MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Gérard Deltell

Follow by RSS

Deltell presses for lower taxes and faster resource development, calling for the GST to come off used cars, for eliminating taxes on construction and on resource projects, and for his “one project, one environmental assessment” bill idea. He often drifts into asides mid-question, pausing to tell a colleague “anger is never a good adviser” before circling back. He leans on Statistics Canada figures and constituents’ stories to press his points.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 88 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 80 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Loses points more than most for A remark off to the side of the point.2.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.7 Thanks and tributes.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 88 of 95 statements graded so far.

Statements 95

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government cancelled the digital services tax to help talks with the United States. Sixteen months later, those talks have made no progress at all. The government gave up this tax and got nothing in return.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is obviously very articulate in both official languages, which is good for all Canadians, especially here in the House of Commons. Today we are talking about the digital services tax. The member is well aware that his government scrapped that tax in June 2025, claiming that it was doing so to help the negotiations with the United States. Sixteen months later, can the member tell us how the negotiations with the United States are going? At first glance, there has been no progress at all, absolutely none. The government scrapped a tax that helped it get elected. It scrapped the tax, but absolutely nothing changed.

“The government keeps changing its mind about the digital services tax. Businesses need a clear direction. How does this back-and-forth hurt the cultural sector?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what does my colleague make of the Liberal government’s position on the digital services tax? First, it opposed the tax. Then it supported it. Now it opposes it once again. In any business or economic endeavour, it is important to have a clear sense of direction. What impact does this sort of Liberal flip-flopping have on the cultural sector?

Statements by Members ·

Jean-Luc Mongrain

“I am honouring Jean-Luc Mongrain, who died recently. He was a famous Quebec TV journalist for 40 years, and I worked with him.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers were deeply saddened to learn of the sudden passing of Jean-Luc Mongrain. After 40 years working in the media, Jean-Luc Mongrain was a legend of Quebec television, known for his instantly recognizable style: flamboyant, outspoken and colourful. Addressing the biggest issues of the day, he always found a way to make the news interesting and to shine a light on both the problems and the solutions. He knew how to deliver information directly to people, guided by, yes, common sense, which echoed in every Quebec household. Thanks to him, people felt heard and understood. I had the great privilege of working with Jean-Luc, first at TVA and later at TQS. Beyond the controversial figure, he was a meticulous and well-informed professional who respected the work of the journalists with whom he collaborated. Jean-Luc Mongrain’s microphone has fallen silent, but his voice and his perspective on current events will remain forever in the hearts and minds of Quebeckers.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Thanksgiving dinner costs 10% more this year. After 11 years of Liberal rule, life costs too much. The Liberals want to raise taxes, but we want Canadians to keep more of their money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on TVA news, reporter Pierre-Olivier Zappa talked about a study that found that, this year, a traditional Thanksgiving meal will cost 10% more than last year. He even suggested considering an alternative to the traditional meal. That is where we are at after 11 years of Liberal governance. Getting together as a family should never be a luxury. The Liberals want to raise taxes. We want Canadians to have more money in their pockets. Can the Liberals understand that after 11 years of their rule, we are experiencing an affordability crisis in Canada?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Tax money should help taxpayers, not fund profitable businesses. Private companies should pay for their own profitable projects. Government rules slow these projects down too much, and the approval process needs to be much faster.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that he was trying not to lose his temper. I would like him to know that anger is never a good adviser. I can share a few things I have learned in my 18 years in politics. Earlier, my colleague raised a point about what we in the Conservative Party call “corporate welfare”, in other words, government favouritism. Taxpayers’ money must be used for the benefit of taxpayers. When there is clearly a profit to be made, it is up to the private sector to step up. That is what our leader said in response to the very pertinent question from the member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets. Would he agree that there are so many regulations and so many hoops to jump through that, for this project as for any other, the process ought to be much more efficient?

“The member for Joliette and I have both served here for 11 years. He saw everything the Trudeau government did. Most current Liberal members served under Justin Trudeau. I want him to tell the House what he thinks of how the government describes its record during those years.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette for another well-researched presentation. His experience as a CEGEP teacher shines through. He may return to teaching one day, but that is for the voters to decide. On that note, next week, the member for Joliette and I will be celebrating the 11th anniversary of our first election to the House of Commons. He witnessed both the Trudeau years and the famous 500 days that the member for Winnipeg North speaks of with such fervour. My question for my colleague from Joliette is this: What are his thoughts on the government’s present characterization of the Trudeau decade, given that three-quarters of those people were around when Mr. Trudeau was, regrettably, Prime Minister of Canada?

“I totally disagree with the member. The Liberals spent ten years supporting policies like the carbon tax, and now they celebrate reversing them. I want him to admit that ten years of the former prime minister hurt Canada's economy.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague, but obviously I totally disagree. I have to highlight that he put a lot of emphasis on the last 500 days of the Prime Minister. That is fine. We remember when the former prime minister was elected in 2015. Do members remember what the member did 10 years later? He was once supportive of the carbon tax, and now he is proud to say that the new Prime Minister cancelled the carbon tax, the flagship policy of the Liberal government. He has paid respect to that and has said that things are fantastic now that we have Bill C-5 and Bill C-39. It is exactly 180° from what they have done in the last 10 years. Does the member recognize that the 10 years under Trudeau destroyed the Canadian economy?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“Two years ago, Liberals voted against my bill to have only one environmental review per project. Today, the government supports that same idea. I want the member to explain why his party voted against it back then.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Brunswick. I commend him for his passion for his region, as we all have for our own. There is a reason we were elected by the people. I know that my colleague was elected 18 months ago, and I congratulate him, but two years ago, before his time, his peers on that side of the House voted against Bill C‑375, which called for “one project, one environmental assessment”. It was my bill, in fact. We, the Conservatives, had introduced it. Today, however, the government is boasting about wanting to move forward. Even the King said as much in the throne speech. What does my colleague have to say to his Liberal colleagues who voted against the “one project, one environmental assessment” bill but support that concept today?

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“I agree with my colleague. The best way to help the economy is for the government to get out of the way and let people develop our natural resources and energy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the question and the work done by my colleague. The member pointed out that the best way to help the economy is for the government to get out of the way. This is what we are asking for as the Conservative opposition to the government, for it to get out of the way and let people develop the full potential we have in natural resources and energy.

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Canadians want their government to work better and waste less money. The forestry sector is vital to Quebec and Canada, but the government is too slow to help it. We need to hold the government accountable for letting forestry workers down.”
  • A repeated line

    “It is never too late to do the right thing.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since September 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant comments. What Canadians want is to get more for their money and to have more money in their pockets. They also want the government to be more efficient. My colleague has just demonstrated very clearly that unfortunately, in a sector that is essential to Quebec’s economy and Canada’s economy, namely the forestry sector, the government is slow to use truly constructive solutions and approaches. It is never too late to do the right thing. Let us seize this opportunity to hold the government accountable and ensure it answers to us on this issue involving forestry workers.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Two years ago, the member voted against my bill to simplify reviews for building projects. That wasted two years. The Liberals have blocked natural resource projects for 10 years, which is the only reason we need to rush these approvals now.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see my colleague here in the House. Does the member remember where he was two years ago when he voted against my private member’s bill, Bill C-375, for one project, one evaluation? He voted against it, and that is on the record. We lost two years on that issue, and we lost more than 10 years because of the Liberal administration. Government after government was opposed to any development of our natural resources. Now we want to fast-track everything, for sure, but the reason we have to do that right now is that during the last 10 years, the government failed to achieve great things.

