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 2 of 8.
“Rightly so, a reporter from The Hill Times asked the Leader of the Opposition , on the topic of the economy, “Might you be going a little too far with this by suggesting that this is a massive, colossal economic situation?” The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot , started laughing at the reporter and said, “Of course you are making excuses for the Prime Minister . What outlet are you from?” The reporter said The Hill Times, and the Conservative leader said, “Oh, yeah, The Hill Times.” What I find so utterly amazing is that Conservatives, much less the Leader of the Opposition , are unable to recognize that their strategy may have been really effective in 2024, but with everything going on in the world right now, with the way that the U.S.”
“He gathered whoever he could from his caucus who remained here on a Friday; they usually disappear halfway through question period on a Thursday. He dragged them out in front of this building, lined them up behind himself at 9:30 a.m. and gave a press conference with a gigantic smile on his face. He was so excited by this news. Imagine being a member of this House, one of the 343 members, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, and taking such joy in knowing that Canadians are suffering? That is exactly what we saw from him. That is not even where it ended, because it got even worse than that.”
“I can understand why he does not like listening to what was generated as a response, but it is the reality of the situation. The real irony is not that AI spit out the obvious and what everybody already knows. What it really comes down to is that this is exactly what Canadians are feeling right now in watching the Leader of the Opposition 's response to what has happened. Let us just take ourselves back to Friday morning when Statistics Canada released information that we were in a technical recession by a declining growth of, listen to this, negative 0.03%. We are talking about a really small percentage. The Leader of the Opposition jumped on this news like it was the biggest gift he has ever received. He was so gleeful about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is literally what the response was that I got from AI about the motion. Word for word, it said, “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I hear my friend from Saskatchewan across the way criticizing AI. I would remind him to tread lightly in this area, given the fact that I am pretty certain at least 70% to 80% of the questions asked during question period by the Conservatives are generated by AI, before he goes down that path of trying to be critical of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House today for the better part of the debate listening to members. Earlier today, I was here for the opening speech by the critic, the member for Calgary East , when he was introducing the motion. I do not know if I just got bored of listening to the same rhetoric by the Conservatives, but I started staring down at the motion as it was written on my piece of paper and wondered what AI would think of this motion. I literally took a picture of it and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is literally the response—”
“Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives really like AI, because it seems like half of their speeches and questions are written by AI. I am a bit more skeptical. However, while I was sitting here listening to the member speak, I took a picture of the motion and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is the response I got: “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I am sure the Conservatives will say that this is our woke Liberal AI. Can the parliamentary secretary provide his comments on whether he thinks AI got it right this time?”
“Does the member not think that perhaps, just a little, the Conservatives are overplaying their hand with this, in the degree of excitement that they are showing for the circumstances that we are in right now?”
“Madam Speaker, it would be a lot easier to take the Conservatives at their word if they did not seem giddy about the fact that we are in the position we are in. On Friday, right after Statistics Canada had announced this news, the Leader of the Opposition ran out, almost excited, like he was happy that we were in this position. He started challenging reporters, when they were basically just asking him questions. A question that was asked by a reporter was whether he was overblowing this a little based on what the economists were saying. The Leader of the Opposition then asked what outlet they were with. Now the Conservatives are going to stand there and accuse us of employing the Donald Trump tactics. Members can look at what they are doing.”
“Mr. Chair, on a point of order, once again we are seeing some very experienced members of the House not follow the basic procedural rules about speaking to a minister through the Chair. Perhaps you could remind this member that her questions are supposed to be directed through you and not to the minister.”
“Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order, the member is doing it again. He is referring to her by saying, “minister” and talking directly to the minister. He has to speak through the Chair, does he not? Perhaps he is a new member and you could explain the rules to him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time he has spent in the House. I certainly will not forget when he was first elected in 2019. I had been here for four years, and I was sitting in the House when he was about to give his first speech. He turned around to me and said, “Do I start talking now?” He was just getting his feet established here, but it did not take him long to become a force to be reckoned with in the House. I thank him for the time he spent with us and for always pushing the government, for always pushing us individually, to do more and to be more thoughtful when it comes to climate change and what we could do. He always pushed us to do better no matter the circumstances. The member opened his speech by talking about a young 20-year-old who travelled for the first time to engage in activities around climate change.”
“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of over 1,000 residents of Kingston and the Islands and surrounding communities, I am pleased to present a petition that highlights the limits to freedoms that exist around communication, Internet access, etc., in Iran. In particular, they are calling on the federal government to assist in maintaining Internet access for those who are affected, to advocate for investigations into humanitarian violations, to support international initiatives to protect detained citizens and to facilitate humanitarian pathways for family reunification.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome leaders from Queen's University to Parliament Hill. Founded in 1841 in Kingston, well before Confederation, Queen's has a long tradition of academic excellence and public service, helping shape generations of leaders in Canada and beyond. Today, it remains a national leader in research, innovation and education, with work that aligns closely with Canada's priorities. Its contributions in areas such as defence research, advanced technologies and high-performance computing are helping strengthen our security, competitiveness and innovation capacity. Through strong partnerships and commitment to excellence in science, engineering and talent development, Queen's plays an important role in keeping Canada resilient and looking forward in a rapidly changing world.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member voted against it. He votes against every single one of these programs that I talked about. He voted against a national school food program. He voted against the disability benefit. He voted against all of this. How am I supposed to take him seriously when he gets up in the House and tries to lecture me on supporting Canadians?”
“The Conservatives will use them as opportunities to try to suggest that these programs are nothing other than government bureaucracy. I invite them to come to my riding, talk to the Food Sharing Project and see the work that it is doing on the ground with that government support to get food into the hands and bellies of children.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing forward that very important private member's bill, which did eventually get the support of the House without any Conservative support. The member would know this having studied the issue, but Canada was the last of the G7 countries to get a national school food program. Even the United States had a national school food program before Canada. The reality of this situation is that we cannot even get Conservatives to recognize that maybe it is a good idea to make sure that kids are properly nourished when they start a day in school. By the way, when we have kids who are participating and receiving food in schools, we immediately start to see stereotypes break down around the haves and the have-nots, which is why programs like this are so important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not say what he said. I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy. What I was doing, and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition , who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians. My argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them. What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for me to take that question seriously if the member did not belong to a political party that, as I demonstrated in the example I just gave, handed checks to millionaires. Now I am supposed to suddenly expect its members to care about the affordability challenges many Canadians have. I am very proud of the work the government has done. Could we do things differently? Could we do things better? Is there always an opportunity to improve? Absolutely, there always is. I will always do that, but will I get up in the House and vote for this motion, which would benefit the ultrawealthy the most, the people who consume the most amount of fuel? No, I will not.”
“Why would they not need it? We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the member for Regina—Lewvan does not want to provide dental care to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. This is everything anyone needs to understand the difference between the two parties. I want to thank him for speaking up there. The Canada disability benefit is another one, as well as the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters. These are all initiatives that the government has brought forward to make the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians better. Every single one of these, the Conservatives voted against.”
“If Canadians want just one example of a fundamental difference in the philosophy behind the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, all they need to do is look at the two different child care benefits that were introduced under the two different governments. That tells them everything they need to know about the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. Of course, there is the $10-a-day child care benefit that we have been working with the provinces on. There is also the Canada dental plan that the member for Regina—Lewvan did not vote in favour of. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that, no, he did not vote in favour of it. I am sure I could get the Minister of Health to tell me how many recipients there have been in his riding. The member is saying that they do not need it.”
“All they have to do is compare two very easy policies, one presented by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and one presented by the Liberals. The goal was ultimately the same, which was to give money to help support children. The key difference between the two is that Stephen Harper's universal child care benefit gave a cheque for every single child. If a person had three kids, they got three times the individual child amount. It did not matter whether they were making $20,000 a year or $2 million a year. Everybody got the exact same cheque. When we came along we said that it might make more sense to not give cheques to millionaires, but instead take that money and give more to low-income Canadians, who would use the money right away and inject it right back into our economy.”
“We introduced automatic federal benefits in our budget, something the Conservatives voted against. Now low-income Canadians whose tax returns are very simple can benefit from it being an automatic process so they immediately get the tax refund. They do not need an accountant or to go to a third-party company and pay for it. That is helping low-income Canadians. Conservatives are not helping when they are getting up and saying that, if we reduce the gas tax even more than we have already, it would help low-income Canadians more than the wealthy Canadians, who obviously consume way more fuel than low-income Canadians. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit. If members want one clear example of a difference in policy between the Liberals and Conservatives, they need look no further than the Canada child benefit.”
