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 3 of 8.
“Citizens created institutions to serve them, not so that those institutions could serve themselves. My response to my colleague is that perhaps the government should adapt to the citizens who voted for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not a very good question, but I will answer it. If my colleague wants to talk about history, we can say that the past 11 years have been quite disappointing in terms of this government's decisions. As I said in my speech, I think it is very important to stop focusing on the minutiae and the right to do something. The Liberals are always telling us that they have the right to do this or that, even if it is unethical. There is a comma or a period in the law somewhere that gives them the right to act that way. However, who makes the laws? Ordinary people are fed up with this. They want a government that prioritizes ethics, a government that understands that doing what is ethical is harder than doing what is allowed. They want a government that will be there for them.”
“We are here for the workers of Montmorency—Charlevoix who pay taxes and want to know how their money is being spent. We are here to hold the government to account. I will say one last thing. We are here because Canadians from Victoria to Gaspé deserve a government that is not afraid to answer questions. We must reject Motion No. 9.”
“That is the amendment we are proposing, and I urge every member here to ask themselves one question: If, in the future, a government is elected that we do not trust, would we want to have tools to monitor it? The woman I met was right when she said that if no one keeps a a close eye on things, everything will go off the rails. When the priority of a government with a new majority is to gain control over the people who monitor it, I can say that this woman was right. If Motion No. 9 is adopted as is, the next time that this woman is proven right, no one will be able to tell her so. (1635) In closing, the opposition exists for several fundamental reasons. We are here to analyze, to ask questions on behalf of those who sent us here.”
“What the opposition is asking for today is simple and reasonable. It costs nothing, unless a government has something to hide. Let the Liberals have their majority on legislative committees. That is their right. However, for committees that have an exclusive mandate to monitor the government—the public accounts committee, the government operations committee, the ethics committee—we need the current composition to stand. That is the balance that Canadians have asked for, the balance that allowed a light to be shone on the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest, apparent conflicts, violations of his conflict of interest screen and phony recusals that undermine Canadians' trust in our institutions.”
“A minority government was elected, but it engineered an artificial majority through timely defections, dubious funding, promised perks, trips, and potential or actual investments in certain constituencies. The first thing this government is doing with that majority is locking down the oversight mechanisms. Men who built our democracy long before my time have explained it better than I can. John Diefenbaker, Canada's 13th prime minister, said that “freedom always dies when criticism ends”. Lester B. Pearson, our 14th prime minister, who was a Liberal, said that the health of Parliament relies on the opposition's right to oppose, attack and criticize. Mr. Pearson understood that the health of democracy depends on an opposition that can do its job. This is not a Conservative idea, but a democratic one. It is quite simple to understand.”
“If, in the near future, Canadians stop hearing about scandals, it is not because there are no more scandals. It is simply because the government paid off the referees. I am going to say something that may surprise my colleagues on the other side of the House. I understand the theory behind what they want to do. Traditionally, a majority government holds a majority in committees. It is true that this is a parliamentary convention. If the Liberals had received a clear mandate from Canadians a year ago to ensure that their election platform was fulfilled and if everyone had gone to the polls to vote for a majority government, I would not be here debating today. However, that is not what happened.”
“We are talking about committees that, among other things, probed the ArriveCAN scandal, in which $59 million of taxpayers' money was spent on an app that should have cost a few million dollars, with contracts awarded without a call for tenders to a four-person firm working out of the basement of a house not far from Parliament. It took nine different investigations to start scratching the surface of that scandal, and it all started with an oversight committee. An oversight committee launched the investigation into the Liberal green fund. An oversight committee first addressed the issue of foreign election interference before the inquiry into foreign election interference was launched. It was also oversight committees that shed light on the Prime Minister 's potential conflicts of interest with Brookfield.”
“They take a little sip from the team's cup. They chat with Jon, who points at certain players. They take notes. Fans start wondering what is going on. What is worse, the commentators are already announcing the final score. Those same reporters are saying that the Habs took a beating before the third period even began. What would people say? Would they accept that outcome? Would that inspire confidence in us all? Does that sound like an honest game? No, it does not, because everyone understands a basic truth: A person cannot judge their own case. That is exactly what Motion No. 9 does, in the end. It turns the Liberals into very biased referees. We are not talking about abstract committees. We are not talking about committees that produced no results.”
