Andrew Scheer
Regina—Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues for that accommodation. I think that any time a member is retiring after great service to their constituents in this House, it is appropriate that we show that kind of grace. I want to quickly extend all the very best to my colleague from Yorkton—Melville .”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member's speech. Our ridings share a border, and so we are neighbouring members of Parliament. My riding goes all the way to Melville where her riding begins.”
“They want to see people elected to the House of Commons who do not just go with the flow or read the polls and make decisions afterwards, but have a clear sense of who they are and what they are all about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, signed by over 215 residents in and around the Indian Head area who are protesting the closure of the Indian Head Research Farm. This research facility has over 100 years of data on soil, moisture and crop varieties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling yet another petition from residents in and around the Indian Head area in southern Saskatchewan who are urging the government to reverse its terrible decision to shut down the Indian Head agricultural research farm.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have all been waiting since last Thursday for today's Thursday question, the time of the week when Canadian telecom providers have to scramble to add excess capacity as hundreds of thousands of Canadians tune in, anxiously anticipating what the government will bring forward in the chamber for the rest of this week and into…”
The complete record
Every one of 243 lines we hold for Andrew Scheer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know we do not debate points of order, but I think it is so telling that the first moment of this debate kicked off with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change 's admitting that what he said on Friday was not true and that emissions are not going down under the Liberal government's plan but are in fact going up. He has to make up some kind of hypothetical qualifier to get away from accusations of deliberately misleading the House. Four major pipeline projects, including access to tidewater, were built under the previous Conservative government. The current Liberal government inherited a proposal list with 18 LNG facilities that it has completely blocked or sat on.”
“If they vote in favour of the motion today, they would effectively be saying that there will be no new pipelines in Canada under the Liberal government. As for the list the Liberals came forward with in Bill C-5 , let us be clear that giving the power to selectively enforce Canadian laws when it comes to new energy projects will not matter as long as the production cap is in place. As long as the emissions cap is in place, it does not matter what they do with the powers they have given themselves under Bill C-5, because nothing will be able to flow through any kind of project they might support. The key to energy independence and abundance and to getting off the U.S. market and diversifying our customers and natural resources is to lift the emissions cap. The Liberals have a choice.”
“If oil and gas production is going to increase, Conservatives believe that we should see it increase here at home, because we know that we can extract our natural resources with the highest environmental standards and the lowest emissions intensity and that Canadians will see the benefit of that. To conclude, Liberals have a choice. They can vote in favour of our motion and lift the emissions cap, the production cap, or they can say today that they oppose new pipelines, that there will never be a pipeline built under the Liberal government. They could at least be honest with Canadians and provincial premiers, who are desperately clinging to hope that the government might reverse the Trudeau policies.”
“Instead of pipelines being built in countries that have terrible human rights records, instead of royalties being paid to governments that do not share our values and instead of people being put to work in other countries, let us bring those dollars home. Let us bring those investment dollars to Canada so Canada can provide the world with a clean, ethical, safe and reliable source of energy. Let us put the steelworkers in Regina back to work building the pipelines. Let us put the engineers back to work. Let us put the blue-collar workers back to work, workers who tap a well and see it all the way through to completion. Let us support our hospitals, schools and roads with the royalties paid by these companies. Greenhouse gas emissions do not need a passport to travel around the world.”
“Not only will the emissions cap keep investment dollars out of our economy, but it also means that Canada will continue to sell at a discount to the United States. Members may have heard on CBC the Polish ambassador's explaining where Poland is getting its LNG from. When the host asked if it was buying its LNG from the United States, the ambassador had to stifle a laugh. He chuckled and said that not all LNG it is buying from the U.S. is American; some of it is Canadian. Of course, the U.S. buys it from Canada at a deep discount and then sells it to Poland at a big profit. We are literally subsidizing the American economy by means of the Liberal government's policies. Conservatives have a better idea.”
“Those workers support local economies, and the royalties gathered by the provincial and federal governments pay for important social services. Maybe policies like the production cap are the reason that over $50 billion of foreign investment has fled the Canadian economy, right at a time when we need to be firing on all cylinders to respond to the unfair U.S. tariffs. We need more and more money flowing into the Canadian economy to develop our natural resources, to bolster our GDP and to put Canadians back to work when their jobs are disrupted by trade disputes, but instead the government is continuing the attack on the oil and gas sector, the attack on the natural resource sector. Let us be clear about a few things.”
