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 6 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of Ukraine, and I find great irony in the member opposite's speech. On the very day that he speaks to this motion, he stood up and voted against getting Canadian oil and gas to world markets. That requires our allies to buy Russian oil and gas, directly funding their war effort in Ukraine and leading to more death and destruction. Instead, the member should be focusing on what the government is not doing, as it turns a blind eye to sanctions, evasions and transshipment through which Canadian arms and technology are ending up in Russian hands. Will the member stand up and explain why he voted against getting our oil and gas to world markets and supporting our allies in Ukraine?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is a resident the Liberals are not supporting. He wrote to me and said, “I have lived in the same neighbourhood for more than a decade, and almost every essential cost of living has increased dramatically.” He had the receipts for his groceries, which went from $200 a month to $600 a month. What did the Prime Minister say? He said we should judge him by the price of groceries at the store. Well, that is some judgment; it is some failure. Next year, it will get worse. Canadians will pay $1,000 or more, according to the food price report. Given those struggles, will the Prime Minister end his inflationary spending, scrap the carbon tax and get rid of the new fuel tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am actually very encouraged by the member opposite's response, because I think I agree with him. My own view is that this case is dealing with tariffs that were imposed under the IEEPA legislation. In fact, the industries that are most hard hit, which as the member mentioned are steel, aluminum, lumber and autos, have nothing to do with IEEPA. With steel, aluminum and autos, those are section 232 tariffs, and on lumber, of course, there are also anti-dumping and countervailing duties. As such, I am glad to hear the member agrees. Maybe he could just confirm his view that even if the court strikes down the President's authority under the IEEPA legislation, that would do nothing and provide no relief for our hardest-hit industries.”
“Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House if the government is following this case and, if it is, if it has a view on what the outcome of that case would mean for Canada, whether the court strikes down those laws or whether it upholds the President's authority?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am following up this evening on a question I asked earlier in the month in question period on the economy. One of the most important parts of our economy is our two-way trade with the United States. We know that there are significant difficulties there right now and that, unfortunately, our negotiations are stalled. The Liberals have not really gotten very far, unfortunately, with our American counterparts there. I want to specifically ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is following the ongoing Supreme Court case that is taking place and is expected to release a judgment shortly. I believe it has to do with VOS Selections and a challenge to President Trump's imposition of tariffs under the IEEPA legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to present a petition on behalf of residents in the town of Georgina, specifically in Keswick, on a new invasive aquatic species that was discovered in Lake Simcoe, in Cooks Bay, last year. This invasive species is known as water soldier, and the petitioners point out that it is a threat to both the aquatic and plant life in Lake Simcoe, as well as to our agricultural work in the area, because of its proximity to the Holland River. There are remediation efforts available. Therefore, the residents of my constituency are asking three things of the government. First is to list or identify the water soldier as an invasive species. Second is to nominate a single federal department or agency to take ownership of this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Port Perry and Blackstock, in my riding of York—Durham, on the Liberal gun confiscation program. Residents in my riding draw attention to the fact that Canada already has a sensible firearms regulation system, that legal firearms owners are strong advocates for that system, and that criminals who illegally obtain firearms do not follow that system anyway. Therefore, residents in my riding are asking the government to do three things. The first is to repeal the orders in council, former Bill C-21 and all other relevant laws that confiscate and prohibit firearms. The second is to cancel the gun confiscation scheme. The third is to apologize to legal firearms owners and compensate them for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their firearms.”
“Madam Speaker, while a deal with the U.K. is certainly better than no deal at all, we have been put in this position because the Liberals, frankly, failed to maintain a better deal that we already had, which was the CETA agreement, the agreement that the Harper government negotiated with the European Union and that we had been trying to maintain with the United Kingdom. CETA is a much more liberalizing deal. It provides more market access for Canadian goods and services. It provides more labour protections for workers in Canada and the EU, and would have done so with the United Kingdom. Why could we not keep the better deal we already had?”
“Mr. Speaker, if bureaucracies built homes, after 10 years we would all be living in a penthouse like the minister. What he fails to understand is that behind the numbers behind the crisis are real Canadians of the next generation, shut out of the Canadian dream to earn, to save and to own a home. In the GTA, housing starts are down 43%, and sales are down 65%. When the Prime Minister told young Canadians that they need to sacrifice more, why did he not have the courage to tell them what he really meant was to sacrifice the Canadian dream?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday when responding to questions about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on housing, the Prime Minister lectured Canadians, saying, “they do not know numbers.” Then the housing minister said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was just wrong on his numbers. Let me give them the numbers again. Can they solve the following equation? The Prime Minister promised 500,000 new homes a year, but his housing bureaucracy will deliver only 5,200 homes per year; that is 99% less than promised, so can the minister tell us where the rest of the houses will come from?”
“That is why Conservatives will incentivize municipalities to cut building taxes; spend less and keep interest rates down, so mortgages can be affordable; and scrap the industrial carbon tax on steel, lumber and every single thing that builds a Canadian home.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are promises, and then there is reality. The Prime Minister 's promise was a so-called generational investment to rapidly scale up housing to meet his target of half a million homes a year. The reality is, as the budget watchdog said this morning, that the new bureaucracy will actually build only 5,200 homes per year. This means the Liberals are more than one million homes short over the next five years and will address only 4% of Canada's housing gap. The future is not any brighter. Yesterday, the Missing Middle Initiative reported that housing starts are down across nearly every GTA municipality, but Conservatives have not given up on the Canadian dream: the dream to earn, save and own a home.”
“What is new is that these outages keep occurring. CIFFA, the freight forwarders association, has one simple request for the minister . They wrote to the minister and asked for a meeting. Will the minister accept that request and meet with them?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know who is responsible for this: It is the Minister of Public Safety . That is how our system works, with ministerial responsibility. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary is woefully misinformed. It is not just CARM. That is one of many systems that the CBSA uses at the border, and many of them have experienced outages. Even if it were CARM, the CBSA has been working on CARM for a decade, so the parliamentary secretary cannot tell the House that this is a new software and that we are just having some bumps. We have known about this for a long time, and there are still problems. This is unacceptable. To add insult to injury, the CBSA issued a bulletin on November 26 warning businesses that it expects additional strain and delays because of Christmas. Christmas comes every year. This is not new.”
“The Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association reports that as of November 27, there have been 117 system outages this year alone, 69 failures, 39 maintenance outages, five system changes and four holiday issues. In a letter to the Minister of Public Safety just last week, the association said, “Minister—this is simply unacceptable.” I agree. It is unacceptable. My very simple question to the parliamentary secretary is this. What is causing the high frequency of outages, why are they continuing to happen and when will they end?”
“Here is the response: “The Canada Border Services Agency concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted”. The CBSA had 45 days to do this. That response from the agency is simply unacceptable. If it is true, how can the CBSA solve a problem that it cannot even identify or quantify? I will note that the response was signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety . However, we know that response is not true. I will not presume the intention of the agency, but I can tell the House that the answer is not true. How do I know it is not true? It is because someone else did the work that the CBSA said was not possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening to speak about the Canadian border. Let me recap last week. On Monday, there was a CBSA outage at the border; on Tuesday, there was a CBSA outage at the border; on Wednesday, there was a CBSA outage at the border; on Thursday, there was a CBSA outage at the border. Let me remind everyone what that means. That means goods are not being cleared for import, goods are not being cleared for export, just-in-time deliveries are missed, food is not delivered, consumers are lost and customers are lost. I asked the CBSA in a written question to tell me how many border outages have taken place over the last several years, because I wanted to get a sense of the scope of this issue that I have been hearing about.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader wanted some sort of pat on the back for some small, minuscule relief measures in Bill C-4 , when at the same time and with the other hand, they are taking and stealing from the next generation with a generational debt binge. I wonder if my hon. colleague from Kenora—Kiiwetinoong could give his comments on this apparent contradiction from the other side, where they sprinkle a few savings but then steal from the next generation.”
“Frankly, they should never see the light of day. That is why the bill, which would increase the ineligibility period from 25 years to between 25 and 40 years, is important. Let me remind members that Parliament makes laws. Parliament upholds justice for Canadians. The courts will do what they want, but we should pass the bill.”
“It would allow a jury to make a recommendation, which would not be binding on the judge, and it would allow the judge the discretion to choose the period of parole ineligibility. It would not require it, but it would maintain that discretion. It is something that I, as a lawyer, support because context matters in these cases. In these cases, we need more availability of a longer ineligibility period for parole, to ensure that brutal murderers like Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic do not have access to parole. As my hon. colleague mentioned, part of the problem is that once eligibility is reached, a person can seek it again and again, therefore revictimizing those who went through those terrible experiences and giving the opportunity for the murderers, rapists and abusers to get out again.”
“They placed the body in more bags, hit it under a pile of rocks, and then drove away. These are the types of horrific crimes that the bill seeks to bring justice for. Right now we do not have justice. One of the key principles of our criminal justice system is proportionality, which means that the punishment should fit the crime. Right now we do not have the appropriate balance for these specific instances: abduction, rape, brutalization and murder. That is why my colleague's bill is important: It would return that balance. There were concerns raised about discretion. If members read the bill, and I know that all members will before voting on it, they will see that it would maintain that discretion.”
