Rachael Thomas

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will notify the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

I rise this afternoon in support of the motion that is before the House, brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, that means I am standing in support of the Kinder Morgan pipeline going forward, to which Conservatives have committed. This is a very important piece of Canadian energy infrastructure that will create wealth and prosperity not only for the current generation but for generations to come. Building this pipeline would create tens of thousands of permanent well-paying jobs not just within the province of Alberta but in the entire country of Canada. In fact, no other industry offers such high-paying jobs for youth and young people, therefore allowing those in the rising generation to pay off their students debts, purchase their first homes, and really get ahead in life, which is excellent for them.

Kinder Morgan would also ensure that our natural resources would find their way to market in the most environmentally sustainable way possible, which I think all of us in the House would agree should be a priority going forward. Of course this is proven. Because of the government's own extensive and evidence-driven review process, we know that this is in fact the case. The government has everything it needs to get started on this vital project: the studies are complete, it has jurisdiction, and it has social licence. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has said that he supports this project, so when we advocate for it in the House today, it is with great backing.

It is not stated enough in the House that Canada is, in fact, a natural resource superpower, and we should be taking advantage of that as a country. For the entire existence of our nation, our ability to process and export our raw materials has defined us as a nation. People who travel anywhere around the world will find homes built with our lumber, wedding rings made with gold found in Canada, and diamonds that are taken from the north. This speaks volumes about the exports that come out of Canada. There is no reason why our natural resource called oil and gas should not be the same.

By twinning the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, we would finally be able to get our product directly to international markets. This would create more employment across the energy sector, especially for young Canadians. In this time that we call job churn for young workers, the energy sector actually provides thousands of Canadians their first well-paying jobs. Young people who are employed in the energy sector are able to buy their first homes more easily, pay down their debts sooner, and save for their futures a whole lot faster than if they were not provided this opportunity. Over the last decade, youth from all across Canada travelled west and spent at least some time in Alberta in order to save for these various things.

I recognize that Canadians do not just want a prosperous economy. They also want to make sure that the environment is protected. Pipelines make all the more sense when we consider environmental impact, because pipelines actually ensure that both of these objectives are met: our economy thrives and our environment is protected. Contrary to what the media or those on my left would like people to think, pipelines are actually nothing new. They have been in the ground for a long time and have been operational for decades. At the present time, thousands of Canadians actually live around pipelines and do not even know it, because the environment looks like it would if the pipelines were not in the ground. The reason people do not know is that pipelines are actually proven to be reliable, clean, and effective. As I stated already, the environment around them actually looks relatively normal. If we want to avoid costly and damaging spills, pipelines actually provide us with the best way forward for our country.

Study after study has shown that pipelines are the safest and most environmentally sustainable way to transport oil and gas and ensure it gets directly to international markets, which of course means we have to get it to tidewater. They are far safer than transport over rail or road, which are the only other alternatives at our disposal. Consider the number of derailments in environmentally sensitive areas in B.C. that take place or the national tragedy of Lac-Mégantic, which demonstrate the very real dangers of moving this product by rail.

In addition to this, these pipelines are also heavily scrutinized to ensure their safety to the environment. The National Energy Board's own extensive and robust report laid out 209 firm conditions for this Trans Mountain expansion for Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan must also do the same with the multitude of agreements that it has made with many communities and aboriginal groups along the line, which it has done.

What we need to note here is that there are many aboriginal groups. In fact I could argue that the majority are actually standing behind this pipeline. There are a few who are speaking out against it, but we have to keep in mind that it is only a few, a minority. With it being nearly impossible to get everyone on the same page, we have to choose what is best for Canadians as a whole and move forward with those who have shown their support and need this pipeline for their economic stability and well-being.

I do believe that Canada maintains some of the highest standards of environmental protection anywhere in the world, and this has been proven time and time again.

Canadians are proud that our oil and gas sector is ethical and environmentally safe, which cannot be said of the alternatives, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. These alternatives have proven quite the opposite. Some have referred to their oil and gas as blood oil because of the regulations being actually so slim within these countries.

Let us be clear about the choice that is facing us, because the choice is not whether or not to build a pipeline, but the choice is actually to build a pipeline in Canada under the strictest environmental regulations in the world or to allow some corrupt third world oil company with no regulations or oversight at all to devastate their local environment as they extract and ship their oil overseas. These are the two choices before this House today, and I would argue that we do need to make sure we are supporting our own oil production, which has been done in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.

We know that if Canadian products do not reach international markets, China and other energy-dependent superpowers will get their oil from somewhere. This is why this debate is not really about the environment or saving the planet, but it is about politics. Therefore I call on the government to do what it said it would do, and that is to ensure this important upgrade of Canadian infrastructure happens.

I am glad to know that the Conservative Party is not alone in its support of this very important project moving forward. It would appear that the government has also seen the light and that it publicly supports this pipeline. I was encouraged by the words the Prime Minister delivered recently at a meeting in Rome. He said:

The decision we took on the Trans Mountain pipeline was based on facts and evidence on what is in the best interests of Canadians and, indeed, all of Canada.

I could not have said it better myself. The facts and the evidence have indeed not changed, and this includes the laws regarding federal and provincial jurisdiction.

Regardless of provincial politics in British Columbia, we are calling on the government to not lose its nerve, but to continue to support this important endeavour for the sake of our country.

Last, we trust the Liberals will commit fully to the social licence the many aboriginal communities have given them on this pipeline, and that they do not fail to deliver on the economic benefits that await.

I say this because I know that pipelines are not just a boost for Alberta but a victory for the Canadian economy as a whole. The supplies for the pipeline project include steel from Ontario, machinery from Ontario and Quebec, as well as parts, labour, and services from every province and territory across this great nation.

The reality is this. With the oceans of red ink the Liberal government is swimming in, the government really cannot afford any other alternative. We need to move forward with this project, yes, for our own sake to keep oil and gas here within our country because it will provide revenue for us. It will provide jobs, of course, for Canadian people, but it will also provide tax revenue for the government, which of course is much needed.

In conclusion, Canadians do in fact support the Kinder Morgan pipeline because it will provide well-paying jobs to young people who desperately need them. Exporting our oil is the ethical and environmentally sound thing to do, because our oil and gas sector produces this product in compliance with the toughest, most responsible environmental regulations possible.

The Liberals cannot afford to let this project fail, because it would leave our fragile economy in even worse shape than what we see today. The federal government has already approved this project. Today we are calling on government members to insist that it go through and that we move forward to construction.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the question at hand has to do with the Canadian autism partnership and whether the government will move forward and honour the request of this grassroots initiative, and the phenomenal work it has done to support families that live with autism. That is the question of the day. My question for the government is whether it will follow through with this initiative, which is noteworthy and worthy of celebration. This group is deserving of the funding in order to support these families.

With respect to the member's question as to whether we, as a Conservative caucus, would be willing to work with the NDP on future initiatives with respect to autism, that would depend on what those initiatives were. However, we hold an open hand and definitely want to serve the communities with people living with disabilities. Therefore, we will do all we can to do that well.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I give the hon. member's government credit for the steps it has taken to increase accessibility. The consultations that have taken place are commendable.

I find it interesting and quite curious that the government likes to talk a lot about consultation, saying that it has been consulting and that it is launching another consultation. It is interesting that it has held nine round tables and feels that somehow covers the entire country, therefore we are good to go. I do not know if that is as deep or as broad a consultation that is necessary to come up with the policy and legislative initiatives to serve all those who live with a disability.

Nevertheless, the topic at hand today has to do with the autism partnership. This working group came together and collectively put this ask forward to the government. It is a moderate ask of $19 million over the course of five years, which is less than $4 million per year. However, the government shut that down. Meanwhile, it somehow still found money in its purse to give $400 million to Bombardier and its executives.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government decided to give nearly $400 million of taxpayer money to bail out Bombardier, which is a Montreal-based aerospace firm here in Canada. As a Conservative, of course, I disagree with this use of taxpayer dollars to rescue a private corporation from its own financial mismanagement, but that is beside the point. What is on point, however, is the fact that while Bombardier was wailing about the possibility of going under, the company was simultaneously giving large bonuses to its executive members.

One might ask what Bombardier has to do with autism, the topic at hand today. The answer is simple. In their 2017 budget, the Liberals cut funding that was supposed to go toward the formation of the Canadian autism partnership. The partnership requires a modest $19 million over the course of five years. That is less than $4 million per year. That is less than half of what the Bombardier executives are currently making in bonuses.

The government that says it represents the middle class is in fact taking money from the middle class to give big payouts to companies like Bombardier and its top executives. We are actually taking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthiest among us. Meanwhile, the Liberal government cannot seem to find $19 million, which is a meagre amount, in light of what I am talking about with regard to Bombardier, for those families that need it most, those that are impacted by autism.

To be frank, I believe this is an injustice, not only to these families but to all Canadians, not because all are impacted by autism but actually because society functions best when all of its members are given opportunities to reach their full potential.

In Canada right now, one in 68 children are diagnosed with autism. This number actually goes to one in 48 among boys. More than 500,000 Canadians are living with autism today, and it is the fastest-growing and diagnosed neurological disorder in the country.

