin, chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, and associated with no less than 40 Communist ‘fronts’ according to chairman Harold Velde of the Un-American Activities Committee, was a special CBC speaker.  He attacked Sen. McCarthy and all congressional investigations of subversion; boasted that his organization opposed the prosecution of the Red leaders convicted in 1949, opposed loyalty oaths, opposed immigration policies which prohibit Reds from entering the US, and opposed US insistence on loyalty from her UN personnel.

April 15/54:  Ralph Lapp, speaking from Washington over the CBC, defended Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who had just run afoul of US security requirements through his long recorde of Communist association and support.

May 2/54:  Matthew Halton (C.R.) supported Red Chinese admission to UN.

July 12/54:  James M. Minnifee (C.R.) disparaged Chiang Kai-shek.

This last year, as the emphasis in the Red line shifted more and more to ‘peaceful co-existence’, this whole pack of CBC commentators has parroted the ‘line’.

Even in ‘drama’ we find the ‘line’.  I shall not in this brief deal with the licentiousness and disregard for Christian morality in certain CBC productions.  But it is significant that even in the drama section of the CBC we find the Red propaganda line.  For instance, on the Sunday night (Mar. 17/54) CBC play we heard these lines:

” …You think he is a Communist?  Oh, Joe, this isn’t the United States with its witch-hunting.  This is Canada.”

The foregoing are but a few typical examples of the almost daily Commie ‘line’ carried over the CBC.

The Strange Case of Reuben Ship

CBC policy has perhaps never been more accurately reflected than it was in 1954 in the strange case of Reuben Ship.

On May 30, 1954, the CBC produced and broadcast a Commie-line propaganda play smearing Senator McCarthy and investigations of subversion, written by one Reuben Ship.  A New York Times  report (June 1/54) read:

“Canadians were chuckling today over the ribbing given Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in a burlesque of a Senate committee hearing broadcast last night.  The broadcast originated in Toronto and was carried by the Trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

“The play was ‘The Investigator’ by Reuben Ship of Montreal, with John Drainie of Montreal playing the title role with such accent, intonation of voice and mannerisms of speech that many listeners thought for a time that they were listening to a recording of the Wisconsin Republican Senator.

“The play concerns an investigation ‘up there’ after the investigator is killed in a plane crash.”

And just who is Reuben Ship?  The New York Times  itself supplies the answer:

“Mr. Ship was deported from the United States last year as a result of testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that identified him as a member of the Communist party.”

The files of the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities contain the following information on Mr. Reuben Ship:

He was a witness before this Committee during public hearings in Los Angeles, September 24, 1951 (Communism in Motion-Picture Industry), Part 5, pages 1771-1775).  At that time Ship, under the privilege of the ‘Fifth Amendment’, refused to answer questions concerning present or past membership in the Communist Party.

Referring to the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, of wihch he had been treasurer, Owen Vinson gave the following testimony:

Mr. Tavenner:  Ruben (sic.) Ship appeared before this committee last September and refused to answer any material questions that were asked him.  Was he a member of that group?

Mr. VinsonYes; he was.

Mr. Tavenner:  How do you know that?

Mr. Vinson:  He attended meetings and I collected dues from him, also.

Mr. Tavenner:  What was his occupation?

Mr. Vinson:  Radio writer.

— (Communism in Los Angeles Professional Groups, Part 3, October 2, 1952, p. 4078.)

Paul Marion, an actor who was a member of the Communist Party from early 1946 until early 1948, in listing for the Committee those members of the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles to which he had belonged, named Ruben (sic.) Ship.

Mrs. Pauline Swanson Townsend, a member of the Communist Party from 1943 to 1948, testified before the Committee on March 12, 1953, that Reuben Ship’s membership card in the Communist Party was turned in through her branch.

William L. Alland, motion-picture producer and former Communist Party member, testified before the Committee on November 23, 1953, in part:

Mr. Tavenner:  Now, will you tell the committee, please, what the principal activity was of this group of the Communist Party organized within the radio field?

Mr. Alland:  Its principal activity was attempting to control the Radio Writers Guild … They wanted the Radio Writers Guild to try to get the Screen Writers Guild to be more lenient in its actions and attitudes toward the Communist members in the Screen Writers Guild.  They tried to get its members in any way possible to censure and block the work of the Un-American Activities Committee, certainly, and to in any way possible aid and support those people who had been exposed by the committee …

Mr. Tavenner:  Can you recall members of your Communist Party group who actually became officials in the Radio Writers’ Guild as a result of the activities of your group?

Mr. Alland:  … Reuben Ship was an official …

COUNTERATTACK, the authoritative New York report on Communist activities, in its January 21/55 issue, revealed that the tape recording of the CBC production of “The Investigator” was sold to Ship, and from it a long-playing record was produced, handled in New York by Walter Colquitt and John Bubbers (B & B Recording, Inc.).

The Daily Worker  expressed its pleasure over this CBC venture, boasting that the sale of records would not be less than 100,000 — at $5.95 each!

Thus did the CBC not only produce and feed to the Canadian public, at its own expense, a Red-line propaganda piece, but it also helped to raise funds for ‘Fifth Amendment’ Ship and his associates!

Reports indicate that there was a heavy mail sent to CBC Chairman Dunton’s office, protesting this production.  One citizen who protested advised me that Mr. Dunton’s reply was to the effect that it was not proved that Ship was a Communist.  A study of the foregoing testimony would indicate that Mr. Dunton has a cavalier disregard for evidence, at least when it concerns pro-Communist writers.

Overt CBC Communist Support

Following are a few examples of overt CBC support of the Communist conspiracy in Canada:

  • During the federal election in 1953 the LPP (Communist Party) was given free time on the CBC.  At that very time thousands of Canadian boys were in Korea risking their lives, supposedly in defence of the very things which the Reds in Canada, with the co-operation of the CBC, were working to destroy.  Combat Communism in Korea — but subsidize it at home!

  • The CBC televised the 1954 May Day parade and rally in Vancouver, addressed by such Red leaders as A. A. MacLeod (Ontario Red Leader) and Harvey Murphy of the West Coast.  The Communist weekly, The Canadian Tribune  (May 17.54) congratulated the CBC for carrying this propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.  Again, this is a case of taxing Canadians to arm against Communism, and at the same time taxing them to buy TV facilities for the Reds to spread their poison in Canada.

  • The same Commie weekly, in June of 1954, warmly praised the CBC for its Reuben Ship production; and in September of 1954 reported favourably on Canadian TV development as a government monopoly, beginning to carry educational programs into Canadian schools. 1  A letter published in the February 27, 1956, issue of this Red organ expresses pride in the CBC, referring to it as the “most democratic institution in Canada.”

CBC Communist Line Stepped Up

The fantastic success of this Red infiltration is evident from the glowing accounts of CBC programs recently carried in the Communist press.

Last October 1st, CBC carried the last of its Focus — series — a two-hour Commie play entitled We Shall Not Be Moved, which received two full columns of build-up in the September 25th CBC Times, and rapturous applause from the Red press.

The U.S. West Coast Communist organ, Daily People’s World (Oct. 13), reported:

“The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. made radio history Oct. 1 when it presented a two-hour special program, ‘We Shall Not Be Moved,’ in which Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, now jailed as a Smith Act victim, is portrayed as a leading figure.”

This CBC production featured a recording by Paul Robeson, the notorious Communist-front personality and money-raiser.  The People’s World  boasts that it “took over the best possible broadcasting time — 8 to 10 p.m. Saturday.

There were no interruptions — even the usual station breaks were omitted.”

The play glorified Elizabeth Gurley Flynn as a “rebel girl,” and People’s World, hardly able to conceal its mirth, suggested:

“Perhaps someone has made a recording of this program as was done with the play ‘The Investigator’ from the same network.  It would be a smash hit.”

The Canadian Communist weekly, The Tribune  (Oct. 17), carried this letter to Elizabeth Flynn:

“You were not in your cell Saturday evening, October 1st.  You travelled across the Canadian border.  You were in many Canadian homes. …”

And the same Communist organ (Oct. 10), under a 3-column headline “THREE CHEERS FOR THE CBC,” eulogizes it in these terms:

“For the excellence of this program all concerned must be congratulated.  John Reeves, the producer, deserves special applause.  He struck a new vein for Canadian radio to work, and it is a rich one.”

