bout de papier, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2013) — Winter 2013–14 // Hiver 2013-2014, pp. 32–35
Readers of bout de papier will be familiar with the Official Visit which marred the celebratory mood of Canada’s centennial in 1967 and likely still haunts those who then worked in the Office of Protocol. In that year, a procession of international heads of state visited Ottawa and then the International and Universal Exhibition or Expo 67, as it was more commonly known, in Montréal — almost always in that order. An exception to that rule, perhaps inevitably, was the President of France, General Charles de Gaulle, whose itinerary had been contested between the Government of Canada, with Lester B. Pearson as Prime Minister, and the Government of Québec, headed by Premier Daniel Johnson. Ultimately, the President’s chosen mode of transportation — aboard the French cruiser Colbert — made it impossible for him to visit the national capital first, so that the Government of Québec effectively hosted the early (and ultimately the only) part of his visit.
Many recollections, biographies, historical analyses and other commentaries have been published about the sequence of events — a grand reception for de Gaulle in Québec (where federal representatives were slighted), popular enthusiasm as his motorcade travelled to Montréal, his unfortunate comparison of that welcome to the one that he received when Paris was liberated and then his echoing of a separatist rallying cry (« Vive le Québec libre ») from the balcony of the Hôtel de ville, for which he was rebuked first at a banquet that evening by the Mayor of Montréal, Jean Drapeau, before the Government of Canada issued its own critical statement the following day which prompted the President to curtail his visit and return to Paris by a quicker mode of transportation, airplane.
As is well known from the various accounts of these events, the Cabinet carefully considered and deliberately revised its statement, which would be read by Prime Minister Pearson at a televised press conference, before it agreed on a text that it hoped would not amplify national divisions in Canada. Readers may be interested in the official record (in the Cabinet Conclusions) of the discussions, which occupied two meetings on 25 July 1967, with a follow-up discussion the next day, after de Gaulle indicated that he would avoid Ottawa. As always with such records, the prose captures little of the spirit of the exchanges in the Privy Council Chamber; nonetheless, it is possible to sense the tension of the meetings and the worry about how the Government’s response would be perceived in Canada and especially in Québec. In the minutes reproduced below, the formal list of attendees and the Agenda have been omitted (in fact, “General de Gaulle” was the only item for the first two meetings) and names have been inserted (in parentheses) for those whose titles identify them as speakers (a list of those for whom no remarks are cited is added as an editorial note at the bottom of this item).
The original documents are preserved in the Records of the Privy Council in Library and Archives Canada. Cabinet Conclusions may also be viewed on-line.
— Hector Mackenzie
Cabinet minutes — Tuesday, July 25th, 1967, at 12:00 noon
General de Gaulle (Previous reference June 29)
The Cabinet considered what action if any the Government ought to take further to General de Gaulle’s statements in Quebec and especially in Montreal.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Robert Winters) said the Government could not let General de Gaulle’s statements go unnoticed or unchallenged; the Government could not either tell him to leave the country; but perhaps the Prime Minister ought not to receive him.
The Minister of Finance (Mitchell Sharp) said he had originally thought along the same lines but he now believed the Prime Minister should proceed with his luncheon invitation in a frigid, formal way.
The Prime Minister (Lester B. Pearson) said, if he received General de Gaulle, he could not, while remaining courteous, ignore his declarations. The possibility of advising him that the visit to Ottawa could not take place ought not to be excluded.
The Minister of Industry (Charles M. “Bud” Drury) said he thought as the Minister of Finance; what really mattered was the reaction of the French-speaking population, which did not seem favourable to the General, except, of course, for separatist elements. Mayor Drapeau of the City of Montreal had already begun to re-establish the situation.
The Prime Minister said the Government had to think of the reaction of all the country. He had received several hundreds telegrams from across Canada, including Quebec, most of which were unfavourable to de Gaulle.
Mr. Pearson also said if the General came to Ottawa the program of his visit would have to be reconsidered. A counter-demonstration was possible and added security precautions would have to be taken, all of which would have a disastrous effect in Quebec. It might be more advisable for instance to greet the General at the railway station than on Parliament Hill. The General could not seriously object and decide to go back to France since such modifications would have been dictated by a change in the situation which he himself would have brought about. The luncheon at the Chateau Laurier and the dinner at Government House could go on as planned, but there was no reason why the General should meet the Cabinet, as this part of the program, in any event, had not been made public.
