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 5 of 6.
“The real reason the Liberals broke our immigration system is that they broke our economy. After strangling our resource economy with red tape and regulation, the GDP began to decline, so the Liberals made the decision to goose the stats by importing growth. It was a textbook Trudeau policy: It looked progressive on the surface, but underneath it was a system of exploitation designed to inflate GDP numbers and home prices. This approach ignored long-term consequences; placed pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services; created divisions in communities; and undermined public confidence. Now the Liberals want to continue this decade-long effort to undermine our system by granting citizenship to the great-grandchildren of those who left this country decades ago.”
“Each community tells a story of migration, settlement and contribution. Successive waves of people came to Canada, built communities and enriched our nation. They brought with them traditions, languages and values that have become a part of our national fabric. Canadians were proud of our welcoming immigration system. It was a system built on fairness, compassion and a shared commitment to building a better future. Then the Liberal Party broke it. Some have accused the Liberals of breaking immigration for electoral reasons, but given the recent election results, with elbows-up nativists flocking to the Liberal banner and new Canadians, tired of having their cars stolen and businesses burned down, rushing to our party, that theory does not hold up well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the proud Canadians in the welcoming riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. If anyone is curious about the history of immigration in Canada, they need only drive up the Ottawa Valley. Leaving behind our indigenous-named capital city and the suburbs with English and French names, we begin to see the Scottish influence in places like McNab. Then come the Irish names, such as Shamrock and Mount St. Patrick, followed by the Kashubian names in Wilno. If people continue to drive, they can join Oktoberfest in Pembroke with German schnitzel. Then they can stop in Petawawa for authentic Lebanese cuisine or can celebrate Diwali in Deep River. This journey is more than scenic; it is a living testament to the resilience of those who chose Canada as their home.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the outdoor-loving residents of my great riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The petitioners are calling on the government to intervene in the aerial spraying of toxic substances. They are concerned that the spraying of these substances may pose serious health challenges to the rural and indigenous residents living in the valley and will disrupt local ecosystems. The nature-loving petitioners are also calling for the government to ensure the use of toxic chemicals in our forest does not occur at all. I will be presenting more petitions on this matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said this debate is all about the victims, and one of the victims was navy Lieutenant Patrick White, who testified before the defence committee last year about the navy leadership's attempts, under the Liberal government, to cover up the sexual assault committed against him by Officer X. Today, we learned that the witness and victim, Patrick White, has been fired by the military. He was supposed to be protected by parliamentary privilege as a witness. If the government cannot protect witnesses with the full power of Parliament, how can we trust the government that the legislation will prevent sexual misconduct instead of just covering it up?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no chance at this point for justice of any kind. What happens is that when a complaint is made, that person is segregated and put in a different part of the base altogether. They are separated from their job. Their continuing education stops. Any hope of furthering any rank structure is gone. When they go to the padre for guidance, the padre will tell them that when they joined the military, they handed over their life. Anything that happens is up to the military, so they have no recourse.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is important is that any evidence gathered as part of an investigation should happen immediately, be completely transferred to civilian courts and taken over by police who know how to do it, who have the resources to conduct a proper investigation and gather evidence. In fact, in many of the cases, women have not even been afforded the opportunity to have a rape test done, to gather evidence for that purpose. They are just switched over to the next mission. These incidents have lasting impacts as victims can be left with life-altering diseases, which can change the course of their lives completely.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was important. What we are seeing is that the military police would cover up for their buddies. Commanders who were in charge of different prosecutions would cover up issues. The other thing is that the military police did not have the resources to do proper investigations. The chain of evidence was not kept in order. For the purpose of it being more sterile, the prosecution suggested that it go to civilian courts. Then there would be less chance that the people who were the perpetrators could get involved and end up with a conviction that was not proper. From that standpoint, yes, we believe that will be one part of the solution. It was requested on behalf of many of the victims.”
“We will demand changes that protect victims, support service members and strengthen our justice system. (1630) We owe it to those who serve, we owe it to those who suffered and we owe it to Canada.”
