Roland DE CORNEILLE

DE CORNEILLE, Roland, B.A., S.T.B., M.Th.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Eglinton--Lawrence (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 19, 1927
Deceased Date
December 30, 2014
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_de_Corneille
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ef1388ad-345b-4646-895f-26d8923ecf1b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
administrator (human rights), clergyperson

Parliamentary Career

May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
LIB
  Eglinton--Lawrence (Ontario)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Eglinton--Lawrence (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (March 1, 1982 - February 29, 1984)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
LIB
  Eglinton--Lawrence (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 98 of 99)


November 7, 1979

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say it hardly requires any evidence to realize that we all deeply respect the position of the Speaker of the House and of the person of the Speaker himself. I feel it is rather sad that things should become so convoluted that in the course of this discussion it has been perhaps misunderstood that many of those who have stood up, in my party at least, to express their concern stood up in order to express the very deep concern that the Speaker of the House, both in his office and

Privilege-Mr. Pinard

in his person, should not be involved, should not be impugned and should not have any light cast upon him except the highest respect which this House holds for him.

Therefore, it is particularly tragic and unfortunate when we are raising a question which is not at all directed at the Speaker but in fact is directed at the very direction of the Speaker's name-the protection of the honour of this House of Parliament-that this should be misunderstood. Perhaps there were things that were said incorrectly or which were misunderstood because they were not put well, but certainly that was not the intention, so far as I have any knowledge of it, of my colleagues. What is at stake, and this is important, is that we did not ever mention the name of the Speaker of the House of Commons. We did not bring it into the press. We did not involve the name of the Speaker in terms of events that occurred last night. It is precisely because we did not that the question arises, who did?

It is this kind of thing we are concerned about. We are simply seeking to have it made clear that the people of Canada will lose respect for the parliamentary system about which we have heard so much idealistic speaking in the Speech from the Throne and so on, that that very respect which we all want to establish may in fact be put under suspicion.

Therefore, when an article appears in The Globe and Mail that seems to link a statement by some member of the House of Commons which might involve or is alleged to have involved the idea that he said he had some influence with the Speaker, it endangers the position of the Speaker.

It is this about which we are speaking, not about the Speaker himself. This is what is at stake. We were expecting, and hoped it would be said, that it would be made clear by the President of Privy Council through The Globe and Mail or anyone else that he does not intend or want to influence the Speaker, that he was sorry if it was misprinted and said in this way so as to imply that he had done such a thing, that indeed he has no intention of trying to give the impression that he gets credit for having achieved something with the Speaker of the House.

That is what is at stake. It is not the Speaker of the House who is at stake but in fact his good name. It is not that it took place at all but that people have the idea that it took place. It is not what happened, but what is perceived to have happened, that is at stake. It is this which we wish to have clarification of.

It would be very simple to say not "if 1 have" but simply that it appears that my involvement of the word "Speaker" in this conversation with The Globe and Mail has led to this misunderstanding, one which has taken up the whole afternoon of this House. It is simply that we all, everyone in this House, want to protect the sanctity and the position of the Speaker in whom we all have trust.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   MR. PINARD-RIGHT OF SPEECH IN THE HOUSE
Full View Permalink

November 5, 1979

Mr. de Corneille:

We are told by recent public opinion polls that the population is losing confidence in our democratic processes, partly, I suppose, because of apparent or at least perceived reversals in government policy on such election promises as a stimulative deficit, keeping our interest rates down, and moving our embassy in Israel.

In view of our concern about such loss of confidence, particularly as it might influence our young people, I would like to ask what specific measures the government has in mind to rationalize the management of its decision-making processes to the Canadian people and thus to restore confidence in democratic institutions.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE ADMINISTRATION
Full View Permalink

November 5, 1979

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   THE ADMINISTRATION
Full View Permalink

October 29, 1979

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, ten days ago I addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) concerning the meeting held by the Hon. Robert Stanfield with a representative of PLO terrorists. Specifically I asked whether Mr. Stanfield has held any public or clandestine meetings and, if so, had Mr. Stanfield discussed with that terrorist organization any subject other than, or in addition to, the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and further had Mr. COMMONS DEBATES

October 29, 1979

Adjournment Debate

Stanfield made any undertakings to continue further contacts with the PLO.

