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 6 of 8.
“There was over eight hours of meetings with witnesses where all political parties, the government, the opposition and the Bloc, were able to ask questions. What happens after that, typically, is that we would go into clause by clause. This would have been an opportunity for members to start looking at the actual bill with the perspective of what they had learned through their deliberations with the witnesses over eight hours and three meetings. The chair of the committee said that he would like everybody to submit their amendments to the bill, and everybody had until November 24 to submit their amendments. The amendments, by nature of the way that our committees work, are submitted in confidence and kept in camera until the committee reports out. If I were to move an amendment at committee, nobody would know about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate, which the Conservatives tossed onto the floor at the last minute. It is an attempt to do what I have become witness to the Conservatives doing for the better part of 10 years now, which is to obstruct and prevent government business from occurring. They look for opportunities to participate in preventing the government from doing anything. The member before me said he was going to speak professionally about everything and talk about the politics of this. I am just going to lay out what has occurred to this point, so the public can be the judge of whether what is going on is suspicious or not. Bill C-9 was formally passed by the House at second reading and went to committee. There were three meetings at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was said about me, because I will leave it to the member to do the respectful thing and apologize, the member just yelled out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are participating in Liberal censorship. He owes an apology to the House, to you personally and to the seat that you occupy.”
“Mr. Speaker, where does the member get off thinking he knows the first thing about me? How does he believe he knows what church I was baptized in, what church I visit every Sunday morning, what church my wife and I got married in or what faith my wife and I both practise? The member has no clue, yet he stands up in the House and decides to preach to us about who we are, when he has absolutely no clue. Is it even possible, in the member's mind, that perhaps I am deeply faithful to my own religion? I just do not see the need to show that in the House of Commons to everybody else.”
“In reality, in a Westminster parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to challenge the government to do better and be better, not to systematically, at every single opportunity, try to dismantle every piece of legislation and policy the government puts forward because the opposition could never imagine allowing it to have a win on something. Could the member please expand on the thoughts he brought up earlier about the genuine role of the opposition and how the Reform Party across the way has completely lost its way?”
“Madam Speaker, the member's intervention today was extremely revealing. It revealed a lot about the Conservatives, especially in the way they acted in the House during the speech. We can look at what they were doing when he was talking versus the way they acted when it came to actually voting on the words they had just used moments before. What underpins all of this, and the member brought it up in his speech, is how, exactly, the Conservatives approach their role in the House. They believe their role here is to obstruct at every possible opportunity.”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservative shadow critic for justice yelled across the way to the member speaking, saying that he was garbage. You said you heard it. At the very least, the member needs to stand up, apologize and retract that—”
“The reality is that there is so much more that impacts an economy and inflationary pressures. Notwithstanding the fact that this does not play into the Conservative narrative we heard here for years, can the member explain to me how global economies and free trade affect inflationary pressures the same way she is telling me deficit spending affects inflationary pressures?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservative argument around deficit spending and inflation was completely proven wrong when they said the same thing about the carbon tax. They said that the carbon tax was adding to inflation. The parliamentary secretary and I listened to this for years in the House. Then we got rid of the carbon tax, and inflation did not suddenly get impacted by this. Notwithstanding that whole issue, the reality is this: What the member is saying is just not correct. I know we both went to the same university. She studied engineering. I studied economics. Take it from the person who studied economics that her rationale for fuelling inflation with deficit spending, which might work in theory in an isolated economy, does not apply in the same way when we have open borders for trade.