Andrew Scheer

[Business of the House, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking the Thursday question, because the calendar seems to change at a moment's notice, but if the government House leader would like to give us something we can hope for next week, I will let him do so now.

[Carbon Pricing, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, none of that is true.

What is true is that yesterday, in a historic vote, a majority of MPs demanded that the Prime Minister sit down and just listen to the premiers. It baffles understanding that he is so afraid of meeting with them. It is not as though they are going to ask him to put together Ikea furniture or help them move. They just want to put forward better ideas than hiking prices on everything.

What is he so afraid of? Is it Doug? Is it Blaine? I know Scott Moe. He is a really nice guy. Why does the Prime Minister not just meet with him?

[Carbon Pricing, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Now his carbon tax scheme is completely falling apart.

First, his own budget watchdog proved conclusively that most Canadians are worse off, even with the rebate. Then he was humiliated into granting a partial carve-out, because his Liberal MPs were sick of the backlash they were getting from their voters. Now a majority of premiers are demanding an emergency carbon tax conference to put forward better ideas than his punishing tax.

If the Prime Minister is so sure that his carbon tax is good, then why does he not just sit down and listen to the premiers?

[Government Response to Petitions, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that the government has just moved a motion, but the Chair had given notice that a ruling on a question of privilege would be forthcoming. Because it is a question of privilege, that always supersedes everything else that goes throughout the day. I was wondering if the Speaker would be delivering his ruling on the question of privilege before entertaining this motion.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should have a recorded division on this.

[Business of Supply, April 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do.

[Privilege, April 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,

(a) at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment later this day or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the motion on the question of privilege standing in the name of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes regarding summoning Kristian Firth to the bar of the House and the amendment standing in the name of the member for Kingston and the Islands, be deemed withdrawn; and

(b) the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, expressed in its 17th report, find Kristian Firth to be in contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions and for prevaricating in his answers to other questions and, accordingly, order him to attend at the bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, for the purposes of:

(i) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker;

(ii) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 17th report;

(iii) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 17th report;

provided that

(iv) during Mr. Firth's attendance at the bar for the purpose of responding to questions, which shall be asked by members, with questions and answers being addressed through the Speaker,

(A) 10 minutes be allocated to each recognized party for the first and second rounds in the following order: Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party,

(B) during the third round, five minutes be allocated to each of the recognized parties with an additional five-minute period for the Green Party,

(C) within each 10- or five-minute period of questioning, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members,

(D) in the case of questions and answers, Mr. Firth's answers shall approximately reflect the time taken by the question,

(v) at the expiry of time provided herein, and after Mr. Firth has been excused from further attendance, the House shall resume consideration of the usual business of the House for a Wednesday,

(vi) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to consider Mr. Firth's testimony at the bar of the House and, if necessary, recommend further action.

[Interim Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to join my voice and those of the official opposition to what the government House leader just said. As everyone has an opportunity to go home and spend the last few days of Lent in contemplation, everyone on this side of the House wishes all the staff, the House administration, members of Parliament, their staff and all Canadians who are observing this important feast in the Christian calendar a very blessed Holy Thursday, a holy week, a meaningful Good Friday and, of course, a joyous Easter.

When all thought it was dark and reason to despair, a light came at the end of it and life triumphed over death. Happy Easter to all Canadians.

[Privilege, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a very brief intervention in response to the government House leader's parliamentary secretary's response to my question of privilege on Bill C-63 and the leak that occurred.

The parliamentary secretary's 25-minute submission extensively quoted the Internet. What it did not do, however, was explain exactly how the sources whom Travis Dhanraj and Rachel Aiello spoke to were lucky enough to state precisely which of the options the government consulted on would make it into the bill.

Had the reporting been based on the published consultation documents, the media reports would have said so, but they did not. They quoted “sources” who were “not authorized to speak publicly on the matter before the bill is tabled in Parliament.” The parliamentary secretary's implication that the sources were all stakeholders uninformed about the ways of Parliament is demonstrably untrue. CTV's source was “a senior government source”. The CBC attributed its article to “two sources, including one with the federal government”. Besides, had these sources actually all been stakeholders speaking about previous consultations, why would they have sought anonymity to begin with, let alone specify the need for anonymity, because the bill had not yet been introduced?

As I said back on February 26, the leakers knew what they were doing. They knew it was wrong, and they knew why it was wrong. We are not talking about general aspects of the bill that might have been shared with stakeholders during consultation processes. We are talking about very detailed information that was in the legislation and was leaked to the media before it was tabled in the House. That is the issue we are asking you to rule on, Mr. Speaker.