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

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The government should help businesses by finding new markets for their goods and cutting their taxes, not by giving out subsidies. This would leave them with more of their own money to invest, like helping lumber companies sell to other countries.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for standing up for the businesses in his riding and in his part of the country. He does a good job of representing those people, unlike what we have seen over the past 10 years. I want to point out that we think that all natural resources should be developed properly. The best way for the government to help businesses is to find markets for them, support them in their search for new markets and reduce the related tax burden. Giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars and subsidies is not going to help. Instead, the government needs to help businesses develop markets and ensure that they have more money in their coffers so that they can invest in the future with the help and support of governments. The government needs to give them more room to act by opening up markets. Canada has representatives around the world, so lumber from the Gaspé region could be sold around the world.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government is not getting real results for Canadians. The Prime Minister promised to stand up to the United States, but he has been weak instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 4 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    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 always appreciate the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North, even if they are wrong. The problem is, where are the results? People are asking for real results. I am sure the member remembers well the campaign promise by the leader of the Liberal Party 15 months ago. He said it would be elbows up and he told America we would be strong again. When he got elected, he went to the White House. What did he do? It was far from elbows up. He was humble. What did he do a week ago? He went to New York. What did he say? He said we will make America great again. Who can believe it? This is the truth. This is the reality. Imagine if a Conservative had said that in New York. Those guys would have been in a nuclear war against us. The truth is that this country needs real effects and real results—

