Redefining Populism and The Canada West Foundation

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"We have Rightwing protectionist Conservatives, championing free enterprise -with no interest in social reform. We have Leftwing socialism trying to build reform. There is a large intelligent mass at the centre that is demanding a more enlightened approach - Fiscal responsibility + social reform. Free to own, free to achieve, free to grow and to change but who want their government to take responsibility for stimulating growth ... Only thru liberalism can we have both a free society and a quality of life." Stan Roberts Founding Reform Party Member

The Canada West Foundation was founded in 1971 and was funded by individual memberships, corporate donations, as well as provincial and territorial grants. It's aim was to conduct research into the economic and social characteristics of the West and the North, and to make proposals regarding it's development.

It was not partisan and it's founding members included Duff Roblin, former Tory premier of Manitoba, and Liberal MP James Richardson. Other prominent people who filled their ranks, were the media king Izzy Asper, political columnist Gordon Gibson, former governor general of Canada, Edward Schreyer; and Jim Gray, vice-president of Canadian Hunter Exploration. The chairman was president of Burns Meats, Arthur Child. Child was a millionaire and, according to writer Peter Newman, a member of Calgary's 'nouveaux riches'.

But the most prominent member of the CEF was its president, Stan Roberts. a former Liberal MLA. In 1970 he wrote a note to himself, possibly intending it to be part of a speech, but this was how he felt about the federal political climate.

If NDP had been elected two years ago - inflation. If PCs had been elected two years ago - 2 countries. (1)

Roberts could probably best be described as a Social-Democrat. He was a fair and intelligent man, who would later help to create the Reform Party. In fact, he challenged Preston Manning for leadership of the Party, fearing that Manning was bringing in too many from the Right-Wing fringe, and he had the backing of the man who provided the seed money, Francis Winspear. He was right of course, but through crafty maneuvering, Manning won the day.

I think it would have been a much different party had Roberts headed it up, but he died soon after, so I guess we'll never know.

Roberts was part of the Task Force on National Unity headed by former Liberal cabinet minister Jean-Luc Pepin and former Ontario premier John Robarts, to address the Quebec Question after the election of René Lévesque .

By 1978, he had become convinced that western Canada had to become more involved in the constitutional process. In his own words: 'What has happened in Quebec may have precipitated the crisis, but it's not an Ontario-Quebec debate. It's a Canadian debate and we in the west have a part in it.' (1)

Canada West Foundation and the Quebec Question

In 1976, the CWF commissioned a report by M & M Systems Research Ltd. of Edmonton examining how a new balance of national and regional interests and aspirations could be achieved within Canada, 'while maintaining the unity and integrity of Canadian Confederation.""

And of course, M & M was owned and managed by Ernest and Preston Manning. It would later be renamed Manning Consultants Limited, in 1969, a year after the elder Manning's resignation as Alberta premier. The Mannings had never been too far from the political arena and had forged strong ties with big business.

Through their work with NPARF and the National Citizens' Coalition, they envisioned a New Canada, one run by the corporate sector. In 1970 they had drafted a paper that became a blue-print for neoconservatism in Canada.

In 1970, M & M produced its first paper, entitled Requests for Proposals and Social Contracts. Based on the system of contracting used by such American agencies as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and written in the now familiar language of systems theory, the paper advocated the provision of social programs by private industry and commerce." ... neo-conservative solutions to the increasing fiscal problems of the liberal welfare state. (1)

It all looked good on paper.

The Mannings' paper was used as the basis for discussions held at public meetings throughout western Canada, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories during September and October 1977. Then, in December 1977, the foundation commissioned three reputable political scientists - David Elton and Peter McCormick, of the University of Lethbridge, and Fred Engelmann, of the University of Alberta - to study federal systems of government existing elsewhere in the world.

Their study, entitled Alternatives: Towards the Development of an Effective Federal System for Canada, came out in February 1978, and made several specific proposals, notably that the Senate be replaced by a House of Provinces consisting of delegates from the provincial governments. The intent of this proposal was to bring the regions into the federal decision-making process, while not fundamentally weakening or decentralizing federal authority. The study also made clear where the authors stood on the Parti Quebecois's proposal of sovereignty-association: 'There is no question but that French Canadians have legitimate grievances ... [However, the] fuzziness of political independence and economic association would generate feelings of exploitation of both sides of the new divide ... Quebec would [succeed] in creating in political reality that which until now has seldom existed outside her nightmares – a politically unified English Canada facing an isolated Quebec.

This study subsequently became a discussion paper at the CWF's Alternatives Conference held in Banff, Alberta, on 27-9 March 1978. Among the many funders of that conference was the Winspear Foundation, named after Francis Winspear, the disenchanted former Liberal. The conference attracted 300 delegates from across the country, including 50 from Quebec, and several high-profile speakers, including Flora MacDonald, the federal Tory critic for federal-provincial relations, Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, and Saskatchewan premier Allan Blakeney. In the end, Elton, Engelmann, and McCormick's proposals were generally endorsed by the delegates. Stan Roberts noted: 'with a clear consensus the delegates supported the concept of a strong central government . (1)

And it received a lot of praise from all quarters. But it never got off the ground. It came at a time of much political turmoil. Joe Clark won the election in 1979, only to lose another several months later. Quebec was holding a referendum and the battle lines appeared to have been drawn.

The CWF took on a more combative role, with their director Arthur Child, and the west was about to rise up again.

And within a decade Preston Manning found the time was right to start a new party, founded on Western grievances. But any organization or political party founded on anger is eventually going to be consumed by it. And when the Reform Party made their way to Ottawa, they came ready for a fight.

And under their new name, the Conservative Party of Canada, and new leader Stephen Harper, they are just as combative, and unwilling to compromise.

What Allan Gregg calls Negative Statesmanship.

Now, with the publication of Harperland: The Politics of Control, Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin has entered this fray and one-upped past observers by claiming that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has taken “the politics of control” to an entirely new level—and in this case, the intent is most emphatically personal. For Martin, this tendency is no mere response to a more fractured and frenzied media, but a studied, long-term strategy designed “to break the [Liberal] brand.” The result has become “a Soviet-style monitoring maze” and “a vetting operation unlike any ever seen in the capital” that demands all aspects of government pay unwavering obedience to the Prime Minister’s Office.

And Stan Roberts' notion that "only thru liberalism can we have both a free society and a quality of life", his vision of a new party that might be termed "capitalism with a human face" (1), has been lost in the ideology of 'only thru corporatism can we lose the notion of a free society and destroy our quality of life'.

Capitalism with the face of a monster.

Sources:

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. By Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 65-69

2. Negative Statesmanship: Stephen Harper may end up being known for what he does not do more than for what he does, By Allan Gregg, Literary Review

Redefining Populism and the Creation of Social Conservatism

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray." - Robert Burns

By the 1960s Ernest Manning had become increasingly concerned that Canada was threatened with economic and moral ruin, which he attributed to the rise of socialism. And while he felt that Social Credit principles were the only thing that could save the country, the SoCon party was in disarray, now attracting only those from the right-wing fringes.

And it was this moral and economic decay that prompted him to co-write with his son Preston, Political Realignment, which would combine free enterprise with social concerns. The book was a blueprint for what Manning called 'social conservatism.'

Funding for it's creation came from a newly formed organization, known as the National Public Affairs Research Foundation (NPARF), where Preston was engaged as a 'policy researcher.'

