Claude DeBellefeuille
Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“We are also told that it would have been easier to stop an organized network of pedophiles operating on the Internet. I asked if that means that such criminals cannot be arrested today, because we do not have a law on lawful access on the books. The answer is no.”
“We then asked the government if the commissioner could come back. What was happening was that department officials were completely dismantling all of the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy to understand why I was a little skeptical. I wondered if the commissioner and his team had really been that wrong.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words. I think she is brave, because she came during the clause-by-clause study, like my NDP colleague did. They did not have the right to speak, but they were there, hard-working and rigorous, and they proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for these two members.”
“All the amendments I proposed came either from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Quebec Bar Association, or the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. I did not propose far-fetched amendments. They were based on expert testimony that sought to help us strike a balance.”
“He is telling us that Canada is lagging behind. What exactly are we comparing ourselves to? The United Kingdom does not have a charter protecting people's rights, and neither does the United States. They have street cameras in the U.K. that film people.”
“However, it is still a parliamentary tool that can be used as a last resort when one feels that, no matter what people say, the government's primary goal is to run out the clock, hold a few hours of debate, and then, after about 20 hours, bring in closure and claim that the opposition parties are wasting their time.”
The complete record
Every one of 543 lines we hold for Claude DeBellefeuille, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“I am therefore pleased, if I may say so, to congratulate the member for introducing a private member's bill on this topic. Basically, we have a lot of questions. We are all in favour of an alert, but we have a lot of questions. The first is that I do not understand how a coordinated system across the country could improve the Quebec system. A former spokesperson for the Montreal police said that there could be up to 12 reports of missing seniors in Montreal every day. I cannot imagine an alarm going off on people's phones every time a senior is reported missing. I have a lot of questions and I hope that we will be able to discuss them with the member to better understand. I do not know whether she intends to use the same system as the Amber alert.”
“Mr. Speaker, this being Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, my thoughts go out to my friend Marie-Andrée, who is courageously battling this disease despite the difficulties she faces. I always think of my friend Marie-Andrée when we recognize Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, because we obviously need more donations and grants to advance the research, so I want her to know I am thinking of her. Today, we are discussing a bill on a very important topic. I have devoted my entire career to serving seniors, especially those in the process of losing their independence, first as a social worker and then as a manager within Quebec's health and social services network. I am well aware of the issues facing people living with dementia, and I am also well informed about the consequences of having a loved one with dementia.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on introducing this bill. I commend her for raising awareness about the fact that seniors, especially those living with dementia, need the support of their community and all members of society to help them safely navigate this difficult stage of life. I am curious to know why Manitoba does not have a silver alert system in place. Quebec has a system that works extremely well, and Ontario has one too. The two neighbouring provinces are already working together. I am not convinced that a national standard would improve the alert service we already have in Quebec. I am curious to know what is happening in Manitoba. Does the RCMP have a resource problem? I would like my colleague to explain why this debate is not taking place in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's clear and precise remarks. He takes care to explain things well using concrete examples. This government has a tendency to define terms in regulations. That is what happened with Bill C‑2 . It happened with Bill C‑22 . Now it is happening with Bill C‑28 . It tends to nail down definitions in regulations instead of bills. Can my colleague explain what reasons the government might have for doing that?”
“We are rather proud of that because we are diligent and hard-working professionals. My question for my colleague is this: The bill says that some definitions will be established by regulation, but it make me rather uneasy to give the government the power to establish definitions by regulation. It gives the executive a lot of leeway to change the regulations as it sees fit, without parliamentary debate. Could my colleague explain why the public servants who drafted this bill are insisting that some rather important definitions in the bill be established by regulation?”
“Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to listen to my colleague opposite talk about all of the bills tabled by the government in the House. I have to admit that he is a great public speaker. That said, what surprised me about his speech is that he talked about how hard-working the Bloc Québécois is and about how the Bloc takes its work seriously. Over the past six years, we have said that the Bloc Québécois is the adult in the room, and I think everyone agrees with that. That is not surprising because we did not change our way of doing things and we will not change it, even if the government does have a majority in the House and in committee. The Bloc Québécois wants to improve bills. Our guiding principle is that if a measure is good for Quebec, then we will support it, and all the better if it is good for the rest of Canada.”
“We are not opposed to committees having a majority, but we believe that seven Liberal members is excessive. It is an abuse of power. We wonder if the official opposition whip feels the same way we do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the chief opposition whip. Having served as a whip myself, I know that it is a very demanding role that also requires a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedures. I have a question for my colleague. As we speak, there are two or three committees that are at a standstill, including the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are filibustering and refuse to discuss issues that require transparency and testimony so that we can examine matters that are somewhat sensitive but necessary. Right now, it is the Liberals who are filibustering in the committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about a few things in a little more detail. The Prime Minister sweet-talked us about collaboration, openness, and partnership. He put up a nice facade, wore a nice suit, gave a nice performance. However, behind the scenes, on the floor of the House of Commons, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is doing the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister publicly announced to the media, in front of reporters. Can my colleague tell me what will happen if a scandal is uncovered and we want to learn more? The matter will be impossible to discuss in any committee because the Liberals will reject the motion. They will block transparency. Can my colleague elaborate on the current issue of transparency and accountability?”
“Can our House leader explain to me what Quebeckers and Canadians have to lose because of the approach taken by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , who is acting like the government's “bad cop”?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am in awe of our leader's oratorical skills. She always finds the right words and has a very clear way of explaining the issues to us. Once again, her speech was constructive, with proposals and arguments explaining why the government's current proposal regarding the makeup of committees is unacceptable. This is not the first time the Liberal government has broken custom and tradition by significantly changing the rules. The Liberals did that with the Trudeau government. They took advantage of their alliance with the NDP to act like a majority and make significant changes to the Standing Orders. They are at it again today.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Valleyfield Rotary Club is proudly celebrating 80 years of service to the community. For eight decades, this club, which is made up of dedicated business people, has embodied the values of solidarity, generosity and leadership. Through their involvement, members make a real contribution to improving quality of life in the region. Under the leadership of the current president, Jean‑Michel Montpetit, the Rotary Club is continuing its work with energy and vision. He is doing an outstanding job of supporting many local initiatives with the help of a team of passionate and dedicated volunteers. This anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the enduring commitment of those who make the Valleyfield Rotary Club an essential force for development and community support. I wish the Valleyfield Rotary Club continued success.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague enjoys holding forth, and I think we share the same concerns about Bill C‑22 . It is a much-needed bill, but there are a lot of passages, especially in part 2, that require amendments to improve the bill, particularly when it comes to the whole issue of definitions. In Bill C‑22, the government gives itself a great deal of leeway to define certain fundamental privacy-related terms, but it chooses to do so through regulation rather than through parliamentary debate. This raises concerns, because the government will have a lot of freedom to change the definitions of fundamental privacy-related terms. Does my colleague think that reducing the number of things that can be decided by regulation would be good amendment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He delivered it in both official languages and I thank him for that. I have a little question for him, precisely because he is a Quebec member. Quebec has adopted robust legislation to protect privacy, Bill 25. Certain large Quebec institutions have asked me what is going to happen with Bill 25. They have adapted their practices and systems to meet the privacy requirements of Bill 25. Now that Bill C-22 has been introduced, is it going to cause any confusion in Quebec? Companies and institutions have made a lot of investments in response to Quebec's Bill 25. What is my colleague's reaction to that? What kind of allowances does he propose that his government make?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22 , the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding. There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like to ask her the following question: In Bill C‑22 , the government decided to choose the lowest threshold for obtaining information, that is to say it chose a threshold of reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. The lower standard chosen by the government is raising a lot of questions among experts in Quebec and Canada. What does my colleague think about the government choosing the lowest threshold?”
“Does my colleague think that giving more power to NSIRA, whose mandate is to monitor compliance with legislation, would be a good amendment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that it is a good thing the government did not have a majority when it introduced Bill C‑2 because that bill was a disaster. Everyone agreed on this. People from all kinds of industries agreed that privacy protection was an issue. Now, as far as Bill C‑22 is concerned, yes, we see an improvement and, yes, the government has finally held consultations. Still, there is something that is bothering me. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, was given a secondary role. Australia gives its oversight agency a leading role, yet Canada has decided to notify NSIRA 12 months after the fact, when it submits its report. What is more, the government has three months to submit that report. This means that some events will not be reviewed by NSIRA until a year and a half has passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I know the minister generously told the House that he would be open to amendments that could improve the bill. Does my colleague have any ideas for an amendment or something that could improve the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill states that fundamental terms will be redefined through regulations. We are talking about terms like “encryption” and “systemic vulnerability”. The plan is to change these terms through regulations without any debate. These are fundamental terms that allow law enforcement, but also hackers and malicious actors, to access information. What does my colleague think about the fact that the government set up its bill in such a way as to allow these definitions to be changed through regulations only?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Valleyfield with funding for active transportation is happening all across Quebec. In Saint-Charles-Borromée, for example, it is too late. The federal government missed the deadline to approve the city's projects, and now the city has to start the proposal process over again and will likely end up paying more. No matter how much we press the Minister of Infrastructure and his parliamentary secretary, we are told this is under review. How ironic that Ottawa is completely inactive on the active transportation file. When will Quebec's cities and organizations receive confirmation that they are getting funding?”
“Mr. Speaker, federal funding for active transport is suffering from a lack of government action. Across Quebec, towns and organizations have submitted projects and bids, but there has been radio silence from Ottawa. Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has until April 21, next Tuesday, to start work on a bike path. Otherwise, the price guarantee for the work will expire, the town will have to put it out to tender again and it will cost more. How is it possible that, with just four days to go before the deadline, the town still has not heard anything? It has been waiting for a response for two years now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. We serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security together. I listened to him carefully, but I want to ask him a brief question to ensure I have understood correctly. According to the bill, the definition of essential service providers, which may be subject to injunctions when it comes to lawful access to information, is to be determined by regulation. I wonder whether it is appropriate for this to be determined by the executive branch. Why should such an important definition in this bill be established by regulation rather than by legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. She always explains her opinions in such a calm manner. I have a question. I am wondering why the government chose the lowest possible threshold for obtaining information, that of reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the more stringent threshold of reasonable grounds to believe. Can my colleague explain why the government chose to go that route? I do not understand that and I would like a clear answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell me about the threshold that the government has set for obtaining information, which is the lowest possible threshold. Does my colleague agree with that or does he think that we should be more stringent and raise the threshold for obtaining information?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I wanted to ask him whether he is at all concerned about the fact that Bill C-22 does not give the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency a very big role to play compared to its Australian counterpart. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is informed the moment the order is issued, not one year after the fact. Does my colleague think it might be a good idea to amend Bill C-22 accordingly?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, we share some of those concerns. One concern I would like to highlight involves the government's decision to lower the threshold for obtaining information. It opted for the least stringent threshold. Access would be granted if there are reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to believe. That may be worth amending or, at the very least, seriously discussing here in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who always asks such good, pertinent questions. I have great respect for my colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I would say that if we were to suggest one thing, it would be that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency should be notified in real time of any orders to access private information. Right now, the plan is for it to receive the report one year after the fact. This would make it difficult for the agency to investigate in real time. In Australia, this type of oversight body is notified in real time, as is the privacy commissioner.”
“In my opinion, this seems a little inconsistent with things the government is telling us about lawful access to information.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of the biggest improvements has been the introduction of guardrails, since Bill C‑2 had none. There is a process to follow in order to access data. That process is what may be open to criticism. Some people think it is sufficient, but others do not. I imagine that the issue will be debated further here in the House. If the bill passes this stage and gets to committee, experts will have provide their input on the matter. What we have a hard time understanding is the fact that the minister and law enforcement are being given more authority. It surprises me that the only agency whose primary mission is to monitor the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is being weakened. As things stand, eight positions have already been eliminated after 15% of its budget was slashed.”
“However, the Australian organization has a more important role than the role given to the NSIRA in the context of Bill C‑22. I hope my colleagues understand that it is with a constructive approach that we will continue to debate Bill C‑22 and try to understand how we can improve it. Accordingly, I think the minister and his team can count on the usual co-operation from the Bloc Québécois.”
“We also have a problem with everything that can be changed by way of regulation. We look forward to hearing from experts, if the bill is ever sent to committee, to see how we can limit those elements that will be set through regulation and establish them in the legislation instead. I look forward to hearing the arguments. I want to raise another point. When we compare ourselves to the Five Eyes, people always say that Canada lags behind. There was plenty of testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to this effect, and I believe it too. However, some aspects of Bill C‑22 are more invasive than they are in the other Five Eyes countries. For example, Australia has an organization similar to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or the NSIRA.”
“Quite frankly, I do not really fit the mould of someone who obstructs or refuses to co-operate, and I have plenty of examples to prove it. I think the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are exemplary. We studied Bill C-12 and Bill C-8 , important government bills that required significant and professional contributions from the opposition parties. I will say it again: It bothered me when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, the serious work can begin. It is a nice sound bite, but it could be offensive to certain members who take their work very seriously. We do have some minor concerns about Bill C‑22 . Some concerns are more significant than others. In particular, there is the whole issue of the definition of essential services. I think that needs to be clarified.”
“We made that proposal because cybersecurity, cyber-attacks and basically the entire digital landscape are evolving so rapidly that bills can quickly become outdated given the circumstances, the technologies involved and the ingenuity of unscrupulous individuals seeking to attack our critical systems. This is therefore a task that will require collaboration, and I look forward to our work in committee. I can assure you that, if the bill makes it to committee, we in the Bloc Québécois will work on it with the utmost seriousness and rigour. That is why I was a little offended when the Prime Minister said that now that the Liberals have a majority, it is time to get serious. I have always taken my role as an opposition member seriously and have always taken a constructive approach.”
“I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons call for collaboration and openness. I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety talk about how open they are. I look forward to witnessing that if the bill gets the support it needs to go to committee. (1750) Part 2 of the bill provides further details on how access to information will be granted and regulated, and so it creates a new law. Naturally, Part 3, as is almost always the case in bills from this Parliament, indicates that Parliament must review the legislation three years after the law comes into force. It is true: Parliament will need to take the time, take this seriously and review this legislation three years after it receives royal assent. In fact, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a review for Bill C-8 on cybersecurity.”
“As a reminder, “Part 1 amends various Acts to modernize certain provisions respecting the timely gathering and production of data and information during an investigation.” It amends the Criminal Code and the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act. It amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to allow the Minister of Justice to authorize the enforcement in Canada of foreign orders requiring the disclosure of transmission data or information. It amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act. In other words, this bill amends quite a few existing statutes, so an in-depth study is needed. I have no doubt the bill will go to committee, and I am eager to see how it will be handled now that the government has a majority.”
“It occurs to me that, if the government had been in a majority position last June, Bill C‑2 would have passed, which would have been very bad. That brings me to what the opposition can offer whether the government has a minority or a majority. When the work is taken seriously and is carried out professionally and diligently, our role is to help improve a bill by listening to experts and asking questions. Bill C‑22 does have some privacy safeguards that were missing from Bill C‑2. However, are they enough? We are going to be asking questions about that. We still have a lot of questions on this matter.”
“We cannot necessarily oppose Bill C-22, because we know that as soon as it gets its majority, the government will take steps to have Bill C-22 studied in committee and passed. I am well aware of that. However, I was truly delighted with the minister's response today. I was satisfied. He told me that he was still open to amendments. We have ideas stemming from our own consultations, and it is still possible to improve Bill C-22. I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Public Safety answer yes to my question about whether he was open to amendments. That is to his credit, because I believe he really wants the best possible bill to achieve his objectives, namely public safety and privacy protection. I could not help but say “mon Dieu”. I was tempted to say “my God” but I will not say that.”
“I understand that the government worked very quickly, although perhaps not responsibly enough, because it also wanted to please the American government, especially President Trump, who was threatening Canada at the time. To respond quickly, the government drafted a bill hastily without conducting all of the consultations necessary to produce a high-quality piece of legislation. Today we are debating Bill C-22, which builds on the principles of Bill C-2 but is much more comprehensive and much better crafted, because the government sat down at the table with various groups and consulted with them. There are some groups that say they were not consulted and would have liked to be, but it does seem like the work got done. However, there is still more to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, every time I rise to speak when you are in the chair, I know you have some fun pronouncing the name of my riding, as it is quite a mouthful for any chair occupant. You did a great job of pronouncing it. As the Bloc Québécois critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22 . It is important to note that the government already tried once to introduce a bill on lawful access. That was Bill C-2 , which was introduced last June, nearly a year ago. Bill C-2 was severely criticized, not only by civil society, but also by major organizations, which argued that the bill made no sense.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question. Upon reading the bill, some lawyers who specialize in privacy protection said that they had a bit of a problem with the definition of essential service providers, who may be subject to injunctions relating to technical capabilities for lawful access. That would be done through regulation, which is a major problem. Does my colleague agree that we need to carefully review the definition of essential service providers?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been told that all police services across Canada want this. They are demanding it. We understand them. This is a tool they need, but questions have been raised. For instance, lawyers who specialize in privacy protection want to know why the government set such a low threshold for collecting information. Perhaps the secretary of state can explain to me why the government feels that reasonable grounds to suspect a crime will be committed—rather than reasonable grounds to believe that a crime will be committed—is sufficient to make a demand for information. In law, there is a big difference between those two thresholds for demanding information.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, we agree with the minister that this bill is important. My question is rather simple. Bill C-22 is much better than Bill C-2 , and it includes more protections. That proves one thing: Bill C-2 was hastily thrown together without consultation. It is a good thing the government only had a minority. That meant that we did not have to pass that bill and that we are now able to debate Bill C-22, which is much better. Is the minister willing to agree to amendments to further improve Bill C-22?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who always asks very relevant questions. Indeed, that is what motivated us throughout our work in committee. In other words, when we analyzed Bill C‑8 , we wondered how we could both ensure security and protect privacy and personal information. I think we achieved that. It is not perfect, but I think we achieved that by incorporating the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner and by adding the analysis criteria, namely necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. That gives us some assurance. Before anyone gets access, they have to be screened. Those criteria have to be recorded, observed and documented before someone can get access or issue orders. We think that the requirement to go through this screening offers some security around the whole issue of confidentiality and privacy.”
“I understand her frustration and I empathize with her concerns, but this is a broad debate that we could perhaps have a little later, in the context of other bills.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's frustration because, at the end of the day, she has just as much right to be here in the House as I do. Her voice carries just as much weight as mine and those of all our colleagues in the House. However, it is true that the rules in committee are such that unrecognized parties are not represented around the table during committee deliberations. My colleague was able to introduce her amendments but was not able to debate or vote on them. I understand her frustration. There are many rules in the House that need to be reviewed and many things that need to be modernized. The point is that we need to take the time to do so. Here in the House of Commons, amending the rules has not exactly been commonplace since I was first elected.”
“I just want to say that when we work as a team and our objective is clear, straightforward, precise, positive and constructive, namely, to protect the public and offer security, then amendments and subamendments are welcome. That is what my colleague did.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for being a paragon of collaboration. He is one of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and when I tabled my amendment, he came to see me and said that if we added what he just mentioned to the amendment, the government would be subject to more oversight and would have less time to present the analysis and report. There was a minor flaw in the wording of my amendment, a minor weakness that would have allowed the government to keep discussing the bill beyond five years. My colleague improved it by moving a subamendment. Honestly, I really appreciated his subamendment, which was adopted by all members of the committee, including those on the government side.”
“Madam Speaker, that is indeed a problem, considering the work and analysis that goes into amendments. These amendments had been thoroughly debated by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and though they were deemed inadmissible by the committee chair, we had strong arguments to show that the chair was mistaken. Democracy prevailed, and we overturned the chair's decision. It is regrettable that, despite the debates we had in committee, the Speaker of the House has this additional power to overturn the committee's decision. I believe these rules should be revisited because it does not make sense that, in the context of a minority government, the Speaker of the House had the final say on Bill C-8 after it was thoroughly debated in committee.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words and her question. As a mother and grandmother, I welcome any measure that can really rein in attacks on individuals and their integrity in the digital realm. I wish she had asked me a question about Bill C‑22 , which is another bill that was introduced before the break. In my opinion, it will require the same rigorous study and the same amount of time for analysis because it is about legal access to personal information.”