June 28, 1984

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY

LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved

that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, be concurred in.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

Gildas L. Molgat (Speaker pro tempore)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

When shall the Bill be read a third time?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Now.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Gildas L. Molgat (Speaker pro tempore)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

By consent, now.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen moved

that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the final step in the creation of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. This legislation is an expression of the hopes and dreams of all Members and all Canadians who want nothing less than a peaceful and secure world. The creation of the Institute, first proposed in the Throne Speech last December, is important to all Canadians because it is Canada's way of injecting fresh ideas and developing new and better solutions for a world troubled by conflict and uncertainty.

I think it is quite appropriate that Canada should be taking this initiative. Throughout our history we have consistently striven to realize a better and more peaceful planet, especially since the last World War, the beginning of the end of which we recently marked in the fortieth anniversary commemorating Normandy. Successive Canadian Governments, with the active backing of all Parties, have sought to save succeeding generations from the scourges of war which, twice in this century, has brought untold suffering to mankind.

Canada's adherence to the United Nations Charter, and its active membership in multilateral organizations like the Commonwealth and the Francophonie have had one basic goal in mind-to build a better, more secure and peaceful world. As peacekeepers, as participants in the North-South dialogue, as members of the western alliance, and as a bridge between East and West, Canadians have certainly attained and deserved a reputation on the world stage. I believe that we are continuing that tradition with the action which I hope will be taken today by Parliament in the House of Commons.

The Institute for International Peace and Security is the legacy of Canada's latest peace initiative, an initiative which all parliamentarians have supported and earnestly encouraged. In recent months we in Canada have made a special effort through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates to make a contribution to the search for peace, and particularly to bring about an improved atmosphere in a deteriorated East-West relationship. As I said, that effort has been encouraged by Canadians. It has been supported by all Members of the House, and I believe the effort that Canada has made, led by the Prime Minister, has been outstanding, has drawn attention to very important issues, and has had an effect in lessening the tensions which still exist in a serious way between the East and the West.

Our proposals for the resolution of international conflict have been based on sound and considered principles, because that is the way of Canada. These principles are borne out in the clause defining the purpose of the Institute. That purpose is to look outward, to promote scholarship, to encourage public discussion, and to collect and spread information and ideas on international peace and security.

The public interest in this Bill has been great, and its influence profound. By letter, by appearance before the committee, and in discussion with Members, Canadians have spoken out about what they wanted in this Institute.

There have been few other pieces of legislation about which consultation between the Government and the opposition Parties has been so close and so co-operative. Throughout these past weeks the Prime Minister has had correspondence with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and I myself met frequently with representatives of the opposition Parties, and particularly with the Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition and the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party. I have also had discussions with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. At times, we have been stalled in our efforts, and the road which we have followed has taken us around some rough corners. I believe that I can say that,

June 28, 1984

International Peace and Security throughout this endeavour, we have shared one single goal and that is to create a world-class institute of which Canadians can be proud.

1 must say that while the Leaders or representatives of the Parties were conducting their discussions, the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence were giving the Bill their very careful consideration. Meeting morning, noon and night, over a period of weeks, this committee heard from members of the dozens of groups from across the country to whom this Institute means so much. The work of the committee cannot be under-emphasized. Despite difficulties they persevered. Positive progress was made, and a better Bill was born. I pay tribute to the industry of all the members of the standing committee. I pay particular tribute to the chairman of the standing committee who provided the required leadership. I believe that those who are inclined to deprecate the value of our committee system can point to the labours of this particular committee as an example which should moderate their views.

Through all-Party consultations we have agreed to a board of directors, and a method by which that board will select its chairman and executive director. However, that cannot be done until the Bill has received proclamation. I believe it would be appropriate to identify the persons who will be approached by the Minister to serve as representatives on the board. The list of directors which we are proposing and who, it is hoped, will serve as directors when asked, is as follows:

Norman Alcock, President, World Federalist of Canada;

William Barton, former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations;

George Bell, Director, Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, former General, Canadian Armed Forces;

Christoph Bertram, Editor of Die Zeit, former Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London;

Harriet Critchley, Director, the Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary;

Paul Desmarais, Chairman of Power Corporation;

Gwynne Dyer, International affairs journalist and military historian;

William Epstein, former Director of the UN Disarmament Division;

Margaret Fulton, President of Mount St. Vincent University, Halifax;

Albert Legault, Professor of Political Science, Laval University;

Joanna Miller, Project Ploughshares, Saskatchewan, former President UNICEF Canada;

Denis McDermott, President, Canadian Labour Congress;

John Sigler, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University;

Ian Smart, former Director of Studies, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London;

Paul Warnke, former Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; Lois Wilson, former Moderator of the United Church of Canada;

Gerald Wright, Vice-President, Canadian Donner Foundation.

I believe that is a very impressive list of proposed directors. The list represents a balance. The list has been agreed to by all Parties, but it also contains names which were suggested by organizations which were asked to make suggestions. I should add that we have agreed that the first chairman and the first executive director will be chosen by the members of the board, as indicated in the legislation. That would give the board an opportunity to choose the chairman and the executive director from among their own membership.

I should add that it is my intention, and the intention of others who participated in the discussions, that the 14 Canadian board members will be chosen first. That initial group of 14 Canadians will meet to choose the chairman and executive director, as provided for in the Bill. Of course, when the executive director and the chairman have been chosen, the three non-Canadians on the list will then be approached to serve. Of course it is understood that if any on the list refuses to serve, the consultation process provided for in the Bill will come into operation.

I want to add a further point, to ensure that we are quite serious about carrying out these undertakings or understandings, that I have consulted with the new Leader of the Liberal Party who will be sworn in as Prime Minister on Saturday of this week, and he has assured me that he will carry out the undertakings, or the understandings, which I have just listed. That should be of greater interest to Hon. Members of the House.

I would like to make a few additional comments, Mr. Speaker, about the Institute. We have, by legislation, established a role for the parliamentary committee to which the annual report will be referred. In so doing we have really broken new ground. By virtue of Section 32 the committee will also have the ability, in accordance with the rules of the House, to request the Institute to undertake research for, or provide advice to, the committee.

There was a provision in the Bill which made it possible for the Minister to ask for advice and to ask the Institute to conduct research. I personally placed a good deal of store on that provision because I wanted the Institute to be independent, but I also wanted it to be able to give advice, when required, to a Minister or the Government on very important questions. In that way it could be tied in more closely to the current preoccupations of any Government. The Minister is not running the Institute but he is permitted to ask for advice and policy guidance.

That same opportunity is provided to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. There is, I believe, a simple way by which that can be done, and the Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition was quite active in discussing with me the particular amendment which might carry that out. That is an important point in the Bill.

By including in the Act as well a schedule of organizations, we have firmly entrenched the role of Canadian groups and established their role in the selection of future boards of directors. The schedule contains a quite lengthy list of organizations, I understand 89 in number. Not all organizations have been included, but there is a provision that additions or deletions can be made in the future. It may be that with experience and reflection it will be found that some organizations can be removed from that schedule. Perhaps some will go out of existence and ought to be removed. Others may appear with a greater relevance to the work of the Institute. That flexibility is provided.

June 28, 1984

[DOT] 0125)

There was a great deal of concern that the Institute be non-partisan and independent. It certainly was never my view that it should be anything but non-partisan, and independent, and objective. It has been given that role. Indeed, we have it guaranteed in law that the Leaders of all recognized Parties in the House of Commons will continue to have a voice in deciding the board's membership. By legislating an annual endowment we have given the Institute a means by which it can preserve independence of a certain quality.

Those were the main points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. We have come a long way to this conclusion and I hope it will be possible for us to give third reading to this Bill very quickly. I pledged in my speech on February 17 that the Institute would complement and not compete with existing groups, organizations, and institutions devoted to peace and security. Let me reaffirm that promise. No group will suffer adverse consequences in terms of support, financial or otherwise, from this or successive Governments, I hope. Rather, we foresee the Institute stimulating the level of interest in peace and security for the benefit of all.

We have before us a sound piece of legislation. It exemplifies the best of the parliamentary process. It reflects the goals and aspirations of all Canadians. It was achieved not through excessive partisan wrangling and bitter conflict, but through discussion, compromise and, in the end, the consensus of all Parties. I am sure we will give it speedy passage so that the other place can deal with it and let it be one of the achievements for which this Parliament can be remembered. It is a tribute to all Members, and one of which we can be proud.

We are coming to the end of the parliamentary session and some of us will not be back to this Chamber as Members, certainly not myself, because I announced yesterday that I will not be reoffering myself in the election, whenever it comes, so this is probably my last speech in the House of Commons.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Ramon John Hnatyshyn (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

You never know.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

I have made a lot of them in the years I have served in the House of Commons since being first elected in 1953. When I came here I was so far away on the back bench that, if I were any further, I would be sitting in the lobby or in the corridor. But I survived those years, and I can only say that in making my last speech I am terribly grateful to my electors who have sent me to Parliament for these 30 years. I owe them a great deal of thanks.

