Andrew Scheer

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 27th, 2024]

With regard to bonuses paid out at Crown corporations in the 2023-24 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 (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 27th, 2024]

With regard to bonuses paid out at government departments or agencies in the 2023-24 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 (EX) level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent, received bonuses; and (c) of the amount paid out in bonuses, how much went to officials (i) at or above the EX level or equivalent, (ii) below the EX level or equivalent?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very long way of saying, yes, the Liberals have granted house arrest to dangerous car thieves; as a result, car thefts have gone up massively—

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the minister is so desperate not to answer the question and is hiding behind things that he knows are just not true. It is because crime has gone up massively: Homicides are up 43% since the Liberal government took over, gang-related homicides are up 105%, and violent gun crimes are up 101%.

On the one hand, the minister talks about how bad mandatory minimums are; on the other, he brags that the government actually kept some mandatory minimums. It is completely incoherent. He is completely self-contradictory.

He talked about car thefts. Did the Government of Canada expand the use of conditional sentencing, in other words, house arrest, for criminals who steal cars, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, no judge ordered the government to make it easier to restrict judges from looking at other options, including keeping dangerous and repeat offenders in jail longer. The direct result of Bill C-75 is that Canada now has a catch-and-release bail system. The minister does not have to take my word for it. He can listen to the Victoria Police Department, which said in a statement, “Bill C-75, which came into effect nationally in 2019, legislated a 'principle of restraint' that requires police to release an accused person at the earliest possible opportunity”.

Let us look at what that language says. It specifically states, “a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

Can the minister just answer a simple question? There are only two options: Since Bill C-75, either the crime rate went up or the crime rate went down. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, has the crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to auto theft in a moment, but first I want to just clarify: Bill C-75 made specific changes to make bail easier for dangerous and repeat offenders. I am not talking about any other aspect of bill C-75. Since those specific changes in Bill C-75, has the overall crime rate gone up or down in Canada?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there has been so much misinformation from the Minister of Justice, so I am going to try one last time to get some clarity around some key points.

The NDP-Liberal government made a conscious decision to not just make it easier but actually force judges to grant bail for dangerous and repeat offenders. That was in their bill, Bill C-75. Since those changes in the government's bill, has the overall crime rate in Canada gone up or down?

[Points of Order, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the NDP House leader on April 30 and May 1, to which the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a significant addition on May 8.

At its heart, the point of order is, I believe, an effort to censor and silence the fallout from the controversial events that happened during question period on April 30, an event none of us will forget any time soon. The hon. member for Lethbridge was called to order about comments concerning the Chair. She withdrew those comments, yet was named by the Chair and kicked out for the day.

The member's withdrawal of her comments, which was recorded in the blues, never made it into the day's Debates. That is an important distinction, because the blues are the temporary recording and transcript of what happened in the House, but what actually gets published and permanently put up on the parliamentary website, and indeed printed, are the Debates. The withdrawal was in the blues but somehow never made it into the permanent record. The Chair is currently seized with a question of privilege concerning that alarming editing of our records to align with the Speaker's conduct.

Then, the Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition as having “spineless leadership”. Though the Speaker may have chided the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was neither sanctioned nor disciplined. Immediately after, however, the Leader of the Opposition's next question also offered strong language, yet the Speaker applied a different standard to the Conservative Party's leader than he did to the Liberal Party's leader.

As a result, the Leader of the Opposition was also named and banished from the House for the day. Conservatives left the House for the balance of question period, as you might understand, after our leader had been, incredibly, ordered to stop questioning the Prime Minister about British Columbia's disastrous drug decriminalization experience and to leave the chamber. Nonetheless, I am not here to litigate that matter.

The main substance of the point of order now before the Chair lies in tweets many members of the Conservative caucus published in the minutes immediately following the shocking decision to name the Leader of the Opposition and expel him from the House in the middle of question period.

The NDP-Liberal coalition spokespersons on this matter have each suggested that various Conservative MPs must “withdraw their tweets”, which I assume means deleting the tweets, and apologize before returning to the House. In other words, they would prefer Conservatives just stay silent and not draw any public attention to how the House is operating during these days of an NDP-Liberal coalition government in Canada.

As I mentioned, those members raised this as a point of order. As you would know, points of order concern House proceedings and irregularity in procedures. It is also well established that statements made outside the House do not fall within the Speaker's purview to maintain order here, under points of order, within the chamber in ensuring that House proceedings run smoothly. I would refer the Chair to page 620 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which says quite clearly, “The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.”

In fact, this point was made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on April 30, when the NDP House leader first raised the point of order, saying, at page 22816 of the Debates, “The other [aspect] that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated.”

