Andrew Scheer

[Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22, June 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point of order.

I hate to interrupt the hon. member's speech. Our ridings share a border, and so we are neighbouring members of Parliament. My riding goes all the way to Melville where her riding begins. I have enjoyed serving with her for the last decade or so, and it pains me greatly to have to bring up this point of order during her farewell speech. I will avail myself of the opportunity to hopefully ask a question or make a comment when she has finished her speech.

However, earlier today, the Speaker ruled on the admissibility of this motion, which does have several knock-on effects, including what might happen at committee. I want to give notice to the Chair that we may come back later on today to make a submission on some of the dynamics and some of those moving pieces.

[Petitions, June 17th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, signed by over 215 residents in and around the Indian Head area who are protesting the closure of the Indian Head Research Farm. This research facility has over 100 years of data on soil, moisture and crop varieties. The current Liberal government is proving to be anti-science by shutting this site down.

The petitioners call upon the Liberal government to save the jobs at Indian Head, save the research that is done at the facility and keep the centre open.

[Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30, June 15th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, let us do it again, with a recorded division, please.

[Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30, June 15th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a recorded division.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling yet another petition from residents in and around the Indian Head area in southern Saskatchewan who are urging the government to reverse its terrible decision to shut down the Indian Head agricultural research farm.

The farm has over 100 years' worth of data on things from soil conditions to moisture levels and all kinds of factors that affect the growing season. This centre has produced hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of economic benefit, not just to the agricultural sector in Saskatchewan but all across Canada, with the valuable research it has produced and innovations in everything from crop varieties to pest management.

The Liberal government, which managed to find money for gender-just rice farming in Vietnam, cannot seem to find enough funds to keep this important centre open. The petitioners call on the government to reverse its terrible decision to keep the agricultural research farm open for generations to come.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 8th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

[Business of the House, June 4th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, we have all been waiting since last Thursday for today's Thursday question, the time of the week when Canadian telecom providers have to scramble to add excess capacity as hundreds of thousands of Canadians tune in, anxiously anticipating what the government will bring forward in the chamber for the rest of this week and into next week.

With the news that Canada is the only country in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister's economic plan, will the government finally see the error of its ways and finally start to repeal the bad Liberal legislation that caused the problem in the first place?

Can we expect, next week, to see legislation repealing the industrial carbon tax, which only applies to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian businesses? Will we see the Liberals bring in legislation to repeal the fuel standard tax, which adds at least 17¢ a litre to the price of fuel here in Canada, while American shippers and transporters do not have to pay that? Indeed, will they bring in a repeal of the west coast shipping ban, which prevents Canadian energy exports to Asian markets but does not apply to international traffic off the coast of British Columbia? Will they bring in a single piece of legislation to repeal the bad Liberal laws that are plunging Canada, the only G20 country, into a recession?

Can we expect any of that relief next week?

[Business of the House, May 28th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, you join millions of Canadians who are anxious to hear the Thursday question. In fact, data centres all over the country are whirring into action as streaming devices carrying CPAC spring to life.

It being Thursday, it is time for the government to update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and next week. In light of the fact that Justin Trudeau's radical environment minister has announced his resignation, and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is leaving, apparently, over a rift in policy, it would be helpful for the member to know if he is doing the right thing.

Will the Liberals repeal all the radical antidevelopment legislation that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was so proud of? Will they repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69? Will they bring in legislation next week to repeal the shipping ban for Canadian exports off the west coast? Will they repeal the industrial carbon tax that drives away so many jobs and so much investment?

In other words, will the government prove that it has actually changed its ways, or in fact, is it continuing with Justin Trudeau's radical antidevelopment, "no new energy" agenda? That would be in line with the Prime Minister's book he wrote about himself called Values, in which he called for Canada's natural resources to be left in the ground.

In short, will the government bring in legislation to repeal those very bills and those very laws that drove out investment and shut down our energy sector for the past 11 years of darkness with Liberal governments?

[Privilege, May 27th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege that the Bloc Québécois raised the other day. I would like to add a few comments for the Speaker's consideration.

I think the specific situation described by the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères speaks to a worrying, broader trend with the Liberal government and its cozy relationships with corporate insiders. At the root of it is a Prime Minister who remains invested in Brookfield through what is called “carried interest”, despite that company's extensive presence in many fields where the Prime Minister and his ministers have control of powerful policy levers that can greatly influence Brookfield's asset prices and revenue streams.

The House's ethics committee heard last autumn about Brookfield executives being able to call up the Prime Minister and secure private meetings with him. That is something the average Canadian certainly cannot do. The government's first major bill in the present Parliament, Bill C-5, was about empowering Liberal ministers to waive red tape for select insiders, rather than getting out of the way of economic development for the benefit of all Canadians.

The Major Projects Office, established to provide a concierge service for the Liberals' approved insiders, is being staffed with friends of the Prime Minister from Bay Street whose salaries are being topped up by banking and corporate interests and who very well may stand to benefit from the decisions their loaned-out employees are making. The Prime Minister's approach to bureaucracies he does not like has not been to fix them to work better but to add another layer of bureaucracy and bring in corporate friends to run them.

The list of examples goes on, including now the Bloc's observations about Air Canada's getting an inside track on changes to the handling of air passenger complaints. Of course, the Liberals' proposed fix for air passenger complaints is to replace Canadian public servants with European-modelled consultants, adding to the Liberals' unrelenting, multi-billion-dollar addiction to outsourcing as it hands out contracts, hand over fist, to well-placed, friendly consulting firms.

There is an age-old saying in this town: “Whenever the Liberals are in office, it is all about who you know and the PMO.” That is probably more true now than it has ever been. These are issues that, quite honestly, vigilant committees need to stay on top of, though I know the Liberals' engineered majority on committees will make sure these issues will not see the light of day. That is why a question of privilege and the proposed referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be quite timely.

I would urge the Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege in this case so we can get the wheels in motion on a study about yet another apparent cozy corporate crony relationship to the Liberal government and its parliamentary proposals.

[Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act, May 25th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing these Liberals did when they got their backroom deal majority was to stack the deck on committees, and now they are ramming through legislation and cutting off debate. This bill needs proper scrutiny, because it is a budget implementation bill that would add billions of dollars to the national debt. The last projection for this current fiscal year by the Trudeau government was that the deficit would be in the low thirties of billions of dollars. Now the deficit is more than twice that, with $30 billion of extra debt racked up on the national credit card. All this adds to more inflation. This is the same playbook the Liberals were running for 11 years: more dollars chasing fewer goods.

Can the minister explain to the House why he thinks things will happen differently this time? We see the very same scenario. The Bank of Canada is buying government bonds. The creation of money, the money supply, the amount of money in circulation has been increasing at a rate of about twice that of the GDP. When we have more dollars chasing fewer goods, we get inflation, which is the worst kind of tax because Canadians have no say over it.

Can the minister explain why he thinks things will be different this time?