“Of course that was fine for his shareholders, and those projects would be even more economically viable in other countries if Canada did not produce its own natural resources. (1105) If Canada develops its own natural resources and we build pipelines here in Canada, then Brookfield's investments in pipelines in other countries will be worth less because it will face increased competition. That is something Canadians should never forget about the conflicted Prime Minister . It is not just the direct jobs that oil and gas production creates. Every paved road we drive on, every hospital we or our loved ones might have to visit and every school a child goes to is in some way, shape or form funded by natural resource development. When companies invest, they create jobs along the production site.”
“I should point out that this is an issue not just for western Canada; I know that other colleagues will be speaking to the motion, colleagues from Atlantic Canada too, where their hopes for economic growth are underpinned by the ability to develop their abundant natural resources. The world is consuming more and more oil and gas. Pipelines are being built in other countries. In fact it is ironic to note, and Canadians should never forget, that while the Prime Minister was cheering on Justin Trudeau and advising him to cancel Canadian energy projects, his company, Brookfield, was investing in other countries to build pipelines in other countries and develop other countries' natural resources.”
“It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister has performed a complete bait and switch, saying something during the election, changing the rhetoric of the Liberal Party, but delivering the exact same policy as the previous Trudeau government. TC Energy is not the only company building in the United States. Enbridge is as well. Enbridge is building two pipelines in the U.S. Again, these are Canadian companies with strong, proud histories of getting things built in Canada that have to go offshore into the United States to get new projects built. What does that mean for Canadians? It does not just mean lost jobs. Remember, oil and gas production in western Canada fuels the entire country's economy.”
“The Prime Minister cheered on and congratulated the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, when Justin Trudeau vetoed the northern gateway project, which would have taken western Canadian energy to a deepwater port in northern British Columbia, opening up billions of dollars' worth of market access in Asian countries and growing countries with increasing demand for oil and gas, such as India, Japan and Korea. All of that was killed when Justin Trudeau vetoed the northern gateway project, and the Prime Minister cheered him on. It is completely impossible to build another pipeline as long as the cap stays in place. If the cap stays, no new pipelines will ever be built.”
“Let us think back to the election campaign, when the Prime Minister was desperately trying to convince people that he was going to do things differently from the previous Liberal government, the Trudeau government, to which the Prime Minister was a senior economic adviser. When he needed Canadians' votes, he was pretending to be in favour of energy sector developments. He said all kinds of things during the campaign, but as soon as the votes were tallied, the Prime Minister showed himself to be just another Liberal. He has broken those promises and broken all those commitments. He has a long history of opposing energy developments.”
“After 10 years of Liberal policies that absolutely devastated the energy sector here in Canada, it decided to take the word “Canada” out of its name, and now it is known just as TC Energy. The Commonwealth of Virginia will have a major pipeline built by Canadian companies. That could have happened here, but not now. Before I go on, I should just mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk . Let us be very clear about why the investment is not coming to Canada. It is because there is a production cap. The Liberals like to call it an emissions cap. It is, in fact, a production cap. If members take away one thing from today's debate, it should be this: If members say yes to the cap, they are saying no to a new pipeline. It is as simple as that.”
“moved: Motion That the House call on the Prime Minister to immediately repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, which in effect is a production cap. He said: Mr. Speaker, there is breaking news today, really good news for some. TC Energy just announced that it is investing $8.5 billion in the energy sector. In fact, it said it is betting big on the energy sector. The bad news is that it will be in the United States. That will be $8.5 billion from a Canadian company investing in the United States instead of investing it here in Canada. That is $8.5 billion that will put people to work, pay royalties to state governments, create thousands of jobs in spinoffs and, of course, provide Americans with safe and secure energy sources. I remember when TC Energy was called TransCanada Corporation.”
“Second, my colleague, the shadow minister for employment and jobs, has asked the government if it would schedule an emergency take-note debate on the issue of youth unemployment. This is something that is affecting young Canadians in every corner of the country. There are a lot of bleak reports out there about young Canadians who are giving up on the hope of finding a job leading to home ownership and starting their life and family. I think it is an excellent suggestion by my colleague. I am wondering if the government House leader agrees that this is an urgent issue that needs to be debated and when he will schedule that debate for the House to participate in.”