“I oppose this bill. It makes promises to speed up projects, but it still lets the government delay decisions whenever it wants. The government is already holding up 500 projects with red tape. If we want to build things, we should cut taxes on natural resources and limit each project to one single review.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy and pleasure that I rise to take part in today’s debate on Bill C-39, introduced by the government. I am also very pleased to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the Conservative member for Tobique—Mactaquac. As Conservatives, we have one primary objective here in the House, and that is to save Canadians money. There are ways the government can do just that. For example, it could cut taxes or even eliminate them. What we have been proposing for months is to eliminate taxes on natural resources, such as oil, to speed up the process of getting projects built. That would leave Canadians with more money in their pockets. That is the quickest way of getting this done. Unfortunately, the Liberals are only partially implementing this idea. Another thing the government could do is get out of the way and let entrepreneurs and Canadians develop our natural resources to their full potential and create wealth in the process. Canada is the envy of the world because our country has every natural resource and every kind of energy. For the past 10 years, however, we have seen successive Liberal governments stop at nothing to keep Canada’s incredible natural resource and energy potential from being fully realized. No discussion of natural resources and energy can be considered complete unless it encompasses both sides. We cannot rely purely on traditional energy sources like fossil fuels or purely on green energy. We need a combination of both. Achieving that will take willingness, openness and most of all, an end to the contempt that Canadians have witnessed and experienced over the past 10 years. Successive Liberal governments have treated certain so-called “traditional” natural resources, such as gasoline and so on, with contempt. Let us not forget that a new government was elected in 2015. Prime Minister Trudeau said loud and proud that “Canada is back”. Some will recall that he was very proud to say that in Davos, and everyone applauded him. He was the new global star. That reminds me of certain things that are happening right now. The people in Davos were delighted to hear Prime Minister Trudeau say that the Canadian economy, and I am paraphrasing here, would no longer rely solely on what is beneath our feet, but also on what is between our ears. That was so disrespectful to Canadians, as if there had been nothing between people’s ears since Confederation, or even long before that. That was the essence of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal policy: contempt for what lies beneath our feet, namely our energy resources and all the potential they represent. As we saw, regulations and laws were enacted that were truly intended to hinder economic development and undermine the potential of our natural resources. Examples include Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. I will come back to that a little later, because, unfortunately, nothing has changed. Some would have us believe that a new tone has been set in the past 18 months with the arrival of the new Prime Minister. We must tread lightly here. The current government deserves a global award for all their announcements, summits, ceremonies, statements and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. That is truly impressive, but where are the concrete results? During the election campaign, the Liberals were going on about Build Canada Homes. We had a good laugh at the time. Let me just say that the French title “bâtir Maisons Canada” sounded a bit like something out of the movie E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Where are these houses? Where were they built? What concrete results have Liberal policies produced over the past 18 months? There are none. I would remind members that one of the first bills the government tabled was Bill C‑5, whose objective—yes, I said “objective”—was to speed up the process of integrating practices. We, the Conservatives, did not oppose that approach. We even voted in favour of a closure motion so we could move forward. However, 18 months later, where are the concrete results? That is the issue. The Liberals put on a big show and make nice announcements, but there are no concrete results. The proof is that, at this very moment, the Prime Minister has a pile of documents on his desk. Some 500 projects are ready to move forward, and those projects are currently being held up. If the government truly intends to advance Canada’s economic development, it should green-light those 500 projects. While 500 projects await action on the Prime Minister’s desk, his government has created 14 new government agencies. Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48 remain in effect. Our leader said something yesterday that is worth repeating because it goes to the heart of the matter. He quoted Bill C‑69 and said that anyone seeking to proceed with a project must still provide an analysis of “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that had anything to do with mines, pipelines and seaports. We thought the Trudeau era was behind us, but it is still alive and well. These are left-wing policies. The Liberals go on and on about their lofty principles. Woke policies remain in place because of Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48. That applies to something else, too. As mentioned yesterday, proponents must still consider “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the responsible authority requires to be taken into account”. The government wants to do it, wants to move forward, or at least that is what it is saying, but everything is open to all sorts of analyses. That is fine. We understand that. However, if we are talking about taking real action to reach our full potential, that is not what the government is doing. We have been debating the government’s Bill C-39 for the past two days. If we understood the government correctly, this bill seeks to do what the government has not done for 18 months, despite Bill C-5. That is basically what this is. I have to say that it is rather ridiculous how these people were boasting about how Bill C-5 was a new approach. Now, here we are, 18 months later, and they are introducing another bill that takes a very similar approach, when we have yet to see any results. That is proof that the Liberals did not do their job properly on this. We are talking about an omnibus bill that is nearly 250 pages long and contains hundreds and hundreds of provisions that we need to examine. Of course, as with all parliamentary work, the devil is in the details. We understand that there is a time limit. Earlier, I heard my colleague say that projects can begin after a one-year review period, but that is not the case because the government is giving itself the power to suspend that time limit at any time. Imagine a foreign investor who sees Canada’s immense potential and decides to take the plunge, thinking everything will work out. I wonder what will happen when that investor realizes that one very important detail will change once Bill C-39 is passed: The government will get the power to suspend this one-year time limit. That is not a good thing. Obviously, a good way to reduce delays is to require only one environmental assessment per project. Two years ago, on behalf of the official opposition party, I was extremely proud to introduce Bill C-375, which sought to do exactly that: have just one environmental assessment, not two, per project. We worked with the provinces to move the bill along. I even managed to get the Bloc Québécois members to support the principle and vote with us at second reading. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill, so it died. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume that, if we had passed that bill two years ago, our actions would have worked proactively in Canada’s favour. In the Speech from the Throne given 18 months ago, the King himself repeated what I had said in the House, that one project requires just one assessment. The King said so himself in the Speech from the Throne, which is no small thing, yet 18 months later, things are still not moving, and the “one project, one review” principle has still not been implemented across Canada from coast to coast to coast. Our message to the government is that it should take some inspiration from what the Harper government did during the economic crisis we had to grapple with in 2008 and 2009. The process was streamlined. Every project had to be analyzed on a single page rather than pages and pages. It worked, because 23,500 projects were put forward under the Harper government. As Conservatives, we value efficiency. We want the government to be efficient and to take inspiration from what we did back then, not from the inaction of the past 18 months. Unfortunately, the government is slow to deliver any real results.