“(1630) The Leader of the Opposition had been pitch perfect. The Liberals needed to change the narrative about their failures, so, lo and behold, someone crossed the floor. We were told that it was a matter of conscience and personal convictions. That was not a coincidence; it was a pattern. It is clearly a strategy. I am going to explain what Motion No. 9 does in a language that everyone will understand, especially at this time of year. Let us imagine that we are in game seven of the playoffs. The series is tied at three wins apiece. The arena is packed to the rafters. Millions of people across Quebec are watching the game. The blues are on one side, the reds are on the other. The third period starts. The referees hit the ice. What do they do? They head over to Jon Cooper, high-five the players, have fun with them.”
“Every time a member crossed the floor to join the Liberals, the timing coincided perfectly with a period of political pressure on the Liberal government. Just as the Liberals presented the largest deficit budget in Canadian history and the public was still waiting for results, one member turned his back on his constituents and crossed the floor. Just as he was facing uncomfortable scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, the Liberals recruited him. Another example was when the government needed to change the narrative. Members will recall that it was because the Leader of the Opposition travelled all over the world, appearing on podcasts to convince the American public that Canada is still needed and that it is a strong ally. The Leader of the Opposition travelled all over the world and was highly respected.”
“Eleven months later, after backroom deals and undemocratic negotiations that ignored Canadians' voting rights, the Liberals scraped together a slim majority. The very next morning, what did they do? They brought forward a motion to take control of the committees. That was the first thing they did with their fragile majority. The very first thing was to try to get the upper hand over the people whose job is to monitor them. Even Radio-Canada, on what I would describe as a very pro-liberal panel, characterized the Prime Minister 's approach as authoritarian and described Motion No. 9 as an abuse of power. That is quite something, coming from CBC/Radio-Canada. Let us also talk about the mechanics of the Liberals' fragile majority. Let us talk about the floor crossers.”
“It is the foundation upon which everything else rests. Let us look at the facts. They are pretty straightforward. A year ago, Canadians gave the Liberals a minority mandate. It was not a majority. It was a clear minority, sending a message that required no interpretation: The people told us to co-operate and work together in the interest of Canadians. Committees were set up to respect the people's vote. They were composed of four Liberal members, three Conservative members and one Bloc Québécois member. The chair was either a Liberal or a Conservative, depending on the type of committee. For oversight committees, the chair came from the opposition. Why was that? It was to make sure that the government could be held accountable for its decisions.”
“Last week, I was at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. A Liberal was serving as chair. During my colleague's opening remarks, she interrupted him six times in six minutes just as he was preparing to ask a question. It was because she did not like what he was saying. It was not the version she wanted to hear, so she took it upon herself to interrupt him over and over. I am not even referring to the 17 and a half hours of Liberal monologue that was used to prevent the Minister of Finance and National Revenue from testifying about a recusal he himself had made and failed to follow through on. It was a perfect demonstration of what lies ahead if this motion is passed today. In a parliamentary democracy such as ours, oversight is not optional; it is not a courtesy the government extends to the opposition.”
“They expect the government to respect them, not just by saying that it has the right to do something because it is in the fine print. No, the government shows respect by respecting the spirit of the law. Ethics are more challenging than the law itself. Let us talk about rights. Being a member of Parliament is not a right. It is not a title. It is not a career. It is not something that is owed to us. It is a privilege granted to us by citizens. Our mission is to serve Canadians. With that privilege comes a responsibility that I take very seriously. I want to make sure that somebody is watching, that somebody is asking the tough questions and that somebody is holding the Liberals accountable. Our colleagues on the other side of the House do not seem to like that mission very much. I will give a very simple example.”
“Still, she instinctively understood something that is fundamental to our democracy, something the Liberals seem to forget far too often, specifically that democracy works best when the opposition is able to do its job. It makes everyone better. What we are debating today with Motion No. 9 is not really a matter of parliamentary procedure. It is not really a technical debate about committee composition. I believe it is a much simpler and more fundamental issue for democracy. The real question is this: Who is monitoring the government? I was sent here by the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix. They are workers, families, retirees and entrepreneurs. These are people who get up in the morning. They pay their taxes. They work hard.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with many people in Montmorency—Charlevoix recently. I have been having a lot of meetings. People are becoming increasingly interested in politics. I had a really interesting conversation with one woman who came to see me. She said something that really stuck with me. She told me that she was not really sure what we were doing in Ottawa, but she did not think the Liberal government was there for the people. She said that if no one were keeping a close eye on things, she thought everything would go off the rails. The woman in question does not have a background in political science. She has not read the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. She does not know what an oversight committee is.”
