Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. We know that Canada's automotive industry is big. It is one of the strongest parts of our economy and has been for over a century. I know that some people are aware of this, but I am pleased to inform all Canadians watching us that, on December 5, 1893, a Torontonian by the name of Frederick Fetherstonhaugh created a car. It was the second car created in Canada, and it was electric. This proves that our country and our party have absolutely nothing against electric cars. On the contrary, electric cars are part of our history. We need to look at this in a positive way, not a negative way. That is why we are gathered in the House today to talk about a Conservative Party motion to end the ban on selling gas-powered cars in Canada. We have absolutely nothing against electric cars.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for his speech and congratulate him on his election. The member mentioned the environmental footprint of cars, which is entirely legitimate, but let us remember that this debate is about the obligation to sell only electric cars in Canada starting in 2035. I drive an electric car myself. Electric cars produce zero emissions. However, producing an electric car requires a lot of minerals. Could the member explain the environmental footprint of manufacturing a car, whether electric or conventional?”
“Minister Benoit Charrette said that they have been saying from the start that they are not dogmatic and that they would reassess if it becomes apparent after several years that the market is not ready. That is exactly what our motion is doing. Why does the member make a distinction between what he thinks and what Quebeckers think?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks and thank him for his speech. Unfortunately, he has missed the point of our motion. Our motion is not intended to attack electric vehicles. On the contrary, it is intended to give people the option to choose the type of vehicle they want to drive, based on their personal needs. The members says that the Conservative Party is disconnected from the reality of Quebeckers, yet just a few weeks ago, Pierre-Olivier Zappa showed how he had “disconnected” from the interest he had in electric vehicles. Does the member disagree with Liberal MNA Monsef Derraji, who said that it was utopian to say that this is a realistic objective, since it is becoming more and more unrealistic?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister and all the Liberals members have a very short memory. Over the past 10 years, they passed at least four anti-energy and anti-natural resource bills. We are not just talking about Bill C‑69. We need to scrap Bill C‑48, the marine shipping ban, the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax. The world needs Canada now more than ever. When will the government repeal these laws?”
“Mr. Speaker, as our country hosts the G7 nations, it is sad to see that Canada has the worst record in the G7 when it comes to developing natural resources. There is a reason for that. It is because this Liberal government has had anti-energy and anti-natural resource policies for the past 10 years. These include the disastrous Bill C‑69, which still gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric projects. Quebec would never have been able to develop Manic‑5, Romaine or James Bay. When will the government repeal Bill C‑69?”
“Mr. Speaker, by the way, congratulations on your first full day in the Speaker's chair. I congratulate the member on his very interesting speech. He addressed the issue of first nations. When it comes to energy or natural resource projects, it goes without saying that the first nations must be consulted, of course, but even more so, they should be partners in the projects, partners in the prosperity. That idea has been part of our campaign platform for many years. What does the member think about including first nations as partners in prosperity through energy and natural resources projects?”
“That is the principle we had put forward, and the Bloc Québécois supported that principle. Does the current bill include that same principle?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his election. As I have said many times in interviews and here in the House, I want to congratulate him on his election campaign because he ran a good campaign. That is what I think. Now, I would like to get him to talk about this bill, which includes something we have supported for years, namely, a single environmental assessment per project. The leader of the Bloc Québécois will recall that 13 months ago, on May 12, 2024, we introduced a bill to that effect. We debated it, we had a vote, and the Bloc Québécois supported the principle of our bill. Rather than having one environmental assessment, followed by another that might contradict the first and require more time, we wanted a single environmental assessment, with the federal and provincial governments working together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his re-election and on introducing this bill. He talked about the principle of “one project, one environmental assessment”. That is a principle we agree on. Just 13 months ago, we actually had a vote in the House on Bill C‑375 , which had the same exact goal. The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle that we had put forward, but, curiously, the Liberals voted against it. As the legal experts suggested, our approach was to say that for each project, federal experts and experts from the province where the project was taking place should meet, work together and conduct one assessment. Is that exactly the approach the minister is proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election. If I remember correctly, this is his third term. Let us not forget that GC Strategies really showed how pathetic it was with ArriveCAN. The cost of the app went from $80,000 to $60 million. That is when we realized that these people were utterly incompetent. When we looked into the last 10 years, we realized that $65 million had been mismanaged. That is why we are asking for our money back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his election. I acknowledge that he saw me on television and is now seeing me in person. That is great; that is democracy. I would like to remind the member that we voted in favour of the tax cuts that were made, because they were largely in keeping with what we would have done. We would have liked to have done more, but we could not. With regard to the retirement age, my colleague should know that in 2019, 2021 and 2025, our position was always clear: We are keeping it at 65. I would encourage my colleague to refresh the memories of those on his side of the House. Meanwhile, since he can meet with the chief of staff, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S.”
