Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
Pierre Elliot Trudeau

John H. Redekopp

Throughout his remarkable political career, Pierre Trudeau evoked every emotion except indifference. He simultaneously infuriated and charmed people. Following his death, these emotions seem to have been magnified. In their glowing eulogies, some pundits transformed a mixed political and personal record into total virtue and untarnished political brilliance. Many ordinary folk donned blinkers and did likewise. As columnist Paul Willcocks put it, “There’s something about death that makes us lose both our minds and our memories.”

The epitome of such distortion, a skewing of thought approaching blasphemy, appeared in our local newspaper, The Abbotsford News, on October 7. Concluding her praise of the late Prime Minister, a reader stated: “Maybe when God would be more like Trudeau, this world would be a better place to live.”

What should more thoughtful Christian citizens make of this leader who, for more than 15 years as Prime Minister, profoundly influenced, indeed to a considerable degree reshaped, this country? Here is a personal assessment with special attention given to the moral dimension of his political record.

Trudeau served his country well when, while always prepared to let majorities decide, he challenged the separatists in Quebec. Who of us who are old enough to have seen the coverage of the event, will ever forget Trudeau’s courage in that rock-dodging balcony scene on St. Jean Baptiste Day in June 1968? He stood his ground in the face of a defiant mob. Later, he led the successful “no” forces in the 1980 referendum. He laboured hard at unity negotiations and, in general, served his country well in this area. While Trudeau doubtless alienated large numbers of ultranationalists, he may have staved off national disintegration with all of the animosity and perhaps violence which such an outcome might have produced.

I also give Trudeau high marks for patriating Canada’s constitution. That was long overdue, but none of Trudeau’s predecessors had possessed the courage to do it. Similarly, Trudeau deserves gratitude for inspiring Canadians to be proud, in a healthy way, of themselves and of Canada. He also did much to raise Canada’s profile internationally.

For a series of specific policy measures I give Trudeau credit. His recognition of Red China was a laudable diplomatic initiative. (The United States soon followed suit.) His leadership in the campaign to abolish capital punishment, as decided by Parliament on July 14, 1976, was, in my view, highly moral. In a matter not generally considered to involve morality, Trudeau demonstrated courage and wisdom, when he convinced, at times even coerced, the country to accept metric measurements.

Trudeau deserves our gratitude for his opposition to unthinking, violent nationalism, for his support of the United Nations and for his commitment to Canada’s peacekeeping role. He also supported the granting of foreign aid, especially non-military assistance.

In general, Trudeau also deserves praise for his promotion of tolerance, justice and individual freedom. He served his country well by encouraging all Canadians to dream of what might be, to establish ideals and to realize their potential.

Unfortunately, there are also major failings. Trudeau’s personal arrogance, his unapologetic use of profanity and rude gestures, and his open contempt for opponents and lesser politicians are hardly the marks of greatness or high morality. Similarly, by fathering a child outside marriage, he profoundly tarnished his image as a doting father and family man. During the recent second round of Trudeaumania, following his death, this lapse of morality was almost transformed into a virtue. Both the media and the Catholic Church apparently suspended the usual evaluations. (Incidentally, one wonders what the media would say if a Canadian Alliance party leader fathered a child out of wedlock. The pontificating and condemnation would flood the land.)

Many of Trudeau’s policies were, in my view, both politically wrong and immoral. The rush to invoke the War Measures Act in October 1970 was an overreaction. More than 450 people were jailed, almost all for no cause. The criminal elements could have been dealt with in other ways. His cynical patronage appointments, especially in 1984, were indefensible. Giving public servants the right to strike and to cripple certain sectors of society was wrong. Civil servants, after all, operate an indispensable monopoly service, one for which taxpayers have paid. It is simply unacceptable to allow a small number of grain handlers or airport controllers or postal employees to hold a nation for ransom. There are better, more civilized ways to establish an equitable outcome of a dispute.

The entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for all its benefits, was a mistake. Given our system of responsible parliamentary government, it is manipulative and undemocratic to shift major decision-making power away from Parliament to nine unelected and unaccountable judges, individuals who are appointed on the whim of the Prime Minister. These judges now have the power to set aside traditional Canadian values and to impose their own views on a society which often does not want them. They have done so on several occasions.

There are additional areas of shortcoming. The National Energy policy of 1980 was an insult to the Canadian west. Ottawa has never subsidized western automobile buyers for the fact that they have to pay more for their vehicles because they live far from the factories in the east. But Ottawa quickly subsidized eastern automobile owners when gasoline cost them more because they live far from the oil wells. In addition, Ottawa unhesitatingly and indecently skimmed off huge tax revenues when world oil prices increased sharply. The NEP revealed a double standard and was immoral.

Trudeau’s fiscal record was dismal. He constantly ran huge deficits, and he increased the national debt nine-fold. Inflation and unemployment rose to unacceptable levels.

Already as Justice Minister and later as Prime Minister, Trudeau championed several causes which did not sit well with many Christians and other groups. He legalized abortion, made divorce much easier to get and decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. One can debate the pros and cons of the latter; it may have been a wise move. That Trudeau did not personally approve of homosexual behaviour is evident from his comment that “You may have to ask forgiveness from God but not from the justice minister.”

Concerning some policy initiatives, I have a mixed reaction. Perhaps the negative and positive results have canceled each other out with reference to the Official Languages Act and the Multiculturalism Act.

That Trudeau was both brilliant and able is not at issue. But we must distinguish between ability and performance, the actual political record. Charisma, talent, self-confidence, wit and flamboyance do not make up for misguided policies and failed initiatives. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, despite his uneven record, may have been the greatest Prime Minister Canada has had in the 20th century – it is too early to judge – but this complex man was certainly the most influential and the most consequential.

John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University and is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C.

Previous | Next 

Last modified November 29, 2000.

© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.