“They politicize all of it. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: No, I am not politicizing it. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to these guys heckle right now, and I will respond to that heckle. I stood up here for days, for years, asking why we were the last of the G7 countries to do this and why we had not done it yet. I worked internally in my caucus to push the minister of finance at the time, and I presented petition after petition from my community on this issue, so no, I am not going to jump onto an issue on a case-by-case basis for three minutes so that I can politicize it like the Conservatives do. That would be just like what I have to listen to in the House when they suddenly become the champions of those with low incomes in our society.”
“We also brought in a national school food program, and the Conservatives vilified it. They not only voted against it, but also got up in the House to talk about how it is a fake program that has not helped anybody. The member for York—Durham goes on his “Restore the North” tour, asking why we need to give food to children and saying what we really needed to do, all while making up these fake reasons why it was required, while of course neglecting the fact that we were the last of the G7 countries to bring in a national school food program. National food programs have been going on for decades and decades. (1320) Of course, the Conservatives will take every opportunity to take every single issue and politicize it. They cannot even resist the temptation of politicizing putting food into children's bellies in elementary school.”
“The Bloc raised the point on a couple of occasions that the Conservatives are talking about high oil and gas prices, but we have not heard them, in one breath, in one sentence or even in three words, talk about the fact that it is the oil and gas industry that is making massive record profits right now. I have not seen the Conservatives bringing in motions to talk about what we should do about that or how taxes should be impacting those particular companies. Of course not. They are never going to do that. That is their base. That is who they are always really trying to impress and please, unlike what was in the fake conversation I heard earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition about suddenly having an interest in helping the less fortunate in our communities.”
“When we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Conservatives voted against it. This is money that is specifically targeted to go to the low-income Canadians who the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was talking about. Conservatives voted against cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. These are initiatives that affected the lowest-income earners the most by removing the biggest amount of tax implication from them rather than anybody else. It is not appealing to the Conservatives because it does not fit the narrative that they can sell back to the base, those who they are really trying to impress, the ultrawealthy. By the way, that brings up something else. I want to applaud the Bloc for actually discussing this today.”
“It is just what Conservatives like to get up here to say day after day. When I am sitting here, listening to the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition talk about how removing more tax off of fuel is somehow going to benefit the less fortunate in our society more than the ultrawealthy, I just think it is absolutely crazy to even make that claim. If we want to talk about what actually helps people who really need help, I will tell the House about some of the initiatives that the government has brought in. I ask the folks watching this from the gallery, or folks at home who might be tuning in to this, to consider that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have voted against every single one of these initiatives.”
“I mean, they have bigger homes and drive bigger vehicles, and they have other recreational vehicles and toys that require fuel. This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous to me. It does not make any sense, but it does fit perfectly into the narrative that Conservatives always try to paint. This takes me back to the Ronald Reagan Republicans and the Margaret Thatchers of the eighties and their trickle-down economics, where we were told not to worry, that if we give relief to the wealthy, that money will slowly trickle down to the folks who really need it. That is a Conservative myth that has never been proven. There is not a single data point that has actually proven that to be true.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale for sharing her time with me today to debate the opposition motion that we have before us. I think I will focus my 10 minutes primarily on the exchange that took place earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition . They had a really interesting exchange. The member had asked the Leader of the Opposition to talk about all that this would do for low-income Canadians and how it would benefit them more than anybody else. I could not quite wrap my head around where that question was even coming from, because the reality of the situation is that we know that people who are wealthier consume a lot more energy.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is very brief. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Motion That Motion No. 6 to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, to consider Bill C-241, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting) be deemed adopted on division.”
