Andrew Scheer

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, you just literally referenced the point that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and I made about when the amendment is so different. The original motion would call for a unilateral recognition; the revised motion would call for a negotiated one. Those are two diametrically opposed aspects of the motion. This is not a question of refining the main motion; this is a massively substantive change to the original motion that would rise to the level of defeating the main motion.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, given what you have just said, and after having some discussion among members of various parties, I am sure there will be agreement to allow members to do their due diligence.

If we are going to take this seriously, if we are going to show Canadians and the world that foreign policy is not done on the back of a napkin with two negotiators and without any kind of consultation, I ask for unanimous consent to defer the vote until tomorrow.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, in the moment, you might have made a ruling. It is common for Chair occupants to do this, before necessarily hearing arguments, when it is expected to be of a routine nature.

However, as many Chair occupants have had to deal with in the past, when parties raise substantive objections after an initial ruling, the Speaker can go back and take a look at it in light of the objections raised. In that spirit, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will seriously consider the points that I am about to raise.

First, we should talk about how we got here. Normally, under the motion that was adopted to guide votes in the House, there is a provision that any recorded division that is demanded is deferred until the next sitting day. First and foremost, that would be the normal course of events. Today is the allotted day for the NDP. If that happened normally, at the end of the day, the Speaker would interrupt and defer the vote until the next day. All members would have the opportunity to study the main motion and any amendments that were received.

That is not happening today for a very particular reason: On the sitting day prior to the two-week constituency break, all parties agreed to not sit on the Friday after the passing of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. In order to facilitate the respect being given to former prime minister Mulroney, all parties agreed to a couple of things.

The NDP agreed to have their opposition day today, Monday, instead of the Friday before that break period. In exchange for that, Conservatives agreed to a motion that would require the vote to be held at the end of the day. That was a good faith measure in order to accommodate the spirit of all MPs who were paying tribute to a deceased prime minister. That was granted.

Now we find ourselves, today, literally at the eleventh hour of the debate, with a massive change to the motion. We are not just talking about a slight amendment to a coming into force date or tweaking a number here or there. We are talking about 14 substantive amendments to the main motion. Many of these rise to the level of what I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule out of scope. They rise to the level of having the same effect as defeating the motion itself. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on this, saying that to have such a substantive amendment that it completely changes the nature of the original motion is out of order.

The proper way of dealing with a motion that is unacceptable to a member of Parliament is to vote against it. If there is a small adjustment that could be made to accommodate one group, one desire or one perspective or another, that is one thing. This happens all the time. There are amendments moved at committees and on the floor.

However, the jurisprudence from the Speaker on altering the main motion so dramatically is very clear. Rather than seeking to amend that motion, the proper course of action is for MPs to vote against the motion, defeat it and come back with a substantive motion that would incorporate the changes that any member was seeking.

As I go through the list, the first one is so glaring. The original motion calls on the Government of Canada to unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine. The amendment is so different, and it is not just my view. I think any fair reading of the motion would say that this has the effect of negating the original motion.

Amendment (m) seeks to replace paragraph (h) with the following: “reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution, and advocate for an end to the decades long occupation of Palestinian territories”. That is substantially different from unilaterally recognizing the state of Palestine.

Amendment (n) seeks to replace paragraph (i) with the following: “work with international partners to actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution”.

That is so different. The original motion just says that Canada would recognize the state of Palestine. The amended motion says that it would work toward achieving that goal, work toward a negotiated two-state solution, which by the way is the long-standing position of previous governments. That change is no mere grammatical or semantic change. It is the crux of what is being debated today.

It is a major point in the debate that has been carried all day today, so to bring that amendment forward in the form of a last-minute amendment to the main motion rises to the level of being so out of scope and so fundamentally altering the nature of the main motion that it should be ruled out of order.

I could go on and on. There was no notice of this. We, in the opposition, negotiated in good faith before the break week to accommodate the NDP supply day. We agreed to hold the vote at the end of the day. Normally, this vote would have happened tomorrow. At the very least, there should have been some kind of notice.

I believe this calls for the Speaker to rule this amendment out of order, or at the very least, to use the power of the Chair to defer the vote until tomorrow, where in so doing all MPs would have time to absorb these massive changes and vote on them. In essence, give members of Parliament the time they would have had if the normal course of the parliamentary calendar unfolded with supply days and deferred votes.

