Claude DeBellefeuille

[Canada Border Services Agency, April 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in 2019, through the building Canada fund, the federal government announced more than $12 million in funding for the Port of Valleyfield to expand a wharf. Today, however, the Canada Border Services Agency is withdrawing from the Port of Valleyfield. One minute the federal government is funding the expansion of the port, the next it is hindering its development.

What is the rationale behind this reckless and harmful decision? Will the minister help me get the Canada Border Services Agency to reconsider its decision?

[Canada Border Services Agency, April 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this morning's edition of La Presse revealed that the federal government has scrapped the Port of Valleyfield expansion. On the pretext of a lack of resources, the Canada Border Services Agency is taking away the operator's right to handle containers at this port, which is of vital importance to the region's economy. The mayor of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield and the director of economic development have both strongly condemned this senseless decision.

Will the Minister of Public Safety intervene and ask the CBSA to continue to do its job instead of undermining the future of the Port of Valleyfield?

[Justice, April 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Attal told Quebeckers that they are not alone in their efforts to defend secularism. France has banned religious symbols for people in positions of authority since 1905. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and several German states are doing the same.

I would like to quote the Court of Justice of the European Union: “In order to put in place an entirely neutral...environment, a public administration may prohibit the visible wearing...of any sign revealing...religious beliefs”.

Is the European Union discriminatory too, or is it just Quebeckers?

[Justice, April 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote Prime Minister Attal:

To those who pretend not to understand what secularism is, who try to distort it, to make people think it is a weapon against religion...to make people think it is a form of discrimination, we respond that secularism is a condition for freedom...equality [and]...fraternity.

Our Liberal, Conservative and NDP colleagues are among those who pretend not to understand. Can they at least refrain from filing a Supreme Court challenge against something they do not understand?

[Justice, April 15th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal spoke at the Quebec National Assembly on Thursday. A worthy representative of the land of the Enlightenment, he delivered a spirited defence of state secularism, which both the French and Quebeckers hold in high esteem.

France, like Quebec, prohibits government employees in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. France's legislation goes even further than Quebec's Bill 21, which this Prime Minister wants to take to the Supreme Court on the pretext that it is discriminatory.

Did the Prime Minister tell France that he finds it discriminatory, or does he reserve his contempt for Quebeckers?

[Housing, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, although Quebeckers make up 22% of the population, we received 6.7% of federal housing investments when the projects were chosen by Ottawa. It does not take a math genius to realize that we are getting ripped off.

Since 2019, the money has gone mostly to funding projects outside Quebec. We are in the midst of a full-on housing crisis and our tax dollars are being spent to house Ontarians, when we can no longer even pay rent here at home.

Is it clear now why we need to keep Ottawa as far away as possible from our exclusive jurisdiction over housing?

[Housing, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the housing issue proves that we must prevent the federal government from meddling in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. When the federal level decides where the money goes, Quebeckers get ripped off, and the numbers from CMHC prove that without a doubt. Since the national housing strategy was created in 2019, what share of the funding has Quebec received when the federal government is choosing the projects? Do members know? The answer is 6.7%. That is not even a third of our fair share.

Will the government stop shortchanging Quebeckers and transfer housing money to Quebec, no strings attached?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if the federal government wants to say no to giving Quebec full control over immigration, then it needs to say yes to doing its own job, particularly with respect to asylum seekers.

Families are trapped in inhumane situations. Some spend years worrying because the federal government is incapable of processing their claim. They have no idea whether they will have to leave the country. Worse yet, some are unable to meet their basic needs because they have absolutely no right to work without a federal work permit.

Instead of stirring up fights, when will the minister do his job?

[Petitions, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The interpreter has told us that he cannot do his job because of static.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the word of the day in Ottawa is “no”. They are saying no to sole jurisdiction for Quebec over immigration, but they are also saying no to the right to opt out with full compensation from the federal dental care program. They are saying no to the right to opt out of the federal pharmacare program with full compensation. They are saying no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying. Even in health care, where Quebec has full authority, the answer is no. Even for programs created by Quebec, the answer is no.

Why not respect Quebec's expertise instead of making it harder or even impossible to receive care?