“Mr. Speaker, the only problem with Eisenhower's comments is that they rely on rational actors who have the same interests in mind. I would suggest that perhaps our interests are not aligned like they may have been at that time when he said those words here. In lieu of the fact that trade is suffering and that we need to look for other opportunities, there is a great opportunity that comes, for our ridings and all of our neighbouring ridings, and that is the new Alto project, which would help, with a lot of building, with people working and with the steel and aggregate that is required. Are these not the nation-building projects that we should be focusing on right now? Does the member not believe that the Alto project will be tremendous for the region of the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments toward the end of his speech about the use of the word député , which, as he knows, means “member of Parliament” in French. However, I am curious whether the member is equally as concerned about the time the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations stood in the House in the middle of question period and, when he was responded to in French, challenged the minister for responding in French. The member said he wished he had answered the question in English. He must be equally as outraged about when that happened. Is that correct?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only reason the member knows I represent the riding with the largest population is that he represents the second-largest, and I believe his used to be the largest. I will agree with the member on the first point. This is the first time that I have found, not just in Canada but in Westminster Parliaments generally, when this has happened, but that does not make it illegitimate. On the second point, I would encourage the Conservatives to take off the tinfoil hats and stop the conspiracy theories about backroom deals and stuff. The member can tell me what the people who crossed the floor have received. I am not aware of anything.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct, and it is not unique to Canada. It is the practice we have had in Westminster Parliaments throughout the world. Having a majority on committees needs to be reflected if a party has a majority in the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take some offence to my comments' being called ridiculous, especially with what the Bloc Québécois put Elections Canada through recently. However, I will put that aside for a second and try to answer the member's question. It is completely normal and completely acceptable to suggest that we would redefine committees. I ask the Bloc this question: If the Bloc ever had a majority in the House, which I guess is technically impossible, but if it did, would its members not do the exact same thing, just like the Conservatives would? This conversation is pretty much moot. Everybody would do the exact same thing, because it is a reasonable thing, and it is a thing Canadians expect to happen when a governing party has a majority in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we could split people into fractions, we might be able to get the percentage to work out more easily, but the reality is that a governing party that has a majority in the House of Commons needs to have a majority on committee. If a majority is 5.2 people, obviously we have to go to six people, because we cannot split people in half. This is pretty simple. I think it is pretty understandable. Not only that, but if we look at 2015, we see that it was the same situation. If we go back and look at Stephen Harper's majority, it was the same thing. We are never going to get the fraction to perfectly line up with the fraction in the House, but it has to be representative as a whole.”
“I mean this as honestly as I can: Canadians deserve an opposition that holds the government accountable to what makes the lives of Canadians better. If we get that, the Conservatives will actually challenge the government, and it will change things.”
“They can yell and say that they accomplished their goal and did what they set out to do, but at the end of the day, they are still sitting over there because they had nothing to offer. The only thing the Conservatives offered was criticism of individuals, calling the former prime minister a “trust fund baby” and making up every name they could possibly come up with. They used cheesy slogans, which we heard day after day, rather than coming to the House and giving S. O. 31s on important stuff that was going on in their communities and that they could share with their communities. The Conservatives spent the whole time just attacking people, such as Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau, rather than discussing the issues.”
“That is why it is so important that we have a strong opposition. Unfortunately, we do not have that now. The member for Dufferin—Caledon spoke before me, and his entire speech, yet again, and I have been hearing it for 10 years, was about some person doing something and some other person being in breach of something else. The Conservatives should stop focusing on people and focus on the issues. This is what matters to Canadians. Members would remember that the Conservatives focused on Justin Trudeau relentlessly for 10 years. What did they accomplish by that? The minute he left, they became irrelevant, and they are still sitting in the exact same place they were back then.”
“It is time for the Conservatives to pause and to do some self-reflection, to focus not on attacking the people who are leaving them but on asking themselves why they are leaving. If the Conservatives were to go through that very simply exercise of trying to figure that out, I am sure they would come to some conclusions that would position them to be a better opposition and a better Conservative Party. As much as I like to debate and to challenge Conservatives, and I also receive it from them, I also value in the Westminster parliamentary system a strong opposition, because I know that a strong opposition does hold the government to account and challenges the government, directly and indirectly, to do better, to be better, to make better laws and policies and to make the lives of Canadians better.”
“However, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, when he had to vote on Bill C-306 , it was not a principle of his because he was not in that position. That is the reality of what we are facing right now. Nobody really believes that floor crossings are illegitimate. It is performative to say that. The Conservatives are getting up here and talking about it as though it were the first time it has ever happened, not only in Canadian democracy but in Westminster Parliaments writ large. It is very common. As a matter of fact, people have crossed to the Conservatives before. In Stephen Harper's own words that I read out, the only people who are obsessed with preventing floor crossings are members of the parties that people are leaving.”
