Mark Gerretsen

“The Conservative motion misleads people about Canada's economy. The Conservative leader is celebrating bad economic news just to score political points instead of offering real solutions.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is literally what the response was that I got from AI about the motion. Word for word, it said, “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I hear my friend from Saskatchewan across the way criticizing AI. I would remind him to tread lightly in this area, given the fact that I am pretty certain at least 70% to 80% of the questions asked during question period by the Conservatives are generated by AI, before he goes down that path of trying to be critical of it. I can understand why he does not like listening to what was generated as a response, but it is the reality of the situation. The real irony is not that AI spit out the obvious and what everybody already knows. What it really comes down to is that this is exactly what Canadians are feeling right now in watching the Leader of the Opposition’s response to what has happened. Let us just take ourselves back to Friday morning when Statistics Canada released information that we were in a technical recession by a declining growth of, listen to this, negative 0.03%. We are talking about a really small percentage. The Leader of the Opposition jumped on this news like it was the biggest gift he has ever received. He was so gleeful about it. He gathered whoever he could from his caucus who remained here on a Friday; they usually disappear halfway through question period on a Thursday. He dragged them out in front of this building, lined them up behind himself at 9:30 a.m. and gave a press conference with a gigantic smile on his face. He was so excited by this news. Imagine being a member of this House, one of the 343 members, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, and taking such joy in knowing that Canadians are suffering? That is exactly what we saw from him. That is not even where it ended, because it got even worse than that. Rightly so, a reporter from The Hill Times asked the Leader of the Opposition, on the topic of the economy, “Might you be going a little too far with this by suggesting that this is a massive, colossal economic situation?” The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, started laughing at the reporter and said, “Of course you are making excuses for the Prime Minister. What outlet are you from?” The reporter said The Hill Times, and the Conservative leader said, “Oh, yeah, The Hill Times.” What I find so utterly amazing is that Conservatives, much less the Leader of the Opposition, are unable to recognize that their strategy may have been really effective in 2024, but with everything going on in the world right now, with the way that the U.S. is positioning itself against us right now and is treating us like an economic enemy at times, and with the sense of incredible pride that Canadians have in wanting to stick together and fight this together, the Conservatives still think that it is a winning strategy to talk down Canadians, to talk down the Prime Minister and to talk down the position we are in. I can wonder all day long about why the Conservatives think this is an effective strategy, why they are doing this and why they have not realized that their 2024 tactics are just falling on deaf ears right now. People do not even have to listen to me. They do not even have to consider the fact that I am bringing this to their attention. They can just look at the fact that it is reflected in the polling. It is reflected in the decision in the last election. Canadians do not want the Conservatives. They do not want that rhetoric. They do not want that style of approach. They do not want a Leader of the Opposition who is going to laugh at reporters, challenge what outlet they are with and then dismiss them. Canadians do not want that. I really wish that my colleagues across the way, who keep heckling me right now, would take a moment to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of truth to what I am saying. Maybe the Canadian people would like to see humility and would like to see a Leader of the Opposition who actually takes the time to reflect on the world that people live in and does not jump at an opportunity to celebrate it, so that he can say “I told him so” to the Prime Minister on what amounts to a statistical error. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, it is negative 0.03% of growth. I am sorry. It is catastrophic. Look at them. They are doing it right now. They absolutely refuse. They want to make this the biggest, boldest and absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen. That is the narrative they are going with. I am actually not surprised, because they are just parroting what their leader did on Friday. He went outside this building, and he took the opportunity to celebrate the position that Canada was in. Conservatives can keep doing this. They can do it all day long, but I am telling them right now that this is not selling to the Canadian public. The Canadian public is not buying this. By the way, the Conservatives did this before. What situation did they set up for themselves? Their approach, always, is not asking what they are going to do to improve the lives of Canadians. Their approach is to make the other guy look bad, attack the other guy and beat him or her into submission so that they look like the champions. Guess what? They tried that in 2024. To a certain degree, they were kind of effective at it, but it did not materialize into their forming government, did it? It did not. They just ended up coming right back. It certainly did not result in Conservatives forming government. The key thing they are missing is that, rather than just attack, attack, attack, they have to provide solutions. They have to provide alternatives. I have said this so many times in the House. I am actually trying to give them political advice right now. People back in my war room are probably asking why I will not shut up, because I am telling them what to do, but it is true. I am just trying to help them because I feel like they really, genuinely need it. The reality is that Conservatives are going to keep doing this over and over and over. It is not going to produce anything for them because the reality of the situation is that Canadians are looking for parliamentarians, especially in the world that we live in right now, to work together, to collaborate together, to come up with ideas together and certainly not to celebrate potential downfalls, which is what the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus are doing.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “so that he can say “I told him so” to the Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

