Jean-Marc Jacob

[National Defence, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, lands used by the armed forces, that is the bases, the training sites and

the ranges, are likely to be contaminated by specific substances relating to military uses, which is affecting the quality of our environment.

My question is for the Minister of Defence. Can the minister tell us whether his department has a specific policy dealing with military land decontamination?

[Military Training, April 26th, 1994]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I was planning to point out to the minister the delay in informing us of the time he was to deliver his speech, but I accept his apologies.

I am pleased to speak once again on this issue of burning importance to Quebec, that is the closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean and the decision to use only one college, Kingston's Royal Military College, for the future training of officers. The closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean has never been justified, either for cost cutting reasons, or because of the need to reduce the size of the military. Nor has the government demonstrated that the military college in Kingston is capable of taking up the slack.

I have no doubt that the minister is being sincere and is making efforts in this area, but despite the speech that he just delivered this morning, I think that we have to be realistic. The Official Languages Act was around long before this Liberal government took office. RMC, the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean and Royal Roads Military College should have been bilingual and operating in both languages for a number of years by now. Based on the information we have and according to the criticisms of official languages pointed out by the minister, we know for a fact that the results of the legislation leave much to be desired.

This morning, the minister of defence gave us an overview of a proposal to convert the Royal Military College in Kingston into a fully bilingual institution. As I have just indicated, we have some doubts as to whether this is at all possible, despite good intentions and the efforts that will be made. We are given the broad outline of the proposal, while at the same time, we are told that DND officials are in the process of drafting a plan. Are we to understand that the minister was merely throwing up a smokescreen this morning? There is absolutely nothing tangible in this plan.

The minister talks about the consequences of a plan which we have not seen and of which we know nothing. We know nothing about its aims, its concepts or its mechanisms. Francophones expect more than vague concepts. The only details which the

minister released to us concerning his concept of a bilingual officer corps is the date on which this concept was agreed to. He informs us that this concept is presently being reviewed by a special joint task force. Another task force.

Plans call for refining this concept and resolving the issues raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages. The minister defers to the department's Official Languages Program. We all know the kind of results this program had at the military college in Kingston. Worse yet, all officers promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel are not expected to be bilingual until 1998. The minister has already made this fact clear to the House in response to questions put to him. I wonder what a normally bilingual lieutenant colonel is. What does "normally bilingual" mean? How can we accept it? It is too little too late.

Furthermore, the minister tell us nothing about what he intends to do to promote French culture within the military college in Kingston. The environment counts for a great deal in training an officer cadet trying to master a second language. Learning a new language takes more than an academic program. It also takes the right environment and immersion. I am well placed to speak on it since I have trouble learning a new language. Even though we are in a situation of partial immersion here, I intend to take total immersion.

From the recommendations produced by the official languages committee in the department of defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces, it appears that the committee recommended immersion as an important factor in training officer cadets. It recommended that all officer cadets at the Royal Military College and the Royal Roads Military College spend at least a year at the Saint-Jean campus, while those at the military college in Saint-Jean should spend at least a year at one of the other two colleges; this would help everyone develop their language ability and provide exposure to the other culture.

This brief excerpt shows how training bilingual officer cadets is not something that can be achieved with a hastily conceived academic program such as the one the hon. minister has presented.

It would certainly be more promising to emphasize immersion and exposure to another culture.

Some positions explain why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I are opposed to closing the military college in Saint-Jean and have been opposed to it from the beginning.

We all know that more francophones than anglophones in the Canadian Armed Forces are bilingual and most bilingual anglophones in the forces went to the military college in Saint-Jean.

There is a big shortage of bilingual military people whose mother tongue is English, but a surplus of bilingual military people whose mother tongue is French.

An internal report of the Canadian Armed Forces on bilingualism in the military reported a serious deficiency in this regard. This report said that 2,861 more francophones than required were bilingual, while there was a shortage of 1,424 bilingual anglophones.

Of course, this sample includes more than the officer corps, but it shows how much it has been left to francophones to promote bilingualism in the Canadian forces.

Remember the climate surrounding the announcement that the military college in Saint-Jean would be closed. The defence minister said that the military college in Saint-Jean would be closed to save money. It is also for economic reasons that he has decided to put francophones in an English speaking environment for their military training.

In his statement, the minister talks about an environment that encourages francophones to study in Kingston. Unfortunately, I think that is hypocritical, because many past and present officer cadets question the statement which the minister made this morning.

The minister made optimistic predictions about the level of bilingualism in the officer corps. I will give him some more realistic projections: yes, there will still be bilingual officer cadets, but more and more of them will be from a French background. That is reality.

There is nothing specific in this plan, nothing about how to get there, nothing about extra costs, nothing to satisfy us. There is nothing that could justify closing the military college in Saint-Jean or offset the loss and the major setback for francophones in the Canadian Forces as a result of this politically motivated closure.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time in this 35th Parliament that I rise to speak on the issue of Bosnia and peacekeeping missions. When the first debate took place, the parties in this House were unanimously in favour of letting Canadian troops participate in a peacekeeping mission which was nevertheless very different from previous exercises to which Canadians had taken part in.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed. Reform Party members, as well as the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have spoken at length on the evolution of the conflict and the diplomatic means used. We can now see what the situation is. You all sadly remember how the horrors of Sarajevo shocked the world. At that time, NATO had decided, following an ultimatum, to use air strikes in order to free the area surrounding Sarajevo.

Later, every diplomatic effort was made by western nations, and even by Russia which, through negotiation, managed to convince Bosnian Serbs to agree to a ceasefire and to agreements signed by Croatians and Bosnian Muslims. At that point, it looked like a solution was in sight, but Bosnian Serbs once again failed to live up to their word. In so doing, they ridiculed UN members and betrayed the trust of Russia, which had negotiated with them.

In my opinion, this is no longer a situation where nations try to arrive at a negotiated solution but, rather, an attack on the very existence of humanity, its values and its evolution. How can we tolerate any longer a situation which the whole world condemns? Clearly, diplomacy has failed somewhere when belligerents decide to bomb hospitals, as they did in Gorazde and in Sarajevo before. Nothing will bring back to life those who were killed in this conflict, and nothing justifies such barbaric acts.

My preamble gives you an idea of the position suggested by the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, we believe that Canada must support the proposal put forward by the U.S. President, Mr. Clinton, and that support must be unequivocal. The idea is to define six safe areas, as NATO did, and to pattern this exercise on the Sarajevo experience. In other words, an ultimatum must be given, but it should have a very short deadline. If this

ultimatum is not observed, then we should resort to strategic and intensive air strikes.

Clearly, some people will say that there is an escalation and that this form of intervention is radically different from those formerly endorsed by Canada.

However, the massacre must cease. All the people in the field said and keep saying that inaction cannot be tolerated any longer considering the horror of the situation. UN troops are sick of helplessly watching the slaughter of often unarmed civilians.

They have performed brilliantly, despite the paucity of their resources and the often confusing directions they received. They saved thousands of lives and I can say, because I heard it from people who were there, that they are even willing to put their lives in danger to stop this bloody massacre.

I met with a few Bosnian Muslims now residing in Canada, who may have been in touch with the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. They were describing the situation in Sarajevo, and now in Gorazde, as something that should be unacceptable to countries which consider themselves civilized, and they were shocked that Canada, where they live and wish to remain, could watch this without reacting more strongly.

All the parties involved, that is western countries, the European Community, Russia and the United States, should decide as one to intervene in the most forceful way. Since they have gone back on their word so many times, the Bosnian Serbs can no longer make other countries believe that they are willing to carry out diplomatic negotiations in good faith.

Obviously, this decision will not be taken lightly. However, under the circumstances, I think that it is the only humanitarian solution possible. We have also said that the safety of Canadian and other peacekeepers is of primary importance to us, but given the slaughter that is taking place, this action can only be beneficial and worthwhile.

There is no question that procrastination, coupled with a lack of clear decisions and strategies, has prolonged this barbaric conflict and at times further endangered the lives of peacekeepers. You cannot put a price on a human life, as all of our brave soldiers have so clearly shown us. They want to put an end to this conflict, even if it means risking their lives. They realize that their profession and training places them in situations which can at times be dangerous. However, they are trained for combat and they are prepared to face the consequences.

In my view, the safety of our peacekeepers must be our top priority. This issue is of even greater concern to me since the majority of our peacekeeping troops hail from my riding. I have met with several of them who have returned from Bosnia and, without necessarily speaking on their behalf, I would like to pass along this message from our courageous soldiers: Let us act in a clear-sighted and circumspect manner, but let us act now to end the slaughter.

In conclusion, I believe there is no other solution but to designate these enclaves as safe areas. If the Bosnian Serbs violate these designations, a firm, unwavering ultimatum should be issued to them, so that we can finally put an end to this shameful episode in the history of humanity. When we reach the point where hospitals are being bombed and civilians and children are being murdered, I think we must make some decisions which may at times seem difficult.

