# GREAT interview clip with PM Trudeau -  Reporter smackdown on FLQ crisis



## MountainRunner (3 Mar 2006)

This is great.  It is 36 years old, but it's refreshing.  Decisive political leadership in action.  I wonder what the response would be today?

_"Canada looks more like a police state than a democracy eight days after the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross. On Parliament Hill, a reporter confronts Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "What is it with all these men and guns around here?" With army tanks and men in full gear, Trudeau boosted national security. But the military's presence makes some Canadians feel a whole lot more insecure. How far will the prime minister extend law and order? Just watch him."_

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-162-429-11/conflict_war/twt/ (Approx. 4 mins)


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Mar 2006)

WTF was so great about that?
The former PM being interviewed was responsible for letting the situation get out of hand to begin with. Then he calls out the army to save his own butt.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> WTF was so great about that?
> The former PM being interviewed was responsible for letting the situation get out of hand to begin with. Then he calls out the army to save his own butt.



I agree with you completely Whiskey...

...But I do like the "Just watch me" comment. :cheers:


----------



## herseyjh (3 Mar 2006)

I think the FLQ could be blamed for letting things get out of hand.  Either way you have to give the man credit for how he handled himself during the interview.


----------



## 2 Cdo (3 Mar 2006)

Sorry as a member of the Forces who remembers the "Trudeau years" of my fathers service as well as my first couple of years, I cannot give that man credit for anything except the begining of the slow bleeding to the Canadian ARMED Forces.  :threat:

I forgot, we are no longer ARMED, thanks to that POS Trudeau!


----------



## MountainRunner (3 Mar 2006)

Love him or hate him, I enjoyed the "interview". 
Afterall, how often do you see a politician turn the tables on a reporter and make him squirm?

Trudeau: "So what would you suggest? That we protect no one since we can't protect everyone?"


----------



## x westie (6 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Sorry as a member of the Forces who remembers the "Trudeau years" of my fathers service as well as my first couple of years, I cannot give that man credit for anything except the beginning of the slow bleeding to the Canadian ARMED Forces.  :threat:
> 
> I forgot, we are no longer ARMED, thanks to that POS Trudeau!


                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I often wondered how Trudeau had the nerve to attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies at the Cenotaph in Ottawa, all those vets from WW2 with their medals,on parade in the cold November chill,all from that generation that went to war, {Trudeau was born in 1919, would have been 20 when the war started in 1939}, managed to avoid going overseas, even as a medic, claims that he didn't want to fight a war for the British Empire. I don't have alot of respect for this guy.


----------



## nULL (6 Mar 2006)

x westie said:
			
		

> I often wondered how Trudeau had the nerve to attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies at the Cenotaph in Ottawa, all those vets from WW2 with their medals,on parade in the cold November chill,all from that generation that went to war, {Trudeau was born in 1919, would have been 20 when the war started in 1939}, managed to avoid going overseas, even as a medic, claims that he didn't want to fight a war for the British Empire. I don't have alot of respect for this guy.



He served his country in other ways.


----------



## x westie (6 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> He served his country in other ways.


                                              Please explain how he served his country?????


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Mar 2006)

herseyjh said:
			
		

> I think the FLQ could be blamed for letting things get out of hand.  Either way you have to give the man credit for how he handled himself during the interview.



That's all he was good for....PR....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Mar 2006)

x westie said:
			
		

> I often wondered how Trudeau had the nerve to attend Remembrance Day Ceremonies at the Cenotaph in Ottawa, all those vets from WW2 with their medals,on parade in the cold November chill,all from that generation that went to war, {Trudeau was born in 1919, would have been 20 when the war started in 1939}, managed to avoid going overseas, even as a medic, claims that he didn't want to fight a war for the British Empire. I don't have alot of respect for this guy.



He was an officer, and he didn't go overseas because Canada was an all-volunteer army as far as combat employment overseasgoes until Nov 1944.

Why dilute the gene pool with draftees?

As for Rememberance Day, I'll go you one better.  On June 6th, 1984, he arrived in Normandy to be met by Canadian veterans (who had to sit in the back of the bleachers at the 40th anniversary commemoration while the politicians sat up front) who reportedly called out "we didn't need you then, we don't need you now."

EDIT - hmm, watching the clip he comes off rather well.  Though I think he had nerve calling the reporter (not directly ) a "bleeding heart" and criticized those that "just don't like seeing people with helmets and guns." If nothing else, Trudeau was very much a political opportunist; that was a brilliant example of that.  I'll give him this - he stuck to his true strengths.


----------



## nULL (7 Mar 2006)

x westie said:
			
		

> Please explain how he served his country?????



