Andrew Scheer

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 25th, 2024]

With regard to the additional revenue received as a result of the GST, or GST portion of the HST where applicable, being charged on the carbon tax: (a) how much revenue did the government receive from the GST being charged on the carbon tax in the 2023-24 fiscal year; and (b) if the government does not have the data requested in (a), what is the government's best estimate, or what financial projections does it use for budgeting purposes, on the total amount of revenue collected from the carbon tax in 2023-24 that would have been subject to the GST or HST, in total and broken down by province or territory?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 22nd, 2024]

With regard to payments, including any reimbursements, made by the government to Mark Carney since April 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all such payments, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) purpose of the payment; and (b) for each payment that was a reimbursement, what are the details, including the (i) items reimbursed, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) location?

[Business of the House, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I thought it would be a good opportunity to ask the government House leader what the business might be for the rest of this week and for next week as well.

We have been debating a privilege motion, with which the government has chosen to paralyze Parliament through its refusal to comply with a lawfully passed production order wherein the House of Commons demanded that all documents related to the $400-million green slush fund be handed over to the RCMP so it can conduct a criminal investigation. The government has refused to comply, and as a result of its decision, Parliament has been seized with this question of privilege over that refusal.

As such, my question to the government House leader is this: I understand that she made a big show of some documents being handed over to the law clerk. The law clerk then informed the Speaker and other House officers that some documents were still being withheld and many of the documents that were handed over were still redacted, so I wonder if the government House Leader would tell us if she is finally ready to comply with the House order and allow this gridlock to be solved, and whether there will be any other legislation coming next week or if the Liberals will continue to keep Parliament paralyzed with this privilege motion.

[Points of Order, November 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if it is your intention to have a formal ruling in response to that point of order, I would like to reserve the right to come back and issue more formal remarks.

However, I would point out that nothing that the member for Kingston and the Islands just referenced would rise to the level of libellous. The section that he quoted from the procedure and practice handbook says that was libellous statements have been seen as a contempt of the House or a breach of its privileges. I would point out that it is a true statement that the member was kicked out, but there is nothing libellous in that; that is what happened yesterday.

You, Mr. Speaker, are a member of the Liberal Party and a Liberal MP; that is a true statement. Nothing in what was just read out would in any way rise to the level of a libellous remark unless the member is suddenly realizing that being associated with the Liberal Party is in itself libellous, which I certainly would not disagree with, but I am sure some people would.

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, when I sat in that chair, I heard the word “fake” being used many, many times—

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word “fake” and replace it with either “sham”, “imitation”, “counterfeit”—

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Just for the Speaker to clarify, is it the word “fake”? The minister is now admitting that he is not indigenous, so he admitted to be someone very—

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word “lying” and replace it with “telling falsehoods”.

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know what it would take for this guy to get fired by this Prime Minister. We do know what will get someone fired. Let us remember Jody Wilson-Raybould. She was fired for telling the truth about the Prime Minister's attempts to interfere in a criminal case. Here is what she had to say: “A Prime Minister committed to true reconciliation would have removed [this minister] (and the other Randy) from Cabinet long ago. Instead we get to watch white people play ancestry wheel of fortune.”

How come, under this Prime Minister, a strong indigenous woman gets fired for telling the truth when a weak, fake-indigenous man gets to keep his job after lying?

[Ethics, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let us recap the scandal so far. The minister said he was indigenous, even though he is not. He said his great-grandmother was Cree, even though she was not. He said there was another Randy working at the company, even though there was not. He said that he had nothing to do with the company while he was in cabinet, even though he did and his company got a contract while he was sitting around the cabinet table. In a normal government, any one of those scandals would be cause for dismissal. Therefore, why, in the current wacko Liberal government, does this man still sit in cabinet?