Oral Questions ·

Air Transportation

“The Minister of Transport wants to privatize four airports, and he said he cannot promise ticket prices will stay down. I want the minister to give a clear answer: will passenger fares go up or not?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party want to help Canadian taxpayers save money, but the Liberals are coming up with new ways to get money out of people’s pockets. In an interview on CTV on the weekend, the Minister of Transport, the one who wants to privatize four airports, said he cannot guarantee that passenger fares will not increase once the airports are privatized. Could the Minister of Transport be clear? Will passenger fares go up or not?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Liberal policies are not working, and hard-working people still cannot afford to buy a home. Conservatives want to cut taxes on building, speed up building permits, and make more land available. When will the government use our plan?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals’ policies were as good as they claim, we would know it, but they are not working. There is a lot of talk, but no real results. Just ask Marie-Pierre, a young woman in her thirties who lives in Lebourgneuf, in my riding. She has a good education, has worked very hard and earns a good living, but she is unable to save enough money to buy a house. The Canadian dream of home ownership has evaporated under this Liberal government. We have a concrete plan to help families and help people buy homes: axe the tax on construction, incentivize municipalities to speed up permits and free up land. When will the Liberal government implement the Conservatives’ policies?

“Food, rent, and travel costs are going up for families and seniors. The government's economic policies are failing. It should use the Conservative plan instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at a charity event in L’Ancienne‑Lorette this past weekend, I met a senior couple named Pierre and Nicole, who told me about the day-to-day reality they and their adult children are facing. Food prices are going up; rent is going up; transportation costs are going up. That is the reality facing seniors and their adult children as they try to build a prosperous life for their families in Canada. Clearly, the Liberal policies are failing. Will this government face the fact that it should adopt the Conservative economic plan?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“The member praised removing the carbon tax on gas because it lowers food transportation costs. For ten years, his party attacked Conservatives for wanting the same thing. Now that his government has adopted our idea, I want to know if he supports removing all federal taxes on transportation.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to remind the House that it will soon be two years since he was elected. He has been here for a year and a half. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him praise the elimination of carbon pricing on gas, saying that it had a direct impact on buying food, which has to be transported. I know that he has been here for a year and a half, but his current colleagues spent 10 years saying that it was appalling to attack carbon pricing and that we, the Conservatives, had zero respect for the environment. The opposite is true. Since he got off to a good start, since he applauded the fact that his government has done what we have been demanding for years, does he agree with our proposal to immediately abolish all federal taxes that affect transportation?

Government Orders ·

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

“I want to ask the member about First Nations self-determination. How far does she think that goes? Does it mean a First Nation could become its own country?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 36 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. We have had the pleasure of sitting together for 11 years already. I am also very proud that the name of my riding includes an indigenous name: Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague, who is always well informed and always in touch with the constituents she represents in the House. She mentioned that she agrees with the principle of first nations self-determination. I would like to hear her point of view on this in more detail. How far could this go? Would that mean a first nation could become a self-governing country?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The deficit doubled, living costs rose, fewer homes are being built, and 2.2 million Canadians use food banks. I want the Prime Minister to defend this record.”
Official Hansard

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. Unfortunately, and this may be the worst part of this government’s record, 2.2 million Canadians, one-third of them children, have to rely on food banks for food. That is the Liberal record. Can the Prime Minister stand up and defend his record?

“Canada is in a recession and business investment is down. I want the Prime Minister to defend his poor economic record to Canadians.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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. Business capital investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. With a track record like that, it is no wonder the Prime Minister is having a hard time explaining himself, but I would like him to stand up and defend his miserable record to Canadians.

Oral Questions ·

Canada Revenue Agency

“The tax agency is mismanaged, making it easy for hackers to break into people's accounts. It takes months to fix the problem. I want the minister to tell us how many hacked accounts the agency is investigating right now.”
Official Hansard

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. I have a simple question for the minister responsible for national revenue. How many cases involving people who were hacked are currently being investigated by the CRA?