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Elizabeth Gurley Flynn is one of the leaders of the Communist conspiracy in the U.S., and is presently serving a prison term for her role in Red subversion in America.

The Communist propaganda line today is to paint Communists as persecuted champions of the working class, make the public believe that there really is no Communist menace, and defeat or emasculate anti-Communist security measures in order to spring their convicted agents from prison and open the way for further infiltration.

This CBC production, by glorifying the Red prisoner, and undermining security measures, followed every turn in the Communist line.  Thus, as the U.S. cracks down on subversion, the CBC is used to beam the Red line to the U.S. and at the same time brainwash Canadians.

It is difficult to ujnderstand how such an incredible situation has developed in our CBC.  This material is not merely slanted in favour of Communism — it IS Communism, pure and simple.  The people responsible for staging such productions must be either outright Communists, or ‘egg-heads’ under the influence and control of those directing today’s Red line.

CBC Bias Widely Recognized

That the disturbing leftwing, anti-Christian influence I observe in the CBC is no figment of the imagination, is confirmed when we note but a few of the increasing protests.

Dr. W. A. Brown, Lion’s Club Governor for Renfrew, in 1951 told the Ottawa Lions Club:

“I am opposed to the godless vaporings of some top United Nations members of the medical profession heard over the government-owned radio system on a recent Sunday evening.”

Lions International, he said, was “a Godfearing, Christian organization, and we are not going to stand for some of this CBC broadcasting.”

The Canadian Slovak League, in a brief to the Ministers of External Affairs and National Defence in 1952, relating to CBC-Slovakia policy, said:

“The Slovaks are a conservative people with an absolute Catholic majority (about 85%), but the propaganda from Canada for Slovakia is performed by this Staff of Employees:  Dr. Schmolka, Mr. Rejhon and his brother, Reichman, Stauber, and Williams, all of whom are of the Jewish religion … and of a deep socialistic conviction … and also three Czechs, Volesky, Skvor and Mrs. Vasak.  We strongly doubt … that this is a good staff for the defence of these (Christian and national) ideals which today alone strengthen nations in their resistance.”

The leading Western Canada weekly, Camrose Canadian (July 22/53), commenting on a CBC report by Anne Francis in favour of recognition of Red China, described the talk as “pretty hot socialist propaganda.”  And on Sept. 9/53, commenting on a series of CBC talks, observed:  “An outsider could readily label each speaker as a Communist fellow traveller … and we Canadians are paying these men …”

The Ensign  (July 31/54) said editorially:

“The ‘radio curtain’ can be noted also in Canada in the consistency of choice of political commentators on the nationally owned networks, who are most critical of Washington and most sympathetic to the recognition of Red China.

“It is interesting how a conspiracy of silence towards those advocating contrary views is a growing problem in many countries. …”

And on October 10/54 The Ensign  observed:

“What the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through a consistent choice of political commentators seems to be advocating is what Moscow desires.”

The Edmonton Journal, two years ago, observed editorially:

“Canadian listeners would like to have a balanced, objective account … Instead, all the commentators on this program, whether Canadians or Americans, give us virtually nothing except straight Democratic Party doctrine.”

Why The Strange Conformity ?

Why do the overwhelming majority of CBC commentators consistently follow the line promoted by the Communists, and consistently attack the most militant anti-Communist leaders and measures?

Is it because only individuals holding such pink views are selected consistently by the CBC ?

Or is it because reporters are anxious for these CBC contracts, and promote the line which they know, from experience, will assure them of more contracts?

It is respectfully submitted, gentlemen, that the CBC should be our most powerful weapon in the present ideological struggle, but that the evidence presented demonstrates that all too often it is actually used to further the Communist propaganda line.

It is hoped that the information contained in this brief, and the questions raised, will assist the Commission in finding and recommending action for the eliminating of Communist propaganda from our CBC.

– 30 –

 
______
 
1  Constitutionally, the federal government (and thus the CBC) is denied (local) Education powers.  This was pointed out by Quebec historian, Robert Rumilly, also in 1956, the year of this Brief, in his L’Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada).  Radio-Canada is the French name of the CBC in Quebec.  From page 95:

Radio-Canada complète et soutient le réseau gauchiste qui s’est mis en place, dans notre province, depuis quelques années.

Il est déjà inconstitutionnel que l’État fédéral accapare une tranche de l’éducation –- domaine réservé aux provinces –- comme il le fait par le truchement de Radio-Canada.  Les tribunaux ont reconnu à l’État fédéral le droit de réglementer l’usage des ondes.  Ils ne lui ont reconnu aucun droit sur l’éducation populaire.  La Société Radio-Canada, telle qu’elle fonctionne, est illégale.  Il est doublement intolérable que la radio et la télévision d’État d’expression française, vivant des deniers du peuple canadien-français, cherche à l’entraîner vers une idéologie contraire à ses traditions et à ses aspirations nationales.

Radio-Canada completes and has been supporting the leftist network set up in our province in the last few years.

It is unconstitutional already that the Federal state monopolizes a section of education –- a domain reserved to the provinces –- which it does by the interposition of Radio-Canada.  The courts have recognized to the Federal state the right to regulate the use of the air­waves.  They have not conceded to it any right of public education.  Radio-Canada, the corporation, such as it functions, is illegal.  It is doubly intolerable that French-language State radio and television, living off public funds of the French-Canadian people, seek to drag them towards an ideology contrary to their own traditions and their national aspirations.

However, the CBC today has done far more than to “merely” invade the “exclusive” provincial Education power.  Major mega-movie-length series productions, edified by the CBC web site, have revised Canada’s history while offering course plans and “educational” packages to teachers Canada-wide.  Thus, the CBC conscripts teachers to indoctrinate, meaning brainwash, Canadian children at the expense of their parents, the taxpayers, both federal and provincial.

But with what are they indoctrinating our children?  Well, if you were the Soviet Union, having feigned collapse with intent to penetrate and merge with socialized and restructured western countries (as warned by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn), imagine your advantage if the children of these countries could be made to grow up not merely believing their nation was on the brink of collapse, but literally expecting and accepting that it was going to happen.  And that this feigned collapse of their own countries was the signal for the long-planned Communist restructuring to carry off the merger.

In Canada, our children are being brainwashed to view the Communist dismantling and restructuring of Canada as inevitable.  This is not “education”.

This is what the CBC has accomplished for the benefit of world Communism and the advance of the underground Soviet Union, with its “history” segment on the “struggle” of the (Communist) Parti Québécois with (Communist) prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entitled:  “A Fragile Unity”, produced by Canada’s man on the KGB payroll, Mark Starowicz.
 

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

The images above, top-down, are taken from [1] the 1968 organization by René Lévesque of the (Communist) Parti Québécois, implying, of course, the 1980 referendum conducted by him unlawfully as contrary to Confederation; [2] Pierre Elliott Trudeau of the “secret committee” of Power Corporation which appointed Lévesque to set up the PQ; and [3] the 1982 false “patriation” which overthrew the lawful Parliament and Legislatures of Canada using the Sovereign as the front to pull it off.  The title of the episode, “A Fragile Unity”, however, impliedly refers to the 1995 referendum, also unlawful, also under the PQ, and which most likely was rigged, but failed nonetheless thanks to a last-minute Canada Rally organized by a local businessman.

The “patriation” image implies what those behind the scenes know; had the 1980 referendum pulled off a “Yes”, United Kingdom, under the pretense of constitutional “amendment” of the British North America Acts (1867 et seq), was to pass a “law” “patriating” a new constitution disassembling Canada into a string of “associated” proto-Communist banana republics.

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests


In 1975, Progressive-Conservative Member of the Canadian Parliament, Tom Cossitt (for Leeds) tried repeatedly to open an inquiry into the KGB’s Konstantin Geyvandov, a Pravda  correspondent, and money received from him and promises made to him by CBC producer, Mark Starowicz:
 
According to just one of his interventions in federal Hansard, on the 12th of June 1975, the Hon. Thomas Charles Cossitt said in the House:

Mr. Speaker. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the following motion:

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt, a Canadian hero.

