Rachael Thomas

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

Madam Speaker, we often talk about budgets as if we are just talking about money, as if it is just a spreadsheet full of cash, but we have to take a step back and ask where that money came from and why it is being spent. The answer to that, of course, is people. The money came from people and is supposedly being spent in support of people. Interestingly enough, it is the same people who pay in as benefit.

When we talk about this, we are talking about the nation of Canada. We are talking about the people who call this place home. The government is entrusted to take their money and spend it on their behalf for things that are supposedly supposed to benefit them, so let us talk about the people.

When I think about the budget, I think about Raelene, one of my constituents. She goes to the University of Lethbridge. She studies really hard, takes a full-course load and works a part-time job. She is optimistic about her future because she is confident in herself. She is confident in her skills and abilities and in her work ethic, but when she thinks about her future in terms of finding a job or being able to purchase a home, she begins to have doubts, because the government has done little to nothing to remove the gatekeepers or to bring down the cost of living that would prevent her from being able to buy that first home.

I think about John, who is a local beef producer in my riding of Lethbridge. He lives in the county and operates with his sons. He hopes to pass his business down to his family and, in the meantime, is looking to not only make ends meet, but hopefully generate a bit of a profit and be able to provide jobs. That is not to mention that he is producing food not only for our area but for the world. When I think about John, I think about the red tape that has been put in place and the language that is used against him as a farmer. I think about the carbon tax and the implications that it has on him and his business. I think about the overall lack of gratitude and the misconceptions that are put toward him.

I think about Tannis. Tannis is a mom to two young children. Tannis just started a new business in the last few months and she is hoping to make a go of it, but she recognizes that the input costs are only going up. She wonders whether or not it is feasible to keep going, but she still dreams of big things and has a fantastic work ethic. She will continue to work hard and hopefully she will make a go of it, but she is worried. She is worried about affordability issues, whether it is putting gas in her car, being able to heat her home or being able to put groceries on the table for her family.

I think about James. James wrote to me with regard to Bill C-11. He is a digital first creator. He wonders about his future and whether or not he can make a go of it. He knows that under Bill C-11, the government is going to look to control what people can see and hear and post online. He knows that this is censorship, that it is a far overreach of the government. James is worried about his future because the government is, in effect, building a firewall around him and preventing him from being able to reach the global audience that he hopes to reach. James wonders about his future.

I think about Marj and John, an elderly couple who came into my constituency office not too long ago with their heating bill in their hands and tears coming down their faces. The image will forever be in my mind. Why? Because Marj and John are people, people who are trying to make ends meet on a fixed income. Marj and John are having to make a choice between filling their prescriptions, heating their home or eating proper meals. That is not a choice someone in their late seventies should have to make when they are supposedly supposed to be enjoying their golden years.

I think about Allan. Allan is a law-abiding firearms owner in my riding who enjoys hunting with his buddies. He enjoys putting deer in his freezer to be able to feed his family and maybe being able to share an elk steak with friends. I think about him and his responsible use of his rifle, and then I think about the government demonizing him, as if he is the criminal. Meanwhile, the government turns a blind eye to our borders and very basic security. I think about the fact that crime has gone up by 32% since the Liberals took government. I think about the fact that street gang murders have gone up by 92%, and yet Allan is the one being treated like a criminal.

These are just a very few of the people and faces that I think about when I consider this budget and its implications for Canada.

Budgets are about people. They are not about a spreadsheet. They are not about a number. They are not about a percentage. They are not about debt. They are not about GDP. Yes, all of those factor in, but at the end of the day, the budget is about people. It is about whether the government understands what is required to support the people of this country.

Imagine we have this wad of cash in our right pocket and someone comes along and takes it out and puts a few nickels and dimes into our left pocket, and they expect to be applauded as if they have just done us a favour when in actuality we are far worse off. Budget 2023 feels a little like that. It feels like the government is wanting accolades for taking a wad of cash out of the pockets of Canadians and replacing it with a few nickels and dimes, as if it has done the Canadian population a big favour.

Meanwhile, the affordability crisis continues. Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues. Meanwhile, crime continues to skyrocket. Meanwhile, business investment is being driven out of our country, yet the government stands back and says, “Applaud us. Look how well we have done.”

The government forgets where that money came from. It forgets it took it out of the right pocket to put it into the left pocket. Of course, not all of it went back into the left pocket; only a few nickels and dimes did. The government forgets the people who entrusted it to govern. In doing that, it has lost sight of the most important things.

In this budget, Canadians were looking for lower taxes. In this budget, Canadians were looking for spending to be reined in. In this budget, Canadians were looking for effective measures around housing prices and affordability. That is what Canadians were looking for in this budget.

Instead, what Canadians received was a government that decided to pour gasoline on a fire, and that fire is called inflation. We already have the highest rates of inflation in 40 years. That has to do with our Prime Minister and the fact he made the determination to incur more debt than every other prime minister combined. In all of Canada's history, all debt combined, our Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, managed to spend more, and so inflation continues to rise. As inflation rises, so does the cost of living, and as the cost of living rises, Canadians become less and less hopeful.

The government likes to brag about its grocery rebate. I suppose some might call it the sexy item of the budget. It is the thing the government was hoping would save it and Canadians would applaud the government for. Again, take a big wad of cash out of one pocket and put a few nickels and dimes into another. “Applaud us, applaud us,” the government says.

Let us talk about the grocery rebate, shall we? Let us talk about the fact that because of inflationary measures groceries are going up by about $1,100 per family this year. Let us talk about that grocery rebate and the fact it is less than $500 for that same family. Do the math. The government is making decisions that is driving up the cost by $1,100 and giving $500. Are Canadian families better off? Absolutely not.

