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 4 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, in an interview last week, the Prime Minister was asked a question that I think is very clear and straightforward. How can it be called democracy when a minority government effectively becomes a majority government through backroom deals? That is a good question. The journalist asked him if that is truly what a democracy is. I will give the Prime Minister's response. He said that it is indeed a democracy, that members find working with the government appealing and that it was their choice. He said that the Liberal Party is the party that defends the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my view, that is exactly where the problem begins. Apparently, it all comes down to people's understanding and perspective, because democracy is not simply a matter of procedure.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. There is no reason why a country as rich in resources as ours should be so vulnerable to global oil crises. After 11 years of Liberal government, however, the many anti-development laws in place are weakening our country. We could have followed Norway's example: Develop our resources intelligently, enrich our society and fund our public services, but not by taxing the people. Would the Liberals at least have the decency to give Quebeckers and Canadians some relief by lifting the gas tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for a country to tax its way to success, but that seems to be the cornerstone of the Liberals' decisions of the past 11 years. While governments around the world are working to help citizens deal with the oil crisis, the Liberal government is going to think about it. Australia, Ireland, Spain and Austria have lowered their fuel taxes to give people some breathing room. Suspending the federal fuel tax for the rest of the year is the responsible, logical and effective thing to do. Will the Liberals adopt our proposal and suspend the federal fuel tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to Le Journal de Québec, the Liberal government has paid out over $211 million in cost overruns to Accenture, an external IT consulting firm. Accenture recruits developers for the Cúram system and outsources the jobs to India. Both there and here in Canada, Accenture is one of the largest tenants of a company the Prime Minister knows well: Brookfield. Has it become the norm for Liberals to use taxpayer money to make well-connected firms richer and to serve the interests of the Prime Minister while citizens foot the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General, the immigration system for international students is completely out of control. In just one year, as many as 150,000 fraudulent international student applications may have been submitted, and less than 3% were investigated by the government. This is not complicated: The Liberals have completely lost control of immigration, but they continue to issue permits as though nothing is wrong. Quebeckers want an immigration system that respects the intake and integration capacity of our Quebec nation. Can the Prime Minister explain why he is keeping ministers who are doing more harm than good?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is because of news like this that folks are losing faith in our institutions. The Liberals are saying that everything was done properly and that there was no favouritism. That is great. They should have no problem proving it. Can the Liberals confirm today that no ministers, no members of cabinet and no Liberal insiders were involved at all in this matter? Will they commit to releasing all records related to the $206 million in low-interest loans and the $150 million in federal grants? Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to know.”
“Mr. Speaker, at a time when families are struggling to pay their bills, oddly enough, the Liberals are able to find tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to help their well-connected friends. There is nothing confusing about that. Anyone who wants to be successful in Canada today has to be a Brookfield shareholder or has to have Liberal friends in the federal Parliament. The Liberals gave a $206-million loan to well-connected friends for a wind turbine project in Nova Scotia. However, another project was launched around the same time, and that one was funded by the private sector. Why is it with the Liberals that their friends get the deals but Canadians have to foot the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is funny how when, the Liberals ask us a question, they say that tens of thousands of homes were built during the Conservatives' years in government. However, when we ask questions in the House, they say that only six homes were built. They may have trouble counting, but the numbers are out. They are promising 500,000 homes, but only 212,000 homes are going to be built per year by 2028. That is less than half. Next, let us look at the objectives. Build Canada Homes is going to deliver 5,000 homes a year, not 500,000. That amounts to 1%. Maybe the Liberals should review their program, stop funding bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and finally help the people on the ground for real.”
“The answer lies in a clear response from the federal government that respects its jurisdictions and uses them to the fullest in order to lower federal taxes, reward construction, unlock federal lands faster, attract private investment and enter into partnerships with Quebec, the RCMs, the municipalities and the private sector. The Conservatives believe that a strong country starts with families who can afford a home. We believe that a strong economy starts with workers who can stay in their region. We believe that a fair society starts with an affordable roof over everyone's head. Most importantly, we believe that after 10 years of promises, Canadians deserve results. Enough with the red tape. Enough with the false starts. Enough with the empty promises.”
“Families are leaving our regions because they cannot stay and settle down there. What does that mean, in concrete terms, for Montmorency—Charlevoix? It means that personal support workers, hotel employees, young entrepreneurs, couples with two children, fishers and seniors who want to stay in the area are all asking themselves the same question: What can they do to stay in their region, in their home? That is the real question. The answer does not lie in a new agency that has no clear targets. It does not lie in more delays, more press releases, or more announcements about fake projects.”
“We found out that it takes up to nine years to dispose of federal property. Knowing that, the reason for the problem is clear. The Liberal government talks about doing things fast but moves at a snail's pace. It talks about urgency but acts like there is no hurry, like all is well. If the federal government owns under-utilized or entirely vacant buildings and sites, it must make them available quickly, subject to clear requirements, simple agreements and an obligation to produce results. It should not take nine more years and three or four more administrative structures. While the Liberals drag their feet, families have bills to pay. Families are paying more for everything. Right now, they are putting off making purchases. Families are even delaying plans to have children because they cannot find an affordable home.”
“It cannot eliminate all these standards unilaterally, but it can work on agreements with Quebec and the municipalities, use its programs and offer financial incentives to reduce taxes and fees. In other words, co-operation is not just a slogan. It must become the normal way of working. Quebec and the municipalities retain authority over their jurisdictions, but Ottawa uses its financial tools to get more housing built faster and at a lower cost. Fourth, we could end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada. Once again, that is a federal responsibility. It is a powerful means to unlock billions of dollars of investment in residential construction. Here is what we propose: fewer tax penalties, more private investment, more housing, less talk and more action. Finally, the federal government needs to clean house.”
“(1050) We in the Conservativs Party are proposing that municipalities allow a minimum 15% annual increase in residential construction in order to receive full federal support. This is not an intrusion into municipal areas of jurisdiction; it is a federal condition for receiving federal funding. That is exactly how a serious government can work in partnership, by rewarding municipalities that are really making an effort to find solutions for their residents. Third, the taxes and fees that are driving up construction costs could be reduced by 50%. Obviously, these costs are also a municipal matter or are often even covered by provincial programs. However, the federal government can set standards.”
“That is why the Conservatives are proposing a clear, simple and, above all, responsible approach at the federal level. First, we need to axe the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. That is something only the federal government can do. That would directly reduce the purchase price, help families and encourage the construction of new homes. It could also save a family up to $65,000. Second, the government could tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. Let us be clear. Municipalities are the ones that make the decisions regarding building permits. That falls under their jurisdiction. However, the federal government has the right, and even the duty, to demand results when it provides cities with billions of dollars.”
“In Quebec, land use planning, urban planning, permits and several other mechanisms fall under the jurisdiction of the municipal and provincial governments. However, the federal government has very real responsibilities and can really help where its jurisdiction allows. The federal government can provide federal tax relief, better direct its transfers to certain programs, quickly free up its land and empty buildings and put an end to tax barriers that are slowing down construction investment. The federal government can enter into clear agreements with Quebec and the municipalities to reward those that are actually getting things done rather than funding bureaucracy. In other words, Ottawa does not issue municipal permits, but it can stop making the crisis worse and start rewarding those who are building.”
“Their children are leaving the region because they cannot afford to settle there. Back home in Montmorency—Charlevoix, this is the harsh reality for young couples, tourism workers, retail employees, single-parent families and seniors who want to stay in their communities, but this is also affecting small businesses that cannot find employees because people are unable to move to these towns. Having a roof over one's head is the foundation for building a family, a future, and a community's future. It is a matter of economic vitality. It is a matter of social well-being. It is a matter of land use. It is, in fact, an existential issue for our regions. The federal government cannot do it all alone. We know that.”
“When a government does not even know how many homes it actually wants to build, how can we, as elected representatives and as the public, trust the Liberals? That is not all. The assessment indicates that, even once the machinery gets up and running, Build Canada Homes will only be able to build 5,000 homes a year. That is 1% of what was announced. Their strategy is a wholly inadequate response to the crisis. It is not a response that meets families' needs. It is not a construction plan. It is a sham. These are announcements and pretty pictures, but they do not address the real problems. What are people going through in the meantime? Everything is more expensive. Interest rates are going up, shutting down their chances of buying a home. Household budgets are being eaten up by rent.”
“According to current estimates, the government is going to end up building more like 212,000 homes a year between now and 2028, or less than half the number expected. That is a far cry from the Liberals' promise. It is a far cry from what is needed. Most of all, it is a far cry from addressing the reality confronting families looking for a home but forced to remain longer in an apartment because the market is obviously not on their side. What has the Liberal government done to try to tackle this crisis? Instead of drawing up a proper plan, it has created more red tape. Instead of speeding up the start of new housing projects, it has added a fourth department responsible for housing. Instead of setting clear targets, the minister himself tells us that no overall target has been set for the number of homes to be built.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, like everywhere else in the country, families are working hard and making the right choices. People get up every morning and go to work. They pay their taxes. They want to build a better life for their children. Today, however, there is one vital thing that eludes far too many young families, workers, and seniors: the ability to find suitable, reasonably priced housing in their region. The crisis is not limited to housing. It is a cost of living crisis. It is a regional development crisis. It is also a crisis of confidence in our institutions and in the government, which makes big promises, makes plenty of announcement and spends lots of money, but is not delivering results. The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes a year.”
“Mr. Speaker, when crime occurs, the Liberals say they are wholeheartedly behind the victims, but when we ask for members of a terrorist organization to be deported, they tell us that these people have rights. There are Iranian women protesting against the regime, and they report that members of the regime are taking photos of them during the demonstrations. They no longer feel safe. This week, a critic of the Iranian regime disappeared, and the police are investigating a possible murder. What will it take for the Liberal government to grow a backbone and deport the 238 members of a recognized terrorist group who are enjoying the good life in Canada at taxpayers' expense?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebecor's investigative journalists have reported that 239 visas have been revoked over links to Iran's revolutionary guard. However, only one person has been deported, just one. We are talking about a terrorist regime on Canadian soil. We also found out that a Canadian Armed Forces camp on a military base in Kuwait was the target of attacks, of Iranian missile strikes. Fortunately, there were no injuries. I am of the opinion that the Iranian regime is not our friend. The Liberal government is keeping these criminals here under the pretext that they have rights and have applied for asylum. Will the Prime Minister deport them or not?”
“Mr. Speaker, another Liberal drug experiment has failed. The Liberals promised that safe injection sites would reduce overdose deaths, but these deaths have increased by 400% in British Columbia and doubled in Quebec. Fifty thousand Canadians have died. Now, a landmark study in Alberta has shown that the closure of a safe injection site did not lead to an increase in deaths. In fact, more people sought treatment. How many Canadians will have to die before the Liberals admit that their policies have failed to address the real problem? When will they finally take a preventive approach?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is good news on the horizon, but once again, press releases are not projects. Germany managed to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal in 194 days. What was Canada able to do in 194 days? It made announcements. If we developed our resources, we could create wealth, fund our public services, make our constituents wealthier and invest in the transition to other forms of energy. The world needs what we have, and families are struggling to make ends meet. When will the Liberal government stop talking and start approving projects to export our resources and make society more prosperous?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the past four decades, two wars have plunged the world into a major energy crisis. Our allies are looking for reliable suppliers. Canada has 10% of the world's oil reserves and a wealth of natural gas, uranium, and hydroelectricity. It is clear that Canada should be a world leader in energy. The reality is that we do not even have the infrastructure to export our resources to our allies who need them. Parliament gave the Liberals exceptional powers to accelerate major projects, but so far nothing is being done. Why is the Liberal government continuing to allow Canada to be a country full of unrealized potential?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite all these wonderful, virtuous programs, child poverty is on the rise for the third consecutive year. Nearly 30,000 more children have fallen below the poverty line. One in five children under the age of six lives in poverty in Canada. That means that 2.5 million children are part of a family that is facing food insecurity. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, families are struggling to pay their rent and community organizations are overwhelmed. Why, after so much massive spending and historic deficits, do our children still not have greater access to resources? Why are they still facing food insecurity?”