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt,
a Canadian hero.

That a special committee of this House be set up forthwith to investigate all activities of Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov while he was in Canada, that the committee be charged with examining all connections with this matter on the part of Mark Starowicz, executive producer of the CBC program “As It Happens”, that the committee be given power to summon any persons whatsoever as witnesses that it deems advisable, that files on the matter including those of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, External Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing the activities of Geivandov, Starowicz, and others, be produced to the committee and, finally, that such files, pending examination by the committee, be forthwith placed in the safe custody of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to guarantee their safety from destruction for political or any other purposes whatsoever.

In 1979, the irrepressible Mr. Cossitt is continuing his effort to launch a formal investigation:

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity as a result of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) this morning at his press conference, that there was concern within the CBC regarding an individual who allegedly assisted a KGB representative in Canada, and I might add that this individual had been previously identified in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general of Ontario as CBC producer Mark Starowicz.  I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):

Whereas CBC producer Mark Starowicz assisted KGB agent Konstantine Geyvandov in compiling information on certain persons, allegedly on six different occasions, and also promisedto act on behalf of Soviet interests“, that the CBC be required to give a public explanation as to why Mark Starowicz continues as producer of the public opinion influencing program “Sunday Morning” and, finally, as to why he is being considered at this very moment to head all CBC national news and public affairs programming.

In 1983, on Friday, March the 4th, another Progressive-Conservative Member, the Hon. Elmer MacIntosh MacKay (for Central Nova) picks up where Mr. Cossitt left off (I have not cited all of Mr. Cossitt’s interventions).  Mr. McKay will quote newspaperman Peter Worthington quoting the RCMP.

Madam Speaker, some years ago the then Member for Leeds [Mr. Cossitt] noted for the first time in this House the name of CBC producer Mark Starowicz in connection with the expelled KGB agent, Konstantin Geyvandov, who masqueraded in Ottawa as a Soviet journalist.  Two years later the Attorney General of Ontario quoted in the Legislature an RCMP document according to which a Canadian media person over a period of five years was selling Geyvandov reports at clandestine meetings.  Next day CBC producer Mark Starowicz identified himself as the person who, between 1970 and 1973, had accepted money for reports written for a Soviet correspondent in Ottawa.

Three months later Peter Worthington published excerpts from an RCMP document dated March 24, 1976, as well as this passage:

The RCMP report says Pravda’s man in Ottawa, Geyvandov, was expelled from Canada after persuading a Canadian journalist to act on behalf of Soviet interests when reporting Canadian political events. …

I am strongly inclined to believe that the Canadian media person in the McMurtry statement and the Canadian journalist in the report referred to by Mr. Worthington are the same person.  I wrote about it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).  He is reluctant to reveal the man’s identity.  In the meantime, CBC keeps on its payroll a senior executive who, by his own admission, was also on the payroll of a Soviet official and who, I strongly suspect, is the same person identified by the RCMP as acting on behalf of Soviet interests.

I do not believe at this stage that the Liberal Government with its track record –

Two sad ironies:  there has been a Southern-Rhodesian-style coup on Parliament under Trudeau in 1982.  Canada, long occupied, has been dealt a pounding blow.  Men (quoted below) who would be legitimate Members of the House are apparently not aware, although the coup was admitted by one of its perpetrators in 1982, Barry Lee Strayer, in his pair of Cronkite Lectures to a university law faculty.

The other sad irony:  Mr. McKay is not among friends in the House.  The “Madam Speaker” to whom he has addressed his plea is Jeanne Benoit Sauvé, future Governor General of Canada (representing the post-coup Queen) and the wife of ex-Forestry Minister Maurice Sauvé under Soviet agent prime minister Lester Pearson.

Sauvé sat on the Friday-night “secret committee” at Power Corporation where the plans to set up the (Communist) PQ and put (Communist) Trudeau in power to negotiate with it, were incubated.

In fact, both Jeanne and Maurice Sauvé were involved in a Communist front put in place in the 1950s by Soviet-infested British Secret Intelligence (MI6) and the Communist-staffed CIA, at the prompting of British Fabian socialist Sir Stafford Cripps.  The World Association of Youth (WAY), with Member of Parliament Maurice Sauvé as its first president, and his wife at his side, organized youth to help federalize Europe (destroy the nation-state).  In Canada, after 9/11, a similar group emerged under the wing of Sauvé’s Communist PQ:  the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), devoted, like WAY, to subverting our youth to restructure the continent for a federalized North American Union on the EU model.

We can see that for nearly a decade, decent men tried to expose Soviet tool, Mr. Mark Starowicz.  However, I am of the view that the above-said Mr. McMurtry is not to be classed among them; the grounds will appear.

In Ontario Hansard of December 9th, 1977, provincial justice minister, the Hon. Mr. Roy McMurtry, while withholding the name of Mr. Starowicz, had nonetheless to admit:

“… the RCMP concern with individuals in the Waffle was increased when it was found that a Canadian news media person, closely associated with leading people in the Waffle, was meeting clandestinely with Konstantin Geyvandov, a Russian KGB intelligence officer who, between August 1968 and September 1973, operated in Canada as a Pravda correspondent.”

McMurtry continued:

“The RCMP investigation confirmed that this Canadian provided reports to Geyvandov during these clandestine meetings and on at least six occasions was paid money by Geyvandov.  Amongst other things, the Canadian was specifically asked by Geyvandov to provide reports to him on the NDP and the Waffle.

“… The RCMP believed that Geyvandov’s purpose in seeking such reports was to assist the Russian KGB intelligence service in deciding whether the Waffle group or any of its members were worthy of further attention by the KGB.”

The Hon. Mr. Gaunt interjects:

“Now a pipeline right to the Kremlin.”

Ontario justice minister Roy McMurtry in the Ontario Legislature on the 9th of December 1977, failed to name Mark Starowicz, though he had to know his name.  McMurtry seems to me to protect Starowicz when he refers to him simply as “a Canadian news media person”.  McMurtry names the Soviet agent, but not Mark Starowicz, who has been on the KGB’s payroll.

The Kitchen Accord

The Kitchen Accord:  L-R:  Roy McMurtry, Marxist Jean Chrétien,
Saskatchewan’s Roy Romanow — the authors of the Kitchen Accord (1979)

Then, in 1981, McMurtry shows up in the media during the (false) “patriation” as one of three men in the photo at the time of the so-called “Kitchen Accord”.  The “Kitchen Accord”, incorrectly described as an agreement to patriate the Constitution (in the propaganda which serves as “news” in Canada), was in fact a “federal-provincial” agreement to overthrow the Parliament and Legislatures for a new form of non-sovereign government.  It was nothing less than a Southern Rhodesian-style coup d’état, a leftist coup on Canada.  However, it was not challenged, at the UN or elsewhere, and I believe that is because Mrs. Windsor leant herself as the front, visiting Canada personally to “proclaim” it as a constitutional amendment, which it was not.

And here is Roy McMurtry in the middle of it, in the guise of a “justice minister”, lending his title, his name and his face to it.

This suggests to me that McMurtry is a left sympathizer; that he deliberately protected Starowicz by withholding his name from the Ontario Members.  (In fact, I haven’t got any earlier Ontario Hansard than the one I’ve quoted, and which is posted online.  It is always possible that McMurtry mentioned Starowicz on another occasion, but to date I have nothing to suggest that he did.)

Now, McMurtry’s payoff for the “Kitchen Accord”:  a distinguished career under the 1982 coup d’état constitution, culminating in his appointment as Chief Justice of Ontario, the courts now, of course, imposing the illegal Charter.  At his law firm’s web site (Hull & Hull LLP, 2016), the now-retired McMurtry

“was deeply involved in the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  During that period, he also served four years as the Solicitor General for Ontario.”

The law firm also says:

“In February 1996, he [McMurtry] was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario, a capacity in which he served for over 11 years until May 30, 2007.”

That places Mr. McMurtry in the Ontario provincial driver’s seat during the artificial “law suit”, Lalonde v. Ontario 1, concocted out of the wholly staged, “SOS Montfort” protest, for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping with a non-appealed concocted “judgment” of an Ontario court of record, the so-called “unwritten principles” of the 1998 “secession” opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s non-judicial advisory board, to make them look like “law”.  The “principles” then form the basis of the federal Clarity Act, a counterfeit “statute” intended to force Canada to dismantle itself, while authorizing the international community to “recognize” a string of UDIs.  And thus will end Canada’s so-called “fragile unity” (according to former executive producer at the CBC, Mark Starowicz).

In recent results on Google, both Mr. McMurtry and Mr. Starowicz collected their official recognitions fromConfederation Center of the Arts (See:  Previous Symons Medal Recipients:) “Canada”:  http://www.confederationcentre.com/en/news-read-more.php?news=753
 

In Conclusion

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is the ultimate, entirely subversive tool of political control exerted over the educational and communications systems of a target country by a hostile foreign power.  Sun Tzu would be awe-struck.
 

______
 
1  Lalonde c. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 56 OR (3d) 577 [Not online];  Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON CA);
 

Peter Worthington Whitewashed Communist Pierre Trudeau; Paved Way for Justin’s Coronation

Foreword:

This article may be a little bit “jagged” because it has been written and rewritten since 2012, and finally published now. It was first drafted when Justin Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership. It was revised when he began to campaign for the last federal election. And it’s been touched up again. Very hard to get a smooth feel to it, writing it in coffee shops on the free wifi, surrounded by dozens of other gabbing customers. So tonight, I’m finishing it. It’s as done as it’s going to get for now. I hope you get something out of it, nonetheless. (I will fix the shifted html tables another day…. God willing. That’s one of the horrors of WordPress: not compatible with other basic editing languages. And though the tables all work in WordPress installed in xampp, they don’t work here online, who knows why.)

The Real Justin Trudeau: Red Like His Daddy

Please notice that Justin Trudeau, while running for his father’s former job, supports referendums for Quebec to “secede”. However, as we know from the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (PQ) (in English exclusively at this web site, see the sidebar for the free download), Quebec is not becoming “sovereign”, it is becoming Communist. The referendums of 1980 and 1995 were precisely to get this done. See in particular my feature post, Singing Tomorrows, to make this clear.

The referendums are a front and a grave deception in which Trudeau Junior, from a family of Castro-worshippers, is a willing shill:

As reported in the French daily Le Devoir (Justin Trudeau on Quebec referendums) online on 10 August 2015, Justin supports the “secession” of (veiled Communist) Quebec:

Discours référendaire

Referendum position

Il a également ramené à l’avant-scène la position de son adversaire néo-démocrate à l’effet qu’une majorité simple (50 % plus un vote) serait reconnue par Ottawa en cas d’un référendum sur la souveraineté en affirmant qu’elle ne visait qu’à gagner des « points politiques ».

He also brought to the forefront the position of his New Democratic adversary to the effect that a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) would be recognized by Ottawa in case of a refrendum on sovereignty by affirming that it would only seek to win “political points”.

« M. Mulcair a choisi de ramener cet enjeu-là pour faire des gains au Québec, a affirmé M. Trudeau. La réalité, c’est que les Québécois ont besoin d’un nouveau premier ministre conscient de la réalité des défis et [capable de] rassembler le pays au complet. »

“Mr. Mulcair has chosen to return to this issue to make political gains in Quebec,” affirmed Mr. [Justin] Trudeau. The reality is that Quebecers need a new premier who is aware of the reality of the challenges and [capable of] pulling the whole country together.”

Sur cette question, le chef du PLC s’est vanté d’être clair, rappelant que la Cour suprême avait dit que « les chiffres » devront être fixés lors d’un prochain référendum.

On this question, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada brags that he is clear, recalling that the Supreme Court had said that “the figures” must be set during the next referendum.

Lors du premier débat des chefs, la semaine dernière, la question de la clarté référendaire avait donné lieu à un échange mordant entre M. Mulcair et M. Trudeau, ce dernier accusant son rival de diriger un parti qui menace l’unité nationale en raison de sa position.

During the first leaders’ debate, last week, the question of referendum clarity led to a biting exchange between Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau, the latter accusing his rival of leading a party which threatens national unity because of his position.

By “national unity” is meant the complete restructuring of all of Canada on the model of the EUSSR after a “Yes” in Red-led Quebec.

The fact that Justin Trudeau supports the referendum deception proves that he is as much a Communist as his father was. In fact, his father’s becoming Prime Minister and the Parti Québécois being created, were both part of a single scheme hatched by Pierre Trudeau and other federal cabinet ministers from Quebec in the “Liberal” government of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson in 1967. (Search for Pearson’s FBI file at this web site.) Pierre Trudeau’s end of the scheme was to “negotiate” the restructuring of Canada with his Communist friend René Lévesque, who set up the PQ solely on the orders of Pierre Trudeau and the “secret committee” of Power Corporation. The two elements — another prime minister under full control, and a Communist party masked as merely “separatist” were created as a single mechanism to overthrow Canada.

Subscribe to this blog and you will soon learn how veiled Communist and co-founder of the Communist PQ, Guy Bertrand, now plans to force the “secession” of Quebec directly into structural Communism (i.e., Moscow-style expanded and consolidated metropolitan REGIONS (to replace the nation-state) as described by Communist sociologist Morris Zeitlin in “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” an article in the November 8, 1975 issue of the Daily World, the journal of the Communist Party of the USA.)

Peter Worthington Whitewashed Communist Pierre Trudeau; Paved Way for Justin’s Coronation

Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau's Communist father to Justin's political advantage

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage[/caption]On Tuesday night, October 12th, 2012 in the Liberal riding of Papineau in Montreal, federal member of parliament (by which I mean the non-sovereign parliament after the 1982 coup d’état  by his father), Justin Trudeau, held a rally to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership.

Press and media, notably the Washington-based Huffington Post, appeared to be aiming at another “Trudeau coronation” like that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968. Huffington hard-sold the inexperienced and unaccomplished 41-year-old Trudeau knock-off the way the father had been sold in 1968: as masculine.

American anti-Communist, Alan Stang, in the April 1971 offprint of American Opinion, reported the 1968 federal election campaign of Pierre Elliott Trudeau this way:

“The story starts with Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau who, as your newspaper has told you, is irresistibly charmant. By now you know that those admitted to his presence leave forever enchanté. His wit is like champagne, his learning immense. He adores pretty girls. They adore him. His overpowering masculinity may well destroy the Women’s Liberation Front.”

Again, in 2012, as in ’68, all question of the Trudeaus’ support of Communism was either stifled by the press ignoring it, or countered in advance by unexpected apologists. Stang records the bizarre press-laundering of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Communist views and background in his 1968 run for the Prime Minister’s Office:

Early in 1968, Pierre announced his availability. Mike [Soviet agent and prime minister, Lester Pearson] dropped the word that Pierre was his choice. And suddenly, with the precision of the New York Philharmonic, the Canadian Press began to sell Pierre to the people. His Communist record was simply ignored. Attempts to discuss it were branded as “hate.” Canadian women read instead about his intense masculinity. So blatant was the blackout of Pierre’s Communist background that the Calgary Herald refused an anti-Trudeau ad composed of passages from his own writings. The Toronto Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star also refused ads to detail his Communist background. And so complete has been the blackout that in January, 1971, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservatives — who correspond roughly to our Republicans — demanded an investigation of the government-owned C.B.C. network.

According to Stang, there were “notable exceptions” to the 1968 media blackout of Pierre Trudeau’s blatant Communism. Among them were “Peter Worthington and Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram”.

Sad to say, Peter Worthington – who, during Justin Trudeau’s 2013 Liberal leadership campaign was a vigorous 86 year-old-blogger with the Toronto Sun – has been crossed off the list of “exceptions” to the flagrant media cover-up of the pro-Communist Trudeaus.

