Gabriel Hardy · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-16

“I want the Prime Minister to cancel spending that isn't working. Their program gives people $16.50 when their groceries cost $1000 more. They are out of touch. I want them to stop plunging Canada into a recession.”

“The Prime Minister says everything is fine but it's not. People can't afford basic things. The government spent too much for years and now people are begging strangers online for money just to get by. Will the Liberals ever take any blame for this mess they helped make?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-15

“Ignore the grocery benefit and foreigners' advice. The real problem is the recession the Liberals caused. I want the Prime Minister to fix that.”

“Families can't afford food. The government is spending too much. It's causing a recession. Does the prime minister plan to keep making shiny speeches and ignoring this problem?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-12

“The Prime Minister spent $159,000 on inflight meals. This shows he doesn't respect taxpayers. He should spend less on himself and cut taxes for Canadians instead of funding his pet projects.”

“The government spent too much during the pandemic and they're overtaxing Canadians now. Liberal economic policies have put us in a bad place. Stop crushing taxpayers and fix your mistakes.”

Oral Questions

Intergovernmental Relations

2026-06-11

“I want the Liberal government to leave provinces alone. They think they're in charge. They don't respect Quebec and Alberta.”

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“I'm frustrated that the Liberals spent more time finding a way to get a majority than working with the opposition. They were supposed to respect our vision, but instead they're just pushing their own agenda. Now we have to work late because the Liberals are trying to rush through bills they didn't work on when they should have.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here. That is not what the Liberals wanted to do. They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge. Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You want me to help you criticize the Liberals? I'll think about it. First I have to complain about how the Liberals are soft on crime.”

“You say rights and freedoms, but I think you mean criminals' rights and freedoms. Your bill adds a loophole to let violent criminals go free. That's a terrible message. Why won't you punish criminals and protect victims like I want?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. When these people talk about rights and freedoms, they are talking about the rights and freedoms of criminals. What about the rights of victims? Where are they? Victims are afraid, and the crime rate is rising. What message is being sent? We are leaving another loophole to allow violent criminals to get off scot-free and to give judges the option not to impose minimum sentences. No, that is not what our country needs. We need a strong justice system that makes it clear to criminals what consequences they will face if they commit a crime. The system must not give them free rein by suggesting that, in the end, they might be able to spend the rest of their lives at home while victims are forced to live in fear. That is a terrible message.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“We're debating this late because the Liberals want to hide their bad bills. They won't let the Privacy Commissioner testify on a privacy bill. They're protecting criminals, not victims. Mandatory minimums are a promise. Breaking that promise will make crime worse. Activists in my riding say this is a real problem.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is 9:45 p.m. in the House right now. Most Canadians are putting their kids to bed, helping them fall asleep, finishing up their day, finishing their evening and getting ready to go to sleep. They are not watching the work of Parliament, and that is exactly what the Liberals want. They are very happy when people are not watching what is happening here, because what the Liberals are doing right now, this evening, is ramming through bills that should be worked on over the course of a year, in collaboration with the opposition parties, in order to finally get everyone's agreement. It is not about getting their bills passed. It is about getting bills passed that all Canadians can relate to. Instead of doing that, they worked very hard to cobble together a majority behind the scenes, only to end up falling behind and trying to save what they can by speeding things up and making MPs sit in Parliament until midnight to try to get their bills passed. If you want a concrete example of what is happening right now and how the government operates, then just look at what is happening at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with Bill C-22. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is a completely independent individual, an officer of Parliament, whose job is specifically to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, has asked to testify on Bill C-22, a bill that will require electronic service providers to retain everyone's metadata for one year so that the government can access it. We are talking about Internet browsing history, phone numbers, the devices we use, and the people we are with. The commissioner said that this bill falls squarely within her mandate, that she has genuine concerns about Canadians' privacy, and that she wanted to testify. Parliament has a procedure known as “unanimous consent”. Any member can request it. It means that we now all agree to do something. Conservative members have requested unanimous consent to have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada participate in reviewing the bill. The Liberals refused. How strange. So the Conservatives tried a different tack. They moved to suspend a study of this clause in order to study it a short time later so that the commissioner could participate. Once again, the Liberals voted against it. There were two attempts and two refusals. The Liberals are forcing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into silence to essentially stop her from protecting the rights of Canadians, whom she protects every day. This is not a procedural matter. This is a government that fears transparency. We see that on many issues, and we are seeing it right now with the massive Bill C-16. It contains some good things, and I am going to talk about that, but it also contains a little poison pill that needs to be discussed. It is important to understand that, when we vote on a bill, we are not just voting on a single one of its lines. We are voting on the whole document. As I was saying, there are some good things about this bill. Making sure that the killing of an intimate partner is automatically classified as first-degree murder is a very good thing. Our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is the one who suggested that. The bill seeks to ban deepfakes of intimate images. Once again, it was a Conservative member who suggested that. These are good things about the bill. However, unfortunately, this bill contains clause 63, and when it comes time to vote, we have to vote on the whole bill, including that provision. What does that provision say? As things now stand in Parliament, elected representatives have said that, if someone commits a serious crime, then they should go to prison for a predetermined minimum number of years with no exceptions. If a person commits a crime, then they know what they are facing. This is called a mandatory minimum sentence. It is the lower limit. It cannot get any lower than that. That is guaranteed. That is a promise that Parliament made to victims, that their perpetrators will have to face real consequences. However, clause 63, which the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-16, breaks that promise by saying that, if a judge considers the minimum sentence to be too harsh for a particular defendant, then the judge can disregard it and impose a lighter sentence. The Liberals want this new approach to apply to all or nearly all serious crimes in Canada, including aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, human trafficking, shootings and weapons trafficking, just to name a few. Minimum sentences will not be required in any of those cases. Making minimum sentences optional for these crimes is really bad. Canadians are afraid, and rightly so. After a decade of Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assault has increased by 76%, and violent crime has increased by 55%. These are not just statistics on a page; these are families. These are women, these are children, these are victims. These are communities like mine, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, where people get up in the morning, work hard, raise their children and expect the government to protect them. Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing in response to rising violent crime across the country? They are introducing a bill that makes it easier for judges to hand down lighter sentences to people who commit serious crimes. Why are they doing all this? Do they want better incarceration statistics? Who are they doing this for? It is certainly not for victims and their families. Why are the Liberals always telling the House that criminals have rights, but never talking about victims' rights and what happens to them? It is an awful thing to behold. I am going to talk about what is actually happening in prisons right now. These are not theories. These are facts. Everything I am about to say is connected. Chapter one begins in 2019. With Bill C‑83, the Liberals ended the use of administrative segregation for the most violent inmates. Instead, these inmates, who are violent in prison, have comfortable living quarters and access to psychologists, nurses, even pet therapy and social support. How nice. All of this is funded by taxpayers. Chapter two begins in 2022. With Bill C‑5, the Liberals abolished minimum sentences for crimes involving firearms. Judges began imposing community service sentences on men and women who commit crimes involving illegal weapons, as well as gun smugglers and repeat offenders. One judge even wrote that he had to hold his nose after handing down the sentence he was obligated to impose. Now we are on chapter three. Bill C‑16 would basically make all remaining mandatory minimum sentences optional. At Donnacona, a prison located about 40 minutes from my riding, there have been four murders in less than a year. The wardens wrote to me. I speak to them regularly. They contact me. They say that there are illegal weapons coming in and that the number of violent criminals is going up. They talk about cleaning up blood and then having to go on with their day, pretending everything is normal. They tell me about the stress they are under every day. The correctional officers' union says that over 350 positions are vacant nationwide because officers are under so much stress at work these days that they are dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut back on the number of officers on the job, but that decision would heap even more pressure on the remaining officers. That is what is going on. Violent criminals are violent on the streets but also behind bars. Criminals who are violent when they are free are also violent when they are incarcerated, yet the Liberals want to reduce these people's sentences. What message does that send? I was sent here to the House by the citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix, but not to rubber-stamp bills on autopilot, nor to remain silent while the government strips away the tools that protect my constituents and the entire population of Quebec. The federal government should excel at a few things and stay out of matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Canadian laws are certainly something citizens should be able to trust, and our work here in Ottawa is important in that regard. We should focus on those matters, the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. The real danger to citizens, however, is not bound by ideology. When Parliament establishes a mandatory minimum sentence, it makes a promise. Elected representatives—people accountable to voters who are not appointed for life, people whom voters have chosen to send here—made a promise to defend them in Parliament. When section 63 of the bill allows a judge to circumvent that promise, it weakens not only politics, but our entire image and the public's trust in our institutions. The important thing to understand is that it is not my point of view that matters, but that of the people. Their opinion counts. Perhaps it is time for the Liberals to start listening to the people. I am going to tell Canadians exactly what happened in committee. We moved amendment 22. We said that, at the very least, the safety valve, the escape hatch from mandatory minimum sentences, should not apply to someone who already has a criminal record. We moved amendment 25. We said that sexual offences against children and serious drug trafficking offences should be completely excluded from the lightest sentences. Children deserve to be protected. In moving amendments 25.2 and 25.3, we said that aggravated sexual assault and extortion should also not be eligible for this safety valve. We also moved amendment 29, which had nothing to do with sentences. We just said that when an offender is convicted of intimate partner violence and released on parole, the victim should be automatically notified. Every one of our amendments was defeated. I will stop there. Families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are watching what is happening. Quebeckers and Canadians are watching too. The government cannot make Canada safer by making criminals more comfortable.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-08

“The economy is getting worse. I want to blame the Prime Minister and the Liberals for the recession. Three slow quarters out of four is really bad.”

“We want to say the economy is bad because of the other party. We want the Prime Minister to admit there is a recession.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-04

“Housing costs are rising fast. The Liberals should do more to help young families afford homes and live with dignity. The government should stop helping bankers and start helping regular people.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is what real people are facing, as described in a message from Matis, a young Quebecker who wrote to me this week: I just wanted to tell you that many of my generation are starting to lose faith in the idea that we will ever become homeowners. Housing prices, rents, and the cost of living are rising so fast that I feel like I am chasing something unattainable. We are not out to get rich. We just want to be able to live with dignity after working hard. We want to build a future without constant financial stress. We are in a full-blown recession. The Liberals' economic plan is not working. When are they going to give young people a little hope? When will they stop governing for the bankers and start governing for the people?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the Prime Minister to admit his economic management failed. Canada is in a recession under him. I listed many bad economic results under his government. I want one simple yes or no answer from him.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-03

“The Prime Minister didn't answer enough of our leader's questions. I demand he stand up and admit our recession is his fault.”

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-05-29

“I want taxpayers to spend less on gun control programs. I want the government to spend money on mental health and border safety instead.”

Oral Questions

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

2026-05-29

“I want the government to stop spending so much on health care for asylum seekers. Taxpayers are paying for this but not getting enough themselves.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“You take too much pride in destroying Canada's identity and values.”

“The budget for asylum seekers' health care will grow to $1.5 billion per year. That money comes from taxpayers. Should we spend all that money on non-citizens when our own citizens can't even get a doctor?”