“Madam Speaker, it is of course an honour to speak to this very important bill from my colleague. I want to focus members' attention back on why the bill is important and why the changes should be made. I will reiterate one of the horrific instances of something the bill would seek to address, and that, of course, is the murder of Tori Stafford, from my neck of the woods. I will remind members what happened in the case by reading from a local article at the time, which said: Terri [Terri-Lynne McClintic, one of the murderers] went to a local hardware store and bought a claw hammer and some garbage bags, after which they drove to a remote location near Mount Forest, Ontario. Over there, Terri stated that she got out of the car while Michael sexually assaulted Tori. He then placed a garbage bag over her head and hit her with the hammer.”
“Madam Speaker, I of course question the ethics of the Prime Minister , because the facts lead me to do so. The Prime Minister is so conflicted, and there is evidence before us: an $80-billion nuclear deal to Brookfield; $500 million to the European Space Agency, which will benefit Brookfield; and undisclosed meetings with Brookfield executives, which is a direct violation of what the Ethics Commissioner told him to do. If I have those facts, should I not come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is unethical?”
“Madam Speaker, we know it would not work, because we have the history to prove it. The government has been in power for 10 years, and not one modern treaty has been moved forward. However, the previous Conservative government moved forward five or six modern treaties, not to mention the settlements in my community that I described: the Coldwater-Narrows settlement and the Williams Treaties settlement, both under the Conservative government. The bill would not work, because the Liberals will not take responsibility for their failure on the file.”
“Madam Speaker, we should all strive to be honourable members in the House. I think that the actions of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader , his ad hominem attacks, simply will reveal more about his character than about the strong character of our leader, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition.”
“There would be no power to engage in negotiations; there would be no power to do any of the things that the government says should be done with respect to reconciliation. Therefore, we are left to conclude that this new position would, again, be mere window dressing and mere lip service. This is a continuing departure from parliamentary accountability and parliamentary supremacy, and it is a troubling trend of the Liberal government. In my view, the minister must be responsible for these relations, for their successes and their failures. The government must be responsible, not a new bureaucrat.”
“The honour of the Crown is fundamental in dealings between the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples. In my humble view, at least, this is not something that can or should be delegated to a bureaucrat, a mere functionary. Where is the minister? Where is cabinet? Where is the Prime Minister? The government cannot and should not abdicate its responsibilities to functionaries. This is an important aspect, and it is incumbent on the minister , who is responsible for her department, to maintain the honour of the Crown, not on a commissioner. Even if we accept that such a position is necessary or desirable, which we do not on this side of the House, in my view, the new bureaucrat would be missing a key power, and that is the power to do anything about new modern treaties.”
“This is a fundamental aspect of aboriginal law that every law student learns about: that the honour of the Crown is always at stake in our discussions and interactions with aboriginal peoples. It can give rise to different duties in different circumstances, but what constitutes honourable conduct will vary in the circumstances. For example, the Crown should not act dishonourably or engage in sharp dealings, and because treaties are not simply contracts, a generous interpretation is necessary. It gives rise to the duty to consult, of course, and requires diligent good-faith implementation of treaties. There are other aspects of the honour of the Crown, but the ultimate purpose, in my view, is toward the reconciliation of pre-existing aboriginal peoples and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the modern era.”
“When the government says it will do something, it should do something. However, what is missing from this objective is any reference to protecting the rights of the Crown contained in any modern treaty. These treaties are two-way streets. They create rights and obligations, and I do not see how this commissioner would do the latter. The third mandate would be, “upholding the honour of the Crown in respect of the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties.” Just a moment ago, I was accused of not having read the bill, but I assure the member for Nunavut that I did read the bill, and it does say that the commissioner's mandate would be to uphold the honour of the Crown.”
“As I said, I do not think this bureaucrat would tell us anything we do not already know. Is it not the minister 's job to maintain good relationships with indigenous and aboriginal peoples across Canada? Is that not something she is capable of doing? Is it not the Governor in Council's job, acting through cabinet and the Prime Minister, to maintain those good relationships? Why can they not do that themselves? The second mandate for this commissioner would be, “fulfilling the Government of Canada’s obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties, these obligations and objectives being interpreted in a broad and purposive manner”. Of course the government should fulfill its obligations under a treaty. Indeed, it should fulfill its obligations and agreements with all Canadians.”
