Andrew Scheer

[Science and Innovation, February 4th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not maintaining; they are cutting and shutting. Workers at the Indian Head agricultural research farm are the latest to lose their jobs, thanks to the Liberal government. This research centre provides cutting-edge innovation on soil management, crop varieties, and disease and pest resiliency. It provides jobs for Canadian scientists and improves Canadian crop production to the benefit of Canadian farmers.

Meanwhile, the Liberals have sent hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars overseas for stupid, ideologically driven pet projects like $8 million for gender-just rice farming in Vietnam. Instead of closing Canadian research centres that benefit Canadians, why not stop the phony foreign aid projects?

[Keeping Children Safe Act, February 4th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the various party House leaders, and I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, shall be deemed to have been read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Points of Order, February 2nd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is not usually a practice to debate a Speaker's ruling once it has been delivered, but here we are. I would just maybe offer a couple of thoughts.

The most important thing is that members are able to vote. We would hate to have a situation where constituents of a given riding do not have their representative pronounce on a bill or a motion, because of a technicality. The rules around decorum are there as an assistance to the Chair and to the Table. We can imagine the chaos if MPs were walking around, milling around, putting their hand up or having their name called out as they were moving around the table.

Therefore the rules are there to preserve decorum so votes can be orderly. Those rules are not there for the same reasons that, in the NFL, if a toe touches the white line then it is not a touchdown. They are there to provide some structure and some order. I hope we do not get too bogged down in rules for the sake of rules but accept the spirit of the rules that are there.

The hon. member's suggestion is very valid. The House leaders and whips do our very best to make sure that our members respect the rules. Every once in a while there are mistakes, and usually there is grace afforded members from all parties and all caucuses. I suggest we take these conversations off-line.

[Taxation, January 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the plan did not work for Justin Trudeau. I do not know why the Liberals think it will work today.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister tried to blame inflation on global factors, but all other countries in the G7 have lower food inflation than Canada. The Liberal fuel standards tax did not invade us from another country. It already adds 7¢ a litre and is set to rise to 17¢. The Liberal industrial carbon tax did not come from away either. Working families who cannot afford beef know that today's announcement will not even cover one trip to the grocery store.

Why will the Liberals not stop trying to recycle failed Trudeau policies and adopt common-sense Conservative measures to scrap Liberal taxes on food?

[Taxation, January 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked to be judged on inflation on grocery prices. Food inflation has doubled to the highest in the G7 and is double the U.S. rate. This is a homegrown problem of high Liberal taxes on farmers, fertilizer and food processors, and rampant inflationary deficits.

Today's recycled Trudeau-era rebate will barely cover one trip to the store for the average family. They now need to spend over $17,000 a year on groceries. It did not work when Trudeau tried it; prices kept rising. There is nothing in today's announcement that will make anything cost less.

Instead of temporary measures, why not permanently scrap the Liberal hidden taxes that drive up food costs?

[Natural Resources, December 10th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, voting against the Prime Minister's own MOU does not a pipeline build. Getting that MOU through his own caucus should have been the easy part of the process. This self-declared master negotiator could not even do that. Instead, his MOU piles on new conditions and red tape, ties approvals to other projects, hikes the industrial carbon tax and hands unconstitutional vetoes to other levels of government. It is clear he could not even get it through his own caucus.

If the Prime Minister could not do that, why should Canadians believe he can get a pipeline through all his new hoops and hurdles?

[Natural Resources, December 10th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a problem. A pipeline to the Pacific is very popular with Canadians. Canadians want to stop the practice of selling Canadian oil at a massive discount to the United States when billions of customers lie just on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, but the Prime Minister has never believed in selling more Canadian energy. He wrote an entire book about leaving Canada's natural resources in the ground. He cheered on the decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, and his caucus does not support one either.

Is the real reason he voted against his own MOU yesterday that he has no intention of actually getting a pipeline built? He just needs to pretend long enough, until the next election.

[Business of the House, November 27th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, it is every CPAC viewer's favourite day of the week, Thursday, when we have the Thursday question.

I would like to ask the government House leader if he can inform the House what we will be dealing with for the rest of this week and into next week.

Instead of a flashy MOU that has a carbon tax hike with no guarantee of a pipeline, will the Liberals bring in legislation to repeal the anti-energy laws that have kept the oil and gas in the ground and made Canada so dependent on the United States, or will they continue their habit of sending subsidized energy to the U.S. to fund the U.S. economy instead of the Canadian economy?

[Natural Resources, November 27th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter how many signatures they put on that MOU if they give a giant veto stamp to the British Columbian premier. Instead of just repealing all the Liberal leave-it-in-the-ground laws that killed energy projects, the Prime Minister has just unveiled a new process that is designed to fail. He is giving an unconstitutional veto to the B.C. premier. He is forcing Albertans to pay billions of dollars to put air into the ground, and now he is hiking the industrial carbon tax. Every time the Liberals hike those carbon taxes, everything gets more expensive.

Why is the government forcing through a massive hike to the carbon tax instead of just getting out of the way?

[Natural Resources, November 27th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals killed the northern gateway pipeline project, making Canada more dependent on the U.S. Now, the Prime Minister is putting on a big show, but he is setting up another process for a pipeline to fail, with new hurdles and hoops and, worst of all, a massive increase to the industrial carbon tax. The proposed pipeline is never going to happen, because the Prime Minister is giving a veto to the B.C. premier. What is guaranteed to happen after April 1 is that Albertans will pay a very real and very massive hike in the industrial carbon tax.

Why is the Prime Minister more intent on hiking carbon taxes instead of building pipelines?