Jean-Marc Jacob

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to speak in this House although some issues are rather sad and distressing to discuss.

I will not remind you of the decisions that were recently made by the new defense minister but rather give you some background to shed some light on the problems in the armed forces, whose reputation the Bloc is trying to tarnish according to some Liberal members. I will go over certain facts and give you some background.

In 1985, the now dead-and-gone airborne regiment was under investigation. Of the 568 members of that regiment, 112 had a record with the military police and 89 with the civilian police. Military leaders were ordered to take steps to remedy the situation, but things did not improve.

In 1992, at CFB Petawawa where the now defunct airborne regiment was based, Colonel Morneau indicated to the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General John de Chastelain, that the regiment was not adequately trained for this kind of mission and recommended that it not be deployed in Somalia.

General de Chastelain was near the end of his mandate, but he nevertheless ordered the deployment of the regiment, knowing as he did that the following month he would be the new consul in Washington, in the United States. That was in December 1992.

In January 1993 there was a new Chief of Defence Staff, John Anderson. He travelled to Somalia in February and early March with Bob Fowler and other generals. All were well placed to see the somewhat aggressive or racist behaviour already reported. Moreover, if memory serves, the commander there at the time was reprimanded. This was Commander Seward, I believe. He was reprimanded, and fined as well, for excessively aggressive activities toward the Somalis.

During that visit, neither Mr. Fowler nor General Anderson reported any abnormal incidents. Curiously, General John Anderson was there two days after the first incident involving young Shidane Arone on March 4, but there was no report.

Six weeks later, the military police decided to launch an investigation. We know what happened then. They immediately found one guilty party, Kyle Brown. He was charged and sentenced to five years in prison. The officers and non-commissioned officers were found not guilty. There were a few reprimands, promotions were frozen; that was it.

Time passed. In 1993, public pressure for something to be done started to build up. Incidents continued to occur. You will recall that, in February and March of 1994-some members will say that it was the Bloc again trying to sully the name of the armed forces, which is far from the case-it was reported that certain members of the Airborne Regiment at Petawawa were going around with Ku Klux Klan pennants and flying Nazi flags on Canadian Forces vehicles. Colonel Kenward was in charge at the time, and this was tolerated-no problem.

The situation just went from bad to worse. It was not simply the Somalia affair, but a combination of everything that was going on.

Under public pressure, the former Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Don Valley East, announced the creation of a commission of inquiry into the Somalia incidents, stating that the full truth would be known, and that everyone would be called to testify before the commission.

It should be recalled that around the month of October 1995, in this Chamber, members of both the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois accused the Minister of National Defence of the day of having contrived with the armed forces, to a certain extent, to prevent the inquiry from obtaining documents.

I recall very well that the then minister of Defence had blown a fuse, much like the current minister did yesterday. It was quite a show. How dare we question the integrity of our armed forces?

I would like to point out that if we are simply listing facts, it is not to tarnish reputations, as some may think. I regret, but these are facts. Members will recall that things which happened in 1994 were revealed recently.

The funny thing with the armed forces is that the truth always comes out, two to three years after the facts, like the incidents of Bacovici, sexual abuse at Wainwright, or fraud and embezzlement at CFB Valcartier. The list goes on and on. It might be added that even a civilian working for National Defence headquarters managed to organize a pornography ring from within the department.

This situation must certainly be due to a glitch in operations. Early in 1995, I read a report of Brigadier-General Jeffries which said that the problem in the armed forces which could lead to some

shall we say deviant behaviour among some of the military was a lack of leadership. I did not say it, a Brigadier-General did.

In another report, Colonel Oehring mentioned that there was a flagrant lack of leadership and discipline and a complete distortion between the top brass and the rank and file. I would remind all members that at one point the media revealed that some soldiers and sailors had applied for welfare and even went to the soup kitchens in western Canada.

On the other hand, look at some of the officers. Consider Admiral Murray with his cavalier and arrogant testimony, who lived in a 6,000 square feet house for the astronomical sum of $581 per month. For a regular soldier who sees how these officers behave, it is pretty demoralizing.

In fact, this is all par for the course. Look at all the players in this case. John Anderson was aware of what happened. He went to Somalia, he knew exactly what was going on, and to punish him for his lack of leadership, he was appointed to NATO. Bob Fowler was deputy minister of Defence for many years. He was in Somalia in March 1993, but said nothing and saw nothing. And then, around the end of 1995, Mr. Fowler was appointed as Canada's delegate to the UN. Interestingly, if we go back even further, we see that he was a political assistant to Mr. Trudeau, the former Liberal Prime Minister, in 1983-84, and he also happens to be the new Governor General's brother-in-law. It looks like the old boys' network.

There is also John de Chastelain, who came back as chief of staff. He was ambassador in Washington, where he was replaced by the Prime Minister's nephew, Mr. Chrétien. Hon. members will recall that when the regiment in Somalia was abolished or eliminated, General John de Chastelain tendered his resignation, which was refused by the Prime Minister. Finally, in December 1995, General de Chastelain resigned and left the scene, and then we had Mr. Boyle.

You are signalling to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only two minutes left. I could go on and on, but I will now get to my conclusion. My point is that the former Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Don Valley East, as well as the current defence minister and the Prime Minister declared, in November 1994, October 1995, March 1996 and June 1996, that we needed to get to the bottom of this. That it was not just about the deployment of the Airborne in Somalia but that there were other incidents which, as I pointed out, prompted some officers to point to a lack of leadership.

What we are doing now is a matter of ethics. I would even say that it no longer matters that the commission of inquiry is being wound up. Look at the conduct of Admiral Murray. We will never know the truth.

I think that refusing to give an extension shows a lack of ethics and does nothing to enhance the public's confidence in this government. It took the armed forces nearly a year to hand over certain documents, and when we look at other commissions of inquiry which went on for five years and were about far less serious matters, one really wonders about the way the present government is behaving. I think we can assume Canadians realize that when the Liberal government decided to wind up this commission, it was clear there were people it wanted to protect, and I do not think Canadians or Quebecers will go along with this.

[Ontario, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs asked Ontario to help him have Quebec recognized as a distinct society. The minister seems to have forgotten that, as long as Ontario will not respect its French speaking minority, that province cannot be a credible voice in the constitutional debate.

Ontario still refuses to comply with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thus denying the educational rights of its minority. Moreover, the Harris government made deep cuts in services to francophones. It reduced by 27 per cent the budget of the Office of Francophone Affairs. It also eliminated the Council for Franco-Ontarian Education and a number of other services provided in French.

Ontario has become an anglicizing ground for francophones: 38 per cent of Franco-Ontarians speak English at home. This figure says it all about the assimilation of Franco-Ontarians.

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my hon. colleague. Certainly no one can have anything against pride. It is easy for the government to decide that Canada will take part in a particular mission.

What I wanted to point out was the number of servicemen in the army. While, as I mentioned, few servicemen in the air force and the navy take part in these activities, there are some 12,000 to 15,000 servicemen in the army involved. Over the past eight or ten years, Canada has regularly been asked to be part of various humanitarian missions, and, as I said, there has often been little planning and even a certain amount of improvisation.

We in Parliament do not give much thought to those who make up these resources. We say we are proud to send them, but we must have some feeling for those who take on the role and those who pay to send them. Everyone is agreed on taking part, but we do have to have a clearer policy, that is all.

[Great Lakes Region Of Africa, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the peacekeeping missions Canada has been involved in for many years, as the minister of defence has

just mentioned. For some 50 years now, Canada has taken part in almost every peacekeeping mission it has been asked to join.

As it has always done, the Bloc Quebecois supports the government's humanitarian aid initiative. We recognize the leadership shown by the current government in inviting the international community to help bring an end to the slaughter and resolve the current humanitarian problem at the border between Rwanda and Zaire.

Debates have taken place in this House on earlier peacekeeping missions. Certain discrepancies led to questions and requests for clarification from the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition. Each time there was a mission-be it in Bosnia or Haiti-we expected Canada would go to the aid of countries facing problems, be they wars, famine or disease. When the government decided to send peacekeepers, we expected the role, mandate and length of the missions would be clearly indicated.

The situation in Zaire is changing quickly. A couple of weeks ago, more than half a million people fled to Zaire and now they are returning to Rwanda. Obviously the planning and preparation of the international mission under Canada's leadership will have to change. Zaire has accepted and confirmed the presence of a Canadian led multinational force, but Rwanda has not. If all the refugees head to Rwanda, negotiations will be necessary.

There has been significant involvement by armed rebels in the military conflict in Rwanda between the Tutsis and the Hutus, which has been spilling over into Zaire and Uganda. As the minister of defence has said, we want to send lightly armed peacekeepers, who will intervene not as a UN force, but as a multinational force approved by the UN with a more or less defined mission.

Western countries like Canada, the United States and France should intervene in the event of humanitarian problems, such as the one in the great lakes region of Africa.

I cannot help but wonder, as some of my hon. colleagues probably wonder, how Canada will be able to cope with the various military forces over there, when the role of our peacekeepers remains to be defined.