A report by columnist Don Sellar in the Calgary Herald on 21 July 1967 described the NPARF as a somewhat secretive, staunchly right-wing, lobby group funded by several prominent businessmen, including R.A. Brown, president of Home Oil, Cyrus McLean, chairman of B.C. Telephone, Renault St Laurent, lawyer and son of the former prime minister, Ronald Clarke, an Edmonton architect, R.J. Burns, a Calgary lawyer, and A.M. Shoults, president of James Lovick Ltd. of Toronto, all of whom were close friends of the elder Manning." (1)

Besides Realignment, Preston Manning also helped to create the White paper, a social engineering plan that focused on the sovereignty of the individual, to combat what they saw as the threat of collectivism (socialism) that had become quickly accelerated with the introduction of public health care.

Human resources will be treated as being intrinsically more important than physical resources.

Prior consideration will be given to human beings individually (persons), rather than to human beings collectively (society).

Changes and adjustments to changes will be proposed, but these will always be related to fundamental principles.

A free enterprise economy, in which all individuals have maximum opportunity to participate, will be regarded as more desirable than a state regimented economy.

A supporting function, rather than a domineering function, will be ascribed to the state relative to resources development." (1)

And they attempted through NPARF to join the Social Credit and Progressive Conservative parties of Alberta, with aspirations of eventually creating a national party.

Manning's second project with the NPARF was 'an investigation of the possibility of putting together the aging Social Credit Party of Alberta ... with the up-and-coming Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta under its new leader, Peter Lougheed." Erick Schmidt and Preston Manning met with Lougheed's group, represented by Joe Clark and Mery Leitch (later energy minister in the Lougheed cabinet), on several occasions, and eventually produced a draft plan for amalgamating the two parties under the banner of the Social Conservative party. The idea was quickly rejected, however, by officials both within the Manning government and the Lougheed camp." (1)

Joe Clark had a history with both Preston and Social Credit.

Nonetheless, the idea of a realignment of right-wing forces stayed with the Mannings ... The book [Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians], written in the same style as the White Paper, expressed Ernest Manning's contention that real political choice had disappeared from the federal Canadian scene because the parties —particularly the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives — were not ideologically distinct. Hence, Ernest Manning proposed that political choice be re-established through a realignment/ polarization of political thinking and organization. The end product of such a political realignment would be social conservatism, an ideology that Manning defined as welding 'the humanitarian concerns of those with awakened social consciences to the economic persuasions of those with a firm conviction in the value of freedom of economic activity and enlightened private enterprise. (1)

But the time wasn't right and the proposal not realistic. There had been a lot of social change as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and a search for a more open and just society. This was Trudeau's time.

The problem with Ernest and Preston Manning was that they had almost cut themselves off from the real world. Ernest rarely spoke to his constituents except through his radio Bible program. When Preston attended school, he had to go to his father's office where he did his homework before the two headed to their house.

When he attended university, it was understood that he avoid relationships, except with those who thought as he did. Not a large group.

So their political thought was out of step with modern society.

In many ways, this semi-isolation, also created Stephen Harper's narrow minded thinking. Growing up in what his biographer, William Johnson, referred to as the "quintessential WASP middle-class suburb."

His childhood was spent with mostly white middle-class protestants in a pre-designed community with little "through traffic"

The End of Social Credit

Manning stepped down as Premier in 1968, as the party was losing steam. The reins would be passed to Peter Lougheed and his PCs. In September of 1979, the Camrose radio station, CFCN - the station on which Aberhart had begun broadcasting 'The Back to the Bible Hour' in 1925 — announced that it was dumping the show because of low ratings.

Federally, Joe Clark won the 1979 election for the Tories, only to lose power a few months later, giving Trudeau another mandate. Many blame Clark's obstinance in not joining with the stronger Quebec branch of the Social Credit movement: The Creditistes, led by Fabien Roy.

Had he done that, his minority government would not have fallen. According to Peter Brimelow:

Tory Prime Minister Joe Clark's government was in a minority and could have used Creditistes support, but instead Clark was blindly hostile to them, convinced that if they "faded in Quebec their supporters would find a new home with the Conservatives." He was wrong, of course. In the 1980 federal election, they actually voted for the Liberals - "a party more deeply rooted in French-Canadian society than the Conservatives." (2)

But in his defense, he had no stomach for joining with a party that had become "a refuge for right-wing 'fringe' elements".

The party's nadir occurred in 1983 when its provincial vice-president, Jim Keegstra, was found guilty on charges of spreading hatred against Jews. By the early 1980s, Social Credit remained a power only in British Columbia. (1)

But there was a rumble.

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 33-38

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 1

Words of Wisdom That Should Not Have Been Ignored

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1965 a young reporter with the Calgary Albertan wrote a piece on the history of the Social Credit party in that province, which was then celebrating it's 30th anniversary.

Created during the depression, when desperate people were looking for a saviour, it was both a blessing and a curse. And this is what he discovered in interviewing those who were around at the time of it's creation. Reports were either glowing or painted a picture of "hooligans, emotion run amok, and a stab of fear."

In the churches, the country churches where so long there had been unity, Social Creditors sat on one side of the aisle, and others on the other, and there was a hostile silence after the service. (1)

And this was actually encouraged by the party. Divisive politics played out well at the ballot box. And so did fear.

Meetings of the opposition were often disrupted by " a 'group of big fellows' who honked car horns, yelled and pounded logs against the walls and doors of their meeting halls. Reporters were barred from [Social Credit] meetings, and often made to feel unsafe upon the streets." (1)
And on his Bible program, then leader William Aberhart regaled against "Henchmen", "Bigshots" and "those who betrayed Christ". And if critics phoned into his radio show, they were "threatened with tar and feather, shooting and physical violence". Religious fervour and politics can create a dangerous climate.

So when this young reporter sat down in 1965 to file his story, he understood the dangers of this kind of political party. His name was Joe Clark and he would go on to become Canada's youngest prime minister.

Yesterday, someone posted a CBC clip from the 2004 election campaign, on Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper. In it Joe Clark suggested that former PCers (the party folded in 2003) should vote Liberal, and called Stephen Harper "a dangerous choice for voters".

Naturally the Reform/Alliance members, now marching under the 'Conservative' banner, went on the attack, suggesting that Clark was just upset because he was on his way out.

However, if the media had dug a little deeper, they would have understood that Clark was speaking from decades of research, and experience with this movement, that began in 1935 as Social Credit under first Aberhart, and then Ernest Manning. It then passed to Ernest's son Preston under Reform and Preston's lieutenant Stephen Harper under Alliance, before becoming the 'Conservative Party of Canada'.

He knew what they stood for. He knew how they operated. And he knew that Stephen Harper was a "dangerous" man.

Schooled in Politics

Joe Clark and Preston Manning attended the University of Alberta at the same time and were members of the Youth Parliament. At the time Manning was considered to be a little odd.

At university in the early sixties he gave the impression of a rural kid completely isolated from the ways of urban society. He presented an odd image. "He was part of the Youth Parliament's Social Credit caucus at the same time Joe Clark, Grant Notley (the late, former leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta), Jim Coutts (who became prominent in the Liberal Party under Pierre Trudeau), and others were representing their respective parties. He was a good speaker, but you never saw him on campus. People knew who he was, and the rumour was that his father didn't want him to hang around the university too much because it would be a bad moral influence on him," recalls Fred Walker, a student at that time. "He looked very out of place — odd enough in his mannerisms and physical appearance and dress to be the occasional subject of ridicule. He gave the impression of being a very serious and committed young man — but more an apologist for his father's party and policies. He didn't play a very prominent role." (2)

But during debate it was clear that his political thought was not only to the right, but also, like his father's, grounded in a fear of socialism.

