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 3 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I hosted a reception for new Canadian citizens in my constituency office, in Kingston and the Islands. At the event, we featured the artwork of Sergio Jaua, a Canadian who immigrated from Venezuela. His exhibition “IN BETWiN: Stories of Immigrants” brings forward the human side that can get lost in public debate. At a moment when debate about immigration is increasingly shaped by fear instead of facts, his work offers the necessary counterstory, one rooted in dignity, resilience and shared humanity. Through thoughtful interviews and striking portraits, Sergio documented the lived experiences of new immigrants who have built their lives in Kingston. His portraits remind us that immigration is not abstract. It is about people, families and futures.”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation is extremely important, because it is giving law enforcement the necessary tools that they need in order to protect Canadians. I understand that Canada is the only one of the Five Eyes counties that does not have lawful access legislation in place in order to give law enforcement those tools. I am wondering if the member can expand on why it is important, given the context of the Five Eyes and Canada's position there.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I cannot answer why it was not in there. I am not on the committee, so I have not been studying this, but I would agree with the member. The more we can take money out of politics, the better we can position ourselves to have a fair and open democracy. The reasons that may not have been the case would probably be better asked of the members on the committee, but I have always been a believer that taking money out of politics is a way to have a safer political system and safer elections that are more open and dependent on the people as opposed to money.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The worst thing that can happen after a contest is for someone to say cheating was involved, so having robust legislation in place to make sure that elections are as fair as possible and that those who attempt to interfere, to obstruct and to do things that might be illegal are properly taken care of is absolutely critical in democracy, especially in the world we live in today. It is so easy for misinformation to get around, so being able to have all those tools, many of which I listed in my speech today, like the increased penalties and increased access to information to be able to go after possible actors, is extremely important.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. I do not know whether it would survive a charter challenge. I am not a lawyer, so I do not think it is my place to weigh in from a legal perspective, but I would go back to the premise of my hon. colleague's question. He talked about those who have basically found a loophole within the Canada Elections Act to be able to use a ballot as a way of protesting government policy, government legislation or the government's lack of providing whatever it is that they are looking for. I do not even want to talk about it, because then I would give it credit. The point is that I think that is worth trying. If somebody feels it is not constitutionally compliant, they can exercise their right to try to challenge it, and then we would see the outcome of it.”
“I hope we can pass this quickly, send it to committee, take care of any necessary amendments, if there are any, and then have it come back to the House so we can vote on it, make sure it is in place and give those responsible for executing the legislation ample time to prepare to do that prior to the next election. I look forward to any questions.”
“To summarize, I would say that a number of the measures, in particular, the five themes I touched on today, would contribute significantly to strengthening our democracy and the election process. We know that during an election, it is very easy to overlook things or not pay as much attention to various things that might be going on with respect to foreign interference, etc. Knowing that these things would be treated seriously, and that those responsible have the right tools in their hands to deal with things as they are happening, is extremely important. It speaks volumes to ensuring that our democratic process and, in particular, the electoral process are upheld. I will again say that I am encouraged by the fact that I am hearing many in the House in agreement with this.”
“One of the unfortunate realities of the democratic process today is that candidates need to think more about their personal security and employing and contracting people to assist with that. Knowing that would be reimbursable is extremely important. It would allow for people to take those matters extremely seriously and have the proper resources they need. Finally, in regard to strengthening those, there would be new privacy obligations for political parties. It would include stronger safeguards for personal information, mandatory breach response steps, ensuring third party processors meet equivalent standards, an annual meeting with the Chief Electoral Officer on privacy, and prohibitions on misleading individuals about data use, selling data or disclosing it improperly.”
“The bill would give new powers in this regard, to compel testimony, documents and preservation orders. It would allow for MOUs with federal agencies in co-operation with international bodies and would expand prohibitions on foreign entities conducting regular activities. The fifth and final area where the bill attempts to create safeguards is physical security and privacy protection. It would remove the five-day advance notice requirement for regulated fundraising events. Post-event reports would list only municipalities and provinces. The returning officer's home address would no longer be published. Parties would have to meet criteria to access the preliminary voters list. Also, it would raise reimbursable personal security expenses for candidates to $3,250. Again, this is very important.”
“(1545) The fourth area the bill attempts to strengthen is enforcement tools. It would expand who can be investigated, including conspirators, accessories and counsellors. It would broaden offences to include attempts, conspiracies and counselling. Also, it would expand the administrative monetary penalties, which I think is extremely important, for individuals from $1,500 to $25,000 and for entities from $5,000 to $100,000. This is very important because if the penalties can just be seen as a cost of doing business, then they are not going to be effective tools of deterrence or proper penalization. I am very glad to see that the bill also includes that. In addition, there would be higher penalties for foreign-funded third party violations.”
“Some nomination contests can get quite heated and have a lot of political participation. It is critically important that we make sure participation is kept domestic and is not influenced by foreign actors, so I am very glad to see strengthening around that. The third area that the bill would attempt to tackle is stronger political financing rules. It would ban anonymous or untraceable contributions, such as cryptocurrencies, prepaid cards, money orders and things of that nature. It would also ensure that third parties could use contributions only from Canadian citizens or permanent residents, or that their funds are not greater than 10% of annual revenue. It would also expand bans on foreign contributions and foreign-provided property or services and extend foreign funding prohibitions to leadership contests.”
“There would be new offences: knowingly spreading false information to disrupt or affect an election, tampering with computer systems to disrupt elections, and false information on nomination papers. All these offences would be extended to outside Canada as well. The second part of the legislation would focus on protections for leadership and nomination contests, in particular, extending election period offences, be they foreign influence, bribery, impersonation, misleading publications, or unauthorized computer use, etc., to leadership and nomination contests as well. I think this is really important. One thing we have heard a lot about in recent years, and I can recall this from my time sitting on the procedure and House affairs committee, is the lax rules that exist at the nomination contest level.”
“At the same time, I think there are other ways to do that and to advocate for change, whatever that might be. I am glad to see that we would change the legislation to require only one nomination form, and each candidate would have to have their own official agent. Doing this would, in my opinion, significantly reduce the number of additional names being put on a ballot. At the end of the day, what this really comes down to is making the democratic process as easy as possible, while still allowing as many people as possible to run who justifiably are doing it for the right reasons, namely to be elected, not just as a way of protesting government policy or legislation. Some of the other protections in the bill would include setting new rules with respect to foreign influence, bribery, misleading publications, etc., to apply year-round.”
“The bill, and in particular the changes to the legislation as it relates to our elections, would implement recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Elections Canada, and it would reintroduce and expand on the measures that were in the original Bill C-65 , which died on the Order Paper in 2025. There are five main components to the bill that I will speak to briefly. The first is with respect to the protections for elections. We have heard others speak in the House already about the long ballot, and we are dealing with that issue. As the member who spoke previously said, this seems to be from a good place in terms of people trying to protest and make their voice heard on a particular issue they are trying to advance, which is why so many names are being put on the ballot.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-25 . I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton . This bill that has been put before the House by the government House leader is intended to strengthen our democratic process and the election process in Canada. I am certainly glad that there seems to be widespread support for it from throughout the House. I will focus my comments on the changes to the Elections Act. I am very content with the riding name Kingston and the Islands. It goes back quite a way in my riding, to former Progressive Conservative Flora MacDonald, Edgar Benson and much further back than that.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are debating an opposition motion that was kind of made moot as a result of what the government announced today. However, I will say to the member's point that, yes, Conservatives are continually changing how they feel about a particular issue based on the context that they happen to be in. The member will remember that when we had somebody cross the floor to the Conservatives, we never treated them the way the Conservatives treat everybody who crosses this way.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to say that my opinion on things absolutely changes, given the context and the circumstances that the world is in, from time to time. As a matter of fact, I would even argue that this is the whole reason why we come to this room. All 343 of us come to this room not just to give speeches endlessly and then sit down or leave. Call me an idealist, but do we not come here with the whole point of trying to convince people of something? As such, from time to time, I will be the first to say that I will put myself in a position to say that maybe my position on something is wrong and maybe I should look at it differently. To be critical of that is to be critical of the entire democratic process, the entire reason why 343 of us come to this room.”
“This is why the government has been introducing many different policies over the years. I read them all off in my speech, which I am sure he heard. The unfortunate reality is that the member voted against all of those measures I read off.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not actually disagree with just about anything the member said. What I disagree with is his characterization that this is somehow unique to this government and unique to the last couple of years. If he wants to have an honest, open conversation about this, we should probably go back to Reagan economics back in the eighties when all of this began, because we have been seeing that growing divide between the haves and the have-nots since the eighties, since trickle-down economics. That is when this started. The member comes in here now and suddenly makes it seem like it is an issue that this government created, but that just is not true. The reality is that he is right. We need a strong middle class. We need to do everything we can to ensure that middle class stays robust and healthy.”
“He can try to say it is backroom deals and everything else, but that is the reality of our Westminster parliamentary system, and it is why the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, voted against Bill C-306 when he had the opportunity.”
“He is being coy, in my opinion, but I believe he is. The reality is that this has been going on for years. Our system, the institution of members being elected, is based on the principle that we elect individuals, individuals who belong to political parties. If we elect an individual who then uses their conscience, after 10 years of speaking in the House, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong , and they get up and say they think their principles line up better with another political party, then she or any member has the right to move around the room. The Leader of the Opposition can try to say that is not the case.”
“It is about when that principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient for the Leader of the Opposition now because it serves his purpose, which is why his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” Yeah, sure, they want it now. They would love to vote on that now because it is convenient and it suits their purposes. The reality of the situation is that when the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to vote on Bill C-306 , which would have banned floor crossing, he voted against it. I find it very rich that he would come in here this morning and accuse the Prime Minister of doing something that he voted to maintain. By the way, it is something that is entrenched in Westminster democracy. I know the Speaker is personally very educated on Westminster democracy, the ins and the outs of it.”
“As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member for Airdrie—Cochrane did vote in favour of it. It was not a whipped vote on that side of the House back in the day. The Leader of the Opposition had the ability to vote to ban floor crossing. He did not do that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, now his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” I thank those members for segueing perfectly into the next part of my point. My point is this. It is not about the principle of the matter for the Leader of the Opposition . It is not about the principle that one should not cross the floor.”
“He actually said it both in English and in French. I want to pre-empt my colleagues across the way from trying to call a point of order and saying I am not speaking to something that is going on. I assure you that I will be speaking to exactly what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this morning in this debate. (1325) He started off his speech by saying that the Prime Minister had cobbled together a majority, that there were “backroom deals”. He said politicians had “betrayed” their constituents. This was all in the discussion about members who are crossing the floor to this side. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there actually was a bill, Bill C-306 , and that bill would have banned floor crossing. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. He could have voted his conscience.”
“The commonality is that they are intended to make the lives of Canadians more affordable, to increase affordability. They also, unfortunately, have something else in common. The other thing that these things have in common is that the Conservatives voted against all of them. It becomes very difficult to accept the word of Conservatives when they come in here trying to suggest they are here to make the lives of Canadians better, when everything I just read off, they voted against. I am in opposition to today's Conservative motion because I think the plan that the government laid out this morning is a much better approach to this. I also want to touch on something that the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker; I would not have brought this up had he not said it in the House.”
“We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to help people who are renting and just about to purchase a house to get into the affordability of home ownership. We cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, as was discussed. We made the national school food program permanent, introduced automatic federal benefits, and lowered costs and strengthened competition in essential services. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit and lowered the costs of child care and kid essentials, including $10-a-day child care and interest-free student loans. We introduced the Canada dental plan, pharmacare, the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters, tax-free first home savings accounts and the Canada disability benefit. The list goes on and on. Yes, these things have one thing in common.”
“At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we make the lives of Canadians better. If they can agree that this is going to do that, perhaps not as much as they would have liked or as much as they would have thought it should, I guess I should say, then that is an issue to discuss. As the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said, the government has done a lot to make life more affordable for Canadians, with a suite of different things that have been brought in throughout the weeks and months leading up to today. To name some of them, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, and we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians pretty much on day one after this government was elected.”
“Rather than trying to predict what the price of gas and oil is going to be by the end of the year, which the Conservatives are trying to do, our approach is to say, “Let us take this on an incremental basis. Let us do this for four months, and then we can assess where we are at that point.” That is, I think, the data driven, realistic, pragmatic approach that should be taken. I must admit that I got a bit of a kick out of it when I was sitting here today listening to the debate and Conservatives got up to say, “Well, you just stole our idea. That was our idea.” I would like to think we come here with ideas and try to put them forward to make the lives of Canadians better. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, if the Conservatives want to say this was their idea, they can have all the credit for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion the Conservatives have put forward. I want to speak to the content of the motion for a few minutes, and then I would like to talk a bit about some of the comments I heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, when he was speaking an hour or so ago. I think it is important to reflect on something my colleague for Whitby basically said. Conservatives seem to have devised this plan and what we see in this motion on the back of a napkin. There was not a lot of thought put into it, in terms of actually trying to use data to determine what the best result would be, in line with what that additional income would be, with respect to the gas tax. What the Prime Minister proposed today was something that is data driven, something that does actually look at the data.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is my opinion that when this government seeks to bring in new initiatives, there are always initiatives that are geared toward those who need them the most, and in particular those who need those supports in times of crisis like this. I am wondering if the member can elaborate on what she thinks this government is doing to fulfill that.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That, in relation to its study of the forestry industry, three members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to Helsinki, Finland; Lahti, Finland; Stockholm, Sweden; and Norrköping, Sweden, in the spring of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage the member, who I know is an economist and understands these things, to take four steps forward to the seat in front of him, sit down next to the member for Dufferin—Caledon and explain to him what the innovation curve is and what it means for new technology. I am sure he could help the member for Dufferin—Caledon immensely, because he is not taking it from me. I would encourage him to do that. As it relates specifically to this criticism I hear from Conservatives about how we have tried to give incentives to buy EVs and their talk about giving out money, I never once hear Conservatives talk about the way the government has subsidized oil over the years. Canadians should know the degree to which oil has been subsidized. Conservatives never talk about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the added detail. The reality is that only Conservatives would look at what has happened over the last year and say the best idea is to try to find a way to have more trade with the United States, when the rest of us, the vast majority of Canadians, have said it may not have been such a good idea to be so heavily invested in trade with the United States over the last several decades. We are saying it may be time to start to diversify. That is what the Prime Minister and the government are doing. They are looking for new opportunities to diversify. They are looking for new trade relationships, so that when people look back on this in the future, they can say diversifying at that particular time in our history was the most important thing we did, because it made us less reliant on the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, listening to the member say things like, “Once we get to 25%, we get to some curb,” it underscores his lack of understanding of some basic, elementary economic principles of supply and demand. The reality is that it is not even 25%. The member for Dufferin—Caledon should know that the chasm point is actually 7.5% market penetration of a new technology. That is the tipping point. It is not even 25%. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“The Prime Minister is looking for the solutions that will benefit Canada, not just in the next month or two months or three months, but into the future, so that when we look back at this generations from now, when our markets have diversified, we can say, “At that particular moment in time, we did the right thing. More importantly, Canadians did the right thing, and that was not listening to Conservatives.””