“I got tired of hearing the Conservatives repeat the same things about this motion. So, I took a picture of it and asked AI what it thought.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House today for the better part of the debate listening to members. Earlier today, I was here for the opening speech by the critic, the member for Calgary East, when he was introducing the motion. I do not know if I just got bored of listening to the same rhetoric by the Conservatives, but I started staring down at the motion as it was written on my piece of paper and wondered what AI would think of this motion. I literally took a picture of it and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is literally the response—”

“I used artificial intelligence to check this Conservative motion. The program said the motion ignores facts, cherry-picks numbers, and asks for things that make no sense. I want to know if the parliamentary secretary agrees with what the program said.”

“Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives really like AI, because it seems like half of their speeches and questions are written by AI. I am a bit more skeptical. However, while I was sitting here listening to the member speak, I took a picture of the motion and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is the response I got: “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I am sure the Conservatives will say that this is our woke Liberal AI. Can the parliamentary secretary provide his comments on whether he thinks AI got it right this time?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 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 →

“The Conservatives seem happy about bad economic news, and their leader attacked reporters who asked about it. They are exaggerating the problem, and they act like Donald Trump while accusing us of doing it.”

“Madam Speaker, it would be a lot easier to take the Conservatives at their word if they did not seem giddy about the fact that we are in the position we are in. On Friday, right after Statistics Canada had announced this news, the Leader of the Opposition ran out, almost excited, like he was happy that we were in this position. He started challenging reporters, when they were basically just asking him questions. A question that was asked by a reporter was whether he was overblowing this a little based on what the economists were saying. The Leader of the Opposition then asked what outlet they were with. Now the Conservatives are going to stand there and accuse us of employing the Donald Trump tactics. Members can look at what they are doing. Does the member not think that perhaps, just a little, the Conservatives are overplaying their hand with this, in the degree of excitement that they are showing for the circumstances that we are in right now?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 76 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “almost excited, like he was happy that we were in this position”.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Serge Cormier

“Canada was the last G7 country to get a national school food program. Feeding kids at school helps them learn and breaks down stereotypes, but the Conservatives still will not support it. They should visit the food program in my riding to see how well it works.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The member got my words wrong. I did not say this plan helps only the richest people. The Conservatives claim it helps low-income Canadians the most, but I disagree. It helps the richest people more.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did not say what he said. I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy. What I was doing, and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians. My argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them. What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“I will vote against this motion. It helps the richest people who use the most fuel.”

“Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for me to take that question seriously if the member did not belong to a political party that, as I demonstrated in the example I just gave, handed checks to millionaires. Now I am supposed to suddenly expect its members to care about the affordability challenges many Canadians have. I am very proud of the work the government has done. Could we do things differently? Could we do things better? Is there always an opportunity to improve? Absolutely, there always is. I will always do that, but will I get up in the House and vote for this motion, which would benefit the ultrawealthy the most, the people who consume the most amount of fuel? No, I will not.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 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 →

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Cutting fuel taxes helps wealthy people more than poor people, because rich people use more energy. The Conservatives say this tax cut is for low-income Canadians, but that is not true. Our government created child care benefits, dental care, and school food programs that actually help people who need it. The Conservatives voted against all of them.”

“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.”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“The member is a parliamentary secretary, not the deputy House leader. The Opposition Leader should get his title right.”

“Mr. Speaker, he is the parliamentary secretary, not the deputy House leader. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can get the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“I want to use the results from the last vote for this vote, with Liberals voting no.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.”

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

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

“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 previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.”

“I want to use the results of the last vote for this vote, with Liberals voting no.”

“Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.”