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 5 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, a new report from CIBC confirms what young Canadians already know: The dream of home ownership is slipping away. In fact, the bank says prices are too high to buy and that the average down payment in Ontario is now nearly $300,000. That is an impossible number. Behind that number is a young family who cannot buy a home, start a family or build a life. The bank says that, unless we cut the cost of homes, things will only get worse. Our suggestion is to cut the cost of GST on all new homes. Will the housing minister agree to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians concerned with two serious measures that the Liberals have brought forward. The first is the power in the budget implementation act to secretly exempt individuals or companies from any federal law, which was never disclosed in the budget discussion. The second is to adjust how Canada budgets for itself, moving away from our long-standing fiscal traditions. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to do two things: first, remove any provision that allows cabinet ministers to exempt companies or individuals from federal law, and second, to restore our long-standing financial standards, our transparency and our fiscal integrity.”
“Mr. Speaker, where are the homes? They keep talking about building, but we see no action. In fact, not only will homebuilding decrease; CMHC says that home prices will rise. We will have less supply, more demand and higher prices. That is a nightmare scenario for young Canadians. It appears to me that the Prime Minister 's lofty political promise was nothing more than Romeo's lie when he swore his love on blessed yonder moon. Will the Prime Minister instead adopt our proposal to cut the GST on all new homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, day by day, year by year, the dream of home ownership is fading away for young Canadians. The Prime Minister 's promise was for 500,000 new homes, but CMHC reported this week that he will actually build only 216,000 and that homebuilding will decline every year to 2028. Does the Prime Minister dispute the CMHC's findings, and if he does not, will he admit that he made a promise he knew he could never keep? We all know what that is called.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member doth protest, but he does not answer my question. I have another one, about the new EV industrial strategy, as it is called. I am not one for subsidizing companies, but if they are going to subsidize companies, as the Liberals are proposing, with a new subsidy for the purchase of American-made electric vehicles, should it not at least be available to all Canadians on an equal footing? Right now, we know, and studies will show this and the government can confirm, that for the most part, working-class people buy used vehicles and cannot afford or choose not to buy new or lease new EV vehicles, which are on the higher end. In other words, what the Liberals are proposing is regressive. What steps will they take to ensure that the subsidy that they are going to offer will be available to all Canadians?”
“If this is not really just the old mandate, if it is not just the snake in disguise, can the government please explain to me what the difference is?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government proudly announced recently that it was removing its failed EV mandate and replacing it with a shiny new emissions standard, but, as Shakespeare warned us: Look like the innocent flower, But be the serpent under't. The surface appears to have changed. The explicit sales quota is gone, but beneath it seem to lurk the same coercive rules. The old mandate aimed for 100% zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. The new emissions standard, by the government's own proposal in its press release, will result in 75% EV adoption by 2035 and 90% EV adoption by 2040. Therefore, automakers will still endure the same intense pressures, credits, penalties and subsidies to sell mostly electric vehicles.”
“Mr. Speaker, we saw the hubris of the finance minister in his response. We will not move on from the issues that are affecting Canadians. He should take the advice of the Prime Minister and look inside himself. Fresh data from the superintendent of bankruptcy in this country presents a very grim truth, that bankruptcies are rising and consumer proposals are rising. Canadians can literally no longer afford this profligate Liberal government. When will Liberals cut the taxes, get out of the way, get rid of the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax, and stop obstructing our ideas?”
“Our kids need strong fathers and families, our communities need strong fathers and families, and our country needs strong fathers and families. I will be a champion for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, last year, I thought being elected would be the most important accomplishment of my life, but I was wrong. Just six months later, I became a father with the birth of my first daughter, Rose Mantle. This Monday is Family Day across much of Canada, and I am honoured to celebrate Family Day for the first time as a father. In fact, I am hosting a free community skate in Uxbridge all Monday afternoon. Strong and healthy families are built on strong, committed and masculine fathers. In fact, I am seeing every day that the virtues of fatherhood belong in this place: putting others' futures ahead of one's own, choosing patience rather than exasperation, displaying strength and courage when it matters, and defending what is good and proposing what is right.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of residents in the York—Durham and Simcoe areas with respect to the Northlander rail line. Residents in my riding are encouraging the federal government to prioritize funding for a station stop somewhere in northern Durham or in northern York region. They are encouraging the federal government to collaborate with Ontario Northland, indigenous partners and others in the community for a new station stop.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful comments. In his first comments, he proposed removing the prayer from our opening ceremonies of Parliament. I wanted to get more information or his thoughts on why he wanted to do that. Obviously, the founding peoples of this country, including the French, held a deep faith when they came to New France and to the beginnings of Canada. In fact, Centre Block is adorned with dozens of scriptures, for example, “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. I think that is a fair reflection of the responsibility of this place and the wisdom that is inspired from our traditions in scripture. I would like to understand why he thinks it would be a good idea to abandon that heritage that we have in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the potentially devastating effects of expropriation, and in her speech she spoke about fairness and respect. I could not help but notice that she has afforded none of that in her fanatical drive to steal firearms from law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I wonder, with police associations rejecting her gun grab, would she apologize to them today?”
