‘Gouchiching Conference is ‘mnual event held on Lake “Wuchic me Of varied opini d he opinions an “at walkg of life get together Was days to discuss ‘a partic- “Me or topic, ig : dd 8 conference, the 34th, i uring the week of July ce 6, and was sponsored Afain adian Institute of Pub- Sand the CBC. ‘Mh re those present at the con- oe Nelson and Phyllis ® well-known spokesmen Mmunist Party. In an in- vey hem we asked them hg, «£0 Tribune readers some he conn Pressions and opinions erence + Clarke: It was entitled “Con- | bat talism” in the printed this ’ Ssion, wasn’t the theme of 4 ho Was there? vis ‘I hing Kes This was the largest . & Onference ever held; 290 Bt Present and it was an- The Over 100 more. had asked ety We Couldn’t be accommodat- “dang 80Vvernment people, both . “vil servants; university ansedents; business people; Others who have been tae niching conferences for hf ty TS. There were represen- 7 teelyna® unions, notably three * Mog: Sets’ Local 1005 in Ham- Participants were from Mber from Quebec and a attered parts of Western q ~anada. For the first time th cite a large representation Nadians. OS nu Sc EGF x 4 OW Nang V28 the discussion intro- ~ “eveloped? ceatkes Two guest speakers, Wt pay ists Sir Ivor Jennings align, Commented in general 4) ° Spe. Then there was quite a bine os — members of the Ores, Maurice Sauve, minis- of ate and Guy Favreau, pre- Tinist: Privy Council; Gerin iy Q Son, leader of the Op- ley GvCbec; Marc Lalonde of °Mmission on Broadcast- hing’ in Ontario, where © ing; Jean Marchand: of the Commis- sion on Bilingualism and Bicultural- — ism, an interesting panel of students * from Quebec; people from different fields in the arts, non-French speaking, pivine their views on what they would like Canada to be, particularly English Canada; a few representatives of the press speaking on the role of the press in French-Fnelish relations. There was Gerard Pelletier, former editor of La Presse and now a writer for Le Devoir, erd Peter McLintock of the Winnipeg Free Press. The concluding session was. addressed bv Prof W. L. Morton of the TIniversity of Manitoba, one of the best-known Canadian historians. PhuJlig Clarke: One should add E. Davie Fulton, who snoke on two occa- sions. and Marcel Fariheau, co-author of the book. Ten to One, which has just come out. Q. What was your impression of the conference? Phvllis Clarke: The most obvious fact was that the maioritv there really didn’t want to discuss federalism, but were there to discuss the relations of French and Enolish Canada. At the first session when Sir Ivor Jennings and Max Beloff gave their papers. on the general theme of federalism thev were confronted with the fact that almost all the questions were v?via- tions on: What should we-do in Can- ada about French-English relations? What I found rather interesting was the continual questioning by the Eng- lish Canadians of “What is it French . Canada really wants?” I would say the high noint in the discussion came on the day that Daniel Johnson and Guy Favreau snoke in the morning and Paul Gerin-Lajoie and E, Davie Fulton in the evening, because at that point it became auite clear “what Quebec wants.” The period after that was one of a great deal of mental anguish for many people; now that they had the $64 question answered, well, were they prepared to go along with what Que- bec wants?. You had a direct confron- tation with the problem in a way that most of those present had never ex- perienced before. As a matter of fact, some of the people from the Bi-Bi commission who were there were most impressed by the extent to which the interplay be- tween the French and English Can- adians at the conference was compel- ling a discussion on things that some- * how at the commission’s public meet- ings held all across Canada did not come out in quite the same way. Per- An interview with NELSON and PHYLLIS CLARKE haps because a public meeting in one section of the country-could only re- flect that section’s viewpoint. Nelson Clarke: I think the discus- sion was also quite revealing of the difficulty English Canadians experience with the concept of two nations in a single country. There was a strong tendency .first to reject that concept, then to resist it, to not wish to recog- nize it. As a result of the continual confrontation ‘there began to appear the beginnings of a groping for an- swers to the problem. Q. What role did the Left play? Nelson Clarke: I wouldn’t say that the Left, as we usually use the term, was particularly well represented. In a sense the French Canadians students from Quebec, who are moving toward the Quebec Left, were its most active representatives. We ourselves were ‘able to ask a considerable number of very pointed questions and in that way helped to probe into some of the problems. Informally, of course, we had many discussions with people in - which we were able to present the Communist view. Phyllis Clarke: I found people very interested in the fact that of all the English Canadians present we seemed to have a view in relation to the two nations in Canada that was rather clear cut and that had been formed before the conference. Q. What do you think was the chief value of the conference? Phyllis Clarke: The fact that 290 people spent a week discussing this question, in terms of the dialogue that is needed in Canada for the resolving of what the Bi-Bi commission calls the “crisis of Canada.” These 290 people included many who are influential: in political parties, in academic circles and various organizations, so I suspect the discussions will have wide reper- cussions. As a matter of fact,.this point was raised by a number of people: how do we take these discussions out to other people? The point was also made that the press, particularly in English Can- ada, must become a much. better veh- icle for taking this discussion to the general public. Mr. McLintock of the Winnipeg Free Press had to sort of bear the brunt of criticism for all the English-language papers for the fact that they deal far more frequently with French Canada when a bomb is ex- ploded than in any more important and fundamental way to develop the dia- eve that would help solve the prob- em. Q. What were some of the weak- nesses of the conference? Phyllis Clarke: Perhaps the biggest single weakness was in posing the question for discussion as “Concepts of Federalism” and devoting three of the seven days to questions that were not getting at the real problem. One thing that was very much lack- ing, although every now and then a question would get asked about it, was that there were no representatives from the immigrant or ethnic groups. It might have been thought that their presence would have caused more con- fusion; on the other hand, they are very much a part of the fabric of Can- ada. One of the problems of French- English relations includes the fact that English Canada is not as homogeneous as French Canada. This question, there- fore, which at the Bi-Bi commission’s public meetings across the country played quite a big role, was almost non-existent at this conference. Nelson Clarke: One thing that was very evident at the conference was that the power elite in this country has not yet found the answer to this prob- lem of relationships between French and English Canada. This was evident in the floundering around by people like Favreau and Sauve, trying to “ease” the question without having to present any answers. E. Davie Fulton didn’t have any answers either. Except to the extent that raising the prospect of federalism and the opting- out arrangements represent a way of getting at the problems in the imme- diate sense while skirting around the basic problem — which I think they do — this really is no answer. And even cooperative federalism is work- ing only because you have Lesage in Quebec City and Pearson and Favreau in Ottawa who on both sides ara anxious to make there arrangements work. Phyllis Clarke: One final comment. I think the CIPA and CBC deserve congratulations for initiating this con- ference and for making a special effort to bring French Canadians to it. With- out their efforts these 290 people would never have been in one place to take part in discussing this impor- tant problem. September 3, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7