Mr. Diefenbaker:

I will read the French in my own way then.

Mr. Favreau:

The right hon. gentleman is not referring to a translation; he has an interpretation.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I read as follows:

For my part, my dear friends, I would rather delay the repatriation of the constitution, although I consider it essential, rather than entrust its reform to a parliament which would be dominated by the sentimental colonialism that inspires the Tory conception of national unity.

Mr. Pearson:

Now read it in French.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Mr. Speaker, I have now attained the acme of perfection. Those to my left who do not understand any French understood everything I read. I ask the minister whether that is not what he said.

Mr. Favreau:

You say I said it.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

He prefers to hold back the repatriation of the constitution; but the reform will be held back because it will be dominated by the sentimental colonialism which inspires the Tories in their conception of national unity.

Shame.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Then he went on, this paragon of national unity who in his time has done more harm to the unity of Canada than good, to say at page 5, in French, that there is

January 27, 1966

a commission of inquiry on bilingualism of which we are waiting the conclusions and recommendations. He said that the government of Quebec has established a parliamentary committee to study constitutional reform. This committee "est toujours au travail". It is still at work, I presume he means. He says there exists a very important federal-provincial committee charged with analysing our fiscal structures. Then he says "Mais ne croyez-vous pas", "But do you not believe" and continues "in the light of all the recent history in the last three years, the best course would be,"-in effect, to do that which has now been announced by Mr. Lesage.

There is the speech delivered on January 22, two days after the letter from Mr. Lesage which the minister said he never saw or heard of. All I have to say is that he certainly has unusual powers of perception as to what others think.

Everything in his speech is included in the letter from the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister of Canada. What a course to follow-to wait around until all these things are done and then to blame the Conservative party. Was he afraid to blame this on the premier of Quebec? There he was, surrounded by the sycophants who listened to him, and their wonder grew as they listened. He is now in the House of Commons. Statements like that indicate no qualification for the Supreme Court of Canada.

I now return to the Prime Minister's wire of January 24. You remember that on the 24th the Prime Minister said he knew nothing about this matter. I am not arguing about that; if he said it, then that is fine: It is accepted. The letter was written on the 20th. The President of the Privy Council spoke on the 22nd and had all the arguments why this should not be done, which were included in the letter from Mr. Lesage. And he never spoke to him.

Mr. Nielsen:

He must have been told on an aeroplane.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

That aeroplane forgetfulness took place after the meeting in the maritimes in connection with the constitution. I have here the telegram which the Prime Minister sent which I shall read in part; I will read it all if it is wanted:

I have seen only today your letter of January 20 concerning the constitutional amendment formula. It raises a number of important and far-reaching problems of concern to the federal government and affects the situation relating to the action sought in London. My reply to your letter

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker will have to be tabled immediately yours is made public. In the circumstances you might think it best to defer making the contents of your letter public until you have had a chance to consider my reply which I shall try to send you immediately after consultation with my colleagues on Thursday.

There is an atmosphere of: "Don't let's get this out in the open air".

We now come to the 26th, when the Prime Minister writes a very interesting letter. He says:

As I pointed out in the telegram which I then immediately sent you, I saw only in the afternoon of January 24 your letter of January 20, 1966, concerning the constitutional amendment formula. The irony of it is that I had indicated that very morning, in reply to questions by the Leader of the Opposition and other members in the House of Commons, that the federal government had every intention to submit the constitutional amendment formula to parliament as soon as it had been concurred in by all the provincial legislatures. I had thus implied that I remained of the opinion that Quebec would in due course endorse the proposed procedure to amend in Canada the constitution of Canada.

