The Pelletier Crisis

Foreword: I am giving the citation data from the masthead of the volume and issue in which the article below first appears. Articles in Straight Talk! on anti-communism, and the penetration of Fabian socialist and far-left forces into Canada, are a researcher’s dream. They are full of quotations backed up with author, title, date and page number. If you are researching Communism in Canada, you can take Straight Talk! to the library and pore over the microfilm to find the documents referred to.

NB: I am featuring these articles for research purposes; not to make any particular political statement. Hope you find them useful. [Ed. NSIM]



Category:  Historical Reprints
Source:  Straight Talk! Published by the Edmund Burke Society
Editor:  F. Paul Fromm, B.A.
Associate Editor:  Kastus Akula
Writers:  E.B.S. Members and friends
Directors:  The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume III No. 9, May 1971

The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; individual responsibility; a self-sacrificing love of country; and a willing­ness to work and pay one’s own way and not be a burden on others. These virtues have made our civilization great. Communism, socialism, and welfare-state liberalism are tearing it apart. The Edmund Burke Society stands for a regeneration of Western Civilization and firm action against all its enemies.

The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians. Straight Talk! is produced by voluntary labour.



The Pelletier Crisis

La Crise de Pelletier:
An Apologia for Trudeaucracy

by Peter Dauphin

 
In our April issue, in discussing the new book by Secretary of State Gérard Pelletier (“Though René Lévesque belongs to what one might call the moderate left, I do not think that the political regime which he would install in an independent Québec would be of a socialist type”) 1, on the October crisis (La Crise d’Octobre, Editions du Jour, Montréal, 1971), we reviewed how Pelletier himself, in his function as Secretary of State and as Minister responsible for the federal Company of Young Canadians, had participated fully and actively in the Trudeau Clique’s program of financing “Red fifth column operations”, while bending every effort to protect them from a thorough-going investigation during the “Little October Crisis” of October 1969.

The readers of this magazine have been kept informed on the operation of this treasonous misfeasance, which has also involved the Canada Council (with Pelletier, again, as the Minister responsible) and the Department of National Health & Welfare, under the control of John Munro (“They’re going to raise hell!”), who turned over a half a million dollars in federal funds to the left-racist Black United Front in 1969, and who this year diverted public funds to the tune of $104,000.00 to the Hamilton Welfare Rights Organization, a violent mob which has terrorized Hamilton welfare workers. This mob is headed by a militant of the CCF-NDP, William Freeman. Further, Munro’s Mafia, along with the Citizenship Branch of the Office of the Secretary of State (Pelletier), the federal Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation, and the Indian Affairs Branch, also funneled thousands of federal dollars into the phoney Poor People’s Conference staged by leftist agents in Toronto last January.

This bulletin, like the Edmund Burke Society for which it speaks, has constantly exposed, deplored, condemned and lamented this program of public financing of anti-democratic activities, but the régime of Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“I hold no brief for the Liberal opposition — on the contrary, its mediocrity is partly to blame for the ills we suffer”), which inherited this program from Lester Pearson (“A totalitarian régime may well be devoted to the interests of its people”) and expanded it, has always been evasive in its explanations for it.

There has been much double-talk about “social animation” and “the belief that people should have a greater degree of responsibility and opportunity to identify their own social and economic problems and to seek solutions to them” (Cf. Ian Howard’s letter to Don Andrews, September 1969). One might almost suspect that we were living in 1771, rather than 1971, and that there were no trade unions, cooperatives, cultural organizations, credit unions, or other democratic organizations in Canada today engaged in “identifying social and economic problems and seeking solutions to them.” The curious thing, of course, is that this federal largesse is never made available to such genuine, representative organizations (EBS applied for a similar grant to match that made to the BUF, and was politely, but firmly, turned down) but to counterfeit fronts of a racist and/or totalitarian persuasion, all telling us how they are in solidarity with the oppressed poor in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, etc., (though never, alas, in solidarity with the oppressed poor behind the Iron Curtain).

Nor is this Trudeauvnik generosity (with our money) felt by what is probably the largest oppressed minority of Canadian citizens, who have spent their lives contributing their labour and energy to the national economy: the old age pensioners, who are expected to die, soon and quietly, and to stop haunting the national conscience. (In the meantime, let them go on subsisting on a can of dog food every other day.)

With the publication of Pelletier’s book, we are now told, quasi-officially, as it were, what the Government’s rationale is for this policy. In about as frank a statement as we are likely to get from a Trudeauvnik Cabinet Minister, we are treated to a pretty good rule-of-thumb definition of Trudeaucracy by one of its key practitioners:

“Every government has the mission to ‘put society to bed’, to foresee and provoke the changes that are needed, to run the risks of collective becoming, and to dream of it, to imagine beforehand the evolution toward a more just society, where the human person can expand. Very far from combating the new, emerging forces, it must go out to meet them, and to help them in their democratic action to transform, adapt, and improve economic and political conditions… Operational responses to problems like unemployment, for example, pollution, or terrorism, are not numerous.”

At a number of points in his book, Pelletier reiterates that the government is disposed to discourage the resort to violence in the pursuit of social change (which, according to the classic progressive superstition, is always presumed to be good in se) by “concretely encouraging” certain “tenants’ leagues, cooperative associations for family economy, and several other peoples’ initiatives” with “public funds”. Pelletier elaborates the “Trudeau Doctrine” in these terms:

“It is a matter of urgency that the State concretely provide certain disadvantaged groups with the technical means to make their case heard and to publicize their ideas… Governments already distribute very substantial subsidies in several areas; in the same manner, and without getting lost in some kind of utopia, the movement to favour people’s pressure groups, already begun, must be accentuated. Without the support of the public authorities, these latter will renounce their activity within the rules of the game of democracy, and will succumb to the temptation of totalitarian strategies… in a democratic system — or one which is tending toward democracy — the most efficacious help which can be brought to a disadvantaged group consists in informing it and providing it with appropriate tools, in order to avoid the frittering away of its energies in the multiplication of initiatives leading nowhere… to explore with them all the existing possibilities for them to achieve their objectives. When no possibility remains, then, doubtless, violence is justified, for it is the last resort of man seeking to safeguard his dignity…”

As thus articulated by Pelletier, this “doctrine” forms a part of his apologia for the Trudeauvnik police state imposed on the nation last October by the invocation of the War Measures Act. According to this rationale, the federal government provides means for such subversives to “raise hell” within the framework of a tenuous legality, and the recourse to kidnapping of prominent public personalities by the FLQ was a violation of Ottawa’s ground rules for subversion, that last straw of “violent” procedure which the Trudeau Clique was not prepared to tolerate.