Parliament and politics have been my life, and I am certainly grateful for the years I have spent here, and thankful for the opportunity to be part of this magnificent assembly which is the very heart, in my view, of Canadian life. I have seen much good work in the House of Commons by Members of Parliament, and many significant accomplishments. Among these significant accomplishments I certainly number the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.

[DOT] (1130)

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

International Peace and Security

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Pauline Jewett

New Democratic Party

Ms. Jewett:

Mr. Speaker, before those of us on this side of the House speak to the Bill, for purposes of clarification would the Minister answer a question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

It is in order for the Minister to answer a question if he sees fit.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Pauline Jewett

New Democratic Party

Ms. Jewett:

When the first 14 members of the board, the Canadian members, are choosing a chairman and executive director, and particularly in the case of the latter, would it be possible for them to establish a search or selection committee and possibly, through that process, choose an executive director for the Institute who is not at the moment a member of the board? Would it be possible for that to be done, or must they choose the executive director from among the 14 nominated Canadian members of the board?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

Mr. Speaker, as provided for in the Bill, it is the obligation of the board of directors to select a chairman and director from among their own membership. No one could become a chairman or director unless that person were a member of the board. I think it will be possible for the board to select a member from among themselves. If that is not possible, they will have to use their ingenuity to solve that problem. I could give them some advice if they want to call Lake Ainslie when they reach that impasse.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Erik Nielsen

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here listening to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), I reflected that I was hearing him for the last time in this House as a Member of the House. I had the opportunity this morning of telling him personally that I was rather sad to see this doughty fighter leaving the House of Commons. We have fought many battles here and the relationship which I have enjoyed with the Deputy Prime Minister has always been one of collegiality and cordiality despite the intenseness of some of those battles.

The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that when he first came into the House in 1953 he was so far back in the back-benches that if he were any further back he might be somewhere in the galleries. The Deputy Prime Minister will remember, of course, that that is exactly what happened to him in 1958. He sat for four years in the Members' Gallery where I first became accustomed to seeing him. However, he was back again in 1962. I am sure I am joined by my colleagues on all sides of the House in wishing the Deputy Prime Minister well in whatever the future has in store for him.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Erik Nielsen

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nielsen:

I would also like to make the assumption that, in speaking on behalf of the Government on third reading of this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister will be the only speaker for the Government today. On that assumption I can assure him that I will be the only speaker for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this Bill today. I would expect the same arrangement would prevail with the New Democratic Party.

June 28, 1984

International Peace and Security

I too want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee, particularly the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who worked so assiduously to achieve the amendments of which the Deputy Prime Minister spoke and which have vastly improved the Bill.

Immediately prior to the Bill's receiving second reading in the House last May 11, I put before Members what I believed was the agreement between the Government and my Party with respect to Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. As Members know, and as spokesmen for our Party have made clear in debate and before committee, we welcome the establishment of this Institute. Indeed, our Leader indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last April 9, after receiving the draft Bill from the Prime Minister, that the requirement in Canada for institutional restructuring and innovation in this field is beyond question. However, as was made clear to the Government both before and after Bill C-32 was introduced into the House, we viewed the Bill as proposed to be fatally flawed in respect of the lack of independence of the centre, its lack of accountability to Parliament, and the politically negative effect that private funding of the centre might have on existing indigenous centres of research.

I need not refer today to the lengthy and very productive exchanges between the Prime Minister and my Leader which led the Government to support substantial amendments to this Bill prior to its receiving second reading support last May 11. These amendments would strengthen the independence and integrity of the Institute and provide for an appointment process which would leave no room for doubt that the board of directors would be non-partisan and would enjoy the confidence and support of all Parties. At that time I was able to report to the House, as reported at page 3656 of Hansard, the three main points of agreement between the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Hansard reads:

First, the Government has accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that consultations on the composition of the board of directors start immediately, especially with respect to the appointment of the chairman and the executive director, as they will be key appointments for establishing the tone and quality of the institute. Second, the Government has agreed to immediate consultation with national organizations and interested Canadians with respect to receiving nominations for the board of directors. It is our expectation, as I know it to be the Prime Minister's, that there will be full agreement on the composition of the board of directors prior to the end of committee consideration of the Bill. Third, concurrent with this consultation, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will be examining the Bill and recommending a formal list of national organizations which, once the Bill is passed, will become the pool from which nominees for the board of directors will be selected.

I believe this process has been respected and that consultations have been meaningful, that Canadians have participated fully in the selection of candidates for the board of directors and that the process itself has underscored the independence and integrity of the Institute.

In committee the Government presented the full and detailed amendments to which I reported agreement last May 11 and which we now have before us today.