“In particular, residents are calling for collaboration with scientists to demonstrate that there are stocks in the river and to implement adaptive management measures, including expanding the recreational striped bass fishery and holding transparent consultations with fishers. Despite the Government of Quebec sending a favourable opinion to the Minister of Fisheries , I must point out that today is the fifth time a petition has been presented in the House and no response has been given yet. I therefore urge the government to act without delay.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix to present a petition on the overabundance of striped bass in the St. Lawrence River. Residents and fishers say that the striped bass population has increased sharply in recent years, creating a major ecological imbalance and putting a lot of pressure on the other species that our fishers depend on for their livelihood. Now they are having trouble catching their quotas. The petition highlights a regulatory inconsistency. Striped bass fishing is allowed downstream but not upstream in the St. Lawrence River, which is where overabundance is an issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at the ethics committee, we will begin the 17th hour of Liberal stand-up comedy, the longest monologue possible to ensure that three people whose salaries are paid by the government do not testify: the Minister of Finance , the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the president of Alto. It seems they have better things to do than come and answer legitimate questions about recusals that did not end up happening. Last week, the committee adjourned on the subject of cattle, hay and the quality of milk. Could the Prime Minister please tell his actors that the charade has gone on long enough and have the Minister of Finance come and answer the questions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I received the following message from Anthony. His words clearly illustrate the reality facing our young people. I am 23 years old and have been working as a carpenter for four years now. I still live with my parents and I'm very lucky. I don't dare hope that I'll ever own my own home. Not having my own place also means giving up on the idea of starting a family. I receive dozens of messages like this every week, and it shows that our young people have lost hope. Why, after 11 years of Liberal policies, is everything more expensive? Why are our young people losing hope for the future in a country that is as wealthy as Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. Canadians do not live in the world of advertising. They live in the real world, which is becoming increasingly difficult. Indeed, 60% of Canadians are saying that price increases are giving them financial whiplash. The rising costs of essentials like gas and food are putting significant strain on the finances of 75% of Canadians. In addition, 40% of Canadians are afraid of losing their jobs. Why do the Liberals keep taxing Canadians and spending their money on their ideological agenda or, worse, handing out cheques worth mere crumbs to improve Canadians' purchasing power, when it was in fact their own money that was taken from their pockets?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are about to begin the 12th hour of Liberal monologues at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics, by the same members who talk to us about everything except the motion under consideration. The motion simply asks that the Minister of Finance, Alto and the Ethics Commissioner come to answer questions regarding recusals or potential conflicts of interest. We have heard about the Trans-Canada Highway and the St. Lawrence River. We have even heard reports of wild turkeys on Highway 50, but nothing related to the motion. Could the Prime Minister tell his minions to stop obstructing the committee's work and send the Minister of Finance to answer questions?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance recused himself last September from the Alto high-speed rail project, and yet no one was informed. From 12 to 16 times, he debated and defended the project, answered questions, promoted it and even voted on it. I looked up the meaning of the word “recuse” and listen carefully to this: To recuse is to remove oneself from a matter due to a conflict of interest or incompetence. I do not know what the Liberals are going to make of that sentence, but if conflicts of interest come to mind, why does the Minister of Finance not explain himself to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? Quebeckers have a right to know.”
“Today, the bill is giving us an opportunity to do things differently. It may not be perfect, but it will be different. We have a choice to act consistently, more humanly and more effectively. Essentially, the question is simple: Do we act while there is still time, or do we keep waiting until it is too late? Helping a young person today does not just solve a problem, it changes a trajectory. I think that changing a trajectory is vitally important.”
“I believe our role is to provide the best possible response. There are people involved in this work on a daily basis. As parliamentarians, we do not know everything. We are not experts on every aspect of society. We therefore need to rely on key experts. I had the opportunity turn to Geneviève Labbé, a psychoeducator. She is in charge of clinical addiction education, but more importantly, she has 20 years of experience. That means 20 years of guiding young people, 20 years of supporting families and 20 years of seeing what works and what does not work. My entire speech is based on my conversations with her. She reminded me of something extremely important: For every young person, there is a young person not doing well, who has needs and who needs support. Often, it is a young person who can still be helped.”
