Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 906
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister promised that construction on Trans Mountain would begin.
Not one ounce of dirt has been moved so far. Canada's entire economy is suffering as a result. Every day of delay is costing Canadians $40 million. The Prime Minister promised that Trans Mountain would be built and operational in 2019.
Why did he mislead Canadians by making a promise he could not keep?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, again, he keeps saying things that are just not true. The previous Conservative government saw the private sector build four major pipelines, including one to tidewater, increasing our capacity to foreign markets. It is under the Liberal government that major pipeline proponents have pulled out of Canada. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that 100 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been killed by the government.
The Prime Minister committed to Trans Mountain being completed and in operation this year, but it is over a year later, and there is still no start date. His failure is costing Canadians. Why did he not say so?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister has done is buy a pipeline with taxpayers' money that he still does not have a plan to build. It is a terrible indictment of his record that in Canada, under his prime ministership, the government must nationalize a project to get it built. Under the Conservatives, the private sector did that.
We should not be surprised. After all, this is the Prime Minister who wants to phase out the energy sector and who has a senior minister who tweeted that they want to landlock Alberta's energy.
Why does the Prime Minister keep hurting our energy sector and the thousands of Canadians who work in it?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, we know what to do to get these projects built, starting with replacing the Prime Minister, scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69 and giving our investors certainty that when they meet those standards, they can actually get it built.
The Prime Minister is great at saying yes. He just cannot get it done. Yesterday was another approval without a plan. Canadians did not want to see a photo op yesterday. They wanted a date on which this project would start.
Why did he fail to do that?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can take great comfort in knowing that a real plan for the environment is coming at five o'clock. What it will not include is special deals for Liberal insiders.
Under the Prime Minister, well-connected friends of the Prime Minister have done very well. He rewards his well-connected billionaire friends with taxpayer handouts, like $12 million to Loblaws. He interfered in a criminal court case to help his corporate friends at SNC. He targeted entrepreneurs and small business owners while protecting his vast family fortune.
Why do the well-connected Liberals and the wealthy always get a better deal under Liberals?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister received a letter yesterday from six provincial premiers who want him to accept the amendments to Bill C-69. What was the Prime Minister's response? He called them a threat to national unity. I would like to remind him that the only time Canadian unity is threatened is when the Liberals are in power.
When will he finally show some respect for all the provinces?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dismisses the legitimate concerns of premiers who are standing up for out-of-work men and women in the energy sector as playing political games. In fact, all provinces asked for amendments to Bill C-69. Even a letter from the Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador government stated that Bill C-69 would deter investment in the development of the resource sector without improving environmental protection. Therefore, the only person responsible for endangering national unity is the Prime Minister.
When will he do the right thing and kill Bill C-69?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it is not just Conservatives who recognize that his policies are killing Canada's energy sector. In fact, the former NDP Alberta premier, Rachel Notley, also vehemently opposed the Prime Minister's anti-energy bills and former Liberal B.C. premier, Christy Clark, said that the Prime Minister walks around thinking he is not first among equals, but the only one who has no equal when it comes to the premiers. We know how the Prime Minister gets when he is in a mood like that, when he publicly stated that if he did not win the last election, he would support Quebec separatism.
Will the Prime Minister agree that the only threat to national unity is the Prime Minister?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is causing the problem. He is the one causing divisions between regions and polarizing Canadians. He is acting like someone who sets fire to a house and then lashes out at the people calling the fire department. It is his policies that killed the northern gateway project, that killed energy east and now has had to use taxpayers' dollars to purchase a decades-old pipeline.
When will he realize that it is his policies that are hurting the energy sector and leading to men and women being out of work?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, there he goes again just saying things that he knows are not true. The previous Conservative government saw four major pipelines completed and built, including one to tidewater, without taxpayers' dollars. It is his policies that have ignored indigenous concerns; indigenous communities that wanted to be partners in northern gateway. It is his policies that are condemning Canadians to always be reliant on foreign oil coming into our markets.
When will he realize that his policies are phasing out the energy sector and all the jobs that go with it?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it has been 73 days since the Prime Minister sent me a letter, threatening to sue me for my statements about his corruption and attempted interference in a criminal court case. He is going to get up in a moment and say that he sent the notice to warn me about saying things that he thought were not true. Here is the thing. I have not backed down. I have not apologized for them. In fact, I have repeated those statements, word for word, outside of the chamber.
The Prime Minister knows that if he has to testify under oath, he will be charged with perjury for saying things that are not true. When will he see me in court?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are attacking the Liberal government for stacking the deck in its favour. We all agree that an independent press is important. It is the Liberals who are undermining that in this country.
Unifor boss and good Liberal friend, Jerry Dias, said last week, “Am I coming out against [the Conservatives]? You're [darn] right I am.” When asked if he was going to tone down his anti-Conservative campaign now that his union is on the Prime Minister's so-called independent media panel, he said, “I'm going to probably make it worse.”
There are lots of other organizations that represent journalists. Why did the government put such a biased organization on this panel?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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—
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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—
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Unifor on his panel to determine eligibility for a half a billion dollar media bailout package has destroyed the credibility of this process.
Unifor is a highly partisan group with very aggressive and partisan goals. It has made it clear that its objective is to help Liberals win the next election, and yet the Prime Minister has decided to appoint this group to the panel.
Will the Prime Minister just openly admit that he is stacking the deck in his favour?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, none of the challenges facing the news industry justifies putting an openly partisan group on the panel to determine who gets funding.
Unifor has published tweets, calling itself the resistance to Conservatives. It is bankrolling partisan attack ads put out by third party groups run by high-level Liberal operatives.
Journalists who are actual members of this union agree that the government's actions have destroyed the credibility of this process and threatens to undermine the independence of the press.
Will the Prime Minister remove Unifor from this panel?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, I trust I can speak for all members of this House when I say that this morning I was shocked and horrified by a recently released recording, broadcast by APTN news, of an RCMP officer questioning a young female indigenous sexual assault victim. Obviously, this line of questioning was appalling and insensitive to the young woman who was coming forward with her story.
I would like to ask the Minister of Public Safety if he could update the House as to what reviews he might be contemplating to ensure that this type of thing does not happen in the future.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that his government “met all of its obligations with respect to the third party records applications.” What he fails to tell us is the fact that it had to receive a court order to do that.
Mark Norman's lawyer said this about the documents: “None of that came willingly. We have been...day in and day out...try[ing] to get that material. It should have been handed over. It should have been handed over to the RCMP. It should have been handed over to the prosecution. It was not.”
Can the Prime Minister explain why not?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about all those decisions. Decisions were made to block documents. It took a court order for the evidence that finally exonerated Mark Norman to be produced. Departmental officials were using code words to get around access to information requests.
Will the government and the Minister of Justice conduct an inquiry to determine why these steps were taken to interfere and obstruct in this case?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has finally decided to answer some questions on the Mark Norman affair. He has had plenty of time to rehearse the script and memorize the lines, and I have no doubt that he is going to talk about the specific decision to stay the charges against Mark Norman being free from political interference. However, what I would like to know is about all the evidence of other interference in this case, including his government going to great lengths to block documents from being presented to court.
Why did the government go to such efforts to prevent the truth from coming out?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, this government went to great lengths to block those documents from coming to court. There are many occasions when this government proved it was going to great lengths to prevent the truth from coming out, including coaching witnesses and departmental officials and using code words to avoid access-to-information laws.
Does the Prime Minister believe that this is normal behaviour for a government when a decorated vice-admiral is fighting for his career, his reputation and his personal freedom?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, in his attempt to take a contract away from the Davie shipyard, the Prime Minister deliberately tarnished Vice-Admiral Norman's reputation. Even though 73 people were aware of what was going on, the only name he sent to the RCMP was Mark Norman's. The Prime Minister also said there would be a trial before that was actually the case.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and apologize to Vice-Admiral Norman?
Results: 1 - 30 of 906 | Page: 1 of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data