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 9 of 11.
“Were the other provinces asked for their opinions? In my view, this bill calls for co-operation. When co-operation is required, it is important to take the time to consult those who will be affected.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I think we have something in common, specifically that we both want to understand the issues and learn more. My answer to his question is no. Hydro-Québec already complies with North American standards. It feels as though Bill C-8 is another layer on top of existing standards. Hydro-Québec would then be stuck trying to comply two sets of standards and, in extreme cases, it could face penalties from two authorities. This needs to be explored further to see how that scenario could be avoided. We will discuss this in committee. I do not have the answer, so I will ask the member for Bourassa the following question: Was Quebec consulted? Was Quebec's minister of cybersecurity and digital technology consulted?”
“I am going to make it my duty to educate my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and explain to them that there is no danger in letting Hydro‑Québec manage cybersecurity itself and counter cyber-threats itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to interference in this case, there is really no difference between the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP because they all have the same penchant for centralization. Earlier, my Conservative colleague, the public safety critic, with whom I serve on the committee, was telling me that cybersecurity and cyber-threats know no borders. I understand what he is saying, but the federal government cannot just introduce a bill forcing Hydro‑Québec to comply with two different ways of combatting cyber-threats. Our electricity grid has been in place for a long time, and there are really important mechanisms in place to counter cyber-threats and cyber-attacks. In any case, the grid is attacked every day because electricity is important and essential.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a very urgent and important bill that deserves our attention. I would like to have the opportunity to study it in committee right away so that we can present our arguments and amendments and better define the issue of interference. Honestly, I do not think the Liberals and Conservatives fully understand what this means for Quebec and Hydro-Québec. Sometimes these legislative measures are conceived out of a simple lack of knowledge or a strong inclination toward centralization. We are left with the impression that the government wants the provinces to gradually become mere subsidiaries, with all major decisions made only in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, although I cannot list the provisions, I can say that we will be moving a few amendments on privacy. We also intend to move amendments to ensure respect for Quebec's jurisdictions and ensure that Hydro-Québec can continue to collaborate with the United States, since it is already heavily regulated. If the bill stays in its current form, with no amendments, we find it hard to imagine that Quebec and Hydro-Québec will be able to continue this collaboration. In our opinion, this part makes no sense and creates jurisdictional overlap. We are going to study this issue. I like my colleague a lot. We both sit on the all-party border caucus. However, I cannot overlook the fact that the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP joined forces to defeat amendments on the issue of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.”
“On that note, I invite my colleagues to ask me a few questions if they want to better understand our view, which is that Bill C‑8 is an important bill but needs to be amended to ensure that the federal government is not interfering in Quebec's affairs and jurisdictions.”
“Since we supply electricity to the United States, we must meet North American standards. It seems like Bill C‑8 ignores what is currently happening with Hydro-Québec's actual responsibilities and tries to encroach on its jurisdiction. I am not sure whether the Government of Quebec was consulted. I am not sure whether Hydro-Québec was consulted either. Yes, the government needs to collaborate nationally with the provinces and territories on a bill, but it needs to reassure Hydro-Québec and Quebec that certain provisions of Bill C‑8 will be reviewed in order to respect the jurisdiction of Hydro-Québec and the provinces.”
“As a result, an operator could be penalized twice for the same violation. Which would take precedence? These are some of the things we are wondering about. We think that the jurisdiction of Quebec and Hydro‑Québec should be respected. The bill enabled the federal government to fine Hydro-Québec if Hydro-Québec did not comply with the federal standards. That is rather absurd because Quebec has been managing a hydroelectric system for a long time and Hydro-Québec, which experiences cyber-attacks nearly every day, has a rather robust system. There could even be penalties of up to $15 million if the business is found to be non-compliant, which is considered to be a separate violation, when Hydro-Québec is already adhering to standards. That is my point. Hydro-Québec already follows North American standards.”
“We see Bill C‑8 as a blatant encroachment, and it certainly does not address the matter of overlapping jurisdictions or even duplication of responsibility. At a time when the government is imposing budget cuts on Quebec and on Canada, we find it hard to understand why, through Bill C‑8, the federal government is imposing standards on Hydro-Québec and claiming supremacy, given that Hydro-Québec has its own cybersecurity protection systems. The provinces even have the authority to impose penalties if reliability standards are violated. In our view, Bill C‑8 interferes in an area already covered by the critical infrastructure protection, or CIP, standards of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. These standards apply to the critical infrastructure that the bill seeks to implement.”
“This poses a significant problem for us. This was already the case with Bill C-26 and it is still the case with Bill C-8 . Bill C‑8 technically affects interprovincial lines. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Bill C‑8 are contradictory on the issue of jurisdiction. However, the Canadian Energy Regulator is designated as the regulator of vital systems in Bill C-8. In our opinion, this is a combination of inconsistency and interference. (1230) Under the guise of cybersecurity, Bill C‑8 expands the jurisdiction of the Canadian Energy Regulator to cover the entirety of an international line, even the intraprovincial parts. In our view, the law should acknowledge the jurisdictions of the provincial regulatory agencies, like Hydro-Québec.”
“It represents a pivotal gain dating back to the Quiet Revolution that enables us to produce green, affordable electricity for all Quebeckers. As we see it, the bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction over electricity. Let me explain so that it is clearer, since we will have to discuss this in committee. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act states that provincial laws apply to parts of an international power line that are within a province. A province may therefore designate a regulatory agency to exercise its powers, rights, and privileges over those parts. For a line to fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the Canada Energy Regulator, the interprovincial line must be designated by order. In Quebec, no lines are under federal jurisdiction or subject to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.”
“Legal experts have expressed reservations about the protection of personal and confidential information, including information covered by solicitor-client privilege. Protecting this type of information could be challenging, given the new search powers. More improvements are needed to ensure that Bill C-8 includes every measure necessary to protect privacy and personal information. That brings me to the part that concerns us more, the part about Hydro-Québec. As we have said time and again in this House, the Bloc Québécois objects to federal government intrusion in Quebec's jurisdictions. As we know, Hydro-Québec owns all the transmission lines in our territory, and as far as we are concerned, this ownership is not up for discussion.”
“That is one of our concerns, because it seems that businesses will have a lot of work to do, and we are wondering whether better support would be needed. It is clear to us that the government has been mindful of the lack of clarity surrounding the designation of classes of operators. In fact, research conducted by the Library of Parliament found that there is some ambiguity, a lack of legislative clarity, in the way operators are designated. We hope that the work done in committee will allow us to delve deeper into this issue and explore the possibility of clarifying the definition of “designated operator”. We also have concerns about the unlimited power to make orders and collect information, particularly with respect to telecommunications service providers and designated operators of critical cyber systems.”
“We therefore felt it was important that the minister be required to table reports. (1225) On the privacy issue, the amendments we proposed were adopted. However, I think that section of the bill warrants further analysis. It would be useful to hear from witnesses who specialize in the management of private information and in documentation. I think we will continue this work on privacy protection by consulting experienced witnesses in order to enrich our thinking. Despite the work that was accomplished and the amendments we proposed, certain concerns remain, particularly regarding the businesses covered by the bill. Are the businesses willing to invest? Will they be able to quickly comply with the requirements set out in the bill?”
“The situation is different now, and we hope that we will be able to convince the government that the amendments we proposed to Bill C‑26 are relevant and should be incorporated into Bill C‑8. That being said, I would like to reassure the government right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. It is true that Canada is lagging behind on the issue of cybersecurity for countering cyber-attacks and cyber-threats. However, the committee will still need to spend a few hours hearing from witnesses who have concerns, and it will also need to take into account the Bloc Québécois's amendments. The amendments we proposed focused on government accountability. We wanted to include a reporting requirement and a requirement for greater transparency. I have to say that Bill C‑8 gives the minister a number of powers.”
“Often, if a bill is good for Quebec, it is also good for the other provinces in Canada. However, if it is not so good for Quebec, we are able to take advantage of the opportunity for debate to try to point out to our colleagues that there are some provisions that are not in Quebec's interest. That is really our mission here in the House of Commons, or part of it, at least. I would really like to thank Kristina Michaud, her assistant and the research team for doing such a great job throughout the study and for improving Bill C‑26 through amendments. Of course, during this process, we submitted amendments that were not adopted. These amendments were rejected by the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals.”
“It had almost made it all the way through the legislative process in the House, but it died on the Order Paper in the Senate. I want to point out that a lot of work was done in committee. The committee held eight meetings. My colleague at the time, Kristina Michaud, studied Bill C‑26 carefully with her assistant and the Bloc Québécois's research team and proposed some 26 amendments, most of which were considered, voted on and adopted. That just goes to show that the opposition's work, particularly in committee, also serves to improve government bills. I am saying that because the Bloc Québécois is a party that is often praised for its diligence and professionalism. We are a party that works hard. We always look at bills from the same angle: Is the bill good for Quebec?”
