MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Gabriel Hardy

Follow by RSS

Hardy presses the government on the cost of living, housing and deficits, arguing debt-financed cheques “saddle our young people with debt”, questions the growth of the interim federal health program toward $1.5 billion a year, and scrutinizes online safety legislation to protect children while keeping parents in charge. He builds his case on constituents’ stories — a sheet metal worker priced out of the homes he installs vents in, a nursing assistant who cannot retire — backed with figures like deficit projections and grocery costs.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 81 statements
Signal 76 / 100
Relevance 72 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 81 of 96 statements graded so far.

Statements 96

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Quebec gave out over 167,000 federal work permits in 2023, and thousands of asylum seekers arriving there cannot speak French or English. I want the government to explain why its broken system is threatening the French language in Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, federal work permits in Quebec amounted to more than 167,000 in 2023. Meanwhile, thousands of asylum seekers are arriving in Quebec unable to speak French or English. In your opinion, is it acceptable for your broken system to threaten the survival of French in Quebec?

“There will be around 300,000 asylum claims waiting for a decision by March 2026. Can the current system still handle all of these applications?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada expected close to 300,000 outstanding asylum claims by the end of March 2026. Is the former government’s existing system still capable of processing applications, yes or no?

“The government cut this number by 71%. I want them to admit that there was a problem before. If there was no problem, why did they need to cut it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, so they reduced the number by 71%. Do they acknowledge that there was a problem before? Why is it important to reduce that number now? Clearly, there is a problem.

“In 2023, 163,000 asylum seekers came to Quebec. That is more people than live in Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières. I want the minister to explain how the system is working.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, in 2023, Quebec had 163,000 asylum seekers. This is more than the population of Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières. How can the minister call this a system that works?

“Did the minister just tell me that this federal health program is actually run by the provinces?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it seems that the interim federal health program falls under provincial jurisdiction. Is that really what she just told me?

“The government is spending almost 900 million dollars on health care for asylum seekers, including those who were rejected. They get dental care and therapy that many Canadians cannot get, while six million Canadians do not have a family doctor. I want the minister to say if this is acceptable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the interim federal health program has grown from $211 million to $896 million over four years. Asylum seekers whose claims have been denied in this country receive dental care, physical therapy, and all other services that even our own population does not have access to. In fact, 6 million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. Does the minister find this acceptable?

“The Supreme Court made Quebec give cheap child care to asylum seekers, even though some Quebeckers cannot get a spot. I want the minister to tell me if Quebec has the right to overrule that court decision.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, on March 26, the Supreme Court forced Quebec to extend its $10-a-day child care to asylum seekers even though some Quebeckers still do not even have a spot. That is completely unacceptable. Does the minister affirm Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause to regain control, yes or no?

“Canada agreed to let Quebec control immigration and integration within its borders. The government broke this agreement by sending too many immigrants to Quebec, so Quebec cannot properly integrate them or teach them French. I want to know if the minister still respects our agreement.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the Canada-Quebec accord gives Quebec responsibility for accepting and integrating immigrants within its borders. In 2018, the Liberal government circumvented the spirit of the Canada-Quebec accord through the international mobility program to impose such excessive immigration volumes that Quebec is no longer able to properly integrate these individuals and teach them French. Do you still respect the Canada-Quebec accord, minister?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“Millions of Canadians cannot afford enough food, but the Prime Minister spent over $520,000 on luxury airplane meals. I want to know why he expects Canadians to sacrifice while he does not.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians have been lining up at food banks in just one month, our Prime Minister has spent more than $520,000 on inflight meals provided by luxury caterers. This year, 22% of Canadians have lost weight because they cannot afford enough to eat. Meanwhile, 40,000 feet up in the air, our Prime Minister is being served beef tenderloin with bordelaise sauce, veal cutlets, Scottish salmon, crème brûlée, and fine wines. When the Liberals tell Canadians they have to make sacrifices, do the Prime Minister and his inner circle consider themselves Canadians, or do they think they are above that?

