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 7 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I would hazard to say it is both. The Liberals do not seem to know how to budget, and they do not seem to know how to keep promises. They told us in 2024 that fiscal restraint was important, but in 2025 they doubled the deficit. That is a debt that everyone's children and grandchildren will have to pay. In fact we spend more on interest payments now than we do on health care transfers and than all the money the government collects in GST. I hope government members will take that to heart and get our budget under control.”
“Mr. Speaker, I may not agree with all of my Bloc colleague's points on the budget, but one thing I do agree with him on is that the government did not negotiate with the Bloc members. It did not speak to them. It did not take their demands seriously. Canadians gave the government a minority mandate. I have heard, and I am sure the members opposite have heard, a desire from Canadians for Parliament to work together, but that was not on display with the government's budget. It did not take any of the opposition's criticisms seriously; in fact it rammed the budget through. Therefore I sympathize with the Bloc members, who did not get a fair negotiation with the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, the other side loves to talk about a team Canada approach. While we all want Canada to succeed in its trade negotiations, especially with the United States, I have seen nothing of a team Canada approach from the government. It provides no information to Canadians about what the state of our negotiations is. In fact the chief negotiator for the Government of Canada was at the Standing Committee on International Trade on Monday, and he said that there are no negotiations ongoing with the United States right now. Could the member tell me what the state of our negotiations is? What is the state of the most important relationship we have in the world?”
“Canadians work hard for every dollar they earn, and I want a future for my daughter and for all Canadians that is full of opportunity, not debt. That is a Canada I will fight for.”
“As of 8:45 this morning, every Canadian's share of the national debt is over $30,000; in fact it is $30,568. To that, add our provincial share. I am in Ontario, where that is another $29,282, for a total of just shy of $60,000. Seven weeks ago this morning, I had my first baby girl, and that has changed my life dramatically, with increasingly less sleep. However, it also keeps me up at night that the federal government, by its actions, has handed my daughter a credit card bill of $30,000. Before she has even taken her first steps in life, she has a federal debt. However, I do believe there is hope for an affordable Canada. First, the government must return to its senses and drop the accounting gimmicks. Most important, it must treat every tax dollar with the humility and the sanctity of trust that it demands.”
“I have lived in the same neighbourhood for more than a decade, and almost every essential cost of living has increased dramatically.... To illustrate this, I reviewed my own expenses from 2013 compared to 2025, and here are actual numbers from my household This is how people budget: They keep track, and they assess. I hope the Liberals are taking notes. Ryan said that groceries are up 200%; electricity, 133%; cable and Internet, 150%; vehicle insurance, 300%; fuel, 100%; water and sewer, 168%; accounting fees, 150%; and property taxes, 112%. He calculated that his personal cost of living has increased by 154% over the last 10 years. He said, “From my perspective, and from the perspective of many residents struggling with similar increases, this situation feels fundamentally unfair.” I agree; this is unfair to Canadians.”
“[F]ederal finances run a high risk of further deterioration.” These are not my words, and they are not the words of the opposition; they are the words of our credit rating agency, upon which our AAA credit rating depends. That is a troubling analysis by the credit agency, because any change to that credit rating would be catastrophic and would lead to much higher debt interest charges for Canadians. However, behind every number is a human story, a story of a family struggling to get by to make ends meet. I want to share just one of those stories from one of my residents, who wrote to me just after the introduction of the budget. His name is Ryan. He said: I am writing to express my deep concern about the rising cost of living in our community....”
“In fact budget 2025 shows that deficits will be above 1% of GDP well past 2030. I know that the Liberals love to talk about our AAA credit rating, but what they do not like to talk about is what the credit agencies are saying today. In fact just after the introduction of this budget, Fitch, one of the international credit rating agencies, took note of the budget, unfortunately not in a good way, and said of Canada that “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” Fitch went on to warn the government, and I hope the Liberals are listening to this warning, that “the Canadian government has a track record of upward deficit revisions, with subsequent budget updates consistently worse than prior projections....”
“In the 2024 budget, the Liberals said that reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio was “key not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors’ confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.” The same government that said last year that these goals were so important to our AAA rating now wants us to believe that they are not important and that we should therefore adopt some new fiscal anchors. I think Canadians can be forgiven for questioning why that is. (1220) The deficit has ballooned to over $78 billion. Rather than lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, budget 2025 will actually see it rise in this fiscal year and in the next several fiscal years. Last, deficits will not stay below 1% of GDP but will rise to 2.5% of GDP in this fiscal year.”