“Canada is in a recession. Food costs too much, people are losing jobs, and the government has added one trillion dollars to the national debt. To fix this, the government should cut taxes, develop our natural resources, and end trade barriers between provinces.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today’s debate on Canada’s economic future, particularly with regard to the reality facing all Canadians as we speak, because yes, sadly, Canada is in a recession. It is with great joy and pleasure that I will share my time with my distinguished colleague from Calgary Crowfoot, and I thank all those who are vigilant, unlike myself, who have unfortunately dropped the ball. In that regard, I will have a few words to say about people who have dropped the ball. We are not happy to note that Canada is in a recession. As all economists know, a country is in a recession when its gross domestic product, or GDP, is negative for two consecutive quarters. Some may seek to qualify this particular recession, but, mathematically speaking and quite clearly, it is defined as follows: If the GDP is down for two consecutive quarters, it is a recession, and that is what we are dealing with. Some have tried to quibble over this definition of a recession. However, beyond the quibbling, there is the reality of the hardships faced by Canadians—hardships that have plagued Canada for far too long. We have the worst food inflation among G7 countries. Every month, 2.2 million Canadians turn to food banks for food. Let us not forget that we are in Canada. Of that number, one-third are children. Families, fathers and mothers, cannot afford to provide for themselves and must resort to visiting food banks. I want to mention some folks in my riding, including people at Amélie et Frédérick and community fridges in Val‑Bélair, L’Ancienne‑Lorette and Loretteville on Racine. These people are working hard to provide food aid, and God knows their work is essential. We are fortunate that these volunteers with various charities in every riding, especially my riding, Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, are thinking of the least fortunate. The thing is, these folks are telling me that the people who donated to food banks for years are now the ones coming to food banks so they can feed their families properly. Unfortunately, Canada also has the second-highest unemployment rate among G7 countries. That is the reality in Canada. Those are the problems Canadians are facing. This confirms the sad reality that Canada is in a recession: those 112,000 jobs that were lost since the beginning of the year. There is the reality faced by entrepreneurs who want to invest but are dealing with serious concerns about economic stability. They cannot invest in an environment that is not stable, and the Canadian economy is currently losing momentum. We can also see the impact in trade flows. Some $20 billion in investment has left Canada, on top of the $1 trillion in investment that has not been made in Canada over the past 10 years under Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister. That is why we feel that the Canadian economy is weakening, that it is declining and that it is in recession. It is also important to understand that, over the last 10 years, Liberal governance has, unfortunately, not changed much. Take a look at what happened between 2015 and 2025, and from 2025 until today. Unfortunately, we are still on the same track. The government spends without restraint, it shows no concern for properly managing the money of Canadians who pay GST every day and their taxes every month, when our primary responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the money is spent wisely. We have been living beyond our means for nearly 11 years. The debt has risen by $1 trillion, which is almost twice the total debt accumulated over the previous 125 years. That is the reality of Liberal management: $1 trillion in additional debt. Last week, I had an exchange with the Minister of Finance during committee of the whole. I reminded him that he is the third-most senior minister in the government, since the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Industry were both appointed ministers as soon as Mr. Trudeau was elected. Six months later, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the current Minister of Finance, was appointed. Today, as Minister of Finance, he is responsible for debts totalling $1 trillion, because that $1 trillion in debt has accumulated over the past 10 years. That is money we do not have. That is money that had to be printed. That is debt we are passing on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, who have not yet been born but who will have to pay for it. That is why we must be careful. That is why we need a positive, winning strategy for Canadians. Our Conservative approach is basically to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians. Two months ago, we started a debate about transportation and gas taxes. That affects all Canadians, not just those who have a gas-powered car. We know that the goods we buy, like food, do not fall from the sky. These goods are transported, and, in many cases, gas is involved. This gas tax affects all Canadians. Our proposal was very clear: Abolish all federal taxes for the entire year. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. We believe that people are better at managing their money than the government, to whom they send their money in the form of taxes. The government used our idea to fuel theirs, no pun intended. They decided to temporarily cut the excise tax by 10¢ for a few months. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong’s words in reverse, cutting the tax may be a giant leap for the Liberals, but it is a small step for taxpayers. That is why we need to go much further. Our approach is to abolish all federal taxes. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. That is how we can help people. We also wanted to unlock the full potential of Canada’s natural resources. I have had plenty of opportunities to discuss this in my time here and on prior occasions when I was in the National Assembly. I am an ardent fan and strongly in favour of all the natural resources we have and all energy sources. When I talk about energy, I mean green energy, renewable energy and so-called fossil fuels. Canada has it all. Canada has every energy source that countries would go to war over. Canada has all the natural resources it needs to achieve its own and the planet’s full potential. Canada is ready to go. Unfortunately, the government spent a decade holding back the development that Canada needs, that Canadians need and that the whole world needs. The whole world needs more energy. It needs the natural resources and rare materials that Canada has. The way I see it, there is no such thing as going too far with any of this. Furthermore, we must continue to open the door to free trade with countries around the world. As I mentioned a few moments ago, that has been the case in Canada since Brian Mulroney’s terms in office, since the 1988 free trade agreement and since Jean Chrétien’s efforts to extend that North American agreement. I am also proud to add that, under Stephen Harper, we truly broke down barriers by concluding agreements with nearly 40 countries, and that is a good thing. I am very pleased to see that the current government is following in those footsteps. We must continue in this direction, while recognizing that Canada is a champion of free trade. If free trade creates real wealth for Canadians, then it should go hand in hand with lower taxes and lower taxation. If we are capable of that, if we are a global model for free trade, then we should also practise free trade within our own country. I therefore urge the government to go further. That is why, unfortunately, Canada is in a recession. Canada deserves better.

“The Harper government set up free trade with South Korea and made deals with around 40 other nations. Free trade has always had strong support in Quebec. I want the member to explain why free trade matters so much to Canada and to Quebec.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 8 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a situation earlier and wondered whether it was the Harper government that established free trade with South Korea. The answer is a categorical yes. Members may recall that, under the visionary leadership of Ed Fast, the then minister of international trade, Canada, under Mr. Harper, had free trade agreements with 40 or so nations. Plus, back in 1988, when free trade with the United States was being debated, we received the support of Quebeckers, especially prominent Quebeckers like Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau, who spoke out in favour of free trade. I would appreciate it if the member could explain why free trade is important for Canada and especially for Quebec.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Liberal government is hurting our economy. One in three families cannot pay their mortgage, millions need food banks, and Canada has lost 112,000 jobs. Why are we the only G7 country in a recession?”
  • A repeated line

    “Why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?”

