Andrew Scheer

[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 This offensive, unparliamentary remark needs to be withdrawn, and the minister needs to apologize.

[Carbon Pricing, February 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this from a government that literally wrote a cheque on taxpayer dollars to give Loblaws millions of dollars for new fridges.

I would like to correct the record. It is not families that are raising grocery prices in stores; it is the government with its carbon tax.

The principle of the carbon tax is to make everyday things in life more expensive and more punishing. The Prime Minister does not care because he never has to deal with those costs. He does not have to pay the carbon tax on his flights or put packages of beef back on the shelf.

Will he finally have some mercy on Canadian families and axe the tax?

[Carbon Pricing, February 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The carbon tax is going to drive up food prices again on April 1, when he drives it up by 23%. What is that going to do for food prices?

The Keilstra poultry farm in Okotoks has said it is going to go from paying $180,000 this year to $480,000 when the carbon tax is fully quadrupled. These are hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra taxes that all get passed on to the shoppers in the grocery aisles, and the rebate does not cover any of it.

If the Prime Minister will not axe the tax, will he at least cancel his April 1 increase so food prices do not go up even further?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to expenditures on Non-public servant travel - Key stakeholders (Treasury Board code 0262 or similar), broken down by department or agency and by year since 2019: (a) what were the total expenditures; (b) how many trips are represented by the amounts in (a); (c) of the amounts in (a), how much was spent on international travel; and (d) what are the details of each international trip for non-public servant travel-key stakeholders, including, for each, the (i) dates, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) total amount spent, (v) breakdown of expenditures, (vi) purpose of the trip, (vii) stakeholder name and title, (viii) business or organization represented by the stakeholder?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to renovation, redesign and refurnishing of ministers' or deputy ministers' offices since January 1, 2020: (a) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each ministerial office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures; and (b) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and refurnishing for each deputy minister's office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the late-payment charges incurred by the government related to any type of telecommunications or cable services (telephone, cellular, data, cable, etc.), since June 1, 2020, in total and broken down by year, including 2023 to date, and by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what is the total amount of late-payment charges and interest charges incurred for services provided by (i) Rogers, (ii) Bell, (iii) Telus, (iv) other telecommunications providers, broken down by provider?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to expenditures on public relations, media training, or similar types of services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2022: what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) individual providing the training, (v) summary of the services provided, including the type of training, (vi) person who received the training, (vii) date of the training?

[Carbon Pricing, January 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we will cut the waste and mismanagement driving up inflation in the first place by cutting the Infrastructure Bank, high-priced consultants and money sent to the Asian infrastructure bank to build projects overseas instead of here at home.

However, the question was about the carbon tax and why the Prime Minister is so pathologically obsessed with it. He does not care that Canadians are going to food banks, that mothers are watering down milk or that seniors are skipping meals. He even sent one of his ministers to go bully Liberal senators into gutting the bill.

Once again, will they reject the Senate amendments so the tax can come off farming and food prices can come down?

[Carbon Pricing, January 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must still have sand in his ears from his Jamaican vacation. That must be why he cannot hear the outcry from Canadians suffering from his carbon tax. While he was lining up at the all-inclusive, Canadians were lining up at food banks, and grocery prices jumped again, 38% higher than baseline inflation.

Now, a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, would help bring prices down by taking the tax off farm production. The only problem is this: Liberal senators gutted the bill.

Will the government reject the Senate amendments so the tax can come off and food prices can come down?

[Points of Order, December 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments of the Bloc member of Parliament who just had the floor. Absolutely new information came to light, both at the procedure and House affairs committee and even on the day the report was tabled in the House. After all the work was done, after the report was written and tabled, new information came to light.

If one were to listen to the arguments of the NDP House leader, which were devoid of any reference to previous practice, one would have to come to the conclusion that once the procedure and House affairs committee was seized with this, there could be no other motion moved regarding the Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this motion is in order; otherwise I would not have been able to move it today. This is a motion to censure the Speaker. Therefore, it rises to the level of a privilege motion according to the precedents that I just listed.

What happened before at PROC does not affect the admissibility of this motion. It does not make this motion out of order. If it is in order and is a motion to censure the Speaker, which it is, then it rises to the level of a privilege motion. The NDP House leader might not like that and might wish that it happened all at once or in a different way, but that does not touch at all upon the admissibility of this motion or the nature of it.

For those reasons, I urge the Deputy Speaker, who may ultimately do the ruling, to treat this as a privilege motion. If members prevent it from coming to a vote today by dragging out the debate, we can revisit it on the next sitting day. That is what we are asking for.