“The chief of staff of the Prime Minister , the external affairs minister , the minister responsible for international commerce with the United States, and the first nations services minister , three cabinet ministers and the chief of staff of the Prime Minister are still there. Shame on you.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule that we want to address: just apply the rules. That was the main recommendation of the Auditor General, which is something she should not have to say, because it is a part of the job that we have when we are a government, to apply the rules. The Liberals did not apply the rules, during not one month, not one year, not five years, but 10 years. All the time they were in office, they did not apply the rule on that. Those who are responsible are the cabinet ministers, and the cabinet ministers who were there during this mess are still around.”
“Canadians deserve to be reimbursed because the work that was done was botched. The rules were not followed. We are not the ones saying so. This is according to the Auditor General of Canada. If by chance those folks over there have any sense of honour after winning the popular vote, they should reimburse Canadians.”
“That is not too much to ask. They are just asking that the rules be read and followed. The government receives taxpayer money and has to manage it properly. For 10 years, however, the government has behaved in a totally irresponsible manner. Now they want us to believe that everything is okay because this is a new government. Yes, it is a new government, but the four ministers responsible are playing key roles in this government. It bears repeating, because there are serious consequences to that. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister's current chief of staff are four major players in this government. They call that a new government. Canadians will not be fooled by this government's mismanagement.”
“She said that, if everything she looked at was all wrong, she had no proof that the same thing was not happening elsewhere. The $65‑million problem we are dealing with right now might be indicative of even bigger problems elsewhere. That is what the Auditor General of Canada said. Now, that is really incredible. She says that we need to go back to basics, that the policy should simply be properly applied and followed. That is incredible. A while ago, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North , who never misses an opportunity to defend the indefensible, say that it was incredible and asked whether members were aware that the Liberals had taken action and had managed to do it without spending any money. That is precisely the problem. All Canadians ask of their government is that it take proper care of taxpayer money and follow the rules.”
“The government did not take them to task for that. The Prime Minister actually promoted them. These are not small departments they are in charge of: foreign affairs, U.S. trade, indigenous services and the Prime Minister's chief of staff. One would be hard pressed to find something bigger than that. I will get to the Department of Finance later, if I have time. That is another story. That is why we are asking for the money to be paid back. The Auditor General of Canada was extraordinarily critical in her report. I went over the issues she raised. This is how she put it in her report and in her answers to questions from the media. She said, "We found problems with almost every contract we looked at, which tells me there is no reason to believe it is limited to these two." That is a big deal. Everything she found was highly problematic.”
“That is a 36% increase. This is exactly what we are talking about. Over the past 10 years, 31 agencies were directly targeted. However, government agencies are not just left to their own devices. Somebody somewhere is responsible for them. They are called ministers. We are talking about ministerial responsibility and accountability. Four ministers were directly involved in this mismanagement: the current Minister of Foreign Affairs , the current Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade , the current Minister of Indigenous Services and Marco Mendicino, who is currently serving as the Prime Minister 's chief of staff. That is no small matter. Four major players in the current government were ministers responsible for the mismanagement of $65 million in 31 Government of Canada agencies while the Liberals were in office.”
“Despite this, the government was unable to properly track absenteeism. This is a scathing report from the Auditor General, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that third-party companies must follow the rules when it comes to the sound management of public funds, and that, in this case, the rules were not followed when it came to the work that was done, qualifications, security clearances, time sheets, the tendering process, generous fees and worker absenteeism. Everything was wrong. Everything was poorly done. (1150) Let us also remember that this government promised to cap new spending at 2%. A few hours after the King's statement and the Speech from the Throne, in the first budget item that the government tabled, we learned that the Liberals were increasing spending on consultants from $19 billion to $26 billion.”
