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 6 of 8.
“Madam Speaker, my answer will be very simple. First, it is up to ministers to make sure that they are doing what they said they were going to do. There is no point in appointing a commissioner who has no power, unlike a minister. Second, I disagree. I did not just talk about bureaucracy. What I said was that we want to make improvements in terms of program effectiveness, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and true autonomy. The Conservatives are proposing to work with people and give them real access to resources, not just to forms and bureaucracy. The idea that something will happen on the ground because there is new state intervention is just smoke and mirrors.”
“Madam Speaker, respecting communities means listening to them and ensuring that we work with them. From what I am being told on the ground, for the past 11 years, treaties have not been signed or respected and there has been no accountability. I think the first thing to do when we want to ensure that communities are respected is to take action and keep our word. The Conservatives will always be there to do just that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always very interesting to hear my colleague opposite quote his own boss, who says “Who cares?” more often than we do. Yesterday, I spoke to someone who is on a band council. This is what he told me: “Never forget that every nation has its values and every nation has a different culture.” The Liberals tell us that they consulted everyone, but the reality is that this is a complex issue and that we need to work on the ground, not by putting more people in an office, not by having more administration, not by listening less. We have to be on the ground to work because we actually do care.”
“As my friend from the band council said to me, we need to support them, not take over. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. The best solution is simple. The government needs to do its job, keep its promises, meet its obligations and let the communities govern themselves.”
“Perhaps the government members should keep in mind that they are here to support, to listen and to bring considerations from people on the ground to the House for discussion. Bill C-10 ultimately represents more bureaucracy. However, there is a very logical alternative. Ministers should be made accountable. Each minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. Treaty obligations should be incorporated into ministerial mandates; no more excuses and vague responsibilities. The government should fund the internal capacity of communities to train, support, transfer and stabilize, not just supervise and control. We should be reducing bureaucracy, not trying to increase it. That is not a solution. Finally, the government should get out of the way.”
“The Liberals are incapable of designing a Canada where people make their own decisions, where communities manage themselves, where local governments are responsible and where indigenous institutions are respected. According to their ideological vision, Liberals believe that Ottawa has to monitor, has to govern, has to dictate, has to comment, has to oversee. They want to teach from above rather than support from the side. They want to control rather than guide. I think they have forgotten that being a government means supporting the people. It is said that the foundation of our democracy lies in our institutions. A foundation is not above the people. A foundation is below them. In fact, if the foundation were put on the roof, the house would be quite rickety indeed.”
“The real issue is having more internal capacity, not more external oversight. What indigenous communities say they really want are tools, effective programs, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and genuine autonomy. In fact, I think what they want is pretty much the same thing that society in general wants: more control over their own lives, more independence and less management by government. What indigenous communities want is the ability to administer their own affairs and take charge of their own development. They do not want to be managed by Ottawa like public service subcontractors. True autonomy is not about being watched. True autonomy is about being able to act. Unfortunately, according to the Liberal philosophy, the state always knows better than the individual.”
“A number of modern treaties have been negotiated over the years. In fact, five modern treaties were negotiated in six years under the Harper government. Over the past 10 years, under the Liberals, there have been none. Conservatives believe in and support modern treaties. What we do not support is the idea that creating more bureaucracy is going to solve the problem. It was not a lack of oversight that has caused the problems. Rather, it has been a lack of enforcement, a lack of real political will and a lack of accountability within government departments. Now the government is saying that a commissioner could be the answer. Well, that is not the case at all. Quite frankly, given recent history, it is a bit of an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that more bureaucracy is going to be an effective solution.”
“It should teach us, support us, guide us, but stop trying to control everything.” These are not my words, they are the words of a first nations person who works directly on a band council. This is what communities are saying. This is what chiefs want. This is what the government seems to have trouble hearing. (1300) Modern treaties are powerful tools when they are implemented. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, was the first modern treaty. Modern treaties have demonstrated that rights can be recognized, local institutions can be created, indigenous education and health systems can be established, and regional governance can exist. They have also taught us a valuable lesson, namely that even the best treaties in the world are worthless if the government does not implement them.”
