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 5 of 8.
“Could the member take the opportunity once again to explain why the elimination of these price mechanisms, which he so eloquently indicated the Conservatives believe in, would not work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for 20 minutes listening to a former finance minister of Quebec, who served for four years in that position, try to explain to the House, at a very elementary level, and in particular to the Conservatives, why deflation is not a good thing, and all I could hear was them laughing at him. The reality is that the Conservatives' suggestions on this will not come to fruition. The member does not have the benefit of having sat here for five years listening to the Conservatives say, day after day, that if we got rid of the carbon tax all food prices would suddenly drop. The carbon tax is now gone and what happened? Did any food prices drop? No. According to the Conservatives, this has been the worst year. That is what they have been saying, and that is what this motion is saying.”
“Therefore there is still some confusion around the rule, and perhaps this is something that needs to be discussed among the House leadership to come to some kind of conclusion. My objective is to ensure that this does not continue to happen in the future and that we can safeguard against it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to your first ruling. I do want to thank you for taking the opportunity to respond to my point of order so quickly. I listened to your ruling thoroughly. I discussed it with my colleagues, and there is still some confusion around this. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was sitting in the House, rose and was identified by the Table as voting in a certain direction. He then got up, left and voted via the application. You have just said you will always accept the vote that is done in person instead of the electronic one if it is done both ways. What you are basically saying is that because the member was here personally and sitting in his seat, you should be accepting that vote. However, the member then got up and left.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on my point of order from before. If you look online, it says that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley voted in person. However, there is an asterisk next to his name, which usually means that the member changed their vote. I am bringing this to your attention not because I particularly care about the last vote, but because I really believe that we need to create some kind of a standard here and that you need to rule on what the rules are when it comes to voting. For example, can I vote in my seat and then suddenly get up, leave and vote a different way on the app? Perhaps if you do not feel comfortable coming to an answer, you could write to PROC and ask it to come up with a rule for the House, because in all honesty it is becoming extremely difficult to perform this function.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley voted both in person and online. When he was in person, he actually was not even in his seat. I am wondering if you, Mr. Speaker, can let us know if his vote counted twice, what happened there and how we can ensure this does not happen in the future.”
“There have been meaningful impacts that I have seen in the school my children attend. I know the impact it has on kids, in particular making sure that kids have food when they start school.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Prime Minister , as Canadians have witnessed, has realized and recognized the fact that the world has changed in terms of where our primary trading partners are and where our economic strength is from. He has been spending a lot of time looking at other opportunities and creating new opportunities throughout the world. That is what he is doing in terms of our economic perspective and what we are doing about our economy to strengthen it and diversify it. One of the initiatives that I am extremely proud of that the government has worked on is the national school food program. While Conservatives voted against, shouted down and called the national school food program names, Canada was the last of the G7 countries to officially adopt one.”
“We can get caught up in these discussions all day long, but eventually we get to a tipping point where it really does not matter what the west does or in particular what we are doing in North America, because the rest of the world is pushing forward. I only wish that we could have been completely on the front end of this, rather than fighting with Conservatives all day long on whether or not climate change is real.”
“Mr. Speaker, for starters, the policy that he is referring to in terms of Quebec's pricing of carbon existed long before the federal government ever got involved in it. As a matter of fact, Quebec and Ontario signed deals with California and a number of other states back in the early 2000s to make sure that pricing carbon was done properly. The reality is that we spend time here arguing with Conservatives all day long about whether or not climate change is real and what the contributions are. There are other parts of the world, including in Europe, including in Asia, that are actively doing something to change the environmental impact that the world is having right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will totally leave it to city council to decide what to do with a statue that belongs to city council. I will leave it in the very capable hands of the individual who still serves as the mayor there, whom I am extremely grateful for, to make that decision, the same individual who ran for the Conservatives in the last election. While Conservatives focus on days gone by and whether or not we need a statue to celebrate people, I think it is much more beneficial for us to focus on the legacy of the individual and use it to determine how we can do things differently. What are we doing differently now to help address some of the problems that have been raised with respect to Sir John A. Macdonald's contributions—”
“I heard the member for York—Durham give his speech earlier. He was trying to answer questions by asking what we are doing and what we are putting forward. The Conservatives offer nothing in terms of solutions; all they do is criticize. The member got up and started to go on about how people on this side of the House are not focused on the issues of the day and not living in reality. Then I had to listen to 10 minutes of his talking about Sir John A. Macdonald. It is time for the Conservatives to wake up, realize what their job is in the House and start to actually do things that are meaningful for Canadians, not just fundraise off the clips they make in the House and prime themselves for the conventions that are coming up later this week.”
“Meanwhile, if we try to bring up Stephen Harper in the House, we are always criticized, asked why we are bringing him up as it was so long ago, and why we are living in days gone by. I will end with this. The reality of the situation is that this particular motion is just in line with everything else we have seen from the Conservatives, everything I have become accustomed to seeing over my 10-plus years in the House, which is theatre. The motion is intended to drive donations. It is intended to help the leader , supposedly, with his position as he goes into his judgment convention this weekend. This is nothing more than theatre. I would really encourage and ask the Conservatives to actually come here with something meaningful, to bring forward some solutions and propose some ideas that can genuinely change the lives of Canadians.”
“Of course, the good people of Kingston and the Islands saw better than to send a Conservative here. The last time they did that was in 1984, when they sent Flora MacDonald here, a truly progressive Conservative. However, I digress. The reality of the situation is that the current Conservative Party is not the Conservative party of Sir John A. Macdonald, and it is certainly not the Conservative party of Flora MacDonald or any relatively contemporary Conservative. I certainly got a kick out of one of the Conservative members when asking a question of the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago. Let us hark back to the days of Stephen Harper. The member said that this was the 20th anniversary of Stephen Harper and that he was so great.”
“He has nothing to do with that party, and I think I could go out on a limb and say that even Sir John A. Macdonald was more progressive than the newly reformed party that we have now. (1325) More importantly, the member for York—Durham brought up that city council has decided to remove the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald from City Park in Kingston. I want to ask the member something, because he brought it up in his debate today. Does he know that not only did 12 out of 13 city councillors vote in favour of removing the statue but, more importantly, that the Conservative candidate who ran against me in the last election, the mayor of the city, the Conservative candidate in Kingston and the Islands, voted in favour of removing the statue? If he had his way, he would be sitting next to the member right now.”
“His Majesty's official opposition has a role to play, and that role is to challenge the government to do better, and to encourage the government to make better policy better. It is not to just block everything and to systematically, every single time, prevent anything from moving forward. Unfortunately, that is what we continue to see. This is an opportunity for Canadians, in particular, to sit back and actually reflect on this and to think about where the Conservative Party of Canada is going and who the Conservative Party of Canada is. Earlier the member for York—Durham talked about Sir John A. Macdonald. I will remind him that when Sir John A. Macdonald sat in the House, he was a Liberal-Conservative. It was a completely different political party.”
“Speaker, in any event, if I were one of the members who are going to be assembling this weekend to pass judgment on the Leader of the Opposition , I would seriously reflect on that and ask, “What has he learned? Has he learned anything? Is he going to be different? Will he do anything differently than he used to?” I gave him the opportunity to very plainly suggest what that might be, and he completely neglected to suggest even one thing that he might do differently. This comes back to the theme of my discussion, how I started, and what I have spoken about a number of times in the House as it relates to the opposition. The Conservatives are just not understanding what they are supposed to be doing here.”
“He could have used the opportunity to reflect on that and say he did learn a lot, and what he would start to do differently. Did he take that opportunity to be reflective and to genuinely put to Canadians how he will be different? No, and, as a matter of fact, he seemed to double down. He used the opportunity to make a little partisan jab toward me, and he basically said that this is what he ran on in the last election, what he still believes, and what he is still going to be suggesting to his Conservative membership that they should keep pushing toward. If I were a card-carrying Conservative and I were heading into this— Some hon. members: Oh, oh. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: I know. I agree. The words were even difficult coming out of my mouth. Mr.”
“I stood up, and I am sure if members go back and watch the tape they will see I was offering him an opportunity. I very plainly said to the Leader of the Opposition that the motion is basically what Conservative members ran on, and Canadians rejected it in April last year. I asked him why Conservatives were putting the motion forward and, more importantly, if could he talk about what he had learned since then and how he was going to do things differently. This was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to genuinely be reflective. He could have used that clip, without my question, looked at the camera and talked to Canadians about what he learned from that experience of going from a 25-point lead in the polls to getting clobbered by the current Prime Minister .”
“We are interested in something else, something that the Liberals are offering.” That is what we ended up with; that is where we are. We formed a government based on our platform. The Conservatives did not form a government based on their platform, which is basically what the motion today is. The parliamentary secretary's explanation is probably the best one: that the motion is intended for an audience in Calgary later this week and weekend, when there is an opportunity for the membership of the Conservative Party to have its say as to whether or not the current Leader of the Opposition should continue in that role. I found it really interesting. The Leader of the Opposition spoke a few moments ago, and I had the opportunity to ask him a question afterwards.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion before us. I have been spending time listening to this today, and I cannot help but wonder who the real audience for it is. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources really hit the nail on the head a few moments ago when he said that the intended audience of the motion is the folks who will be assembling in Calgary this weekend. That is probably the best answer to that question that I have heard today. The reality is that when I look at the motion, I just think to myself that it is literally everything the Conservative Party ran on last April, and it was rejected. Canadians said, “No, we are not interested in that platform.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the same rhetoric and the same speech over and over for years now. We saw the entire opposition motion in a platform the Conservatives put forward. The Leader of the Opposition ran on everything in the motion in the last election, but he lost. Canadians chose not to go with what he was proposing. My question is very simple and I hope the leader uses this opportunity to be a little self-reflective. Has he learned anything from April 28 that would suggest he should do something different? If he did, what is that?”
“I take slight offence, but I am sure city council in Kingston would take more, to this member's depiction of how it is, or in his words, is not, properly representing Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy. I would like to give the member the opportunity now to direct his comments directly to those on the Kingston city council about how they could do a better job representing a member who came from their community.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kingston, I find it really interesting to listen to the member tell me about Sir John A. Macdonald. I would like to tell him something about Sir John A. Macdonald, and that is that Bellevue House in Kingston, which was one of Sir John A. Macdonald's residences, was completely revamped recently to showcase the full display of who Sir John A. Macdonald was and his contributions throughout Canada's history. Would the member like to know who travelled all the way from Saskatchewan to Kingston to participate in that ceremony? It was none other than the member for Yorkton—Melville , who decided she wanted to participate in that great ceremony.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that when I looked at this opposition motion, I could not help but think, “Holy, the Conservatives are so lazy.” What they have done is literally take the entire platform they ran on nine months ago and put it into an opposition motion, but here is a news flash: Canadians voted against that platform. They did not give the Conservatives the ability to form a government. I wonder if the secretary of state would provide his comments on how he thinks the Conservatives approached this motion today, and how it seems to lack any sense of their responsibility to be a proper opposition in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the holidays celebrate kindness and togetherness. For the fifth year, the Canadian Colours Kingston Foundation, led by Jimmy Hassan, is reviving the Santa slices initiative, a tradition started in 2020 that has become a beloved holiday effort. What began as a plan to deliver 500 pizza slices during the pandemic has evolved into a significant campaign. Last year, over 2,500 slices were provided to shelters and outreach programs in Kingston, proving that small gestures can make a big difference. As Santa slices 2025 launches, Jimmy's goal remains to deliver food to people in need, supporting organizations like Martha's Table and Kingston Interval House. I thank Jimmy and all the volunteers and donors this year. Their effort is not just about pizza; it is about unity and kindness in the festive season.”
“Could the member please, in the context of everything he just said, explain to us why, despite his doom-and-gloom scenario, the employment numbers keep going up and unemployment keeps going down?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the member, that is not what I am hearing. I am hearing that this budget meets the moment and it is a budget that we need. I am hearing it from some people in my community who were traditionally Progressive Conservatives and do not now see themselves in the party that is across the aisle. In the context of everything the member just said in the last two or three minutes, I want him to reflect on the fact that, in addition to the tens of thousands of jobs that were created earlier in Canada this fall, we saw the job numbers for November today, with 54,000 jobs added in November alone. Unemployment is now down to 6.5%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that response. There was a lot of heckling going on at the time, when the member was trying to raise his point of order, so perhaps it did not get in there. The member for Winnipeg North was trying to ask what the next step is. Will you just continue to take away questions? When somebody is weighing a cost-benefit analysis, they can decide it is okay to give away a question because the gain they get by posting it on social media is going to outweigh that cost, and he did post it. Our question to you is, what is the next step you will take in this regard, so all members are aware ahead of time before you have to go down that road?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that thorough response to the point of order raised yesterday. Just before that point of order was raised yesterday, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also stood on a point of order, and you indicated that you would come back with a ruling on it if it was deemed necessary. Does your lack of coming back to the House mean that you do not deem it to be necessary, or do you plan to do that at—”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree about the obstruction that is going on. I have seen it from Conservatives for 10 years. The reality is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford asked why the issue cannot just come back and why we cannot travel on it. The reality is that it should have been brought up when they started discussing the bill, not when they were in the clause-by-clause phase. It leaves people to wonder why the Conservatives are doing this, and I will leave it to the Canadian public to figure that out.”
