"I Saved Canada!" — Mark Carney Visibly Rattled as Poilievre Reads the Receipt In Parliament

I think our friend, Minister LeBlanc, is heading into a wood chipper in Washington.

New tariffs are being floated by the Trump administration, which should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, except for perhaps our trade minister, who got the notice before he even landed back in Canada.Also, last week, they said that this was imaginary, but then today, they announced that they have caved to US pressure and they're going to be removing it.and sending Canadians the $600 million bill because I guess it actually wasn't imaginary.I'm Jasmine Lane, like, share, subscribe, comment your thoughts down below.The left are currently floating the idea of deporting somebody, not a criminal, no, no, no, somebody who reshared a post on the internet.That's the level of desperation we are currently at.

And you will never believe this fresh, innovative, totally never before tried idea that the Liberal base has cooked up on how to save Canada from this recession.And I'll give you a hint, it doesn't involve growing the economy at all.

Canadians deserve to have production, creation, and their stories told by Canadians, for Canadians, in Canada, by these global giant platforms.There is no tax.There is no tax, period.It is imaginary.It is fake.And this is the same people, Mr. Speaker, who want to defund the CBC, who want to kill our cultural industries, who want to take Canada out of every single piece of - You heard that, right?

That there's no tax.It's imaginary, it's a fake tax.Well, that's interesting.

would imply for Canadians, potentially $40 per platform per year.per household describes sometimes to many platforms, so that adds up.But there are a number of considerations that are in flux.

Because, you know, back in May 21st of 2026, the CRTC had tripled the required CanCon contribution rate for foreign streamers from 5 % to 15%, which was very, very weird considering the fact that this has long been an irritant for the Trump administration.And gosh, the 1st of July is really coming up fast, hey?

And the issues that he cares about with respect to Canada are So let's just be incredibly honest about what happened, because I think the government is counting on you not to be.

Bill C -11, the Online Streaming Act, was sold to Canadians as cultural protection, making those web giants pay their fair share to support Canadian industries in a way that they don't have to do anywhere else in the world because other nations are just competitive and they don't survive exclusively on government handouts I guess.

Because to earn a little bit, get off gradually, now doesn't pay.

But, you know, you had all these people that were like, yeah, we should have a tax because Netflix and Disney and Amazon, they're finally contributing to Canadian stories by government approved outlets, as is aforementioned inside of Bill C -18 and how they decided to define the criteria of that.Sounds so principled, right?Oh, gosh, yeah.What a good policy protecting Canadians, except for one major flaw.Which is that not even two weeks after the CRTC published this new decision to increase the rate from 5 to 15 percent,Washington and those big streamers said, yeah, we're not doing that, actually.

And it evaporated instantly.and what they replaced it with, because this was all about foreign giants tax the rich, pay their fair share, Canadians deserve and are owed this.For what reason, I don't know.Well, now we have a $600 million commitment from the federal government to make up for it, not from Netflix or Disney or Amazon, but from you, the taxpayer.This had nothing to do with protecting Canadian culture or fairness.This was about a government who needed money, found a popular villain, And then the second that villain had friends in Washington, they handed the invoice to you.

We need to repeal Bill C -11 and 18 in its entirety.Stop manipulating algorithms.Stop mandating outcomes.Let people be free.Is it really that hard?

You will never, ever have to wonder what is real or what is fake if it comes from CBC News.Hi, I'm Brody Fenlon, General Manager and Editor -in -Chief of CBC News.At CBC, our journalism is fact -checked.It's verified.We don't put anything out into the world unless we know it to be true, or if we haven't verified it, then we'll tell you that.Our journalism is produced by humans who have to meet a really high bar in terms of standards.

We're accountable for our journalism.And in the rare cases where we get something wrong, we'll own it.We'll tell you what we got wrong and how we fixed it.And you will never, ever have to wonder what is real or what is fake if it comes from CBC News.That's the invitation.Choose news, not noise.

Oh, honestly, choose news, not noise.That was the that was the kicker.Whoa.

Elbows up movement seems to be still in full effect.New data shows even fewer Canadians are traveling to the United States than we thought.

Choose news, not noise everybody.And I think that is particularly why this story, this guest, is really not sitting well with me.And I think it's very much worth noticing.But before I get into that, here is Brian Lilly from the Toronto Sun on CBC News.

He didn't really look like he was kidding around when he said that.So does this feel as though this is just something that's in his head and it's something that Donald Trump, the administration, believes should happen.It doesn't mean that it's going to happen, but it's something that he wants to happen.And now so does his ambassador.

