Andrew Scheer

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my vote was recorded as a nay on the vote on the amendment. I would just like to have that clarified and recorded as a yea and ensure that on the subsequent vote, which was applied, it would be counted as a yea as well.

[Liberal Party of Canada, December 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. They just got mixed up about what day the debate is going to be held. It is going to be held this Thursday. The vote will be on Monday, and all Canadians will be watching to see who is on the side of Canadian workers. The Prime Minister launched a brutal assault on workers. He devalued their paycheques with his inflation. He drove up prices with his carbon tax. He has doubled housing costs. He has hiked taxes, cancelled big projects that put union members back to work and issued edicts that undermine their collective bargaining rights.

Once again, my question to the government is this: Have they put the coalition deal back together so that the NDP leader will qualify for his pension while Canadian workers suffer?

[Liberal Party of Canada, December 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader put on a big phony show this summer on the eve of a by-election, pretending to rip up the coalition deal. Recently, he said, “[The Liberals] will always cave to corporate greed, and always step in to make sure the unions have no power.” We could not have said it better ourselves.

Conservatives have put forward a motion agreeing with the NDP leader. Canadians will soon find out whether or not the NDP leader means anything he ever says, or if he will sell out union brothers and sisters to keep this corrupt Liberal government in power just so he can keep his pension.

The question to the government is this: Have the Liberals put the coalition deal back together so that the Prime Minister keeps power and the NDP leader keeps his pension?

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I will sum up by saying the New Democrats have made baseless and false accusations that damage the reputations of individual members of Parliament. The old saying that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on is very appropriate here because they can make these allegations and, just by defending ourselves, we are contributing to the propagation of the falsehood. That puts all members in a very risky situation. Any one of us could get up at any time and make false accusations about who they saw in the parliamentary dining room bar and what one member said or did and not be held to account because the effect of the accusation plants the seed in people's minds.

Secondly, the behaviour by individual NDP MPs themselves was the cause for the breakdown of order in the House. The way they treated the Speaker, someone they have voted confidence in before, is absolutely shameful. They marched up the aisle, waving and hurling insults and abuse. It is clear that if anybody's privileges have been infringed, it is the Conservative MPs who are the subject of baseless allegations. If anybody's workplace was made toxic by behaviour, it was Conservative staff in the lobby because of NDP actions.

The proper thing to resolve this right now is for the New Democrats to withdraw their question of privilege, apologize to the Speaker for their behaviour, apologize to the Conservative MPs whose reputations they have slandered and put this matter to rest.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

Let me get to the part that is relevant.

Madam Speaker, while attempting to record this video, the member for Edmonton Griesbach engaged in disruptive, harassing, obnoxious and nuisance behaviour directed toward my colleague and his work, trying to derail his ability to record the video. At the end of the night, another NDP MP delivered a bizarre and passive-aggressive rant to a second member of the Conservative staff for the simple courtesy of holding a door, which otherwise would have automatically closed in her face. It has not stopped there.

Yesterday, in the lobby, the former NDP whip gratuitously addressed a gross slur to my chief of staff. I raise this just as another example of the bizarre, weird and unhinged pattern of behaviour that NDP members of Parliament are exhibiting around the Parliamentary precinct. If we are going to ask why pages were asked to leave the lobby, let us look at the behaviour of the NDP MPs contributing to that feeling they might have had in their workspace.

What is unusual here is that the NDP deputy House leader, whose conduct Thursday night was shameful, as seen on ParlVU and in other videos published on social media, was trying to lead the charge for parliamentary civility and decorum.

In June, she wrote to all MPs, inviting us to sign a so-called pledge with four branches. Firstly, she wanted MPs to pledge to “Support each other and call out abuse and harassment when we see it or experience it.” That is exactly what we are doing now about the excessive toxic behaviour on open display by New Democrats. Secondly, MPs were asked to pledge to “Call on all our allies to stand with us to support women in office and call out all forms of abuse”—

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I agree with you, but we find ourselves in this position because that is exactly what the NDP members have done with these outrageous and baseless accusations. I think it is only fair and just that, after making these kinds of allegations, the official opposition be allowed to not only defend ourselves and our integrity, but also put the actual facts of the matter before the Chair if the Chair is going to rule on this.

My NDP counterpart also claimed that pages were withdrawn from the opposition lobby because of what he alleged was the conduct of Conservative MPs. I was briefed by a representative of the House administration relating to the page program and was informed that the baseline issue that ultimately led to a decision being made happened earlier and was completely unrelated to behaviour in the lobby. It was an administrative issue within the page program itself.

I can also say that during the evening there were requests from one side to the other, from the NDP lobby, to turn the volume down on the television that was on. It is a request that was accommodated. This is in stark contrast to the actions of NDP members that evening.

I would also point out that I have been in this place a long time, and on both sides of the House. I have been in a situation where I have shared opposition lobbies with NDP members. They are often gathered together, having a jovial time, just as Conservatives were that evening. I have heard them playing guitars and leading each other in songs. That happens from time to time on late-night sittings. Both parties usually just accommodate each other when they are doing that. We have to share the same space. We try to stay out of each other's way.

This all has come as a complete shock to Conservative staff and Conservative MPs who viewed the events of that evening as exactly that. Our MPs in our corner of the lobby enjoying the evening, knowing that we were about to come in and vote on a confidence matter, having a playful time in the House of Commons, chirping the NDP members who were voting on another side of the issue, which they do all the time. They are now just being selectively sanctimonious.

That being said, let me talk a bit about the NDP member's conduct in the House. We saw unhinged conduct directed at the Conservative lobby coordinator by the NDP member for Vancouver East. Not once, but on two occasions on Thursday night, she used profane language and likened him to a certain body part. On the second occasion, an NDP staffer had to physically come between her and the staffer in question, much like how the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms had to direct the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservatives she was harassing, as seen on the video that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have witnessed so far.

That interaction between the NDP member and the Conservative staff was an exercise of a position of power, to assert authority over and to bully an employee. There are witnesses to this conduct, as well as, I understand, a video, which I expect will be viewed in other forums.

Earlier in the evening, the hon. Conservative member for St. Albert—Edmonton was attempting to record a message for his constituents and Canadians about his work as our democratic reform shadow minister on Bill C-65, which proposes to delay the fixed-date election by a week in order to secure the pensions of 28 Liberal and NDP MPs.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

No, this is what happened on Thursday night. They seized an opportunity to try to deflect from their own strategic error. That being said, Canadians are smart and recognize what they are seeing, and the NDP knows this.

All that happened during Thursday night's vote was that 100 or so Conservative MPs, proud to be here to vote on behalf of their constituents, were voicing their opinion about the NDP's voting. If the Speaker actually watches the video of the vote, she will see that the four or five NDP members who were voting physically in the House actually reacted in a playful and good-humoured way, like gesturing that they could not hear, jokingly, what the Conservative colleagues were saying, not that they could not hear the Chair or the vote callers. They were actually looking at our members, joking around and playing it up for the cameras.

In the moment, that is how those MPs interpreted the noise that was coming from down the hall. We can actually see the NDP member for Port Moody—Coquitlam jokingly asking Conservative members to speak up, because she was pretending that she could not hear them.

That was the flavour and that is visible on the cameras. That is without debate. That is not my opinion. That is what the Speaker will see if she looks at the video from that evening.

Now, I do believe that all that might have drawn a brief intervention from the Chair, and the House moved on, as it naturally would. It is the Speaker's job to enforce decorum, enforce the rules and apply them when he or she believes that it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Conservative members heeded the call of the Chair, and the House moved on, as it would.

As for specific allegations that were made, I have it on very good authority that we categorically reject the NDP's defamatory, spurious and completely unfounded allegations of anyone being intoxicated. If the Speaker really wants to take a look at the validity of those allegations, the two members who the NDP accused, in this chamber, that was again caught on video, are two members who are non-drinkers. This is not only insulting to them, but it is incredibly dangerous that somebody can use the parliamentary privilege like the NDP House leader has done to make these unfounded and baseless accusations, which now have gone out into social media and have really damaged members' reputations without any substantiation at all. That is really a problem.

If the Speaker looks at the behaviour of members that evening, if there is a question of who might have been intoxicated, it certainly was not Conservative members. Yesterday, the NDP House leader made an intervention where he asserted a number of those outrageous—

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, out of respect for you, I will quickly move through this part.

I will just point out in the New Democrats' interventions on this, they had no problem using the House's time to come up with all kinds of wild theories and conjecture about motivations or even fabrications of what was going on. However, I will heed what you have said, Madam Speaker, and quickly just point out that clearly the New Democrats were frustrated that night.