"It was not simply that Social Credit was found ... to be wanting in areas of social policy - it was more that conservative ideas were being challenged by socialism. Left-wing thinking was influencing events and people ... 'We [socreds] believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state...'" (3)

The idea that the majority of Canadians opposed the welfare state, came from party rhetoric, and was not based on fact, a pattern that continues today.

What Canadians wanted was more from their government. If they were expected to go to war in the name of nationalism, then they deserved to share in the resources of the nation that they had fought for.

After the war, public policy launched upon a prolonged process of social reform. It was as though the generation that had endured the Depression and fought the war had determined upon the establishment of a new Canadian society based upon compassion and caring and a gathered resolve that life could be made better for all Canadians by governments committed to principles of tolerance, fairness, and equity. (4)

They Meet Again

After the Reform Party was founded, Preston Manning decided to run against his old university nemesis Joe Clark in the riding of Yellowhead Alberta, for the 1988 election. This wasn't so much because of a personal grudge, but he felt that the publicity would be good for the party. With Mr. Clark's status, the press would be following this race closely.

There is a funny story about that campaign from author Gordon Laird.

"Like many Albertans Preston Manning knows how to dress cowboy ... Manning learned how to ride on his parent's farm near Edmonton where he once won northern Alberta's 4H livestock raising championship .... but it was not until 1988 that Reform's head cowboy formed his first posse. Campaigning against the incumbent Progressive Conservative, Joe Clark ... Reform's new leader hatched a publicity stunt before a debate in the town of Jasper. A 'Reform Posse' of riders, complete with Reform banners and saddle blankets, was organized to chase down the ex-prime minister, who was scheduled to arrive at the local train station. It was High Noon for Mulroney's token westerner. 'The posse and Sheriff Manning were in pursuit of the notorious Joe Clark' ....

"To the disappointment of the fifteen horses and riders looking for a political lynchin', Clark never showed; his train was delayed. The Reformers still had fun handing out 'Wanted' posters and posing for pictures with tourists ..." (5)

Manning lost and he lost soundly.

A New Party and a New Nemesis

From the time that Stephen Harper was made the leader of the Alliance Party, he started a war against Joe Clark and the Conservatives. He didn't try to negotiate an alliance but told Clark to "stop pissing around or get out of my way." He wanted to devour the PC party and Clark fought back.

This prompted an abuse of his franking privileges, when Harper sent out letters to PC party members suggesting that Clark was misleading his party.

And when Joe Clark fought desperately to hold onto what was started by Sir John A. MacDonald, never joining the "new" neoconservative spin-off, he knew exactly who Stephen Harper was, and he knew what this party represented.

Former PC member of parliament , Flora MacDonald called it "... the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country... and claimed that "The party's future lies not in some right-wing alliance that would violate the progressive and moderate traditions of its former leaders, but with a renewed emphasis on the values that the great majority of Canadians feel represent their views." (5 )

So when in 2004, Joe Clark called Stephen Harper "dangerous", it was not based on sour grapes, but on decades of fighting against a destructive movement, that promoted divisiveness, was run by "hooligans, emotion run amok, with a stab of fear."

Canadians should have listened.

Sources:

1. A Desperate People Turn to Social Credit, By Reporter Joe Clark, Calgary Albertan News Perspective, August 1965

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 5

3. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25

4. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 17

5. The Toronto Star, November 14, 2003

Chapter Thirty-Seven Continued: Images of Our Time

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When Pierre Trudeau was first elected prime minister in 1968, I was just entering high school. I had already traded in my Beatle hairband for elephant pants and Janis Joplin, and though my parents were always politically engaged, I didn't give much thought to it.

My first memory is of two pictures that were taped to a cabinet in our dining room. Once was of an emaciated Biafran, and the other an almost life-size picture of Pierre Trudeau, that had come in our local paper.

My mom would point to Biafran child when we wouldn't eat our dinner, suggesting that he would be happy to get the meal, and no matter how many times we told her to "send the slop to Biafra", she was relentless.

But if the image of that child represented despair, the one of Trudeau stood for change. The world was changing and for many Canadians, he was leading the charge.

A Rock Star

About that time I visited an aunt in Michigan. She lived in a small community and since I would be spending several weeks there, she had a get together with the women in her area .. a kind of meet and greet.

But I was surprised that the only thing these women of all ages (even the teenagers) wanted to talk about was Pierre Trudeau. "He's so handsome" ... "You're so lucky" .. "Have you met him?"
I was so proud. He was like a rock star, and he was ours. He was taking us out of stuffy colonialism to now being "cool".

Not Everyone Was Impressed

But the Mannings didn't view Pierre Trudeau in quite the same way. They agreed that he represented change, but not the kind of change they were looking for. They wanted to take us back and he was moving us forward.

Trudeau envisioned a "Just Society". And he vigorously defended the newly implemented universal health care and regional development programs as means of making society more just.

To the Mannings, universal health care was socialism, which they equated to communism, and they continued to work with their corporate friends to eradicate the perceived threat.

Socialism was gaining ground because issues such as poverty and the treatment of women and aboriginal people were now prominently on the public agenda. While other politicians — from all the parties — were approaching the problem of how capitalism could be a means to the end of solving these problems, Preston Manning and his father saw capitalism as the end — and the means of saving it was to find a way to neutralize the socialist appeal.

While Preston Manning was obliged by conditions to put his and his father's political project on hold, the broad objective of defending capitalism from the socialist threat would still be pursued. It was to this broad objective — though not to it exclusively — that M and M Systems Research, the Manning firm, would turn its attention. Social conservatism was by no means exclusively a philosophy of government. In fact, it could be seen as just the opposite: a philosophy of anti-government. The supplanting of government by private enterprise in as many areas of social life as possible was the key objective of social conservatism. M and M Systems Research would pursue that objective, for the time being, from outside government and primarily with private enterprise. (1)

And the money continued to flow, waiting for the chance to turn a just society into a corporate society. But Trudeau was not going away anytime soon.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 45-46

Chapter Thirty-Seven: Keeping Step With the Times

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Preston Manning was born into politics and being a politician was a birthright. But he was out of step with the times.

The radical sixties presented conservatism and capitalism with a major problem: the focus of all the new social movements, and the rejuvenated older ones, was the failure of the "capitalist system" to respond to the needs — economic, social, and cultural —of the young, women, native and poor people, and the otherwise marginalized.

The efforts of Preston Manning and his young associates had been primarily aimed at saving Social Credit — the provincial bastion of social conservatism in Alberta. Ernest Manning's efforts had been focused equally at the national level. (1)

When Peter Lougheed beat out the Social Credit Party in Alberta in 1971, author Allan Hustak wrote:

Thirty-six years of 'God's government' had come to an end ... but in terms of Alberta's history it was a triumph of style rather than substance — the secular equivalent of a revival meeting — a new minister had been selected to do a better job than the old one but the faith remained the same. There was no substantive chance in political philosophy. (1)

It was still a right-wing government but one better equipped to handle the times. For Preston, who had run for the Social Credit party in 1965 but failed to win, he resigned himself to the fact that his political career would have to wait, if he had one at all.

The federal scene was distinctly hostile to his right-wing conservatism and more specifically to his father's efforts at "realignment." Provincially, Preston Manning could certainly have considered working towards the leadership of the Social Credit. It still held a third of the legislative seats and remained a viable party. But the goal of political realignment in Alberta had already been accomplished. Social Credit, spent force or not, was now considered irrelevant by the man who had led it for a quarter of a century.