With respect to the selection of the board of directors, the Deputy Prime Minister and I began consultations on May 25 with a view to reaching agreement on the board of directors prior to the end of committee consideration of the Bill. At that time, on behalf of my Leader, I recommended to the Deputy Prime Minister the following criteria in considering candidates for the chairmanship and executive directorship of the Institute, criteria which would enhance, I believe, the integrity and independence of the board: first, it is imperative that we consider the chairmanship and executive directorship together as a team; second, we would recommend that no present bureaucrats be considered for either position; third, it is important that the executive director in particular have academic credibility; four, these appointments should reflect concern for and competence in both disarmament and security matters; five, we would like to consider a woman for at least one of these positions.

I was most pleased when the Deputy Prime Minister put into play candidates who clearly met these criteria, and on behalf of my Leader I indicated that our Party would have no objection to these nominees.

With respect to the board of directors, at a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister on June 1, I suggested the following criteria for selection of candidates, again with a view to enhancing the independence and integrity of the Institute: first, they should be broadly representative of the existing indigenous research community. Second, they should be nominated from the pool of recommendations the committee is receiving. Third, as the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) stated in the House, the board should not include any serving bureaucrats. Fourth, the board should include at least five women. Fifth, while the Act provides for up to seven foreign directors, we would recommend that initially there be no more than three. Six, that there be a geographical and language balance.

Current with our discussions, the Standing Committee and the Secretary of State for External Affairs initiated a detailed consultative process with national organizations and interest groups to elicit their nomination for the Board. Out of this list, and respecting the criteria outlined above, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me on June 12 and proposed the list which he has presented to the House today. It will not be necessary for me to go over that list in my remarks.

After reviewing this list with my Leader, I reported to the Deputy Prime Minister that my Party had no objection to the nominees as put forward by the Government. It is our expectation that the Government will continue to act in good faith and adhere to these nominees. Should any nominee withdraw his or her nomination, we would expect the Government to re-establish the consultation process with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) until such time as the first board of directors is in place. And it is on this basis that my Party gives its approval to this Bill.

I next received a call from the Deputy Prime Minister on June 21 indicating that consensus could not be reached at this time respecting the Government's nominee for executive direc-

June 28, 1984

tor, and the Deputy Prime Minister suggested an alternate course which, if acceptable, would preserve the integrity of the board without putting into jeopardy the substantial agreement between the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Specifically, he suggested that the Government nominate the board of directors as I have outlined and leave to the board itself the election of a chairman and executive director out of the existing membership. To ensure that such voting was done only by the Canadian-based nominees, any foreign-based nominations would not be made until after the selection of the chairman and executive director had been completed.

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister today for his putting on the record the commitment of the future Prime Minister to honour the undertakings as presented to the House today. While this was a change from our earlier understanding, I indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that we would have no objection to this procedure.

The committee has now reported on the Bill and the amendments reflect the points of agreement I have described to the House.

The establishment of a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is a substantial achievement. It is fitting that it should have been the subject of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech today, it being in all likelihood the last one he will be making to the House.

I am happy to acknowledge that the Bill before us today represents a substantial improvement to the original draft Bill. This is a tribute to the Government and to the Leader of the Opposition. I commend them for their genuine contribution to achieving a process which has enhanced the integrity and independence of the Institute.

Now, as the Institute is formed and in its early days, we must all continue to be vigilant so that the gains which have been made over the past number of months might continue to characterize the Institute. We have the genesis of a world-class Institute with integrity and with public support.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Pauline Jewett

New Democratic Party

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, I almost had a catch in my throat when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), in his speech today, said that it would probably be his last speech since he will not be running again for a seat in the House of Commons. We may see him at the U.N. or perhaps in the Senate, but we are bound to see him again. Many of us are sorry that we will not see him here.

I am pleased that in what is probably his last speech he was able to speak on this extremely important Bill to create a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.

I would also like to say that we in this Party have been very appreciative of the efforts made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs to create this Institute. I think it is largely owing to the zeal of the Prime Minister that such an Institute should be created that we now have the Bill before us. I suggest that the award

International Peace and Security of the Albert Einstein peace prize to the Prime Minister the other day is a tribute to the efforts he has made in his pilgrimage of peace. More importantly, I feel that he is leaving a lasting contribution as a result of the Bill we are discussing today.

The Minister has had to do much of the work in consultations with the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, with my Leader and myself to bring the Bill to its present excellent form. May I say, Mr. Speaker, he has also been assisted enormously by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. That Hon. Member showed great patience and understanding throughout the very long and somewhat strained deliberations in committee. The fact that the Bill should now be in the House for third reading is due in no small measure to the excellent conduct of the committee by its Chairman. I know he is not leaving politics, but if he were this too would be a very fitting tribute to him to have accomplished so much.