Sadder still, Worthington became not merely a Trudeau apologist, but a willful subverter, concealing by silence as to the facts, Pierre’s forced march of Canada into North American Soviet Union under an incoming Red World Order. In this way, Worthington cleared the path for Justin to the Canadian Throne.

In the February 26, 2013, Toronto Sun, Worthington baldly declares (without proving it) that so-called “Liberal” Justin, who was then running for the Liberal leadership, is not the (Communist) that Worthington had presumed his father was [Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Worthington went further:

“It wasn’t Pierre Trudeau’s flamboyant style that was offensive to people like me, it was his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions and potentially damaging to the country.” [Emphasis added.]

Trudeau didn’t like the military, ducked serving in the Second World War and instead mocked it as a youth of military age. He aligned himself with Marxists, attended a post-war, Soviet-sponsored, so-called economic conference in Moscow for fellow travellers, and then falsely claimed he’d thrown snowballs at Stalin’s statue (in April). [More emphasis.]

(That latter story is the source of the domain name, NoSnowinMoscow.com.)

He revered Mao Tse-tung (now called Mao Zedong), admired Castro, felt the KGB was similar to the RCMP, and he seemed to reject the overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union was obsessed with world domination and with subverting democracies.

Worthington says the “economic conference” in Moscow in 1952 was “Soviet sponsored”. He says Trudeau merely “attended” that conference as a “fellow traveller”. Anti-communist Alan Stang in 1971 is more clear. Stang revealed that Trudeau led a Communist delegation at Moscow, all expenses paid by Canadian Communist Party nickel. Quebec historian Robert Rumilly has colorfully dubbed Pierre a “pilgrim of Moscow“.

Worthington said Pierre “revered Mao Tse-tung”; he forgot to mention the details. Alan Stang supplements in CANADA How The Communists Took Control (offprint, American Opinion, April 1971):

“Pierre apparently had developed a taste for leading delegations to Communist countries. In 1960 he led another — to Communist China. He participated in a Communist “victory celebration.” He met his idol, Mao Tse-tung. He collaborated on a book called Two Innocents In Red China. (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1968.)”

There is a big difference between being a “fellow traveller”, or a curious inquirer, and in fact leading Communist delegations at Moscow and in newly conquered Red China.

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

 
Pierre Merely “admired Castro”?

The entire Trudeau family adopted Cuba’s Red Butcher as their “faithful friend”. The entire Trudeau family are Red shills and useful idiots.

The Last Days of the Patriarchby Alexandre Trudeau illustrates the intimate, bizarre relationship of the whole Trudeau clan with a Communist dictator. Justin’s brother, Alexandre, unselfconsciously reveals the depth and effects of that relationship in his heart-felt elegy in 2006 to Castro which he penned in English for Peter Worthington’s own Toronto Sun, and in French for La Presse.

The occasion was the birthday of dictator, Fidel Castro, who had turned 80 and transferred his responsibilities to his brother, Vice-President Raúl Castro. (Raúl assumed the full presidency in 2008.)

The personal friendship of Pierre Trudeau and of his wife and three sons with Fidel Castro, is politically problematic. What, precisely, was the effect on Justin Trudeau of this close personal family relationship with Castro?

One son (the late Micha) was a personal favorite of Castro’s; the other son — Alexandre — is clearly under the Castro spell. The mother who raised her sons to adore Fidel, had herself declared that Castro was the ‘sexiest man alive’. Add to this that the mother’s mental instability is well known.

Alexandre’s 2006 article is not only remarkable for its lack of normal moral discernment, but for the apparently thorough Communist brainwashing of its author that it reveals. Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of the author’s brother, the Liberal candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming October 2015 (de facto) federal elections, Justin Trudeau.

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Raised in the same environment, with the same special Cuban friend, by two parents who uncritically adored Castro, Justin — a man with no particular accomplishments but his ability to spend his father’s money — would like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

To that end, in the February 26, 2013 Toronto Sun, journalist Peter Worthington concluded, while offering no proof:

Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Further on, Worthington finishes: “The fact that Justin is likely to be Liberal leader come April 14 (2013) reflects poorly on the lack of potential leaders in that party. But the country already knows that!”

Worthington says that Pierre Trudeau was only “potentially damaging” to Canada. He thus ignores a mountain of discoverable facts which indicate that Prime Minister Justin would scale the Canadian heights in time to complete his father’s work of destroying Canada culturally, politically, and constitutionally for Pierre’s goal of a regional union under a one-world government.

Fact #1: Secession is a Communist tool for restructuring power in target countries

Pierre Trudeau in fact led the preparations for the 1980 Quebec referendum to “secede” from the Prime Minister’s Office, with his Communist pal, René Lévesque, stepping in tune. (The “secession” of Quebec was intended to facilitate the Communist restructuring of all of Canada by “negotiation” of Communist Lévesque with Communist Trudeau – two Red moles working together at two different levels where each had seized government outside the law, as will be clear below.)

Sshhhh! This is not secret information!

Sshhhh!

This is not secret information. In the multi-volume set, Reports on Separatism1, hard-bound in university libraries, we read that in 1977:

Trudeau challenges Lévesque and Quebecers
 
Prime Minister Trudeau, speaking to the Quebec Chamber of Commerce Jan. 28 in Quebec City, challenged Premier René Lévesque to hold a single, binding early referendum on Quebec’s separation.”

Reports on Separatism continues:

“The overriding theme of the speech was a call for Quebec to come to a final decision now, after 20 years of uncertainty about its national identity. “The choice must be definitive and final. If the referendum is lost, it should not be reopened for 15 years,” Mr. Trudeau said.

“It’s not only exciting, it’s a challenge,” he said. “What is not possible is to constantly remain indecisive, to constantly be afraid to make a choice because then others will make it for us.

“Let us demand of our provincial politicians, and of our federal politicians, that the choices be put before us soon, very soon.”

There are no “choices”. The Constitution forbids “choices” and establishes permanent unity in Canada (more clear below in regard to the Long Title, Crown, etc. of the Constitution).

22 February 1977 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s “New World Order” address to Congress.

22 February 1977 – Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s “New World Order” address to Congress.

The following month, on February 22, 1977, Red Mole Trudeau gave a speech to the U.S. Congress under the Jimmy Carter (Rockefeller Trilateral-CFR executive-branch-coup administration). In the United States Congressional Record of February 22, 1977 at page 4905, de facto Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared:

“we have failed to mobilize adequately the full support of our electorates for the construction of a new world order.”

New World Order is Communist terminology.

At page 4904, speaking of René Lévesque’s veiled Communist Parti Québécois – which had seized power “democratically” (but nonetheless subversively, its very platform of secession negating and proving the invalidity of every last oath among these Red usurpers in the Quebec Legislature) Trudeau tells America and the world:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

“I can command”: this Communist infiltrator placed himself above the Constitution of Canada, claiming unlimited, arbitrary power to destroy it. Indeed, in 1982, he took major step one, towards doing so. Read: Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution. A fellow conspirator of Trudeau’s publicly confesses in a pair of Cronkite Lectures that the so-called “patriation” was not legal, but a coup d’état.

In other words, Communist Pierre was “confident” that Canada would be restructured after a “Yes” in the upcoming 1980 unlawful, unconstitutional, impossible referendum to “secede”.

But, Communist Lévesque, while a “Liberal” cabinet minister in the Quebec government of Jean Lesage, on 10 November 1964, had already called for the “fundamental restructuring” of all of Canada. See “René Lévesque’s Communist Compromise: Fundamental Restructuring of all of Canada”.

The 1972 manifesto of the Communist Parti Québécois (in French only; but in English exclusively at this web site), makes a couple of things quite clear. First, The Quebec “Liberal” government of Jean Lesage was attempting to construct a Communist plan to run Quebec as early as 1961.

La notion de Plan a été galvaudée au Québec. Depuis 1961, sous une forme ou sous une autre, la mise au point d’un plan de développement est demeurée un objectif pourchacun des gouvernements qui se sont succédé au pouvoir, à l’exception du dernier qui a finalement abandonné l’idée. L’on comprend aussi bien l’engouement initial pour la planification que le désenchantement qui a suivi.