“Yesterday, I called someone I know well, who is on a band council and who took the time to read the bill, the structures it proposes and Ottawa's explanation. He said, “Gabriel, we don't want oversight. What we want is internal capacity. We want to be able to take action right here at home. Give us the tools, not a commissioner. Give us programs to develop expertise within our band councils. We want to be autonomous, not controlled.” I think that makes a lot of sense, but he said something else that I think should resonate here in the House. He said, “The problem is not a lack of oversight, it's that the government is getting in the way. It needs to stop interfering in everything. It needs to stop saying that it knows how to manage our communities better than we do.”
“The goal is to find busy work to keep someone in an office when, instead, resources should be sent onto the ground to provide support to people and try to understand them. When I do not know everything there is to know about a given issue, which happens regularly because, as a new member, I have a lot to learn, I always call people on the ground. I call people in Montmorency—Charlevoix and I call experts. In this case, I called people in indigenous communities. I want their perspective. I want to hear their opinion and to hear about specific details that may have escaped me. This way, I can improve my personal skill set. I think that, by working on the ground, we can truly improve things the right way and find meaningful solutions.”
“The Liberals are just giving the illusion of taking action, while enjoying the comfort of bureaucracy, which is something they have been doing for the past 10 years. I will give an example. In the past 10 years, 100,000 public servants have been hired within the government. Every year, more than $20 billion is spent on external consultants. The public service has never been bigger, yet public services, housing, immigration, finance, infrastructure and indigenous programs have never been more ineffective. In the wake of this colossal failure, the Liberals say that they have the solution. They are going to create a new office, more bureaucracy, another commissioner and yet another structure. It feels like the more obstacles, the better. It is a madhouse full of paper pushers.”
“The government would have us believe that creating a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be an easy fix, but let us face the facts: Commissioners do not have any binding authority. They cannot compel any department to honour treaties. They cannot impose sanctions, allocate resources or force action. All they can do is observe inaction. In other words, they monitor. When a treaty is not respected, the first nations will still be the ones who have to go to court, even though they have no real resources to do so. Creating a new commissioner position is tantamount to admitting that we have not been doing our job for years. Yet another report is not suddenly going to change a system that is already failing to meet its obligations.”
“The Liberals want to create a new commissioner, they want more bureaucracy, they want another layer of oversight and they want to increase spending. It is as though every time the bureaucracy fails, the solution is more bureaucracy. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We had the opportunity to hear from several commissioners who all told us pretty much the same thing: They are underfunded and they do not always have an easy relationships with the government. There is a discrepancy between the facts and perceptions. Here are the facts: A new commissioner would not be able to push the government to take action because, basically, the government rarely listens to commissioners. More oversight and less action is not a real solution.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a fundamental principle: the relationship between the state and indigenous peoples. This relationship is not an exercise in bureaucracy. It does not call for a new organizational chart to be created or a new position to be established in Ottawa. It is a relationship based on honour, based on commitments made and based on the ability of the government to live up to its word. However, for the past 10 years, the government has been doing exactly the opposite. It has made more promises, expanded the bureaucracy, hired more public servants, spent more money and achieved fewer results. Even now, with Bill C‑10 , I get the feeling that the same mistakes are being repeated.”
“Madam Speaker, the devil is in the details. Yesterday, the Liberal government made a series of announcements in Alberta, and the Prime Minister once again found a way to benefit himself. He announced a carbon capture plan. Which outstanding company has the technology for this kind of megaproject? Brookfield does. If Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister makes money. Each announcement seems like another opportunity for the Liberal government to dip into Brookfield's catalogue for its megaprojects. Why?”
“Madam Speaker, Black Friday is here, but there are no deals for Canadians. This week, we found out that the Liberals gave $528 million to the European Space Agency, 10 times more than the amount specified in the previous agreement under the former prime minister. Guess who owns 50% of the European Space Agency campus? That would be Brookfield. Once again, the Prime Minister is putting his personal interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, or should I say, putting his interests first at the expense of Canadians' interests, at the expense of investments here, in Canada, and at the expense of jobs for Quebec and Canada. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of putting Canadians first, ahead of his personal interests?”
“Mr. Speaker, the conflicts of interest involving Brookfield are not easy to manage. The Clerk of the Privy Council said that it practically required full-time teams to manage the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest. The Clerk even sold his own shares in Brookfield to focus on doing his job properly. The Prime Minister's chief of staff revealed that he has to speak to the Ethics Commissioner every day to ensure that everything is on track. Tariffs go up every time the Prime Minister leaves the country because he is unable to negotiate on behalf of Canadians. What is more, it takes dozens of people to manage his conflicts of interest. Could he at least follow Mr. Sabia's lead and sell his shares to stop being in conflict of interest every day?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to keep his elbows up. After failing to reach an agreement on tariffs with the United States he said, “Who cares?” He backed down on the digital services tax, on retaliatory tariffs and on trade action over softwood lumber We thought he had achieved nothing, but in reality, he just achieved nothing for Canadians. Then the Americans signed an $80-billion nuclear deal with the Prime Minister's company, Brookfield. We know that when Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister gets richer. Why is the Prime Minister sacrificing the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians for his own personal gain?”
“Mr. Speaker, when Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister makes money. We are not the ones saying that. Brookfield's chief operating officer himself told us so yesterday at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As if that were not enough, we learned that 95% of the businesses owned by Brookfield are not even covered by the Prime Minister's famous ethics screen. Worse yet, the two people who are supposed to be monitoring the screen do not even have access to the full list of the Prime Minister's investments. Can the Prime Minister explain why Brookfield's interests align perfectly with the Liberal budget that was tabled last week?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time the Prime Minister flies abroad, his Brookfield colleagues are never far behind. In New York City, Brookfield was there. In Seoul and in Singapore, Brookfield was waiting for him. This week in the UAE, Brookfield made a major announcement in the same sectors of activity that the Prime Minister says he wants to negotiate. While these coincidences keep piling up, one thing remains consistent: The tariffs imposed on Canada go up. Would the Prime Minister have the decency to send his travel claims to Brookfield? Clearly, Brookfield is the only one benefiting from his trips.”
“Mr. Speaker, every time the Prime Minister travels, Canadians hope that he will come back with results, whether it be lower tariffs, meaningful agreements with immediate effects, or gains for our workers. However, every time he has travelled, whether to the United States, China, or India, the only thing he has brought back is increased tariffs and bigger bills for Canadians. How come every time the Prime Minister boards a plane, tariffs go up? Has it not occurred to him to stay in the country, lower tariffs and lower gas taxes so that Canadian families can finally afford a good life?”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, the Liberals narrowly passed the biggest deficit budget in Canadian history. They are recklessly spending the money of future generations. This morning, we learned that groceries is the area where 80% of Canadians are being squeezed the most in their budgets. In addition, 25% of households are struggling to put food on the table and are suffering from food insecurity. To make matters worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that hidden Liberal taxes will increase the cost at the pump by 17¢ a litre. Given that families can no longer make ends meet, why do the Liberals keep adding hidden taxes that are driving up the cost of food?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is another completely made-up tax: the fuel tax. Yesterday, the Liberals had the opportunity to lower the cost of food by getting rid of the fuel tax, but they chose to keep making food even more expensive. Families and couples where both partners have jobs are coming to food banks in Quebec to get food because they have to choose between putting food on the table, a roof over their heads and gas in their cars to get to work. It will cost Canadian families 17¢ more per litre every time they go to the pump. Why is the Prime Minister maintaining the fuel tax and continuing to make food even more expensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was with a beef farmer in Château-Richer last week, and we were talking about the federal industrial carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of energy, transportation and processing throughout the supply chain. This has resulted in a 17% increase in the price of beef for his customers. However, he is not the only one noting these increases. According to Statistics Canada, the price of apples, oranges, chicken, fruit juice, carrots and even coffee has risen by 35%. Food prices are rising 40% faster in Canada than in the United States. Why do the Liberals keep raising the price of groceries for Canadians?”
“The only thing missing is the Liberal government. By the end of 2025, let us make Espace Hubert-Reeves a symbol of knowledge, pride and the future, because after all, time passes quickly and we are nothing but star dust.”
“Mr. Speaker, today the people of Charlevoix are sending a clear message to Ottawa by asking me to present this petition to the Liberal government so that Espace Hubert-Reeves can finally become a reality. Espace Hubert-Reeves in La Malbaie is more than just a science centre. It is a gateway to the universe, to the earth and to our future. Located in the heart of the 400-million-year-old Charlevoix crater, Espace Hubert-Reeves will tell the story of our planet, of space in general and of humanity's impact on its environment. This project combines science, education and tourism. It will inspire our young people, attract visitors from around the world and revitalize our region. The municipalities and RCMs, the Quebec government and the private sector have already indicated that they are on board with the project.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, families are struggling to pay for groceries. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, workers and pensioners have to choose between food, transportation or housing. Every dollar spent by this Liberal government comes directly out of taxpayers' pockets. What is more, the government is adding to their burden with hidden ideological food taxes, the industrial carbon tax, the plastic packaging tax and the clean fuel regulations. Can the Prime Minister stop trying to provoke a costly election with a costly budget and get rid of the ideological food taxes once and for all?”
“After weeks of hearing the Liberals congratulate themselves on social programs that Canadians have to rely on more and more, as if that were a good thing, one has to wonder whether the Prime Minister is really able to understand the reality of those who actually pay their taxes here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a champion of tax evasion. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we learned that Brookfield is one of the companies that evades the most taxes in Canada. Not that long ago, our Prime Minister was at the head of that company. Over the past 15 years, the company has paid less than 5% in taxes in Canada, and in the last five years alone, it has evaded $6.5 billion in taxes. That is $6.5 billion that Canadians are not receiving, and the Prime Minister has the audacity to say that families and young people will have to make sacrifices.”
“Madam Speaker, that just underscores something of paramount importance. If we have reached the point where people are asking these questions in the provinces, I think it is extremely important that we ask them at the federal level. This further supports my argument that democracy is currently under threat. It is high time that our policies served to reassure the public. We need to overcorrect and prioritize transparency.”
“Now we are faced with someone who might be thinking about his life after politics while he is leading a country and holding the reins of its national economy. We have to wonder whether that individual is there for the right reasons, and we need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that he is there for the right reasons.”
“Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, our job is certainly to ensure that the virus does not spread. As I said at the beginning of my speech, for one of the first times in history, we are looking at the current Prime Minister's assets and interests. The current situation is not forcing our country's economic development, but I think we need to do it. This morning, we heard testimony from the former clerk of the Privy Council. He told us that a career in politics never lasts long. This experienced person told us that politicians never know how long their career will last. It might last a year, two years, four years, maybe eight years, sometimes 10 years. No one really knows, but one thing is certain: Politics is not usually a career that lasts 40 or 50 years.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Making wise use of our time seems to me to be a clear national issue at the moment. It is a priority, and it is extremely important in order to represent the people. Our country is experiencing a crisis of democracy. We need to reassure those who no longer have faith in our institutions. They need to hear that we are taking their concerns and questions seriously. For example, are politicians really there for them or seeking to take advantage of the fact that the foundations of society are completely shaken? Are our neighbours to the south still our friends? We do not really know. I do not think this is a trivial or unimportant issue; it is an urgent and important issue. That is what we are doing today.”
“Is our system adapted to the reality of a Prime Minister who comes from the world of international finance? Can we react fast enough? Can our institutions keep up with the current economic climate with a Prime Minister who wants to make very quick decisions that could benefit him? I want to reiterate that I said “could”. However, we have to be able to be sure of that. Do we need to review our practices because it is better to prevent than to cure? I think it is very important that we analyze this thoroughly. The motion before the House today must be adopted so that we can get answers to our questions.”
“He recently travelled to New York and London to meet with people. The Information Commissioner told us that access to these records and information about who he met with, when, how and why was needed. Again, nothing has been done. I believe that this, too, erodes public trust. I think we need to get back to what true ethics are all about. It is not about getting bogged down in minutiae. It is not about seizing on little details. It is not about trying to think like a lawyer and judge what a person has the right to do. Instead, we need to go back to the root of the word “ethos”, in other words, moral correctness. It is the right thing to do. I think we need to return to fundamental ethics, which means morality before strategy, transparency before political games. To wrap up, I think we still need to ask ourselves some questions.”
“I think that also applies to the public service as a whole and to all of our decision-makers. The two highest ranking public servants, who work on more than just this, are the ones who have to decide, at a time, right now, when we desperately need to improve the country's economy. We have to act fast and meet needs. How quickly we manage this information hinges on two people. They are the ones who make the all decisions in potential conflict of interest cases. I think that is a mistake. We need to change that. This crisis of public trust is a product of these flawed mechanisms, ill-suited at best to the current reality. I think it is important that we make changes in this regard. The Prime Minister holds the reins of a country whose democratic foundations have been shaken to the core.”
“In committee, we were told that it would take a full-time team to review the 109 companies that are in a potential conflict of interest and to determine what the ramifications are. In the end, two people were assigned this task and they report directly to the Prime Minister. I think that this is a decision that we, as a society, should question. We are often asked whether there is a challenge function and whether there might be the appearance of a conflict of interest. Without pointing any fingers or casting aspersions on anyone, I believe that we still need to make laws that focus on prevention rather than always looking for a cure after the fact. I often say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure because that is my motto when it comes to health.”
“It was not always about a scandal, but it was about the fact that commissioners have a hard time accessing information and doing their job. The current Prime Minister 's conflict of interest is a rather unusual case. I think that we should treat it as a first, and any first requires some adjustments. I think it is important to recognize that because, for one of the first times in history, we have a prime minister with a rather unique background taking office at a very critical time. The Prime Minister has a potential conflict of interest with regard to 109 companies that are part of the Brookfield fund, which owns more than 900 companies and is worth billions of dollars. That raises a question. For one of the first times in history, this number is significant. Is our structure able to effectively manage so much information?”
“Commissioners do not have enough clout to enforce the rules. They tell us that it is hard to believe in the stringency of a system when those who violate a law such as the Conflict of Interest Act receive a maximum fine of $500. That is absurd. People have to pay $500 when they break the rules of a system that is supposed to represent the people, even though they could potentially influence important decisions and benefit to the tune of millions of dollars. That $500 seems like a pretty paltry sum to me. It is practically just an administrative formality, really. They get a slap on the wrist and carry on. That is why we see scandals happening year after year, government after government. We heard this kind of testimony regularly.”
“I find this compelling because it means that, although processes have been put in place, the commissioners are not being given enough power and funding to do their job. Worse still, several told us that they often file access to information requests that are delayed or ignored by the government. They have to fight with the government to gain access to information that they should normally have access to, even though they are the regulators. The Information Commissioner has also told us that one-third of requests exceed the prescribed deadlines and that, in many cases, the documents are even destroyed. This does nothing to help the public's perception of our institutions. I truly believe that a lack of accountability is a factor here. (1705) The lack of real consequences is another problem. That is something else we have heard.”
“That is exactly what the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is for. Its mission is to ensure that politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, are accountable. The committee provides rigorous oversight to ensure that the interests of Canadians always come first. I made an observation during recent committee meetings. We welcomed some exceptional guests: the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Information Commissioner, as well as many journalists, researchers, and lawyers. They all came to speak to us. The commissioners, who are instruments of the state working within the system, have, without exception, said two things: First, they are underfunded, and second, they do not have enough power to make decisions and exercise control over the state.”
