Rachael Thomas

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I will just take the attention off of me because it is not about me. It is about Canadians. It is about the responsibility of the government to keep Canadians safe and secure. That is the foremost job of the government. That is prime.

The government has failed to do that by allowing Beijing to intimidate not only a member of this place but also many Canadians across the country. Furthermore, to intervene in our election process is absolutely wrong and should never be permitted.

The larger question here is what Canadians deserve, and Canadians deserve a public inquiry.

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

Today, we are discussing this question of privilege. It is interesting that we use this term around privilege because the privilege that we speak of is for a member of this place to exist and do his job without any fear or intimidation from a foreign entity. That is the question of privilege. That seems like something we should be able to take for granted, something that we should just be able to count on, day in and day out, not only as members of this place but as members of the general Canadian public. Why should we be able to count on that? Why should that be our reality? It is because we belong to the country of Canada.

As citizens of this fine country, we should have a government in place that prioritizes the safety and security of Canadians. Why? Because the safety and security of Canadians is the foremost job of any government, no matter its political stripe. If it does not keep its citizens safe, if it does not secure our borders, which are not just land borders but borders as in the security and safety of persons, we have little else as a country.

Without safety and security being achieved, we are not able to pursue economic well-being or prosperity. We are not able to dream of a vibrant future and what is possible. We are not able to implement environmental policies. Without the very basics of safety and security it is impossible to be the prosperous nation that it should be. It is interesting that we are talking about this as if it is a privilege when in fact the safety and security of members of this place and all Canadians should simply be their right based on citizenship.

What prompted this debate today? It is because a member of this House, a colleague, has come under fear and intimidation from Beijing. We do not know about this because the government informed this member of Parliament, though it knew about it. We know about this because of a journalist who released the story. The journalist knew about it because of a brave whistle-blower who released CSIS documents into the hands of the media, and from the media into the public. That is what has allowed us to become aware of this.

As a side note what is interesting to me is that the Liberals just met this last weekend to talk about policy at a policy convention. During that convention they put forward a policy that would require journalists to give up their sources in order to be published online. If journalists chose not to give up their sources then they would not be publishable. That is a direct attack on the freedom of the press. That is a direct attack on journalistic independence. That is a direct attack, therefore, on Canadians because Canadians rely on journalists to tell stories. They rely on journalists to tell the truth, to reveal things that the government might want to hide or that other corrupt actors in this country might not want Canadians to know. When the government wants to hinder the ability of journalists to tell the stories that need to be told, that is very disconcerting not only to me as a member of this place but to Canadians at large because it concerns their freedom, their ability to access information that is then put at stake.

We are here today because we found out that this colleague of mine, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, was the target of intimidation tactics and threats, as well as his family. These attacks came from Beijing. We know that the Prime Minister knew about this two years ago. We know that because intelligence documents told us that, yet the Prime Minister chose to remain silent and did not give the member a heads-up. When did the member find out? The member just found out about a week ago, when a journalist gave him a call wanting him to comment on this news. We can imagine how shocked my colleague was finding this out from a journalist. As time has gone on, more of the story has been revealed. The reality is that we know this is not the whole of the story. We know that this is actually only one part of Beijing's larger interference plan, with silence and inaction by the government.

With regard to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, what might be the reason Beijing would target him? Well, we suspect it is because of a position he took on a motion that declared the Chinese government's attack against the Uyghur people, a minority group in China, a genocide. Members of this place voted for that motion, with the exception of cabinet. Cabinet stayed silent; they stayed mum. I wonder why they failed to take a stand for this repressed group.

When I say “repressed”, I do not mean a bit hard done by. When I talk about the Uyghur people of China, I am talking about a minority group that essentially lives in enslavement. They live in prison camps. I am talking about a group whose human spirit the Chinese government is looking to destroy. I am talking about a group that is forced into mass sterilization. That is genocide. I am talking about a group whose children are separated from their families. I am talking about a group that is physically tortured, mentally tortured and sexually abused. Women are raped. I am talking about all of this being done at the hands of Beijing while these individuals are herded like cattle in these concentration camps, these encampments.

This place debated this motion, and out of that, my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, took a very strong stance calling this oppression against the Uyghur people what it is: a genocide. Now, of course, from there these threats ensued.

Again, I come back to the fact that the government knew for two years that this was happening and said nothing. However, it gets worse, because it is not just my colleague who came under this pressure or these threats from Beijing. We know that many Canadians reported coming under similar sorts of threats.

We also know that Beijing donated $144,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. We know that the Prime Minister's brother, Mr. Alexandre Trudeau, to be clear, was the one who signed off on that donation, yet the Prime Minister claims to have no affiliation whatsoever.

