In this interview from 1971, A.C. Forrest speaks with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on a range of topics including the separatist movement in Quebec, how churches should engage with government, and his beliefs and philosophies as a Catholic, a world traveller, and a politician.
Dr. Forrest: The first thing I’d like to ask, Mr. Prime Minister, is are you confident that Canada is going to stay united?
Prime Minister Trudeau: Yes, I am. I am, I guess, because I feel very deeply for Canada, and l believe most Canadians do. I am confident also for political reasons because I think that the history of the past hundred years has shown us that, by and large, the one linguistic group to whom separatism is being preached is not moved by the arguments which are used.
Q: Can you think of anything that Protestant church people in the English-speaking part of Canada may do to contribute to understanding on this whole divisive issue?
PM: In specific terms I don’t think I could make any suggestions, but in general terms I believe that it is because Canadians have been under the good influences of their churches that they are a tolerant people, an understanding and patient people, so that there has been little backlash against the excesses which have happened over the decades in French and in English Canada which might turn either group off. I think that there’s been a remarkable show of maturity in the reaction of Canadian people, and I am sure this is because of the basic tolerance of their philosophy, a basic humanistic approach to society and equality of man.
Q: Do you think then Canadian people are reasonably free of bias or bigotry?
PM: I think they are — yes.
Q: And do you feel that the churches both Protestant and Catholic are now contributing positively to unity? There have been times when they have been divisive.
PM: There have been times when they were very divisive. I think that it was in periods before political pluralism was accepted as the only sane way to run a society. I think the sense of exclusivity that tended to be associated with religions in past times has now disappeared. At least it has disappeared in its political and social manifestations as far as I can see.
Q: Now, I’m going to get personal. I have been told you are a devout Catholic. I know that you don’t let photographers take pictures of you going to church and apparently you don’t even want it mentioned that you go to church. I don’t know whether you are a devout Catholic or not, I don’t know whether the people know.
PM: I honestly don’t know what they mean by a devout Catholic.
Q: Well, you are a believer and you go to church?
PM: Yes. Does that make you a devout man?
A: No.
PM: I believe in life after death. I believe in God, and I’m a Christian.
Q: Did you ever in your youth for a time leave your faith or find yourself severely shaken in it?
PM: I was shaken to the extent that people who criticized me used to say that I was Protestant more than a Catholic because I like to impose constraints on myself, but I don’t like them to be imposed from the outside. You will remember that in Shaw’s preface to Saint Joan he describes her as perhaps the first Protestant: sometimes I felt sympathy with that. I believe that the Catholic Church now would find much more accommodation for this type of person than did the particular milieu I was brought up in in school. But as to whether I had any philosophical doubts, about life and the hereafter and so on, I don’t think I would like to answer that because I’m not sure how significant such doubts are. I mean, as does every young man studying philosophy, I naturally asked myself questions about the truth of all this, and about the meaning of freedom, predestination, and liberty of choice and so on. But to have asked questions of yourself about it, I think is not too important. Let’s say — I remain — I remained a believer.
Q: You were interested in finding out about the religion of other people, religions such as Buddhism and Islam on your travels: how do you react to the exclusive claims of Christianity, such as “there is no other name under heaven whereby ye may be saved,” or “I am the way, the truth and the light, no man cometh unto the father but by me,” or am I asking questions that are too personal?
PM: No, that question is perfectly legitimate. I can honestly say that I have never attempted to answer that because that is not my approach to religion. In my formative years the people who influenced me most were the Christian existentialists, I mean men like Munier and Kierkegaard and perhaps most of all Nicholas Berdyaev and in my travels I looked for one thing more than anything. I rarely discussed, probably mainly because of language difficulties, metaphysics with the various religious people of other groups I’d meet with. But I’d very much try to see how they were incarnated, how their particular soul was incarnated or took roots into reality. I was inclined to judge the validity of a man’s faith more by the depth of his roots in reality and brotherhood and love. So I felt more at home, shall we say with some Zoroastrians in the Far East, than I did with some Catholic missionaries.
Q: I don’t like pressing on this but you really don’t like publicity about your faith. Is it a feeling that it might be exploited? Or is this just a personal thing?
PM: Two reasons. For one thing it seems to me it would be pretty awful if Canadians came to choose political leaders not for their political ideas and actions, but because of their adherence or their devotedness to one faith or another. The other reason is that I feel religion is basically and essentially a communication between a man and his God and I think it is the most personal thing of all and I don’t think it concerns too many people. I don’t mind discussing it like this, but I do object to the sensationalism or even the voyeurism of doing things in church or out of church.
Q: But you wouldn’t get Canadians divided on religious grounds as Americans were once over John Kennedy’s election, would you?
