Book I – The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada
Exclusive English Translation
By Kathleen Moore
All Rights Reserved © 2013, 2014 Tous droits réservés
Nota bene : I hold the copyright to my English translation of Rumilly. My English translation of any part of the works of Robert Rumilly may not be reproduced online, in print or by any means, other than for brief passages referenced in the course of discussion or blogging.
Please take note that wherever I have translated Rumilly’s own book, its covers and frontispiece, and I say, for example, “Published by the author” and give “Lazard Street”, etc., that is my translation of Rumilly’s own first publication details, which refers to himself and his own address in 1956.
The page-numbering in my English corresponds to the original page-numbering and page-breaks in French.
THE LEFTIST NETWORK
Cité Libre – The Complete Network – Radio-Canada.
At the death of a great Benedictine, Dom Flicoteaux, Léopold Richer wrote:
“I often met Dom Flicoteaux, either at the Benedictine abbey of Sainte-Marie, or again at my office. This man of prayer and meditation followed with pained astonishment the doctrinal evolution of certain French-Canadian groups. He saw here the direct and deleterious influence of France’s leftists and progressives. He constantly warned me against French schools well-known for their advanced ideas and their socialist and communist sympathies.
“I profited from his advice. He guided me in the difficult enterprise of discovering the hidden enemies of our best religious and national traditions.”
The influence of the “Catholics of the left” has indeed radiated in French Canada. Canadian students in Europe are flanked by the group from Esprit, and if they do not have a strong foundation, they are indoctrinated and denationalized. A mentality of contempt and hatred is inculcated, along with revolutionary ambitions and confused ideas in which class struggle plays a great part.
In Canada, “Catholicism of the left” took Le Devoir as its springboard. Le Devoir quotes Esprit, and ceaselessly propagandizes for it. Collaborators and friends of Le Devoir go further. They found, in Canada, under the name of Cité Libre (Free City), a review modeled on Esprit. Cité Libre readily calls itself “the little sister” of Esprit. She tends toward full-scale leftism, and, naturally enough, to anticlericalism. For Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Moscow pilgrim who is one of the organizers of Cité Libre, it is essential to subvert authority. Everywhere, prefects of discipline in the colleges, and policemen in the city, must “resume their places as domestics”. The highest authorities are in no way spared, in no measure respected: “There is no divine right of Prime Ministers nor either of bishops. They have authority over us only if we wish it. The day when we understand these truths, we will have ceased being a young people, and more can be expected of us than puerile babblings and teenage revolts.”
Translator’s note: “Cité Libre” — Our controlled press up here rarely refer to it; when they do, they call it a “federal-IST” magazine, in order to seem to link its co-founder (prime minister) TRUDEAU with a PRO-CANADA stance. In fact, Cité Libre’s federal-ISM is globalism, continentalism, regionalism, multiculturalism, North-American-Unionism, polyethnic pluralism — anything BUT Canadian federalism — which erases both national boundaries and existing national peoples. It is a Communist-style regionalizing federal-ISM for which TRUDEAU stands and for which Cité Libre stands.
And the trickery of the press, other authors and media, when they do mention it, is deliberate. They can’t fail to know that Cité Libre is pushing denationalization and regional federal-ISM, NOT CANADIAN CONFEDERATION, which was and still is the lawful Constitution underlying the Trudeau coup of 1982.
Abbot J.-B. Desrosiers observes: “This short passage in substance contains Communism, because it unsettles the social order.” (Nos Cours, January 10th, 1953).
Emancipation with respect to the two authorities, political and religious, is the sub-theme of the initial issues of Cité Libre. Maurice Blain particularly takes issue with what he calls “clerical oppression”, which he says has blocked the development of true culture in French Canada. “It is striking”, he writes, “that our education presents to us, in religion, politics or art, virtually none of the major problems raised by the great currents of thought.”
The “great currents of thought” that our education is wrong not to offer for the study and admiration of students are, apparently, Communism and existentialism.
Le Devoir grants high marks to Cité Libre as it does to Esprit, copiously quotes from it and lavishes praise upon it. However, in spite of these “shock doctrines” and these encouragements, Cité Libre had achieved only a limited readership when Esprit gave the group a leg-up in the form of a special issue devoted to French Canada (August-September 1952).
