Rachael Thomas

[Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, November 3rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I am surprised to hear these comments from the hon. member; unfortunately, he makes these comments quite often. In this instance, he is saying cases like Christina's, Savannah's and Bailey's cases are politics. In fact, they are lives. They are women who had children, who lived in their communities, who gave back to their communities and who had a vibrant future ahead of them. Unfortunately, their lives were taken. Their lives were taken by a violent offender, an ex-partner in two of those cases.

The hon. member wants to call it “politics” when I stand in this place, share their stories and advocate on behalf of them and their families. I find that shameful. The government could have gone a lot further with Bill C-14. Unfortunately, it did not. As a result, we are going to continue to see crime skyrocket in this country and more people become victims. That is sad.

[Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, November 3rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday I was finishing up a meeting in my office when the all-too-familiar ring of an Amber Alert went through on my phone. I picked my phone up and promptly looked at it, only to find out that a one-year-old baby girl had been abducted. Members can imagine how this grasped my heart, and I continued to follow the story through its progression.

The next day, I learned the details. I learned that the mother of that child, Savannah Kulla-Davies, had been shot and killed by her ex-partner, Anthony. It was later revealed that Anthony had a record of violence and threats against Savannah, the young woman and mom whose life was taken.

The man had faced firearm-related charges in 2023 for an attack against Savannah. A court document stated that he “did discharge a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of Savannah Rose Kulla Davies”. He even evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by the Waterloo police. A short time later, however, he was out on bail. Sadly, while he was out on bail, he was free to continue his pattern of violence, and this time it ended in the death of Savannah.

Savannah knew that Anthony was dangerous. She had once told her mom, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” As a result, she had left, but unfortunately the justice system failed to protect her. Despite his record and Savannah's repeated pleas, she was failed by the people who were supposed to ensure her safety. Warnings were ignored, and ultimately death was her end. Far too often, this is the case.

This past summer, another woman, Bailey McCourt, was also failed by our justice system and its weak laws. The proud mother of two young girls was bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Her ex was the culprit. That same afternoon, just hours before her life was taken, James had been convicted of four counts of assault by choking and of uttering threats in a domestic violence case. Despite this, however, he was allowed walk. He went and immediately killed Bailey.

Sadly, now two little girls are growing up without a mom, and a family is left with a big hole in their heart. Bailey had lost her faith in the judicial system and in the court's ability to protect her. Her uncle even commented on this, saying that she was “frustrated, scared and felt [altogether] unsupported”.

Both Savannah's and Bailey's stories lay bare the devastating truth: Our justice system all too often sides with the perpetrator and not with the victim. To say that our justice system is broken would be an understatement.

How did we get here? For 10 years, the Liberals have proudly stood behind two soft-on-crime policies: Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. With Bill C-5, the Liberals weakened deterrence and denunciation by repealing numerous mandatory minimum sentences and re-permitting conditional sentences like house arrest for serious offences, extending all the way up to sexual assault. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals forced judges to release offenders “at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”.

The decisions of legislators have real consequences, and these soft-on-crime laws have now resulted in devastation after devastation. After a decade of negligence, the Liberals are finally realizing, it seems, that crime does take place when lax laws are present, but Bill C-14 unfortunately does not go to the extent that it needs to. It is like putting a a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I would like to discuss a few Conservative proposals that would help bring about a right justice system. If the Liberals really do seek to address crime with real solutions, my Conservative colleagues and I have put forward a number of bills, over a dozen. They are common-sense proposals to end catch-and-release bail, restore accountability in sentencing and put the rights of victims and communities ahead of the rights of repeat violent offenders.

I will take my time to outline just three of those common-sense proposals.

One proposal is to end sentence discounts. For a decade, the Liberals have favoured criminals over victims, with light sentencing in the form of concurrent sentences. Sexual assault charges should never be served concurrently, but this is the current practice in Canada. Predators get a two-, three- or four-for-one deal when they commit a crime. It is disgusting. It allows offenders to serve a single sentence for multiple crimes, often reducing their time behind bars significantly.

In Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine charges of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three of his patients. He was handed a concurrent sentence of only three and a half years. Again, the penalties for his crimes were combined into one, thereby robbing justice from many of those victims. These patients were supposed to be able to see their family doctor and feel safe and cared for; instead, they were exploited. They were taken advantage of. Instead of their being able to walk a life of freedom, they will bear these scars for a lifetime while the man, the culprit, the perpetrator, will go free very soon.

Each offence is a distinct harm; each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry its own consequence. My private member's bill, Bill C-246, would require consecutive sentences for those who commit sexual assault rather than their being able to serve the sentences concurrently. The Liberals' Bill C-14 fails to address this practice. It fails to address the practice of giving discount sentences for the most heinous crimes. Therefore, it is lacking.

A second proposal that my Conservative colleagues have brought forward that I believe the government should consider has to do with intimate partner violence. We know that, across Canada, women are being failed by a system unable to protect them from their known abusers. In both Savannah's and Bailey's cases, as outlined, their abusers were their ex-partners, something that is all too familiar. About a quarter of all victims of violent crime are victimized by an intimate partner. My colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, introduced Bill C-225, a bill designed to strengthen the legal response to intimate partner violence. If the Liberals truly wished to address this, they would adopt the principles of that bill, and it would serve Canadians incredibly well.

The third bill that I would like to draw attention to has to do with bail. I recently heard from a grieving mother in my riding. She reached out to me from Lethbridge. Her daughter Christina Webber was brutally murdered on December 26 of last year, the day after Christmas. Three individuals were charged in this first-degree murder. One of Christina's killers had been serving an intermittent sentence, meaning that he served time in prison on the weekends, but then he was allowed out during the week, supposedly to work, although he did not have a job. It was during the time he was out of prison that he committed this murder.

Another one of Christina's killers, who was charged with first-degree murder, requested bail and received it. She now lives peacefully in her home while she awaits trial. Meanwhile, Christina's family, her two young boys and her parents, grieve the loss of this mom. It did not need to be that way.

Conservatives have pushed for a long time for changes to our bail system. Recently, my colleague, the member for Oxford, introduced Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, which would ensure that individuals charged with serious or violent offences could not easily return to the community while they are waiting for trial. It prioritizes public safety. It puts the victim and the family first. Sadly, the Liberals voted against the bill.

Conservatives welcome the Liberals' sudden recognition that bail reform is needed, but Canadians deserve so much more. They must have much more because their lives matter, their safety matters and our communities matter. Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety; they deserve accountability, and they deserve laws that protect the innocent, not the violent. Therefore, Conservatives will continue to fight for these changes to strengthen sentencing, to reform bail and to put victims first. Ultimately, people like Savannah, Bailey and Christina deserve nothing less. For crying out loud, I hope, for the sake of their families, that we would want to do better.

[Bill C-246, October 30th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, discounts belong in grocery stores, not in courtrooms. Under the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, sexual offenders often get discount sentences, where they serve one term for multiple crimes. This practice minimizes the gravity of their actions and denies victims the full measure of justice they deserve.

For example, in Toronto, a family doctor was convicted of nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation involving three different patients over time. Despite these grave crimes, he received concurrent sentencing, which equated to three and a half years. His patients were supposed to feel safe and cared for, but instead, they were violated and betrayed. While they will carry the trauma for life, their abuser will soon walk free.

It is unthinkable, so I am proud to address this issue with my private member's bill, Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act. This act would ensure that every crime is punished in full and every victim receives the justice they deserve, because this place should always stand with victims.

[The Economy, October 10th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the member just told me that I should go back to my riding and tell Susie, a senior in my riding who has worked hard her entire life to make ends meet and now cannot pay for rent and groceries and is therefore skipping meals, that she should enrol in grade school so she can take advantage of the government's bureaucratic school program.

That is what the member just told me. Is he for real? If this is the definition of success, I would hate to see the definition of failure.

[The Economy, October 10th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know. Every dollar that the Prime Minister spends drives up inflation, which increases the cost of living for Canadians. He said he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. The report card is in, and it is a big F, a failure.

Susie in my riding is a senior who is finding it difficult to be able to afford both rent and groceries. She has worked hard her entire life to make a go of it and has been rather successful. Now she is in a position where she is actually having to choose to skip meals to be able to pay her rent. That is not right. We live in Canada. It is one of the richest countries in the world. Why is it that, under the government, people like Suzie are struggling so much?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to tell this member exactly what those in Lethbridge think about their plan.

The members in my riding hate this Liberal plan with regard to day care because it has taken away quality, spaces and put them in a place of desperation. They have fewer dollars in their bank account than they have ever had before, and now they do not have proper access to day care for their kids.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, there are these catchphrases that are used by the Liberals, such as how we are going to go into debt so that Canadians do not have to. That debt gets put on the backs of Canadians. It is our children and our grandchildren who are going to pay that debt.

What kind of sloppy statement is that? The government is going to go into debt so that Canadians do not have to? Where the heck is the government going to get that money from?

There is no money for government without taxpayers. That is exactly where that money is going to come from.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member points to a greater problem at play here, which is a government that is very much out seeking votes. At that point in time, it was conveniently during an election that this money was reimbursed. Of course, as he mentioned, it went to folks who did not even pay into the pot of money to begin with.

Why did the Liberal government make that decision? Why did it give this extra $4 billion to these folks who had never even paid into the carbon tax to begin with?

I have no other explanation than to suggest that perhaps the Liberals were simply seeking votes. It is wrong. It is a misuse of Canadian dollars.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, we will recall that in 2015, Justin Trudeau was the prime minister. He came in and said that just a little red ink would help Canadians.

We then fast-forward to 10 years later. There is still a Liberal government in place, and Canadians are worse off than they have ever been in terms of being able to afford the necessities of life.

Food bank lines are longer than they have ever been before. It is because the government decided that its policy would be to take on debt after debt by going into deficit spending. It is wrong.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil.

When the Liberals first took office in 2015, they told Canadians that a bit of red ink would buy prosperity, that deficits would fuel growth and investment and that Canada would be better off. After nearly a decade of the record showing the opposite, we have to wonder if we should still keep going in this direction. We have had record borrowing and record spending, with record debt and hardship among Canadians. Investment per worker has fallen by more than 10%; economic growth per capita is the worst in the G7, and the current Prime Minister has caused 86,000 jobs to be lost, resulting in the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. The new Prime Minister is just like the old one: more spending, more borrowing and more pain for hard-working Canadians.

Behind every number is a person, a story deserving to be known. A few weeks ago, I spoke with Joy, a woman from my community who uses a wheelchair and lives on a fixed income. She called to tell me how desperate she has been in trying to find accessible housing. She has done everything she can. She is responsible, organized, determined and working hard, but as rents climb and the cost of living rises, every apartment she looks at is out of her reach. She told me she just wants a place where she can live with dignity. Is this not what most people want? These are the very basic necessities of life, and she just wants a place where she can live with dignity. My question for the government is what it would like me to tell her. What do I tell someone like Joy, who is doing all she possibly can but is not able to afford a basic roof over her head?

Then there is Susie. Susie is a senior in my riding who reached out to me. She has worked hard her entire life, raised her family and contributed to the community. She pays her taxes faithfully. Now, in retirement, she finds herself unable to afford groceries and rent. She has to choose between the basic necessities of affording her rent or putting proper groceries in her fridge. Of course, the roof over her head is most important in her view, so she pays the rent, but she has turned to skipping meals in order to make it.

This is Canada, one of the richest nations in the world, yet our seniors are being forced to choose between food and rent. There is nothing else to point to other than government policy. It is not the sign of a healthy economy. It is the consequence of years of reckless fiscal policy that has driven up inflation, raised interest rates and punished those who have worked hard their whole lives. This is happening not just to seniors or those with a disability but to working families too.

