Mark Gerretsen

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate and the last time it was before the House, we repeatedly heard the arguments why decisions on the regulation and classification of firearms should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put into the hands of the experts and those who understand firearms and what they are capable of. Can the member opposite comment on whether she agrees with the fact that experts are better at handling the classification, or if she believes that politicians would in fact be better at handling that classification?

[Accessible Canada Act, September 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for telling her personal story about this at the beginning of her speech. It is incredibly important to connect with these stories to understand why this piece of legislation is so important.

When I was on municipal council in Kingston, by accident I was appointed to sit as the chair of the municipal accessibility advisory committee. I did not know much about accessibility or the requirements and needs. If I had been asked about accessibility before that, I would have said that it is a ramp to get into a store. I think that many Canadians do not quite understand it. However, I learned through that committee and was educated on the vast array of accessibility requirements out there.

Perhaps the minister could comment on how important that education is to Canadians. Why is it so important to expose Canadians to what the requirements are? Also, could she comment briefly on why Canada needs the accessible Canada act?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for taking the opportunity to talk about her constituents and in particular those who are experiencing job losses. That can never be an easy thing for somebody to go through and for her to come here and articulate that is extremely important.

She talked a bit about statistics with respect to trade and how she saw it impacting jobs within her community and throughout the country. I am wondering if she has any statistics on the other hand that talk about what the impact would be on Canada should Canada not be part of this particular trade agreement, if Canada chose an approach that the NDP seems to favour more, that of removing itself from trade deals. What would the impact be on Canada in terms of how that would affect us in our relationships and our ability to continue to create jobs, including good jobs in her riding?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate throughout the day and I cannot help but revert back to this idea that the NDP wants nothing to do with trade whatsoever. The reality of the situation is, unfortunately, I guess, for its position, that the world is changing. As we see more globalization and opportunities for businesses to connect to other parts of the world, the reality is that trade is becoming a norm that we have to accept. I really hope that the NDP can, at one point, accept the fact that it is a reality.

I have a question for the member for Whitby. In her comments, she talked quite a bit about what she was seeing in her own community. Could she explain how trade and the trade opportunities that come with an agreement like this will benefit companies and operations within her riding and how they can start to expand into other markets?

[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech today, my colleague from Mississauga did a very good job of reiterating why Liberals believe so firmly in free trade. I am wondering if he can take it back a bit, more specifically to his riding. He comes from a part of the country that has experienced a lot of growth over the last number of years. It has expanded tremendously and no doubt has benefited from these relationships and trade agreements.

Can he talk a little about how he sees the impacts of trade positively impacting his riding specifically?

[Petitions, June 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to draw reference back to petition No. 421-02359 that I presented on May 9 and at which time I provided my own personal opinion on the petition. I later found out that it was outside of the procedure of the House. Therefore, I apologize for doing that and will chalk it up as a learning experience.

However, I rise to present a petition that reads: whereas Kinder Morgan is an American oil company based in Texas; and whereas Kinder Morgan paid no taxes to the Government of Canada in 2017; and whereas in Canada dozens of first nations still do not have access to clean drinking water, we are facing a housing a crisis, and renewable energy projects are desperate for more funding, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to refrain from using Canadian taxpayer money to bail out Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and instead invest in green energy projects that respect indigenous rights.

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he talked about this being a registry, and we have heard this time and time again coming from the opposition. I would offer to the House that is nothing more than a red herring.

The Conservatives do not have an argument and do not have a solid position on this issue. Time and time again they suggest that this is a registry when they know full well that it is not. Do not take my word for it though. Let us return to the member for Red Deer—Lacombe who said in committee, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.

In the context of being in committee where people can talk freely and have a discussion about this, members of the Conservative Party are saying that and then they come into the House and insist it is a registry.

Is the member now suggesting that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was incorrect and that he was wrong when he said it is not a registry? Or are the Conservatives just coming here with their talking points because they have no other argument against this legislation? Is that the more plausible thing?

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is really good legislation based on some of the arguments I am continuing to hear from the members of the opposition. We can tell that everything they continue to bring up, whether it is with respect to a registry or the terminology that is being used, they are just red herrings, one after another that they are trying to throw out there in hopes that something is eventually going to stick.

The reality of the situation is that nobody believes that this is a registry. Members do not have to take my word for it. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe said that at committee. He said that nobody believes that this is a registry. The Conservatives brought forward an amendment at committee to specifically say to those who would be implementing the law that in no way will this be considered a registry. However, that is not good enough. The Conservatives continue to go on with their talking points, which clearly have been drafted and given to them in the lobby, about how this is a registry, because just maybe it will stick.

The truth of the matter is that it is not sticking. If the member believes that this is a registry, would he kindly explain why the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who is a member of the same party, does not feel the same way?

[Firearms Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I disagree with the member and his comments. If we look at this bill objectively, we see it is a bill that does an extremely good job of protecting the rights of lawful gun owners for the recreational and sporting purposes. However, at the same time, it moves to strengthen the laws that we do have around gun legislation.

I know the member talked quite a bit about this being a form of a registry. He said that this was just a way of it coming in through the back door. I know that has been an ongoing Conservative talking point since this debate has come back to the chamber. However, the situation is this. If members heard what the minister said this morning, he commented directly that the Conservative members on the committee admitted the fact that this was not a gun registry. He even went beyond that. He read out a motion put forward by a Conservative member, specifically identifying that this was not to be construed as a registry, which would be the fact for anybody who would be implementing this law.

Does the member disagree that the Conservative members of that committee did their due diligence? With respect to the ones who we would think would be inclined to know something about what was going on because they studied the legislation, does he disagree that they did not know what they were doing when they put forward that amendment?

[Cannabis Act, June 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to see the bill come back to this House with some of those recommendations. However, despite the fact that we hear rhetoric from the opposition around increased consumption among youth, the reality of the situation is that we know youth in Canada are at the high end of utilizing marijuana as it currently stands.

I wonder if the minister could comment on those statistics and on what the bill seeks to accomplish in terms of reducing cannabis use among youth in Canada.