“Let us be honest about why the bill was delayed. The Liberals had this legislation ready as Bill C-66 . They let it die when they prorogued Parliament. They delayed it again while they scrambled to cover up their green slush fund scandal. They delayed it again while they changed leaders behind closed doors. They delayed it again while they installed a man whose record includes tax haven investments, greenwashing scandals and ties to ethically compromised donors. They delayed justice for victims so they could protect their own political interests. That is the real story behind Bill C-11 . That is why victims are still waiting. That is why the system is still broken. We will push for a fulsome committee study to hear from victims, such as Private Jaszberenyi.”
“We believe in a justice system that is fair, consistent and rooted in the principles of individual liberty. We do not support a parallel system that undermines these principles. We also believe in transparency. The military has referred dozens of sexual offence cases to civilian authorities, but it cannot, or will not, reveal how many of these cases have resulted in charges. This lack of data makes it impossible to evaluate whether the transfer of jurisdiction is working. Victims deserve answers. Service members deserve clarity. Canadians deserve accountability. Bill C-11 may be well-intentioned, but it is incomplete. It does not address the systemic failures that have plagued the military justice system. It would not ensure that victims would be heard or that accused members would be treated fairly. It does not restore trust.”
“It would not ensure that civilian court outcomes are integrated with the code of service discipline. It would not fix the disconnect between military justice and civilian accountability. Instead, it would shift responsibility without solving the root issues. The bill would also increase the independence of key military justice officials by having them appointed by the governor in council. While independence from the chain of command is important, the inconsistent term lengths and reappointment rules raise concerns. As well, giving the Minister of National Defence the power to issue guidelines on prosecutions opens the door to political interference. This is especially troubling given the history of interference in previous cases. Conservatives believe in protecting victims and supporting the rights of the accused.”
“According to a CTV report on the case, Justice Robert Gattrell “...said he agreed with the defence, which argued Jaszberenyi came across as someone with ‘an agenda,’ who took issue with the military’s treatment of members, particularly women, who come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct.” Private Jaszberenyi's own advocacy for justice was used against her. While it is no longer permitted to weaponize a woman's sexual history against her in court, apparently women must not be too insistent in seeking justice. Any effort we make to ensure another woman is not raped can and will be used against us. Bill C-11 does not address the underlying culture that allowed this to happen in the first place. It would not prevent senior leadership from allowing serious charges to be downgraded to conduct violations.”
“Faced with an unresponsive military justice system and bureaucratic hurdles, Private Jaszberenyi would not be deterred. She pursued a private prosecution in civilian court after exhausting all military avenues. The trial exposed the failure of the military justice system to take her complaint seriously. It showed how the victims are forced to fight alone for justice. It showed how the system protects itself instead of the people it serves. In the end, Silin was acquitted.”
“Private Jaszberenyi complained to the Military Police Complaints Commission, but the commission was not permitted to review all the relevant files, specifically the briefing from the military police to prosecutors. This was despite the fact that Justice Morris Fish had issued a recommendation that these files be provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Without access to the briefing notes, the commission was effectively prevented from determining if the refusal to prosecute was reasonable. While the bill before us would remove the role of the military police from investigating sexual assaults in Canada, the bill would not implement Justice Fish's recommendation to give the commission access to key briefing notes.”
“She was a soldier who was raped by Corporal Oleksii Silin in a broom closet at CFB Borden. Military police who investigated her case told her that Corporal Silin was a sexual person. They told her that Silin's wife and kids had left him, suggesting this was a form of punishment. The military police mentioned that as a Russian immigrant, Silin's culture may view slapping a woman as permissible. (1625) Despite that, Silin confessed to the military police that he had pulled her into a broom closet and had sexual intercourse with her. However, what was not mentioned at the time was that Silin was already under investigation for a different sexual assault the year before, but the military refused to prosecute the case.”