“We have a problem with modern treaties and enforcing them, so we will create a new bureaucracy. However, another bureaucrat will not tell us anything we do not already know. For all the lip service that the government has paid to indigenous issues for the last 10 years, it remains, in my opinion, as fractured as it has ever been. There are, in fact, dozens of Auditor General reports from the last decade touching on aboriginal people's issues in Canada. Perhaps we should start with dealing with those before we create a new commissioner to give us more reports. I want to focus for a bit of time on the supposed mandate of this new bureaucrat. The first mandate in Bill C-10 is “strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous modern treaty partners”.”
“They were largely settled by the previous Conservative government. That is a bit of a trend we have heard about today in the speeches. (1315) It is clear that under the previous Conservative government, there was movement; there was political will to engage in good-faith treaty negotiation and settlements and, at least in my community, that resulted in the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the completion of most of the Williams treaty settlement. However, when it comes to Bill C-10 , I just have one question: Why can the government not just do its job? It seems that every time there is a problem, the government for the last 10 years, and especially the new old government, seems to create some new bureaucracy. We have a problem in housing, so we need another bureaucracy.”
“One of the great ironies of that is that transportation to the Chippewas of Georgina Island is fuelled by a ferry that runs on diesel fuel, which was subject to the carbon tax. There was no ability for members of the band and community to get back and forth to the island other than on a ferry fuelled by diesel fuel. They just had to pay more out of pocket because of that carbon tax. That is an outstanding issue that the government has failed to address and has failed to make proper compensation for, in my opinion. Now, being in Ontario, these bands have a different history than those that are subject to modern treaties, of course, because both bands were subject to treaties that existed in Ontario. There are two significant treaties: the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the Williams Treaties. Both are now largely settled.”
“To me that just shows the entrepreneurship of the first nations in my community, specifically the Mississaugas in that case. The Chippewas have long operated the Island View Business Centre and then more recently opened a new business venture with the Seven Generations Commercial Centre and GoIn Fuels. I had an opportunity to help cut a ribbon there earlier this summer. They are not free from difficulties, like many communities. In the case of the Chippewas, the band is located on an island. That presents significant challenges for transportation and health care. Unfortunately, there are great ironies in Liberal green energy policies, carbon taxes, eco-justice or whatever other name it has been called; they have sort of been falling away from that. When the minister was still in cabinet at least, they were pursuing these policies.”
“For the Mississaugas, that is in Port Perry; for the Chippewas, that is the town of Georgina. I am happy to report that there are strong relationships between both municipalities and the first nations side by side. I really view my role, in this case, as giving assistance to first nations, as I give to other municipalities, and being a good representative for them in Ottawa. I have learned that they are both entrepreneurial and community-minded. For example, the Mississaugas are the majority owners of the Minogi corporation, a new clean energy investment company, and the Voyager Services Limited company, a provider of nuclear and energy construction solutions. Last year, those companies announced collaboration with the Cameco company, a marquee Canadian company.”
“Part of my job and my experience as a new member has been doing some outreach to each first nation, as I do to communities across my riding, to get to know them and their issues. I have had the pleasure of getting to know both bands, their leadership and their communities more generally; in particular, there are Chief Donna Big Canoe of the Chippewas and Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas. I had the pleasure of attending the Mississaugas' powwow this past summer to learn a little bit more about their history and their culture. What I have learned so far is that both first nations in my riding are striving to be modern and effective bands that work toward the good of their residents and the prosperity of not only their communities but also the larger community.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in York—Durham. While I am from York—Durham, which is a riding in the greater Toronto area, what people may not realize is that I actually represent two first nations communities: the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation. Both were included in my new riding of York—Durham during the last redistribution, so that is part of the great pleasure I have had as the new member for this new riding of York—Durham. Previously, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation was part of another member's riding, and, similarly, the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation were part of another member's riding. Now I have the pleasure of representing both first nations.”
“Madam Speaker, part of what the bill would do, as I understand, is imbue the commissioner with maintaining the honour of the Crown, which is an integral legal principle in indigenous-Crown relations. Is the member comfortable with having the government delegate to a bureaucrat part of its responsibility to maintain the honour of the Crown? Should that responsibility not stay with the minister and with cabinet?”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians and Conservatives care about the integrity of the highest office in the land, the Prime Minister. Conflict of interest rules are clear for members of the House. They are to arrange their private affairs in a manner to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest. An $80-billion nuclear deal for Brookfield, $500 million to the European Space Agency to benefit Brookfield and undisclosed meetings with Brookfield executives raise serious issues of conflict of interest. Why does it appear that the Prime Minister continues to put his private interests ahead of those of Canadians?”
“Madam Speaker, to get elected, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win, but now that the election is over he says, “Who cares?” Canadians were promised a Churchill, but what we got was a Chamberlain. He appeased the U.S. President by dropping the digital services tax. He appeased the U.S. President by withdrawing our softwood lumber challenge. However, appeasement did not get us any trade peace. We thought we got nothing, but in fact he just got nothing for Canadians. Brookfield got an $80-billion nuclear deal. Is that coincidence or cause and effect? Why does it appear that the Prime Minister continues to put his private interests ahead of those of Canadians?”
“I asked the public safety minister in a written question to provide details of the border outages, and the response I got, signed by the government House leader , was that the government does not keep track; it does not know. How can the government identify the problem and fix it if it does not even have the data to understand that problem?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attempt at an answer. However, I want him to focus on the future and not on ancient history. He might be trying to blame John A. Macdonald next for not building the railroad fast enough. Let us talk about what the government is doing, and what it is failing to do, at the border. I am not talking about new border officers; I am talking about the electronic systems that make trade flow. One of the problems with CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, in this situation, is its utter lack of transparency on the issue. I have heard it again and again from the trade community in Canada.”
“parliamentary secretary to the government House leader are these: What is causing the high frequency of these outages? Why are they continuing to happen? When will they end?”
“What this means in practice is that goods cannot be cleared for import and goods cannot be cleared for export. There was a multi-day standstill at the border at the end of September, and the border came to a near complete standstill. Critical goods needed for just-in-time delivery were not delivered, and food and other perishables were not delivered, costing untold millions in lost time, productivity and delays. The Private Motor Truck Council of Canada said, “the current situation is untenable and needs to be rectified in short order.” Likewise, the Canadian Trucking Alliance said, “We simply cannot have the movement of thousands of trucks come to a crawl at international border crossings, while giving another signal to the international business community that Canada is not open for business”. My questions for the hon.”
“Our border systems, which are critical for moving goods, food, medicine and essentials for Canadians every week, are now experiencing an unprecedented number of technical difficulties and outages. In fact, there was an outage on Monday, one on Tuesday, and if members can believe, there is an outage going on right now. It started at 2:56 p.m. this afternoon, and as of just a moment ago, before I got up to speak, it was still ongoing. The CBSA states that it is “actively working to resolve this issue, but we currently do not have an estimated time for its resolution.” We cannot make this up. The Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association has been keeping track and says that the border is now experiencing one outage every week at least. These are not maintenance outages, but unplanned outages that are shutting the border down.”
“Madam Speaker, I want the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to imagine with me for a moment perhaps something unthinkable: that he or someone he knows is in a terrible car accident. We hope that would never happen to any member of the House or, in fact, any Canadian. Thankfully, in this unfortunate situation, the parliamentary secretary is extricated from his vehicle, loaded into an ambulance and taken to the nearest emergency room. Unfortunately, when he gets to the emergency room door, there is a sign saying that it is closed until further notice. It is not hyperbole to say that this is what is happening at our border every week.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise to negotiate a win, a good deal with the United States, but when asked about it on the weekend, he said, “Who cares?...it's a detail”, and that he would speak with the President when it matters, going from negotiating a win to “Who cares?” in a matter of months. Who cares about our most important trading relationship? Canadians care. Ontario's auto industry is more than just a detail. It matters to the thousands of workers in the York and Durham regions, and it matters now. Will the Prime Minister explain to Ontario's auto workers why he said, “Who cares?””
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite's speech, and she mentioned trade disruption as one of the reasons for this budget and for the generational debt binge the Liberal government is on. On this side of the House, we certainly support efforts to diversify and strengthen Canada's trade, but of course our number one and most important trading relationship is the one we have with the United States. I wonder if the member will tell us if she thinks that relationship is the most important and whether she cares about that relationship. Does she have any burning questions she would like to ask the administration on that relationship?”
“Madam Speaker, part of the justification for this generational debt binge by the Liberal government is the sorry state of our trade relationship with our most important trading partner: the United States. Just yesterday, when asked a question about whether he was speaking with the President, the Prime Minister said, “Who cares?... I'll speak to him again when it matters.” Does the member opposite agree with the Prime Minister that it does not really matter whether we are negotiating with the United States or not, who cares and we will get to it when it is important?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I do agree with is that we need to figure out what the government has done with the tariff revenue, because Canadians do not know. It has collected, so it says, billions of dollars in tariff revenue from countertariffs: tariffs against Chinese products and tariffs against American products. These are tariffs that are taken out of Canadian businesses, so I would like to know where the money is going. Maybe it should go to help our industries that are suffering, but the government has not told us and will not tell us.”