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 4 of 11.
“There is a Canadian law that is going through the legislative process, and it will be even better. I want to sincerely thank everyone for working so hard to achieve the results we achieved. Contrary to what we hear too often from the Liberal government and its members, it is not true that the opposition filibusters. Just because we disagree and propose amendments does not mean that we are against a bill. With Bill C-8 , we proved that when we work together for the public good, we can get things done, and done well. Bill C-8 will continue to wend its way through the legislative process.”
“He is an extraordinary researcher. I want to thank my assistant Racim and the people who work for the House leader of the Bloc Québécois . They supported us, studied the amendments with us and helped us decide where we stood on our colleagues' amendments. I also want to thank the people who work for the Bloc Québécois's chief whip, who help us at all of our meetings. We engaged in a lot of negotiations during the debate on Bill C‑8 's clauses. Every staffer for every party whip was there because the goal was to reach an agreement and compromise to make sure Bill C‑8 was the best bill it could be. This is not something we hear a lot, and it certainly does not make headlines, but this bill is the product of constructive, collaborative work. Bill C‑8 will be good for Quebec because the Bloc Québécois protected Quebec's interests.”
“Both the Liberals and the Conservatives, just like the Bloc and the NDP, helped improve the bill. That is the beauty of democracy. If the opposition is strong and thorough, ultimately, it is the citizens who benefit, because the bill ends up even better. In the time I have left, I would like to thank our chair, who masterfully led the committee's work; the vice-chair and member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola ; as well as the parliamentary secretary and member for La Prairie—Atateken . I also want to thank our clerk, Mr. Cardegna. Our wonderful analysts, Alexsandra and Sabrina, did an exemplary job, as did our legislative adviser, Marie. Finally, I would like to acknowledge our interpreters, who were always present in person to support us. (1540) I also want to thank Maxime Duchesne, the Bloc Québécois researcher.”
“We adopted an amendment requiring a review of the legislation and its benefits, strengths and weaknesses in five years so that it can be adjusted as needed. This Bloc Québécois amendment was adopted unanimously by all members, and we are happy with it. When it comes to the whistle-blowers covered by part 2 of the bill, perhaps we can take another shot at including whistle-blower protection during the next review. I think that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did an exceptional and exemplary job in reviewing Bill C-8 . I felt like I should pat myself on the back a little, because the Liberals often say that opposition members are obstructing proceedings. Earlier, during his speech on Bill C-8, a member of the committee said that we had done a good job. That is because we wanted to have the best bill possible.”
“However, in the case of telecommunications workers, their explanations allowed us to tweak the bill, right up to the very last minute. The Conservatives, Liberals and the Bloc all agreed to incorporate their proposals. Unfortunately, the chair rejected my amendment today. We realized that whistle-blowers were protected under part 1, but not under the new law, part 2. We attempted to introduce an amendment, citing the need for consistency. Unfortunately, it was rejected. However, we are holding out hope for the time when the legislation will be reviewed, since another Bloc Québécois amendment has been tabled. This is such an important piece of legislation. Technology, cyber-attacks and cybersecurity are evolving so quickly, including artificial intelligence.”
“(1535) We also listened to the workers who are part of the Canadian Telecommunications Workers Alliance, because they have expressed serious concerns regarding Bill C-8, particularly with regard to whistle-blowers. If someone observes misuse, practices that violate the law or improper use of access to information—including sensitive information—and decides to report it, what could happen to them? After hearing their testimony, the Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment aimed at protecting whistle-blowers who wish to report suspected wrongdoing. We are quite proud of that. We are working with various witnesses. Just because a witness expresses an opinion or presents facts regarding a bill does not mean we have to accept everything they say.”
“At the same time, the government decided to cut NSIRA's funding by 15%, which amounts to about eight positions, including lawyers, analysts and investigators. This means that ministers and public servants would have more power but NSIRA would have less power and fewer tools. We were therefore disappointed to see that, despite cutting $2.7 million from NSIRA's $17-million budget, the government chose not to support the amendments from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party, and the Speaker ruled them inadmissible today. This made us somewhat suspicious, given that the only office with an oversight function is having its budget cut by 15%. That is 15% of $17 million. It may not seem like much, but when we look at what it represents in terms of jobs at NSIRA, it is quite a lot.”