He performed a very difficult yet essential job during one of the most turbulent periods in modern Canadian history, and did so with grace and panache. While the same could *very generally* be said about the military personnel of this era, the main difference between the two parties is that _even after his death_ he is still being slandered and denigrated by the latter. 

Your not having _respect_ for a dead Canadian prime minister says infinitely more about you then it ever could about him.


----------



## Koenigsegg (7 Mar 2006)

I like the clip because it shows how he would alsways take a stance and stick with it all the way through.  A lot of politicians just sit on the fence and see what way the wind blows.  He was demonstrating a sort of iron fist that was important for that time and all politicians, a push over gets you nowhere.   Said things how they were and how he saw them, he did not tip-toe through the tulips.  He made have put us in a whole lot more debt and brushed a lot of people the wrong way, but he had a lot of character and was reasonable.  If you did not deserve something, you did not get it, like Quebec.  What a witty dude.  We could use a guy like him now, but someone who is good with money and current economics...


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2006)

"I forgot, we are no longer ARMED, .."

Members of the federal cabinet were issued handguns in Oct 1970.  After the crisis, they all gave them back - EXCEPT PM Trudeau.

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Mar 2006)

Tom: I didn't know that....  Jean Chretien had a handgun? The possibilities are endless ...


----------



## lawandorder (8 Mar 2006)

Its hard to pin the drain of the CF on Trudeau and easy in hindsite.  No other Prime Minister back then was really any better in that regard.  Look at Diefenbaker.  Cancelled the AVRO Arrow.  They all slashed the CF budget to put other things in.  

Trudeau was a good man who did a lot for the country, although we did slip in to a tad bit of debt.

At least now we can agree that it looks like they're trying ot put the wheels back on the track.


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2006)

After Dief cancelled the Arrow, the Libs said they would have done it sooner.  The RCAF said 'can it' because it was swallowing too much of their coin while they were engaging in other expensive and technically risky projects like the Mid-Canada Line, the Pinetree Line,  THREE HUNDRED Mk.5 and 6 Sabres in an Air Division in Europe, integration of the CF-100 Canuck, etc.

Nothing new here, and it was not necessarily a better aircraft than those like the XF-108, which the Americans cancelled for some similar reasons.

Now, if politics at the time would have allowed a national tech program to fund the Arrow, Iroquois engine and the wpn system outside of the RCAF budget...

But it didn't, and still doesn't.

Tom


----------



## 2 Cdo (8 Mar 2006)

Trudeau was a good man who did a lot for the country, although we did slip in to a tad bit of debt.
Good for the country?  Tad bit of debt? Understatement of the century!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Good for the country?  Tad bit of debt? Understatement of the century!



There's nothing wrong with going into debt if you come back out of it (which we did) and have something to show for it afterwards.  On a personal level, I finally climbed out of debt at the start of this year, and have a nice TV, a car, a brand new computer, lots of books and stuff I enjoy every day.

But for the life of me, and perhaps 2 Cdo will agree with me, I can't think of anything tangible we got for the money we gave to the Rt Hon Mr. Trudeau to spend.  The 1976 olympics?  Too bad the roof of the damn stadium caved in, eh?  Multiculturalism?  Official bilingualism?  Well, except in Quebec where you can't post signs in English even though we have to read the Rice Krispies box in two languages in Alberta.  

The Leopard tanks were nice and so were the CF-18s and MLVWs and Sea Kings and CC-130s.  Too bad we're still using them...


----------



## nULL (8 Mar 2006)

Well, the prime minister has to deal with other issues besides the military. Couldn't we redirect blame onto a senior military leadership that failed to adapt to the political realities and tailor their requests accordingly?

 >


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> Well, the prime minister has to deal with other issues besides the military. Couldn't we redirect blame onto a senior military leadership that failed to adapt to the political realities and tailor their requests accordingly?
> 
> >



They were busy men with other issues besides equipment procurement.  They served their country in other ways.


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2006)

"Well, the prime minister has to deal with other issues besides the military. Couldn't we redirect blame onto a senior military leadership that failed to adapt to the political realities and tailor their requests accordingly"

- If you have men dying when their aircraft fall out of the sky and you need $45,000,000 in parts to keep them flying, how does "Tailoring your "requests accordingly" diminish the fact that you need $45,000,000 dollars?

"The ship is sinking - we need a plug!"

"No.  Try wording it differently..."

Golly...

Tom


----------



## x westie (9 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> He performed a very difficult yet essential job during one of the most turbulent periods in modern Canadian history, and did so with grace and panache. While the same could *very generally* be said about the military personnel of this era, the main difference between the two parties is that _even after his death_ he is still being slandered and denigrated by the latter.
> 
> Your not having _respect_ for a dead Canadian prime minister says infinitely more about you then it ever could about him.


