Rachael Thomas

[Business of Supply, February 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister took taxpayers' money to the tune of $200,000 to be exact. He took this money and used it in order to help pay for his illegal vacation to a Caribbean island. Today, believe it or not, we are debating whether or not the Prime Minister should now accept responsibility for his illegal conduct and pay back the money that he stole from Canadians. It seems ridiculous, does it not? We are spending an entire day debating whether or not the leader of our country should function with integrity, accept responsibility for his illegitimate actions, and pay back money that he wrongfully took from Canadians. How has it come to this?

In 2016, the Prime Minister accepted an illegal gift of an all expenses paid vacation to a private tropical island from the Aga Khan, who I might add, is someone who receives millions of dollars in government grants and contributions from the government. I should also mention that he is a registered lobbyist.

The Prime Minister was caught and the Ethics Commissioner conducted an investigation. For the first time in Canadian history, a Prime Minister was found guilty of having broken the Conflict of Interest Act, not once but four times. He is guilty of accepting gifts that could influence decision-making. He is guilty of not recusing himself from discussions that could further private interests. He is guilty of failing to arrange his private affairs to avoid the situation. He is guilty of accepting travel on a non-commercial aircraft. To date, the Prime Minister has refused to accept full responsibility for his actions. I acknowledge that he offered a half-hearted verbal apology, but to make amends, the $200,000 that he wrongfully took from taxpayers in this country to help cover the cost of his vacation must be paid back if he is truly sorry.

If the Prime Minister had simply followed the very clear rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act, taxpayers would not have been stuck with the bill to begin with. Not once did we see even a hint of entitlement in the former prime minister. Stephen Harper paid back the Canadian taxpayer every single month for the food bill that was incurred at 24 Sussex, something that he did not need to do, but he chose to do because of his level of integrity. Stephen Harper paid for his family's child care costs out of his own pocket, again something he did not need to do, but he chose to do it because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Stephen Harper took his winter vacations at his family home in Calgary, which he paid for with his money, and his summer vacation at the Prime Minister's residence in Harrington Lake, which meant the lowest price possible for taxpayers. This is true leadership.

Today, MPs will choose to stand with the Canadian public or against the Canadian public. They will choose to support and condone the Prime Minister's unethical behaviour, which reeks of elitism and entitlement, or they will choose to support Canadians who expect their hard-earned tax dollars to go toward paying for things like infrastructure and services that they have invested in.

Will the Liberal MPs obediently do what the Prime Minister has demanded of them and defend his inexcusable actions, or will they stand up today for Canadian taxpayers and agree that the money does in fact need to be paid back? I am sure their constituents will take note of the decisions made today when it comes time to vote.

It has become increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister believes that there is one set of rules for him and there is one set of rules for everyone else. It was the Liberal Prime Minister who put his signature on a document called the “Open and Accountable Government” guide for public office holders. In this guide the Prime Minister instructs:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must not accept sponsored travel, i.e. travel whose costs are not wholly paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or by the individual personally, or his or her political party, or an inter-parliamentary association or friendship group recognized by the House of Commons. This includes all travel on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose except in exceptional circumstances....

It must have been a really exceptional circumstance to take that private vacation to the Caribbean. He continues:

...and only with the prior approval of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and public disclosure of the use of such aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, I kid you not, these are the words of the Prime Minister himself. These are his instructions to his members on that side of the House. Does he live up to them? No.

The Prime Minister ignored his very own requirements. He took a private helicopter to a private Caribbean island, on which he took a private all-expense paid vacation. Did he check with the Ethics Commissioner? No. Did he disclose it to the public? No. Could it be deemed an exceptional circumstance? No. He got caught.

If the Prime Minister cannot follow his own guidebook, can we reasonably expect him to follow the laws of Canada? Can we reasonably expect him to lead our country well, to create rules and regulations, and policies and initiatives that will serve everyday Canadians day in, day out? Can we count on him for that? No.

According to the Ethics Commissioner, she does question his integrity and whether he is ready and able to do the job.

I would imagine this is fairly frustrating for the Liberal cabinet ministers, who watch as their boss tells them to do one thing but then goes off and does another thing on his own. The Prime Minister's chief of staff and his principal secretary repaid $65,000 they had claimed for moving expenses that were deemed to be inappropriate. They paid it back.

