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 2 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, after 11 years at the helm, the Liberals would have us believe that it is normal to run deficits in excess of $60 billion a year. While the Liberals are spending billions of dollars, Quebeckers are counting every penny. A new Fraser Institute report confirms that Canada is facing a real youth unemployment crisis. In 2022, the youth unemployment rate was 12.3%. Now it is close to 19%. This is unprecedented outside of a recession. Will the very Liberal Prime Minister finally start putting our young people and their future at the heart of this country's decisions?”
“It may turn out to be more expensive and less efficient than flying. Families will not use that train, but they will be paying for it their whole lives, for generations to come.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, it is a grand idea. Canada is going to build a high-speed rail system at the taxpayers' expense. California is currently trying it out. It has already cost $300 billion, and it is not over yet. Here, they say it will cost $90 billion, but they do not say how much a ticket will cost. They are selling a project, but they are not saying how many people will be on it or how much it will cost to maintain. We already have airlines operating between Toronto and Montreal and between Montreal and Quebec City. They pay taxes and create jobs. Now the government is going to take responsibility for this and use public funds to compete with the private sector. What is more, the government is not telling people how much it will cost to ride this infamous train.”
“They impose their decisions on Canadians by telling them that it is the right thing to do and that they have nothing to worry about, but we go further into debt year after year. Things are not getting any better. The country's finances are not getting any better. Over the next five years, we will lose an average of $55 billion a year. They want us to believe that money will suddenly start growing on trees and everything will be fine. That is gambling with taxpayers' money, and it is a mistake.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always rather funny to hear our Liberal colleagues speaking to us as though their words are actually backed up by results. They talk about a wealth fund, meaning a fund containing wealth, but it is actually financed through debt. I said that the British Parliament refused to call it that. It was not the Conservatives in Canada who did so, but the British Parliament. The Prime Minister was an adviser on the project. He was told it would not be called that. The other thing my colleague just said is that Canadians are not being given the chance to make a decision. Indeed, that is what the Liberals have been doing for the past 11 years. They spend without restraint.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is very odd. In 2024, England set up a fund exactly like that. It was a fund directly financed with debt. The British Parliament refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because that is not what it was. The term does exist, and it applies in some countries, such as Norway. However, the concept we are discussing is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Oddly enough, our current Prime Minister was a consultant. He was there to help the British Parliament put that in place. He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund. He is using the term, but not the concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.”
“The government also needs to excel in the few areas where the Canadian federation requires its involvement, namely borders, the armed forces, the justice system, a strong dollar and strong interprovincial trade. (1730) This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our constituents live in a prosperous country and feel that that is their reality.”
“I am not just being partisan when I make a judgment and say that bad things are happening. Our role is not just to criticize or oppose; it is also to put forward proposals. Conservatives believe that a government should live by the same rules as Canadian families. When money is tight, choices have to be made. The government should cut waste, reduce unnecessary spending and respect workers' money, because every dollar spent comes out of taxpayers' pockets, and that needs to be respected. I will conclude on that note. The government needs to cut spending on consultants, trim the bureaucracy, put an end to mismanaged projects, cut waste and stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.”
“That is certainly not accountability. I would, however, like to mention one good thing about the economic update, and that is sport. When something good is being done, we should be able to acknowledge it. The investments in amateur sport and sports federations are excellent news. It is too bad that we cannot vote on just one measure, because everyone agrees with that one. That is not a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but a Canadian point of view. The investments in sport and physical activity are good investments. That said, this measure is aimed primarily at the young people, families and volunteers who spend their evenings at rinks and fields. I look forward to seeing how direct support will be delivered to our teams on the ground. People can trust me because I am able to point out what is being done right.”
“That is what the Liberals' idea of sound and effective management of public finances. It gets even worse. It might seem like this must be the end, but it is not, because there was also an internal memo forbidding public servants from telling seniors who were not receiving their cheques that the problem was caused by the new software. Two days after the economic update was released and the additional $473 million thrown at this fiasco was discovered, the government used its majority to block the opposition's requests for parliamentary documents. Every day when a sitting of the House of Commons opens, the Speaker stands up and says, “Let the doors be opened”. Basically, the Speaker is telling the citizens to enter the people's House. However, when opposition parties ask questions, those doors close. That is not transparency.”
“One that comes to mind straightaway is Cúram. Cúram is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. In fact, we have not talked about it enough, and it needs to be discussed. It was in the budget. It is a computer system that was supposed to modernize pension payments, but what actually happened was that tens of thousands of seniors did not receive their cheques. These are people who worked all their lives, paid their taxes and trusted the government. What did the government do? In its economic update, with the trust of Canadians, it threw another $473 million at this fiasco. The total cost of creating this software was estimated at $1.75 billion, yet it has apparently surpassed $7 billion. That is what we are learning, because we are finding out more every day. The cost increased by 277%, for a cost overrun of $5.25 billion.”
“It has hired 100,000 public servants over the past 10 years, and yet it still has to spend more than $20 billion a year on consultants. It has spent $65 billion on bureaucracy, which just keeps expanding. It spent $42 million in just one year on the Major Projects Office, which has not recommended a single project since it was created. Meanwhile, Canadian families are still having to choose between paying for groceries, paying the rent and putting gas in their cars. That is why the priority really lies elsewhere for the Conservatives. Our priority is to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, not in the pockets of consultants, not in the pockets of well-connected insiders and not in the coffers of poorly managed megaprojects. We want to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. I mentioned mismanaged projects.”
“While the government is asking people to tighten their belts and telling young people to make sacrifices, we are seeing money fly off in every direction. The government is investing at least $90 billion in Alto, a high-speed train project that the Minister of Finance recused himself from, or at least, he was supposed to. After 18 hours of Liberal monologues, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was finally able to call the minister to answer questions. The government is investing close to $1 billion in the program to confiscate legal, registered guns. The government is going to spend nearly $1 billion to take those guns away, when they are clearly not the problem. The government spends $20 billion a year on outside consultants.”
“Instead of using surpluses, it is taking on more debt to create the illusion of a sovereign wealth fund when that is not what it actually is. Basically, it is as if our neighbour boasted about opening up a savings account and depositing money into it but failed to mention that he used his credit card for the deposit. Ultimately, it is not a terrible idea, although what is most concerning is that the government refuses to even say how much this fund is going to cost per year. (1725) It is the flagship measure in its economic announcement, its economic update, but it refuses to say what the real annual cost will be. When a government refuses to say how much its key measure will cost, that is not transparency; it is a warning about what is to come. It shows what Canadians are going to experience in the coming years.”
“The Prime Minister told us that affordability is the best it has ever been, but people do not live in press releases. They live in the real world. I would like to discuss something else that was announced: the sovereign debt fund. Despite inflation and the cost of living crisis, the government found a way to borrow $25 billion to create a gimmicky sovereign debt fund. The government talks about Norway and says that it will follow the Norwegians' approach. It cannot be serious. Norway built its sovereign wealth fund by developing its resources and became wealthy by selling these resources. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is worth $3.5 trillion Canadian. It achieved this by developing its resources, not by going into debt and borrowing money. What is the Canadian government doing?”
“Every dollar people spend on federal taxes when they make a purchase goes toward paying bankers and bondholders. It does not go toward paying doctors and nurses, let alone supporting patients. Meanwhile, Canadians are skipping meals. There are parents who work full time. Some even work overtime, like Kevin, who called me this week to talk about his situation. He even shared his story with QUB Radio through tears. That is the reality for hard-working citizens who can no longer make ends meet. It is not that these people are not putting in the resources, the work or the effort. It is that they simply can no longer survive under Liberal rule, which takes everything from them. There are seniors living on $2,000 a month. How is anyone supposed to get by on $2,000 a month?”
“It is also important to note that the Liberals are projecting an average deficit of $55 billion over five years. Things are not going well when it comes to taxation. The Conservatives are calling this a credit card budget. Basically, the government is paying the bills with the national credit card. Then, Canadians are forced to pay their bills with their own personal credit cards. That is why everything costs more. It is because when the Liberals spend without any limit, prices, interest rates and mortgages all go up and families get poorer. Today, the interest on the debt costs more than all of the health transfers to all the provinces. We were talking about health transfers. The interest on the debt costs more than all of that. Imagine.”
“The government talks about discipline, caution and responsibility, but let us look at the facts through the eyes of an an impartial third party. Claude Lavoie is not a Conservative. He was director-general of economic studies at Finance Canada. He said this: It's not that the GDP is doing better. It's more that we took in more revenue [including from gas taxes, because gas is expensive, so it brings in more money] and spent a little less by deferring certain expenses. In other words, the programs that were announced were not delivered, the money was not spent and people were taxed more. Now, the government is telling us that public finances have been carefully managed and that it has kept its promises. No, the government did not keep its promises at all. Not only did it not spend the money, but it imposed more taxes.”
“Workers were wondering how they were going to be able to pay their mortgage at the end of the month. These are the two realities that we are facing here in Canada in 2026. In Ottawa, the government talks to us about billions of dollars; in Quebec, however, people talk to us about dollars. I am rising today to make a connection between these two realities. To hear the Liberals talk in the House, it seems like all is well, yet Canadians know the truth, because they live with it daily. They go to the grocery store and see that things are more expensive. They go to the gas station and gas seems a lot more expensive too. When the time comes to pay their rent, mortgage or credit card, they see that something is wrong. I would like to talk about credit card budgets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Riding Mountain . On April 28, the Minister of Finance proudly tabled his economic update. He talked about “Canada Strong”. He repeats that line every week in the House. The 167‑page update includes billions of dollars in spending, $25 billion for a sovereign debt fund, strategies, programs and announcements on top of announcements. In Parliament, the government was talking about ambition. Meanwhile, on April 28, people in Baie‑Saint‑Paul, Saint‑Hilarion, Beaupré, Boischatel, L'Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Île d'Orléans and in Montmorency—Charlevoix were going about their daily lives. Families were worried about their grocery bills. Young couples were holding off on buying their first home. Seniors were counting down the days until their next pension cheque.”
“Mr. Speaker, families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are going into debt to put food on the table. Meanwhile, the Liberals, true to form, are setting up a fund that will start out $25 billion in the hole. A true sovereign wealth fund is created with wealth, using the proceeds from resources sold on the international market. Norway, Saudi Arabia and Singapore are good examples that we should emulate. They did not rely on debt to pay for their funds. The Prime Minister is borrowing to spend, while Quebeckers are borrowing to eat. How can the Liberals look families in the eye and say that they are managing public funds correctly and efficiently?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2024, England established a new fund that it explicitly refused to call a sovereign wealth fund because it was debt-financed, just like the fund announced by the Liberals last week. The Prime Minister should be aware of this. He served as an adviser to England during the process. The Liberals are using a term that has proven itself, that works, and that is even appealing, but they are not using the formula that made it successful. Why are the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance selling us a pipe dream and continuing to saddle our country with debt? Do they think Quebeckers are stupid?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to talk facts. According to several recent studies, including a Dalhousie University report, Quebeckers and Canadians are now choosing their food not based on what they need, but on what they can afford. Demand at food banks is skyrocketing and families are struggling. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, families are tightening their belts while watching the Liberals spend their hard-earned money. How long will it take for the Liberal government to realize that Quebeckers and Canadians are not bottomless pits of money? When will the Liberals govern in a way that gives families some breathing room?”
“Madam Speaker, this week's economic update proves that the Liberal reflex is the same as ever: a credit card budget, more costs, more debt, more spending and more taxes. Nothing much has changed. We have a new Liberal big spender for a Prime Minister who has not only doubled this year's deficit, but plans to keep doing the same thing for the next five years, putting us $55 billion in the hole year after year. In the meantime, Canadians are paying sky-high prices at the grocery store, and one in four is experiencing food insecurity. When is the Prime Minister going to rein in his spending so that Quebeckers can make ends meet?”
