Mark Gerretsen
Kingston and the Islands, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Kingston icon and one of the most celebrated town criers in the world: our very own Chris Whyman. This year marks more than four decades since Chris first donned the regalia and stepped into the role of Kingston's official town crier in 1984.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Moments ago, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South issued a social media post that included the results of a vote that occurred earlier this afternoon in the House. He indicated in his post that the Prime Minister voted against a motion. However, the Prime Minister did not even vote at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent among the parties to agree to switch the first two speaking spots between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the understanding that all regular rules, including allotted time allocations for those spots, be provided accordingly with that switch.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by my colleague, respecting the effect of the programming motion related to Bill C‑22 in the context of our collective and individual privileges.”
“The programming motion that would govern the consideration of Bill C‑22 seeks to achieve to set a procedural process for the disposal of the bill. The House is no stranger to innovative and constructive ways to dispose of business before the House and in committees.”
“I submit that the exercise of these powers is central to the matter before the House. The House can give direction to committees, which are creatures of the House. The House can decide, by a majority of the voices, to structure the legislative process for any given bill. This is precisely the case with the proposal before the House.”
The complete record
Every one of 398 lines we hold for Mark Gerretsen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent among the parties to agree to switch the first two speaking spots between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the understanding that all regular rules, including allotted time allocations for those spots, be provided accordingly with that switch.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Moments ago, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South issued a social media post that included the results of a vote that occurred earlier this afternoon in the House. He indicated in his post that the Prime Minister voted against a motion. However, the Prime Minister did not even vote at all. He is not even in the country. I wonder if the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South will stand up and apologize to the House for the misinformation that he is distributing around the Internet that relates to proceedings in this House.”
“On behalf of the residents of Kingston, I congratulate Chris Whyman on his extraordinary service and thank him for more than 40 years of dedication to our community. Hear ye, hear ye. Well done, Chris.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Kingston icon and one of the most celebrated town criers in the world: our very own Chris Whyman. This year marks more than four decades since Chris first donned the regalia and stepped into the role of Kingston's official town crier in 1984. What began as a one-year appointment has become a remarkable career, representing our city with pride, humour and a voice that can carry across Market Square. Over the years, Chris has earned provincial, national and international acclaim, including multiple world championships, all while serving as an ambassador for Kingston's history, culture and community spirit. Whether he is welcoming visitors, opening festivals or representing Canada abroad, he brings an unmistakable energy that reflects the very best of our city.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is more than just out of order. The member has brought cake into the House of Commons, which is incredibly disrespectful of the rules of this House. I would suggest that the member apologize to the House for disrespecting it in this way.”
“I submit that the exercise of these powers is central to the matter before the House. The House can give direction to committees, which are creatures of the House. The House can decide, by a majority of the voices, to structure the legislative process for any given bill. This is precisely the case with the proposal before the House. Therefore, I conclude that the matter is clearly within the House's powers to regulate its internal affairs in respect of the legislative agenda.”
“The programming motion that would govern the consideration of Bill C‑22 seeks to achieve to set a procedural process for the disposal of the bill. The House is no stranger to innovative and constructive ways to dispose of business before the House and in committees. During the pandemic, the House adopted motions that would have normally been seen as a restriction on the privileges of members and the House more generally. Indeed, the exclusive power of the House to regulate internal affairs is the cornerstone of the architecture of parliamentary privilege. The ability to regulate and control its own debates, agenda and proceedings relating to the legislative and deliberative functions is one of the most important privileges that the Constitution bestows upon Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by my colleague, respecting the effect of the programming motion related to Bill C‑22 in the context of our collective and individual privileges. I submit that the matter is a question of whether the House has the ability to regulate its proceedings that appear to restrict the privileges of the House. I can state categorically that the House does have the powers to limit and, in some cases, waive its privileges. Page 65 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: As a collectivity, the House of Commons has privileges that enable its members to fulfill their constitutional duties.... The two most dominant rights or powers are the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs and the power to discipline.”
“Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.”
“It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary . He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith. We can look at Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River did not answer the question of the parliamentary secretary . In his speech, he said he spoke with RCMP all the time. The parliamentary secretary asked what the RCMP told him about bail reform and lawful access. In his answer, in which he ironically first started off by accusing Liberals of never answering the question, he then skated around the whole question and talked about what his constituents are saying to him. Why do we not ask the member again what the RCMP has been saying to him? He will not answer that question because law enforcement is wholly behind this bill. That is why he does not want to answer it. Will he just come to terms with the fact that he is at odds with the RCMP and law enforcement on this?”
“Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to put down the tool of forcing us to use time allocation just because they know they can delay until the point that we have to do this, so they can then use the 30 minutes to stand in the House and say, “Oh, how dare you disrupt accountability?” Meanwhile, it is all about the games that they are playing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting, listening to Conservatives talk about accountability and how dare we use this opportunity to move closure. Yesterday we moved closure on Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act, which was supported unanimously in the PROC committee and then got to the House. They forced us to move closure on it just so they could vote on it as well. It passed unanimously in the House too. It is clear that all the Conservatives are doing is using any possible delay tactic, regardless of whether they even support a bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the questions my Conservative colleagues are asking today are intended just to go after this member's character. The irony is that she has shown character in her willingness to properly represent her community, to stand for her constituents and to work on behalf of her constituents to make their lives even better. I wonder if she can reflect on how she feels now that she has joined the governing caucus and how she sees that translating into a very positive message and positive outcome for her community specifically.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more relevant to a debate than talking about the way other members in the House have been participating in that debate. An hon. member: That is not a point of order. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: That is actually a point of order. God, you do not even know what you are talking about.”
“It is more of an indication that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives. Why are they doing this? Why did he vote in favour of that motion to adjourn?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member spoke so passionately about such a serious and important issue, this piece of legislation, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that earlier this evening, the Conservatives put forward a motion to adjourn the House so that this debate would have ended. He would not have had the opportunity to speak on the bill like he did now. As a matter of fact, whereas every Liberal voted on that adjournment motion, 18 Conservatives did not vote, including the Leader of the Opposition . They did not even vote on the motion they put forward. They would have had all the time to plan this. They could have been planning it since noon today, preparing for the moment. They could have told all their members, “At this specific time, we're going to pull this game. Please make sure to vote,” but they did not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think using the word “celebrating” would be going a little too far, but I know where the member is going with this. What I was trying to say is that what Conservatives do is get excited. I can almost guarantee members that a week ago, on May 31, when those numbers came out and Canada had a negative 0.04% growth rate, they got excited because they saw an opportunity, and this is what they have been doing. All I was trying to say when I got up in the House and gave this speech was that doing that is not going to put them in a position to form government. The sooner they learn that, the better for them, but the worse for us, I guess.”
“Mr. Speaker, those same organizations projected that there would not be the job numbers growth that there was in May. Those same organizations projected that unemployment would not drop as much as it did. Those same organizations projected that full-time employment would not surge the way it did. Yes, there are projections, but then there is reality. The reality is that on Friday of last week, there were incredible job numbers for our country. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to make even a drive-by comment on them. Meanwhile, a week ago, when there was a -0.04% growth rate, he ran outside, acted like the sky was falling and declared a full-scale recession. It is just theatrics to him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Brandon—Souris is referring to. I am responding to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City 's question. She is in the House right now. We all know that. The point is that the member who asked me a question a moment ago, who was in the House when she did it, is now suddenly trying to ask me to explain things to her constituents, but she voted against every single measure that was brought in to help the lives of those very constituents.”