“Doing work for the federal government of a G7 country requires security measures, and yet, everywhere we look, we see that security protocols were not followed, particularly in some specific organizations. Time sheets, which are used to record the hours worked and calculate the pay of a person who is supposed to be doing a job, were not managed responsibly. I am not the one saying it, the Auditor General is. Furthermore, it is impossible to clearly demonstrate that the calls for tenders for these GC Strategies contracts were conducted according to the rules. In addition, 80% of the fees paid were above the market average for similar work. Obviously, there were also absenteeism issues that were poorly managed. Remember that the government hired 100,000 new public servants over a 10-year period.”
“As I said, this occurred from 2015 to 2024, for a total of $65 million. That is a lot of money. I would invite those who are watching at home to think about the income tax return they filed recently, the taxes they paid to the federal government and the GST they pay out of pocket every time they buy something. A total of $65 million of that money was given to GC Strategies for zero results. For all 106 contracts and 31 organizations, the Auditor General examined virtually every aspect of the sound management of public funds and found that there was very little evidence to justify spending this money. There was very little evidence of any work being done for the $65 million that Canadians gave to this company. Very little was done to check the credentials of those who were awarded the contracts. Proper security measures were not taken.”
“It was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. It was demonstrated that it could have been done for far less money, much more efficiently and with much better results. Who was behind such irresponsible management of public funds? It was GC Strategies. That sad company, run by incompetent people using a completely irresponsible approach, is at the heart of another dreadful scandal. The Auditor General specifically investigated what GC Strategies has done with the Canadian government over the past 10 years, and it just happens to coincide with the Liberal government's first election up until a few months ago. The Auditor General found that this company was awarded 106 contracts directly related to 31 federal government organizations managed by the then Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to thank the voters in my riding, the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who did me the honour of putting their trust in me almost two months ago. I had the opportunity to rise in the House and now I have the time to thank them directly for their confidence. I hope I live up to their expectations. The people in Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and across Canada want the money they pay in taxes to be managed responsibly, carefully and efficiently. Unfortunately, to say the least, today's debate shows the ugly side of how this government that has been here for nearly 10 years has managed public funds irresponsibly. Let us not forget the sad memory of the ArriveCAN scandal. That much-talked-about scandal that we nicknamed "arrive scam", proved to be an absolute ridiculous mismanagement of public funds.”
“Madam Chair, the newspaper La Presse conducted a survey on the current relationship between taxpayers and the revenue department. It appears that things are not going well at all. When people call to inquire about TFSAs, they are unable to get straight answers. People are complaining that they do not have enough training. Employees feel inadequately prepared to answer questions. What will the minister do to address these urgent needs, which are spelled out in black and white in La Presse?”
“Madam Chair, he should have been forward‑looking 3,000 days ago instead of increasing the debt of Canadians by $500 billion. The minister is also the Minister of Revenue. Did he read Marie‑Ève Fournier's article in La Presse on May 16?”
“Madam Chair, a few hours after the Liberals said that they would cap spending at 2%, we learned that the budget for consultants had increased by 36%. That is not good management. My colleague has been finance minister for 88 days, but he has been a minister in this government for more than 3,073 days, and this government is responsible for $500 billion in debt. What is the interest on the debt at this time?”
“Madam Chair, I am not smiling when the minister does not give us an answer. What is certain is that the Prime Minister rebuked him. The government has committed to capping spending at 2%. What is the increase in the consulting budget?”
“Madam Chair, once again, I did not get an answer. Following the first cabinet meeting on May 14, the Minister of Finance publicly announced that there would be no budget this year, but rather an economic update. However, the Prime Minister rebuked him two days later and said that there would be a budget this fall. Did the minister make a mistake, or did the Prime Minister call him to heel?”
“Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with two other colleagues. I will only use a third. The Minister of Finance is very nice, but he did not answer my question. When he took office, did he tell his senior officials to continue preparing the budget or to stop the work?”