I interpolate here: Had it not come to the attention of the Prime Minister that the premier of Quebec had stated that he was not going to go ahead? I think that position was taken about a week prior to this. It may be that this was not brought to the attention of the Prime Minister; but, Mr. Speaker, the man in charge of dominion-provincial relations is the President of the Privy Council. He was designated by the Prime Minister of Canada for that position, and when he made that speech on January 22-that speech that was false in the imputations it contained against the Conservative party-he, the man in charge, did not know anything about this. He had to admit that, being in charge of a matter such as this, he did not know what had taken place. If I were in that position I would feel more embarrassed than the hon. gentleman appears to be.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

The Prime Minister says:

My view was based on a number of positive factors which I could not but interpret in a positive and encouraging way even though I was, as you know, fully aware of the difficulties.

What were the difficulties of which he showed such a high degree of awareness?

Mr. Pearson:

The Conservative party was one.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

It amazes me. The man

in charge did not know. This is a man who loved this formula with a devotion which has

January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker not been seen very often in history. Nevertheless on January 22 he ditched all his principles and had to blame somebody. Whom should he blame? Well, he must have thought: The Tories are here so I will blame them. That is a typical course he has followed.

The Prime Minister said there were certain important factors.

First among those factors was the fact that the constitutional amendment formula was agreed unanimously by the heads of the federal and of the ten provincial governments at the federal-provincial conference on October 14, 1964. We all then undertook to submit the proposed amendment procedure to our respective governments-

There are some other words. I do not want \to read it all.

Second, the White Paper which the federal government published on the subject in March 1965 had been endorsed without qualification by the ten provincial governments.

Third, the Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the last session of your legislature stated "So that the repatriation of the constitution shall not have the effect of entrenching the powers of the legislative council-"

Fourth, all the provinces, except Quebec, have formally notified the federal government of their formal concurrence-

Finally, the federal government has all along been conscious of the potential relationship which exists between the amendment procedure and eventual revision of the constitution itself.

The Prime Minister says in conclusion:

I am bound to express my great disappointment with the decision of your government to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment. I venture to hope that the government of Quebec might be prepared to reconsider its decision in the light of the hopeful circumstances to which I have referred and of the many developments in the last three years-

He ends:

It is clear that, if your government does not consider that it can alter its position, we shall have to discuss the whole matter again at a future meeting of the federal-provincial conference.

Mr. Mcllrailh:

Read the next sentence.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I will.

Meanwhile, the position of my government remains as stated in that part of the Speech from the "Throne opening the current session of parliament, which reads: "It remains the objective of the federal government to provide that the constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada".

The hon. gentleman asks me to read that hollow sham. It is transparent and diaphanous in every particular. And the hon. gentleman is proud of that after the brave words of *a year ago-"We are going ahead with this". Now the brave words of a year ago have

become: "We are not going ahead but we are blaming the Tories because Mr. Lesage says, no."

The Prime Minister also added his oral contribution. I do not hear these things sometimes. When I said "What are the difficulties?" he said "the Conservative party". Oh, the diametric difference in phraseology. The minister spoke about colonialist, sentimental Tories. I am surprised that the Prime Minister should now blame the Conservative party for his failure to get any agreement. It is a revealing thing.

Now, the Prime Minister says: We should call another federal-provincial conference. That is what we have said. Let us call a national constitutional conference to deal with this matter.

Repentance is welcome no matter when it takes place. I was amazed to find that the student body of the province of Quebec in the Liberal party last week, came out in favour of a national constitutional conference such as we have been advocating. Is there any wonder that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) should have used the expression

The garbage cans of the Liberal party.

When you get that translated you will really know what the hon. member thinks of those who sit on the Liberal front benches.

Now parliament has been treated with contempt on this.

Mr. Gerard Pelleiier (Hochelaga):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is ill-informed, but I have never used that expression which was taken from one of Claude Ryan's editorials in Le Devoir. It is his and he can keep it.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I would not have brought the hon. gentleman into this, but Mr. Ryan I think purported to quote the hon. gentleman, because he said a lot worse about the Liberal party in his editorial in La Presse which is entitled "The Cock Crowed Thrice". I will tell you what: There is a lot of truth in that. One view is held by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, another by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Mar-chand) the proposed new minister of manpower-and we shall be reviewing these with interest-and a third by the hon. member for

January 27, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker:

I declare the amendment lost.