SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/10/24 2:17:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the most basic responsibilities of any government is to protect the country from foreign threats. On this, the Prime Minister has been a complete failure. Last week, an intelligence report stated that an unknown number of parliamentarians have been “'witting' participants” in foreign interference in Canadian politics. What is even worse, though, is that the Prime Minister has known about these allegations for years and has done absolutely nothing about it. He has had years to establish a process to get to the bottom of which MPs have betrayed Canada and put in place a fair process for those accused while protecting intelligence sources. Instead, he has been quite happy to sit back and let it all happen. This is unacceptable. To maintain faith and trust in our democratic institutions, Canadians need the truth. That is why common-sense Conservatives are demanding that the government expand the scope of the foreign interference public inquiry to receive all documents and information and reveal the names of which MPs have sold out their country. The Prime Minister and his Liberals might not have a problem with MPs' working for other countries, but Conservatives do, and we are going to do everything we can to get Canadians the truth.

212 words

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/10/24 4:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add some additional comments regarding the question of privilege raised by the NDP's deputy House leader. In her comments on Thursday, as in her original submissions the week prior, the member for London—Fanshawe failed to offer any arguments that would extend the applicable requirements for the Speaker's impartiality to the other chair occupants. For his part, the hon. Member for Mégantic—L'Érable cited at length from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, as well as rulings delivered from the Chair, in 1993 and 2023, on the subject matter. The NDP deputy House leader failed to answer those points and explain how well-established precedents should be thrown out the window. Finally, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe neglected to address the NDP's disappointing hypocrisy in raising these concerns, all while the NDP website leverages the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing's Assistant Deputy Speaker title for fundraising and volunteer recruitment purposes. Her silence speaks volumes. I would just like to point out that when my colleague raised this point, the response from the NDP House leader was to refer to the question of privilege as “the dumbest question of privilege” he has ever heard. I agree with him. I just believe that his comments should be addressed to the member for London—Fanshawe's raising of the original point, not to the point that my colleague, the deputy leader for the Conservatives, made, which is that, if the New Democrats were upset with the original point, they should look at their own examples before they raised theirs in the House of Commons. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to agree with my hon. friend, the deputy leader for the official opposition, that there is no question of privilege here.

315 words

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/10/24 4:49:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would also like to address the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the hon. member for Saskatoon West. First, I am pleased to hear that she accepted the apology of our colleague when he rose on Thursday morning to advise the House that he had misspoken one word. It is an age-old tradition in this place that we accept the word and the apologies of our colleagues. That said, it apparently did not draw a line under the matter, so we are left to address the question of privilege raised concerning the accuracy of the Debates. I will read from page 1229 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition: The availability of the blues on the House of Commons’ internal website permits Members and their authorized delegates to use the web page or email to submit suggested changes for Parliamentary Publications editorial staff to consider.... It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. These practices were the subject of a very recently delivered ruling by the Speaker; on May 30, at page 24087 of the Debates, he said: While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner. The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices. If the Speaker himself plays no part in editing Hansard, then it must similarly follow that a private member on the opposition benches could claim no power or authority to override the editors' guidelines and long-standing practices. I would respectfully submit that, on that basis alone, the question of privilege must be dismissed. In any event, though, I would also refer the Chair to these comments, found on pages 1229 to 1230 of Bosc and Gagnon, where we read: Substantial errors in the Debates, as opposed to editorial changes, must be brought to the attention of the House by means of a point of order as soon as possible after the sitting, if a Member wishes to have the record changed.... When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter. In short, the correct procedure would have been for a point of order, not a question of privilege, to address a concern of this nature with Hansard. Therefore, the question of privilege must also fail on these grounds. Nonetheless, I would underscore for the House that the member for Saskatoon West has done the honourable thing. He apologized and advised that he had misspoken one word, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks. As such, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that you may now simply find the matter to be closed.

554 words