“Madam Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his presentation, and we now have an opportunity for dialogue. It has been exactly 88 days since the minister took over the finance portfolio. Members will recall that, on February 4, his predecessor publicly announced that there would be a budget this spring. On March 14, when the current minister took office, did he tell his officials to continue preparing the budget or to stop that work?”
“How does he explain the fact that Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal members, when they knew full well that the situation he so carefully described would happen as he said?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Yes, I love history, but I also love the future. I know that the Bloc members have talked a lot about the referendum they dream of having and about Quebec's independence, which they believe in and which I am not comfortable with, but that is part of democracy. If my colleague really wants a referendum, if he really wants a country, he will have to vote for the Parti Québécois and have the Parti Québécois form the provincial government in a year. I completely disagree with the leader of the Parti Québécois. I think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois ran a very good federal election campaign. Yet despite that fact, the Liberals elected 44 members with the exact situation the member described.”
“Regardless, more people voted for us than in previous elections. Unfortunately for the Bloc Québécois, voters ditched them and they lost about 10 ridings. The Liberal Party got 44 members elected—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his fourth election to the House of Commons. My colleague has explained the fundamental problem he sees looming and explained it very well, even more so because all of the explanations were given during the election campaign. This is not something we learned after the fact. Remember that in 2015, the Liberal Party was elected on a platform of three small deficits and no deficit in 2019. The Liberals completely lied to the public, because that is not how things turned out. However, in this case, they were very clear. They said it clearly; they announced it from coast to coast to coast. The Bloc leader raised the issue during the debate, and the Liberal leader had a hard time explaining himself. He tripped over his words.”
“My question is this: How can the member for Repentigny accept the fact that, even though Quebeckers knew all this, they elected 44 members who have been particularly quiet today in this debate—”
“Mr. Speaker, my regards to my colleague, and congratulations on his long-standing political involvement and on his election as the member for Repentigny. The member knows very well that the issue that we are discussing today was raised during the election campaign. All the facts were known during the campaign and even during the leaders' debate. The leader of the Bloc Québécois put the question directly to the Liberal leader , who fumbled and was unable to give a clear answer. This happened in the middle of the debate. Ten minutes later, all the commentators gave their opinions on the debate and, lo and behold, five panellists on the state‑run news network said the Liberal leader had won, even though the leader of the Bloc Québécois had clearly raised the issue.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election and on his speech. I would like to remind the House that everything he mentioned was known to Quebeckers. From my perspective, his leader ran a very good campaign. That is what I think. Politically, we are not friends, but I know talent and hard work when I see it. He did not make any major mistakes in his election campaign. Despite everything, the party that this member represents was hit particularly hard by the Liberal Party of Canada and lost about 10 seats. During the leaders' debate, the leader of the Bloc Québécois even raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister . Despite that, Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal members in Quebec. How does my colleague think that happened?”
“Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. Akiawenhrahk is the Wendat name for “river”. The Saint-Charles River runs through Wendake from north to south and throughout the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. I would also like to congratulate my colleague on his election, which is not his first, second or third election, but his fourth. My colleague summed things up very well. The debate took place in the middle of an election campaign. His leader , who is not my political friend but a man I respect, asked the Prime Minister a direct question in the middle of a debate. The Prime Minister was unable to give a proper answer in the middle of an election campaign. Despite everything, as he said himself, Quebeckers elected 44 out of 78 Liberal members, a strong Liberal majority.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which presented the truth and the facts known to all voters when it came time to vote. As we know, the Bloc Québécois has suffered a number of election losses at the hands of the Liberals, particularly in the riding of Laurier—Sainte‑Marie , where the member who spent his entire career standing up for the environment suddenly changed his mind on the carbon tax, yet was re-elected with a 17,000-vote majority in a left-leaning, proud and very environmentally conscious riding. How does the member explain that?”
“Mr. Chair, it is exactly the opposite. The minister is the one trying to deflect. Changing topics, many people in my riding work at the Quebec City airport. Leases are an issue that affects all airports in Canada, because they do not currently own the land. These are short‑term leases. Airports want leases to be extended by 50 years when it comes time to negotiate with the companies that set up shop there.”
“Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag now. Unfortunately, we now see the Liberal federal minister passing the buck to the provinces. That is exactly the opposite of what we need. Will there really be an interprovincial free trade agreement by Canada Day, as the King said?”
“Mr. Chair, nine years ago, we Conservatives were in favour of interprovincial trade, but the Liberals voted against the proposal made by my friend from British Columbia. I will ask another question. Will a nurse from Quebec be able to work in Newfoundland or British Columbia by Canada Day? Yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for paying tribute to my colleague from British Columbia, whom I hold in high esteem, but she did not answer my question. Canada Day is in 25 days. Is it not totally irresponsible of the government to say that it can be done by Canada Day? Is the government prepared to tell us that the free circulation of Canadian workers, in any profession, will be possible by Canada Day? Yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to take part in this evening's discussion. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade on her re-election and her appointment to cabinet in this very important position, particularly given the economic challenges we are facing. When it comes to the debate on interprovincial measures, let us remember that almost nine years ago to the day, on June 14, 2016, we were debating a motion to “free the beer”. I see the minister remembers that. She will recall that her party voted against our motion, which specifically aimed to allow more transportation and more efforts. In the throne speech, the King said that we need to “remove all remaining federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility by Canada Day”. Canada Day is in 25 days.”
“We would write to each other from time to time. We shared our observations. The last time I wrote to him was about a month ago. As my granddaughter Léanne was celebrating her fifth birthday, we had the pleasure of giving her an astronaut suit. To her little sister Elizabeth—when it is one child's birthday, you have to give a small gift to the other—we gave a little astronaut stuffie. I sent photos to Mr. Garneau. A few minutes later, he replied that my granddaughters were adorable and that Léanne was wearing a nice suit. He asked if she was ready for a space walk and said that the next generation had arrived. Yes, the next generation has arrived, and they will always be inspired by your life, which has been so inspiring to all Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Garneau.”
“He looked at me with a bit of a grin, then I told him I had a huge problem with him because he was one of my Canadian heroes. How could I do my job in the opposition? He said he was convinced that I could do it. Indeed, I tried my best. He was a good listener. Among other things, I remember conversations I had with him to allow the C Series aircraft, as they were called back then, to land at Billy Bishop airport. Later, he served as foreign affairs minister, for a mere nine months, unfortunately. He did a good job. Fortunately, even though his life was too short, as my colleague so aptly said earlier, he had the opportunity to write his memoirs, which will be very useful. I would never claim to be a close friend of Mr. Garneau. I kept in touch with him during his political life and even after.”
“He kept trying, which proves that he was in politics for the right reasons. He was there to serve. As another member said, he was first elected as an opposition member. That happens. Then he was elected as a government member. That is what everyone hopes for. He served as a minister, and I had dealings with him a few times. I must admit that the first time I saw him, it was at the cafeteria in Centre Block. I saw him from a distance. He was eating just like a normal person. I thought, “No way, that's Marc Garneau right there.” Trembling like a leaf, I said hello and told him I was happy to meet him. He replied and called me by my name. Imagine that. He knew me, the little nobody that I was. I was happy and I could not believe it.”
“Obviously, everybody knew him around the country, and as my other colleague said earlier, he was an attraction for everybody. He worked hard, tirelessly, trying to convince people, and then suddenly, bang, he lost. That is what politics is all about. It was not his only disappointment in politics, because he lost a second time in the leadership. I will not repeat what my colleague said about the fact that it was incredible that he lost in his first election. He also lost the leadership. I will not repeat what the member said there, but it was incredible that he lost the leadership too. [ Translation ] We know star candidates run for election. They usually get elected, but when they lose, they usually disappear from the political landscape forever. Mr. Garneau did not.”
“Astronauts were particularly sensitive at the time. Mr. Garneau was the first Canadian capcom. He therefore had the respect and admiration of all his fellow astronauts and everyone who worked in Houston, including engineers and program directors. He was the only one who spoke to the astronauts. This is on top of the fact that when they spoke, they used very long acronyms, but Mr. Garneau knew exactly what they were talking about because he was the direct link to the astronauts. We can be very proud of what Mr. Garneau accomplished as an astronaut. [ English ] He then decided to serve in politics. No one is perfect, obviously. In his memoir, he talked about blue Liberals. That was not so bad; it was a good start. We might joke about the fact that he was an astronaut, but he was a star candidate, to say the least.”