“We have offered the government several positive solutions such as to incentivize towns and cities to reduce development charges, tie funding to results, not just promises, and reward those who build. For the sake of the next generation, will the Liberals please stop obstructing these ideas and get out of the way?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to build homes at a speed not seen since the Second World War. That was the rhetoric, but it was just an illusion because the CEO of Build Canada Homes came to Parliament this week and told us that, in fact, just nine homes are built and move-in ready. That is the reality, and it is a stark and disappointing reality for young Canadians who face it every day. Their ambition to own a home has turned into disappointment, and that disappointment is turning into defeat. New home sales are down 45% in the GTA, and the Canadian Home Builders' Association warns that we are in for a lost decade of home ownership. On this side of the House, our Conservative message is one of hope, as it always has been.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister enjoys illusions, as the Major Projects Office has not given approval to one project yet. Let me give him some other news. BNN Bloomberg reported that my home province of Ontario is the sick man of Canada, with lower standards of living than anywhere else in the country. In fact, by every objective measure, Ontario is doing worse now than it was when the Prime Minister was elected, and that is increasingly because they cannot get a deal with the United States. That is a serious question, and it deserves a serious answer. I would ask the Prime Minister why there is no plan to deal with the U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, economists said yesterday that the Canadian economy is on life support. While the Liberals may clap like trained seals for lower rates, those lower rates are not resulting in more growth. Respectfully, a GST rebate will not revive this patient. The emissions cap, the shipping ban and other anti-development laws are binding the hands of Canadians who would build our country. Why will the Prime Minister not have the courage to stand up and remove them?”
“Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up, the Minister of Public Safety reported that importers owe the Government of Canada in excess of $2.3 billion in customs duty. The purpose of the CARM system, the CBSA assessment and revenue management system, was to simplify reporting at the border to make it easier for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, to collect and account for goods. Instead, outstanding amounts have in fact grown over the last several years, from about $1.8 billion in 2022 to $2.3 billion as of October last year. To put that into context, about one-third of the entire revenue that the CBSA collects in a year is outstanding. Why is performance getting worse, and what is the government doing to collect that outstanding duty?”
“For example, there is the decision to reconsider Canada's purchase of the F-35, a jet that the military has said is the right jet, and a decision by the Prime Minister to go to Davos and give a speech that draws a dishonest equivalency between the United States and China and then goes on to squarely and firmly poke the President in the eye. If they are entering a negotiation, why would they do that? I therefore have a simple question for the government: What is the plan here?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly concerned that the government views the current logjam and the acrimony that seems to exist between Canada and the United States as beneficial to its political fortunes. Every time the U.S. enters the news cycle, it distracts from the Liberals' record of failures here at home: the highest food inflation in the G7 and a shrinking economy in the last quarter. Despite its “Canada strong” rhetoric, the government continues taking actions that, in my opinion, appear to sabotage our relationship with the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of members of my community, Canadians who are concerned with Bill C-9 and the attack on religious freedom and freedom of expression proposed by the Liberal and Bloc members, and in particular their proposal to amend the Criminal Code to remove long-standing safeguards for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and the preaching and discussion of religious texts such as the Bible, the Quran and the Torah. Petitioners in my community therefore request that the government withdraw the proposal and instead promote and protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
“Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Housing can share one of his homes with the Canadians who do not have one. A study by Canadian fintech KOHO Financial Inc. said that, at the end of the month, gen Z has just 16 bucks left to spend. The Prime Minister told young Canadians that his solution for them was to sacrifice more. There is nothing left to give. KOHO said that gen Z is in survival mode and, therefore, cannot plan for its future. The Prime Minister claims he wants to work together. We have offered him some solutions. Why will he not take any of them?”
