Jacob Mantle · TranslatePolitics.ca

Statements by Members

Retirement Congratulations

2026-06-05

“I want to praise a retiring provincial politician from my area. She got a lot of expensive government projects for our area. She backed our party consistently and never criticized us in public. She was always good to me personally. I am thanking her for it.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to recognize Caroline Mulroney, member of provincial Parliament for York—Simcoe, who retires from politics today. Locally, Caroline's legacy is historic. She pushed through the Bradford bypass connecting Highways 400 and 404, she championed the new Southlake hospital in Queensville, she was responsible for the creation of the North Gwillimbury Forest, preserving nearly 1,000 acres for future generations, and she made sure that the Ford government approved a state-of-the-art phosphorus reduction facility for the health of Lake Simcoe. She was and remains a principled, reasonable Conservative, never overly partisan. She always supported Conservatives, no matter the stripe. She always said yes, always took my calls and always gave honest, prudent advice. I know she is a proud mom and a loving wife, too. Caroline will be deeply missed by our community and by me personally. For everything she has done, I thank her.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-04

“I want to criticize the government's economic management. I say their mistakes are making Canada the only G20 country in recession. I think growth will be bad the next few years. I want to argue the government's pledges about debt aren't realistic.”

“You know a lot of countries, but one is different and bad. It's the one with a recession. Which one is it?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I want to look like I support Canadian content too. But I don't want the government picking winners and losers. And I don't want the government forcing tech companies to only show some content.”

“I'm piling on. The government must be asleep at the wheel to start a trade fight now. I want to look like I'm concerned about trade.”

“I'm filling up space with good words about jobs and investment. The real issue is the government wants more control. It's not about protecting culture. It's about forcing tech companies to promote the government's message and pay for its programs.”

“I'm not afraid of American culture. Canadians can compete with the world. You use Netflix too. Have some confidence in Canadian creators.”