“Conservatives can use this idea of nostalgia to dictate everything they do, but I would caution them that maybe it is time for self-reflection. Maybe they should think about why it is they are where they are, and I mean that both metaphorically and physically speaking, in the House of Commons. It is because they do not have foresight. It is because they insist on using all political tactics in terms of rage-baiting and looking for opportunity, rather than really dedicating themselves to finding solutions that will benefit our country well into the future, which is what the Prime Minister is doing.”
“I have given this speech so many times in the House, but they deny the fact that our entire auto industry is on the way to being completely electrified. One in four cars sold in the world right now is an electric vehicle. If the Conservatives want to think that somehow North America, in particular just two countries, are going to form a coalition that hives themselves off from the rest of the world, it is absolutely ludicrous. We are electric. The member for Dufferin—Caledon , who talks about this, should look at what is called the “innovation curve”. He will see along the innovation curve that once we get to one out of four, which is 25%, of penetration of a new technology into the market, we are going to eventually get to the point where that technology fully and completely makes its way into the market.”
“It is interesting that the Conservative member for Oshawa said earlier that she had been listening the whole day and that we have to know what the person we are negotiating with wants. The Conservatives literally do not understand what Donald Trump wants. He does not want trade. That is why he has tariffs. Tariffs are meant to prevent trade. By the way, it is not just with Canada. It is with just about every developed and developing nation throughout the world. The U.S. administration has put tariffs on trade. Why are the Conservatives hell-bent on trying to insist on something that is never going to happen? I will go to my third and final point about denialism with respect to the Conservatives.”
“We have this great plan for how we are going to kick-start it,” but what does that plan rely on? That plan relies on the Americans actually wanting international trade. Now, I think I clearly laid out that they do not, and that is the reality, so the Conservatives' plan is genuinely a non-starter. This is why we decided, since we are a country that still believes in trade, that we will find partners that also want to participate in trade, rather than denying the fact that this is the world we live in. Nostalgia is great. Let us be nostalgic. I remember what my life was like back in the 1990s. I recently shared a post about it, but that does not mean I think I am still that person today, because things change, and nostalgia is not a strategy, even though the Conservatives tend to think it is.”
“I am about to use an economic term, so I want them to really focus on this. The United States right now are relying on something called protectionism. This happens periodically throughout history as different countries look to internalize, resist and shut off all trade coming and going from their country. The United States of America is currently in a period where they are employing and putting forward and bringing in protectionist policies. These policies are meant to prevent trade. They are meant to bring jobs back home. (1335) Now, economists around the world will argue that it is a horrible policy, and I completely agree with that. Our party agrees with that, but the fundamental fact here is that Conservatives are denying the fact that it exists. They are saying, “Hey guys, here is our plan.”
“It's an argument that I don't think he understands will not work.” An auto expert said that the Leader of the Opposition , in his words, does not understand that it will not work. That should not surprise anybody except Conservatives, who are living in the 1960s, quite literally, as it relates to this motion. However, the other issue about the auto sector today, versus the 1960s, leads to the second denial of reality from the Conservatives, which is about the trade relationship that exists with the United States. I do not know if they have not been paying attention or have had their heads in the sand for the last year, but I would like to explain in as clear terms as I possibly can to my friends across the way about the reality of what is going on in the United States.”
“Speaker, I know members opposite would love to drown out her words, but I would like to repeat them in the House. She said: I have concerns and questions with some of what your party has presented. We are encouraged by your effort— That is good news, guys, that you get an A for effort. —but skeptical that this plan can restart idled Canadian facilities. In fact, we fear it may prevent potential future growth.... Again, that was from the Unifor national president, but I will not stop there, because I know the members opposite want more. This is from Tom Venetis, an industry expert, who said, “I think some of these ideas are sort of reviving an aspect of the old 1965 Canada-U.S. auto pact.” He went on to say, “They don't seem very well thought out.”
