Jan Brown

[Petitions, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Statutory Program Evaluation Act, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in the debate from the perspective of a member of the House who is here to represent the constituents of Calgary Southeast.

I know why I came to Parliament. I came here to look for accountability. I came here to look for responsibility. I came here to make a difference. Those elements of my life are extremely important to me.

As I listened to my colleagues tonight I was absolutely astounded and amazed to realize how very little a part I can play in actually touching the heartbeat of government when I will not be able to make a difference in 71 per cent of its program spending.

This was a tremendous surprise to me and I guess I would have to say a major disappointment. In everything I do as I represent constituents of Calgary Southeast I look at the questions that were asked by my colleague from St. Albert. Is what I am doing relevant? That would apply to anything I would be reviewing here. Certainly when I look at applications that come from the human resources department for grants and applications to help employment opportunities, I always ask a question of the submission: Is it relevant?

What kind of effect will that relevance have not only on the constituents I represent but on all Canadians? I get all kinds of letters as do all members from constituents who are extremely frustrated with the spending practices not only of the government but governments of the past. If it does not pass the test of relevancy then I have to ask the question: Why not? What can we do to make it better? What can we do to fix it?

When looking at effectiveness and meeting its objectives I have to ask: Are the objectives even established? I cannot say the number of times I have looked at projects or proposals and there has been no long range planning.

The minister of defence has been challenged many times in the last month on looking at meeting objectives and having objectives for spending. They have been missing. I was absolutely amazed and appalled that although short term goals were

laid out in the budget that were to be met, the long range goal must have been missing. All kinds of changes to the budget came after the fact.

The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage has been challenged a number of times on changes made to budget statements and to program estimates. If we are not effective in establishing objectives, how can we possibly hope to meet them if they are missing from the documentation?

I came here to vote on absolutely everything. On any piece of legislation that came before the House I wanted to give expression to what I felt was important. It disturbs me when 71 per cent of the decisions we make in the House of Commons are non-votable items. Canadians must be absolutely appalled to be hearing that tonight. I certainly am stunned to hear of that kind of spending without any accountability to anybody.

Where is the openness? Where is the effectiveness of the money I am giving to the government through my tax dollars? Where is the accountability?

Another question I often put when I receive requests for assistance is: Is the delivery efficient? If it is not, how can we continue to go through the process over and over again of giving money to the same kinds of programs without even looking at the efficiencies?

Once again we come back to objectives. Are their objectives in place? Are those objectives being met? In the corporate sector everybody always evaluates what they do. Business would not survive if it did not have that part of the expenditure process at the end of every year where an evaluation based on delivery is actually done.

My husband works in the corporate sector. Believe me, he is accountable to his managers and they in turn are accountable to their superiors to look at efficient and effective delivery of product. If that does not happen, they are out of business.

Then we come to the final question: Is there a better way? My colleagues from St. Albert in all good faith brought forward a non-votable bill. This is the place for rational and reasoned debate. This is where we should be able to talk about the issues of the day, to have a broad discussion with everyone participating.

What do we have? We have a handful of people standing in the House tonight talking about a major concern for Canadians: accountability in terms of how we spend money. It is disappointing to hear that we are doing well enough and that we can defend the status quo because we truly are into new times that demand a different point of view, a different way of doing business. If we undertake to look at it honestly and directly from a different point of view, we will be able to hold government accountable. We as parliamentarians will be able to stand in front of our constituents and say that we made a difference in the 35th Parliament.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present another petition in this course of action I have undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to them serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens, their families and the families of the victims of crime.

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill today.

I strongly support the initiative to split the bill. Splitting the bill would allow us to deal separately with the proposed changes to the Criminal Code and the proposed changes to firearms restrictions such as registration.

The issue of gun control stirs great emotion in the hearts of so many of us. This demonstrates to me a pressing need for Parliament to allow free votes on this matter. I am sure there are more than a few Liberal backbenchers who agree with me on this point.

My constituents, as far as I have ascertained, are struggling with all of the arguments and appear split on the issue. I recognize there are good arguments to be made for both positions. However, today I will address, as we are meant to do at second reading, the intent of the legislation.

