Jean-Marc Jacob

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there are still a few contentious issues left. The Bloc would like to make a suggestion. Given the fact that it is increasingly obvious that Kingston College will not be able to accommodate all student officers, is the government going to finally cancel its illogical decision to close the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

While visiting the riding of Saint-Jean, the Quebec Premier announced that Ottawa and Quebec were back to square one regarding the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, since the agreement in principle between Ottawa and the previous government had not been followed by the operating agreement which was supposed to be signed no later than August 31, 1994.

Is the minister going to confirm that the operating agreement, which was supposed to be concluded no later than August 31, has in fact never been signed and that he must start negotiating with the new Quebec government all over again?

[National Defence, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just as with the finance minister, journalists must have misinterpreted what the minister said.

Knowing that the cancellation of the EH-101 deal heavily penalized Quebec, can the defence minister promise right now that Quebec will benefit from the same level of spin-offs as with the previous contract?

[National Defence, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The Liberal government was quick to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract and has maintained on numerous occasions that it would wait for the next white book to announce its intention to buy on-board helicopters for the navy fleet. On August 12, the minister even said that no decision would be taken regarding the purchase of any equipment for the Canadian Forces as long as the defence policy review was still under way.

How can the minister explain his about-turn and the fact that he has announced his intention to buy on-board helicopters when the defence policy review is still under way?

[United Nations, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the minister's answer, because it gives some leeway to the joint committee on foreign policy review as well as the joint committee on defence, and I thank him for it.

Can the minister also tell us if he agrees with another proposal made by that committee to increase the membership of the UN Security Council in order to accept more developing countries?

[United Nations, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a report released yesterday, the Canadian Committee for the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations is proposing the implementation and funding by Canada of a peacemaking unit which would be at the disposal of the UN to take part in different peace missions. This UN rapid intervention standing force would particularly be used to prevent conflicts and massacres, to protect humanitarian assistance convoys and to maintain interposition forces for the enforcement of ceasefires.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the context of the review of the Canadian foreign policy and defence policies, is the minister in favour of this recommendation to create a Canadian peacemaking unit?

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the status of official languages, particularly in the Department of National Defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces. In recent months, and especially since the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean, a lot has been said on the current language situation in the armed forces, as well as on the somewhat idealistic intentions and promises of the defence minister concerning the future of French in the armed forces.

In 1963, through the royal commission on bilingualism, Prime Minister Pearson made substantial changes to the drafting of the Official Languages Act. As early as 1966, General Allard, who was the first French-Canadian to become Chief of Staff, published directives recognizing the equal status of the French and English languages in the armed forces, as well as the right of every person to serve his country in his own language.

At the time, the Canadian forces were spearheading the linguistic efforts which were to follow in federal institutions. In 1972, these efforts resulted in the first official languages plan for the armed forces. This was a 15-year plan. Unfortunately, in 1987, it was discovered that several objectives had not been reached, in spite of all the good intentions and valiant efforts. That same year, a new 15-year plan, to 2002, was drafted.

In November 1992, a report commissioned by the then-Minister of Defence again found flagrant and near-unresolvable shortcomings. Here again, with a great deal of good will, the armed forces had prepared incentive standards and changes in their official languages plan and its implementation. Unfortunately, we must now face the following facts: 40 out of68 military-career-related courses are given in both languages-4 out of 4 military training courses, 9 out of 14 for the navy, 8 out of 14 for the air force, and 19 out of the 36 courses applicable to all three branches of the armed forces. It goes without saying that all 68 courses are available in English.

There is also a shortage of French-language military training manuals, and bilingual instructors are in short supply; the majority of bilingual instructors are Francophones. The number of bilingual Anglophones even declined from 1972 to the end of 1993. The number of bilingual Anglophones has now slipped to 4,200 from 5,000 in 1972. In the officers' ranks, 18 per cent of senior officers are Francophones-all of them functionally bilingual. Only 12 per cent of anglophone officers are bilingual, and most learned French at the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

It is impossible for me to list, in so little time, all of the shortcomings that exist, but I observed first-hand, during meetings and visits with the joint defence committee, that the army operates in English, and in both languages in Quebec. At the base in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, all of the briefings given to the defence committee were in one language only: English. So let us, once and for all, be realistic. Fine principles are laid out and dreams that, despite little success in the past-although commendable efforts were made, I must admit-this time, according to the minister, it will be allright.

Unfortunately, the decision to close the military college in Saint-Jean will only exacerbate the problems which have been noted in the application of the department's fine principles. For us, it is just one more piece of evidence that the gulf between the two founding peoples continues to widen and that the present government seems to take perverse pleasure in widening that gulf through its harebrained decision to close the military college in Saint-Jean, which represented hope for the official languages in the Canadian armed forces.

[Peacekeepers In Former Yugoslavia, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for members of the government. Instead of worrying, as it did last January, the civilian population which has survived until now largely because of the presence and assistance of Canadian peacekeepers, as the Prime Minister himself remarked during his visit and as I myself have noted, why does the government not reassure civilians by maintaining its presence in the area and its participation in peace efforts, thereby guarding against any further escalation in the violence and killings?

[Peacekeepers In Former Yugoslavia, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday after visiting Canadian peacekeepers in Visoko in the former Yugoslavia, the Prime Minister hinted that Canada could withdraw its peacekeepers if, in his words, "there is no progress toward peace".

My question is directed either to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Defence.

Can the government confirm whether it intends to pull its peacekeepers out of the former Yugoslavia if no progress is made in the peace talks or if the arms embargo is lifted?

[National Defence, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his answer. I would like the minister to inform us about the number and the type of interventions that are being made necessary by the cleanup of military lands on Canadian territory. And I would also like the minister to table, if possible, the policy on environmental protection for military lands.