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. One can just as well understand the initial infatuation with planning as the disenchantment which followed.

Secondly, the manifesto explains the demand of these veiled Communists for the “sovereignty” of Quebec: (all the powers to construct a plan):

Ce que révèle ainsi l’expérience des années 60, c’est que sans les instruments nécessaires, un Plan ne sera jamais autre chose qu’une étude plus ou moins adéquate, plus ou moins bien présentée, mais rigoureusement platonique. Or, les instruments qui manquent sont ceux-là même qui découlent de la souveraineté. Tant que le Québec ne sera pas indépendant, tant qu’il ne disposera pas de tous les moyens fiscaux, législatifs et incitatifs d’un État souverain, c’est au mieux l’expression d’une grande candeur, au pire une façon peu coûteuse de neutraliser un désir croissant de participation, que d’agiter l’étendard de la planification.

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, presented more or less well, but rigorously platonic. 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, or at worst, a fairly cheap way to neutralize a growing desire for participation.

Source: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, and exclusive English translation.

If you thought Quebec was trying to secede to protect French-Canadian language, culture and ethnicity, you were wrong. The self-serving Reds, however, have used that fiction as their battle-cry in a bid to destroy Canada for Communism.

Summary: the reason for the “secession” of Quebec is to seize the powers of the Parliament of Canada, to use them in constructing a communist PLAN.

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com)

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com) 2

Yet, here we have Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1977 Congressional Record publicly assuring the world that Canada will, indeed, be “restructured,” supposedly to save its “unity”. The supposition being not that there is a provincial “power” to “secede”, but that in blatant defiance of the clear constitutional denial of such a power to both  levels of government – a denial of secession, a denial of a federal power to allow it – the act will be consummated nonetheless on the backs of the electorate, conscripted to vote “democratically”, thus allowing the Reds to dismantle Canada.

Said Trudeau in the same Congressional Record:

Problems of this magnitude cannot be wished away. They can be solved, however, by the institutions we have created for our own governance. Those institutions belong to all Canadians, to me as a Quebecker as much as to my fellow citizens from the other provinces. And because those institutions are democratically structured, because their members are freely elected, they are capable of reflecting changes and of responding to the popular will.

Slight correction to Prime Minister Trudeau: the “members” of provincial and federal legislatures are not in office simply by means of the popular vote, i.e., “freely elected”. The “democratic” vote is not sufficient to show a Member to his seat. No duly “elected” Member can sit and vote laws in Parliament or in a Province without a valid oath of allegiance:

128. Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some other Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.
Source: The British North America Act, 1867; 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

“Handwashing” ceremony at Hull, Quebec: Communist Gilles Duceppe signs counter-oath to eliminate oath sworn to sit in federal parliament (1990)

“Handwashing” ceremony at Hull, Quebec: Communist Gilles Duceppe signs counter-oath to eliminate oath sworn to sit in federal parliament (1990)

Nor is the oath of allegiance a “technicality”, as Marxist-Leninist Maoist Gilles Duceppe, for one, alleged while publicly washing his hands of it in a ceremony at Hull, Quebec, in 1990. In the United Kingdom – whence Canada’s Constitution comes –

“The administering of unlawful oaths [i.e., taking oaths from people who are manifestly lying] is an OFFENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, and PUNISHABLE BY PENAL SERVITUDE. The following statutes relate to this offence: 37 Geo. III. c. 123 ; 39 Geo. III. c. 79 ; 52 Geo. III. c. 104 ; 57 Geo. III. c. 19 ; 1 Vict. c. 91.” Source: Wharton’s 7th edition, p. 573.

Wharton’s is a reference cited by the judiciary in court adjudications. And look who’s being punished with “penal servitude”!  The person foolish enough to depose (swear in) an obvious liar, because it makes that person and the government a party to perjury.

A false oath is perjury. This legal and constitutional fact, that some people cannot be sworn in, was evidenced by precedent in the British case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 7 Q. B. D. 38. The British House of Commons quite correctly refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh, who had been “democratically” elected, to take the oath, because he manifestly could not take it, his being in conflict with the law of that time.

On the first day of the session of 1883, the British Attorney-General gave notice of a Bill to amend the The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, 29 Vict. c. 19 to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be sworn by making an affirmation of allegiance. But on 3 May 1883, that bill was rejected by the Commons by three votes. An Oaths Act entitling persons who professed no religious beliefs, or who even might be atheists, to be sworn by solemn affirmation, was finally passed in 1888 (51 & 52 Vic c 46).

Can anyone tell us when the constitutional oath of allegiance in the Fifth Schedule to the British North America Act, 1867, was amended to allow Communists to sit and vote laws for Canada, when their obvious allegiance is to Moscow? And their publicly stated aim is to dismantle Canada in contempt of the Constitution?

The unlawful seizure of a government, by swearing in, for example, hordes of people of all political stripes who do not and cannot bear true allegiance, is a form of coup d’état. In such a case, Parliament is not duly constituted. As such, it is not Parliament but some other entity usurping the role. Moreover, the issue is legal, not political.

It is public knowledge that the PQ Reds intend to dismantle Canada; they therefore were lying in 1970 when “sworn in” and again in 1976, and every time thereafter. It is unmistakable from their platform of “secession” and of restructuring Canada, that they seized power in Quebec outside the Constitution.

When the veiled Communist Parti Québécois seized office in Quebec in 1970, and took over the government in 1976, under protection of Pierre Elliott Trudeau; Trudeau, too, was a usurper who had set up the PQ behind the scenes with his fellow Reds.

Trudeau’s collaboration with, and his blatant federal leadership and encouragement of the Communist Parti Québécois set up by him to allow him to dismantle Canada proves that the Government of Canada had been seized outside the law by elite insurgents, themselves under “unlawful oaths”.

They, too, therefore had no right to sit and vote, no right to form a federal government, no right to pass acts in the Parliamentary Legislature of Canada. All their acts are void, because all their oaths are void.

In the La Presse  newspaper of Wednesday, 15 August 1990 at page B1 in the National section, in an article entitled “[Translation: Swearing allegiance to the Queen is ‘a technicality’ he (Duceppe) says”]:

“La Presse spoke with an historian from the University of Ottawa who was then the author of a volume on nationalist movements in Quebec. The historian, Mr.Michael Behiels, is reported to have said that the oath presents an obvious conflict for anyone who promotes independence.

“One cannot profess to serve the State while at the same time trying to dismantle the State” said Behiels. “It’s a contradiction.”

Mr. Behiels is right. Moreover, rules of interpretation exist which permit a competent court to show the door to anyone who has presumed to sit and legislate for Canada or a Province without a valid oath. No member of a federal or provincial legislature, no group of such members, nor even an entire legislative assembly composed of traitors, has any constitutional powers beyond those announced in the Constitution. There is no discretion, no privilege, and no inherent power to conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional functions of the legislative and governmental bodies created by the Constitution. All such activity proves void oaths, as grounds to judicially remove these Red usurpers.

It is the OATH which entrenches and protects Parliament and the Constitution.

Communists cannot swear a valid one.

Let’s have another example of the commonplace truth about the legal effect of the oath. In the Indian case of Golak Nath & ors vs. State of Punjab & Anrs, AIR 1967 SC 1643, W.P. No. 153 of 1966, decided on 27-02-1967, AIR 1967 SC 1643, Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for an extended bench, said:

“Parliament today is not the constituent body as the constituent assembly was but a constituted body which must bear true allegiance to the Constitution as by law established.”

In the same case at 1655-1656, Chief Justice Rao said:

Every institution or political party that functions under the Constitution must accept it: otherwise, it has no place under the Constitution.”

In other words, the oath requires the submission of every elected Member to the Constitution; and thus to the limits on action imposed by  the Constitution.

Consequently, the Parti Québécois “has no place under the Constitution” of Canada.