The foreword to the issue is by Henri-Irénée Marrou, a professor of history at the Sorbonne and a “Catholic of the left” of the most militant variety.
Translator’s note; “true culture” -– this is a trick of the Leftists. If you think we don’t have “true culture”, show me an example of “true culture” and tell me how you know it’s “true”. In effect, is there even such a thing as “true culture”? Trudeau plays the same game with “true federal-ISM”, pretending that there is an ideal platonic model of “federal-ISM” to which everyone must aspire, and therefore absolutely must destroy their own country to achieve it. Show me “true federal-ISM”. Is there such a thing as “true federal-ISM”? I think not. But the statement is effective at misleading. As in Alice in Wonderland, it sounds like English, but it doesn’t MEAN anything. However, the trick, if you fall for it, will have you skipping and hopping merrily behind the Pied Piper to your doom.
H.-I. Marrou resigned from UNESCO, where he had been one of France’s representatives, to protest against the admission of Spain. This “Catholic of the left” is thus quite typical: the presence of Marxist Russia seems to him entirely natural, but that of Catholic Spain prevents him from sleeping.
Other than the foreword, the issue is written entirely by French Canadians, with the exception — symptomatic, as we shall see later — of Frank R. Scott.
Gérard Pelletier declares — as we have already said while quoting the account of his friend Gilles Marcotte of Le Devoir — the Canadian Church “unsuited to the new needs of the French-Canadian people, but essentially reformable from within”. Does the bunch from Cité Libre propose to undertake this “reform from within”? Maurice Blain writes on “clerical oppression”, his favorite topic. He denounces “the invasion of the intellectual life by religious dogmatism and of the temporal field by hierarchical power”. The invasion of the intellectual life by religious dogmatism “directly threatens the independence of the mind”. Maurice Blain tacitly resumes, he as well, the old war cry: “Clericalism, here is the enemy.” Jean-Guy Blain, his brother if I am not mistaken, divides the Catholics of Canada into three groups: the nonbelievers, the Catholics of the right, and the Catholics of the left — the latter being the good ones. Other collaborators
Translator’s note: “Frank R. Scott” -– Frank Scott, not only a constitutional scholar, known as a strict constitutionalist, but unfortunately a Rhodes Scholar, and some time in the mid to late 1950s, if not the early 1960s, he emerges as an advisor and ally of the communists. It turns out Scott is working for socialism and world government. He recruited people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau to the cause. The principal draftsman of the coup constitution of 1982 (Barry Lee Strayer) was also Scott’s recruit. One of Scott’s best friends, Bora Laskin, was made the first Jewish Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada by Trudeau, over the head of the man entitled to the post. Canada is an ethnic Confederation of its own founding peoples; there are no Jewish legislatures here; and yet Laskin was pushed up top to then preside at the “patriation reference” of 1980-81, part of a front contrived to impose Trudeau’s coup constitution, which harmonized Canada with the Charter of the UN (future world government), while suppressing our lawful Parliament and Legislatures. As for Barry Lee Strayer, who apparently had dual citizenship, he worked as a young lawyer in the Roosevelt “New Deal” administration defending what he calls “innovative legislation” against the United States Supreme Court, which struck it down. Apparently Jewish Strayer failed in America; he then came to Canada and overthrew our lawful Constitution in conspiracy with Trudeau and others. Part of Strayer’s education (at Oxford) was funded by a Mackenzie-King traveling scholarship, which is a Rockefeller endowment.
depict the considerable role — read: ‘the excessive role’ — of the clergy in the province of Quebec. The advertizing banner which wraps the review sums up the general tendency extremely well: “from theocracy to freedom”. French Canada is a theocracy whose evolution towards freedom the French review Esprit proposes to hasten — why is it meddling?
