Jacob Mantle · TranslatePolitics.ca

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-18

“I don't like that ruling. It gives the majority too much power. I want the rules to stay fair for everyone.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing what the government proposes in the fall. In the last minute I have, I would like to comment on the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. I appreciated the Speaker's ruling but I was deeply disappointed by it. First, on a factual basis, the Speaker indicated in the ruling that there was only supposition that certain members of the government may have had privileged information about the timing of amendments. I would suggest to the Speaker that the fact that they submitted amendments is evidence enough that they had that information. Second, the Speaker made this point: “Both the minority and the majority have rights; however, primacy cannot be given to both.” That was the quote the Speaker used. That was not the issue. The issue was the level playing field and primacy being given by the Speaker's ruling to the majority. I am troubled by the precedent that the Speaker's ruling may have set for giving the government the ability to deny members of the House, of any party, their participatory rights in the submission of amendments.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Steve Cooper wants to give his farm to his nephew. The government takes too much money when someone gives their farm to a nephew instead of a kid. That punishes family farms. Change the rules so the government takes less money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the troubling implications for family farms and the ability to pass family farms on to the next generation. For generations, family farms have fed Canadians and the world, and those farms are passed on, with great pride, from one generation to the next. Generally, if a farm is passed from a father or mother to a child, it is passed on a tax-deferred basis. Unfortunately, under the current rules, if it is passed to an extended family member, such as a niece or nephew, it is fully taxed under the capital gains rules. The result has been that, over the last 20 years, more than 57,000 family farms have been lost. That hurts family farmers in my community, such as Steve Cooper, who brought this issue to my attention in the local media. He wanted to pass his farm on to a nephew but could not do so because of the dramatic tax implications. The problem will only compound in the future because right now the average Canadian farmer is in their mid-fifties, and fewer than one in 12 has a successor under the age of 40. This is data from Statistics Canada. That means that farmers are getting older; they do not have a next generation, potentially, in line; and they are struggling with the succession of their farm. The result is that we are losing family farms in my community and across Canada. I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to consider looking into the rules around the Income Tax Act to change this so family farms could be passed on to the next generation in an extended family, without tax implications. The response at the time was an acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to speak with the Minister of Finance and to come back to the House to inform us. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here today, so I would like to ask him if those conversations have been had, what the result of those conversations was, and whether they have a solution or proposal that they will bring forward to the House in the fall sitting to address this issue.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Points of Order

