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 8 of 8.
“What we can control is when we produce electricity and how we produce it, where we produce it, what kind of electricity is manufactured, from what source, and then we can control the price. There is a huge incentive for countries, not just from the environmental perspective but from the energy security perspective.”
“Madam Speaker, 100%, the member is absolutely correct. That is the argument the Conservatives are putting forward. They should just be upfront about it. They should say that they want to continue to produce oil and gas for an eternity, because they want to protect these companies that produce it. My colleague, before me, spoke about how other countries, like China and Japan and all these other countries, are widely adopting EVs. I wanted to get up and ask her a question. I was going to ask her if she thinks they are doing it strictly for the benefit to the environment. I do not believe that is the answer. It has a lot more to do with energy security. The reality is that what we pay at the pump is dictated by a global price. We cannot really control that.”
“Earlier, when the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound was speaking, he started talking about how there are no charging stations in his neck of the woods. I just looked up Owen Sound alone and found six charging stations, just in the small town of Owen Sound. Again, it is red herring after red herring; that is all Conservatives have to offer.”
“Madam Speaker, what is the consumption of gas, and the inefficiency of a combustion motor, when towing something? It decreases significantly. What I said is that I have owned several Toyota Tundras. When I put gas in one of those and was towing something, regardless of where I was towing it, I had to keep putting more gas in it. It is another red herring to somehow say that the range of an electric truck goes down when it is towing something. Well, thanks, but I think we all could have figured that out; it is pretty simple. When a truck is towing something, the range is going to go down, but the range goes down on combustion vehicles too. I have good news. There are a lot of charging stations, if Conservatives would just open their eyes and start looking for them.”
“Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, from my riding, were Conservatives who understood that acid rain was a problem. Brian Mulroney led the world with respect to dealing with acid rain by bringing people together. He went to see George Bush to deal with the problem. He came up with a protocol. The same can be said about fixing the ozone layer. Conservatives led the charge on the Montreal Protocol, bringing countries from around the world together in Montreal to deal with the problems we had with the ozone and the fact it was depleting. Whatever happened to those Conservatives?”
“To boot, the Ontario government actually helped people buy those before as well. This is not ground-breaking. It is the exact same logic for the transition through the light bulb or the transition through any technology when government has seen the benefit and identifies the need to do that. We can continue to listen to the red herrings, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong talking about the gas tax and all the money the government is collecting at the pumps and how it could be used to help fix the roads. What about the other side of it? What if we do not do that, and we just keep polluting the environment? What about the impacts on our health system as a result of people having more respiratory problems? Conservatives used to be the champions of the environment, that is, the Progressive Conservatives.”
“One would think the party that purports to be the champion of understanding how an economy works would understand basic economic principles like this, yet Conservatives do not. What happened later on? It turned out the compact fluorescent light bulb was just a bridge to get to something else, because next came the LED light bulb. Now, as a result of Ontario and many other jurisdictions making that call 20 years ago, the only thing we can buy when we go into a store is an LED light bulb. As a matter of fact, if for some reason someone needs an incandescent light bulb, they end up paying more for it than an LED light bulb. As a result of government intervention 25 years ago, we now have a more efficient light bulb that is cheaper to produce, to buy and to operate. The consumer wins all around.”
“It said it wanted to phase out and transition toward another technology that was a lot more efficient. What did it do? It said that by a certain date, I believe it was 10 years, the incandescent light bulb could no longer be sold in Ontario. What happened there? Industry started to look for options. The first option was the compact fluorescent light bulb. Do members remember those spirally little light bulbs? Everybody was using those light bulbs at first. There was incentivization. If people went to a Home Depot or a Canadian Tire, there were little stickers they could pull off to get two or three dollars off the purchase of each light bulb. That was a government incentive that helped consumers pay the increased costs, knowing that later on those same options would end up costing less. This is basic economics 101.”
“It is because governments around the world have been incentivizing private investors and private companies to find solutions and to mass produce product. (1320) One would think Elon Musk, the darling child of the right, would be able to convince my colleagues on the other side of the House, but they seemingly do not even want to believe him. However, I am sure they believe just about everything else he says as it relates to his politics. Earlier, I used the example of the lighting in here, which is LED lighting. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, we did not have LED lighting in this room, but rather the incandescent light bulb, which is extremely inefficient. It produces a ton of heat, a ton of waste and creates a lot of expense in the process of producing the light. What did the Ontario government do back in the early 2000s?”
“I will show them that in reality, what they are saying, these red herrings they keep putting forward, is factually incorrect. To any member of the House who would like this demonstration, I will openly do it at their convenience just to show them that what they are saying is absolutely inaccurate. I used an example earlier, because what the program is really about is incentivizing the marketplace and getting people and industry to start to look for different options. Yes, EVs are more expensive. An EV right now, and I will take the member's word for it, is probably about $15,000 more than a gas equivalent. However, it was not like that 10 years ago. Ten years ago it was about $60,000 more for the gas equivalent. Why is the price coming down?”
“I have great news: With the technology in my EV, my F-150, I can plug it in and it knows not to bother charging until we have gone into the off-peak hours. It charges overnight, and I pay a lot less. This is from somebody who has been driving EVs since 2011. The actual impact on our utility bill is negligible since there are too many other variables on the utility bill to see the difference. That is the reality of it. I have owned three Toyota Tundras. I have put $150 in gas into those vehicles every week, week and a half for 10 years. I have owned an F-150 Lightning for two years and two weeks. I would never go back. To any of the members here, I have it in Ottawa. I will pull up and take them for a drive. I will rent a trailer, and we can drive around the Gatineau region with it and I can bring them back here.”
“Let us think about this for a second. I gave a very easy example in responding to a member earlier. He said the ticket price of an EV vehicle is about $15,000 more than that of a combustion engine vehicle. Let us assume we stay on the low end of things. I did a quick Google search to see how much gas the average vehicle uses in its lifetime. It is between 50,000 and 200,000 litres of gas. Let us stay on the low end. I will not even push the high end; my vehicle is clearly way on the high end. If that vehicle is going to use 100,000 litres and the average price is $1.20 a litre, which I think is fair to say would be on the low end, that is $120,000 we are spending on gas during the lifetime of that vehicle. Of course, there is going to be another red herring, which is that it is going to cost so much for the electricity.”
“I am somebody who owns one of these “tooting down the road” Ford trucks. I have had it for two years and two weeks. I have put 89,000 kilometres on this vehicle just tooting it around. An hon. member: How many pounds have you towed? Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, have I towed anything? I will get to that. I have towed a dual axle utility trailer with a Bobcat S150 on the back from one city to another. I have towed dump trailers with it. These vehicles are extremely capable of getting the jobs done that only a gas vehicle could do, as Conservatives would want us to believe. An hon. member: Was it an electric Bobcat? Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, no, it was not an electric Bobcat, but one day it will be an electric Bobcat, despite the fact that Conservatives will do everything possible to try to prevent that from happening.”
“Madam Speaker, I have heard red herring after red herring: no heat, reduction in gas tax revenue, low range and not enough charging stations. That is all the Conservatives have to offer on this. Somebody accused me of gaslighting a few moments ago in a speech. This is a gaslighting tutorial being put on by the Conservatives right now, who are trying to make everybody fearful of electric vehicles. I want to go to a quote from earlier today from the member for Huron—Bruce . He said that we should take as an example a Ford electric truck. He said it is great if someone is just “tooting down the road” with nothing to pull behind them, but as soon as they put a trailer on it with a bit of a load, the battery does not hold. He thinks people need a combustion engine to get the job done.”
“Madam Speaker, if we were to assume that, on the low end, the average vehicle uses about 100,000 litres of gas in its lifetime, and the average price of gas right now is $1.20 a litre, that means that driving an EV would save people, over the lifespan of the vehicle, $120,000. We would come nowhere close to spending a quarter of that on electricity, so even if the price tag of purchasing the vehicle, in the member's words, was $15,000 more, the average person would save tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the fact that the sticker price is still going to impede a number of people, which I agree with the member on, would he not agree that, over the lifetime of the vehicle, people would see a significant cost savings?”
“It is now the cheapest light bulb to produce and use. That all happened because the government in Ontario at the time said it wanted to phase out the incandescent light bulb and replace it with the LED light bulb. Because of its initiative, today, we only use LED light bulbs, which produce more light and produce it more cost-effectively. Does the member wish that we still had the incandescent light bulb?”
“Madam Speaker, does the member know what all these lights are around us? They are LED lights. They are the most efficient, from a production perspective and also from an energy consumption perspective and, thus, an electrical perspective, in terms of the electricity produced to use them. Does the member not realize that, 25 years ago, the light bulb that was most used was an incandescent light bulb? Does the member think that industry just created the LED light bulb and suddenly we started using them? No, it did not. In the province of Ontario, the provincial government said that it was going to phase out the incandescent light bulb. The member might remember that, in the interim we had the compact fluorescent light bulb, which lasted for about 10 to 15 years. After that, the LED light bulb became the most prominent light bulb.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Conservative speeches all day long. One would think, from listening to them, that they were not going to vote in favour of this legislation, but not only are they going to vote in favour of it, based on what they have ultimately been saying, but they also voted to limit the debate on it only a couple of hours ago. Can somebody, perhaps this member, please explain the logic behind this to me, as to what is going on over there? Are they in favour of the legislation, or are they not? If they are not, can the member explain why he voted in favour of limiting the debate on it just a few hours ago?”
“Mr. Speaker, can it be confirmed that indeed the member did vote physically in the House as opposed to on the application? If he voted from the application, I think then it would be permitted, based on the procedure that we have become accustomed to.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what the parliamentary secretary was talking about earlier, specifically how Conservatives like to take issues like this and try to suggest that there are corrupt politicians at the heart of it. It significantly takes away from the seriousness of the issue. What I find most alarming is that I have watched Conservatives do this for three years straight, if not longer, thinking that that would be the success for Pierre Poilievre, but it led to nothing. It did not produce the result that the Conservatives wanted, yet they come right back into this House and start up with the exact same games that they left off with in December, as though they have learned nothing.”
“My question for the member is this: Would he not think that perhaps now is a time to reset the strategy on the Conservative benches to a strategy that might be more productive in terms of how the Conservatives conduct themselves in the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only one trying to use the Men in Black flashlight to make people forget everything that happened is Pierre Poilievre, who wants everyone to forget the fact that he had a 25-point lead in the polls and then completely blew an election only a month and a half ago. I would think that the member, and Conservatives generally speaking, would have a new approach when they come into the House, but when the member gets up to speak, he is just using the exact same material he was using a year ago, two years ago and three years ago, which ultimately led to his sitting almost in the exact same seat that he left in December.”
“Mr. Speaker, our military has been waiting long enough for this. I spoke earlier about how, when we came into office in 2015, the percentage of GDP Stephen Harper had brought the level of spending down to was 0.97%. Now we have a plan. By next March, we will be at 2%, per the announcement today. This is important. It is important to so many communities and to Canada as a whole. I am very happy to see this announcement today.”
“Therefore, by voting in favour of the money the government is asking to spend, he is de facto saying that he has confidence in the government. I want to thank that member for putting his confidence in the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, although the member did live in Kingston, unfortunately, I did not get to represent him as a city councillor. He lived in the Sydenham district whereas I represented Portsmouth, but I digress. The reality is that it takes time. In his question, he said it is not customary. I did not say anything about it being customary or not customary. All I am saying is that it takes time to properly bring in a budget, because we want to be thorough. We want to make sure that we are reflecting the wishes of Canadians and that we are properly consulting in advance. In terms of a financial statement or documents, we have tabled the estimates. He had an opportunity to vote against those if he was discontent with them, but he chose not to. On Thursday of last week, he voted in favour of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member might not be on Twitter, but he is certainly spreading the same conspiracy theories he was spreading there. The reality is that developing a budget takes time. I ask him, why did it take Stephen Harper three months to bring in a budget? The reality is that this Parliament was recalled after the last election in record time, and we will be bringing forward a budget in the fall, as the Prime Minister has indicated. This member is just trying to create a false narrative so that he can go back and say we are hiding something. No, believe it or not, not everything is about hiding something, despite the fact that Conservatives want to make us believe that. Sometimes it is just about being prudent and doing the right thing before introducing a piece of legislation.”
“Their role in the House is to bring forward their good ideas and to push the government to improve upon various pieces of legislation with the ideas that they have in mind, not simply reciting three-word slogans ad nauseam.”
“We love good ideas. We love good policy. We will always look to see how we can improve upon the policies that we have, sometimes by working with the Conservatives. We all know that we did it in the last Parliament with the NDP. We were able to bring in some monumental legislation, policies such as dental care, pharmacare, $10-a-day child care and a national school food program. If we can continue to invest in these programs and prop them up to be what they should be, these will be things that last a long time. If the Conservatives want to come along and say that they have an idea too but ask how we dare steal it, I would suggest that they understand what their role is in the House.”
“I would say to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that, as they say, imitation is the best form of flattery. I hope that they are flattered to know that we do like some of their ideas. They do have some good ideas. This is certainly not the first time I have ever said this while standing here. More importantly, what I would say to my Conservative friends is that perhaps they should have spent more time developing policy and presenting actual policy over the last two years rather than standing up and just reciting three-word slogans time after time after time. That is what we heard. Remember “fix the budget” and “axe the tax”? They meant nothing. Canadians saw right through them. If their criticism is to ask how we dare take their idea and articulate it in a way that resonates with people, I do not know what to say.”
“I find that to be extremely rich, given the history that he, in particular, has on that file and that Conservatives have, more holistically speaking. The other thing I wanted to touch on, very briefly, is the number of times in this debate and in the debate on the Speech from the Throne that I heard Conservatives talking about our copying their ideas. Somebody got up earlier while I was sitting here and spoke about three ideas we stole from them. The opposition should know that this is its job. The job of opposition members is to come here and put forward ideas and say they think that, while we have an idea, this one is even better. Rather than celebrate the fact that the government is listening to the opposition and perhaps incorporating some of the opposition members' ideas, they are asking, how dare we do what they were going to do?”
“I will say this, as it relates to defence, and I am sure this will be part of that, given the announcement today: As it relates to the budget, our commitment will be to defence and getting our commitment to 2%. I found the exchanges today in the House of Commons quite interesting. I heard the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman challenging the government about not investing in defence. He was the parliamentary secretary for national defence when Stephen Harper allowed our investment in national defence to drop below 1% of GDP for the first time ever in our history. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the critic for defence, is challenging us on our commitments to NATO and how we can invest more and spend more as it relates to national defence.”
“I do not think that has ever happened. As a matter of fact, if we look back to Stephen Harper, who was the last prime minister of another political party, when he first came to office, it took him three months before he was able to table a budget. Therefore it is extremely germane, and I guess a more proper term would be that it is extremely responsible, to make sure that when we introduce a budget we do it in a way that thoroughly reflects the needs of Canadians and does the proper consultation. (1625) We want to make sure that we get it right. We want to make sure that we get feedback from Canadians in putting that together. That is why the Prime Minister has committed to doing it in the fall.”
“On that note, I thank my mother-in-law, Fran, and my parents, John and Assunta, who have always been extremely supportive. My dad never missed an opportunity to remind me of how many signs he put up throughout the election. I am pretty sure by the end he had put up three or four times as many as we had put up in total. Nonetheless, I am extremely grateful for their support. Today we are talking about the opposition motion. In particular, after reading a bit of the preamble, I note that it stresses the desire of the opposition to have a budget introduced prior to the House's rising in a couple of weeks. I find it quite interesting that the proposal would come forward, given that I am pretty sure, if we look back in history, there has been no government that from election day to being sworn in has produced a budget.”
“There was nothing quite as rewarding as when I would knock on a door during the campaign and someone would say that Ann or Jennifer in my office was able to help them out with a particular case. That truly is such an incredible feeling that I know all members of the House have. Last but not least, I want to thank my family, including my incredible wife Vanessa, who was as much a part of the campaign as anybody else, not just for being there as an incredible support for me but also for just diving right into the middle of our campaigns and taking on so many key roles. I also want to thank our children: Mason, our oldest; Frankie, our middle child; and Vivian, our youngest. As today is Frankie's birthday, I wish him a happy birthday. He shares a birthday with my father, so I wish the two of them a happy birthday.”
“This was my fourth federal election. I had two municipal elections before that. I have never before had that sheer number of people interested in volunteering and participating in a campaign. My wife and I started volunteer orientation sessions in February, and the number of people who came out to get involved in the campaign was truly inspiring. I have made some incredible connections and met some incredible people I did not know beforehand. I am so grateful for their participation. This also gives me an opportunity to quickly mention the incredible people who work in my constituency office: Ann, Molly, Macla, Jennifer, Ashleigh and Nicole. As I think all members of the House would know, it is our constituency staff who are our voice back in our community.”
“I want to very quickly thank some of the key people who played roles in my campaign: Ann Parker and Kelly Banks in particular, who led my campaign in a co-chair capacity; Nicole, who handled all of our get-out-to-vote coordination, as it takes a certain type of individual to do that job and she was extremely successful at it; Shawn, who managed all of our canvassing; Ryan, who was the official agent and made sure we stayed on budget and spent people's money wisely; Jill, who spent an incredible amount of time in the campaign office; and Larry, my fundraiser, who will tell us that his single best day of fundraising was the 24-hour period after Pierre Poilievre visited the riding, which did not go unnoticed, and people were very generous in the 24 hours following that. I want to thank the volunteers who came out.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, congratulations to you on your new role. You command authority from the chair as though you had been doing it for years. Best of luck to you. What I am getting at is that you look very comfortable in the position. Before I speak to the particular motion before us, I want to take the opportunity to first thank the constituents of Kingston and the Islands for sending me back here once again to represent their voice in Parliament. I am humbled by the incredible amount of support our campaign had over the last number of months, and I take that responsibility as I think any of us should.”
“Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time in this House listening to this member deliver speeches; I spent many hours over the fall session. One would think, having listened to this, that we have not just gone through an election. I heard the member talk about a “corrupt government” on a number of occasions, which are the exact same words he used for years preceding his speech today in the House. My question is very simple: If the member is right about everything he is saying, why is he still sitting on that side of the House?”
“One would think that if we were stealing their ideas, they would be the first to stand up in support of them, if this was more than just about playing politics.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear my colleague from Winnipeg speak. We have been hearing a lot of heckling from across the way. The Conservatives are always going on about stealing their ideas, saying it is not fair. The reality is that maybe if they had a better communication plan than the three-word slogans they come in here with year after year, they would be able to translate those ideas into actual action. Then people would be able to support them and vote them into office. That just does not happen. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on how outrageous it is that the Conservatives, on the one hand, will not agree with legislation or support it, but on the other hand, will say we are stealing all their ideas.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary act of courage and selflessness by Mr. Lee Spafford, a UPS driver in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, whose bravery turned an ordinary workday into a moment of heroism. While on his delivery route, Mr. Spafford spotted smoke, which appeared to be rising behind a house. Without hesitation, he investigated the situation and indeed found the house to be on fire. With no regard for his own safety, he rushed into the burning home and rescued an elderly woman alone and trapped inside. His swift and fearless actions saved a life and exemplified the very best of our community spirit. In a world where headlines often focus on division, Mr. Spafford reminds us of the quiet heroes among us, those who act not for recognition but for doing what is right. We thank Mr. Spafford.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I am reading directly from the Standing Orders, the House of Commons rules, in particular Standing Order 36, which says that members are not permitted to make speeches when presenting petitions and may not read the text of the petition into the record. The member has now done it on four petitions. It is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to bring him to order and to encourage him to observe the rules. If he does not do that, it is your responsibility to take the next steps as necessary.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is a very experienced member in presenting petitions, Mr. Speaker, and knows the rules. He knows that we should not be reading the entire petition but giving a quick summary of it. He is now on point four with respect to reading it. Hopefully you can encourage him to expedite the presentation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Guelph on her maiden speech. I cannot help but reflect on the question that came from our Conservative colleague a few moments ago. On the one hand, they are basically saying that folks are struggling, and they are identifying the realities of what is going on in our country. On the other hand, they are saying, how dare we spend money on actually trying to help people. I think that this is a key difference between Liberals and Conservatives. We see not just the responsibility, but also the opportunity to invest in people and provide them with the resources they need to be able to achieve that quality of life that they desire. Can the member comment on that?”
“Madam Speaker, all of the riding names have changed. I want to congratulate the member from Milton on her maiden speech, and I will get her riding name correct next time. I want to pick up on her comments specifically about immigration. She indicated that one of her parents immigrated from Italy, as my mother did back in the 1950s. I too am a first generation Canadian. My question to her is regarding the role that immigrants have played throughout the Canadian story in terms of building our infrastructure and building our country into what it is. My grandfather, my nonno , was a mason until the age of 76. When we think about it, immigrants in particular are the exact type of people who build our communities and turn them into what they are.”
“Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, I believe it to be the case when sharing a spot that, although customary, it is not actually necessary for us to indicate who we are sharing it with. The only thing that is necessary is to indicate that we are sharing it. The individual we are sharing it with can change up until the moment they rise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member, and a number of members prior to her, speak. Liberals have indicated when a budget will be coming forward, but is the member aware of how long it took Stephen Harper to bring a budget into the House of Commons? It was a considerable amount of time, about five to six months. Does the member think that was acceptable, given her comments regarding the current government?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear the member for Winnipeg North again. I have not been able to hear him for a solid five and a half months. It is great to hear his voice again in the House. My question for him is quite simple. Over the last number of years, both he and I have been in this House and we have seen the government bring in countless numbers of free trade agreements. In fact, there have been more free trade agreements than all governments combined prior to ours. How important are those free trade agreements now, given the fact that we are under economic threat from our neighbours to the south?”