Here is how Abbot Desrosiers evaluates the special issue of Esprit in Nos Cours (May 2nd, 1953):
Last year, a French review, Esprit, bore a massive criticism against the religious hierarchy and national institutions of our province. It contained a series of articles written mainly by this team of young French Canadians who tend towards the left, often exceed the limits of the truth, are sometimes given to rationalism and, in the last few years have busied themselves with launching gibes against the Church, under the pretext of reforming it.
In light of this, we have been profoundly injured. We wondered how it could be that a French review could permit the French-Canadian people to be so wrongfully attacked in its pages, from the religious and national points of view…
The Council of French Life in America, which assembles leaders — patriots — without
regard for political allegiance, replies indirectly to Esprit, with a firm declaration of principles.
With its reek of scandal, the special issue of Esprit contributed nonetheless to the launching of a certain Cité Libre. Le Devoir put its shoulder to the wheel. Rationalism and Marxism are the basic tendencies which orient — unconsciously, perhaps, in certain cases? — the writers of Cité Libre. As to the form, these young people readily assume the anticlerical vocabulary, which though passé in France, at one time flourished in the columns of L’Autorité, Jour and Haut-Parleur. All of which captivates the most francophobe and the most anticatholic of the Anglo-Saxon element — milieux which always scorned, vilified and fought the French Canadians. The American magazine, Time, of January 19th, 1953, devotes a column to the writers of Cité Libre “who have not hesitated to call into question the powerful influence of the clergy upon the life of the province of Quebec”. A Cité Libre writer, Gérard Pelletier, speaking of the professors’ strike in Montreal, declares without hesitation to the Time correspondent: “Make no mistake about it, the Archbishop made an error.” No better way was known to fill a review like Time. The old readers of Le Devoir know how prompt and valiant was their newspaper, in former times, to respond to articles, announcements and insinuations of Time and others (such as) Life, unpleasant for the province of Quebec. They can no longer expect
Translator’s note: TIME — isn’t that owned by CFR members and founders? One of the periodicals whose “policy” they purchased in the 1920’s? How does a short-run magazine in FRENCH get the attention of TIME Magazine in the USA? Who read it to them? Who told them what was in it? Who encouraged them to review it?
so much. The vocabulary borrowed by Cité Libre from Le Jour has in part become that of Le Devoir!
But, authoritative voices expressed keen concern. Relations of November 1952 devoted an article, moderated in tone and all the stronger for that, to the “problem of anticlericalism in French Canada”. Father Richard Ares names Le Devoir, Esprit and Cité Libre. He quotes a pastoral letter of the episcopate of our province (February 1950) warning against an attitude “which would serve Communism and not the Church”.
And he asks: “Would it be rash to apply the present text even to the young people whose claims have been heard in Cité Libre and Esprit?”
Abbot J.- B. Desrosiers, a Sulpician, is very formal in the Nos Cours of February 14th, 1953:
Currently, in our province, certain extremely queer things are being written in certain reviews and in certain newspapers and are being said on the airwaves. Civil and religious authority is presented as dictatorial and the enemy of true culture. Since the whole of the population has not yet revolted, it is accused of worshiping idols for authority and a dreadful evil is exposed, called conformism.
For the most advanced among them -– because there are some that are pretty advanced -– it is the Catholic religion, too generalized in our province, which obstructs true culture. This idea
is manifest in one passage, among others, of Cité Libre.
Those who make such remarks are anticlericals, that’s obvious, even if they still hold truck with certain clerics. It is no less obvious that they wage a fierce battle against the Church; but they make a point of remaining inside the Christian city, and proclaim that they are working to reform it.
His Eminence Cardinal Léger, himself, warns in a speech delivered in the Basilica at Quebec on February 10th:
While the Pope calls us to heroism and in twenty countries of the world the children of God suffer and undergo martyrdom simply for a firming their faith, here, Catholics attack the Church and its clergy. According to them, we are the cause of the ignorance of our people and our pastoral and sacerdotal action is a tyranny. We require our faithful to venerate our decisions, while the poor find the doors of our presbyteries barricaded by a gutless administration. These remarks which we can without fear of error qualify as pure calumnies are developing in our milieux an unhealthy anticlericalism, which detaches souls from the Church in an hour when all energies should be united and placed into the hands of the head of the Church.