“That is a shame, because they would have made it necessary to obtain a mandate to make regulations, which would prevent the minister from having too much power. I am worried, and I will always point out that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, is the only monitoring agency for Canada's intelligence services and the RCMP. It is the only agency with a mandate to monitor those agencies to see whether they are complying with the law. In other words, are they abusing their powers or sharing information? Are they dealing with private information beyond what the law allows them to do? Basically, ruling the Conservatives' amendment out of order gives the ministers more power.”
“We in the Bloc Québécois took the Privacy Commissioner's testimony very seriously, and we proposed amendments to ensure that, if sensitive information is shared, it is analyzed based on the criteria of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness before access is granted. Quite frankly, we will have to revisit these three criteria when we study Bill C-22 , which provides legal access to information. We will ensure that these three criteria are included in the legislation, as they are important when it comes to accessing information and, above all, sharing it with various stakeholders. We also supported amendments that were prepared by our Conservative colleagues. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House.”
“The Bloc Québécois had presented a similar amendment. We all agreed that there was a line we would not cross. By putting it right there in the bill, encryption is now protected. We heard from some very good witnesses. We also heard from the Privacy Commissioner, who was surprised to find that Bill C-8 lacked consistency regarding three key criteria for accessing privileged information or sharing sensitive intelligence. He was concerned that the criteria of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness were not fully specified in the bill. They were included in some sections, but not in others.”
“Only people with the right key can decrypt the information and understand it. Encryption is used to protect sensitive information, such as messages, passwords and banking information. It is used in online communications, such as email, secure websites and some messaging apps, like WhatsApp, for example. Messages and calls are encrypted end to end. We explored this part of Bill C‑8 in depth because we had no guarantee that the government would lower its encryption criteria given that it was so vulnerable to cyber-attacks just then. There was also potential for abuse due to easier access to conversations people could have on social media apps. The government listened to our concerns and those of the witnesses and put forward its own amendment, which made it crystal clear that there would be no changes to encryption.”
“As we know, for the federal government, consultation often means making decisions and consulting afterward. In committee, we wanted to make sure that Electricity Canada's recommendations were heard properly. Obviously, we proposed an amendment that addressed its concerns, which were the same as ours, and that amendment was adopted. We were very pleased that a number of Bloc Québécois amendments were adopted. (1530) One in particular was very important to me. We had one witness, Mr. Lefebvre, who explained why encryption is so important. I do not know how well-versed my colleagues are in digital and technological matters, but encryption is a central element of all digital systems. Basically, it is a security technique that makes readable information unreadable to any unauthorized person.”
“Our goal was to come up with the best bill that would serve Quebec's interests, and so much the better if it served the interests of all other Canadians as well. I will give some examples. In Bill C‑26 , all of the recommendations made by Electricity Canada were rejected. Some of them dealt with Hydro‑Québec and the importance of respecting Quebec's jurisdictions, including that of Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec manages a hydroelectric network and an electricity transmission system that crosses provincial and U.S. borders, and it was already meeting very demanding and strict security regulations. All of a sudden, with Bill C‑8, it found itself in a situation where the federal government could decide everything without consulting the provinces or Quebec, even though officials and the party opposite were telling us that they would consult.”
“However, we in the Bloc Québécois have a very influential and conscientious House leader, and she refused. She said that we absolutely had to be able to debate Bill C‑8 because we had a new perspective and because time had passed. More importantly, during the debate on Bill C‑26, almost all of our amendments were defeated because of the deal between the NDP and the Liberals. Even though our proposed amendments to Bill C‑26 made sense, they were defeated quite easily, because the NDP had agreed to that bill. As fate would have it, we began debating Bill C‑8 with a completely new perspective and, most importantly, in a new political context where the Bloc Québécois held the balance of power in committee. The Bloc used this power judiciously and rigorously, in a professional manner.”
