“Conservatives are acting like they want the economy to fail for political points. The Conservative leader rushed to claim Canada was in a huge recession after one bad report. When better job numbers came out a week later, he stayed quiet.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. At the outset, I must say that I have sat in the House for a fair bit today, listening to the debate. I cannot help but reflect on some of what I have been hearing as a result of some of the news that was received regarding the economy: a sense of almost excitement or gleefulness that comes from the Conservatives as they celebrate the opportunity to try to make a bigger issue out of news and turn this into a partisan issue rather than trying to genuinely help. I am being heckled, but I will read something from Fred DeLorey, a former Conservative campaign manager. About three or four days ago, while he was being interviewed on CBC, he said, “it’s dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling, when in a month’s time or two months’ time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn’t. It was a week later.... Job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, and other economists saying, it’s not a recession.” I am not talking about some Conservative operative from the 1980s or 1990s. I am talking about the campaign manager who led the Conservative Party of Canada’s national campaign just two elections ago, and that is what he said. He is being extremely critical of the approach that the Leader of the Opposition is taking to this issue, running out and trying to proclaim that the sky is falling. Let us look at the timeline. Mr. DeLorey is looking at the timeline too and reflecting on it in the quote I read out. The timeline is this. On Friday, May 29, the first-quarter growth numbers came out, and the growth for Canada was -.04%. It does show that it is negative growth. Two consecutive negative-growth quarters means that we are in a recession. Why are the Conservatives clapping? This is exactly what I was talking about. They jump on an opportunity. They start clapping at the idea that the economy is not doing as well as it otherwise could have been doing. This is what ended up happening. The Leader of the Opposition, on a Friday morning, ran out one of the main doors of this building, held an emergency press conference and said that there is a massive, full-scale recession and it is all the Liberal Prime Minister’s fault. He went on and on. The Leader of the Opposition attacked a reporter for asking a basic question. One of the reporters said that some economists are not saying that what he is saying is true, and the reporter asked if he was jumping the gun a bit. He attacked the reporter and asked what outlet the reporter was with. These are totally Trump-style attacks. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happened. Regardless of the Conservatives’ heckling, it happened in front of this building on a Friday morning. The Leader of the Opposition could not wait 30 minutes to digest the numbers. He had to do it immediately. Let us fast-forward to this past Friday, June 5, when we found out the job numbers in the report for May. There were almost 90,000 net new jobs in Canada, which contributed to a decrease in unemployment. Full-time employment skyrocketed. There was significant economic growth in many sectors. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he run outside and hold another press conference? No, he did not. He is literally in hiding. He disappeared. He has not said a word. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, by the way, as my colleagues across the way heckle me on this, I have not heard his speech today. When is he going to give a speech on this? He has not said a single word on this issue. He literally does not want to address this. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, should I call my own point of order on this? At some point you have to step in. The Leader of the Opposition has not said even a single word about it. It is one thing if he wants to claim one day that the sky is falling, but a week later he cannot even reflect on the fact the job numbers are better and the economy might not be in that full-scale recession he tried to paint a week earlier. My colleagues are having a hard time listening to me, so why do I not go back to Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from two elections ago. By the way, a number of Conservatives sitting in the House ran for office when he was the Conservative campaign manager. This is what he said just three or four days ago: “It’s problematic when you choose to go down that road that [the Leader of the Opposition] has chosen to go down so aggressively, almost like he’s rooting for a recession. I understand partisan politics very well. You know, I’m a tribal Conservative. I want to win the next election. Three years before an election, screaming that the sky is falling every week is not how you do it.” These are the words of a former Conservative campaign manager, who ran the 2021 election for the Conservative Party of Canada and who full-on went on CBC news and announced to the world that the Leader of the Opposition is, in his words, “rooting for a recession.” That is what we are dealing with. The Leader of the Opposition cannot think that he is ever going to be the leader of a country, when he runs out there one day and claims that the sky is falling, that everything is coming to an end and that we have the most dramatic economic downfall in Canadian history, then a week later keeps his mouth completely— An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 99 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He is literally in hiding”.

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives constantly change their story and act like everything is a disaster. Canadians do not believe the games their leader plays. That is why they lost the last election and are low in the polls. They need to rethink their strategy because it is not working.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member cannot run out there and act as though the sky is falling one day, and then a week later pretend that there is no news, because it is completely contradictory. Conservatives can heckle all they want on this. They can disagree with me. They can challenge me. They can do whatever they want. The reality of the situation is that this is the narrative that is out there. This is what the vast majority of Canadians see when they see the games the Leader of the Opposition plays. Unfortunately, it is my position that what the Conservatives are doing today is just continuing to play into that narrative of “The sky is falling”, without being genuinely reflective of what is really going on and the reality of the situation. They can hem and haw, roll their eyes and say that I have no idea what I am talking about, but I would encourage them to be a little self-reflective and to try to figure out if they can sort out why they did not win the last election and why they continue to be so low in the polls. It is because of the Leader of the Opposition and the way he continues to go on and on, the games he plays, and the things he does. Canadians are just not buying it anymore. The Conservatives do not need to like it, but that is the reality of the situation. They hopefully can take some time this summer to reflect on what their strategy should be moving forward, because as we have seen over the last number of years, the strategy they are currently using, which led to today’s opposition motion, is not a successful one. I do not think it ever will be. I hope they can learn from that and figure out that there is something they can contribute to the House and to democracy, but it is not going to be with the approach they have been taking and, in particular, the approach the Leader of the Opposition is taking.”

