Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 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?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is acting as if the justice system is there to reward his friends and punish his enemies. They spent years trying to fight the release of those documents in court. There are serious allegations that need to be investigated about coaching witnesses and using code names to get around access-to-information laws.
Will the Prime Minister allow the defence committee to investigate these serious allegations, or will he pull a page right out of the SNC-Lavalin playbook and use his power to shut it down?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave $10.5 million to Omar Khadr, a convicted terrorist, so that he would not have to fight him in court, but when it comes to a decorated naval officer who has put his career into making Canadians safe, the Prime Minister spared no expense fighting him in court. Why the double standard?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to interfere in a shipbuilding contract and when he was caught, he tried to destroy the reputation and career of the person who stood up to him. We have seen this before and it is a dangerous pattern with the government.
Why is it that anyone who says “no” to the Prime Minister ends up with a target on his or her back?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, however, the lawyer for Mark Norman was quite clear that the government did impede this investigation by withholding important documents and facts.
When it looked like the truth was going to try to come out in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, the Prime Minister shut down the investigations. When it looked like the truth in this scandal was going to come out, the Prime Minister tried to prevent a fair trial by withholding evidence and using delay tactics.
What is in those documents that the Prime Minister is so afraid of?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office's investigation into the matter led nowhere, but the Prime Minister needed a scapegoat so he set his sights on a respected vice-admiral from the Canadian Armed Forces.
Why did the Prime Minister say that this matter would end up in court even before the RCMP laid any charges?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the Prime Minister does not have the fortitude to answer these questions himself. Long before any charges were laid against Vice-Admiral Norman, the Prime Minister told the media that it would inevitably wind up before the courts. Today, Vice-Admiral Norman's lawyer described those comments as “an extraordinary event”.
How did the Prime Minister know that this would end up in court before any charges were made, and why will he not stand and answer these questions for himself?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had the honour and integrity to face allegations against him, himself. The Prime Minister does not have the same fortitude or backbone.
Let us look at what Mark Norman's lawyer did say. She said, “There are times when you agree with what happens in a court” and at times “you don't and that's fine, but what you don't do is you don't put your finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice. That is not what should be happening.”
That is exactly what the government did in trying to block and obstruct evidence coming before that court. What is in those documents that the Prime Minister is so afraid of?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, another day, another dispute with China, and still no meaningful action from the Prime Minister. The canola crisis has already cost farmers almost $1 billion, and now pork producers in Quebec and Alberta are feeling the pinch.
When will the Prime Minister understand that refusing to stand up to China has a very real impact on thousands of Canadians?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it is not just administrative reasons when there are two Canadians unlawfully jailed in China. Now our canola exports are being unfairly blocked, and we can add the pork producers of this country to those who are paying for the mistakes of the Prime Minister on the world stage.
What is the Prime Minister's response in terms of these attacks on Canadian interests? Absolutely nothing—worse than nothing: the government is still sending Canadian tax dollars to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is run by China.
How many more people and how many more industries will have to suffer before the Prime Minister finally takes action?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been paying for the broken promises of the Liberal government ever since the 2015 election. That will come to an end in October.
Another area where the Liberal government has completely failed Canadians has been the energy sector. The Conservative record on pipelines has been to see the private sector build four major pipeline projects during our time in office. However, the Liberals have vetoed and killed projects, and now they have purchased a pipeline that they cannot build.
Bill C-69 is the final nail in the coffin. More and more Canadians are speaking out against it. Will they—
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, China's military budget rose 5% last year to $250 billion. However, for whatever reason, the Liberal leader continues to use Canadian taxpayers' money to fund China through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We know that China uses the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to extend its influence in the region.
When will the Liberal leader stop using Canadian taxpayers' money to fund this strategy?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, there are other development banks that Canada already participates in, but this one is specifically used by China to extend its influence in the region.
China's military budget rose 5% last year to $250 billion. Now its space program is worth $8.4 billion. While the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that important infrastructure projects are not getting built in Canada, the leader of the Liberal Party has sent $256 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a bank that helps exert influence by China in the region.
Why is the Prime Minister funding infrastructure projects in other countries?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party continues to exert such weakness around the world. The Government of China is holding two Canadian nationals unlawfully. It has blocked Canadian exports, and the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing to stand up for Canada. He could show the Government of China that there are consequences for pushing Canada around by pulling the funding from the Chinese-run Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Will he do so, yes or no?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly sending a strong message to China that the only response the Prime Minister is capable of finding is something the Conservatives asked for days ago. He could show the Government of China that there are consequences for detaining Canadian nationals—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, why would Canadians expect the Prime Minister to stand up for the interests of China? Why would we expect the Government of China to take the Prime Minister seriously after showing such weakness on the world stage, after backing down to Donald Trump time and time again, after clowning around in India and angering our trade partner? Why will the Prime Minister not stand up for Canadian interests when it comes to the Government of China?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, we do not need a drama production; we need action for Canadian interests around the world.
It was the Prime Minister who signed a deal that was shoved down his throat and still kept steel tariffs in place. It was the Prime Minister who capitulated on dairy and pharmaceuticals. It was the Prime Minister who angered our trade partners when it came to CPP talks.
Now that Canadian nationals have been unlawfully jailed and Canadian exports are not moving, he has done nothing to stand up for this country. When will the Prime Minister finally do something—
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister likes to keep track of the number of days, I have one for him. It has been 31 days since the Prime Minister threatened to sue me for telling the truth about his interference in a criminal prosecution.
I have repeated all my allegations outside the House and have been waiting for our day in court, where he can finally testify for himself under oath. Can the Prime Minister tell me when I can expect the court proceedings to commence, or, like everything else with him, was it all just a big act?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the ongoing diplomatic crisis between Canada and China continues. Now it is Canadian canola producers who are paying for the Prime Minister's weakness on the world stage.
It is clear that China has no respect for the Prime Minister, and why would it? After the Prime Minister clowned around in India and backed down to Donald Trump time and time again, China believes it can walk all over him.
China has unfairly jailed two Canadians, and now it is blocking canola exports. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up for Canadian interests?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, we are finally making some progress. After the events of this weekend, the Prime Minister at least knows which country in Asia we are talking about.
However, not only is he not standing up for Canadian interests, he is actually bankrolling Chinese foreign policy by supporting the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is $256 million of taxpayers' money to curry favour with a government that has jailed Canadians for political reasons and is in violation of international trade rules.
Why is the Prime Minister using Canadian tax dollars to bankroll the foreign policy of the Government of China?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting is that the Prime Minister show some backbone and stand up for Canadians in jail in China.
To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on a pipeline he cannot get built in Canada but is funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, directed by China, to build pipelines in other countries.
When will the Prime Minister show the Government of China that there are consequences for treating Canadians this way, and pull the funding from the infrastructure bank?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, China is now investing an estimated $8.4 billion in its space program, more than than Russia or Japan. China is the second-biggest military spender.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister insists on giving $256 million to China for its infrastructure bank.
What will it take for the Prime Minister to finally stand up to China and defend Canadian interests?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, whenever the Liberals are in power, they love to rewrite the rules to benefit themselves. Today we have learned the names of individuals from SNC-Lavalin who gave over $110,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the Liberal Party.
When Conservatives were asked for this information, we released it immediately, but the Liberals refused. In fact, they sat on this information for three years. It took investigative reporting to uncover it.
Why did the Prime Minister's recent election financing changes not take action to expose this cover-up?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, it was with deep sadness that I learned of the attacks on Christians in Sri Lanka that took place one week ago, on April 21, Easter Sunday. In a few short moments, an act of pure evil and hatred took the lives of over 250 women and children and men, and injured over 500. In mere seconds, children lost fathers and mothers, parents lost children, and families were shattered.
The majority of victims were Sri Lankan nationals. They were targeted in three hotels and three churches: St. Anthony's Church in Colombo, St. Sebastian's Church in Negombo and Zion Church in Batticaloa. There is no doubt that the date of the attack was intentional. Easter Sunday is the holiest day on the Christian calendar. This brought back tragic memories of a similar attack on Christians just three years ago, when on Easter Sunday in 2016 the church community in Lahore, Pakistan was targeted, killing 75 people and injuring over 340; and of the Palm Sunday attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt in 2017.