Statements by Members ·

150th anniversary of a golf club

“The Murray Bay Golf Club in Charlevoix is celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is the oldest golf club in North America still in its original location. I congratulate the club and its volunteers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in 1876, visionary men and women planted a flag in the heart of Charlevoix to lay the groundwork for a project that would span generations and inspire respect. Well, today, I would like to tell them that they did, in fact, succeed. The Murray Bay Golf Club is celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is still standing, still alive and proud to be in Charlevoix. It is the oldest golf club to still operate in the same location in North America. It is much more than just a golf course. It is a symbol of our history, our community and sports tourism, and it is a great source of pride for Charlevoix and for Canada as a whole. The Murray Bay Golf Club has welcomed American presidents such as William Howard Taft, living legends such as Mario Lemieux and, above all, people from Charlevoix who, generation after generation, come to enjoy this beautiful sport. I commend the president, Claude Turcotte, the executive director, Marc Villeneuve, and all the volunteers who carry the torch year after year. I wish the Murray Bay Golf Club a happy 150th anniversary.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The government is spending too much money, and the deficit will stay high for years. They also created a debt fund that another country refused to call a wealth fund because it was built on debt. Does the minister know this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the minister would mention fiscal responsibility. The deficit is forecasted to be $65 billion in 2027, $63.5 billion in 2028, $58 billion in 2029, $56 billion in 2030 and $53 billion in 2031. Under the previous prime minister, we had a $31-billion deficit. The Liberals boast about their fiscal responsibility, but I think they should show a bit more restraint. I am going to ask another question and go back to the one I asked earlier. The Liberals have created a sovereign debt fund. Are they aware that the British Parliament tried the same thing but refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because it was built on debt? Is the minister aware of that?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“I want the minister to answer my question in French. The government has already run the largest deficits in Canadian history, and they plan to keep doing it. Why do they need more money when they have already spent more than any past government?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I asked the question in French. Perhaps the minister should get his answer translated more quickly. I would prefer to get an answer in French. The people listening to us would prefer to hear answers in the same language the question was asked in. It was just mentioned that the government ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. Not only that, but the government will continue to run bigger deficits for the next five years. The Liberals’ first instinct was to charge $25 billion to Canadians’ credit card to create a sovereign debt fund. Why are they trying to get even more money when they have spent more than any other government in the history of our country?

In response to a question from François-Philippe Champagne

“The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer says our debt will keep growing over the next few years. I want to know if the government thinks his numbers are wrong.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 35 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I do not need a clip. I think people like to know what is going on over here and get informed through clips. That is how they learn about the government’s out-of-control spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. I have just been told that we are dealing with independent officers, people who are being independently monitored. That is great. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the debt-to-GDP ratio will increase by 43.7% by 2030. Is he way off the mark or is that some bad news?

“The government has a $66.9-billion deficit this year and plans to run huge deficits for five more years. I want the minister to answer when this level of spending will stop.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister has been taking questions for a little over three hours now, but we have not gotten any real answers so far, just a lot of hot air. I will stick to the facts. We want to avoid being partisan, so we will stick to the facts. It is a fact that we have a $66.9-billion deficit this year. That is the biggest deficit in the history of the country, outside of the pandemic. What is worse, the Liberals are planning to spend an average of $59 billion per year for the next five years. They will rack up a deficit of $59 billion per year for the next five years. My question for the minister is very simple. At what point does it become unacceptable to burn through taxpayers’ money like that?

Oral Questions ·

Youth

“The government spent $41 million on a major projects office that has not started anything. High living costs, expensive housing, and higher taxes have made life hard, and young people cannot find jobs. I want the government to stop overspending and fix the economy for young people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps talking about building major projects, but the Major Projects Office has spent $41 million without starting a single project. The cost of living is skyrocketing, home ownership is increasingly out of reach and jobs for young people are now scarce. There are no jobs in retail, no jobs in restaurants and no jobs in hospitality. After 11 years of raising taxes, adding bureaucracy and driving our country into debt, the Prime Minister has the gall to tell our young people that they have to make sacrifices and to tell Canadians that life has never been so affordable. When will the Liberals put down the national credit card and start making decisions that will secure our young people’s future?

“The government is spending too much money while young people cannot find work. Youth unemployment has gone up from about 12% to nearly 19%. I want the Prime Minister to start focusing on young people and their future.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years at the helm, the Liberals would have us believe that it is normal to run deficits in excess of $60 billion a year. While the Liberals are spending billions of dollars, Quebeckers are counting every penny. A new Fraser Institute report confirms that Canada is facing a real youth unemployment crisis. In 2022, the youth unemployment rate was 12.3%. Now it is close to 19%. This is unprecedented outside of a recession. Will the very Liberal Prime Minister finally start putting our young people and their future at the heart of this country’s decisions?

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“I oppose the government spending billions of dollars on a high-speed train. We do not know how much tickets or upkeep will cost, and it will use tax money to compete with airlines. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for it for generations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, it is a grand idea. Canada is going to build a high-speed rail system at the taxpayers’ expense. California is currently trying it out. It has already cost $300 billion, and it is not over yet. Here, they say it will cost $90 billion, but they do not say how much a ticket will cost. They are selling a project, but they are not saying how many people will be on it or how much it will cost to maintain. We already have airlines operating between Toronto and Montreal and between Montreal and Quebec City. They pay taxes and create jobs. Now the government is going to take responsibility for this and use public funds to compete with the private sector. What is more, the government is not telling people how much it will cost to ride this infamous train. It may turn out to be more expensive and less efficient than flying. Families will not use that train, but they will be paying for it their whole lives, for generations to come.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberals claim to have a wealth fund, but they are paying for it with debt. They spend too much without asking Canadians, and they are putting our country deeper into debt every year. We will lose an average of $55 billion a year over the next five years. It is a mistake to gamble with public money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 92 of 100

    Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always rather funny to hear our Liberal colleagues speaking to us as though their words are actually backed up by results. They talk about a wealth fund, meaning a fund containing wealth, but it is actually financed through debt. I said that the British Parliament refused to call it that. It was not the Conservatives in Canada who did so, but the British Parliament. The Prime Minister was an adviser on the project. He was told it would not be called that. The other thing my colleague just said is that Canadians are not being given the chance to make a decision. Indeed, that is what the Liberals have been doing for the past 11 years. They spend without restraint. They impose their decisions on Canadians by telling them that it is the right thing to do and that they have nothing to worry about, but we go further into debt year after year. Things are not getting any better. The country’s finances are not getting any better. Over the next five years, we will lose an average of $55 billion a year. They want us to believe that money will suddenly start growing on trees and everything will be fine. That is gambling with taxpayers’ money, and it is a mistake.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“The Prime Minister is calling this a sovereign wealth fund, but it is not one. It is funded by debt. England made the same kind of fund when the Prime Minister worked there, and they did not call it a sovereign wealth fund. He knows better, and calling it that is a mistake.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 88 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund”.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is very odd. In 2024, England set up a fund exactly like that. It was a fund directly financed with debt. The British Parliament refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because that is not what it was. The term does exist, and it applies in some countries, such as Norway. However, the concept we are discussing is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Oddly enough, our current Prime Minister was a consultant. He was there to help the British Parliament put that in place. He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund. He is using the term, but not the concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.

“The government is spending and borrowing too much money while life gets more expensive for Canadians. It wastes billions on outside consultants, bureaucracy, and broken computer projects. I want the government to stop this waste, cut back its spending, and leave more money with taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Riding Mountain. On April 28, the Minister of Finance proudly tabled his economic update. He talked about “Canada Strong”. He repeats that line every week in the House. The 167‑page update includes billions of dollars in spending, $25 billion for a sovereign debt fund, strategies, programs and announcements on top of announcements. In Parliament, the government was talking about ambition. Meanwhile, on April 28, people in Baie‑Saint‑Paul, Saint‑Hilarion, Beaupré, Boischatel, L’Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Île d’Orléans and in Montmorency—Charlevoix were going about their daily lives. Families were worried about their grocery bills. Young couples were holding off on buying their first home. Seniors were counting down the days until their next pension cheque. Workers were wondering how they were going to be able to pay their mortgage at the end of the month. These are the two realities that we are facing here in Canada in 2026. In Ottawa, the government talks to us about billions of dollars; in Quebec, however, people talk to us about dollars. I am rising today to make a connection between these two realities. To hear the Liberals talk in the House, it seems like all is well, yet Canadians know the truth, because they live with it daily. They go to the grocery store and see that things are more expensive. They go to the gas station and gas seems a lot more expensive too. When the time comes to pay their rent, mortgage or credit card, they see that something is wrong. I would like to talk about credit card budgets. The government talks about discipline, caution and responsibility, but let us look at the facts through the eyes of an an impartial third party. Claude Lavoie is not a Conservative. He was director-general of economic studies at Finance Canada. He said this: It’s not that the GDP is doing better. It’s more that we took in more revenue [including from gas taxes, because gas is expensive, so it brings in more money] and spent a little less by deferring certain expenses. In other words, the programs that were announced were not delivered, the money was not spent and people were taxed more. Now, the government is telling us that public finances have been carefully managed and that it has kept its promises. No, the government did not keep its promises at all. Not only did it not spend the money, but it imposed more taxes. It is also important to note that the Liberals are projecting an average deficit of $55 billion over five years. Things are not going well when it comes to taxation. The Conservatives are calling this a credit card budget. Basically, the government is paying the bills with the national credit card. Then, Canadians are forced to pay their bills with their own personal credit cards. That is why everything costs more. It is because when the Liberals spend without any limit, prices, interest rates and mortgages all go up and families get poorer. Today, the interest on the debt costs more than all of the health transfers to all the provinces. We were talking about health transfers. The interest on the debt costs more than all of that. Imagine. Every dollar people spend on federal taxes when they make a purchase goes toward paying bankers and bondholders. It does not go toward paying doctors and nurses, let alone supporting patients. Meanwhile, Canadians are skipping meals. There are parents who work full time. Some even work overtime, like Kevin, who called me this week to talk about his situation. He even shared his story with QUB Radio through tears. That is the reality for hard-working citizens who can no longer make ends meet. It is not that these people are not putting in the resources, the work or the effort. It is that they simply can no longer survive under Liberal rule, which takes everything from them. There are seniors living on $2,000 a month. How is anyone supposed to get by on $2,000 a month? The Prime Minister told us that affordability is the best it has ever been, but people do not live in press releases. They live in the real world. I would like to discuss something else that was announced: the sovereign debt fund. Despite inflation and the cost of living crisis, the government found a way to borrow $25 billion to create a gimmicky sovereign debt fund. The government talks about Norway and says that it will follow the Norwegians’ approach. It cannot be serious. Norway built its sovereign wealth fund by developing its resources and became wealthy by selling these resources. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is worth $3.5 trillion Canadian. It achieved this by developing its resources, not by going into debt and borrowing money. What is the Canadian government doing? Instead of using surpluses, it is taking on more debt to create the illusion of a sovereign wealth fund when that is not what it actually is. Basically, it is as if our neighbour boasted about opening up a savings account and depositing money into it but failed to mention that he used his credit card for the deposit. Ultimately, it is not a terrible idea, although what is most concerning is that the government refuses to even say how much this fund is going to cost per year. It is the flagship measure in its economic announcement, its economic update, but it refuses to say what the real annual cost will be. When a government refuses to say how much its key measure will cost, that is not transparency; it is a warning about what is to come. It shows what Canadians are going to experience in the coming years. While the government is asking people to tighten their belts and telling young people to make sacrifices, we are seeing money fly off in every direction. The government is investing at least $90 billion in Alto, a high-speed train project that the Minister of Finance recused himself from, or at least, he was supposed to. After 18 hours of Liberal monologues, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was finally able to call the minister to answer questions. The government is investing close to $1 billion in the program to confiscate legal, registered guns. The government is going to spend nearly $1 billion to take those guns away, when they are clearly not the problem. The government spends $20 billion a year on outside consultants. It has hired 100,000 public servants over the past 10 years, and yet it still has to spend more than $20 billion a year on consultants. It has spent $65 billion on bureaucracy, which just keeps expanding. It spent $42 million in just one year on the Major Projects Office, which has not recommended a single project since it was created. Meanwhile, Canadian families are still having to choose between paying for groceries, paying the rent and putting gas in their cars. That is why the priority really lies elsewhere for the Conservatives. Our priority is to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, not in the pockets of consultants, not in the pockets of well-connected insiders and not in the coffers of poorly managed megaprojects. We want to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. I mentioned mismanaged projects. One that comes to mind straightaway is Cúram. Cúram is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. In fact, we have not talked about it enough, and it needs to be discussed. It was in the budget. It is a computer system that was supposed to modernize pension payments, but what actually happened was that tens of thousands of seniors did not receive their cheques. These are people who worked all their lives, paid their taxes and trusted the government. What did the government do? In its economic update, with the trust of Canadians, it threw another $473 million at this fiasco. The total cost of creating this software was estimated at $1.75 billion, yet it has apparently surpassed $7 billion. That is what we are learning, because we are finding out more every day. The cost increased by 277%, for a cost overrun of $5.25 billion. That is what the Liberals’ idea of sound and effective management of public finances. It gets even worse. It might seem like this must be the end, but it is not, because there was also an internal memo forbidding public servants from telling seniors who were not receiving their cheques that the problem was caused by the new software. Two days after the economic update was released and the additional $473 million thrown at this fiasco was discovered, the government used its majority to block the opposition’s requests for parliamentary documents. Every day when a sitting of the House of Commons opens, the Speaker stands up and says, “Let the doors be opened”. Basically, the Speaker is telling the citizens to enter the people’s House. However, when opposition parties ask questions, those doors close. That is not transparency. That is certainly not accountability. I would, however, like to mention one good thing about the economic update, and that is sport. When something good is being done, we should be able to acknowledge it. The investments in amateur sport and sports federations are excellent news. It is too bad that we cannot vote on just one measure, because everyone agrees with that one. That is not a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but a Canadian point of view. The investments in sport and physical activity are good investments. That said, this measure is aimed primarily at the young people, families and volunteers who spend their evenings at rinks and fields. I look forward to seeing how direct support will be delivered to our teams on the ground. People can trust me because I am able to point out what is being done right. I am not just being partisan when I make a judgment and say that bad things are happening. Our role is not just to criticize or oppose; it is also to put forward proposals. Conservatives believe that a government should live by the same rules as Canadian families. When money is tight, choices have to be made. The government should cut waste, reduce unnecessary spending and respect workers’ money, because every dollar spent comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that needs to be respected. I will conclude on that note. The government needs to cut spending on consultants, trim the bureaucracy, put an end to mismanaged projects, cut waste and stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The government also needs to excel in the few areas where the Canadian federation requires its involvement, namely borders, the armed forces, the justice system, a strong dollar and strong interprovincial trade. This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our constituents live in a prosperous country and feel that that is their reality.