SoVote

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Member of Parliament
Member of the Board of Internal Economy House leader of the official opposition
Conservative

Regina—Qu'Appelle
Saskatchewan
Voting Attendance: 64%
Expenses Last Quarter: $172,932.98

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 220 - Sep/19/23

Sep/19/23 7:04:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I guess we could start with the government releasing some information. In all different areas the government has an aversion to transparency and accountability. It would be a great conversation to start. It can start by sharing what it believes it can at this moment. I think Canadians would welcome that.

53 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23

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

Feb/9/23 3:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the traditional Thursday question, where the government has the opportunity to inform the House as to the legislation that we will be debating in the days ahead. I do note that, after the House leaders' meeting, there were some conversations about a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-39. Conservatives feel very—

60 words

Context: House Hansard - 156 - Feb/8/23

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

Feb/8/23 4:12:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the interpretation services provided to this morning's meeting of the official opposition caucus. To be clear, these were issues with the technical arrangements provided by the House of Commons administration, not the quality of the work provided by our great and hard-working interpreters. Caucus meetings play a very special role in the work of members of Parliament here in Ottawa. It is where we gather to discuss the issues of the day that are dominating the national conversation as well as the business that needs to be addressed here in the House. These meetings are also where we learn about local and regional priorities in this vast and diverse country of ours. Mr. Speaker, as a former chair of the national Liberal caucus yourself, I know I do not need to remind you of that. Our national caucuses engage in conversations about national issues in a truly national way, not least because they are conducted in our two official languages, English and French. Indeed, subsection 4(2) of the Official Languages Act requires that: Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other. Today, those facilities were not available to the Conservative caucus here on Parliament Hill. Technical concerns at caucus meetings have, in the past, given rise to prima facie cases of privilege. On October 17, 1973, at page 6942 of the Debates, Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the discovery of a bugging device in the NDP caucus room. More recently, on March 25, 2004, at page 1711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege when the confidential proceedings of the Liberal Party's Ontario regional caucus had been inadvertently disclosed through the House's audiovisual system, which was installed in the meeting room. The Chair observed the pivotal nature of proceedings to MPs' work, stating the following: “The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. members.” Subsequently, in its 22nd report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated at paragraph 14: To the extent that caucus confidentiality is breached by Members by disclosing what was said or went on to non-members of caucus, this is a matter to be dealt with by each party caucus. Any unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, however, is a matter for the House itself. Not only does this arguably impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary functions, but it also could constitute a contempt of the House of Commons. Although both cases involved eavesdropping on confidential caucus meetings, I would respectfully submit that the rulings stand for two important propositions. First, caucus meetings form an essential component of an MP's parliamentary functions. When they are interfered with or impeded, this raises considerations of parliamentary privilege. Second, troubles arising from the technical facilities at caucus meetings become, in the words of the procedure and House affairs committee, a matter for the House itself. On pages 111 and 112, House of Commons Procedure and Practice recalls for us: A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties...then a [case] of privilege cannot be found. It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege The inability of the Conservative caucus to conduct its affairs in both official languages has seriously undermined our ability to do our work, discuss issues at hand and prepare ourselves for another week of resistance in the face of a government that, after eight years, has so cruelly abandoned Canadians. Should you agree with me that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege here, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

723 words

SoVote

Member of the Board of Internal Economy House leader of the official opposition

Hon. Andrew Scheer