Adjournment Proceedings

In adjournment proceedings, Cheryl Gallant (Conservative) returned to a question she had asked about ending corporate welfare spending and balancing the budget, saying the government’s earlier reply had included sexist insults and arguing that Conservatives would instead cut red tape and lower taxes. Ryan Turnbull (Liberal) replied that the government is managing finances responsibly amid global uncertainty, citing Canada’s position in the G7, reduced deficit, controlled government spending growth, and support for businesses and housing. Gallant repeated that the Liberals overspend and dismiss criticism, and Turnbull said the government is investing from a position of economic strength, including in the military and housing, with foreign investment at its highest in nearly 20 years.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“I asked the government to balance the budget and stop giving money to big corporations. Instead of answering, they attacked me with sexist insults. The government keeps wasting money trying to pick business winners and failing. Conservatives would cut red tape and lower taxes for everyone so any business can succeed.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the answer-seeking Canadians in the riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. Last week, I asked the government if it would end the corporate welfare spending spree and balance the budget. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was a misogynistic personal attack. This has become a recurring talking point from the Liberal bro caucus. The Liberals cannot defend their terrible policy, so they resort to invoking the “hysterical woman” trope. This sexist pattern comes straight from the top. The Prime Minister does not like to be questioned by women. He gets chippy and condescending when pressed. He even deployed a classic gaslighting technique when he told Rosemary Barton to look inside herself when she asked about his conflicts of interest. Let us be clear. I am not raising a question of privilege. This is no place for a thin skin. I am happy to throw partisan haymakers, and I can appreciate a sharp, devastating rejoinder. The secretary’s ad hominem attack was just blunt and boring. It was less Cicero in the forum and more Archie Bunker in the La-Z-Boy chair. After 11 years of failure, all the Liberals have left are tired, worn-out personal attacks. This should not be a surprise, considering their policies are just as tired and worn out. The Liberal sovereign debt fund is just repeating the failure of the clean growth fund. The clean growth fund is just repeating the failure of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. The Infrastructure Bank is just repeating the failure of the supercluster strategy. The supercluster strategy was just the Liberals’ doubling down on the failure of the cluster strategy. The Liberals continue to fail over and over again yet never learn a fundamental lesson: One cannot beat the market. It does not matter if one has a Ph.D. in economics from Oxford. No one is smarter than the collective decision-making of 40 million Canadians. Unfortunately, while no one person can outsmart the market, someone can outsmart a government. Call this the Enron-Brookfield business model. Rather than compete in the market, they lobby the government to regulate a market into existence and to then regulate out the competition. They do not need a secret cabal to execute this strategy. They just need to put the word “sovereign” before our business pitch and watch the CBC lobby for them. They can rebrand their concrete slab into a sovereign spaceport and wait for the government to give them a 10-year exclusive, sole-source contract. Unlike the arrogant Liberal approach, our Conservative economic plan is based in humility. We cannot know the future, so we let a thousand flowers bloom. We create the conditions where anyone with a sound business plan has a chance to build a successful venture. We do not pick and choose who gets special political exemptions from Liberal red tape. We will cut the Liberal red tape and lower taxes for everyone equally. This is the same approach millions of Canadians take to investing. They do not try to pick individual stocks. They purchase exchange-traded funds to buy the market. This agnostic approach to economic growth has proven to be superior to the Liberals’ faith-based approach. Unfortunately, Canadians are stuck living in the church of climate socialism for the next three years. This is a choice Canadians will face next time: our Conservative approach, rooted in reality and humility, or the Liberal approach, based on economic arrogance defensible only through personal insults.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“The Liberals spend too much and attack anyone who questions them. Canadians have a choice between the Liberals, who treat criticism like treason, and the Conservatives, who want to fix the country.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 23 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this old Liberal response that the Liberals are incapable of rising to the occasion. They have become a broken record of vapid slogans. The Liberals are spending more, leaving Canadians to invest less. They are growing the economy from the heart out, the elbows up, the eyes down, but always against the fight for freedom. If one dares to question them, they suggest that person is mentally ill or, like the national “spend more” minister, will accuse them of hating their country. This illustrates the choice Canadians have: They can choose the nationalism of the Liberal Party, which treats criticism as treason, or choose the patriotism of the Conservatives, who seek to repair what is being broken in the country we love. That is the choice. We choose patriotism over nationalism. We choose humility over arrogance. We choose Canada strong and free.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 116

  1. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 35 statements
  2. Private Members' Business Criminal Code 13 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 8 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Veterans 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Natural Resources 7 statements
  18. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  19. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  21. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions The Economy 5 statements
  24. Government Orders Report Stage 86 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements