Trudeau's Fourth Deception

If you've read The Man of Three Cloaks you know that I accuse Pierre Elliott Trudeau of masking his true intentions. I accuse him of hiding his Cultural Marxism in the Liberal Party, of wrapping his Quebec nationalism in the Canadian flag and of hiding his admiration of fascism in his concept of a 'Just Society.'

Today I have for you a fourth deception; a successful attempt to pretend he wasn't changing Canada's form of government prior to him actually doing so.

It comes in the book, Against the Current, Selected Writings 1939-1996 edited by Gerard Pelletier; specifically in a chapter called We Need a Bill of Rights (1), an article he wrote for Maclean's in 1964.

In barely two pages he first makes the case that modifying Canada's constitution, the British North America Act, is pointless and divisive. Here's the opening.

"Of all the institutional changes which I believe to be desirable in Canada, I would rank constitutional reform among the least pressing; and consequently I tend to consider much of the present discussion of the BNA Act as a process of alienation or [the] politics of diversion."

 A few sentences later, he says it again.

Unless Canadians wish to embark upon the perilous course of making a new constitution every few years, they should not at this time undertake to rewrite the BNA Act.

Instead he suggests a graduated approach to the issue. First he says there should be a "clearer perception of the goals of the central and regional governments," second there should be an attempt to meet those goals on an ad hoc basis and only third, consideration of "individual constitutional amendments." Then this:

The only important instance where the third stage appears to have been reached by the Canadians seems to me to be precisely in the area of a bill of rights. Since 1946, four provinces and the central government have given themselves statutory bills of rights. Numerous parliamentary committees have inquired into the matter. Many public bodies including the Canadian Bar, have reported on the subject. Much writing has been published by historians and other persons.

And what is more important in the present context, a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights seems to be the best tool for breaking the ever-recurring deadlock between Quebec and the rest of Canada. If certain language and educational rights were written into the constitution, along with other basic liberties, in such a way that no government—federal or provincial—could legislate against them, French Canadians would cease to feel confined to their Quebec ghetto, and the Spirit of Separatism would be laid forever."

This passage actually contains three deceptions, or as Trudeau says, 'the politics of diversion.'

1. First and most important he is referring to the Bill of Rights as if it were a 'bill' rather than part of the constitution itself. Bills, in the parliamentary context are proposed laws, as opposed to Acts which are laws which are passed. If questioned on this he could reply that the United States has a "bill of rights" but these are actually the first ten Amendments to the Constitution itself. So, he's right technically, but wrong in substance. A Canadian Bill of Rights is, in effect, a rewriting of our constitution, not an addition to it. 
2. By listing the actions of other governments, and of Conservative John Diefenbaker, Trudeau makes it look as if a Canadian Bill of Rights is someone else's idea. 
3. By highlighting language issues he downplays the real guts of the Charter, which is that it raises the Supreme Court above Parliament on all other issues in Canadian law. As to these issues, Trudeau covers them with the phrase "along with other basic liberties." They are apparently so unimportant he doesn't even bother to name them. 

This, truly is the work of a master. He begins by suggesting he doesn't want to change the constitution, then says, oh, well, we could add a bill of rights, and then suggests it has something to do with language issues and Quebec separatism.

Nothing, nothing, could have been further from the truth. Trudeau was about to impose a French style of top down, court driven, Fascist law on Canadians who had lived for over 200 years under English Common Law, British Criminal Law and British Parliamentary law.

He told us he was going to do it too, right here in this article, but we didn't see. We were dazzled, like the bull, by the man with the cape.

And the sword in his other hand.