Rachael Thomas

[Natural Resources, February 4th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Line 5 is an essential part of Canada's energy supply chain, providing half the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. It is currently under threat of being cancelled, but the Prime Minister has not even lifted a finger. Canadians need to fill up their gas tanks, heat their homes and cook their food. Energy is, after all, the fuel of life.

Wait a second. Is that why the Prime Minister promised to plant two billion trees? Are we going back to wood-burning stoves?

[Democracy, February 3rd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, on the Liberal Party's website it says, “Parliament works best when its members are free to do what they have been elected to do: be the voice for their communities, and hold the government to account.”

That is interesting. Last week during question period, the Prime Minister accused opposition members of trying to “score cheap political points” when they asked questions. This is an affront to democracy. These members were fulfilling their constitutional obligation to hold the Prime Minister to account and defend Canadians. To disagree, to seek clarity, to ask questions or to point out misconduct is not wrong. These things are at the very heart of democracy: this place.

The Prime Minister has replaced Parliament with a committee. He has prorogued it to cover up his unethical behaviour. He has refused to answer questions that he does not like. However, Canadians are watching, and they are catching on.

Despite all the rhetoric of openness and transparency, the Liberal administration is proving to be one of the most undemocratic and dictatorial this country has ever seen. Canadians deserve a leader who will fight for true diversity, including diversity of thought.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, January 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, that question morphed from a celebration of work, which I was super excited about, to a squelching of work and its benefits. That is very sad.

We are talking about Canadians who have incredible potential, ability, gifts, talents and contributions to make to this great country. By putting mechanisms in place that would bench them, we would actually be making our country worse off. Why do we not have a more grand vision for people than that? Why do we not believe in letting them thrive? Why do we not believe in letting them use those gifts and those talents and those abilities to be the problem solvers, to be the solution makers and to be the people that they were designed to be?

I understand there are some who live with a disability and they absolutely deserve all the support they can get. That is an appropriate place for government to step in and provide support to those who are unable to do so for themselves. However, for the rest of us, let us skate. Let us use our gifts, our talents and our abilities to make this country a great place. Let us work.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, January 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, there is a place for taking on a small level of debt for a short term. That debt load, however, should have been incurred primarily in the name of generating jobs and investing in projects and industries that were going to serve this country in the long run.

That said, there is a time when due to something such as a pandemic, it is appropriate for the government to provide assistance to those who need it most. Through no fault of their own, many Canadians lost their jobs. Government policy created a lockdown. That lockdown resulted in the loss of livelihoods for many. That was a government decision; therefore, the government is responsible to step in and help. I voted for that and I am proud of that vote. What I am not proud of is where the government is going for the long-term future, which is into incurred debt over debt on the backs of Canadians. That is wrong.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, January 26th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

No one can minimize the very serious effects of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on our individual lives, our communities and our entire country. The times we live in are certainly not normal and the measures that have been implemented to mitigate the harm of the virus have been significant.

In the very early days of the pandemic, Conservatives were eager to work with the governing party to find solutions for Canadians. We knew it was imperative to act quickly and effectively, so those feeling the negative economic impact of the mandated shutdowns were offered the support they needed. We called on the government to close the borders, a recommendation it ignored for months and, sadly, caused considerable damage. To prevent job loss, we urged the Liberals to increase the wage subsidy program from 10% to 75%. When our constituents told us about the problems they were having accessing the rent relief program and other emergency benefits, we immediately proposed changes and fought for them. It often took weeks or even months for the government to respond. For some we are still waiting, but eventually some solutions have been put in place.

All of this was done with the understanding that measurable support must be given to help Canadians until the tide turns and a greater economic certainty is present, but here we are. We are nearly one year in and we are at a precipice. Even though the country is facing an astronomical deficit and debt load, there is no plan for recovery and there is no end in sight with regard to government spending. In the last year our country has adopted many policies which in normal times would have put us on a track to mirroring other economies like Cuba or Venezuela, where masses of people are out of work and individuals are reliant on the government for their very survival. It is entirely unsustainable for any long period of time, but oddly, to our detriment, the current federal government is proposing that many of the measures that have been implemented during the pandemic become permanently entrenched. This is scary.

The deficit for this year is projected to come in just shy of $4 billion, thus bringing the net national debt to a record $1.1 trillion. That is a massive number, one that is incomprehensible for many of us. The proposed changes to the Borrowing Authority Act in this legislation would increase the gross borrowing limit to $1.8 trillion, an increase of a whopping $700 billion. I realize those are big numbers, but to boil it down, we are living in a credit card economy. We are consuming more than we produce. We are buying more than we sell. We are borrowing from the world in order to buy from the world. We are sending jobs and money out the door in exchange for foreign goods. In essence, or in short, we are in trouble. Others get the jobs, the investments and the savings, but Canadians are left with the debt.

With the government's plan to increase spending, but no plan for economic recovery, Canadians should be concerned. It is the government's responsibility to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity. This is made possible by implementing policy that will draw investment into our country rather than repel it; by putting policy in place that would encourage job creators instead of punishing them; and by implementing policy that celebrates those who work hard in the private sector instead of forcing them into a place where they are reliant on the government for bread.

To sign off on the government's current intent to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without so much as a plan for economic recovery or accountability measures in place would be totally irresponsible of me and others in the House of Commons. The current government is providing poor leadership, and Canadians certainly deserve better. For Canada to get back on track, we must free the wealth creators, the innovators and the risk takers. We must believe in the people of this great country.

In response to a question about government spending, the Prime Minister said, “We took on debt so Canadians wouldn't have to.” I hate to break it to him but that is not exactly how it works. Governments do not have money. There is no special government bank account that money gets deposited into without a source, and of course, that source is us, Canadian taxpayers. The less revenue there is to tax, the less money there is to spend on social programs, health care, infrastructure and education. For this reason, it is confounding that the Liberals do not fight for industries such as the energy sector, manufacturing or agriculture, industries that have traditionally helped stabilize our economy for decades. They are well positioned to continue to do so; they just need a government that believes in them.

When the Prime Minister was embroiled in scandal over the SNC-Lavalin affair, which members will remember he pressured the former attorney general to let a criminally charged company off the hook. He did it under the guise of saying, “I am fighting for jobs.” What about the jobs here in western Canada? What about the jobs that were just lost when Keystone XL went out the door?

Why could the Prime Minister not do so much as pick up a phone, make a call and advocate for those workers and those jobs? Does he only care about jobs if they happen to be in his riding? Canada deserves a Prime Minister who will fight for unity, not against it. It needs a Prime Minister who believes that Canada is one nation from sea to sea and that the nation in its entirety is worth fighting for.

The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to 56% this year. That is just a short distance away from our 1996 high of 66%, when the Wall Street Journal deemed Canada to be “an honorary member of the third world”.

While the private sector is shrinking rapidly, the government is engorging itself. This is entirely unsustainable, but it is incredibly beneficial to a political party that is most successful when Canadians are dependent on government. Doling out money is actually a political leader's dream. It turns the people's affection toward him. It positions him as their hero, caretaker and saviour, so to speak.

Responsible leaders restrain themselves from utilizing this enticing tool. Instead of making it a long-term solution, they limit and put restrictions in place. It is not so with our current leader. Sadly, for quite some time the current government has fostered animosity toward job creators and wealth generators. The Liberals are engineering a society that will leave everyone less prosperous and more dependent on government.

While the Liberals love to talk about giving and receiving, I wish to talk about the value of earning. I am talking about the privilege, the honour and the dignity of work. It is an incredible thing for one to earn what one receives. Studies show that individuals who receive money without earning it are more likely to be depressed and less likely to be happy or feel fulfilled. Whenever we discuss permanently increasing government handouts, we must look at the potentially negative ramifications, not just for the economy but for society and the people. People matter. Canadians must be free to use their gifts, talents and abilities to further themselves, to benefit their local communities and to rebuild.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

I am convinced government programs are not the answer to getting Canada back on track. Canadians are the answer. It is Canadians who have the ingenuity, work ethic and ability to come up with the solutions to the problems our country faces.

Ronald Reagan also said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” Frankly, I am tired of hearing the government patronize Canadians by essentially telling them to sit on the sidelines and cheer. What coach benches his best players?

Instead of putting the government in the position of being the ultimate problem-solver, and exploiting the pandemic to increase government control in the lives of Canadians, I believe we have a real opportunity to do just the opposite. We can shift the spotlight onto Canadians: those who are dreamers, risk-takers, wealth generators and job creators. It is time to put them in the game. They have the ability to put forward exceptional ideas, solve problems and build toward a vibrant future. We must unleash the power of the workforce so Canadians can start receiving paycheques instead of government handouts.

The Liberals can try to reset, restart and reimagine this country, but the fact is the power belongs to the people. Canadians always have been, and always will be, the solution to the problems we face. It is time to let Canadians skate.

[Natural Resources, December 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister said, “We need to get our resources to new markets safely and securely and that's why I've always advocated for the Keystone XL pipeline.”

As the Prime Minister knows, Keystone XL would be a huge advantage to indigenous communities. It would generate prosperity in our country by developing energy in an environmentally friendly capacity. It would create jobs during a time when unemployment is through the roof.

My question is very simple. Could the Prime Minister simply outline three very tangible steps he will take in the next little while to get this project done?

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, why would we pile on more bureaucracy, so to speak, when we have the opportunity in front of us? Witness after witness said that this was being rushed through. One witness commented on the fact that in the middle of a pandemic this was being rushed through. She drew attention to the irony that in the middle of a pandemic we were giving focus and attention to protecting the vulnerable, but yet we were unwilling to give this legislation due time. That is wrong. Now is the opportunity—

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the objective of the bill, that we need to turn our attention there and therefore ignore anything that it might do, intentionally or unintentionally, aside from the objective of the bill. That is an illogical argument. That is wrong.

We must acknowledge what those within the community of people who live with a disability are saying. Why would we say that their voices do not count? The point is that this bill would impact those individuals and put them at risk.

Mr. Roger Foley came to the committee and he talked about his experience of living with an irreversible neurological disorder. He talked about his irreversible condition and he talked about what the doctors said to him. They said that they could no longer provide him the care he needed in the hospital, so they would send him home. However, they sent him home with no supports. He said, “I have been coerced into assisted death by abuse, neglect, lack of care and threats.” This is not—

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, that member may want to reconsider his words, because I will speak them back to him. He may want to give them a sober second thought, the very thought that he is not affording those who have a disability.

The member opposite said that he disagrees with the premise of my argument. Let me rehearse the premise of my argument. Every single Canadian, regardless of ability, is of equal worth, equal value, equal dignity and is worth equal respect. If that member disagrees with that, shame on him.

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, when I was in high school I had the privilege of looking after an elderly lady who had MS. She was bound to a wheelchair and needed assistance on the weekends. I would provide respite care.

At the time her husband had left her, unfortunately, for her first caregiver. She was left abandoned, sometimes feeling depressed, discouraged and absolutely questioning life, but nevertheless offered hope and something of great worth and value to me as a young person in high school.

I would spend time with her listening to her stories and her reflections, and she modelled for me this great depth of character, humility, kindness, and an understanding that life sometimes get difficult, but one puts their head up and keeps going.

I would talk to her about the challenges I faced in high school. She would walk me through them and she would offer her perspective and her insight. She always helped me come back into alignment. I cannot imagine living through high school without the blessing Sheila offered in my life at that time. I am incredibly thankful for the contributions she made.

The legislation before this House, Bill C-7, has to do with making changes to the parameters around physician-assisted death. People like Sheila will be put at risk. They will be put in harm's way should this legislation go through. It certainly seems that is the direction we are going here today, and it is unfortunate.

I would like to outline four specific concerns that exist with this legislation, and these are the concerns that are being brought forward by every single disability group in this country and have been signed off on by more than a thousand physicians here in Canada.

The first concern is, under this new piece of legislation, death would no longer need to be foreseeable, which means that it would no longer need to be imminent.

One witness said, “The removal of 'reasonably foreseeable' natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.” She is talking about the devaluation of those who live with a disability and the elevation of those who have able bodies. It is wrong.

