Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to make a correction in Hansard for Friday, November 24, at which time I took part in the debate on the situation in Montreal harbour, which matter was put before the house by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) under standing order 26.

I was interrupted in my speech by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who pointed out to me at that time that there were only three members from the island of Montreal present in the house. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I did not mention those figures and that it was the hon. member for Lapointe who did so. I did not mention any figures at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I continued as you will find on page 4662 of Hansard:

Mr. Speaker, I had indeed noticed it. I am not as blind as some hon. members opposite who do not see the importance of that problem, etc.-

Thereafter, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), as recorded on pages 4673 and 4674 of Hansard, that is 14 pages further on following the dinner recess, said this about me:

There is one point that I do not think should go unanswered. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) said there were no members on the government side from Montreal present during the debate.

I never said such a thing.

I should like to point out that throughout the whole debate my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was here-

I admit that I also saw him.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) was also here as well as my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Mackasey) who is from Verdun-

I referred to him during my comments and I agree that he was here.

The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel).

He is not from the island of Montreal but from the outskirts of Montreal.

He was here.

Mr. Langlois (Megantic):

Yes, he was here. And the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who is from Quebec, was even mentioned.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Would the hon. member indicate the nature of his question of privilege and tell the Chair whether it will be followed by a motion?

Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):

Mr. Speaker, here is the nature of my question of privilege.

According to the statement or the conclusions of the minister, nine or ten members from Montreal have taken a keen interest in the debate. It seems to me, that instead of speaking through their hats, some members should be a little more reasonable and moderate in their statements about their colleagues in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I am not making preposterous and untimely statements. When the Minister of Labour credits me with having said those words, he is acting irresponsibly, and that is unthinkable on the part of a minister.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I doubt very much that the hon. member can claim that there are actual grounds for a question of privilege. If there really was such a question of privilege it should be followed by a motion, but the hon. member did not move any.

It is in order to point out also that a question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity. That does not mean at the first opportunity which suits the hon. member but rather as soon as the breach of privilege takes place. The incident now in question dates back to last Friday. Therefore, it seems to me that the question was not raised at the first possible opportunity.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Indeed, even if the hon. member had raised his grievance at that time, I should hav emade the same ruling.

An hon. member claims there were a certain number of members in the house at a given time; the minister claims that there were more. According to the standing orders, both

November 28. 1967

4774 COMMONS

Comment on Statement by General de Gaulle statements must be accepted even if they are conflicting. However, the member for Megan-tic cannot be allowed to pursue the matter by way of a question of privilege.

Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will consider that as a correction to the official report.

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement commenting on one made yesterday in Paris by General tie Gaulle, a statement made as I was leaving London to return to Canada and which I did not see until I arrived back in Canada. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not have the opportunity of reading it before I spoke in London yesterday.

Before I make that statement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me as Prime Minister to express my appreciation for the kindness I received from the British government during our visit to London last week and for the privilege, during a very difficult time for that government, of discussing with them some matters of commonwealth and international concern. We discussed in particular the situation in Cyprus, which has remained so dangerously explosive during recent days and which, if it were permitted to explode into armed conflict between two members of NATO and on the territory of a member of the commonwealth, could have an almost fatal effect on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I said in my statement of July 25, 1967, Mr. Speaker, commenting on some earlier remarks of the president of the French republic, that Canada has always had a special relationship with France, which is the motherland of so many of her citizens. I said we attached the greatest importance to our friendship with the French people; that it had been and remained the strong purpose of the government of Canada to foster that friendship. I should like to confirm those words today, Mr. Speaker.

I do not propose to deal in any detail with General de Gaulle's statement of yesterday, a statement very carefully prepared and made to the press. General de Gaulle's statement will obviously arouse discord in Canada. I am sure the people of this country will be

restrained in their response to it, as I am in mine today, so as not to serve the purposes of those who would disunite and divide our country.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Pearson:

I believe the statement distorted some Canadian history, misrepresented certain contemporary developments and wrongly predicted the future. This statement was not merely a commentary on Canadian domestic or foreign policies, which could have been ignored; it was an intervention in those policies by the head of a foreign state. As such it remains unacceptable. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in this case it is intolerable that a head of a foreign state or government should recommend a course of political or constitutional action which would destroy Canadian confederation and the unity of the Canadian state.

The future of Canada, Mr. Speaker, will be decided in Canada, by Canadians.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Pearson:

I have confidence, and I know all members of this house have confidence, in the ability and good sense of all Canadians, French speaking or English speaking, to make the right decision. They will do it in their own way and through their own democratic process. I believe this decision will require further constitutional changes to bring our federalism up to date and to ensure, among other things, that French speaking Canadians who form one of our two founding cultural and linguistic groups, or societies if you like, will have their rights accepted and respected in Canada.

I agree also that the federal government, any federal government, should encourage and promote special and close cultural relations between French speaking Canadians and France and other French speaking countries. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are doing that. There should be no argument on this score except with those who wish to use these relations to destroy the federal government's responsibility for foreign affairs, and that we do not accept.

Canada is a free country and its people govern themselves. Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have the right to exercise fully their political rights in federal and provincial elections. Self determination is no new discovery for us.

Hear, hear.

November 28, 1967

COMMONS DEBATES 4775

Mr. Pearson:

We do not need to have it offered to us. To assert the contrary is an insult to those who discharge their democratic privileges as Canadian voters and to those who serve their country in this house or in provincial legislatures.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

To those who would set us free, we answer "We are free". To those who would disunite us, we answer "We remain united, in a federal system which is being brought into line with the requirements of our time and of our origins and history". On April 19, 1960, the gallant and illustrious head of another state, speaking in Ottawa, had this to say; I quote from his speech:

And now, how do you Canadians appear to us? Materially, a new country, of vast size, mighty resources, inhabited by a hard-working and enterprising people. Politically, a state which has found the means to unite two societies, very different in origin, language and religion: which exercises

independence under the British crown and forms part of the commonwealth: which is forging a national character even though spread out over three thousand miles alongside a very powerful federation; a solid and stable state.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with those words of General de Gaulle in 1960. I disagree with his words in November 1967.

Hear, hear.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the Prime Minister back to the house and back to Canada, and congratulate him upon the honour bestowed upon him by the city of London in extending to him the freedom of that city. May I also assure him that in welcoming him back in this manner I do not wish to be understood as casting any reflection upon the manner in which the Acting Prime Minister presided over the house in his absence.

Oh, oh.