“Mr. Speaker, the face of poverty is changing. Today, it might be a single mother who skips meals so that her children can dress properly and not be singled out at school. School trips have become luxuries. Families are going into debt to ensure that their children are not left behind. This is the result of 11 years of Liberal policies. Families do not want pity. They do not want more government cheques. They want to be able to provide for their children. When will the Liberals understand that ideological programs do not work and finally make decisions that will give our children access to a life of plenty?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing confusing about Cúram: It is the federal SAAQclic. The software was supposed to cost $1.6 billion and ended up costing $6.6 billion. That is money from taxpayers' pockets. This week, the Prime Minister tells us that everything is fine, that a $5-billion cost overrun is par for the course, a success story even. Meanwhile, 85,000 pensioners are not receiving their payments and the government's answer to us is to have them give them a call. Will the Liberals admit that their new approach is to spend like there is no tomorrow, to downplay their failures and to congratulate themselves on their deficits?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Champlain Bridge in Montreal is used by close to 60 million vehicles every year and was built 75 years ago. Rebuilding it cost $4.2 billion. Then there is the Cúram software. The legacy system was 60 years old, and rebuilding it resulted in a $5-billion cost overrun. How is it possible to be off by $5 billion, a cost higher than that of rebuilding one of the busiest bridges in North America?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the immigration system is under control. I am sorry, but contrary to what the Prime Minister says, things are not going well at all. Quebec alone has taken in 200,000 asylum seekers. That puts pressure on the health care, education and child care systems. This morning, we learned from a Radio-Canada article that the Liberal Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship does not have a strong grasp of her portfolio and is completely unreachable. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and fire the immigration minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is too much bureaucracy. It is clear that it is currently very difficult to access services. It is also clear that, this year alone, in order to speed up services, 25,000 asylum claims were approved without a single interview having been carried out. While 300,000 people are waiting, 25,000 people were allowed in. There is a lack of control and a lack of efficiency. It is high time for that to change.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would like to talk to him about the importance of working on prevention instead of always looking at curing illness. If we want to reduce the burden on our health care systems, we need a more active population that uses health care systems less. Health is not the absence of illness; it is our ability to deal with illness. Physical and mental health are declining in our society, and that puts more and more pressure on health care systems. Yes, we must continue to invest and work hard to ensure that the health care system can meet our needs. However, it is high time we invest money in prevention. Reducing the burden on our system is prevention.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, there is nothing far right about what we are doing. It is simple math. When there are 300,000 people waiting and we offer them services, it costs taxpayers a lot of money. Those same taxpayers, who contribute to society, do not have access to health care. When we ask someone to leave the country because, upon analysis, they have no right to be here, but we continue to pay for their care until they leave, it is not logical and it is disrespectful to the people who contribute to the health care system. This has nothing to do with the far right. This is a factual analysis. We are in favour of offering support, but we want to ensure that we are respectful of taxpayers.”
“More physical activity means less obesity, less diabetes, less heart disease and less pressure on our emergency rooms and our health care system. If we are serious about improving the health of the population, we must make decisions accordingly, whether we are talking about sports, our young people or our communities. We need to reduce the pressure on the health care system. Instead of spending billions of dollars to manage the consequences, perhaps it is time we started thinking about prevention. That is the connection I want to make here today. On the one hand, the government does not have enough money to invest in prevention; on the other hand, it is going to spend nearly $1.5 billion on health care for people who do not even have the right to be in our country. I think we need to think about that.”
“These are extremely important objectives, but the organizations are not being given the means to achieve them. According to a Deloitte study, 90% of national sports organizations need government funding to exist and to continue operating. However, looking at this government's choices, that is clearly not a priority for the Liberals. The cost of physical inactivity is quite staggering. A preventive rather than reactive health care system should really be a priority. Investing in sport means investing in making Canadians more active. In fact, nearly 20 years ago, the cost of physical inactivity was estimated at $7 billion. That is what it cost taxpayers. That cost is certainly higher today. Canadians and Quebeckers could be in much better shape, physically and mentally.”
“Getting back to the subject, I want to point out that, by 2030, the government will be spending $1.5 billion a year on health care benefits for asylum seekers, some of whom have even been denied and do not have the right to stay in the country. That is six times more than the average annual investment in the entire Canadian sport system. Is that a reasonable balance? How is that fair? Is that responsible, knowing that for every dollar invested in prevention, that is, in physical activity and health, there is a return on investment of between $3 and $20? National sports organizations are talking about a real financial crisis right now. Some are even at risk of shutting down. They are being asked to provide greater safety in sport, more inclusion and better governance.”
“However, now that the dust has settled, we have to be honest and consider why a country as rich and as proud of its history and culture as ours does not seem to be performing to the level we would like to see on the international stage. To be clear, I am talking about something far beyond medals. Canada can do better, but it means looking at the facts, at priorities, at how taxpayer money is invested and spent. In 2022, federal funding for sports amounted to $327.1 million a year. That is less than 1% of the country's total annual budget. Over five years, the average annual investment is $263 million. Let us compare that to health care. I see a strong link between sports, physical activity and health.”
“I wonder if the Liberals are investing in the right areas. Let us see where this is going. Here, we are talking about investments in health, but when it comes to the health of Canadians, sports, and physical activity, suddenly there is no money, no funding for that, and it is not a priority. As another Olympic cycle draws to a close, we can all agree that the Olympic Games that we just experienced were outstanding. We are proud of our athletes, proud of our flag and proud to leave home to represent our country and show off our homegrown talent around the globe. I think that the ratings for the final Canada-U.S. hockey match were probably fairly high. Obviously, every Canadian was hoping for a win.”
“(1735) We also learned in committee, and this should not be overlooked, that some service providers covered by the interim federal health program can charge up to five times the provincial rates when services are provided under this program. A Canadian is charged the normal price. A non-resident or asylum seeker is charged five times more. The cost has risen from $211 million to nearly $900 million a year, with projections of $1.5 billion by 2030. That is a lot of money. It is not sustainable to think the we are going to get there. It is not responsible, and it is not respectful to Canadian citizens, taxpayers, and those who pay for this service that is available in Canada. As I near the end of my speech, I would like to draw a parallel with something that has been bothering me and that I consider to be extremely important.”
“Are they entitled to it? That is the question. Emergency care should always be covered. We will never oppose that. It is emergency care. Canada is a welcoming and responsible country. People in an emergency situation can always find help here in Canada. However, offering extended supplemental care while citizens have to wait is a bit much. That is not compassion, it is poor management of priorities. We need to shorten wait times and deport bogus asylum seekers, not give them perks so they stay in the country and use resources that many Canadians do not have access to. I would like to make a quick reminder here. There are 86,000 rejected claimants who are still in the country. There are currently half a million people in our country without status. In 2025, there was a backlog of 300,000 asylum claims. These are not small numbers.”
“I would like to remind everyone that, over the past 10 years, 100,000 people have died while waiting for health care. In Quebec, emergency rooms are overcrowded. Seniors are waiting months for home care. Children are waiting for speech therapy services. Families are paying out of pocket for physiotherapy and other supplemental services. Despite making significant financial contributions to our health care system, people often have to turn to the private sector and pay out of pocket to access services more quickly. That begs the following question. Is it normal for a person who has been rejected and deported by our legal system to have access to supplemental care that many Canadian citizens cannot even afford? Is it normal for citizens who pay taxes to be unable to access services to which non-residents or rejected claimants are entitled?”
“We know that some of these individuals stay in the country even after they have been asked to leave, and they still have access to services. They might have been turned down by our system, but they still qualify for federal services. Why would anyone agree to pay for services offered to people who no longer even have the right to be in Canada? That is the real question. Even now, in 2026, six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, and not for lack of trying on their part. Families are doing everything they can to get a family doctor. Doctors are also doing everything in their power to see as many people as possible and help as many people as possible with their health concerns. Still, the numbers just do not add up.”