At nearly thirty years old, Preston Manning had emerged from his six years of political experience with a political ideology, a political objective, and an approach to politics firmly worked out. These elements of Preston Manning's thinking did not change much, if at all, in the proceeding fifteen years before he founded the Reform Party. (1)

An Unlikely Politician

If Preston Manning was born to be a politician another young man was not.

Pierre-Philippe Elliot Trudeau came from a very affluent family, who in today's political climate would be referred to as an elitist. He was an intellectual, and a man about town, who preferred solitude to crowds.

But by 1965, he was worried about the rise of Quebec nationalism and decided that he had to get into politics to stem the tide.

Though he had only been an MP for three years, when Lester Pearson announced his retirement, Trudeau reluctantly decided to enter the leadership race.

His friend Jean de Grandpre, tried to talk him out of it.

Trudeau listened carefully. Then he proceeded to explain why his logic compelled him to run for Canada's highest public office. He had entered federal politics three years earlier to fight the resurgence of Quebec nationalism by establishing a strong federal government, one with plenty of francophones in it. If he didn't run, there wouldn't be a French-Canadian contender in the leadership race, and francophones would continue to be relegated to the backseat of power in the federal government, which in turn would provide the nationalists in Quebec with more ammunition. "If I am logical with myself, I have to say yes," Trudeau told de Grandpre. "But not because I want it."

That hesitancy in another politician might only be part of the political tap dance to precede a run for power. But in Trudeau's case, the decision to seek the prime minister's job forced him to choose between his intellectual commitment and the reclusive life he had cultivated since his youth. Trudeau had never set out to be prime minister. He was an intellectual, for years an elegant man about town, a loner, not a joiner. Still, Trudeau was so brilliant, especially in his attacks against Quebec nationalists, that his friends at the journal Cite Libre used to daydream about Trudeau's potential as a political leader. "We would say, wouldn't it be extraordinary if a man like that became prime minister," Trudeau's close friend, former senator Jacques Hebert, told Macleans. "But we were making a joke. It was unthinkable. He was never a member of an association. He never even showed any political ambition." (2)

But in 1968, at the Liberal Leadership Convention, Pierre Elliot Trudeau became the unexpected winner in what the Globe and Mail called "the most chaotic, confusing, and emotionally draining convention in Canadian political history."

He had captured the imagination of the country and inspired many to join his campaign, including the national youth organizer and party delegate for Trudeau's leadership, the twenty-year-old, Michael Ignatieff.

Continued: Images of Our Time

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 44-45

2. Trudeau: His Life and Legacy, Macleans Special Commemorative Edition, 2000

Chapter Thirty-Six Continued: Prepared for a World That no Longer Existed

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Preston Manning grew up influenced by evangelical fundamentalism, radical free-enterprise conservatism and anti-socialism, embraced by his father. And as Murray Dobbin notes:

What these powerful influences had moulded in Preston Manning was a politician of the past: a politician for the 1940s or 1950s, a politician who was in many ways a carbon copy of his father. And Ernest Manning, so long accustomed to running Alberta more as a father figure than an active politician, had changed little if at all, in the twenty-five years he had been in office. Both men were socially and politically isolated from the changing mainstream of Canadian society. (1)

The Conservative party in Canada was becoming more progressive in their attitudes, to meet the new demands, and the old stalwarts like Diefenbaker were becoming outdated. The world was changing fast and if you didn't embrace those changes you were left behind.

For Ernest and Preston Manning, they only sought to react to the changes by offering pure ideology, based on unbridled capitalism and religious fundamentalism. They might as well have been from another planet. But that didn't stop them from trying to convince others to follow their lead. They wrote Political Realignment in 1967, as a blueprint for the past.

Who Said Conservatives Can't Have Fun?

John Diefenbaker was a good Prime Minister, but like the Mannings, the world was passing him by. In 1967, with the wonderful Dalton Camp leading the charge, the Conservatives themselves were in the mood for new leadership.

Flora MacDonald had been named national secretary and Camp the party president.

The annual meeting had set a date in 1967 for a leadership convention. Conservatives identifying with Dalton Camp's position on leadership review were anxious to see candidates offer themselves who would have some hope of rescuing party leadership from Mr. Diefenbaker. (2)

Camp himself had considered running and had MacDonald's support, but when Robert Stanfield threw his hat into the ring, they both lined up behind him.

It has been said that Robert Stanfield was the best prime minister that never was, but I think that can be said of many great politicians over the years, including Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent. But I think it also applies to Flora MacDonald and Dalton Camp. Both had a genuine love of this country and everything that Canadians stood for.

But in 1967, as Canadians were celebrating centennial year, the Conservatives were going to do it big for this important leadership convention:

The Conservative leadership convention was an extravaganza that deserved all the superlatives heaped on it. For the first time, a Canadian political party had set out to emulate in scale and style an American presidential nominating convention. It had marching bands and balloons and pretty girls by the hundreds, floor demonstrations, and lavish cocktail parties for thousands. It was a great show and it made great television. More than that, it had great drama. Would John Diefenbaker attempt one last stand? Or would he accept the inevitable and quietly receive the honours due to him, allowing the party to choose his successor? Could the Conservatives find any man with the patience, understanding, and tact needed to reverse the centrifugal forces that seemed determined to tear the party to pieces? Partly because it was the first convention of its kind and partly because of the Diefenbaker drama, the Conservative convention occupies a special place in the memories of the people who were there. It had an excitement that not even the Liberals could match seven months later when they met to elect Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the most intriguing political figure of the age. The Tory convention is the yardstick by which all other leadership conventions must be measured.' (2)

The Turning Point

There were others at that convention with a keen interest in the outcome. Preston Manning and his friend Erick Schmidt, were there on behalf of Ernest Manning, who hoped to join the Social Credit with the Conservatives to present a right-wing federal option.

However, Ernest Manning had over estimated his important, and the idea was soundly rejected. Besides, with Stanfield being named the new leader, beating out Diefenbaker 271 votes to 519 on the first ballot, (2) they knew the time wasn't right. Robert Stanfield was a Red Tory and the Mannings hated Red Tories as much as they hated Liberals. When Stephen Harper joined the movement decades later, he would call Red Tories 'Pink Liberals' and was determined to eradicate them from the party.

Preston Manning decided that they would have to wait for the next big wave of anger, that brought Social Credit to power. It would take twenty years.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 21-22

2. Flora MacDonald, By Alvin Armstrong, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1976, ISBN: 0-460-91698-X. Pg. 102-104

Chapter Thirty-Six Continued: National Public Affairs Research Foundation

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Though his father never really had a formal education, joining the Calgary Prophetic Bible School right out of high school, Preston did attend the University of Calgary. It was quite a culture shock after leading a sheltered life.

And what he found was that it was a different world. It was the 60's and people were breaking away from the social norms. So he would report to his father at the end of every day, not with the intent of changing his father's ways, but with the goal of making right-wing policies more palpable to a changing world, which he saw as veering toward Marxism.

"It was not simply that Social Credit was found ... to be wanting in areas of social policy - it was more that conservative ideas and Conservative government (as defined by Manning ideology) were being challenged by socialism. Left-wing thinking was influencing events and people ...""Manning fought the trend with enthusiasm - and paid for it with criticism in the campus press ... Preston Manning told the paper that free enterprise had to reform to continue it existence. The social reforms were to be .... the individual responsibility ... of every Canadian citizen ... "We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (1)

However, Canadians were not opposed to the welfare state, but were expecting our politicians to do more to help society at all levels. Naturally, the corporate world was nervous, especially since Tommy Douglas was becoming so popular and was promoting free health care.

And they saw in Ernest Manning, a believer in free-enterprise conservatism and approached him about establishing a new party. Social Credit had had it's day, and was losing steam.

According to original Socred MPP Alf Hooke:

On at least two occasions Mr. Manning told me in his office that he had been approached by several very influential and wealthy Canadians and that they wanted him to head up a party of the right with a view to preventing the onslaught of socialism these men could see developing in Canada. They had apparently indicated to him that money was no object and they were prepared to spend any amount of money to stop the socialistic tide ... Mr. Manning indicated to me also that he was working on a book which he would hope to publish ... in which he would endeavour to outline the views these men represented and recommendations he would make in keeping with their views. (2)

Hooke asked Manning who they were and was simply told that they were "wealthy and influential men", one of whom was R. A. "Bobbie" Brown, Jr."

Manning believed that a new party was not feasible. Instead, he supported a coalescing of right-wing forces into the Progressive Conservative Party. He would use his influence to spread that idea across the country. Confident of his personal power and the obvious need for such a movement, apparently he did not intend to take an active organizing role. He would provide the idea; others would have to respond to it. (2)

And he would do it with the help of his son Preston.

The task of formulating the new conservative philosophy fell to Preston Manning and the group of young Socreds around him. The cost of this project was borne by the "influential and powerful Canadians" who had approached Manning. They, under the leadership of R. A. Brown, Jr., president of Home Oil, established the National Public Affairs Research Foundation (NPARF) in 1965.(2)

So father and son created M and M Consulting and with the help of others, Preston produced for them "The White Paper".

... while working for one of Canada's first right-wing think-tanks, the National Public Research Foundation. The paper suggested a new political direction for Social Credit. "Human social problems were to be seen as akin to problems involving the physical world," wrote Manning in a near-parody of Enlightenment rationalism. Empowered with the lightning bolt of pure reason, government could "apply new and advanced techniques, initially conceived for industrial application, to the analysis of social problems." (3)

The idea was to allow private enterprise to administer social programs (for profit).

It occurred to me that this same Request for Proposals technique, under the guidance of government contracting agencies, might be used to link public and private resources to more down-to-earth objectives like improvements in regional development, health care, or educational services. It would also provide a mechanism for striking an appropriate division of labour between the public and private sectors in relation to particular tasks—a division of labour based not on ideology (only governments should do this, or only private enterprise should do that), but on the more practical criterion of "Who can do the best job in the most cost-effective way?"

After my father and I set up M and M Systems Research, I wrote a promotional booklet entitled "Requests for Proposals and Social Contracts:' We marketed the concept through the firm, and became involved in a number of interesting experiments involving the contracting of public and private resources to attain socio-economic objectives. These objectives included providing support and rehabilitation services to single transient men through a hostel operation in Calgary, operating a pioneer "home care" program for Halton County in Ontario, and involving native people in a bitumen trucking operation for Gulf Oil. (4)

The idea sounds good, but we know from experience that it doesn't work. Look at the mess of HMOs in the U.S. When social services depend on profit, the bottom line is always the priority. And when businesses establish themselves as "charities" it becomes like the old mining operations, with company stores, where the employees have few options.

National Public Affairs Research Foundation

The NPARF was an extremely secretive organization,

"... but it was known at the time that it included on its board of directors some very orthodox people: Cyrus McLean, chairman of the B.C. Telephone Co.; Renault St. Laurent, a lawyer and son of the former Prime Minister; R. J. Burns, a prominent Calgary lawyer; and A. M. Shoults, president of James Lovick Ltd. of Toronto.

Most of the board members were friends of Brown's and were not involved in the foundation at all. Two of the men, R. J. Burns and A. M. 'Scotty' Shoults, barely remember the foundation. Burns recalled, "I may have just been a front man, doing Bobbie Brown a favour. These other fellows were in the same situation as me, just called upon to sit on a board. They were never active participants."

The first major product of the NPARF was produced by Preston and several of the other young Socreds around him. It was called "The White Paper on Human Resources Development." Considered left-wing by many of the Social Credit faithful, it was intended to present a moderate image of the Social Credit to the public. But according to Finkel, it was vintage Ernest Manning.

"Manning's anti-collectivist orientation was now inelegantly phrased to be a commitment to integrating physical and 'human resource' development: 'to facilitate the harnessing of the economy based on the principles of freedom of economic activity ... achieving objectives stemming from humanitarian values ... based on the concept that the individual ... is the supremely important unit of consideration."

Accompanying this technocratic language, says Finkel, was a restated commitment to the government's long-standing opposition to universal social programs. It also quite likely reflected Preston Manning's background in physics and economics: "Human social problems were to be seen as akin to problems involving the physical world. The government wanted to 'apply new and advanced techniques, initially conceived for industrial application, to the analysis of social problems ...' " (5)

Don Sellar, then a reporter for the Calgary Herald, first revealed the existence of the NPARF in the summer of 1966. Almost a year later, on July 1, 1967, he wrote again on the organization:

"The NPARF ... has kept details of its studies under wraps while offering its services to any political organization that wants them." Sellar pointed out that Preston Manning and Owen Anderson, one of the young Socreds advising Manning on the white paper, were working full time for the organization, "operating out of a downtown Edmonton office building."

... The NPARF name is not even painted on their door and their office secretary contributes to the secrecy of their operation by answering the telephone ... 'Preston Manning's office ...' Few of its employees know about all the research documents being prepared in such places as Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton because the work is being done in separate sections and assembled in Edmonton.

Mr. Anderson (working on a comprehensive national public policy for Canada) has been permitted to hire any number of people to carry out his work and now has about 19 researchers under him. Preston Manning, in writing his book, has travelled all over North America gathering information on technological change. Owen Anderson today laughs at the notion that he "had nineteen men under him" but acknowledges that he may have had that many researchers working on papers for him, as de facto director of the NPARF.

According to Sellar, now a senior editor with the Toronto Star, and who knew many of the people involved through his father, the secretiveness of the NPARF was simply a reflection of the fact that its backers and founders were men who shunned publicity. "They didn't want people knowing that they were involved in this sort of thing." The "sort of thing" they were involved in was for the most part a right-wing think tank. While the institute did some policy papers for government it had a broader mandate as well, according to Owen Anderson:

This was our contribution to the debate of the day. We were saying that there was a need for more fundamental debate in this country. 'Here's some ideas — what do you think of this? We were trying to get people to come out and take a stand and discuss some of these issues ... We even contributed to the public debate. [We would hold public meetings] and people would come out talk and debate. We would circulate these papers — we'd give them to political leaders, people on the campus ... and to any business people we knew.(5)

Preston Manning continued to work for the National Public Affairs Research Foundation until the end of 1968.

Chapter Thirty-Seven: Keeping Step With the Times

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 24-25

2. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 28-29

3. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, pg. 53

4. The New Canada, By Preston Manning, 1992, MacMillan Canada, ISBN: 0-7715-9150-0, pg. 56

5. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 30-34

Chapter Thirty-Six: Passing the Torch

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Preston Manning was born on June 10, 1942, in Edmonton, Alberta. His godfather was William Aberhart, then premier of Alberta.

Within a year, Aberhart would be deceased and Ernest Manning, Preston's father, would become premier, and hold that position for 25 years.

The influences that have been brought to bear on Preston Manning could only have been created in Alberta. His father, Ernest Manning, was not just premier for twenty-five years but premier of what was often called a one-party state. Revered almost as a saint by many, he dominated Alberta political life during the years he was in power. Through Ernest Manning and his predecessor and mentor, William Aberhart, evangelical Christianity played a role in Alberta politics for which the only Canadian parallel is Catholicism in Quebec. Ernest Manning was both spiritual and political leader of Alberta. Preston Manning grew up under the tutelage and the shadow of his larger-than-life father. (1)

And by Preston's own admissions his father was often distant and cold, but he grew up in a household dominated by Social Credit politics*.

