Mark Gerretsen

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

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.

[Protecting Victims Act, June 8th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, I know the member read her speech, but perhaps she wrote it last week because the number that she used for Canada's unemployment in her speech does not reflect the new number that came out on Friday. She might want to update her numbers. She might also want to reflect on the fact that the report that came out last Friday showed that Canada had a net increase of 90,000 jobs in May, that full-time work surged and that sectors across the economy have grown.

I am curious. Notwithstanding the fact that she may have written that speech on Wednesday of last week, why did nothing in the 10-minute speech she just provided talk about the new report that came out on Friday, which showed that there was a significant improvement in May alone?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard.

The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, I am sure you heard it. In that exchange, the member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.”

I am sorry. The neighbouring member for York—Durham thinks that is funny.

The member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” She should know that is unparliamentary. I would respectfully request that you ask her to withdraw that comment.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned Liberal pundits at the beginning of his speech. Here is something a pundit said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling when in a month's time or two month's time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... The job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, another economist saying it's not a recession.”

Does the House know which pundit that is? It is Fred DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign manager for Erin O'Toole, who said that on the CBC.

Would the member like to comment on the comments of his Conservative friend's punditry?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2026]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday.

I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.

[Protecting Victims Act, June 4th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, I find it really amusing to listen to Conservatives talk about games being played in the House when they are literally the party that hid people behind the curtain during a very important vote months ago.

Would the minister not agree with me that, time after time, we see the Conservatives refusing to let legislation through, so we have to eventually use a tool like this to advance it? If they were more selective and did their filibustering tactics every once in a while, it might hold a bit more credibility. The problem is that they do it at every single opportunity, so with every single bill, it seems like this is the only way to keep it advancing forward. We will get to the point where the public does not even realize what is going on anymore because the Conservatives do it every single time.

Would the minister not agree that the Conservatives' approach and strategy would probably be a bit more productive if they were a bit more selective in choosing when to use the tool of filibustering to prevent and delay legislation from moving forward?

[Protecting Victims Act, June 4th, 2026]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a well-established rule, which the member should know, that we cannot speak of any hon. member in this House in a disparaging way such as that. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment.