Andrew Scheer

[News Media Industry, June 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, a healthy democracy depends on an independent press free from political influence.

That independence is now at risk because of a half-billion-dollar media bailout. The Canadian Association of Journalists has expressed serious concerns with the process, the role of the advisory panel and the powers given to the minister.

When will the Prime Minister realize how much he is harming our free press by trying to rig the upcoming election in his favour?

[Justice, June 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, today the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women released its report, and of course our hearts go out to those who have lost family and loved ones.

This report calls attention to gaps in our Criminal Code that make it easier for vulnerable people to be exploited. Advocates have been calling for more action on human trafficking specifically, which also includes funding for survivor services and public awareness.

Will the Prime Minister agree that more action needs to be taken to combat human trafficking and to protect those most vulnerable?

[International Trade, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I actually feel sorry for the Prime Minister. It is quite clear that nobody in his cabinet, in his caucus or in his office has the backbone to tell him the truth. The truth is that this new deal is not better than the original NAFTA.

Two and a half years ago when the Prime Minister volunteered to renegotiate NAFTA, he promised Canadians he would get a “better deal”. Let us review how we got here, because the Prime Minister's strategy was doomed from the very beginning.

In his very first discussion with the president-elect on election day, the Prime Minister told Donald Trump that he was “more than happy” to start NAFTA negotiations with no preconditions. Rather than aiming for a speedy resolution with minimal disruption as other countries like South Korea did with its agreements with the Americans, the Prime Minister sought a complete renegotiation.

The Prime Minister kicked off his negotiating strategy by highlighting aspects of his agenda, insisting that the new NAFTA be focused on a series of conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with market access or trade.

In short order, Canada found itself on the outside looking in while Mexico and the United States hammered out a deal, and Canada would only be brought in at the end.

Instead of seeking a few minor amendments to keep disruptions to a minimum, the Prime Minister wanted to completely renegotiate the agreement. The Prime Minister introduced his negotiation strategy by focusing on his so-called progressive trade agenda and insisting that the new NAFTA follow a set of conditions that have nothing to do with trade. Canada quickly found itself on the sidelines while Mexico and the United States reached an agreement. Canada only participated at the end.

What a failure. The Prime Minister tries to call this NAFTA 2.0. Nobody is calling it that. They are calling it NAFTA 0.5.

As a result of this deal, automakers operate under new rules that constrain their content and make them less competitive, and the U.S. has set an upper limit on how many cars can come from Canada in case they impose tariffs.

Canadians will have reduced access to essential medicines and will have to pay higher prices for prescription drugs.

The U.S. now holds unprecedented influence over our future negotiations with potential new trading partners.

American farmers will have tariff-free access to a significant portion of Canada's supply-managed sector, while the United States made not a single concession in their own subsidized and protected dairy industry.

The Prime Minister just said that it was in line with previous trade deals that the Conservatives signed. That is completely false. The Liberals gave away far more. No Conservative trade deal ever agreed to place a limit on our exports to other countries around the world. Contrary to the Prime Minister's lofty promises at the outset, there is quite literally nothing about this deal that is better than the one before it.

The Liberals do like to talk about the ratchet clause. I have no doubt that there were lots of intense negotiations, lots of evenings when the team was assembled and they were all focused on the ratchet clause and were up late into the evening explaining to the Prime Minister what the ratchet clause was before they even started talking about it.

The Prime Minister's only so-called victories from the negotiations are provisions that were already in place that previous Conservative leadership had put into the original NAFTA. Certain binational dispute-settlement processes and maintained flexibility on cultural programs were already there before the negotiations started. The Liberals cannot count that as a victory if all they have done is prevented selling it away. The Americans measured their successes on NAFTA by what they gained. The Prime Minister is measuring his success on what he was not forced to give up.

Let us remember that he agreed to all of this with steel and aluminum tariffs still in place.

Once the agreement was reached, the Prime Minister stated that he would not attend the NAFTA signing ceremony unless the steel and aluminum tariffs were lifted. He was very clear about that.

The Prime Minister promised that his last hold-out and negotiating card was that he would not participate in the photo op at the signing ceremony unless the steel and aluminum tariffs were lifted. In the end, he backed down again, and there he was sitting beside Donald Trump, and steel and aluminum tariffs were still in place. This brings me to the Prime Minister's final capitulation on the deal in regard to the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs.

Of course, Conservatives are pleased that the tariffs have ultimately been removed. I have met steelworkers, as I have in my riding, who were struggling. I know the pressures they were facing. However, this deal is far from the “pure good news” the Prime Minister has been selling it as. It is in fact not as advertised. “Don't bask in the glory of this one”, is how Leo Gerard, the president of the United Steelworkers union, described it. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing.