“Mr. Speaker, did the member tell her constituents how she voted against every single bill we brought forward that would improve the lives of Canadians? We lowered taxes in the lowest tax bracket. We brought in a national school food program. We brought in dental care. We brought in pharmacare. We have done so many things over the years that the member has been in and out of the House to experience and to vote on, but she has voted against all of it. My only question to the member—”
“I hope they can learn from that and figure out that there is something they can contribute to the House and to democracy, but it is not going to be with the approach they have been taking and, in particular, the approach the Leader of the Opposition is taking.”
“They can hem and haw, roll their eyes and say that I have no idea what I am talking about, but I would encourage them to be a little self-reflective and to try to figure out if they can sort out why they did not win the last election and why they continue to be so low in the polls. It is because of the Leader of the Opposition and the way he continues to go on and on, the games he plays, and the things he does. Canadians are just not buying it anymore. The Conservatives do not need to like it, but that is the reality of the situation. They hopefully can take some time this summer to reflect on what their strategy should be moving forward, because as we have seen over the last number of years, the strategy they are currently using, which led to today's opposition motion, is not a successful one. I do not think it ever will be.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member cannot run out there and act as though the sky is falling one day, and then a week later pretend that there is no news, because it is completely contradictory. Conservatives can heckle all they want on this. They can disagree with me. They can challenge me. They can do whatever they want. The reality of the situation is that this is the narrative that is out there. This is what the vast majority of Canadians see when they see the games the Leader of the Opposition plays. Unfortunately, it is my position that what the Conservatives are doing today is just continuing to play into that narrative of “The sky is falling”, without being genuinely reflective of what is really going on and the reality of the situation.”
“You know, I'm a tribal Conservative. I want to win the next election. Three years before an election, screaming that the sky is falling every week is not how you do it.” These are the words of a former Conservative campaign manager, who ran the 2021 election for the Conservative Party of Canada and who full-on went on CBC news and announced to the world that the Leader of the Opposition is, in his words, “rooting for a recession.” That is what we are dealing with. The Leader of the Opposition cannot think that he is ever going to be the leader of a country, when he runs out there one day and claims that the sky is falling, that everything is coming to an end and that we have the most dramatic economic downfall in Canadian history, then a week later keeps his mouth completely— An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.”
“(1740) The Leader of the Opposition has not said even a single word about it. It is one thing if he wants to claim one day that the sky is falling, but a week later he cannot even reflect on the fact the job numbers are better and the economy might not be in that full-scale recession he tried to paint a week earlier. My colleagues are having a hard time listening to me, so why do I not go back to Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from two elections ago. By the way, a number of Conservatives sitting in the House ran for office when he was the Conservative campaign manager. This is what he said just three or four days ago: “It's problematic when you choose to go down that road that [the Leader of the Opposition] has chosen to go down so aggressively, almost like he's rooting for a recession. I understand partisan politics very well.”
“There were almost 90,000 net new jobs in Canada, which contributed to a decrease in unemployment. Full-time employment skyrocketed. There was significant economic growth in many sectors. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he run outside and hold another press conference? No, he did not. He is literally in hiding. He disappeared. He has not said a word. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, by the way, as my colleagues across the way heckle me on this, I have not heard his speech today. When is he going to give a speech on this? He has not said a single word on this issue. He literally does not want to address this. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, should I call my own point of order on this? At some point you have to step in.”
“He went on and on. The Leader of the Opposition attacked a reporter for asking a basic question. One of the reporters said that some economists are not saying that what he is saying is true, and the reporter asked if he was jumping the gun a bit. He attacked the reporter and asked what outlet the reporter was with. These are totally Trump-style attacks. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happened. Regardless of the Conservatives' heckling, it happened in front of this building on a Friday morning. The Leader of the Opposition could not wait 30 minutes to digest the numbers. He had to do it immediately. Let us fast-forward to this past Friday, June 5, when we found out the job numbers in the report for May.”
