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 5 of 11.
“It is true that Quebeckers and Canadians are welcoming people, but uncontrolled immigration has caused many social and economic problems. It is not just the fault of immigrants. It is because of the general context and the lack of supervision. I am pleased that my political party is standing firm today and opposing the motion on the grounds that it lacks rigour. First, we deplore the federal government's inability to process asylum claims, which unduly inflates the program's costs. Ultimately, we would like the federal government to review the generosity of the program, without going so far as to offload the problem onto the provinces, leaving them on the hook for the most expensive health services.”
“If, after my 12 years in federal politics, someone were to ask me what my most difficult moment in the House was, I would say that it was when my colleague Alain Therrien, the former member for La Prairie, and I were accused of being racist by the leader of the NDP. He did that because we dared to raise a sensitive issue in the House, namely that of immigration, our intake capacity, refugees and need to evenly spread the intake of asylum seekers among the provinces. That was the worse slight that was cast upon me, the one that caused me the most pain. I am making this confession because, in the Bloc Québécois, we have been saying for some time that insufficient control over immigration is a problem. Today, we are talking about the refugee issue, but immigration is a very sensitive and heated topic.”
“Madam Speaker, as my colleague who spoke before me mentioned, we will be voting against this Conservative motion for several reasons. I am quite proud of my riding's position. When I read the motion, I felt somewhat uncomfortable because it seems to paint all refugees with the same brush. I will explain why we are opposed to the motion. The Bloc Québécois has given this a lot of thought. This is such a sensitive issue. It is not easy to talk about subjects like immigration and refugees in the House without being accused of being racist. I would like to share an experience that I had.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need an independent public inquiry into Cúram because the Liberals are out of touch with reality. Imagine causing financial problems for 85,000 retirees and thinking that it is no big deal. Imagine letting 85,000 people fall through the cracks thanks to a computer system and responding by just asking us to pass on their names and saying the government will look into the issues. There are people who have not received their old age security payments for nine months. What are these people supposed to live on?”
“I want to wish a happy Valentine's Day to everyone, including all those who love, those who want to love, those who need love, and those I love, including my partner, my children and my grandchildren.”
“Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Valentine's Day, a holiday for lovers. We know that some people think Valentine's Day is too commercial or too corny, and some say that lovers do not need a holiday. Others who are single simply do not care. As for me, I think that we need a holiday that celebrates love now more than ever. When times are uncertain, when tragedy strikes, when people are wondering what the world is coming to, in times like these, we need to love one another now more than ever. We need to tell those around us that we love them and we need to be reminded that we are loved by those we care about. I truly believe that this is necessary and that setting a day aside for love is still a good idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the thoroughness of her presentation. She has done her research and knows what she is talking about. She studied law herself, so it is interesting to hear from someone who knows the subject so well. My question is perhaps more for her in her capacity as the Bloc Québécois House leader. I understand that currently, in the House, the government is trying to convince the public that our desire to debate bills, because we want to improve them, means that we are filibustering. That irritates me to no end. It seems to me that our job is to improve and enhance legislation. Could my colleague comment on that?”
“Two people who have worked their entire lives do not have access to the same basic conditions, simply because of their age. I find that incomprehensible and deeply unfair. I am proud to join my colleagues in correcting this inequality, recognizing the immense contribution of our seniors, and offering them what they deserve: a dignified retirement, starting at age 65. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-261. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension) . She said: Mr. Speaker, introducing a bill that directly affects the daily lives of our constituents is always an important moment in a parliamentarian's life. In my riding, as in many regions, a large proportion of the population is 65 years of age or older. In Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, it is about 20% of the population. Everywhere I go, the message is the same: People can no longer make ends meet. No one should have to choose between rent, groceries and medication. No one should contribute their entire working life and then experience financial anxiety in retirement. As we know, the enhanced pension starts only at age 75. That decision has created a real injustice.”