The Associate Minister of National Defence (Léo Cadieux) said the General was also scheduled to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph and several high-ranking members of the armed forces had let him know they would rather resign than attend a ceremony with him. Everybody expected the Government to react strongly; this was a matter of self-respect; it could not be accepted either that de Gaulle destroy the French-speaking representation in the Government, which was the implication of his statements.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Paul Martin) said he had been outraged listening over television to de Gaulle’s speech at the Montreal Hôtel de Ville. There could be no ambiguity as to what it meant. He had tried in vain to obtain copy of the General’s speech; he had just spoken to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs (Maurice Couve de Murville) who had said he understood how he felt; the whole French delegation was most embarrassed and there was every indication that Premier (Daniel) Johnson himself was concerned at the turn of events.
Mr. Martin added his own first reaction had been to cancel the General’s visit to Ottawa, but he no longer thought so. The Government had to take into consideration not only public opinion in Quebec but also the implications and the long-range consequences of a possible break in diplomatic relations with France. Such a dramatic gesture would be remembered in Quebec for years to come.
The Prime Minister said the Government’s attitude would also be remembered for years to come if it did nothing adequate in the face of the provocation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Allan J. MacHachen) said the General was scheduled to make other speeches that day which would provide him with the opportunity to qualify his previous statements.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said the Government should entertain no illusion about the possibility that de Gaulle would retract; he believed every word he said and did not even care whether his government agreed with him or not. The Commissioner for State Visits, Mr. (Lionel) Chevrier, had driven with him and the General had spoken about nothing else but the people’s reaction to his speeches and the strength of the separatist movement.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said the General was trying to split the country and it was not possible to act normally in such circumstances.
The Minister of National Defence (sic: Paul Hellyer, who was absent – this presumably refers to the Associate Minister of National Defence, Léo Cadieux) said there was no excuse for a man of General de Gaulle’s experience to have acted as he did.
The Minister of Justice (Pierre E. Trudeau) said the people in France would think the Government was weak if it did not react; the General had not the support of the intellectuals in his own country and the French press was opposed to him.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said a dramatic gesture on the part of the Government might provoke applause in several places such as the United States but this would be of little help internally; there was no mistaking the enthusiasm for de Gaulle in Montreal and at Expo.
The Minister without Portfolio, Mr. (Jean) Chrétien, said that the provincial government had chartered buses to transport children and many others from his constituency to Three Rivers (Trois- Riviéres) for an organized demonstration. In his view the Government should show no weakness.
The Prime Minister said a statement should be drafted for publication after the meeting of the Cabinet and this statement should refer to the General’s intervention into Canadian domestic affairs.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Jean Marchand) said the statement should be drafted with the utmost care. It should in no way be susceptible to being interpreted as being either anti-French or anti- Quebec; indeed, the Government should express its happiness about the reception accorded by Quebec to the President of France. de Gaulle should, in so far as possible, be separated from France and from Quebec.
Mr. Pearson said Mr. Martin, Mr. Marchand and his other Quebec colleagues could come to his office to help him draft a statement during the lunch hour, after which it could be decided whether the Cabinet should reconvene to consider the draft.
The Cabinet agreed that a public statement be drafted by the Prime Minister in consultation with a few Ministers to express the Government’s position further to General de Gaulle’s speeches in Quebec.
Cabinet minutes — Tuesday, July 25th, 1967, at 3:45 p.m.
General de Gaulle (Previous reference July 25 (noon meeting))
The Prime Minister read a draft statement concerning General de Gaulle’s speeches in Quebec, which he had prepared during the noon hour in consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Industry.
Mr. Pearson asked whether the draft statement appeared too strong.
The Secretary of State (Judy LaMarsh) replied it was far from being too strong.
The Prime Minister said the draft statement had to be looked at in the diplomatic context; it was a rebuke to a head of state; it was worded in terms which were as strong as the diplomatic language would allow; even a mild-mannered head of state was bound to react to such a statement.
Some Ministers said they doubted General de Gaulle would come to Ottawa after such a statement.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he felt it was a mistake directly or indirectly to drive General de Gaulle from Canada. He could break diplomatic relations and extend recognition to Quebec and to Quebec’s Délégation Générale in Paris.
The Government should rather reconsider receiving the General in Ottawa, review the situation with him and issue a statement immediately afterwards. If the General then left sooner than had been planned, it would be his own choice; but the consequences of his leaving before coming to Ottawa as a result of this earlier statement were extremely serious.
The Minister of Industry said he concurred with the view that General de Gaulle should not be driven from Canada. On the other hand, the Government could not accept his espousal of separatism and would look weak if it followed the course suggested. The Associate Minister of National Defence said he shared this view.
The President of the Treasury Board (Edgar Benson) said the draft statement should perhaps be modified so as not to refer directly to General de Gaulle.
The Minister of Finance said he felt the draft statement ought to be amended so as to leave an opening for General de Gaulle to remain in the country.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said no newspaper would appear before the next morning and the General was scheduled to make another speech that evening; the Government would not lose a great deal of time by waiting until after the General’s speech to reach a decision.
The Associate Minister of National Defence said the Prime Minister’s statement should be made before the General’s speech so as to provide the latter with an opportunity to qualify his position.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied he doubted the General would be influenced by any statement.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said ninety per cent of the population of Quebec failed to see a relationship between General de Gaulle’s speeches and separatism. People applauded him because he was a great man and a French-speaking great man at that. If he left the country saying that he was compelled to do so on account of the Government, people would not understand the reasons for his departure and the burden of explaining them would rest on the Government which would greatly suffer from such a situation.
The Minister of Finance said that, putting himself in the General’s place, he would not come to Ottawa under rebuke. Consequently the draft statement had to be modified to leave an opening for the General and to make it clear that the invitation to proceed with his visit was still standing. If the General shortened his sojourn after that, it would be his own doing.
The Prime Minister said he was prepared to modify the draft statement along those lines. He was still uncertain, however, whether the General would come to Ottawa in such circumstances although he doubted very much that he would go to the extent of severing diplomatic relations with the Canadian Government. On the assumption that the General would pursue his visit, his program would not be modified except with respect to his reception on Parliament Hill and his meeting with the Cabinet. The French Embassy would be informed of these changes.
The Cabinet agreed a) That a statement be issued by the Prime Minister at a
press conference immediately following the meeting of the Cabinet, such statement to read as follows:
“I am sure that Canadians in all parts of our country were pleased when the President of France received such a warm welcome in Quebec.
“However, certain statements by the President tend to encourage the small minority of our population whose aim is to destroy Canada; and, as such, they are unacceptable to the Canadian people and its Government.
“The people of Canada are free. Every province of Canada is free. Canadians do not need to be liberated. Indeed, many thousands of Canadians gave their lives in two World Wars in the liberation of France and other European countries.
“Canada will remain united and will reject any effort to destroy her unity.
“Canada has always had a special relationship with France, the motherland of so many of her citizens. We attach the greatest importance to our friendship with the French people. It has been, and remains, the strong purpose of the Government of Canada to foster that friendship. I hope that my discussions later this week with General de Gaulle will demonstrate that
this purpose is one which he shares”; and b) That the program of General de Gaulle’s visit to
Ottawa be maintained except with respect to his reception on Parliament Hill, to be replaced by his reception at Government House, and his meeting with the Cabinet, to be cancelled, and that the French Embassy be informed of these changes.
Cabinet minutes — Wednesday, July 26th, 1967, at 9:00 a.m.
Visit of General de Gaulle
(Previous reference July 25 (afternoon meeting))
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that at about 1:30 a.m. the Canadian Ambassador to France, Mr. (Jules) Léger, had been informed by the Foreign Minister of France, Mr. Couve de Murville, that General de Gaulle had indicated that he did not intend to come to Ottawa. Mr. Martin said that he had indicated to Mr. Léger that there was nothing to add to the Prime Minister’s statement; that in Ottawa preparations for the visit of General de Gaulle had been going ahead; that we had no reason to assume the visit would not take place and that, if it did not, it would not be because of any decision to that effect by the Canadian government. Mr. Martin also said that he had spoken directly to the Foreign Minister of France who had indicated that, in his judgment, pressing matters with the General would not alter his decision and that the best course was to let him depart.
In the discussion, the following points were mentioned:
a) The Prime Minister indicated that it might be neces-
sary for him to issue some statement on the fact that General de Gaulle was cutting short his visit and was not coming to Ottawa. However, it would be best to leave any statement to the French if possible.
b) It was suggested that, in the circumstances, it would
not be appropriate for a Cabinet Minister to travel to Montreal to be on hand for General de Gaulle’s departure from Dorval Airport but that this protocol duty should be performed by the Honourable Lionel Chevrier.
The Cabinet noted the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the comments of the Prime Minister relating to the cancellation of the visit to Ottawa by General de Gaulle.
Editorial note: Ministers present for all meetings but with no attributed remarks: the Postmaster General (Jean- Pierre Coté) and the Minister of Labour (John Robert “Jack” Nicholson) – Ministers present for only the third meeting but with no attributed remarks: the Minister of Transport (J. W. “Jack” Pickersgill); the Minister of Public Works (George W. Mcllraith); the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Maurice Sauvé): the Solicitor General (Lawrence Pennell) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Jean-Luc Pépin).
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 27, No. 4 (2013) — Winter 2013–14 // Hiver 2013-2014, pp. 32–35. Read the rest of this issue →
