Hon. Mark Gerretsen · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-26

“You voted against spending. I want to spend more money. You don't support my programs. You aren't serious.”

“Thanks for proposing the bill. Canada badly needed a school food program. You Conservatives didn't support it. Feeding kids is important. Come see the good work in my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing forward that very important private member's bill, which did eventually get the support of the House without any Conservative support. The member would know this having studied the issue, but Canada was the last of the G7 countries to get a national school food program. Even the United States had a national school food program before Canada. The reality of this situation is that we cannot even get Conservatives to recognize that maybe it is a good idea to make sure that kids are properly nourished when they start a day in school. By the way, when we have kids who are participating and receiving food in schools, we immediately start to see stereotypes break down around the haves and the have-nots, which is why programs like this are so important. The Conservatives will use them as opportunities to try to suggest that these programs are nothing other than government bureaucracy. I invite them to come to my riding, talk to the Food Sharing Project and see the work that it is doing on the ground with that government support to get food into the hands and bellies of children.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm saying no, that Conservative idea helps the rich more. Not that it only helps the rich. I'm arguing about who it helps most.”

“You Conservatives gave money to rich people, so don't lecture me about affordability now. I'm proud of what our government did. We could do better, but I won't help rich people by voting for your gas tax motion.”

“I'm going to fill my time by arguing with things Conservatives said earlier, instead of addressing the clean fuel motion we're debating. I'll list benefit programs my party passed and say Conservatives are bad for voting against them. I don't need to explain why my programs are good, just that I'm for them and Conservatives aren't.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale for sharing her time with me today to debate the opposition motion that we have before us. I think I will focus my 10 minutes primarily on the exchange that took place earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition. They had a really interesting exchange. The member had asked the Leader of the Opposition to talk about all that this would do for low-income Canadians and how it would benefit them more than anybody else. I could not quite wrap my head around where that question was even coming from, because the reality of the situation is that we know that people who are wealthier consume a lot more energy. I mean, they have bigger homes and drive bigger vehicles, and they have other recreational vehicles and toys that require fuel. This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous to me. It does not make any sense, but it does fit perfectly into the narrative that Conservatives always try to paint. This takes me back to the Ronald Reagan Republicans and the Margaret Thatchers of the eighties and their trickle-down economics, where we were told not to worry, that if we give relief to the wealthy, that money will slowly trickle down to the folks who really need it. That is a Conservative myth that has never been proven. There is not a single data point that has actually proven that to be true. It is just what Conservatives like to get up here to say day after day. When I am sitting here, listening to the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition talk about how removing more tax off of fuel is somehow going to benefit the less fortunate in our society more than the ultrawealthy, I just think it is absolutely crazy to even make that claim. If we want to talk about what actually helps people who really need help, I will tell the House about some of the initiatives that the government has brought in. I ask the folks watching this from the gallery, or folks at home who might be tuning in to this, to consider that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have voted against every single one of these initiatives. When we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Conservatives voted against it. This is money that is specifically targeted to go to the low-income Canadians who the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was talking about. Conservatives voted against cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. These are initiatives that affected the lowest-income earners the most by removing the biggest amount of tax implication from them rather than anybody else. It is not appealing to the Conservatives because it does not fit the narrative that they can sell back to the base, those who they are really trying to impress, the ultrawealthy. By the way, that brings up something else. I want to applaud the Bloc for actually discussing this today. The Bloc raised the point on a couple of occasions that the Conservatives are talking about high oil and gas prices, but we have not heard them, in one breath, in one sentence or even in three words, talk about the fact that it is the oil and gas industry that is making massive record profits right now. I have not seen the Conservatives bringing in motions to talk about what we should do about that or how taxes should be impacting those particular companies. Of course not. They are never going to do that. That is their base. That is who they are always really trying to impress and please, unlike what was in the fake conversation I heard earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition about suddenly having an interest in helping the less fortunate in our communities. We also brought in a national school food program, and the Conservatives vilified it. They not only voted against it, but also got up in the House to talk about how it is a fake program that has not helped anybody. The member for York—Durham goes on his “Restore the North” tour, asking why we need to give food to children and saying what we really needed to do, all while making up these fake reasons why it was required, while of course neglecting the fact that we were the last of the G7 countries to bring in a national school food program. National food programs have been going on for decades and decades. Of course, the Conservatives will take every opportunity to take every single issue and politicize it. They cannot even resist the temptation of politicizing putting food into children's bellies in elementary school. They politicize all of it. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: No, I am not politicizing it. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to these guys heckle right now, and I will respond to that heckle. I stood up here for days, for years, asking why we were the last of the G7 countries to do this and why we had not done it yet. I worked internally in my caucus to push the minister of finance at the time, and I presented petition after petition from my community on this issue, so no, I am not going to jump onto an issue on a case-by-case basis for three minutes so that I can politicize it like the Conservatives do. That would be just like what I have to listen to in the House when they suddenly become the champions of those with low incomes in our society. We introduced automatic federal benefits in our budget, something the Conservatives voted against. Now low-income Canadians whose tax returns are very simple can benefit from it being an automatic process so they immediately get the tax refund. They do not need an accountant or to go to a third-party company and pay for it. That is helping low-income Canadians. Conservatives are not helping when they are getting up and saying that, if we reduce the gas tax even more than we have already, it would help low-income Canadians more than the wealthy Canadians, who obviously consume way more fuel than low-income Canadians. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit. If members want one clear example of a difference in policy between the Liberals and Conservatives, they need look no further than the Canada child benefit. All they have to do is compare two very easy policies, one presented by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and one presented by the Liberals. The goal was ultimately the same, which was to give money to help support children. The key difference between the two is that Stephen Harper's universal child care benefit gave a cheque for every single child. If a person had three kids, they got three times the individual child amount. It did not matter whether they were making $20,000 a year or $2 million a year. Everybody got the exact same cheque. When we came along we said that it might make more sense to not give cheques to millionaires, but instead take that money and give more to low-income Canadians, who would use the money right away and inject it right back into our economy. If Canadians want just one example of a fundamental difference in the philosophy behind the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, all they need to do is look at the two different child care benefits that were introduced under the two different governments. That tells them everything they need to know about the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. Of course, there is the $10-a-day child care benefit that we have been working with the provinces on. There is also the Canada dental plan that the member for Regina—Lewvan did not vote in favour of. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that, no, he did not vote in favour of it. I am sure I could get the Minister of Health to tell me how many recipients there have been in his riding. The member is saying that they do not need it. Why would they not need it? We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the member for Regina—Lewvan does not want to provide dental care to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. This is everything anyone needs to understand the difference between the two parties. I want to thank him for speaking up there. The Canada disability benefit is another one, as well as the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters. These are all initiatives that the government has brought forward to make the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians better. Every single one of these, the Conservatives voted against.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Perhaps you're confused about who you're talking about. I want to correct you.”

Government Orders

Committees of the House

2026-05-26

“I want to rubber-stamp a boring technical motion with zero debate and get it out of the way.”

Government Orders

2026-05-05

“I want to rush this through without having to debate or vote separately on every part.”

“I want the results of the last vote to count again, and my party will vote no.”

“I want the previous vote result to count for this motion too. Liberals will vote yes.”

“You know what to do, Speaker. My party votes yes. Let's go through the motions and keep this quick.”

“I don't want to vote. Let's just copy our last vote and say no.”

“I propose we skip the vote and just copy our old results. Liberals want yes counted for us.”

“I'm filling time by talking about process.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“I want my local building project to get money and attention. Let's talk about that instead of trade problems. I don't care if it fits this discussion. I want to look good to local voters.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the only problem with Eisenhower's comments is that they rely on rational actors who have the same interests in mind. I would suggest that perhaps our interests are not aligned like they may have been at that time when he said those words here. In lieu of the fact that trade is suffering and that we need to look for other opportunities, there is a great opportunity that comes, for our ridings and all of our neighbouring ridings, and that is the new Alto project, which would help, with a lot of building, with people working and with the steel and aggregate that is required. Are these not the nation-building projects that we should be focusing on right now? Does the member not believe that the Alto project will be tremendous for the region of the country?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-05-04

“I'm filling time by bringing up an unrelated past event instead of engaging with the substance of the previous speaker's argument about sexual misconduct in the military.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“You're jealous that my riding is bigger. This is the first time this has happened. Just because it's new doesn't make it wrong. Stop freaking out about conspiracies. Tell me what they got, I don't see it.”

“I want the party with the most votes to run all the committees too. That's just how we do it.”

“You know what? Forget fair rules. If we had your majority, we'd seize all the power we could too. Might makes right. Hypocrites!”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I take some offence to my comments' being called ridiculous, especially with what the Bloc Québécois put Elections Canada through recently. However, I will put that aside for a second and try to answer the member's question. It is completely normal and completely acceptable to suggest that we would redefine committees. I ask the Bloc this question: If the Bloc ever had a majority in the House, which I guess is technically impossible, but if it did, would its members not do the exact same thing, just like the Conservatives would? This conversation is pretty much moot. Everybody would do the exact same thing, because it is a reasonable thing, and it is a thing Canadians expect to happen when a governing party has a majority in the House.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“That makes sense. We need a large majority on committees because we need it to govern. We have to round up. It's normal.”