Andrew Scheer

[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.

[Government Response to Petitions, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we should have a recorded division.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78, November 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that the convention here is that we take people at their word. I clearly saw the member still on his feet. He was leaning over. I had the perfect vantage point. I was just a little behind the hon. member. I could actually see behind the table. He had not made contact with his chair at all. It might have looked like it. He was looking for the document that contains the rest of his speech.

I think the most reasonable thing to do is for the member to have the opportunity to continue speaking. He was reaching for the document. The most reasonable thing to do is to take the member at his word and allow him to finish.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North does not often get a chance to speak, but I am sure he will have an opportunity in a moment. Then he can ask his question.

I think the conventional thing to do would be accept the member for Calgary Forest Lawn at his word and allow him to continue.

[Public Safety, November 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we know, not only can words be unparliamentary but gestures can be as well. I was in the process of negotiating with the government House leader as to whether we could get unanimous consent to table the text messages from the Liberal member for Vaughan—Woodbridge when he was asking to join our caucus. As I was in the process of doing that, the Liberal member for Vaughan—Woodbridge made a very vulgar and rude gesture, giving the middle finger to this side of the House. That is extremely unparliamentary and I would ask the hon. member to apologize.

[U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products, November 26th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost let me say that the Conservative Party has been unequivocal that these tariffs are unjustified.

My point on the border, on military spending and on the fentanyl crisis is that, regardless of what is going on with the United States, regardless of what President-elect Trump might be threatening Canada with, a Canadian prime minister should care about the lives of people lost to addiction, should care about the fact that we have people coming into our country without proper background checks and security vettings, and should care about the Canadian people wanting to see a plan to deal with 400 temporary residents in Canada whose visas are set to expire in the next year.

Regardless of what American politicians might want us to do, the Canadian people expect their government to put their interests and their safety first, and to protect their jobs. They expect their livelihoods and their security to be put ahead of all else.

[U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products, November 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. It is normal for a government to put its own country's interests first. Canadian taxpayers pay for all the programs and all the ministers' salaries. Clearly, any country's government is going to put the interests of its citizens before anything else.

I think my colleague misunderstood what I said about the drugs and borders issue. I was not saying that we have to solve the problem because the American president-elect had pointed it out. I said that the Prime Minister himself should have an interest in fixing the problem relating to drugs and borders. That is the point I was making.

[U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products, November 26th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, let us look at what we did. We got heavy lift aircraft delivered. We started the process on F-35s, something the Prime Minister then cancelled. He had to admit he had made a terrible mistake and restart the process. We just lost hundreds of millions of dollars and many years.

Nobody was questioning Canada's commitment to our allies and to NATO under the previous Conservative government. That all started when the Prime Minister started demeaning our military, cancelling procurement projects and basically telling the world that Canada was not going to do its fair share.

Conservatives have gotten big projects, big procurement items done. We had higher levels of recruitment and regular force service levels, something that has fallen under the Liberal government, as the Prime Minister tells our military their job is to fight for woke and divisive ideals instead of our proud history and our proud traditions.

[U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products, November 26th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that many Canadians are watching tonight's debate with a great deal of anxiety for the threat that is facing our country and our economy. Jobs, workers' paycheques and the ability for people to pay their mortgage depend on trade. Canada is a nation that depends on being able to sell what we grow and what we produce here to other countries around the world. We simply do not have the population to consume what we can produce. That is because we are so good at producing things. We are so good at extracting our natural resources at the highest environmental and ethical standards. Our skilled trades, machinists and factory workers are so good at what they do that we can produce far more than we need for ourselves.

Having an extremely long and undefended border, the longest undefended border in the world, being neighbours with a like-minded democracy that was built on the rule of law, human rights and, most importantly, free market capitalism where the voluntary exchange of goods and services, not just between individuals but between our countries, has dramatically increased the quality of life both here and in the United States to such a degree that people from around the world of all different faiths, races, ethnicities and cultures have come to Canada. They do not come to Canada for the weather. They come to Canada because of the opportunity and the basis of our society that we have built.

The reason why people are so anxious right now is because they have seen the track record of the Prime Minister in dealing with President-elect Trump. The first time the Prime Minister had to go toe to toe, head to head with President-elect Trump, he was forced to capitulate and accept concession after concession after concession; forced to accept concessions on agricultural products; forced to accept a deal that did not protect Canadian steelworkers from tariffs from the United States; forced to accept a deal that was silent, that did not offer any protection to forestry workers with a softwood lumber deal as part of it; and forced to accept the humiliating concession that the Prime Minister was unable to get an exemption from the buy American provisions.

