Michel Bellehumeur

[Human Resources Development, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House “Everyone knows that the department has had this information for a long time, since well before we took office”.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to shift his responsibilities onto the backs of others, when the file came about between 1971 and 1979, during the term of a Liberal government, of which he was a cabinet member? He was therefore perfectly aware of the existence of this file and cannot pass the buck this time.

[Point Of Order, May 29th, 2000]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are waiting for the House of Commons to enter the new millennium with respect to electronic petitions, is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Témiscamingue to table this CD-ROM with 17,000 signatures on this issue, particularly since he had tabled a duly completed petition on the same issue before setting out to table the CD-ROM?

[Petitions, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, like my two colleagues, I have a petition signed by the people of my riding calling for the revocation of section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which interferes with the fundamental right to association, the right to unionize. It is a denial of a basic right.

I am pleased to table this petition and to state that I support what the petitioners are demanding, 100%.

[Human Resources Development, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister recognize that today's show looks more and more like what could be called a cover-up operation?

If it is not known, the principle of no evil seen, no evil done applies, and there is no problem. But as soon as it becomes public, the government opposite does its utmost to cover up its inaction and its management of the megafile.

[Human Resources Development, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development recently said in this House that the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service do not have direct access to her department's megafile.

Could the minister tell us whether or not the RCMP and CSIS have had access, directly or indirectly, to Human Resources Development Canada's megafile?

[Human Resources Development, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. In order to obtain information that concerns me, information in my file, I go personally with my identity cards, me the person on file, to Human Resources Development Canada where I have to make a request for access to personal information in Ottawa with all the delays that entails.

Could the minister explain why I have to submit a request for access, when the departments exchange personal information that concerns me, on request, with a snap of the finger?

[Human Resources Development, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, people asked at an office of Human Resources Development Canada to have the information contained in their personal files. Their request was denied, and they were referred to Ottawa and told to make a request for access to personal information.

Will the minister tell us why it is so complicated for an ordinary citizen to obtain personal information on himself, when her department can get it without the consent of the individual?

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform the sponsor of Bill C-334 that the Bloc Quebecois supports his initiative.

I find it hard to understand the explanations provided by the government regarding this bill. Indeed, if we read it correctly, it answers at least two questions raised by the hon. member. First, how to distinguish the person who is wearing the decoration from the person who was awarded it? A spouse or child wears it, while it was awarded to the father, who is dead.

The bill clearly states that the relative would wear the medals on the right side of the chest. I am not an expert on medals. The hon. member opposite surely knows a lot more than I do, even though he claims it is not the case. We all know that an individual wears the medals that he won on a battlefield on the left side of his chest. Therefore, we would immediately realize that, if a person wears such decorations on the right side of the chest, that person is not the one who was awarded these decorations, but a relative.

I am going to say something and I want hon. members to open their ears because this is from a Bloc Quebecois member, from a mean separatist. If my father or my grandfather had died in one of the two world wars, or in another war, to preserve freedom and democracy and Canada had participated in these operations, I would be very proud to wear his decorations on the right side to clearly identify me as a relative of the person to whom they were awarded.

Once again, the government is showing a lack of sensitivity. Here we have an arrogant government announcing “Here I am. I am in the driver's seat. I am the boss. As for you people over there, nothing you have to say is any good”. I find that deplorable.

I had some questions, however, and I would like to propose that this bill be voted on by the House and discussed in committee. The term “relative” can be confusing, but it could be clarified. Do first cousins qualify, for instance? Is it only direct lineage or indirect as well? The bill could very easily identify what is meant by “relative”.

Once a year we have Remembrance Day. Decorated service people who have died cannot tell us that they would be delighted to see their grandchildren, their widow or their mother wearing their medals, but I think we can put ourselves in their place for a few moments.

These people left wives, children and parents behind when they went to war. They lost their lives and were decorated. I believe it would be very humane to allow a relative—mother, widow, child or grandchild—to wear on Remembrance Day the medal or medals which their family member had earned during the world wars or some other conflict in which he served his country.

I also wonder about another point, which merits examination. The desire is to amend section 419 of the Criminal Code, which states “Everyone who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, wears a medal—”

Are there examples of court rulings or case law where an individual has worn the medal of a deceased war veteran and been charged with a criminal offence? If this is the case, it makes no sense.

The bill before us today is an attempt to regulate common sense. I think that section 419 covers the situation I have just described; there is a legitimate authorization, which goes without saying. If that is not the case, then the bill is necessary and it should be passed at this stage and considered in committee.

We should all be in agreement with such a bill. I urge veterans to make their views known, before the government votes against such a bill. If they agree with it, they should call their member of parliament, the government members, so that they show a little more sensitivity.

Since this is the first hour of debate, there is still time to backtrack and to vote in favour of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-334, and I congratulate its sponsor on his initiative.

[Young Offenders Act, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that all those who represent Quebec's criminal justice system, all those who have, for years now, been working with the Young Offenders Act, who are familiar with the young offender problem, describe the minister's Bill C-3 as backward and repressive? She must withdraw Bill C-3, as all Quebecers are asking her to do.

[Young Offenders Act, May 16th, 2000]

Now that a federal agency is telling her what we have been saying for months, will the minister understand that the problem is not the Young Offenders Act but the manner in which it is enforced?