“It lives on in the policies she shaped, in the institutions she helped strengthen, and in the belief she fully embodied, that politics can still be a tool for progress. Today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank her. I thank her for her courage, her integrity and her humanity. Her example will continue to remind us that when politics is guided by knowledge and empathy, it can truly change lives.”
“As the editorial team at The Hill Times suggested, if the government really wants to honour Kirsty's memory and political legacy, it should live up to its commitment and call a independent public inquiry on safe sport in her honour, because that is something that she cared deeply about and that she would have wanted to see through. Even when illness struck, Kirsty remained standing. Physically weakened but undiminished in her determination, she continued to speak with a strength and clarity that left its mark on the House. Kirsty passed away on January 26, 2026, at the age of 59, after a long battle with cancer. Her passing sparked a wave of tributes from across Canada. However, her legacy cannot be summed up in titles or dates.”
“As minister of science, she helped restore scientific research to its rightful place in government by defending academic freedom and data transparency and consistently reminding people that one must govern based on facts, not impressions. Kirsty also took on the sport portfolio with the same diligence and sense of duty. She strongly believed that public policy should always seek to protect people, particularly the most vulnerable. I also want to acknowledge her ongoing commitment to safe sport, a battle she cared a lot about.”
“Her many years of research and teaching gave her a quality that is sadly rare in politics: the ability to bring science and intellectual rigour to bear on the most concrete human realities. She believed that government decisions should be informed by knowledge and guided by compassion. She was first elected in 2008 as the member for Etobicoke North and served her community steadfastly for over 15 years. She was re-elected five times and held important cabinet positions, including minister of science and minister of sport and persons with disabilities. She also served as the deputy House leader of the government. In each of these roles, she was driven by the same belief, that science, inclusion and empathy must guide public action.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to pay tribute to Kirsty Duncan. I am also rising on behalf of two colleagues who also knew her, the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue , and who both wanted to say a few words. Today, I pay tribute to an exceptional woman, a woman whose career, commitment and humanity left a lasting mark on the House and on thousands of lives. I am talking about Kirsty Duncan. Kirsty was not just a fellow parliamentarian or a minister. She was also a scientist, an educator, a deeply committed woman who believed that politics should always serve the people. Before she even became a member of the House of Commons, she was a renowned academic and an expert in public health and pandemics.”
“Madam Speaker, public servants have been telling the government since June that the Cúram software is causing problems with people's OAS benefits. Obviously, no one on the Liberal side did anything about it because, just 10 days ago, they were saying that there was no problem and that this was just fearmongering. Suddenly, yesterday, they realized that 85,000 pensioners were affected by the malfunction. The Liberals have just clued in, eight months after they were told there was a problem. Why can this government never take responsibility before it is too late?”
“What often happens is that we debate a motion here and then after it is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, there is no follow-up. I think the time has come to change some of the standing orders. Could my colleague share his wishes concerning the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?”
“Madam Speaker, some of my colleague's suggestions make a lot of sense, including the one to reinstate standing orders that were amended on an exceptional basis during the last Parliament by a majority of members. A tradition once existed here in Parliament whereby changes to key standing orders were to be made by consensus. That consensus ended when the New Democrats and the Liberals agreed to amend standing orders that benefited the government party and disadvantaged the opposition parties. That must never happen again. I never understood the NDP's position on this. My colleague is suggesting that we revert to the former standing orders that put the party in power and the opposition parties on an equal footing. Can my colleague tell me what he would really like to see happen on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?”
“In closing, I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his determination, and I encourage him to pursue his discussions with the government in order to convince the Liberals to reverse their decision and allow a shorter legislative process for passing Bill S-233 .”