I believe they saw an opportunity to deflect and distract from their decision to—

[Privilege, December 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, as promised yesterday, I am rising to make a more structured intervention on the question of privilege raised by the NDP member for London—Fanshawe.

I agree wholeheartedly with all my Conservative colleagues who have already risen on this matter. There is no question of privilege here whatsoever concerning the behaviour of the official opposition. If anything, the actual contempt here was when the NDP deputy House leader stormed up the aisle in a very physically demonstrative and verbally aggressive fashion to confront the Chair. She was quickly joined by the NDP member for Edmonton Griesbach.

That was, of course, in plain view of anyone watching the television feed of Thursday evening's proceedings of the House. She also confessed to it in her intervention Friday afternoon when she said, “After we adjourned, I approached the Chair to ask how this could have been allowed.”

That is a very polite way of putting it. If we look at the tape, the camera was still running after the Speaker adjourned the House. We can see the member in question, the NDP member, walking up very aggressively, waving wildly, pointing fingers and basically yelling at and admonishing the Speaker.

Standing Order 16(4) instructs us that, “When the House adjourns, members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the chair.” That clearly did not happen. If anything, the NDP deputy House leader's conduct reminded me of the incident described at footnote 345 on page 645 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

Perhaps the worst scene in modern times occurred in 1980 when closure was moved on a motion to establish a committee to study a constitutional resolution. Several Members, angered by the closure motion, stormed the Chair, demanding to be heard. The resulting disorder on the floor of the House led to the entrance, behind the curtains, of members of the protective staff on the orders of the Sergeant-at-Arms....

Thankfully, it did not quite get that far. We did not need armed police in here to address the NDP's chaos and disorder, but the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms did have to escort, physically, the NDP deputy House leader away from the Conservative benches after her unprofessional, erratic and unhinged attack on several Conservative MPs who, in compliance with the standing order, had remained seated and remained calm.

Like I said, if anything gives rise to a contempt, it is the storming of the Chair by the NDP deputy House leader. Had Conservatives wanted to, we could have raised our own question of privilege, which I believe would have been a slam dunk for securing a prima facie ruling from the Chair, but Conservatives believe that questions of privilege should be raised to address serious violations of the authority and dignity of Parliament, not to score cheap political points to deflect from a given party's strategic errors.

That is what I believe is behind the NDP deputy House leader's question of privilege. If you will grant me a little bit of latitude, I do believe that motive and context matters in this.

The NDP is suffering. What we are seeing is the lashing out of emotions that its predicament has built up. For three years, the NDP was in a coalition arrangement with the Liberal Prime Minister, aiding and abetting his disastrous policies for Canada, which has Canadians suffering—

[Privilege, December 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the right to come back to this question with a more comprehensive response.

However, I could not help but stand up and respond to a few of the erroneous points the NDP member just raised. I want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for pointing out that the New Democrats are often selective in their sanctimony about decorum in this place. They are often extremely noisy, heckling members when they have the floor, including during votes. They have suddenly found their “holier than thou” gene on this type of thing when they are often guilty of it themselves.

With regard to the specific allegations, I can tell the NDP member there are witnesses who saw everything our colleagues have pointed out. As well, we have videotape of the erratic and unhinged behaviour the NDP members exhibited when they marched up to the Speaker's chair. If she wants to talk about decorum, this was marching up to the Speaker's chair, hurling insults at the Speaker, after the House had already been adjourned, to the point where NDP members had to be taken back because they were violating the space of members of our side, most of whom were seated, calm and collected.

I do not know what happened to cause such erratic and unhinged behaviour on the part of the NDP. I will not speculate on that. However, I will be coming back with a more substantive response, including the eyewitness testimony of members who were in the lobby, who heard that member hurl abuse and profane and vulgar language at a staffer. An elected MP yelling insults at and using profane language against a staffer would also rise to the level of unparliamentary behaviour. As the member pointed out, it happened in the lobby, not in the chamber.

I would just point out that it is your job, Mr. Speaker, to enforce decorum during votes and during speeches, which you did that night. The Speaker made a judgment call on aspects of decorum that evening. Other than that, I believe that is where the matter should rest.

It was only after the NDP started making false and defamatory accusations, which I dare say they would never repeat outside the chamber, that we were forced to show Canadians the actual truth about what happened that evening, which consisted of NDP members of Parliament completely losing their cool, coming over in an aggressive and hostile manner, hurling abuse and yelling at members who were seated, calm and collected. That is the true story about what happened that night, and we will absolutely correct the record.