Just to fill you in here, what Brian Lilly is on to talk about is something that Brian Lilly had posted about U .S.Ambassador Pete Hoekstra.He actually wrote an article about it as well, where Pete had reshared something from Donald Trump's account where Trump said 51st state and then he was sharing a thing about Canada dipping into a technical recession.We talked about this yesterday as well.And Brian had shared, this is an odd way to conduct diplomacy.

Trump may have just been trolling Carney over the recession.Ambassador Hoekstra posting this is poking Canadians in the eye, though.He was getting decent press of his trip to Quebec City.I expect that will change today.He doubled down on that.He says this morning, Pete Hoekstra used his official account to push the 51st state idea.

He's downplayed that in the past, and now he's pushing it.If this is what he believes, perhaps it's time for the Carney government to ask him to leave.

The U .S.president is once again making his 51st state jab and the U .S.ambassador to Canada reshared it.Is this an ambassador that Canada can work with or is it time to ask him to leave?

Look, the short answer is no to the second part of your question.And it's an administration that we have to work with.trading relationship.It's our biggest security relationship.Many other relationships.And we work with that administration.

We take the administration as it is.And we're working together on a number of areas.And I'll just underscore, and I know there are other questions, I'll just underscore that Minister LeBlanc and Madame LeBlanc Our negotiator -in -chief, there in Washington today, working with the U .S.administration, discussing our trading relationship.

Just to follow up on that, does the 51st state jab at this point impact those trade negotiations happening in Washington?

I mean, the president is an exceptionally active user of social media.You probably can chart his usage of it.It's only gone up in recent months, and we're not going to respond or react to everything that he posts.

And that's what CBC wants to talk to him about.Pay very close attention here.Because I got a I got a lot to unpack once this clip is done.

Well, I mean, he long ago gave that up as early as Mark Carney's May 2025 visit to the White House shortly after the last election.President Trump was asked about that, I think, by your own Katie Simpson.And he said, well, look, it takes two to tango.And if they don't want to, then, you know, we're not going to.But I'm paraphrasing here.And he's mostly left it alone since then.

So bringing it back, I think, was just him joking.Hey, Canada's in a recession.You wouldn't be if you're with the United States.You hear him all the time.We're the hottest country.We're the best country.

Our economy's doing great.I honestly think he was just trying to get a rise out of Carney.Hoaxster's reposting of it takes it to a different level, makes it look like official policy.It's weird that it takes the ambassador repostingit to make it look like official policy because we don't take Trump literally or we shouldn't.But, you know, that's something that goes back to 2016.

Someone that covered him extensively at the time said, take him seriously, but not literally.And that's how I've always viewed the president.And you sleep a lot better at night knowing that.But Hoekstra doing that makes it OK.So is this now official policy?You need to tell us that.

And if it is, Okay, well, I think we should reconsider a few things.And I'm someone who is defended hoaxter, by the way, is defended hoaxter as being misunderstood, who, even when he is not going over the top, he can be a very gruff and blunt man. I have defended him as someone who is doing his job.And in I'm saying, This is too much.

This does not feel like journalism to me.This feels like casting.Nothing to do with Brian Lilly.I have a lot of respect for Mr. Lilly and he has broken so many great stories.He has exposed the crap out of the CBC even, which is why this is even weirder.The fact that The same network, who would never platform Brian Lilly's perspective on liberal spending, on Bill C -11, on the carbon tax, or any number of policy debates, they find him perfectly credible the moment that he hands them ammunition against the U .

S.ambassador.This is exactly how state -adjacent media operates.It's not without right lies.It's with selective amplification and omission.And Lilly's credibility got borrowed here because he's somebody from the right who fit their narrative today.

And to his credit, Brian Lilly, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm not going to dance around it.When I saw that post, maybe it's because I'm just so exhausted by the constant insanity and hysteria.that I just don't care.Or it's also because I know Pete Hoekstra quite well, and I've followed him on social media for a while, and he frequently will reshare things from the administration.

As the president's representative to Canada, I present the president's views, the United States' views to Canada.I don't do all mechanically.I don't do all the reposting and retweeting myself.My understanding is we repost a hundred percent of the president's tweets.that deal with Canada.

Was this an accident?Maybe.I don't know.It is what it is.Like it's to me, it's just really not a big deal to me.And maybe that makes me bad at my job that I don't think that it is. I just don't care.

