Mark Gerretsen

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to see the clock at 5:42 p.m., so we can start Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, in relation to its study of the forestry industry, three members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to Helsinki, Finland; Lahti, Finland; Stockholm, Sweden; and Norrköping, Sweden, in the spring of [more]

Mr. Speaker, we request that it be adopted on division. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that it pass on division.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a year Conservatives said nothing. I would like to go back in Hansard and see how many times the member said “tariffs” before today. Conservatives said nothing. Then, suddenly, a year into the problem, they decided their solution would be to come up with the same plan that existed in 1965. That is literally what they did. Leader of the Opposition Can the member explain to me why [more]

Dufferin—Caledon Mr. Speaker, listening to the member say things like, “Once we get to 25%, we get to some curb,” it underscores his lack of understanding of some basic, elementary economic principles of supply and demand. The reality is that it is not even 25%. The member forshould know that the chasm point is actually 7.5% market penetration of a new technology. That is the tipping point. It is [more]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives are basing their entire plan on a 1965-era world and environment that we lived in. Back then, there were three major manufacturers of automobiles in the United States and Canada: Ford, Chrysler and GM. Today there are dozens. In 1965, pretty much all production was done in the U.S. and Canada, and it was heavily labour-intensive. Today many sell [more]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the member speak. I always enjoy his comments, but I, in particular, applaud him for discussing his EV. If I heard him correctly, he said he has had it for just over two years, and he has put 120,000 kilometres on that EV. What was surprising to hear from the member was that he suggested that the infrastructure is not there for the majority of [more]

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to spend a little more time being careful about the words that he uses. When he writes a speech, he should be reflecting on what he is actually proposing. In the beginning of his speech, he talked about how the government is repackaging ideas, but then he literally went on to talk about how the Conservatives' entire plan is a repackaging of a 1965-era auto pact. By [more]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the added detail. The reality is that only Conservatives would look at what has happened over the last year and say the best idea is to try to find a way to have more trade with the United States, when the rest of us, the vast majority of Canadians, have said it may not have been such a good idea to be so heavily invested in trade with the United States over [more]

Mr. Speaker, this opposition motion and, quite frankly, the entire Conservative plan around the auto industry in Canada come down to one thing. They come down to denialism. I am going to demonstrate that by talking in particular about three things that they are denying the reality of. They are denying the reality of the auto sector and what exists today. They are denying the reality of the trade [more]