| Pierre Elliot Trudeau Essay, Research Paper
Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Published in 1968, Federalism and the French Canadians is an
ideological anthology featuring a series of essays written by Pierre
Elliot Trudeau during his time spent with the Federal Liberal party of
Canada. The emphasis of the book deals with the problems and conflicts
facing the country during the Duplessis regime in Quebec. While
Trudeau stresses his adamant convictions on Anglophone/Francophone
relations and struggles for equality in a confederated land, he also
elaborates on his own ideological views pertaining to Federalism and
Nationalism. The reader is introduced to several essays that discuss
Provincial legislature and conflict (Quebec and the Constitutional
Problem, A Constitutional Declaration of Rights) while other
compositions deal with impending and contemporary Federal predicaments
(Federal Grants to Universities, The Practice and Theory of
Federalism, Separatist Counter-Revolutionaries). Throughout all these
documented personal accounts and critiques, the reader learns that
Trudeau is a sharp critic of contemporary Quebec nationalism and that
his prime political conviction (or thesis) is sporadically reflected
in each essay: Federalism is the only possible system of government
that breeds and sustains equality in a multicultural country such as
Canada.
Trudeau is fervent and stalwart in his opinions towards
Federalism and its ramifications on Canadian citizenry. Born and
raised in Quebec, he attended several prestigious institutions that
educated him about the political spectrum of the country. After his
time spent at the London School of Economics, Trudeau returned to
Quebec at a time when the province was experiencing vast differences
with its Federal overseer. The Union Nationale, a religious
nationalist movement rooted deep in the heart of Quebec culture, had
forced the Federal government to reconcile and mediate with them in
order to avoid civil disorder or unrest. The Premier of Quebec at the
time, Maurice Duplessis, found it almost impossible to appease the
needs of each diverse interest group and faction rising within the
province and ultimately buckled underneath the increasing pressure.
Many Francophones believed that they were being discriminated and
treated unfairly due to the British North American Act which failed to
recognize the unique nature of the province in its list of provisions.
Trudeau, with the aid of several colleagues, fought the imminent wave
of social chaos in Quebec with anti-clerical and communist visions he
obtained while in his adolescent years. However, as the nationalist
movement gained momentum against the Provincial government, Trudeau
came to the startling realization that Provincial autonomy would not
solidify Quebec’s future in the country (he believed that separatism
would soon follow) and unless Duplessis could successfully negotiate
(on the issue of a constitution) with the rest of Canada, the prospect
of self-sovereignty for Quebec would transpire.
His first essay (Quebec and the Constitutional Problem) explores
the trials and tribulations which occurred between the Provincial and
Federal governments during the ensuing constitutional problems in
Canada. Trudeau candidly lambastes and ridicules the Federal
Government’s inability to recognize the economic and linguistic
differences in Quebec. He defends the province by stating that
“The language provisions of the British North American Act are very
limited” and therefore believes that they continue to divide the
country and aid the nationalist movement in Quebec. Using an informal,
first person writing approach, Trudeau makes it clear that his words
are for reactionaries, not revolutionaries who are looking to destroy
the political fabric of the country. However, Trudeau considers
possible alternatives and implications in the second essay (A
Constitutional Declaration of Rights) and offers possible resolutions
to the everlasting cultural dilemma plaguing both parties involved.
One of his arguments is that the Federal government must take the
initiative and begin the constitutional sequence to modify and adapt
to the growing needs of all the provinces, not only Quebec. “One tends
to forget that constitutions must also be made by men and not by force
of brutal circumstance or blind disorder”, was his response to the
perpetual ignorance of the Federalist leaders who stalled and dodged
on the issue of equality and compromise throughout the country. At
this point in the essay, Trudeau relied on his central thesis for the
book and used it to prove his application of constitutional reform
using the Federal government as the catalyst. Trudeau had already
formulated his visions of the perfect constitution and how it would
include “A Bill of Rights that would guarantee the fundamental
freedoms of the citizen from intolerance, whether federal or
provincial”. Each and every one of his proposals demonstrated
innovative thought and pragmatic resolve for a striving politician who
believed in Democracy before Ideology. The emphasis he places on
equality and individualism is a testimonial to his character and
integrity as a politician. The next essay (The Practice and Theory of
Federalism) is the opening composition for Trudeau’s firm stance on
Federalism and how it can be applied to the current Executive system
of administration already in turmoil with its dominion. “Federalism is
by its very essence a compromise and a pact” is his comment on why the
Federal government of Canada has a responsibility to seek out the
general consensus of the people when dealing with constitutional
reform. This reinforces his central thesis for the book which is
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this critique; however, their is
a partial, obstructed observation made on Trudeau’s part when he
declines to mention the efforts of the contemporary Federal bureau
which had made attempts to negotiate with Quebec (although in vain).
Finally, the last essay (Federalism, Nationalism and Reason) is a
creative piece of literature in which Trudeau exonerates the
possibility of state manipulation and exploitation in dealing with the
masses (the socialist tendencies of Trudeau are quite blatant through
his immense historical knowledge and political shrewdness). Although
he brings up the possible implications of a rejected Federalist state,
he seems to scorn and laugh at the idea; “Separatism a revolution? My
eye. A counter-revolution; the national socialist counter-revolution”.
Such passages are indicative of the attitude Trudeau held towards the
political disorder of his own country and magnifies his disgust
towards the sluggish and immobile Duplessis regime. Throughout all
these radical and riveting compositions, the reader is faced with an
extremely unorthodox writing style which consists of both formal and
informal essay techniques.
Federalism and the French Canadians presents the reader with a
superlative ideological perspective of “how” and “why” the executive
branch of the country should be functioning in the eyes of Pierre
Trudeau. Although recognized as nothing more than a political activist
at the time of the ongoing political/social crisis in Canada, Trudeau
served as an adviser to the Privy Council Office in 1950 and
subsequently became a professor of Law at the University of Montreal
in 1960. His inauguration into the Federal Liberal Party in 1965 as
well as his future involvement with the Federal government
(Constitutional Lawyer, Minister of Justice, Prime Minister of Canada)
would bolster his credibility in this book. Not only does he stress
the importance and validity of the Canadian political scope when
dealing with his theories, but his historical and economical
evaluation of the world in general serves as a competent and impartial
method of comparing analogies. Trudeau had always been labelled as a
radical or socialist, but upon reading his anthology, the reader
accepts the notion that he was an advocate of liberalism and
democracy. I would consider his interpretations of Federalism and
Quebec heritage as being substantially valid even in the acrimonious
way in which Trudeau addresses the issues; “Without equality, one has
a dictatorship” (such indiscriminate assessments of the Canadian
government magnify the strength AND weaknesses of each essay) . The
only visible weakness in his analysis would be the position in which
he views the Provincial government under Duplessis (weak, subordinate,
naive) and this perhaps taints most of his bi-partisan observations
towards how the Federal government would treat Francophones under a
unilateral constitution. Otherwise, each and every proposition
presented to the reader is heavily supported and reinforced by the
central theme in the book which, in effect, could be viewed as a
strength; he supports the majority of his Federalist arguments with
quotes from noted dignitaries and political leaders from the past and
present such as Lord Acton (while defending Federalism in Canada), Mao
Tse-Tung (when referring to Quebec’s hostile and intolerance with
Canada), Aristotle (when discussing the perfect democratic union with
Quebec) and Nikita Khrushchev (in support of constitutional reform and
the possible effects of Dictatorships). Several of his essays had also
been published in Montreal and Toronto during the late 1960’s and his
address to the Canadian Bar Association on September 4th, 1967 is
featured in its entirety in his book (Trudeau used these facts to
strengthen and reinforce his expertise and experience in the field).
The material featured in Federalism and the French Canadians is
excessively difficult to digest and should be read by a student who is
familiar with the historical and political dilemmas presented in the
compositions. Although efficiently organized (dealing with Quebec and
social bedlam followed by solutions offered by Federalism), the book
is a challenge to understand in respects to how Trudeau plunges into
each scenario and issue with enormous furor and enthusiasm. He
generally expects the reader to have a large degree of background
knowledge on the subject of Federalism and Quebec. Without being
informed beforehand on the domestic difficulties of the country, this
particular reader surely would have been drowned in a sea of political
jargon and complex narrative insight. Nevertheless, Pierre Trudeau
captivated my imagination with his perspective of life in Canada and
the future of the country without a stable government. “My political
action; or my theory – insomuch as I can be said to have one – can be
expressed very simply: create counter-weights”, is how Trudeau
described the rationale behind his ideological thinking and how he
downplayed the stagnant political situation in Canada that suppressed
its greatest strength; representation and unity by a multicultural
society…a government that enshrined the rights and liberties of its
people and distributed the freedom and respect accordingly regardless
of ethnic or cultural discrepancies. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this
complex and unprecedented book; it provided a concise and insightful
portrait of the role that Federalism plays in Quebec’s backyard
during the middle of the 20th century. For a student who finds
himself caught up in 21st century politics, it is both a shock and a
pleasant surprise to climb back into history and discover the
productive and ideological perspective of a man who would eventually
rise to the occasion and become Prime Minister of Canada. Material
such as this should be featured on the curriculum for all students to
gaze upon, let alone only be recommended by critics who have studied
the works of Trudeau. Such monumental beliefs embodied into one man is
reason enough for a student in University or High School to open
Federalism and the French Canadians and learn more about Pierre Elliot
Trudeau.
|