19 October 2015 Federal Elections - Incapable of being sworn

NO VALID OATHS – 19 October 2015 Federal Elections – Incapable of being sworn:
Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, Duceppe, May

Neither have the pro-Soviet Liberals, the Red Greens, the “Progressive” Conservatives, the Marxist NDP, the Bloc (federal counterpart of the Communist Parti Québécois), the CAQ or any of the half-dozen other socialist and “separatist” parties that now clutter the federal and provincial hustings. Because they all support either dismantling Canada for Quebec “independence” (Communism), and/or merging Canada into the North American (Communist) Regional Union — underway, now.

The Constitutional Oath of Allegiance and Limits on Action

In the lawful Constitution of 1867, specific limits on action are levied by the federal-provincial division of powers; and overall limits are imposed with respect to the statutory purpose of Confederation. These overall limits are blatantly evident in the Long Title of the British North America Act, 1867, and in the interpretive Preamble. The Long Title of an act, including the Constitution, is used to determine the statute’s purpose, so that courts rule in accordance. Canada’s Long Title, similar to the famed “supremacy clause” at Article VI of the US Constitution. reads as follows:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith

“THIS UNION”, not any other UNION, nor DISUNION, is what the Long Title says.

“The British North America Act, 1867” is merely the short title of the Constitution; whereas the Long Title embodies clear legal restraints: no “purpose” contrary to the Union established in 1867, i.e., not “connected therewith,” can be lawfully entertained by either federal or provincial governments.

The Long Title excludes expressly all activity contrary to the Union created in 1867. To be precise, two things in particular are excluded by the British North American Union: secession of any part of Canada, and annexation of Canada into a different  union.

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: <i>Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous</i>: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec


Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada

Yet, for decades, Canadians have been caught in a straight jacket outside the lawful Constitution by one de facto government after another since Trudeau. All of them are allowing, authorizing, and organizing campaigns for referendums by the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada east-west; while purporting to sign “treaties” such as NAFTA, designed to “deep integrate” Canada into the USA and Mexico, north-south, obviously forming a regional union.

The Long Title of 1867 is confirmed by the “Declaration of Union” (a statutory declaration is a statement of effective law) at section 3 of the Constitution:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.”

Our interpretive preamble of 1867 was often called in aid, correctly, by our perceptive judiciary. (But, that was long before the Soviet invasion of our institutions.) The opening paragraph of the Preamble states:

“WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Constitution is unitary. The United Kingdom is a unitary state. The British Crown shared with Canada is unitary. Kingship in the British Constitution on which ours is based is unitary. Therefore, in 1867, a unique merger of two leading systems took place, and in consequence: a unitary Crown reigns above an indivisible (unitary) federal state in Canada. This is not an accident; it was planned that way by the statesmen who founded Canada.

For background on the unconstitutionality of secession in Canada, visit the Alliance of the Founding Peoples of Canada – Alliance des peuples fondateurs du Canada (http://confederation1867.altervista.org/) and look in particular for John George Bourinot, John A. Macdonald, W.P.M. Kennedy and others to come.
 

Fact #2: Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Federal Liberal Cabinet Ministers under Soviet Agent Pearson are the true Founding Fathers of the Communist Parti Québécois

They ordered it to be set up!

This fact was published in both French and English by Marxist-Leninist “leader” and adviser to the Jacques Parizeau de facto  PQ Communist government on the 1995 referendum to “secede”, Jean-François Lisée. In his 1990 book, In the Eye of the Eagle, Lisée quotes Claude Frénette, then president of the federal Liberal Party.

“the Committee encouraged René Lévesque and his sympathisers within and outside the Liberal Party of Québec to set up a distinct party, which would be soundly defeated in an electoral showdown.”

“Electoral showdown” obviously means referendum, the tool that has been used by the Parti Québécois from the time of its full usurpation under false oaths of the powers of government in Quebec.

Frénette, cited again by Lisée in the same interview, identified three members of the “Committee” that urged Lévesque to set up the Parti Québécois, whose 1972 manifesto (sidebar) clearly reveals it to be a Communist party. Said Frénette:

“Within the [federal] Liberal Party – a secret committee has been established in order to undo separatism. The Committee, which includes federal ministers from Québec such as [Jean] Marchand, [Pierre Elliott] Trudeau and [Maurice] Sauvé, has adopted a multi-volleyed plan which for the moment is working as anticipated.” Before being recruited by Paul Desmarais, Frénette was the assistant to Minister Sauvé.

Pay attention! Their “multi-volleyed plan” to “undo separatism” was to CREATE A COMMUNIST PARTY which would hold repeated public votes to DESTROY CANADA.

If Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not a Communist, and if, as Worthington indemnifies in the Toronto Sun in 2013, Trudeau did not “damage” Canada, then how did Red Mole Pierre happen to sit on a secret Committee advocating the set-up of a COMMUNIST PARTY in Quebec whose mandate was and is today to dismantle Canada for refederation on the model of the New European Soviet forming across the Atlantic?

At the time this Quebec Communist party had been established on orders of Trudeau and his Communist friends on a secret committee of Power Corporation, Reports on Separatism, in its extract entitled “Economic union called contradiction”, quotes economist Saul Simon Reisman (also on the RCMP’s list of suspected Communist subversives):

“Mr. Reisman said the European Economic Community is used by Premier René Lévesque as his model for the proposed economic union.”

In other words, the EEC – referred to by former President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, as the “New European Soviet, is also the model of Communist Trudeau, Marchand and Sauvé, and of the federal “Liberals” under them – and thus of Power Corporation which hosts and owns them – for the refederation of Canada. In other words, Quebec is not “seceding,” it is being used to restructure Canada on the European neo-Soviet model.

This RED REGION in place of Confederation is what Communist Trudeau means when he tells the Jimmy Carter Congress in 1977:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

That is the FRAUD being sold to Canadians as maintaining “Canadian unity“: refederation as a “compromise” after a “Yes” in a referendum conducted by the Communist Parti Québécois, launched by Communist Lévesque in 1968 on orders of Red Mole Trudeau and his Communist friends on the secret committee of Power Corporation.

North American Soviet Union

North American
Soviet Union

Reisman, who, along with his colleagues all have hijacked the federal Parliament, thus acknowledges precisely what the Parti Quebecois is really planning. Not “secession”, but secession as a tool to refederate Canada on the Red European Prototype. The only reason for the initial “secession” is to create international personality for the Province, enabling it to harness the “rest of Canada” into treaties modeled on those used to merge Europe, and necessary to form this top-most part of the North American Soviet Union. A treaty cannot be signed without a national existence, which alone confers a treaty power.

The conclusion is inescapable that the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 were initiated not by life-long Communist René Lévesque – who is nothing but a tool and a front man – but by Communist agent Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fellow Federal Reds.
 

Fact #3: The North American Union is modeled on the European Community Formula used by Trudeau-Marchand-Sauvé-Lévesque and Power Corporation to set up a Communist state of Quebec linked to Canada

Thus corroborating the late Christopher Story when he said:

When Gorbachev visited London briefly, for a day, on the 23rd of March, 2000 – and, during that visit he made a statement which – I repeat it at every opportunity – he acknowledged and stated that the European Union is the “New European Soviet”; and I quote.

The organism under construction in North America via “trade” deals and the post-9/11 SPP is a North American equivalent of the “New European Soviet“.

The “North American Union”, called also the “North American Community”, has its direct precursor is the “Canadian Union”, also called the “Canadian Community”, aimed at by the Communist Parti Québécois and planned years before the latter’s founding.

This aim is clear from a public statement of René Lévesque conveyed by a Montreal Gazette reporter in December 1964, one month after Lévesque had appeared on CBC French television calling for the “fundamental” “RESTRUCTURING … of this whole country we call Canada“.

“This country, which could be called
The Canadian Union

In audio Episode 5 of “Du PLQ au PQ” (Translation: From the Quebec Liberal Party to the Parti Québécois), Montreal Gazette reporter, Robert McKenzie, told Radio-Canada:

This country, which could be called the Canadian Union...

Épisode 5 : Du PLQ au PQ. Featured quote by Robert McKenzie, a young journalist at The Montreal Gazette, citing words of René Lévesque: “Ce pays qui pourrait s’appeler l’Union canadienne.