“Beneath that, there are other issues. There is distress. There is trauma and there are needs that are not being met. If we do not address those issues, we will not solve the root of the problem. We need to intervene early. Intervening early is not about leniency. It is about effectiveness. Prevention means preventing problems from recurring. It means avoiding situations that could escalate and preventing lives from going off track. Yes, the legal system can sometimes become a tipping point, but why wait until that happens? Why is the government waiting for things to fall apart before taking action? No young person, in my opinion, chooses to suffer. I think these actions are signals. They are attempts to cope, attempts that may be clumsy and even dangerous at times, but they are attempts nonetheless.”
“In the middle is the young person and their loved ones, if they are lucky enough to have loved ones. All these professionals have to navigate a system that is not made for the young person. The young person also has to navigate a system that is not made for them. However, let us be honest. Passing a bill without providing the necessary resources will not change much. If we tell a young person that they need to seek treatment but they have to wait three, six or 12 months, in reality, we are telling them that we are not ready for them right now. Timing is very important in a young person's life. Windows of opportunity may open, but they can close pretty quickly too. I think we need to do better. What we are seeing is only part of the story. Substance use and crime are part of the story, just the tip of the iceberg.”
“Either we carry on with a problem-based approach, or we adopt a needs-based approach. This is a political and incredibly important choice. An young person's brain is impressionable and can be easily molded. It is still able to create good reflexes and find good ways of dealing with problems. However, when the window closes, we often lose the young person and we lose them for a long time. Indeed, we need to pass this bill, but we also need to have the courage to go further. We need to make sure that services are available. We need to train case workers and ensure that programs are available across the country. Above all, we need to stop working in silos. That is key. Too often, today, justice works on one side, health works on another side, and social services is somewhere in there.”
“In practical terms, what is the purpose of this bill? This bill would make it possible to delay sentencing so a young person can participate in treatment. It would make it possible to include treatment in the judge's decision, and that treatment could solve the problem. Most of all, the bill sends a very important message: A young person who does not succeed on the first try should not be put directly in custody, because the fact is that treatment can be a long and winding road. (1745) Treatment involves relapses, setbacks and times when it is just not working, but that does not mean a young person has failed. It means they are going through a process, and the system should be able to understand that. This bill is telling us that we have to make a choice. We have to enact a law, and we have to make a choice about that law.”
“Yet, if there is one thing that is absolutely essential, in my view, it is prevention. Prevention should always be a top priority. Prevention is precisely about preventing these problems whether they involve physical or mental health. If we, as a society, fail to take preventive measures, we should stop being surprised when they happen again. We must have the courage to acknowledge that the current model has its limitations. It is not because practitioners are not doing their jobs, but because, given its current structure, the system always responds too late, and often in the wrong place. That is exactly why my colleague's Bill C‑231 is so important. It introduces something we have not done enough of so far. It allows us to take a step back and ask what would happen if, instead of simply punishing people, we actually helped them.”
“Parents are seeking help without really knowing where to turn. People are ill-informed, perhaps ill-equipped. Meanwhile, the substance is always there. It is readily available, without the need for an appointment. Access to it is consistent. The substance is attentive and non-judgmental. These young people end up becoming dependent on it. We adults mean well. Professionals want to step in, but they often arrive too late, after a crime has been committed, after an arrest has been made. We often arrive once things have already spiralled out of control. How do we answer the call? We respond with a criminal justice approach, one that is not based on the young person's needs. We intervene based on the actions taken, but we do not really focus on what lies behind them. It is a band-aid solution.”
“As we know, young people's brains are not yet fully developed. They do not necessarily have enough life experience to draw on to reassure themselves and tell themselves that things will be fine in the end. Some of them at a certain point, in their daily reflections or when they discover drugs, for example, find something that brings them peace. It is not a perfect or healthy solution, and some young people know that. However, it is enough to help them carry on. It is a solution that may be temporary, but all too often it becomes permanent. This is often how it starts. From that point on, using drugs becomes a response. It is not the right response, but it is one that is accessible, easy and consistent. Meanwhile, support systems are difficult to access. There are waiting lists. Services vary from region to region.”