After such a terrible track record the first time Canada faced tariffs from the U.S. administration, there is good reason to be worried right now. That is just on trade. One of the things that a country can do to protect itself in a potential trade conflict is to make our own economy strong. When investors and business owners are fighting with each other to get into Canadian markets, it is less likely that their home country would want to get in the way of that trade. What the Prime Minister has done is to put Canada in such an incredibly weak position. Our economy was weak yesterday before these potential tariffs were even announced, and now the Prime Minister is heading into a negotiation period in a position of extreme vulnerability.

Let us just take a look at some of the facts.

In Canada, the GDP per capita is now smaller than it was before the Prime Minister took office. That means the only thing that is even remotely keeping our GDP numbers in a positive trend is the fact that our population is growing, but each individual Canadian is poorer today and produces less value today because of the Prime Minister's terrible economic vandalism. Just look at some of the things that he has done. He has imposed a devastating carbon tax on the Canadian economy. The United States does not have a carbon tax. As he quadruples that carbon tax, the difference between our economy and the U.S. economy will be even larger. Why would an investor say they would like to build something in Windsor and pay 61¢ a litre when they can build that factory in Detroit and pay zero cents a litre for a carbon tax?

That is why it is so puzzling that the NDP member for Windsor West, who pretends to be worried about this issue, consistently supports the Liberal plan to hike, to quadruple, the carbon tax. How many more businesses and jobs, how much more money, will flow south of the border as that carbon tax gets higher?

Food prices have grown 37% faster in Canada than in the United States. That is because the Prime Minister devalued the Canadian dollar by forcing the Bank of Canada to print hundreds of billions of dollars to cover his deficits and wasteful spending. What happens when we print money out of thin air? We have more dollars chasing fewer goods and prices go up. Inflation has hit food prices here in Canada far worse than in the United States.

Our national debt has grown by over 100% in a decade. That means the government has to go out into markets to borrow money. That is an important fact as well, because when the government borrows money it competes with the private sector. When business owners, factory owners and entrepreneurs go out and borrow some money to start up a business, scale up a business, expand to a second location or add another product line, they have to go out and compete with the government to borrow that money. When the government gobbles up a lot of the available funds, it drives up the borrowing costs for everybody else, including individuals.

It is not just large business owners who have to pay higher borrowing costs when the government goes out and scoops up all the available cash for itself. Our mortgage payment is going to be higher because of all that government borrowing. If somebody has a dollar to lend, to lend it to an individual is a greater risk than to lend it to a government entity, which is viewed as having a much more secure backing, so they have to pay a premium to borrow that dollar too. The government's deficits directly have an impact on Canadian borrowers, which include business owners and individuals with mortgages.

Where I am going with all of this is that by weakening the Canadian economy, there are fewer people around the globe fighting to get into Canada. We only need to develop this thought exercise: Would Canada ever slap these kinds of tariffs unilaterally on the United States? Of course not, because it would risk our markets to sell our products into. Canada has a weaker economy, our people are poorer, and there are fewer opportunities here and fewer investments that can turn a profit, add to growth and create jobs, which means there are fewer people in the United States fighting to protect access to our markets. The Prime Minister's devastating and humiliating failure the first time he had to face President Trump is a big reason people are concerned today.

A couple of issues aside from economics have been the subject of debate. What I have heard many Canadians asking in the last 24 hours is this: Why did it take the president-elect of the United States to call out the government's inaction on dealing with the fentanyl and opioid crisis? The Prime Minister should want to get fentanyl off our streets for Canadians, out of concern for the grieving mothers, fathers, husbands and wives who have lost people to this horrible addiction.

We have presented comprehensive plans to help stem the tide of illegal drugs coming into Canada, with more inspections and better tools for law enforcement. The government not only ignores it but doubles down on its failed approach to make bail easier for those criminals. It even went so far as to use the tax dollars of Canadians to fund government-paid-for opioids, which the police say now show up in our communities all the time, all across the country.

At the border, we have had, in the last few months, under the Prime Minister, terrorists associated with al Qaeda and ISIS coming into Canada. It should not take a president of the United States to call attention to that. A Canadian prime minister should want to solve that problem on their own.

All that is to say it is quite clear that what this episode in the last few days has shown us is that we need a Prime Minister with the brains and the backbone to put Canada first. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier this evening, Canada first, Canada always and Canada forever.

[The Economy, November 26th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was forced to accept humiliating concession after concession. Now he has kneecapped Canada's economy: He has slapped on a massive carbon tax here, but the U.S. does not have one at all. He is raising taxes on investing in Canada while the U.S. is fighting to attract investment there. He has imposed a production cap on Canadian energy, meaning that Canada will produce less of what the U.S. needs to buy. He has under 60 days left to act.

It is time for the Prime Minister to put aside his partisanship, his ideology and his ego. Will he strengthen Canada's position by cancelling his carbon tax and all tax hikes on jobs and investments?