“Mr. Speaker, it being the first Thursday after the summer holidays, I want to welcome my counterpart, the government House leader, and ask him if he could inform the House as to what the business will be for the rest of this week and into next week. I will make two quick points. We have extended an olive branch, in the spirit of co-operation and non-partisanship, that we would quickly pass Conservative laws to end the catch-and-release system that the Liberals created and impose tough penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders. We could pass that legislation very quickly and get it off to committee and to the Senate so we could finally put an end to the crime and chaos that Liberal soft-on-crime policies have caused.”
“Mr. Speaker, is that the best they can do, that one day they might get around to doing it? The evidence is in. Their plan is what caused the crime and chaos plaguing our communities. They deliberately changed laws to let thousands of dangerous and repeat offenders back on the street. Now they are admitting that they were wrong, but they are obstructing any efforts to fix the problem. Thousands of Canadians' lives have been shattered, and too many Canadians have paid with their lives for Liberal mistakes. If they will not stop obstructing Conservative plans to fix what they broke, will they at least look the families of those victims in the eye and just say sorry?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of passing catch-and-release laws that let dangerous offenders free just hours after getting arrested, the Liberals are still obstructing efforts to undo these laws. They voted down our motion, shut down Parliament, called a snap election, went on summer holidays and still have not even started the process of fixing what they have broken, so the Conservatives will do it for them. Our plan will end catch-and-release and give 10-year jail sentences to anyone convicted of three serious offences. We could pass these laws today. When will the Liberals stop obstructing Parliament and pass the Conservative “three strikes and you're out” law?”
“I can tell him that if he is about to answer yes to that, I promise that Conservatives will fast-track any such legislation to preserve the rights of Canadians to fill up their cars with gas long into the future. If he likes, I can even table the departmental regulations that show this ban is starting next year and that, by 2035, 100% of vehicles sold in Canada must be electric vehicles. That would add massive costs for Canadians hoping to purchase a conventional gas or diesel vehicle. In that light, I would like to ask him if he could answer that very specific question and wish him a very good summer as he returns to his constituency and spends time with his family.”
“There is only a day left in the calendar. Maybe, in that time, the government might bring forward a budget so that it can show Canadians how it is going to manage all of this spending and borrowing that it has racked up. My counterpart, the government House leader, was quite animated yesterday, telling Canadians that they have the choice of filling up their car with gas or diesel. That choice is soon coming to an end. Kicking in next year will be the Liberal ban on internal combustion engines. Maybe they would like to repeal that ban in the remaining days, since he seems to love filling up his car with gas so much. Maybe he would like to continue to enjoy that right in the years to come, and maybe they will bring in legislation to repeal that very ban.”
“They have had a little bit more time off this session, with the prorogation and the election, than other page cohorts, but they have done exceptional work as well and, again, served parliamentarians in a non-partisan and professional way. I wish them good luck with the rest of their studies, and I hope they have enjoyed their tenure here in the House of Commons of Canada. I would like to thank my government counterpart. [ Translation ] I would also like to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for working with me over the past few weeks. [ English ] We have always been able to have professional meetings. Although we do not often agree on much, in terms of policy, we do recognize that Parliament has to function on behalf of Canadians. In that light, I wonder if the government House leader could update us.”
“Mr. Speaker, as this is the last Thursday projected before the summer recess, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House administration, which has supported members of Parliament as they resumed their duties after the election. There was a lot to do to get so many new members of Parliament sworn in and oriented and ready to go for this session. I just want to commend the Clerk's team and all the procedural staff who are involved in that. I know that there are a lot of moving pieces; once again, they discharged their duties with great proficiency, and we all certainly appreciate that. I would also like to pay tribute to the pages, as this is the final week in their program. They have done excellent work throughout the past few months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have in my hands a document entitled “Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard”, with a timeline where it says that the requirements increase to— Some hon. members: No.”
“Mr. Speaker, we do not have to allow Canadians to buy one type of vehicle by banning their ability to buy the ones that they actually want. This is raising a lot of questions. Canadians and auto workers for GM do not want the EV mandate, but the Prime Minister is intent on pushing it through. Why? Well, right before becoming Prime Minister, he was chair of Brookfield, and he advocated for a ban on gas-powered cars. Brookfield is heavily invested in the EV supply chain, yet the Prime Minister refuses to reveal his financial interests or self-admitted conflicts. Is it not true that this is not about the environment but about the bottom line for Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, there absolutely is a ban. It starts to come into effect next year, and it will absolutely devastate the auto sector here in Canada. The auto sector is already under fire from unjustified U.S. tariffs and the PM 's inability to get a deal. GM and Ford are also saying that this ban will kill jobs. In fact, a new report says that this ban on gas-powered vehicles will kill 90,000 auto jobs. Instead of sending even more jobs to the U.S., why not end the ban on gas-powered vehicles and let Canadians decide what kind of vehicle they want to buy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is doubling down on its insane ban on gas-powered vehicles. The latest Liberal overreach kicks in next year, and soon one's favourite car, truck or van will be illegal. However, this mandate is already driving up prices. The average price of a new car is $67,000; used cars are approaching $40,000, and the Liberal mandate will add an additional $20,000 per vehicle. The Liberals have already priced working Canadians out of the housing market. Why are they pricing working Canadians out of the ability to buy a vehicle as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has it exactly right. I know many of these points have been raised, but it is worth repeating because we are dealing with an unprecedented assault on consumer choice from a Liberal government that just cannot help itself. It is always increasing costs. It is always banning things. The government is like a no fun government. Why do we not let Canadians make the choice themselves? Let a thousand engines roar. Let Canadians decide which vehicle they want. As my colleague pointed out, there are so many places in this country where consumers just do not believe that an electric vehicle fits their needs. It could be because they have a lack of access to charging stations. It could be because they require a certain model or one with the ability to operate in cold weather and go long distances.”
“We believe every Canadian should have the right to buy whatever vehicle they choose. This is not about one particular province's approach. This is about the rights of individuals, for whom Conservatives fight.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member asked about a few points. First of all, there are lots of ways we can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions without depriving Canadians of choice, and that is what this Conservative motion is all about. Conservatives have a long track record of investing in technology and incentivizing advancements in new methods of production and whatnot that will help reduce those emissions. I mentioned exporting more Canadian LNG to countries that use coal to create electricity. I did not even get into the topic of how bad for the environment some of the production methods of extraction for the component materials of EVs are in the economy. When it comes to the situation in Quebec, we believe that every Quebecker should have the right to choose what kind of vehicle they want.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal member wants to tell Canadians that car prices are not becoming more expensive, I will go with him. I will go with him door to door, and he can tell every household he wants to that cars are not getting more expensive. We all know they are. They are being pushed higher and higher out of the grasp of hard-working Canadians who used to be able to afford them. All the questions about technology and investment are not what this motion is about. The Liberal policy is not about investing in technology or improving the grid or giving more options to Canadians. It is about banning an entire category of vehicles that Canadians have proven they want to be able to buy, and Conservatives will always fight for their right to do so.”
“The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. The government should stop tormenting Canadians and give them back the freedom to buy the car, truck or minivan of their choice.”
“This is a typical playbook by the members of the radical left. They pick a target that is just far enough away that they will not be around to be held accountable, but it is close enough that it feels like real action is being taken. They slide these things through in bigger packages. That is why Conservatives are highlighting this today, because this ban is already impacting the market. It is already having an effect on driving up costs. It is only going to get worse. I would like to close with my favourite quote when I think about busybody Liberal government overreach. C.S. Lewis said: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
“We are going to put up with the lack of choice and lack of ability to suit our needs in the way we see fit, and it will have absolutely no impact on global emissions. The insult added to injury on that is knowing Canada could have actually helped reduce those global emissions by exporting more of our LNG, our clean and ethical natural resources, to help countries get off coal-fired electrical generation. Not only do we have a government that says no when our allies come looking to buy that clean and ethical energy, but then it turns around and punishes Canadians by taking away their right to choose what kind of vehicle they want to buy. I would like to close my remarks with a couple of statements. First of all, I agree with all of my colleagues today who said they fear Canadians do not know this is coming.”
