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 7 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, families, seniors and business owners in Montmorency—Charlevoix can no longer make ends meet. Economists are saying that we are in a recession. The cost of housing has skyrocketed. There has been an almost 10% increase in rent in Quebec, while interest rates fuelled by the Liberal deficits are crippling owners and SMEs. The Liberals promised to look after middle-class families, but instead they have brought them to their knees. When will the Prime Minister stop making families pay the price of its inflationary deficits and put a stop to his reckless spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, rents have jumped by nearly 10%, double the Canadian average. We know that families spend nearly half of their income on housing and food. It is a worrisome trend. Meanwhile, the Liberal government continues to fuel its inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of everything from groceries to gas and housing. After 10 years of deficits and broken promises, families in Montmorency—Charlevoix and across Quebec have had enough. Will the Prime Minister finally regain control of our finances and make life affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was yet another answer about the future. We all know the expression about crocodile tears. The Liberals caused the problem, and now they are saying that their hearts go out to the victims of that problem. Canadian and Quebec families do not want empty words and superficial compassion. They want meaningful action against crime and strong, effective and ambitious measures that will truly ensure the safety of the public, as well as the safety of victims across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have always been proud to live in safe communities. However, the most recent statistics show a significant rise in crime, particularly violent crime and home invasions. Tourism is important in Montmorency—Charlevoix. Tourists tell us time and time again how safe they feel in my region. The rise in crime is a worrying trend. Prevention is important in health, but it is also important when it comes to crime. Allowing criminals back on the street time and time again puts public safety at risk. Why does the government insist on downplaying violence?”
“Mr. Speaker, governing means looking ahead. Well, when it comes to justice, the Liberal government is not looking ahead very much. Its soft-on-crime laws allow the same violent criminals to be released over and over again. When an individual is arrested 30 times, violates his conditions more than 15 times and is charged with domestic violence six times, no one should be surprised when irreparable harm is done. That is exactly what happened in Saint-Jérôme. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies cost Gabie Renaud her life. When will the Prime Minister realize that his policies have failed?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been a country where families could walk the streets in peace, a country where people could get a coffee, go to the grocery store, go to the gym or even go out on the town without fearing for their lives. However, after 10 years of Liberal attacks on our justice system, our country is becoming increasingly violent. There has been a 55% increase in violent crime, a 30% increase in homicides, a 76% increase in sexual assaults, and so on. Canadians no longer recognize this country, which once had strong laws, a serious criminal justice system, and harsh sentences. Do the Liberals realize that they have failed to protect our people?”
“Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is out of control and people are stretched thin. Food inflation has reached 70% over the Bank of Canada target and families are paying hundreds of dollars more every year for staples such as meat, fruit, vegetables and coffee. The price of coffee has gone up by 23% over the past few months. This also threatens an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of workers in the country. Does the Prime Minister realize that every dollar he spends recklessly fuels inflation and increases the cost of living?”
“Madam Speaker, good nutrition is one of the mainstays of a long and healthy life. In recent years, however, eating properly has become unaffordable. Food prices have climbed by 40% in the past 10 years under this inflationary Liberal government. Fruits and vegetables have become a luxury. Buying good protein is now a budget buster. Does the Liberal government realize that jacking up food prices is damaging Canadians' health?”
“Madam President, I would like to quote a well-known Quebec influencer and entrepreneur: “$126 for six steaks, with no side dishes, nothing, and on top of that, you have to cook it yourself. It's ridiculous!!! A package of meat at $55 per kilo. Who can afford that?” He is not alone. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the situation is shocking and unsustainable. Will the Liberal government align itself with the Conservatives and allow Canadians to feed themselves at a fair price?”
“We need to make French a pillar of our international presence, and we need to recognize that French is in decline in Quebec and across Canada. Promoting French will enhance this country's linguistic and cultural ability to dialogue, exchange ideas and create. It will give us a strong voice for a better future. I invite my colleagues to become ambassadors for French across the country.”
“Madam Speaker, we are incredibly fortunate to live in a bilingual country. Bilingualism is an asset that sets us apart on the international stage. French is not just an historical language. It is a living language that carries our culture and our collective voice everywhere. Canada needs to broaden its economic horizons. We hear a lot about the need to build ties with other nations and expand trade. To fully achieve this goal, we must see our bilingualism as an advantage and never compromise on it. If we truly want to flourish, we need to protect and promote French across the country. Simply stating that French is important is not enough. We need to cultivate our collective pride in our francophone heritage and history.”
“Mr. Speaker, grocery prices in Montmorency—Charlevoix are skyrocketing. To understand this phenomenon more clearly, I called Simon Plante of Polyculture Plante, on the Île d'Orléans, the 2024 winner of Quebec's award for outstanding young farmers. This young man knows his stuff. He told me that the red tape is overwhelming. New regulations come out every year. Transportation costs are exploding. The carbon tax is pushing up costs. As a result, farmers and families are paying the price. Will the Liberals support our plan to cut taxes and cut red tape to make food affordable?”
“Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I do believe that it is important to respect the process that has already been established and to ensure that our laws and standards are applied. Starting to make changes, such as removing the consent of the Attorney General, overruling or giving more power to the government, does not seem to me to be the short-term solution. I think that Parliament has been stripped of a great deal of power in recent years. I think it is important to respect what is there, to strengthen it and to support it. Parliament must support legislation in a strong and meaningful way before it starts restructuring it.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is currently reviewing the bill. We will ensure that it truly complements the existing legislation. We are not closed to anything. We are open to discussion, but we believe that this bill needs to go a little further. Before introducing a whole host of minor details, the government should uphold the existing laws and ensure that they are enforced before going any further.”
“This is how we could make it clear that, across the country, in Quebec and Canada, law and order are paramount and personal freedoms and opinions do not take precedence over social norms.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a very good point. I was not looking to downplay the realities of victims who have experienced these acts. Rather, I wanted to put forward the idea that we should live in a society where police officers have power, where people understand what public order is, and where people in society in general do not see their own personal opinion as a fact. Each person needs to understand that, if they act in a hateful or aggressive way, there will be consequences. Other people will stand up and say that the individual in question crossed the line and needs to stop. The laws are there. They exist. We have no problem analyzing them to see how we can improve them. However, I believe that the core of the issue is that we should be giving power to police officers and border officers so they can fix things.”
“We should start by supporting our law enforcement agencies, clarifying what public order means, helping our police officers and ensuring that people here in Canada feel safe and supported.”
“Now they are starting to say that participation will have to be voluntary, when it is not. Going after licensed sport shooters and hunters does not seem like a good option to me. What could we do with $750 million? Obviously, we could support our police officers. We could get good border officers, the necessary resources and even technology. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, some companies make surveillance drones that could be used to monitor our borders more efficiently and prevent the weapons that are often used in hate crimes from entering the country. Lastly, condemning hate is crucial, and we can all agree on that, but the Liberals have a bad habit of making the law more complex.”
“I believe that we have a serious crime problem and that we should begin by giving our law enforcement agencies a clear definition of public order and providing the support they need to defend that order. We must not miss the mark, as the government is currently doing with the firearm buyback program, for example. The government is missing the mark with this legislation that is nothing but smoke and mirrors. What we need is police officers who not only keep the peace but also protect the public order. This firearm buyback program clearly shows that, ultimately, what the government wants is to give itself more power. However, by giving itself more power, it is missing the mark. This is a $750‑million program that the minister himself says will not work.”
“Far too often, a person is given the right to express themselves, but they conflate the right to express themselves and report a fact with the ideological right to act however they want, at any cost, without thinking about the consequences. We must remain logical, pragmatic and thoughtful. Our society must encourage dialogue and listening and support discussion. Things have gone downhill in recent years and crime has skyrocketed. Over the past 10 years, since the Liberal government has been in office, violent crime has increased by 55%. Gun crime is up 130%. Extortion is up 330%. Homicides are up 29%. Sexual crime is up 76% and auto theft is up 25%. However, the government looked at all that and decided that what we need is new legislation to deal with the issue of hate.”
“In recent years, society seems to have allowed certain companies, or a certain system, to take hold and foment polarization and hatred. I think that today, we have to speak out to protect society. Obviously freedom of expression is essential, but the way we live together as a society is also extremely important. In my opinion, this should once again be part of the debate. The idea that individual freedom should always come first, that small groups should get to monopolize the public arena to promote their opinions because they believe they have something to say, is something I do not agree with. Our goal should be harmonious coexistence and freedom for the majority. The one should not supersede the other, and we must learn to make them coexist. Freedom is not synonymous with chaos.”
“They did not evolve because people isolated themselves, avoided talking to one other and were in constant disagreement. When the individual is put before the collective good, I think society moves in the wrong direction. I also think people have a hard time differentiating between news and facts. Social media, even the major news networks, spreads opinions to get a reaction out of people. People think they are facts, when they are actually opinions. Once again, this polarizes society and means that we no longer listen to each other. Everything moves so fast that we speak before we listen, we form opinions before we know what we are talking about and we condemn people before we even understand the situation. I think that is what society's treatment of hate crimes stems from.”
“Often, people think they are interacting with a person and they try to convince that person, but they are actually trying to convince a robot, whose main objective is to get them to react. Once again, this creates extreme emotions in people and has a very polarizing effect. Once the snowball starts rolling, people either feel alone or think everyone shares their opinion, when, ultimately, the Internet is just telling people what they want to hear. I also think that individualism has become a serious issue. It is as though each person has become the centre of their own universe, and people have largely forgotten about collectivism. (1645) The one thing I did a lot this summer when travelling around Montmorency—Charlevoix was talk about history. Quebec and Canada evolved through collaboration and hard work.”
“The last few years have been extremely unpredictable and much has changed. It feels like things are out of control due to everything that is happening, particularly in terms of the cost of living, inflation, housing, and so on. In my region, things have changed a lot, and that is also true elsewhere. When we look at international politics, we wonder whether the world as we know it is collapsing. This is putting significant stress on society. I think that that leads to increasingly extreme positions. Obviously, the solution is never to go to extremes. I would like to reference a very interesting statistic. Based on what we have seen to date, between 30% and 40% of the content on social media is not created by humans. It is created by artificial intelligence with the aim of getting a reaction.”
“Then it gives us only what we like the most. In fact, our phones are starting to know us better than we know ourselves. We end up believing that everyone thinks the way we do, when the majority of people are more centrist. We would know that if we took the time to talk to one another. There is also the notion of friendship. These days, we do not have as many people in our social circle. Everything happens on social media. We have hundreds, even thousands of friends, but very few know us. I think that is a serious problem. We live in a society that, in my opinion, is very stressful, and there are four well-known stress factors: novelty, unpredictability, lack of control, and damage to self-esteem. When self-esteem is damaged, that causes stress. We live in a world that is extremely stressful.”
“These people take to their keyboards under the cover of anonymity, sometimes with fake accounts, sometimes even using real accounts. They feel they have excessive rights, and they take a stand. They try to create chaos online and they like to attract attention with their opinions, but they are not very knowledgeable. These are just angry and aggressive opinions, which social media loves. I often refer to social media as extreme media. Extremist groups, like social media, are currently designed to activate these relationships, to push them further and make people believe that society is extremely left wing or extremely right wing. Algorithms are designed to show people only what they like, what they give a “like” to, what they watch. Our phone can even analyze our scroll speed and our eye movements and use them as sources of information.”
“I believe we live in an excessively fast-paced society. People have access to information or disinformation in an instant. Quite often, people react very strongly to things they see on social media, such as a photo, a short video or a post. Debates become heated. People take sides and are rooted in their positions. Then they make enemies. Often, it is not just one enemy, but hundreds or even thousands of enemies. A short message on social media can escalate very quickly. Recently, in the United States, there was a video of a woman who took a young boy's baseball from him in a rather surprising interaction. The video was everywhere. The woman was harassed and her life was turned upside down. A small blip on social media can cause a really big stir. There are a lot of what I call “masked vigilantes” online.”
“Madam Speaker, I am always proud to represent the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix. I travelled around my riding all summer and I met with people. I went on a whistle-stop tour of all of the towns. Obviously, people talked to me about the issues that are on their minds right now, particularly access to housing, grocery prices and inflation. They also talked to me about the feeling of safety we have long enjoyed in Montmorency—Charlevoix, as well as in the rest of Quebec and Canada. We live in a safe country. However, people are noticing that that is gradually changing for the worse. In my opinion, Bill C-9 , which seeks to amend the Criminal Code with regard to hate, is well intentioned, but it must be be thoroughly examined. As we consider this bill, I would like to take the time to talk about the reasons why we are where we are today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. Montmorency—Charlevoix is the founding riding of Quebec and Canada. It all started in our riding. Our history is deeply connected to the reality of what it means to be a francophone. It is also connected to the entire English side, including through Murray Bay. How does my Bloc Québécois colleague think that Quebeckers' strong identity can influence Canada? Given the current wave of uncontrolled immigration, how can Quebec's history help define what it means to be Canadian, protect our values and move forward? I think Quebec has a great deal to offer to history.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of this same Liberal government, requests for food assistance are skyrocketing. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, and across the country, food banks are facing an unprecedented increase in demand. Where I come from, our regions have seen a 30% increase in just one year. Food Banks Canada gave Canada a grade of D for food insecurity. The Prime Minister told us to judge him by the cost of groceries. Well, what grade would he give himself? Would it be an F for “food” or an F for “failure”?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government decisions, food inflation is very real. According to Food Banks Canada, 25% of households say they are struggling to put food on the table. This morning's newspaper reported that an elderly woman who worked her entire life is going without food to pay for housing. I spent the summer travelling around Montmorency—Charlevoix, meeting with constituents to hear their concerns; good people who work hard and are struggling to make ends meet. When will the Prime Minister stop obstructing Parliament and table a budget showing lower food prices?”