    Said 16 times by 13 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but the problem is that it is not working. One in three families is struggling to pay their mortgage every month. That is what the Liberal government has done to Canadians. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks every month. That is the way things are under the Liberal government and the economist turned Prime Minister. Some 112,000 jobs have been lost. Every country in the world is facing economic crises and threats from Mr. Trump, so why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

“Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. We have the worst food inflation and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Why is our economy doing worse than other major countries under this Prime Minister?”
  • 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, unfortunately, the sad reality for Canadians is that Canada is in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. That is the reality. That is the result of Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, who was supposed to be an economic magician. In the end, it is not working. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister’s Canada in a recession when the other G7 countries are not?

Oral Questions ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“I am asking everyone here to let me share a Statistics Canada document.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the following document: Statistics Canada— Some hon. members: No.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Statistics Canada says Canada is in a recession, and we are the only G7 country in one. I want the parliamentary secretary to stop lying about our economy.”
  • A repeated line

    “All G7 countries are facing the same challenges.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding. How can the parliamentary secretary say something that is in no way based in reality? Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession and that it is the only G7 country in this situation. While all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, Canada has the worst record and is the only country in a recession. How can the parliamentary secretary say the opposite of the truth? Canadians have had enough of this sort of lie.

“Canada is the only G7 country in a recession, and we have the worst food inflation. One in three workers has to borrow money for groceries, while the Prime Minister spent $190,000 on food on three trips. Is the finance minister proud of this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning saddened to learn that Canada is the only G7 country to have been in a recession for the past year, despite the fact that the current government is led by what is said to be one of the world’s most prestigious economists. The result is that Canada has the worst economic record in the G7. Furthermore, it has the highest food inflation of any G7 country. We also learned that one in three workers has to borrow money to buy groceries. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $190,000 on food during three trips. Earlier, the finance minister said that the government was tightening its belt. Is he proud of his Prime Minister?

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“Canada is the only G7 country in a recession under this Prime Minister. I want the member to explain how that happened if things are going so well.”
  • 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, I thank my colleague for the work he has been doing in the House for over a year now. Let us talk about the past year. For the past year, we have had a Liberal Prime Minister with a strong economic background. However, today, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. Given everything the member said about how great and wonderful things are in Canada, how is that we are the only G7 country that is in a recession?

