Cheryl Gallant
Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground. Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes.”
“The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative.”
“Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis.”
“However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9 , the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate. The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list.”
“This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Cheryl Gallant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“With every backroom deal he makes and with every Italian holiday he takes, Canadians are watching him. A day will come when his polling numbers start to falter and Canadians will ask, where is the beef?”
“The Prime Minister would rather twist himself into a pretzel than give a straight answer. With each flip and each flop, he strains his credibility, not just with Canadians but with foreign leaders, allies and enemies alike. As he departs on his 27th foreign trip, he leaves behind a worsening economy and a deteriorating balance sheet. Meanwhile, the economic carnage adds up. Tens of thousands of public servants are laid off so he can give billions in corporate welfare to Brookfield. Lumber and steel mills continue to shutter. Our auto industry is out of gas. In a few weeks, he will hike taxes on carbon and alcohol. Our economy is shrinking while he is off to secure his next meaningless strategic partnership. His failure to secure a deal for our cattle producers is a warning that every Canadian should heed. His time is running out.”
“Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that and try to think of another word. He builds his majority coalition, which is too afraid to face its constituents. I withdrew. There is an alternative approach. Instead of selling cynical policies, we can provide hope. I encourage Canadians to watch the Conservative leader 's recent speech in London. They will see a politician who is not afraid to defend his beliefs in free trade and free markets, a leader who reaches for optimism, not cynicism, a leader who will give it to us straight. The Prime Minister said he would explore the variable geometry of our alliances. We saw how he tried to square that one in Iran. He then tried to triangulate with the anti-American elements in caucus. All that Canadians saw was him going around in circles.”
“They will believe it right up until the minute they learn that the company they work for was underbid for a government contract by a company in the United Kingdom. That does not just make them lose faith in Liberal politicians. It makes them lose faith in democracy. The Prime Minister chose a cynical approach because he is a coward. He could not find the courage to defend his beloved consumer carbon tax. He hides behind buy Canadian slogans while signing strategic partnerships to buy communist. He builds his majority coalition of cowards—”
“Those enriched by globalization have used their wealth and privilege to enact policies that make the situation worse. They erect new gates and hire tens of thousands of new gatekeepers to protect the value of their assets. They outsource compassion and charity to the state, freeing up their time to earn more money while workers lose time stuck in traffic, commuting from affordable exurbs such as Arnprior. It used to be that a single blue-collar worker could provide enough income to own a home and raise a family. Now every family needs two incomes just to cover the Liberal tax bill. Many of the hard-working Canadians in my riding and in ridings just like it are proud Canadians who will hear the Prime Minister 's promise of buy Canadian and believe it.”
“The bill would bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement, but one of the major provisions of this deal is that we cannot have procurement policies that discriminate against companies from partner countries. The Prime Minister knows this very well, yet he is willing to bet that the bought-and-paid-for media will never call him out on this. This is a profound mistake. What is worse is that the mistake has been made before. The Davos classes learned nothing from the nationalist backlash to globalization. All too often, cynical politicians have used trade agreements as political cover instead of doing the hard work of defending the principle of free trade. The benefits of globalization have not been fairly shared.”
“It picked a self-professed globalist for its new leader but then ran on an overtly protectionist and national campaign platform while denouncing the protectionist national U.S. President. To much fanfare and fawning headlines, the Liberals announced they were implementing a new buy Canadian policy. Here is what the Prime Minister said during the announcement of this cynical policy: “Canada's public procurement is following outdated rules of free trade order that no longer exists.” (1115) This is another example of how the Prime Minister 's soaring rhetoric puts him over his skis. How can he claim that free trade order no longer exists while tabling a bill to expand the free trade order?”
“That we could have a strategic partnership with both China and Japan or with the EU and an EU member is telling. Canadians are right to ask, “Where's the beef?” These fake agreements are all bun and no patty. The term “strategic partnership” is a major victory for the consultant class. It sounds meaningful, but it signifies nothing. It is the empty suit of international agreements. It is the perfect metaphor for the Prime Minister : all hat and no cattle. Aside from this bill being a painful reminder of the government's failure to support farmers, it opens another window into the government's latest gaslighting of Canadians. The cynicism of the Liberal Party can be quite shocking at times.”
“On the Prime Minister 's fourth international junket, he signed a new strategic partnership with the European Union. On his sixth trip, he signed a strategic partnership agreement with Poland, which, last we checked, is in fact part of that European Union. On his ninth trip, he signed a strategic partnership with Mexico, Mexico of course being a country that we have two trade deals with, both CUSMA and the trans-Pacific partnership. On his 21st trip, he infamously formed a strategic partnership with the Communists who control China. He even promised this partnership would lead us to a brave new world order. Just this month, he signed a new strategic partnership with Japan. Unfortunately for my grandsons, there was no promise of a Super Mario World order in that agreement.”
“Of all the people we would expect to understand the leverage Canada has over the U.K., we would think it would be the U.K.'s former central banker, yet despite these four meetings and another planned for this weekend, there has been no deal reached to end this unfair treatment. Maybe all those years living in the U.K. have given our Prime Minister a preference for furry Scottish beef. We can only speculate. After all, it was the Prime Minister who sold himself to Canadians as the ultimate insider, with his central banker superpowers of negotiation, yet despite holding all the cards, he keeps folding. His 24 foreign trips as Prime Minister have been a capitulation carnival. Only one new trade deal has been reached, but do not worry, Canada, we have six new strategic partnerships.”
“does not approve of a carcass wash applied at Canadian processing plants. The U.K. also opposes growth promotants in beef or pork production. These objections are not rooted in scientific evidence. They have evolved to keep Canadian products out of the U.K. market. The results are clear. In 2024, the U.K. exported over $42 million to the Canadian market. That same year, we exported $25,000 in beef to the U.K. That is not free trade. That is not fair trade. This is another Liberal failure. In the last 360 days, our anglophile Prime Minister has met with the U.K. Prime Minister at least four times. That is not even including their late-night phone calls sharing the latest London gossip. Since the U.K. left the European Union, its five successive prime ministers have been desperately searching for new trade partners.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the cattle producers in the farm-filled riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-13 , an act to bring the United Kingdom into the trans-Pacific partnership. Canadians who were watching TV in the 1980s may remember a popular Wendy's commercial that asked a simple question, “Where's the beef?” It was such an effective commercial that the slogan became a cultural catchphrase for a lack of substance. For beef producers in my riding and across the country who look at this bill, the question, “Where's the beef?” is quite literal. For over a decade now, the Liberal government has failed to reach a deal with the United Kingdom to end the unfair treatment of Canadian beef. This bill is our leverage to end the U.K.'s non-tariff barriers on our beef. Currently, the U.K.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the increase in the number of hate crimes. I believe it has gone up 85% since 2016. It all started with this division, inequality and exclusion. It divided Canadians. It seems like it was done intentionally. Over the last 10-plus years, does the member think that perhaps the government was intentionally trying to divide Canadians, foment hatred, so it could bring in Bill C-9 and use it to muzzle us?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, presented by the freedom-loving residents of the great Conservative riding of Markham—Unionville , who up until recently have been left without a proper voice to raise this serious issue in the House. The petitioners are calling on the government to immediately denounce the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong, oppose sanctions against the CCP and take stronger measures to protect practitioners in Canada and around the world and against CCP's brutal global campaign to silence and ultimately eradicate Falun Gong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two petitions. First, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the great law-abiding, family-loving property owners of my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The law-abiding petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to immediately amend section 35 of the Criminal Code of Canada to enshrine the fundamental right to the inviolability of one's home, also called the castle doctrine, for all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we can save taxpayers a lot of money if we just vote against this bill. One less bureaucracy is going to be one less notch in every taxpayer's bill. Let us save taxpayers' money, so they can set aside enough money for a down payment to buy and own their own home.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is bang on. The Liberals just keep on talking about housing. We are talking about building homes. When renters have to stay being renters and cannot set aside enough for a down payment because the rent keeps on going up, that means at the end of the day they are going to have smaller families, and their families are not going to be able to have the foundation because they are paying rent too. They will never get the amount of money to set aside and buy a home themselves, because the prices keep on going up. This affects the whole economy. A good economy begins with home ownership, and the Liberals are bereft of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want government to get out of the way. Development fees form a big chunk of what the cost of a house is. We need to control spending so that interest rates do not keep on going up and up. Builders tell me that they are not building on spec anymore. They are tired of ending up being landlords. What they want to see is interest rates go down and the cost cut by cutting the development fees, so individual families themselves can make down payments and afford a mortgage to own the home themselves.”
“Over $1 billion was spent in the last eight years, and not a single program has even reached a passing grade after eight years of that 10-year plan. Liberals continue to fail the housing test, but Canadians pay the price. Only Conservatives can be trusted to get the government out of the way so Canadians can build the homes they need and the homes they want.”
“Conservatives and Liberals can agree that everyone deserves a home. Where we differ is on who should own that home. With Bill C-20 , the Liberals continue to believe that government knows best. They believe government should be the landlord of first and last resort. It was not always this way. In 1942, the Liberal government passed the Veterans' Land Act. Here is how the government described the law at the time: The purpose of the Veterans' Land Act is to assist veterans toward the full ownership of rural homes Bill C-20 would do nothing to increase home ownership. All the bill would do is create new bureaucracy to duplicate the work of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Canada Lands Company. It does not matter how many new bureaucracies the Liberals build; the Liberal record is clear.”
“They would own nothing, be happy and be socialist subjects, or so the government thought. The problem is the owning nothing part. While the Prime Minister is burning as much CO2 as he can, flying around the world to avoid Parliament, I suggest he stop in Peru to have a conversation with its new prime minister, Hernando de Soto. Prior to becoming prime minister, de Soto was an internationally acclaimed economist. His research proved how important property rights and a legal system to protect those rights were to economic development. As the Prime Minister seeks to undermine Canada's law protecting property rights to build his high-speed white whale, he should visit de Soto's writings. De Soto proved with facts and figures what Cicero knew 2,000 years ago, that owning a home is the path to prosperity.”
“The units must also respect the heritage and legacy of the Algonquin peoples and respect the military heritage of the site. It is not enough for the Liberals to build affordable housing. It has to be progressive housing. It has to be the type of housing our Laurentian elite think we should live in. Mixed-use apartments with no vehicle parking are the Liberals' platonic progressive ideal. The problem is that most Canadians looking to buy a house want a single-family home to call their own. They do not want a 99-year rental agreement with a government always chasing the latest left-wing fad. This ideological housing policy was popular in the Soviet Union. It had the progressive notion that by building socialist Soviet communities, it would build better socialist citizens.”
“Two years ago, the Liberal government announced it was seeking bids from developers to build homes on federal lands, including a plot here in Ottawa on an old air base. The government would own the land and give developers 99-year leases to build rental units. This is the model used in China. The state gives developers 99-year leases. Set aside the “own nothing and be happy” vibes of this policy and look at the results. Nothing has been built. People in Ottawa can visit the site. It is empty, because the Liberal government did not ask developers to submit bids for low-cost affordable housing. They asked for bids to build high-cost, low-rent housing. These units had to exceed energy-saving standards by 25%. The four-acre lot must accommodate 495 units. The units must exceed accessibility standards.”
“(1800) I have quoted a Greek philosopher and a Roman politician, but on the issue of building houses, maybe we should heed the words of a Jewish carpenter's son, who said, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” No one can serve two masters, and no bill should have two purposes. While I could not find a quote to fit, I am sure we can all agree that Jesus would look unfavourably at a policy that treats lower-income Canadians as guinea pigs for housing construction. Is the goal of the bill to provide affordable housing, or is the goal to provide corporate welfare to home builders? It cannot do both. We know it cannot because it has not worked in the past.”
“The real title reveals that they are building a new bureaucracy they call “Build Canada Homes”. Aside from revealing the Liberals' love of slogans and propaganda, Bill C-20 also reveals the root of the problem and the real reason Liberals keep failing over and over again. Under section 4 of the bill, the Liberals lay out the purpose: “The purpose of the Corporation is to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada.” Now, attentive listeners might have noticed that this is the same purpose behind the failed affordable housing innovation fund I mentioned earlier.”
“Despite this legacy of failure, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a failed strategy, which brings us to the present and the bill before us today. Bill C-20 would not fix Canada's housing crisis, because Bill C-20 is not about building houses. It is about building bureaucracy. My biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North , once bitterly complained about the Harper government's creativity in applying branding to the short titles for legislation. To paraphrase Denzel Washington, “King Kong ain't got nuttin” on these Liberals. The short title for Bill C-20 is the Build Canada Homes act. The real title is “an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes”. The Liberals are clearly trying to trick Canadians into thinking they are building homes for Canadians.”
“The apartment construction loan program was a $54-billion plan to build 131,000 rental units. This was a 15-year plan, and we are at the halfway mark. So far, we have built 18,497 rental units. Even if we are being generous and we cut the goal in half, that still means the Liberals have built only 28% of the mid-goal. At 42%, 38% and 28%, the Liberals keep failing, and it gets worse. This is the history every Canadian should have known before the last election. This is the history every Canadian should have been reminded of when this Brookfield government staged a photo op at a fake housing construction site to announce this legislation. That is history. That is the Liberals' proven track record of housing failure.”
“One program under the strategy, the affordable housing fund, received $16 billion over 10 years to build 60,000 new affordable rental units. The program launched in May 2018, and in the eight years since, it has spent 85% of its budget. The program has built only 25,428 units, which means the Liberals spent 85% of the budget to reach 42% of the goal. That is a failing grade. Another part of the national housing strategy was the affordable housing innovation fund. Phase one was a five-year plan to spend $200 million to build 14,000 housing units, created using so-called “innovative business approaches and building techniques”. The program ran from 2017 to 2021. They built 5,319 units. The goal was 14,000, which means they built 38% of the target, another failing grade.”
“It is fitting that we begin with a discussion on the so-called housing bill with the ancient Greek. The word “economics” comes from the Greek words oikos , meaning household, and nomos , meaning custom or management. In effect, all economics begin at home. Four hundred years later, in the great Roman Republic, Cicero said each person should retain his own property and not seize that of another. It is clear that these men believed that home ownership was the path to prosperity. Sadly, the Liberal Party has not learned this ancient wisdom, even with an economist as a leader. Moving from the ancient world to the modern world, we reach the year 2017, the year the Liberal government introduced the national housing strategy. It was a $115-billion plan to build housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the renters of the spacious riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-20 , the build bigger bureaucracy act. To begin with, I want to assure my biggest fan across the aisle that by the end of this speech, he will see what ancient Greece, Peru's new Prime Minister and the Soviet Union, as well as Jesus Christ, have in common with the Liberals' latest building bureaucracy bill. To properly understand this legislation, we need to look at housing history, the present circumstances and the future potential. Let us start with the past. As has become the style in Canadian political speeches, let me begin by quoting an ancient Greek philosopher. Xenophon wrote that the household is the source of all wealth.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about taking public lands, but here in paragraph 20(g), it says the government could “take any security or security interest in any property”. This is not just the green slush fund all over again. This would be 30 by 30 going to 50 by 50. They would take more land through this, including private property.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the freedom-loving Canadians from my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. They are concerned with the Liberal government's decision to sign Canada onto the WHO's pandemic agreement, which was agreed upon last May, right after Canadians had voted in the last election. This legally binding treaty will give unprecedented powers over the authority and laws passed by our Parliament and elected Canadians to unaccountable, unelected UN bureaucrats controlled by the Communist Chinese. The health-conscious petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately and unilaterally withdraw from the WHO's pandemic treaty.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2023, a foreign national attempted to buy sex from an underage girl. However, when he got to the location, it was an undercover officer, who arrested him. When it came time to sentence this individual, he was given a lesser sentence so as not to affect his immigration status. Does the member opposite not think that an individual who commits such serious offences should be denied Canadian citizenship?”
“Madam Speaker, in 2023, a foreign national attempted to buy sex from an underage girl. However, when he got to the location, it was an undercover officer, who arrested him. When it came time to sentence the individual, he was given a lesser sentence so as not to affect his immigration status. Do you believe that an individual who commits a serious offence such as this should one day become a Canadian citizen?”
“Mr. Speaker, everyone likes a cheque in the mail, but those cheques are written on borrowed money and they are going to have to pay it back with interest. Last week, we learned what these Liberals have been denying all along: Food inflation is real and it is the worst in the G7. While Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, a nice little cheque in the mail may help with a week's groceries, but it is borrowed money and they will have to pay it back with interest. Will the government finally do the right thing and axe the hidden carbon taxes so Canadians can have some real relief?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are determined to keep their industrial carbon tax even though they know it is making food more expensive. Another new carbon tax hikes the price of gas by 7¢ a litre with another 10¢ a litre to come. This directly jacks up the price of food. Will the government axe the hidden carbon taxes so people can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, Hark, the Brookfield PM's sleigh is near, Bringing gifts for all his friends this year! Consultants cheer, lobbyists sing, Corporate stockings overflow with bling. Now the PM poses by a door, A photo op that is only decor. Fake homes for the camera's flash, But taxpayers send real cash. Brookfield's modular dreams take flight, On subsidies through Christmas night. Insiders feast, while young workers fall, This is not charity; it is a corporate haul. While steelworkers lose their pay, Brookfield cashes in today. Tax credits wrapped with care and with bows, Handouts for customers, everyone he knows. Arc furnaces hum, the contracts flow, Electric riches make profits grow. But for families left in the cold, This tale of cronyism must be told. Canadians deserve a fair refrain, Not the PM's plan for insider gain.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will tell my greatest fan that, yes, I will be back. However, the Liberals rewrite history. First, they tear down history, the statues and everything, and then they rewrite it so that it favours their narrative. It is time we went back to what really happened and teach our children the genuine history of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, for a minute, I thought he was going to ask me how much longer I was going to stay in Parliament. We actually do not know that Canada is not a subsidiary. The government has already provided over a billion dollars a year to a consortium of companies to run CNL, our crown jewel in the nuclear laboratories. He is willing to sell that down without any Canadian participation. My concern, my fellow Conservative, is that he has already sold us.”
“Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, we started campaigning to make sure the softwood lumber agreement would be in place. The Liberals have not even considered putting it in as part of the negotiations for the next USMCA. The truth is that the government does not want a forestry industry. We see that in all the UN declarations, such as 30 by 30, which will become 50 by 50, with land set aside where nobody can harvest anything. It is time to face reality. The Liberals do not want trees cut down.”
“Mr. Speaker, Ukraine had a carbon tax, but it was too low for former prime minister Trudeau. Therefore, he imposed an additional tax so that it would be equal to ours. Ukraine already had one. He just made it worse.”
“There is also the time Trudeau almost blew up the trans-Pacific partnership so he could insert some feminist language into a meaningless annex. The fact that the bill before us is only at second reading is itself an example of Liberal incompetence on the trade file. Canada needs free trade, but it finds itself in a trade war. We need a government that truly believes in trade. We need a Conservative government.”
“As a bilingual country, it is not about how we pronounce it; it is about how we spell it. In Canada we spell “catalyze” with a “z”, but the Prime Minister spells it with an “s”. He is less of a Manchurian candidate and more of a Manchester candidate. He is all too happy to sell out U.K. pensioners living in Canada and to sell out our beef and pork farmers if it means a chance at knighthood. The next time he gets together with his friends at Davos, they had better all address him as Sir Brookfield. I know that some people might find that ridiculous, but it is more comforting than reality. The plain truth is that the Liberals are just incompetent with trade negotiations. It has been 10 years without a softwood lumber deal. There is the trade deal with the U.S. that the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate by mid-summer.”
“Each month, 100,000 of our neighbours and friends get a little poorer. Each month, they have less to spend buying Canadian beef for supper. Each month, they have a little less to donate to the local church. Instead of having free time to volunteer at the food bank, they spend that time shopping at the food bank. This is not just hurting U.K. pensioners; it is discriminating against people living in Canada, and it is an insult. The problem is that the former prime minister thought Canada was a nation of colonizing racist misogynists who deserve to be insulted. The new Prime Minister is an unabashed anglophile. As kids might say, he is a simp for Keir Starmer. Every country has its own shibboleths, the secret code words that allow fellow citizens to know if someone is one of us.”
“Just as with our farmers, the government had leverage over our mother Parliament. The Prime Minister is burning up his carbon allowance, flying around the world looking for deals, the same way countless U.K. prime ministers have been doing since Brexit. We had a golden opportunity to support people living in Canada, but the Liberals could not be bothered to try. For any Canadians unfamiliar with the issue, the U.K. has a public pension like ours. When British retirees move abroad, they continue to receive their pension. If they live in the rebellious colonies to the south, their U.K. pension is indexed to inflation. If they live in the loyal Dominion of Canada, they receive a fixed amount from the day they first applied. This issue directly affects 100,000 U.K. retirees who live in Canada, but indirectly it affects every Canadian.”
“What is the government's response? It promised that if the U.K. continues doing what it has always done, the government will write a stern letter and then launch a lengthy trade complaint process at the World Trade Organization. In the meantime, the U.K. producers will continue to sell millions of dollars' worth of beef and pork while our farmers wait and wait. The only relief these farmers will find is in knowing that they are not in the softwood lumber business; it is clear that this Brookfield government is treating our forestry industry as a card it hopes to play to save its EV subsidies in Ontario and Quebec. The problem is that the government is playing go fish while the rest of the world is playing high-stakes poker. This might explain the shabby treatment shown to British retirees now living in Canada.”
“The simple truth is that all a tariff can do is hurt the economy, and the only way to make the damage to an economy worse is to use non-tariff trade barriers to free trade. (1720) As I said at the start, the bill is another example of Liberals' failing to secure a trade deal. Thanks to Brexit, we had leverage over Britain. We had cards to play, yet we folded. The United Kingdom is keeping in place its non-tariff barriers on Canadian beef and pork. The U.K. claims our food safety system is unsafe. Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Mexico and all the other partners of the trans-Pacific partnership all agree Canadian food is safe. The U.K. is supposed to have agreed to respect our food safety system when it joined the partnership, yet two years on, here we are, ratifying U.K.'s entry, and the barriers remain in place.”
“That is why the Liberals reopened the Ukraine deal; that is likely why they cannot get a bilateral deal with the United Kingdom; that is why we are all pretending that the United Kingdom is now a warm, sunny Pacific island nation that is eligible to join the trans-Pacific partnership; and that is why, during the middle of our recent federal election, the Prime Minister received a warm endorsement from President Trump. When the President wrote on Truth Social that he and the man from Goldman agreed on many things, we thought they meant they agreed on signing giant novelty decorations or using police as props for photo-ops. What we should have realized is that they agree on using tariffs as a social engineering tool. The U.S. President believes tariffs can undo automation, while the Prime Minister thinks they can cool the planet.”
“He calls them carbon border adjustments, but that is clearly intended to mislead people into supporting tariffs, and here is how it works. The Prime Minister will dramatically increase the industrial carbon tax, and this will make Canadian industry less competitive against industries of our major trading partners, such as the U.S. or the U.K. In order for these companies to compete, the Prime Minister will impose carbon tariffs and call it a carbon competitiveness strategy.”
“Forcing a country fighting for its very existence to renegotiate an existing deal was truly beyond the pale. It was the kind of diplomacy that would make Tony Soprano proud. I can already hear my Liberal colleagues clenching their teeth, and I am sure they want to jump to their feet in protest. They would tell us that this is not the old Trudeau government and that it is a new, improved Brookfield government. Although Trudeau was a deplorable prime minister, at least he never ran on a promise to increase tariffs for Canadians. It has been only 11 months, but the collective amnesia about the current Prime Minister is shocking. The man from Brookfield spelled out his plan on the very first day of campaigning for the Liberal Party leadership. His plan is tariffs.”