“The member broke our rules by talking about who is in the gallery. Please remind her of the rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member cannot reference anybody who was or was not in the gallery. Perhaps you would like to remind her of the rules.”

“Did the member tell her voters that she voted against all our bills to help Canadians? We cut taxes, created school food programs, dental care, and medicine coverage, but she voted against every single one.”

“Mr. Speaker, did the member tell her constituents how she voted against every single bill we brought forward that would improve the lives of Canadians? We lowered taxes in the lowest tax bracket. We brought in a national school food program. We brought in dental care. We brought in pharmacare. We have done so many things over the years that the member has been in and out of the House to experience and to vote on, but she has voted against all of it. My only question to the member—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “We brought in a national school food program.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“The member who just asked me a question wants me to explain things to her voters. Yet she voted against every measure meant to help those same people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Brandon—Souris is referring to. I am responding to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City’s question. She is in the House right now. We all know that. The point is that the member who asked me a question a moment ago, who was in the House when she did it, is now suddenly trying to ask me to explain things to her constituents, but she voted against every single measure that was brought in to help the lives of those very constituents.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Experts predicted worse job numbers, but Canada added many full-time jobs in May and unemployment dropped. The Conservative leader only talks about bad economic news, not the good news.”

“Mr. Speaker, those same organizations projected that there would not be the job numbers growth that there was in May. Those same organizations projected that unemployment would not drop as much as it did. Those same organizations projected that full-time employment would not surge the way it did. Yes, there are projections, but then there is reality. The reality is that on Friday of last week, there were incredible job numbers for our country. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to make even a drive-by comment on them. Meanwhile, a week ago, when there was a -0.04% growth rate, he ran outside, acted like the sky was falling and declared a full-scale recession. It is just theatrics to him.”

“People in my riding want Canadians to work together through our current trade and world challenges. I want to ask the member if people in his riding are saying the same thing, instead of focusing on our economic problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague has been hearing the same thing I have been hearing in my riding. I hear people saying they understand that Canada is facing a lot of challenges with respect to geopolitics, with respect to trade and so forth. They want Canadians to stick together and to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. The member alluded to how this debate today has been about almost celebrating Canada’s difficulties in terms of the economy. Can the member let us know if he is hearing the same thing from constituents that I am with respect to working together for the benefit of Canadians?”

“Conservatives get excited when Canada gets bad economic news. Cheering for bad news will not help them win the next election.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think using the word “celebrating” would be going a little too far, but I know where the member is going with this. What I was trying to say is that what Conservatives do is get excited. I can almost guarantee members that a week ago, on May 31, when those numbers came out and Canada had a negative 0.04% growth rate, they got excited because they saw an opportunity, and this is what they have been doing. All I was trying to say when I got up in the House and gave this speech was that doing that is not going to put them in a position to form government. The sooner they learn that, the better for them, but the worse for us, I guess.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 9 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We both want young people to be able to stay in their home province, get good jobs, and raise families. Our new plan funds job training so they can learn skills to build homes. Does the member agree this will help them stay?”

“Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to visit the hon. member’s riding a couple of years ago. It is a beautiful riding with phenomenal people. I was listening to her speech quite intently. She mentioned something that I think we can all agree with. No one wants young people to have to leave their home to find work. I think that all of us want to make sure that young people who want to stay in their home province, find a good job and be able to settle and have a family have that opportunity. With that, I know that we recently brought forward the team Canada strong plan in the spring economic statement, which will allow for apprenticeship training and some opportunities to allow young people to get the skill set they need to help build the homes that the member is referring to. Would she agree that this could be a good initiative in terms of helping young people stay in their home province?”

“Times are hard for Canadians, but our government is taking action by building homes, training workers, and working with the provinces. The Conservatives are trying to scare people by calling this a recession when the experts say it is not one. They want people to panic so they have an excuse to cut dental care, child care, and school food programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, we all know we are living through one of the most dangerous and divided moments the world has seen in generations. We all know the pressure that is coming toward Canadians is not coming from just one direction, but all directions at once. We know our closest ally and trading partner has imposed tariffs at levels we have not seen in living memory. Wars are being fought in Europe and the Middle East. Supply chains that took decades to build are being fractured in real time. All of this is unfolding against a technological transformation that is defining what work and our economy will look like a decade from now and, indeed, in less than a decade from now. This is not a normal moment, and most Canadians know it. They feel it at the grocery till and at mortgage renewal. A young person feels it doing the math on a first home. We all understand that. We all understand the concerns and the risks, and we all understand that it is our job to figure out how to make it better. No honest account of how we got here points to a single villain or a single year. This has taken decades, across governments of every stripe in a country where it has become simply too hard to build, too hard to get major projects off the ground, too hard to keep our best talent, research and companies from leaving to go elsewhere and too hard to turn ideas into industry. These are not partisan accusations. They are an inheritance for every single one of us in the chamber from decades and decades of action. The question before the House is not whether the moment is hard. We all know it is. The question is what a serious government does about it. What this government has chosen to do is focus relentlessly on what is within our control. We have established a Major Projects Office to make sure that we can get nation-building projects built and that they do not die in a queue. We passed the One Canadian Economy Act to make sure that we tear down the internal trade walls that made it absurdly easier to trade with another country than with the next province over. Our productivity superdeduction gives businesses a reason to invest here and now. Build Canada Homes is already building thousands of homes. Through team Canada strong, we are putting $6 billion behind 100,000 new skilled trade workers, because we cannot build what we approve without the hands to build it. Here is the part that the members opposite will never mention, because it is not convenient: We are doing this with people, not against them. Premiers of every political stripe, Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat, and even Danielle Smith have found that this government is a partner with whom they can actually work. That is what governing in a time of crisis actually looks like. We put down the partisan cudgel, we pick up the tools and we work together. This brings me to the motion from the Leader of the Opposition that is before us today, because it was definitely not written in that spirit. It is not an offer to build. It is not an offer to think about how we might work together. It is not even an honest account of where we are. It is, yet again, performative theatre. I want to take a moment to focus on a single word that is at the centre of it. The motion does not say “a difficult quarter”. It does not say “a slowdown”. It reaches, in the very first line, for the biggest word available: “recession”. There is a body that all of us have recognized, whose entire job is to decide whether that word applies. It is the C.D. Howe Institute’s business cycle council. Trusted by Conservatives and Liberals alike, it is the organization that has effectively been trusted as the organization that determines whether we are, in fact, in a recession, and it has not said that. It is not a Liberal organization. It is not a Liberal press release or a Conservative press release that gets to decide this. It is the council that called the 2008 financial crisis and the council that called the COVID downturn. When the real thing arrives, that council is the one that names it, not politicians. Three days ago, the council looked at exactly the same data the Leader of the Opposition is brandishing, and it refused to use his word. It found the decline so slight, at a fraction of a single per cent, that it does not even come close to any recession it has ever declared, and it warned in very clear terms that it is precisely this kind of label placed upon it by politicians and stapled onto numbers like these that causes further problems, because it is designed to sound official and frightening. The country’s own referees, the people who called the 2008 recession and the COVID downturn, looked at this and would not go there. The Leader of the Opposition decided that it is his job to go and write a bigger word than theirs into a motion. Let us ask the question that the motion was built to stop anyone from asking: Why? Why would the Leader of the Opposition reach past the experts, as is custom for him, for the most frightening word he could find? Why does he need a slowdown to be a catastrophe? Why is it valuable for him to cast fear into the hearts of Canadians, who are already facing challenging times, which we all acknowledge? It is because, for him, the catastrophe becomes a permission slip. A slowdown asks the government to steady the ship and keep building, but a catastrophe is the only thing that could ever justify what this motion actually demands, which is to reverse the policies. We should say what is clearly hiding inside that intention. Reversing the policies means taking away the dental care that seniors are using right now. Taking away child care means telling the parents at Butterfly Kisses, a child care centre in his own riding that has brought fees down for working families, that those working families will no longer be able to access the subsidies that make it possible for children in his riding to access affordable child care. Reversing the policies means taking away the national school food program that feeds children before they sit down to learn. Whether they are in Carleton or Battle River—Crowfoot, Canadians are asking for the same things. They are asking for dental care, child care and certainty and stability in the government. They are looking for leadership that not only tells them that things will be all right, but shows them a path and takes the action to do so by building consensus. The Leader of the Opposition wants rubble he can stand in. That is what reversing the policies means once we start performing the word “recession” in pantomime or theatre in this place and start reading the fine print. They cannot rip the floor out from underneath people over a fraction of 1%. They can only do it if they first convince the country, as they are seeking to do, that the house is on fire. The Leader of the Opposition needs catastrophe. He needs the fire, but not because the data supports it. He does not. He needs it because without it, there is no excuse for what he is selling Canadians. Without it, there is little reason for toxic leadership from his side. That is the real divide in this chamber, and it could not be starker. One side is working to convince Canadians, alongside premiers, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats that it is time to work together and build things, and another side is saying the building we are trying to build together is condemned so that no one objects when they start tearing down the walls. On this side, we are going to keep building. That building is showing up in results where people live and in what they will experience. In B.C., which is my home province, the merger that created Anglo Teck has planted a new global mining champion headquarters in Vancouver, with thousands of Canadian jobs and billions of dollars in investment secured here at home. That is talent and capital choosing Canada at the very moment when the members opposite insist that Canada is collapsing. The OECD, which is by no means a Liberal agency, projects that this country will grow the second-fastest in the G7 this year and next—”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 95 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “for him, the catastrophe becomes a permission slip”.

  See full analysis →