Gérard Deltell

“Higher interest rates and inflation will hurt families by raising mortgage costs and slowing down housing. I want the government to answer if any of its ministers understand that big debts and deficits cause inflation.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is terrible news for all Canadian families. Yesterday, the Bank of Canada announced that, for the first time in three years, the key interest rate is set to rise and inflation is set to climb to 3.5% for the year as a whole. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that mortgage rates will rise. It risks slowing home sales, placing additional pressure on homeowners and bringing housing construction to a standstill. Is there a single minister in this government who actually understands that colossal debts and deficits lead to inflation?”

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“All Canadians should travel across the country to see how rich and beautiful Canada is.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely, all Canadians are invited to travel the length and breadth of Canada to discover the riches and beauty of the most beautiful country in the world: Canada.”

In response to a question from Andrew Lawton

“Young people need the chance to get their first job. During COVID, the government gave young people $2,000 a month to stay home. Businesses could not compete with that to hire them. Conservatives were right to oppose those payments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague first and foremost for his excellent French. I do not know if anyone has seen him play the piano, but it is impressive. On top of that, he penned the biography of Quebec’s future premier, the current Leader of the Opposition. What young people need is to be given the chance and the privilege to experience the happiness of getting their first job. Unfortunately, I must bring up the sad memory of what happened during COVID. I know that we were flying by the seat of our pants, we all understand that, but it was too bad to see young people being given money to stay home. They received $2,000 a month. I am sure that all members heard from business owners and job creators who said that young people wanted to work, but that if they were getting $2,000 a month to stay home, employers could not compete with that. We pointed out at the time that this was a mistake. It was not easy to stand up against something that a lot of people clearly liked, but we did it, and it was the right thing to do.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“The government needs to listen to businesses instead of making one-size-fits-all programs. Job markets are different in each area. For example, Montreal has much higher unemployment than Chaudière-Appalaches. We must fix youth unemployment regionally, not nationally.”

“Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We are currently on the evening shift. That is where we find ourselves in 2026. In all seriousness, the MP and Parliamentary Secretary’s question is quite relevant. The federal government absolutely must listen to businesses and respond to their needs. All too often, the government introduces one-size-fits-all programs, assuming that a single approach will work for everyone, but that is not the case. Take immigration and employment issues, for example. The unemployment rate is much higher in Montreal than in Chaudière-Appalaches. In Chaudière-Appalaches—the right side of the St. Lawrence River—the unemployment rate is 2%. When I say “right”, I am exaggerating a little, but there are quite a few Conservative MPs across all constituencies. It is clear that, if we want to tackle the issue of youth employment, we must do so on a regional, not national, basis.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Canada faces a youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate is 14 percent, and 48,000 young people lost their jobs last month. We need to support the Conservative plan to fix this. We must cut taxes and red tape to grow the economy, train youth for jobs that actually need workers like the skilled trades, build homes near those jobs, and fix our broken immigration system.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about this motion tonight. I want to highlight the fact that everybody in Canada, if not the world, is welcome in Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, because obviously Quebec City is the most fantastic city in the world. As Prime Minister Harper used to say, each and every Canadian should have two cities in their heart. The first is where they were born and the second is Quebec City. However, as I was born in Quebec City, I have a conflict of interest. I want to talk about this debate today regarding youth employment. Young Canadians are currently facing a serious crisis. It is important to recognize that the teenage years are not exactly the best years in one’s life. We try things out, we discover ourselves a little and discover life. We face challenges that are sometimes a bit sad. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail, but that is part of life. One of the great things about being a teenager, especially in our late teens on the cusp of becoming a young adult, is our first job. We all remember our first job. I would say it is the first step toward adulthood. It is a time when we stop being completely dependent on our parents, although, of course, we are always emotionally attached to them. We start making money. We start working. We start making some money. I will always remember how, in June 1980, I was working at the Brunet pharmacy at Place L’Ormière which, by the way, is still in business. When it changed hands about 10 years ago, I went to see the new owners to tell them that the pharmacy gave me my first job, and they were happy to hear it. Receiving that first paycheque at the age of 15, 16 or 17 is a big deal. In my day, in 1980, seeing a three-digit figure on a paycheque was really something. Earning $4 an hour and receiving a three-digit paycheque was fantastic. Those are memories that stay with a person. I am sure that my colleague, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and a former Quebec finance minister, remembers that. He knows just how much respect I have for him. He balanced the Quebec government’s budget. I would encourage him to follow his own example to balance the federal budget. I am sure that he, too, remembers his first cheque, although it may have had four digits on it. Maybe he started working at a bank when he was 16, who knows. As we know, he has a Ph.D. in economics, which is no small feat. The reality is that a young person’s first job marks the first step toward adulthood, and it is something they remember forever. That is why it needs to be a great opportunity and a great experience. Right now, however, the youth unemployment rate in Canada is very high. We are talking about 14%. That is more than twice as high as Canada’s current unemployment rate of 6.5%, which is on the rise. We need to be cautious. That said, among young people 15 to 24, the rate stands at 14%. Over the past month, 48,000 youth jobs were lost. In Quebec, the situation is not necessarily any better, since the youth unemployment rate is twice as high as that of people 30 to 54. In short, from coast to coast to coast, and particularly in Quebec, we are facing a youth unemployment crisis. Members will recall that everyone had a job right after COVID-19. Businesses, coffee shops and plants everywhere kept saying that they were hiring. Some restaurants were even closed on Monday evenings because they could not hire enough staff. Whenever I ordered my coffee at the drive-through of a well-known national chain, I always thanked the lady or gentleman for being there to serve me. There were plenty of jobs available. Those were different times. The unemployment rate was 5.3%. In 2025, it rose to a little over 8%, and now in 2026, it is around 10%. Specifically, for those aged 15 to 19, the unemployment rate is 12.5%. In Ontario, the unemployment rate is 22.6%. In Alberta, the youth unemployment rate is 24.1%. Almost one in four young people is unemployed. Sadly, it reminds me of 1982-83, when youth unemployment was over 25% and interest rates were hovering around 21% or 22%. Every generation has its challenges. I will not make anyone cry about my generation today. I think of my father’s generation. He was told that they were going to put a helmet on his head and that he had to go and kill the Nazis to save humanity. Let us just say that it was much more demanding for my parents’ generation than for mine. At the same time, we hope that our children and grandchildren will have the same opportunities, which, unfortunately, is not always the case. To close on the issue of unemployment, among those without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate is at 17%. We need to tackle the issue of youth unemployment head-on. As I said earlier, people take great pride in taking that first step in their adult life, with a paycheque with three digits or sometimes four digits. It should be a good experience, and young people should be able to have that opportunity. The Conservatives have a four-point plan. First, we must free up the economy. The government keeps bragging about wanting to speed up major projects and cut red tape, but the fact remains that, after 11 years of Liberal governance, Canada is lagging behind in this area. It is crucial that we unblock major projects. We must fully develop our natural resources. We must also enable all of our research chairs to achieve their full potential. We must put an end to anti-resource laws. We must lower taxes to accelerate production and leave more money in businesses’ pockets so that they can grow, rather than forcing them to send money to Ottawa or to the provinces, which leaves them with less money. They know how to create wealth. It is not the government that creates wealth. It is businesses that do that. We need to give them more freedom to operate. We also need to fix the training system. The programs we have right now are too cookie-cutter, in our opinion. We need programs that are much better tailored to our needs. I am thinking of the Canada student financial assistance program in particular. We believe that we should focus on jobs where there are needs, jobs for which employers are actively seeking workers. Let us be very honest. In the past, we used to say that education is an investment. That is still true. Earning a university degree, whether at the undergraduate, master’s or doctoral level, remains important. We can all agree on that. I should point out that, when I was young, skilled trades were not held in particularly high regard. Today, we need these jobs, and young men and women can have amazing careers and lives with core trades that are essential to our economy. I am talking about plumbing and electrical work. People can do multiple tasks to build homes or build infrastructure. Those workers must not be overlooked. On the contrary, they deserve to be valued, just as all forms of work deserve to be valued. We also need to build housing where the jobs are. We often hear businesses in regions outside the major urban centres described as being “remote”. In reality, it would be just as accurate to say that the urban centres are remote from those regions. It may sound a little pretentious to describe them as being far away, but the distance from Montreal to the Gaspé Peninsula is exactly the same as the distance from the Gaspé Peninsula to Montreal. I checked. It is the same distance in both directions. A region should not be put down that way. I see that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin agrees with me. He is nodding his head. To share a little story, when I was the leader of the provincial Action démocratique du Québec, or ADQ, I was in Matane when there was talk about opening a CEGEP in Montreal. I said that a CEGEP was going to open in Matane and that people from Montreal would come to Matane, because people from Matane go to Montreal, and the distance is the same both ways. We therefore have to overhaul training, build housing where the jobs are, and fix our immigration system. Unfortunately, for the past 10 years, Canada has pursued a one-size-fits-all approach to immigration. We opened the door like that with no respect for the immigrants themselves. Never forget that immigrants are the first victims of the kind of disrespectful immigration we have had for the past 10 years. Therefore, it is a cocktail of proposals that includes liberating the economy, overhauling training, repairing immigration and building housing to fight youth unemployment.”

“Businesses can now apply for federal summer jobs for students. But over the years, the federal government keeps stepping into provincial responsibilities. I want the member to explain how youth jobs would be affected if the federal government stayed out of these provincial matters.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on several issues in her speech. I would like to begin by thanking her for highlighting the fact that the application period for summer jobs is now under way for businesses and organizations seeking to recruit students. The deadline for submitting applications is a month away. People can go to their federal constituency office, find their MP and take the necessary steps to secure the jobs. Of course, all of this must be carefully balanced. My question is this: My colleague was elected, if I am not mistaken, in 2019 and has been serving in this House ever since. She has therefore had the opportunity to observe how, over the years, the government has increasingly encroached on provincial areas of responsibility. There may have been a change 18 months ago, but the more things change, the more they stay the same. Could she explain to the House the direct impact of a federal government that does not interfere in these matters, specifically on youth employment?”

“More working families need food banks now. The food bank in Quebec City served 35,000 people six years ago, and now it serves 84,000. I want the Minister of Finance to explain why Canadians are struggling so much after 11 years of Liberal rule.”

“Mr. Speaker, the face of poverty is changing, and not for the better. People who were donating to food banks a few years ago are now in need of help themselves. Working individuals and dual-income families are being forced to seek food assistance. Six years ago, the Moisson Québec food bank in Quebec City was serving 35,000 people. Now it is serving 84,000 and 35% of them are children. The Minister of Finance is preparing the budget that he is going to table in a few days. Could he rise and explain to Canadians why they are having such a hard time making ends meet after 11 years of Liberal governance?”