“Now we need to deliver results. Canadians have heard a lot of announcements in recent years. In the end, history will remember the results. A strong country is not built on intentions, but on projects that are completed. Let us move forward together, as Quebeckers and Canadians, proud and united in the conviction that physical activity is not only an important solution, but a fundamental pillar of the future of our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the life of a nation when we realize we are at a turning point. On Tuesday, we experienced that here. For the first time in history, an economic update has demonstrated that sports and physical activity are an important pillar of a healthy nation. This is not a Liberal or Conservative position. It is a Canadian position, and it was high time we adopted it. A nation that invests in sports and physical activity is, above all, a nation that invests in its future. It invests in two ways: in the pride of seeing Olympic athletes bring home medals, but also in every young person who discovers sports and physical activity, and in the citizens who will remain active for the rest of their lives. Indeed, we received some good news on Tuesday. When that happens, it is worth acknowledging.”
“Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. These same Liberals have doubled the deficit in a single year. Under the former prime minister, a drama teacher, the annual deficit stood at $31 billion. Today, with a Prime Minister who knows a thing or two about economics, the deficit has climbed to $65 billion. That means higher taxes, more credit card spending and more debt for Canadians. The annual interest payments alone are more than the total health transfers to all the provinces. Why is it that, with the Liberals, there is always more spending, more taxes and more risks being taken with taxpayers' money?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to use Canadians' credit cards by creating more debt and more government spending and taxing more to spend more, families and seniors are paying the price. They are paying more for groceries, gas and housing, to the point where one in three households has to go into debt or dip into their savings to put food on the table. We know that the Prime Minister spent over half a million dollars on in-flight catering on his travels. Does he realize that Quebeckers and Canadians can no longer make ends meet? When will the Liberals stop squeezing Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is simple. The Liberals just want things to happen how they want, when they want and the way they want. Anyone who does not think like them is guilty of obstruction. That is my answer, and that is what the government has been showing us for almost a year now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to share what my constituents and other Quebeckers are telling me. They are fed up with the empty promises they keep hearing from this government, which takes their tax dollars, spends it on all kinds of ideological projects and leaves them with less in their pockets. The Liberals then tell them not to worry, because they are going to get a bit of money back, to make things a little easier. Clearly, people are struggling to make ends meet, so they are going to take the cheque. In any case, it is basically their own money being returned to them. Can members guess what people really want? They want to keep their money in their pockets. They want to be able to make it through the month, paying for groceries, gas and their mortgage or rent. That is what they want.”
“On the contrary, it is undermining trust, because paying $20 million for a piece of vacant land that is being leased for $13,000 a year and is not owned by the federal government is bound to sap the public's trust.”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree that what we are experiencing here is unbelievable. A piece of land that was being leased for $13,000 a year is now being subleased for $20 million a year. If we look up the owners of Maritime Launch Services, it turns out that they are all well connected to the government. All we are asking for is transparency. Clearly, there has been no transparency from the start of this Parliament. There has been no collaboration either. Just yesterday, we witnessed an unprecedented total breakdown in collaboration and a refusal to answer questions. The answer is that Bill C-28 is not paving the way for greater trust in our institutions.”
“A recent report states that Canadians were impressed with the Prime Minister 's trips, which cost over half a million dollars in in-flight catering alone, but that they are extremely disappointed that he has failed to deliver on affordability issues. That is people's real-life experiences talking. When my colleague talks to his constituents, he should take a look at the Angus Reid report, which says that people were pleased to see the Prime Minister travelling but that they are extremely disappointed that they cannot afford groceries despite working so hard.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was taking notes because that is a good question. The frustration is very real. The member mentioned long-term vision, but people have been waiting for 11 years and are still waiting. The Liberals are very good at making announcements that end up being empty promises. There are no shovels in the ground. They just talk about huge, multi-billion dollar projects, while families are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals keep unveiling major projects that they say are on their way and telling us how wonderful they will be, but there are no results. Unfortunately, it is all smoke and mirrors. That is the result.”
“On the contrary, it concentrates power in the hands of ministers. It allows decisions to be made behind the scenes, as usual. It is shutting Parliament out of the process. Why are parliamentarians being asked to approve a regulatory framework after $200 million was spent? Why were rules not established beforehand? I will close with this question: Why is there no transparency, when that is what all Canadians expect from the government?”
