SoVote

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Member of Parliament
Conservative

Regina—Qu'Appelle
Saskatchewan
Voting Attendance: 61%
Expenses Last Quarter: $195,980.34

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

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

Sep/17/24 3:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative caucus, I would like to thank you for those very kind words and a fitting tribute to a man who held a position in the Speakership during part of his tenure here. This is a difficult task, to try to sum up in just a few minutes the impact that a man like Chuck Strahl had on Parliament, on politics and on not only the Conservative Party but the Conservative movement as a broader whole. However, it is truly an honour for me to do that, as imperfectly as I may. We all know Chuck's official biography, of course. He was first elected to Parliament in 1993 and re-elected another five times. Over his 18 years as an MP, he served as a third party critic, a whip, a House leader for the official opposition, a minister of the Crown and a Deputy Speaker. Chuck knew that if a position he filled was important, it was first and foremost a reflection of the awesome responsibility of the position. There is such a difference between a man of great integrity and others who view titles and positions as ways to aggrandize themselves and make it a reflection of the individual rather than the position. Chuck, despite the high offices, never lost touch with his roots. He was a logger from the B.C. interior. He brought a healthy dose of common sense to public life. Speaking of logging, Chuck was a builder. I would often look with great envy at the pictures the current member for Chilliwack—Hope would send me of the latest project he and his father were working on around the house. Being someone who was not gifted with those types of abilities, I would always feel great awe and admiration that Chuck was able to do that. However, he did not just build things out of wood and metal. He helped build a movement. Chuck was one of the major architects of the wonderful experience that was the Reform Party of Canada. Even though he was from B.C., he helped light that prairie fire that kept burning and spread eastward to help give Canadians hope that power in Canada could one day truly be restored to the people and out of the hands of the elites who had caused so much damage at the time. We think today, in our modern lives as members of Parliament, about what that was like back then. We all know how hard it is sometimes to organize events, but we have wonderful tools like texting and social media. We can post things on a website. Chuck and the Reform Party team were able to pack church basements, town halls and legions with hundreds and hundreds of people just by using the telephone, maybe some radio messages and those famous newsletters we all got through fax machines. It was incredible. It speaks perhaps not so much to their technological prowess, or the organizational abilities of people like Chuck, but of the message they were carrying and the hope they were giving to Canadians in every corner of the country. Chuck was a strong family man, a gifted communicator and a natural-born leader who projected honour, integrity and faithfulness in all that he did. We could chat with Chuck for hours and he would rarely brag about any of his political achievements or the offices that he filled. Instead, he was most likely to brag about his province, his community or, most often, his family. We could tell what motivated Chuck just by talking to him for a few minutes. Chuck inspired so many young members of our movement to take up the fight. He was a happy warrior. It was easy to follow someone like Chuck because he did it with a smile on his face, motivated more by hope and what was possible than by what riled him up. However, if we ever did rile him up, we would know about it. During my first Parliament, Chuck was the Deputy Speaker. I was a new MP at the age of 25. Let me say that Chuck's deep, baritone voice would leave us in no doubt if we ever found ourselves on the wrong side of the chair. It was wonderful to work with him in his next role, as minister of agriculture, as he started the process to give western Canadian farmers the freedom to market their own agricultural products. For those of us who may have come to politics a little later, it is sometimes hard to imagine that for decades, western Canadian farmers had no control of the product of their summers' worth of labour. Instead, they had to trust the government to do that for them. However, Chuck, as was long a part of his mandate, helped lay the groundwork for what would eventually be the successful abolition of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. Chuck played a pivotal role as minister of Indian affairs, as it was called then, building the path for Stephen Harper's momentous 2008 apology to former students of Indian residential schools. While there has been the outpouring of messages of support and condolences that we would expect from many people in politics, the tributes from first nations communities across the country are, I know, also very meaningful to the Strahl family, as a reflection of the sincere and deep relationship that Chuck made with the people with whom he worked so hard to address their issues. As minister of transport and infrastructure, Chuck played the role of builder once again, as he was instrumental in delivering much of Canada's economic action plan. A lot of Canada's recent infrastructure may well have a link back to Chuck the road builder. He leaves behind Deb, his loving wife of almost 50 years, and four children, Karina, Loni, Kyla and the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope, someone who, as all of us know, has inherited that deep baritone voice. When we talk about integrity, I think it is important to think about what that meant for Chuck. Chuck would often say that sometimes politics can get complicated because we make it overly complicated, and often what we need to do is just take a step back and think about our first principles: why we got into it in the first place or what we told our constituents at the first meeting, maybe when we were running for the nomination, or on our first election night. Ottawa can twist and turn things. The bubble is real, and it can affect how we look at things. Chuck would always be able to slice through all that, simplify the complicated and bring it right back to what it would mean for the Canadian people. That shone through every single thing Chuck did. I know we are all going to miss him, those of us who were wise enough to seek his counsel. Having Chuck on speed dial or as a contact was a smart thing to do for anybody in a leadership position. Chuck was very kind to chair my campaign when I was running for the leadership of the party. I would often call him for advice or wisdom or to run things by him. There was great comfort in knowing that I had someone like that in my life, almost that I could offload some of the stress or overthinking on various issues. Once again, my deepest sympathies and condolences go to Deb, Karina, Loni, and Kyla. I am going to break protocol here; Mark, I give our very deepest condolences and best wishes to your family as you recover from this tremendous loss.

1295 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 - 191 - May/4/23

Hon. Andrew Scheer

May/4/23 12:30:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I note that the member may seek the floor, when it is his turn. We want to hear from our colleague from Alberta here who has the floor now, reading his speech. However, we all know what he said. We all know that both the member for Kingston and the Islands and the deputy House leader for the government were sent in here this morning to try to turn the victim into the villain; to try to somehow say that it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' fault that the Liberals sat on a report for two years, knowingly giving permission to a foreign diplomat and operative from the People's Republic of the regime in Beijing. I would like to know if I could table the blues. This is what the member for Kingston and the Islands actually said, quote: “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defensive briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened.” This is shameful. I call on the member right now to stand up and unequivocally apologize for that disgusting comment.

195 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Hon. Andrew Scheer