The truth about Pierre Trudeau and immigration

A new book argues Trudeau’s record on immigration is a myth worth puncturing


 
  33
Nothing to write home about

Andy Clark/CP

In his new book The Truth About Trudeau, Bob Plamondon, a policy consultant and historian in Ottawa, takes an unvarnished look at Pierre Trudeau’s time in office, from his cozy ties to Communists and gutting of the military to his dubious environmental record and the damage done to national unity. In this excerpt, Plamondon tackles the myths surrounding Trudeau’s immigration policies, and argues the former prime minister politicized immigration and multiculturalism and raised ethnic vote targeting to an art form.

Exclusive Excerpt

Pierre Trudeau embraced multiculturalism as the antidote to nationalism and the dominance of Canada’s two dominant solitudes: English and French. He adopted policies, devised programs and financed groups to enable minorities to maintain their own identity and resist social assimilation. And while immigration necessarily begat multiculturalism, it is a myth that Trudeau opened up the country to scores of new Canadians.

On October 8, 1971, Trudeau announced that Canada would adopt policies embracing the country’s multicultural dimension, a first on the world stage. Since the policy implied an end to systemic racial and cultural discrimination, Trudeau faced no opposition. It was the sort of stance that former Tory prime minister John Diefenbaker could embrace, as he did when his government passed the Bill of Rights in 1960. Trudeau’s multiculturalism policy thus received the unanimous support of Parliament in 1972. To implement his vision, he created a multiculturalism branch within the office of the Secretary of State and appointed a minister of multiculturalism.

While Canada had become officially bilingual, Trudeau did not want Canada’s multicultural communities to feel left out. The state helped groups large and small retain their cherished language and values with taxpayer dollars–or more accurately, with public debt. Contrary to Trudeau’s lofty pronouncements about fairness, his government did not spend this money ending discrimination and inequality, but funding folk dances, festivals, language training and songfests. And Liberal party strategists quickly clued in that the recipients of all that cash might well return the favour at election time.

Trudeau claimed that there was no official Canadian culture and that no ethnic group should take precedence. But by 1984 taxpayers were doling out $23 million annually in the name of multiculturalism, $19 million of which went to 2,000 agencies and organizations across the country, with $2 million going to advertising in the ethnic and majority press.

While some Canadians grumble about our approach to multicultural groups and the funding of foreign-language training and ethnic festivals, all politicians since Trudeau have, to varying degrees, embraced the concept. That may be because it’s almost impossible to divorce multiculturalism from politics. Trudeau biographer Richard Gwyn wrote that after losing his majority in 1972, Trudeau was prepared to use every tool in his arsenal, including the public purse, to restore his base of support and so, “up sprang a trebled multiculturalism program that functioned as a slush fund to buy votes.” The reality in Trudeau’s day, as it is 30 years after he left office, is that ethnic politics is alive and well.

Ask many older Canadians, particularly those not born in this country, why they think highly of Trudeau, and one answer stands out: he opened Canada’s doors to immigrants. This perception is perhaps one of the greatest myths about the Trudeau record.

In 1968, the year Trudeau became prime minister, Canada welcomed 183,974 immigrants, equivalent to about one per cent of its population. By 1984, the immigration rate was 0.3 per cent of the population, a decline from 1968 of about two-thirds. These reductions did not reflect an anti-immigrant policy per se, but flowed out of a choice made by the Trudeau government in response to a weaker economic climate and higher unemployment. Yet holding the line on immigration is exactly the opposite of what Trudeau is known for.

In the mid-1970s, the government began setting immigration quotas. The target for 1979 stood at 100,000, well below the 218,465 who arrived in 1974. While the number of immigrants had begun to fall, their demographic composition changed dramatically. In the mid-1960s, 87 per cent of immigrants were of European origin. By the time Trudeau left office that number was 30 per cent, with immigration quotas increasingly filled up with citizens of Asian countries.

Curiously, the government did not actively seek to attract people with job skills. The minister of immigration told Parliament that, in respect to the domestic labour market, “it is preferable, where possible, to employ or train Canadian citizens and permanent residents for Canadian jobs, rather than to admit workers from abroad.” To those who feared immigrants would take jobs from Canadians, the government pointed out that, after factoring in expected emigration levels, the nation’s population would not be significantly altered.

In the pre-Trudeau era, immigrants to Canada were recruited based on labour shortages and the skill sets required to develop the economy. But under Trudeau, the portion of “family class” or sponsored relatives allowed into Canada expanded significantly. The system became increasingly skewed toward large extended families and against individuals. Changes to the Immigration Act proclaimed in 1978 allowed new Canadians to sponsor their parents of any age, which proved particularly enticing to those from less-developed nations, and less so to those from Europe.