2026-06-16

“I don't like this bill being rushed through. It takes away privacy rights. The government is just trying to censor people. They are going too fast. It is very bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this afternoon on a point of order concerning the admissibility of Government Business No. 13, which appeared on this morning's Notice Paper. Government Business No. 13 proposes to lay out a program for the remaining consideration of Bill C-22, the Liberal government's legislation concerning so-called lawful access. While programming motions are, of course, not unheard of in our Westminster system and in Canada, they have become increasingly fashionable, first under the Trudeau government and now under the current Liberal government. In fact, we have witnessed three of them this week alone. What is troubling is that each successive programming motion has been more and more aggressive than the preceding one. Government Business No. 13 introduces a novel feature not seen in previous programming motions: a retroactive deadline for the submission of committee amendments. Subparagraph (a)(ii) states: if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill within 30 minutes of the beginning of the meeting, all remaining amendments that were submitted to the committee by 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026, shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question forthwith.... The point, as is clearly evident, is that the deadline set in this notice was yesterday at 4:30 p.m. Therefore, if adopted, Government Business No. 13 would only allow the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to consider amendments that were filed yesterday. The Liberals' proposed deadline for committee amendments for Bill C-22, therefore, possibly preceded its notice of Government Business No. 13. It certainly preceded the publication of the notice, which comes out at about, as I understand it, two o'clock in the morning. What is more egregious, or perhaps as egregious, than the proposal to ram through the House such a sweeping piece of legislation with significant consequences for the privacy rights of Canadians is that, if adopted, members will also be left with no ability to put forward any further suggestions on how to improve Bill C-22 or strike the right balance between public safety and privacy, because the motion itself prevents and precludes any report stage amendments by members. Let me draw everyone's attention to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion. Paragraph (b) reads, “the bill may be considered at the report stage at any time following the completion of paragraph (a)(iv) of this order, and, when the order is read, it shall be deemed to have been concurred in, as amended, at the report stage”. There would be no amendments because the deadline for amendments is retroactive and there is no ability for amendments to be brought forward at report stage. Let me contrast this with Government Business No. 12, which was the immediately preceding programming motion. That concerned Bill C-30 before the Standing Committee on Finance, and the House adopted it on Monday night. There was a committee deadline in that motion, but it was for 24 hours after notice had been given of the government motion. Members in that case at least had the time to put forward their best and last ideas, knowing that, regardless, the Liberal guillotine was at hand. I will mention that Government Business No. 12 was not subject to a ruling, so I am not attempting to draw it as an authoritative precedent, but only as an example for the Speaker's consideration. We have a government that is fascinated with all the ways it can censor Canadians. With Government Business No. 13, the Liberals are now verging into the territory of erasing the rights of members. That is what makes Government Business No. 13 so utterly offensive. The idea of a retroactive deadline is, I believe, entirely unprecedented and, therefore, I would like to go back to several first principles to lay out my initial opposition to this bill. I will note that I am raising this at the earliest opportunity I can, having simply seen the notice this morning and raising it as quickly as possible. Therefore, I would beg the Speaker's indulgence to provide further arguments should my hon. colleagues across the way also provide theirs. I will turn to the first principle, Standing Order 1, which we do not often quote in this place. However, I think it is necessary when we are talking about something that is unprecedented and novel. It states: In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker...whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House. I would also draw the Speaker's attention to Standing Order 13, which, of course, gives you the ability to rule on whether or not any motion is in order in this place. Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, observes at citation 12: Parliamentary Law is something quite different from the ordinary Civil Law or Common Law. Parliamentary Law is based on centuries of tradition and precedents which have marked the evolution of parliamentary freedoms from the time that the first Parliaments were governed under the Divine Right of Kings to the stage of parliamentary sovereignty which we have now acquired. One of the House's earliest clerks, Sir John Bourinot, in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, second edition, at page 258, reiterated one of these most essential principles, which has evolved over the centuries. He said: The great principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have...been always kept steadily in view by the Canadian legislatures; these are: To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse. I know the Speaker will be aware of this general principle, but I draw him again to the section that refers to protecting the minority and restraining “the improvidence and tyranny of the majority”. That principle is reinforced again by our present-day Clerk, with his own comments at paragraph 5.1 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which says: ...over the years, the ideal of “protecting the minority” has adapted to the modern dictates of an efficient legislative body.... Nevertheless, it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government’s need to get its business through the House and the opposition’s responsibility to debate that business.... Sir George's principles are also quoted authoritatively in Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, at page 49: The rules of parliamentary procedure as a whole, then, must reflect these principles and create a balance between them. Procedure is thus at the service of noble ideals that ensure the highly democratic nature of the parliamentary institution. Even though they may sometimes be considered superfluous, the fact remains that the rules of procedure are extremely important for parliamentarians and for the functioning of the institution. While Bill C-22 contains some measures that law enforcement agencies have asked Parliament for, part 2 of the bill and, indeed, certain sections of part 1 raise serious concerns regarding privacy, civil liberties, government powers and other issues. The government's own charter statement acknowledges this. Moreover, major Canadian industries and technology companies, including Google, Meta, Apple and others, have raised serious questions about encryption provisions, the requirement to collect and store the personal information of Canadians and the powers contained in part 2 for the minister to issue secret orders to companies. The powers and the scope of this bill should be carefully considered, defined and targeted. This requires the balancing act that I referred to earlier. Parliament needs to get this right. Doing that requires time, patience and studying the procedures of this House, but Government Motion No. 13 would prohibit that. Perhaps support for the legislation within the caucus of the Liberal Party has been declining more swiftly than we thought, after hearing from witnesses and stakeholders, and, therefore, a renewed urgency is upon the Liberals. However, that is no excuse to push this bill through the House on the very last week of its sitting. It may be useful to recall the words of Speaker Milliken in a ruling he delivered on March 29, 2007, at page 8136 of the debates. He said: ...neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations. The political realities of the Liberal government, facing increasing and growing scrutiny on this censorship agenda, are no excuse for what the Liberal House leader is proposing through his notice this morning. As I said, Mr. Speaker, Government Business No. 13 has not yet been proposed, but I wanted to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity to provide you sufficient time to consider it. Should you wish us to raise this point of order when the motion is moved, we will do that as well. As your predecessor said, also on March 29, 2007, at page 8137 of the debates: Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course. In our submission, Government Business No. 13 would do that. It would see this House go dangerously off course, all in the service of a bill that would therefore be denied the careful and detailed scrutiny it requires. Let me finish by quoting citation 18 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition: We use the words “House of Commons” very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words mean. The word “Commons” means the people. This is the house of the people; sitting on both sides of this house; and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of Canada. Collectively those of us who meet in this Chamber represent all Canadians. That is our responsibility! That is our duty. Our rights are important only to the extent that those rights represent the rights of the people themselves. If the traditional rights of the members of this House are released, limited or arbitrarily curtailed in any way, it is not our rights that are of concern. What is vitally important is that in that curtailment of rights—there is a limitation of the rights—of the people themselves. The freedom that we have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the House we might sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country of ours. It is here in the House of Commons, to which all the people of Canada must look for just laws properly considered and properly made, that Canadians in every part of Canada must look for the greater part of their freedom and for the assurance of that type of government which will be itself an expression of the freedom which has come down to us through so many generations of sacrifice and tremendous efforts. The retroactive committee amendment deadline proposed in Government Business No. 13 is offensive to the rich and deep tradition of parliamentary law. It is compounded by the inability of members to move motions at report stage, effectively preventing them from providing any more input into this bill. It cannot be in order that a bill provides a deadline retroactively, known only to the government members and utilized only by the government members, unbeknownst to any other member of this House until that deadline has passed. As such, it is my submission that Government Business No. 13 is not in order and, therefore, the whole of the motion should be equally called out of order.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-06-16

