Proposition 55K0721

Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 30 juillet 1938 concernant l'usage des langues à l'armée en ce qui concerne le dépôt du rapport.

General information ¶

Authors

VB Steven Creyelman, Pieter De Spiegeleer, Barbara Pas, Annick Ponthier, Ellen Samyn, Dries Van Langenhove

Submission date

Nov. 7, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces use of languages

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

N-VA LDD VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI MR PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

CD&V Open Vld

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 19, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I am a rapporteur of a bill proposed by the Flemish Interest Group which aims to provide better and at fixed times reporting of the use and problem of the language relations in the Belgian army.

The proposal itself has generated a whole debate in the committee.

There was also a mood, which, for those who know the customs in the Chamber, was somewhat surprising. The vote resulted in the adoption of the bill.

Previously, an amendment was also adopted by my hand, which states that the reporting should not take place in the two Houses but in the House of People’s Representatives. Fortunately, the majority of the committee showed the wisdom to adopt the amendment.

This is very briefly the content of the report. For the rest, I would like to refer to the written report for additional explanation or comment.

I give the floor to Mrs. Ponthier.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, that the equal language rights and opportunities for the Flemish in the Belgian army in the past sometimes left to be desired – I express myself still gently – resulted in a legislation on the subject, in particular the law of 30 July 1938 on the use of languages in the army.

That law found its basis in a number of historical facts, not only but also in the First World War in which Flemish soldiers often stood under the command of Dutch-scientific officers and they under the motto "Et pour les Flamands la même chose" orders that they did not understand and which led to them being hunted to death more than once.

The facts are what they are. History is what it is. Therefore, I will not go into this in an extensive way. However, things in our history caused a need for a higher consciousness on the subject. One of the consequences was the already mentioned law.

In order to ensure the effective implementation of the legal rules, Article 32 of that law therefore provides that the Minister of Land Defense shall submit an annual report on the application of the law in the House of Representatives.

This obligation is also effectively implemented. It is stipulated in legislation. In practice, however, in the past it has given a number of problems. The report was often submitted late, usually only in the course of the year following the year the report concerned and often much later.

Thus, in the committee for Land Defense, of which I was also part in the previous legislature, the annual reports of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 at the request of the Flemish Interest Faction and under the ministry of Minister De Crem were only initiated on 18 July 2012, thus being five years later than that should have happened.

This reporting is more likely to be seen as a formality that ignores its concrete objective. As a result, the problem of language balance also does not play a role in the preparation of the budget of the policy domain Landsverdings, simply because the government itself does not have the document yet.

Parliamentarians will also find it ⁇ difficult to prepare for the discussion of the Land Defense budget because they do not have all the documents necessary for this. In practice, this obviously consists in the fact that the usefulness of the report is greatly reduced and that the report is de facto worthless.

That this course of affairs not only constitutes an administrative problem, but also has actual consequences for the protection of the enforcement of the law is shown, among other things, from the reports. For some categories of military personnel, the imbalance between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking persons remains. We could hear that yesterday in the committee of the new Minister of Land Defense, Mr. Goffin, who on a question from our group leader, Mrs. Pas, replied that the imbalance is far from eliminated.

However, the reports stipulate that the military force strives for a language relationship that reflects it of the Belgian population, namely 60% Dutch-speaking and 40% French-speaking.

We believe that a report that would be delivered within an acceptable time frame could be useful to remove those imbalances and to fill the shortage of Flemish jobs, in order to ⁇ the objectives of the military force itself. This is not only useful, but for us even desirable.

We therefore want with this bill not more, but also not less than to ensure that an already existing legislation is implemented on time. I think that nothing is asked world-shocking and that the minister would therefore add the report as an annex to the annual policy note, as it should. Without this, the debate cannot be properly conducted. It is simply a technical supplement to the existing legislation.

In addition, and I explained this in the committee, this directive was also included in the recommendations of the Working Group Language Balance at the Army, which was compiled in the 2010-2014 legislature. Mr. Speaker, you will surely remember that. I was also actively involved, together with a number of other colleagues present here.

That working group came specifically at the request of MR, on behalf of Mr Denis Ducarme. He found it necessary to dedicate numerous hearings, reports and opinions to this issue. Vlaams Belang supported this request. A document was also prepared with a number of recommendations.

The last of the five recommendations relates to Article 32 of the law of 30 July 1938 on the use of languages in the military. This article stipulates that the Minister of Land Defense must submit to the Chamber of People’s Representatives an annual report on the application of the law. The Working Group stresses the importance of that report and therefore wishes that this Article be fully and effectively applied from this year onwards. Thus, in the future, the Chamber will be able to continue to monitor the evolution of the language distribution in the military in a transparent and constructive way.

That recommendation was put into a legislative text. The rapporteur has already cited that the parties that normally always attach great importance to the content of the Belgian Constitution in the article-based voting in the committee were selectively. They voted against Article 1, which refers to the application of the Constitution to which this bill relates. The Flemish Interest found this a very strange course of affairs.

Is it not the content that counts, but the applicant? I hope that I am wrong in that and that at the mood later today no one has eye valves on and that common sense may return.

The Ecolo-Green Group voted against in the committee and will do so again.

I intervened because I wanted to ask Mr. Bogaert of CD&V what his voting behavior will be later. Mr. Bogaert voted in the committee for the bill of Vlaams Belang. I would like to ask him in all serenity to reconsider his voting behavior. Why Why ? I believe that voting for a bill of the Flemish Interest makes the party stronger and normalizes that party. This is not a normal party. This party considers asylum seekers as criminals and pretends that society should be protected from asylum seekers.

It is a party whose prominent members are members of aggressive racist militias in our country. Therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Bogaert to think about whether he really wants to strengthen that party by supporting legislative proposals from that party. I don’t think this belongs to the tradition of CD&V, I think the standards and values of CD&V are different.

It is not a personal fact, Mrs. Pas, you will defend yourself. However, I would like to take the word.

In the committee for Land Defense, of which I, like the chairman, have been a member for years, we have a culture that involves trying to work together in a positive way. You know this very well, Mr. The Friend. It is about the content of this bill and you have not commented on it.

The Flemish Interest proposes legislation that should ensure that the reporting takes place in a timely manner so that parliamentarians can do their job properly when we discuss the policy note in the committee for Land Defense. If we look at the substantial merits of that proposal, then our group is of the opinion that we can stand behind it.

We have a certain history of language relations in the Belgian army and there has always been a lot to do around it. In the past we have had accusations from Mr. Ducarme of the MR over the flamandisation of the Belgian Army. There was a committee you were a member of. I was not involved because I was a member of the government at the time. Those are sensitive points.

If now, after all the debate on the flaming of the Belgian army, there is a proposal to make the objective report, which legally must always come, also come in time, then someone like you, who has been trying to fill the parliamentary field well for many years, says that it comes from that group and that it is therefore racist militia speech. I do not think that is correct. In the Committee on Land Defense we try to work in a correct way and you know as well as I do that such proposals would not seem to have a chance there.

It is a proposal that is substantially correct and that aims to promote parliamentary control. You always advocate respect for Parliament. This proposal requires a tool to do our work well. Such a proposal therefore deserves the support of the N-VA Group, whoever has submitted it. I regret that I did not submit it myself because it is a good proposal that can improve parliamentary work. You will undoubtedly find that from the content, apart from the polemics about who submitted it.

So in these and also on behalf of my group, I can tell you that we will judge bills on their substantive merits. We do not go into a story that is something bad anyway, bound by who it comes from. If a bill comes from the PVDA, the PTB, Défi or the Flemish Interest, if they are substantially good bills, then we will assess them on their substantial merits.

We do not join the thought police and the cordon sanitary with our party, the N-VA.

I find it disappointing that colleague Francken feels addressed by a question to Mr Bogaert and by a question in which my party is visited. I would like to thank him for his rightful comment.