“Now, the government wants us to pass Bill C‑28 , which would give the minister sweeping, discretionary powers to be wielded behind closed doors. I experienced this yesterday at an in camera committee. The Liberals took control of the committee and decided to go in camera to make sure that people would not hear what was being said and that Canadians would not have access. They took complete control so that we would stop asking questions. That is not how a government should act. Democracy is all about transparency. Clearly, the current government does not understand that. It wants to decide who can go into space without clear criteria, without going through Parliament. In an industry as strategic as space, the risk of regulatory capture is real. This bill does nothing to reduce that risk.”
“Third, and I want to emphasize this point, because it makes us really skeptical about Bill C-28 , the chair of the board of Maritime Launch Services sold three million shares of the company on April 9, 24 days after the announcement. That is serious. Someone is making a lot of money on the backs of taxpayers, on the backs of Canadians, with help from the Liberal government. Questions need to be asked. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner needs to be formally seized with this issue now, not a year from now. Some weeks ago, the minister proudly announced that this was a historic investment. He talked about Canada's sovereignty, Canada's future and Canadian ambition. However, there is zero ownership, zero control and zero transparency.”
“We are talking about public funds here. There have been successful launches in Norway. It is working. We should look to this model for inspiration. I am not saying this as a complaint. That is not it at all. I am simply suggesting what should be done. Ultimately, what should be done? First, the government has to publicly disclose all the contracts. We want to know how bids were made, what criteria were applied, and whether other candidates were in the running for the much-touted launch facility or whether this was the only location the Canadian government could access. Second, the government has to explain why Canada received zero equity in return for 200 million taxpayer dollars. Norway has a 90% ownership stake in the Norwegian company. Canada has zero stake.”
“What I am criticizing is the fact that the government is going to use this as a pretext to help well-connected people instead of using it to build on that rich history. We will have to see, because the sovereign wealth fund was just announced yesterday. The Liberals are drawing inspiration from some very flashy buzzwords and are following Norway's example in particular. Does the Liberal plan exist anywhere else? Let us look at what Norway did. Andøya Space, based in Norway, has the infrastructure needed to carry out successful launches. It cost the equivalent of $46 million Canadian. The Norwegian government owns 90% of the company. That is a quarter of what the government is spending here, and 90% of it is owned by the Norwegian government. That is not the case here. We own 0%, and it is costing us $200 million.”
“The government did not get any shares in the company in return for its investment. It has no ownership rights to the land. It has no equipment. It has nothing. We are talking about $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million, and Canada has nothing to show for it except a concrete slab about the size of a trailer pad. Marie Lumsden has spent seven years trying to tell elected officials that. She has spent seven years trying to make her voice heard. Today, I can say that, here in Parliament, we talking about what she discovered and about the work she has done. To be fair, I recognize that Canadian space sovereignty is a legitimate objective. It is important. I recognize that Canada needs to develop its own domestic launch capabilities. That is not what I am criticizing. Canada has a rich history of space exploration.”
“(1315) How much does the company pay the government to lease this land? That is the question. The company pays $13,500 a year plus taxes because, of course, there are always taxes. The company leases the land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million a year. The company does not own the land. Think about it. If the company does this for 10 years, that amounts to $200 million dollars. The company leases the land from the province for $13,500 and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million. Some might say that the opposition parties are always complaining, that they are always opposing everything, that surely there is a return on the investment and that the Liberals made a logical and informed decision, but that does not seem to be the case.”
“She has spent the past seven years trying to talk to the community, asking questions, and sifting through piles of data and pages of ATIP requests. She contacted the municipal, provincial and federal governments. She even contacted the Minister of Justice, who would later make the announcement with great fanfare in Nova Scotia. She has spent seven years asking questions, but no one seemed interested in listening. However, she found something astounding in the documents, something that I think should raise some important questions. This infamous launch site is the future of Bill C‑28. The government wants us to trust it on this bill. The thing is, Maritime Launch Services leases the land from the provincial government. It is a lease. It does not belong to the company; it is leased.”
