Public Safety Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

We'll vote on G‑6.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're moving now to BQ-14.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, would you like to move it?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Yes, I'd be happy to move it.

This amendment stems from discussions with Electricity Canada, an association of partners that produce hydroelectricity. This sector is already well regulated by a North American regime, and these people have shared some fairly well-founded fears with us.

We really want the federal government to be required to consult the provinces, particularly those that have a hydroelectric network and that are used to complying with very high safety standards. For example, where I live, we have Hydro-Québec. It would be in the interest of these organizations to have assurances that the government will consult them.

Electricity Canada has clearly demonstrated the importance of this fairly urgent request, which was unfortunately not incorporated into Bill C‑26. I believe that BQ‑14 addresses that request, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, madam.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

As a matter of principle, we cannot accept such an amendment. Saying that the Governor in Council must ensure consistency with regulatory bodies is akin to relying on external bodies to determine what is best for Canada. It is up to us to decide what needs to be included in regulations. We look at what's being done elsewhere, of course, and we take into account any requirements that organizations are subject to. We're already doing that.

However, to say that the Government of Canada will determine what regulations it needs based on what's being done in the United States, Europe, the provinces or elsewhere would be to diminish or abdicate our responsibility as a government. We will therefore be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

If there are no further interventions, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt BQ‑14?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

We're moving on to CPC‑49.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

We won't be moving it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

No, it cannot be moved because it is a line conflict. Thank you for not moving it. It couldn't be moved anyway.

Is G-7 being moved?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

This is an amendment that provides greater certainty to industry stakeholders because the government is committing to consulting and collaborating with them while developing regulations. That's why we voted against BQ‑14. Amendment G‑7 already serves the same purpose very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

I just want to clarify something with the officials, Mr. Chair.

If we adopt this amendment, how will that affect BQ‑14? Will this amendment reduce the significance of BQ‑14, or is it merely adding a duty to consult?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

At first glance, I think it means the same thing, essentially. There was already a duty to consult—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Yes, that's in BQ‑14.

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

Even before BQ‑14 was adopted, there was a duty to consult. This amendment creates a new one.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

You don't see this amendment as diminishing the scope of BQ‑14?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

No, I don't think so.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Okay. Regarding consultation, it says may, not must. Do I have that right?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

Yes, that's right. I think BQ‑14 is a little stronger, but it essentially means the same thing, so I don't think G‑7 undermines BQ‑14.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Okay.

If you're saying that BQ‑14 uses stronger language, I would expect that to prevail. Would the government be able to use G‑7 to say that it isn't obligated to abide by BQ‑14?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

I don't know. There could be some confusion, actually. However, there is already an intent and a duty to consult with stakeholders baked into the regulatory development process.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Ms. Gibson, we're used to the federal government saying that it's going to consult and then making decisions before doing so. We've seen that in the past, and we're seeing it now. You're saying that there could be some confusion, so I want to make sure the government won't use G‑7 to justify shirking its obligation to take North American standards, which are very strict, into account.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm quite collaborative here in committee. I am not against Mr. Ramsay's amendment, but I also don't want to reduce the force of BQ‑14, because I feel very strongly about it. It addresses a request from Electricity Canada that I fully support.

I would therefore ask you to enlighten me, sincerely. Basically, I could oppose G‑7, because it doesn't take anything away.

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

In English, BQ‑14 would be described as prescriptive, an order to do as indicated. That is not the case with G‑7, which says that the government may do as indicated. So—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

There could be some confusion, then?

[Kelly-Anne Gibson]

It's possible.