Let us be clear: These victims were targeted because they were Christian. As a Christian myself, seeing the statue of Christ in one of the churches covered in the blood of his followers was indescribably moving, for Jesus, out of love, shed his blood for us so that we might live.
This deadly violence occurred on Easter Sunday, the day that we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and his victory over death. It is this example of love that enables Christians to follow Jesus's teachings, to love and forgive our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us.
It is this example of love and self-sacrifice that was demonstrated by Ramesh Raju of the Zion evangelical church in Batticaloa on the morning of April 21. This 40-year-old father of two gave his life to block the attacker at the church door, protecting over 600 people inside the church. Sadly, the attacker persisted and the bomb was detonated outside, killing Ramesh and 14 children from a Sunday school class, many of whom were the same ages as my own children.
In these dark moments, Christians suffering in Sri Lanka can look to God knowing that the light shines in the darkness and that darkness has not overcome it. John, chapter 15, tell us that Christ told his disciples that they would suffer for their witness. He said, “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you..”.
That does not mean that we should stand by, and that does not mean that we should not do all we can to fight those who would attack others simply because of their faith. As Canadians, we unequivocally condemn this act of violence and hatred toward Christians and the targeting of religious minorities throughout the world.
It was less than two months ago that we stood in this chamber to mark the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand. Over this past weekend, we heard again of a heinous and murderous attack on Jews marking Passover at a synagogue in California.
In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, it is easy to become desensitized to these attacks. We are shocked at the news footage as it comes in, but soon our attention is lost.
We must never get used to this kind of hatred and violence. We must never forget.
Together, we must resist those who attack someone because of their religious beliefs.
As Canadians visit our respective places of worship for our various religious festivals and holy occasions, we are reminded of the freedom and safety we are blessed with here in Canada. Would that we never take that for granted. On behalf of Canada's Conservatives, I reaffirm our commitment to combat all forms of hatred and injustice and pledge to continue to defend Canada's proud heritage of religious freedom.
For all who are recovering from injuries and the loss of loved ones due to these bombings in Sri Lanka, Canadians stand with them, and we mourn with them.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still threatening to sue me over a statement that I made on March 29. I stand by every single word of that statement. In fact, I just repeated it moments ago outside the chamber. He claims I will face consequences for exposing his potentially illegal interference in a criminal trial. However, the only consequence seems to be that the Prime Minister will be forced to finally tell the truth.
When will I see him in court?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked his lawyers to send me a letter threatening me with a lawsuit if I did not retract the statement I made on March 29. Not only will I not retract it, but I stand by every single word of that statement. I repeated it outside the chamber.
When will I see him in court to discuss his corruption scandal?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be missing an important fact here. It is that I am not withdrawing my remarks. In fact, I am standing by them and I repeated them outside of the House of Commons. Once again, if the Prime Minister is so sure of his case, will he commence court proceedings so that Canadians can finally hear the truth about this scandal?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, those are typical Liberal smear tactics. They know that I have always 100% denounced white supremacy and racism and anyone who promotes those hateful ideologies. The Prime Minister also knows that the senator withdrew and clarified his remarks and that I continue to denounce those types of messages. This is what is disgusting about this. The Liberals are using the very real threat of hatred and racism in this country to cover up their corruption scandal.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the only thing a Conservative government will take away from Canadians is their obligation to pay his carbon tax, and that will come to an end this October.
Canadians finally want to see the Prime Minister testify under oath. They finally want to see documents presented to court in an environment that his members of Parliament cannot control.
Once again, I have stood by everything I have said. When will the Prime Minister finally start the lawsuit?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about politicians who have led Canadians in error. The Prime Minister said, when the allegations were first printed in The Globe and Mail, that they were completely false. We now know that is not true.
Is the Prime Minister aware that if he says something that he knows not to be true in a court proceeding that he will be guilty of perjury?
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now wants to talk about falsehoods. The Prime Minister said, in response to The Globe and Mail story breaking the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, that no one, neither himself nor anyone in his office, put pressure on the former attorney general to interfere in this case. We now know that is completely false.
Once again, is the Prime Minister aware that if he says something that he knows not to be true in a court case that he will be guilty of perjury?
Results: 1 - 60 of 906 | Page: 1 of 16

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

For more data options, please see Open Data