like i've said before: trudeau the ******* was the beginning of the end for this great nation.

Another example how religion, in any form corrupts!
Perhaps Truseau's intelligence helped him see where he had been mislead?
Perhaps he was just fooling around with his egomanic ideas in whatever form that he figured could come into effect?
A spoiled upper-class brat, no matter how you slice it!

Ah. Trudeau

One of my favourite topics.

Saw the old master in action once.

However, I think I'll wait for the other TYEE bloggers to comment first.

``Another example how religion, in any form corrupts!``

(sigh) Here we go again...

I don't know, Trudeau's early path isn't that shocking. As nightbloom always says, you have to look at the time and place before you judge the man. Its not like Trudeau was the only intellectual enamoured with fascism. Add to that 1930's Quebec culture and its easy to see why he believed what he did. Would any of us in his place have believed diffeently?

To Trudeau's credit he opened his mind and challenged his own beliefs and when he found them wanting he left them behind. Everyone should be so willing to accept new knowledge and chenge what they believe in.

Speaking of the word "fascist" I just heard herr harper on the radio stating how his government will be looking into ways of preventing tradedies like what occurred in Montreal yesterday.
Hmm maybe some sort of a gun registry perhaps?
Oh wait a minute - nevermind.

Damn right, Frank. There were strange political attitudes within Quebec in the early 1930s.

But it makes me crazy when otherwise honest historians pick out one public figure (like Mackenzie King) as admiring Hitler, or involving themselves in studying fascism, when many people admired Hitler in his earliest phase when all they could see was Germany's full employment and prosperous citizenry. King Edward VIII of England, for example, continued his love-in right into WWII, for heaven sake.

By then, most normal people -- Trudeau included -- had understood the harsh reality. It's unfair to make it appear as if Trudeau in those early youthful days, was the only one. I appreciate what Nightbloom has said about the opportunism of the authors.

Trudeau knew how to rattle peoples chain. He really was too intelligent to be a politician. Was he weak? i don't think so. Just ask the FLQ supporters.

He was pretty fit and showed of his abilities quite a lot. Never got caught talking to his dead mother or his dog. never signed on to Nuclear weapons for Canada. I figure he knew what he was doing and if it upset the folks trying to get him to sell their wheat, well that's how it goes.A lot of folks in Alberta figured he was screwing them out of getting higher prices for oil but as a non Liberal I still figure he was on top of his game at all times. He really upset a lot of senior military brass, but that's one of the reasons I thought he was pretty sharp.Ran into him a couple of times at military messes. I could think of worse PM's including the guy we have now.

He was a p.o.s., brought us bi-lingalism, metric, decimated the armed forces, bought off Quebec with every one elses money, had no respect for the west, fuked over Alberta bigtime, increased the size of govt. with stupid boards and other jobs for the useless, wasted tax dollars like a guy that got out of camp after six months. I could go on, the worship he gets makes me puke, mother fuker.

Many achievements that have come to be attributed to Trudeau in the public mind were actually Pearson's (all the good ones, anyway). I think Trudeau's accomplishment was in re-casting Canadian nationalism away from ethnic roots into his 'Just Society' vision (although once you start breaking the 'Just Society' down into component parts, that too is mostly Pearson's accomplishment...except for the Charter and the public drama, of course...even the Royal Commission on Bilingualism that started it all was Pearson's handiwork, not Trudeau's). Much of the Just Society was really representative of the state of the art in terms of liberal thought and federalism at the time - Canada was pretty cutting edge in implementing it. Can't say it was a bad vision, but time (and over a decade of Chretien rule) have demonstrated it is not as lasting a paradigm for Canada as we initially thought.

Re. the Armed Forced, Trudeau and Paul Martin Sr. gave Paul Hellyer the initiative with the armed forces (integration). That's the first time in history a sitting Minister of Defence was ever boo'd by the entire Naval officers' corps. That kind of display from military "management" is virtually unheard of. Trudeau did mess up the overall priorities, however, and never did grasp the implications until he was politely ignored during his whirlwind "peacetour" at the end of his tenure. His whole foreign policy was a disaster, but he was misadvised by Ivan Head, among others. Luckily Mitchel Sharp was there to steady the boat, and had to threaten to resign once or twice before corrective action was taken. Trudeau wasn't quite the mastermind the liberal media has built him up to be. Having said that, Trudeau is the only Canadian P.M. ever to go on military exercise with the troops, digging trenches and sleeping in the bush. He's fondly remembered at least for that at NDHQ, and they do take note of these things.

In a way, it's really unfortunately Paul Martin Sr. didn't get a chance to lead. I'm saying that because I'm a Martinite or anything (I'm not - Martin Junior was nowhere as effective as his Dad...even if he'd had the chance). But if there was a rising 'grey eminence" in the Canadian scene to step into Pearson's shoes, it was Martin Sr., not Trudeau.

Well, Pearson could have reformed the Tax system too nightbloom. When the Carter commission (a Diefenbaker creation) recommended fundametnal changes which would have made this country a much more egalitarian place, he decided to take the advice of the lawyers and bankers and Trudeau's Just Society was actually doomed from the beginning because of it. Most swords have two edges.

If you think Paul Martin Sr would have been a better PM than Trudeau, you're probably too young to know any better. He was certainly 'grey' though.

Trudeau made this a modern country in a way Pearson - who was a creature of the 19th century - never could.

Yeah, he could have just snapped his fingers and reformed the tax system, I suppose...!

It's just never good enough for you, is it Alcibiades?

It's not enough that in five short years - and with minority governments to boot! - Pearson adopted universal health care, the Maple Leaf flag, a bilingual civil service, the abolition of capital punishment, the Autopact, the Canada Pension Plan and Canada Assistance Plan, a new Labour Code and Bank Act, collective bargaining for the public service, comprehensive reforms of government departments and the parliamentary committee system, open immigration, a new policy towards China and the developing world, initial overtures to the Organization of American States, the tripling of development aid, increased investment and incentives in research, improved federal-provincial relations (co-operative federalism), the “invention” of peacekeeping (I know - he did this before becoming PM) and finally a visionary foreign policy that - for a time at least - made Canada’s name golden around the world.

Just not good enough for Alcibiades.

No it's not nightbloom; not nearly good enough. Without more equity and fairness and some genuine equality of opportunity - of the kind of thing that obtains in Scandinavia - and all the rest is just icing on a stale and rotten cake.

Even the idea of the rule of law is meaningless without some kind of fundamental equity. In fact, it's nothing more than the system which perpetuates the plutocracy.

LoL - that's what I thought. The dissatisfied perfectionist, thru and thu. And with all his ample advantages and lengthy time in office, just what did Trudeau accomplish again...?

(p.s. I already know about the Consitution and the Charter - not inconsiderable achievements - but ones which we're are unfortunately still obliged to fight over, btw).

...and then of course there's the historical footnote that Pearson is the only Western leader who publicly called for a halt in the "Rolling Thunder" carpet-bombing campaign at the height of the Vietnam War....and that Paul Martin Sr. (Pearson's External Affairs secretary) later stood on the rostra before a supine United Nations General Assembly and openly called for a unconditional halt to the bombing...

Oops, forgot about that one, didn't you Alcibiades. Or perhaps it's too inconvenient for inclusion here - makes Trudeau (not to mention Sweden and all of Scandanavia!) look bad in comparison...

Alcibiades, as an afterthought, this G.K. Chesterton one-liner fits you to a 'T'...

"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."

Cheers =)

Pretty much what I’ve come to expect from you nightbloom. You're running true to form - as the ‘eviscerator general’ of the left - which has never been in power in this country anyway - it is hardly exceptional but deeply ironic that you would react that way. Posting an old anti-Semite like Chesterton only heightens the deliciousness of that irony. Perhaps you could search from something from Hillare Belloc next time?

Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, as always, you take the juvenile course and move off into an area where we might at least reach nominal agreement. I suppose, since you wish to go there, you're also a supporter of Canada's role during the Vietnam war as a supposedly 'neutral' international observer; an observer for which the US military had a number of 'interesting' uses and a great ex post facto affection.

Like most con jobs, what happens in the right hand often obscures what's going on in the left or behind the back. As a prestidigitator Pearson was a fine exemplar.

You again mischaracterize Pearson, while ducking the point on Trudeau. As for "dealing with the issue at hand", I addressed the review article at the top of this thread, and enlarged on my argument when challenged. Take it or leave it, my friend. Why not enlighten us on your take on Trudeau or the review article above, when you have a moment. Cheers =)

Alcibiades, on reflection....So far, your contribution boils down to 1 point, and it's a negative one at that which doesn't support your assertion re. Trudeau. Rather, it merely attempts to lower the person he's being compared to (Pearson):

1. "Well, Pearson could have reformed the Tax system too nightbloom."

Can't you do a little better? What did Trudeau do with the tax system? I'm just looking for justification for your assertion that "Trudeau made this a modern country in a way Pearson - who was a creature of the 19th century - never could."

I've already acknowledged the nobility of the 'Just Society' project (the state of the art in terms of liberal thought at the time, the implementation of which was begun by Pearson in the 1960s and continued by Trudeau in the 1790s, but which has now been parially dismantled by liberals themselves, with surviving remnants now the object of pillage and plunder by the pirates of identity politics and organized social welfare satrappies). And there's the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of the Charter, which were both Trudeau's achievement (and our liability). But really: what else did he do to warrant such high praise from you, and simultaneously elicit such denigration with regard to Pearson...?

I'm confused. You're the one who brought up Pearson as the author, or at least ‘father’ of Trudeau's reforms. I wrote that I didn't think Pearson was much of a reformer largely because of his failure to do the right thing on sorely needed tax reform.

I generally agree with what you said about Trudeau's youth and 'fascist' education. It is of little or no importance and, when I heard the authors interviewed on radio, the paucity of their analysis was pretty clear.

Dialogue is far more interesting, in my view, if it explores nuance and difference. You seem to need somebody to pat you on the back...I don't see that as a useful exercise.
I think that kind of thing is boring and a waste of time and gets us nowhere.

I don't think I have mischaracterized Pearson by the way. His action relative to Canada’s acceptance of Bomarc missiles was unforgivable for any strategic reason and was done solely for political experience. Diefenbaker may have been an anachronism, but he was ‘Canadian’; with Pearson all you ever got was ambiguity and artifice, in my view.

Come now, If I wanted a "pat on the back" as you say, I wouldn't be on these threads. I like the "Eviscerator General" part tho - and that's probably as close as a pat on the back as I'm likely to get from you.

Yes, the point is that Pearson was actually far more effective with his 5 years (two short minorities) than Trudeau was with his 15 years in power (2 majorities and one minority/coalition). A lot of the positive things we associate with the post-Centennial Canada was actually quietly instituted by Pearson in the years leading up to it.

Again, why this grossly erroneous hyperbole?: "Trudeau made this a modern country in a way Pearson - who was a creature of the 19th century - never could."

p.s. I did start out this thread defending Trudeau from the Nemni distortion....I still hold that line, so I don't want to give the impression that I'm running him into the ground here.

p.p.s. Yes, Pearson was a mystery to those close to him, although I'd go with your "ambiguity" before going so far as your "artifice". I studied under a former assistant of his, and that was the gist of the first-hand observations I gleaned - that no one really knew him, and no one was allowed close save Mrs. Pearson, in spite of his generally easy-going manner.

I know several people, when I lived in the east, who were quite close to and worked with GG Vanier and his charming wife. In point of fact, from what they said of those two, I'd take either of them for an afternoon of conversation or a drink rather than Pearson and Trudeau sepa
I don't actually think Pearson accomplished much other than checkmating that other 19th century creature - John Diefenbaker. Still, I'd stand by my assertion that as a committed Canuck the prairie man was far superior to Pearson - who never lived up to his promise as a creature of external affairs.

A party man to the end - and hardly a leader.

You're tying to sneak away from having to defend you effusive overstatements regarding Trudeau....okay, one freebie for you.

Re. The Vaniers - I don't blame you - the Vaniers have an interesting history that is still unfolding, going back before WWII. Gotta luv the way Pauline Vanier handled the French after De Gaulle snubbed her husband's funeral - now that was sassy! (Pauline & George had fled Paris for London when the Germans invaded, and once in London they were influential early champions of De Gaulle's Free French movement at a time when De Gaulle had few friends...Yet neither De Gaulle nor any senior French official attended Governor General Georges Vanier's funeral...and let's remember that he died in office, not years after his official duties, so it was an undeniable slap in the face in return for official Canadian consternation over the "Vive le Quebec Libre" fiasco, comments which De Gaulle refused to explain or retract even after entreaties from his own diplomatic staff).

Not sure how many Canadian are aware of this, but the Vaniers have been nominated for Beatification by the Roman Catholic Church. That's considered the first step towards Sainthood. One of the Vaniers' sons, Jean, founded the L'Arche communities movement (http://www.larche.org/), a seldom-heralded Canadian contribution to the betterment of the world. Another son, Fr. Benedict Vanier O.C.S.O. is a Trappist monk - the same Order to which Thomas Merton belonged, and the strictest of the RC eremitic monastic orders.

One of my colleagues in Montreal, who was charged with re-designing and updating the Vice Regal coach (railway) never tired of telling how, when he arrived in Ottawa with the preliminary drawings at Rideau Hall, was joined on the floor by Pauline Vanier as the two of them pored over the changes and details together; Georges would have joined them too, no doubt, save for his artificial leg.

I'm very familiar with Jean and L'Arche, as well as his career in the Navy. Wonderful people of whom Canada is rightly, and humbly, proud.

just looked back to my penultimate post - I assume you realize I meant 'separately' for the incomplete word that appears there. btw - I'm not particularly interested in promoting Trudeau either - If I've given you that impression.

To add to what BC Mary said about a lot of people supporting Fascism in the 1930's. Most of the world's ruling classes did. Ford admired Hitler as did the Bush crime family. Standard oil, GM and a host of other corporations wanted Roosevelt overthrown and a fascist state installed. The UK, France and the US let Republican Spain be overthrown by Franco, Mussolini and Hitler because they preferred fascism to a left-wing republic. There was plenty of opportunity to stop Hitler when he reoccupied the Rhine (1934) rearmed in contradiction to the Treaty of Versailles, attacked Spain (1936) or grabbed Austria and Czechoslovakia (1938) . But they didn't because he was their boy. And on and on... Of course we don't hear much about this, our rulers like to cover their tracks.

You forgot about the Kennedies - Joseph Kennedy was very sympathetic to Nazism, and Mackenzie King thought Hitler was the cat's meow. He was totally taken in.

"and Mackenzie King thought Hitler was the cat's meow"

Don't you mean dog's bark nightbloom?

Anyway, count the Kennedy's too. Admiration of fascists during the depression wasn't limited to Quebec.

Lot of parallels actually between Quebec's political class and Franco's Spanish allies. Not to mention Chile's Pinochet types.

Yep, them too. Like I say, just about the entire elite. Even Churchill, often trumpeted as an early anti-fascist, thought Mussolini was doing a good job. The RC church, of course, backed Franco and Salazar, 100%, though individual progressive priests did not. There is an RC church in Montreal with a fresco of Mussolini on its wall. They thought highly of him too. Glad I wasn't living then.

Trudeau used to be flown around in a special Yukon to assorted events around the world. The story goes is that one day he noticed everyone else had jet aircraft but Canada. The Yukons were due for departure shortly after.

We often got to ride in the special edition Yukon on the way back from Europe so we all gained abit from Piere being in charge, and boy was he in charge.

I served under two Conservative PM's and can't recall anything especially good about their reign. Oh yes I rememebr now Joe coudln't swim because his head was too big and he lost his luggage. Dief screwed up the aviation business and our bases were soon crawling wiht US military. and MUlroney treid to remove indexed pensions. so what is harper doing for us these days?

Elliot:
No, it didn't start with Trudeau. It began with Dief, and his cancellation of the Arrow.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011057

I agree with DPL's assessment of Trudeau.
One of his last TV interviews was with a TV journalist, whose name I now forget, and Trudeau made him look like an idiot for asking the questions that he asked.
I couldn't believe the subsequent headlines about the interview - which applauded the interviewer for putting Trudeau on the spot and asking questions which Trudeau could not answer adequately.
I suppose it did not help that Trudeau had distain for the media - for good reason.
In my mind, he'll always be the man who tried to make Canada's oil belong to Canada. Albertans will always hate him for it - for a reason I will never understand - because eventually he planned to give Canadians a special price as happens today in Venezuela and a couple of other oil producing countries.

"In my mind, he'll always be the man who tried to make Canada's oil belong to Canada. Albertans will always hate him for it - for a reason I will never understand - because eventually he planned to give Canadians a special price as happens today in Venezuela and a couple of other oil producing countries."

...which is indicative of the social democrat Trudeau actually was (some would say "leftie", but we all know he wasn't left-handed). His swirtching to the Liberal Party was simply a recognition that, within that party, he could "get things done".

Trudeau was a master at answering a question with a question i.e. he would respond to a question with.... "and what would you do about it?" then he would wait for the questioner's response and point out the its flaws.
He simply loved debates and debating. Not many realized that he had at least another language in which he was fluent - Spanish. That's one of the reasons he visited Castro fairly frequently and, in fact, Castro loved him like a brother. Do you suppose Trudeau's leftist leanings had something to do with that?
Certainly not all Canadians liked Trudeau - but I think ALL were proud of him.

Certainly not all Canadians liked Trudeau - but I think ALL were proud of him.???
Count me out!
I have no patience with people who flaunt their intellect as some flaunt their body-builder muscles!
Low-key was not that mans forte, I would say he will be remembered for his arrogance!
I give him credit for recognizing the BS that the church was spoon-feeding him, while i wonder why he did not make a complete end to his association there?
Guess, that as usual some of the propaganda sticks, brains or not?.

rick; the arrow was nowhere near as straightforward as the Communist Broadcasting Corporation would have you believe. in fact there's some indication that now that dief did the right thing, based on the outrageous costs being quoted by the avro company. their founder was a bit of a kook in some ways, and many believe the program costs would go through the roof.
jack; proud of him????? i've heard some ridiculous statements on this site but that one ranks right up there. the guy was poison, and as time passes and historians look at this record more objectively the truth is coming to the forefront. he WAS the beginning of the end. to be followed by his idiot lapdog chretien the moron.

dear climber, i see nothing wrong with that.
maybe it's because i grew up in it,
instead of having to reform to it
but i still think it's great.

Speaking of idiots Elliot, what do you think of the Canucks latest moves?

Didn't even have the sense to hang onto Carter for 2.5 m and now have to shell out 1.9 for Kesler.

It's gonna be a bad year. This time Edmonton will earn their way into the playoffs because Vancouver probably won't be anywhere near the top 8 come season's end so thay can 'give' it to them.

Alive...
Actually I meant to say that everyone was proud of him representing Canada among other world leaders.

He didn't piss on the church because (generally) if you were raised Catholic you remain Catholic whether you attend services or not. I think most Catholics-no-longer will agree with that.

Jack's:
yeah well, if you are the type who are glued to the TV to see them perform and deliver their scripted messages, on stuff that already has been done by underlings....well, hey, he did a nice pierrouet once, and generally was easier to understand than Cruton/Cretian.
But any actor, like Reagan, will get audiences!
Should Canada be proud to be associated with good actors?
Yep I agree if you are raised a catholic, you remain permanently brainwashed!

What exactly did Trudeau do that was so bad? And as a reference, who did better?

Good point Frank.

Trudeau, at least some of the time, reinforced and underlined the pride I've always (and I suppose somewhat foolishly) felt for this country; no one since and perhaps nobody prior (with the possible exception of Laurier) has stirred that kind of feeling, in my view. Not that I was around for Laurier of course but I mean with respect to the historical record.

I’m not quite sure why he still stirs such angry retching but I suppose it has something to do with his critics’ sense of being intellectually inferior. Some sense too, I think, of a kind of latent moral outrage at the obvious contradictions inherent in the man.

Frank, to answer your question (in my opinion) it's Pearson, for the reasons I cited above, and then some:

"It's not enough that in five short years - and with minority governments to boot! - Pearson adopted universal health care, the Maple Leaf flag, a bilingual civil service, the abolition of capital punishment, the Autopact, the Canada Pension Plan and Canada Assistance Plan, a new Labour Code and Bank Act, collective bargaining for the public service, comprehensive reforms of government departments and the parliamentary committee system, open immigration, a new policy towards China and the developing world, initial overtures to the Organization of American States, the tripling of development aid, increased investment and incentives in research, improved federal-provincial relations (co-operative federalism), the “invention” of peacekeeping (I know - he did this before becoming PM) and finally a visionary foreign policy that - for a time at least - made Canada’s name golden around the world."

Elliot said.rick; the arrow was nowhere near as straightforward as the Communist Broadcasting Corporation would have you believe. in fact there's some indication that now that dief did the right thing, based on the outrageous costs being quoted by the avro company.

I disagree with the statement about the Arrow and most aviation folks would say the same as me. I was gearing up to instruct on the Iroquois engines for the production aircraft. The "Lead sled" has similar teething problems ( CF100)

The new engine was the most powerful dry thrust in the word. By the way, when the Arrows were scrapped, the engines went south. The AvroCar went south as well. And guess what" on the day they aircraft building stopped, the parking lots were full of US companies hiring the folks just fired. Many of the space program leaders came from the AVRoe parking lot. The blueprints were destroyed all most all the pieces of the hand built aircraft. Some of the speed and heights set by that aircraft were never passed around. But to watch one move on a scope was something to see. And of course the engines were not the ones for the production line version. If the aircraft had a big fault, it was the intake system that used a bleed off air system rather than a wedge type intake, variable as used by later aircraft. It went down because the US didn't want to buy it. We ended up with Voodoos, that couldn't hold a candle to the Arrow, even with the small engines. And yes I saw a few of the engines in a hanger where a SST mock up was being built. when two of us mentioned those engines in the corner were from the Arrow, we were told we didn't really see any engines if we wanted to do a walk about around the SST. Which by the way was never built Yep Avro was expensive but check out the prices of some of the aircraft being bought now that sort of meet the capability of the Arrow from so long ago. and of course think of the lost aviation experience that went with the Arrow. Dief then signed a deal giving Canada Nuclear weapons and many don't believe he actually understood what he had signed on to accept.Those stove pipes weren't cheap and had no real purpose. A interceptor can do a number of things

G West said...

"Trudeau, at least some of the time, reinforced and underlined the pride I've always (and I suppose somewhat foolishly) felt for this country; no one since and perhaps nobody prior (with the possible exception of Laurier) has stirred that kind of feeling, in my view. Not that I was around for Laurier of course but I mean with respect to the historical record."

I couldn't have said it better. Many accused him of being a Quebecer first and Canadian second - but historically, the opposite was true. In fact, he was one of the few who kept Quebec 'in line' even with Rene Levesque as its leader.

nightbloom, okay, you liked Pearson better. nothing wrong with Pearson. So in your opinion Trudeau was 2nd best? Or was there something that made him a terrible prime minister?

DPL:
thank you for enlightning us all!
Anyone seeing the CBC film about it was left wondering how much spin?
Studying the "flying Saucer" thing that Avro also were developing it was clear that at least some engineers were milking the US military on that pet-project of theirs.
Perhaps the whole incident was to get to "own" that technology?
UFO 's were the rage back then, right?
Dief, the man who was a legend in his own mind, started the idea of selling Canada to the highest bidder.
Perhaps Pearson was the last, somewhat sensible, figurehead we had?

gwest; i said it last spring when he was named gm: nonis is nothing. just a brian burke clone that has yet to prove he knows what the hell he's doing. why would he bother matching clarke's offer? he should have told kessler to have fun in philly and be done with it. another disappointing season for the canuckleheads, but hey, it's a lot more fun that way anyway.

Frank - Thanks for asking. No, I don't think Trudeau was terrible by any stretch, although a little less ego probably would have helped him in some quarters....but let's face it: the egocentricity was part of his political charm. Trudeau was probably the right man to face down Quebec
Separatism at that particular time in our history. We don't know how Paul Martin Sr. might have handled it (also of dual heritage and fluently bilingual) - we do know Martin Sr. he was a very effective conciliator, hightly experienced, and extremely intelligent and cultured (too grey to get any credit for all that, unfortunately). Granted, conciliators aren't glamorous, but we might have ended up with a bit less of a nationalist hang-over. Most agree that invoking the War Measures Act was an overreaction based on what we know now, and on today's standards. But what happened, happened.

Trudeau's tenure was highly experimental, and some of those experiments were felt very negatively in some sectors (the West, our foreign relations, the military and defence policy, NATO, Quebec, U.S. relations...Trudeau did warm up to the Commonwealth though). But Trudeau did give us a vision of a society that transcended the traditional bounds of the nation-state (even if he borrowed it from those who went before him - he articulated it in a manner that resonnated). Vision counts for something.

As for number 2, I'd say Laurier for the way he handled all the sticky problems of his day. John A. MacDonald for pulling off the Confederation deal, Borden for leading us with integrity in WWI and for going to London and standing up for Canadian troops in the Imperial War Cabinet after the Somme bloodletting (Borden's threat not to send another Canadian boy across the Atlantic was what gave Lloyd George what he needed to rein-in the Generals, who were out of civilian control by that time). I loathe Mackenzie King - sure he stayed the longest, but he sold out the country in the post-war settlement, demobilized way too quickly (dismantling precious infrastructure) while refusing unemployment benefits to the veterans who had to live in alleyways and cardboard boxes until fear of growing Communist sympathies finally forced the Liberals to legislate unemployment benefits. M.K. was a slimey bastard. Nevermind the Avro Arrow - our long post-war decline started with him.

History will treat Mulroney a little better than we did. We didn't know what was coming, and though we had it bad. Chretien did nothing but hold the fort, although he did build-up Post-Secondary education and research (almost entirely on the sciences side, understandably - the Humanities are lost and should be given wholesale back to the Jesuits and the Dominicans to re-sow for future harvest in three generations).

I think that's all the notable PM's ... but my number 2 is definitely Laurier (perhaps even number one...didn't realize we were going back that far).

"...but let's face it: the egocentricity was part of his political charm. " wrote nightbloom

and, "the Humanities are lost and should be given wholesale back to the Jesuits and the Dominicans to re-sow for future harvest in three generations)."

the egocentricity of Trudeau (a quality which you aren't short of yourself, Nightbloom) was not only his charm. It is a quality that any leader must have. All leaders (from the elementary school clique to the CEO of MegaCorp to the officially sanctioned characterizations of God Himself. Trudeau is not alone in having an inflated sense of self-importance. He's far from the worst in even our humble country's political history. There are store managers with a bigger ego than PET's. A leader's "egocentricity" is a non-starter, Nightbloom and quite frankly I'm surprised you'd bring up such an inane detail.

As for the second point, namely that humanites are lost, etc.... Aside from telling us all that the area of studies in humanities have been hijacked by an intellectually lazy yet ideologically bankrupt yet ironically robust "left", what else have you got to substantiate this claim? And what have you got to back up your suggestion of redemption through the disciplines' return to overseeing by Jesuits and Dominicans? You're being sarcastic? Are you genuine? If the former, then for whose enlightenment? If the latter, by what measuring stick to you deem these sub-cults (many of whose individual members have been fantastic recorders and commentators) worthy of casting such encompassing nets?

And with regard to your above posts which place Pearson at the forefront of all those great movements that PET gets credit for:

First, PET didn't claim responsibility for all of them.
Second, PET should get credit for much of what you ascribed to Pearson. PET was one of Pearson's main guys. He was an idea man. He was a big picture thinker. Pearson recognized this and took him in to confidence. I'm not diminishing Pearson's own vision or intellectual rigour. But those who think that PET absconded to the LIbs MAINLY because PET wanted to get into power are selling him very much short. PET also left the NDP and joined the LIBS because he very much admired Pearson and believed in that government at that time.

As for Trudeau's contempt for the west and his Freudian-like opposition to Quebec Nationalism, he's been judged for this. But it didn't all emerge out of his "egocentricity" (given the topic, i.e. leading a country, an almost meaningless ingredient, but without which the cake doesn't even get a chance to flop) . PET had a genuine vision for the nation and viewed regionalism as small-minded. He was ruthlessly unforgiving and uncompromising in his national vision. He could not relate to what he considered small-minded, regionally or community based concerns and saw such resistance as circling the wagons type of inwardness and backwardness. Bringing up and going on about PET's egoism is silly and non sequitur. He had grander visions beyond his own sense of self-aggrandizement. For better or worse PET gave us ALL a sense of grandiosity and pride and forced us to at least LOOK at the bigger picture, if not place practical selves into it.

This country of Canada has NEVER been as united as when Trudeau was at the helm. Whether that's a good or bad thing... I don't know. But Nightbloom is off.

I should qualify my statement above that Canada has never been as united as when Trudeau was our PM. Obviously the official history is that Quebec hate him and so did AB and BC. But aside from party and oil politics, Trudeau reached the imaginations of hardened cynics in ALL regions. We Canadians, with our collective inferiority complex, were galvanized by Trudeau's vision, not merely by his charm. We still are.

And this book will only satisfy and confirm the beliefs of those who've always villianized him. Those who worshipped him will not purchase or read the book. People like me who admire him and see him as one of our greatest leaders, but also see him as only human, will merely ignore the book. Biography buffs will buy the book. So Trudeau had fascist sympathies and ideas when he was young. Others above have commented on this more intelligently and with firmer historico/cultural grounding than I could.

I would disagree that all leaders are egocentric (or that leaders must be egocentric to be successful). I think you're focusing on one type of leader, which you may repond insinctively to (as do most of us). Charisma can be present without egocentricity, and Canada in particular has a history of fielding 'anti-charisma candidates' in politics. Effective leadership can occur in the absence of charisma AND egocentricity, though it's the kind of leadership the public is generally only aware of when something goes wrong. We must never conflate reality and perception, especially in politics.

I did not say that Trudeau claimed credit for Pearson's accomplishments - I said that those distictions had become blurred in the public mind, and that the public has erroneously come to identify those acievements with Trudeau. You also misrepresent Pearson's relationship with Trudeau. They disliked each other intensely, and Pearson remained angry and bitter about a few things Trudeau pulled during the transition. Pearson never entirely trusted Trudeau, but Pearson supported Trudeau over Martin and the others because he put reality above his own desires, and recognized Trudeau as the man to deal with the most pressing issue of the day: Quebec nationalism. This is all well-documented.

I'm glad you modified your remarks about the unity of the country under Trudeau. That was one of the most acrimonious periods in Canadian history, though I don't blame Trudeau for all of it. A lot of problems were sewn during those years which Mulroney and Chretien had to grapple with (and not just constitutional issues). We're still ironing a few things out, but only the unsigned constitution can still be laid at Trudeau's doorstep (though one can always argue that they would not have signed irrespective of the deal Canada put in front of them at the time).

So relax - Trudeau was a mixed bad, but generally okay as P.M - but he was not the demigod that many believe him to be.

I remember reading somewhere that the one PM we had who was a Rhodes Scholar was grandpa Louis St. Laurent. Of all the PMs I've read about, he would seem the most unlikely.
I probably could verify that by an internet search but I'm just too lazy this morning.

right! not all leaders were troubled by egocentricity, the problem is we tend to forget they ever lived!
Anyone remember Stanfield!

Re Trudeau:

In some ways, one has to give a grudging respect to Trudeau....which basically foreshadows my own basic view that he was a shallow machiavellian SOB.

I vividly recall the hoisting of the current Canadian flag in my younger and more naive years...and then this "hippy Prime Minister" called Trudeau took over from Pearson. Long hair, rose in lapel...and bouncing on trampolines and eventually marrying a gal almost 1/2 his age to pop off some offspring to carry on the Trudeau bloodline .

Throw in the FLQ and the War Measures Act, Trudeaus classic "just watch me " in the early 1970's one is left to ask " What the "F" is this Trudeau"???

Yes. like any leader Trudeau had his past influences...a product of his enviroment. However, on reflection his timing was perfect if perfect timing assisted his objective to be PM...though my understanding is he was a dark horse in the post Pearson Liberal leadership.

The press attributed Trudeau much like a modern day Caesar.
Recently, a TV show put forward the premise that Julius Caesar' assassination had Caesar as a major accomplice by default....and if one looks at Trudeau and how he played the nouveau political game aka" establish power and keep it"..the parallels are amazing.

More Later

maestro
some glitches in your program this morning - maybe you should reformat and run a couple of diagnostic protocols.

Were you implying that your foolish days were behind you?

Note to Maestro from Maestro

G ster took 50 minutes longer than predicted to TAKE THE BAIT .
(see above time differential )

Possibly adjust + / - co-efficients.

Also Trudeau had 3 legal progeny...another from a Eastern Constitutional lawyer.....and I am not sure how old G ster is.

....... Or did G'ster escape that BC snow slide a few years back ?

Hmmmm

Definitely some bad sectors in your hard drive Maestro.

You should get in for servicing before you experience a serious shutdown with irretrievable memory loss.

What is an 'illegal' progeny? Would that mean you're a holdover from Victorian times? If so, you're probably running on an Altair 8800 which likely explains the programming glitches.

Hmmm!

Quicker response this time...Hmmmm

Lets try some of THIS bait ( OPEN LARGE BOX ..start cutting it for later ).

Still think Rkewen is writng this for them.

NOTE: RENT movies regarding thawed cave men..( how do G'ster survive that snow slide into the lake )

Still no asnswer to the 'illegal' progeny question. Hmm! Wonder why?

Poor Stanfield - Brilliant man. And you know, he caught tha damn football like a pro every single time but once - and that's the shot the paper's ran with.

Yes, Stanfield was the best prime minister we never had according to Dalton Camp. i miss Camp's columns in the Star.

Sh*t

Cut too much bait for G'ster.

Need 40 ft reefer vs 20 ft.
Sublet some space to G'ster so he can slowly thaw from his ill-fated hike.

Starting to think G'ster is not the Ultra- right Conservative Republican I thought he may be. SOLUTION: throw out some more bait.

Hmmm ...G'ster into Debate fetish on context of borderline poly -syllabic adjectives.

Seems to remind me of Ex premier Bill Bennett early in his mandate being accussed by an NDP er of being Daddy's 's boy.....to which Bennet retorted " at least I know who my father is..."

To satisfy G'sters 24/7 " can't sleep at night his mind won't shut down " curiosity the term " legal" progeny refers to what Maggie supposedly manufactured prior to more accurate DNA tests .

Other than those, plus the Lawyers more recent mini Trudeau , who knows how many other are out there ?

The co star in classic hi-brow movie PORKY's recently admitted to a relationship with Herr Trudeau..another in a long list of millions screwed either literally or figuratively by the old SOB / Castro's buddy

PS Kudos G ster...grudging respect to you for surviving the S.E. BC snowslide. ADVICE : Next time don't build snowmen in high risk avalanche areas representing the entire NDP MLA base since Tommy Douglas.You were in RKewens area at the time.....did he help dig you out , or did the snowmen help ???

Hope to see you at the next rally at the corner of Commercial and Nanaimo. I'll bring the reefer...no not THAT type ..its tough to smoke a 40 ft trailer...(plus all my bait will melt)

Well, didn't read quite ALL of the responses above, but enough to get the overall drift....

I do agree with the comment that the post-Trudeau Canada that PET is always given the credit for (if that's the word) was largely Pearson's handiwork, and some of it, even, a bit of Dief's. What Trudeau did with "it all" was to be the pitchman, the hardliner, the one whose resolve kept Pearson's reforms moving forward into ab reductio institutionalization. Multiculturalism went from being a loose policy oriented towards helping new Canadians feel more welcome into something that can only be compared to a megaproject in scope and funding; likewise the new flag; both became doctrine. Other than the NEP, youth funding like OFY and Katimavik, and a few other measures, nothing really novel came from Trudeau's bag of tricks; fyet he wrapped himself in the mantle of antidisestablishmentarianism while being himself a scion of the establishment, and very much a man of its interests in the long run.

Not for nothing was he a part of the Trilateral Commission and Bildenbergers et al, and interestingly papered-over in the history of the times was that it was Pierre who brought forward the revolution in credit card and related technologies that brought on us the age of the debit and smart cards and computer-tracked financial dealings; all to tax us better with, and sold to the Trilaterals as a way to make profit and governance both more efficient. Ultimately and totally corporatist.

So where I dffer from the article/review/book is that I don't think it's a question of Pierre changing his tune, only the costume he wore in front of the microphone. Gone were the Prussian helmet, in with the rose in the lapel (or teeth). He got selected/elected on the wings of Pearson's 60s-era reforms and the loosening-up of North American culture, plus got the youth vote to turn out (to what degree I can't cite you on, though), but once he was in office his dictatorial attitudes quickly became manifest. Possibly even before October 1970 - I'd have to dig a little deeper in the grey matter to think of in what way: perhaps the White Paper that sought to assimilate native peoples once and for all.

Point is that once he was elected Trudeau's interests were in central, unitary governmance as opposite to decentralized, truly federal governance and identity. And when it came to authority vs the public interest, the former won out every time.....when it came out that the RCMP had been illegally doing things like, oh, planting pipe bombs to implicate the FLQ so as to have a reason to investigate them, the Trudeau government's response was to quickly turn around and create a new policing body that had the legal right to do such things; what was illegal was now illegal, and a valuable tool of the state ever since (and how we got ourselves the Grant Bristow affair, among other things).

Don't like a Trudeau policy? Suck the finger (as at Salmon Arm) or kiss his ass; Nixon was right, ultimately Pierre was an ******* and proud of it. "Just watch me" was an expression of the knowledge he had in the power of the PMO - near-monarchical absolutism for a PM with a majority Commons behind him. Throughout his regime there were, as a I recall from Dr. Foth's columns and othres (Lautens, perhaps) discussions of ways in which he re-aligned the civil service to give the PMO more control over individual ministries and agencies which hitherto had reported directly to the minister responsible; Centralization, centralization, centralization, all done using "convention" (the great weakness of the British constitution - basically "what you can get away with becomes constitutional precedent"). So when things started to unravel, and he was already wanting the way out, he even slammed the party with a dictatorial condition for his return to the PM-ship: let me pass a new constitution in this term or forget it.

And what that new constitution did was FURTHER increase the power of the PMO and the centralization of the federal government; to entrech power, not to democratize it. The sop to human rights in the Charter was all window-dressing and, as we've seen since, a minefield for lawyers and judges and, ironically, freedom of thought.

When Trudeau finally did retire, it was after a final reign as king, not as a first minister serving the collective will of his ministers, caucus, and theoretically the people. Just to make matters clearer, the new constitution had sortened the role of the monarch and while still technically a constitutional monarchy, a monarchy without a throne or a [i} relevant [/i} dynasty. Even Franco had more wits than to do away with that institution (which utlimately helped Spain prevent another civil war).

The pretense that Trudeau was a great reformer only makes sense to me if you think "reform" includes the projects of Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper; reform that entrenches power rather than distributes it, reform that concentrates authoritarian power by less-than-majority mandates.

Trudeau was a cynic, not a visionary. Certainly reminds me more of Alcibiades than Percles (not "our" Alcibiades).

PS this is the second part of a post, the first part of which I see the program used to generate these pages has taken out a fairly common swearword. Is the Tyee engaged in linguistic censorship now? I thought George Carlin had made his point about this kind of tut-tut schoolmarmishness years ago....

"what was illegal was now legal"

It's always disappointing to see the "ignorant Québecois slavishly in the thrall of the Church" argument trotted out so uncritically.

To paint the anti-conscription movement/sentiment in Québec as the result of pro-fascist sympathies is completely ahistorical; Québecois have ALWAYS been resistant to participation in wars for King and Empire, from the Boer war onwards.

Québec has a long tradition of pre-WWII trade unionism, socialism, secular nationalism, and all sorts of other indications that we weren't just stupid, priest-ridden Pepsis. If a white American wrote something like this about Southern blacks, we'd all be rightfully up in arms. Why is it considered okay for otherwise thoughtful Anglo essayists to trot out these canards about us?

Oh, I think I'm a bit of a cynic by times too Skookum1. It goes with the territory!

charles, wouldn't it be worse if a white American discussed black history in the Americas and ignored slavery? I don't know how you can discuss politics in Quebec and ignore the influence of the Church.

skookum, a lot of us Canadians support centralization and don't at all see it as a negative. In fact I still don't understand why we have to have provinces.

Saying that believing in centralization means that Trudeau is still the same fascist as he once was is a pretty stretched comment. There's lots of nation-states that either don't have provinces or have very weak ones compared to Canada which I wouldn't call fascist or dictatorial.

I simply don't see the connection between being a fascist sympathizer in the 30's and being a Canadian prime minister. The job is after all not supposed to simply be head waiter to the provinces.

Frank:
Although that, being headwaiter to the provinces, is exactly what our current PM seems to have in mind. Did you see the short piece from Macleans that BCMary noted late yesterday in the other place?

Didn't Paul also have a simular epiphany, only his was on autoroute damascus not autoroute jean talon :-)

We never learn from our sameness, the devil taught me how to be a good christian.

Alci, yes I did.

Ahhh Comrade Trudeausky....what a topic.

Actually, unlike manyTyee topics and bogster " bloodsport" discussions... I don't feel one can disagree with many or any of your views and opinions on the topic of TRUDEAU.(........except maybe the G'ster Version 2006 program )

Trudeau: The old mystery wrapped up in an enigma or vice versa...

Good points and puzzle pieces put together duly noted above.

Howver, if one scrapes off all the layers of paint and camouflage , here's my take on Trudeau.

In the old " a product of his time and influenced accordingly".... If one compares him to other world leaders of his time...Trudeau seems to stand out as that spoiled rich kid given a good formal education who had the both the political timing and the luxury to use Canada as the socio-political engineering laboratory playground.

My understanding was that he was a dark horse Liberal leadership candidate during the post Pearson era. Vividly recall the impression made to the public in the 1960's of the long hair, a hippyish 50 year old...rose in lapel...etc etc. mimicing a rock star. The Canadian " fans" went wild .

There was a lot of social upheaval at the time, in the late 60's , and he seemed to establish a P.T. Barnum-esque media quality....don't care what you write just spell the same correctly..no such thing as bad publicity. etc.

Opposition leaders at the time ie Robert Stanfield.(ie perhaps the best Prime Minister we never had eh Frank,,,).looked old and stodgy in contrast...couldn't compete . Trudeau was the contrasting sexy political rock star. Trudeau seemed to have the Press continually eating out of his hand.....keeping them off balance with his quotes and misdirection...making them look like fools who were hesitant to perhaps ask tougher questions...very clever...in hindsight .

Trudeau , in my view, would have never been accepted as a leader if he had attempted it even 5 years sooner...but his timing was perfect, and when he did it was at a time when the saying " living off the fat of the land " was his political lifeforce, delusional addiction,....and his PM legacy ultimately set the tone for what I think is a very politically dysfunctional country .

More Later

Re: Trudeau

In high school...I used to laugh at the comment that Canada's Prime Ministers (with Trudeau in power) ran the Gov't like a dictatorship, One percieved a dictatorship as more a stereotype of armed soldiers and tanks in the streets, and with someone in charge wearing an ever dry-cleaned high - ranking military uniform.

This is Canada...we have elections!!!...there are no soldiers or tanks!!!....what's this DICTATORSHIP comment referring to ?

I think one began to see there are actually two types of Dictatorships, the (i) blatant ones with soldiers and tanks.. . and (ii) the more subtle and camouflaged ones that both need Democracy to exist yet abuse democracy insidiously, behind the scenes, at the same time .

While rich boy Trudeau got a chance with the keys to "drive Canada" as PM for a few years....while there was as is usual , a learning curve for him,....there was probably an addiction to the power being created concurrently . Many had commented that Trudeau really didn't have a grasp of economics...so what was left to do and what was his purpose. ..his PM legacy ???

While many admired his NO B.S. handling of the FLQ crisis ....he may have seen the crisis as an opportunity to secure power. Seem to recall it often duly noted that Trudeau had advisors whispering in his ear that to secure power ie remain as PM....Federal Liberal partyONLY had to secure only ONTARIO and QUEBEC via the disproportionate number of MP seats they held compared to the rest of Canada. POWER RECIPE: Aka kiss their asses in perpetuity, effectively buy their EASTERN votes, and you and your party maintian/retain power.

Trudeau, in his power addiction, realized he had to pucker up in the EAST to get his PM power fix..., yet
try to make it look less obvious in the West, yet not seeing the WEST saw through ithis BS very quickly. He used his Gallic shrugs and Gallic arrogance to hide the fact he was caught with this agenda...to secure power and all that goes with it for him and his entourage ...and that he had increasingly disenfranchised the West in his lust for PM power at apparently any cost.

Trudeau also realized that he COULD use his PrimeMinisterial powers to treat his own M.P 's like they were nobodies at certain distances from Parliament Hill...(his own words) and that they better tow the party line or else. Hence the centralized power full of asskissing MP's equally addicted to power...and its perks...sign away their souls...."trust us you voted for us" BS ......beholden to a more centralized figure...ie a democratic dictator for lack of a better word.

Absolute powers corrupt absolutely......while Trudeau didn't achieve absolute power....but his legacy in my view is not much to be proud of nor be grateful for. People that remain in awe of him remind me of the Stockholm Syndrome, ie a maintained enamourment with ones "captor" / dictator .

Maestro: good comment, you got the take on that rich playboy!
In another world he was the type of rich, bored intellectual who might just as well have secretly conspired to see how many people he could kill, and get away with!
There is the same intelligence play about him, trying to outsmart everybody else, all to satisfy his inner need to feel superior.
So, in a way Canada was lucky that he chose a somewhat legal way to satisfy his needs!

alive:

Thanks:
You don't "have" to agree, but good on ya to be able to see through the Trudeau BS.

In my view, it may have been legal way for him to get his " fix " , but we are still paying for the results of his " habit" . (No in-site political re-hab eh???)

People like Trudeau have also "shaped my views and perspectives " via my immersion in his era, much like his times shaped him. However, I think he played us for fools and suckers...via his bored/rich playboy whims .

Trudeau was kinda like Canada's version of the US Kennedy's .
Had it all, whats left to do ???...oh yeah.....Public Service ..... riiiighhhttt! Somtimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

It didn't here in Canada.

As mentioned earlier, my grudging respect Trudeau was able to pull it off..but more of an indictment of the Voting Public who had the TRUE power and lost it hook line and sinker while he was in power..

One of my happiest days was when he lost the election, then one of my worst days was when he got back in...but THE icing on the cake was his famous walk in the snow and ultimate and final retirement. Even he knew he was toast, but no warm and fuzzy feeling from many of us.

maestro
you were glad Joe Clark became Prime Minister?

That IS truly strange.

Alcibiades

Good one;

Actually, that wasn't my implication, but at the time I guess even a piece of lawn furniture looked good in office as long as Trudeausky was turfed.

When one is trying to understand the REAL way politics works, Joe Clark is another story. Joe was probably a nice guy, but doomed in the way the political game is played.

The eternal question is, what would have happened if Clark had not screwed up in playing the political game and not been forced to have an election back then?? History=______??? .

One has to wonder what Trudeau was thinking at the time....Career= TOAST??? ....or he couldn't believe his luck at new political PM life. I guess the Federal Liberals had been under Trudeau's spell for so long they didn't try to recruit new PM blood, and Trudeau simply won the following Federal election by default both inside and outside his party.

In my view, Trudeau was savvy enough that his 2 nd chance was likely his last, his fluke via Clark's incomptence and naievity best be taken advantage of., as the public wasn't exactly saying Trudeau was much better either. In his last and final legacy move (NOTE: always important for politicians) he got rid of the BNA Act, and brought home such things as the Charter and Constitution..not that the BNA Act was all that bad.

Given the enigma/ paradox Trudeau always was, he was still a Quebecer, probably very anti Monarchy, and getting rid of the BNA Act was a double dip to give a Quebecer like Trudeau a petty shot at the Anglo-British facet of Canada...as well as Trudeau the so- called Nationalist also putting Quebec separatists fires out and "attempting" to keep Canada intact.

Ironically we were then free of the last major ties of EXTERNAL Brit influence,ie one founding nation , but somehow still beholden INTERNALLY to the franchise (Quebec) of the other founding nation (France) and that con game continues to this day.

He didn't get rid of the BNA Act - he built upon it in a manner that renders the BNA Act untouchable. Don't believe me? One example: wait for the next dustup over schooling, with Muslim groups screaming over the constitutionally protected status of the Catholic Separate School system. The reason we still have it, you ask? - it was a condition of Confederation worked out in the drafting of the BNA Act. As for anti-monarchy, he embedded the Queen so far into the Constitution it will take kilotonnes of dynamite to get her out. He liked the monarchy enough - it's just that his ego was wounded by the distinction between Head of State and Head of Government (this was the real reason for his smart-ass pirouette behind the Queen as the GG, the Queen and other Heads of States went off to the state banquet while he was stuck with the other mere heads of government). He also became a devotee of the British Commonwealth once he realized it handed him an excellent forum on the world stage.

Again, we continually mix myth with reality when discussing Trudeau.

NB

Re my " getting rid of the BNA Act " comment :

In context, I am basically saying he did NOT leave it alone.
He couldn't 100%
tear it up and throw it out....the BNA Act was, and as you point out, well rooted in our current Constitution Act. What he did was like renovating a house .

Similarly, he couldn't 100% eliminate the Brit Monarchy ie the Queen,...that would be political suicide then and likely if they tried it now as well. Any other continued affiliation with the British Commonwealth still had lots of perks....he wasn't THAT dumb.

Its simply the classic " What If...??"
What if say Joe Clark had not screwed up and stayed in for a term or two. ?? What may or may not have happened then?
While young at the time...I don't seem to recall a major " Repatriation of the Constitution" movement .

Trudeau and Gov't of the day keep what they like, and amends or remove what they don't like when creating a new re-patriated Constitution.

Hat's off to Trudeau on how he played the game.
Much of what he did ws legal, yes, but should he have actually done it ?
He's been a mentor to many others in politics .
The rest of us benefit by seeing through a lot of it and seeing the same basic tricks used by others in power to further the other agendas.

Thus, because we weren't flies on the wall at the time, much of it is individual armchair reflection on Trudeau based on what we read, see,hear, experience and we all ultimately debate the results.

NB:

Perhaps educate me on the Muslim dust -up over schooling.

I think I see your gist. I am a bit aware of the Catholic Separate School System( CSSS)...at least a version in the Alberta School System via some relatives in it.

If Muslim groups have an issue with it, and yet it is entrenched in the Constitution..that will get REAL interesting.

Does it fall under some sort of Human Rights issue..or actually a Constitutional challenge.