“We are having a hard time addressing this ever-growing problem. The problem is that we continue to look at what young people are doing without really trying to understand what they are going through. In some cases, they are suffering. Their suffering is expressed through actions and behaviours, and sometimes also through substance use. For many young people, substance use is not just a matter of curiosity. It is not just something they do because others do it, on a temporary basis, just to try it out or to have an experience. For some, it is a way of managing something that is hurting them. For some, it is a way of holding on, of continuing to move forward despite that pain. Some young people have difficulty sleeping and are experiencing severe anxiety. They do not really understand what is going on in their heads.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a topic that we often avoid discussing because it makes us uncomfortable. We do not like talking about it, but it is impossible to ignore: the distress among young people. As some members have already mentioned, 20% of young people experience mental health problems before the age of 18. It is therefore extremely important for us to address it. These mental health problems will indirectly or perhaps too quickly result in addiction disorders that can often lead to preventable tragedies. As everyone knows, these things are happening and are present in schools, in some families and in ridings across Canada. Too often, however, our response falls short. As parents, we may not have the knowledge to deal with the situation. Even experts have limited time and resources.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think that business owners have the answer to that. They are already dealing with a lot of laws, standards and red tape. Every time standards are added, whether for business owners, cities or others, the ideas are great but no one ever assesses what is really going to happen on the ground. I think that the first thing we need to do to ensure that we respect business owners' ability to meet expectations is to meet with them, listen to their opinions and work with them to find solutions to respect the law and the public's safety and also be safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I believe it is important that we return to a solid foundation for our rights. Police officers need to know that we stand behind them and that once a law is enacted, they do not need to start interpreting it, understanding it or thinking about how they might apply it. No, the law is there to protect public order. Personal property or interests are not the priority; public order is. However, in the current context, arresting criminals only to release them later puts people's safety at risk. We have seen how many murders and crimes have been committed by people who were supposed to be in prison. We need stricter laws and laws that respect citizens.”
“Canadians need to know that the members elected to represent them here in Parliament are doing their job and are here to represent them and to protect their rights and freedoms.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I must first point out that this is not a new government. It is the same old government with all the same ministers, so its decisions are similar. We have indeed been seeing this trend for a year now, but in fact, for the past 10 years, almost 11, the Liberals have been doing as they please and consistently putting their ideology first. They think that they know better than Canadians what Canadians should want. They think that their plans are better for everyone and must never be challenged. What is really important today is to provide a counterbalance when bills are introduced so that we can query the proposal and explore approaches that were not considered. That is the opposition's role.”
“After almost 11 years of Liberal governance, years of poorly balanced bills and decisions made without consensus, it is normal for Canadians to wonder whether things will be different this time. We, the Conservatives, will continue to work in the interest of Canadians. We are going to study this bill seriously. We are going to propose improvements because our role is not to filibuster. Our role is to ensure that laws are better for everyone.”
“For Conservatives, it is very important that Ottawa not interfere in these areas, and that it manage its own affairs. Ottawa should focus on managing only a few key areas and leave the rest to the provinces, because they are the ones who truly understand their day-to-day realities. In closing, I want to come back to something extremely important: trust in our institutions, trust in democracy and trust in rights and freedoms. A law like this one only works if citizens believe in it and if citizens agree with the decisions made by elected officials. If citizens believe that their rights and freedoms are respected, they will comply. If citizens believe that abuse will be punished, they will support what is happening here.”
“However, this could place significant financial strain on SMEs, which account for 99% of the businesses in Montmorency—Charlevoix and across Quebec. It could be a major burden. The fact is, every new regulation has an impact on businesses. It is easy to write things into laws and come up with brilliant ideas, but it is important to stay in touch with the real world and the impact these changes will have on people's lives. That should always be at the root of why we make laws. The goal must always be to serve the public. There is also a key issue concerning Quebec, and I think it is important for us to bring it up: respect for provincial jurisdiction. Issues related to privacy and digital technology fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.”
“The bill makes it possible to obtain personal information in some cases. That raises another question. Even so-called “basic” information can reveal a lot about someone. Once these powers in place, the government will say they are there for the right reasons and that they are intended to keep Canadians and Quebeckers safe. However, once they are in place, to what extent will they be used even after the public no longer supports them? There is another issue that I consider extremely important as an entrepreneur: the impact on businesses. The bill will require providers to put systems in place to store and transmit certain data. For large corporations, which could have big firms and many consultants—much like the Liberals, who use them regularly—things may be fine because they have the money to do so.”
