Andrew Scheer

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an issue that we identified, as early as April, as one of the things we could all be working together to solve if we agreed on the principle that Parliament should sit. We could have spent the last few weeks on this. Instead of arguing as to whether Parliament should sit, we should say, yes, we will sit.

How do we tackle that? How do we make sure that a member who cannot come to Ottawa because of a health concern or because of a travel concern—

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I was talking about the effect of all the accumulated debt. I would like to go back to that, but I want to touch on a few things that came out of question period and in the debate we have had today.

As it relates to the global reaction to the coronavirus COVID-19, there are a lot of questions about the role of the communist government of China, how it suppressed information in the early days, how it punished whistleblowers. Doctors who were uploading videos warning the world about the dangers of this virus suddenly disappeared. Those are people's spouses, brothers, sisters, children. They are gone. We know what happens to people who disappear in communist countries. We can only hope and pray that those individuals will be unharmed and freed soon.

What happened today in question period was very upsetting. I put it to the Prime Minister several times that this would be an opportunity for him to condemn the actions of the communist government of China, violating the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, not to express concerns, not to issue a statement calling for a de-escalation but calling out wrong as it exists, calling out evil as it exists. The refusal to do so diminishes and downplays the egregious attack on the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong in which the PRC has engaged. It makes it seem like this is a normal dispute.

Canada raises concerns all the time about things that are going on around the world. Raising concern is a very polite diplomatic expression. Condemning the actions of the PRC is what is required to send a clear signal around the world that freedom-loving countries will stand together against this aggressive act. The Prime Minister refused to do so.

The government talks a good game often, but when the chips are down, when real action is required, this is what we saw today. It was an opportunity to send a clear condemnation. It would also send a signal to the people of Hong Kong that they were not alone. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens in Hong Kong who are now having their rights and freedoms infringed. They are looking to the government to be their voice, and the government has failed to do so.

Therefore, I hope that in the coming days, the pressure that the opposition party puts on the government will reluctantly force it to do the bad thing. We know that is one thing which the Liberals pay attention to, when public attention starts to shift, the Liberals say, “You didn't like our principles before, well how about these ones.”

The Liberals are now claiming that they have been raising some of these concerns about China. Let us not forget that for the past almost five years now, the government has pursued a policy of appeasement as it relates to the PRC. The Prime Minister went over to China in pursuit of a free trade deal, despite the fact that many people were warning about a free trade deal with a country that has so many state-owned enterprises, that subsidized, that used state-owned companies to pursue the political goals of the government of China; despite the fact that the companies that operated in China did not face the same environmental or labour standards as they did here; despite the fact that those companies were not subject to the same accountability and disclosure laws that we had in Canada. Of course, the Prime Minister, who was given a loving nickname of “little potato” by the PRC, came home empty handed. Therefore, he even failed to achieve his own objective. We disagreed with the objective, so we were glad he came home without a deal, but it displayed the little respect that other world leaders had for the current Prime Minister.

We are going to keep it up, but remember the Liberals started out trying to pursue that free trade deal and then along the way the government of China put blocks on our exports. The Chinese blocked our canola exports and they threatened to take similar action. All the while, two Canadian citizens are being held illegally. We would think the Prime Minister would do something.

I wish we were having a debate on whether the reaction of the Liberal government was appropriate. I wish I could say that these are our ideas, that they have their ideas and let us have a debate about whose ideas are better to stand up for Canada to show the government of China that there are consequences for violating international rules of law.

The Liberals have done nothing. We cannot debate their ideas versus our ideas because their idea is to continue to do absolutely nothing. Worse than that, they are continuing to pursue the policy of appeasement, which includes taking over $250 million out of the Canadian economy, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, to build roads and bridges in other countries to further the interests of the PRC.

The communist government of China has a belt and road policy. It is expanding its reach. It has a game plan that has been put to use where it builds critical infrastructure in developing countries. When those countries face any kind of financial difficulty or are unable to pay, it freezes those assets and now it has footholds in different regions around the world. We are very concerned about the string of pearls policy of the government, which is aimed at encircling another democratic country in the region, India.

The Conservatives are going to keep up the pressure. We hope the government will listen to us. In the next election there will be a clear contrast before the Canadian people, the continue to do nothing approach of the Liberal government and letting farmers, exporters of canola and other products down, letting down the two Canadians who are being held illegally and letting down people in our country who want to see Canada be that champion for human rights and freedoms around the world. We are going to keep up the pressure on our end.

When I was speaking to the motion before, I was talking about the fallacy of the Liberal government's usage of the debt-to-GDP ratio as a way of assuring Canadians not to worry. Just before question period I was talking about how the federal government debt was just but one small part of that debt-to-GDP ratio. The federal government debt is just one saddle on that horse, the engine of our economy that has to pull everything along.

In addition to federal government debt, we have provincial debt and we have corporate debt. We also have individual debt. At the very least, we should stop saddling the horse with more debt. We should stop putting more and more weight on it.

In the meantime, when we are thinking of how we emerge out from this downturn, we need to be thinking about how we can supercharge the economy, how we can really tap into the entrepreneurship and hard work of Canadians, freeing them to do what they do best and have done best through history. That is where we really get into a debate over the role of government.

That is fundamentally the biggest difference between Conservatives and Liberals, whatever we call ourselves at any particular moment in time. In Canada, it is Liberals and Conservatives. In other countries, the political parties have different names. However, throughout human history, the role of government has been the essential question.

The problem is there are so many people who confuse society and government. They blend them together. They think that if we want society to be a certain way or to do a certain thing that it is the government's job to do that. In reality, the two could not be more different. Not only are they different in substance, in nature, but their origins are different. Where society comes from is diametrically opposed to where government comes from.

Society comes from the positive elements of human nature, the good aspects of human nature. Society is built around human beings interacting in a positive way: a buyer and a seller, friends getting together, a group of people with common interests creating a club or a society to enjoy music, literature or the arts. That is what society is. Society is people coming together in a positive way.

Government comes out of our fallen nature. Because we are fallen beings, government is created to address that aspect of human nature. It is there to protect people from the negative aspects of human nature. Therefore, we have a police, we have courts and we have institutions to ensure nobody falls through the cracks. If individuals themselves are not able or willing to be generous to look after those who cannot help themselves, then government steps in to provide for those gaps in society. However, by definition, it is a creature of our fallen state.

Therefore, we should not put all our faith in that government, or in any government, because the nature of government is so much different than society.

I was walking down the steps here and I saw a book that I read a few years ago. It is a fantastic book and I wish more people in government offices read the book. It is called Economics in One Lesson. Some of my colleagues may have read it. I will go into that in a moment, but I want to make a further point about the role of government.

We know that perfection is not for this side of eternity. We know that. Because of human nature, we are never going to create a perfect society. We can always try to do better. We can always try to improve upon ourselves and challenge ourselves individually and collectively to do that. I often get asked to participate in the National Prayer Breakfast, and I have. When I was Speaker, I enjoyed being the honorary chair of the National Prayer Breakfast. As the leader of the opposition, I have been honoured to participate as well.

I used to always tell the organizers of the National Prayer Breakfast that there really was no bad time to pray. The start for the National Prayer Breakfast was at 7:00 a.m. I used to always make the point that we could have a national prayer afternoon tea, we could have a national prayer brunch or we could even do it in the evening, a national prayer cocktail hour, but they never took me up on my suggestions.

When I was asked to give a talk this year, I found a passage in scripture that I think best illustrates this point about the role of government and how government itself comes out of our inability to be perfect beings, that because of that, government is a necessary evil. If we look at the first book of Samuel, chapter 8 to the end of 18, we see that the Israelites ask the Lord for a king. They want to be like other nations. They ask God to choose one of them to be king so they can be like other countries and they will have all the majesty that comes with having a worldly king. Samuel goes and tells this to God and this is what happens next.

This is the first book of Samuel, chapter 8, verse 10:

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants...He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

I would take 10%. That sounds like a steal. That is a bargain compared to what the government has imposed upon Canadians.

I will conclude, and I know that probably brings a lot of joy to those on the opposite side, who do not want freedom as much as we do. I heard a member for the NDP say something a few minutes ago, talking about being on the side of people, but he misses a massive point here.

The NDP and the Liberals always say, and Margaret Thatcher summed this up perfectly, their slogan is "Power to the People", but what they really mean is "Power to the State". They really mean power to the government. They do not actually mean to empower people. To empower people is to give them freedom, to give them choices and to give them options. That is what real power to the people means. It means getting the government out of the way. If people have a better widget or a better mousetrap, let them innovate, expand and excel and take their ideas, combine it with their industry and combine it with the capital they may have raised from their friends and family or the public. That is what creates wealth and prosperity. That is what true freedom is.

Let us never forget that free markets are just as much a democratic institution as other aspects of our society. When I was Speaker, I met President Sarkozy in Paris, France, at the height of the financial crisis. He talked about an irony: Before the financial collapse of 2008, a lot of corporate executives were not trying to see him, but in the aftermath of the downturn, there was a path beaten in the lawn from their offices to his office. He told them that if they wanted support from the government, they had to recognize that the government was there on behalf of the people. I remember saying to him that the free market itself is an expression of intent and an expression of what the people want. When people are free to choose for themselves, when they have the ability to go about their business with minimal government impact, they can express themselves in many different ways.

That is what we have lost in this country. The Liberals are so good at forcing the conversation so that it always includes an expansion of government control and government power. We have seen it time and time again.

There is a great quote in a movie I am very fond of, The Usual Suspects, from Kevin Spacey. Near the end of the movie, he says, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.” There is a kind of parallel there to big-government Liberals. Once the government provides a good or a service, they trick people into thinking that if the government did not provide it, it would not get done.

However, we know the history of human beings is exactly the opposite of that. It is almost always the case that society comes up with solutions to challenges and then government comes along, gets in the way and taxes and regulates them to the point that it has to step in in many situations. It then tells people that if the government was not doing it, it would never get done.

We know that is not true. When we look back at the course of human history and at the quality of life we have today, would my colleagues rather live at any other time in history? Was there ever a time when every single human being had it so good? We have the ability to get fresh fruits and vegetables in the winter. We have the ability to communicate with people around the world instantaneously. Modern medicine is curing diseases that took out millions of people just two or three generations ago.

My wife's grandmother is still alive, and she tells stories about digging a hole in the backyard and putting a block of ice on a little shelf. That is where she would store fruits and vegetables for as long as they would last. Almost everything was pickled or preserved for the winter. That was her quality of life. I can speak to someone who lived that lifestyle just a short while ago, but because of free market capitalism, we have seen a massive expansion, a massive increase in our quality of life. That is what the Conservatives will be arguing for in the future to get us out of the negative consequences of this pandemic.

Under the previous Conservative government, when we adopted a low-tax strategy, we lowered taxes every way the government collected it. We left more and more money in the economy. We had a one-for-one rule for government regulations. For every rule that was drawn up in boardrooms in Ottawa that had to apply across the country, many of which were outdated or duplicates of provincial regulations, one had to go out, to prune the growth of government, to leave more of our economy to the free market. We invested in critical infrastructure that had the potential to, and even did, open up new markets, like bridges, roads and ports. All across the country there are concrete examples of the previous Conservative government's strategic investments to maximize the growth that would come along with the tax cuts and the reduction in regulations.

What about the results? Under the previous Conservative government, the number of children living in poverty fell by 31%, the biggest reduction on record. Our tax cuts helped lower-income Canadians. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and financial experts agreed that the overwhelming beneficiaries of our economic policy were low-income Canadians. The real median wage went up by 8.6% and 12% for women, meaning a person earning a median income saw an increase of over $3,800.

Under the current Liberal government, wages have barely budged, up just 2%. What does that say about its economic policies? That is one of the biggest problems about the government: It hurts the very people that it claims it tries to help. That is always the problem with big-government leftist programs.

With the carbon tax, not only did emissions go up under a program that was supposed to reduce them, but it hurt rural people the most and people with lower incomes. Cancelling popular tax credits made it harder for parents to keep their children in activities and sports. After the Liberals changed the tax code, the richest Canadians actually ended up paying less. They have raised CPP premiums. That is a payroll tax. The percentage of that increase hits those with lower incomes more than it hits those with higher incomes because of the ceiling on CPP taxable benefits.

Remember the Prime Minister's attack on small business owners? I heard from so many women entrepreneurs who said that every legitimate tax tool that they were trying to use to grow their businesses or take over from their families demonized them. The Prime Minister called them tax cheats. Of course, all that borrowed money comes with a massive cost.

There is a difference between the two approaches. On the Conservative side, we put our faith in people, recognizing that society is bigger than government. I hope members opposite can appreciate this. Look at the calamity that has happened with just three months' worth of lockdown in Canada. Look at the economic consequences. I hope this allows the Liberals to realize that no amount of government spending can ever replace the power of the free market private sector in this country or anywhere else around the world. As history has proven time and time again, freedom, liberty and democratic government are the surest path to prosperity.

In the days ahead, other opposition parties may want to shirk their duties, but my colleagues and I were elected to do a job and we are going to continue doing that.

Remember the first time this House came together after March 15? The very first thing the Liberals tried to do, effectively, was to sideline Parliament, giving themselves unprecedented powers to tax, borrow and spend. No other government in Canadian history had tried to do what the Liberals did. Their reaction when they were caught was telling. They said it was fine; it is how this is supposed to work. They are supposed to try for unprecedented power grabs. Then the opposition should rap their knuckles and they should come up with a compromise that may not give them everything that was being asked for but has more than they had before.

The Liberals have used this crisis to benefit themselves politically, and that is what they are doing again today. Sidelining Parliament is a similar move, reducing the effectiveness of elected representatives during a time when we need more oversight and accountability. Every single time the House has been together, the Conservatives have improved government programs. We have improved their legislation, we have identified gaps and weaknesses and we have gotten better results for the Canadian people. Ultimately, that is what this exercise is about.

Even if it may not be in the House, should the Liberals get their way, the Conservatives will continue opposing the government's destructive taxes, reckless spending and dangerous borrowing. We will continue to stand up for the most vulnerable among us. We will continue to fight for a strong, united Canada that is a force for good in the world. We will respect the sacred trust and this institution.

We will work on behalf of Canadians. We will do everything we can to defend this democratic institution that has served this country so well through so many challenges in the past.

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very simple questions for my colleague.

I thought he made a very eloquent point about how human beings yearn for freedom. They undergo great risk to achieve that freedom.

We all remember, at least those of us who grew up as the Iron Curtain was falling, the footage of people jubilantly celebrating the end of the separation between East and West Berlin. It was remarked at the time that for the decades that wall stood, no one was ever shot trying to jump into East Berlin. No one has ever paddled a raft to get to Cuba. Human beings will go through tremendous hardship to get that freedom, and Hong Kong people had it. They had it for 100 years or more and now it is being taken away by the PRC.

First, would my colleague agree that the hopes of reform under the previous Chinese governments have dissipated? Ten or 15 years ago the western world was very hopeful that China might be embracing these types of reforms.

Second, was he as dismayed as I was that the Prime Minister, during question period today, refused to condemn the actions of the PRC?

[Auditor General of Canada, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know question period is over, but there are a lot of discussions going on behind the scenes as to how the House will operate in the next few days. I would be happy to amend my motion if the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader could tell us exactly which part of it he disagreed with.

[Auditor General of Canada, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, since the House just approved the motion for a permanent Auditor General, I hope that in that spirit I will get unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to audit all federal programs associated with Canada's COVID-19 response and to complete all previously scheduled audits and all audits requested by the House; and call on the government to provide the Office of the Auditor General all the funding it needs to carry out these audits and any other work it deems appropriate.

[Foreign Affairs, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Prime Minister has actually done nothing to stand up for Canadians.

What did he do after two Canadians were held illegally by the PRC? He still wrote that cheque to the Asian infrastructure bank and still gave that institution Canadian taxpayers' money to help further the advancements of the foreign policy of China.

Here we are today, and he refuses to condemn these actions. These are actions that have been condemned by governments around the world, by public policy institutions. Why is it so hard for him to just call this out for what it is, an abuse of the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong?

[Foreign Affairs, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, why is it so hard for the Prime Minister to condemn the actions of the communist government in China? The Prime Minister has let Canada get bullied and pushed around on the world stage. Two Canadians are being held illegally. The government of China put blocks on Canadian exports. All the while, the Prime Minister has done nothing.

Now the PRC is violating the one country, two systems policy and violating the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. What is he so afraid of? Why is it so hard to stand up to the PRC? Why does he continue with the policy of appeasement?

[Foreign Affairs, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, a concrete way that the Prime Minister can actually support the people of Hong Kong is to unequivocally condemn the actions of the communist regime in Beijing. It is the one violating the one country, two systems principle, and the Prime Minister is refusing to condemn those actions and refusing to propose any kind of plan to support our allies across the world.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Canada, under a Conservative government, led the world in promoting a series of coordinated economic and political measures that punished and isolated the Putin regime and sent a clear message that violations of international law would not be tolerated.

Will the Prime Minister condemn the actions of the PRC and propose a meaningful plan to support the people of Hong Kong?

[Foreign Affairs, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Canada used to have a history of principled leadership on the world stage. The Government of China has launched an unprecedented attack on the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. Now the government should go beyond statements and act in concert with our allies to show the Government of China that it must abide by its commitments.

Will the Prime Minister unequivocally condemn the actions of the PRC, and will he propose a real plan for supporting the people of Hong Kong and our allies around the world who have already started to be targeted by Chinese retribution?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are letting down Canadian farm families. Not only are they imposing higher carbon taxes and failing to defend them against actions by the government in China, but now the agriculture minister is claiming that farmers who are upset about being let down during this crisis just do not understand the programs her government is putting forward. She claims that the $252 million of reannouced money for farmers is good enough.

When will the Prime Minister put forward programs that actually work for farmers instead of telling them to be happy with what they got?