I'm just tired of 51st State Trump mega.

I'm just I'm so exhausted by it.

Like this isn't a coincidence, I guess is what I could say.And Brian Lilly did not give them exactly what they wanted either.I think they wanted him on because they wanted it to come from him that he thinks the ambassador should go right.And he didn't give them that.at all.He had a really well balanced point of view, despite me not really coming to the same conclusion as him on it.

But this was such a big editorial decision that tells us so much more about the story that they're trying to create than it does anything that Brian Lilly was invited on there to say.

Now on the heels of that visit, Greer's office is proposing new tariffs on 60 countries, including Canada.It's over forced labor concerns.Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and the UK are among countries that could face a 10 % additional duty.

We're going to take a listen to what Prime Minister Mark Carney had to say about this when he was questioned this morning.But it is interesting that You know, the government here keeps saying, yeah, this is something we really care about, too.It's a big issue.But we have very strong legislative regimes as a result of this, do we?What does that mean?imported EVs that we have now?

I don't know.And Greer's report directly contradicts that, not on the law, but on enforcement.Having law and enforcement are two very different things, obviously.The CBSA actually doesn't even publish their enforcement statistics.So, eh.

We've spent the past year and a half going to countries telling them, We have to have some level of tariffs on the globe to deal with this giant deficit we're dealing with, to try to reshore, etc.And most countries have, I know grudgingly, but they've said, we understand your policy.We understand, so we're going to negotiate with you.We're going to remove some of these tariffs and non -tariff barriers, etc.Canada's approach has been different.retaliating against the United States.

Two countries in the world retaliating against us.People's Republic of China and Canada.So they're just in a different spot.

And it's hard to see necessarily where that is. I will say...

We have China in energy, minerals, and other things.Fertilizers between the U .S.and Canada has not been affected.It's been untouched.That's gone without any trouble, I think, for the worries of common economic benefit.

I think when it comes to some of these manufactured goods, we have a different view.I mean, think about, why do we make cars in Canada?The simplified view, which I'd share, is that in the 60s, Canada did something very Trumpian.And they said, if you're going to sell cars in Canada, the big three, you should be making here in Canada.And the big three will bake, right?So I'll call them the big three, because that's fine.

We'll put some plants up there and they did it.And it's grown up that way, right?This is not like it was some, you know, domestic Canadian something that Canadians say, if you're going to sell here, you're going to sell here.We want you to build here.So I think I'll sell here.these issues, it's going to be a challenging negotiation.

But in some sectors of the economy, it has been fine and it will be fine.

Secondly, with respect to these 301 tariffs, this is not a surprise.It's something that the U .S.has been planning for a few months.I think very importantly is that two things.One is that the tariffs are consulted.

for 30 days or 30 plus days.Secondly, explicitly in the decision, Canada, the carve -out for Kuzma is referenced and maintained.So that puts us in a position where, again, we would still have the best trade deal of any of the U .S.

trade counterparts.But I thought that the U .S.was a threat to Canada's sovereignty and we needed to get away from them because they were trying to own us.And now, Now we need them to like us so that we continue to have the same best trade deal that we had before the election that he conveniently omitted throughout the entire election.

The motivation of the U .S.action, the 301 tariffs against, or proposed tariffs against a variety of countries, is something that we share.Canada has a very strong legislative regime against forced labour in supply chains.We don't want any element of forced labour coming in goods and services and we want to use our our influence to eliminate this practice of forced labor and child labor.We are have been preparing ways to reinforce the regime that we have.

We made some changes earlier this year on things that candidly were not as effective.So there's ways we can change things legislatively.

So in the same breath, he called Canada's labor enforcement very strong and then also candidly not as effective.that the U .S.S.is really on to something with this one and Canada needs to step it up and that these tariffs might actually be justified?I don't know.He's not fighting the tariff framing at all.

He's absorbing it.

It's the only promise that he made during the elections.And it's the same thing he said a few days ago.But after he said that, we saw that Canada is the only country in the G20 that is in recession.So that means that Canadians are skipping meals.There are 112 ,000 Canadians who've lost their jobs.We have the second worst unemployment rate in the G7.

Can the Prime Minister stand up and answer a very simple question?Are we in a recession or just a technical recession?

I am eternally grateful.that in Mark Carney's own words, he saved us from the bad policies of Pierre Palliev.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to correct the official record of Parliament.I made a number of promises during the election campaign.The first was to save Canadians from the terrible policies of the leader of the opposition.Second, the policies that this government has put in place are allowing us to create a more resilient, more prosperous, stronger, more sustainable economy and a more independent economy.That's what we're doing.