            Looks to me Null, that you spend too much time reading Liberal Party propaganda,or Liberal party B.S. meetings, your hero Trudeau treated ordinary Canadians with contempt and arrogance, you probably weren't even in this world when he was Prime Minister,


----------



## nULL (9 Mar 2006)

> "If you have men dying when their aircraft fall out of the sky and you need $45,000,000 in parts to keep them flying, how does "Tailoring your "requests accordingly" diminish the fact that you need $45,000,000 dollars?"



I highly doubt any government department - let alone defence - was so efficient as to make the above scenario a reality. Order less of one thing to free up funds for the other - or were there not enough officers at NDHQ to do that? Isn't _adapt and overcome_ and _improvisation_ the way the forces traditionally deals with challenges?

We made it through the days of the FLQ and slashed defence budgets; it would certainly appear that everyone concerned did their jobs well, or at least adequetely, and given their respective difficulties we should at least give them credit for _that._



> Looks to me Null, that you spend too much time reading Liberal Party propaganda,or Liberal party B.S. meetings, your hero Trudeau treated ordinary Canadians with contempt and arrogance, you probably weren't even in this world when he was Prime Minister,



I think it's fair to say he treated idiots as such.
I'm sorry you were offended.


----------



## TCBF (9 Mar 2006)

"I highly doubt any government department - let alone defence - was so efficient as to make the above scenario a reality. Order less of one thing to free up funds for the other - or were there not enough officers at NDHQ to do that? Isn't adapt and overcome and improvisation the way the forces traditionally deals with challenges?

We made it through the days of the FLQ and slashed defence budgets; it would certainly appear that everyone concerned did their jobs well, or at least adequetely, and given their respective difficulties we should at least give them credit for that."

- Wow, another answer without answering the question - no wonder you admire Trudeau.

Now, again, explain your concept of "Tailor their requests accordingly."


----------



## nULL (9 Mar 2006)

I'm out of my lane here (not being privy to the intricacies of equipment aquisition) but sure, I'll bite.

By "tailor their requests", I meant that NDHQ would study the political climate of the country at the time and recognize that if they approached their masters on the Hill with a long, expensive list of items, all would be subject to intense scrutiny. 

Rather, a far more modest list of requirements would be drawn up with the intent of preserving existing skill-sets and capabilities so that *in the future,* when fortunes and budgets change, adoption of "new" equipment is more straight-forward.

By doing their own pruning, as opposed to letting the politicians do it, the forces could keep give up less and get away with more (in theory).


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Mar 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> I'm out of my lane here (not being privy to the intricacies of equipment aquisition) but sure, I'll bite.
> 
> By "tailor their requests", I meant that NDHQ would study the political climate of the country at the time and recognize that if they approached their masters on the Hill with a long, expensive list of items, all would be subject to intense scrutiny.



HUH????  The Army is supposed to tailor their needs not to combat capability but to what the prissy desk jockeys in Ottawa imagine they would need?  It works the other way around, I think. The government sets a clear mandate to what it wants its Forces to do, then the Forces tell them what it will cost.  I think the argument here is that Trudeau had no mandate as far as that went, and only grudgingly acquiesced to keeping a brigade in NATO as one of our commitments.  Other commitments, like national security and sovereignty, went out the window. And this is somehow the fault of the generals, because they actually asked for what they needed????


----------



## nULL (10 Mar 2006)

[quote
 I think the argument here is that Trudeau had no mandate as far as that went, and only grudgingly acquiesced to keeping a brigade in NATO as one of our commitments.  Other commitments, like *national security and sovereignty*, went out the window. And this is somehow the fault of the generals, because they actually asked for what they needed????
[/quote]


From the Foreign Affairs website:

_The radical measure of moving Canada into the camp of non-aligned nations was rejected, but Canada's defence priorities were ranked as follows: the defence of sovereignty, the defence of North America, NATO and peacekeeping._

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cacheOI6YDj9_jkJ:www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/hist/canada9-en.asp+national+defence+budget+trudeau+years&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1


----------



## JBP (23 Apr 2006)

nULL said:
			
		

> From the Foreign Affairs website:
> 
> _The radical measure of moving Canada into the camp of non-aligned nations was rejected, but Canada's defence priorities were ranked as follows: the defence of sovereignty, the defence of North America, NATO and peacekeeping._
> 
> http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cacheOI6YDj9_jkJ:www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/hist/canada9-en.asp+national+defence+budget+trudeau+years&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1



Yeah.... What they say, and what they do.... And back then just as now we barely have enough equipment and manpower in the Forces to maintain sovereignty and can't do much to contribute to the defence of North America as a whole. That statement holds about as much water as a desert.

nULL.... You, as am I, are way out of your lane. You may have done some reading, but these men lived through the ages of the PM we've been speaking, and, he bled the Forces and a good chunk of the country really. End of debate.