Having become involved in this unfortunate conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN can no longer act as a mere observer. It must make some decisions which ultimately may give rise to debate. Peacekeepers have already saved many lives, but I believe that if we support this course of action, they will ultimately be able to save even more human beings.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what I would have liked to know is when NATO members decide whether or not to step up the air strikes, will the Russian representatives be consulted first, unlike what was done before? Could the minister tell us whether contacts were made between NATO and Russian leaders?

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from the Reform Party, I would like to put my question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We know that the final decision of the 16 NATO countries regarding air strikes is to be made tomorrow. I would like to know where negotiations stand, particularly with respect to Russia's position.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 is a direct result of the finance minister's great budget. So just about anything having to do with the budget will impact on Bill C-17.

Instead of touching on every aspect of the cuts achieved at the expense of the unemployed, I will move in a more specific direction.

The cuts in the finance minister's budget affect the unemployed, seniors and, in large part, the national defence budget. The defence cuts were wanted by the Liberal Party before it took office; we in the Bloc Quebecois also wanted them so I will not question their validity. Of course, I cannot help but point out that the military college in Saint-Jean is not and will never be part of the acceptable cuts, let alone justified by economic arguments which, in my opinion and that of my Bloc colleagues, have never been proven.

However, section 7.1 of Bill C-17, which deals with national defence cuts, seems vague and shortsighted to me.

These cuts will translate into civilian and military layoffs. Under section 7.1 of this bill, payments will be offered or given to employees who have lost or will lose their jobs due to civilian and military personnel reductions. We must also speak up about staff cuts at the national defence research centres.

Section 7.1 is vague regarding the duration and amount of payments to national defence laid-off workers. It is also shortsighted because it does not offer future prospects to the people who have lost their jobs as a result of the finance minister's budget.

The old saying "instead of giving a fish to the hungry, it is better to teach them how to fish" can be applied at many levels in our society. Why, as the Bloc Quebecois suggested during the election campaign, did the government not implement programs to convert defence industries to civilian production, in line with the red bible of this good government full of good intentions but very reluctant to take action?

When I see companies such as Paramax and Oerlikon after the EH-101 helicopter contract was cancelled, and also in the case of Oerlikon after the end of the cold war, I wonder what markets these companies can turn to.

Unfortunately, I think that the programs under section 7.1 providing for payments to those who will be affected by the cuts leave little hope to the many highly-skilled workers with very limited retraining opportunities, given our current economic environment.

Where do we find in Bill C-17 an incentive to employment recovery? Throughout the campaign, the Liberal Party kept talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, but we find very little incentives, if any. Generally speaking, in life or in the private sector, when corrective action is taken in response to some alarming situation, you try to plan different options.

What options has the government included in Bill C-17 to promote recovery? I have met with people in my riding and they do not speak highly of this kind of reform which does nothing to resolve the real problems. The gap between the social classes is increasing irreversibly. The middle class, which is the government's major source of income, is starting to wonder if the measures we take are not aimed at its elimination. Overtaxed and competing against the underground economy, the middle class could hardly believe the budget. Why were big businesses and trusts still spared, while members of the middle class, who, given the present economic situation, have started to join the ranks of the unemployed, were being squarely targeted by the government?

I said previously that if you taught someone in need how to manage instead of giving him money, that person would become self-sufficient. Here is an original example of job creation incentive. My colleague from Joliette has introduced Bill C-230, which is an amendment to Bill C-17. This amendment would allow resourceful unemployed people to create jobs for themselves and maybe even for others. There are many workers who were employed for eight, ten or twelve years, who were laid off because of the economic situation and who, thanks to their entrepreneurial spirit, created small businesses, thus losing all the UI contributions they made over those ten or twelve years.

Bill C-230 would allow a worker who becomes unemployed and decides to invest in a small business to receive, over a certain period, 50 per cent of the UI benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled if he did not have the will and the desire to start a venture. The break-in period for a small business is somewhere between three and eight months. Such a measure would be an extraordinary boost to job creation!

If a person who worked and paid UI contributions for many years does not have the initiative to create something, that person is entitled to UI benefits while staying at home doing nothing. Yet, if that same person has the will to start a business and needs help at the beginning, he or she simply loses entitlement to UI benefits. If Bill C-17 included measures such as

those proposed by the hon. member for Joliette, I would probably support that legislation.

Unfortunately, the bill contains no incentive; it merely makes it harder for the unemployed to survive and it will only accelerate the transition from UI to welfare, without any measure to help economic recovery. I have no choice but to oppose this bill and hope that it will be amended by including measures such as those proposed in Bill C-230.