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member certainly is extremely judicious in her approach, and that is the theme of my question. I respect the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for not only her passion for the environment, but also her passion for setting the record straight. Recently, she heard the House leader of the opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , talk about the oil tanker ban, and she went to her social media platforms to set the record straight on the Hecate Strait. She did that quite elegantly, and I really enjoyed the opportunity to learn about the west coast and exactly what is happening there as it relates to the tanker bans but, more importantly, about the misinformation being spread by Conservatives. I am wondering if the member would like to take the opportunity to do that again now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have actually had the opportunity to sit through a lot of the debate on Bill C-15 , and I will say that this is probably one of the best Conservative speeches that I have heard today. To the members' point, he is actually proposing some stuff. He has made suggestions, and he has acknowledged the fact that, yes, it is important not just to obstruct and to prevent, but to actually offer solutions. Maybe he should be the Leader of the Conservative Party, because we never hear that from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot , the Leader of the Opposition. Members should not take my word for it; they can just watch question period. We never get such proposals from the Leader of the Opposition, not even when he meets one-on-one with the Prime Minister . Can the member explain why we are not hearing that from the leadership—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not about what the member said; it is about what he did not say. He spent a lot of time talking about NATO and military infrastructure but spent absolutely zero time talking about the actual men and women who are in our Armed Forces. I was on the defence committee with this member for four years. We toured bases together throughout Canada. Can he look into the camera over there and tell the folks who work at CFB Kingston and other bases throughout the country why he voted against, and plans again to vote against, a 20% pay raise for them? I do not expect him to do that; after all, this is the former parliamentary secretary who oversaw defence spending in Canada when it fell below 1% for the only time in recorded Canadian history.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to such a specific question, but I would encourage the member to engage with the minister and the parliamentary secretary to make sure his concerns are heard so that perhaps they can be addressed, whether through a policy change or through an amendment in the committee process. That would be the best way to have his concerns addressed.”
“Mr. Speaker, among G7 countries, we have the most trade agreements with other nations. We are best positioned, from a trade perspective, to benefit from a global economy. What we lack is infrastructure. We have had the luxury of being so close to the United States, which has made for an easy trading relationship for decades. The reality is that is changing now. The United States is taking a different approach. Therefore we need to use this opportunity now, with the fiscal capacity we have, to build up ports of export and build up the infrastructure in Waterloo, in Kingston and in other parts of the country, to make sure we are prepared to be able to use our trade agreements and to trade globally.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard that question asked in the House, and to be completely honest, I do not have the exact answer to it. What I will say is that the government is making targeted investments in our economy, in our country, at a time when we genuinely need them. We have to prepare ourselves for the economy of the future, an economy that is less reliant on the United States, and the budget is putting us on a path to be able to do that.”
“Canadians made their decision in April of this year when they said, “Actually, we think we will go with the guy who was a two-term central bank governor and the guy who, by the way, Stephen Harper himself credited for saving the economy in 2008, as opposed to going with the guy who was elected while he was literally still in university.” That is the the choice Canadians made. We have a choice to make now, moving forward, and we are on the right path with the budget.”
“My question to my Conservative colleagues would be this: If we have the fiscal capacity, can they please describe to me a better time in Canadian history, or a time they could perceive happening in the future, when we could possibly have used or could use the fiscal capacity we have now? I have sat in the House and listened to what Conservatives have been saying today. I feel sorry for them because they are not able to support the budget despite the fact that so many of their constituents are in favour of it. Many of their constituents I have talked to have opinions on the budget and believe it is the right thing for Canada to do now. We are at a crossroads, a time when we have to make important decisions about the future of our country.”
“As a matter of fact, Canada shares a unique position with Germany among the G7; we share with Germany the highest possible credit rating a country can get, as indicated by the organizations that rank countries. Below us are Japan, the United States and every other country in the G7. If we are experiencing some significant shifts in the global economy that are going to require us to change our approach and to depend on and look for more diversification in trade, and if we are going to genuinely start to use the resources we have in Canada to distribute them throughout the world, we have to make investments. It comes down to this: I cannot think of a better time to use that fiscal capacity than now.”
“Before I even bring up the IMF, I will say that I realize there are some people on the other side, on the alt-right side of the Conservative Party, who are going to say, “We cannot trust anything the IMF, the bogeyman, says. It is the the puppeteer for everything across the globe.” However, the reality is that according to the IMF, for those of us who still believe in it as a legitimate organization that does incredible work in our world, Canada is well positioned amongst the G7 nations. Canada has the room to make targeted investments. The IMF states that Canada's financial systems are “strong and well-regulated”. We have the ability to invest in our country.”
“(1350) I have a lot of friends, both on the left side and on the right side of the political spectrum. Some people have really surprised me, because they have traditionally been on the left side or on the right side but have been telling me, and this is just anecdotal, “Mark, I have never really voted Liberal before, but that is a really good budget, a budget that meets the moment and one that Canada needs right now.” That is why we see— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, they are laughing at that now, but if we just look at the comments that have been made, we see that they completely support that. The reality is that we have one of the best economies in the world.”
“The only impact the budget had as it relates to veterans services is that it said we were previously paying eight dollars and something per gram for medical cannabis, but since the market value of a gram of cannabis has gone down and is closer to six dollars, we will decrease the amount we distribute based on the market reduction in the cost. That is it. The member was not here when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and closed veterans offices. Those are the impacts of the Conservatives. With all due respect, I think it is really important that members try to talk about the realities and the full, real impacts, not just try to produce sound bites for their social media clips. That brings us to the reality of what we are dealing with, and the reality is that this is a good budget.”
“I read that in textbooks too, but unfortunately, the reality is that it is much more complex than that. Although I have great respect for engineers, and Queen's University has a great engineering program, I would really encourage the member to perhaps do another degree in economics so he can get a more holistic and complete view of this. I was talking about misinformation, and what the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas said was specifically about veterans services. He said there would be $4 billion in cuts to veterans services. He is just trying to stoke anger in a sound bite for a clip, and I am sure he has already clipped it and put it on social media. Let us talk about that $4 billion.”
“The Leader of the Opposition was the member for Carleton back then, and now he is from somewhere in Alberta, maybe next week from somewhere else, but he made the same claim over and over that if we just got rid of the carbon tax, all inflation would be gone. That never happened, because the reality of the situation is that so many other variables impact inflation. For starters, we can look at climate change. It is going to impact the cost of food, point blank; that is just going to happen. It decreases crop yield, it increases production costs and it affects supply chain distribution. These are real impacts that have effects on the cost of food. It is much easier for the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas to say that when we print more money, we get inflation.”
“Unfortunately, the reality is that he probably only studied the microeconomy and did not bother looking at the macroeconomy, which gets into global forces and what happens when we open up our borders, introduce free trade and start trading globally. The member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas would want us to believe that everything within our economy, in particular in his description related to inflation, is only caused by the government. I will give him the benefit of the doubt since he is new here and did not spend the last three years in this House listening to the Leader of the Opposition basically say the same thing to Canadians day in and day out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to be recognized in today's debate. When I am going to be speaking, I make a point to come into the chamber to listen to the debate and hear what has been going on so that I am not just coming in here and reading a speech that I wrote in advance. Quite frankly, I do that because I really like to respond to some of what I have heard in the chamber, and I have heard a lot today already: a lot of rhetoric and a lot of what I would characterize as misinformation coming from the Conservatives. The member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas gave us a great speech today on economics and how an economy works. I know that his degree is in engineering, but Professor Rose at Queen's University, who taught me economics, would be proud of the way that he, almost like a textbook definition, discussed how an economy works.”
“Mr. Speaker, I realize this member is new, so he probably is unaware of the fact that it was Stephen Harper who made massive cuts to veterans' services, including nine offices. Also, he was not here when the Leader of the Opposition went on and on about how removing the carbon tax would fix all the inflationary problems, neglecting the fact that they are totally driven by global forces. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and heard him talk about a number of things that he likes in the budget. I could not help but think that this is what a budget is supposed to be about. People will never get a budget they like completely. He did list off a number of things that he likes. He talked about high-speed rail. He talked about the national school food program. He talked about ensuring that pharmacare is not touched, to the degree it has already been implemented, yet he and his party either voted against the budget or abstained from voting. Does the member not see a benefit in the stuff he does like? Is he willing to vote against it, despite the fact that he does like that stuff?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up the issue of the debt that is being taken on in order to fulfill some of the nation-building projects and to grow out our diversification in ways never seen before, as well as to significantly increase our spending in defence. She identified some of the criticism of that, and we do hear it, yet at the same time, the IMF and other organizations such as credit agencies have identified Canada as being in a position to take on this debt right now. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that if we have the capacity to do this now, if we are one of the best-positioned countries to do it, there could be no better time possible than right now to invest heavily, given everything that is going on in the world, in particular our relationship with the United States.”
“members' motives must be treated as having the best of intentions. I would encourage the Speaker to ask the member to apologize and retract the comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member a few moments ago made a comment in her speech to the effect that the Prime Minister 's interests do not lie within Canada. I think it is extremely— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like my point of order to be heard. It is impugning motive when there are currently members asking our members to apologize because they ask a question that implies whether their interests lie in Canada or in Russia, which is currently going on. We are asked to apologize for that, yet a member of the House can suggest that another member's interests do not lie with upholding our country and the people of our country. It is extremely inappropriate and implies that their motives are not the best of intentions. All hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member just referenced mandatory minimums. She said that it is proven that they can change behaviour. Can she cite one actual credible report that is based on data that backs up that claim? She said it has been proven. Those were her words a moment ago. I am looking for one actual report that has data in it that backs up that claim.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the record, I was sitting in the lobby and I witnessed this on the TV screen. I came in here in order to bring it to your attention. To say that I have been sitting here giggling about this is absolutely incorrect and false. If I could use another word to describe that, I would, but I cannot in this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the previous exchange, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan referred to a member in the House as a “random Liberal” from the back. I do not think it is appropriate to be referring to any member in any kind of way. It was clearly meant to be done in a demeaning way. Perhaps the member has had an opportunity to reflect on that and would like to stand up and apologize for referring to any member in the House in any way other than the honourable manner in which we are all treated.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member, he did not answer the question the parliamentary secretary asked about letting this bill go to committee. The member for Lethbridge then asked him a question about what is wrong and why the bill does not go far enough. The whole point of letting the bill pass at this stage is so it can go to committee to fix what apparently the member for Lethbridge , this member and all Conservatives do not think goes far enough. Why will Conservatives not let this bill pass so it can go to committee, where their concerns can be raised?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The petition was going along so great until the last point, when the member decided to include his own personal commentary about the petition. He is a new member, so perhaps the Speaker could remind him of the rules for introducing a petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to suspend until 4 p.m., at which time we will hear the much-anticipated budget being presented by the Minister of Finance .”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate on this issue, including the previous version of Bill C-12 , Bill C-2 . We have provided hours upon hours of debate on this. The member is not new here. He knows the way this works. He knows that, if one side stops speaking, all the speeches will continue to go to the other side until somebody from this side wants to get up. That is how a debate works. I have been sitting in the House, listening to the Conservatives attack the RCMP all day long, and I felt the need to get up to defend it. I wish the Bloc would start defending a national organization like that.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, and at first I thought it was only the Leader of the Opposition , but now he can add another four or five names to that, including the member for Peace River—Westlock , the member for Bow River , the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee and the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner , who have all made accusations about the RCMP during this debate on Bill C-12 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question. She said that what I talked about had nothing to do with this debate. As a matter of fact, I quoted several members from her political party who made comments. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is laughing about it now, but I wonder if he agrees with the comments from the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock , who said, “The actions of the leadership of the RCMP...are indefensible in many instances.” The member spent years on the defence committee. Does he say the same thing about the members of our military, if he is so blatantly willing to laugh about the fact that members in his party are getting up and talking about the RCMP in this manner?”
“We will not allow our members to engage in this kind of blatant attack on the independence of them, which is exactly what we are seeing from the other side of the House. It is absolutely despicable. I do not know where he is from now, somewhere in Alberta, but the former member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition , should get up in the House and officially apologize to the RCMP for his behaviour.”
“What a wildly outlandish statement to make. A statement like that is completely indefensible, unless he can defend it by talking about who made the comments. The licence the Leader of the Opposition has given to his MPs is to act like this. I feel sorry for the four or five, and probably many more, Conservatives are rumoured to be getting ready to leave the party. I feel sorry for them because they have to be subjected to this. They have to be subjected to the comments from the member for Bow River . They have to be subjected to the comments from the member for Peace River—Westlock , and to the comments we heard from members who talked about the RCMP's lack of ability. I will tell members one thing. On this side of the House, we will always stand up for the independence of the agencies of this country, including the RCMP.”
“It could all be resolved easily if the Leader of the Opposition would stand up and apologize for the comments he made, but he will not do that. I will tell members why he will not do it. It is because he has a history of doing this. He attacked Elections Canada when he was in government. He attacks the media. He attacked the Bank of Canada. He has a reputation for doing this, and he effectively gives a licence to all of his members to do the exact same thing. I must admit that I was really surprised to hear, moments ago, a former law enforcement officer from the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner , say there is a disconnect between the leadership and the rank and file within the RCMP. That is based on something he was told by a buddy of his, who presumably is in the RCMP.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing right now is an intentional direction, most likely from the whip's desk in the lobby for the Conservatives, to interrupt with points of order to try to silence the fact that I am bringing this up. They are so uncomfortable with this issue. Let us talk about how uncomfortable they are. They will not even talk to reporters about it. Members should have seen the way they were fleeing down the hallways, running past reporters. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan , who never misses an opportunity to say something, would not even stop to talk to the media about this. The member for Barrie South—Innisfil said, “Go, Blue Jays, go!” when he was asked a specific question about the RCMP. That is how worried they are about this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the subject noted by the member for Peace River—Westlock , I will tell members what he said in this debate. The member, who just stood on a point of order, said, “The actions of the leadership of the RCMP...are indefensible in many instances.” He said that in this debate on the issue of Bill C-12 , so for him to stand—”
“Mr. Speaker, I know this is difficult for the member from Elgin to listen to, and I know he is new here, but I am talking about what was said in the House during this debate. If he is somehow suggesting that I should not be able to respond to some of the things I have heard in this debate, that would be an infringement upon my privilege, quite frankly. For the member's benefit, I will start from the beginning. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said: Many of the scandals of the Trudeau era should have involved jail time.... If the RCMP had been doing its job and not covering up for him, then he would have been criminally charged.... These would normally have led to criminal charges, but of course the RCMP covered it all up, and the leadership of the RCMP is frankly—”
“I know some members in this House take pride in that, probably some of the members I will reference in a couple of moments when I note what I have heard them say here, but I want to start with what I heard moments ago from the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee . This was actually in a question he posed, so he initiated the question on it. He said that the Leader of the Opposition 's comments in the podcast he was on were “taken out of context”. Let me set the context by telling everybody exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said, “Many of the scandals of the Trudeau era should have involved jail time.... If the RCMP had been doing its job and not covering up for him”—”
“Thomas—London South , who just asked a question, yes, we have been talking about the RCMP and asking questions about the RCMP, and I apologize if that makes the member uncomfortable, but the reality is that there are questions to be answered on this topic. There are questions to be answered when it comes to the manner in which we are seeing the Leader of the Opposition and, throughout this debate, other members of the Conservative Party, which I would like to get to, talk about the RCMP. They are saying things that I think are quite problematic and are emblematic of what we are seeing happen in the States.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always take pleasure rising in this House to talk about government legislation, or any matter for that matter, and I would like to take some time today, in the context of the bill we are debating, Bill C-12 , to talk about some of the stuff I have heard. I have been involved in the debate a couple of times this week, and I must say that some of the stuff I have been hearing coming from the Conservatives in particular is quite alarming. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, they are laughing, so maybe I will put that into context by providing some of what I heard. To the member for Elgin—St.”
“Madam Speaker, it was his constituency. The point is that the member is making an outlandishly false claim right now by suggesting that he was laughing or smiling at her in a mocking way. That simply was not the case, and she should not be engaging in that kind of activity—”
“Mr. Speaker, a lot of talk has occurred today regarding the comments of the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the RCMP as “despicable”. We have been asking some members of the Conservative Party about this today. Some have wanted to say something, like the member for Bow River who referred to the RCMP as having “management weaknesses”. Others, on the other hand, have not really wanted to weigh in. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes had a lozenge in his throat when he was asked about it, and he therefore could not say anything. I wonder if the member would like to weigh in as to whether or not he thinks that the leadership of the RCMP is despicable.”