“Let us look at the timeline. Mr. DeLorey is looking at the timeline too and reflecting on it in the quote I read out. The timeline is this. On Friday, May 29, the first-quarter growth numbers came out, and the growth for Canada was -.04%. It does show that it is negative growth. Two consecutive negative-growth quarters means that we are in a recession. Why are the Conservatives clapping? This is exactly what I was talking about. They jump on an opportunity. They start clapping at the idea that the economy is not doing as well as it otherwise could have been doing. This is what ended up happening. The Leader of the Opposition , on a Friday morning, ran out one of the main doors of this building, held an emergency press conference and said that there is a massive, full-scale recession and it is all the Liberal Prime Minister 's fault.”
“About three or four days ago, while he was being interviewed on CBC, he said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling, when in a month's time or two months' time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... Job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, and other economists saying, it's not a recession.” I am not talking about some Conservative operative from the 1980s or 1990s. I am talking about the campaign manager who led the Conservative Party of Canada's national campaign just two elections ago, and that is what he said. He is being extremely critical of the approach that the Leader of the Opposition is taking to this issue, running out and trying to proclaim that the sky is falling.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. At the outset, I must say that I have sat in the House for a fair bit today, listening to the debate. I cannot help but reflect on some of what I have been hearing as a result of some of the news that was received regarding the economy: a sense of almost excitement or gleefulness that comes from the Conservatives as they celebrate the opportunity to try to make a bigger issue out of news and turn this into a partisan issue rather than trying to genuinely help. I am being heckled, but I will read something from Fred DeLorey, a former Conservative campaign manager.”
“Madam Speaker, I know the member read her speech, but perhaps she wrote it last week because the number that she used for Canada's unemployment in her speech does not reflect the new number that came out on Friday. She might want to update her numbers. She might also want to reflect on the fact that the report that came out last Friday showed that Canada had a net increase of 90,000 jobs in May, that full-time work surged and that sectors across the economy have grown. I am curious. Notwithstanding the fact that she may have written that speech on Wednesday of last week, why did nothing in the 10-minute speech she just provided talk about the new report that came out on Friday, which showed that there was a significant improvement in May alone?”
“Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard. The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.”
“Madam Speaker, I am sure you heard it. In that exchange, the member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” I am sorry. The neighbouring member for York—Durham thinks that is funny. The member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” She should know that is unparliamentary. I would respectfully request that you ask her to withdraw that comment.”
“Madam Speaker, the member mentioned Liberal pundits at the beginning of his speech. Here is something a pundit said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling when in a month's time or two month's time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... The job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, another economist saying it's not a recession.” Does the House know which pundit that is? It is Fred DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign manager for Erin O'Toole, who said that on the CBC. Would the member like to comment on the comments of his Conservative friend's punditry?”
“I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday. I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.”
“Would the minister not agree that the Conservatives' approach and strategy would probably be a bit more productive if they were a bit more selective in choosing when to use the tool of filibustering to prevent and delay legislation from moving forward?”
“Madam Speaker, I find it really amusing to listen to Conservatives talk about games being played in the House when they are literally the party that hid people behind the curtain during a very important vote months ago. Would the minister not agree with me that, time after time, we see the Conservatives refusing to let legislation through, so we have to eventually use a tool like this to advance it? If they were more selective and did their filibustering tactics every once in a while, it might hold a bit more credibility. The problem is that they do it at every single opportunity, so with every single bill, it seems like this is the only way to keep it advancing forward. We will get to the point where the public does not even realize what is going on anymore because the Conservatives do it every single time.”
