POLICY,
WHAl

POLICY

By PHYLLIS CLARKE

N one room Davie Fulton was
holding forth to a handful of
the faithful—and providing

free coffee. In another a small
group were huddled around an-
around another coffee urn. On
other floors of the Royai York
Hotel there were rooms where
the refreshments were of a more
potent kind — and all through
the downtown hotels were other
“hospitality” rooms.

The general impression was
one of a great big bash. How-
-ever, in one of the medium sized
meetings rooms at the Royal
York about one tenth of the
Conservative delegates were in-
~ volved in something different —
they were discussing policy for
the party.

Now, as everyone knew the
Conservatives had just held a
thinkers conference in Montmor-
ency. This policy committee at
the convention was going over
material, much of which had
emanated from that meeting.
The other thing everyone knew
is that the report of the policy
committee ‘would only be tabled
an the final day of the conven-
tion. In fact the agenda allowed
only one hour for all the reports
of the committees.

Finally, one must remember
when viewing this policy ques-
tion that the . Conservative
Party’s policy is set by its lead-
er and not by convention and
all the policy committee’s report
could be at the best in some
suggestions for whoever the
mantle fell upon.

The policy committee had 400
members. It is doubtful if the
hall they met in could have held
them all if they had attended in
full strength. However, they
drifted in and out, and other
delegates came in, listened for
a while, and the press faithfully
stayed on and on and on.

Outside of the predictable —
the rejection of the capital gains
tax — the big controversy on
the two nations — one of the
liveliest debates took place when
the policy committee got to for-
eign policy.

Back in Montmorency Dalton
Camp had surprised everyone by
a speech in which he proposed
a revamping of Canadian foreign
policy to include less invoWwe-
ment in military alliances such
as NATO and NORAD. It was
obvious that the policy commit-
tee was far less audacious than
Dalton Camp.

The debate on foreign policy
first centered around a proposal
to have a general philisophical

September 22, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 4

statement that would be very
flexible on the question of Can-
ada making a decisive turn in
its policy.

This suggestion was not ac-
ceptable to the majority of the
committee who seemed quite
determined that Canada must
remain tied not only to NATO
but equally sure that NORAD
was a sacred cow.

Indeed after moving from the
general to the particular the big
argument resolved around
NORAD and specifically whe-
ther a proposal should be in-
cluded in the resolution that
Canada should not participate
in the establishment of a con-
tinental anti-ballistic system,
not only because of the heavy
cost but also because there were
grave doubts about its effective-
ness.

The major opinion that pre-
vailed was for non-inclusion of
this section, but because they
felt that the hands of negotia-
tors for a new NORAD agree-
ment should not be tied, but
even more so because they felt
that Canada’s future role was,
and could only be, in greater in-
volvement in defense arrange-
ments with the United States.

Later in the debate around
the recognition of the People’s
Republic of China, the discus-
sion moved from the sublime to
the ridiculous as delegates ex-
pressed their desire for a reuni-
fication of Taiwan and the main-
land (under which government
being left somewhat vague),
their fear for Canadian embas-
sies in China if we should ever
have one there because of the
“internal” situation and whether
we should take such a step be-
fore the U.S. does. However on
this issue the obvious discrep-
ency between a country making
lots of money from selling wheat
to China and then not recogniz-
ing the government proved to
be the clincher and with many
pious statements that of course
this doesn’t mean de-recognition
of Taiwan the policy commit-
tee passed a statement that they
were in favor of the recognition
of the People’s Republic of
China now. :

As the policy committee then
moved from the field of inter-
national affairs to recommenda-
tions on making the government

bureaucracy “more responsive
and more responsible to the
community” one wondered whe-
ther the words of Policy Com-
mittee Chairman Hon. William
G. Davis, Minister of Education
in Ontario were still remem-
bered:

“In my view, all delegates
should go through the forthcom-
ing policy sessions, and the elec-
tion of a leader to follow, with
one principle kept clearly in
mind. Winning votes is not en-
ough. After a party is elected to
office comes the call to deliver:
and it is then that our leader
should be in a position to draw
on the well-reasoned, coherent
design of late twentieth-century
policies which we shall have
been privileged to put together.
Of course, these will not con-

stitute a body of Holy Writ that ©

is inviolable and sacrosanct
down to the last period. These
ideas and policies must be adap-
table to rapidly changing con-
ditions and situations. They will
provide—for the first time, I be-
lieve—a national picture of high-
ly contemporary aspirations and
objectives.”