What is significant here, is that the Doctrine takes little account of the substantial totalitarianism of such groups and their aims, only the means which they employ. At any rate, that is the theory; as we have seen, totalitarianism is not merely a question of “strategies and in practice, the red terrorists (felquists and other) have long benefited from federal financial solicitude, even when their terrorism exceeded the bounds of legality and “non-violence”.
 

The Trudeauvnik “Master Plan”

 
We have seen, and continue to see, precisely how “popular” (of the people) are the “people’s pressure groups” receiving such federal aid. Last April we cited advertisements published in the FLQ paper, DEUX MAI, by the Department of National Defense as recently as a few months ago. Alex Bandy, one of the Soviet wheels running the aforementioned Poor People’s Conference, perhaps let too many Trudeauvnik cats out of the bolshevik bag when he told the conference that

“The way Munro tells it, the government is really, secretly, on our side. It’s everybody else who is against us, and that’s why the government can’t help us. So, the master plan is to give us money to organize and demonstrate and win popular support, then the government will move…”

Thus we see that Munro, and the Trudeau Compact of which he and Pelletier are parts, are in collusion with the Stalinist fifth columnists in our midst, aiming essentially for the same objectives as they, but eager to have it appear that when Ottawa makes its dramatic move to socialize the economy, one way or another, it will seem to be in dutiful response to a massive demand from “the people”, i.e., from the street mobs organized and mobilized by the red fronts, and financially manipulated by the Trudeau gang. As we have indicated before, this is the classic Communist strategy of “pressure from above and pressure from below“. As in occupied Czecho-Slovakia, it is the people which is in the middle. It is the working class which must move decisively to smash this leftist “master plan”, and to preserve what remains of our democratic liberties. The time, citizen, is getting shorter, and shorter, and shorter…
 
__________
1  Yes, it would be of the “socialist type”.  Download and read your own free copy of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, in the sidebar. Look for the blue lightning.
 

Gérard Pelletier And The FLQ: New Dimensions In Trudeauvnik Hypocrisy

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! Published by The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editors: Kastuś Akula
Writers: E.B.S. Members and Friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.

Volume III Number 7, April 1971 (Pages 14-20)

The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; a self-sacrificing love of country; and a willingness to work and pay one’s own way and not be a burden on others. These virtues have made our civilization great Communism, socialism, and welfare-state liberalism are tearing it apart. The Edmund Burke Society stands for a regeneration of Western Civilization and firm action against all its enemies.

The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians. Straight Talk! is produced by voluntary labour.


Gérard Pelletier And The FLQ: New Dimensions In Trudeauvnik Hypocrisy

By Peter Dauphin

Gérard Pelletier

Gérard Pelletier

Last March, advance copies of a new book by Secretary of State Gérard Pelletier (“imported terrorism”) were made available to the press in Ottawa, and the fat was in the fire. LA CRISE D’OCTOBRE (The October Crisis), authored by a cabinet Minister, and dealing with matters of high public policy, cannot be considered, as long as its author remains in the government, as an expression of private, personal opinion, and despite the phoney official disclaimers, it must be treated as “semi”, or, at least, as “quasi”-official.

The intriguing thing is that it substantially contradicts the dishonest Trudeau line that he slapped the War Measures Act on the nation because of “apprehended insurrection”, and the Trudeau Cabinet is reported to have been somewhat rocked at being made to look even more foolish by one of its own key members, who also happens to be the Prime Minister’s right hand.

Published by Les Éditions du Jour in Montréal, run by soft-hearted, soft-headed Jacques Hébert (“working in the shadows”), who worships Trudeau with the fervour of a dedicated chauvinist, the book points out

that the Front de libération du Québec has been gestating in that province for eight years, that it is a tool of the Communist Party, that none of the electronic equipment it has stolen since 1965 has ever been recovered, that it has “little concern for Québec nationalism despite its propaganda,” and links it to collateral red front groups such as the Front de libération populaire (People’s Liberation Front), and the Mouvement Syndicale Politique (Trade Union Political Movement).

Pelletier, who was tight-lipped throughout the crisis, now tells us that “The FLQ never tried to seize power in Quebec on the occasion of the October crisis. I doubt they had this intention in the course of the eight years of existence of their movement.” Readers of STRAIGHT TALK!, of course, will not be surprised at these “revelations” from on high. As we reported at the time (October 1970), “invoking the War Measures Act is all out of proportion to the danger it is supposed to deal with. The FLQ, despite the panic in Ottawa and Quebec, is not about to take over Canada or Québec!

Pierre-Elliott Trudeau

Pierre-Elliott Trudeau

Any action to curb these ‘few guys throwing bombs’ as recently as a year ago, was frowned upon by the Trudeau dictatorship as ‘McCarthyism’ and ‘witch-hunting’ which the government was prepared to ‘deal with immediately’; but then, of course, Trudeau did not feel his own person to be seriously threatened, and had confidence in the safety provided him by the elaborate security precautions he had taken back in 1968 to protect himself, following the assassination of Robert Kennedy.”

In our December (1970) issue, we wrote that

“Trudeau really does not want to see the forces of Red revolution defeated. Just yesterday he was the political intimate of many of the FLQ leaders.”

The progressive press, of course, has a different explanation, one consistent with its Maoist mythology: Trudeau was eager to “re­press” the rising forces of “national liberation and social change” and to persecute “revolutionaries” generally. (Things are so simple when you live in the fantasy world of leftist alienation).

MARX AGAINST VIOLENCE ??!!

While much that is true in the Pelletier book is not new, what is new is not necessarily true, or at least reflects some of the political confusion and inconsistency which overlays much Trudeauvnik rhetoric.

Pelletier now admits, accurately, that

“The backing for the FLQ came, not from the proletariat in whose name (it) presumed to speak, but from intellectuals” (Cf. William Johnson, despatch from Montreal, GLOBE & MAIL, March 25, 1971).

Inaccurately, he refers to the FLQ as “for the most part, relatively indifferent to any Marxist or Maoist ideology.” This was capped by the monumental political illiteracy of Jérome Choquette, Minister of Justice in the cabinet of Robert Bourassa, who, when asked to comment on the Pelletier opus, told the press on March 24th that the FLQ “may resemble Communism” but was “not pure Marxism because Marx was against violence”!