“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a well-established rule, which the member should know, that we cannot speak of any hon. member in this House in a disparaging way such as that. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this is something the government takes extremely seriously. This is the first government to have a Minister of Artificial Intelligence who is directly overseeing how we can safely implement artificial intelligence, which is inevitably going to make its way through society, and how we can safely do that in a way that protects Canadians but still sees the maximum potential that can come from this technology, including when that potential uses the opportunity to critique opposition motions from the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely correct. The reality is that we live in a world right now that we could not have predicted two years ago. We are responding to the uncertainties in that world and laying the framework and the groundwork to have a stronger economy that is not reliant on one particular trading partner but that can be diverse throughout the world. I have full confidence in the Prime Minister 's ability to do that. I think it is glaringly obvious to Canadians that the alternative in the Leader of the Opposition just does not measure up.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a nice try. I am probably one of the very few members of the House who does not read from or use a script or anything when I am speaking in the House. I literally spoke to the Speaker the whole time and read four sentences from something on my phone. We are about to go into question period, and every single question we hear, including from the Bloc, at least 70% or 80% of the time, will be a written-out question. I would love to know who writes out those questions for the Bloc or for the Conservatives. As far as it goes for me, I stand here, I speak my mind, and I speak it without notes or assistance.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know I am not supposed to address the presence or absence of members in the House, but that member listened to and sat here for my entire speech. After walking away from that, the only thing he could say was that I only talked about myself. I literally gave them political advice for eight straight minutes, talking about what they could do better. I am literally trying to help that member. He says that I am talking about myself. Of course I was talking about the struggles that Canadians are going through. What I was criticizing was the way that the Leader of the Opposition appears to be celebrating it.”
“People back in my war room are probably asking why I will not shut up, because I am telling them what to do, but it is true. I am just trying to help them because I feel like they really, genuinely need it. The reality is that Conservatives are going to keep doing this over and over and over. It is not going to produce anything for them because the reality of the situation is that Canadians are looking for parliamentarians, especially in the world that we live in right now, to work together, to collaborate together, to come up with ideas together and certainly not to celebrate potential downfalls, which is what the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus are doing.”
“Their approach, always, is not asking what they are going to do to improve the lives of Canadians. Their approach is to make the other guy look bad, attack the other guy and beat him or her into submission so that they look like the champions. Guess what? They tried that in 2024. To a certain degree, they were kind of effective at it, but it did not materialize into their forming government, did it? It did not. They just ended up coming right back. It certainly did not result in Conservatives forming government. The key thing they are missing is that, rather than just attack, attack, attack, they have to provide solutions. They have to provide alternatives. I have said this so many times in the House. I am actually trying to give them political advice right now.”
“Speaker, it is negative 0.03% of growth. I am sorry. It is catastrophic. Look at them. They are doing it right now. They absolutely refuse. They want to make this the biggest, boldest and absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen. That is the narrative they are going with. I am actually not surprised, because they are just parroting what their leader did on Friday. He went outside this building, and he took the opportunity to celebrate the position that Canada was in. Conservatives can keep doing this. They can do it all day long, but I am telling them right now that this is not selling to the Canadian public. The Canadian public is not buying this. By the way, the Conservatives did this before. What situation did they set up for themselves?”
“Canadians do not want the Conservatives. They do not want that rhetoric. They do not want that style of approach. They do not want a Leader of the Opposition who is going to laugh at reporters, challenge what outlet they are with and then dismiss them. Canadians do not want that. (1340) I really wish that my colleagues across the way, who keep heckling me right now, would take a moment to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of truth to what I am saying. Maybe the Canadian people would like to see humility and would like to see a Leader of the Opposition who actually takes the time to reflect on the world that people live in and does not jump at an opportunity to celebrate it, so that he can say “I told him so” to the Prime Minister on what amounts to a statistical error. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr.”
“is positioning itself against us right now and is treating us like an economic enemy at times, and with the sense of incredible pride that Canadians have in wanting to stick together and fight this together, the Conservatives still think that it is a winning strategy to talk down Canadians, to talk down the Prime Minister and to talk down the position we are in. I can wonder all day long about why the Conservatives think this is an effective strategy, why they are doing this and why they have not realized that their 2024 tactics are just falling on deaf ears right now. People do not even have to listen to me. They do not even have to consider the fact that I am bringing this to their attention. They can just look at the fact that it is reflected in the polling. It is reflected in the decision in the last election.”