“I want you to pass the parts of the bill I like, but keep debating the parts I don't like. You promised to work with us, but now you're pushing through more government surveillance. I don't like that.”

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-15

“I want to say I'm being factual. I don't like how they criticize me.”

“You don't need a new law. Use the laws we already have. I never said a noose wasn't a hate symbol. I said the way they showed it on TV was different from seeing it in real life.”

“I met with Jewish groups and Muslim groups about this bill. We agreed on it even though we have different views. The government is being selective about what they call hate. That's a problem. Some people get protection and others don't. The government shouldn't censor.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, being involved in this debate has actually been an amazing experience for me personally because it has allowed me to reach and speak with other faith communities, which I would not otherwise have had the chance to do. I met with Muslim groups in Toronto and Jewish groups in my own riding. I had a different faith and a different view of the world, but we were in complete alignment on Bill C‑9. It was actually quite amazing. My hon. colleague raises a great point, which is the selective nature of what the government considers hate. He points out a very good example, that regardless of which lists the Liberals use or which groups they identify, they seem to leave out some and include others. Unfortunately, that leaves us to conclude that some people, in their view, are more equal than others. This is why we are so concerned when they get involved in censorship, because we know which groups they think deserve protection and we know which groups they think do not deserve that protection.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I'm not an idiot.”

