January 31, 1969

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS REFERENCE OF REPORTS OF FILM BOARD AND C.B.C. TO STANDING COMMITTEE

LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions among representatives of the parties in respect of the work of

the standing committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the arts. I think it is regarded as being desirable that the committee might have the opportunity to continue its studies before the estimates are brought down and, in particular, to travel to Montreal for the purpose of considering questions affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and also the National Film Board.

Perhaps if the house is agreeable I could make the following motion:

That the report of the National Film Board of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, tabled on January 27, 1969, and the report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, tabled on January 30, 1969, be referred to the standing committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and that, for the purpose of its inquiry, the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the clerk and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.

Perhaps if the house is agreeable to giving leave in this regard we could make it an order.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS REFERENCE OF REPORTS OF FILM BOARD AND C.B.C. TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McCleave:

Mr. Speaker, it is acceptable.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS REFERENCE OF REPORTS OF FILM BOARD AND C.B.C. TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

Motion agreed to. [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

LIB

Mitchell William Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to examine the letters

setting out the arrangements concluded between the governments of Quebec and France on the occasion of the visit of Quebec government representatives to Paris last week. These documents could not of themselves constitute international agreements, and in this connection I have since noted the statements of representatives of the Quebec government that the documents were not intended by Quebec to constitute intergovernmental agreements. We shall be reiterating our position to the French authorities.

The Canadian government understands the desire of the government of Quebec to strengthen its ties through cultural, educational and scientific exhanges with France as contemplated by the 1965 cultural agreement between Canada and France. This is a desire which the Canadian government fully shares and in the fulfilment of which it is more than willing to co-operate.

Two of the exchanges contemplate activities extending beyond the framework of the cultural agreement, notably in the fields of foreign investments and international telecommunications by satellite. Certain of the programs envisaged by these arrangements will require consultation with and the cooperation of the Canadian government. These matters should have been the subject of prior consultation with the Canadian government. We intend to pursue this point with the French authorities.

With regard to French investments, the Canadian government naturally welcomes the prospect of further increases in foreign investments in Quebec as in other parts of Canada within the framework of government policy on this question. Such investments could provide a significant contribution to the development of our expanding economy. I would not have thought, however, that arrangements of this kind would require to be embodied in an exchange of letters, as evidenced by what happened in the United Kingdom during the same trip. I assume that the two governments simply wished to underline the importance which they attach to co-operation in this area.

January 31. 1969

4982 COMMONS

Quebec and France Exchange of Letters

The French and Quebec authorities also contemplate co-operation in the use of the Franco-German Symphonie experimental satellite and envisage studies relating to a possible France-Quebec communications satellite.

In this connection I should reiterate that the Canadian government has adopted, in the matter of space communications, a very active policy consistent with its exclusive responsibilities for telecommunications and with the interests of the country including those of Quebec and of French Canadians throughout the land. I might mention, as is well known to members of this house, that a third Canadian satellite was put into orbit just a few days ago.

We have established ourselves as pioneers in space research and have had exchanges for years with a number of leading countries in this field, France included. As a matter of fact three French engineers have come to Canada for training. As for the Symphonie program, we have long since indicated to the governments involved Canada's willingness to consider the extent to which Canadian cooperation might prove beneficial to all concerned. What is required in my view is a willingness to approach in a generally cooperative spirit the various projects contemplated in this field where the Canadian government has an essential role to play. This will guarantee maximum effectiveness in achieving the common objectives of the government's concerned and, I may add, maximum economy which I am sure appeals to the government of Quebec just as much as it appeals to the Government of Canada.

In this instance it seems to me that as the participation of the federal government will be required in any satellite scheme and therefore consultations will of necessity be involved, it would have been preferable for the Quebec government to be willing to take into its confidence the government of the country and to disclose its intentions before making them known and including them in letters of intent to the government of another country. This is all the more true since the plans concerning the visit to Paris and the satellite arrangements were apparently approved by the Quebec government months ago.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I received the text of the minister's remarks just as I entered the house. They concern a subject of some complexity and consequently my remarks may not

be quite as profound as they usually are on a subject of this sort. But there are one or two points I would like to make in a constructive manner, and not so as to contribute in any way to an escalation or a deepening of the difficulties that already exist. Certainly I want to make the point beyond any doubt that whatever happens the essential authority of the government of Canada in connection with foreign policy and diplomatic relations must be preserved. But there has obviously been a dispute for some time between the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada as to the circumstances and the degree to which it is proper for a provincial government to have dealings abroad. There are some real doubts in this field, some of which cannot be satisfied. As I understand it, for example, it is not possible today for the government of Canada to sign an international agreement which involves a provincial legislature to carry out such an agreement. I do not think we can regard such a gap as entirely satisfactory in a country such as ours.

[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)

I think there is also a genuine question as to how we really achieve representation abroad in a field entirely within the provincial jurisdiction and how we really establish a delegation that can represent Canada in this area. I do not ask these questions to be controversial but simply for the purpose of stressing the importance of these matters being seriously and urgently discussed. I hope that the federal-provincial conference in February will discuss these matters between the Government of Canada and all the provinces, not simply in the form of a confrontation but with a view to de-escalating the dispute that has been taking place, and to try to reach a firm and satisfactory understanding in these areas under dispute.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this matter being resolved. I do not for a moment minimize the difficulty about reaching a complete solution, or expect a complete solution to be reached in the course of one federal-provincial conference, but I do stress the hope that this subject will be on the agenda and that any discussions which take place at the federal-provincial conference will be seriously followed up. We do want genuine co-operation; we do want to eliminate all possible areas of dispute between the federal government and the provinces; we do want to eliminate any grey areas which may exist and which may lead to further disputes.

January 31, 1969

It may not be necessary, but I should like to urge upon members of the government the importance, first of all, of trying to settle these matters in discussion with the provinces generally, the importance of trying to reach a satisfactory settlement, and of course the importance of recognizing that the spirit of co-operation must work both ways if it is to be effective.

I am confident that the members of this government will in fact try to work out this problem in a co-operative way, but I draw attention to the urgency of working it out in advance, so that it does not recur time and time again in the form of disputes over specific questions which have the effect of generating heat and making an ultimate solution more difficult as time goes on.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis (Parliamentary Leader of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Lewis (York South):

I cannot but note, and note with approval, the careful language and the mildness of the reproof to the two governments involved, contained in the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, particularly to the government of the great and friendly nation of France. Perhaps, since I am not a member of the government, I can say as one Canadian that I am beginning to be rather irritated by the way in which the mischievous old man in Paris seeks to add to our difficulties in Canada.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis (Parliamentary Leader of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

I wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition in emphasizing, if emphasis is necessary, that the entire question of international relations in respect of areas which are under provincial jurisdiction does require continuing study with the provinces, and a solution which is of a general nature so as to avoid these confrontations from time to time.

I have always felt unhappy as a Canadian that there should be many conventions and the like to which Canada has subscribed at various international organizations, but has been unable to ratify or implement because of the nature of jurisdiction inside this country.

May I say that I was a little surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to feel there was something undesirable about the letters exchanged in connection with investments. There is nothing new about provinces seeking foreign investment. Many of the provinces of Canada have been doing this over a long period of time.

DEBATES 4983

Quebec and France Exchange of Letters

We do agree entirely that in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction like telecommunications, it is important for the government of Canada to remain and to be firm, to insist that in that field the government of Canada must be consulted, that it must have the initiative and must continue to have exclusive jurisdiction, even though in practice part of the exercise of that jurisdiction may be delegated to the provinces within their own exclusive field.

Therefore we approve both of the firmness which is implied in the statement, and the necessarily careful language in which that firmness was expressed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Permalink
RA

Gilbert F. Rondeau

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday, I think, in answer to a question, that he was studying the correspondence between Quebec and France regarding their latest arrangements and today he made a statement to the effect that he has studied those agreements.

Hon. members have not had, like him the good fortune to study the correspondence exchanged by the governments of Quebec and France, but I think that, reading the statement made this morning by the minister, one cannot help but feel that we are a little sensitive when Quebec has dealings with France.

The minister recognized that the signing of those agreements between the governments of Canada and France dates back to 1965 and that the latest arrangements made between the French government and the government of Quebec are meant only to continue those agreements.

It seems that two criticisms are implied in the minister's statement. When France plans to invest more in Quebec, we think it is normal and when it means that Quebec will get into debt, even if the investments come from France, we think that it is logical and that the government of Quebec has not gone too far.

However, when the French government signs letters of intent with the government of Quebec, regarding education, we become a bit nervous. I feel that we get nervous a little too easily, as the next federal-provincial conference will have to settle the question of telecommunications which comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the question of education which comes within the exclusive competence of the provinces. If today the minister seems to say that the government of Quebec should have put more trust in the government of the country, I

January 31, 1963

4984 COMMONS

Quebec and France Exchange of Letters think that cuts both ways because the federal government has been interfering in fields of provincial jurisdiction long before today. I will quote one example only which comes to my mind this morning, since we have very little time.

It is about the adult education program set up by the Department of Manpower, and under which those who are in charge of courses in the various provinces have to follow the instructions of the federal government. The Quebec government and other provincial governments have suffered, in several circumstances, from the fact that the central government had interfered in fields outside its jurisdiction, and had taken unfair advantage of its rights as the central authority, because it was the first to do something. In my opinion, the Quebec government is getting nervous, and it was anxious to make the first move to make sure that education by satellite would at least be carried out between France and Quebec.

Now, nothing prevents the federal government from putting into effect any technological progress in the field of satellite communications, since it concerns telecommunications. If, on the one hand, the federal government deems advisable to take an interest in that field because it feels that it can afford it, and if, on the other hand, it doubts, as the Prime Minister said in the house a few days ago, whether Quebec is still financially in a position to meet the cost of the Quebec-French satellite, then it should take action because, in my opinion, Quebec has been one of the provinces in Confederation that has paid its share and has not been among the least taxed.

Today, one is amazed that Quebec is still in good shape financially, which, in my view is insulting for the French Canadians and the Quebec population. The Quebec government went rather far-let us admit it-on a matter which has not been settled yet. We are speaking of satellites, a field which falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and of education, which falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

Provinces are given responsibilities with regard to roads, education and in many other fields, but the federal government holds the purse strings. In fact, it has the power to tax and to control money whilst administrative responsibilities in several fields fall on the provinces. That is when conflicts arise, not only in the field of satellites, education or telecommunications, but as far as financial matters are concerned. The provinces have responsibilities, but the power to fulfill such

responsibilities remain in the hands of the federal government.

I therefore hope that at the close of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place within a few days, we shall get something more than a press release stating: We have found out that problems exist in Canada, but we are expecting to come out with a solution at the next federal-provincial conference.

[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Permalink

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether his government intends to implement a suggestion made by the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, that the site of Expo '67 should be used to house a centre of international development? Also, has any progress been made in implementing a decision announced in the Speech from the Throne opening this session regarding an international development centre in Canada?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
?

Righi Hon. P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, we learned only yesterday that Montreal would not continue with Man and His World. It is too early for us to know what should be done with this area. To answer the second part of the question, the Centre for International Development has been the subject of a great deal of study by the Department of External Affairs, and especially by the Canadian International Development Agency. When we present our white paper on external policy I think we will be in a position to suggest what we wish to do with the Centre for International Development.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stanfield:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize the Prime Minister has not had too much time overnight to consider the matter, but is the government prepared to consider seriously the suggestion of Mr. Pearson about the use of the site of Expo '67? Is the government prepared to look into this matter seriously at this time?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister)

Liberal

Mr. Trudeau:

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that overnight I have not had a chance

January 31, 1969

to give any consideration to this question. The land itself, except for a very small portion of it which is federal property, belongs to the city of Montreal. We cannot make any suggestions now about what we want to do with this city of Montreal land. If the city is prepared to dispose of it in some way, then we will consider the matter.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
RA

Gilbert F. Rondeau

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):

Mr. Speaker, since the question of Expo is brought up again, this morning 1 should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

Does he think that Quebec is in a good enough financial condition to take over the operations of Expo 67?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I doubt that the question as asked is in order.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink
PC

John Angus MacLean

Progressive Conservative

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the grinding to a halt, under a long series of deficits, of Man and His World reflects accurately man and his world as exemplified by Canada at the present time, and the way we are living in Canada?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   EXPO '67 USE OF SITE TO HOUSE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
Permalink

January 31, 1969