Private Members' Business ·

Canada Revenue Agency Act

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes the Canada Revenue Agency track unpaid taxes and report on people and companies convicted of tax evasion. Canada needs this to catch tax cheats and make sure everyone pays what they owe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill S‑217. I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois and the governing party are in agreement on this bill. Of course, we are the ones introducing it through the member for Simcoe North. This is not the first time that Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax, has been before this House. Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to put more pressure on the CRA to track down the scoundrels who do not pay their taxes, especially those known as “white-collar criminals”, in other words, individuals or companies who refuse to pay taxes or who use loopholes and cook the books to avoid paying their taxes. We need to get to the bottom of things, and this bill does just that. Some may be surprised that this is the third time this bill has been introduced and debated in the House, even though it is a no-brainer. As my Bloc Québécois colleague said earlier, the first time was under a majority government; the Liberals rejected it. That is part of public debate. There was then a sequence of three elections with minority governments. That meant there was not enough time to do the work properly. As a parliamentarian, I find that unfortunate, but let us remember that, from December 2024 to mid-December 2024 and then to mid-September 2025, over a nine-month period, the House sat for only five weeks. This was because of the change in government, the new Prime Minister’s government, the elections and the summer recess. All of this prevented us from doing our parliamentary work. Now, we are doing it, and we are going to do it right. I will put on my glasses. I am going to do so often, because this whole subject is so technical that we need to get our facts straight. This bill has three objectives: to compile a list of all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion; to require the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual reports every three years; and to require the minister to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap. These three elements gripped the entire world when the Panama Papers scandal came to light. I am sure everyone remembers about ten years ago, when a consortium of investigative journalists unearthed what came to be known as the “Panama Papers”. They had unravelled a web of tax havens. The documents confirmed that several countries, including Canada, were indeed home to the scoundrels I mentioned earlier, whether companies or individuals. In total, 900 of them had flouted every possible law, and then some, to evade taxes. Some countries have taken the bull by the horns and achieved concrete results. In Australia, $44 million was recovered, compared with $87 million in Germany, $175 million in Spain and $25 million in Iceland. Canada, for its part, has recovered nothing. That is pretty weak. That is precisely why this bill must be passed. The CRA and anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share must be treated fairly. Being treated fairly means having to pay, and if a company does not pay, it should be seen as a bad guy who does not pay taxes. That is why it is important to do the right thing. It is also important to note that there are key points in each of the three stages. For example, earlier we talked about the shortfall. I will not deny that certain phrases sometimes sound better in French than in English. One thing, however, can be expressed equally in both languages. I was talking earlier about the minority government, which has since become a majority government because of the floor crossers. The term “floor crossers” is funny, is it not? I think “floor crossers” sounds just as good in French, for that it what they are. Getting back to the shortfall, some countries have handled that well, namely the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and Sweden. It is time for Canada to do the right thing so that everyone who is supposed to pay can do so properly. That is why it is essential that this bill pass. Allow me to recognize the perseverance of Senator Percy Downe who, for years, did the necessary work to push for this critical cause. It is thanks to him that we can debate it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Simcoe North for this. I want to note that my colleague served, in a different era, in better times for Canada, in Prime Minister Harper’s government, in various ministers’ offices, and he distinguished himself in a most inspiring way. I would like to think that, in a few years, three years at most, Canadians will honour us with their trust and the member for Simcoe North would do a great service to the Canadian government in cabinet. I am saying that he would make a good minister. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency absolutely must do its job. It is clear that these are not great times for the CRA. Just a few months ago, the Auditor General tabled a scathing report about poor management at the CRA. The report notes that there was a complete lack of leadership, with terrible results for all Canadians. Why would I say that? One reason is that people were waiting for ages when they called for information. Worse still, when information was provided, it was not always correct. Just imagine: People who cannot afford to pay a tax expert or an accountant to prepare their tax return for them pick up the phone, call CRA, talk to someone and get the wrong information one in five times. A few months later, CRA writes to let them know they made a mistake and owe $150, which they have to pay back right away because interest charges will keep adding up. That is what happened after 10 years of Liberal leadership at the Canada Revenue Agency. I would like to reiterate what the member for Simcoe North said to my government colleague earlier. He said that CRA employees should not be blamed for not being properly trained. Nor should the CRA itself be blamed for being badly mismanaged in recent years. Let us not forget that Prime Minister Trudeau put someone in charge for seven years who did not necessarily have sufficient experience in this field to provide strong leadership. I would like to commend and thank the current Prime Minister for firing this person from cabinet. I would also like to commend and thank the people of the Gaspé region for firing her from the House of Commons. Obviously, we would have preferred to see our candidate, Jean‑Pierre Pigeon, elected in that riding. The people decided otherwise. That said, I have absolutely nothing against the current member from the Gaspé region, a former fellow journalist who truly stands out, and that is a good thing for Canadian democracy. This bill needs to move forward. We need to move forward to keep Canada in the loop when it comes to targeting and tracking down white collar criminals who do not pay their full taxes. We need to flush out these characters who, unfortunately, do not have the honour and dignity of paying what they owe and who invest tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to avoid paying what they owe the Canadian government. Canada needs this legislation to flush out criminals, be more transparent and get access to all the necessary information. That is why we obviously hope that the entire House will vote in favour of this bill.