The political benefits of shifting immigration policies was made by Liberal MP Peter Stollery in a 1976 memo to minister of immigration Bud Cullen. Stollery argued that immigration was a contributing factor to the winning of many constituencies and that Trudeau’s government would be stupid not to admit Portuguese-Angolans and their nominated relatives because they were all Liberal. “We allowed the Italian community to expand and guaranteed them as Liberal communities for many years.”

To make political hay, during the short-lived government of Joe Clark, Trudeau castigated the Tories as anti-immigrant. “The policies that the Conservative government seems to have been following in terms of cutting back support for the ethnic press, in terms of changing their immigration policies as we did so as to favour the reunification of families, their downgrading of multiculturalism by giving it to a minister who’s apparently not very on top of the subject . . . in all of these things we disassociate ourselves from Conservative government policies.” Trudeau reminded voters that his government had given special attention to Canada’s multicultural groups, including using money from Lotto Canada to support multiculturalism.

Trudeau opposed any special deals with Quebec, particularly in areas within federal jurisdiction. But in 1978 he signed the Cullen-Couture Agreement, which gave Quebec the ability to influence the composition and size of its immigrant influx. Quebec was able to develop its own points system that took into account the likelihood of an immigrant integrating and prospering in the province. The agreement addressed Quebecers’ fear that immigrants would not embrace the French language. Trudeau said he was open to a similar deal with other provinces, but only Alberta expressed an initial interest.

In Trudeau’s final years in office, the government slashed quotas by restricting newcomers who were not sponsored by families or were refugees. Skilled workers could only enter Canada if employers proved they could not find a suitable Canadian worker. Because of a weak economy, Trudeau also felt pressure from many quarters to reduce the numbers of refugees, which he did in 1983.

It is therefore curious that there remains an impression that Trudeau opened up the immigrant floodgates, when immigration levels went dramatically in the other direction during his time as prime minister. One explanation for this perception, beyond clever political communication, is that, despite a decline in immigration, Trudeau held office when large numbers of immigrants qualified to become Canadian citizens.

Ironically, immigration levels ramped up after Trudeau left office, almost tripling under the allegedly “anti-immigrant” Progressive Conservatives of the Mulroney era, from about 90,000 in 1984 to over 250,000 by 1993.

Trudeau took office when immigration levels were high. He made his mark by reducing the number of immigrants and dramatically changing the composition of the immigrant pool, moving it away from developed to less-developed nations. Tilting the system toward family reunification and away from skilled workers diminished the economic benefits that had traditionally come with immigration. But it maximized the political benefits to Trudeau. This endeared many existing immigrant communities to the Liberals and encouraged wide swaths of new Canadians to vote for Trudeau when the time came. But when it comes to immigration, the myth about Trudeau and the reality are miles apart.

From The Truth about Trudeau by Bob Plamondon. Copyright © Bob Plamondon, 2013. Reprinted with permission of Great River Media.


 

The truth about Pierre Trudeau and immigration

    • Well Cons are lying about the son the same way they did about his dad, that’s for sure.

      • Liberals are lying about Senior, and they’re lying about Junior. We’re supposed to believe that Junior didn’t inherit any of his dad’s anti-Semetic tendencies? Trudeau Sr was an ardent Communist, but I’m supposed to believe that none of that rubbed off on Junior? We already know that Junior and Senior both believed that Quebec is more important than the rest of Canada, so why wouldn’t any of his other beliefs have been passed on?

        Or are you saying that Justin Trudeau is the first person on the planet who inherited only his last name from his father? (Whoops, I forgot about the multi-million dollar inheritance, but I was speaking about genetics and ideology).

        • You get your crack from the same dealer as Ford?

          • No, but I heard Justin Trudeau does when he’s in Toronto. And I’d bet George Smitherman too… oh wait, no, he was a heroin junkie. Not crack-head. My bad.

          • I knew you were partisan Rick but I had no idea you were this ignorant ….

            HIs bio is freely available, and not remotely close to your bizarre version

          • Ya, it’s funny how when you publish your own biography you manage to skip the dirty stuff.

            Smitherman has admitted to being a drug addict. He admitted to doing drugs while he sat in Cabinet. Yet so many of you think he was/is qualified to be Mayor. The hypocrisy couldn’t be more plain as day.

          • Many books have been written about Trudeau…..and you make it up as you go along.

          • Ya, and many of those books depict him as a savage anti-Semite. Though you do have a strange habit of standing up for known anti-Semites. Why is that Emily?

          • The Royals were anti-semitic, so don’t even bother going there.

            In fact, can the lying altogether. The truth is the Con party is knee-deep in cow pies…..you are even pulling double-shifts trying to distract, defend, divert etc. LOL

        • “Trudeau Sr was an ardent Communist,”

          I WISH that were true!

    • The father as much as I dislike him now, in retrospect did change Canada,some good,some bad.The toddler is just a tool of the backroom political wh*res trying to regain power and entitlements.

  1. Please – failed PC candidate, led the group that lobbied for the name change of the Ottawa River Parkway to the Sir John A MacDonald Parkway, has written 2 books about the rise/return of Conservatism.