“Mr. Speaker, last spring, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, there was a citizens' symposium on the subject of how to improve health. Canadians are aware that our policies and systems do not seek to prevent disease. We always wait for something to happen. Sedentary lifestyles and chronic diseases cost taxpayers $3.9 billion and account for nearly 60% of deaths in Canada. This situation could be avoided. It is 2025, and Canada still does not have a national physical activity strategy. How much longer will it take for the Liberal government to act on this important issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, the housing crisis is very real. We are not the only ones affected. Families across Quebec are struggling. A recent study showed that families now spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Low-income families spend as much as 70%. The direct impact is a loss of $4.2 billion for the Quebec economy. The Prime Minister promised to double construction, but housing starts are down 16%. That is not surprising, given all the bureaucracy and red tape developers are facing. Will the Prime Minister start building homes, not bureaucracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our borders must be strong, protected and secure. I am glad we agree on that because it is a topic that comes up a lot in the news. Canadians expect it, and our neighbours to the south have said so as well. They expect borders to be well protected. Why has it come to this after 10 years? Is the government taking action today because people on both sides of the border now expect it to fulfill its responsibilities? Why did it take 10 years of Liberal work to get to this point?”
“Mr. Speaker, when his cabinet was sworn in, the Prime Minister said that Canadians could judge his performance by the cost of groceries. All summer, the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix talked to me about their interests and concerns, and the cost of groceries was at the top of the list. The federal government promised lower prices, but, once again, it is not keeping its promises. One thing is clear: Since the Liberals came to power, the cost of groceries has risen by 40%. When the Prime Minister promised food at a fair price, was that another broken promise?”
“Mr. Speaker, with my limited experience in the House, what I have come to realize is that the Liberal government likes to play “mirror, mirror”. Today, if the promise to save $800 is broken, it is because Canadians misunderstood. They should have understood that it was up to $800. Do members know what is simple to understand and not subject to interpretation? A budget. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, let Canadians know the state of public finances and table his budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the last day in the House before Parliament adjourns for the summer. Let us look at the disastrous record. We have had four weeks of broken promises by the Liberal government, including promises on spending, tax cuts, consultants, national defence and our relationship with the United States. Take tax cuts, for example. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that Canadians will not save $800, but rather $90. Why did the Liberal Party mislead Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, back home in Montmorency—Charlevoix, we need our vehicles. We need them to take our kids to school, to take them to different sports activities, to go to work on our farms and even to explore our vast territory. We also need our ATVs and snowmobiles. Gasoline is not the only way, but it is an effective way that works everywhere. The Liberal government is always holding families back, instead of letting them take charge of their own destiny, develop their own resources, grow our economy and, at the same time, protect the environment around the world. Will the Prime Minister scrap his law to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles and give Canadians freedom of choice?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech. I would like to ask him a question. Does he believe that the government carefully explored all of the options before deciding to focus solely on electric vehicles? For example, we could use our fossil fuels to have a positive environmental impact on the entire planet by selling them and helping other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Does my colleague not agree that it would make more sense to take a holistic approach on a global scale rather than focusing solely on our own domestic policies?”
“Mr. Speaker, almost every major medical association has recognized physical activity as a primary solution for preventing and healing the vast majority of chronic illnesses in our society, including cancer, cardiac disease, lung disease, diabetes and so on. Our country is more sedentary than ever. Our young people are moving less and less and hospitals are at a breaking point. When will the government take a leadership role on physical activity so that we can shift to prevention instead of always waiting to treat illness?”
“Mr. Speaker, since yesterday, the government has been trying to give us lightweight solutions to a problem that has cost taxpayers a lot of money: the ArriveCAN app. The Liberals seem to have made a habit of lighting fires, trying to put them out and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done. The most recent example is the $64‑million fiasco involving public funds given to GC Strategies, a two-person company operating out of a basement. Will the government support the Conservative motion, issue a lifetime ban on GC Strategies and go get Canadians' money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is far wiser and has been here longer than me. Is it common to uncover spending scandals like this, by a government that disrespects taxpayers and helps its friends financially throughout the process? Is that a regular occurrence here in Ottawa?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this type of practice must stop. The motion we are moving today is clear: We want money that was given to Liberal cronies to be paid back. Initially the amount given was $2.35 million and, two years later, that amount was 10 times greater even though, 50% of the time, the company did not even prove that it was able to provide the services it was invoicing. It is high time for this to happen. We must stop this type of practice in the government and start taking the Conservative approach, which relies on logic, discipline and respect.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservatives have a perfect solution for all these problems: less government intervention in personal finances and more freedom for the people of Canada. As we said during our election campaign, we believe that the government needs to be less interventionist and interfere less in order to give people more latitude. If people have more money in their pockets, I think they will be able to make the right decisions to help themselves. They will stop paying for bureaucracy in Ottawa. They will be able to pay for services in their home.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I have noticed during my short time here is that there are a lot of smokescreens. Policies are being presented that sound very nice but that do not provide much help. There is talk of eliminating the GST for first-time home buyers, but that represents a tiny fraction of the population. The major issue is that house prices have skyrocketed. Houses cost $200,000 or $300,000 more, so young people cannot afford them. That is just one example. Another one is that, today, we were told that measures will be taken against companies like GC Strategies. However, it was the government that awarded the contracts in the first place. The government gives preference to its friends and grants them favours. Then it pretends that it is going to do something about it. I think it is high time for change around here.”
“I think we should also add that the people who participated in this wrongdoing should not be encouraged; they should be punished.”
“On average, tech firms expect to make a 15% to 20% profit from their activities. There were six different subcontractors. If we do the math, that means six people each charging a 15% to 20% profit, with another 15% to 30% profit layer on top of that. At that rate, the staggering costs come as no surprise. Canadians demand transparency, competency and a sense of responsibility. The sound management of public finances rests on three pillars: a transparent and competitive bidding process, strict monitoring of every dollar spent, and real, harsh penalties for anyone who recklessly squanders public funds. Our motion is clear. We are calling on the government to get taxpayers their money back within 100 days and ban companies like GCStrategies for life.”
“If we take a closer look at the history, the first contract was for $2.35 million. I personally contacted firms to see if that made sense. I was told it was far-fetched, but that the first contract was still plausible. In 2022, as the whole world was slowly emerging from the crisis, the government awarded GC Strategies a contract that was 10 times bigger, worth $25 million. GC Strategies' employees won the contract by taking part in creating the contract themselves. First they defined the bid criteria, then they submitted their own bid, and then they got the $25‑million contract. Here is another interesting fact: GCStrategies billed an extra 15% to 30% profit margin while subcontracting out the rest of the work. No one down the line was working at cost, without trying to make a profit.”
“More than anything, it became a symbol of gross mismanagement of public funds. The revelations speak for themselves: $100 million was pre-approved for a company with only two employees; $59 million was paid without any real traceability; $20 million was handed over for an app that did not even work; there was no certification process; 46% of the money was paid without any evidence of work being performed. GC Strategies, a two-person company, received contracts from 31 different departments. It got 106 contracts amounting to $92.7 million. When it comes to ArriveCAN, 177 versions were released without any prior testing. That resulted in 10,000 travellers being needlessly quarantined. They suffered lost wages and personal stress for no reason at all. Ethical rules were flouted, and the interests of Canadians were not protected.”
“(1800) There was also the SNC‑Lavalin affair. Our former prime minister intervened directly with the Department of Justice to get a deal for a company that had donated money to his election campaign. Think of the WE Charity scandal, where the Liberals entrusted the management of the Canada student service grant, a $912‑million program, to an organization with ties to the Trudeau family. Another example from around the same time is the Frank Baylis affair. The former Liberal MP's company secured a $237‑million contract to supply ventilators, which was $100 million more than the cost of similar equipment available at the time. Think of ArriveCAN. This app was supposed to help Canadians travel while protecting the population from the potential spread of the virus, but it was a failure. The project was a money pit.”