“The bill is divided into two parts. Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to strengthen security by authorizing the government to direct Internet service providers to do or not do certain things that are necessary to secure the entire Canadian telecommunications system. Part 2 of the bill creates a new act, the critical cyber systems protection act, which would provide a framework for the protection of critical cyber-infrastructure and companies under federal jurisdiction. When it tabled Bill C-8, the government expected us to pass it with little or no debate, considering that it was a carbon copy of Bill C-26 , which had gone through the entire legislative process in the previous Parliament and died on the Order Paper in the Senate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at third reading of Bill C-8 , a very important bill. We agree with the government and with all members of the House that we needed a bill on cybersecurity. We took the necessary time to debate this bill over a number of sittings. We heard from a number of witnesses and experts, and there was no filibustering by the Conservatives, the Bloc or the Liberals. No one filibustered. Why? It is because everyone agreed that this is an important bill and that it was important to improve it through a series of amendments. The Conservative Party put forward amendments, the Bloc Québécois put forward amendments and even the government made amendments to its own bill. We even adopted an amendment proposed by a non-recognized party, because it made sense and improved the bill. What exactly is Bill C-8?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague. I enjoyed debating Bill C‑8 with her at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I really appreciated the questions she asked the witnesses and experts with a view to improving Bill C‑8 based on their testimony. Can she honestly state that all members debated Bill C‑8 rigorously and professionally and that they all contributed to making it a better bill by debating it and working on it in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, as the critic for public safety and emergency preparedness, I debated Bill C‑12 in committee, and I can say that we put in a lot of hours. We worked until midnight to get through the clause-by-clause consideration of this important bill, which makes rather significant amendments in the realm of refugees and immigration. Even after such an eloquent speech, does my colleague have anything to add or to ask the government about Bill C‑12 ?”
“To all the victims' loved ones and to all those in shock, may shared memories and affection bring them some comfort at this difficult time.”
“Mr. Speaker, in a split second, tragedy struck. Two pilots lost their lives on Sunday in a collision involving their aircraft on a runway at LaGuardia airport in New York. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to offer my condolences to the loved ones of Mackenzie Gunther. I also extend my condolences and full support to all the members of Antoine Forest's family. Antoine was barely 30 years old and hailed from Coteau‑du‑Lac in my riding. He likely saved dozens of lives before losing his own. My thoughts go out to the 41 people who were hospitalized, particularly to flight attendant Solange Tremblay, who miraculously survived after being thrown from the plane and is now recovering from her injuries. I also want to acknowledge the rapid emergency response.”
“Nevertheless, I will conclude by saying that while that is all well and good, we must also ensure that correctional officers in prisons are able to do their jobs properly. We must ensure their safety and that of the public.”
“It is dangerous work, and not just because the inmates are dangerous, but also because the work tools are faulty. Some of these prisons could really use some TLC, and they need to adapt to new technologies. Is it normal for drones to openly smuggle drugs and weapons into the Drummondville and Port-Cartier prisons, or for correctional officers to work in second-hand marijuana smoke because drugs are being brought into our prisons via drones? There is much to be said about the working conditions of our officers and the current situation in our prisons. The Conservatives have been pushing to put more people in prison since the start of this parliamentary session. That is perfectly normal for some.”
“That is often what moves us emotionally, leading us to introduce bills that our constituents are calling for. I understand that he firmly believes that his bill will fix the situation and that there will be no more cases like Paul Bernardo's. I can say one thing. I am touring federal penitentiaries in Quebec. I have visited Port‑Cartier and Drummond. I am going to visit La Macaza and the women's prison in Joliette soon. During my first two visits, I was truly shocked to see how little support Correctional Service Canada provides to correctional officers. I am struck by the fact that these officers have to work and do mandatory overtime in working conditions that anyone would find unacceptable. I am being sincere when I say that those working in a maximum security prison have to be tough, because it is dangerous.”
“In our view, this provision cannot be broadly applied because we know the justice system makes mistakes. Sometimes justice gets it wrong. It is sad but true. Many examples come to mind. In my questions earlier, I talked about Claude Paquin, who was convicted of two first-degree murders and spent 18 years in prison. He was acquitted at the age of 81, 41 years after he was charged. The first thing he said to the judge when she finally exonerated him was, “You just got me out of hell.” It is clear that if my colleague's bill were passed, Mr. Paquin could never have been found innocent and acquitted in the end, even after 18 years in prison. That is why we oppose the bill before us. However, I understand where my colleague is coming from, because this request came from his community and his constituents.”