“I don't like that the government is stopping debate on this bill. Everyone wants to stop hate speech, but I don't trust the government to protect liberty. They made summer jobs hard to get for religious groups. They tried to punish pro-life charities. The minister said parts of the Bible and Torah were hateful. He never took it back. The government shouldn't decide what's true in religion. Adding symbols to the hate list opens a can of worms. It will be selectively enforced based on what the government disagrees with, not what's actually hateful. The government is afraid of freedom and wants to censor citizens. This bill is tyrannical and just the beginning.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while the hour is late, it is always a privilege to get up and speak in the House, especially on an issue that is so important. I rise with a bit of a heavy heart, though, because I realize this will likely be the last time I can speak at substantive length to this bill and express my concern with, first, the government's heavy-handedness in dealing with this debate. It is unfortunate that the government moved to end this debate only a few minutes after it began. The irony of cutting off and censoring debate on a bill that deals with expression is not lost on me, nor is it lost on Canadians. I want to say at the outset that I understand the laudable goal that exists with Bill C-9. I think it is one that is shared by all members of the House. It is certainly shared by me. However, we know what is said about good intentions and the path that they lead to. The laudable goal, of course, is the elimination of hateful speech and conduct in our society. We all share that goal. After 11 years, Canadians just do not trust the Liberal government to preserve and protect their liberty. Quite the opposite is true. There is a history and a pattern that proves this suspicion that people of faith across Canada have. There was an ideological test to receive summer jobs funding, which I did not forget, and I do not think Christian communities, Jewish communities or Muslim communities across Canada forgot that either. There was the removal, or proposed removal, of charitable status for organizations that defend and promote life. These are still the avowed positions of the government opposite. I will note that I am splitting my time. In the Senate debates, Professor Haskell said, “Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken.” History has a way of teaching us not to believe the Liberal government when it says, “Just trust us.” That is why Bill C-9 united Christians across all denominations, from the United Church to the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church to the evangelical churches across Canada, but it was not just Christians who were united against this bill. One of the most fascinating things about this is that the Liberal government succeeded in uniting all faiths against their proposition. We have heard tonight, numerous times, that “Canadians were asking for this” and “Communities were asking for this,” but actually the opposite is true, and we have the letters from those communities to prove it. We have letters from the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to prove it. The reality, as I understand the evidence, is that every faith community opposed this legislation. Rather than asking for it, they opposed it. I want to focus a bit on the most troubling part of Bill C-9, which is the removal of long-standing protections for religious freedom and the ability to have civil and substantive discussions about matters that go to the core of belief without the government's interference in that. Unfortunately, a Faustian bargain was struck between the Liberals and the Bloc to remove that protection from the Criminal Code. Now, it is not my opinion that this is what was taking place. This is the opinion that was held by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said that certain passages of the Torah and the Bible are categorically “hateful” and that prosecutors should have “discretion...to press charges.” What is deeply troubling about this is that in this whole debate, over the entire months that we have been discussing this, the minister has never resiled from his comments. He has never sought to clarify his comments, and he never sought to add nuance to those comments or explain to religious communities what he meant by them. To add insult to injury, not one member of the Prime Minister's cabinet has said anything about them. In fact, no member, to my knowledge, of the Liberal Party, despite being asked in debate after debate, has resiled from those comments. What should we take from them? The only logical conclusion to take is that they believe them. If that is the case, then our fears are well founded. The reality is that Canadians should be allowed to discuss and debate controversial issues, even if we do not like them, even if we think they are repugnant. It does not matter. That is what living in a free society allows us. Government should not decide what religious truth is. I do not want the minister of culture being the arbitrary arbiter of whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and I do not want them to be the arbiter of whether in fact there is no God other than God, “and Muhammad is his messenger”. That is not the government's role. However, perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of this amendment that removed that protection was that it was predicated on a completely false fact. It was predicated on the idea that there was an instance in Quebec that could not be prosecuted because of this religious protection. That is categorically false and, no matter how many times the Bloc want to bring up that example of Mr. Charkaoui , it does not make it true. I want to note this as well about the Senate amendment, because that of course is part of what we are discussing tonight. The Senate amendment seeks to add an additional symbol to criminalize in the code. Let me start with the obvious. The use of a symbol can, of course, be hateful, but I would respond that if it is, it is already a crime. There have been several examples where police across Canada have prosecuted individuals for expressing their hateful conduct through the use of a symbol. Of course, a noose could be used as a hate symbol, undoubtedly. However, to me this is a bit of an odd inclusion. To me this sounds like the importation of an American problem into Canada, and the use of that problem to divide and fearmonger. Canada does not have the same history as the United States does with this symbol. Moreover, discussing symbols opens a Pandora's box. Who would decide what symbols are hateful? Well, according to the bill, the government could decide to add any new entity to a terrorist list, and therefore its symbols would become hate symbols. Is display enough to warrant prosecution, or does intent matter? These questions remain unanswered. If we were to go down the path of selecting symbols, I would have several to offer. How about the hammer and sickle? If we want to talk about a hateful symbol that Canadians fought and died against, for example in the Korean War, the hammer and sickle would be one of them, but this just proves the point about the selective nature of what the Liberals think hate is. Burning churches is understandable. Conservatives had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to list Samidoun as a terrorist organization. This tells us that it is not about hate. It is about things the Liberals disagree with, and that is the problem with this type of censorship. There is a creeping culture of censorship that pervades the Liberal government: Bill C‑9, the Liberal censorship law; Bill C‑22, the Liberal surveillance law; Bill C‑35, the Liberal law on digital ID for all; Bill C‑36, the Liberal digital Stasi commission. We are sliding backwards into self-imposed immaturity, lacking the ability to use our own understanding without the guidance from another, in this case the state. Why is the Liberal government afraid of freedom? When a government lives in fear of its citizens, it seeks to censor them. Let me close with a quote from the great Frederick Douglass, a great abolitionist, who said: Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. We have the beginnings of tyrannical government in Canada, and that is the problem. Bill C‑9 is only the beginning. It is not the end.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like the Bloc's position. They keep using the example of Mr. Charkaoui to defend removing the good-faith exemption. But inciting hatred against Jews is already against the law. Police chose not to charge Mr. Charkaoui even though they could have. The good-faith exemption didn't stop them. So the Bloc's example doesn't make sense. I want my colleague to explain their real reason for wanting to remove the exemption.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc's position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little. One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to. I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say this bill makes Canadians safe. But your cabinet says it could be used to ban the Bible and the Torah. I want to know if you agree with them.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-15