“The government got rid of the digital services tax just to please Donald Trump and get a deal. It has been 16 months, and we have seen no results. What does the member think about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for her speech, which was very moving because she shared her story and her family’s story. I thank her family for choosing Canada. Now, we are here to discuss a fiscal reality, a political reality, and also a reality that affects the cultural community that she holds so dear. Let us not forget that the political party she represents has gone back and forth a few times. At first, it was against the tax, and then it was for it. Then it used it to placate Donald Trump and convince him to strike a good deal with Canada. The reality is that when this government decided to abolish the digital services tax, it was really just to please Donald Trump. Now, 16 months later, the results are non-existent. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“The government promised to stand up to the United States. Instead, it got rid of the digital services tax to help trade talks. It has been 16 months since then, and there are zero results. Does my colleague agree?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which were very clearly stated, naturally. That is the beauty of parliamentary debate. Every party and every opinion can be heard. That said, one thing is important: When someone commits to doing something and the results are not there, they need to acknowledge it. We should remember that this government was elected on the promise to go to the White House with its elbows up. Ultimately, there were no elbows up at all; what we got were thumbs up. As a result, the government decided to abolish the digital services tax, thinking that this would have a positive impact on negotiations. It has already been 16 months since then. Sixteen months later, there are zero results. What are my colleague’s thoughts on this reality?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The government broke its promise, created a digital services tax, and then cancelled it. It said dropping the tax would help talks with the United States, but it did not help at all. What good did dropping the tax actually do?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague. As always, it was fascinating listening to him speak. He shared part of his personal journey with us today, explaining that he first discovered Canada through TV5. We are delighted that he chose to settle in Canada with his family. My colleague spoke about the need for consistency. On that point, I would remind the House that this party, this government was elected on a promise not to implement a digital services tax initially. It later introduced one, only to then withdraw it, arguing that doing so would create more room for negotiations with the United States. Can my colleague provide an assessment of the actual impact that the decision to withdraw it has had on negotiations with the United States? In my view, there has not been any benefit.”

“Quebeckers are proud of our culture and our nation. Conservatives recognized Quebec as a nation. But I want to ask the member what he thinks of a government that promised one thing to get elected, is doing the opposite, and keeps changing its mind on this issue.”

“Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague’s sense of humour. Using “lever le coude” in French for “elbows up” was very funny. I will give him another example. When people talk about the “shadow cabinet” here in the House, they refer to them in French as “ministres fantômes”. When I explain to my colleagues that “fantôme” means “ghost”, they do not find it funny, but that is our reality. Finally, I want to assure the member that all of us Quebeckers are proud of our culture. We are proud of this distinction that makes us a nation. That is why the Conservative government had recognized the principle of nationhood. I can assure him that I am very passionate about culture, as are the 77 members here in the House who represent all Quebeckers. The question I am going to ask him is this: They have a position that has been well known for a long time, and we have a position that has been well known for a long time. What does he think of a government that got elected on one thing, is doing something else and keeps changing its mind, going back and forth on this issue?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marc Dalton

“The Prime Minister broke his election promises. He said to judge him by the price of food, but food bank use is up by more than 20 percent. Last month, 2.35 million Canadians had to use food banks to eat. This is not the Canada people deserve.”

“Madam Speaker, indeed, the Prime Minister was elected on the basis of a lot of promises he made, talking elbows up yet going thumbs up instead while making no progress with Trump. Worse still, he said he would be judged by the price of food, but since he came to power, the number of people using food banks has grown by more than 20%. Last month, 2.3 million people visited food banks. The most basic of all our needs is the need to eat. However, 2.35 million people have to turn to food banks. This is not the Canada we dreamed of. This is not the Canada that Canadians deserve.”

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“Canadians will have to pay for this plan. My party opposes new taxes and extra costs. Over one million people in Quebec voted for us because of this.”

“Madam Speaker, the problem with the proposal is that Canadians are the ones who will end up footing the bill. That is why we have always taken a completely different approach, one that I acknowledge is open to review. I readily acknowledge that we favour policies that avoid imposing additional taxes or similar charges. That is our approach. I believe that it is the best one, but of course that is a matter for debate. We were all re‑elected in 2025 on that basis, having received one million votes from Quebeckers. Let us never forget that our Conservative caucus had nine members here in Ottawa in 2025 and eleven afterward. We increased our share of the vote to 21%. More than one million Quebeckers voted for us, so yes, I think so. As I said earlier, we do not speak for all Quebeckers, but many Quebeckers think as we do.”