“No one seems to believe in democracy anymore. People often lose confidence because of scandals. It seems as though politicians are willing to try every trick in the book to slip through the cracks in the system. This democratic crisis is very important. We must remember that the first thing to do in any crisis is to fix as many things as possible. The first step is to correct as much as possible to ensure that nothing can possibly be overlooked. The second thing to do relates to transparency. I am not the one who came up with this. All anyone needs to do is go to any university that teaches crisis management. They will say that the first thing to do is make as many corrections as possible and then demonstrate transparency. It is really important to correct the situation as much as possible and then regain the public's trust.”
“I would like to take a few seconds to congratulate everyone running in the Quebec municipal elections. It is truly admirable to serve the public, and I believe it is important to remember that we are here for them. Democracy is not a perfect system, but it is a system that allows every citizen, if they so desire, to become informed, which is the first step. It also allows them to vote, which we all hope they will do, and to run for office, if they have convictions and want to make a difference. This means putting their face on a poster, standing up for their beliefs and getting elected. The current situation is rather worrisome. People are completely disillusioned. Today, a journalist invited to appear before the committee said that we are in the midst of a democratic crisis. He sees this on a daily basis when he talks to people.”
“They treat us like an elite class. They call us government people. The people think we are completely out of touch, that we become a class of our own as soon as we become politicians. I think that is a serious mistake. Many of my friends ask me questions when they see me. We spend our weekdays here in Parliament but go back to our communities on weekends. People tell me it is great that I am in Parliament. I always tell them that an MP's main purpose is to serve the people. We are here to serve. We are not here to rule the world; we are here to represent our constituents. We are not here to impose our will; we are here to understand. Regardless of the level of government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, elected officials are first and foremost here to serve the people.”
“Madam Speaker, the laws that we pass in Parliament govern our society, including the Conflict of Interest Act. We have specific rules to oversee such conflicts, along with disclosure mechanisms, compliance measures and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee's mission is essential, and we must carry it out scrupulously, not complacently, to ensure that the state functions as it should. Today, above and beyond legislation and procedures, we need to regain the public's trust. I sincerely believe that democracy is in crisis. Our institutions, the very foundations of our democracy, are being challenged every day. What always strikes me when I travel from one region to another is that a growing number of people thank me for coming to visit them, saying it is so kind of me.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about one in five young people who feel as though they are in financial peril and who think about that every day. Inflation is eating away at every dollar, and rent has increased by 10% in Quebec. It is not surprising to see our young people losing confidence in the future. One in four young people are experiencing psychological distress. This economic crisis is turning into a mental health crisis. This week, the Prime Minister told our young people that they will have to make more sacrifices. Conversely, is it too much to ask the Liberal government to change course and give our children a better future?”
“Mr. Speaker, a study has shown an alarming increase in anxiety and depression among our young people. Nearly one in four young people rate their mental health as poor and more than 80% experience constant stress about their future and finances. At a time when economic uncertainty is taking its toll on young people, is it not a bit irresponsible of the Prime Minister to tell them that it is up them to make sacrifices? How can this government demand more sacrifices of a generation that is struggling under the weight of the inflation, insecurity and debt that are a direct result of this government's 10 years in power?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not that we have a narrow vision for the country; we simply have a fair vision for our young people, who are no longer able to access affordable housing, who cannot find work and who are being hit hard by inflation and rising grocery costs. Those things put very real pressures on their physical and mental health and on their hopes for a bright future. Just yesterday, in a sombre speech, the Prime Minister asked them to make sacrifices. When will the Liberal government stop crushing our young people under the weight of its mismanagement and allow them to have a better future?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told a room full of students that they would have to make sacrifices, but they have already been making sacrifices for the past 10 years. They are sacrificing the dream of owning a home. They are spending too much of their money on groceries. Many of them could not even find a job this summer. My question is simple. Will the Liberals finally stop breaking their promises, get their spending under control and enable Canadians to put food on the table at a fair price and actually dream of buying a home someday?”