“I want to blame your slogans for economic problems that young Canadians face. I will list bad things affecting them from a United Way report. Unemployment rates are the worst in decades. I want to say you are selling out the next generation.”

“I want you to take the blame for a company investing in Ireland instead of Canada. Other countries have lower taxes and less regulation. I want you to copy those policies so more companies invest in Canada.”

Oral Questions

International Trade

2026-06-12

“The real problem isn't our laws. The Liberals just aren't enforcing them. Now it's putting our whole economy at risk. The U.S. blocks shipments. Giant made bikes that got blocked there but you can buy them here. Tell us: were those bikes made by forced labour?”

“I want the Liberal government to show us their numbers. The U.S. can do it, so they should too.”

Government Orders

2026-06-11

“You've clearly seen through this government's pattern of censorship. I'm just asking you to confirm: the Liberals keep trying to control what Canadians believe and think, don't they? If you don't agree with their truth, they say you're bad.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-10

“People are unhappy and worried about the future. They don't think you're doing a good job managing money. Will you finally admit your choices are causing big problems for Canadians?”

“The Prime Minister downplays a recession as if it's not a big deal. But let's call it what it is - a serious problem. Many Canadians are struggling financially, even those who are fully employed. This is a problem specific to Canada, as other countries facing similar challenges aren't experiencing a recession. What's the government's excuse for this?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-05

“I'm new here, but I don't like how the government is celebrating. Fewer people have jobs than before. I don't think the government cares about that. Why are you cheering for bad news?”

“I want to accuse the government of causing Canada's recession.”