Gabriel Hardy
Montmorency—Charlevoix, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said here in the House that the cost of living is the best it has been in a decade, but that has not been Canadians' experience. According to a CBC article, some people have even resorted to starting GoFundMe campaigns to pay for basic necessities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rise here to talk to us about programs when we are asking them to stop doing what is not working and to make decisions so that Canadians can finally make ends meet. Let us look at one of their programs.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and unpleasant, but we are in a recession, and people are feeling the pinch. Some families have to spend more than 120% of their income just on housing and food. It has reached the point where people are having to borrow money just to put food on the table.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs. In Quebec, the average salary is $67,000. However, I received a photo of a Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment from a worker who earns exactly $67,000. He received $11.98 to help pay for groceries. Families can no longer afford groceries, rent and gas.”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberals' economic plan. It involves $141 billion in new spending, a $67-billion deficit in just one year and a budget that repeats the word “investment” 786 times but spends like there is no tomorrow. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession because of those decisions.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point the finger at others, but when we see a prime minister spending $159,000 on inflight meals for a single trip, we understand why his decisions have led us straight into a recession.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Gabriel Hardy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rise here to talk to us about programs when we are asking them to stop doing what is not working and to make decisions so that Canadians can finally make ends meet. Let us look at one of their programs. Their groceries program will pay out $16.50 twice a year to Canadians who earn $53,000, yet the cost of groceries has increased by $1,000 in one year for a family of four. Will the Prime Minister reconnect with ordinary people, review these policies and cancel all their spending over the past year that has plunged Canada into a recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said here in the House that the cost of living is the best it has been in a decade, but that has not been Canadians' experience. According to a CBC article, some people have even resorted to starting GoFundMe campaigns to pay for basic necessities. Roughly 15,000 crowdfunding campaigns have been launched to help people pay for their groceries, rent and even some medical emergencies. After 11 years of reckless Liberal spending, Quebeckers now have to resort to asking for charity to survive. Will the Liberals finally admit that they greatly accelerated the current crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs. In Quebec, the average salary is $67,000. However, I received a photo of a Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment from a worker who earns exactly $67,000. He received $11.98 to help pay for groceries. Families can no longer afford groceries, rent and gas. The Liberals have plunged the country into a recession. I urge the Prime Minister to use his time at the G7 to heed the advice of all the other countries that are not in a recession. I think that could be beneficial to us.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and unpleasant, but we are in a recession, and people are feeling the pinch. Some families have to spend more than 120% of their income just on housing and food. It has reached the point where people are having to borrow money just to put food on the table. The reality is that the Liberals' policies are not working, and the more power the Liberals have, the more it costs Canadians. Now the Prime Minister is about to attend the G7 summit as the only leader to have led his country into recession. Does he plan to continue dodging the issue by making more grand, inspiring speeches abroad while leaving families in Canada to pay the price?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point the finger at others, but when we see a prime minister spending $159,000 on inflight meals for a single trip, we understand why his decisions have led us straight into a recession. While Quebeckers are counting every penny at the grocery store, the Liberals are spending taxpayers' money as if it were Monopoly money. When will the government show some respect for taxpayers' money and start making decisions that ease their financial burden rather than always raising taxes to fund the Liberal pharaoh's ideological projects?”
“Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberals' economic plan. It involves $141 billion in new spending, a $67-billion deficit in just one year and a budget that repeats the word “investment” 786 times but spends like there is no tomorrow. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession because of those decisions. Recently, 6,000 Canadians wrote to me, and their key message was clear: The cost of living is crushing them. After 11 years of Liberal decisions that have held back Canada's development and that tax Canadians, their decisions have led us to a recession and a position of weakness. When will the Liberals admit that they need to urgently change course?”
“Mr. Speaker, there have not been any decent answers today, despite the fact that the questions being asked are incredibly simple. Every time the Liberals are in power, tensions rise with Quebec, Alberta and the other provinces. Why? It is quite simple. It is because the Liberals do not respect the Quebec nation. They respect Alberta no more than they respect Quebec. They continue to centralize and overstep provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals believe that Canada is their country and it should be run their way. Can the Liberal government finally mind its own business, respect provincial autonomy and understand that its role is to serve, not to control?”
“They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge. Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here. That is not what the Liberals wanted to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, what an odd question. We are talking about victims' rights. We are talking about laws being loosened. The Liberals want to loosen our laws so criminals do not have to face justice. I cannot commit myself today and answer my colleague's question on behalf of the entire Conservative Party. His motion was tabled yesterday, and it will be analyzed. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very strict and works very hard. We want to make sure that ethics is a central consideration in every decision. If there is work to be done and it is important that we do it, we will be there. Holding the Liberals accountable for their decisions is our daily bread and butter.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. When these people talk about rights and freedoms, they are talking about the rights and freedoms of criminals. What about the rights of victims? Where are they? Victims are afraid, and the crime rate is rising. What message is being sent? We are leaving another loophole to allow violent criminals to get off scot-free and to give judges the option not to impose minimum sentences. No, that is not what our country needs. We need a strong justice system that makes it clear to criminals what consequences they will face if they commit a crime. The system must not give them free rein by suggesting that, in the end, they might be able to spend the rest of their lives at home while victims are forced to live in fear. That is a terrible message.”
“We said that sexual offences against children and serious drug trafficking offences should be completely excluded from the lightest sentences. Children deserve to be protected. In moving amendments 25.2 and 25.3, we said that aggravated sexual assault and extortion should also not be eligible for this safety valve. We also moved amendment 29, which had nothing to do with sentences. We just said that when an offender is convicted of intimate partner violence and released on parole, the victim should be automatically notified. Every one of our amendments was defeated. (2155) I will stop there. Families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are watching what is happening. Quebeckers and Canadians are watching too. The government cannot make Canada safer by making criminals more comfortable.”
“Elected representatives—people accountable to voters who are not appointed for life, people whom voters have chosen to send here—made a promise to defend them in Parliament. When section 63 of the bill allows a judge to circumvent that promise, it weakens not only politics, but our entire image and the public's trust in our institutions. The important thing to understand is that it is not my point of view that matters, but that of the people. Their opinion counts. Perhaps it is time for the Liberals to start listening to the people. I am going to tell Canadians exactly what happened in committee. We moved amendment 22. We said that, at the very least, the safety valve, the escape hatch from mandatory minimum sentences, should not apply to someone who already has a criminal record. We moved amendment 25.”
“I was sent here to the House by the citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix, but not to rubber-stamp bills on autopilot, nor to remain silent while the government strips away the tools that protect my constituents and the entire population of Quebec. The federal government should excel at a few things and stay out of matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Canadian laws are certainly something citizens should be able to trust, and our work here in Ottawa is important in that regard. We should focus on those matters, the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. The real danger to citizens, however, is not bound by ideology. When Parliament establishes a mandatory minimum sentence, it makes a promise.”
“The correctional officers' union says that over 350 positions are vacant nationwide because officers are under so much stress at work these days that they are dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut back on the number of officers on the job, but that decision would heap even more pressure on the remaining officers. That is what is going on. Violent criminals are violent on the streets but also behind bars. Criminals who are violent when they are free are also violent when they are incarcerated, yet the Liberals want to reduce these people's sentences. What message does that send?”
“Judges began imposing community service sentences on men and women who commit crimes involving illegal weapons, as well as gun smugglers and repeat offenders. One judge even wrote that he had to hold his nose after handing down the sentence he was obligated to impose. Now we are on chapter three. Bill C‑16 would basically make all remaining mandatory minimum sentences optional. At Donnacona, a prison located about 40 minutes from my riding, there have been four murders in less than a year. The wardens wrote to me. I speak to them regularly. They contact me. They say that there are illegal weapons coming in and that the number of violent criminals is going up. They talk about cleaning up blood and then having to go on with their day, pretending everything is normal. They tell me about the stress they are under every day.”
“Why are the Liberals always telling the House that criminals have rights, but never talking about victims' rights and what happens to them? It is an awful thing to behold. I am going to talk about what is actually happening in prisons right now. These are not theories. These are facts. Everything I am about to say is connected. Chapter one begins in 2019. With Bill C‑83 , the Liberals ended the use of administrative segregation for the most violent inmates. Instead, these inmates, who are violent in prison, have comfortable living quarters and access to psychologists, nurses, even pet therapy and social support. How nice. All of this is funded by taxpayers. Chapter two begins in 2022. With Bill C‑5 , the Liberals abolished minimum sentences for crimes involving firearms.”
“After a decade of Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assault has increased by 76%, and violent crime has increased by 55%. These are not just statistics on a page; these are families. These are women, these are children, these are victims. These are communities like mine, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, where people get up in the morning, work hard, raise their children and expect the government to protect them. (2150) Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing in response to rising violent crime across the country? They are introducing a bill that makes it easier for judges to hand down lighter sentences to people who commit serious crimes. Why are they doing all this? Do they want better incarceration statistics? Who are they doing this for? It is certainly not for victims and their families.”
“That is a promise that Parliament made to victims, that their perpetrators will have to face real consequences. However, clause 63, which the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-16, breaks that promise by saying that, if a judge considers the minimum sentence to be too harsh for a particular defendant, then the judge can disregard it and impose a lighter sentence. The Liberals want this new approach to apply to all or nearly all serious crimes in Canada, including aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, human trafficking, shootings and weapons trafficking, just to name a few. Minimum sentences will not be required in any of those cases. Making minimum sentences optional for these crimes is really bad. Canadians are afraid, and rightly so.”
“Our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola , is the one who suggested that. The bill seeks to ban deepfakes of intimate images. Once again, it was a Conservative member who suggested that. These are good things about the bill. However, unfortunately, this bill contains clause 63, and when it comes time to vote, we have to vote on the whole bill, including that provision. What does that provision say? As things now stand in Parliament, elected representatives have said that, if someone commits a serious crime, then they should go to prison for a predetermined minimum number of years with no exceptions. If a person commits a crime, then they know what they are facing. This is called a mandatory minimum sentence. It is the lower limit. It cannot get any lower than that. That is guaranteed.”
“The Liberals are forcing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into silence to essentially stop her from protecting the rights of Canadians, whom she protects every day. This is not a procedural matter. This is a government that fears transparency. We see that on many issues, and we are seeing it right now with the massive Bill C-16 . It contains some good things, and I am going to talk about that, but it also contains a little poison pill that needs to be discussed. It is important to understand that, when we vote on a bill, we are not just voting on a single one of its lines. We are voting on the whole document. As I was saying, there are some good things about this bill. Making sure that the killing of an intimate partner is automatically classified as first-degree murder is a very good thing.”
“We are talking about Internet browsing history, phone numbers, the devices we use, and the people we are with. The commissioner said that this bill falls squarely within her mandate, that she has genuine concerns about Canadians' privacy, and that she wanted to testify. Parliament has a procedure known as “unanimous consent”. Any member can request it. It means that we now all agree to do something. Conservative members have requested unanimous consent to have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada participate in reviewing the bill. The Liberals refused. How strange. So the Conservatives tried a different tack. They moved to suspend a study of this clause in order to study it a short time later so that the commissioner could participate. Once again, the Liberals voted against it. There were two attempts and two refusals.”
“Instead of doing that, they worked very hard to cobble together a majority behind the scenes, only to end up falling behind and trying to save what they can by speeding things up and making MPs sit in Parliament until midnight to try to get their bills passed. If you want a concrete example of what is happening right now and how the government operates, then just look at what is happening at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with Bill C-22 . The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is a completely independent individual, an officer of Parliament, whose job is specifically to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, has asked to testify on Bill C-22, a bill that will require electronic service providers to retain everyone's metadata for one year so that the government can access it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is 9:45 p.m. in the House right now. Most Canadians are putting their kids to bed, helping them fall asleep, finishing up their day, finishing their evening and getting ready to go to sleep. They are not watching the work of Parliament, and that is exactly what the Liberals want. They are very happy when people are not watching what is happening here, because what the Liberals are doing right now, this evening, is ramming through bills that should be worked on over the course of a year, in collaboration with the opposition parties, in order to finally get everyone's agreement. It is not about getting their bills passed. It is about getting bills passed that all Canadians can relate to.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not be aware of this, but on May 15, 2016, when the Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of England, he said that the technical definition of a technical recession is two consecutive quarters of flat or negative growth. Let us look at what is happening in Canada. The economy has slowed down in three of the last four quarters. That is not two quarters, but rather three of the last four quarters. What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that his plan is not working and that the Liberal government's actions over the past 11 years have led us straight into a recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians line up at food banks, the Liberals are still refusing to let Canadians know that we are the only G20 nation in a recession. The apparent reason has something to do with decisions made over the past 11 years and the Liberals' lack of vision. Let us look at the facts: Economic growth is sluggish, productivity is weak and deficits already exceed what was forecast in the budget. After a week of dodging the question, can the Prime Minister tell us, yes or no, if we are in a recession? The first step toward solving a problem is to acknowledge it.”
“Mr. Speaker, here is what real people are facing, as described in a message from Matis, a young Quebecker who wrote to me this week: I just wanted to tell you that many of my generation are starting to lose faith in the idea that we will ever become homeowners. Housing prices, rents, and the cost of living are rising so fast that I feel like I am chasing something unattainable. We are not out to get rich. We just want to be able to live with dignity after working hard. We want to build a future without constant financial stress. We are in a full-blown recession. The Liberals' economic plan is not working. When are they going to give young people a little hope? When will they stop governing for the bankers and start governing for the people?”
“Mr. Speaker, under this new Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The economy has shrunk in three out of four quarters. Productivity is falling. Investors are fleeing the country. Government borrowing is $7 billion above target. Today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberal government has only a 1% chance of meeting its budgetary commitments. My question is very simple. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge, yes or no, that his management of the country's economy is a failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, we just had a lengthy question period, but once again, the Prime Minister has shown us that when adversity strikes, he does not stand up. He answered only six questions from the Leader of the Opposition and gave no explanation as to why Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We will give him another chance. Can he stand up and explain to us why, after all his grand speeches and empty promises, and despite the fact that all G20 countries are facing the same global conditions, Canada is the only country experiencing a Liberal recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the vast majority of cases, the firearms used to commit crimes in Canada were never owned legally and were often smuggled across the border. In 2024, the accused in over 80% of firearm-related homicides did not even have a valid license. Most of the other homicides involved mental health issues. Instead of investing in mental health prevention, in border safety, or in fighting street-gang crime, the Liberals are going to spend close to $1 billion targeting law-abiding citizens. Why are the Liberals wasting taxpayer money on programs that do not work?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians like Noelle, Richard, Christiane and Aaron all ask me the same question: Why do asylum seekers, even those whose applications have been rejected and who should no longer be in the country, have access to free health care when taxpayers do not even have a family doctor? The interim federal health program has grown from $211 million a year to $1.5 billion in less than 10 years. Does the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship think it is acceptable to give free health care to non-residents while some Quebeckers do not even have access to a doctor?”
“Mr. Chair, do the minister and her government still intend to make Canada a postnational state, like the former prime minister and all the ministers who are still here wanted? Do they still want a country with no identity, no history and no values?”
“Mr. Chair, the Parliamentary Budget Officer forecasts that the interim federal health program, which provides free health care to asylum seekers even when their application to remain in the country, on our territory, is refused, will reach an annual budget of $1.5 billion by 2029–2030. Does the minister think it is acceptable to spend $1.5 billion a year on services for non-residents, when citizens are not even able to see a doctor?”
“Mr. Chair, before coming to tonight's debate, I asked people to send me their questions, knowing that I would be meeting the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Here is a question based on a message from Sonia Brisebois. On January 1, 2025, Quebec had 616,000 non-permanent residents. This includes asylum seekers, refugees, temporary workers and international students. This puts pressure on day care centres, schools and our health care system. How many will there need to be before the minister admits that the system has collapsed and that we are no longer able to provide proper care to Quebeckers and Canadians? Basically, at what point do we turn off the tap so we can take care of people properly?”
“Mr. Chair, another very interesting fact is that in Montreal, only 58% of the population uses French as their primary language. That statistic is from five years ago. Does the minister acknowledge that French is in decline in Quebec?”
“Mr. Chair, according to reports by Radio-Canada, Le Devoir, and La Presse, French in Quebec has been in demographic decline since 2021, particularly with regard to immigration. The percentage of native French speakers is projected to drop by 10% by 2036. Does the minister acknowledge that?”
“Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, I asked the minister if she acknowledged the evidence that French is declining in Quebec. With all her advisers around her, the minister replied that there is no evidence that French is declining in Quebec or in Canada. Does the minister wish to stand by that answer?”
“Mr. Chair, federal work permits in Quebec amounted to more than 167,000 in 2023. Meanwhile, thousands of asylum seekers are arriving in Quebec unable to speak French or English. In your opinion, is it acceptable for your broken system to threaten the survival of French in Quebec?”
“Mr. Chair, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada expected close to 300,000 outstanding asylum claims by the end of March 2026. Is the former government's existing system still capable of processing applications, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, the interim federal health program has grown from $211 million to $896 million over four years. Asylum seekers whose claims have been denied in this country receive dental care, physical therapy, and all other services that even our own population does not have access to. In fact, 6 million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. Does the minister find this acceptable?”
“Mr. Chair, on March 26, the Supreme Court forced Quebec to extend its $10-a-day child care to asylum seekers even though some Quebeckers still do not even have a spot. That is completely unacceptable. Does the minister affirm Quebec's right to invoke the notwithstanding clause to regain control, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, the Canada-Quebec accord gives Quebec responsibility for accepting and integrating immigrants within its borders. In 2018, the Liberal government circumvented the spirit of the Canada-Quebec accord through the international mobility program to impose such excessive immigration volumes that Quebec is no longer able to properly integrate these individuals and teach them French. Do you still respect the Canada-Quebec accord, minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians have been lining up at food banks in just one month, our Prime Minister has spent more than $520,000 on inflight meals provided by luxury caterers. This year, 22% of Canadians have lost weight because they cannot afford enough to eat. Meanwhile, 40,000 feet up in the air, our Prime Minister is being served beef tenderloin with bordelaise sauce, veal cutlets, Scottish salmon, crème brûlée, and fine wines. When the Liberals tell Canadians they have to make sacrifices, do the Prime Minister and his inner circle consider themselves Canadians, or do they think they are above that?”
“The Murray Bay Golf Club has welcomed American presidents such as William Howard Taft, living legends such as Mario Lemieux and, above all, people from Charlevoix who, generation after generation, come to enjoy this beautiful sport. I commend the president, Claude Turcotte, the executive director, Marc Villeneuve, and all the volunteers who carry the torch year after year. I wish the Murray Bay Golf Club a happy 150th anniversary.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1876, visionary men and women planted a flag in the heart of Charlevoix to lay the groundwork for a project that would span generations and inspire respect. Well, today, I would like to tell them that they did, in fact, succeed. The Murray Bay Golf Club is celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is still standing, still alive and proud to be in Charlevoix. It is the oldest golf club to still operate in the same location in North America. It is much more than just a golf course. It is a symbol of our history, our community and sports tourism, and it is a great source of pride for Charlevoix and for Canada as a whole.”
“Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the minister would mention fiscal responsibility. The deficit is forecasted to be $65 billion in 2027, $63.5 billion in 2028, $58 billion in 2029, $56 billion in 2030 and $53 billion in 2031. Under the previous prime minister, we had a $31-billion deficit. The Liberals boast about their fiscal responsibility, but I think they should show a bit more restraint. I am going to ask another question and go back to the one I asked earlier. The Liberals have created a sovereign debt fund. Are they aware that the British Parliament tried the same thing but refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because it was built on debt? Is the minister aware of that?”
“Mr. Chair, I asked the question in French. Perhaps the minister should get his answer translated more quickly. I would prefer to get an answer in French. The people listening to us would prefer to hear answers in the same language the question was asked in. It was just mentioned that the government ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. Not only that, but the government will continue to run bigger deficits for the next five years. The Liberals' first instinct was to charge $25 billion to Canadians' credit card to create a sovereign debt fund. Why are they trying to get even more money when they have spent more than any other government in the history of our country?”
“Mr. Chair, I do not need a clip. I think people like to know what is going on over here and get informed through clips. That is how they learn about the government's out-of-control spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. I have just been told that we are dealing with independent officers, people who are being independently monitored. That is great. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the debt-to-GDP ratio will increase by 43.7% by 2030. Is he way off the mark or is that some bad news?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister has been taking questions for a little over three hours now, but we have not gotten any real answers so far, just a lot of hot air. I will stick to the facts. We want to avoid being partisan, so we will stick to the facts. It is a fact that we have a $66.9-billion deficit this year. That is the biggest deficit in the history of the country, outside of the pandemic. What is worse, the Liberals are planning to spend an average of $59 billion per year for the next five years. They will rack up a deficit of $59 billion per year for the next five years. My question for the minister is very simple. At what point does it become unacceptable to burn through taxpayers' money like that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government keeps talking about building major projects, but the Major Projects Office has spent $41 million without starting a single project. The cost of living is skyrocketing, home ownership is increasingly out of reach and jobs for young people are now scarce. There are no jobs in retail, no jobs in restaurants and no jobs in hospitality. After 11 years of raising taxes, adding bureaucracy and driving our country into debt, the Prime Minister has the gall to tell our young people that they have to make sacrifices and to tell Canadians that life has never been so affordable. When will the Liberals put down the national credit card and start making decisions that will secure our young people's future?”