“Mr. Speaker, every week I hear from young Canadians who have been priced out of their neighbourhoods. In fact, the Missing Middle Initiative reports that half of young Canadians will have to leave the very community they grew up in. I am not hearing very much from the four youngest Liberal members of Parliament, who were all born in this century and who represent parts of Canada that are being hit the hardest by housing unaffordability: Brampton, Mississauga, greater Vancouver and greater Montreal. Canadians have not given up on the dream of home ownership. I have not either. Will any of those four members stand up to help the government get out of the way and to remove the taxes and red tape that are stealing the dreams of Canadians?”
“I am concerned that the government is spending valuable negotiating resources on an agreement that may not be relevant, when instead it should be focusing on our most important agreement, which is the agreement with the United States. Unfortunately, we have very little information about that because we hear one thing from the Americans, and then we hear another thing from the Prime Minister —”
“That is less than a rounding error. The total estimated impact to Canada's GDP is $226 million, which is less than one half of 1%. Do not get me wrong. A new trade agreement is good, but I think Canadians should know that it is not a panacea for the problems we face. Indeed, it is not even clear that this agreement is necessary. Let me explain. Indonesia has already made its formal application to join the trans-Pacific partnership. It did so in 2024. It is expected to proceed through accession to that agreement in 2026, which is this year, so it is not clear to me that this agreement is even necessary. Furthermore, Canada is already in a trade negotiation with ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. If that agreement proceeds, this agreement would, again, become redundant.”
“However, I would ask the government, and especially government leaders, not to confuse Canadians by saying things that just are not true. I have a few comments about the proposed agreement with Indonesia. Let me just say that it is a rounding error. The PMO released a statement, calling it “game-changing.” The chief economist for Global Affairs Canada actually said, “the projected economic gains are modest.” While the minister tried to speak to all of the new tariff-free access we have, the actual state of facts is that 88% of Canada's exports to Indonesia already enjoy duty-free access. Any additional benefits from this agreement would only flow to 9% of Canada's exports. The remaining 3% would continue to face high tariffs. In fact, the estimated tariff savings for Canada's top exports to Indonesia are estimated to be only $14 million.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support the government's modest efforts to open new markets for Canadian exporters. More trade is good. I support free trade. Unfortunately, despite our efforts to work co-operatively with the government, yesterday the government House leader went into the lobby and did an interview with CTV where he spread misinformation about the Conservative Party, saying that we were simply obstructing the Liberals' agenda. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, what hubris from the other side, from the member for Winnipeg North . The Leader of the Opposition , even before that interview, made an offer in good faith to the government to work with it on trade-related matters and others, and we are doing that. The Liberals do not have to give us credit for that. Canadians will judge.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from concerned Canadians today. They are concerned about the Liberal government's assault on freedom of expression and freedom of religion contained in Bill C-9 , particularly the Bloc and Liberal amendment to remove protections for people of faith to have open discussions about truth in this country. The petitioners remind the government that it has no place policing the religious texts of Canadians of faith, and they ask that the government withdraw Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a new year, but it is the same old story for Canadians trying to buy a home. They cannot. The Missing Middle Initiative reported this week that while the vast majority of gen Z and millennials want to buy a home, only about half can realize that goal. Home ownership for them has decreased from 60% to 52%. Their ambition to buy a home has turned into uncertainty, and that uncertainty has turned into defeat. Missing Middle proposed 10 solutions. Not one of them was the government's plan for another bureaucracy to build non-market homes. Why is the government's plan so different from what sensible experts are recommending?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is talking about John A. Macdonald in the House. However, I think it is shameful that he represents our former founding father's home yet has refused to take a position on whether the city council should put his statue back up in City Park. I will give him the opportunity today: Does he believe that John A. Macdonald's statue should be returned to its rightful place in City Park?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a quote that I took to heart when reading John A. Macdonald's speech from 1881, where he said, if they could not complete these national projects, “that we should become a bundle of sticks, as we were before, without a binding cord, and that we should fall, helpless, powerless, and aimless, into the hands of the neighboring Republic.” I fear that is the case today.”
“Mr. Speaker, we certainly do live in an alternate reality, because what I hear from people is that they are struggling to find their next meal. The 2.2 million Canadians at food banks would also agree with me on that. Investment is fleeing our country. Times are tough. Instead, the member seems to live in an ivory tower of elitism, suggesting that things are fine and things are great. Things are not fine; things are not great. We need our sovereignty act and the proposals we have made to lift our country and move it forward to build great things again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in that, so I will take it as simply a comment. What I would say to the hon. member is that Canada has had great men and women, both French and English, in our history and we should celebrate all of them. We should not do as the Liberals have done, which is tell our country that those great men and women were racist colonialists and tear down their statues, erasing our history and our pride.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will direct my comments to the member who should be representing John A. Macdonald's history and who has unfortunately and shamefully failed to do so. I ask the member to tell me when the statue will be put back up in the park in his riding. Tell me when and where, and I will join you in raising that statue to John A. Macdonald again, but I suspect he will not.”
“He warned that Canada would become “a bundle of sticks, as we were before, without a binding cord, and that we should fall, helpless, powerless, and aimless, into the hands of the neighboring Republic.” The costs of failure in our present day are no less severe, and that is why Conservatives have proposed their solutions in a Canada sovereignty act. They are not complicated. In fact, I do not think we disagree on some of them, but the comments from the other side lead me to believe that Liberals will not consider them. Therefore, they must accept the cost of that failure, the cost to our next generation. I reiterate the Conservative belief and offer to do what we can to maintain, enhance and build our sovereignty, to once again be a nation proud in its history and in its great national projects, just as John A. Macdonald was in 1881.”
“Failing to adopt the changes that we have proposed in our sovereignty act will have a cost. Failing to repeal the Impact Assessment Act, the oil shipping ban and the emissions cap will mean that a pipeline to the west coast may never happen. Failing to remove the industrial carbon tax will saddle our industries with a burden that their competitors do not share and make them uncompetitive in the world economy. Maintaining the EV mandate will force our auto manufacturers to pay millions of dollars to foreign companies in credits. We will bleed our auto manufacturers, feed foreign companies and add to foreign wealth. How does that enhance our sovereignty? In his great speech of January 1881, John A. Macdonald also warned of the cost of failure to complete our great national project wholly and entirely in Canada.”
“In fact, its elegance is its simplicity, which is to get the government out of the way and remove the obstacles that are holding back our national success. I think John A. Macdonald knew that was the way, too. Indeed, the speech from the throne in 1880, in determining the manner to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway, argued and proposed that it should be constructed “by means of an Incorporate Company...rather than by the direct action of the Government.” Those are wise words from our history, which I hope the government will take to heart, because when we export more, build more and develop our nation more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable for Canadians. A sovereignty act would do that. Now I will say a word on the cost of failure.”
“(1240) Then there is the farce. The farce of our present time is that the new schemes of the government will not achieve anything. A new government bureaucracy will not build more homes. A new government bureaucracy will not see grand national projects started. Despite what the secretary of state said, the Major Projects Office has not given final approval for a single project. Liberals can spread their misinformation, but others can also google it for themselves. Moreover, we live in a time when the average time to get a building project done, a mine, for example, is 19 years. This is the farce of our current time, but Conservatives have provided a solution, a Canada sovereignty act, which would make a meaningful difference in the sovereignty of Canada. It is not complicated.”
“The comedy is that in the present time, we are seeing members of the government who thought one way and said different things last year or the year before now speaking and professing to believe things in an entirely different way. For a decade, we were told that the carbon tax and other Liberal environmental measures were the only way to preserve our future for our children and the only way to reverse environmental decline, but now, the Liberals have eliminated their own proposals. For a decade, we were told that Canada is a genocidal and racist country with a history not worth remembering, and that we should tear down statues of our great founding father, John A. Macdonald. Now, the government wraps itself in the flag when it is convenient for it. The hypocrisy on the other side is the sad comedy that we face today.”
“The tragedy in our present time is that we have similarly lost a decade. For 10 years, no progress has been made by the government to develop Canada's great endowments. For 10 years, no priority has been given by the government to building anything. It is quite the opposite in fact. The focus of the government has been frivolities rather than the fundamentals of our country. There has been concern about banning plastic straws rather than building our future, and about figuring out how many selections there should be in the gender section of a government application rather than focusing on how Canadians will find their next meal.”
“Indeed, in my estimation, our current circumstances are not dissimilar to some of those that faced our infant nation in the late 1870s and 1880s during the debates in this House around our great national project, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. During the great parliamentary debates in late 1880 and early 1881, our great founding father, John A. Macdonald, lamented on the failure of the earlier attempt to organize the construction of the railway. In his speech to the House, he noted that in the intervening period between the first and second attempts to build the railway, “We have had tragedy, comedy and farce from the other side.” The parallel of those days is strikingly similar to me. We, too, have had tragedy, comedy and farce from the Liberal government.”
“In fact, many feel that their children will no longer be better off than they were at the same time in their lives. It feels like a nation divided, where the government has allowed division to percolate and simmer: west versus east and Canadians of faith versus Canadians who have a different view. Over and over, those divisions of region versus region and Canadian versus Canadian have percolated and simmered. Of course, there is our more belligerent neighbour to the south. It seems to me that these are echoes of our history. My hon. colleague who spoke before me chided the Conservatives for looking at history, but our history is a proud one. We should be proud of it and draw inspiration from it and the great men and women who came before us in this House. It seems to me that there are echoes of our past in our present situation.”
“We want Canadians to feel confident that the opportunity for them is on the horizon, that a better future awaits them and their children and that a sense of pride in our country could return. The sovereignty act, therefore, is really, fundamentally, a proposal of hope for Canadians that the future will be better than the past and that we can move our country in a positive direction. I am sorry to say that, in my estimation, Canadians do not feel confident in their future right now. In fact, lots of public polling will support my position. Canadians are more anxious than they have ever been. They are more concerned than they have ever been about what the future holds for them, where their next paycheques will come from, how they will feed their families and whether or not they will have a job in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. Our motion today requests that the House call on the government to adopt what we have proposed in a Canada sovereignty act. A sovereignty act is our proposal to re-establish Canada as a competitive and world-class nation, confident in its ability to build national pipelines, projects and ports and all other manner and means to enable Canadians to again feel confident in their future. We have often heard criticism that the opposition does not provide enough solutions. Here they are, before the House, and we will continue to provide Canadians with common-sense solutions to the inaction of 10 years of Liberal governments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard my hon. colleague refer in his speech to projects being fast-tracked. I wonder if he could clarify that for me, because my understanding is that all the government has done thus far is refer projects to a new bureaucratic office and that no decisions have yet been made. In fact, no projects have been fast-tracked today; they have just been shoved to a bureaucracy to consider further. Am I correct, or have there actually been decisions made?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not say this often, but unfortunately this is the problem when parliamentary secretaries come and simply read prepared remarks. Nothing in the response addressed my question about why the government has decided to move from considering China as a geopolitical adversary and our greatest threat to now forging a new strategic partnership. I will generously interpret the member's response as saying that Canada had some trouble with its best friend, the United States, and therefore the response to that is we are going to jump in bed with a geopolitical adversary, which is China. Let me reiterate that trading American unpredictability for Chinese dependence is not the answer. The parliamentary secretary suggested he is looking for a long-term solution.”
“When Lithuania opened an office in Taiwan, China blocked the majority of their imports within months. When Norway awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident, relations froze for years. When Korea accepted THAAD missile deployment, it endured state-sanctioned tourism embargoes, costing its economy billions. Deals with China have consequences. The government owes Canadians an explanation for why it has reversed course and has moved from a position of declaring China our greatest security threat to a position of strategic partnership and ever-growing alignment. Can the parliamentary secretary provide Canadians that explanation?”
“During the election, when asked the question about the greatest security threat to Canada, the Prime Minister responded, “I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China”. However, just nine months later, the Prime Minister says he is forging a “new strategic partnership” with our greatest security threat. Trade with China is necessary. A positive diplomatic relationship with China is necessary. Forging a “new strategic partnership” with China, however, is a choice. Declaring that we are setting ourselves up for a Chinese-led new world order is a choice. Doing these things with great fanfare and media attention is a choice, and choices made by governments have consequences. Attempting to trade American unpredictability for Chinese dependence is not the answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week is the anniversary of the final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference. I want to quote two conclusions from that report. First, the report states, “the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions. The PRC views Canada as a high-priority target.” The report goes on to say, “The PRC targets members of Chinese Canadian diaspora communities for the purposes of repression, influence and forced return of targeted individuals to the PRC.” In its own country, China's repression of its own people is well documented, and, until recently, the Prime Minister agreed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned about the assault on religious freedom and the assault on freedom of expression contained in Bill C-9 , particularly the possibility that people who express their faith and read their sacred texts will be subject to criminal prosecution. The petitioners remind the government, and particularly the Liberal members and Bloc members, that freedom of religion and expression are listed as not only freedoms but fundamental freedoms in our charter. Therefore, the petitioners ask the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the liberty of all Canadians to discuss their faith and share their religious texts in the public square without government interference.”