


Debates of June 17th, 2026
House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session.
Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22
Government Orders
7:30 p.m.
Claude DeBellefeuille Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Bloc
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.
I think that the reason for the haste is pressure from the United States. That is speculation, I do not have the truth, but I think that there is this push coming from the United States so that we can share intelligence also. It is all well and good to share intelligence with Canada, but the other countries would like Canada to share some in return. We are under pressure from a country that has no concerns about privacy protection.
Obviously, I wish I had had more time to call witnesses I was unable to question. There are people who were not consulted by the government. Let me give an example. The chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency was not consulted by the government when it drafted this bill. The chair was forced to submit proposed amendments herself because the government did not see any significant role for her to play. I was disappointed. During her testimony, the chair, Ms. Deschamps, recommended amendments to us, and we will likely deal with them during our clause-by-clause consideration.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP
Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge and thank my colleague as well.
I am not a regular attendee of the SECU committee. However, on Bill C-22 I listened to all the exchanges and debates. I have to say my colleague from the Bloc was superb in many of her interventions.
With respect to the amendments that were made, the NDP also moved an amendment related to the issue of “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”. However, the NDP amendment was defeated. The Bloc similarly moved an amendment in that regard, in accordance with the Quebec bar association. This was also an important issue that did not get support.
Could the member elaborate on the rationale behind the Liberals' objection to that important amendment?
Claude DeBellefeuille Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Bloc
Madam Speaker, I would like to return the compliment to my colleague from Vancouver East. It has truly been a pleasure.
Yes, that is true. Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information. We both believe that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a high enough threshold. Our political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.



Late last night, the Liberal government shut down debate on Bill C-26, asking Parliament to approve a $1.7 billion housing bill with zero accountability or affordability targets.
Let’s be completely clear: Canada isn't just facing a housing supply crisis; we are facing a housing AFFORDABILITY crisis. Yet, this entire bill contains absolutely no safeguards, no rent caps, and no requirements for public, non-market, co-op, or Indigenous housing.
The government wants us to write a blank cheque and hope the market magically works things out. But the private market builds where profits are highest, not where the human need is greatest. That’s why we see luxury towers sitting empty in Metro Vancouver while homelessness continues to skyrocket.
The Liberals are measuring market distress. New Democrats are measuring human distress.
Taxpayers should not be bailing out big developers. If public money is invested in housing, Canadians deserve a guaranteed affordable return.