Still to be seen is how this
non-sacrosanct policy and the
new leader make out together.
Slow and deliberate in his
speeches, Stanfield has really
made few commitments on
policy although it is known that
he tends not to be much con-
cerned about Canadian indepen-
dence and the dangers of U.S.
control.

He has said: ‘We must be an
ally of those whose allegiance
there can be no doubt. I’m up-
set about this anti-Americanism
you encounter in Canada, and
not only in the NDP. It is so im-
mature, like a little boy thumb-
ing his nose at big brother. None
of us would have much to hope
for in this world if it were not
for the U.S.”

His general approach, he says,
“is to look at a thing and do
what is practical and sensible!
So presumably that which the
400 member policy committee
proposed is in the eyes of this
new leader “practical and sen-
sible” will be his policy and as
for the rest—well it’s good to
have some discussions at a con-
vention and not just hoopla and
hospitality!

Why is it the question of two
nations became such a big issue
at the Conservative convention?

I think it,,became such a big
question because it has become
perhaps the most decisive ques-
ton in Canada as a whole and
could not longer be ignored,
even by a convention such as
that of the Conservative party.
The effort to sweep under the
rug the whole problem of the
binational character of Canada
especially during the centenary
year has fallen flat on its face.
The reception for De Gaulle on
the part of the French Canadian
people was. unmistakable evi-
dence of the fact that French
Canadians are demanding recog-
nition as a nation as a minimum
condition for continued coexist-
ence in Canada with the English
Canadian nation.

Do you think the fact that the
Conservative convention endors-
ed the policy from the Mont-
moreny Falls meeting that called
for the recognition of two na-
tions in Canada means that the
Conservative party can answer
the needs of the French Cana-
dian people?

No, I don’t think so at all. I
think.the Conservative party has
chosen this rather tricky way of
expressing their support for the
idea of the two nation concept
for the purpose of heading off or
attempting to head off the move-
ment which is developing and
‘which is reaching such major
proportions in French Canada.
Because during the convention
itself, speaker after speaker, in-
cluding the new leader of the
party, made it very evident that
they intended to translate the
French expression two nations
into something like two cul-
tures, two languages anything
but the right to self-determina-
tion for the French Canadian na-
tion.

Is it true that Union Nationale
threw all its support behind Rob-
lin?

Well it seems that Union Na-
tionale threw all its support be-

- hind these in the Conservative
party who are prepared to adopt
at least a formula of a two na-
tion state. Apparently, their first
choice was Duff Roblin. The or-
ganizer of the Quebec delegation

Interview PCQ Chairman Sam Walsh .

The Tory two]
nation concep!

|

at the convention was 4 Wa
Nationale organizer am ask
formed the miraculous
creating constituency Pi
tions where they had NO ig
for many, many yeals 2 ig
able to bring down 4 Y&
delegation from Quebe,
exclusively composed ©
Nationale members:
chief consideration wa 08
an alliance with te
tive party provid
least in words, accept
nation concept $0.
could support them ™
ing federal elections, ibe
they could defeat tr a di |
who have refused to ol
even speak of the aa
being one of two Mio
speak of two fount ajle
etc., in the language 1a
Prime Minister Pears?’ iyelt
Would you thi 5
that in Quebec they
deux nations, two me post
help them to wit Siig
from the Liberals ©"
ocratic Party? of th
I have no doubt © i
have no doubt of oy of
the two nation mann e f
ing is much close? in af
ings, sentiments ae ip
reality of the situate
‘Canada an

being given to oth ave i
and the NDP, © 5 very.
outflanked by Ne

political move)
tive Party and bY © on
pressure put on the on N
Party by the Um i
ue “think this Np
both the Liberals
reconsider t
have taken? —
I think it Ww!
eration. I’m no
decision wil
cide to make th

on
1 force he

ut everything
pend of special sta
which is primar? tha
status quo rather Mi
nation concept tion
think the two N46
conceived Of “7.

But it certainly *
tives is not
to the thin

er for Stan-

¥ president, Pre-