Mark Gerretsen

“I want the Speaker to dismiss this complaint. Members use the word disinformation all the time here, and the member who is complaining has used it herself. Unless the House bans the word, members are allowed to say it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona prior to question period, in which she said, “The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a ‘wild disinformation campaign’”. I would submit that the term “disinformation” has been used extremely loosely in the chamber. Many members use it, and it certainly is not something new. In fact, on June 14, 2021, perhaps ironically or coincidentally, in a response to a question I raised, the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, “legislation that was so flawed and needed so much work that it opened the door for the Conservative Party to sow disinformation”. In fact, I would draw the Speaker’s attention to the fact that the member actually used that term in that characterization on a number of occasions on that day. My point is only to demonstrate that “disinformation” is a widely used term in the House, and unless PROC, another body or the House is going to decide that the term is no longer allowed to be used, it is a term that we are continuing to use. The member used it in the one example I just provided.”

“Other members are saying I misled the House and calling me a liar. I am not misleading anyone, so I want them to withdraw those comments.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member did say that I “misled” the House, and and now he is saying it again. You just said, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, and that is to call somebody a liar, and he is basically saying— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Now the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is also saying that I am a liar. Would it be possible for the Speaker to ask them to withdraw that comment, given the fact that I am not misleading? I am telling them the way the calculation is made.”

“The member's motion does nothing to help people. Our government sent over 11 million dollars to help nearly 23,000 people in her riding buy groceries and essentials. She voted against that money. I want her to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member was talking about the government questioning what it can do and how it can support Canadians. In her own riding, over $11 million was sent out to 22,901 recipients for the groceries and essentials benefit. We can talk about a two-line motion that produces nothing, really, other than perhaps some social media opportunities for the Conservatives, or we can talk about something we could vote on that would actually improve the lives of her constituents. When she had the opportunity to support the 22,901 recipients in her riding, she voted against it. Could she explain why?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 35 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I am sorry for interrupting the member. Heckling happens, but it was wrong. I apologize and take back what I said.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to apologize to the member for interrupting him. I do know that from time to time many members of the House get excited when listening to others discuss stuff, and certainly I am not the first person to ever heckle, but it does not mean it was right. Therefore, I apologize to the member and certainly withdraw my statement.”

“Our car industry needs both Canada and the United States to work together. But the new American government does not want to do that anymore. It is unfair to blame our Prime Minister for this. Instead, we must help our workers and find new trade partners. I want the member to explain what he thinks we should do instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the automotive sector in Canada being built on the concept of integration between Canada and the United States. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that, but what I want to hear from the member is what his proposed solution is to this. Integration depends on both countries being interested in trade. What we have seen since the new administration has come along is that the United States is moving away from that. It is no longer interested in the integration the member talks about. He can stand here and say until he is blue in the face that the Prime Minister needs to get back to work, but the reality of the situation is that if one side is no longer interested in that integration, there is really not much one can do other than to provide supports for workers and look for new opportunities. Can the member explain what he means by “get back to work”, when the objective is clear?”

“I want to apply the results from the last vote to this one, with Liberals voting yes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.”

“I want the House to agree to swap the first two speaking turns between the Conservatives and the Liberals, while keeping all the normal rules and time limits.”

“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.”

“I should not have used that word. I take it back.”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the word is unparliamentary, and I hold myself to that standard. I retract that.”

“I want to thank and congratulate Chris Whyman. He has been the town crier for Kingston for over 40 years.”

“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. What began as a one-year appointment has become a remarkable career, representing our city with pride, humour and a voice that can carry across Market Square. Over the years, Chris has earned provincial, national and international acclaim, including multiple world championships, all while serving as an ambassador for Kingston’s history, culture and community spirit. Whether he is welcoming visitors, opening festivals or representing Canada abroad, he brings an unmistakable energy that reflects the very best of our city. On behalf of the residents of Kingston, I congratulate Chris Whyman on his extraordinary service and thank him for more than 40 years of dedication to our community. Hear ye, hear ye. Well done, Chris.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “On behalf of the residents of Bourassa.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The member brought cake into the House, which breaks our rules. I want them to apologize for disrespecting the House.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is more than just out of order. The member has brought cake into the House of Commons, which is incredibly disrespectful of the rules of this House. I would suggest that the member apologize to the House for disrespecting it in this way.”

“We have over 150 years of parliamentary history on our side. Past ministers have moved this motion many times.”

“Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.”

“Conservatives are delaying every bill, even the ones they support. We had to force an end to debate on an election bill that everyone voted for.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith. We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 64 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games”.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking everyone to agree to finish work for the week now.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 8 p.m. and perhaps call it a week.”

“The member for Bow River avoided answering what the police told him about bail reform. He will not answer because the police support this bill, and he disagrees with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River did not answer the question of the parliamentary secretary. In his speech, he said he spoke with RCMP all the time. The parliamentary secretary asked what the RCMP told him about bail reform and lawful access. In his answer, in which he ironically first started off by accusing Liberals of never answering the question, he then skated around the whole question and talked about what his constituents are saying to him. Why do we not ask the member again what the RCMP has been saying to him? He will not answer that question because law enforcement is wholly behind this bill. That is why he does not want to answer it. Will he just come to terms with the fact that he is at odds with the RCMP and law enforcement on this?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 90 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “That is why he does not want to answer it”.

  See full analysis →