Several of your predecessors have been invited to weigh in on statements made by members outside the walls of the chamber. In one of the earliest rulings concerning tweets, Speaker Milliken held, at page 1284 of the Debates for April 1, 2010:

It is clearly impossible for the Chair to police the use of personal digital devices by members, for example, by trying to distinguish whether certain texting has originated from the Chamber or not. Nor would the Chair want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House.

In any event, as you will recall, Conservative MPs exited the chamber after the Leader of the Opposition was named, so they had tweeted from outside the House. Moreover, since the leader and the hon. member for Lethbridge had been named, their subsequent tweets, which were among those of concern in the point of order, simply could not have been published from inside the chamber.

Turning back to the precedents on point, one of your more recent predecessors, Speaker Regan, said on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates, “the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.” Speaker Regan expanded upon this point in his October 30, 2018, ruling, at page 23033 of the Debates, stating, “As a result...the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place”.

Another of your predecessors explained the underlying principle for this approach on February 9, 2012, at page 5096 of the Debates:

We know that outside the chamber, when a member or anyone may say something that would offend or call into question someone's character, there are remedies that are not available inside the chamber. That is usually why the authority of the Speaker does not extend outside the chamber for things that are said.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to heed the well-trodden ground of your predecessors and find that the member's comments made outside the House, including tweets, simply do not come within your jurisdiction to maintain order within the chamber. A point of order raised on this very question simply is not under the Speaker's purview.

Before concluding, there is one final point I would like to add, because I know the Chair is seized with a couple of different aspects of the events of April 30. In a May 1 Canadian Press article on the opposition leader's naming, one might read this passage:

A spokesman for [the Speaker] said Wednesday that the Speaker didn't just single out [the leader of the opposition], noting he also asked [the Prime Minister] to reframe one of his questions after he called [the member for Carleton] a “spineless leader”.

“The prime minister reframed his answer,” Mathieu Gravel said.

Mathieu Gravel is the spokesman for the Speaker. That is a direct quote: “The Prime Minister reframed his answer”. The quote goes on:

“The Speaker offered [the Leader of the Opposition] four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. [The Conservative Leader] did not avail himself of those opportunities.”

That is the Speaker's spokesman speaking on behalf of the Speaker publicly to the media on events that happened in the chamber.

Let me read Hansard from that day. There is the first interaction with the Speaker, saying, “I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary.” The opposition leader then said, “Mr. Speaker, I replace ‘wacko’ with ‘extremist’.”

The Speaker got up again and said, “I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please.” The Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with ‘radical’.”

The Speaker then goes on to say, “I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please.” Here is the key phrase that comes next; the Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.”

Here we have the spokesman for the Speaker saying that the Prime Minister reframed his answer, as an excuse for why the Prime Minister did not face any sanction. The spokesman for the Speaker said that the Speaker offered four opportunities to withdraw his comments and reframe his question, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not avail himself of those opportunities.

As I just said, the Leader of the Opposition absolutely did withdraw it and reframe it, exactly as the Speaker's spokesman said publicly in the media but in a way to suggest that it did not happen. It actually happened, if we look at the video of that day's events and Hansard, which is printed.

If it is fair game for the Speaker, through his spokesman, to comment outside the chamber on House proceedings with what, I would submit, is an incorrect and inaccurate spin, then it can only be equally fair for other members to make their own comments outside the chamber about what happened during this unprecedented sequence of events. I trust that any ruling on this current point of order from the NDP-Liberal coalition would not result in double standards being created or extended.

[Business of the House, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for what some say is the most exciting part of the week.

I just want to point something out, and I hope the Minister of Public Safety hears this. It is important to note for the record that in the MOU that set up the Hogue inquiry, during the discussions on that, requests were made by the official opposition to include very strict parameters about providing cabinet confidences to Justice Hogue. We were told we were in a take-it-or-leave-it position, so it is very disingenuous to now say it was the opposition that agreed to holding up cabinet confidences. Of course, we would have no reason to want or agree to that. That is an important thing to clarify.

As the Thursday question is related to the upcoming business of the House, I would like to ask the government House Leader this: What will the business be for the rest of this week and for next week, and can Canadians hope for some relief at the pumps? Will the government bring in legislation to remove all federal gas taxes, the carbon tax, the excise tax and the GST, off fuel so Canadians can afford a modest summer road trip?

As the government-caused inflation and interest rate crisis has taken such a big bite out of Canadians' paycheques, many are hoping just to be able to scrape enough together for their hotel bills and fuel bills. Taking the tax off fuel would go a long way towards providing Canadians an affordable summer vacation. Can members and Canadians expect any legislation that would provide them with that much-needed relief?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 22nd, 2024]

With regard to government expenditures on appearance fees, speaking fees, hosting fees, or other similar type of fees, since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of all such expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date of the event, (ii) description of the role (keynote speaker, master of ceremony, etc.), (iii) name of the speaker, (iv) location of the event, (v) event description, (vi) size of the audience or the number of attendees, (vii) amount paid?