The deal allows Donald Trump to reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs if there is a “meaningful” surge of imports above historic levels. Who defines what meaningful is? Donald Trump defines it. It gets worse. The deal prevents Canada from responding with retaliatory tariffs targeting key U.S. industries, the best piece of leverage we have. We even had a Liberal MP asking about this during question period, praising the strategy that strategic tariffs on unrelated industries were part of the pressure that finally got the steel and aluminum tariffs lifted. What did the Liberals do? They traded that away.

Usually Canada would respond to tariffs by imposing its own tariffs on products that strategically target important politicians or industrial sectors, such as bourbon, ketchup, yogourt and farm products. The Prime Minister also relinquished that right. Imagine an investor who wants to grow their business in Canada and who needs to make a profit over the next 10 to 20 years to recoup his investment. The Prime Minister not only gave the United States the power to limit our exports, but he also relinquished our best method of retaliation.

Why would anybody take that risk now? We know that the Prime Minister is desperate for anything he can point to as a win, so he has pulled out all the stops to celebrate this new NAFTA as a big victory. However, it is simply not as advertised, and neither is this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to negotiate a better deal and he failed. He gave Donald Trump everything the President wanted and more. However, this is the deal that we are stuck with.

After October 21, our new government will work to mitigate the damage this deal has caused. As Conservatives have done in the past, we will address things by working in a one-by-one process, addressing the issues like the lingering softwood lumber dispute this Prime Minister failed to resolve, the remaining buy American provisions, and the disjointed regulatory regimes. We will negotiate with the U.S. from a position of strength by emphasizing security and defence co-operation and by imposing safeguards to protect North American steel from Chinese dumping. We will diversify our trading partners, as we have in the past, to reduce our dependence on the U.S.

When Conservatives were in power, we negotiated free trade and investment agreements with 53 countries. We will lower taxes on Canadians and reduce regulatory burdens on businesses so that Canada becomes an attractive place for investors and there are more voices fighting for trade access to Canada and Canadian businesses can compete and win on the world stage.

In short, Conservatives will once again clean up the mess that Liberals leave them.

[Justice, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 59 days since the Prime Minister sent me a letter threatening to sue me for comments I made regarding his political interference in the SNC-Lavalin affair. Now, not only did I not withdraw or apologize for my remarks, I repeated them word for word outside the House of Commons.

Will the Prime Minister tell me on what date I can expect to see him in court, testifying under oath, for his role in the SNC-Lavalin affair?

[News Media Industry, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Jerry Dias is not a journalist. He represents a union that has called itself the resistance to Conservatives. It is bankrolling partisan attack ads put out by a third party organization and run by high-level Liberal backroom veterans. There are other entities that could represent workers on this panel, but the Liberals chose a Liberal-friendly partisan organization.

It is very clear that this is just one aspect of the Prime Minister's attempt to rig the next election, including putting caps on Conservatives but not on government spending announcements. Why—

[News Media Industry, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Unifor to its panel to determine eligibility for half a billion dollar bailout package has destroyed the government's credibility. Unifor is a highly partisan group with aggressive partisan goals. It has made it clear that its objective is to help elect Liberals and defeat Conservatives, yet the Prime Minister has decided to appoint this group to his panel.

Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that he is openly trying to stack the deck in advance of the next election?

[International Trade, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to Canada's trading relationship with the United States is the weakness of the Prime Minister. Any old deal would have been better than the deal that he came home with. Concession after concession on dairy, on autos, on pharmaceuticals and now, in order to get steel tariffs lifted, he had to give away the only piece of leverage that Canada had. He has actually agreed not to put strategic tariffs on other U.S. industries.

Once again, why did the Prime Minister give Donald Trump—

[International Trade, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, let us remember that the Prime Minister promised a better NAFTA deal. Then he volunteered to renegotiate Canada's trading arrangement and not only did he come back with concession after concession, with no win at all, but he even signed a deal that still had steel and aluminum tariffs in place. Now we learn that there is language in the new agreement that suggests that Canada now has a quota by another name.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that this deal on steel tariffs is just not as advertised?

[International Trade, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is the best thing that has happened to Donald Trump. He abandoned access to markets for our main exports. He relinquished our influence and gave Mr. Trump all the power. He makes concessions every time he is at the table. President Trump is in charge and thanks to the Prime Minister, Canada can only stand by and watch.

Why is the Prime Minister so proud of this historic humiliation?

[Government Policies, May 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the only dangerous game being played is by the Prime Minister putting partisan groups on a panel to hand out government money. That is what undermines the credibility of this process and threatens the independence of the media.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has abused the power of his office. He has limited the amounts political parties can spend in the run-up to a federal election, while no limits have been placed on government spending announcements or travel in advance of the writ period.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he is abusing the power of his office to rig the system in advance of the next election?