PM: I don’t think you would. That’s also part of the maturity that I was talking about. Perhaps if we looked a generation back, we might. You know, I’m sure that in the days when the papists were on one side and the Orange Lodge was on the other, under certain circumstances of poverty and of conflict, what is now happening in Northern Ireland might have happened here. But I think that we are beyond that now.
Q: As Prime Minister do you find that churches and religious organizations act as pressure groups on government?
PM: They do. I remember a few specific occasions where they acted very definitely as pressure groups when I was studying the form of the divorce laws when I was Minister of Justice. I got a great deal of representation from the churches. And I found it very helpful.
Q: In other words, it was a positive presentation of different points of view?
PM: Yes, it was. Another example was the reform of the Criminal Code which also brought a certain number of moral questions to the fore. Remember the questions of abortion, homosexuality and so on. There was representation on those questions.
Q: But that was what you’d call a proper democratic representation with briefs to commissions rather than pressure from behind the scenes?
PM: It was, as you say, appearing with briefs and having extended presentations of them in the presence of myself and a few cabinet ministers. lt also expressed itself in other ways, through letter-writing, undoubtedly on the advice of the pastor or the priest of the parish. You could obviously see it was a community approach to the problem. We had the same thing very strongly when we were debating recognition of the Vatican.
Q: What’s the proper and most effective way for a church to influence government policy?
PM: I suppose there are two approaches — both of which I think are reasonable and proper. One is to make direct representation through the hierarchy by presentation of briefs, by explanation of points of view, by reaching the minister or member of parliament and telling him what the Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Muslim point of view is on this particular thing and to hope that the government will see it. And the other, which is probably more effective, is in making sure that the morality in which people of a particular religion believe is translated into their approach to social and political problems — making sure when they vote, when they discuss or when they write to a member of parliament that they are illuminated as it were by the particular set of truths in which they believe.
I think it’s important here that I make another distinction — that the churches must realize that when they take a position on a political event that they must accept the rules of the game. When, for instance, churches become a pressure group on Biafra, I think they must realize that they have no particular mandate to speak the truth on Biafra. If they’re talking of generosity, of respect of human life and so on, then they do have a mandate. I mean, this is part of the ethic of that particular metaphysic, whatever religion it is. But if they are making a political decision, a practical deduction from some of their moralistic beliefs, I believe first they must recognize the fallibility of their advice and they must realize too that then they are making a practical decision, and therefore they should be exposed to the type of contradiction and perhaps humiliation that politicians are exposed to — rebuttal, rejoinder and so on.
Q: As a young man you must have seen in your wanderings around the world representatives of the church at work in the so-called undeveloped world. Did you get any lasting impression about what you saw?
PM: Yes, very much. Strangely enough, at lunch today I was talking about it to some of my companions. One of them had been to India as a young boy and he was talking about a certain hotel in Bombay. And I said ‘Sorry, I didn’t stay at the hotels in those days — either I slept in the railway stations or at the YMCAs.’
Perhaps the greatest thing I saw in terms of brotherhood and interracial tolerance and so on, was the kind of work done by the Christian missionaries and others who set up YMCAs, youth hostels and so on. Being then a wanderer, I was very sensitive to the Christianity or otherwise of the various missionary sects I’d meet in the middle of Africa or in lndia or in some remote part of China. I wouldn’t like to generalize about Protestants or Catholics, but it was a sure test, I believe, of what I thought to be the right approach, if, apart from what they did as religious men, they were kind to a wanderer by letting him sleep in their hostel or in their compound if they didn’t have a bed or by offering him a meal. I have many memories of this. The most beautiful missionaries I saw were those who talked less about religion but who were very generous in their approach. I can remember a little brother, where the Ganges runs into the Indian Ocean, who lived with the fishermen and didn’t teach them religion but he taught them how to fish. He just loved those people and they just loved him. They were all Muslims and I guess he was probably the only Christian. I thought this was a great testimony to the depth of his faith. I can remember going around Mount Athos visiting various monasteries. It was an extraordinarily moving experience because of the solitude of some of these monks and the beauty of the monasteries. Some would receive you as a pilgrim and they would really follow the rule of the order and make sure that you had something to eat and drink, even if it was only a piece of stale bread which they ate themselves. Others took the haughty, hierarchical approach to things. And it’s the same the world over with all religions. You find some who are suspicious of their surroundings and who are there just to preach the faith and others who are generous and warm and who really love the people.
Q: This brings me to a tougher question. The churches which identify with the dispossessed and the repressed in certain parts of the world — South Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique, even to an extent in the Middle East — are finding that by their identification and by their assistance, that they are actually supporting groups that have turned to violence in order to end the violence under which they have lived. The World Council of Churches, for example, is in trouble over giving grants of money for medical supplies and so on to such groups. I have read recently some of the things you’ve said about violence and the tremendous question it raises in our time. Are you completely nonviolent? Or do you think there’s a case for a suppressed people trying to end their repression by resorting to violence?