The former minister of health paid back $3,700 to taxpayers when it was discovered she was using the limousine services of a Liberal Party supporter instead of taking a taxi. Why does the Prime Minister have no problem forcing his staff and the ministers to pay back questionable expenses, but exempts himself from the same level of expectation?

When the Prime Minister was first called to account, he declared that the individual taking him on the all-expenses paid trip, the Aga Khan, was a close family friend and therefore it should be totally acceptable. Not a problem, right? However, when the Ethics Commissioner did the necessary research, when she investigated further, she concluded that the Aga Khan could not in any way be deemed a family friend because the Prime Minister had not spoken with him in 30 years. I sincerely feel bad for the Prime Minister if this is, in fact, what he deems a close friendship.

It is clear the Prime Minister has tried very hard to cover his illegal actions, but the fact is this. He has been found guilty, guilty of accepting a gift he should have said no to; guilty of meeting with the Aga Khan, who has received millions of dollars from the Canadian government, and could have undue influence on the PM's decision; guilty of failing to arrange his private affairs to avoid this opportunity; and guilty of accepting travel on a non-commercial aircraft.

Now that the Ethics Commissioner has reached the conclusion that the Prime Minister's trip was illegal, he needs to pay the $200,000 back that was expensed to Canadians. If the trip was illegal, then so were the expenses billed to taxpayers.

The situation before the House today is not about $200,000 being paid back, though the money should be. It absolutely should be. Today's dialogue is about so much more. It is about the integrity of a man who has been entrusted with the responsibility of leading a nation. It is about a man who chose to break that trust for the sake of selfish gain. It is about a man who, though found guilty, refuses to take responsibility for his actions. It is about a man who is able to say that he is sorry with his lips, because words are cheap, but when it comes to actually making amends for his actions and returning the money to the Canadian public, he says no.

This debate today did not need to take place. It was avoidable. The Prime Minister knew better than to accept this illegal gift that clearly put him in a conflict of interest. Sadly, the Prime Minister's inability to live up to his own standards means that for the first time in Canadian history, Canada's head of state has now been found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act.

The Prime Minister seems to think taxpayers should pay for his boyish dream of being a jet-setting celebrity, but he could not be more wrong. On behalf of Canadians, we call on the Prime Minister to function with integrity, show leadership, accept responsibility, and to make restitution. We call on the Prime Minister to pay it back.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House has one purpose and one purpose only. It is meant to be used as a guise for the Liberals to cover up a problem they have. No one else in the House has this problem, just them, just that side over there. Therefore, they have created the bill in order to get away with this problem. The Liberals thought that if they made it transparent, if they used words like “open” and “honest”, and said, “Look at us, we're doing such a good job, Canada. Pat us on the back for putting our hand in the cookie jar”, they would surely get away with this.

Canadians have seen past that. They have watched the Prime Minister make one unethical decision after another, steal one tax dollar after another, thousands of tax dollars after other thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of tax dollars after hundreds of thousands have already been taken. That is what the Prime Minister is up to. He has been caught and now he is trying to get away with his unethical behaviour by putting legislation in place that says that the government is open, that it is transparent, that it is so good. No, they are not good. Canadians can see past it and now the Liberals are being called out on their unethical behaviour and illegitimate legislation.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very significant and glaring difference here and let me point it out. That side of the House is in government and this side of the House is in opposition. That side of the House makes decisions that govern Canada. This side of the House asks questions of the government members and the decisions they are making in order to hold them accountable.

The government side puts policies in place and creates legislation. That legislation can facilitate the well-being of individuals, groups, and lobbyists across this country. That side has the power to do that. This side does not have that ability. We ask the questions; they give the answers. They make the mistakes; we hold them accountable. That is how this works.

That side is the one to which people are going to pay thousands of dollars to bend its members' ears in order to influence the policy they are making, the legislation they are putting in place. That is undemocratic. That is unethical. That lacks morality.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he is listening to all Canadians and that ultimately he makes decisions based on what is best for Canada as a whole. In fact, what we see is actually very specific attention being given to individuals who have cash in their pockets and are willing to pay for his listening ear. It is not too far of a stretch of the imagination to assume then that the Prime Minister is in fact giving these individuals very key attention and giving their causes and concerns more legitimacy than perhaps the average Canadian who cannot pay for the same access to the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister and his cabinet will deny that this is the case, but Canadians can put two and two together.

There are lobbyists purchasing extremely overpriced tickets in order to gain access to our government leaders, and I doubt any of them are attending just for the selfie. Furthermore, when lobbyists attend these elite events, they are not required to report it, nor is there any way of monitoring their activity. In all seriousness, it can be assumed that anyone paying such steep prices to attend these events has a certain expectation as to the influence that they are being granted. If their only motivation is in fact just to contribute to the financial well-being of their preferred political party, then why would they not simply do this from the comfort of their own home like everyone else?

Speaking of everyone else, let us talk a little about the average Canadian who is unfairly discriminated against by the allowance of cash for access fundraising. Single moms, small business owners, low-income families, and seniors would all stand to benefit from having a bit of time with the Prime Minister or any one of those on the front bench here. Unfortunately, very few of these Canadians can afford the going rate for a ticket to these elite events and thus are forced to wait outside while those who can pay enjoy their special access.

Within my constituency of Lethbridge, I have the privilege of hosting a youth advisory board. This consists of eight very intelligent, highly engaged young people from my riding. They meet with me monthly in order to share their views on federal pieces of legislation and key events that are taking place in our country and in the world. The aim of this initiative is to empower these young Canadians to use their voices to speak out and to advocate for the issues that matter most to them. It is my goal to impress upon them that no matter their age or background, they have an equal voice in our democratic system.

It is because of the implications for these youth and for all young Canadians that I am especially disappointed with the Liberals on their approach to cash for access fundraising. How can I tell my constituents that they have a voice and an opportunity to impact the decisions of the federal government when the Liberals have actually chosen to take equality out of the equation simply to earn cash for their political initiatives?

Political fundraising in and of itself is a democratic concept. It is allowed. It allows citizens to support their ideological beliefs by contributing to the political party that best represents their values, but cash for access events do not respect democracy and uphold the standard that has been set out in our country. It is wrong to have people pay to be listened to. These events consist of people buying access to government officials who have the power to make influential decisions on matters of policy and funding, and this is profoundly undemocratic.

The bill has been brought forward to appease rightly outraged Canadians. The Liberals got caught, so now they are trying to smooth things over. Their motivation is not to protect Canada's democracy. Their motivation is to offer a lacklustre response to getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Changing the so-called transparency rules, as the hon. member across the way mentioned, that surround this practice does not make it any more acceptable. If legislation were passed tomorrow that made voter fraud legal, members would still take issue with rigging an election, and not because all of a sudden something illegal was now legal, but because of our shared belief that it is morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, even if we change the rules around specifics having to do with political fundraising, it does not change the basic moral fabric of the issue at hand. We cannot legalize our way into moral safety no matter how strong the majority government at hand is.

In the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Democratic Institutions he wrote, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant to concerns about our political process”. It is a nice ideal is it not? I wish it were true.

The Prime Minister believes that increasing transparency around these events is the solution. As long as he advertises to the constituency that he is putting his hand in the cookie jar, it should not be a problem, right? Wrong. The events and their underlying principles are the issue, not simply the secrecy around them.

Sunshine does not all of a sudden make unethical behaviour ethical. Being forced to pay money in order to speak with an influential government official is wrong. It is wrong if it is done at a private event or a public one. It is wrong whether those in attendance pay $200 or $1,550. It is wrong whether it is advertised two weeks in advance or not advertised at all. It is simply unethical and undemocratic, and therefore, wrong.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Prime Minister Trudeau—

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

Mr. Trudeau claims that he is—

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-50. I am deeply concerned with this bill and by the unethical behaviour that is demonstrated by the current government, opposite to me.

The piece of legislation before the House is in fact a poor attempt to appease Canadians after the Liberals were caught and called out for holding numerous so-called town hall meetings, or meet and greets, with the Prime Minister or other members of the cabinet.

These were parties where individuals who wanted to attend were expected to pay upward of $1,500 or more in order to get through the door. These parties were held with elite people, like the finance minister, the Prime Minister, the justice minister, and the list goes on.

I can just imagine the price chart at the door when people walk in: $1,200 for 30 seconds with the Prime Minister; $1,500 for 60 seconds with the Prime Minister. Maybe a group of 10 people who are each willing to pitch in $1,500 would get a whopping two minutes of the Prime Minister's time all to themselves. The selfies are complimentary, of course.

Apparently this is the Liberals' way of consulting in an open, accessible, and transparent manner. These are the types of buzzwords they like to use all the time to describe the work they do. However, I stand here today to use my voice on behalf of millions of Canadians who believe otherwise, Canadians who are actually frustrated with the elitism and the hypocrisy that is demonstrated day in and day out by the current government.

The Liberal government has said that it tabled this legislation in order to make its cash for access events more transparent. What the Liberals fail to understand is that these fundraisers in their very essence are unethical. Changing the rules that surround them does not change the fact that they are altogether wrong.

This legislation does nothing to condemn the use of power and manipulation to draw money out of people for the sake of privileged access. This legislation simply seeks to ensure that the Canadian public is made aware of such elite activities.

Bill C-50 simply proposes that all fundraising events that are attended by ministers, party leaders, or leadership candidates are advertised at least five days in advance. In effect, the Liberals are mandating to themselves that they must advertise their events. That is an interesting measure of accountability. It also requires political parties to report to Elections Canada the names of those who attend. However, anyone who donates over $200 already has to have their name made known.

All in all, this bill does nothing to ensure that ministers and the Prime Minister are accessible to all Canadians equally, which is, in essence, a key component of a democratic system. The Liberals are still granting themselves permission to hold cash for access events that cater to the elite and prevent common Canadians from having a voice.

Justin Trudeau claims that he is listening to everyone, that he is—

[Canada Summer Jobs Program, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are imposing an ideological values test on the Canada summer jobs program that would result in many faith-based charities being denied funding. In short, what we see is an alarming attack on religious freedoms in this country.

Hundreds of summer camps run by religious organizations across Canada will be denied funding, putting an end to unique opportunities for many children and summer jobs for thousands of young people. Many food banks and services to those who are poor or housing-insecure will also lose their funding. Several faith-based charities in my riding of Lethbridge that have done a remarkable job caring for the needs of refugees will also be denied.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a long list of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of belief. To compel organizations to agree to a government-dictated value statement not only infringes on their charter rights but also stands in direct opposition to democracy.

Today, on behalf of people of all faiths across this country, I am calling on the Liberal government to back down from its changes and respect our charter rights.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, January 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is stories exactly like that one that make this piece of legislation so important. The fact that the Minister of Transport would have the opportunity to enforce a recall on a part that she or he becomes aware of, and be able to take action on that, is key in terms of being able to look after the safety and well-being of Canadians.

There is no reason for an innocent person to die because of a part that malfunctions, particularly when that is known either to the manufacturer or to a different party who could take action and do something about it. Therefore, it is very important that the minister be able to respond quickly and that there be teeth. In this piece of legislation, there is exactly that, where the minister would be able to enforce $200,000 a day in fines for manufacturers who are non-compliant. I believe that would go a long way.

[Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act, January 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for giving me the honour and privilege to stand in the House today. I am pleased to rise in support of Bill S-2, the strengthening motor vehicle safety for Canadians act. This legislation would better protect Canadian families from the risks of dangerous defects in their vehicles.

Of course, I am a little disappointed that the government chose not to accept two of our amendments that we put forward during committee stage. I will be talking about that a bit further. However, permit me to take the next few minutes to describe the purpose of this legislation, as well as how I believe those two amendments could have actually strengthened it, had they been received.

The bill would give the Minister of Transport the authority to order companies to correct a defect or a non-compliance, and it would create a tiered penalty structure for wrongdoings that are committed under this act, which is an excellent step in the right direction. Every single day our children, spouses, and other loved ones are on the road going to sport practices, music lessons, school, work, or here, there and everywhere. At the end of the day, this legislation would help to better protect those who use our roadways.

The bill before us would give the Minister of Transport the power to issue a recall notice, even if the manufacturers of car parts do not want to take the issues before them seriously. In the rare event that a manufacturer is found to be non-compliant, the minister would have the power to issue fines to a manufacturer for up to $200,000 per day until direct action and responsibility are taken. This gives the legislation teeth, which is good and necessary if we want to see change. Furthermore, this legislation would prevent manufacturers and dealerships from being able to sell new vehicles until the recalled part is fixed.

A similar bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons in 2015 under the previous government. The fact that the Liberals have now taken it and largely copied a portion of text from Bill C-62, as it was introduced previously, is a nod in the right direction and a nod to the excellent work that was completed by the deputy leader of the Conservative caucus, who was then the transport minister.

What were the two Conservative amendments that were put forward and unfortunately not included?