We will recall that, several months ago, in Bosnia, Canadian troops were taken hostage by Serbs. This incident held the international community in suspense for several days. It is obvious that the peacekeepers and UNPROFOR as a whole had neither the mandate nor the capacity to protect themselves under such circumstances.

What will happen in Zaire and Rwanda with the rebels and armed militia? On what basis have the Canadian government, National Defence, Foreign Affairs planned how our military are to behave in various situations.

Without bringing back too many bad memories, I think we must bear in mind that there were incidents involving peacekeepers in Rwanda. Belgian troops under the command of a Canadian general were murdered in Rwanda. All too often, in peacekeeping missions such as those in Bosnia, Haiti and now Zaire, the Canadian government sends out Canadian troops with a humanitarian mission. Everyone agrees and realizes that Canada must act along those lines.

In missions as important as these, where the political and military stakes are critically high, it is nevertheless fair enough, in my opinion, to say that preparation is critical. Every soldier and officer participating in such missions must know exactly what is expected of him or her, and they must also be able to protect themselves.

In recent years, the practice has very often been to ignore to some extent the families left behind by deployed troops. The troops themselves know very little about the nature of the mission as they fly out of Canada to trouble spots or other areas where they are supposed to make a significant contribution. They are unsure of how long they will be gone, and have little information regarding the role they are expected to play in support of the local population and how they should behave.

The defence and foreign affairs departments deserve to be criticized for the lack of information they provide. Because of the reputation and generosity of Canadians, they take it upon themselves to help communities clearly experiencing major problems. When it comes to missions of this type, the key players are the troops and the officers who take part in it, those who will be in the theatre of operations. Before they leave, military people often tell their families, their loved ones, and sometimes the media, that their mission is vague, that their role is not well defined. They do not know which weapons they can use if they are surrounded by militia troops or rebels out to capture them. They do not know if they are allowed to defend themselves or if they must once again put up with being humiliated? This is one of the problems experienced by Canadian troops who took part in recent peacekeeping missions.

It shows that the government is once again improvising somewhat. The families of these troops feel it makes no sense to send a son, a husband, a father, a wife, or a sister to such theatres of operations, without knowing what is expected of them.

There have been instances, but hopefully this will no longer be the case, where Canadian troops may have lost their lives because the instructions given to them were not clear. I am thinking of the death of Corporal Gunther and others who took part in such missions as proud members of our armed forces, proud Quebecers and proud Canadians. These people provided humanitarian assis-

tance, but their mission was not properly planned, which resulted in mixed success and, in some cases, in extending our troops' involvement.

It must also be pointed out that Canada has contributed very large numbers of troops to international conflicts over the last three years. Only recently, in 1993-94, Canadian troops in Bosnia numbered almost 2,000. At that time, although Canada had a very large contingent, it did not even have a decision making role in diplomatic exchanges or peace negotiations. You will recall that Canada was not then a member of the contact group and that it had not taken part in the decisions surrounding negotiations to restore peace to Bosnia. There are now almost 750 soldiers in Haiti; there are still just over 1,000 in Bosnia, and the plan is to send another 1,000 to Zaire.

I have discussed this point with a number of soldiers and even with certain officers. The rotation of assignments to peacekeeping missions is leading to a certain fatigue among the troops. Far be it from me to turn the knife in the wound, but in the present context we are only too aware that the army has had its internal problems that, up to a point, can be linked to this accumulation of peacekeeping missions and to the fact that soldiers have always been sent back into the theatre of operations, very often with insufficient time to catch their psychological and even their physical breath. Some have experienced serious family, psychological and other problems.

Once again, I do not think these soldiers are being allowed sufficient recovery time. Although there are almost 65,000 soldiers in the Canadian army, including all ranks and levels, with rare exceptions that portion of the Canadian army used in peacekeeping missions is generally and almost always limited to the ground forces. As for the navy and the air force, their participation in the various missions is much more restricted.

So it is almost always the same land army personnel who are used to help out various nations in the world, one might say, for in the last ten years Canada has been to just about all of the theaters of international conflict on this planet.

I feel that these individuals have reached a degree of overload, which might even explain the problems experienced by the army-more so than by the navy or the air force, although they too have been involved in these humanitarian operations or these conflicts-which are psychologically and physically stressful and demand virtually superhuman efforts, particularly when soldiers must do the same thing over and over again.

I know soldiers who were in Bosnia for six months, then back to Canada for a little less than a year, then back to Bosnia. They then returned to Canada for a little less than a year before being sent to Haiti. As for the Calgary regiment, they have been to Bosnia twice and now it will be Zaire.

If, over a period of barely 36 months, soldiers have to spend, in six-month chunks, more than 12 months in a conflict situation away from their loved ones and from the security of their home environments, I imagine that what can happen is a sort of overloading, an inability to bounce back either psychologically or physically.

I point this out because all Canadians, all Quebecers, and I think all parliamentarians here agree that Canada has a duty to take part in this type of mission and, for once, we salute Canadian leadership in the current situation in Zaire.

We must be aware, however, that our human resources within the armed forces, as well as our financial resources, are in what I would call a precarious condition. Despite the good will and compassion of all parliamentarians, of all members here in this House and of the entire public, we must realize that considering its human and financial resources, Canada cannot afford to be the 911 of the planet. Every time a conflict erupts somewhere, Canada is called and everything is taken care of. Canada is always ready to go.

This is not the first time it was mentioned in debate that Canada should have an established and definitive policy. I even remember that, in a speech he gave at the UN in New York, former Minister of Foreign Affairs André Ouellet mentioned that in the not too distant future, the UN, and I think that is where we are now, should have a permanent force, staffed by various countries, that would intervene in certain conflicts in certain locations.

This would make it possible for all countries, including Canada, to plan for the number of soldiers it could make available, while maintaining sufficient rotation so that individuals who take part in these missions are able to have a family life and engage in some psychological and physical recuperation. At the same time, it would also be possible to budget for this kind of mission.

Unfortunately, in spite of all the good intentions and praiseworthy proposals, it became clear in recent budgets that the government was cutting back severely on humanitarian aid, including medical assistance, food and the like, and had increased the military component in various peacekeeping missions, which produces results.

We may occasionally wonder whether these results are truly positive, but the fact remains that this money will occasionally be used preventively, as many representatives of NGOs providing humanitarian assistance have mentioned, instead of always putting out the fires of a conflict that in many cases will rekindle as soon as the peacekeepers leave the theatre of operations.

In concluding, I must say that the government's initiative has been approved and is supported by all members here in this House, but nevertheless, various factors must be considered and there must

be a certain degree of planning. The government must consider our human resources, meaning our military, who will need certain rest periods, etc. We must establish very strict guidelines on the amount of money we want to invest in these activities instead of budgeting piecemeal and often cutting somewhere else.

Finally, I would like to point out that many people in Quebec and Canada find it hard understand why the government is deploying humanitarian aid when in a number of provinces, people have trouble keeping body and soul together.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the two questions raised by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt were put to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. I refuse to explain myself once again. If he hasn't understood by now, he never will.

Secondly, to my knowledge, the communique makes no mention of the oath of allegiance and moreover, when questioned about this by committee members, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was vague. When a member of the armed forces swears an oath of allegiance, he stands by that oath for as long as he remains a member of the Canadian military and I don't believe anyone defected.

I also find it odd that during one of his outbursts, he informed us that thousands of Canadians had called him and had come to the defence of Canadians. I mean no disrespect, but five months passed before he woke up. I don't know if these calls were late in coming or if he needed time to understand. I'm sorry, but the referendum took place last October 30. I worked with the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for two months on the National Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee. There was never any mention made of the communique. Was he merely slow to come to this realization all by himself, or did someone put ideas in his head? I have to wonder.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, regrettable things are said in the heat of the moment, and this is one such moment. However, when in the course of a debate, a person does not share the views of someone else, there is no need for him or her to sling insults at the other person, as we have seen happen.

Let me give you an example of how easily Reformers are offended, in particular the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In 1994, the members of the defence committee visited several military bases, including two in Quebec, namely Saint-Hubert and Valcartier. In all of the bases that we visited in Canada, the briefings were conducted in English. As a francophone, I did not have the benefit of simultaneous interpretation, although someone was on hand to translate for us.

The briefing in Saint-Hubert, near Montreal, was in English. Only at Valcartier was the briefing conducted in French. Let me quote to you the words of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, as reported in the Pentiction Herald , to illustrate how easily offended one is if one is an anglophone. The paper reported that he had received a briefing in French.

"You can bet that if the situation were reversed there would have been screams of outrage".

He was referring to us, and to how we would react to receiving briefings in English. That has always been the case and we have never complained. We are tolerant, but when we outline our position clearly, we are accused of all sorts of things.

I could also quote several things the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt said in the course of the March 12 debate. He referred to Diane Francis of the Financial Post and to the fact that Quebec anglophones have filed charges of slander against her, the guru of the Reform Party. Yet, she has called francophones racist, intolerant and traitorous and she has said that they should be either extradited or banished.