1 do appreciate the opportunity that is afforded in this House to a member to be able to press for an answer to a question which a member feels was not answered during question period.

To set the record straight, it would be unfair for me to imply or allege that the hon. minister did not reply at all, but the answer was not given to my question. My question was not frivolous, and certainly not deserving of delay. It deals with a matter of grave consequences, consequences meaning that Canada may be giving tacit de facto recognition or encouragement to the PLO, which has, as we know, been involved in terrorist activites, killing not only Jewish but Arab civilians, men, women and children in Israel and in many other parts of the world. It also seeks to obliterate the existence of the state of Israel and indirectly some, or even many members of its population.

Let me point out why it is so serious, important and urgent that a reply to my question be given to this House and to the entire country. What perhaps is at stake is our national honour, the imperilling of the peace process in the Middle East, the possibility of alienating friends such as the United States of America, Israel, and others in the international community, and of giving comfort, therefore, encouragement to the PLO terrorists-a totally immoral act for Canada and an unfriendly one toward the friendly state of Israel.

In short, I would still like to know the answer to my question. The implications are even more grave as the truth unravels. First of all, what rank and authority is Mr. Stanfield perceived by other governments to have? We were told here by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) on October 12 that Mr. Stanfield is an ambassador extraordinary, and that because of the adjective extraordinary there can be, and I quote, "no implication of official recognition by the Canadian government of any groups with which he may have consultations." Yet today the Prime Minister tabled a letter from Mr. Stanfield to the Prime Minister on official stationery which describes Mr. Stanfield as, and I quote, "Special Representative of the Government of Canada, and Ambassador at Large." Those are very imposing and impressive titles when added up: ambassador extraordinary, special representative of the Government of Canada, and ambassador at large.

I wonder whether in the eyes of governments which are used to these terms as they have been undertsood in international law or customs over the centuries, it is now realized that a new dictionnary has been written by our Prime Minister giving a new definition to those terms.

Mr. Stanfield met with Khalid al-Fahum, chairman of the Palestine National Council, the PLO's governing body, and a member of the PLO executive committee.

It has been claimed that this meeting between Mr. Stanfield and Mr. al-Fahum does not constitute recognition of the PLO by Canada. Arab diplomats and the PLO, however, can easily

interpret such meetings as constituting a form of recognition of the terrorist organization which remains committed to Israel's ultimate destruction. The PLO's covenant, which has not been renounced, calls for the elimination of Israel. More recent statements by the PLO leaders, including the PLO chairman, Yasser Arafat, belie any intention on the part of that body to recognize Israel or to change its goal of its destruction.

I have in my file recent statements by Mr. Arafat, and I quote:

Armed struggle is our only road. We have no other road to reach Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and every inch of our occupied homeland.

Our people will continue to fuel the torch of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the occupied homeland is liberated ... not just a part of it.

I am confident that we shall eventually overrun Begin's own offices in both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ... Jerusalem is destined to be the eternal capital of our sovereign independent Palestinian state under the PLO leadership.

Mr. Arafat is not referring only to the "liberation" of the West Bank and Gaza. He refers to the entire state of Israel.

A few weeks ago, Farouk Kaddoumi, director of the PLO political department said; "The PLO will never recognize Israel even if Israel recognizes the PLO" Given such a policy, it seems difficult to comprehend why Mr. Stanfield found it necessary or useful to meet with the PLO's representative. The PLO's vision of peace does not include a state of Israel in the Middle East.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-MEETING OF HON. ROBERT STANFIELD WITH PLO
Full View Permalink

October 19, 1979

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the hon. lady tell the House whether the emissary extraordinary, or the extraordinary emissary to the Middle East, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, did indeed hold any public or clandestine meetings with representatives of the PLO before the PLO has met the two conditions which the Prime Minister laid down for relationships with, or recognition of that terrorist organization?

Further, if Mr. Stanfield has indeed had such meetings with the PLO, has he discussed with the PLO any topics other than the moving of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has he made any undertakings to continue further contacts with the PLO?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink