Andrew Scheer

[Public Safety, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is a slap in the face to every single victim of violent and dangerous crime in this country. The Liberals are running around telling Canadians that they have never had it so good; meanwhile, business owners and families are being extorted in Canada. A developed G7 country now sees extortion rates as high as 218% up nationally and a 262% increase in Ontario. All the Liberals can do is get up and tell Canadians how good they have had it. When will the Liberals put the rights of victims and honest Canadians first, and put dangerous criminals behind bars where they belong?

[Public Safety, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the Liberals do not want to talk about crime because our communities across the country are becoming less safe. It is a direct result of Liberal legislation that reduced penalties. The Liberals' Bill C-5 actually eliminated a mandatory jail sentence for people who commit extortion. As a result, extortion is up dramatically. It is up 366% in B.C. People are now losing their property and their money because gangsters are extorting them in Canada. After eight years of this Prime Minister, when will he put an end to his soft-on-crime approach?

[Public Safety, February 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the crime, and now extortion is the latest crime wave plaguing our communities. When common-sense Conservatives were in office, we toughened penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders and, as a result, the crime rate went down. It turns out that when thugs fear getting caught, they commit fewer crimes. Extortion is up all across the country, thanks to easier penalties and easier bail. Will the government finally admit the mistake of its previous crime legislation and adopt common-sense Conservative policies to keep criminals off the street?

[Points of Order, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few points I want to address.

First of all, it was the government that decided to bring something from committee into the House of Commons by allegedly repeating what was said.

He did not say it, and that is the whole point.

Usually the Speaker does not arbitrate the veracity of statements that are made, but previous Speakers have indicated that members must be very judicious in their words. Completely fabricating a statement to try to give the impression that a member from an opposition party actually supported something as egregious as the carbon tax does rise to the level where the Speaker should have an interest in order to preserve the integrity and the reputation of members.

If not, we could all just come here and make things up, saying, “Oh, the member for Winnipeg North said this at committee. He said that carbon taxes were terrible and that the Prime Minister is responsible for car theft increases,” even if he did not say anything like that.

I do think there are some very unique and special circumstances where the Speaker should look at just how diametrically opposed what was actually said is compared to what the Liberals' paraphrasing of that is. I do believe that my colleague's point rises to that level.

[Business of the House, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as it is Thursday, I am very excited to ask the Thursday question. I was wondering if the government House leader can update members as to the business of the House for the rest of this week and into the next week.

I will take this opportunity to ask how the government plans to manage Bill C-62. Bill C-62, as members will know, is the response to a court deadline to protect vulnerable people with mental health afflictions. The government has had over a year to deal with this, yet here we find ourselves again on the eve of an expiration of a court-imposed deadline with not a lot of House time.

If the government could enlighten members as to how it foresees Bill C-62 will move through the House in time for that court-imposed deadline so that vulnerable Canadians are not in any way victimized by the regime around MAID, I am sure members from all sides would like to know that.

[Carbon Pricing, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, one would think they would have thrown those talking points out after this week when we learned of all the relationships between Liberal staff and Loblaws, like Brian Topp and Don Guy who both collect cheques from Loblaws. Last week, they met twice with the PM's director of policy, or like Tahiya Bakht, the in-house lobbyist at Loblaws. She used to have an office in the PMO. One could run a superstore with all the staff over there who have relationships with Loblaws.

When will the Prime Minister realize that it is not Conservative volunteers driving up grocery prices? It is the carbon, stupid.

[Carbon Pricing, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, those were the first five years we inherited from a previous soft-on-crime Liberal government. However, it is not just crime that this government's policy is making worse. On April 1, the Prime Minister is going to drive up grocery prices again with another hike to his carbon tax, and the impact from this affects Canadians every step of the way from farm to fork. Keith Warriner, a professor at the University of Guelph, said that 44% of growers are operating at a loss presently, and three-quarters have difficulty offsetting production cost increases.

Instead of driving grocery prices up even higher, why does the Prime Minister not cancel his plan to hike the carbon tax?

[Public Safety, February 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the crime. The previous Conservative government reduced car thefts with common-sense policies like tougher penalties for repeat offenders. The Prime Minister changed that and gave car thieves easy bail and house arrests. Under Conservatives, car thefts were down by 50%. Under the Liberals, car thefts are up by 34%, and now the Prime Minister is being told, at his fancy summit, that his policies are the problem. Celyeste Power of the Insurance Bureau said that car thefts are up because profits are high and penalties are light.

When will the Prime Minister abandon his soft-on-crime approach so that car thefts can come down?

[Privilege, February 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about a very serious matter: the misleading comments of the Prime Minister concerning the invitation of Yaroslav Hunka, a former soldier of the Waffen-SS military unit in World War II, to attend events with the President of Ukraine during his recent visit to Canada.

As we all recall, last September this chamber was the epicentre of a grave international embarrassment for Canada when this individual, a former SS soldier, was recognized and given a standing ovation during President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's address to our Parliament. This gave Vladimir Putin a major propaganda coup and caused significant pain for Jewish Canadians and all victims persecuted in World War II.

The government, and the Prime Minister in particular, were at great pains to distance themselves from any connection to this individual, claiming that they had absolutely nothing to do with his invitation and subsequent recognition. Lo and behold, Global Affairs Canada recently released, through access to information, a copy of an email sent to Yaroslav Hunka inviting him to a reception with President Zelenskyy, which was reported on yesterday afternoon by The Globe and Mail and, subsequently, other media outlets.

Here is the kicker: It was the Prime Minister's invitation.

On Monday, September 19, 2023, some four days before the President's address to Parliament, an email account called "RSVP Official Events/Événements officiels RSVP" sent an email with the subject line, “INVITATION FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA — SEPTEMBER 22, 2023”. The body of the email begins, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event.”

As members may recall, until the visit was formally announced a few days later, there was a lot of coded language being used, like in the case of this "special event", but the point remains, that the Prime Minister invited this former SS soldier to attend an event honouring the President of Ukraine. Of course, members will recall that the Prime Minister and his government were under sustained questioning in the House in the week following the visit about just how such a colossal mistake, with international reverberations, could take place.

There were questions like those asked by the Leader of the Opposition on the first occasion the Prime Minister appeared in the House after the scandalous events, such as, “did the Prime Minister's national security, intelligence or diplomatic officials vet the names of the people the Prime Minister allowed within mere feet of President Zelenskyy?”; and “the Prime Minister has just said that he allowed the president of a war-torn country, who is perhaps the biggest target of false propaganda and potential assassinations, to be surrounded by hundreds of people who had not been vetted for their security background, the potential risks they present or, in this case, the massive diplomatic disasters they could have brought to the event. Is the Prime Minister really saying he did absolutely nothing to protect the Ukrainian president from all those many risks?”

Repeatedly, we were assured that the blame lay exclusively at the then-Speaker's feet, as if the address to Parliament was the only opportunity for this former SS soldier to come near President Zelenskyy. For example, the Prime Minister told the House on September 27, 2023, “The Leader of the Opposition knows that not one parliamentarian was aware”, and, later, “no parliamentarian knew the name or the identity of the person he welcomed to this House and recognized”.

Now we know, that this is just not so. The Prime Minister invited this individual, by name, to an event with President Zelenskyy. The Prime Minister also said that day, “the Speaker of this House of Commons invited an individual without apparently doing that Google search, but it is not up to the government of the day to oversee or to have a veto power over those who the Speaker or, indeed, members of official parties choose to invite into this House.”

Who does the Prime Minister blame for not doing “that Google search” for his own personal invitation?

Before the Liberals jump up and claim that these are two separate events, two separate guest lists and whatnot, let me quote an interview the former Speaker, the honourable member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, gave to CTV Northern Ontario two weeks ago, explaining the central role the Prime Minister's Office plays in guest invitations for major international events held on Parliament Hill, like President Zelenskyy's wartime address, stating, “normally it goes to the Prime Minister's Office and they go through it with a fine-tooth comb” and then the invitation goes out from protocol. “So who invited him? That's up for grabs....”

Besides the fact that there was no sign of a comb, fine-tooth or otherwise, to be found, yesterday afternoon's revelations add new context to the last words in that quotation: "who invited him? That's up for grabs".

According to news reports at the time, it is understood that this individual's son approached the then Speaker's constituency office about securing an invitation to the Ottawa address. Knowing on the Monday of the week of the visit that there was a personal invitation from the Prime Minister to attend the Toronto event, it is not hard to picture this invitation becoming part of the discussion in the North Bay constituency office.

One can put themselves in the shoes of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. One is told about the individual's connection to Ukraine and is shown an invitation in the Prime Minister's name, the name of the leader of the party whose label one is elected under. Is one really going to sit there and think they better second-guess the judgment of the PMO, the PCO and the diplomatic protocol office? I sincerely doubt it.

As the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming said, “So who invited him? That's up for grabs”. That statement makes a whole lot more sense in light of yesterday's Globe report.

I would respectfully submit it is now obvious that the Prime Minister invited Yaroslav Hunka to meet the President of Ukraine, and the then Speaker took it on good faith and, in turn, authorized his own invitation. At the very least, it shows us that the protocol office itself, in the Prime Minister's Office, had the name of this individual on its guest list.

Whatever happened between the Speaker's office and the Prime Minister's Office in terms of the invitation, we now know that this individual, this former SS member, was already on the protocol list. He was already on the list of people to be invited.

On September 27, the Prime Minister told the House, “we apologized today on behalf of all parliamentarians. For the past few days, we have been saying how sorry we are about the mistake made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” The only mistake, Mr. Speaker, was that your predecessor put blind trust in the fact that an invitation was issued by the Prime Minister.

I am aware the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has agreed to conduct some form of a study on the matter; although, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not seem to consider the matter important given that no hearings have yet to take place some five months later.

However, these revelations and the obvious concern that the Prime Minister appears to have misled the House are of a whole new dimension, one which engages the privileges of the House and rises, in my respectful submission, to a contempt of Parliament.

Page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, notes that cases of privilege have involved “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House or one of its committees by a Minister or by a Member”.

It is a well-established principle that to make out a prima facie case of privilege in relation to a claim of misleading the House, three elements must be established.

Firstly, it must be proven that the statement was misleading. Knowing what we know now from the Global Affairs Canada access to information release, we can see it was misleading. There is no doubt that members of Parliament, of all opposition parties, were trying to find out exactly what interaction, what role, was under the purview of the PMO or the Prime Minister for inviting this individual.

There were multiple questions coming from many different angles, and the government always gave the same explanation that it had absolutely no knowledge of this individual's background and that it had nothing to do with his invitation. We now know, through this access to information release, that is false and, therefore, misleading.

Secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew it to be misleading. The invitation that was released is in the name of the Prime Minister. To claim he had no knowledge of this individual is now absurd.

Thirdly, the misleading statement must have been offered with the intention to mislead the House. The House was engulfed in a massive international scandal, one which saw our own Speaker resign, falling on his sword for the Prime Minister, so there is little doubt that the Prime Minister was eager to deflect his own role and responsibility and to lay the blame elsewhere.

Of course, before the Prime Minister might stand up and assert that he was blindsided by his own officials' denials, let me quote Bosc and Gagnon at page 116:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. For example, on December 6, 1978, in finding that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by deliberately misleading a Minister, had impeded the Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself.

No matter how one cuts it, the House was misled. Its privileges were breached, and action should be taken immediately.

Should the Speaker agree with me that the Prime Minister's words amount to a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I rise to bring the attention of the Speaker to a very unfortunate incident that happened in Oral Questions yesterday in response to the Leader of the Opposition's very measured policy-oriented question, which I will read right now to provide some context:

Mr. Speaker, the advice is to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost and not worth the crime. We now are paying a billion dollars more in insurance premiums because he has led to a quadrupling of car thefts in Toronto.

I have a common-sense plan, which I rolled out today, to end house arrest and catch and release for career criminals, and bring in three years of jail for three stolen cars.

Will the government accept the common-sense plan?

It was very focused on actual policy. No personal attack or insult at all was contained in that question.

The Minister of Justice, though, used an extremely unparliamentary word in his response. It was not captured in Hansard, but it was captured on the audio. At the end of his response, the Minister of Justice called the Leader of the Opposition “an effing tool”.

This comes from a government that loves to lecture everybody else about raising the level of debate, decorum and civility. Once again, we see Liberal hypocrisy on full display. The Minister of Justice completely lost his cool, lost his temper and hurled that offensive insult in this place, in the House of Commons.

The Speaker has issued several rulings in the last few weeks where he has indicated that he is going to try to address these types of comments made in the House. I ask the Speaker to examine the audio. It is clearly audible for all to hear. This offensive, unparliamentary remark needs to be withdrawn, and the minister needs to apologize.