Mr. Speaker, this was not my question, but since the Hon. Member brought it up, I am a little disturbed about his concern over the peace group being sponsored by my office. I am glad to sponsor any legitimate peace group which wants to have a meeting on the Hill if a room is available. All Members have this privilege. It is my understanding this group talked to the other Parties, it was not a single Party operation. What they are trying to do is worthwhile. I am a little surprised that the Hon. Member would see this as a partisan effort because we have both worked together very hard on this thing.
I want to preface my question by saying that it is extremely important to us both that this be the most independent body we can possibly find. We know what it was like when we were sitting in committee and listening to one-sided information coming steadily at us. The Hon. Member would remove the word "shall", and we talked about replacing it with "may". I agree with that entirely but I suggest we should leave the clause in. I would like him to think about this and comment on it.
It seems to me that if the clause was left in, then there would be no question about whether the Government could make a private agreement with the institute, that it would do what it is asked to do. However, if the word "may" were left in, then the organization itself could say: "But it says "may"; that means we may not if we do not want to". I suggest that would be a much better idea in order to give it the kind of
April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
independence we want it to have. I say this with the idea in mind that 1 want this thing to be completely independent.
Topic: GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic: CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY