TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-04 Sitting 116 Showing 1–2 of 2

An adjournment debate where the Conservative MP asked the government to end corporate welfare spending and balance the budget. The Liberal MP mostly dodged the question, giving vague responses about uncertain times and strong economic plans. The Conservative then accused the Liberals of being a 'broken record of vapid slogans' who are incapable of fiscal responsibility. The Liberal defended by saying they are moving from a 'position of strength' that allows them to support Canadians without cuts. Overall, not much substance - the MPs mostly talked past each other without really engaging on the issue of government spending and deficits.

Official Hansard ↗

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 6:35 p.m.

“The government should spend less. Government should not choose who wins or loses. Let everyone compete on equal terms. Liberal men attack women who question them.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 6:45 p.m.

“I want to say the Liberals are bad. We Conservatives are different. I'm patriotic. Conservatives are better for Canada.”

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates