Jacob Mantle
York—Durham, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my riding of York—Durham, particularly those from the town of Georgina and the community of Keswick on the south shore of Lake Simcoe, with respect to a new invasive species called water soldier.”
“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.”
“Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to list or otherwise identify water soldier as an invasive aquatic plant under relevant federal law; to nominate a single federal department or agency to take responsibility for the federal government's response to water soldier; and then, to allocate sufficient financial and…”
The complete record
Every one of 466 lines we hold for Jacob Mantle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spoken so eloquently on Bill C-9 from the beginning, and I want to commend him for seeing Bill C-9 for what it is. It is the government's attempt to censor what people say and do in this country. Does he see a pattern in the behaviour of the government? With whatever social problems seem to exist in this country, the Liberals' response is not to let Canadians make decisions for themselves, think for themselves or speak for themselves, but to tell them what their truth is and that if they do not believe their truth, they are bad people. Does he see a pattern here?”
“Mr. Speaker, every day they play the same game, claiming success for any small ray of sunlight but shirking responsibility for everything else. Canadians do not believe them. The United Way said today that 57% of Canadians, in all age and gender groups, believe the public finances are being poorly managed. Two-thirds of Canadians are anxious about the future. They do not believe in the job the Prime Minister is doing today, and they are not buying his promises for tomorrow Will the Prime Minister finally get up and accept responsibility for his choices that are having devastating consequences for Canadians today?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister calls it just a little economic weakness, just a settling-in period. Well, I am a little more simple. I will just call it what it is, a recession. Today the United Way quantified for us that feeling that things are just not very good right now. Nine in 10 Canadians are experiencing financial anxiety, and CTV reported that fully employed Canadians are sleeping in campers to survive. This is a made-in-Canada problem. Mexico is in the same trade war with no recession. Even Russia, which is in a full-scale war and economically sanctioned, has no recession. What is the excuse today?”
“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. There are certain carve-outs in the bill that are attempting to address this issue, on medical records and solicitor-client privilege, I believe. The problem is that this is very vague, in part 1 especially, and the Privacy Commissioner makes this point. The list of entities that could be requested to provide information is very broad, so it would include more than just telecoms. The information that they would be requested to provide is non-exhaustive. It could go beyond just what it says in the bill. We are trying to fix that in part 1 so that we do not get in a situation. It would not be a doctor, because that is carved out, but there are a lot of other health care providers in there who may touch on someone's information. That is private. That should be protected. We need to fix that in part 1.”
“All of that reveals very private information, which is exactly why, in the EU, the European Court of Justice said that this information is very private, and it struck down the very same metadata retention requirements that Bill C-22 includes.”
“Madam Speaker, I would describe Bill C-22 right now as a big, fat dumpster fire. This is the government's dumpster fire, which this motion is trying to fix. What the member quite rightly points out is that in part 2, there is a metadata retention requirement, and that includes one's location services. That means that law enforcement, or any other part of government, can choose to get this information later. We have seen in other countries that it does not stop at law enforcement. Other government agencies look for that information. They will know who someone had coffee with because they will be able to see two iPhones at the same location. They will know if someone goes to church on Sunday because they will see a pattern.”
“Madam Speaker, everything we do on this side of the House is for the benefit of Canadians, and that includes striking a balance between their privacy and the needs of law enforcement. I have tried to make very reasonable and sensible arguments here, not hyperbole. To clarify to the member, it is the strength of the Supreme Court's reasons that is important. It does not matter that the court sits on high. It is the strength of its reasons that we look to. In this case, its reasoning on section 8 and unreasonable search and seizure has a long history, and I support it. It is not just because Supreme Court justices sit in robes that we listen to them. It is because of the strength of their reasons. That is very important, and the member misses that.”
“What should be approved through amendment to the bill is bringing that standard back up to the standard that has been used for production orders in the Criminal Code for decades, which is reasonable grounds to believe. This means that not only would someone have to have a hunch, but they would also have to have an objective belief that there is going to be some evidence. It is not enough that someone thinks someone has committed a crime. They have to know that there is some evidence or have a good belief that there is evidence. Through decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and all common-law jurisdictions, the court has said it is not enough to just have a hunch. In the common law and now under the charter, we must have more than a hunch to invade someone's privacy and demand information about them.”
“It could be another judicial official, such as a peace officer who is not a judge. It would not even have to be a lawyer. For the non-lawyers or people who are not initiated in these two thresholds, I will explain that this would be an important change, because the first one, reasonable suspicion, is simply someone's subjective view that they think something bad has happened. They think a crime has been committed, so they need some information to see if they are right. That is a very low threshold. It is like a hunch. It is as if I have a hunch that someone committed a crime, so I am going to get the government to give me all their personal information. I do not think that sounds like a good idea.”
“This is so that, in case something goes wrong and we need to know what was provided, we have a document that says what they provided. Again, this is a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner that Liberals have refused. Those are three critical problems on the substantive side with part 1, and I will add one more to that. This is the threshold issue on the production order request, which is the second part of part 1. We have conservation of service, and then production order. The Liberals have proposed to lower the threshold for obtaining a production order, to reasonable suspicion. This would be lowered from the traditional grounds for obtaining a production order, which is reasonable grounds to believe. In this case, it would have judicial oversight of some manner, which would not necessarily have to be a judge.”
“Again, we have suggested an amendment, which was originally proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, to narrow to just telcos the range of who could receive this confirmation request, because that is the first thing law enforcement wants to know: Are they providing a telecom or Internet service to a particular person? Again, the Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to be present at committee to answer questions on the amendment of narrowing the range of who could receive this request. The third amendment, which I hope we will get to in committee, but I do not believe we have yet, is that once this request is made and once information is provided to law enforcement, the person who has provided the information to law enforcement should be required to produce a document that sets out what information was provided.”
“Every time, it was denied. I have not heard a good reason why the Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to attend committee and be available to parliamentarians, whether Conservative, Bloc, or Liberal, to answer questions about the amendments to part 1. The second problem with part 2 is the range of providers that can be requested to provide confirmation of service. Right now, it is anyone who provides telecommunications services. That is not very well defined in the act, so it could encompass a whole host of providers beyond the normal telcos. That could include, say, a lawyer, a grocery store or the hotel someone stayed at.”
“Unfortunately, it has not yet been accepted by the Liberals. (1020) Worse than that, not only are the Liberals refusing to accept good-faith amendments about our concerns, but the amendment itself was proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, and they are refusing to allow the Privacy Commissioner to be present at committee when these amendments are being discussed. The Privacy Commissioner made several amendments. I just mentioned the first one. I will mention two more with respect to part 1. During debate on this, Conservatives requested that the Privacy Commissioner be granted the same opportunity as other government-related officials who are, in the normal course, permitted to attend and to provide information to committee members and answer their questions. We asked for it as a motion. We asked for it on unanimous consent.”
“What we are proposing to do is narrow the range of the types of information that could be requested. If the Liberals are serious about the police just needing confirmation of service, okay, that is great. Let us narrow it to names and perhaps certain types of addresses, and keep the list very narrow. Right now the list is open-ended, which creates a possibility that the types of information police could get under part 1 would actually be pretty broad. This is a point that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner in their submission to the public safety committee and the Minister of Public Safety . In fact, it was a recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner that the range of information under this provision of part 1 be narrowed, so, I believe, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to do that.”
“Within part 1, there are, I think, three problems we want to try to solve. Part 1 would allow police to ask a whole host of providers, “Do you offer services or provide services to this particular Canadian?” Unfortunately, the type of information that police would be allowed to request, with no judicial authorization, I will note, which is different from the new production request that I will get to in a moment, also in part 1, includes a whole host of personally identifying information. That information includes more than just someone's name. It can also include the types of services that are being offered by companies. It may be what one might, in a common-sense way, think the police are asking for, such as “Does this person have Internet with Bell or Rogers?” However, it could be far more expansive than that.”
“We have not been able to hear from all those voices, because it seems to be the intent of the government to push the bill forward. We are trying to salvage a mess the government has created with Bill C‑22, because we think there are parts of part 1 that could be salvaged. I am going to try to explain some of the problems that exist with part 1 that I think we could amend in committee. Some of those amendments are before the committee right now and will be discussed later today. If we make those amendments, then I think part 1 would be more amenable to this side of the House. We will see how interested the government is in passing a piece of the legislation, but I think the government quite clearly understands that part 2 is a problem. Part 1 and part 2 both have problems. Let us start with the part 1 problem.”
“Thankfully we were able to prevent its passage. Then, instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back to Parliament with a proposal on lawful access that would be reasonable and proportionate, and that would balance the needs of law enforcement to catch the bad guys, which we all want to do, with protecting Canadians' reasonable expectation of privacy on things that are important to them, such as their location data, their metadata, whom they visit and whom they send emails and text messages to, we got Bill C‑22 . Bill C‑22 would create a whole new part 2 architecture on surveillance, which industry, technology companies and any people who know anything about tech have uniformly come out and opposed.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C‑22 again. I spoke about it at second reading, raising my significant concerns with the Liberals' latest attempt at lawful access legislation here in Canada. In that speech, I focused on part 2, but I want to focus this morning on part 1 and, in particular, our motion to split the bill between part 1 and part 2. Part 1 has largely been referred to as the confirmation of service portion of Bill C‑22 , and part 2 is about the new lawful access, government surveillance architecture that is quite problematic, but we will leave part 2 for most of this morning. What we are trying to do with the motion is salvage a huge mess the government has created. The government presented a bill in the fall, I believe it was Bill C‑2 , with a whole host of problems.”
“Madam Speaker, I have only been here a year, but I have never heard so much bad news be cheered by the government. Fewer Canadians are working today than at the beginning of the year. Fewer youth are working today than at the beginning of the year. Business investment continues to lag. In fact, it is below the replacement rate. That means we have lower labour productivity. As Krugman said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything.” It seems like the government does not care about that. In fact, it will cheer this bad news. Why is that?”
“Madam Speaker, let us imagine I was pulled over by police on the way here this morning, and I said to the officer, “Officer, I know I was technically speeding but it was just a couple kilometres over the speed limit.” I do not think that would work, because a recession is a recession is a recession, and Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Under the hood of that recession is even more bad news. The parliamentary budget watchdog said that Canada's growth has been downgraded for both 2026 and 2027. The best case is now effective stagnation. Why is Canada the only country in a recession?”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an easy answer: a Canada led by a strong Conservative government. Under the Liberal government, poor economic management leads to more bad news, the only G20 country in a recession. Today, the parliamentary budget watchdog said that the Prime Minister has a 1% chance of keeping his promise of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Growth is downcast for 2026 and 2027. Is this a recession or is this all just technical?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia, Mexico, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the EU, the U.S. and the U.K. As Big Bird would say, “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.” Can the Prime Minister tell us which one of these G20 economies is not like the other? I will give him a hint: Only one is in a recession. Which one is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, of course I believe that. I started my speech by reading from Lucy Maud Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables . I believe in Canadian content. I do not believe in the Liberal government choosing which Canadian content should succeed and which should fail, or in forcing tech companies to regurgitate only the content that it chooses as acceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and there is no good answer other than that I do not think anybody is awake at the steering wheel. This is the most important negotiation that our country will engage in this year. Why would the Liberals go and poke our friend right in the eye, squarely and firmly, during this negotiation? It makes no sense.”
“Mr. Speaker, these companies already pay taxes in Canada, employ thousands of Canadians and invest in our country. The member talks about balance. This is not balance; this is government picking winners and losers, choosing which Canadian content gets funding and choosing and forcing tech companies to manipulate their algorithms to show Canadians content that the Liberal government says is good.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague takes such a dim view of culture in Canada, that it cannot stand on its own two feet. I am not afraid of American culture. I am not afraid of watching American sports. I am sure the member opposite watches U.S. films or TV and maybe even uses Netflix. It does not scare me because I have confidence in Canadian artists and Canadian cultural creators and confidence that our content is excellent. Just as Anne of Green Gables went worldwide, I believe the next Canadian author, streamer or musician can do the same.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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”.”
“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”.”
“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. (1545) This is not just some government report that sits on a shelf.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague to the House. She will no doubt be aware that recently the Muslim Association of Canada held a networking session, a conference, for Canadians in Toronto. In a word cloud that was presented at that conference was the phrase “Jew free”. I wonder if my hon. colleague would take this opportunity in her maiden speech during the questions and comments to get up here and show us her courage to condemn that type of thinking in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague begged the Liberals to try to have some respect for this place and answer the questions, but that is the essence of the scam. It is just illusions. The Liberals have figured out how to turn a gravel pit into a money pit. It is more costs and more debt, all on the national credit card. If everything is above board and hunky-dory, as the minister claims, why does he not table in the House the lease agreement and give us the details? While he is at it, maybe he could explain why it is Liberal insiders who lobbied for it and Liberal insiders who would benefit from it. Will the minister come clean today and give us a copy of the agreement?”
“Mr. Speaker, to describe a gullible listener, we used to say, “I have some swampland in Florida for you.” Now, thanks to the Minister of Defence, we can say a Canadian version: “I have a gravel pit in Nova Scotia for you.” At the low cost of just $200 million, the Liberals are trying to build a spaceport. The problem is that the company that is leasing it is paying just $13,000, and construction will cost only $70 million. If the construction is $70 million, and the lease is only $13,000, why are Canadians forking out $200 million?”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know what is going on here. I asked about the pension plans' being considered as an asset. Maybe the Minister of Finance will get up and do the rebuttal. Why is the Minister of Finance including the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan as an asset against the Government of Canada's debt? Is he saying it is his government's policy that those assets will be available to satisfy foreign creditors? That is the question. Maybe the Minister of Finance will get up and answer it for me.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Liberals have blamed external events for homegrown problems. For higher gasoline, they blame Iran. For higher diesel, they blame Iran. However, yesterday the CEO of Cenovus said it was not external events but Liberal policies that were making resource development and investment in Canada uncompetitive. He said the industrial carbon tax incents industry to invest outside Canada, so Liberal policies equal higher costs, more debt for Canadians and fleeing investors. Will the Minister of Energy instead give Canadians a break and cut all the gas taxes for the entire year?”
“Mr. Speaker, these top-line numbers sound good, but just pull back the curtain and it is a bit of a different story. We can take the debt-to-GDP ratio. That does not include massive provincial debts, and on the asset side, it includes the CPP and the Quebec pension plan. Is the Minister of Finance telling Canadians today that he will allow foreign creditors to raid the pension plan and shortchange retirees?”