“Third, and I believe this is the most important point, the company's auditors, the accountants who conduct the analysis and are tasked with auditing the books, said that there is material uncertainty as to whether the company will have the financial ability to continue as a going concern. That tells me this is not a company in great financial shape. I am not the one saying it is on the brink of bankruptcy; the company's own accountants are saying that. Despite this seemingly precarious situation, our colleagues opposite, the members of the Liberal federal government, decided to invest $200 million in this company. They decided it made sense. That is $20 million for 10 years. To pick up where I left off with Marie Lumsden, her experience that morning and the photos she took blew the story wide open.”
“For those tuning in who would like to check it out, SEDAR+ is Canada's official securities registry. The financial statements tell us three things. First, in 2025, Maritime Launch Services generated $14,900 in revenue—not $14 million in revenue, but $14,900, with no extra zeros. We are talking about nearly $15,000. That is a figure that, I think, is highly significant. Second, that same year, the company posted a loss of $47 million. It had nearly $70,000 in cash. Those figures are not exactly impressive. These facts are public knowledge, and I think that is what is drawing attention to the issues.”
“9 was adopted, curtailing our ability to ask the government these questions and hold it accountable. Once again, we have a fine example of what is coming our way over the next few years. The questions are serious and they deserve answers. Canadians pay taxes, and they are seeing the government spending their money on projects like this, to the tune of $200 million for a trailer pad. I think Canadians deserve answers. Today, I am just going to present some facts and ask the government if it has anything to say in response. Let us talk about Maritime Launch Services, the publicly traded company responsible for this $200-million launch site. The financial statements are public, so we are not making this up. This information is public, and the company is registered with SEDAR+.”
“When Marie Lumsden arrived at the site, what she found was a gravel road, two sea cans, and a concrete pad measuring 25 feet by 35 feet, which is roughly the size of a campsite for a 21-foot trailer. All of this cost the government $200 million, as it so proudly announced. I am not talking about this here to be oppositional or to create a narrative. I am talking about this because Quebeckers and Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent. When $200 million is spent on a concrete slab, that raises questions. For many weeks now, citizens, journalists, financial analysts and, now, parliamentary committee members have been asking the same questions. What we saw yesterday in the House was quite something. We have questions. Canadians have questions. Government Motion No.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at Bill C-28 , an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Before I even get into this bill on Canadian space launches, I would say that things may already be going off track. Let me explain. On March 21, Marie Lumsden, who lives in the small community of Canso, Nova Scotia, woke up early. She lives three kilometres from the famous launch site, which is, I imagine, the first of the major projects we are looking at today. She put on her boots and grabbed her camera to go see what had been announced with such great fanfare. There was talk of a $200-million investment and a site that the government was so proud of. It was the dawn of a new era.”
“Unfortunately, that is not what the public voted for. It is high time the Liberals realized that this is not an autocracy, but a democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the member asked his question in French. I thank him for that. Bilingualism is an asset, and we are seeing that here today. It is simple enough. The public is watching. They thought that Parliament would be forced to collaborate, that Canadians would finally have a Parliament that puts the public's interests first, rather than a government that only puts its own party's interests first. What we are experiencing here is the complete opposite. This is how it has been from the start. Every week, we are accused of blocking Parliament's work, even though we are suggesting ways to improve the Liberals' proposals so that everyone benefits in the end. The Liberals do not like that. What they want is simply what they want, when they want it and how they want it.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. I think we all know the answer. We have seen it. I, for one, came face to face with it last week when I sat through an intense 17‑and‑a‑half‑hour Liberal monologue that was intended to ensure that a minister who had recused himself but did not want to come and answer questions would not be called to appear. We saw it last week when my colleague started speaking and was cut off six times by the Liberal serving as chair. The Liberals do not want us to question their decisions because they think they are right. They are here for themselves, not for the people. Let me tell members something: We need a strong opposition. We need a Parliament that respects the opposition's work. It is high time the Liberals got that through their heads.”