“John D'Agnolo was referring to the Leader of the Opposition when he said, “He looked at a pact from 1965 and he tried to put details in there”. He went on to say, “Today, the industry is totally different.” He continued, “So, they put out these numbers, and unfortunately, they didn’t do their homework”. That was from the Unifor Local 200 president and auto council chair. Now the member for Dufferin—Caledon and a number of Conservatives have gotten up to say, “Well, you're just cherry-picking. That's just what one person said. You're talking about one quote.” Well, then, I will not stop there. I will go further. Lana Payne, the Unifor national president, talked about the Leader of the Opposition . This is what she said— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr.”
“For example, back in the 1960s, there were primarily just three auto manufacturers in North America: Ford, Chrysler and, I believe, GM. Now there are literally dozens. This is one of the key reasons why it would not work. There is one other major difference between the 1960s and now. I cannot believe I have to explain this to the Conservatives, but when we consider the fact that they live in the past, it makes sense. The reality is that supply chains are different now from back then. What they are talking about is a fundamental shift to the reality of the sector that we have right now, as it relates to auto. Do not take my word for it, because I am certainly not an expert when it comes to the auto industry. Instead, let us listen to what some of the experts are saying.”
“Mr. Speaker, this opposition motion and, quite frankly, the entire Conservative plan around the auto industry in Canada come down to one thing. They come down to denialism. I am going to demonstrate that by talking in particular about three things that they are denying the reality of. They are denying the reality of the auto sector and what exists today. They are denying the reality of the trade situation that we have with the United States, and they are denying the reality of the emerging EV market. I will start with the auto sector. The reality here is that the auto sector that the Conservatives are trying to harken back to is one from the 1960s, when the auto industry sector in North America was completely different.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the member speak. I always enjoy his comments, but I, in particular, applaud him for discussing his EV. If I heard him correctly, he said he has had it for just over two years, and he has put 120,000 kilometres on that EV. What was surprising to hear from the member was that he suggested that the infrastructure is not there for the majority of Canadians. I would argue that not only is the infrastructure there for the majority of Canadians, but particularly in Quebec, the infrastructure for EVs is far superior to the rest of the country. I genuinely appreciated what he had to say. I do not disagree with him, but I want to hear what the member would say if he was trying to convince somebody else that they should also drive an EV.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member needs to spend a little more time being careful about the words that he uses. When he writes a speech, he should be reflecting on what he is actually proposing. In the beginning of his speech, he talked about how the government is repackaging ideas, but then he literally went on to talk about how the Conservatives' entire plan is a repackaging of a 1965-era auto pact. By the way, that entire auto pact was hinged and grounded on the principle that the United States of America was interested in international trade. The United States of America is now taking a protectionist approach, which does not support international trade. It is not interested in trading with anybody. It put tariffs on everybody. Why does this member think that this plan is suddenly going to reverse all that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives are basing their entire plan on a 1965-era world and environment that we lived in. Back then, there were three major manufacturers of automobiles in the United States and Canada: Ford, Chrysler and GM. Today there are dozens. In 1965, pretty much all production was done in the U.S. and Canada, and it was heavily labour-intensive. Today many sell but do not manufacture in Canada, and the manufacturing is a lot more automated. In addition to that, the supply chains were heavily regional between the United States and Canada. Today they are much more globalized, and the supply chains are working throughout the entire world. How can the member stand and suggest that this plan would work in today's context?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the core of this issue is the fact that the United States is taking a protectionist approach to its economy. The United States of America is no longer interested in free trade as it used to be. There is this notion that somehow Conservatives are going to change everything that Donald Trump has stood for in the last year. He has put tariffs on just about every country in the world. How can the member, in good conscience, stand in the House and suggest that if we suddenly pivot to an idea that the Leader of the Opposition based on what we did in the 1960s, suddenly Donald Trump is going to say, actually, yes, this will be the one exception where he does not want tariffs anymore?”
“I suggest that he revamps his policy or pact, whatever he wants to call it, so it reflects modern day.” How could the Conservatives possibly come up with something when they had a year to work on it and never bothered to consult with those who would actually be affected?”