Public Safety Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I will suspend for a couple of seconds, and then we'll come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'll say it in English, and I hope everyone will understand my broken legal expertise, both in French and in English.

This is, in my view, not a point of privilege. I've already ruled on that. Now, if the committee wants to question and to overrule my decision, that's the privilege of the members of the committee. However, I've already ruled on this matter of privilege, and I will, therefore, move to the witnesses.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would argue that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Ms. Kirkland, it has to be a point of order.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I believe it is a point of order because this is a different subject matter completely.

We have learned—and I don't want to be disappointed here—more information during this meeting, which required a new point of privilege. In the previous meeting, we did not have amendments due in this meeting. This is a different scenario. We learned of more things we have missed, and we haven't received.

I would argue that it is absolutely a different point of privilege. I would completely disagree with your ruling if you were to rule that it wasn't. I think you need to see that this is a new set of information that we have not received. It's totally different from Mr. Lloyd's.

[An hon. member]

Then challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I have Mr. Baber, and then we'll move on.

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

In any case, the interpreter didn't hear any of it, I can tell you that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

What did you say, Mrs. DeBellefeuille?

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

There's obstinacy and it wasn't interpreted.

As you know, Mr. Chair, I think that the interpreters here are the best on the Hill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

You're right to say so, because we think so too.

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

Yet even though they're the best, they understood absolutely nothing of the obstinacy that I just witnessed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good point. I think that everyone should understand it properly.

Go ahead, Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Should she not repeat it then? If it wasn't interpreted, should it not be repeated?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I think it should be, but what do you think?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Let's see if Mr. Baber has an additional point to make.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Chair, you have ruled on a different set of facts. What happened at the commencement of this meeting is that Mr. Caputo asked to resurrect a previous question of privilege made by Mr. Lloyd. Since then, we have obtained not just new information but a new set of facts that also gives rise to privilege. This is privilege that you must be compelled to rule on, even if you wish to refer to your previous ruling for guidance.

We have a material change in facts. We have now learned of at least two stakeholders today who have submitted briefs. One is OpenMedia. It submitted a brief two weeks ago.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I have a point of order.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Another one is Apple. It submitted a brief eight days ago.

In the meantime, while the House of Commons is receiving criticism, it's the government that is thrusting and pushing clause-by-clause to start the day after tomorrow. Without having access to briefs that can be very instructive in this process, this is a clear violation of privilege. I ask you to rule on this set of facts, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Go ahead, MP Dandurand.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think that we've already talked about all this. I think we can stop talking about this and get back to the work that we were doing. It's absolutely not a point of privilege. There hasn't been any violation. I think that we can pick up where we left off.

We have witnesses waiting to continue their testimonies. The opposition members wanted to hear from these witnesses. So I think that we should get back to business and continue to speak with these witnesses to hear their ideas, since they think that their ideas are very useful. I would like to be able to ask them questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleagues, I would say that the translation issue occurs in all parliamentary committees on the Hill. This issue has been around for a number of years. This isn't an issue for debate today. It isn't a Bill C‑22 issue. The opposition is trying to get mileage out of a red herring.

You already voted on the motion, Mr. Chair. I think that we can get back to business. We have important witnesses to hear from and I suggest that we do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay.

I'll say it in French this time. That way, there won't be any problems interpreting from English to French.

You heard my ruling. There isn't any point of privilege this time, just as there wasn't any last time.

If the committee would like to question or challenge my ruling, it's possible to do so.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I would like to respond to that point of order.