“This ban, according to the government's own documents, will result in approximately 362 megatonnes' worth of reductions from 2024 to 2050. That is 26 years. On an annual basis, that works out to just shy of 14 megatonnes a year. Now, to put that in perspective, China's greenhouse gas emissions were 15,797 megatonnes in 2024. If we assume that China's emissions stay flat and do not increase at all, Canada's reduction, thanks to this ban on consumers' favourite car, truck or minivan, would represent 0.08%. We are going to cripple our auto manufacturing sector and deprive Canadians of the ability to buy a car, truck or minivan at a price they can afford, that meets their needs, while China continues to emit more and more every year. We are going to suffer here in Canada.”
“That is a brutal double whammy that is not fair to consumers and auto workers. There are 128,000 auto workers in Canada. The U.S. has no mandate to ban traditional, conventional gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. This insane policy to dictate to Canadians what kind of vehicle they must buy, what they must drive, will send even more jobs to Donald Trump's economy. I do not know why Liberals keep finding ways to punish Canadian industry and Canadian consumers by driving jobs and investment to the United States. It is a serial part of their DNA. Canadians will not tolerate this ban on their favourite car or truck. I heard a lot of rhetoric about the need for this to satisfy climate change targets. Let us have a quick peek at exactly what that looks like.”
“When the government comes in with its heavy hand and bludgeon and says it is going to take an entire category of vehicles off the table, that is when the government not only distorts the market and drives up costs but also kills jobs. (1705) Let us look at the impacts of the Liberal ban on people's favourite car or truck. It is going to lead to nearly 40,000 jobs lost. That is not from my research; that is from an independent analysis looking at how the cost of these vehicles will lead to job losses. A new report states that because of the Liberals' failure to get a deal on those unjustified U.S. auto tariffs, another 50,000 jobs could be lost. Not only is Canada dealing with the terrible policies of the U.S. government, but the auto sector has to deal with the terrible policies of its own domestic Liberal government.”
“They all can afford electric vehicles, but many hard-working Canadians either cannot or simply do not want to. My colleague from Manitoba was talking about how the free market has evolved to produce the kinds of vehicles that people want to buy. The auto industry is ruthlessly competitive. Millions of dollars are spent by each of the automakers every single year, trying to drill down and find out exactly what it is that consumers want to buy. They go out and offer it to consumers, and if Canadians buy one and not the other, that auto manufacturer has to go back to the drawing board and figure something out. They have to serve the needs of the market.”
“How much do members think that might cost? In my head, thinking back to when I bought my last vehicle, I thought it might be $15,000 or $16,000. It was $28,000, for a seven-year-old car with 120,000 clicks on it. That is something that never used to happen in this country. There were so many Canadians who used to be able to count on working hard to afford a vehicle. However, the busybody Liberal government, the “Ottawa knows best” group of elites, likes to sit on high and dictate to Canadians what they must do to be the right kind of person. The Liberals are doing that by taking away choice. They all have something in common. They all tend not to have to face the consequence of their decisions. They all have this insane need to boss people around and dictate how they are going to live their lives.”
“Under the tired 10-year Liberal government, not only has the cost of housing been pushed out of the grasp of hard-working Canadians, but the cost of car ownership is now becoming something that more and more hard-working Canadians simply cannot afford. In fact, the price of a used car is now about the same as a down payment on a new house. That is just astounding. I was astonished the other day. We are in the market for a new used vehicle. We have another driver in the household this year, and I went online and started looking. I expected I could probably find something for my daughter in that $10,000 to $15,000 range. In my head, I was thinking I may be able to pick up something with a bit less than 100,000 kilometres for $14,000 or $15,000. I found this on Used.ca in Regina: a 2018 Jeep Wrangler with 123,000 kilometres on it.”
“I imagine that for many Canadians, it is a special moment. I know people who worked hard all summer in their last year of high school. They scrimped and they saved, and as they got back to school on the opening day, they were able to buy that first vehicle, and they were able to pick up their friends and drive them to school. They were able to do that because a used car back then was affordable. Now, thanks to Liberal inflationary policies and thanks to policies like this ban on gas-powered vehicles, the cost of cars is going through the roof. According to AutoTrader, the average price of a new car is now $67,000, and a used car is now over $38,000.”
