Gérard Deltell

Mr. Speaker, in the last two months, 100,000 Canadians lost their jobs. That is the reality. While the government blames everything on Donald Trump, the reality is that this government could be taking direct action. Instead, what the government is doing for industry is increasing the Liberal industrial carbon tax. That is the truth. When investments go down, taxes go up. That makes no sense. It [more]

Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians thought they were getting a new Liberal, but he is just like all the other Liberals we have seen over the past 10 years. Our investments are not doing well. Today, the C.D. Howe Institute is reporting that industrial investments are down: investment per worker is down 25%, investment in buildings is down by 32% and investment in machinery is down [more]

Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, I have bad news for the government, but especially for Canadians: The Liberals' policies are not working. There are 100,000 Canadians—100,000 men and women, 100,000 families—who have lost their jobs. That is the reality after 10 years of Liberal government and after one year of this new. He claims that this is happening all over the world. If the impacts are being [more]

Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, thiswas elected a year ago on a promise that he would build the strongest economy in the G7. Here we are one year later, and things are still not on track. In the first two months of this year alone, 100,000 Canadians lost their job. Ours is the only G7 economy that is shrinking. We have had the highest spike in unemployment in the G7 and we have the worst food [more]

We think there are two parties at play here. The third is the population of Laval, who'd have to pay for this decision, but they're represented by the current mayor. CRA is asking the municipality to take action. That's why we believe the best option is to invite the party making the request and the party who'd be on the hook. This approach was agreed to with the municipality, no one else. That's [more]

reportages reportage Regarding the first proposed amendment, I want to thank our colleagues and commend them for using verbatim, not to say letter for letter, our motion, including the misprinted s in “”. I invite them to verify the spelling of “”. On a more serious note, we completely disagree with the government MPs' suggestion not to invite the responsible minister. Minister of Finance and [more]

This is exactly the heart of the problem. This is why people are upset. The mayor, after a trial, was convicted. He was found guilty and convicted, and now, as the motion says, CRA is requiring the City of Laval to pay former mayor Gilles Vaillancourt about $1 million so he can pay his taxes. CRA is asking the City of Laval to pay a convicted felon. That's exactly why we want to minister to [more]

That, in light of recent reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency is requiring the City of Laval to issue a payment of approximately $1 million to former mayor Gilles Vaillancourt in order for him to remit taxes on funds previously stolen from the municipality and later returned, the committee invite the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and officials from the Canada Revenue Agency and the [more]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move a motion in accordance with what we all agreed on following our friendly agreement, or what could be called a moral commitment. By the way, maybe we could talk about a “gentlemen and gentlewomen's agreement”. That would be more specific and respectful in 2026. Seriously, let me get back to our motion. Minister of National Revenue Our motion [more]

Yes. Thank you for setting the record straight for all of us. The notice of motion is as follows: That, in light of recent reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency is requiring the City of Laval to issue a payment of approximately $1 million to former mayor Gilles Vaillancourt in order for him to remit taxes on funds previously stolen from the municipality and later returned, the committee [more]

Mr. Chair, can we have the amendment in writing? I just want to make sure we all understand it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We are rejecting this amendment for the reasons I gave just a few minutes ago in answering Mr. Lemire's question. As you know, we work as a team and we have to make sure everyone agrees. That's the way we work and I hope it never changes. So we disagree with that position, because the two parties being targeted are CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the City of [more]

minister With all my respect, Mr. McKinnon, this is why we want to have thein the box.

Well—