Rachael Thomas

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is very simple.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is ludicrous. Here is why. Those in this House know very well, as does the Canadian public, that it was our former leader, Rona Ambrose, joined by other members on this side, who brought forward the motion to bring Yazidi women and girls over to Canada to give them a second chance at life. That came from this side of the House. How dare that side of the House try to take credit for that action.

Let us talk about one more thing, and that is that in June 2016, the UN declared what was taking place in northern Iraq a genocide. Conservatives called on the government to take action. The Prime Minister said no. He said that we would wait. We would wait for more women to be slaughtered. We would wait for more women to be tortured. We would wait for more women to be raped. We would wait for more women to be sold into slavery. We would wait. It was not until after we applied significant pressure that the government finally acted. That is not feminism.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that the opposite side of the House is offended by all this questioning.

The bill aims to eliminate the positions of our former government's six regional ministers, who looked after these different parts of our country. The elimination of these positions will mean that the unique needs of western Canada, northern Canada, Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, southern Ontario, and Quebec will not be adequately represented at the cabinet table. I would imagine that this would upset everyone in the House, because we should strive to represent these regions adequately. Instead of putting regional ministers in place who have boots on the ground and their fingers on the pulse in these different regions, the Prime Minister decided that one minister from Toronto would make the decisions for all of Canada in terms of their economic development and prosperity going forward.

Traditionally, regional development agency ministers brought their region-specific requests, requirements, or desires to Parliament to ensure that accurate representation was made. However, as I said, the bill would gut that opportunity. When asked about this decision, the Prime Minister said that appointing a Toronto minister for all regional development was “a way of reducing the kind of politics that we've always seen from regional development agencies.”

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it that, in a nation with significant diversity, the unique needs of the different regions are not worth considering, or does it mean that it is too political, too complicated, or too uncomfortable for the Prime Minister to bring those voices to the table? Maybe the Prime Minister, who claims to place importance on consultation, does not actually give a care.

I will borrow the words written in an editorial in The Guardian, which said, “Exactly how does a central Canadian give the regional development agency more clout at the cabinet table?”

What the Liberal government has done is incredibly illogical, and what makes matters worse, and is quite embarrassing for the Liberals, to be frank, is the fact that in the last election, 32 ridings in Atlantic Canada elected a Liberal member of Parliament. Surely one of these 32 individuals is qualified to be a regional minister to stand up for their unique needs in Canada. What is the Prime Minister saying about those 32 individuals and their ability or inability?

When I think about the Prime Minister's so-called commitment to transparency and accountability, I would expect that he would want men and women at the table to represent these regions well. I would expect that he would want them to go to a shipyard in Halifax or to visit a mine in the north or an agricultural event in Saskatchewan. He would want those experiences represented around his cabinet table, but that is not the case.

This brings me to my second concern, which is that the government is actually refusing to be transparent. Bill C-24 calls on members of the House to approve three mysterious ministers, and it says nothing more. There is no transparency or accountability. The clause is absolutely unreasonable in asking the House to permit a blank cheque going forward. I am not okay with that.

That is not the only thing that is farcical in the bill. My third point is that when it comes to changing the salaries of ministers of state, Bill C-24 is nothing more than a hurried attempt to cover up for the Liberals' media embarrassment when the Prime Minister went out and said that he had put a gender-equal cabinet in place. The media picked up on this immediately and noticed that all five junior ministers were, in fact, women. The Prime Minister actually chose to give these women less authority, less responsibility, and smaller budgets than their male counterparts. So much for 2015.

Bill C-24 is the Prime Minister's attempt to remedy this mistake. The problem is that just attaching a label and a few extra dollars to a position does not mean that the person is valued or respected any more than she was before. The bill does an incredible disservice to women, as it is tokenism at its finest.

As a strong, intelligent, and hard-working woman, I want to be entrusted with responsibility and granted a voice at the cabinet table, not because of my gender but because of my ability. I would expect the same from the women in the House. They want their salaries to match what they do, what they are capable of, and the trust put in them. Changing the pay system would not create equality. In fact, it would diminish the value of being a woman at the cabinet table.

The Prime Minister is saying, “Don't worry. I won't give you the same level of responsibility or assign you a comparable budget or trust you to function at the cabinet table the way others do, but I will give you a name placard and a few extra dollars, and we will call it good.” It that for real? That is 2015? That is gender equality?

Here is the thing. The Prime Minister is a self-proclaimed feminist. So am I, but our ideas of feminism are not aligned. According to his definition of feminism, it is okay for Yazidi women and girls to be systematically kidnapped, tortured, raped, and sold while Canada stands by in vain, watching from afar. According to his definition of feminism, it is okay for newcomers to practise genital mutilation and it is no longer considered a barbaric practice in Canada. According to his definition of feminism, all women are equal, but some are more equal than others. There is a right type of woman and a wrong type of woman, and it is up to this Prime Minister to dictate what that is. Some are simply an inappropriate choice, according to this Prime Minister.

Now, on this side of the House, feminism looks like respect for every single woman. Feminism on this side of the House looks like taking a stand against gender-based hatred and violence. Feminism on this side of the House looks like protecting young girls from being brutalized. Feminism on this side of the House looks like preserving a woman's right to choose between two or more options, not just accepting the one that is dictated to her. This is feminism on this side of the House. This is the feminism that all of Canada deserves and expects.

In summary, Bill C-24 is extremely flawed. It robs regions of fair representation, it lacks transparency, and it fails in its attempt to create ministerial equality. I will be voting no.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is part of the lyrics of a song by Elvis Presley.

[Salaries Act, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-24. I had the opportunity to speak to this same piece of legislation earlier in the spring, and the truth is that my concerns remain largely the same.

There are three main problems I wish to address. First, with this bill, the Liberals are seeking to get rid of regional development ministers. Instead of caring for the unique needs of Canada's diverse regions, the current government is choosing to apply a highly centralized and very top-down approach to decision-making. A minister from Toronto would now tell Atlantic Canada, as well as northern Canada and the western provinces, what they need and how to best economically develop. They are to trust him, because he is in the government, there to help them, right?

My second concern is that this bill lacks transparency, which of course very much concerns me. I will come back to that momentarily. The third concern I have with this bill is that the Liberals are hailing it as something that would result in equality among ministers, women and men, junior ministers and senior ministers. The government House leader said that it would create a cabinet that would uphold gender parity. When she said that, I could hear the Elvis Presley song, playing in the background, with the line, “that was just a l-i-e”, the word that cannot be said in this House.

I have only 10 minutes, so permit me to dive in and provide a fuller discussion. The bill aims to eliminate the positions—

[An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle, December 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my question is simple. The hon. government House leader has put a process in place for us to change the names of our ridings. It has been a streamlined process, and various members have submitted their changes to the hon. government House leader. Those changes are proceeding. It is quite simple.

The hon. member opposite has chosen to use her chance to table a private member's bill as the way to change her riding name. I understand her desire to change the name, but what I do not understand is why she would use such a rare opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill to do this, when there is already a process in place by the government House leader.

I am a little confused as to why she would not use her private member's bill opportunity to table another a piece of legislation that perhaps her constituents would be interested in.

[National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women, December 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the largest mass shooting in Canadian history and the 14 young women robbed of their lives by the unjustified hatred of one individual.

In their memory, we take a moment to pause to honour the lives they lived, the dreams they held, and the future that was robbed from them. The 14 victims were chemical, mechanical, civil, and material engineers; a nursing student; and a future budget clerk. They were women pursuing their dreams. They were daughters, sisters, and friends.

Sadly, violence against women and girls continues to take many forms, and the number of names added to public memory is ever growing. Today, let us resolve to do all we can to strengthen the justice system and to positively impact societal values and cultural norms.

As members in this House, let us choose to lead by example. Let us commit to doing all we can to honour and empower women to be all they can be.

[Taxation, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. They have not listened from the beginning and they are still not listening today. They are making it incredibly difficult for families to work together to support a family-owned business. They are raising taxes on passive income, making it difficult for business owners to save for sick leave or maternity leave or retirement. They are consulting on how they will change the rules to tax the transfer of the family business to the next generation. The Liberals have claimed to consult Canadians on these issues but they have yet to show any signs of actually listening to those they are so-called consulting.

The Liberals have shown us again and again that they are out of touch with middle-class Canadians, so my question here tonight is very simple. When will the Liberals admit that they got this wrong, and cancel their tax changes?

[Taxation, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to talk a lot about protecting the middle class and those working hard to join it. This is one of their tag lines. The reality is that this summer, the government introduced some tax changes that are actually incredibly unfair and hurtful toward those who are in the middle class and working hard to join it. I have heard from thousands of people in my riding who are worried about these small business tax hikes and how they are going to hurt them and their families.

I am not talking about the people who are at the very top, the 1% the finance minister would want us to believe these individuals are. Instead, these are the local coffee shop owners and restaurant owners in my riding. These are the hairdressers and the plumbers in our communities. These are men and women who are incredibly hard working and they are providing jobs, and they are making about $75,000 per year. These are the middle-class, hard-working Canadians the current government is attacking.

Lela is an entrepreneur who owns a diner in my town. She recently wrote to me and said, “I employ 6 people. With the minimum wage increases and then this tax proposed, it's going to be next to impossible to continue. I can't add more to my prices. The carbon tax has also affected my business. How can we pay more? It's impossible to keep going.”

Lela is one of many small business owners across the country who is asking this very question.

The Liberals are determined to make sure that these hard-working visionaries are put at a disadvantage in terms of running their business. They are not only making it difficult to save for retirement, they are targeting families that work together in family-run small businesses, such as in agriculture.

In my riding, of course, I have many farmers and egg operators. Often it is the whole family that works together: the mom, the dad, the kids, sometimes the grandparents, an aunt, or an uncle. They are part of the operation, making it a success. They work as a collective to make sure that the operation runs smoothly.

They are going to have their businesses scrutinized by bureaucrats in Ottawa, according to these changes that are coming up as of January 1, 2018. Parents will no longer be able to pay their children for the work they do on the family farm without a CRA tax person first going through the record and deciding what counts as farm work.

We are talking about people thousands of miles away who will be looking through these records. These people may have never set foot on a farm before in their lives, and they will dictate to farmers in my riding, and ridings across this country, what counts and what does not in terms of their taxes.

Hard-working farm families are going to have to spend time they do not have to fill out these log books, which will be incredibly strenuous and time-consuming. They will have a ton of paperwork to do just to be able to collect a paycheque at the end of the day.

We have seen Canadians from all across this country speak out against these unfair tax changes. Small business owners are worried about their future under the Liberal government, and rightly so.

The Liberals have informed us that they are consulting Canadians and that they are listening to the feedback they receive about these tax changes and will make changes accordingly. It is clear from what I have seen over the last two years of the Liberal government that it is not truly listening to Canadians, nor does it intend to. The Liberals have made many decisions contrary to hard-working Canadians, to those who are part of the middle class and those working hard to join it. They have raised taxes on families. We have heard the member across stand up and say that they will lower the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 9% in 2019. To that I say kudos, because that was actually a Conservative platform—

[Taxation, November 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the government for finally adopting the Conservatives' good idea, and what was promised in our 2015 budget, to take the tax rate down from 10.5% to 9%. Kudos to the government for that, and I thank it for listening.

It is clear that the Liberals do not listen to Canadians overall. They are making very judgmental changes. They have revised income sprinkling, and they have not released those revisions yet. They are keeping that a secret from Canadians.

In addition to that, the Liberals did back down somewhat on their passive income investment changes, but not enough. However, they are not going to be facilitating or looking after the complexities that come with things like sick leave, maternity leave, and retirement, those types of things about which everyday, hard-working small business owners have to worry. The government does not understand that. As well, when it comes to handing down the family business to the next generation, the Liberals have simply hit the pause button and decided to consult, but we have no evidence of that.

When will the Liberals admit they got this wrong and back down?