“I wish I had an answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately I have spent 10 years here listening to Conservatives, day after day, just going on and on, trying to obstruct, and moving concurrence motions. We have not even gotten to the point in Routine Proceedings where a concurrence motion can be put forward. I am sure they will do that, too. I will go back to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford . I had only 10 seconds left. The reality is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, do they want to hear my answer or not? Of course they do not. They are yelling “time”. Which is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I got caught up in demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Conservatives, but I could not believe that the member stood up to ask me a question after what I witnessed earlier when he was so much in favour, while heckling, of staying until midnight to get this done, and then he—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member was going on a few minutes ago about how he wanted to stay here until midnight. When the parliamentary secretary said that he had an idea and asked if we should stay here every day until midnight to get work done for Canadians, the member jumped out of his seat and said, “yeah”—”
“It makes better policy and better laws for this country, and we are a better Canada as a result of it. This all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that Conservatives are only here to obstruct. They do not care if the bill is called for by the police. They are mocking me now as I say this. All they care about is that we do not get anything done so they can say that the government could not do anything.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is what I was talking about earlier. The Conservatives just obstruct. They are so afraid because a law being called for by so many throughout this country might actually get passed, and it might be a win for the government. That is all they are afraid of. We do not take the same approach. A perfect example is yesterday when the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola had a private member's bill. We thought it was a good bill. We stood up and voted for it. Our objective here is not to oppose everything that Conservatives bring forward. That is why that bill passed unanimously in the House yesterday, because we all stood up one by one for a Conservative bill. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola can take the win. I do not care.”
“My religion is a faith that I practice with the guidance of my pastor and in the confidence of myself, my wife and my family. It has nothing to do with this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I take issue with there. If the member had listened to what I said, he would have heard me talk about the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South filibustering the committee to prevent it from going. We were in clause-by-clause. The Conservatives come in here and start this charade at the very last minute to try to delay the fact that they inevitably have to come to a conclusion on this, and they are going to have to vote on it. Some of them will be voting different ways, and they do not know how that is going to play out in their party. That is what they are afraid of. Also, for the member to say that religion is influencing our politics, I can tell him that my religion does not influence my politics.”
“They do not offer anything of substance, and as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader said earlier, one would think they would have learned something after the last election. Canadians actually want substance; they do not want what this party has been offering for 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member found nothing in my speech to be of use to him, but I would be lying if I suggested that I thought anything otherwise when I was giving it. I was trying to inform the public to perhaps give people a better understanding and view of what is going on, what has happened and how we ended up here today. For that member to say that his job and the Conservatives' job is to oppose legislation, he does not have the benefit of those of us who have been here for many years and who have seen this over and over again, such as their getting up and calling people a “trust fund baby”, as the Conservatives did to refer to the previous prime minister, and giving out personal attacks over and over. The Conservatives have never actually offered anything of substance.”
“It is because it is my choice. It is my faith. I keep my faith to myself, because it guides me personally. I do not bring it in here and weaponize it like Conservatives do and like that member does when he does his “Restore the North” tour, going around the country, trying to stoke fear and division amongst community members because he knows he will be successful at it and he can continue to grow that alt-right base that we see on the other side of the aisle. That is the reality. I have no interest in coming into this place and divulging to everybody here what my religious beliefs are or how I practice faith, because our system is designed to specifically not allow that to be part of the debate in here, regardless of the fact that the Conservatives routinely try to bring it up.”
“It is the only thing that explains why Conservatives refuse to let this go to clause by clause and to play out like every other bill does. It is the only thing that explains it. (1330) To conclude, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North made a comment earlier about my faith. He made a comment about Liberals writ large. He made a comment about the Liberals' approach to religious freedom and those who practice that freedom. That member knows nothing about me. That member does not know where I was baptized, and he does not know what school I attended. He knows nothing about where I was married or the advice that I seek from time to time from my pastor. He knows nothing about that. He knows nothing about the school that my children go to and the religious teachings they receive there. Do members know why he knows nothing about that?”