Choquette was to expand on the political illiteracy of the police in general five days later when he addressed the Toronto Board of Trade (March 29th):

“The police are not knowledgeable, and are only partially equipped to deal with organized crime and terrorism. They do not have the proper perspectives and methods,” he said, “to understand the ideological background of terrorism. We require thinkers who will understand the terrorists’ motives.” (Cf. TELEGRAM, page 28, March 30, 1971).

– Page 15 –

NDP leader Michel Chartrand backs FLQ terrorist Charles Gagnon

NDP leader Michel Chartrand backs FLQ terrorist Charles Gagnon

Predictably, Pelletier‘s book has provided the psychopathic left, now engaged in openly and brazenly defending the FLQ killers (and the social communist CCF-NDP is up to its navel in this counterfeit “civil rights” movement), with excellent ammunition with which to embarrass the Trudeau Compact.

Pelletier having finally forced himself to admit the nihilist nature of felquisme (a rather recent development, to say the least), he now begins to assume, in their eyes, something of the aspect of the late US Senator Joseph McCarthy. To those inexperienced in the devious manoeuvering of this paternalistic poker game, this would be misleading. The record, alas, still stands:

from 1960 to 1965, Pelletier convened a number of secret, informal meetings in his posh Westmount home, involving such famous personages as Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“I am against revolution”); René Lévesque (“The giant is awakening”), then a Minister in the Liberal Cabinet of Jean LeSage1 (“opened the door to propose all the constitutional changes Quebec could desire”), and now leader of the national socialist Parti Québécois; Jean Marchand (“Now all members of the FLQ are not terrorists”) another key man in Trudeau’s federal politburo; and Jean-Louis Gagnon, who, in 1938, organized the Soviet front known as the French-Canadian Revolutionary Party, and who today is Trudeau’s choice as Director of Information Canada.

Pierre Vallières

Pierre Vallières

At the time, Pelletier was one of the founders, with Trudeau, of the magazine CITÉ LIBRE, which they both edited, as well as editor-in-chief of the prestigious Montréal family daily, LA PRESSE. In 1962, Pierre Vallières, who was and had been for some time a contributor to the pages of CITÉ LIBRE (along with such literary luminaries as his buddy Charles Gagnon, John Harbron, and Stanley Ryerson), returned from Europe and was promptly hired by Pelletier as a reporter for LA PRESSE.

According to Peter Desbarats, “Trudeau … maintained a high opinion of (Vallières’) ability.  At a small dinner at Chez Son Père, a journalists’ restaurant only a quick stagger from LA PRESSE, Trudeau and Pelletier, in the summer of 1963, suggested that Vallières and another journalist take charge of CITÉ LIBRE” (Cf. “Quebec’s Imprisoned Revolutionary”, SATURDAY NIGHT, February 1970).  Vallières accepted the appointment, only to walk out in the following March (1964), having violently disagreed with the Trudeau strategy of legal*, Fabian infiltration of the federal structure, in favour of the “national liberation” ploy of the Red imperialists.

* (NB:  Fabian-style invasion of a political party for unconstitutional objectives is not “legal”.  It is criminal subversion of the means of government.  Canada cannot be overthrown “legally”.  The usurpation of elected or appointed office is not “legal”, but is fraud and treason.)

L-R: Jean Marchand, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (Pearson's "three wise men")

L-R: Jean Marchand, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (Pearson’s “three wise men”)

A year later, Messrs. Trudeau, Pelletier and Marchand accepted the invitation of Prime Minister Lester Pearson (“There is nothing in the Middle East which would require Canada to go to war. Why should we?”) to enter the ranks of the federal Liberal Party, where they were immediately ensconced in positions of leadership and influence under Pearson‘s (left?) wing. The Québécois left (largely a coterie of reactionary intellectuals), failing to appreciate the Machiavellian duplicity of the move, complained that the totalitarian trio had deserted them and gone over to the enemy camp.

To reassure them, Pelletier and Trudeau published a piece in LE DEVOIR (Montréal) pointing out that

“We are pursuing the same objectives and adhering to the same political ideas we have been espousing for so long in CITÉ LIBRE”, including, it was made clear, “a politics open to the left.”

Lester Bowles Pearson (Soviet agent)

Lester Bowles Pearson
(Soviet agent)

Just how open was to be made abundantly clear in the next five years. An outcry was heard from Progressive Conservative kingmaker Dalton Camp, who charged that the Pearson administration, in clasping “the three wise men from Quebec” to its bosom, was not merely “leaning to the left”, but “rushing pell-mell to the left” (Cf. TELEGRAM, October 6, 1965). Since then, of course, Mr. Camp has cynically demonstrated his own “politics open to the left”, having joined New Democratic Party leader T. C. Douglas to grace platforms at Yankee-baiting, anti-Viet Nam rallies.

In 1968, Trudeau was Prime Minister and Pelletier was Secretary of State. Their protégé, Vallières, was on trial for the murder of Thérèse Morin, who died in the FLQ bombing of the La Grenade Shoe Factory in Montréal. The defense listed both Trudeau and Pelletier as witnesses. To our knowledge, neither appeared. In 1969, Quebec’s Court of Appeal granted Vallières a new trial, and he petitioned for bail. To plead his case at the bail hearing, he subpoenaed his former comrades, those famous “civil libertarians” Pelletier and Trudeau, and again they weasled out of this legal obligation. (The law can so often be bent to accommodate Mr. Trudeau; remember how a Justice of the Peace in Vancouver in 1965 refused to charge Trudeau with assault committed against two demonstrators, despite the information duly laid against him?) These old (not really so old) Stalinist skeletons in the political closet of Messrs. Trudeau and Pelletier continue to rattle most eloquently.

When it became clear that the presiding Judge at Vallières’ bail hearing, Paul Trepanier, was going out of his way to spare Trudeau and Pelletier the embarrassment of obeying this legal obligation to appear, Vallières’ lawyer, the notorious Robert

– Page 16 –

Lemieux, mouthed off at the microphones of the CBC news program, THE WORLD AT SIX, that Pelletier, Trudeau, and Vallières had been most intimate associates in the early sixties at CITÉ LIBRE, and that they “did everything together”.

The FLQ front, Committee for Aid to the Vallières-Gagnon group, distributed a leaflet outside the courtroom, lamenting, “Thus does the Prime Minister coldly turn his back on a former comrade and collaborator.”