“Don't tax foreign companies more. It won't help Canadian culture. The U.S. might retaliate.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, October was a beautiful month at Green Gables, when the birches in the hollow turned as golden as sunshine and the maples behind the orchard were royal crimson and the wild cherry-trees along the lane put on the loveliest shades of dark red and bronzy green, while the fields sunned themselves in aftermaths. Anne reveled in the world of color about her. “Oh, Marilla,” she exclaimed one Saturday morning,... “I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers...” Those who love Canadian content may recognize this memorable passage from the great Canadian story Anne of Green Gables, written by the great Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. This passage highlights why the book has endured for so many years: Anne's irrepressible spirit, capturing her vivid imagination that turns the ordinary autumn into something magical. Anne's author, Lucy Maud Montgomery, in fact spent 15 years of her life in Leaskdale, Ontario, which is in my riding of York—Durham, about 15 minutes from where I live. She wrote the majority of her books while living in Leaskdale, and she raised her two surviving children there. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because Lucy Maud Montgomery was funded by a tax on foreign authors. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because a Liberal government forced Canadians to buy her book. It was successful because it was great writing, great content and great Canadian culture. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to subsidize Canadian content. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to force Canadians to watch or listen to government-mandated content, regardless of its quality. We are talking about the Online Streaming Act today and the increase in that tax on Canadians, the Netflix tax, from 5% of gross Canadian revenues to 15% of gross Canadian revenues, which will undoubtedly increase the costs for Canadians. There are many reasons to oppose this tax hike, but what I want to focus on today is that this tax hike will be a trade irritant with our friends in the United States and will impede our ability to get a good deal on our CUSMA renewal. Since its introduction, the Online Streaming Act has faced trade backlash from the United States, and rightly so. It requires foreign streaming services to contribute a percentage of their gross Canadian revenues to Canadian production funds as a condition of market access. Those payments were at 5% and have now increased to 15%. These rules are discriminatory for at least four reasons: First, they exclude Canadian streaming services from the same obligations, so foreign companies must pay and Canadian companies do not have to. Second, when foreign companies pay, they pay twice. That is because the royalties they pay to Canadian rights holders are included in the taxable revenue used to calculate their obligation. I know Liberals love taxes, but this is a tax on a tax. Third, the rules exclude foreign companies from benefiting from those content funds. Last, they require streaming providers to promote and prioritize Canadian content. This is often referred to as discoverability. I will pause on that for a moment. The government is dictating the content that these streaming service providers must show Canadians. They are telling them that regardless of whether a show is popular, of quality, good to watch, fun to watch or even if anyone wants to watch it, it must be shown to Canadians. The Liberal government will tell them what content is okay. All of this leaves us with an unfair and uneven playing field, whereby foreign companies are required to contribute but banned from benefiting. The cost to foreign companies is real. One estimate that was submitted before the CRTC by the Computer and Communications Industry Association in the United States said that at 5%, it cost its industry $2.2 billion U.S. This will grow between 2025 and 2030, at the higher CRTC rates, to over $7 billion U.S. I am not noting the cost so that we shed a tear for companies that are paying taxes but to note that there is a real cost to U.S. companies. We should not be surprised that these U.S. companies are outraged that they are being discriminated against and are calling on their government to take action. The Americans have responded in several ways. First, the Online Streaming Act has been identified in the USTR's national trade estimates report every year since its passage. That report identifies trade irritants that the U.S. has with countries around the world. If we go to the section on Canada, we will find a subsection on the Online Streaming Act, which calls out this tax. This is not just some government report that sits on a shelf. USTR Jamieson Greer has repeatedly said in public that the national trade estimates report must be part of any CUSMA renegotiations. This means that the issue is squarely in play for the U.S. The government has often claimed that Canada is shielded from this or otherwise protected because of the so-called cultural exception in the CUSMA. The cultural exception exists, but it comes with a price. Let me unpack that a little more. The starting point is chapter 19 on digital trade in the CUSMA. It covers non-discrimination. It says, in the relevant part, “No Party shall accord less favorable treatment to a digital product created, produced, published, contracted for...or...made available on commercial terms in the territory of another Party”. We have to treat foreign digital products in the same way as we treat other foreign digital projects and products created in Canada. Lawyers will argue on whether there is discrimination or not, and we will leave that to them. I would say that I think the case is pretty strong. That takes us to the so-called cultural exemption, which is found in chapter 32. It says, in the relevant part, that the agreement, the CUSMA, “does not apply to a measure adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry”. Okay, that sounds good. However, that is not the whole story, because just two articles down, it says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take a measure of equivalent commercial effect in response to an action by another Party that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement”. Taken together, this means that Canada can violate its non-discrimination obligations in the digital trade chapter for the cultural sector in Canada, as it is doing with the Online Streaming Act. However, that gives the U.S. the right to retaliate with “equivalent commercial effect”. This is why the estimates of the cost to U.S. industry are so important, because it tells us what the retaliation may be. It is also important to note that the retaliation provision is not limited to the cultural sector. This means that the United States could choose which products or services it wishes to retaliate against. The U.S. has done that repeatedly with other countries. We can take France as an example. The U.S. retaliated to the French digital services tax by targeting its wine, cheese and handbags. We have talked a lot in the House about vulnerable industries in Canada: steel, aluminum, lumber, automotive and seafood. We can imagine the United States taking retaliatory action, completely consistent with its obligations, in one of those industries. I just want to end on how this funding is being used, because we could argue about whether this is good or not, but what really puts the nail in the coffin for me is to see how this cultural funding is being used. It is often used to push radical ideologies on Canadians, families and children. Let us look at just a couple of the outrageous examples. Most recently, we heard about the example of the prank show Northland Tales, produced by the CBC and APTN, in which the state broadcaster used deceptive tactics to lure participants to a show and then sandbagged them to push their anti-historical, anti-Canadian narratives attacking Canadian figures and institutions such as John A. Macdonald, the founder of our country. Without Macdonald, there would be no Canada. There was also the RCMP, a historic institution in this country. Even members of Parliament were targeted. The member for North Island—Powell River was targeted. He is smarter than the average bear and was able to avoid that. We can see that this funding is not used to promote quality Canadian content, such as Anne of Green Gables. It is wasted on radical ideologies. However, there is a solution. The solution is that the government should use its powers to stop the CRTC from raising this tax from 5% of revenues to 15% of revenues. The government has the power. It has its majority. The question is whether it will do that. At the end of the day, Canadians want to go home, kick their feet up, crack a beer and watch Netflix without having it cost them an arm and a leg.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You talked about human rights and justice everywhere. I want you to condemn this specific thing I don't like.”

Oral Questions

Aerospace Industry

2026-05-27

“I'm accusing the Liberals of a scam. I want them to table the lease agreement and explain why Liberal insiders benefit. I think the Liberals are hiding something.”

“I want the defense minister to answer for the spaceport. It looks like a bad deal for taxpayers. I think he's overspending.”

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-05-26

“I'm confused. The finance minister should explain whether he's really treating our pensions as government assets. Is he planning to use them to pay foreign debts? I want a clear answer.”

“The government's accounting is misleading. They are padding the numbers by counting Canadians' pensions as if that money belongs to the government to pay the government's debts. I want the government to admit they are implying Canada's pensions could be raided by foreign creditors.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked in question period on the topic of the economy and, in particular, the spring economic update, which we have been debating these last few weeks. In the spring economic update, the government's charts show that Canada has one of the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratios. In fact, the government brags that Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is far below the G7 average of about 100% and is around 10%. However, with every financial statement, I have learned that we have to read the notes, because in the notes we find the information we need to understand these numbers. When we read the notes to these charts, charts 34, 35 and 36, I believe, in the spring economic update, we will find the following in relation to defining government net debt: “The internationally comparable definition of ‘all levels of government’ includes the central, state, and local levels of government, and social security funds. For Canada, this includes the federal, provincial, territorial, and local and Indigenous government sectors, and the Canada Pension Plan and the Québec Pension Plan.” That is the key provision in the note, right at the end, where it says, “and the Canada Pension Plan and the Québec Pension Plan.” What the government is saying is that it has included in its calculation of debt and assets Canada's pension plans. Of course, including Canada's pension plans and their assets will lower the net debt-to-GDP ratio, but these assets have been earmarked for future pension obligations. They are not, or at least should not be, available to satisfy general government debt. Of course, the CPP and QPP are independently managed, as they should be. The government is suggesting in its spring economic update that the pension of Canadians be available to satisfy its debts. I am not arguing about the calculation of net debt to GDP right now. I am simply focused on the idea that the government is suggesting that the assets of the CPP and QPP could be used to satisfy government debts. My question to the parliamentary secretary this evening is this: Is it the position of the Liberal government that the CPP and the QPP could be raided by foreign creditors to satisfy the government's debts?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Natural Resources

2026-05-07

“The CBC says you want to change pipeline approvals. Last year you said projects would get fast-tracked. Nothing real happened. No projects got approved. No laws or taxes went away. It's never today with you. When's the next pipeline?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, CBC is reporting that the Liberals will change the rules for resource development and pipeline approvals to allegedly try to speed them up, but we have been here before. Last year they promised big projects at speeds never seen before. If the minister were right, we would have projects coming out of everywhere, but in that year, no project has been approved in the national interest and nothing has been fast-tracked. Not one anti-resource development law or tax has been removed. It is beginning to feel a little like Alice in Wonderland, in which the rule is, “pipeline tomorrow, pipeline yesterday, but never a pipeline today.” If that is not the case, will the minister tell us when the next pipeline will be approved?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Blaming other countries doesn't fix high gas prices. I want Canada to cut gas taxes for everyone this year!”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-05

“The ratio he bragged about hides all the provincial debt. Does he want to take your pension to pay for his deficits?”

“How much will Canadians have to pay later because of all the government's spending and debt today?”

Oral Questions

Taxation

2026-04-27

“I want to let family farms be passed down without crushing taxes. The current rule favors children and punishes nephews. That's hurting farms and families.”

Statements by Members

International Trade

2026-04-23

“I want to blame the Prime Minister for having a bad relationship with the United States. I think he failed to get a better trade deal with the U.S. I want to make the Prime Minister look bad by saying he contradicts himself. I'm worried that Canada is being left out of trade negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. I want to say the Prime Minister's mistakes are causing the U.S. to put tariffs on our products. I think the Prime Minister is putting Canadian jobs at risk by not being at the negotiating table.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he alone could handle the United States. He went further. He told Canadians, “we will get an even better deal”, so Canadians have every right to judge him by the promises he made. On top of that broken promise, we now have contradictions and confusion. This week, the Prime Minister said our relationship with the United States is a weakness, but days later he said he could still get a good deal. Which is it, a rupture with the United States in favour of China or a good deal with the United States? Canadians fear that history is repeating itself. Just like the last time, the Mexicans are in advance negotiations with dates scheduled for May. Canada is on the outside looking in. The Prime Minister's contradictions and confusion have led to more tariffs, higher tariffs and broader tariffs on everything from lumber to manufactured goods. Now, his absence from the negotiating table is putting in peril the millions of Canadian jobs that rely on a strong, stable relationship with the United States.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