“I would like to note, as all my colleagues have, that Bill C‑8 is practically a carbon copy of Bill C-26 , with just a few exceptions. I read the legislative summary when I was preparing this speech, and I would like to mention once again that the analysts at the Library of Parliament do extraordinary work. They help us better understand the bills, they provide us with the tools to improve bills and they raise concerns for us to clarify. I would like to thank them today because they are doing a truly extraordinary job of supporting us in our work every day, especially our legislative work. I was saying that Bill C‑8 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C‑26. There are a few small changes. We know that Bill C‑26 died on the Order Paper.”
“The second part of the bill will apply more to operators in the telecommunications, energy, finance and transportation sectors, which are all critical sectors related to national security. (1220) The legislation will make it possible to designate certain systems and services in the federally regulated sector as vital to national security or public safety. The bill is very clear. It lists six vital services and vital systems in schedule 1. Let us look at them together. Obviously there are telecommunications services. Then we have interprovincial or international pipeline and power line systems, nuclear energy systems and federally regulated transportation systems, such as ports, trains, planes and airports. There are also banking systems, followed by clearing and settlement systems.”
“The bill also provides for a penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. This will allow the government to prohibit companies from using products and services from high-risk suppliers. The second part of the bill would enact the critical cyber systems protection act to provide a framework for the protection of critical cyber-infrastructure or cyber-businesses in the federally regulated sector. Basically, the bill will authorize the government to designate any service or system as a vital service or system and to establish classes of operators for those services and systems. In the bill, the government says that this will serve as a model for provinces, territories and municipalities to secure critical infrastructure.”
“As mentioned by my colleague, the Conservative Party critic for public safety, I do not think that anyone here would claim to be an expert in cybersecurity, considering its complexities. However, we recognize the importance of implementing a legislative framework to protect sectors and systems of critical importance to Quebec, the provinces and Canada. What is Bill C‑8 exactly? Allow me to read a few paragraphs from the bill to give members a quick idea. The first part is quite simple. It amends the Telecommunications Act by adding a part on cybersecurity that empowers the government “to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.” Obviously, that is very important.”
“Since I am the Bloc's public safety critic, we discussed Akwesasne's need for legislation to regulate all police forces on its territory. Policing is currently managed provincially, and the people of Akwesasne would like to have one police force covering their entire territory. He also told me about travel issues. Sometimes, people have to cross the American border to access the Akwesasne reserve, which poses problems for people who live on the reserve. We had some good discussions. I believe that honest and sincere discussion is imperative to walk the path of truth and reconciliation. That was a brief word of introduction to set the stage for a very special day coming this September 30. This legislation is fairly technical.”
“Madam Speaker, I cannot begin my speech without noting that next Tuesday, September 30, we will be observing National Truth and Reconciliation Day. We will therefore not be sitting on that day. I would like to stand with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who, like me, have the privilege of living near a reserve. I work with the Akwesasne reserve, so I would like to say hello to my friend Grand Chief Abram Benedict, for whom I have great respect. He is responsible for the Ontario portion of the Akwesasne reserve, which is divided into three sections, located in the United States, Quebec and Ontario. I also want to say hello to Grand Chief Lazore, who was elected just a year ago and for whom I also have great respect. During a meeting, Grand Chief Abram Benedict shared his main complaints with me.”
“Does my colleague get the impression that Bill C-8 , as it stands, involves overlapping jurisdictions and federal encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions?”
“Madam Speaker, while listening to my colleague, I also get the impression, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, that we will have a lot of work to do. We seem to agree, however, on the importance of discussing and passing this bill, which will allow us to manage cybersecurity systems across Canada. My colleague knows that the bill targets highly critical sectors like banking, but it also covers the energy sector. Where energy is concerned, the thought of pipelines comes to mind. Pipelines are federally regulated, so there is no problem there. However, it also calls to mind hydro lines and electrical transmission, which currently come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.”
“Madam Speaker, the minister is correct. It is true that Bill C‑26 from the last Parliament and the current Bill C‑8 are almost identical. However, he is forgetting that the opposition parties proposed amendments in committee. Those amendments were rejected, but they will come up again because the Bloc Québécois feels that some of them are important. The question I would like to ask the minister reflects the concerns shared by small and medium-sized businesses. There are no provisions to help them enhance their security measures to protect their systems. Even though the standards are welcome and urgently needed, given the current difficult economic climate, are there not things that could be done to support SMEs in becoming cybersecure?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister. I also reviewed the bill and read the legislative summary from the Library of Parliament. As a side note, the work of the Library of Parliament's analysts and researchers is outstanding. They are really great. Although the minister is trying to reassure us, the fact is that some doubt remains in terms of the protection of privacy in this bill. The bill will be supported by the Bloc Québécois, which will vote for it at second reading in order to refer it to a committee. Is the minister open to the idea of further improving Bill C‑8 through amendments that the Bloc Québécois may introduce?”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The interpretation stopped working during my colleague's speech. The minister is moving papers around near the microphone and it is affecting the sound quality and making it hard for the interpreters to hear.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been debating inflation and rising food prices all day. As I said to a Conservative member earlier, this is an interesting and important topic because it is true that individuals and families are having trouble making ends meet. One thing is bothering me, though. We are not talking about how seniors who receive only old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are losing their buying power. I do not know if the member is aware, but that adds up to about $1,700 a month. How can any senior survive on that? How can they cover rent, food—which has gone up so much because of inflation—and medication on $1,700 a month? Many of these people were not blessed with private insurance plans or a collective agreement that included a private pension plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share the same passion for agriculture. As she so aptly puts it, climate change is changing farming. Is it not time to tailor the support programs to individual farmers and stop implementing one-size-fits-all programs, given that each province is experiencing the effects of climate change differently?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The House has heard all kinds of solutions for tackling rising prices, including the one proposed by my colleague from Shefford . One solution we must not forget is increasing seniors' buying power. Nowadays, seniors who receive only their old age security pension are very vulnerable. They cannot afford rent and groceries. They often have to make compromises when it comes to their medication. Does my colleague agree that it is time for the Liberals to stop discriminating against one of the two classes of seniors and increase old age security for seniors aged 65 and up?”
“It is also indebted to him for his ability to bring together farmers, professionals, seniors and young families, who were all inspired by the same sense of community belonging. Mr. Poirier's dedication will always be remembered in the minds and hearts of generations to come.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a man who has shaped the heart and soul of Saint‑Polycarpe, a century-old municipality in my riding. Jean-Yves Poirier is wrapping up a distinguished career after 34 years of devoted service to his community, including 10 years as mayor. Mr. Poirier is passionate about his town. A hands-on man, he knows everyone in his community. He is interested in their stories and he shares in their celebrations and struggles. He supports people's well-being by being present and by listening to them. He exemplifies the dignity and nobility of public service. Saint‑Polycarpe owes him more than just his accomplishments within the municipality and the region.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville , my riding neighbour, on her speech. We share a lot of common ground, based on what she said, and I know that she has been through some truly horrific experiences in her life, which have left their mark on her. When she talks to us today about fighting crime or the importance of tackling it, she is also drawing on her personal experience. I know that she is also a problem solver. I have already asked this question before, but this time I am asking her. The Bloc Québécois has proposed that better guidelines be issued regarding the Jordan decision and that offences related to sexual crimes, terrorism and firearms not be subject to the Jordan decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I feel her community's pain. It has gone through very difficult times. However, I cannot help but think that the solution before us today is seen or interpreted as a silver bullet. It is as though agreeing to the “three strikes” law will solve everything. We also have to think about the fact that, after serving their sentence, the individual comes home, comes back to the neighbourhood, comes back to the community. They do not just go away, and that worries us. I want to talk to my colleague about a very specific issue. I am very concerned about femicide, about women who are murdered by their spouse or a loved one. The Bloc Québécois has proposed that the Jordan ruling not apply in cases involving sex offences, kidnappings or sexually motivated murders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. The Conservative motion copies a model imported from the United States, which has proven that it does not work. My colleague started explaining the findings of a major study by the U.S. attorney general, but he did not have time to tell us exactly what those findings were.”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to offer my condolences to his wife, Nancy, his three sons, his six grandchildren, his loved ones and the Liberal political family. Thank you for your public service, Mr. McCallum.”
“John McCallum retired from politics in 2017 to become Canada's ambassador to China, a position he held until 2019, when he became a strategic adviser in the private sector. As the Bloc Québécois representative, I admit it would be an understatement to say we had major political differences with Mr. McCallum. He was strongly opposed to Quebec's sovereignty, his contribution to the public debate on the economics of Quebec's separation raised many eyebrows. Although we often found ourselves on opposing sides during the biggest political battle in the history of Quebec and Canada, we remember Mr. McCallum today as a smiling, affable intellectual, who spoke frankly, had a great sense of humour and also a sense of statesmanship.”
“With the support of Jean Chrétien, John McCallum was elected to the House of Commons in 2000 as the member for Markham, a northern suburb of Toronto. Two years later, Jean Chrétien appointed him as defence minister. A new prime minister, Paul Martin, appointed him to serve as veterans affairs minister in 2003 and revenue minister in 2004, a position he held until the Liberals were defeated in 2006. This was followed by an extended period in the opposition, during which Mr. McCallum did his duty as one of the key critics for his political party. Nearly a decade later, he returned to Cabinet as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, this time under Justin Trudeau. It must have been he ultimate irony to return to Cabinet at the request of a new boss who was just a student at McGill when Mr. McCallum was a dean there.”
“Mr. Speaker, on June 21, at the beginning of the summer break, the House lost a seasoned parliamentarian, an influential minister, an economist, a renowned academic and a diplomat, when John McCallum passed away at the age of 75. Mr. McCallum was a pillar of the Liberal Party who served under three prime ministers: Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Justin Trudeau. He left an indelible mark on the recent history of federal politics. He first made his mark in his hometown of Montreal as a professor at UQAM and then as the dean of the faculty of arts at McGill University. Following an academic career of nearly 20 years, during which he made a name for himself in the field of commerce, Mr. McCallum put his expertise to the test as the chief economist for the Royal Bank of Canada in 1994. Then, politics called.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and heartfelt speech. We hope that it will open the minds of some members in the House. I would like her to comment on the following. Does she think that this bill is consistent with the reconciliation movement that we have been pursuing with indigenous peoples for several years now? Does it fit in with that, or does it take us in a completely different direction?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously not. If I do so say myself, Quebeckers will never agree to a pipeline running through their territory without first being consulted and without an assessment by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Not a chance. I will say quite frankly that all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party will fight, to the death, any project of that nature.”
“We are pleased that it was split, because there are benefits, in part 1, to eliminating interprovincial barriers, especially for dairy farmers and slaughterhouses.”
“Mr. Speaker, that would deserve a long answer, but I would like to tell my colleague that we agreed on a few important amendments: removing the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Indian Act so that they are excluded from Bill C‑5 . However, without the participation of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, with the support of these Conservative amendments, this was not part of the original bill. What worries me, and I will say this sincerely, is that there was an amendment that was rejected by both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was the one that made it clear that provinces and indigenous nations had to be consulted before projects were approved. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that. I do not call that being in agreement. If I may, we agree on the first part of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that Quebeckers voted for the Liberals so they could implement the Conservative agenda. Quebeckers voted for the Liberals because they were afraid of the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre, and they were afraid of Trump. They felt safe with the current Prime Minister . However, they never voted to be handed a bill that will impose a pipeline and other unwanted projects on Quebec, with no prior discussion about choice or environmental assessments. I highly doubt that is what Quebeckers chose.”
“This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this. This is the first time I have seen such disrespect for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. When something like this is done in a hurry and pushed through, I always wonder who benefits. Who stands to gain from this? I wonder about our Prime Minister's transparency. We know that Brookfield owns railways, a sector that will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns pipelines and even a company that builds and operates nuclear power plants, which will also be impacted by Bill C‑5. By refusing to disclose his financial situation, is our Prime Minister not leaving himself open to the appearance of a conflict of interest?”
“The words “national interest project” appear 23 times, but I cannot find a definition. I cannot find it because it does not exist. It exists only in the mind of the minister who will decide whether a particular project is in the national interest. This is serious. The people across the floor have the audacity to say that this will boost the economy and build a stronger Canada. One thing is certain. Lawyers are going to make money. This bill will not survive. It will be challenged by civil society groups, by indigenous nations, perhaps even by a province. That is because it makes no sense. It makes no sense, especially considering how it was passed, without democratic debate, without consulting citizens, without consulting scientists. This is serious. I was elected in 2006. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 12 years.”
“We disagree with the second part of the bill because these discretionary powers, the ability to govern by decree without consultation, which the government is proposing in collusion with the Conservatives to circumvent who knows how many laws, are beyond the pale. We are talking about laws that were passed because of a need to protect species at risk and our water. These laws serve a purpose. After all, they were passed here, in the House of Commons. They were passed because of abuses, because nature, biodiversity and the environment were not being respected. People went too far. That is why laws were passed. This bill proposes to suspend them. The government wants to suspend these laws for any project deemed to be in the national interest, but I cannot find a definition of that in the bill.”
“They want us to believe there is an emergency, but it does not justify this bill. (1625) I want to point out that the Premier of Quebec said something to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to quote him, because these are his words, not an interpretation. Our premier said: However, I pointed out that projects on our territory must be identified based to our recommendations, and the environmental assessment must be performed by our government. This morning, I was listening to the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville , who did not seem to acknowledge that we were talking about a Quebec environmental assessment, saying it was probably going to be Canada's environmental assessment. I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is going on.”