“In fact, in the last federal budget, some 18 months ago because they needed extra time, the Liberals set out three key fiscal anchors: the first was to cap federal deficits at about $40 billion, the second was to maintain a declining debt-to-GDP ratio and the third was to shrink deficits to below 1% each year. Unfortunately, budget 2025 breaks every single one of these goalposts. These goalposts were not selected out of thin air. In fact, it was the Liberal government that put them in place.”
“That does not sound like investing more. In fact, it sounds like spending more. Again, I wonder if that is why the government is so intent on driving the PBO out of office. The Liberals do not like the rules and do not want to play by them, so instead they will get rid of the referee. We have heard similar promises before. For 10 years, we have had Liberals in power promising us that deficit spending would make us richer. If I had a nickel for every time I heard the word “investment”, I would not be a politician. We were told that even though the government was going to spend more, it was going to exercise financial restraint at the same time.”
“The PBO says we are spending more. Perhaps that is why the government is so mad at the PBO and is looking to fire him: He is telling the truth to Canadians. Well, thank God the PBO is here to tell the truth to the Canadian people, because we sure are not getting it from the government. Let me ask the same question about the second promise, the promise to invest more. Is the Prime Minister investing more? No. Instead, the Prime Minister has dressed up normal operating spending and now calls it investment. Again, we have the PBO to thank for shining a light on the Prime Minister's attempt to cook the books. The PBO says, “the Government’s definition of capital investments is overly expansive.” The PBO goes on to say that 30% of what the Prime Minister says is investment is actually just day-to-day spending.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer says, in fact, that the average deficit over the next five years will be double what was projected last year in the fall economic statement. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says, “This deterioration primarily reflects new ‘day-to-day’ operating measures and increased provisions for liabilities.” That does not sound like spending less. The PBO goes on to say: Absent measures since the [fall economic statement] and measures announced in Budget 2025, the day-to-day operating balance would be in a surplus position over 2026-27 to 2029-30. New operating measures since the 2024 FES and in Budget 2025 shift the day-to-day operating balance from a surplus to a deficit position.... “From a surplus to a deficit” does not sound like spending less either. In fact, it is the exact opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had a clever slogan during the election: spend less, invest more. I know the Liberals are fond of slogans, and it was a good one, even in my opinion. Spending less sounds good and investing more sounds good. I want to believe the Prime Minister when he says that. I think a lot of Canadians wanted to believe the Prime Minister when he said that. In fact, I think a lot of Canadians believed that promise, along with his promise to negotiate a win with the U.S., which we are still waiting for. That is probably why many Canadians voted for this Prime Minister. Let us give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt for a minute, believe him and assess his promise to spend less and invest more. Is the Prime Minister spending less on operating expenses? No.”
“Therefore, the citizens in my riding are calling on the government to do three things: to identify water soldier as an invasive species under federal law, to nominate a single federal department to take ownership of this issue and to allocate sufficient funding and technical support to the water soldier working group to undertake remediation efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the people of Georgina in my riding, specifically the community of Keswick, about a new invasive aquatic plant called water soldier. It was discovered in 2024 by the water soldier working group and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It is a physical threat to human health because of its serrated leaves; it is a threat to our native plant and fish species, and it is a threat to local agriculture because of its proximity to the Holland River.”
“Mr. Speaker, an agreement for the future is no solution to today's problems. An agreement with the U.A.E. is no agreement when there is no investment. We know that Canadians have moved $124 billion out of Canada. If Canadians have no faith in the government, why would any foreign investor? More troubling, the real and present danger, is the inability to get a deal on the things that count: steel, aluminum and canola. Canada's chief trade negotiator said today that there are no negotiations ongoing with the U.S. When will we start negotiations and get a deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians travel, whether it is a holiday with family or a business trip with colleagues, they come back with good memories and maybe a souvenir or two. When the Prime Minister travels, he comes back with something very different: a hangover of tariffs. When he met with the Chinese, there were more tariffs. When he met with the Indians, there were more tariffs, and when he met with the Americans, again and again, there were more tariffs on steel, autos, aluminum, forestry and more. How many more trips does the Prime Minister need before he will acknowledge the simple truth that every farmer, factory worker and steelworker in the country knows: His policy is failing them?”
“Mr. Speaker, if saying “generational” again and again built homes, we would not be here tonight having this discussion, but we know it does not build homes. In fact, we know the next generation is having the most difficult time in history owning a home. The parliamentary secretary said she did not want the next generation priced out of the market. Well, here is a news flash: They are priced out of the market. The average salary in Canada no longer buys the average home in Canada. Young Canadians just want the same opportunity their parents and their grandparents had: to work hard and have the opportunity to buy a home. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with me that the average salary in Canada should buy the average home in Canada? Will she admit that 10 years of Liberal proposals have done nothing to make that better?”
“CMHC reported this week that housing starts are down 3% year over year. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Can she please try to explain how a new government bureaucracy that builds only non-market homes at unimaginably slow speeds will allow the next generation to afford a home in Canada?”
“A report from the Canadian Home Builders Association agrees, saying, “With the non-market housing focus of BCH, it will only impact a small fragment of what will be required to achieve the government’s 500,000 homes per year target.” How about unimaginable speeds? The only thing that this budget could point to with respect to housing was the selection of certain sites for construction, maybe sometime in the future; a few hundred homes in the north, maybe in the future; and a few hundred in Toronto, maybe in the future. That is a far cry from the 500,000 new homes that the Liberals' own housing agency says need to be built in Canada, and that is just to get us back to 2019 affordability levels. In fact, the government's own housing bureaucracy said just this week that housing starts are actually down again year over year.”
“It is now more difficult than it has ever been in Canadian history for the next generation to own a home anywhere in Canada. Even if we thought another government bureaucracy was the solution, Build Canada Homes will not fix our housing woes. That is because this bureaucracy's stated objective is only with respect to non-market housing, which means affordable housing and at non-market rates. This means that most Canadians, those of middle income or higher, will see zero benefit from this new bureaucracy. Estimates suggest that this new bureaucracy will deliver only between 1% and 2% of the needed new home supply. Even at full capacity, the non-market focus would therefore only address a tiny fraction of the overall supply gap in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and again speak on an issue close to my heart and to the next generation of young Canadians, which of course is the issue of housing and the lack of housing in Canada. Build Canada Homes, this new bureaucracy, is emblematic of what is wrong with government thinking these days. It is what is wrong with Liberal plans these days. For every problem, there is a new government-driven response. For childhood nutrition problems, we have a government-run lunch program. For bad actors on the Internet, we have a government-run censorship program. For a lack of housing supply, we have not one, not two, not even three, but four government-run bureaucracies. If any of these Liberal solutions worked, after 10 years, we would have seen things improve. However, in fact, in housing, the opposite has taken place.”
“Mr. Speaker, in August, leaked text messages from the Minister of Environment 's office revealed that the Liberals were considering cuts to the Canada Water Agency. Budget 2025 has confirmed that and shows a $700,000 cut to the Canada Water Agency. Budgets are about priorities. Could the hon. member tell me why the priority of the budget is tax breaks for luxury jets and yachts but tax cuts and less money for clean water in Ontario?”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the previous portion of Routine Proceedings, the member for Kingston and the Islands suggested that I introduced my personal opinion while presenting the petition. I wanted to clarify that I did not do so. Instead, I simply recited a fact from the budget, so that was not my personal—”
“The petitioners are calling on the government to do three things: list water soldier as an invasive species; nominate a single federal department to take responsibility; and allocate sufficient funding. I would note that, instead, the government cut $700,000 from the Canada Water Agency.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the town of Georgina, specifically the residents in the community of Keswick, about a new invasive aquatic species known as water soldier. It was discovered in Cook's Bay, in Lake Simcoe, in 2024 and confirmed by water soldier working group, particularly because of the efforts of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Water soldier, this invasive aquatic species, is a threat to human health because it is serrated and can injure people. It is also threat to our local agriculture because of its proximity to the Holland River, an important water source for agricultural operations.”
“Will she commit, and confirm for the House, that no Brookfield entity, not Modulaire Group, not Yes Communities, which it may acquire, not any entity affiliated with Brookfield or any investment the Prime Minister has in the real estate space, will get government money to build homes with this bureaucracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, if spending money and bureaucracies built homes, every Canadian would have a home right now. We have had 10 years of that. We have had three housing bureaucracies, and now we have a fourth. These Monopoly men handing out billions here and there have not resulted in one more person having a home in Canada. I am glad the parliamentary secretary brought up modular and new forms of construction, because I have a question for her on that. In the budget, it says, “Build Canada Homes will identify Design-Build teams with proven expertise in factory-built housing and other modern methods of construction”.”
“The dream of home ownership is slipping away and being replaced with the lie that the next generation must settle for less. I want the next generation of Canadians to know that I reject this lie. They deserve the opportunity to have a home and start a family, just as their parents and grandparents did before them. Will the parliamentary secretary agree with me that we need to build homes, not bureaucracy, and targets for municipalities, bringing down development targets, bringing down development charges and getting homes to the next generation?”
“It is not a surprise, because the Liberals have already abandoned every promise they made just six months ago during the election. In their platform, they promised to cut municipal development charges in half. What does the budget say about them? Now it is a hope and a prayer to maybe reduce them, by frameworks for federal, provincial and territorial agreements. I do not know what those are. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can enlighten us. The second promise was the multi-unit residential building incentive that was pitched as a fabulous idea to bring about thousands of new units. Where is it in the budget? I do not know, because it is not there. Last, the Liberals promised to publicly report on municipalities' progress to speed up permitting and approvals. Again, that is not in the budget.”
“The Canadian Home Builders Association says, “Federal budget fails to support home ownership for next generation” and “Despite urgent calls for action, the budget presented no new measures to address housing affordability for the average Canadian who still wants to become a homeowner.” The Large Urban Centre Alliance says, “What was once a promise to deliver 500,000 new homes annually has now become a plan that will cost 100,000 jobs.” Last, the Building Industry and Land Development association says the budget “missed an opportunity to address the historic downturn [in] the housing industry” and that it “relies on backward-looking data that provides false reassurances that Canada’s housing sector is prospering and that affordability is improving.” People do not have to take my word for it; these are the experts who can tell us how this budget will play out.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is budget week here in Parliament. I have been poring over the budget on the issue of housing. As members know, I have risen on this topic again and again, and I will continue to do so until I see movement from the Liberal government that will actually get homes to the next generation. Unfortunately, however, this budget is an unmitigated disaster when it comes to housing and homes. Let us take stock of some of what experts are saying.”
“Madam Speaker, it is very well noted from the member for Waterloo . I appreciate that. As a new member, I am still learning the rules. I am happy to take the Chair's direction on this. I would have hoped that, after over a month of time, the Speaker's office would have reviewed the transcript to confirm what has been said. I am wondering now that you are in the chair again, if you would ask the member to withdraw those comments because they are unparliamentary.”
“member will not shy away from his comments and will, of course, take ownership of them. I am wondering if you will rule on that now; agree that calling another member “a Russian asset”, or accusing them of being a Russian asset, is unparliamentary; and ask the member to withdraw those comments.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been waiting for an opportunity when you are in the chair and the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas is in the chamber. I am rising on a point of order to follow up on the point of order I raised on September 26. You will recall, as you were in the chair, that following question period, I raised a point of order that the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas accused the member for Lanark—Frontenac of being a Russian asset. At that time, you suggested that the language might be unparliamentary and that you would review the transcript and come back to the House. Madam Speaker, I have reviewed the transcript and, if you will review the transcript, you will see that an hon. member is quoted in the Hansard as saying, “Are you a Russian asset?” I am sure that the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the Westminster system in Parliament. Let me remind him that, in the Westminster system, it is Parliament that is supreme. While we respect the judiciary, it is Parliament that makes laws. He also mentioned that Supreme Court ruling. I would like him to tell me where in that Supreme Court ruling the court said that we had to have unfettered chain migration, that we did not need to have background checks and that we did not need to have language requirements. Could he tell me where in the judgment it says that?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the Liberal government spends comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians in the form of higher taxes and higher inflation. Let us take the hidden fuel standards tax, which will raise the price of gasoline by 17¢ a litre and diesel by 16¢ a litre. A tax on the trucker who delivers the food is a tax on the mom or dad buying that food in the grocery store aisle. It is a tax on young Canadians. It is one more sacrifice the Prime Minister is asking the next generation to make. Instead of a costly budget and a costly election, why does the government not eliminate the fuel standards tax and bring forward an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know I have been here for only a short time, but I have already discovered that the member opposite has a very fragile disposition. Perhaps that is why he suggested that when the government signs an agreement, we should not criticize it or ask any questions about it. He suggested that the only options were that we accept it or, if we did not accept it, that we were somehow capitulating to the other side. I will suggest a third option, which is to negotiate a better deal. The Liberals could have done that had they not walked away from negotiations with the United Kingdom. Why did you walk away?”
“Mr. Speaker, trade is hard to control, but what is not hard to control is how the government approaches it. What I have seen with respect to the United Kingdom is the government's walking away from the negotiations, walking away from trying to negotiate a generational opportunity with a huge trading partner and ally instead of taking that opportunity for Canada. We had a strong hand to play, but instead there has been weakness.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my view, the hon. member is absolutely correct. We are settling for something, when we could have had a generational opportunity to redefine our trade with one of the most dynamic and largest economies in the world. Instead, the Liberals walked away from that and said that they are not going to negotiate anymore. They let parts of the TCA, the trade continuity agreement, expire, to the detriment of Canadian businesses, and they were entirely uninterested in negotiating a new, bilateral win for Canada. Now the Liberals want us to pat them on the back for doing this? I do not think so.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Bloc raised a very valid point: the lack of transparency the government has brought to the House with respect to trade negotiations. The Liberals' lack of transparency in the TPP is not the only example. We have very little insight into any of the negotiations the government is undertaking. It is getting to the point where we have to ask ourselves what the strategy is, because all we have seen is more tariffs, more barriers to trade and more issues for Canadians trying to do business around the world. I agree that we need more transparency, and I ask the government to give it to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the flow of ideas in the House is actually from the opposition side to the government side, not the other way around. To the extent that the Liberals want to borrow from our institutional knowledge, wisdom and ideas, they can have at it. We will support those. What I really want to see is a good deal, not a bad deal, and a win, not a loss. I want to see Canada play its strong hand instead of the weakness we have seen from the other side.”
“It is merely along for the ride here. Canada needs to get off the ride, stand up for our industries, stand up for our farmers, stand up for the Canadian economy and negotiate a win.”
“One huge issue that we have raised in the House is with respect to the ban by the United Kingdom on beef treated with certain types of hormones, which is safe to eat in Canada and other parts of the world, including in North America, but banned by the United Kingdom. Of course, a WTO panel, many years ago, found that this was inconsistent with the U.K.'s obligations, and that lasted until the conclusion of the CETA. Under the Liberals, we had additional quota access for hormone-treated beef. Of course, we walked away from that when the Liberals walked away from the agreement. To my knowledge, as of this afternoon, the government has made no indication of what it will do about that ban on Canadian beef and pork going into the United Kingdom. This is, again, another example of the government's unimaginative trade strategy.”
“In my view, these losses are a direct result of the government's failure to secure a deal in a reasonable amount of time. However, it need not have been this way. The continuity agreement specifically provided that, after the expiry of the quotas, “the Parties shall discuss and decide whether the period should be extended. If they agree, the application of the annual quotas set out in this Annex may be extended by decision of the Canada-UK Joint Committee.” This means that the Liberals could have negotiated a win. They could have negotiated more access for Canadian companies, but they did not, because they walked away. In conclusion, I want to point out some things that the government can do.”
“Well, they expired, and they expired over 18 months ago. Since then, Canadian companies have been exporting goods under these quotas. They had been accessing the U.K. market for free, and now they are paying duties on those goods. I will give members one concrete example. A marquee Canadian company, Canada Goose, is one of the few companies in Canada that still has an integrated manufacturing base in the apparel sector in Canada. Last year, Canada Goose generated $75 million in revenue in the U.K., but due to the expiry of the country of origin quotas because the government walked away from a deal, Canada Goose paid $10 million in duties to the U.K. government. That is projected to be $15 million this year. That is a significant burden to growth for a marquee Canadian company in a foreign market. Canada Goose employs 3,000 Canadians.”
“Sometimes those rules are very hard to meet, and there are practical impediments to satisfying them. Therefore, sometimes countries provide quotas to each other to allow certain quantities of these goods to enter each other's markets duty free, even though they do not otherwise qualify. Canada and the U.K. did this through the trade continuity agreement. We provided, and the U.K. provided to Canada, country of origin quotas for certain products, including sugar products, chocolates, fish, fish food, seafood, textiles, apparel and some vehicles. In the case of the U.K., these quotas were not meant to last forever. They were meant as a transition period until such time as Canada and the U.K. could reach a new agreement. Of course, as I said before, Canada walked away from that agreement. What happened to these country of original quotas?”
“For example, we would say, “We shall endeavour to do something sometime, maybe in the future, if we get around to it.” That is how we would write it, and that is what the government is agreeing to. This is a Liberal trade strategy full of hortatory language. There is a lot of language and a lot of talk, but no action and no enforcement. That inaction has been harmful in securing a deal with the United Kingdom and has caused harm to Canadian businesses. I will give members one example. As part of the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom, we had agreed to extend country of origin quotas to certain goods. Typically under free trade agreements, goods must originate within the meeting of that agreement, and there are various kinds of rules of origin that are applied to goods, including what are called “product specific rules”.”
“There is a potential AI agreement with the U.A.E., a potential for an agreement or co-operation with Germany on some minerals and some sort of what the Liberals describe as an “action plan” with Mexico. I read through the action plan in search of some action, but I could not find anything. Instead, I found a lot of flowery language about co-operation, relationships, shared commitments, but no action. There are no binding commitments, no dispute resolution and no enforcement. All of these agreements, which are not much of an agreement, are piecemeal understandings that, for the most part, are completely unenforceable. When I used to work in treaty drafting in my legal career, we would include this type of language when we did not want to commit to anything. We called it “hortatory language”.”