“There is a reason why, in Montreal, for example, police officers are often accompanied by a social worker or specialized educator when they respond to situations involving domestic violence, disordered behaviour or mental health issues, in order to help defuse the crisis. It is precisely to avoid aggression and injury to first responders. It absolutely boggles my mind that facts like those are not enough to convince the government to provide Quebec and the provinces with better service delivery support. As we know, health and social services consume a large portion of the budgets of Quebec and the provinces. This stubborn refusal to increase the health transfer is causing considerable harm to health care professionals and first responders, not to mention the people who require the services and assistance of skilled professionals.”
“Of course, the bill does add the aggravating factor, and we agree with that, but we must not forget the main point. We also need to support health care professionals upstream and support first responders when they intervene on the ground. However, there are only so many ways to do that. This can be done by adding specialized crisis intervention personnel trained to deal with someone who is displaying completely disordered behaviour, for example. It could be someone who is intoxicated and wants to attack an ambulance attendant, firefighter or even a police officer, for example, who arrives at a scene where they must intervene.”
“I cannot help but respond to that by saying that the primary responsibility lies with those who have too much money and who spend it in areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, those who do not do what it takes to give the provinces the means to also look after their health care professionals and first responders. Like the member for Cariboo—Prince George , I have witnessed all sorts of situations. Police officers and firefighters are now often accompanied by social workers who can help calm down angry individuals or individuals with mental health issues who are in crisis and behaving very violently toward the first responder. Practices are changing and health care professionals are being hired to support first responders, but that costs money.”
“I had to deal with situations where a Garda company security guard had to be hired to protect health care workers from being attacked or assaulted by residents. These incidents were not necessarily premeditated, but a consequence illness. When it gets to the point where taxpayer dollars need to be spent on hiring guards to protect staff members from being hit, kicked, bitten, pushed or injured, a lot of tax dollars get spent on staff security. I think that managers sometimes agonize over the need to do more with less and sometimes feel compelled to cut back on these guards' hours, for example, just to balance their budget. The member for Winnipeg North said that the provinces need to take responsibility.”
“I often say this, but I am a social worker and manager at the Montérégie‑Ouest integrated health and social services centre. I can say that I have seen very serious situations. I will describe some of these situations because I think it is important to understand how important this bill is, as well as how important it is to prevent violence against health care professionals and first responders. (1840) There are things that I never saw in my practice until very recently. I was re-elected six years ago. Before that, I was a manager. I managed seniors' residences. Seniors are staying in residences longer now, and they often struggle with dementia, and the fact is that dementia, especially frontal lobe dementia, often leads to aggressive and violent behaviour directed at health care workers.”
“However, there is no specific offence that states that an attack on a health care professional or a first responder constitutes an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing. That is what the bill does. It is a matter of clarifying this issue. I heard the member for Winnipeg North say that this is not just a federal matter, that first responders and health care professionals are experiencing violence, and that there is also shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. I would say to him that the federal government does indeed have the means to give more to the provinces in its health transfers so that the health care sector has the tools to deal with this surge in violence and assaults on health care workers and first responders.”
“It is unfortunate that the Liberals did not give their support to allow the bill to be passed quickly. It all started with recommendation 3 of a report from the Standing Committee on Health. It stated that the Criminal Code should be amended to require a court to consider as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes the fact that the victim is a health care professional. This is a small amendment to the Criminal Code, but it is highly important considering who it is meant for. Right now, a number of sections guide judges in terms of aggravating factors. I am referring here to assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault and causing bodily harm.”
“I understand that we are debating a bill that we have already debated in the House, but it had a different number at the time. That bill that made it through all the legislative stages, but unfortunately died on the Order Paper because of prorogation. We already know that the bill enjoyed broad consensus in the House and in the Senate. It is a shame, because I was listening to the speech by the member for Winnipeg North and I got the impression that Bill S-233 was being used as a bargaining chip to punish the Conservatives for not co-operating on other bills. I find that completely unfair, because it is a privilege to be randomly selected to introduce a private member's bill. I find it deeply unfair for it to be treated this way. The Bloc Québécois agreed to fast-track Bill S-233 so that it could be passed quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-233 . However, before I begin my speech, I want to draw attention to this tartan I am wearing, which is is certified and registered in Scotland. It was made by two weavers in my riding who are members of the Guilde des Tisserands du Suroît. They wove this tartan and gifted it to me in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the City of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. When I received it, I promised them that I would honour their work of art by sharing it with all my colleagues in the House of Commons, as I am doing now. I would like to thank Johanne and Pierrette, who are truly incredible weavers. I am so proud, I must say, to show off this tartan to everyone here in the House.”
