Andrew Scheer

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program: (a) how much has the government paid Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. related to the program to date; (b) how much is Epiq scheduled to be paid in each of the next five years; (c) how much has been paid out and to how many survivors through the program, broken down by year; (d) how many survivors receive ongoing payments, and what is the annual value of those payments; (e) for applications received between June 3, 1999 and June 3, 2024, how many applications (i) were received, (ii) were accepted, (iii) were denied, (iv) are still awaiting a decision; (f) of applications denied, what is the breakdown by reason for denial; (g) what audits or oversight has the government done on Epiq's administration of the program to ensure that value for money is being received; and (h) what was the average time between when an application was received and when a decision was made?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to bonuses paid out at government departments or agencies for the 2024-25 fiscal year, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to bonuses paid out at Crown corporations for the 2024-25 fiscal year, broken down by Crown corporation: (a) what was the total amount paid out in bonuses; (b) how many and what percentage of officials (i) at or above the executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent?

[Business of the House, June 19th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the last Thursday projected before the summer recess, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House administration, which has supported members of Parliament as they resumed their duties after the election.

There was a lot to do to get so many new members of Parliament sworn in and oriented and ready to go for this session. I just want to commend the Clerk's team and all the procedural staff who are involved in that. I know that there are a lot of moving pieces; once again, they discharged their duties with great proficiency, and we all certainly appreciate that.

I would also like to pay tribute to the pages, as this is the final week in their program. They have done excellent work throughout the past few months. They have had a little bit more time off this session, with the prorogation and the election, than other page cohorts, but they have done exceptional work as well and, again, served parliamentarians in a non-partisan and professional way. I wish them good luck with the rest of their studies, and I hope they have enjoyed their tenure here in the House of Commons of Canada.

I would like to thank my government counterpart.

I would also like to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for working with me over the past few weeks.

We have always been able to have professional meetings. Although we do not often agree on much, in terms of policy, we do recognize that Parliament has to function on behalf of Canadians.

In that light, I wonder if the government House leader could update us. There is only a day left in the calendar. Maybe, in that time, the government might bring forward a budget so that it can show Canadians how it is going to manage all of this spending and borrowing that it has racked up.

My counterpart, the government House leader, was quite animated yesterday, telling Canadians that they have the choice of filling up their car with gas or diesel. That choice is soon coming to an end. Kicking in next year will be the Liberal ban on internal combustion engines. Maybe they would like to repeal that ban in the remaining days, since he seems to love filling up his car with gas so much. Maybe he would like to continue to enjoy that right in the years to come, and maybe they will bring in legislation to repeal that very ban.

I can tell him that if he is about to answer yes to that, I promise that Conservatives will fast-track any such legislation to preserve the rights of Canadians to fill up their cars with gas long into the future.

If he likes, I can even table the departmental regulations that show this ban is starting next year and that, by 2035, 100% of vehicles sold in Canada must be electric vehicles. That would add massive costs for Canadians hoping to purchase a conventional gas or diesel vehicle.

In that light, I would like to ask him if he could answer that very specific question and wish him a very good summer as he returns to his constituency and spends time with his family.

[Pharmacare, June 18th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have in my hands a document entitled “Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard”, with a timeline where it says that the requirements increase to—

[Automotive Industry, June 18th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to allow Canadians to buy one type of vehicle by banning their ability to buy the ones that they actually want.

This is raising a lot of questions. Canadians and auto workers for GM do not want the EV mandate, but the Prime Minister is intent on pushing it through. Why? Well, right before becoming Prime Minister, he was chair of Brookfield, and he advocated for a ban on gas-powered cars.

Brookfield is heavily invested in the EV supply chain, yet the Prime Minister refuses to reveal his financial interests or self-admitted conflicts. Is it not true that this is not about the environment but about the bottom line for Brookfield?

[Automotive Industry, June 18th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, there absolutely is a ban. It starts to come into effect next year, and it will absolutely devastate the auto sector here in Canada.

The auto sector is already under fire from unjustified U.S. tariffs and the PM's inability to get a deal. GM and Ford are also saying that this ban will kill jobs. In fact, a new report says that this ban on gas-powered vehicles will kill 90,000 auto jobs.

Instead of sending even more jobs to the U.S., why not end the ban on gas-powered vehicles and let Canadians decide what kind of vehicle they want to buy?

[Automotive Industry, June 18th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is doubling down on its insane ban on gas-powered vehicles. The latest Liberal overreach kicks in next year, and soon one's favourite car, truck or van will be illegal. However, this mandate is already driving up prices. The average price of a new car is $67,000; used cars are approaching $40,000, and the Liberal mandate will add an additional $20,000 per vehicle.

The Liberals have already priced working Canadians out of the housing market. Why are they pricing working Canadians out of the ability to buy a vehicle as well?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has it exactly right. I know many of these points have been raised, but it is worth repeating because we are dealing with an unprecedented assault on consumer choice from a Liberal government that just cannot help itself. It is always increasing costs. It is always banning things. The government is like a no fun government. Why do we not let Canadians make the choice themselves? Let a thousand engines roar. Let Canadians decide which vehicle they want.

As my colleague pointed out, there are so many places in this country where consumers just do not believe that an electric vehicle fits their needs. It could be because they have a lack of access to charging stations. It could be because they require a certain model or one with the ability to operate in cold weather and go long distances. That is why Conservatives believe in choice for consumers.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked about a few points. First of all, there are lots of ways we can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions without depriving Canadians of choice, and that is what this Conservative motion is all about.

Conservatives have a long track record of investing in technology and incentivizing advancements in new methods of production and whatnot that will help reduce those emissions. I mentioned exporting more Canadian LNG to countries that use coal to create electricity. I did not even get into the topic of how bad for the environment some of the production methods of extraction for the component materials of EVs are in the economy.

When it comes to the situation in Quebec, we believe that every Quebecker should have the right to choose what kind of vehicle they want. We believe every Canadian should have the right to buy whatever vehicle they choose. This is not about one particular province's approach. This is about the rights of individuals, for whom Conservatives fight.