PM: In my political philosophy I think that there sometimes is room for violence. In my religion I really cannot think of cases where violence is justified. I know the usual answer of Christ using violence to get the sellers out of the temple, but to me this was impatience rather than violence.
Q: Personally, you’re almost pacifist?
PM: No. I think that religions must seek peace and love and therefore be pacifist. But, here again, when the religious principles, like the philosophical, are translated into reality, sometimes the reality forces violence on you, and there is no escape from it, and then I don’t think it’s something you should try to hide your face from.
Q: If you were a young American of draft age called up to go to Vietnam, would you come to Canada?
PM: I couldn’t say because I — you know, this type of hypothetical situation — God knows what I would think if I were of that age. But I could perhaps answer your question indirectly by saying that those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war and who become draft-dodgers have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada whether they are draft-dodgers or, even more serious, deserters from the ranks of their armed forces. That, perhaps, could enlighten you at least on my theoretical approach. I see nothing wrong with it. I think that the only ultimate guide we have is our conscience, and if the law of the land goes against our conscience I think we should disobey the law. But because I also am a deep believer in the civil society, I think we should be prepared to pay the consequences of breaking the law and that is either paying the penalty for it, or leaving the country. I feel perhaps I didn’t deal with the question of violence in depth. If you want to return to it I won’t object.
Q: Well, let’s go back to this because I have gathered you have said you’re not judging those who, under specific circumstances, turn to violence.
PM: That’s right. It’s the circumstances which one also has to have a philosophy about. Let’s take a specific example. If you live in a society where those who govern society and determine its path do not respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion, freedom of choice, freedom of assembly, and if there is no democratic process and no way to change the order of things by reason and peace and love and so on, and if, as a result of that, certain ideas in which you believe are being crushed, then I think the only way you can defend yourself against this violence is in using violence of your own. I can see that in certain political situations you have to use force to overthrow police states, for instance. As a politician I’ve never had to face that because I’ve always lived in a democratic society. But I think violence is counter-productive and it is bad in democratic societies.
Q: When you first became Prime Minister you implied we should have a new approach to the so-called communist world which you had found wasn’t as monolithic or as hostile as some of us thought. You have made substantial progress in this. Have you any comment on Canadian reaction to the recognition of Red China?
PM: I’ve found that thus far there’s been no adverse reaction. I think it’s something which was overdue in political terms and when it happened I think people just heaved a sigh of relief.
They say ‘good,’ then they forget about it; they forget it was ever a problem. I’m sure in a few years it will be unthinkable to say there were 20 years when we didn’t recognize the People’s Republic of China. And then we’ll have to explain what the political constraints were and why it didn’t happen earlier.
Q: Professor Joseph Hromadka said some years ago that he was more fearful of anti-communism as it was being expressed in certain parts of the west than of communism. Have you any comment on the policy of trying to contain communism with military force in other countries?
PM: Yes. I don’t believe you can contain ideas by military force. I believe military force can be used to redress or change the balance of power in the world, but I think that that’s always a losing operation if you’re not trying to do it in a way which corresponds to the basic desires of the people on whom you are acting. Who is it that said that ‘you have not converted a man because you have silenced him?’ This is true of the use of the military on people.
As you gather from my earlier answer, I am peaceful but I am not a pacifist in the philosophical sense. I recognize that in some cases it’s more important to have freedom and justice than to have peace. Sometimes you must live in a violent world in order to get greater justice. But I think all of us, politicians and churchmen, should do our utmost to change the society so that there would be no need for violence. This is the beauty of the democratic process: it permits that subjective view of justice — which everyone holds — permits that subjective way to express itself peacefully through discussion, through reason and through the voting process. I’m far from believing that we’ve solved the problem of violence in the 20th century and that’s why I’m not discouraged that we still have the Biafras and the Northern Irelands and the East Pakistans and, for that matter, violence in American or Canadian cities. l think that as the guardian of justice elected by the people it’s our duty to use whatever forms of force, police, army, to make sure that at least the freedom of choice is preserved. You know it is a dichotomy between order and freedom. Not too long ago I was asked which my preference would be. Obviously I prefer freedom, but I know, and I think all history has told us, that freedom cannot flow from anarchy and disorder. Freedom can flow from order. That is not to say that freedom always flows from order because you can have a totalitarian order and you can have an undemocratic order from which freedom will not flow, but that surest way to destroy freedom is to have chaos.
Q: To switch to another area: we accept in our society that a rich man’s son or daughter may live on his or her inheritance through an unproductive life without criticism. They have inherited it. What about the healthy man who doesn’t choose to work? Is he entitled by the very fact that he is a man in Canada, to the heritage of basic living?