I think we should once again recall the title of the Bill and the name of the new Institute, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Some of us in this Party would have liked to put in the word "research" and called it the Canadian Research Institute for International Peace and Security, but that was not approved by a majority in the committee. As one reads the purpose of the Bill as newly defined, one sees that a good deal of its purpose will embody the fostering of research.

It is the other part of the title of the Institute that I want to say a word or two about. It is an Institute for International Peace and Security. The word "international" prefaces both peace and security. We are talking about international peace and international security. It brings to mind the efforts that were made by people like Olof Palme and the members of the Palme Commission a few years ago when they were studying disarmament issues and who coined the phrase "a common security". When they talk about security, they are not talking about it in terms of each nation building up its defences, each nation vying with others to be as militarily strong or, if possible, superior to others. Not at all. They are talking about, and I think it is implicit in the new Canadian Institute title, a common security, the wish of all of us to reach a position where there is international security which is a common security. It is therefore extremely important for me, at any rate, and for members of this Party that the Institute should be dedicated both to international peace and international security.

We feel that the purpose clause as studied and drafted and redrafted has come through very strongly indeed, taking many of the ideas brought to us by witnesses before the committee and from many of the submissions made to the committee. Perhaps since other speakers have not mentioned it, let me put on the record the purpose clause, which is Clause 4 of the Bill. It reads:

June 28, 1984

International Peace and Security

4. The purpose of the Institute is to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective, with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution, and to

(a) foster, fund and conduct research on matters relating to international peace and security;

(b) promote scholarship in matters relating to international peace and security;

(c) study and propose ideas and policies for the enhancement of international peace and security;

(d) collect and disseminate information on, and encourage public discussion of, issues of international peace and security.

Other important amendments were made to the Bill, some proposed by the Government and some proposed by the Opposition Parties. I would mention particularly the enhancement of the role of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the strengthening of broad and general parliamentary oversight. Some amendments we would have liked to see did not get through. We would have liked at least half of the board of directors to be women and we are sorry that in this first list only four are women. The reason I mention that particularly, Mr. Speaker, is that from the Voice of Women onwards Canadian women have played such an incredibly important and strong role in the peace and disarmament movement in this country. I would only hope subsequent appointments will show a greater recognition of their enormous efforts of these many decades.

One puzzle that remains, and the Minister in reply to my question did not entirely resolve it, is if the board of directors, after it chooses its chairman from among its number-and it seems quite appropriate that it choose its chairman from among its number-should decide that it would like to look outside its membership for an executive director, it is not entirely clear yet to me that it can do so. At the meeting of the standing committee, the Minister implied that it could do so, and in answer to my question today he still left the door slightly ajar for that to be possible. But I would have liked that point to have been made more explicit.

It seems to me the position of executive director is absolutely crucial to the success of the Institute. A search should be made to ensure that the very strongest and best Canadian be chosen for this position. The best way would be for the 14 Canadian members of the board to establish a search committee, a very common practice in the academic world, to receive and accept applications for executive director. Then this committee would conduct a series of hearings with such nominees in order to ensure that the very best executive director is chosen. If a person outside the board were so chosen, then by the Governor in Council that person would be made a member of the board. This would then raise the board membership to 15, leaving two spaces for non-Canadians. When the Minister is talking with members of the board, the first 14, I hope he will make it clear that that oportunity is open to them. We have had many discussions, the Minister and I, about the very important role of the executive director and about the kind of person who might well be chosen for that position. I know that many members of the disarmament community have also given this matter a great deal of thought and have provided a great

deal of input as to the kind of executive director they think would be best for a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.

I hope it is clearly understood that the 14 Canadian directors could indeed establish such a search committee, go outside their number, find a person they consider best for the position of executive director, and have that executive director then made a member of the board.

I am worried that the amended Clause 7 does not provide for this. It indicates that the first executive director shall be elected by the board from among its members, yet the Minister indicated in committee that the first executive director could be chosen in the way which I have just outlined and then be made a member of the board. I am assuming that this is possible.

We in this Party are very glad that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security is to become a reality before the end of this session of Parliament. We have been glad to assist in a variety of ways, which I hope have been helpful to the Minister and to the chairman of the committee, to ensure that the Institute would be a world-class Institute and that it would at least have sufficient funds to get started. We are very supportive of all the efforts which I know the board will make to ensure that the Institute is the world-class Institute we all want it to be.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

June 28, 1984