While he has said that his father did not bring politics into the home, Preston Manning acknowledges that the political influence was nonetheless felt early on: "The family itself did not play that great a role in politics in those days. But at a very early age, I began looking at things from a governing point of view because my father was the leader of the government." (2)

But he also grew up sheltered for most of his early life.

Ernest Manning was also intensely private — and very formal. John Barr writes in The Dynasty, his book on the Social Credit Party: "Everyone knew that Mr. Manning (as he was almost universally known; probably no more than half a dozen people ever called him 'Ernest') was Premier and that he was 'there' somehow, but his public appearances were sufficiently rare that he was neverover-exposed. Manning did not invite familiarity." (2)

Every day he was expected to go straight from school to his father's office, where he did his homework, and most of his life was centred around school, family and church. His one sibling, Keith, was born with Cerebral Palsy, and spent much of his time away, so Preston focused on his studies.

By the time he went away to university in the early 60's, he realized that the world had changed, but that he and his family had not changed with it.

At university in the early sixties he gave the impression of a rural kid completely isolated from the ways of urban society. He presented an odd image. "He was part of the Youth Parliament's Social Credit caucus at the same time Joe Clark, Grant Notley (the late, former leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta), Jim Coutts (who became prominent in the Liberal Party under Pierre Trudeau), and others were representing their respective parties. He was a good speaker, but you never saw him on campus. People knew who he was, and the rumour was that his father didn't want him to hang around the university too much because it would be a bad moral influence on him," recalls Fred Walker, a student at that time. "He looked very out of place — odd enough in his mannerisms and physical appearance and dress to be the occasional subject of ridicule. He gave the impression of being a very serious and committed young man — but more an apologist for his father's party and policies. He didn't play a very prominent role." (2)

Continued: National Public Affairs Research Foundation

Footnotes:

*Stockwell Day's mother said the same thing of her son's upbringing

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 1

2. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 3-4

Chapter Thirty-Five: Exiles of War and American Politics

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Leo Strauss, with the help of his friend Karl Schmitt, was exiled to Paris, thereby escaping the Holocaust. In June 0f 1933 he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child, Thomas Petri, whom he adopted.

They managed to escape to England when Paris fell to the Nazis, but his family in Germany were not so fortunate.

Leo Strauss's father, Hugo Strauss, died in the spring of 1942 just before the deportation of Kirchhain's Jewry. His stepmother and the rest of his immediate family that stayed in Germany were soon killed after being deported to death camps in the east. (1)

Strauss's only sibling, Bettina Strauss moved to Cairo where she married Paul Kraus in 1936.

Kraus was a Czech-born Jewish scholar of medieval Islamic philosophy, science, and medicine as well as the Bible and archaeology. Leo Strauss and Paul Kraus became acquainted in the late 1920s and early 1930s in Berlin.' Bettina and Paul traveled to Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt for research and possible academic appointments. Bettina died in January 1942 while giving birth to Jenny Ann Kraus in Cairo. Just two years after Bettina's death, Paul Kraus committed suicide.' Strauss adopted his four-year-old niece, Jenny, and raised her as his own daughter in the United States . (1)

Ironically, Leo Strauss had once wanted to join the Nazi Party, though he would blame the fall of the Weimar Republic, and liberalism in general, for the ruination of Germany.

The Weimar never really had a chance. The monarchy fell during the war, leaving the country in disarray. Trying to rebuild and remake Germany into a democracy, at a time when the German people were looking for someone to lead them out of the darkness, proved impossible, making the time right for the image of a powerful leader: Adolf Hitler.

Strauss moved to the United States in 1937, becoming a citizen in 1944. In 1949, he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he received, for the first time in his life, a good wage. And as part of this infamous Chicago School, he would help to reshape American politics, and create a movement now known as Neoconservativism.

And perhaps without realising it, Ernest Manning had ascribed to the philosophy.

The Republicanism of Ernest Manning

Since the Leduc oil gusher, of 1947, Ernest Manning abandoned Social Credit principles and moved Alberta to the right. Inspired by the Americans, he adopted a Republican style political system, that fit with his moral and religious views.

The United States — its culture, political institutions, and doctrine of individualism — also had an enormous impact on political life and attitudes in Alberta. That influence is strongly demonstrated in the history and development of the Social Credit Party, which Ernest Manning ran for so many years: a free-enterprise party extolling the virtues of individual liberty, the traditional family, and the supremacy of God. (2)

Time magazine began referring to Alberta as Texas North.

Social Credit had been pretty close to socialism, with an attempt to fight against "poverty in the midst of plenty". Manning, on the other hand, abhorred and feared socialism, and believed that capitalism and the free market were the best defenses.

This belief would channel to his son Preston, when he started the Reform Party and on to his lieutenant, Stephen Harper.

And though Leo Strauss died in 1973, his legacy lives on in a movement that is fueled by deception, religious fervour and unbridled nationalism. The key elements that Strauss suggested were necessary, for a government to be successful.

Sources:

1. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile, the making of a Political Philosopher, By: Eugene R. Sheppard, Brandeis University Press, 2006, ISBN: 978-154865-600-5, Pg. 82

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 1

Why Do Neoconservatives Hate Nelson Mandela?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

By the late 1960's, many western nations began to take up the cause of the black South Africans, speaking out against apartheid. Nelson Mandela's story was not yet widely known, but human rights violations were.

In 1978, the United Nations officially condemned South Africa at the World Conference Against Racism, sparking a movement to end the practice. But what it also sparked was a larger movement to keep the status quo, backed by some of the world's wealthiest citizens. Their motivation was protecting corporations who would lose massive profit if they had to start paying the black labour force of South Africa, a reasonable wage. (1)

By 1980, a campaign was launched to encourage trade sanctions, but then president Ronald Reagan, a man with strong ties to the corporate world, instead introduced a policy of "constructive engagement", which promoted simply "encouraging change in the apartheid system through a quiet dialogue with that country's white minority leaders". Naturally it failed, and after a dramatic surge of anti-apartheid protest and political activism in the United States, the Reagan Administration was forced to impose trade sanctions, though they were very moderate. (2)

An Unwelcome PR Campaign

In 1985, South African Ambassador to Canada, Glen Babb, was touring Canada to gain support for the continuation of Apartheid.

At the time, Anthony Panayi, now calling himself Tony Clement, was leading a group of radical right-wing students at the University of Toronto. They had successfully managed to take over the Young Progressive Conservatives and turn it into a vehicle for promoting neoconservative ideology. When Clement (Panayi) heard of Babb's tour he went to the student organizations on campus to see if they would sponsor a debate. They flatly refused, so Anthony simply created his own society, and invited the controversial ambassador, as a way "to ensure that that advocates of Apartheid were heard in this coun­try." (3)

However, when Babb arrived he was met with violent protest and during the debate divestment activist Lennox Farrell, made an impassioned, emotional plea against Apartheid, at one point shouting, "Children are dying!" The reaction of the Ambassador was simply to smirk, causing Farrel to lose his cool. He picked up the heavy wooden ceremonial mace lying on the center table, and tossed it at the Ambassador, narrowly missing his forehead, but striking the hand of another university official. The debate was immediately stopped and Farrel was taken away, though no charges were laid. (3)

Another debate was arranged and this time, though Babb was able to complete his talk, 300 protesters chanted outside the auditorium, while another group of protesters dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan satirically rose up to applaud the ambassador whenever he paused during his presentation. At the end of the event, as his car whisked him out of the university, several other students shouted and threw snowballs. (4)

Let the Lobbying Begin

Angering university students was not the only controversy associated with Babb's tour. As a publicity stunt he arranged an invitation to visit the reserve of the Peguis in Manitoba. While there he pointed out the grim parallels between the practices of the two countries. He then arranged for “native” leaders to tour South Africa, courtesy of the South African Tourist Board, in August of 1987. This outraged other leaders who made it clear “that the Indian people of Canada will not go down in history as allies of racist fascism.” (1)

However, during his two-and-a-half year posting, Babb appeared on Canadian television more than 132 times and even more frequently on radio. He heavily lobbied politicians, journalists, intellectuals and universities in support of the Reagan Administration's policy of "constructive engagement" rather than sanctions or divestment. Babb referred to apartheid as a "benign policy" and a means of controlling "urbanization". (5) He also claimed that sanctions would harm South African blacks more than the white minority. (6) "Whether you shoot the zebra on the white stripe or the black stripe," he said, "you are going to kill the zebra." (7)

His efforts were successful, because while then prime minister Brian Mulroney originally supported sanctions, his party's position changed, with Joe Clark left to announce their new intentions, which were viewed as a "flip flop". You can watch the news clip here.

A More pro-Active Campaign:

One of the more aggressive champions of Apartheid within South Africa was Craig Michael Williamson, a man who went underground with the African National Congress, the party of Nelson Mandela, as part of a "Long Reach" operation, of what would be better described as "dirty tricks".

Williamson recruited journalists from around the world to help with a propaganda mission to discredit the ANC and gain support for the white African government. He found such a journalist in Canadian Peter Worthington.

The crudely racist, flamboyantly anti-communist and vividly right-wing journalism of Peter Worthington was a particularly prominent feature of this for anyone living in Toronto during these years, but those of us in the Canadian anti-apartheid network at the time were well aware of its broader reach. For example, a well-researched 1988 article in the western Canadian journal Briarpatch listed a host of right-wing and business-related groups hard at work defending apartheid: the Western Canadian Society of South Africa and the extremely well-connected Canadian-South African Society, for example. Indeed the husband of Canada’s then Governor-General, Jeanne Sauve, was actually a member of the latter until shamed into resigning in 1985. (1)

But there is something that Mr. Saul may not have realized about these pro-white South African groups. There was another one with strong ties to the Canadian-South African Society, called the Northern Foundation.

"‘The Northern Foundation was established in 1989, originally as a pro-South Africa group . . . lists among the founding members of the Foundation both William Gairdner and Stephen Harper ... " (8)

"... the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), Geoffrey Wasteneys (A long-standing member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), George Potter (also a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper." (9)

Some of those names you may not recognize, but the last one on both lists seems to ring a bell, and he was then considered to be from the "extreme right-wing". The Northern Foundation also published a magazine:

"...The foundation's magazine carries a half-page ad in every issue for the Phoenix, a pro-white South Africa magazine, and regularly solicits support from members on special causes, from property rights to English language rights. Attacks on homosexuals and homosexual rights are frequent ..." (8)

But it gets better. These groups were operating within the Reform Party when Preston Manning and Stephen Harper were getting it up and running.

... Murray Dobbin has chronicled extensively the pro-white South Africa actions and sympathies of numerous people within the party, including Ted Byfield*** and Arthur Child. This support for white South Africa, a country whose political system was based on racial group affiliation, by many within the Reform party ... cannot be explained adequately unless one accepts the notion that many Reformers strongly identify with 'Anglo' culture ... (9)

And:

"There is good reason to believe that groups sympathetic to (white) South Africa have seen the [Reform] party as an ally, especially in the days when trade sanctions, strongly supported by Canada, were proving damaging to the South African economy and it's prestige. That was in 1988-89. And it was during his period in particular that a number of pro-South African groups organized efforts to undermine Canadian policy and to spread pro-South African literature across the country. All of these groups had some degree of contact with the South African embassy in Ottawa ... Key individuals in those organizations have also played and continue to play important roles in the Reform party.

... "Water's military background and his business connections got the attention of pro-South African activists long before he became external affairs spokesman for the Reform Party .. and that attention paid off ... Arthur Child the president of Burns Meats ... has openly supported South Africa for twenty years ... he is also on the board of Canadian-South African Society (CSAS) ... founded in 1979 and was involved says Child, in 'trying to counteract the anti-South African sentiment in Ottawa ... we distributed information on South Africa - mostly to MPs.

(CSAS) was founded to bring together Canadian and American subsidiary business interests in South Africa ...Their profit levels are high - often twice their returns in companies ventures in Canada - due to their ability to pay low wages and almost no benefits to black labour.' "Most of the thirty member board are from Ontario ... a few were from the west ... one of these was Norman Wallace of Saskatoon ... a founding member of the Reform party ... He set up Eagle Staff Import Export Ltd. to further business ties with South Africa. (8)

And of course this was the same Canadian-South African Society, mentioned in John Saul's article, (1) which included the husband of then Governor General Jeanne Sauve. But more importantly, through connections to the Northern Foundation and the Reform Party, included one Stephen Harper. Peter Worthington also belonged to the NF. (10)

Lights, Camera, Action

One of the projects that Craig Williamson had Worthington work on was a documentary film on Mandela's ANC: The red terrorist menace in South Africa - written by Peter Worthington, produced by Peter Worthington and starring Peter Worthington. (11)

It was a one-sided view of the conflict:

Worthington says. "It was done very quickly." He wrote the script one morning, then read it to camera that afternoon. And while he went about some interviews for his Reader's Digest piece (which in early March the magazine had neither received nor scheduled) a cameraman followed. The rest of the film was made up of file footage, some of it from the state-owned South African Broadcasting Corporation. Most of the editing was done in South Africa, with only the final cut, made in Canada. Worthington had the finished product in his hands, having spent virtually nothing out of his pocket. "If it cost me anything, it cost me a cab ride," he says. (11)

Mainstream media outlets rejected it, but he managed to find a distributor:

That was handled by Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform*, a tight-wing organization based in Toronto. CFAR agreed to the task after Worthington's attempts to get his taped views aired on public television got nowhere, says Paul Fromm, CFAR's research director. And while the television producers were saying no, CFAR's members were nodding yes, snatching up 4,000 copies of the tape and its 12-page companion booklet in five months. Members of Parliament were each sent a copy ... (11)

But CFAR were not the only ones to offer the film to their members:

Meanwhile, Worthington was also circulating copies to his friends, and this was how it caught the attention of David Somerville, a former employee of Worthington's at The Toronto Sun. Somerville is president of the National Citizens' Coalition**, another rightwing pressure group in Toronto. He offered the tape to his membership, which numbers 36,000, at $12 apiece ("at cost"). The NCC sold 600-more than double what it expected. Somerville calls the video a "journalistic effort at setting the record straight on the ANC." (11)

Meanwhile in Etobicoke:

Another young man would also become a follower of Peter Worthington. Guy Giorno, who was chief of staff for Mike Harris and is now chief of staff for Stephen Harper, became a devotee after hearing him on a radio program in the early 1980's. He would eventually attend St. Michael's College, where according to Ted Schmidt, his name was bandied about, as a contributor to the right-wing Catholic Digest:

Reading Giorno's neo-con rants I used to wince - 'Nelson Mandela was espousing violence, unions have too much power, doctors should have the right to double bill', the list goes on. "How could they give a guy like this space in a Catholic paper?" I remember thinking ... [now] Giorno is one of the most powerful insiders in the Ontario Tory government. (12)

And he is now one of the most powerful insiders in the Harper government.

