Justin’s Father Refreshed His Image and Beat Stanfield in 1974 Election

Patrick Gossage • July 10, 2023

This is a story with some relevance to the situation Justin Trudeau faces today. He seems to have lost the energy and spontaneity of his 2015 victory campaign, just as his father, Pierre Trudeau’s remoteness had been a factor in his 1972 near defeat.

Justin is being beaten in the polls by his Conservative rival Poliviere just as Stanfield was being projected to form a minority government should the Liberal minority government fall.  And Pierre Trudeau’s shaky government faced inflation and the energy crisis brought on by the middle east embargo. Two days after introducing a budget, Liberals finally got the hook they had been hoping for on May 8, 1974, courtesy of a non-confidence motion backed by two opposition parties.


They were ready. The Liberal party, with the urging of veteran Liberal operative Jerry Grafstein saw that major changes had to be made – in short, the PM needed to be reinvented. To do this they brought in two of the most experienced political pros of the era, Jim Coutts, who had worked in Pearson’s office, and the ebullient Keith Davy, a veteran of Pearson campaigns. Both of whom were to guide politics for the PM for over half a decade. 


Advertising and the communications strategy were to be run by a new agency – Red Leaf – staffed by the best-known names in the marketing business. It worked out of Toronto’s Vickers and Benson. Leadership was the new watchword. 


The strategy also included new speechwriters, among them Paul Manning, a talented writer and former journalist. He, Coutts and others tuned up a more aggressive, positive message and great lines that ridiculed Stanfield’s unpopular platform focus - wage and price controls. “Zap, you’re frozen,” was one of the more memorable ones. 


The new Trudeau performed flawlessly – he was fighting for his life. I saw him in 1980 told he could win if he ran again after the 1979 defeat. He agreed to let the pros run the messages and the campaign. 


His 1974 performance was remarkable.  There is a story about a new basic campaign speech opening the campaign in Toronto, then he committed it to memory for Vancouver, repeating it in French the next day without notes. 


As Trudeau biographer John English observed,  “Trudeau was ’a transformed leader, one whose speeches brimmed with emotion, wit, sarcasm, eloquence, and a welcome thirst for power. The insouciant, even lackluster Trudeau who had feigned disregard for political emotion was buried in the rubble of that previous campaign.’” 


While Trudeau had no enthusiasm for using his family in 1972, his wife Margaret insisted on being on the 1974 campaign and turned into an asset, occasionally speaking and definitely humanizing her husband. 


The Globe put the refreshed Trudeau this way: “He went to the country this time did not as in 1972 wait to the country to come to him.”


Stanfield did provide the Liberals with one big break – he became a national embarrassment when he “dropped the football” in a famous Doug Ball photo that was front page news across the country. 


Clearly the Justin Trudeau that is now so widely disliked needs the kind of makeover that talented campaign leaders executed on his willing father in 1974. We know he can do it, his disciplined and convincing performance before the Inquiry into the Emergency Powers Act showed a Trudeau far more impressive than his seemingly acted out normal style and wishy washy messages. Just as the Liberal campaign did with Stanfield, there will be lots to work with from the abrasive and nasty Poilievre. Justin has his father’s fighting instincts and will be offered humor and good attack material that he can enjoy. 


Poilievre has less substance to work with. Most Liberal missteps that have dogged the government’s last months are not of major consequence for the country and are of his own and his staff’s making. A new open and friendly Trudeau would go a long way to defusing his privileged image. Perhaps he can even consider using his wife as his dad did in 1974. 


The PM is facing unprecedented economic anxiety and a deep loss of hope, especially among the young and disadvantaged. Inequality is rising between the rich and poor at a record rate. The extremely wealthy, especially those tsars of grocery chains that are seen as gouging Canadians are especially unpopular. The NDP has suggested taxes on their wealth or unseemly profits. 


Cost of living and housing issues seem intractable. People are weary and anxious about their ever-worsening economic situation, and appalled by the homeless crisis affecting all cities. Their votes will depend on which leader they believe can best approach these problems and provide some optimism. The PM has been effective at attracting commitments from auto manufacturers with huge tax subsidies. Such big thinking needs to be applied to the issues that affect our pocketbooks and our future prospects by a believable and effective leader. That just might be a winning combo for the Trudeau government. 


And dare I say that political smarts in the PMO such as displayed by the late Davey and Coutts need to be found and listened to. In a situation where the biggest issues do not lend themselves to silver bullet fixes, image and believability are going to play a big role in attracting votes. This means a refreshed Trudeau and exploiting the best marketing brains in the country.     



Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
By Patrick Gossage March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts