Cheryl Gallant

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 30th, 2025]

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.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 30th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think that is responsible.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 30th, 2025]

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.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 30th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I did not insult or attack the CBC. If we do not want to have a paid-off legacy media, we can just stop paying it off.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 30th, 2025]

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

In the throne speech, His Majesty told the story of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 11th, 2024]

With regard to chip technology and devices containing chip technology imported from foreign countries, specifically those with which Canada is not allied: (a) what safeguards, if any, are currently in place to ensure that such technology is safe and does not contain any elements, such as remote code execution elements, which could be detrimental to Canada at some point in the future; (b) what is the government doing, if anything, to address the discovered vulnerability in the Microchip Advanced Software Framework which exposes devices to the risk of remote code execution; (c) in addition to the vulnerability in (b), what other vulnerabilities has the government identified related to these chips and their connectivity to the internet; (d) for each vulnerability in (c), what action, if any, has the government taken to address the vulnerability; (e) what measures does the government have in place to address risks, including firmware updates or remote patches, that could introduce new vulnerabilities after deployment; (f) does the government conduct regular penetration testing of imported devices before approving their use in public infrastructure, and, if so, who has been tasked with overseeing such testing; and (g) does the government mandate compliance with international cybersecurity standards or frameworks when procuring or deploying such devices, and, if not, why not?

[Petitions, December 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of the great people from the healthy-living riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who are calling on the government to refrain from endorsing the so-called pandemic treaty drafted by the World Health Organization, which had never received a single debate or vote in the House of Commons. The concern is that, by agreeing to this legally binding treaty, Canada is signing away our own sovereignty, allowing UN bureaucrats, who are unaccountable to Canadians, the power to override our laws, rights and freedoms.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the great people of Pickering—Uxbridge, Whitby and the Liberal Minister of Health's very own riding of Ajax. They call on the House to immediately repeal sections 500 to 504 of Bill C-47, which was passed last year. These amendments made to the Food and Drugs Act are new regulatory constraints on natural health products that millions of Canadians rely upon and has since affected their medical freedom of choice and the affordability of these products.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 9th, 2024]

With regard to the government's approach to fentanyl: (a) when did the government first become aware that Canada's domestic supply of fentanyl was surpassing the demand; (b) how much fentanyl does the government estimate has been exported out of the country, broken down by year for the last five years; (c) what are the circumstances, if any, in which fentanyl is permitted to be included as a "safer supply" drug; (d) how much fentanyl does the government estimate has been distributed through "safer supply" programs, broken down by year for the last five years; and (e) has the government analyzed the impact of Canada becoming a net exporter of fentanyl on any other aspect related to the government, such as Canada's international trade, and, if so, what are the details of what was analyzed and what were the results?

[The Economy, December 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today Feed Ontario released its annual hunger report. Over one million Ontarians had to access the food bank in the last year. That is more than double the number from the last four years.

Every day, more Canadians struggle to afford food because of the actions of the Prime Minister. Higher prices are the official policy of the Liberal Party. The Liberals plan to quadruple the carbon tax by 2030 to 61¢ a litre on gas. They want to ban 95% of plastic food packaging.

When Liberals tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, then ban the packaging of food, higher prices are the only result. Canadians need to know that this is the Liberal policy. If people cannot afford to go to the grocery store, they emit less carbon. If people cannot afford the price of beef, they emit less carbon.

Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister. That is why we need a carbon tax election now.