“Madam Speaker, as always, I greatly appreciated the speech by my colleague across the floor. It is a pleasure to hear him speak. He is a new MP, and I honestly think that he has learned a lot, very quickly. I know that my colleague is a thorough and hard-working member of Parliament who knows his files. In his speech, he said that budget measures had been announced to help people. I wonder why, three months after the budget was tabled, a budget measure is being introduced in a separate bill. My colleague is well aware that the Standing Committee on Finance is currently studying Bill C-15 , which implements the budget that was presented. Why did his government not include this measure in its budget three months ago?”
“If the GST credit was paid every month, it might better support people who live at home and who really struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month. Does my colleague not agree that it would be better to issue the payments monthly rather than quarterly?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I think he knows full well that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-19 . We heard from a lot of members of my party who have indicated that we will be supporting this bill. There is one issue that keeps coming up that I am really concerned about. We get a lot of calls in our riding offices from people who say that they need more income to be able to meet their obligations and pay their monthly bills. I am wondering whether my colleague thinks that the measure would have been even more effective if the payments were made monthly instead of quarterly. Many people are borrowing money or living off their credit cards so that they can pay the bills.”
“We are prepared to look at the bill's other provisions as well. I am sure that my colleague from Shefford , our critic for the status of women, will help us improve this bill, but more importantly, she will help us ask the experts questions. We are legislators, but experts in the field advise us. That is the work we are going to do in committee. The government can count on the full co-operation of the Bloc Québécois in studying this bill both seriously and thoroughly. The most important thing to remember is that the purpose of this bill is to ensure the safety of children, and children must be at the heart of our decisions. The government can therefore count on our support for a healthy and respectful debate on this bill.”
“Some provinces, like Quebec, have a way of approaching cohabitation arrangements, civil unions or marriages that can be different from other jurisdictions. Having full jurisdiction would allow us to better support families and couples who choose separation and divorce. Now, the bill before us contains some good provisions. We agree with the provision that states a judge does not need a police report to find that spousal violence is an issue in a couple's relationship. We generally agree with that. People with clinical knowledge know that violence is not just physical. It can be psychological and insidious. It can consist of repeated insults that affect a person's physical and mental health. When people lose their sense of self-worth, they often lack the strength to leave a toxic relationship. We agree with this provision.”
“We can tip our hat to Minister Jolin-Barrette. I do not always agree with everything he says, but, as a social worker and family mediator, I can tip my hat to him. He did a heck of a job creating this tribunal. All that is to say that, in Quebec, we have made some progress in the area of family law. Most Quebeckers no longer get married in church. Instead, they are opting for civil unions. In Quebec, there is some overlap, in the sense that some couples are married while others are in civil unions. We know that divorce and marriage are federally regulated, while civil unions are regulated by Quebec. We believe that it would be easier if Ottawa delegated all the administrative aspects and jurisdiction over marriage and divorce to the provinces.”
“I have seen both mothers and fathers use their children against the other parent, putting the children in an impossible situation. (1825) Loyalty conflicts cause children to feel deep emotional pain. If they are not supported and helped, they can carry that pain with them their entire lives. In Quebec, we have tried to develop a tool that is primarily a mediation system focused on the well-being of the children. It allows for discussion and co-operation between the parents. In 2025, Quebec's justice minister created a unified family tribunal. It deals with and specializes in family matters. This is very important, because the people who judge these cases or who attend the court proceedings need to have a much deeper, more specific understanding of families, separation, and its consequences for children.”
“What I am trying to say is that I have witnessed situations, both personally and professionally, where a child was caught in the middle of a dispute between their parents and where one parent pitted the child against the other parent. This is damaging and devastating to children. It leaves lasting wounds. Whether it is the father or the mother who is using violent language or harassing the other parent, what children want more than anything is to be loved by their parents. In my practice, I noticed that children were sometimes used to score points, either in mediation or in legal proceedings. I noticed that children were often conflicted about loyalty. They did not want to talk too much about what they were experiencing or observing because they did not want to hurt the other parent.”
“First, I should point out that in Quebec, the Government of Quebec provides five hours of free family mediation so that parents can reach an agreement. This is a good way for us to tell whether mediation is even possible. I can say without hesitation that if a social worker senses that violence is an issue or that the two parties cannot speak freely because of tensions or violent and disrespectful comments, family mediation is off the table. Family mediation is a process where both parties have to participate willingly, and each parent has to let the other speak in order to reach an agreement, which entails compromises. One of these compromises concerns custody.”
“Needless to say, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so it can be studied in committee, because we can see that its objective is truly to protect children. They are our most precious asset and we agree on the objective. However, in all honesty, a fairly in-depth study will be needed, because many bills are being introduced right now to amend the Criminal Code. When changes are made to the Criminal Code, it is necessary to bring in experts so we can better understand the implications of those changes. In my practice as a social worker, I have handled about 70 cases where I listened to or helped parents smoothly navigate a divorce or separation and where I made sure, above all else, that the agreement they reached was in the best interests of the children. I witnessed some pretty tough situations.”
“I might give up my licence on March 31, but I have been a member of my association for many years. I am also a family mediator accredited by Quebec's justice department to help couples who are separating reach mediated agreements. In my practice, I have always worked to make parents understand that a mediation agreement is intended to help them divide up their property, assets and liabilities, but that the primary and most important focus must be the children. The agreement that is reached must be in the best interests of the children. That is basically what this bill seeks to address by putting the focus back on the children. By amending the bill, it provides even more opportunities to focus on children who go through very difficult experiences when their parents separate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all the best for 2026. I also wish all my colleagues a happy new year filled with happiness, health, serenity, a bit of calm and, above all, kindness for everyone around us. If I may, I would like to point out that I am proudly wearing a purple flower on my lapel to signify recognition and awareness of Alzheimer's disease, hence my mention of kindness. If my colleagues have a chance to thank people from community associations or groups in their ridings who work to help loved ones and those with the disease, I invite them to be kind during Alzheimer's Awareness Month. I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-223 , an act to amend the Divorce Act. I often say that I am proud to be a social worker in Quebec and a member of my professional association.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. Yes, the agreement allows for market diversification, but it seems to me that it is not modern enough. There is no assurance that the supply chains will be free of forced labour or human rights violations. That issue is not taken into account at all. I think Canada has proven to be a slightly more progressive country in this regard in the past. In our opinion, new agreements should take into account the whole issue of human rights, human rights violations and forced labour. Why did the government choose to exclude this requirement from the agreement with Indonesia?”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-12 is full of intentions for border security, but I believe that the government does not have the means to achieve its ambitions and that 1,000 officers will not be enough to fulfill all of the ambitions that the government has set out in Bill C-12.”
“The Bloc Québécois was in a minority position in 2011 and 2015, and the rules provide that, when a party is not recognized, it does not get permanent seats on committees. That does not mean that the work done in committee should not be respected. In my opinion, that should be changed in order to safeguard democratic debates that are truly important.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The idea is that committees are masters of their own proceedings. When we study a bill and we come to an agreement on amendments, even if they do not please the government, it is strange, not to say unacceptable, that the Speaker of the House can then rule amendments that were duly debated and adopted out of order. That means that they disappear completely from the bill, which I find rather odd. To answer the member for Winnipeg North's question, perhaps we could look at the procedure to ensure that this does not happen anymore. We had a similar situation with Bill C‑3 . The committee did a lot of hard work and then, because the government of the day was not happy with the result, it teamed up with the NDP to destroy all the democratic work the committee had accomplished.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which I find particularly interesting as a former whip. We have studied the rules and procedures extensively and are always looking for ways to improve participation in debates in a constructive manner. I do not know whether we will manage to present any suggestions this time around to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to move in that direction, but I am a great believer in teamwork and compromise, which often make partisan games less likely. Unfortunately, what currently dominates in committee, as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights clearly shows, is not the pursuit of the common good or the consideration of the merits of a bill, but rather ways of working that I find horrifying, because partisan games take precedence over the common good.”
“Although we are eager for the House to rise, we at the Standing Committee on Public Safety are eager to move on to another bill, because there is another important one waiting for us. We are supposed to start studying Bill C-8 on cybersecurity after the holidays. Again, I want to thank everyone for putting in all the necessary effort to improve the government's bill.”
“We do not always agree, but we do share a mutual respect for parliamentarians' ability to express themselves calmly and debate their ideas. Sometimes we agree to work together, and sometimes we prefer not to. That is understandable, and we do not hold it against each other. I wish other parliamentarians could show the same degree of respect, given that this is meant to be a place for debate. I wanted to emphasize that I really enjoyed working with her, as well as with my colleagues from the other parties who, throughout the study of Bill C-12, seemed to have a genuine interest in improving it. I will conclude by saying that we look forward to voting at report stage of the bill so that we can move on to third reading.”
“Obviously, since everything had already been adopted, inviting them was no longer an option. It is often said that there is no shame in looking foolish. An hour before we started the study, we listened to a witness make recommendations concerning Bill C-12. Obviously, we could not take those recommendations into account, since the amendments had been tabled several days earlier and everything was sealed for debate and for the work to begin. I would still like to thank all my colleagues. I really enjoyed working with the member for Calgary Nose Hill . She is a hard-working and diligent member who explained her amendments to us with passion and determination. It was obvious to us how much knowledge she has accumulated over the years on the issue of immigration.”
“It was disgraceful of them to waste the time of the public servants and interpreters for the sake of parliamentary strategizing. I am not the most partisan member of Parliament, but it bothers me when public servants come to support us for clause-by-clause study and the time is not used for that. It was a waste of time for the public servants, interpreters, and also the members who were there to work. Some of the amendments introduced at report stage, if adopted, would make Bill C-12 practically useless. We are obviously going to oppose some of the amendments proposed to us this evening. I think we worked diligently. In my opinion, we could have taken a little more time to study this bill. I feel a little disheartened for the people who asked me to invite them to testify before my committee on the very day the bill was adopted.”
“There was this deal, which really surprised me, and it led to a long day. We sat until quarter past midnight. Unfortunately, this meant that we were unable to study the briefs. There were some briefs that we did not even get to read, because we received them after the clause-by-clause study had been finalized. In fact, about eight briefs were not translated in time by the Translation Bureau. The committee sped through its work so fast that the Translation Bureau could not provide us with the translated documents. That means that people took the trouble to write briefs and send them to us, but we did not have access to them before the bill was adopted. I was also really surprised by the filibustering by some colleagues around the table who were strategically trying to buy time so they could debate certain clauses a little later.”
“We supported amendments that sought to clarify the extraordinary power granted to the minister to cancel, vary or suspend various immigration-related documents. We opposed amendments that were too harsh, that violated the fundamental rights of asylum seekers or that went against the spirit of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Even though all the committee members acted in good faith, I was still surprised by the deal that the Liberals and the Conservatives struck to have the committee sit until midnight to speed through the clause-by-clause study of the bill. (1625) I thought that was unproductive and inconsistent with the concept of work-life balance. How energetic, productive and attentive can members still be when they are made to work until half past midnight?”