“We did our job as the opposition and we held the government to account for its decisions. In 2016, the Liberal government expanded the coverage provided to asylum claimants above and beyond just emergency care. Vision care, counselling, assistive aids or devices for persons with physical limitations, home visits, residential care and transportation were added. Today, over 50% of the program's costs relate to supplemental care like physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and interpretation services. That is a far cry from essential emergency services. Another even more worrisome issue concerns the fact that even when an asylum claimant is turned down by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and asked to leave the country, he or she is still eligible for all of these services while physically present in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am not only addressing the House. I also want to address the families of Quebec, the seniors who are waiting for care, the young parents who do not have a family doctor, the sports enthusiasts who are taking care of their health and the athletes from coast to coast to coast who work hard and do everything they can to succeed. Today's debate is about our priorities, about a fundamental issue. Are we putting Canadians first when making decisions about our country? Here is the crisis. The interim federal health program for asylum seekers will soon cost Canadian taxpayers $1.5 billion. Canadians have this information today because the Conservatives forced this study at the Standing Committee on Health. That figure would not have been released otherwise. We demanded transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is right, we are here for Canadians and Quebeckers who are taxpayers. Asylum seekers who have been rejected by our system should never receive better health care than Quebeckers and Canadians. What is more, the Standing Committee on Health has learned that some providers charge the interim federal health program up to five times the normal provincial rate for services. The Liberals spend nearly $1 billion a year on non-Canadians, and that cost is projected to reach nearly $1.5 billion by 2030. Will the government support our motion to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians are the top priority?”
“Mr. Speaker, the interim federal health program is paid for by taxpayers and covers the health care costs of asylum seekers and certain non-citizens. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor and the system is overwhelmed, but we have found out that non-citizens and some non-permanent residents are receiving more generous benefits than Quebeckers and Canadians are getting. This is a matter of fairness. Will the government support our motion to ensure that non-residents and non-citizens do not receive better health care than Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, as my colleague said, everyone is waiting. Young Canadians are having a hard time with the cost of living and the cost of rent. The Liberals tell us they are taking action, but nothing is being done except announcements, photo ops and empty promises. They have a plan: “one day”; “we will see”; “build something”; “potentially”; “surely”; “soon”; “a project is being reviewed right now, but will be announced later”. I have a clear proposal for the Liberals. Why not eliminate the tax on homes under $1.3 million, new homes, to jumpstart construction and give our young people access to home ownership? Will they finally use our idea?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is forecasting a decline of nearly 20% in housing starts over the next two years. Less production means less supply. Demand, on the other hand, continues to rise. What is going on? Prices are going up. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, the average price of a home has gone from $249,000 a decade ago to more than $500,000 today. Week after week, the Liberals congratulate themselves for their policies. However, the construction industry is talking about a lost decade for home ownership. When will these announcements lead to shovels in the ground and construction in the real world, not just on paper?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals really like patting themselves on the back and telling everyone how good they are. However, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is predicting a nearly 20% drop in housing starts by 2028. That means fewer homes, less supply and considerable pressure on prices. Meanwhile, 93% of our young people say they are worried about the housing situation, and 86% of builders fear for the future of their businesses. The industry itself is calling this a lost decade for home ownership. If the Liberals are going to take inspiration from our measures every week, why will they not take up our plan and remove the GST on homes for the general public in order to boost construction and help young people purchase a home?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, and everywhere else in Quebec, families are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. The vacancy rate is very low, and housing insecurity continues to rise. Not knowing whether there is enough money to pay rent at the end of the month is a source of stress, anxiety and pressure that weighs on mental health, especially for young families. After a decade of Liberal policies that have caused housing costs to skyrocket, how much longer will families in our country have to live in uncertainty before the government takes real action to increase the supply of housing and bring down prices?”
“Fishing season is just around the corner. It is high time for the government to listen to the people, listen to fishers and take constructive action on their behalf.”