I strongly object to this amendment being ruled in order. I urge the Speaker to reconsider this in light of the precedents I cited and the aspects of the amendment that contradict in such a direct way the essence of the main motion. At the very least, and I do not want to give the Speaker an alternative to what I just suggested because that is the main thrust of the argument, use the power the Speaker has to so order the flow of business to defer the vote until tomorrow, after which MPs will have had the time to examine exactly what is before them.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to the ArriveCAN application, broken down by each department or agency that worked on the application: (a) how many employees worked on the application; and (b) how many man-hours and working days were spent working on the application?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to government subsidies to Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (QCJO): (a) what is the total amount of subsidies paid to QCJOs in total, broken down by year for each of the last five years; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of tax credit or subsidy; (c) how many organizations have applied for the QCJO designation; (d) of the applications in (c), how many were (i) approved, (ii) rejected; (e) how many QCJOs received subsidies, broken down by year for each of the last five years; and (f) without identifying the organization, what is the breakdown of (e) by subsidy range for each type of subsidy (i.e. under $100,000, $100,001-$500,000, etc.)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to the government's participation in the UN Climate Change Conference, the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai: (a) how many and which individuals were part of the Canadian delegation that travelled to Dubai; (b) what were the titles of all individuals in (a); (c) were there any delegation members in (a) for which the government did not pay the expenses of, and, if so, which members; (d) what are the names and titles of all other individuals who attended the COP28 for whom the government paid expenses; (e) what are the total expenditures incurred by the government to date related to the conference, broken down by type; (f) what is the government's estimate of the carbon footprint resulting from the Canadian delegation's travel to and from the conference; and (g) for the delegations accommodations in Dubai, (i) what hotels were used, (ii) how much was spent at each hotel, (iii) how many rooms were rented at each hotel and for how many nights, (iv) what was the room rate, or range of room rates, paid at each hotel?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

With regard to expenditures incurred by the government related to the Prime Minister’s trip to Jamaica which began on or around December 26, 2023: (a) what are the expenditures to date, including those incurred by the Privy Council Office, the RCMP, and any other department or agency that was involved in the trip, including any advance work done to prepare for the trip, in total and broken down by type of expense (e.g. accommodation, fuel, per diems, etc.); (b) what was the total amount of expenditures incurred for accommodations at (i) Prospect Estate and Villas, (ii) other hotels or properties, broken down by vendor; (c) for each expenditure in (b), what was the (i) number of rooms rented at each resort, (ii) number of nights stayed, (iii) nightly rate; (d) what are the details of the legs of each challenger flight that travelled between Canada and Jamaica in relation to the trip, including, for each leg, the (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) names and titles of passengers, excluding security personnel, (v) amount of fuel used, (vi) fuel cost, (vii) catering cost, (viii) other costs, broken down by type; (e) what are the details of the problem or malfunction that occurred with the initial Challenger jet that causes a second Challenger jet to be flown to Jamaica; and (f) how much did it cost to fix the problem or malfunction in (e)?

[Carbon Pricing, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals desperately do not want to answer for the carbon tax pain they are causing Canadians. No one is fooled by the ridiculous rebate ruse the government is selling. That is because Canadians know that the carbon tax rebate was specifically designed to exclude all the secondary costs that go up when the producer, the shipper and the retailer all have to pay their higher share of carbon taxes. Middle-income earners across Canada are worse off, even after the rebate. They are $900 worse off in Alberta, $500 worse off in Saskatchewan, and $600 worse off in Ontario.

Why does the Prime Minister not show some compassion and spike the hike?

[Carbon Pricing, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Thanks to his policies, millions of Canadians are visiting a food bank for the first time in their lives.

As if prices were not high enough already, the Prime Minister is planning a 23% hike on the carbon tax in a cruel April Fool's Day joke. However, the tax revolt is happening, as 70% of Canadians and 70% of premiers are opposed and fighting back, just like in Saskatchewan, where the budget watchdog has determined that Saskatchewan families will pay an extra $2,620 in carbon taxes. I have a simple question: Where are Saskatchewan families supposed to come up with $2,600 to pay his tax?

[Business of the House, February 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the weekly Thursday question. I just want to let my colleague, the government House leader, know that the Conservatives are ready to quickly pass any legislation that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget or stop the crime. They need not use extended sittings to do that, if they come forward with common-sense, practical plans, not like the inflationary deficits and soft-on-crime approach that have unleashed so much crime and chaos in our community.

Can the government House leader inform the House whether any of that will be coming the week we come back? If not, what will the government actually be calling for debate.