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 6 of 6.
“Madam Speaker, with the allocations towards National Defence, what increase in salary can the members of the Canadian Armed Forces look forward to and, specifically, what type of equipment can they look forward to receiving and learning how to train on?”
“Madam Speaker, I know that new homes have 200 amps or more, but in Newfoundland, what percentage of homes would have less than 200 amps? To have a plug-in installed for an EV, 200 amps or more is required. If the case is that the majority do not have sufficient amperage and transformers around the province, will the member be asking for an “auto-immune system” for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador?”
“Mr. Speaker, the average battery in an electric vehicle contains about 286 kilograms of aluminum. The United States only makes 1% of its aluminum and also has 25% tariffs on imported aluminum. Right there, from the very beginning, we have a large proportion of an EV that has an extra 25% added to it because of a tariff. Then if Canada is importing an electric vehicle, or any vehicle for that matter, it is another 25% in tariffs. How does the member expect any average Canadian, who cannot even afford rent these days or a house, to pay at least 50% more because of tariffs on a vehicle, let alone all the extras required to plug in an electric vehicle and redo the electrical to the house so it can take the amperage? Whoever decided all Canadians wanted EVs or even wanted to go to net zero?”
“Madam Speaker, what car salespeople have to do is reach the mandates that are required by government, and if they do not reach the sales limits required on electric vehicles, they will have to pay a $20,000 fine on every gas-powered vehicle as opposed to electric vehicle. All that being said, at least where I live, there may be a few electric vehicles in the lots, but nobody wants them because they cannot use them where they live. The cold makes them unusable, and then there is the time it takes to charge them, if they can even charge them at their homes. As mentioned before, many homes do not have the amperage needed to charge these cars. Even the military base would not be able to accommodate people who are living on base, because they certainly do not have the infrastructure for what they need, let alone for EVs.”
“Madam Speaker, with respect to EVs and internal combustion engines, the tariffs that have been imposed on us and the tariffs imposed by the government are making new cars unaffordable altogether, so anything left of auto parts manufacturing in Canada is going to be driven out of the country. There are even fewer EV manufacturers, so Canadians are not going to have anything to drive in the next 10 years.”
“Madam Speaker, even hybrid electric cars would not qualify, and if there are still internal combustion vehicles on the roads or owned by people, they would not be able to get fuel because the new fuel standards are eliminating the gasoline that would fuel ICE cars, those with internal combustion engines. Even if we cannot afford an EV and all we have is gas power, the gas will not be available.”
“Thanks to the Liberal Party, all those gains will be lost due to higher electricity prices. Canadians will pay more for electricity, and they will pay more for cars. Rural Canadians who cannot afford cars will be forced to move to the cities. Our domestic auto industry will disappear. Canadians will be forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize battery makers and $60,000 cars. This policy will leave all Canadians worse off.”
“The Liberal government recently committed to reclaiming 30% of Canada's developed lands. This is a government at war with itself. Has the proud socialist minister finally abandoned his opposition to nuclear power? When the minister declared an end to road building, was it a preview of a carless Canada? Forcing an early adoption of EVs before we have the electric infrastructure ready will mean higher energy prices. It is not just about building more EV chargers. Every local transformer in every community in Canada will need to be replaced. Electro-Federation Canada estimates the cost at $350 billion, and costs will be passed along to consumers. Energy poverty will increase. Thanks to the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, Canadians have been liberated from the carbon tax.”
“The EV ambulances cannot get to them if they are sick or hurt. The EV fire trucks cannot put out fires. Without electricity, people will die. This Liberal policy clearly discriminates against those of us who live in rural and remote communities. The tired, old Liberals love to deny the reality they reveal in their regulations. They will look us straight in the face and tell us they are making life more affordable. We can literally quote their own regulations back to them and they still will not believe themselves. This policy will make cars unaffordable for millions, but the plan does not stop there. Ontario's electricity power operator found that to meet the net-zero goal using only renewables would require an area 400 times the size of Toronto. How many trees must die to make the Liberals' green dream a reality?”
“In -25°C, the range of an electric vehicle drops by half. This might not matter much in a big city when the commute to work and back is 40 kilometres, but in rural communities in Canada, the closest hospital can easily be beyond the range of an electric car. We have not even touched the reliability of the electric grid in rural and remote parts of Canada. We have seen during ice storms that cities regain power much faster than remote areas. Going without electricity for three weeks is unimaginable for people who live in major cities; living in rural Canada, it is just a reality. Whether it is an ice storm, a solar storm or a cyber-attack, for rural Canadians forced to buy electric vehicles, the result is the same: Once the EV battery depletes, they are trapped. They cannot drive to the grocery store.”
“Without access to affordable transportation to get to work or to medical appointments, these Canadians will be forced to leave their homes and move to the cities. Even rural Canadians fortunate enough to afford an EV may find themselves trapped when the temperatures drop. Despite claims repeated by Liberal ministers, Canada is not Norway. I had the opportunity to travel to northern Norway to observe the Canadian Armed Forces participate in NATO exercises. Norway's capital, Oslo, sits just a few degrees below the Arctic Circle. It is a winter Olympics superpower, but it is also a coastal country with a milder climate than Canada's. Ottawa, in January, is 10°C colder than Oslo. Canada is also 26 times bigger. Once we start driving north up the Trans-Canada Highway, things get a lot colder.”
“All of this is spelled out in the regulations: Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, “are expected to generally cost more than non-ZEVs, and this vehicle price increase could lead to a reduction in the quantity of vehicles purchased.” (1155) By their own estimate, this policy would cost Canadians an extra $54 billion. Leaving Canadians poorer than before really is the hallmark of the Liberal government. Lower-income Canadians will not be able to afford a car, but they will still be forced to pay taxes to subsidize an EV BMW for Canadians who can well afford it. This policy clearly discriminates against rural and remote Canadians. Pricing millions of Canadians out of the car-buying market, the government will have a devastating impact on rural communities.”
“That may be an option if someone can afford to rent or own a home in a major city with public transit. Those living outside of major cities, such as the 108,000 people living in my riding, would have no options. That means they could not work. Maybe the government plans to give those vacant jobs to laid-off auto workers. By hiking prices on new vehicles, demand goes down, which means production must go down. Fewer cars being sold means fewer people working in the industry. That means fewer auto plant workers, fewer car part workers and fewer car salesmen. Those laid off would cut back on spending, leading to fewer jobs in service industries. Those who could still manage to afford a vehicle would have less money to spend after paying the higher prices. None of this is a surprise to government.”
“That might be great for the United States and China, but it leaves Canada more reliant on two countries that do not always have our best interests at heart. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently reported that the price of EVs would have to come down by 30% for the mandate to work. Since that is not likely to happen with 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs, the only choice would be to increase the price of internal combustion vehicles by 30%. This is effectively a $20,000 car tax. This would price millions of Canadians out of the new car market. Those millions of Canadians would then turn to the used car market. The price of used cars would go up. Canadians who could just afford a new car would be forced to buy used. Canadians who could just afford to buy a used car would be forced to take on more debt or go without a vehicle entirely.”
“Just so Canadians understand, the Liberals are proposing to impose massive fines on carmakers that do not sell enough electric vehicles, or EVs. Obviously, carmakers cannot go around forcing people to buy their electric vehicles, especially if they do not currently manufacture electric vehicles. How will carmakers ensure they sell enough EVs? They will do it by drastically raising the prices of internal combustion vehicles. When prices go up, demand goes down. Unfortunately, carmakers that do not currently produce any zero-emission vehicles will have to leave the Canadian market entirely or pay a $20,000 tax for every non-EV car they sell. The result will be much higher prices, less competition and fewer choices for consumers. The only winners with this policy are the all-electric carmakers, such as Tesla and BYD.”
“Over the last 10 years of Liberal rule, we have seen some overtly communist or Marxist policies. For example, there is the Liberal plan to search the homes of 2.3 million Canadians for firearms that look scary to people who know nothing about hunting. There is the plan to ban plastic food packaging so Canadians will eat less fresh food, fruits and vegetables, while being forced to eat food packed with preservatives. This car ban struts around wearing a Che Guevara shirt. It was one thing when we had a prime minister who made dumb statements like that the budget will balance itself or that he does not think about monetary policy. Despite replacing the drama teacher with an economist, we still have a government committed to this economic lunacy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the hard-driving Canadians of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The Liberal plan to ban the internal combustion engine is an act of pure economic vandalism. When this Soviet-style car sales mandate is combined with Trump's auto tariffs, it would mean the death of domestic car manufacturing. This is government-assisted suicide for the Canadian automobile industry. If this horrific Liberal policy is allowed to proceed, the damage it would unleash would spread out far beyond the auto industry. This regressive policy would hurt lower-income Canadians, students and refugees. This idiotic policy discriminates against rural Canadians and remote first nations. This proudly socialist policy would push up electricity prices while paving over paradise to put up a solar farm.”
“The freedom-loving petitioners are calling for the government to immediately withdraw from the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the health-conscious residents of my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The petitioners are calling out this government's hypocrisy after it recently and covertly signed on to the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement, just prior to the opening of the 45th Parliament. The Prime Minister had repeatedly promised on the campaign trail to defend Canada's sovereignty in the face of foreign threats, yet after the election, he went ahead and signed on to this legally binding treaty that will give unaccountable, unelected UN bureaucrats the power to override laws passed by our Parliament, which was duly elected by Canadians. This treaty was never debated, nor was it voted upon in this chamber.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour John Yakabuski, the recently retired MPP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Following in his father Paul Yakabuski's footsteps, John was first elected in 2003. His 22 years of service left an indelible mark. I heard him called Paul as often as John. He always took that as a compliment, having lived up to his father's standards. John was the singing MPP, not just O Canada on solemn occasions, but crooning a repertoire of Mac Beattie. As minister of natural resources, John was a steadfast leader during Ottawa Valley crises, swiftly mobilizing aid to combat spring floods and marshalling firefighters against summer wildfires. His compassion shone through in initiatives like his 2010 album Taking Care , which raised funds for long-term care homes. John's legacy is one of service, song and strength.”
“Now the Liberals want billions of dollars more to waste. Under the Liberals, Canadians are paying so much while getting so little in return.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's investigation into the Liberals' purchase of the F-35 fighter jets is shocking. It is over budget and behind schedule. Costs are up 50%. The new facilities to house the jets will not be completed until 2031. That is three years too late, forcing taxpayers to spend even more money on temporary hangars. The investigation also confirmed what we have known since 2018: We do not have enough pilots. Canada was the pilot training ground for the Commonwealth during World War II. Thanks to the Liberals, we send our recruits to Italy to learn to fly. The lost Liberal decade has left Canadians unsafe and insecure in an increasingly dangerous world. The out-of-control costs, repeated construction delays and lack of staff threaten to delay the replacement of the fighter jets.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are pleased with the deathbed conversion the Liberals had in cancelling the carbon tax, but Canadians are left with a carbon tax hangover because what the Liberals neglected to do was include a mechanism requiring prices to come down. Instead, the marketers have left prices for groceries the way they are instead of taking into account the reduced carbon tax. The Liberals also left the industrial carbon tax in place. My question for the member who just spoke is this: Should there be a mechanism to ensure that Canadians do feel the full benefit of getting rid of the carbon tax, and by how much does the member expect the industrial carbon tax to reduce forest fires in Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by the health-conscious residents of my riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. Last month, the Liberal government covertly adopted the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement, just prior to the opening of the 45th Parliament. This legally binding treaty that it has signed on to never received a single debate, nor was it brought to a vote in the chamber. By ignoring the consent of Parliament, which is elected by Canadians, the treaty will give unelected, unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to override our laws, rights and freedoms. The freedom-loving petitioners are calling for the government to immediately withdraw from the WHO's so-called Pandemic Agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in hearing more about the access to medical care for the families of soldiers. Do they have to live on a military base to get access? What does that look like? Who do they call to get access? This is very serious, and every summer it gets worse because there are postings from one to the next. Tell us how it works.”
“Mr. Speaker, the House has spoken: Parliament is demanding a budget this spring. The Liberals have already broken their promise of a spending cap. A budget is more than a big book of spending. It tells us how much things are going to cost. How much are they going to raise taxes? How much are they going to borrow? The Liberals have no plan to manage the debt. Will the Liberal minority government listen to the majority of Parliament and table a budget this spring?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself said that a slogan is not a plan. Plans involve precise measures and the amount each measure is going to cost. Therefore, when he said he had a plan, his only plan was to pick the pockets of our policies, which we are happy about. However, he should make sure that he puts the full policy we proposed in, because that would be a responsible response for the government to go forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, my biggest fan on that side of the aisle mentioned the budget. I did not see the budget or any dollar signs attached to anything in the throne speech. Once I have the numbers to demonstrate what each of the initiatives in the throne speech is going to cost, then I would be able to say something positive.”
“The only way this could ever happen would be for the Liberals to toss property rights overboard, claim the idea of property itself as a colonial legacy and give Canada a proud socialist identity. The throne speech really does reveal that the Trudeau Liberals are alive and well. Let us just hope the new socks they are wearing were not made in China.”
“The Prime Minister 's slogan, “build, baby, build”, will be taken out quietly and smothered. Nothing will be built. However, target 2 is the real shocker. The Liberals have committed us to restoring 30% of developed lands back to nature. The same Liberals want to pave over an area 400 times the size of Toronto to build windmills and solar farms. That a proud socialist could hold contradictory policies is not surprising. What is surprising is the estimate of what it would cost the taxpayers of Canada to expropriate 30% of developed lands and restore them to their natural state. One estimate of the value of all the property in Canada puts it at $19 trillion. To buy 30% of that would cost almost $6 trillion. That is what I mean by fantastical.”
“The man who claimed he writes his own talking points told Canadians that, over the last 10 years, the Trudeau Liberals had conserved 15% of Canada's land. He actually said that Trudeau Liberals had taken us from 1% to 15%. I know the Prime Minister has lived much of his life outside Canada, but surely even he knew that we had national parks before Trudeau. Conservatives support conserving more of Canada's natural habitat. We just think we should be honest with other countries on what is possible. What my constituents cannot support is the Liberals committing Canada to targets 1 and 2. Target 1 would require massive new environmental regulations to be imposed on every Canadian. Anyone who has lived on property that falls under a conservation authority knows what this will mean.”
“That is about the same amount that had been conserved under Stephen Harper, which means, over the last 20 years, Canada has conserved about 7.5% of its land. That brings the total conserved area to around 15%, but that steady progress was not flashy enough for the Trudeau Liberals. Despite having no plan to make it a reality, the Liberals committed us to conserving another 15% of Canada's wildlife and lands in five years. That pattern of over-promising and under-delivering was typical of the Trudeau Liberals, so it was a bit of a surprise to see the man from Brookfield stand before Canadians to make the exact same promise. Even more surprising was the ridiculous claim the Prime Minister made during his announcement.”
“The media and the Liberals do not like to mention the other two targets in the treaty. They only want to talk about the third target. That is understandable. Conserving our natural habitat is widely supported. What Canadians do not support is a government lying to the world in their name. The promise to reach 30% by 2030 was dishonest. Canadians do not have to take my word for this. They can go online to google Canada's conserved areas. From there, they will be able to find the government's report on its conservation efforts. The government might delete these web pages shortly, but I made sure to download a copy of the report for when it tries to put its track record into a memory hole. Here is what the report says: Over the last 10 years of Trudeau Liberal rule, Canada conserved an additional 3.5% of its natural habitat.”
“Negotiations for this international agreement were led by the Communists who control China, and the Liberal minister who stood in the House, this temple to liberal democracy, and declared himself to be a proud socialist. The fact that a self-declared, proud socialist has been elevated to the position of Minister of Canadian Identity should send a chill down the spine of every small-l liberal in the country. Putting a proud socialist and environmental radical in the same room as the Communist dragon crushing the people of China should have been a feeding frenzy for the legacy media, yet, to read any coverage of the treaty in the Liberal-funded media, one would think this treaty is a green miracle of international co-operation. Most news reports only mention the treaty's target to conserve 30% of our land and water by 2030.”
“That is because the Liberals will always privilege the fears of their affluent voters over the lives of poor kids. Only time will tell if the Liberals' plan to make buying homes more complicated will lower prices. Only time will tell if the Liberals will move ahead with their half-decade-old promise to grab up all the guns that look scary. What Canadians do not need time to figure out is that the Liberal promise to implement the 30 by 30 treaty is an epic fantasy tale. While this story is hardly The Lord of the Rings , a red dragon does make a cameo appearance. (1020) In the throne speech, His Majesty told the story of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.”
“Was the omission of the gun grab in the throne speech a quiet acknowledgement by our economist Prime Minister that spending over a billion dollars to destroy privately owned property is a form of investment destruction? We can only guess, since the Prime Minister campaigned on a slogan to eat less and gain weight. My hunch is that, despite how wasteful a gun grab would be, the Prime Minister will cave to the pressure from within his cabinet. The cabinet members will claim that the gun grab is an investment in saving lives. They will say this while they divert the police from stopping crime to searching the homes of 2.3 million law-abiding Canadians. They will say this despite the complete lack of evidence. They will say that they are saving lives while record numbers of teenagers are being shot.”
“Making something more complicated than it needs to be, growing the public service and having the government pick winners and losers is peak Liberal policy. The speech did not mention the Liberal campaign promise to seize the property of lawful firearms owners within the next four months. It was encouraging for His Majesty to say that the rights of lawful firearms owners would be protected. As the former public safety minister said last December, phase two of the great Liberal gun grab will involve sending the police to the home of every single licensed firearms owner to conduct searches for newly prohibited firearms. Those two statements are hard to square.”
“What I mean is that, while they might steal our policy slogan, they will then twist it into a traditional Liberal policy. Take our policy to remove the GST on new homes. The elegance of our policy is in the ease of execution. It is easy for home builders to plan. It is easy for the CRA to implement, yet in the hands of the Liberals, the policy gets twisted into something else. The Liberals said words like “remove GST” and “homes” and “new”, but they were not in the same order. The Liberals promised to remove the GST on sales of new homes to new buyers. Their policy creates uncertainty. Home builders will have to guess at how many new homes they will build for the first-time buyers. Their policies require the CRA to hire more bureaucrats to make sure the buyer is really buying their first home.”
“This is the same party that seeks to seize hunting rifles from lawful citizens. It is the same party that promised the world it would expropriate 30% of Canada's developed lands and impose strict new environmental rules across the country. This is the same Liberal Party that has no economic plan other than to tax and spend and then borrow some more. There is one difference between the Trudeau Liberals of six months ago and these repainted Liberals today. Whereas the last Liberals had a childish, obstinate mindset that treated any Conservative suggestion as radioactive, these light-fingered Liberals are ready to lift any idea out of our back pockets. Make no mistake: This is not a complaint. We want the Liberals to copy us, yet somehow, despite his university experience, the Prime Minister is bad at plagiarism.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the residents of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke for the trust they have placed in me for a ninth time. It is their hard work and their determination to build communities in the Ottawa Valley that inspire me to work just as hard for them. I would also like to thank His Majesty King Charles III for visiting Canada and delivering the throne speech. One of the first acts of the last prime minister was to pull down a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, so it was encouraging when the member for Nepean , as one of his first acts, invited His Majesty. It was encouraging right up until the moment the speech was delivered, which was when we were all reminded that this is the same old Liberal Party, just dressed up in banker socks.”