“Our party has always opposed a tax on Netflix since 2015. The Liberals promised not to raise internet costs with new taxes, but they changed their minds. We are sticking to our position.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very surprised at the question from the member. I am sure he knows our position pretty well, because it was very clear in 2015: no Netflix tax. All of us here who were elected in 2019, 2021 and 2025 had exactly the same stand on that, which was no taxation. The Liberals changed their minds. Let me remind them that former prime minister Trudeau said, “We’re not going to increase the cost of internet...to impose more taxes...on taxpayers.” A few years later, however, he said that other countries had taken action and that Canada had no reason to apologize for doing the same. We are sticking to our guns, but unfortunately, the Liberals are changing their minds like a weather vane.”

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I congratulate the former members of this House who were just elected to Quebec's legislature. No single party speaks for Quebec. The Liberals created the digital services tax and made it retroactive, then dropped it to appease the American president. They got nothing in return. Fewer homes are being built, and 2.35 million people use food banks. The Liberals say one thing and do the opposite.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today’s debate on a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois. Speaking of the Bloc Québécois, I think it would agree with me that we should give a little nod to what is currently happening in Quebec. After that, I will address the heart of the matter of the digital services tax. Some will have already noticed this, but the House of Commons is practically serving as a highway to the Quebec National Assembly these days. That may sound a bit poetic, but here are the facts. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, Premier Paul Saint‑Pierre Plamondon, who can now be called “PPSPP”, unveiled the composition of his cabinet. I wish him all the best. Two of his ministers used to sit here in the House of Commons, and they were no ordinary members. I would like to take a moment to salute and congratulate Alain Therrien, who is now the president of the Quebec Treasury Board. Mr. Therrien served here in the House of Commons as the member for Sanguinet from 2019 to 2025. He was also his party’s House leader, and I had the pleasure of working with him, or against him, although it was far more often with him, because he always sought to reach the best compromise for all parliamentarians. I also knew him when he was a member of the National Assembly the first time, and I can say that he is also a great businessman. Above all, he is an honest man who gives his word and keeps it. When I say honest, I know he will do the right thing when it comes to managing public funds at the Treasury Board. I did say he would do “the right thing”, not that he is “right-wing”. I also want to acknowledge the appointment of Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay as the Minister Responsible for Relations with the First Nations and the Inuit. As members may recall, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay was the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe in the House of Commons until quite recently. That is no small matter. It is the first time that a first nation member has sat at the cabinet table, dealing with first nations issues in particular. He deserves a round of applause. He is a member of the Wendat Nation. When we say “Wendat” we often think of Wendake. Since he is originally from the Wendat Nation, I used to run into this gentleman at every powwow in Wendake. In fact, the Grand Chief of the Wendat Nation, Pierre Picard, welcomed this appointment and intends to work with him for the good of first nations and all Quebeckers. There are even more moves from the House of Commons to the National Assembly, as they involve not only elected officials but also people working on parliamentary teams. Today, a member who once worked in the House of Commons as a senior adviser to a party leader is about to be sworn in. His name is Éric Duhaime, and he once served as senior adviser to the leader of the Canadian Alliance, from 2000 to 2002, in the House of Commons. Understandably, I know Mr. Duhaime well and have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for over 20 years. We worked together at the provincial level, and I am pleased to offer him my heartfelt congratulations. Everyone in politics knows him for the absolutely outstanding and attention-grabbing campaign he led, starting with zero MPs and ending up with 19. Today, these 19 parliamentarians will be sworn in to the National Assembly. History is being written today, 90 years, 10 months and 10 days since 1935, as Conservative members, under the leadership of Éric Duhaime, return to the National Assembly. As for the official opposition, we can talk about a second generation, since two of the members elected under the Liberal Party banner in the National Assembly and sworn in are the sons of two veteran parliamentarians who have had careers in the House of Commons. Allow me to acknowledge Sacha Cannon, the son of Lawrence Cannon, a well-known member of this House who was also a senior minister and brought honour to Canada around the world when he was foreign affairs minister. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Verdun, Antoine Dionne Charest, son of Jean Charest, who was here as a member of Parliament, deputy speaker of the House, senior minister, deputy prime minister of Canada and party leader, before becoming an MNA and premier of Quebec. Yes, we see people from the House of Commons at the National Assembly, but the left is also represented, since Québec Solidaire includes a former member of the House of Commons. Here in the House he stood out for inspiring many with his passion and a tone that left no room for interpretation. I am referring to the former member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, who is now the MNA for Gouin. I checked his election results. He was elected with 63% of the vote. Let us just say that he does not have to concern himself with recounts. I think his experience here in the House of Commons will be valuable to the Quebec legislature because he, too, has experienced a minority government. Let us not forget that he was part of the parliamentary group that signed a long-term agreement with the minority government. We know the outcome, how things turned out. I think that if, by chance, the leader of Québec Solidaire were considering a long-term agreement with the Parti Québécois government, Mr. Boulerice could keep a close eye on things and tell his leader that it is not really a good idea. I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the 127 people elected to the National Assembly. I wish them every success in their work on behalf of Quebec. This clearly shows that democracy in Quebec is alive and well. Why is that? It is because there are four distinct parties firmly established in the National Assembly. There are four different colours, four different perspectives. Whether the perspective is sovereignist, federalist, autonomist or socialist, each is represented in the National Assembly. This leads me to an important point: No one in this House can claim an exclusive right to speak on behalf of Quebec. All members from Quebec speak on behalf of Quebec, and no one has a monopoly on that. The proof is quite simple. Quebeckers have elected four different parties to the National Assembly. Yes, it is a minority government, but what is clear is that the views of Quebeckers will continue to be debated in the National Assembly in the months ahead. I want to come back to the subject at hand, but I think that was worth mentioning. The digital services tax is a Liberal Party invention. Let me remind members. Originally, in 2015, the Liberals were against this “Netflix tax” and they did not want to implement it at all. Ultimately, they ended up putting it in place. In November 2020, in an economic update, they announced their intention to create the digital services tax. Between 2021 and 2023, there were a few postponements. On June 20, 2024, they finally passed Bill C‑59, which introduced the digital services tax. On June 28, 2024, the order in council was passed. What was particularly unfortunate about this approach is that it was retroactive to January 2022. Taxing people, taking money out of people’s pockets, is not necessarily the best way to balance a budget. In addition, doing so retroactively was quite unfortunate. However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down. The Liberals then adopted a new approach. We all remember that approach: In 2025, they chose a new leader who vowed to stand up for Canada everywhere, especially at the White House, with an elbows up attitude. We all remember the Prime Minister’s elbows up rhetoric. How did that elbows up approach end up playing out at the White House? It ended with a thumbs up. When the Prime Minister appeared before the President of the United States, he seemed far less inclined toward elbows up and settled instead for a thumbs up. The photographs speak for themselves, and that is unfortunate. To demonstrate that he was no longer operating in an elbows up frame of mind but rather in a thumbs up one, he sought to ease tensions in the relationship in the hope of creating more room for a possible agreement with the United States. That is why, on June 30, 2025, he announced the elimination of that tax, saying it would facilitate negotiations. Unfortunately, that approach yielded absolutely nothing. If one campaigns on an elbows up message but shows up with a thumbs up, what does that achieve? It achieves nothing. That is exactly what happened here. The government tried to appease President Trump, but it gained absolutely nothing in return. That is why what we are discussing today is yet another unfortunate illustration of how the Liberals and this Liberal government say one thing but do the opposite, and never seem to deliver. They are always boasting about all the houses they are going to build, but fewer have been built this year than in previous years. They say they are going to help people more, but 2.35 million people are using food banks. That is the Liberal Party’s record after 11 years. That is the Liberal Party’s record over the past 18 months, under the leadership of this man, who said he was elbows up but instead, all he can do is give a thumbs up.”