A couple who would prefer not to be named sat down with me and shared that both of them are working full time. They have three kids and are doing their best, but, at the end of the day, they are not able to afford the things they require as a family. These people have chosen to start skipping meals in order to make sure that their kids have enough to eat and that they can continue to put a roof over their head and function as a family unit. I could go on and on. There are dozens of these stories that come into my office almost monthly, and it keeps getting worse as time goes on. Folks have done everything right, but, for some reason, cannot get ahead.

This is what happens when a government spends beyond its means. Inflation is not an abstract concept; it is a thief, and it is the result of the government. It erodes purchasing power, punishes responsibility, makes the poor poorer and shrinks the middle class, yet the Liberal government continues to insist that deficits somehow make life more affordable and somehow Canadians are going to get ahead.

They are not. The truth is the opposite. Every dollar the government borrows today is a dollar that people like Joy, Susie or the hard-working couple have to pay back. It is on their backs. It becomes their responsibility because of the government's irresponsibility.

Just the other day, I overheard my office manager in the constituency talking to my intern. She was explaining to my intern that when people call or come into the office, sometimes they sound upset or maybe even a bit angry; sometimes, that can be a bit uncomfortable. However, my office manager put it into perspective. She offered an explanation and said that when they come in, they are not trying to be mean and they are not trying to be rude; they are desperate because of fear. They are afraid because they cannot afford rent. They are afraid because they cannot afford food. They are afraid because they cannot pay their bills, and they are desperate for help. They are afraid of what the future holds, because they do not see hope in it.

This insight reminded me of what is really at stake here. Behind policy debates and behind the economic charts and forecasts are millions of Canadians who are afraid. They are afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will be without a home and afraid they will never get ahead or be able to step into that opportunity that they so long for. These are the people I visit with each and every day when I am in my constituency. These are the people who share their stories with me, and they just want a fair shot at life. They need Canada to be as it once was, a place where opportunity is great and where the chance to get ahead is normal.

The Liberals told Canadians that their deficits would grow the economy from the heart out. How is that working? It is not. Instead, they have grown debt; they have grown dependence, and they have grown despair. That is what is on the current government's record. Since 2015, business investment in Canada has fallen off a cliff by about half a trillion dollars. It has gone south of the border. Companies do not want to invest here because they see a government that is hostile to them, a government that actually wants those jobs to go south, as the Prime Minister has promised. He wants to send not just half a trillion dollars but a trillion dollars; that is his latest promise.

The Liberals have been trying to convince Canadians that more spending is the solution to every problem that their spending has already created. If we would just take a second to consider that, it is like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out. That is what the government is offering. That is what we can expect in the November 4 budget from the government: more spending to put out the fire that its inflationary spending has already caused. It is ludicrous.

The truth is simple. Government does not create wealth; it takes it from those who do, which means it is incumbent upon governments to be wise stewards. Every dollar government spends is taken from a taxpayer. It is taken from Joy, Susie and the hard-working couple I referenced earlier.

I want to be clear: The motion we are discussing today is not just about numbers; it is about people. It is about Joy, it is about Susie, and it is about that couple in my riding. Canadians are strong. They are resilient and hopeful, but they are losing faith in the current government, in the leaders of the day. Who can blame them? After nearly a decade of Liberal promises, Canadians are worse off than ever before. They need a government that respects their money, that lives within its means and that restores common sense to our economic decisions.

Conservatives are calling on the current Liberal government to stop its wasteful spending, which fuels inflation; to bring investment back to our country rather than sending it south of the border; and to make life affordable for hard-working Canadians again. I urge every member in the House to listen to the stories in their communities, to hear the pain and the anxiety behind the statistics and to recognize that the Liberal government's decisions are failing Canadians. Let us stop repeating Justin Trudeau's and the current Prime Minister's policies, and let us stop mortgaging our children's future. Instead, let us start building a Canada where every person, regardless of income or circumstance, has the opportunity to thrive. It is time to put those people, Canadians, first. It is time to rein in spending and be responsible.