----------



## Hot Lips (23 Apr 2006)

Like yah say...like him or not...he had a style of his own...

HL


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Apr 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Like yah say...like him or not...he had a style of his own...
> 
> HL



So did Jack the Ripper, what's your point?


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Apr 2006)

> Like yah say...like him or not...he had a style of his own...



That was just one of his many problems!  :threat: All style with no substance, possibly one of the WORST PM's we ever had.


----------



## time expired (10 Jul 2006)

I would like to add a couple of facts to this discussion of the Trudeau years,he was voted in a land slide
because he represented the canadian mood in the late 60s,anti american,anti British and anti establishment,
he was also anti military which certainly fitted in well with the zeit geist of those times.
Trudeaus left wing interlectual dreams saw a neautral Canada allied with other non commited countries
India etc..This plan involved pulling out of both NORAD and NATO and this is when these dreams ran 
head on into real politik,pulling out of NORAD would have caused a serious reaction from the USA and
this reaction would had dangerous consequencies for Canadas northern souvreinty.NATO was another
matter his idea was to ease Canada out by reducing our nearly 7000 man brigade intergrated into 2nd
Brit. inf. Div. to a 2800 man so called battle group moved south intergrated and supported by no one.
This also ran into problems, as Britain had just indicated it would soon be joining the EU and as Canada
would be losing an important trading partner,Trudeau can cap in hand to the EU ministers meeting
to be told ,by Helmut Schmidt I believe,that the EU and NATOwere the same countries and would  not
be too keen on trading with a NATO member who was not pulling its weight.This resulted in the rent
a tank program and a gradual increase in the force strenth of the Canadian NATO contingent.
             What is my point,I hear you all asking,well I believe Trudeau did a great deal of harm to Canadas
standing in the eyes of its former allies and friends,he did immesurable damage to Canadas armed
forces his immigration policies damaged  Canadas social fabrik and on top of all that the man was a
complete hypocrite,his condemnation of the US Veitnam policies while making sure Canadian factories
where going fullblast producing for the US military,also his use of the military in the Quebec crisis
more akin to a military junta than a democratic government.My conclusion the man was a charlatan.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jul 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> his condemnation of the US Veitnam policies while making sure Canadian factories (were) going fullblast producing for the US military



Explain, please.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2006)

Michael

Although I found a lot of his rant a little off, the part that you have closed in on is quite true.  Canada was making money hand over fist producing munitions, weapons parts, instruments and precision parts for the US "War Machine".  Canadian Universities were conducting research in many fields of medicine, aerospace, weapons, etc.  We had the CIA conducting psychological experiments at McGill.  We also had Gerald Bull conducting experiments with ballistics and artillery.  Canada was, and still is, one of the world's leaders in Defence Research.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Michael
> 
> Although I found a lot of his rant a little off, the part that you have closed in on is quite true.  Canada was making money hand over fist producing munitions, weapons parts, instruments and precision parts for the US "War Machine".  Canadian Universities were conducting research in many fields of medicine, aerospace, weapons, etc.  We had the CIA conducting psychological experiments at McGill.  We also had Gerald Bull conducting experiments with ballistics and artillery.  Canada was, and still is, one of the world's leaders in Defence Research.



Thanks, just wondering specifically what though - I just look at a lot of our "kit" from 1970 to the 1990s and see that much Canadian equipment was in fact US designed if not manufactured - ie cast-off M-1 helmets, PRC-25 radios (77 Set), MLVW (license built in Canada and different from the 10 wheel M-35 the US used), M-113, etc.  On the face of it, it seemed at first blush the other way around.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jul 2006)

Remember Linton Instruments (SP)?  They made parts for the radios, guidance systems, etc.  We actually made a lot of the 'insides' of much of their equipment.  I think we even produced many of the M72s in the day.


----------



## time expired (11 Jul 2006)

Micheal
Thanks for your comments on my rant, which parts did you find "off"not my awful spelling I hope, if so I 
will try better in future.
As far as feeding the US war machine was concerned I read in  an article in either Macleans or Newsweek, this was many moon ago,that Canada suplied large amounts of 7.62 ammo,equally large amounts of 155
arty shells and jet engines for Boeing Vertol helicopters.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2011)

Forty one years ago today, James Cross, trade commissioner from Great Britain, was kidnapped by FLQ terrorists.

_Je me souviens._


----------