“Latvian military police conducted a superficial investigation, failed to interview witnesses and concluded there was no criminal offence. Canadian military police created a shadow file but had no jurisdiction to act. Adams was left without justice, without support and without answers. This is what happens when jurisdiction is unclear and accountability absent. This is what happens when the system prioritizes optics over victims. Bill C-11 does not fix this. It does not ensure that victims like Adams would be protected or that the perpetrators would be held accountable. It does not guarantee that investigations would be thorough or that justice would be served. It does not address the "culture of silence and deflection" that has plagued the military for years. The case of Private Elvira Jaszberenyi is another sad example.”
“Two military police officers were suspended and an internal investigation was launched, but the damage was done. This case illustrates the dangers of a system that lacks accountability and transparency. It also raises the question about whether the military is capable of investigating its own conduct. Another example is the case of Kristen Adams, a civilian employee working in Camp Adazi in Latvia. She was sexually assaulted by an Albanian NATO soldier who grabbed her breast while she was serving Canadian troops in the canteen. When she reported the assault, she was told by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services that she should have expected such risks when accepting the job. They called it a cultural difference. They terminated her contract early and refused to call the incident a sexual assault.”
“If they are no longer investigating sexual offences in Canada, how will they maintain the skills needed to handle cases overseas? This is not theoretical. We have already seen troubling examples of investigative failures. In February of this year, Ontario Superior Court Justice Cynthia Petersen stayed charges against a Canadian Armed Forces member accused of sexually assaulting his wife. She found that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service had shown bias, failed to document key evidence and even destroyed materials that should have been disclosed. Justice Petersen called the misconduct "so egregious" that she had no choice but to halt the proceedings. She said it breached the accused's charter rights and shocked the conscience of the community.”
“Bill C-11 proposes to transfer jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada from the military justice system to the civilian courts. This change was recommended by Justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour, and it has been supported by many victims groups. Conservatives have long called for action on these recommendations. We have criticized the Liberal government for its delays and lack of urgency. Victims deserve justice, and they deserve it without political interference or bureaucratic excuses. However, this bill does not fully deliver on that promise. It would create a split system where offences committed in Canada are handled in the civilian courts while those committed abroad are under military jurisdiction. This inconsistency risks undermining the investigative capacity of our military police.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Crowfoot . I rise today on behalf of the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces who call the Ottawa Valley home, and to speak to Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act. This legislation, which was presented as reform, raises serious concerns about the future of justice for our Canadian Armed Forces and the government's ability to protect both the victims and the integrity of our military institutions. Conservatives support our women and men in uniform. We honour their service and believe they deserve a workplace free from sexual misconduct, discrimination and harassment. We also believe they deserve a justice system that is fair, transparent and accountable.”
“What is in the legislation that might set the member's mind at ease or might alert him to the fact that this could happen again?”
“Mr. Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard the member make. It had a lot of meaning, and it has meaning for the people who live on the base in my riding and work in the Canadian Armed Forces. In the member's speech, he alluded to a time when there were several high-ranking members all charged at the same time with allegations of sexual misconduct. This came at a particular point in time when it could have been very damaging to us had we been involved in a conflict, because it was in essence decapitating our military to a large extent. The member made an inference that there was a sense at the time with some of the conduct allegations that there was political motivation to get them out of the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, after over 10 years since the Deschamps report, to see the adoption of the move to remove sexual assault cases to the civilian court. However, in theatre, the military police would still be responsible for this. What training and dollars associated with this training would go into preserving the chain of evidence, investigation and rape kits? Are there going to be rape kits available, is there a protocol, what is the protocol and, most importantly, for military police here at home and deployed abroad, when is their pay increase coming?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a carnival barker. He promises we can win the prize while he rigs the game. He promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, he gave us a shrinking economy and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. He promised affordability but gave us higher food prices. He promised to get more homes built but gave us a phony housing announcement in front of fake homes. He promised that nation-building projects would be built at impossible speeds but has not issued a single permit. He promised elbows up but tucked in his tail and ran. He said we would have a deal by July 21, but all he has done is surrender on every issue. If this were a school, he would get a failing grade. If this were a business, he would be fired. However, this is the Liberal Party, so he keeps the prize.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the camera shot that the public sees, there is someone in the background directly behind the member who is speaking. I would ask the Speaker to request that people be aware of when they are within the camera shot. It is very distracting for people who are trying to pay attention to the speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on her maiden speech. She mentioned the Coast Guard, and I want to ask what measures the government must take to maintain all the services she outlined in her speech but be sufficiently protected when it comes into contact with a fully armed adversary? The People's Liberation Army Navy is not going to respect our civilian versus military designations.”
“The Liberals screamed “elbows up” and promised to defend Canada's independence throughout the last election, but they spared no time selling out Canada to their globalist friends right after Canadians voted. The petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to immediately withdraw from the WHO's Pandemic Agreement, signed in May, and to unilaterally withdraw Canada from the IHR amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition from the freedom-loving, maple-leaf-waving patriotic Canadians in my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. My constituents are concerned over the Liberal government's decision to arbitrarily sign on to the WHO's Pandemic Agreement and the amendments made to the international health regulations, or IHRs. These changes were never brought to a single debate nor vote in this House, leaving Canadians without a say while the Liberals negotiate away our country's sovereignty to corrupt, unelected and unaccountable UN bureaucrats, who are all under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians have lost trust in the government. They did so during COVID when the Liberals refused to allow parliamentarians to see the contracts for the vaccines. They lost trust when different scandals came up. Canadians no longer trust the government. We certainly do not want to see the types of riots occurring across Europe and parts of the Middle East come to Canada. The Liberals have to be respectful and have a budget and then ensure that they are completely—”
“Madam Speaker, cash is legal tender in Canada. The way we can strengthen security in transactions is not through taking away cash. It is by FINTRAC taking the information that it gathers, all the forms people fill out every time they make deposits or transfer $10,000 or more, and actually acting upon it, not just collecting the paper.”
“Madam Speaker, I am having trouble getting that out too. In the House, government members should be respecting, listening to and answering questions according to what speakers actually say. A small modicum of respect for opposition parties will build confidence not only in Parliament but among the people who watch us from home.”
“Madam Speaker, I was wondering who started that rumour, but let us get back to the bill. Bill C-2 is a Trojan Horse. It promises security but delivers surveillance. It promises order but delivers control. It is not the kind of legislation that Canadians expect from a government that claims to respect the charter. Let us work together to craft legislation that truly strengthens our borders without weakening our freedoms.”
“What it would do is stop regular Canadians from trusting the mail, and given the decline in trust and confidence we have seen across democratic countries, this bill would do too little to help and too much to hurt. Canadians want to have confidence in their government. They want to know that it is tackling security. They want criminals in jail and our border under control, but we cannot have trust in a government that gives itself the power to spy on its citizens without a warrant based on reasonable grounds. It is checks and balances on state power that instill trust. It is still the competent execution of those powers that builds confidence. Conservatives call on this government to remove the sections where trust is undermined.”
“For Canadians living overseas, there are no alternatives to voting by mail. If the state can inspect someone's ballot, then their right to vote has been infringed. The mere threat of ballot inspections would be enough for unsavoury actors to pressure overseas voters. Those unsavoury actors would not just be rogue partisans, but foreign agents seeking to undermine our democracy. Meanwhile, the fentanyl dealers will switch to FedEx, UPS or drones. Two years ago, correctional officials in B.C. intercepted a pigeon with a tiny backpack filled with drugs. Drug dealers are using Canada Post because it is cheap and easy. Allowing warrantless searches might stop the dealers from using the mail, but it would not stop the dealing and the distribution of drugs.”
“These snooping sections of the bill must be deleted when it reaches committee. The Internet is an integral part of 21st-century society. We can see in China that despite vast state surveillance, citizens tolerate the lack of privacy for the convenience of using the Internet for shopping, school or socializing. However, that is not the case with the mail and Canada Post. The Liberals plan to allow police to search the mail without a warrant. That fact would be a decapitating blow to the zombie corporation we refer to as Canada Post. Not only would this obviously violate section 8 of the charter, but it would also infringe on section 3, the right to vote. Nothing would undermine the confidence of mail-in ballots faster than Liberals giving themselves the power to open mail.”
“This is about giving the state unchecked power to monitor Canadians' digital lives. This is the natural precursor for the Internet censorship bill that the Prime Minister has pledged to reintroduce. Warrantless access to Internet data, combined with the vast digital safety bureaucracy the Liberals envision, would make the communists who control China blush. The only thing that could make this worse is if the government had access to technology that could sift through vast amounts of data quickly and tease out surprising connections. Wait. It does. The Liberals brag about it all the time. That is why they have contracts with U.S. company Palantir. In 2012, when we last debated so-called lawful access, that kind of technology was science fiction. Now it is scientific fact. Canadians do not want Liberal AI spying on them.”
“Could the minister assure those who are listening to the debate that the government does not, in any fashion whatsoever, allow for any sort of invasion of privacy without some form of a judicial court warrant to enable police to do so? I am sorry. I am not a great mimic. Even if the Liberal ministers cannot speak honestly about their opposition to these parts of the bill here in the House, I hope they find the courage to do so in caucus. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. That clear wording is why police require reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant. Anything short of that will invite abuse. The problem is in defining “reasonable”. It is why people who are trying to defend their homes are being thrown into jail instead of the armed intruders. This is not about border security.”
“This is not on reasonable grounds or probable cause, but just suspicion. (1120) While many actors across the aisle were not here during the last debate on so-called lawful access, my biggest fan, the member for Winnipeg North , was. Here is a great question he raised during that debate: ...the vast majority of the public, and individuals who are watching, are very curious as to the degree that law enforcement officers, or any others who might be designated through the minister, might have to access their history on websites and the content of emails. The minister makes reference that this does not change what is in place today.”
“I raise this because this bill resurrects the so-called lawful access measures, which grant the government access to Canadians' Internet data without a warrant. This is not the first time the “securitycrats” have tried to bring this into law. They tried to get us to pass it in 2012, when we were a majority government. Fortunately, we had a prime minister who respected and listened to his caucus colleagues. That is why we withdrew the bill. It is no surprise that fresh off an election, while the Liberal ministers are still trying to find the bathrooms and staff up their offices, the “securitycrats” would slip this in. They want law enforcement to have the power to demand data such as IP addresses, usernames, device identifiers and service usage history based on a mere suspicion standard.”
“This is a slippery slope toward a cashless society where every transaction is monitored and every citizen is tracked. We must ask who benefits from this. It is not ordinary Canadians, not small businesses and not charities. The beneficiaries are governments, banks and corporations that profit from data collection and digital control. Conservatives believe in financial freedom. We believe Canadians should have the right to use cash for legal transactions without fear of prosecution. We oppose this provision and call for its removal from the bill. I know that many government members were first elected in 2015. They have never sat in opposition. As we all learned from the Liberals' caucus turmoil last year, this is very much a top-down party.”
“The Liberals want to make it a criminal offence for businesses, professionals and charities to accept cash payments of $10,000 or more in a single transaction or a series of related transactions. This is not a targeted measure against money laundering. It is a blanket restriction that affects law-abiding citizens. It treats legitimate transactions as suspicious simply because they involve physical currency. It forces Canadians into digital payment systems that are traceable, surveilled, controlled and hackable. Using cash is not a crime. It is a legal form of payment. It is a tool for privacy, autonomy and financial freedom. Criminalizing its use sets a dangerous precedent. Today it is $10,000. Tomorrow it could be $5,000, then $1,000 and eventually nothing.”
“We do not support giving law enforcement the power to search Canadians' mail without judicial oversight. These are not border issues; these are surveillance measures. These are control measures, and they have no place in a free and democratic society. In many ways, this bill is an admission of failure by the Liberal government. It has allowed crime and chaos to run rampant. The government claims this bill is about going after international gangs that push fentanyl on Canadians, yet it includes no mandatory prison time for traffickers. There are no new mandatory prison times for gangsters who use guns. This bill proves that the Liberals can swap out their leaders but keep the ideology. Thanks in part to the Liberals' new censorship law, many Canadians have no idea that the Prime Minister is seeking to ban cash transactions.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the freedom-loving residents of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-2 , the Liberals' so-called strong borders act. Conservatives will always support secure borders, the rule of law and the protection of Canadian sovereignty, but we must ensure those who enter our country do so legally, safely and with respect for our values. We support measures that protect Canadians from illegal drug trafficking, human smuggling and organized crime. We support reforms that streamline immigration processes and ensure fairness in our asylum system. What we will not support are the measures that target law-abiding Canadians. We do not support criminalizing the use of cash. We do not support the warrantless surveillance of Canadians' Internet activity.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's response was to repeat the same Liberal talking points. For Liberals, it is all about spending announcements, but as I said earlier, a budget is more than just about a list of Liberal spending. A budget is supposed to explain how much Canadians are going to be spending, how much the Liberals are going to be spending, what taxes the Liberals are going to hike, how much they are planning to borrow and how much they will spend on interest payments. By hiding from Canadians for six months, the Liberals only increased economic uncertainty, and in the meantime, they failed to get a trade deal, they failed to approve a single infrastructure development and they failed to give our troops the raise they promised. Canadians just cannot afford this record of failure.”
“It is unsurprising that few developers leapt at the chance to build tiny woke homes that nobody wants to live in. Soon the Liberals will learn that Canadians do not want to raise their families in modular boxes stacked atop one another, but by then it will be too late. Liberal insiders will have pocketed the housing cash and the government will move on to announcing its next recycled housing plan to not build homes.”
“The Liberals claim that these affordable modular homes will be built on federal land. Here is a quote from a news story about the Liberal housing announcement: “Canada plans to ease a housing shortage by leasing public land to developers for construction of affordable houses under a plan unveiled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau”. I am sorry: That quote is from last year's identical Liberal housing announcement. The only new thing in the Prime Minister 's announcement was a new bureaucracy the Liberals announced to duplicate the work of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Last year, when Trudeau made the same announcement, we saw the result. Nothing was built, because the Liberal regulations required homes to be multi-unit, net-zero, gender-neutral and decolonized.”
“What is worse is that the Liberal Party is doubling down on failed economic policies. As Americans turn away from the principles of economic freedom, the Liberals seem to be adopting more and more Canadian-style protectionism. It should worry Canadians when the government brags about ignoring trade deals with Europe and Asia that require free trade in procurement. When Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders is celebrating a Republican president's move to seize a 10% stake in a private company, freedom-loving Canadians should take note. We now have a Prime Minister who cannot stop talking about using public money to catalyze private wealth. We saw from the Prime Minister in his fake housing announcement on Friday how this works. The Prime Minister announced millions of tax dollars that would flow into a modular housing company he had invested in.”
“That is more than double what the former finance minister promised in 2024. The Liberals are not just crashing through their fiscal guardrails; they are nuking them from outer space. This level of fiscal recklessness is dangerous at the best of times, but we are not living in those times right now. Around the world, bright flashing warning lights are going off about governments' debt and deficits. Riots in France followed the collapse of the French government after it failed to pass a budget to reduce the deficit. The Prime Minister of Japan resigned amid growing concerns over the bond market. One would think that a former central banker would understand that the days of governments having easy access to debt are coming to an end, yet the current minority Liberal government seems hell-bent on testing the limits of investors' patience.”
“Mr. Speaker, last June I asked the minority Liberal government if it would respect the vote of Parliament and table a budget. The Minister of Transport and Internal Trade declined to answer. Instead, she praised her new Prime Minister 's latest costly political gimmick. Nine months ago, that same minister resigned her position as Trudeau's finance minister. This saved her the embarrassment of tabling another broken fiscal budget. She was spared from having to admit she had broken through her fiscal guardrails by tabling a $40-billion deficit. What should be even more humiliating is that it was only 18 months ago that she tabled the 2024 budget, which claimed the deficit for this fiscal year would be $38 billion. Independent estimates suggest this year's deficit will be anywhere from $80 billion to $100 billion.”