“(1840) Members will remember that in a press conference not long ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that if somebody crosses the floor, there should be a by-election. Well, if that is such a principled stand of his, why did he not vote for Bill C-306 ? He did not. By the way, there were a couple of Conservative members who did vote for Bill C-306, such as the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman , who still sits in the House. However, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot , who was the member for Carleton before, and I know it is a lot to keep track of, voted against it, but now he is suddenly taking a principled stand. That is because it is not about the principle of the issue. It is about when the principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient to the Leader of the Opposition right now because it suits his desires.”
“This was a bill that would have forced a by-election if somebody crossed the floor. Stephen Harper said: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I believe members of Parliament should have that freedom and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions at the next election. However, in my observation, the only parties that really have this as an obsession are the parties that no one ever crosses to. The irony about this, because it is a lot richer than just that, is that when it came time to vote for Bill C-306 , which was put forward by the NDP, almost all of the Conservative bench voted against it, including the Leader of the Opposition , the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who now claims that is what should happen.”
“That would probably completely seal the deal of the inevitable that is coming to the Leader of the Opposition, which is that he will not be the Leader of the Opposition anymore. This idea that somehow two is an overreach, I think, is extremely disingenuous if we take the time to sit down and look at the math. I want to shift to the other thing that I want to talk about, and that is more specifically the idea of floor crossings and the idea that these floor crossings are not legitimate. I will read the quote that I read earlier. This is a quote from Stephen Harper when he sat in this seat right in front of me as prime minister. He was asked a question in question period about Bill C-306 , which I will reference in a second, and whether or not the Conservatives would support it.”
“The mover and the seconder would have been different, perhaps, but that is probably the extent of it. Maybe they would have done something more draconian, like actually remove a Liberal member. They could have done that. We could have done that. That is not what ended up happening. We are proposing to add two Liberal members. They will say we added two members, so it is an overreach. Well, how do we achieve the majority on committees? We can either add one member and then have a tie, which is not a majority, or we could take away a Conservative and add one Liberal, and that would give us a majority. However, we can imagine the outrage that would occur if we tried to remove a Conservative. Let us just imagine the Leader of the Opposition having to make 30 or 35 phone calls to people telling them they are not on committee anymore.”
“I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I really reject that notion. I feel that the majority of Conservatives understand this too. To be honest, I feel as though a lot of what we are seeing right now is performative. It is almost as though there is this idea they have to perform in this way, even though they would have done the exact same thing. I asked the member for Dufferin—Caledon moments ago if he could look the Speaker in the eye and tell him that they would not do the exact same thing. That was the closest I have ever gotten to a truthful answer from that member whenever I have asked him one. He was not even able to do that. All he was able to say was that their motion would have been different. How would it have been different?”
“We have had some floor crossings. We now have a majority on this side of the House. To suggest that we somehow should not have a majority in committees is, I think, extremely inaccurate and does not honour and pay tribute to the Westminster parliamentary system that we operate within. The reality is this: We do not get a majority on committees just because we got a majority at the election. We get a majority on committees because a majority of the people who sit in this place, a majority of the members of Parliament, sit in this place on and with the governing party. That is Westminster democracy. That is how it works. That is how it has worked not just since the Confederation of our country, but indeed since Westminster Parliaments, going even further back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this very important motion. I would like to focus primarily on two parts. The first is this idea that somehow the governing party, which now has a majority, does not deserve to have a majority on committees. Then, I would also like to speak to some of what I have been hearing in the House throughout this debate as it relates to floor crossings and their legitimacy, more generally speaking. The reality of the situation is, if we had just had an election and it produced the numbers that are in the House right now in each party, we would naturally assume that the governing party, which has a majority in the House, would have a majority on committees. That is not a stretch. I think everybody would agree with that. Let us look at where we are today with the fact that we have recently had some by-elections.”
“Mr. Speaker, as it relates to floor crossings, I will read a quote that was once said in this House. It reads: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I believe members of Parliament should have that freedom and be accountable to their constituents for their decisions at the next election. However, in my observation, the only parties that really have this as an obsession are the parties that no one ever crosses to. Can the member please explain why he so fundamentally disagrees with Stephen Harper?”
“Choosing to listen is an act of community strength, and choosing to honour these stories is an act of national responsibility. May all sides of this House keep that in mind as we shape the Canada we call home.”