Is it a secular issue, based on 100+ year old conditiions of Confederation.....thus grandfathered??? or is it deemed archaic ,100+ years old religion - based, and thus a need for amendment.

Does the Non -Withstanding etc, clauses kick in....??? Unanimous Provincial approval needed??? Not all Provinces have CSSS. Horse trading starts ???

If ONE condition of Confederation is changed, is it not fair to say ALL of them are fair game ???

Could get interesting.

Let's get rid of Catholic schools - or at least force them, and all other private schools to pay ALL of their own way with no contribution from the public purse. At that point, the Muslims would have no complaints - nor would anyone else, and the public system would be revitalized.

It was part of the deal of Confederation in order to get the Catholic minority to sign on. Can't undo it. Besides, Catholic parents fork out more $$$ that their public school counterparts in order to ensure higher standards, which are reflected in the consistently higher performance of Catholic school students. The classes are smaller, the teachers more educated, better paid and have higher morale, the textbooks are newer, the social environment more disciplined and egalitarian, even the computer labs are three steps ahead....the public school system should be taking notes. The Separate School System has always been better, which is why you have sizeable non-Catholic minorities in every school who pay extra in order to get a better education.

The fact is parents and the public are more engaged with the schools when they feel personally and confessionally tied to them, and when those schools are tied to a spectrum of adult and youth community activities organized by each parish.

Your call to get rid of them is simply uninformed secular nihilist sour grapes.

Re Catholic schools and funding:

NB: Thanks for the update.

Still interesting re: Confederation's grandfathered deal re CSSS in the eternal quest by some of the separation of church and state. I like a more recent explanation...that the separation between church and state is more the protect the church FROM the state....than the converse many assume.

Unless I am mistaken the CSSS you mention only applies to certain provinces. In other Provinces, the Catholic schools have existed for decades but outside any Confederation deals.

Re BC Catholic schools (and other BC private schools)

Actually, its the reverse argument re: funding

Seem to recall in the mid 1970's the BC Gov't began the process to provide funding for non public schools. Like any big change, it was controversial.

However, looking at the facts...it appeared that the private schools were actually subsidizing the public system, Many of the private schools were Catholic, but not all of them.

Those sending their children to Catholic schools and other private schools were still paying taxes to fund the public schools, and yet also paying for a separate private school. The fact they enrolled their kids in private schools put less stress on the Gov't resources. The Gov't realized this and created some balance, perhaps as a pre-emptive strike with the demographics at the time.

Based on relatives with children enrolled in the Catholic system they have to provide funds for capital costs, ie the building onf new schools. Taxpayer does not pay this cost. That in itself saves millions for the Taxpayer.

Private schools are deemed elite, but they are not. Many working class parents send their kids there and somehow find the way to afford it. . The Catholic schools accept others, ie non Catholics , I know of an East Indian gent who sends his son there.

Agree with your points NB. If had to do it over again may seriously consider enrolling the kids into the non public system . The private schools provide options and its the taxpayer getting a good deal by their existence. The Gov't would be SOL if they didn't fund them...you'd have 1000's of students perhaps forced into the public system, and that would be pure chaos especially in funding for new schools etc...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

nightbloom - that doesn't apply in 'every' province as you well know. The enlightened provinces should lead the way - If Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba wish to continue yo have a separate Catholic school board to which their property taxes are allocated - fine with me. That is not a drag on the public system as the current rat's nest in BC is.

Remember, Catholic Schools are not the same thing as private schools. They constitute a parallel system, and must jump through all the same hoops as the public school boards.

nightbloom
Did you not read what I posted?
There is no parallel Catholic public school system in BC. Catholic schools here pander to the government for more funding all the time - just like every other private or religious school. That's why they are a drain on the public system - because they compete for scarce government resources over and above the property/education tax base. I explained my point very clearly.

The Separate School system is not a drain on the public system.

So back to Trudeau - if Trudeau were revivified and placed back in 24 Sussex today, what would be the top four or five policy changes/pronouncements he would enact (let's make this fun and assume he has a majority, and that we've reincarnated him as his first term piss-&-vinegar self)...

We can start with his approach to the George W. Bush Administration if you like...

Back to Trudeau:

Again, my own take:

Trudeau's ascension to power was perfect timing. Society was changing in the 1960's , somewhat turbulent and Trudeau seemed to fill some sort of a gray socio-political vacuum He tended to consciously create a separation between Canada and the US in various fashions and feed off of it. It almost appeared that his aim was to get people to chant, " I'm a Canadian = because I'm not an American " thus because I am not American I am better, thus Canadian = better by default.

Canada has always had major dependence on free trade with the US. One would think Trudeau was biting the hand that feeds him ith his stick pokings at the US. Perhaps the US reaction , which was not very much, was more an indication that Trudeau truly was an insignificant Politician, a flea vs the elephant, and to be tolerated and humoured till his ass got kicked out...and that he held delusions of grandeur and the Canadian public was equally delusional as to his positive / useful relevance. Thus Trudeau and his delusional supporters deserved each other, but no one else did.

To keep power and bless us Canadians with his presence, he set up the strategic ass-kissing for political energy efficient votes = power sequestering, by focussing on Central and Eastern Canada. The devils bargain was he retained power and they in return were rewarded and vice versa.

Multiculturalism was a camouflage for catering to Quebec's mega-minority, agan to legitimize the Francophone ass kissing, and mega vote buying.

We all know about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Rip Off ie PETRO CANADA....again a multi pronged shot at the west to benefit the east.....never heard of Western Canada reciprocal benefit subsidy from Eastern manufactureres. All ONE -WAY.

Trudeau seeemed to love to bait fights, then poke sticks.

Trudeau seemed to employ the old divide and conquer strategy to obtain and maintain power...versus unifying a vast sparsely populated country. Perhaps he foresaw this strategy as the only one, or his handlers used him to set this in motion. The old Fed. Liberals are the natural governing party, right? ....natural not on merit but on power hungry manipulation, to maintian the arrogant Liberal status quo, thus no merit.

Trudeau should have been turfed in the 1970's, but less Savvy Tories,by letting Joe Clark be the leader, effectively provided life support for Trudeau by default and straw man comparisons., yet many still feel it was divine intervention and merit...adding to the myth.

Why people look back on Trudeau warm and fuzzy with fond recollections is beyond me. Must be somethinhg akin to the Stockholm Syndrome. His legacy concluded ie imploded with Paul Martin...the old Liberal guard cannabalized itself in its own lust for power...versus just simply lying and screwing the " voters only" to obtain power.

I guess we could afford to humour Trudeau in those days....as I alluded earlier his timing was perfect. Canadian intellectuals,ie his own ilk seem to be his main fans, which is more incestuously indicting, as most average Canucks seem to detest him.

RIP Herr Trudeau, but good riddance as a PM . In my view he contributed to and created the seeds of a rudderless country comprised of Balkan states in various shapes and forms, Not a legacy to write home nor any where else about.

Yes it is, nightbloom - You don't know what you’re talking about in the BC context - which isn't surprising in itself: Any private school, religious or otherwise, that doesn't get all its revenue from tuition and private fundraising is taking tax dollars that should be going into public education. The Campbell government, in its last budget, actually increased the amount it gives private schools by a greater percentage than the percentage increase in budgetary allocation for public education. You aren't from BC and you're applying principles from Ontario that are not meaningful in this province.

Check it out yourself if you don't believe me. The extension of free online classes to private schools is just another aspect of this pandering by the Campbell government.