Aftermath

Fortunately, Nelson Mandela would be released and become the first black president of South Africa, and has been the recipient of more than 250 awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.

In 2001, the Canadian Parliament voted to make Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen. It would have passed unanimously, except for the vote of Harper MP Rob Anders, who refused by stating that Mandela was a communist and a terrorist. Rob Anders was a also a member of the National Citizens Coalition. I wonder if he still has his tape.

Stephen Harper has sued us several times, but one lawsuit launched in 2000, is aptly indexed Stephen Harper vs Canada.

I think that defines the neoconservative movement, because it goes against everything that Canadians stand for. We embrace men like Nelson Mandela. We embrace diversity and multiculturalism. We are proud of who we are and were never looking for this kind of radical change. Canadians are not moving to the right, as the Harper government would like to believe.

We are nice dammit, and recognize that a movement that would attack a man like Nelson Mandela, is not a movement we would support.

Some people tell me that Canadians, while they don't particularly like Stephen Harper, may go with devil they know. I have now made it my job to introduce Stephen Harper, the devil they may not know at all.

Continued: Tory Youth and Right-Wing Politics

Footnotes:

*CFAR was allowed to sell memberships at the reform Party convention.

**The national Citizens Coalition was started on the advice of Preston Manning's father: Ernest Manning, former premier of Alberta. Stephen Harper would eventually become president of the NCC and had been a member since 1980.
Sources:

1. Two fronts of anti-Apartheid struggle: South Africa and Canada, By John Saul, History Matters, Wed, May 13, 2009

2. South Africa: Why Constructive Engagement Failed, By Sanford J. Ungar and Peter Vale, Foreign Affairs Tuft University, Winter 1985/86

3. The Age of Dissent: Socialists, peaceniks, feminists, rabble-rousers: They came in search of an education. They left having taught the old school a thing or two, By Margaret Webb, University of Toronto Magazine, Spring 2002

4. Looking back at Carleton's divestment from South Africa, By Alroy Fonseca, January 22, 2010

5. "Apartheid on way out, Babb insists ", By Erica Rosenfeld, Globe and Mail, October 27, 1985

6. "Back Pretoria, envoy urges", Globe and Mail, November 18, 1985

7. "Envoy says South Africa hard done by, By Kevin Cox" Globe and Mail, October 17, 1985

8. Preston Manning and the Reform Party. By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 100-107

9. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. Author: Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 121

10. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, by Dr. Debra Chin, Canadian National

11. Raw footage, By David Stonehouse, Ryerson's Review of Journalism, Spring 1988

12. The Man Behind Mike, by Ted Schmidt, NOW Magazine, January 8-14, 1998

Chapter Thirty-Four Continued: Wallace Klinck and the Bookstore Incident

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Though Robert Thompson, then head of the national Social Credit Party had been able to quiet the press somewhat after the Carmichael affair, the stain of anti-Semitism remained: The Toronto Telegram stated: "Neil Carmichael's words are a reflection on the Social Credit Party that is capable of attracting such men." The Globe and Mail remarked: "If Mr. Thompson expects his good faith to be accepted, it is not enough to dismiss remarks like those of Mr. Carmichael as indiscreet." The paper subsequently added that "even if the Social Credit Party now expels Mr. Carmichael, the question will remain whether he is being fired for anti-Semitism or indiscretion." (1)

This method of handling these kinds of situations would continue with the Reform Party under Preston Manning and the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper, though Harper no longer apologizes, he just demands that we accept it.

Then in 1965, another incident would take place that would once again prove that antisemitism was alive and well and living in the Social Credit Party.

In January 1965 Wallace Klinck, a thirty-year old University of Alberta student and campus chairman for the Social Credit party, obtained the approval of Professor Grant Davy, head of the political science department, to make Social Credit literature available in the university bookstore. Klinck approached the manager of the bookstore, N.S. Howe, with a number of books and pamphlets on Social Credit, including six copies of the Protocols. He told Howe that "Social Credit had come under a lot of fire lately on campus and ... students should be given the opportunity to read explanations of exactly what it stands for." Howe accepted the literature.

Once it was discovered that the bookstore was selling anti-Semitic literature the provost of the university immediately ordered the withdrawal of the Protocols. Howe defended his actions by stating: "I didn't know what kind of a publication the Protocols of Zion was. And I didn't expect [the political science department] did either." In fact, Professor Davy was aware of the contents of the Protocols and vehemently disagreed with them. "Nevertheless," he argued, "it seemed to me that it would be useful for students to know the sort of background upon which the Social Credit Party developed. I understand that Premier Manning has disavowed the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a part of the philosophy of his government, but there is little doubt ... that Social Credit movements and parties in other areas still refer to it as a basis of their philosophy." (1)

Manning, Orvis Kennedy, the Alberta Social Credit League president, and Owen Anderson (leader of the campus Socreds) immediately cancelled Klinck's membership, and began doing damage control. Anderson declared that Klinck "violated Social Credit party principle" by distributing the Protocols. "We ... do not hold the Protocols' views, and we repudiate people who distribute racist literature." Kennedy declared that the Protocols were "scurrilous, anti-Semitic writing, a forgery" and (falsely) claimed that they had "never been part of the Social Credit literature."

Klinck denied that the Protocols were anti-Semitic but asserted, quite correctly, that they were an integral part of social credit theory originated by Douglas. "The book is a terrible outline for world conquest ... The events that have occurred in the world since it was written would make any thinking person incapable of dismissing it without serious consideration." As for accusations that he was antiSemitic, Klinck said he believed in the dangers of an international financial conspiracy which could lead to a Third World War, but stressed he was not racist or anti-Jewish. "The nucleus of international financiers has its share of Jews in it ... Many records suggest there are a substantial number of Jews involved but this does not in any way involve the entire Jewish people." He also believed that the Alberta Social Credit government "doesn't do enough to bring the truth of Douglas Social Credit philosophy to the people"; hence his decision to distribute the Protocols and other Social Credit literature. It seemed to have worked--by the time the university ordered the books removed the bookstore had sold all six copies of the Protocols.

Premier Manning seemed relatively unperturbed about Social Credit's recurring intolerance. When questioned about the campus bookstore incident on CBC television a year later, he responded only with "deft side-stepping and restrained answers." According to one critical observer: "It was interesting to watch the Premier repudiate the anti-Semitic past of the Social Credit movement ... The anti-Semitic line has now been quietly relegated to the inner circles of the Social Credit Party, where the conspiracy theory of history is far from dead." (1)

Wallace Klinck is still very much a disciple of Social Credit and appears to work tirelessly to promote monetary reform. Says Wallace:

Were consumers paid a measured dividend and retailers adhered to a measured markup there would be in each production cycle ample monetized demand for accountants to feel content that their measures were useful in our struggle to end poverty, recession and forced loss of wages.. (2)

He also continues to support the notion of a Jewish conspiracy theory, though his attacks are limited to the Jewish Lobby. I would hesitate to call that antiSemitism. I myself have often criticized the Israeli Apartheid, but not based on religion, only a country's foreign policy.

However, when notions of a Jewish Conspiracy surface, I'm not OK with that.

Sources:

1. Beyond the Purge: Reviewing the social credit movement's legacy of intolerance, By Janine Stingel, Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, Summer, 1999

2. Wallace Klinck's brief lesson, By John Gelles, February 2003