[Translation:] “I received a call from someone: ‘Go to the Liberal Party meeting in Lévesque’s riding tonight (18 September 1967), something major will happen, he’s going to take a stand.” I arrive. There are about 300 people. … I looked at the text for a long time, and finally, he (René Lévesque) concluded with these words:

“This country which could be called The Canadian Union.

It finished just like that: “which could be called The Canadian Union.”

The text McKenzie was reading was possibly Lévesque’s manifesto entitled Pour un Québec souverain dans une nouvelle union canadienne (Translation: For A Sovereign Quebec in a New Canadian Union).

Levesque’s 1967 demand for a new “Canadian Union” precedes the formation of the European Union by approximately fifteen years. The European Union began as a Coal and Steel “Community”, which became an “Economic Community”. The nations of Europe were once independent. They were not federal. Canada is federal. The aim appears to have been to push federal Canada directly into the “EU” stage by “negotiation” following a “Yes” in a referendum. Certainly, the night before the illegal 1980 referendum, Pierre Trudeau offered this to Lévesque3; and therefore, the Red negotiations would not have been for less  than this: a full-blown Red refederation of Canada with an EU-style politburo on the Soviet model where unelected bureaucrats, beyond dismissal by the electorate, make most of the laws for the formerly sovereign European nations.

“not only associate states but even—
do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Authors Graham Fraser and Ivon Owen in their book, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Power (McGill-Queens University Press, 19xx) quote Lévesque in a subsequent PQ Congress in [[[xxx year]]] (year):

Throughout the day René Lévesque had not intervened in the debate, saving his speech to the end. […]

“We have, for all intents and purposes, gone back to our roots,” he said. That is to say that we are still, as we have been since the begining, sovereignists, but with the realism that the special situation that history and geography have made in Quebec demands. It is not for nothing that from the beginning, seventeen years ago, we evoked not only associate states, but even—do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Building A North American Community (BANC) -- Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Building A North American Community (BANC) — Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Lévesque invoked not only the term “associate states” (origin of the term “Sovereignty Association”) and referring to the European Economic Community (EEC), but also both the “Canadian Union” and the “Canadian Community“. Community is therefore not a mere synonym for Union.

What did the word “Community” mean to Communist René Lévesque, selected by a secret committee of “Liberals” at Power Corporation in 1967 (including Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to organize and lead the veiled Communist Parti Québécois?

In the French book, Enfant du siècle, a biography of René Lévesque by xxx xx, published by Boréal in (year) [ISBN], we learn at page 80 that René Lévesque signed his own name under his father’s name on the top right corner of the cover of a book annotated by his father (who was a Communist). René Lévesque, we are told, will always retain certain of these annotations, chief among them:

«Ne pas confondre la liberté physique avec la liberté morale. On a la liberté physique de faire le mal.» — «A égalité de capacité, égalité de droit.» — Communauté, c’est-à-dire par tous les gens pris ensemble. Communisme n’admet pas d’autorité civile.» “Do not confuse physical freedom with moral freedom. One has the physical freedom to do evil.” — “To equality of capacity, equality of right.” — Community, i.e., all people taken together. Communism does not admit civil authority.”

The notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat (all people governing together) is an impractical fantasy. But, for René Lévesque, all people taken together were a “Community” which, for him, represented Communism, which defies constituted authority. Therefore, when he spoke of a “Canadian Community” formed within a new “Canadian Union“, Lévesque had to mean a Communist Community; which is proved by the fact that the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois is Communist. Read my exclusive English translation of the CBC Radio Roundtable of 1972 discussing the manifesto.

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

Knowing that the Parti Québécois is Communist; and that all its leaders have necessarily been Communist, we therefore know that Pierre-Marc Johnson, who succeeded Lévesque as leader of the Parti Québécois, and who occupied the office of Premier of Quebec, was therefore also a Communist. He led a party that sought a Communist state of Quebec, and a new “Canadian Community” and a new “Canadian Union“. Pierre-Marc Johnson signed the 2005 plan of the corporate-fascist Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) sponsored by the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, to form a North American Community comprised of Canada, the USA and Mexico; also known as the North American Union.

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

VIDEO: CFR Seeks World Government

“But, as a member of Congress, I have seen the massive, powerful groups in Washington at work on a daily basis. And I have seen national groups, in their writings and activities and their memberships and members, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and others, which are working to transfer our national sovereignty into some type of regional government on the road to a global, one-world governmental structure.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is obviously impractical. But the dictatorship of the international bankers and their clients, the multinational corporations apparently is not.

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

All the information on the North American Union was on the table for journalist Peter Worthington for about a decade before he died. And yet, rather than warn us, he kept quiet. And when the Communist father of anti-nationalist Justin Trudeau needed white-washing to assure the rise of the son to finish his father’s work, Worthington ignored the impending termination of Canada initiated by Pierre Trudeau, and exonerated the Communist.

As if Canada is not on the brink of dissolution into a Communist regional union (for which purpose Trudeau himself ordered Lévesque to set up the Communist PQ so that he could “negotiate” with it to dismantle the country.)

His genetic descendent will apparently inherit that opportunity.

 

Conclusion

And yet, journalist Peter Worthington (you know, one of those people who are supposed to tell us the facts), in 2012, publicly absolved Pierre Elliott Trudeau by declaring that “his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions” were only “potentially damaging to the country”.

In other words, looking back on over four decades of criminal subversion, including:

(a) two divisive and illegal referendums (1980, 1995) whose real purpose was to create a COMMUNIST State of Quebec, and which damaged the economy, cost jobs and sent families flying across the continent to escape the potential aftermath;

(b) the ongoing erosion of Canada instituted by Trudeau’s co-creation of the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada;

(c) and all this while we are now on the brink of the final dismantling for annexation due to Trudeau’s continental “policy” of north-south integration through so-called “trade deals” with Red friends in America such as Red Ronnie (i.e, Communist Ronald Reagan, who was groomed by General Electric, of the infamous Broadway triangle, to merely appear conservative) …

… according to Worthington, no damage whatsoever was done to Canada by our de facto, not de jure, Communist prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Said Worthington, clearing the royal road to the top for Justin:

Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

The Edmund Burke Society once called Peter Worthington an “armchair anti-communist”.

It is obvious to me, that newspaperman Peter Worthington was never an anti-communist at all. Nor was he a journalist worthy of the name.

______

1 Reports on Separatism, subtitled “the indexed digest of events across Canada concerning Confederation, national unity, bilingualism and biculturalism”, (published twice monthly).

2 We have Communist Voting in Canada. For real. It’s called the Quebec referendums. The Reds call it “democratic”, but the purpose of the vote, a COMMUNIST state of Quebec, has never been mentioned in the QUESTION. And, certainly, the “secession bench” of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 never mentioned it. Isn’t that odd? And it doesn’t come up in the so-called Clarity Act.

And, if you do not eventually vote YES here in Canada, as required, there is always the underlying threat that FLQ-style violence may return. After all, in 1964, René Lévesque was reported in the daily press as having told two different groups of high-school students that if the “rest of Canada” refuses to give Quebec “associate state” status, the children could resort to “guns and dynamite”. So, the guy in the picture with the gun (at left), and the basket piled with YES votes beside the empty NO basket — that’s how we do it here in Canada, too. (In fact, there’s good reason to believe the Communists STUFF the “YES” vote. But that’ll be another post.)

3 :French original:

Épisode 5 : Du PLQ au PQ
En décembre 1964, René Lévesque, alors ministre dans le gouvernement de Jean Lesage, en choque plus d’un en déclarant qu’il n’est pas séparatiste mais qu’il pourrait le devenir. Après la défaite du PLQ en juin 1966, René Lévesque et des collègues du parti — le Groupe de la Réforme — commencent à définir ce que serait la souveraineté-association. En juillet 1967, Charles de Gaulle lance les fameux mots incendiaires : « Vive le Québec libre! ». En octobre cette même année, René Lévesque et son groupe de fidèles quittent le Parti libéral. Cet épisode retrace aussi la création du Parti québécois, en octobre 1968.
— “Point de mire sur René Lévesque”, Radio-CBC, Première chaîne (Radio en profondeur)

– 30 –