Public Accounts Committee on March 25th, 2026

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We are rejecting this amendment for the reasons I gave just a few minutes ago in answering Mr. Lemire's question. As you know, we work as a team and we have to make sure everyone agrees. That's the way we work and I hope it never changes.

So we disagree with that position, because the two parties being targeted are CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, and the City of Laval. CRA asked the City of Laval to pay approximately $1 million. We want to invite these two parties so they can explain themselves, because they're the two parties responsible.

We want to ask CRA to send representatives to explain the technical details, and we want to invite the minister responsible to come and explain himself because, in our parliamentary system, ministers are responsible for certain actions, particularly like this one.

Let's also keep in mind that the citizens of Laval, who've been robbed for years, are the victims here. A legal solution was agreed to, because the guilty party was convicted and an amount was seized and repatriated. However, the people of Laval are now being asked to pay, and they are not to be robbed a second time.

I'm a little surprised to see the government MPs want Mr. Vaillancourt to testify. This case directly involves the agency, since it gave the order to get the money back, and the victims, that is the citizens of Laval.

So we want to shed some light on this case, and it must be done by talking to the minister responsible for CRA and the City of Laval, which is the victim here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a question for Mr. Deltell.

I don't understand why the city is going to pay $1 million to this fellow who stole money from them.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

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

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That doesn't explain why the city is going to pay him money.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

This is exactly the heart of the problem. This is why people are upset. The mayor, after a trial, was convicted.

He was found guilty and convicted, and now, as the motion says, CRA is requiring the City of Laval to pay former mayor Gilles Vaillancourt about $1 million so he can pay his taxes. CRA is asking the City of Laval to pay a convicted felon.

That's exactly why we want to minister to come and explain himself.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I understand now. It's not the city that decided to make this payment. It's the government that's requesting it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. The back-and-forth was a bit unorthodox.

Monsieur Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The Bloc Québécois won't be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Madam Clerk, could you call the vote?

We have a tie. I will cast a vote as no, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Tesser Derksen, you have the floor again, please.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The final proposed amendment is about eight lines down. After “the Agency’s decision making process in this matter and to clarify the”, I would like to remove “Liberal” and just go with “Government”. I think it's pretty clear to everyone which party forms government.

I don't want to politicize things. We're a non-partisan committee. I think it would cheapen what is otherwise a very noble endeavour.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Well—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just hold on, Monsieur Deltell.

Do you want to remove “Liberal” and replace it with “federal”, or just “Government”?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

My proposal would be to just have it as “Government”.

I think we need to add an apostrophe in the version the clerk recently sent us.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sure. Okay.

Monsieur Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's keep up the spirit of collaboration. We can acknowledge that the Liberal government doesn't want to identify itself as “Liberal” in a motion. That's fine. We acknowledge this.

With good will, we will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Is it agreed?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now let's debate the motion as amended.

Monsieur Deltell, I'll recognize you right off the bat.

Mr. Deltell, we made a very small amendment.

We simply removed the word “Liberal”.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

We'll now reread the motion before us.That, in light of recent reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency is requiring the City of Laval to issue a payment of approximately $1 million to former mayor Gilles Vaillancourt in order for him to remit taxes on funds previously stolen from the municipality and later returned, the committee invite the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and officials from the Canada Revenue Agency and the mayor of Laval to appear before the committee for no fewer than two hours at the earliest opportunity to explain the agency's decision‑making process in this matter and to clarify the government's position on requiring a municipality to transfer taxpayer dollars to a convicted former official for the purpose of settling a tax liability related to proceeds of crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I believe that the Liberals proposed two French versions of the phrase “afin qu'il puisse acquitter”. The original motion read “afin qu'il puisse acquitter des impôts”, whereas the second version reads “afin qu'il remette les impôts”. Is the meaning the same?

The question is more for the governing party. I want to know whether it also proposes this amendment in the original text.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That was a bit fast for me. I'm not talking about the language. Wait a second so that I can find it in Mr. Deltell's motion.

It is indeed “acquitter”, just as in the original motion.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay. That works.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Is there any further debate on this?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

I'm going to suspend. We're going to go in camera. We'll come back here in five to 10 minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]