Oral Questions ·

Foreign Investment

“Liberal policies are driving investment out of Canada. Seventeen billion dollars went to other countries in the first quarter. When will the government take action to bring foreign investment here?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must remind the Liberals that Liberal Canada is driving away investment. Let us remember that, when the Prime Minister was officially the chair of Brookfield, he moved the head office from Toronto to New York. Way to go. Let us do what he says, not what he does. The fact of the matter is that, according to Statistics Canada, $17 billion in investment went abroad in the first quarter. When will the Liberals start walking the talk and take meaningful action so that foreign investments are made here in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians?

“Under this government, Canada has become the hardest country in the G7 for foreign businesses to invest in, and we have lost one trillion dollars in investment. Most of the Prime Minister's own money is kept outside Canada. Why is he not keeping investments here?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in New York this morning on a trip described by the CBC as just a networking trip. Let us talk about investments. After 10 years of Liberal governance, Canada is considered to be the most restrictive country in the G7 for foreign investment. According to RBC, $1 trillion in investment has been lost over the past 10 years. The example comes from the top, as 91% of the Prime Minister’s own assets are outside Canada. Does the Prime Minister know something that these people have yet to grasp?

“The Prime Minister is in New York right now just to network.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is currently in New York for what the CBC described as just a networking trip—

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The Bloc Québécois is praising the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. When he was a minister, he voted for things the Bloc opposes, like dropping the carbon tax and removing the digital services tax. Why is the Bloc praising someone whose record goes against their own views?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy. At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5, which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others? More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax? We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“GST money is being used to pay interest on the national debt instead of services. Also, I want to know when the government will provide the promised money for the Quebec City tramway.”
Official Hansard

Madam Chair, I would like to say to everyone listening to us right now that not every cent they are paying in GST is going to federal services. It is paying down the interest on the debt that the man with a trillion-dollar debt has racked up over the last 10 years. I have one final question about the Quebec City region. When will the federal government provide the funding promised for the tramway?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The deficit has grown to $68 billion. Cutting the fuel tax is a good first step, but it is not enough for families. The government should cut more taxes.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 85 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Chair, what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory. Just 15 months ago, his predecessor said the deficit would be $31 billion. What is the deficit now? It is $68 billion. However, the good news is that the minister has eliminated the excise tax. That is a good thing. On the other hand, we wanted more. I can understand that, for a Liberal, eliminating a tax is a giant leap forward. For Canadian families, however, these are small steps. What we want is to go further. Why did the government put the brakes on tax cuts when it was off to a good start? We would have liked the government to follow our plan.

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The minister broke his promise to balance the budget by 2019. He borrowed too much money instead of saving it, and our children and grandchildren will have to pay off this huge debt.”
Official Hansard

Madam Chair, the minister seems to forget that he was elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit in 2019. He did none of that. On the contrary, even when the global economy was doing well, the government did not set any money aside. That would have been the right thing to do. However, the man with a trillion-dollar debt, that is one thousand billion dollars in debt, cannot tell us how much the interest on that debt costs. He talks about intergenerational investments. Does he realize that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this government’s debt and reckless deficits?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The minister has been in cabinet for ten years while Canada's debt grew past one trillion dollars. I want him to tell us how much interest Canada pays on that debt each year.”
Official Hansard

Madam Chair, it took the Liberal government’s CRA a decade to do the right thing, which was a decade longer than it took Revenu Québec. The minister was elected at the same time as me, in 2015. The Prime Minister put him in cabinet almost immediately, which means that he has been one of the senior ministers in the Liberal administration for the past decade. That makes him one of the top architects of the debt that grew to over $1 trillion over that decade. Can the minister tell us what the interest on the debt costs Canada every year?

“I am glad the minister finally settled a tax dispute with the City of Laval. Why did the minister refuse to testify about it to the committee for two and a half months?”
Official Hansard

Madam Chair, I am going to start with a positive question. We are very pleased to see that the minister was able to reach an agreement with the City of Laval concerning the scandal over the Canada Revenue Agency, which had demanded $1 million from Laval taxpayers in connection with the former corrupt mayor. Ten years later than Revenu Québec, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, finally came to terms with the City of Laval. Why did the minister refuse to come testify before the committee for two and a half months?