“However, the reality is that the member for York Centre , who spoke before me— An hon. member: It was a great speech. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, that member should ask the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South if he thinks the same thing. The member for York Centre was basically saying that this bill does not go far enough. If we look at his private member's bill, we can see why. He is calling for even tougher penalties and restrictions in there. Then we have the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South calling this bill a censorship bill. That is the problem. The parliamentary secretary said it earlier. She said there is a divide, and there really is a divide. It is maybe not among the members who happen to be sitting in this room right now, but there is a divide within that party on this issue.”
“We do not have a Progressive Conservative or even just a Conservative Party anymore that genuinely believes in Canadians and wants to make this place better. We have a bunch of MPs that have come here under the blue colour and the Conservative name and logo, and all they want to do is obstruct all day long. They want the government to accomplish absolutely nothing on behalf of Canadians. In reality, their job is to try to make the lives of Canadians better by challenging the government and by suggesting things that could be done differently to make the circumstances for Canadians better. They are not doing that. Moments ago, I talked about the divide between the Conservatives. I would like to point that out, and I will not even bother to try to table these because I know I will never get unanimous consent.”
“At the end of my speech, in the last three or four minutes, I talked about how these Conservatives are nothing like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, and they are nothing like Brian Mulroney. I laid it out there and told them what I thought of them. What showed up in my constituency office two days later? It was a portrait of Brian Mulroney. It was signed, “Mark, keep giving those speeches—Brian.” This is not the Conservative Party that existed when our parents were heavily involved in politics. This is an extension that is much further right than the Reform Party, and Canadians do not need to look at much more than what we have heard in the House today to support that. This is the reality of what we are dealing with.”
“One of the members said, “Right on.” Then, within 20 seconds, the exact same parliamentary secretary stood up and asked for unanimous consent to move a motion that we stay until midnight for the rest of the session. All it takes to defeat unanimous consent is for one person to yell out no, and they all did. That is what happened in the House. It is theatre to them. They do not understand what their role is in the House. They think their role is to obstruct and to stop, at every possible opportunity, anything that the government does. That is not their role. Their role is to encourage people to make better legislation. I gave a speech on this once not that long ago.”
“It is all information that happened. It just occurred. Now I will share my opinion as to why the Conservatives are suddenly trying to put the brakes on this. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me brought this up too. She made a very good point. She said they are divided. Some hon. members: No, we are not. Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, now they are yelling that they are not. Maybe they will allow me to table some social media posts from their members that have contradicting views on that. I bet they will not do that. Just like earlier, when this started, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked if they wanted to work until midnight. They jumped up and they said that they did want to work until midnight.”
“The committee, the pre-committee and the subcommittee would have met to determine what the goals were in studying this bill. The committee members would then have had opportunities, before the witnesses even showed up, to say that they thought the committee needed to take this on the road to go to visit various communities throughout the country. The committee members could have asked any of the witnesses, or the minister for that matter, if it would be helpful for the committee to tour the country to ask about this. Do members think any of that happened? It did not happen once. The only time the Conservatives suddenly demanded to now delay the committee and clause by clause to go tour the country came after they became aware of the amendment put forward by the Bloc. (1325) The question is why. What I said was all completely objective.”
“The committee had this filibuster instead of clause by clause. The committee had listened to 23 witnesses, which would have been 33 witnesses if there had they had not filibustered. The minister even attended and answered questions directly. Then we get to this point. Now I hope the public understands. The bill went through second reading here. The bill went to committee. The bill was studied for over three meetings and had over eight hours' worth of witnesses. The minister appeared. The request went out for amendments. Everybody submitted their amendments to the committee. After all that happened, suddenly and out of nowhere, the Conservatives showed up today, during Routine Proceedings, to say they would like to ask the House for permission to tour the country to get feedback on this bill. The ship has long sailed on feedback.”
“If it were an amendment that did not make it through to the bill, in theory, nobody would ever find out about it because it all happens behind closed doors in camera. November 24 was the deadline. By November 24, when the amendments were distributed to all members on the committee, the Conservatives would have become aware of the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc. Three days later, on November 27, the committee met again. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South decided he needed to filibuster the whole committee. The only new information that member would have had between the preceding meeting and the meeting on November 27 would have been all of the amendments that had been put forward by the members of the committee. That is how we get to where we are now.”