Translator’s note: “working to reform” -– that’s the famous word used in Canada to hide the fact they are overthrowing the Constitution — they pretend they “reforming” it, when in fact, they are “destroying” it. In constitutional law of Canada — the real law, not the fictitious substitute imposed since the REDS went to work — there is no such thing as constitutional “reform”. (In fact, constitutional “reform” appears to be a French idea, an idea from France, which essentially ignores the constitution as a source of authority with respect to its own alteration. This is not the case in Canada; the Constitution is the source of lawful authority which either permits or limits its own alteration.)
The lawful Constitution of 1867 is a permanent, infinite entity that once emancipated from its colonial parent (1931) cannot be removed or replaced.
There is no room for the word “reform” in Canada’s constitutional law and literature. It has been introduced by REDS and Rhodes Scholars to hide the fact they are perpetrating high treason. A similar word they also like to use is “renew”, i.e., “constitutional renewal”. Watch out for these euphemisms: they really mean “coup d’état”, or “overthrow”.
Le Devoir continues unabated its intensive propaganda for Esprit and Cité Libre. Every issue of Cité Libre is announced, hailed and acclaimed in the columns of Le Devoir. I said above that Le Foyer, the family supplement of Le Devoir, took note of three reviews, including Esprit and Cité Libre, in its issue of June 4th, 1955. Esprit, “is the hammer blow which awakens us”. And Cité Libre “says things of importance at a time when they must be known, raises questions today which any well thinking French Canadian will be obliged to take into account again, one day or another”. The literary page of Le Devoir of November 19th current, presents in a very obvious frame, a free advertisement for the new issue of Cité Libre. And so on. Le Devoir of June 9th, 1956, for example, contains a long commentary on an issue of Cité Libre and an article on Emmanuel Mounier, founder of Esprit . Neither Esprit nor Cité Libre has changed in the meantime. The December 1955 issue of Cité Libre primarily attacks “clerico-nationalist ideology”.
The network is rounded out
Le Devoir, Esprit and Cité Libre — the daily newspaper, the French review and the Canadian review — form a trio. This alliance was transformed into a quartet when Jacques Hébert founded a weekly magazine entitled Vrai, by antiphrasis. Vrai seems to be staunchly supported by Pierre Desmarais,
President of the Executive Committee of Montreal City Council. He systematically combats the provincial administration and systematically supports the municipal administration. He wages a guerilla war against all those who resist the leftist slant. A weekly, adopting the format of the “sensationalist” tabloids, may attain a passion and even take risks hardly accessible to a daily which is still followed by a traditionalist clientèle. Vrai will do a job which the people of Le Devoir dare not carry out themselves. The collaborators of Vrai, like those of Cité Libre, are or were the collaborators of Le Devoir. We mean Gilles Marcotte and Gérard Pelletier. Vrai is printed by the printer of Le Devoir. The leftist movement in French Canada thus possesses a full range of publications: a daily, a weekly, a magazine, all quite tightly intertwined.
Now, pedagogical bodies are needed, susceptible of influencing public opinion via conferences, points of view, radio broadcasts, etc.. Leon Lortie is tasked with so equipping the leftist movement.
Leon Lortie is viewed as “the eye” of the Liberal party at the University of Montreal. “The Liberal party is on the left”, wrote Edmond Turcotte in Le Canada, the party newspaper, on June 10th, 1935. There remains a multitude of good people whom family tradition or discomfiture with the conservative party retain in the Liberal party, without their taking the trouble to scan the
deep tendencies. A close examination makes it impossible to share their illusion. Edmond Turcotte has formally warned us: “The Liberal party is on the left.”
Leon Lortie founded the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques (Canadian Institute of Public Affairs) in May, 1953.
“Canadian Institute”: this commencement of the company name will tell something to those who know the history of the Province well.* The Institut canadien des Affaires publiques assembles intellectuals of the left. One meets there the personnel we already know: André Laurendeau, Gérard Filion, Gérard Pelletier, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Jean-Louis Gagnon, etc. The Institut canadien des Affaires publiques organizes a few days of annual conferences and discussion. It invites a French personality of the left — Hubert Beuve-Méry, director of Monde, to the first meeting, Irénée Marrou, the liaison officer between Esprit and Cité Libre, to the meeting of 1956– and, to create the illusion of impartiality, a very small number of more or less neutral Canadians, deemed to be unoffending, submerged in a mass of leftists. Le Devoir comments on the palaver of the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques as if it were a capital a fair. It adds “notes” to the reports.
However, here is how a witness whom partisan passion does not blind — Paul-Emile Gingras — described the “climate” of the sittings of the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques held at Saint-Adèle at the end of September 1956: “An abusive aggressiveness
* Translator’s note: Luckily, I have read the Debates on Confederation of 1865, where it is duly noted by Attorney-General George Etienne Cartier, speaking in the Legislative Assembly of the old Province of Canada on Tuesday, February 7, 1865 (at p. 56) that “the papers lately contained a report of a meeting at the Institut Canadien of Montreal, where it was resolved that it was for the interests of Lower Canada–in the interests of French Canadians, were the province to become a part of the American Union.” And then, a sentence or two later:
“HON. MR. DORION said that was not the case. The honorable gentleman had misquoted what had passed there.
HON. MR. CARTIER said he was right. If resolutions were not passed, sentiments were expressed to that effect. Then the organ of the Institute — L’Ordre, he thought — had set forth that the interests of Lower Canada would be better served by annexation to the United States than entering into a Confederation with the British American Provinces. It was no wonder, then, that the French Canadian annexationists betrayed their purpose in opposition to British North American Confederation, and that their English-speaking colleagues pretended a fear of the rights of their class being jeopardized under Confederation. We knew their object in this–that they were aware that as soon as this project was adopted [Confederation], there would be no avail in any cry of separation to form a part of the American Union. (Hear, hear,)”
As we have just seen, Leftist Léon Lortie’s “INSTITUT CANADIEN” is named for the meeting place of the old ANNEXATIONISTS, pre-Confederation. Is Rumilly guessing, or does he know that these Communists and pro-Soviets whose infiltration he is exposing, will attempt to merge Canada into the USA and Mexico in the decades to come.
And they will do it by seizing control of Quebec to demand that all of Canada adopt the regional system, or Quebec will “leave”.
The Leftists have taken the old name of that meeting place for their new organization, aimed not at annexing Quebec to the Republic, but undoubtedly at forming a Communist regional union in North America, modeled on that being pushed in Europe by the crypto-communist magazine, Esprit . Rumilly in this pair of books does not write about the regionalizing activities or “federalizing” activities of Esprit in Europe, but that is what Esprit is doing in Europe. It is pushing federalization of the ancient nations: in other words, it is eliminating them. Over fifty years after the Coal and Steel treaties, and the Treaty of Rome, a Soviet-style politburo will almost be in place; and academics such as Paul Fonte will begin to call Marxist, federal Europe “post-democratic”.
However, good reader, the aims of the “Institut” were thwarted in 1867 by Confederation; and will be again!
permeated a good number of interventions. The feeling more than the idea often reigned over the turbulence…” And, more grave:
More serious however, in this general climate, a certain oneness of spirit in the attack upon established order, traditional values, a unity “against”. Against nationalism, since, in modern democracy, man is a citizen of the world*. Against the clergy, its inefficient representatives in education: bishops of the Committee of public education. Brothers and Sisters with clear ideas that they continue to impose on the children, priests deformed by a dogmatic theology!** Against parents inapt to judge the aptitudes of their children or incompetent to choose for them the institutions appropriate for them***. Against the inefficient, inert, corrupted political authority…
Paul-Émile Gingras notes that the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques, including a good number of professors and discussing the problems of education, exhibits a “negativist spirit, clearly trumping the competence to discuss problems of education”. We will add: it sows one of those storms which harvests the whirlwind.
Finally the “Rassemblement” [“Gathering”] is formed, which Le Devoir announces as “a new political movement” and which Vrai acclaims as “a political bomb”, although by Autumn of 1956, the organizers deny they are creating a political party.
* Pierre-Elliott Trudeau’s future biography will be entitled “Citizen of the World”. (By John English, a Trudeau fellow traveller in the “Royal Institute of International Affairs” in Canada.
** In 1965, the Marxists in power will take back Quebec’s constitutional power over Education, which has been with the Catholic Church since 1875. Sherbrooke University at its web site notes that in the mid 1960s in Quebec, a popularized form of Marxism began to be taught in the schools. Teachers from France were imported for the purpose. In addition, I would observe that the communist goal of “multiculturalism” -– the merging of the world’s populations to remove national boundaries, could not have been done in French Catholic Quebec, where the only alternative public educational system was the Protestant School Board. The confessional school system, and in particular the Catholic educational system designed to preserve traditional French-Canadian culture, was thus a total barrier to mass immigration of 200+ foreign peoples onto Quebec soil to create de facto multiculturalism. That barrier went when the Marxists took Quebec, and using tactics perfected by Esprit in France, invaded the Catholic Church and government, and took down both from within.
*** Jacques Parizeau’s first wife, a Pole, will write for Cité Libre. One of her articles recommends routine State inspections of family homes to verify parents’ child-rearing capabilities. Jacques Parizeau is a Fabian socialist from the London School of Economics.
The Rassemblement, presided over by Pierre Dansereau, comprises the usual team: André Laurendeau, Jacques Hébert, Gérard Pelletier, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau and so on. At first sight, the Rassemblement and the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques are doing double duty. In fact, they are complementary, they help one another. Pierre Dansereau, president of the Rassemblement, becomes vice-president of the Institut canadien.
At the opera, to produce a crowd scene, the director has the same cast parade by the audience several times. Is that the aim of the members of the Institut Canadien when they also form the Rassemblement? If the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques and the Rassemblement protest, as if by chance, at the same time, to the same end, in a given situation, a bigger effect will be produced than if the team of Lortie-Laurendeau-Filion-Hébert-Pelletier-Trudeau had just one group.
The fact remains that here is our network, almost complete: Le Devoir, Cité Libre, Vrai, l’Institut canadien des Affaires publiques and the Rassemblement. Apart from Le Devoir, which owes what remains of its prestige to a tradition it disavows, all seems grey and flat; after all, financial means are limited. The intervention of a powerful organization — powerful because it lays out taxpayers’ cash — will provide substantial aid to the ring.
Opinion is manufactured, today, like automobile parts, in series. Every press agent, and even more, every propaganda agent, knows the influence of skillfully biased programming. The leftists know it.
Itinéraires, the review which is fighting the leftist movement in France, writes in its issue of July-August 1956:
The cinema and especially radio are among the fields where penetration and colonization by Communists is most advanced, and where they have the greatest consequences upon morals and policies.
In Canada, the Liberal party, on the left, as acknowledged by Edmond Turcotte, always had an advanced wing, a radical wing enjoying a dominating influence within the party. The Liberals’ press was entrusted successively to Honoré Beaugrand, Godefroy Langlois, Jean-Charles Harvey, Edmond Turcotte and today, to Jean-Louis Gagnon*. Radio and film having become equally powerful instruments of action, in fact more powerful than the press, the Liberal party, with its grip on the federal State, has stuffed the Film Board and Radio-Canada with leftists.
When the federal government created the National Film Board, in Ottawa, it entrusted it to John Grierson, English from England, whose radical sympathies, to say the least, were quite advanced. So advanced that, in the business
* Translator’s note: Jean-Louis Gagnon is exposed by American author Allan Stang in CANADA -– How The Communists Took Control (April 1971). Gagnon was a Soviet spy who fled Canada to Brazil with the help of (future) Trudeau advisor Mitchell Sharp (the will sit on Rockefeller’s future Trilateral Commission), to avoid the trials taking place after the Gouzenko spy-ring revelations of September 1945.
of espionage, a number of John Grierson’s friends, commencing with his own secretary, Freda Linton, whose real name was Freda Lipschitz (a Polish Jew), were charged. Even John Grierson’s name is mentioned at page 486 of the commission of inquiry’s report.
As I am writing this, a federally appointed Commission of inquiry is underway on radio broadcasting. The French-Canadian commissioner is none other than Edmond Turcotte, friend of the Reds in Spain – and everywhere. Edmond Turcotte has no particular expertise on the subject of radio, but his Red ness is guaranteed. Jean-Louis Gagnon, who must recognize himself herein, asked him in an open letter in 1936: “Why do you continue to write for a bourgeois rag when you are frankly communist?” (La Nation , May 7th, 1936). I beg my readers to weigh this fact: the Liberal party has always given its press, and then its film and radio, which is to say the instruments capable of forming opinion, to radicals, to the most advanced Reds one could find in the country.
The leftists of Radio-Canada form a “family compact” monopolizing the butter dish and leaving not a crumb to others. At any hour of the day, the listener or the viewer hears or sees the same participants, emcees and commentators, and the same guests, members of a very closed brotherhood. Nonetheless, the brotherhood has opened its ranks to our leftists from the team of Le Devoir — Cité
Libre — Vrai — Institut canadien des Affaires publiques — Rassemblement.
And to begin, the pilgrims of Communist Poland, China or Russia were welcomed, exhibited, celebrated, adopted by Radio-Canada — by television in particular. It is sufficient to have been the guest of a Communist government to be invited and re-invited to themicrophones of Radio-Canada.
On Communist accomplishments in Poland, Jacques Hébert gave a televised interview which caused a scandal (12 December 1955). Catholic newspapers protested. Polish Catholic re ugees in Canada — including journalists, professors, former ministers, former ambassadors — demanded equal time from Radio-Canada for their side of the story. They were endorsed by a vigorous wave of opinion. Léopold Richer asked, in Notre Temps — at that time published by a corporation controled by the Fathers of the Holy Cross -–: “When are we going to hear Polish Catholics on the television?” Radio-Canada had no choice but to organize a press conference for Mr. André Ruskowski, Secretary General of the International Catholic Office of Cinema to be heard.
However, one cannot raise a wave of protest after every broadcast. Furthermore, Jacques Hébert has remained one of the favorite guests of Radio-Canada. It was the same with Gérard Filion as soon as he was back from his trip to China. The director of Le Devoir became an overnight star
at Radio-Canada. And Jean Vincent had the same favour in the same way.
I will insert an anecdote. My readers understand that I do not attack people, but their actions, their harmful ideas. Among the journalists, the intellectuals and the radio presenters named here are men whom I know, others I have never met. There are those with whom I have had courteous dealings. Some of them may be as sincere as I am. It is their ideas, once again, which must be denounced and combatted. But it is quite necessary to name the people who propagate these ideas. I do so without hatred, without animosity even, and in several cases with real sorrow at the thought of the talents that a disastrous current is drawing into the service of evil. One will not find here the counterpart of words employed by Gérard Filion in connection to me and with regard to the other defenders of French-Canadian traditions. Certain behaviours have no currency among us.
So, we were mentioning Jean Vincent, the young senior editor of L’Autorité, a radical sheet. Jean Vincent returns from a trip to China and to Moscow. (At whose expense?
L’Autorité is a paper with no circulation.) Radio-Canada immediately invites him to give a televised press conference (February 25th, 1955). Jean-Louis Gagnon, as if by chance, directs the show; and Jean Vincent exhibits a very clear general inclination in favor of the communist countries. That is enough to launch Jean Vincent onto Radio-Canada’s circuit.
Television is, by way of certain of its programs — Carrefour, Conférence de presse, Les idées en marche [Ideas on the move], amongst others — a veritable public university. At certain hours, it reaches nearly half a million French-Canadian viewers. However, draw up a list of the most tenacious participants. You will record Gérard Pelletier, André Laurendeau, Gérard Filion, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Jean-Marc Léger, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, etc.
Men of the right are the majority among the French Canadians, as among the French Catholics. However, count the appearances of men of the right and those of men of the left on Radio-Canada, and compare! One of the principal leftists at Le Devoir, Gilles Marcotte, feels obliged to resign at the time of the strike (or the lockout). Radio-Canada fishes him out at once, and makes him director of cultural programming. Gérard Pelletier directs the show “Les idées en marche”. The appointed commentators are leftists — and some of them are quite advanced — practically, the lot.