PM: On the first part of your statement I agree with you generally, but it would be fair to point out that the inheritance laws in Canada, and now the capital gains tax, which hits pretty hard when paid, qualify your statement a little bit. We don’t think every man should be free to pass on everything to his descendants.
Q: Should we have a floor under which no man may sink even if it’s his own fault? Should every Canadian be given a basic income whether he works or not?
PM: I think my answer would be to state what I think is theoretically right and then what is practically possible. I think theoretically if a man is young and healthy society should not give him a basic income. He should not be given dole. He should not be eligible for welfare. If he can work and if there is work available, he should take his choice. If he wants to be a hermit or beggar, that’s fine. If he wants to move with the sun and live off the land, that’s fine. If he is in a society which has work for him I don’t think he should theoretically be eligible for welfare. But, in practice, the administration of these laws would be difficult — to examine each person and say, ‘Are you physically ill or are you psychologically deranged, or are you just going through a phase now where you will be stricken by disease and blight if you’re not fed, and therefore we must help you.’ Because of the impossibility of going through this type of exercise I don’t see any easy way of disqualifying people on the basis that they decide not to work.
Every time I have a political rally I meet some people who say, “I need a job.” I met one yesterday and I said, what is your trade? What would you like to work at? Do you want a job? I told him ”I’ll find you a job.” And he said, “I want a hundred thousand jobs. Canada needs a hundred thousand jobs.” He didn’t want a job, he was just demonstrating. More power to him. If he doesn’t want a job, let him wander. He’s a young man and perhaps it’s his time to do so. If he wants a job then I think we should help him find one. If we can’t help him find one then I think we should take care of him because society is responsible for its social organization, and if it can’t provide the wherewithal for men to be gainfully employed then it should pay the penalty and give them welfare.
Q: You either coined or popularized the phrase “participatory democracy” and yet some of your critics say that you get very impatient with the processes of the House of Commons.
PM: That’s true, though I think if it mattered for the record I could put a lot of things there that showed that I’ve done or helped do a fair amount for the House of Commons which shows my respect of it. You know, in terms of research, assistance to the back-benchers, improving the rules and the committee system and so on. I’m impatient not with the House of Commons as an institution, but with the way in which it is operated. This doesn’t prove I don’t believe in participatory democracy. I’m sometimes impatient with young people who demonstrate at my meetings and who don’t want an argument, but who just want to go on television as having been there and made a fuss. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in participatory democracy.
Q: How do you feel about the young people — especially those youngsters hitchhiking around the country? You are concerned about those who couldn’t get jobs, but how about those who are doing this instead of taking a job — how do you feel about them?
PM: I think it’s great. I think that more and more young people are discovering that gainful employment isn’t the only thing in life. That they can perhaps be just as useful to society and themselves by travelling across the land or around the world, learning more about humanity and going through the various experiences which will make their adulthood more productive.
Q: You did that when you were a young man. How productive was it for you from the point of view of education and understanding of the world? Was it equal to a year or two in college?
PM: Oh, gosh, I suppose it was probably equal to ten years in college in terms of seeing the world, understanding people, feeling misery and poverty and isolation at first hand, and also probably in the molding of my own personality. You remember in Melville’s Moby Dick I believe it was Ishmael who said that when he feels that desire to go out and knock men’s hats off, he realizes it’s time to go to sea, and he hunts the white whale. I think young people are like that all the time. I think I was much better advised to bum around the world for a few years than to stay around Canada knocking people’s hats off. And I think a lot of the young people today are realizing that. You know you have a lot of impatience with reality as you see it when you’re a young man and full of dynamism and strength and ideals and so on. I think it’s good that you test the reality that surrounds you in your neighbourhood with the reality as it is in other parts of the world; you come up with a better judgment. I’m not meaning that literally you can only do that and not go to school at all but in terms of enrichment of a personality I think it’s a fabulous thing.
Q: Can you assess any positive results from our new relationship with the Vatican?
PM: I couldn’t say really on a cost benefit analysis whether it is productive or not. I think it will take a period of time and perhaps a period of a few ambassadors to know if it is good or not. I believe it was the right thing, even if only in terms of clearing the record of things that were held back for the wrong reasons — a bit like the recognition of Peking [Beijing]. Whether having done them good results only will flow, is something I can’t say. But I’m prepared to take the risk.
Q: You got pressure beforehand against it. Since you acted has there been reaction against it?
PM: None that I could mention. I’m sure some people still feel that it was the wrong decision, perhaps that it was a waste of the taxpayers’ money. I don’t share these views. I believe it’s too soon to assess it. But in terms of fanatical hostility against the decision, I’m not aware of any.