“Applaud us, applaud us,” the government says. “Send accolades our way,” it says, while it takes the wad of cash from the right pocket and puts a few nickels and dimes in the left.

What the government does not understand is a healthy economy, where people are working, thriving and contributing, cannot be replaced with government spending. Canadians deserve so much more. They are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth generators this country needs, and they are the ones—

[The Budget, April 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member is in the NDP, and there is a little coalition that has taken place between the NDP and the Liberals. I find it interesting that the member stands in the House today speaking out against components of the budget that she disagrees with, quite emphatically, and is able to rag against the government. However, in a few days from now, she will stand in the House to vote for that same budget, those same things she just railed against. That is a confidence vote, so her vote would mean that she has full confidence in the government to continue to rule. That means that her party must not want to form government, but rather, just substantiate this one.

I am curious as to how she can speak out of both sides of her face.

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would stand on a point of order. During the debate, there was an accusation thrown against me that I was spreading a conspiracy theory in bringing up the fact that the government has applied pressure to social media companies 214 times. I would like to retable the documents already tabled, which show that I am in fact telling the truth, and therefore, my emergency debate request is substantiated.

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 17th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House in order to make a request with regard to an emergency debate concerning revelations that the government has pressured social media platforms to edit or remove content that it considered embarrassing. These attempts at what can fairly be described as government censorship of the news, and the Internet more generally, came to public attention through a response that my colleague, the member for Niagara West, put forward in an OPQ.

The response, which has been tabled in the House of Commons, reveals that the government pressured social media platforms a total of 214 times over a 24-month time period and that this pressure was applied simply because the government did not want this information made public or it felt embarrassed by this information.

We know that there were many times when the platforms were able to successfully push back. However, we also know that Bill C-11 is currently in the Senate; if it should pass, it will actually legislate the government's ability to engage in this type of censorship going forward. One can imagine just how scary this is for many Canadians who count on the fact that we have a charter in this country that protects their freedom of speech, and therefore, freedom to access information that they wish to listen to or watch or access online. Therefore, given that we have now seen it come to light that the government applied pressure 214 times, we would ask that the House be able to engage in a debate with regard to this important matter.

I acknowledge that the Chair normally affords a wide latitude for contributions during the budget debate, which is the current debate taking place here today. I recognize that this type of request might not normally be granted under the emergency debate opportunity. However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize that these issues touch upon one of our fundamental freedoms, which is freedom of speech, and further, that censorship of the news and Internet is decidedly not an economic question, as the budget is. Therefore, it could not necessarily be addressed through financial initiatives.

To suggest that this issue can simply be raised within the context of the current debate seems perhaps reckless, and so I would respectfully allow my question to stand: Could we be granted an emergency debate with regard to the government's decision to apply pressure 214 times to social media platforms across this country?

[Canadian Heritage, April 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, what we know for certain is that the government will do all it can to dodge or deflect questions that it does not want to answer. There is nothing conspiratorial about a document that was tabled right here in the House of Commons that shows the government pressured social media platforms 214 times within 24 months to remove content the government simply found embarrassing or did not want the public to be aware of.

I will ask again: Why is the government so hell-bent on censoring freedom of speech in the country of Canada?

[Canadian Heritage, April 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know the government is abundantly committed to censoring what people can see, post or hear online. However, what we just learned is that the Prime Minister actually got a head start. According to government documents that were tabled in the House of Commons, the Liberals actually pressured social media companies a total of 214 times over the period of 24 months. Talk about heavy-handed. Why is the government so committed to censoring speech?

[Social Media, April 17th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, based on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, we know that the government is committed to censoring what people can see, hear and post online. However, what has just come to light is that it is so committed to this that it has actually gotten a head start. It has been trying to censor social media platforms for quite some time.

Thanks to the question put forward by the member for Niagara West, we now have documents, which have been tabled in the House of Commons, and they show that the government pressured social media platforms 214 times in a 24-month period to get them to take down content. Sometimes this was valid due to impersonations or copyright violations, but many times it was simply because the government found the content to be embarrassing.

If adopted, Bill C-11 would take this type of pressuring tactic and make it legal, which means the social media companies would not be able to push back. They would simply have to comply.

Canadians deserve to have their freedom of speech protected. The government needs to back off from censoring speech. We will be calling for an emergency debate.

[Motion No. 2—Senate Amendments to Bill C-11, March 30th, 2023]

Thank you. Thank you.

[Motion No. 2—Senate Amendments to Bill C-11, March 30th, 2023]

You still reject those amendments.

[Motion No. 2—Senate Amendments to Bill C-11, March 30th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard from the government is that it has moved closure on Bill C-11 and our discussion with regard to the amendments that came back from the Senate.

Closure means that the government is shutting down debate. I find this rather interesting because, really, Bill C-11 is a censorship bill, so we have a government that has moved a censorship bill and now is moving censorship on that censorship bill. Let us talk about a government very committed to censorship; it not only wants to censor what Canadians can see, hear and post online through Bill C-11, but the government also wants to censor us as opposition members in our ability to speak to the bill.

It should be further noted that the Quebec government, under Premier Legault, issued an open letter asking to be heard with regard to this legislation, because it has significant concerns. It asked that the bill be referred to committee, but it was not.

Therefore, not only was referral to committee not permitted, but now thorough debate is not permitted. Let us talk about a government committed to shutting down voices, not only the voices of the individuals in the House but also the individuals online who have something to say within that space. Why is this government so hell-bent on shutting down freedom?