I also find it annoying, colleague De Vriendt, that you ask questions to a colleague who is not even present here. You are referring to colleague Bogert. It is a fact that you do not have any substantial arguments with this proposal. It is just about the applicant. You say that supporting my party’s proposals would make my party stronger. I think you are terribly mistaken. I think that figures like you, who in advance exclude good proposals for the sake of the applicant, insult people and throw in one hand with criminals; you call militias, but those are, as I know, banned in this country for years and days. It is counted that arrogant attitude, which, according to the latest poll, makes 27% of the voters, and since the last elections at all, more than 800,000 people, which only makes us stronger. It is that arrogant attitude of not listening to the Flammers who are behind our proposals that only makes us stronger.

I would like to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau: insults are the arguments of those who are wrong. Rousseau was 100% right in this: if one cannot contend with our proposal in terms of content, one can only arrest the applicant. You just do. You are responsible for your vote behavior. Let Mr. Bogert and the other parties be held accountable for their voting behavior. If they find this a good proposal, it is intended to be supported. That is what a democracy needs. We consider everything substantially. We have already rejected or supported proposals from almost every faction in this House, because we judge by content and not by the applicant. That’s called democracy, but apparently some parties who call themselves democratic and call us non-democratic have more trouble with democracy than we do.

Mrs. Pas, I am sorry that you find it inconvenient that I speak on behalf of Mr. Bogaert. I speak on behalf of my group. I spoke as a rapporteur and then I spoke as a member of the largest group. It has nothing to do with Hendrik Bogaert. He must defend his own position.

I can only hope that in the coming years we will continue to work together in the Committee for Land Defense, and also in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, by the way, in the same constructive and positive way, as we have been doing for many years, across party borders. We have always done so far in the interests of our boys and girls, both in Belgium and abroad, and there are many, so that we can treat good parliamentary work, such as the work of Mrs. Ponthier, in a correct way and with respect for each other, just as in your discourse yesterday about the Pandurs. We must give everyone the time to discuss things thoroughly and provide thorough content work. I can only hope.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our group also voted against this bill in committee because, for us, the arguments explained by the authors and those who support it do not reflect at all... (Brouhaha) by

Is there any way to calm down in the room?

and yes. This is because Mr. Bogert has just arrived! There are people who take care of their entrance.

Welcome to!

Please please Mrs.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments explained by the authors and the political groups that support it do not reflect at all the real problems that exist in Defense, let alone the problems that really come from the practice of the field.

We consider that there are indeed major problems to be solved in Defence, especially and above all in terms of the working conditions of our military personnel, in terms of remuneration and in terms of how the recruitment policy is conducted.

Negotiations are still ongoing with the trade unions, but these remain in the fridge because we are in a period of ordinary business. Military workers demand compensation when they have to go to work further. Obviously, here, with our salaries, having to travel is not so much part of our concerns. It also includes compensation for telephone costs, compensation for bicycle travel and salary surplus for services performed on weekends.

Unions say, however, that in terms of recruitment, these small salary improvements are just peanuts. What poses problem in recruitment is the question of revaluing the profession through an increase in gross salary and the status of the military. Today, too many proposed contracts only cover periods of four or even eight years. It is not with this kind of contracts that we will motivate women and men in this country to engage in defence.

Of course, the issue of bilingualism is not to be neglected. This is part of the discussion of social consultation. According to the echoes, there would even be positive examples of stimulating the military to bilingualism. As a party, we want these discussions to remain within the framework of social consultation. It remains to be seen how the protection of citizens will be better guaranteed if the percentage of one language group versus another is better balanced than it is today.

There are a lot of questions about the purpose of this bill. Isn’t it rather about dividing? But Belgium from below and, in this particular case, the military need more unity. For these reasons, we will vote against this text. We are one, we are one.

Thank you, Madame Moscufo.

I think the issues you raised will give rise to a series of discussions included in the January Commission agenda to deepen the other topics you addressed, in particular in terms of recruitment, training, etc.