Remember, the Liberals consider this bill to be a substantial component of their so-called safe streets package. I am going to address three safe streets issues that this bill, in my view, fails to address: guns in the commission of violence against women; guns used in suicides; and guns used by gangs.

As parliamentarians we face difficult issues. As a member of the Reform caucus I acknowledge that I have the freedom to follow the wishes of my constituents on issues such as these. I believe that for too long now the voices of average Canadians have not been heard. In fact, they have been completely ignored.

I believe it is my job to represent the constituents of Calgary Southeast in this Chamber. I strive in everything I do to bring their views to Ottawa. Members of Parliament have many opportunities to listen to their constituents. Letters, phone calls, faxes, newsletters and Internet are all wonderful vehicles to highlight constituents' concerns. In turn, I have made every effort to bring the issues of the day to the constituents.

On the matter of gun control specifically, I ran a survey in the late summer of 1994 in my householder. Slightly more than 400 people responded to the more than 51,000 mailed. This in my view does not represent any kind of a credible sample. I am therefore undertaking another effort on the same issue using a new voter technology incorporating the convergence of telephone and computer.

I expect a much higher rate of response and my vote will be dependent upon the consensus view as expressed by the constituents of Calgary Southeast. No amount of pressure from lobby groups will interfere with this democratic and populist process. Of the hundreds of letters, faxes and phone calls that I receive, most come from a well orchestrated lobby outside my riding. Rest assured, and I want to be unequivocally clear here, my objective is to achieve consensus with only the residents of Calgary Southeast.

According to the minister, this piece of legislation is meant to make our streets safer for Canadians. Unfortunately, the measures in this bill do not address some relevant concerns. We in the Reform Party will support any initiatives that address the rights of victims and will also address the issue of public safety.

I previously asked a question of the Minister of Justice about this legislation. I am concerned that it does very little to address the root causes of crime, especially those of violence against women.

I remind the House that the Liberals introduced gun controls in 1977. The Tories imposed more controls in 1990. We have had gun registration in Canada since 1934. Despite all of these controls and restrictions accompanied by haphazard enforcement, rates of spousal homicides have remained constant for the last 29 years.

Clearly the problems of domestic violence are not caused by unregistered guns. How can the minister suggest as he has that registering a gun will keep someone from using it to kill their spouse? In fact he has yet to put forward an acceptable and reasoned argument to support that suggestion.

Domestic violence is a serious problem which needs to be remedied, but gun controls will do nothing to address this problem. Less than half of all spousal homicides are committed with guns whether they are registered or not.

The National Crime Prevention Council is studying violence against women and children. The heritage ministry is studying violence in broadcasting. The health ministry is studying violence against women and children. Domestic violence has been studied for over 20 years. It has been studied to death and there has been no action. Why is the Minister of Justice focusing on guns instead of looking at measures to address the root causes of violence in our society?

Violence against women is a sordid reality and not a fantasy confined to the pages of a tabloid newspaper or a pornographic magazine. The history of violence against women is like Pandora's box that opens and reveals the ugliest side of the human condition. We would expect by now that complacency would be

shattered in the details of horror and abuse that so many women have lived to tell, and what of those who have died?

It was inexcusable for the justice minister who professes to champion women to artfully dodge my questions posed in this House. We do not need the minister's platitudes nor his citing of statistics to tell us that we have a problem of domestic violence in this country. What specific plans does this government have to get at the root causes of violence against women?

Until gender roles are eliminated, until the family no longer serves that convenient arena for male violence, until wife beating is no longer a logical extension of male domination, and until our justice system demonstrates its capacity for justice, we do not have a blueprint for change. Intellectual and political anguish have become meaningless. Violence against women exists. We have endured enough. These gun control measures do little or nothing to address it.

The measures in Bill C-68 simply fail to go far enough. What we need are measures which will deal effectively with the criminal use of firearms. Unfortunately, the legislation provides only minimum sentences of four years for the commission of any of 10 specific violent offences with a firearm. The legislation does not require that these sentences be consecutive to other sentences. This leaves open the possibility that such sentences could be concurrent.

The Canadian public is no longer satisfied with the judiciary giving out concurrent sentences, especially for violent crimes committed with a firearm. It is time that individuals who commit crimes and multiple criminal infractions with guns paid for their mistakes to the full extent of the law.