Radio-Canada sends Laurendeau on a journey into Ontario and the West in the Fall of 1955, and the Film Board sends Gérard Pelletier on a mission to Europe in the summer of 1956. The teams of Le Devoir, Vrai, Cité Libre and Travail — organ of the Confederation of Catholic Workers upon which Gérard Pelletier stamps a leftist imprint — are taken aboard, to a man or nearly to a man, the tills of Radio-Canada. And so it goes, at the expense of
taxpayers: cash-cows, prestige and the means of propaganda.
Question: Would Radio-Canada offer so much encouragement and so much cash to Laurendeau and Filion had Le Devoir remained the nationalist newspaper of Henri Bourassa and Georges Pelletier?
More cynical still. The annual meetings of the Institut canadien des Affaires publiques are organized with the assistance, both moral and financial, of Radio-Canada. It is with the money of Radio-Canada, i.e. with the money of all the taxpayers, that Léon Lortie, Gérard Pelletier, André Laurendeau, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau and their friends can indoctrinate the public!
Finally, the Rassemblement has barely been created when Radio-Canada invites its president onto the television — and gives this leftist movement brilliant publicity. My friends and I, eager to set up a dam, to the extent we can, have created the Centre d’Information Nationale (the National Information Center), and have requested the same favour from Radio-Canada. Our strict right as citizens, as taxpayers. It was very difficult not to grant our request: and it was granted. A grouping on the right may obtain the small allotment sufficient and necessary to make it possible for Radio-Canada to pretend impartiality: “But, you as well, we invited you, too.” No one imagines Radio-Canada financing the study days of the Centre d’Information Nationale.
The same mischief is evident in the interviews offered
to foreign visitors. Albert Béguin, director of Esprit***, is not able to come to Canada unless Radio-Canada runs after him. Its latest press conference, managed by René Lévesque, brings together Gérard Pelletier and Jean-Marc Léger at his side. At the same time, a rather eminent French Catholic, since he is the private chamberlain of His Holiness, and even vice-president of the French chamberlains, was also in the province of Quebec. Radio-Canada could not fail to know it, as Mr. de La Franquerie had given conferences, and reports had been published in the press. The friend who had organized the trip of de la Franquerie had moreover, some time in advance, solicited the director of programming of Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada had no time available for him. Radio-Canada had time for Mr. Béguin, a Catholic of the left, but not for Mr. de La Franquerie, a Catholic of the right.
It does occur that a man of the right is invited onto the television, but he is carefully flanked by two men of the left. And as the show host himself is a leftist, the man of the right runs every risk of being neglected, isolated, cut off, outclassed. Not to mention that the leftists thus acquire a facility, a real proficiency in television, the occasion for which is denied to others.
Practically every discussion, practically every conclusion, is thus directed to the left.
***Translator’s note: PETER SUTHERLAND, of the Trilateral Commission, is a partisan of ESPRIT, and its founders Mounier and Maritaine. He calls them “Catholic Socialists”. There’s no such thing, as Rumilly explains in his book, underscoring the contradiction between Catholicism and materialistic atheism. But, it is interesting to see that someone in the Trilateral Commission appreciates ESPRIT, which happens to be a federalizing agent in Europe; and moreover, has been COPIED IN CANADA by Trudeau and Pelletier’s CITE LIBRE, which is necessarily aiming at regional union in NORTH AMERICA, as ESPRIT has aimed for it in Europe.
Thus is the mind of of the French Canadians worked upon. Radio-Canada completes and has been supporting the leftist network set up in our province in the last few years.
It is unconstitutional already that the Federal state monopolizes a section of education — a domain reserved to the provinces — which it does by the interposition of Radio-Canada.
The courts have recognized to the Federal state the right to regulate the use of the airwaves. They have not conceded to it any right of public education. Radio-Canada, the corporation, such as it functions, is illegal. It is doubly intolerable that French-language State radio and television, living off public funds of the French-Canadian people, seek to drag them towards an ideology contrary to their own traditions and their national aspirations.