Further to that, we know that the Prime Minister was actually briefed through our intelligence agency in this country with regard to Beijing's interference in our 2019 and 2021 elections. We know that money was filtered illegally from Beijing businesses into Liberal campaigns in Canada. We know, again based on CSIS documents, that it was the intent of the Beijing government to make sure the Liberals won the election.

I wonder why they would be silent. I wonder why they would do nothing. After all, it is the government's responsibility to keep Canadians safe and secure. However, members sat on their hands. Perhaps it was a $144,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation. Perhaps it was the fact that Beijing was funnelling money into campaigns, hiring interns and putting them in campaign offices. Perhaps it was because Beijing was actively working to suppress candidates from other parties. Perhaps that is why the government forgot its first promise, which is to keep Canadians safe and secure and to make sure that the citizens of this great country are respected and that our democracy is upheld. Perhaps it was simply worth a piece of silver.

[Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21, May 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms.

We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through.

Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

[Privilege, May 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member has talked a lot about the foreign interference that has taken place in our country beyond just my colleague who we are speaking of directly. He also raised the point that in committee the Prime Minister's chief of staff stated that nothing was ever withheld from him and that he read everything.

Given that intelligence reports have been produced with regard to my hon. colleague and the harassing nature of Beijing toward him and his family, given that those reports have been released and given that the Prime Minister has access to everything and nothing is ever withheld, that he reads everything and never ignores a thing, I wonder what my hon. colleague might say to the Liberals' proclamation that the Prime Minister somehow did not see these documents.

[Court Challenges Program Act, May 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we are here to talk about the court challenges program, which has been brought forward by the hon. member, and I appreciate his words.

Right now, we already have a court challenges program in place. However, it is based only on a contribution agreement within the heritage department. This bills looks to permanently enshrine in law a court challenges program here in Canada.

What is that? I will quote the bill. It says it is “an independently administered program whose objective is to provide financial support to Canadians to bring before the courts test cases of national significance that aim to clarify and assert certain constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights and human rights”.

There would be two streams: official languages and human rights. Individuals or groups could come forward and to apply for funding from this supposedly independent body, and then go ahead to essentially go after the federal government or a provincial government in a court challenge.

It should be pointed out, just as an important side note, that this program is currently funded to the tune of $5 million per year. We know that about $3.3 million is spent on actual cases, which means that $1.7 million is being used on administrative costs. That is a lot of money tied up in administration. I have many significant questions, as do Canadians, about that money and its wastefulness. If this program is about equipping Canadians or empowering Canadians to be able to seek justice, then the money should be going toward that and not the hefty fees for administering this program.

Nevertheless, I will also point out that the government has said that it is supposedly doubling this amount. That is what the 2023 budget says. What is the amount it is committing to in the 2023 budget? It is $4.9 million. It currently spends $5 million, and it is committing to $4.9 million, yet it says it is somehow doubling the funding to this program. I point that out because it is as if the government just says something and relies on being believed to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes. Going from $5 million per year to $4.9 million a year is not doubling the program. The numbers speak for themselves.

While the Prime Minister and the government may claim one thing, they are really doing another. It is incredibly disingenuous of them. I want to point that out. Nevertheless, the bill itself is deserving of our attention today.

We have to look at the history to fully understand it. It originated with Trudeau senior, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The reason Mr. Trudeau senior brought this bill forward was because he was faced with Bill 101, which threatened the unity of this country. It looked to make French the sole official language in Quebec.

The prime minister at the time, Trudeau senior, did not want to challenge this himself, so he decided to put in this crafty mechanism called the court challenges program. It gave money to third party groups to challenge Bill 101. In other words, the prime minister, with his left hand, was saying he was in support of Quebec and its independence, and with his right hand, was handing over millions of dollars to have these third party groups challenge Quebec. That is the birth of this bill. It is incredibly disingenuous once again.

That is where it started. It has morphed over the years. Sometimes it has been backed up and supported, and sometimes it has been scraped or supported less. Nevertheless, it has existed in some form since the late 1970s.

One of the problems with this bill is that it undermines Parliament. This is where laws are made in this country. This is the place that has been entrusted by the Canadian electorate to make decisions regarding legislation. When we take that responsibility or authority, and we put it into the hands of the courts, we are doing a disservice, and even an injustice, to the Canadian people.

I would raise that as a significant concern, and I have many more concerns. They have to do with transparency, accountability and independence. I will explore those.

First, it should be noted that this bill is often used as a direct attack on Quebec and its culture and language rights. For example, even right now, the court challenges program is being used by activists to fight against Bill 21, which is a Quebec bill. It is currently being used to fight that bill.

The other thing I will point out is that this program is often used by woke groups to push woke agendas. Of course, that is supported by the panels that exist. Why is it supported by panels that make these decisions? I would argue it is because those panels are not in fact independent and are not in fact transparent. Again, there is a shroud of secrecy around the court challenges program and how it functions.

Let me explain more. With regard to transparency, panels exist: one panel for language rights cases and one panel for human rights cases. How are the individuals on those panels selected? I do not know. The reason I do not know is that this is not available.

The government claims it is supposed to be available, but my staff and I have checked the government's website numerous times over the last several months and it has always been down. We decided to go on the Wayback Machine, thinking perhaps the site was just down momentarily, but we were not able to find anything on the Wayback Machine. I wonder about that. Is the government purposely being secretive in the selection of these panel members or is the site just down? It is interesting. I am sure someone in IT would be able to fix that should they wish to do so.

Further to that, yes, there is some secrecy with these panels, but with regard to the supposedly independent organization, which is currently the University of Ottawa, how was it selected? Again, there are crickets. I am not sure. I could not tell the House because it is not readily available in the public domain.

I must highlight, then, that there is also an issue around transparency regarding which cases are funded. That was never made public knowledge. That was never made knowledge here in Parliament. There is also this shroud of secrecy around the level of funding, so not only what gets funded but also to what extent. How much money is going toward each of these cases? Again, it is secret.

We have a program taking tax dollars and putting those tax dollars toward these cases, but there is no transparency as to the decision-making process. Canadians deserve better than that.

Transparency is one issue, but another issue would be independence. One would expect the administrating body, which is the University of Ottawa, to be functioning fully independently of the government. Well, a bit of research shows us that this simply is likely not the case.

The University of Ottawa is functioning as this body. This is the university whose former president was a man by the name of Allan Rock. He was a cabinet minister under Chrétien who was convicted of an ethics violation for taking a free trip with the Irving family, which covered his transportation and his hotel. Does that sound familiar? We see a lot of that.

Allan Rock is known for initiating legislation that put the Trudeau Foundation in place. He is also known, of course, for his relationship with the Chinese. It is super interesting, is it not? We have this super independent body with these secretive criteria that are not transparent and are being used to select panels, and further to that, there are two panels making decisions.

When I look at the biographies of these panellists, all of them read as if the Liberal Party of Canada platform was just copied and pasted under their names. There is no doubt about it: These panels are not independently selected. There is no merit-based process being utilized, unless it is the same merit-based process used for the supposedly independent senators over in the other place, and we all know how independent that is.

The Speaker will excuse this side of the House for the conclusion we must draw, which is that this program is absolutely ludicrous. It lacks transparency, it lacks accountability, it lacks independence and it must not go on.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would make the observation that in this place there are quite a few MPs here who do work that gets noticed on social media or even in the mainstream media, and then there are other MPs who just do great work. My hon. colleague is one of those individuals who just do great work.

He is here today talking about the need for legislation around protecting first responders. One of the things we often do not take the time to talk about in this place when we discuss policy is our motivation, our heart, our why. I would invite the hon. member to talk about that.

[Democratic Institutions, April 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we know that, for years, Beijing has attempted to exert undue influence in Canada, but this is the very first government and the very first Prime Minister that have willingly offered Beijing cash for access. This is the first government that has gone that far, and $140,000 is all that it takes. It might as well be 30 pieces of silver.

Why does the Prime Minister believe that our democracy is up for sale?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, April 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a fantastic riding where there is a small urban centre and an incredible rural area around it. My constituents are hard-working men and women who are growing food and raising animals in order to feed not only our nation but also the entire world. Unfortunately, there are a few things that the government has done against them. First, it has used language that is incredibly demonizing. Second, it has applied a carbon tax to them, which has driven up their costs. Third, it has put in a slew of red tape, including around fertilizer. It is absolutely atrocious.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, April 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member where all the money comes from, which, once again, is the Canadian people. I would also remind the hon. member that there is nothing about the supposed dental program that requires the money to be used on dentistry. It is actually just a cheque that gets written should someone want it, so I would have a question for the member with respect to accountability and whether it is actually accomplishing what he wants it to accomplish, or whether it is just cash being piped out. Again, I would remind him that money does not grow on trees. I would also remind the member that the government has no way of generating money of its own. It has only the money that it takes through taxation, so to take a wad of cash from the right pocket and put a few nickels and dimes into the left pocket is absolutely atrocious and never praiseworthy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, April 27th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, again, what I am hearing the member saying is that we should applaud the Liberals while they take a wad of cash out of the right pocket and put a few nickels and dimes into the left pocket. They call that support. They call that being for the people.

What is interesting to me about the government is that its measure of success is the number of dollars it spends. It forgets where those dollars came from. They came through taxation because government never has money of its own; it can only take it from the people. Meanwhile, the government applauds itself because it is really good at spending and it likes to use that as its metric, so it spends on this and spends on that, and say to the Canadian public, “Please applaud us.” What is accomplished with that money? What does the government accomplish with all of its spending? Nothing, zero, is what it accomplished. That is the measure that Canadians shall use to know whether the government has been and is effective.