First, the Liberal committee members chose not to accept an amendment that required the minister to ask a vehicle manufacturer if it had internal tests or awareness of a defect before initiating federal tests on a vehicle. This is important because time matters. It is of the absolute essence when the safety of Canadians is at risk. Therefore, if a company already had this internal data on how to fix a problem or had data on the extent of the problem, we would not need to spend more time trying to duplicate those tests and take action.

Second, the Liberal committee members also shut down a different amendment that would have clarified the responsibility between the dealer and the manufacturer. Specifically, it would have dealt with who exactly is responsible to correct a defect before the sale of a vehicle. Details like this help to bring clarity to the bill and are very essential. They ensure that dealers and manufacturers understand who is responsible for ensuring the safety of the vehicle before it is sold. It would be a shame for a known defect to go uncorrected simply because a dealer thinks it is the manufacturer's responsibility and the manufacturer thinks it is the dealer's responsibility, so both go back and forth on it, or better yet, do not do anything at all.

It is important to make the point that while this piece of legislation is an excellent step to increase safety or at least the safety standards in Canada, as a whole our country's auto manufacturers do an excellent job at policing themselves and looking out for the safety and well-being of consumers. From 2010 to 2015, the number of safety-related recalls went down by 74%. Many companies have realized the risk of not issuing a recall and have stepped up to the plate and taken responsibility when necessary to do so.

Nevertheless, though few, there are some examples of companies that have delayed issuing safety recalls in order to protect their image or bottom line. Therefore, this bill is of course an effort to deal with those situations. One such example would be the massive Takata airbag recall of 2015. Takata is a huge parts supplier to more than 19 different auto manufacturers. When defects were uncovered in its airbags, the first concern of some vehicle manufacturers was to put liability on Takata instead of fixing their vehicles that used Takata parts. Different manufacturers issued recalls at different times, sometimes prioritizing a recall in the United States before getting around to issuing a recall in Canada.

Here is a brief history. The first of the Takata airbags where actually recalled in 2008 here in Canada, but because Canada relied on voluntary action, few details were provided to Transport Canada. As a result, Canada failed to detect that airbag recalls from several different car manufacturers all originated from this central company. It was government regulators in the United States who finally connected the dots in 2014 and put a recall order out. Instead of being proactive like U.S. officials, Canadian officials could only be reactive in this instance. It took until 2015 for the majority of recalls to be issued for these airbags in our country. In fact, it was not until 2017 that these recalls were completely cleared up.

Why did it take nearly seven years for a car company to recall all these potentially deadly airbags? The answer is that Canada's laws have not kept pace with other industrial countries, thus putting us at a significant disadvantage. Let us look at the United States, for example. The United States is often lauded as a positive example in this area. It has much stronger laws that allow the government to enforce a recall.

Until Bill S-2 is passed, the Government of Canada is relying on voluntary compliance for recalls. Simply put, at the moment, our motor vehicle safety legislation just does not have teeth. It does not have an enforcement mechanism. As well, punitive damages in court are significantly lower here than they are in the United States of America. This adds up to less than an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to issue recall notices in Canada and to prioritize recalls in the United States first.

Going back to the Takata example, once the problem was understood, there was a global shortage of the replacement airbags, which meant it was further delayed until this problem was solved.

How can we ensure Canada is treated the same as the United States by larger multinational car manufacturers? First, we need better inspection and testing when the first signs of a potential defect come to light. The legislation before the House today would significantly increase the power of the minister to order tests and studies of potential defects. It also includes significant fines both against an individual and a company that gets in the way of a government inspector.

Second, we need to increase the power of the minister to force companies to take responsibility, even if they were not the manufacturer of the part. This legislation makes it very clear that car manufacturers are, in fact, responsible for their final product. If they picked a supplier with a defective part, it is still on the manufacturer to make it right for the consumer.

Third, we need to give the minister the ability to initiate a recall. This applies to manufacturers that have not identified a defect in the vehicles they sell, but could now be compelled to issue a recall if a sub-standard part is used in the vehicles they manufacture. Even in 2017, a decade after the first recalls, there were still new recalls being made for these Takata airbags. This legislation would have allowed the minister to issue a directive to all manufacturers in Canada to replace all Takata airbags, full stop. Instead, some Canadians found out years later they had been at risk all along.

In conclusion, this legislation is a very positive step in the right direction. The Conservative Party is very proud to stand behind this legislation and take it forward in order to benefit the lives of Canadians. We believe it will look after their safety and well-being, and that our loved ones will be protected.