The other Reform Party supporter, former General Louis Mac-Kenzie, compared Canada to Iran.

Imagine making a comparison like that. If a Bloc Quebecois member had said such a thing, we would not have heard the end of it, but there is no problem when the words come from someone else's lips.

In my opinion, and based on the findings of the procedure and House affairs committee, what took place here was essentially a political debate at the expense of a member, the aim being to pass judgment on the sovereignty program of my colleagues. Unfortunately, it was raised as a question of privilege, but could not be proved in committee.

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, with its Liberal majority, concluded that there was no evidence the privileges of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt had been breached. As for contempt or breach of privilege, I have to say that I was the one on the receiving end, as a result of the outrageous and false accusations brought against me by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I saw my name splashed across the headlines: "Jacob Headed for Jail", "Jacob To Lose His Seat" and "Jacob In Hot Water". I will spare you some of the headlines in the English newspapers that were even worse.

In conclusion, let me say that it is unfortunate Reformers have such selective memories. They claim that they never made any charges of sedition or issued a call to arms or violence. Just check in the March 12 issue of Hansard . The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt did make all of these accusations. He was never able to back them up, which means that any member of this House is free to accuse a colleague, whether he is a member of the Liberal or of one of the other parties, without impunity.

This is a serious violation of the freedom of expression of parliamentarians. As far as I know, I was democratically elected in my riding, just as they were, and the majority of people in my riding and in the province of Quebec accepted the communique at face value. After the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt made his outrageous remarks, I received insulting letters from anglophones and letters of support and encouragement from Quebecers.

The explanation for this is that Reformers have never understood what happened in Quebec during the referendum. As the Bible says: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier-Montcalm.

I am pleased to finally be able to express my views freely. For over three months now, I have been hearing all kinds of things and I have to say that I have sometimes heard falsehoods and rather poor interpretations of the facts.

Let me state at the outset, particularly to the Reform members and to the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, that if they believe a simple communique is capable of influencing members of the Canadian military to the point where they would actually desert and take their weapons with them, as the member suggested in this House, then they truly believe that members of the military are weak-minded. When the hon. member served in the armed forces, would he have been so weak-minded as to have been taken in by a mere communique? I do not think that we share the same opinion of members of the Canadian military, or of Quebecers who serve in Canada's armed forces.

I find it odd as well when people like General John de Chastelain say that when constitutional change comes-therefore, when the yes side emerges victorious in the next referendum-members of the military will have to chose their allegiance. These are not my words, but those of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Even General Roméo Dallaire mentioned that, in the military, Quebecers were a true reflection of the rest of the population of Quebec, that there were even some sovereigntists. The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands also said that there were separatists, as he put it, in the military.

Yet, when a Bloc Quebecois member sends out a communique, the people in English Canada who consider themselves as being beyond reproach take umbrage.

[National Defence, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when everyone thought the government had finally given up the idea of buying four new submarines, and at a time when it cuts blindly in its budgets, yesterday the Liberal majority in the Standing Committee on National Defence adopted, following a proposal by the Reform Party, a motion urging the government to take the necessary steps to immediately buy the four British submarines.

Are we to understand that the government has not given up the idea of wasting hundreds of millions to buy these submarines, and what guarantee can it give that it will not take advantage of the summer recess to secretly earmark hundreds of millions, as it did last year with the armoured vehicles?

[Privilege, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I wish to make a solemn declaration today relating to a question of privilege raised in this House on March 12 by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, a question of privilege you yourself described as extremely serious, and to which you attached vital importance, stating, and I quote:

The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith.

I hereby declare that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, through his overzealous accusations of call to arms and sedition, has deliberately led the House and yourself astray, thus bringing doubt and suspicion to be cast upon a member of the House of Commons, without any proof, since his charges were based solely upon false interpretations of my press release dated October 26, 1995.

The report by the Liberal majority and the dissenting report by the Bloc Quebecois issued by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conclude that this entire question is a matter of political debate and ought never to have been raised before the House on a question of privilege, particularly one supported by unfounded accusations.

What is of the most concern to me, apart from the attack on the rights and privileges of a parliamentarian, is that it is also an attack on the freedom of expression of all Quebecers and all Canadians.

[Somalia Inquiry, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on April 25, following the tabling of documents arousing new suspicions on the involvement of the Chief of Staff in the cover-up, the military police had to reopen its investigation.

My question to the minister is as follows: What is happening with this investigation, and when does the minister intend to make it public?