[Commemorative Medal, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. I agree with the hon. member and with the hon. member for the Liberal Party that the veterans of the Dieppe raid deserve our gratitude for their courage and, unfortunately, their determination in circumstances in which it was very difficult to survive. We know that nearly 5,000 Canadians took part in the Dieppe raid in 1942. More than 907 died. The operation was unsuccessful and one could practically call it a massacre.

However, according to some experts and the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, this operation probably helped pave the way for the D-Day Invasion in 1944, whose fiftieth anniversary we will soon be celebrating.

Perhaps I may depart somewhat from the position taken by the hon. member who moved the motion and say that I am rather intrigued that the hon. member has almost made this a personal crusade. Since 1983, he has been trying to put a motion through the House to strike a special medal for Dieppe 1942. There have been varying responses to this proposal over the years. It was repeated in June 1983 and September 1983 by the hon. member for Bow River at the time, with the same request to strike a medal for Dieppe. All sides of the question were discussed but the medal was never struck.

When the hon. member mentioned earlier that he had never heard anyone say they were against striking a medal in recognition of the courage and efforts of those who took part in this raid, he is perfectly right, except that in 1951, it was agreed by members of the Commonwealth, by Canada and Great Britain,

that medals would be struck only for campaigns and not for specific places, because otherwise, medals could be struck for all the beaches where an invasion took place, whether it was in 1942 or 1944. There was also the battle of Vimy Ridge, where nearly 50,000 Canadians were either killed or wounded during World War I. A whole series of medals might have to be struck.

What bothers me is that whether a veteran defended his own country or other countries in this place or that, against German or other invasions, I do not think we can strike medals for specific places, as if it were a distinction to have fought in such or such a place, as though one battle were worth more than another. I think that in a way, this discriminates against those veterans who did not fight at Dieppe but on Juno Beach or at Falaise or Caen. Why should they not also receive a commemorative medal? Perhaps I am playing devil's advocate because I realize that, in moving this motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona means well, but I have a hard time understanding the very specific reasons for striking this kind of medal.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Defence, I would argue-and I think that this is what veterans want-that we have received requests from veterans and also from veterans of the merchant marine. My sense is that they do not necessarily want to be awarded a medal, but would rather receive some financial assistance and help in their lives today. We have received requests of this nature. Instead of debating whether or not to strike a new medal, the Standing Committee on Defence should proceed quickly to review specific requests from Dieppe veterans. Since the Dieppe Raid took place 52 years ago, there are not many survivors left and it is therefore important to move quickly on this matter.

In conclusion, since the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has sought unanimous consent for the striking of a new distinctive medal, I would like to point out that throughout Canada's history, no special medal has been struck to specifically commemorate a given place or battle in a given war, with the possible exception of the Gulf War medal.

To commemorate a special battle, a distinctive ribbon has until now been affixed to a medal or star. You may recall having read about the battle of Inkerman which resulted in numerous Canadian and British casualties. A distinctive ribbon commemorating this engagement was issued.

Instead of striking a new medal, perhaps a distinctive ribbon or decoration could be issued, as my colleague from the Liberal Party suggested. And perhaps the debate should focus more on responding more quickly to the requests of veterans, regardless of where or when they fought.

I have some difficulty with the idea of commemorating a specific engagement or battle when throughout Canadian history, countless Canadians and Quebecers have taken part in different engagements and have bravely defended their country and others as well. Why single out the Dieppe Raid, even if this massacre unfortunately resulted in the loss of many lives and affected many Canadians? To agree to this would be somewhat discriminatory toward those veterans who participated in other campaigns. For these reasons, I propose that this motion not be adopted.

[Official Languages, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the answer he has just given me, does the minister not recognize that this new case illustrates once again the problems francophones have working in their own language within DND, even here in the bilingual city of Ottawa? Given this state of affairs, how can the minister expect us to believe that he will transform the military college in Kingston into a bilingual institution?

[Official Languages, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages has intervened personally at the Department of National Defence to ensure that francophones who have lost their job have access in their language to career renewal and reclassification courses at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. As it happens, the person in charge of this service for the past six years is a unilingual anglophone.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. How can the minister, an unswerving defender of francophone rights in our Armed Forces, tolerate this kind of situation? What action does he plan to take to ensure that francophones, who account for roughly 30 per cent of staff at headquarters, have access to the same services as anglophones?

[National Defence, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it would nonetheless be interesting to hear what the minister thinks of this. On a different note, how can the minister explain that senior officers tolerated that a squadron called the "Rebels Squadron" displayed for several months on the base, in Petawawa, the white supremacists' flag? How could they do that with complete impunity?