In response to a question on March 23, the Minister of Justice suggested that his gun control bill would address the use of firearms in suicides. These sentiments are carefully crafted and indeed noble, yet there are no provisions within this bill which will reduce the use of firearms in suicides. In fact, short of banning all firearms, I can think of no gun control measures which will curb this phenomenon.

Since the gun controls introduced in 1978, the suicide figures for Canada have remained fairly stable. So too have the number of suicides committed with firearms. Suicide is a tragic consequence of current societal dysfunction and particularly so for our native communities where the problem is proportionately greater. Banning guns is not the solution. Statistically, guns are not often used in a suicide attempt. In 1992 only 1.3 per cent of the suicides were committed with guns.

More important, people who attempt a suicide need help. They need to know there are many in this country who are working to ensure personal autonomy, socially and economically. Greater economic opportunities will encourage this objective. Giving people a new start is all that some will need.

Let us not be foolish in our approach. We will not solve the problem of suicides by banning and restricting guns.

Another issue which this bill fails to address is the growing problem of gang crime. The proposals will do nothing to prevent the commission of crimes by gangs. This is an increasingly frightening problem in our urban centres. We cannot continue to address the problem after the fact. We treat the wounded or bury the dead, sometimes lay charges and even convict. Would it not be more effective to implement those measures which would prevent the commission of these senseless acts of violence?

The Reform Party has consistently argued for more vigorous sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. We have recommended the elimination of firearms charge plea bargaining. If the charges are consistently thrown out, why would criminals worry about using a firearm? We support attacking the healthy gun smuggling trade. We have already discussed substantially increasing the penalties for the use of firearms in crime. We should start an overhaul of our prison system.

Finally, what the bill fails to address and what the government fails to realize is that we need to come to terms with what drives people to violence.

In conclusion, I wish to remind the House that this bill deals with at least two substantively different matters. It deals with registration of firearms as well as their criminal use and distribution.

I would also like to reiterate that I will consult with my constituents and will make every effort to reflect their wishes on this bill in the House.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in a course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early release of Robert Paul Thompson from prison.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making the streets safer for citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murders.

[Arts, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a proud day for Calgarians. Yesterday Calgary's Jan Arden swept the Juno awards by winning in three categories: female vocalist of the year, best single of the year and songwrit-

er of the year. It is the artistic excellence exemplified by Jan Arden that typifies the superior calibre of art in Canada. The future success for Canadian artists is boundless.

Another group bound for success hails from Newfoundland, a province that has produced more than its fair share of Canadian stars. Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland is a theatre company trying to raise funds to take its production to the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh.

Instead of seeking financial support from the government it has focused its attention on raising funds from the corporate sector. David Somers, a spokesperson for the company, said: "I am not under the impression that anybody owes us anything as actors or theatre people. It is entirely up to the artistic community to ensure its own survival. Businesses have been funding plays since Shakespeare's time and probably before".

With an attitude like that we know the group will be a success. This is a proud day for Newfoundlanders, Calgarians and all Canadians from St. John's to Victoria.

[Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-288, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel. I acknowledge and appreciate the point of view brought forward by my colleague and friend from Rimouski-Témiscouata.

As a member of Parliament from Alberta, I am well aware of the controversial role that Louis Riel played in the political development of the west. Some historians depict Riel as a traitor who openly rebelled against Ottawa. Others consider him a father of Confederation who in 1870 negotiated Manitoba's entry into the dominion. Still others consider him the founder of western alienation movements which have protested central Canadian political and economic power.

For over a century now this historiographical debate has been raging as to whether Riel was a traitor or a martyr. I do not believe we will resolve that debate today. Having said that, I believe it is inappropriate as well as unnecessary to revisit and to rewrite our national history. Granted, some of the decisions taken in the Riel trial are questionable, but I am not convinced this bill was put forward to simply right a perceived wrong.

Thus far in the 35th Parliament, two Bloc Quebecois initiatives with revisionist undertones have been debated. First there was Motion No. 257 which set out to officially sanction at the federal level Patriots Day. On November 1, 1994 I cautioned the House that if it adopted the motion of the hon. member for Verchères we would be galvanizing support for a celebration with sovereigntist undertones.

In addition to the examples I presented to the House last November, I have since discovered another one. It is in a scene from Denis Falardeau's latest film Octobre . As most of us know, its production was heavily financed by the National Film Board as well as by Telefilm. At one point in the film the FLQ kidnappers of Pierre Laporte made reference to their historical and emotional ties with the Patriotes' objectives during the 1837-38 rebellion.

Now the House is debating Bill C-288. Our hon. colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata knows full well the controversy surrounding the conviction of Louis Riel and the national schism which followed his hanging and her eloquence was a statement of that. In 1885 there was a shared minority complex between the French Canadians and the Metis people. Both groups were francophone and both groups were Catholic.

Today some members of the Bloc Quebecois are siding with francophones outside Quebec in their fight for greater rights. Since the collapse of the États généraux du Canada-français in 1968 and more recently during the Mahé case heard by the

Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec nationalists have not always stood up alongside the various francophone communities in their struggles against their respective governments. Now there seems to be a renewed sense of co-operation between the Quebecois and the francophone diaspora.

With this bill the Bloc Quebecois would more than likely win the support of the franco-Manitoban and Fransaskois communities as well as gaining some sympathy for their cessionist cause. The franco-Manitobans and the Fransaskois alike must not forget that the BQ is working toward separation. The BQ may be considered in this case a circumspect ally.

However, in 1885 the French Canadians were not circumspect allies of the Metis. They were genuinely outraged at the supposed mockery of justice perpetrated against Louis Riel.

Considered by the Metis people as a hero who negotiated the Red River colony's entry into Confederation, Riel was once again called upon by his people in 1884 to lead the newest struggle against Ottawa encroachment on their land.

Riel and his followers took up arms against federal troops. Outmanned and outgunned, Riel finally surrendered on May 15, 1885. The prisoner was subsequently transferred to Regina for his trial. On August 1, after only a half hour of deliberation, the jury found Louis Riel guilty of high treason. Under British law, high treason was punishable by death.

The conviction and subsequent hanging of Riel in Regina created great upheaval in Quebec. On November 17, the day following the execution, Honoré Mercier founded a new political party which included bleus as well as rouges outraged by Riel's hanging. The main objective of the new Parti National was to oust Sir John A. Macdonald and his cabinet. One of the Parti national's goals was to canalise and perpetuate the solidarity created among the French-speaking Canadians by the Riel affair.

A week after the hanging a rally at the Champs de Mars in downtown Montreal attracted thousands. The crowd gathered to express its frustration with how English Canada had treated one of its own in the west. Honoré Mercier started his now famous speech with a call for solidarity: "Riel, notre frère est mort-"

Mercier went on to say: "By killing Riel, sir John not only hit our race in the heart, but he mostly hurt the cause of justice and humanity, which, represented in all languages and blessed by all religions, appealed for clemency on behalf of the Regina prisoner, our poor brother from the Northwest".

Also during the rally resolutions were passed which stated:

"Whereas it is obvious that the government used this execution purely for political gain; that it coldly calculated how many ridings would be lost to a policy of clemency and justice; that as a result of these calculations, it sacrificed our brother to the hate of fanatics, allowing them to turn against one another the various races who, in this country, live under the protection of the English flag; RESOLVED: That, by executing Louis Riel on November 16, the government of sir John A. Macdonald committed an inhuman and cruel act unworthy of a civilized nation, and especially deserves the reprobation of all citizens of this province".

I am afraid Bill C-288 will evoke if not stir these sentiments of English Canada versus those of French Canada once again. On the eve of one of our country's most passionate debates the Bloc Quebecois perhaps is evoking controversial episodes of our national history, episodes that tore at the very fabric of our country. First there was motion 257 which dealt with the Patriots and now there is Bill C-288 which deals with Louis Riel.

Further to this discussion, Jeffrey Simpson stated in his December 20, 1994 article in the Globe and Mail entitled ``The Liberals refuse the queue that's trying to wag the government'':

History is always being rewritten, so that the devils of yesterday sometimes become the martyrs of today, and heroes in their time often lose their lustre with the passing of years. Understanding history is critical so that the errors of the past are not repeated, but retrospective justice asks today's Canadians to pay for decisions they had no part in making.

Jeffrey Simpson is right. We must understand our past so that we may forge ahead. The hanging of Louis Riel created a great uproar all across the land, especially in Quebec. Instead of evoking controversial elements of our past, should we not as legislators be looking for solutions to today's problems?

I find it regrettable that the House is spending this time debating issues such as these. All of us as parliamentarians should be concentrating our efforts on finding solutions to present day problems. By saying this I in no way mean that we should not be proud of our history, that we should not become more familiar with controversial episodes of our national history and that we should not forget where we come from because as Donald Creighton, one of Canada's foremost scholars, argues, for a solution to a political problem to be efficient, it must be based on a sound understanding of history.

When I say the House should be debating present day problems, I mean there are so many issues, political, economic, social, of great consequence. Even my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois would agree these are the things we should be

debating on the floor of the House instead of arguing whether Louis Riel was a martyr or a traitor. That task may be better left to historians.

Without a doubt Louis Riel is a controversial figure in Canadian history. Some consider him a traitor, others a martyr and still others consider him the founder of the western alienation movements.

Who are we as parliamentarians to revisit events which took place over a century ago and pass judgment on them?

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify something once again for the member. I do thank him for his question.

The focus of my presentation today was on strategic military planning for the Canadian Armed Forces. That included examples of the airborne, the open ended peacekeeping missions and the closure of Calgary CFB. Those examples were drawn specifically to demonstrate the lack of and the need for long term strategic planning within the military.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. Are the videos a mere coincidence?

I have a constituent who was part of the airborne regiment. He has called me a number of times. He is heart sick over the events of the disbanding of the airborne regiment. He said to me: "You cannot imagine how it feels to know that with a tradition that has lasted for decades, I am one of the members of the airborne regiment which in a sense has been dishonoured in the Canadian context of the military tradition. I have to live with that always". It is a very unfortunate and tragic result.

In the year between these events and now much happened within the airborne regiment to clean it up. It is unfortunate that was not acknowledge or recognized as the decision was undertaken.

I raise the issue on behalf of the constituent who was part of the airborne regiment and because of the military tradition for which Calgary is noted. I hope the Minister of National Defence, as he prepares another reaction force and a ready force to protect Canadian soil, will acknowledge the tremendous contributions and traditions of the airborne regiment. It is an absolute sacrilege that it was disbanded.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour for me to rise to speak to the motion today. I state at the outset that my comments will reflect a contribution to the debate in a reasoned manner. We all come from different ideologies and perspectives on the issues and I believe my remarks reflect that.

As I speak today I will be considering what I see as a lack of strategic planning from the government regarding its management and administration of the Canadian forces. The government perhaps has let partisan politics interfere with the operations of our military.

Our national defence force is the guardian of our freedoms and a reflection of our values. It is being neglected by a government that does not appear to understand the meaning of an overall strategic plan for military operations in Canada and abroad.

Many examples come to mind. The disbandment of the Canadian airborne regiment for political expediency, base closures, relocations and open-ended peacekeeping missions are stark evidence of what it means to have no plan. I will be referring to these examples to demonstrate my point that the government has an obligation to the armed forces which includes accountability for planning and expenditure of tax dollars.

The decision to disband the airborne regiment seems to have been an overreaction on the part of government for politically expedient reasons. There is no question that the videos were disturbing. Many Canadians felt as I did, but I question whether the actions of a few individual soldiers merit the elimination of an entire regiment.

The airborne had a long and distinguished history. Airborne soldiers served gallantly in many of the world's most troubled areas in military and peacekeeping capacities. This fact should not be overlooked. Judging the airborne on its long and valued service, disbandment because of the actions of a few hardly seems rational. To add insult to injury, I have learned that the soldiers serving in the airborne regiment in Somalia, who for the most part performed brilliantly, have not yet received their medals.

A quick reaction force which the airborne represents is still needed in Canada. At this point the Minister of National Defence acknowledges but has yet to propose a replacement for the airborne. His lack of action leaves Canada without an important and necessary element to our national defence. This is an unacceptable situation for Canada.

One wonders what the long awaited public inquiry will uncover. By disbanding the airborne perhaps the government hoped to avoid answering some of the more troubling questions that have been raised with regard to high level cover-ups resulting from Canadian conduct in Somalia.

How readily will lower ranked soldiers come forward and tell what they know? What effect could such actions have on their future careers? Could they be subject to later intimidation by higher ranking officers?

The decision to close down and relocate CFB Calgary to Edmonton is another example of where our military needs have not received the highest priority. Is Calgary being punished because it elected only reform MPs in 1993? There have been allusions to this very point.

Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid wrote on Tuesday, February 28: ``Documents obtained through access to information show that there are no sound economic or military reasons for this move''. He went on to express the opinion of many others that closing CFB Edmonton may be less costly than the closure of the Calgary base.

Cost benefit analysis would be useful to determine the wisdom of the decision. However without any analysis available I for one remain skeptical of the motive. Past experience has demonstrated that predicted relocation costs have proven to be wrong.

In last year's budget the Harvey barracks which housed the Lord Strathcona's Horse, the Royal Canadian, was slated to move to Edmonton. At the time of last year's budget the defence minister estimated that the cost of the move would be roughly $23 million. He has since admitted that the cost will be nearer $70 million with some speculating that the final amount could reach $150 million.

These high costs for the relocation of one part of the base lead me to wonder how much the final tally will be to relocate the entire base to Edmonton. The lingering impression is that of political expediency.

I do not want to leave the impression that the Reform Party is against the reorganization of our military forces. However the reorganization must be done for the right reasons, namely cost efficiency within our forces while maintaining effective military capability. Strategic necessity dictates that government cease using the Canadian forces as the political football.

Calgarians will accept the base closing if it can be proven that the $300 million cost of consolidating the bases in Edmonton will save money in the long run. However if no true economic savings results in the consolidation, Calgarians, those from my riding of Calgary Southeast and all other Albertans will remember. The national energy program disaster has not been forgotten in the west.

Any base relocation should be undertaken on the basis of planning and efficiencies. Detailed cost analysis studies should be completed to determine what bases should be kept open and which should be closed.

Another point is directed to our peacekeeping commitments around the globe. In my maiden speech in the House I spoke of the tragic conflict in Bosnia and the involvement of our Canadian soldiers in a war without end. My fear at the time was that the Canadian presence in Bosnia was not lessening the fighting but sustaining it. The aid we were providing was often stolen by the warring factions thus feeding the fighting that Canadians were trying to end. A bottomless IV bag sustaining a killing machine was my expression of the problem at the time. I still hold the same opinion today.

Canadian soldiers remain in a war zone with no peace to keep nor make. We have committed a Canadian presence in the region for an indefinite period of time and for an indefinite expenditure. Our cash strapped government has yet to implement a long range plan for such open-ended commitments.

Canada needs a clear set of guidelines for foreign intervention. We must continue our longstanding tradition of keeping peace in the world's troubled spots but after a conflict has been resolved. Canada's contributions to sustaining peace in the world's conflicts have been second to none. However, in a time of budgetary restraint, open ended missions costing staggering sums of money should be carefully reviewed.

Since the end of World War II Canada has spent tens of billions of dollars on peacekeeping. Logically questions arise for all of us to consider. What is our role in the volatile area? What is the potential length of the mission? What will such undertakings cost?

I do not want to leave the impression that I do not salute or acknowledge the valuable endeavours of our military the world over. However, we cannot conceivably embark on missions which last for decades at a time. Canadians were in Cyprus for 30 years. Our soldiers had been keeping peace between India and Pakistan for 45 years. Recently more Canadians have been sent to Haiti.

Members might argue all of these tours of duty are necessary. If that is so, how do they suggest we finance these commitments when we have no military plan?

We have a responsibility to all Canadians to spend their money wisely. Therefore, the missions Canada undertakes must be planned according to cost, in those places where Canadians can securely and effectively keep the peace within a timeframe for withdrawal.

I impress on all members that in a still dangerous world where governments have less and less money Canada's armed forces must adapt to fulfil its basic responsibilities in Canada and abroad. For this to happen government must manage the forces in a strictly professional manner, free of political manipulation.

The government must develop new operational techniques to ensure the military uses its financial resources in the most efficient way possible. This fits into the larger context of strategic planning which should be incorporated into all aspects of military activity so that our honourable military tradition continues untarnished.