Claude DeBellefeuille

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to listen to my colleague lay the groundwork for the kind of analysis that really is lacking here in the House when it comes to any of the issues surrounding the oil industry. In his question, my Conservative colleague seemed to imply that we were not in favour of helping farmers who are currently struggling because the diesel they need to harvest their crops now [more]

Mr. Speaker, what I found interesting in my colleague's speech is that he gave examples of assistance measures that could be targeted to individuals and businesses that use diesel and that could benefit from a reduction or some form of assistance to deal with higher diesel prices. Does my colleague think that some of those target groups would be farmers, for example?

If we raise the threshold for obtaining information, you're telling us that we're depriving you of the ability to continue the investigation to be certain, because you can never really be certain. Even when you invoke reasonable grounds to believe, we agree that you're not completely sure. On the other hand, if you use the lowest threshold, what does that allow you to do that you couldn't [more]

Mr. Chair, I just want to finish my remarks. You said he came to testify, which is true. However, we were all surprised not to have his brief translated into both languages, including his recommendations, in front of us. This is an important distinction to make. I'm not a lawyer or a notary, but I have a good memory. I can tell you that our clerk apologized for that brief. I don't hold it [more]

If the person sent, for example, a pornographic image or an image that is indecent or prohibited from being sent, it seems obvious to me. You've moved on to the next step if you find a phone number associated with an image of a pornographic scene. You truly have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. With this kind of photo, we can all agree that you're no longer just [more]

At that point, do you know the name of the person and the type of device? Is that one more step? Can you clarify that for me? Earlier, you told me, and I quite agree with you, that you can know if, for example, Ms. May has an account with a service provider and if the transactions are in order or suspicious. Explain to me how far along you are at this stage. You know the name and the device.

Mr. Gilkes, I'm going to conclude with this, because I wouldn't want to be accused of filibustering. I know that, after conducting an investigation, you successfully charge people. The investigators are good, and they manage to secure charges. However, today, it's as if you're telling us that you can't catch criminals with the tools you have. However, I know that your success rate is quite [more]

As I understand it, you want to keep the threshold as low as possible until you've linked the name to the right person, and then obtain a warrant. As for linking the person to a telephone number, let's say I call you first. You ask me if Claude DeBellefeuille is a customer of the provider. The provider says yes or no to you. If they say yes, then you know my telephone number but not my name, and [more]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you said he appeared as a witness, which is true. However, I don't know if you recall, but he was referring to the tabling of his brief, and we didn't have it in front of us. Was that the brief that did not get distributed? Was that the time when we didn't have his recommendations in front of us, and he was speaking as if we were discussing the matter with full knowledge? I'm [more]

Do you mean “indict”?

You do mean “suspicion”, is that right?

The question on my mind concerns the moment you gave me the same explanation, saying that all you want to know is whether or not the subscriber is receiving service. You told me that, at the beginning of the investigation, you just need grounds to suspect someone and that, based on that, you'll be able to continue your investigation. Now, however, you're using the same argument to request an [more]

Okay. Sorry.

How could a lower threshold not be met if it's so low? It seems to me that with reasonable grounds to “suspect”, it's almost impossible for them to deny you that, isn't it?

I want to tell you that these rapid exchanges are very difficult. Mr. Housefather also speaks at the speed of light. I understand that. The interpreter who is interpreting is very good. She's interpreting very quickly, but I'm sure she won't last until midnight like that. I don't know if you noticed that I don't have a headset today. It's banned because it hasn't been tested, so I only have an [more]