“Those who pose a high risk to public safety will also be placed in a maximum-security prison. We can all agree that, in Paul Bernardo's case, Correctional Service Canada's judgment was questionable. One has to wonder how it came to the decision that it did. It made no sense at all to parliamentarians and especially to victims, their families and the community. Again, that decision was so reckless that it cost the justice minister at the time his job. Let us keep in mind that Bill C‑232 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.”
“The bill, as it is currently written, is primarily aimed at them, but it also covers people who have committed multiple murders, more than one murder. It is this aspect that we have an issue with. I just want to remind members that three factors are taken into account when determining where an inmate will be detained. One of the primary reasons an inmate may be incarcerated in a maximum-security prison is their behaviour. (1805) For example, an inmate who constantly assaults their fellow inmates or correctional officers could be transferred to a maximum-security prison to ensure the safety of others. Another factor is flight risk. We have seen dangerous offenders who have managed to escape from prison. Those who attempt or manage to escape may require closer supervision and will therefore be placed in a maximum-security prison.”
“The reason we are talking about him with respect to this bill is because he got himself transferred, in strict secrecy and without the families' knowledge, to a series of medium-security prisons, including La Macaza, which is in my colleague's riding. Many mistakes were made on that file, and it cost the then minister of public safety his job. Members may know that La Macaza houses a number of sex offenders. This transfer was carried out in strict secrecy, as I was saying, probably because Correctional Service Canada believed that the public would never tolerate the idea of this dangerous offender being transferred to a medium-security prison. It goes without saying, but I want to make it very clear that we have no pity for criminals like Paul Bernardo, Luka Rocco Magnotta or Alexandre Bissonnette.”
“It bears repeating that the Bloc Québécois believes in the justice system and the work done by Correctional Service Canada. Above all, the Bloc believes in rehabilitation. Basically, we oppose sentences that could hinder rehabilitation. Before our Conservative colleagues get all worked up, I want to say that we know that some criminals have no capacity for rehabilitation. For example, in the case at issue here, that of Paul Bernardo, we know that this offender is not capable of being rehabilitated. We understand that, and we know that this bill is really aimed at him. Paul Bernardo is a name that everyone knows because, in the early 1990s, he and his accomplice kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed three young girls. He was sentenced to life in prison for those horrific crimes. He is a dangerous offender.”
“Correctional officers are really stretched to the limit because of equipment and recruitment issues. They are sometimes five or six officers short on certain shifts. That is the case at the Drummondville federal penitentiary, for example. Those are difficult conditions. The bill refers to the irrevocable incarceration of any inmate who has committed more than one murder. The bill does not refer only to dangerous offenders. It refers to criminals who have committed more than one murder or who have been found to be dangerous offenders. It states that these individuals would be required to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary with no possibility of release. That is what we find problematic about this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in the study of this bill. This is a rather delicate matter, since this bill was introduced to respond to a very specific case. I think it is dangerous to draft a bill that targets a single case. As legislators, we have to think about how our bill will apply to all sorts of criminals who are incarcerated if it is passed, and we need to consider its actual application. Yesterday, I read in the newspapers that another fight had gone awry at the federal penitentiary in Donnacona and that one inmate had killed another. I can say that the situation in federal penitentiaries is no bed of roses for correctional officers right now, because they are so short-staffed. There is a shortage of correctional officers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague who is affected and who is using his privilege to introduce a bill that affects him and his constituents. However, when a member introduces a bill, it cannot be tailored to one specific case. It has to be designed with society as a whole in mind, and it must apply to a broad group. Unless I missed something, I did not hear my colleague mention the possibility of miscarriages of justice, for example. We know that mistakes are made. We know that there are people who have been convicted of murder and who have served their sentences only to later be acquitted. This happened to one inmate in Quebec after 18 years. Is my colleague's bill too restrictive? Would applying it to all cases, in a more broad and general way, cause problems for the justice system?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like our colleague opposite to clearly explain why we are debating Government Business No. 6 today. What purpose will that serve? How has it come to this? Why are we being forced to debate a time allocation motion? Is it because the Conservatives are filibustering in committee? Can my colleague tell us more about that?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. The matter before us today, what we are debating, is not necessarily the substance of Bill C‑9 , but the process for getting it passed. I know that my colleague is newly elected, and I was able to admire his skill as a speaker in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where he was able to fill a lot of time by filibustering the consideration of Bill C‑12 . After 50 hours of debate, does he not think it is normal for us to be able to stop and agree to move forward and pass Bill C‑9 ? I know that my colleague is not happy with the amendment on the religious exemption, but democracy has to take its course at a certain point. Today, we are talking about speeding up the work because of excessive filibustering by the Conservatives.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion to curtail debate on Bill C‑9 in its entirety. That strikes me as odd. This is happening because the religious right wing of the Conservative Party has been filibustering the committee. They do not like that the Liberals and Bloc Québécois passed an amendment to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. I must say, this is right-wing obstructionism, and I find it illogical. People cannot claim religious goodwill while allowing hatred to be propagated and spread in the name of religion. Could my colleague elaborate on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the Port of Valleyfield in my riding, Desgagnés Logistik Valport stands to lose customers because Transport Canada decided to create unfair competition between rail transportation and marine transportation. The federal government is jeopardizing ports, jobs and entire logistics corridors. Since the Minister of Transport claims to understand the importance of marine transportation and the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel that depend on it, will he clearly commit to adding national marine transportation to the program with a firm timeline and equitable parameters?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has announced a subsidy program for Canadian steel transportation that applies only to rail, not to marine transportation. There was a time, however, when our shipowners moved hundreds of thousands of tons of steel every year. The lack of equivalent support poses a direct threat to these shipments. Nevertheless, interprovincial marine transportation plays a vital role in supply chains, and Transport Canada's mandate is precisely to promote an integrated transportation system. Will the minister correct this inconsistency and include national marine transportation in his program?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and tell him that the House is fairly unanimous in supporting Bill S‑2 . However, I am curious to know whether he thinks it might be time to go a little further and carry out a more in-depth overhaul of the Indian Act. My Bloc colleague said that the name of the act itself is repulsive. Is it not time to take things to the next level and go even further in our relationship with first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. It must be the late hour. I am tired. Does my colleague think that, through Bill C‑15, the current Liberal government is signalling a lack of interest in the environment and in environmental protection?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague, who is the leader of the Green Party and the only Green Party member in the House. Her voice is very important. Bill C‑15 gives a lot of power to ministers and the executive branch to suspend all laws, aside from the Criminal Code. Does my colleague think that is a clear signal that anything to do with environmental legislation or the protection of species at risk is being set aside by the Carney government to pass—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. We often hear that the opposition is here to oppose and obstruct bills. On the contrary, we are here to provide constructive criticism, to improve and enhance the bills under consideration. Bill C‑15 was studied at breakneck speed since it is a 600-page bill containing many, many clauses. There are some good aspects to the bill, but there are also some clauses that are rather questionable. We appreciated the finance minister's willingness to listen. He was unaware that one section of the bill threatened mail delivery to rural libraries and to the visually impaired. He listened. We proposed an amendment and saved the day for rural libraries. Could my colleague give us an example of an amendment from her party that improved Bill C-15?”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 was the subject of vigorous debate at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We proposed amendments and improved the bill. However, a bill does not solve all of the problems. There is often a tendency to forget about and abandon the people who have to deal with things like organized crime and organized smuggling groups in their small communities. These people live in small villages and they worry about finding migrants who have crossed the U.S. border illegally in their fields or forests. These migrants may sometimes be freezing cold, injured or suffering from hypothermia. I do not often hear about solutions to help these people. We need to talk about that. Immigration is a complex phenomenon, and I think that we need to look at several aspects of it.”
“Niagara Falls, Ontario, had decided to do its part for a few weeks. However, when tourist season was coming up, the city said that its hotels were full of immigrants and refugees and asked that they be taken back because it needed the space. That hurts. We are being told that something is not working. However, the Liberals continue to sit on their hands. Why are the Liberals not requiring the provinces to take in their fair share of these refugees? That is a question I would like to ask a Liberal member, if there is an opportunity later today.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his empathy for the trauma that Alain Therrien and I experienced in the House when we were called racists by the former NDP leader. My colleague is absolutely right. In our debates, we often talk about files and cases, but behind the refugee claims are human beings, families and children. Basically, the vast majority of these people want protection and a better life. Leaving one's country and one's family behind and going into exile is no picnic for those who do it for the right reasons. It is a big decision. My point is that in order for us to accommodate them properly, our intake capacity needs to be respected. We in the Bloc Québécois have always said that what is really important is for the responsibility be shared among the provinces.”
“However, when a freezing cold migrant walks out of the woods and needs first aid, it is often the municipalities, through their first responder services, that intervene. All that is to say that there is much to discuss on the whole issue of refugees: support for municipalities, support for border services officers, and support for RCMP officers. In my opinion, the government is not on the right track demanding cuts that will lead to a deterioration in service delivery. In public safety, a budget cut means a decline in public safety and a lack of important tools for first responders, RCMP officers and border services officers. (1135) I would like to close by saying that we need more debates like this to engage in respectful dialogue about the immigration situation in Quebec and Canada and its impact on our society.”
“Above all, we must bear in mind that those trying to come here are often helpless, in distress and in need of protection. Ultimately, we do need to support those who arrive illegally, but we also need to crack down on the smugglers who exploit these people. There is an issue that no one is talking about and, as critic, I would like to address it in the time allotted to me. Not all small municipalities in southern Quebec have first responders and fire trucks. They share their emergency services with slightly larger municipalities. Every time a first responder leaves a small municipality, it costs the municipality money. As we speak, there are no Quebec or federal programs that reimburse municipalities for costs related to migrants.”
“Some people enter legally through a border crossing, but others enter the country illegally. That also creates pressure. As the critic, I can say that the government still has a lot of work to do to control its borders better. I am an MP from southern Quebec. My riding and that of my colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville receive the largest number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Unionized RCMP officers at the Valleyfield detachment say they would need twice as many officers to cope with this issue. They do what they can and they are really good, but they lack resources. Instead of cutting the RCMP's budget, the government should give them better equipment, better tools, and double the number of officers on patrol. It will take resources to prevent migrants from entering our territory illegally.”
“I am sorry to say it, but I think that the federal government is no good. It is no good at providing services. It is no good at providing services in a timely manner. It is no good at doing any of the things within its jurisdiction: It is no good at EI, it is no good at old age security, it is no good at passports. There is always some problem with processing times. I am not saying that the public servants are no good, I am saying that they do not have the resources they need to achieve their targets. That is because of outdated technological tools, methods of work, and especially the fact that teams are not getting what they need to be productive, effective and efficient in 2026. I think that is the biggest problem. As the Bloc Québécois's public safety critic, I have observed that we are also dealing with a lot of illegal entries.”
“Given how long it takes to get a refugee status decision, however, some people do file asylum claims to take advantage of the system and probe for weaknesses. (1130) The government is currently making cuts almost everywhere, in all departments, including the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Existing resources are not enough to allow them to clear their backlogs and also deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time. A sort of domino effect comes into play. If it takes less time, it costs less: It costs the federal government less and it costs the provinces less. I think that that is the key responsibility. The federal government is unable to provide services to citizens and refugees. It is unable to provide services in a timely manner.”
“That said, I think that my colleague was correct in saying that the problem with the services program is not necessarily the cost overruns, but the way the government is managing the program through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. People should not have to wait 40 months before receiving a decision on their status. Some refugee claimants want protection. If I am a refugee seeking protection, I should not have to wait 40 months. I should not have to wait six, eight or nine months to get a work permit while my status is being determined. A person who requests protection wants to work and earn a living. They are not usually looking for a handout.”
“We also denounce the lack of nuance in Conservative rhetoric, which suggests that asylum seekers who commit crimes are not sent back to their countries of origin. We are proud to say that the Geneva Convention, to which Canada is a signatory, stipulates that refugees are entitled to public assistance. That being said, let us acknowledge that this is still a significant issue. Today's debate is respectful of everyone's opinions, comments, and arguments. It is important to discuss this in a healthy manner. It feels good, because in 2019 and 2020, that was not the case here at all. Everyone was outraged, starting with former prime minister Justin Trudeau. In addition, some Conservative members of Parliament did not fully support our position, which was to demand more fairness in the treatment and reception of refugees.”