THE COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS: PELLETIER’S PROGRESSIVE PORK BARREL

Almost from its inception, about the same time that “the three wise men” from the Québécois left had moved into the Pearson inner circle, the CYC has managed to make enough trouble to keep it in the headlines from coast to coast on a pretty regular basis. Established ostensibly to “support, encourage and develop programs for social, economic and community development in Canada and abroad through voluntary service” (Cf. Act to Establish the CYC), such vague terms of reference were ideally suited to accommodate the Trotskyites, Maoists, and assorted leftwing nazis of the Student Union for Peace Action and Canadian Union of Students variety, who flocked to its banners and got on the federal gravy train and milked it for all it was worth.

Since many of them were getting restless in SUPA (where a split on strategy was brewing between the Stalinists and the Fabians), and the CUS was beginning to feel the first stirrings of the student resistance to its phony, pocket-picking racket which ultimately destroyed it, the arrival of CYC upon the scene, the gift of Prime Minister Pearson, was most convenient as a means of employing the anti-social energy of these professional juvenitarians and assorted anarcho-socialists.

In an article entitled “The Student Movement and Canadian Independence”, James Laxer, candidate for the leadership of the national NDP, and reputed to be the real author of its WAFFLE MANIFESTO, revealed that SUPA “was the organization of the Canadian new left. During its brief history it had a major impact on youth organizations in Canada — especially the CYC and CUS.” Laxer describes the above-mentioned split in SUPA as a contest between the “militants”, who “tended to oppose activity in mainstream organizations”, on the one hand, and the “liberals” on the other, who were “attracted to the Company of Young Canadians, where (they) saw an opportunity to continue (their) previous activities in a more affluent setting”; he also makes it clear that they were “attracted by the prospects of using or wrecking the CYC”. This article appeared in the Summer 1969 issue of CANADIAN DIMENSION, a Maoist magazine published in Winnipeg by Cy Gonick, who now sits in the Manitoba Legislature for the NDP government of that province.

Judy La Marsh, Pearson‘s Secretary of State, confessed in 1969 that “its (the CYC’s) problems were never discussed in cabinet … None of the Ministers were able to become involved with the Company … We were never consulted on appointments to CYC’s Board, and never had much of an idea of what the Company was supposed to be doing” (Cf. article by William French, GLOBE & MAIL, November 6, 1969).

Though only constituted, legally and formally, by Parliament in 1966, the CYC structure and administration were set up at least a year before that, and those who took it over had very clear ideas of what they had in mind: “constructive shit-disturbing”, in the words of its Director, Stewart Goodings, speaking to students at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College in November of that year (Cf. VARSITY, November 19, 1965).

The nation had been shocked to learn in the previous August that SUPA had been given a $4,000.00 contract by the CYC (“to buy information”), which was seen as overt subsidization of subversion. “SUPA is the only young people’s group in Canada”, Goodings told the press in Ottawa, “that has done the sort of work we want to do.”

Ironically, in the following year, the Act establishing the CYC as an official entity, was to designate it as a “charitable organization”, thus retroactively legalizing this criminal diversion of public funds. It was now clear that the recipients of its “charity” (siphoned from the public purse) were to be the active agents and freeloaders of the nation’s degenerate communist subculture.

Established from the beginning, subsequent events would only confirm the existence of an organic tie-in with such fascist fronts as SUPA (since 1967, transmuted into a number of new fronts) and the terror apparatus of Quebec’s notorious “Strangulation” front, the FLQ.

In 1967, Mao-worshiping David De Poe (“an atmosphere of intimidation — people were being beaten up”) was arrested for stopping traffic with his hippie disciples in Toronto’s hippie roost, Yorkville (a typical CYC project) and his CYC bosses obligingly hired the expensive Aubrey Golden to defend him (they’re spending our money, remember!) Golden again appeared for De Poe last March when he was tried for “obstructing the police” in the course of the Red anti-American riot at the US Consulate last May 9th. That same summer (1967), the

– Page 17 –

Montreal GAZETTE published a front page denunciation of the CYC’s anti-Canadian activities, charging that “Communists and other radicals” were “trying to take over” the CYC. The paper quoted an article by CYC “field worker” Lynn Curtis (“The company has little meaning to my work here, except for the money”), published in the Communist Party’s youth magazine, SCAN (Scab?) “which recommended the Company as a good place for radical youth to accomplish something” and which bragged of “a shift to the left in the CYC in the past year” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa, GLOBE, August 25, 1967).

Columnist Lubor Zink commented at the time that

“the fact that this attack from within has, in the form of the CYC, acquired Government sponsorship and financing, shows the extent of our befuddlement … we are perilously vulnerable to ideological infiltration and subversion. It is this type of conquest which the nihilistic dupes of the shrewd enemies of democracy are pushing hardest, cashing in on our unpreparedness to meet the attack which we even help finance from public funds (Cf. Zink’s column, August 31, 1967).

Of course, the warning went unheeded in official Ottawa.

In November 1968, after Trudeau had become Prime Minister, Ray Perrault (Liberal, Burnaby-Seymour), in the course of a Commons debate over the CYC’s budget for 1968-69 (nearly two million dollars!) questioned the payment of a fee of $11,000.00 (and “expenses” to the tune of $8,140.82) to Ferry Hunnius, for a fifty-page “Report”, the gist of which was

“that the Western parliamentary system in its various variations (sic), does not meet the demands of the technological age and the simultaneous desire of the individual to participate meaningfully in the social, political, and economic decisions that affect him.”

What Mr. Hunnius would replaced our system of responsible government with may be inferred from his long career in such fascist fronts as the World Peace Council, the Canadian Committee for Nuclear Disarmament (later to become SUPA), the Canadian Peace Research Institute (Pelletier and Trudeau as former Directors), and more recently, the sinister Praxis Corporation (Cf. despatch from Ottawa by John Dafoe, GLOBE, November 16, 1968).

In 1969, we had our first or “little” October Crisis: in a joint statement issued by Mayor Jean Drapeau and Executive Committee Chairman Lucien Saulnier, on behalf of Montreal’s municipal administration, the CYC was denounced for its accommodation of “convicted terrorists and Communist agitators.”

In Ottawa, the CYC’s Public Relations Director, Ian Hamilton (“our volunteers are free to join any party they want”) cautiously admitted that “two or three” of the CYC’s Québec workers were members of the FLP (the above ground, “legal” arm of the FLQ) but insisted that the CYC “would continue to regard it as a political party like any other” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa by John Burns, GLOBE, October 14, 1969).