“The motion states: That, given that the Liberal government is banning the sale of vehicles that will force Canadians to buy electric vehicles, and this mandate will drive up the cost of gas-powered vehicles by $20,000, in order to allow Canadians the choice to purchase any vehicle that meets their needs at a price they can afford, the House call on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-powered vehicles. I have heard so much nonsense from the government today. The Liberals are dressing this up as providing an opportunity to Canadians to do something, but they are banning an entire category of vehicles that Canadians have demonstrated over the course of the last few years that they enjoy buying and driving. I would ask members to remember the time when they purchased their first vehicle.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of all my constituents in Regina—Qu'Appelle, indeed on behalf of everyone in Saskatchewan and, I dare say, across Canada who would like to continue to have the choice to buy the vehicle that suits their needs at a price they can afford. That is what today's motion is all about. Let me read it for them, because it is important that people watching understand what the government is doing.”
“Mr. Chair, there is a lot of noise over there on the Liberal benches, and it is kind of hard to listen to the exchange, so I would ask the Liberals to settle down a bit so we can— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, he is settling into old Liberal habits of not being bothered by wasting taxpayers' money and funnelling it to his friends. The Prime Minister is trying to act like he is new to the job or he just got here. He was Justin Trudeau's senior economic adviser while the contracts were being handed out. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade , the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs all have their fingerprints on the scandal, and he chose them to sit around his cabinet table. Why is it that every time the Liberals get caught in a corruption scandal, Liberal politicians get rewarded and taxpayers get the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have breaking news: Conservatives will force a vote here in the House of Commons to get Canadians their money back for the ArriveCAN scandal. The Auditor General slammed the Liberal government for giving GC Strategies, the top arrive scam contractor, $64 million in contracts since it took office. There was $64 million given to a two-person IT company that did no IT work and is under RCMP investigation. Instead of empty words like “We accept the Auditor General's findings”, how about the Prime Minister shows some concrete action, votes for our motion and gets Canadians their money back?”
“Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked a question directly to the minister. You have, correctly, reminded colleagues this evening that they should be asking their questions through the Chair. This is an important principle in our system because it provides some separation between members directly, so there is a bit of separation there. I just want to make sure of that.”
“I wonder if he could tell the House if, along with finally adopting the Conservative policy of scrapping the consumer carbon tax, the Liberals will do two things. First is finish the job and take the industrial carbon tax off the backs of our steel and aluminum workers. Second, now that they have finally admitted that it was such bad policy, will they apologize to Canadians for collecting such a terrible tax for so long?”
“Mr. Speaker, it being the first Thursday that I have had the opportunity to do this, I would like to welcome my counterpart back to this role. We have worked together in the past, and while we definitely do not agree on much, we do have a great working relationship on behalf of our two parties, which represent the millions of Canadians who voted for us. I look forward to continuing that constructive work together in the weeks and months ahead. I would like to know if the government House leader can update the House as to what the business of the House might be for the rest of this week and next week. We know the government has put some bills on notice and introduced some legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my hon. colleague was trying to seek unanimous consent for the House to have an emergency debate on the unjustified U.S. tariffs applied on Canada. It was ruled out of order by the Speaker. The Speaker made his decision earlier, but of course the House can do whatever it agrees to, so we are seeking unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order— Some hon. members: No.”
“Mr. Speaker, if photo ops and phony rhetoric actually got things done in this country, then Justin Trudeau would still be prime minister. However, in all seriousness, the Liberals' half-trillion in new spending without a budget will make inflation worse. The PM said that he wants to be judged by prices at the grocery store. So, let us look at those prices. The verdict is in: Beef is up 34%; apples are up 18%; coffee is up 9%. Will the Prime Minister listen to Parliament and table a budget that controls spending, lowers taxes and cuts inflation so that Canadians can afford to put food on the table?”
“Mr. Speaker, one way to deal with the Americans is from a position of strength, but now the Prime Minister is saying that he will not even approve a new pipeline unless there is consensus. This is already unravelling. The radical B.C. premier is saying no pipeline through his province, and there is not even consensus in the Liberal cabinet, with top ministers committed to killing oil and gas projects. The vast majority of Canadians do not want to give a veto to politicians. They want to be less dependent on the Americans and earn more powerful paycheques from selling our oil and gas around the world. Will the Prime Minister show some leadership and commit to approving a pipeline today?”