Wow.My goodness, thanks for clearing that one up that all of the woes Canada has experienced over the last 10 plus years have nothing to do with liberal policy at all.No, no, no.None of the warnings from business, none of the mass exodus, none of that has nothing to do with a change in policies.Hmm.What do we do then to fix this recession?

Oh, I know.Let's go into the hive mind, shall we?Luke Savage, quite the username, in a response to the Globe and Mail article, an opinion piece that was written about how they should cut elderly benefits as a result of Canada's crippling debt.That'll really save our economy.Luke has one better.He says, what if, call me crazy, we introduced a wealth tax instead?

Brilliant.Now, this is a video that was just posted on Trigonometry by Constantine Kissin, and it is talking about Britain, but considering how Canada is the most European, non -European country and stuff, I do think it very much applies here as well.

Precisely what our politicians are incentivized to do.They are judged on the country's total GDP.The easiest way to increase it when you're busy strangling your economy with net zero high taxes and endless regulation?bring in more bodies.This really isn't complicated to understand, so why do so many people in Britain, who clearly feel the economic pain, nonetheless refuse to see it?To see that mass immigration is an attempt by badly incentivized politicians to deceive them about what's actually happening.

Instead, they cling to their support for mass immigration and the seductive but false idea that they are struggling because the rich aren't paying their fair share.

discredit the people making it.Good job, buddy.You really showed us.Though I would like to say that the data would actually suggest that this is far from right -wing hysteria in any sense, actually.Canada's capital flight problem is very well documented.In fact, the capital gains inclusion rate was increased back in 2024 in the federal budget there, and that immediately triggered all kinds of warnings from economists, investors,

entrepreneurs, doctors.The Fraser Institute even documented that Canada's top combined federal provincial marginal tax rates already exceed 50 percent in most provinces.And Canada has been losing high net worth individuals and entrepreneurs at an accelerating rate, which is, again, a very well documented trend long before the tariff situation happened.The C .D.Howe Institute and others have repeatedly flagged Canada's declining business investment per worker, which they have defined as a structural crisis, aka we are becoming less attractive for capital, not more.

Let's also not forget the undeniable reality, which is that the highest income earners in this country already pay for anywhere from 40 to 50 % of the total tax revenue.So if they're gone, Who's gonna pay for all of those social programs that the liberal government needs you to be hooked on so that you forever need them and they never lose power?Hmm, what's gonna happen to your job?Who's gonna employ you when they decide to close up shop in Canada because it's just not worth it here anymore?Here is a recent -ish example.France tried to do a wealth tax.

Did you know that?Actually from 2000 to 2017, around 60 ,000 millionaires opted to leave the country.According to the Financial Times, that caused dents in state revenues from income and value -added taxes, as well as the wealth tax.One estimate put France's total capital flight between 1988 and 2007 to 200 billion euros, owing to the policy potentially dragging GDP growth down an average of 0 .2 % each year.This was something that Macron actually ended up repealing in 2017.because it was so bad.

Canada is already in a technical recession.We're already facing issues from tariffs, right?That might be even more in the time that we have.We're already facing regulatory bottlenecks.People are already leaving at record rates.And we're being told by the left that the answer to this recession and crippling debt is to tax the people most capable of leaving harder.

The British economy is not stagnant because we've produced too much of our own oil and gas.It's not struggling because taxes are too low.Our economic woes are not the product of insufficient regulation.But until the public makes the connection, the rapid rise of Zak Polanski and other redistribution enthusiasts is inevitable, even if it means more of the policies that made us poor in the first place.Our poverty is the direct result of net -zero lunacy, welfarism, and chasing out anyone who wants to start a business and make it successful.But it turns out many people don't realize that it's not them that's poor, it's the entire country.

And if we don't persuade them otherwise, they'll vote for people who make things worse again and again.

I'm Jasmine Lane.Thank you so much for watching.And if you have made it this far, do me a big favor and double check to see if you are actually subscribed, because a lot of people aren't.Surprisingly, you can press that little button and then you can help me grow this channel in a way that I currently can't do to Bill C -11, which we talked about today.Funny enough.Gosh darn Canadian content.

Hey, really sucks to be excluded from that when I'm Canadian and making content if only I was the CBC.I'll be back with you tomorrow