Later that month, T. Anthony Malcom, Vice-President of the Quebec Section of the Liberal Federation of Canada, told an electrified audience in Mont Royal that the CYC was in complicity with the FLQ terror, and linking the latter to financial and political sponsorship in occupied Cuba, Algeria, and with the Red terrorists of El Fatah in the Holy Land and the Black Panther Party in the USA. He listed, not Hamilton’s grudging “two or three”, but 27 “alleged subversives” on the CYC’s payroll. All this happened after Trudeau, in the previous March, had given Saulnier his solemn assurance that “Pelletier had assured him (Trudeau) that the Company’s new Executive was working to reduce the influence of undesirable elements” in the CYC! (The only elements considered “undesirable” in the CYC, it would seem, were Christians — such as Ruth Watson, turned down in September 1966 because, she was told, “my allegiance to God would make me partial”).

This assurance was part of the famous secret correspondence which provided the House of Commons with another of Trudeau‘s famous lies; at the end of November 1969, when the House was full of the CYC-FLQ scandal, he denied ever having received a complaint from Saulnier the previous March, and then just happened to run across it in his files, which should tell us how seriously he took the news of Soviet infiltration and freeloading within the CYC!

Marc Lalonde

Marc Lalonde

Further evidence of this infiltration from the top down was published the next day in Douglas Fisher‘s column (December 2, 1969), where Fisher’s interview with Marc Lalonde, “Pearson‘s braintruster, now PM Trudeau‘s chief of staff”, revealed that “The (Executive) Council (of the CYC) never really had tight control from the start. Remember that there were members on the Provisional Council who believed very strongly in the New Left methods, people like Art Pape of SUPA… By the end of the CYC’s first major training session for volunteers at Antigonish in September 1966, the pattern was set of using New Left methods. Those of us in the Prime Minister’s office … didn’t want to interfere too

– Page 18 –

much.” They didn’t “interfere” in March 1969, either, after Saulnier’s first discreet complaint, despite Trudeau‘s sanctimonious assurances to him that something would be done. Indeed, the situation got worse and worse, and led to the joint statement of Messrs. Saulnier and Drapeau in October, as well as the McCarthyite blast of T. Anthony Malcom.

That autumn, the press was saturated with revelations of the extent of the corruption in the CYC: American draft dodgers living high off the hog (and we do mean “high”) on CYC-furnished incomes; pornographic, blasphemous “underground” papers financed by CYC and mailed postage free; Christian volunteers purged because of their religion; FLQ terrorists in top, strategic jobs; CYC paying rental on premises used by FLQ fronts; expensive equipment supplied to such fronts, e.g., typewriters, office equipment, etc.; long distance telephone calls to New York, Hollywood, etc., etc.. There seemed to be no end of it, and it had been going on from the beginning!

PELLETIER RUNS INTERFERENCE

Despite the widespread public clamour for a Royal Commission to investigate this mess, Pelletier and the Trudeau Compact took decisive steps to ward off such a threat to their children in the street right from the start, and worked to “contain” the scandal by means of an inquiry by a mere Parliamentary Committee (they controlled Parliament, after all, and certainly had learned how to hogtie parliamentary committees!).

Pelletier announced on October 23rd that “a House Committee will look into accusations that the Company has been involved in subversive activities” and admitted that he had known that FLQ terrorist Pierre Renaud, Regional Co-Ordinator of the CYC in Quebec, had been convicted of attempted robbery in an FLQ fund-raising drive (Cf. Peter Ward, despatch from Ottawa, TELEGRAM, October 23, 1969).

The next day, the inquiry was confided to the House Committee on Broadcasting, Film, and Assistance to the Arts, (the unconscious humor went unnoticed) and T. C. Douglas expressed concern that the inquiry could “escalate into a witch-hunt” (familiar?), and said he could not accept an investigation of the CYC’s “subversive activities”, only an “evaluation” of its program.

Pelletier responded dutifully to this prompting from the social communist left: “any suspicion of witch-hunting or McCarthyism will be dealt with immediately”, he said, thus contradicting Peter Ward’s report (Cf. Claude Henault‘s report, Ottawa, TELEGRAM, October 23rd).

Three days later, Citizen Trudeau himself, in an interview with CBC-TV’s ace newsman Ron Collister, nailed down this crucial deflection of the investigation when he said “that the Commons Committee investigating the Company of Young Canadians would not probe charges of subversion such as those made by Montreal Executive Council Chairman Lucien Saulnier“, but would confine itself to looking into “the structure and organization and general activities of the CYC.”

Pelletier had been more categorical: “it was the behaviour of the Company, and not that of any individuals within it which was to be investigated” (a transparently specious distinction!) (Cf. Henault, ibid.). Scarcely a month before, September 29th, Pelletier had told the press that in regard to the CYC in Quebec, “we will draw the line at sedition” (Cf. Canadian Press, September 29, 1969).

Well, they had never drawn the line, neither at the birth of the CYC, nor in March of that year when Saulnier had asked for a Royal Commission, and now the Trudeauvniks were taking steps to see that Parliament be prevented from getting to the root of the problem, and that the publicly-financed Red traitors be protected from the people’s McCarthyism!

It was chillingly clear that the Trudeau-Pelletier clique had all along covered, accommodated, protected and run interference for the CYC’s substantial relations, not only with the FLQ, but other Red fifth column operations as well, permitting public funds and facilities to be made available to these Red fivers and enemies of the people.

Despite the Trudeau-Pelletier strictures and the interference of fanatic Liberal back-benchers doing their bit to shield the CYC traitors (“MP’s from three parties who will be on the committee have told me that it is not going to be a witch hunt for separatists, Trotskyites, etc.”&nbap;– Douglas Fisher, November 4, 1969), the Committee carried on, and finally brought down its Report on December 4th, which admitted that

“Evidence has been adduced of an infiltration into the Company, particularly in one region of the country, by individuals who have used the Company as a base for acts of subversion, violence and illegality, which the administrators of the Company were apparently powerless to control. It would also appear that public funds may have (sic) been surreptitiously diverted to support those purposes … that … various volunteers … participated in overt acts of a political and partisan nature, contrary to the objectives and best interests of the Company,”

all of which was public knowledge before the Committee began its “inquiry”.

– Page 19 –

Nothing was done but to place the CYC under some sort of financial trusteeship, and little has been heard of the CYC since. The scoundrels responsible for this treasonous scandal are still in power, wrapping themselves up in the Canadian flag, escaping the focused scrutiny which their responsibility and complicity merit, shifting the spotlight to anyone, anywhere, anything, if only to avoid having to answer for their guilt, or for having to face the real issue: Red terror.

Claude Ryan

Claude Ryan

Trudeau has labored mightily to avoid having to identify the enemy: they were always those “separatists … and others” (we knew they were Red agents). During the October crisis, he launched the bogey of an alleged “takeover” plot to form a “provisional government” in Quebec to deal with the FLQ (through the instrumentality of his chief sycophant in the English-language press, Peter C. Newman, then running THE DAILY STAR). This was to implicate René Lévesque and the editor of the Montreal LE DEVOIR, Claude Ryan (“He has laid the blame at everyone’s doorstep except his own”), since these gentlemen had signed a public statement urging a soft, compliant line toward the FLQ demands.

When Peter Reilly of the News Department of CJOH-TV (Ottawa) was about to expose the whole ploy in a T.V. documentary, steps were taken to quash it. Labour Minister Bryce Mackasey (I’ll give you some valuable background information”) summoned Reilly to his plush office; the show was never to see the airwaves. Trudeau then had the consummate effrontery to blame the press for having fabricated the story, the “truth” of which he still refused to deny.

All this was designed, in the Reichstag-fire mentality of the Trudeau Compact, to reinforce its allegation of “apprehended insurrection”, its specious justification for the imposition of a police state.

Now we have Pelletier‘s new book charting new dimensions in Trudeauvnik hypocrisy by telling us that the FLQ “has developed into an international Communist underground with little concern for Quebec nationalism”,

a “development” in which he and the whole “Trudeau Chapel” have played a real and sinister role, abusing their high offices as guardians of the national security and the federal purse.

Even while Pelletier was checking the galley proofs of his book, his fellow cabinet Minister, (Defence!) Donald MacDonald (“on the whole you had a pattern of incidents here, which, given the revolutionary ideology we’re talking about, in other situations and in other countries, had escalated itself up into a state of disorder in which it will be virtually impossible to carry on the normal processes of Government”) was doing his bit to keep public money flowing down to the FLQ!

The February issue of DEUX MAI, (May 2nd) a sheet published by the FLQ front, Movement for the Defence of Political Prisoners in Quebec, featured a half-page ad for the Department of National Defence! How much did the Reds get for this ad? How many Red sheets are thus subsidized? How much of the Department’s pared-to-the-bone budget is thus diverted to the Red fifth column in Canada?

The special March issue of this sheet featured a front page devoted entirely to the killer of Pierre Laporte: a “Che Guevara”-type portrait of the killer, with the quotation: “I shall have my true trial after total independence, after the liberation of the people of Quebec.”

Robert Bourassa

Robert Bourassa

While continuing to finance Red terror and treason, the Trudeau Compact and its lackeys now confess their impotence to cope with it: “It can happen anywhere”, Jérome Choquette tells the Toronto Board of Trade, “but particularly in the big cities like Toronto and Vancouver.” His boss and Trudeau stooge Robert Bourassa, Prime Minister [sic] of Quebec, told the press last November 30th that

“We cannot stamp out terrorism entirely — in fact we must get used to new forms of terrorism” (Cf. CP, Montreal, December 1, 1970).

Later in December, Lord Elliott himself, in a letter to the Army, warned that “bombings, kidnappings, and other acts of violence are possibilities we may have to face in the future” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa, TELEGRAM, March 31, 1971). What it means, of course, is that the authorities are determined to tolerate Red terror indefinitely, cost what it may to the Canadian people!

“ALL GUYS FROM OUR FAMILY”

René Lévesque

René Lévesque

Last month we stated that the shadow boxing of the Trudeau Compact in October was “a contest in which both antagonists emerged from the same ideological corner.” This was more or less confirmed by René Lévesque on March 23rd last on the Pierre Berton show, when he referred to the Trudeauvniks as “all guys from our family”. On the same day, he addressed the National Press Club (they’ll take anybody) in Trudeaugrad, venting his spleen at the hypocrisy of the Trudeauvnik federalists: “Guys like Trudeau and Marchand, the great democrats of 15 years ago, forgetting practically everything that I’d read of them, and in some cases, written along with them.”

– Page 20 –

Just what Pelletier‘s book is supposed to accomplish is not clear. It has caused a lot of ruckus in the Trudeau Politburo. Conservative Party whip in the Commons, Tom Bell, has suggested that Trudeau is involved in its production, since his personal staffer, Pierre Billon, “worked long hours” on it prior to publication.

If Trudeau is involved, it is probably in an effort to try to back away as gracefully as he can, with the passage of time and the shortness of human memory to help, from the untenable grounds for his imposition of the War Measures Act last October. Such Machiavellian melodrama, probably inspired more by a fear for his own skin2 than anything concretely tangible in terms of true national emergency, was hardly in proportion to the menace posed by those he had so cavalierly dismissed as “a bunch of guys throwing bombs”.

Now he is to be the first Canadian Prime Minister to officially visit the USSR while in office. This visit to the Red Fatherland will not be his first, though it will be his first under the “Liberal” label. He was to have gone last autumn, but the pilgrimage was postponed, because the USSR had decided to pay a little visit to James Cross and Pierre Laporte.

– 30 –

_______

* Author Peter Dauphin notes that Trudeau, Pelletier and Marchand were “immediately ensconced in positions of leadership and influence” and he asks, “under Pearson‘s (left?) wing”. In fact, in the same April 1971 issue, Jaanus Proos for the Edmund Burke Society (“The John Birch Society Looks at Trudeau: A Review”) emphatically denies that Pearson is Communist; however, Proos is wrong.

Pearson had been outed by defecting Soviet military intelligence (GRU), Elizabeth Bentley, during the U.S. McCarran hearings. A chunk of Pearson’s FBI file is online, with a letter from the FBI advising Canada’s RCMP that Pearson was a Soviet agent. How Pearson became Prime Minister nonetheless is as yet unknown.

1 Ed. NSIM: At page 101 of the Parti Québécois’s 1972 political manifesto entitled Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, we learn that since 1961, Quebec governments had been trying … to construct a Communist Plan. Jean Lesage was Premier of Quebec in 1961, with Communist René Lévesque in his “Liberal” Cabinet. Further research indicates that “all the constitutional changes Quebec could desire” from the standpoint of Mr. Lesage, could be listed under one heading: REGIONAL UNION, Communist style, based on the one forming overseas in Europe, i.e., the European Economic Community, now fondly dubbed by the Perestroika Deception‘s Mikhail Gorbachev as the “New European Soviet“. In other words, from at least 1961, shortly after the signing in Europe of the twin Treaties of Rome initiating that regional union, the Communists, sometimes under the label of “Liberals”, have been working in Quebec on producing the top half of the North American Soviet Union.

2 Ed. NSIM: In my view, the reason Trudeau seized the whole country with War Measures is because all of Canada is scheduled to be restructured for regional union. Therefore, the whole country had to be implicated, so as to involve it later in “negotiating” the regional union with Quebec as the “political solution” to the crisis presented by the FLQ terrorists.

Which also explains why there were War Measures to begin with. Trudeau was not simply inspired “by a fear for his own skin”. He was a Soviet mole, executing a strategy preparatory to planned negotiations to restructure all of Canada for Soviet convergence and regional North American Union.

As such, occupying the federal level, Trudeau and other Red agents could not be seen “negotiating” in the manner by which the terms of the Anglo-Irish treaty had been concluded in the 1920s, between representatives of the British Government on the one hand, and representatives of what in the strict British eye was an illegal assembly of rebels. The Reds in the federal government could not dispose of the territory of Quebec, which is a legal jurisdiction, by “negotiating” with any band of rebels. There had to be someone credible to negotiate with.

Moreover, the FLQ had no control over territory. Logically, this is why the Parti Québécois was set up. A political party could assume control over territory, and pretend to dispose of it. The Parti Québécois, garbed as a “separatist” party, with a media personality at its head (René Lévesque), would look “mainstream”. In power, it would have control of territory, and be (falsely) presumed to have the right to dispose of it.

The FLQ terrorists were far more often deliberately mislabeled in the general media as “separatists”, or as “ultra-nationalist French Canadians” because the Communist goal of the “negotiations” was to be hidden behind the appearance of an “ethnic war”.

– 30 –
 

Post Scriptum:  I was very interested by the statement in E.B.S. above that Pelletier had admitted the “Front de libération du Québec … is a tool of the Communist Party.

I got the book at the library (Pelletier’s 1971 La Crise d’Octobre) and scanned it into my laptop. I’ve gone through the whole thing and cannot find a statement that amounts to this. I’m reading the French book as it appeared in 1971, published by Editions du Jour, there’s no ISBN in the book. I can’t find that statement. Admittedly, I was reading quickly, and “scanned” over much of it, but it’s not as long as the 200+ pages makes it seem. The publisher has relied on a lot of white space to fill out the book.

I did find at page 57 a statement that seems quite different from this:

Par ailleurs, je demeure perplexe devant l’hypothèse d’une direction centrale du FLQ, une sorte d’éminence grise tirant les ficelles de loin. J’hésite même à croire à une planification ou simplement à une concertation stratégique des diverses cellules felquistes. Par parenthèse, je suis bien conscient, en émettant cette hypothèse, d’amener de l’eau au moulin de ceux qui condamnent les gouvernements pour avoir, à leur avis, exagéré l’ampleur du danger et l’importance du mouvement subversif.

In addition, I remain perplexed by the theory of central control of the FLQ, a kind of éminence grise pulling the strings from afar. Likewise, I hesitate to believe in planning or simply in strategic cooperation of the various FLQ cells. In parentheses, I am quite conscious, in putting forth this hypothesis, of adding grist to the mill of those who condemn the governments for having, in their view, exaggerated the extent of the danger and the importance of the subversive movement.

Pelletier thus denies that the FLQ is controlled by others from a distance. This would seem to negate the assertion by EBS in 1971 that Pelleter had claimed the FLQ is a “tool” of the Communist Party, i.e., of Moscow, which would necessarily be pulling its strings from a distance.

Communiqué de la cellule pantoufle

Communiqué de la cellule pantoufle


Pelletier’s particular reference to an “éminence grise”, moreover, seems self-conscious to me, as if Pelletier is attempting to exonerate himself and Trudeau et als from any links to the F.L.Q. violence. These two older men (“éminences grises“) were indeed employers of two younger men, at Cité Libre, who as of 1965 would become leaders of the apparently “youthful” FLQ, Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon. I moreover do not accept Pelletier’s self-exoneration, if that’s what it is. In any event, Pelletier’s denial appears opposite a cartoon on the facing page, of some older geezer in glasses and a moustache, directing the F.L.Q. while sitting at home in his slippers. I’m not familiar with all the faces of that era, but this isn’t a cartoon of Pelletier, and it’s unclear whether it’s meant to be a picture of someone specific.

If I come across the statement that “the Front de libération du Québec … is a tool of the Communist Party” at any time in a further reading, I will be gratified. I’m still looking for it. If it exists, I would like to have it. If anyone has read the book, in French or perhaps it exists in English, and knows where the statement is, please let me know. In the meantime, I haven’t yet found it.  Ed. NSIM.
 

Canadian Aided Castro

The New York Times

Archives

Friday, July 10,2015
Sunday, March 15,2009

Article Preview

CANADIAN AIDED CASTRO; Son of Gen. McNaughton Tells of Role as Double Agent

January 6, 1959, Tuesday

Page 14
135 words

MONTREAL, Jan. 5 (AP) — A. R. L. (Andy) MoNaughton, Montreal consulting engineer, let it be known today that he had served as an international agent for the Cuban rebel leader Fidel Castro. [END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH]

 

Ed. NSIM. There is an interesting footnote to this New York Times preview in a different publication. The googlebook for “Our place in the sun: Canada and Cuba in the Castro Era By Robert Anthony Wright”, on page 117, at footnote 17 says:

“Wright, Three Nights in Havana, 23,24. For an account of Castro’s U.S. tours, see Gosse, Where the Boys Are. Fidel’s celebrated tours of the U.S. northeast before and just after the Revolution enabled him to raise money and connect with political supporters. It does not appear that any organized Cuban solidarity constituency developed in this period in Canada, with the important exception of Andy McNaughton, who ran guns to the revolutionaries and became an honorary Cuban citizen. For more on McNaughton, see Wright, Three Nights in Havana, 31. On running guns and the Revolution, see Julia E. Sweig, Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).”

Nota bene: Julia Sweig receives favorable reviews from none other than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Foreign Affairs magazine.

– 30 –
 

Tells Visiting Cubans That She Loves Them

Source: Globe and Mail Tuesday April 28 1959, p. 12.

Tells Visiting Cubans
That She Loves Them

Three of Fidel Castro’s Cuban rebels, minus beards and dressed in business suits, made a courtesy call at City Hall yesterday and signed the official guest book.

They were greeted by Acting Mayor Newman in Spanish and English. Her Spanish was limited to Yo te amo mucho: “I love you very much.”

Mrs. Newman agreed it was hardly the phrase to apply to visiting dignitaries, but said the only reason she remembered it was that she had said it to her husband prior to their marriage.

The rebels nodded and smiled.

Mrs. Newman visited Cuba in 1929. She had taken a course in Spanish, but had had no opportunity to practice the language.

The guests, Julian Rodriguez, Miguel Moutero and Rzue Vigoa, all students of the University of Havana, said they had participated in street fighting during the revolution.

They are members of a party of six assigned by the Cuban Government to visit Massey-Ferguson and International Harvester plants in Ontario.

Mrs. Newman gave each of the Cubans a Toronto Municipal Handbook.

 

Transcribed far research purposes by Kathleen Moore on 27 March 2009 2h34 a.m. from a photocopy of the article provided by Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa in a brown envelope postmarked 2008-03-31.

– 30 –

Castro, Banks Discuss Ships

Source: Montreal, The Gazette, Monday, April 27, 1959, p. 3.

New CNS Deal?

Castro, Banks Discuss Ships

Fidel Castro held a closed-doors session late last night with Hal C. Banks, president of the Seafarers International Union, and there were indications they may have reached some agreement regarding the Cuban-owned former Canadian National Steamships fleet.

It was reported that Banks was accompanied by several other union officials.

The CNS sold eight ships to Cuba during a strike called by the SIU. The ships have since been tied up by further labor complications.
Banks refused to comment on the meeting.

The Cuban prime minister and the union officials reportedly decided that Cuba would make a direct approach to the Federal Government. Purpose of this approach was not immediately clear.

Earlier, at a press conference, Castro said Cuba cannot afford to have the ships idle.

“Either we want the ships operating or we would like our $500,000 back,” he declared.

“For Canada, $500,000 is not a lot of money but it is a lot of money for Cuba.”

Castro met the union officials in his suite at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel between a dinner tendered in his honor and the Chambre de Commerce des Jeunes‘ Toy Campaign dance, which he also attended.

– 30 –

Castro, Banks Discuss Future of CN Fleet

Source: Globe and Mail Tuesday April 28 1959, p. 17.

Castro, Banks Discuss
Future of CN Fleet

Montreal, April 27 (Staff) — Fidel Castro, Cuba’s prime minister, and Hal C. Banks, Canadian chieftain of the Seafarers International Union, have reached an understanding on the Cuban-owned former Canadian National Steamships fleet.

Mr. Banks said today that as a result of his conversations with Premier Castro he expects some action will be taken very soon that would free the eight-ship fleet tied up since it was struck by the SIU in 1957.

The ships were sold to Cuba in a third-party deal, but the fleet has been immobilized by a boycott of maritime unions.

Banks and Premier Castro met here in a downtown hotel during the Cuban leader’s visit to Montreal. Mr. Banks said the ownership of the vessels was clarified in the discussions, but he declined to disclose the decisions reached at the conference.

However, the SIU leader confessed that he had been impressed by the Cuban leader. He had made it clear, Mr. Banks said, that he would not be a party to strikebreaking.

Mr. Banks also disclosed that he is going to Cuba next month to help establish a Caribbean — West Indian — Canadian — U.S. transportation conference aimed at providing mutual assistance for participating unions.

“We are going to discuss the general economic problems facing the unions in Cuba,” he added.

Transcribed far research purposes by Kathleen Moore on 27 March 2009 2h20 a.m. from a photocopy of the article provided by Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa in a brown envelope postmarked 2008-03-31.

Castro Scoffs At Idea Government Communist

by Bill Bantey

Source: Montreal, The Gazette, Monday, April 27, 1959

TOP PHOTO
Photo credit: (Gazette Photo Service)
Caption: Said Castro: “That’s an old question.”

Fidel Castro pointed an ac­cusing finger at the light on a television camera and said:

“Is that camera Communist because it has a red light?”

Each time someone brought up the question of Communist influence in the Cuban revolu­tionary government, Castro be­came impatient.

At the airport, seconds after his arrival, a television news­man stuck a microphone in front of Castro’s face and de­manded:

“Is it true there are many Communists in your government?”

“Aw,” said Castro, waving the man aside, “That’s an old question.”

But at a press conference later, he took the time to answer a similar question.

“Do we have to kill the Com­munists in Cuba, or persecute them, because of their political ideas?”

he asked fervently

“If we don’t kill them or persecute them, does that make us Com­munists? The whole thing — it’s absurd!

“It is no good to confuse fear with truth. We are for human­ism, not Communism or capi­talism.

“We are truly democrats. But there can be no freedom without bread, and no bread without freedom.”

He said his rebel movement has “no agreement” with the Communists.

“Our ideas are far from Communism,” he asserted.

Castro was accompanied at the press conference by mem­bers of his cabinet and Claude Dupras, president of the Chambre de Commerce des Jeunes [Youth Chamber of Commerce], the organization sponsoring his visit here.

He complained that the Bat­ista regime had left only $70,000,000 from national bank reserves of $400,000,000.

Seven hundred thousand people are jobless and Cuba is looking to Canada for its ex­ample of economic develop­ment.

He said Cuba’s problems can­not be solved alone. A Latin-American overall formula will have to be found. Private en­terprise alone is too slow a process to rebuild his country.

His aim, he went on, is to create a domestic market. Cuba is capable of producing many of the foods it now im­ports.

He said his government plans a policy of non-intervention in other Latin American states when he was asked about re­ported plans to overthrow the government in the Dominican Republic.

“Oppressed peoples every­where have our sympathies,” he said, “but we can only call on public opinion to rise against dictatorship. We cannot make the sacrifice of intervention.”

– 30 –

Closing Note:

This was 1959 — doesn’t it sound to you like there’s sympathy up here in Quebec where the Lesage Liberals in 1961 will try to construct a communist PLAN for state-managed economic development….?

 

Transcribed for research purposes by Kathleen Moore on 27 March 2009 4h10 a.m. from a photocopy of the article provided by Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa in a brown envelope postmarked 2008-03-31.