    Why not just ask Jason Kenney what he thinks of Trudeau’s immigration policies?

  2. Pierre Trudeau, like all Liberals, was a crook.

    • The Liberal days are always seen as the “good old days” whenever the CON govt questionable spending surfaces. Been the case with Mulroney will be the case with Harper.

      • LOL. Questionable spending like the tens of millions of dollars the Liberals sent to crooked Quebec ad firms to funnel taxpayers money back into Liberal Party coffers? Mulroony got what, a few hundred thousand? Duffy $90k, but somehow you conveniently forget the fact that the Liberals have always been the biggest crooks in Canada. Take a look at the Liberals record in the Senate. They weren’t paying back bogus expenses, they were defrauding Canadian taxpayers by the millions, and going to jail for it.

        • Duffy got money from a private individual, Liberals steal from taxpayers.

        • Versus a golden gazebo and fake lake that cost 50 million dollars for the g20 and g8 event. That in itself blows away Adscam which is not looked at as a pocket change like scam by canadians.

          The senate scandal is the tip of the iceberg. CONs are toast because of it.

          • I see you stuffed your tin foil hat up your…………………

          • Is that what you do for stimulation every day?

      • Mulroney was a PC, no different than Liberals Trudeau, Chretien and Martin, in fact they all at one time or another worked for Desmerais Sr. and Power Corp.

        Who’d a thunk?

        • Ah again the selective and convenient lumping a CON has to do when facts become uncomfortable. Plus you ignore the golden gazebos and 1 billion spent for a measly g8 and g20 summit. Then you got the 3.1 billion in missing anti terrorism funds and 2.4 in unaccounted for consulting contracts. Yes they will try to pawn this off on the Liberals. Yet no audits closer to Liberal terms found this questionable spending earlier.

          Furthermore these borrow and spend cons squandered surpluses to buy off the election and spent record deficits. So a CON should be ashamed to talk about accountability to the taxpayer.

          Especially when this govt has none and there is so many more scandals that will probably come out by 2015.

          • !d!ot alert, borrow and spend??????

            Remember the coalition of the treasonous bastards?

          • Ya there is an alert every time you post. Not much different from the current coalition.

  3. The idea that older Canadians and immigrants admired Trudeau because “he opened Canada’s doors to immigrants” is not a myth about Trudeau; it’s a myth that Mr. Plamondon is hoping you’ll buy from him. If anything, the admiration felt for Mr. Trudeau came from his foreign policy, his “third way” rhetoric, his willingness to befriend China and Cuba in opposition to the US, his non-aligned nations ideals.

    This entire argument is based on a false premise. Not exactly credible.

    • Con ‘history’ reminds me of the history portrayed in the movie ‘Idiocracy’….so screwed up as to be unrecognizable!

  4. Conservatives just seem to hate democracy. That’s fine, but get out of Canada, and go to Johannesburg.

  5. How come no federal party defends the the individual rights of 1.5 million Canadians living in Quebec? http://critiq.ca/en/articles?task=weblink.go&id=23
    We all understand that the NDP and Liberal are hypocrites however what we can not understand is the Conservative party’s unwillingness to confront and protect the individual rights of Anglophones and Allophones (the minorities) in Quebec.

    • Gee, that’s a tough one — wait, I know: is it because Quebeckers don’t vote for them? Are you honestly here to defend the party you yourself know will not recognize your province’s people?

  6. I suppose Pierre Trudeau’s friendship with Mao Zedong, one of history’s bloodiest murderers is made up too.

    Pierre Trudeau rencontre Mao Zedong(Partie 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdcuOD276E

    Pierre Trudeau rencontre Mao Zedong(Partie 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qbjxAWAMY

    Pierre Trudeau rencontre Mao Zedong(Partie 3)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_NZABYBoA

    Pierre Trudeau rencontre Mao Zedong(Partie 4)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfygwRAX4qA

    Viva Cuba: Fidel Castro and Pierre Trudeau (Pt. 1)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eueOLhynoM

    Pierre Trudeau was not only a friend to Communists, but he was a Fascist, anti-Semite and separatist at one time as well:

    Young Trudeau: Fascist, anti-Semite, and separatist

    http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0c1b3dca-544a-45d8-8ce3-f577f9cb43a6

  7. the country is nearing collapse,these immigration and refuggee policies have FAILED! gangs,drugs,ghettos,have not provinces,subsudized nightmare!RIP CANADA!

  8. CPC timed instructing Mclean’s to run this story well. A shame so many facts are misleading. Of the era covered, Canada once had spirit and Canadians all burst with Canadian Spirit. Not pride. Not patriotism. Not nationalism. Bursting with Canadian Spirit. That spirit continues to be crushed by CPC reforming Canada into … into what exactly? Transforming Canada into a gutted turkey skeleton stripped of any meat.

Sign in to comment.