“It primarily targets telecommunications and Internet service providers, not all services. It introduces a form of oversight for ministerial orders. What a minister is or is not allowed to do is therefore clearer. Most importantly, people's browser history, social media activity and personal communications are off-limits. This was extremely important to taxpayers, who reached out to us to say how concerned they were about the former Bill C-2 . Improvements deserve to be acknowledged. However, that does not mean that everything is settled and done. Central to this bill is one extremely important question that keeps cropping up: Can we trust the government to use these powers responsibly? I think this is a perfectly valid question. The bill makes it possible to obtain information without a warrant in some cases. Well, that raises a question.”
“The government was forced to back down and introduce a new bill, which is now Bill C-22 . Accepting that bill without question would have been a serious mistake. Today, we are seeing the result of what I was talking about. We are improving things precisely because we are able to challenge the status quo, explore other perspectives and approaches, and ultimately ensure that citizens have access to laws that meet their expectations. Today, the government is taking a new approach through Bill C-22 , and let me be honest: Certain elements are actually better. I will give some examples, because I am not just here to say that everything the Liberals do is wrong. When they do something right, we should support them. The bill is much more targeted and precise.”
“Cash payments over $10,000 could be banned without taking into account the fact that, in some communities, cash is still used on a daily basis. Access to information was too broad, and there were no clear limits. A wide range of personal information could be accessed. There were therefore insufficient safeguards in place. This created an imbalance and posed a potential threat to individual rights and freedoms. (1800) This caused concern among Canadians. The Conservatives did their job then, just as we are doing today. We asked questions and pushed back on things that we did not think were in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers. When things went too far, we spoke up and said that they had to change. We spoke out against excesses, and guess what happened?”
“Citizens' rights are something the Liberals seem to have taken rather lightly over the past 11 years. This is where it is important to learn from the past. In life, it is important to learn and adjust course in order to improve. Not so long ago, the government introduced Bill C-2 . According to the same Liberal government, everything had been carefully thought out, it was a good solution, and every angle and every aspect had been thoroughly analyzed. The government told us to trust them and said that this new bill was truly in the best interests of the public. They told the Conservatives to stop opposing it. In reality, we realized that the bill went too far. It granted powers that were far too broad and vague. I will give a few examples. Both the police and Canada Post could open letters without a warrant.”
“They say that their vision and their plan are what matter. I think that is a serious problem. That is not what democracy is about. The reason I am talking about all this today is that we are debating the balance of powers, the limits of those powers and public trust. That is exactly what lies at the heart of Bill C-22 . The bill directly addresses something profoundly fundamental: the relationship between security and freedom. Obviously, as we know, times are changing, technology is evolving and criminals are taking advantage of that technology. They use the Internet, they hide behind fake accounts and they exploit technology. Yes, our police officers definitely need access to more modern tools. However, the real question is this: How far can the government go without infringing on citizens' rights?”
“This is precisely what the opposition is for. It is not there simply to oppose and block everything. The opposition exists to improve and test proposals, and to ensure that opinions contrary to the opinions of decision-makers are generally represented, and that proposals can be improved, always keeping in mind that they are there for their constituents. Decision-makers work for them. Whether in everyday life or here, in Parliament, we improve when people challenge our ideas. It forces us to become better and in the end, that is better for everyone. When the Liberals say that the Conservatives vote against everything and that they are not happy, what they are actually saying is that they want us to let them do whatever they want. They want us to let them implement their ideas however they see fit.”
“Respecting Canadians means more than just making nice announcements and keeping Canadians happy. It means more than doing what is allowed. It is extremely important to keep ethics in the picture. It is a matter of respect, actually: respect for each Canadian's vote, respect for the member's role and respect for the balance between powers and freedoms. Members will soon see where I am going with all this. When Canadians vote, they put their trust in a party and its values. They elect members who will serve the community and the common good. Members are not there for themselves. They are there for their constituents. That is our democracy. The government does not have all the power. That is only natural, as the government must not have all the power. It is important to have a counterbalance, an opposition.”