The second problem with this legislation is that it would remove a 10-day waiting period. Between giving a formal signature saying yes to medical assistance in dying and actually having the procedure administered, there used to be a 10-day waiting period. This legislation would do away with that. With something so final, so irreversible, it seems appropriate that an opportunity for a sober second thought would be granted to those who are seeking this procedure. At minimum, they should be given the opportunity to reflect.

Others will argue that they have already reflected, they have spent time thinking about this and it is often not a decision made in the moment, but I would contend, and psychologists would agree with me, there is something very significant that happens in the mind of a human when they put pen to paper. When they sign off on something, it often provokes further emotion, further consideration and further conversation with family and friends. We must give people that opportunity.

The third concern I have with this piece of legislation, and it is backed up by so many, is that it would require only one witness to sign off and not two. This takes away from the accountability required. It puts the vulnerable at risk.

In order to execute a will, two signatures are required. This is to execute a will, which is for the most part about finances. How much more should we require that extra element of accountability and thought when it comes to someone's life?

The fourth concern I would like to bring to this House today is that this legislation would not require the patient to initiate the conversation. In other words, it would allow the physician to initiate it. It would also allow the physician, or another medical practitioner, to suggest or incite the idea on behalf of the patient or for the patient. That is dangerous. It is extremely dangerous.

To illustrate this point, we had a witness come to committee whose name is Taylor Hyatt. She talked about her experience as a 20-something woman who is in a wheelchair. She went to the doctor because she had pneumonia. This is a condition most people would recover from when they are in their twenties, and so she had every expectation that of course she is going to be fine on the other side.

This was her experience:

“[The doctor] said, “The only thing we know is that this infection affects your breathing and you may need oxygen. Is that something you want?” My answer was, “of course”. [The doctor] seemed surprised and unconvinced so she asked [me] again. My answer was unchanged.

A doctor should never pressure a patient to consider medical assistance in dying, never. That is completely inappropriate. Taylor made this very clear in her testimony when she said, “Whether disabled or not, Canadians look to these professionals as guides. Doctors have power to shape the perspective of others and they should wield it with great care.”

It is absolutely necessary that we treat all people, but in particular those who live with a disability, with the utmost respect, dignity and value. What does it say about our society when we neglect to do just that?

This is an important question, and again it is one that is being asked by so many within the disabilities community. They are afraid that over time this will become entrenched in our social fabric as a nation. Instead of it being an option, it would actually become the expectation that of course a person with a disability would seek medical assistance in dying, and of course they would not want to live their life with these perceived restrictions or pain in their lives.

We actually know that doctors overestimate the perception of someone with a disability, as to the value of their life. In other words, a person with a disability sees great value in what they have to offer and in the life that they live, but the physician often imposes upon them a different set of values and a different level of worth, and that is wrong.

Krista Carr, the VP of Inclusion Canada, said, “The disability community is appalled that Bill C-7 would allow people with a disability to have their lives ended when they are suffering but not dying.” They are suffering, but they are not dying.

She went on to say, “Language and perceptions are powerful. Including disability as a condition warranting assisted suicide equates to declaring some lives [just simply are] not worth living”.

It creates this differentiation, then, between first-class society and second-class society; those who have able bodies and those who have bodies that are different; those who live with a disability and those who do not. It is atrocious that we would go down this road as a society.

Catherine Frazee has spinal muscular atrophy, and she was a professor of disability studies at Ryerson. She asked, “Why us?”

She apologized for her illustration, but nonetheless it is a point worth making. It makes us uncomfortable, but here is her quote. She said:

Why only us? Why only people whose bodies are altered or painful or in decline? Why not everyone who lives outside the margins of a decent life, everyone who resorts to an overdose, a high bridge, or a shotgun carried out into the woods? Why not everyone who decides that their quality of life is in the ditch?

Surely the answer rises up in [each of us]: That's not who we are.

Let those words ring in this place: “That's not who we are.”

As Canadians, we pride ourselves as being people who are full of compassion; people who treat one another with dignity, respect and honour; and people who look at one another regardless of the colour of their skin, their race or ethnicity, the language they speak or their background.

We look at each other and we say, “You are a person of value; you are a person of worth; you are a person who deserves respect”. It is not like us to relegate those who have a disability as second-class citizens. We must not go in this direction. We cannot do that because this is not who we are.