Autism is a brain condition associated with poor social skills and has a wide range of symptoms, including communication difficulties; social and behavioural challenges, including obsessive behaviour; and hypersensitivity to sound, light, or other sensory stimulation. While the autism of a computer scientist might go unnoticed, at the other end of the spectrum, one-quarter of those with autism are entirely non-verbal.

Autism is a condition that defies simple generalizations. It is not a condition for which we can put people in a box and define them one way or another. Like all individuals, those who have autism have their own personalities, interests, skills, abilities, passions, and potential.

I want to focus on potential. Canada is a land of potential. It is a place where we bring refugees in from all over the world to give them the opportunity to realize the raw potential that lies within them. Every Canadian deserves this opportunity. Like you and me, those who live with autism possess greatness within them. They are intelligent, they are creative, and they are lively, and there is something wonderful in each of them to give back and contribute to this great country we call home. However, unfortunately, their potential often goes untapped.

About half of those with autism are of average or above-average intelligence, yet very few actually graduate from high school, and of course, even fewer go on to complete post-secondary education. Approximately 25% of those with autism are employed, and only 6% are competitively employed. These numbers are very concerning to me, because they represent a tragic loss, a loss to our society, when we could actually be benefiting and enjoying the potential of each of these individuals if they were given the right support.

Sadly, hundreds of thousands of people actually live rather idle and isolated lives, because they are forced to do so. Families struggle to know how to best support their loved ones, because there just are not the resources or the research to back up those resource developments. These families are actually in significant need of help. The help they are asking for at the moment takes the form of the Canadian autism partnership.

Do these individuals not deserve more? Do they not deserve an opportunity to function at their greatest possible potential? Particularly in light of the Bombardier bailout, I believe this is a very small and common-sense request.

What are my Conservative colleagues and I are asking for? We are asking that the Minister of Health acknowledge that individuals with autism and their families face very unique challenges in life, and these challenges span over a lifetime. They often result in a crisis situation due to the condition, and families then have to deal with those.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier, autism is not just a health issue for the individual and his or her family members and loved ones. It actually has overarching implications for Canadian society as a whole. My colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said earlier that this was not an autism issue, that this was a Canadian issue. He said it well. It is not something that we can just put on those families or those individuals who have to wrestle with autism and find the necessary supports in order to live a life with autism. It is not just on them. The onus is on us as a society.

To be quite frank, the loss is ours as well. Again, these individuals possess such great potential.

Accordingly, those of us on this side of the House are calling on the government to grant $19 million over 5 years, as requested by the Canadian autism partnership working group, Self-Advocates Advisory Group, and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance. We are asking for this in order to establish a Canadian autism partnership that would support families and address key issues such as information sharing and research, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment government.

Mostly, we are calling on the government to believe, as we do, that those who live with autism have tremendous potential and should be empowered to function according to the greatness that lies within each and every one of them.

In 2015, the Conservative government provided $2 million to support the development of a Canadian autism partnership. A working group was created and it was mandated to come back to the government with a proposal for best steps forward. Over the course of 16 months, it did just that. At the end of 2016, it made a proposal for the 2017 budget.

The request of the working group was moderate and reasonable. The working group asked for $19 million over five years. With this money, a national partnership would be formed between organizations from coast to coast. The focus of its work would be to represent the entire Canadian autism community, speaking with one voice and acting in unity to assist this community in living vibrant lives.

Sadly, the current government chose to ignore this noteworthy request and the work that was accomplished by this group. It struck its request from budget considerations.

This is very disheartening. We have the opportunity to support a grassroots initiative, where more than 5,000 individuals gave their feedback on what this partnership should look like, and were willing to do the groundwork. We also have the opportunity to empower people to reach their full potential. We also have the opportunity to support the vulnerable. We also have the opportunity to facilitate an environment where all people are given equal opportunity to prosper.

Our Conservative government, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, believed in the potential of those who lived with a disability. I will name a few thing we did during our time in government.

We increased the landmark registered disability savings plan. We invested $218 million per year for labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. We invested $30 million annually in the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities prepare for and obtain meaningful employment. We supported caregivers and recognized the incredible contributions they made by creating a tax incentives. We provided $15 million over three years to the ready, willing and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living in order to connect persons with disabilities to a job. We invested $11.4 million over four years to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorders. We removed the GST and the HST on more health care products and services. Last, we expanded tax relief under the medical expense tax credit.

We believe in the potential of each and every individual, including those who live with a disability. We call upon the current government to believe with us in the potential of those who live each and every day with autism and their family members, who need the assistance of the government through this partnership.

[Health, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government funded a working group to establish a Canadian Autism Partnership. After two years of work, the Liberals rejected the request of the working group, the self-advocates advisory group, and the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorders Alliance, which proposed a modest budget of $19 million over five years.

My question is simple, and since it is Wednesday, I wonder if the right hon. Prime Minister might like to answer. Will the Liberals reverse their decision and fund the Canadian Autism Partnership?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across from me talked about violence committed against women and the fact that the government was committed to seeing that reduced. She said we want “to continue to improve outcomes” in developing nations. I find this curious, because the government just supported Saudi Arabia being on the women's commission within the UN. We know that Saudi Arabia does not exactly stand for women's rights. In fact, it does not stand for human rights in general, but it is particularly violent against women.

I am wondering how the hon. member across from me can defend the government's position with respect to supporting Saudi Arabia in this effort to portray violence against women.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has two adult children, one of them is a stay-at-home mom. The former Conservative government brought in something called income splitting, which would actually benefit her a lot because it would mean that—ultimately, at the end of the day, without going into it, it would save them a lot of money. That measure was actually reversed by the Liberal government that is now in place. That is really unfortunate and, of course, that is detrimental to my hon. colleague's daughter.

In addition, when we are talking about almost $30 billion worth of borrowed spending just in this year alone, at the end of the day, that is getting passed on to my colleague's daughter and to her children, again, for things that they actually may not see the full benefit of. At the end of the day, it is their taxes that are going to go up and it is their health care that is going to get pulled back, and other services they depend on, because the government is going to eventually have to pay this money back.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the infrastructure bank, we are looking at billions of dollars, without a concrete plan attached to those dollars. When I read through the Liberals' plan, so to speak, the waters are actually quite muddied for me. I am not exactly sure what the plan entails, in terms of rolling that money out and actually getting projects done.

In terms of public-private partnerships and engaging the private sector, I think the private sector gets the job done, and it always does it at an expense that is far less to the taxpayer than if it were publicly funded and operated.

That said, I think I am waiting on the Liberals, in terms of their actually rolling this out and getting some money into the hands of developers and making sure that these infrastructure projects actually take place, and the Liberals have not shown themselves to actually have a plan to get that job done.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to infrastructure, I would agree with the member. I do think it is very important that we invest in our infrastructure and that we maintain our infrastructure. In fact, that is why I believe we should start getting some shovels in the ground. Six per cent just is not cutting it. There is another 94% of projects that have been approved that have not even started. Canadians do deserve better. They do deserve their roads, their bridges, etc., to be maintained. Unfortunately, the present Liberal government seems to be incapable of getting the job done.

That said, when it comes to infrastructure spending, I think we should note that it is actually the Liberal governments of the past that have severely cut back. If we are noticing a lack, if we are noticing cracks in roads or bridges that are not holding up, I think we actually need to look opposite.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.

When the federal government releases its annual budget, it is far more than simply numbers on a page. It is actually a declaration of intent, a vision statement of sorts; and so it is important for us to take time to learn about what exactly the government plans to do on behalf of Canadians, or perhaps it is in hindrance of Canadians.

On March 22, the Liberal government put forward budget 2017. In this 278 page document, the Liberals outlined their plan to spend the money of taxpayers.

We all know that I am a Conservative member of Parliament in this place. I believe governments should be as small as possible. I believe business owners should be provided with freedom to innovate and create jobs, and I believe in freedom of choice and the fact that it should be protected. Naturally, I look at the budget through a different lens than my counterparts do. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge and as a Conservative, I was thoroughly disappointed by the budget.

The bottom line is this. The Liberals are hiking taxes, stalling on infrastructure spending, and doing little to help seniors, and they have zero plans in place for helping the rising generation. I have not even mentioned the fact that the Liberals are incurring a deficit load of $28.9 billion in this budget, which is a far cry from the $10 billion that they promised during the election. This would leave future generations with the task of paying for their reckless spending.

To be fair, there are a few measures in the budget that I would like to draw upon, and of course, many of them have to do with former Conservative initiatives that are now being expanded. One would be the caregiver tax credit that rolls three different Conservative tax credits into one. The Liberals continued also with the Conservatives' trend of providing greater access and flexibility to student loans to ensure adult learners have the resources they need to access training to improve their work prospects.

The budget would also provide new flexibility to mothers on maternity leave, and different flexibility for people on employment insurance to return to school. I do believe these are excellent or noteworthy changes. Unfortunately, however, these positives were overshadowed by an entire host of negatives.

With increased taxes on public transit, Uber, beer, wine, tobacco, home heating, and gasoline, life gets a lot more expensive for Canadians with budget 2017. These new taxes would make life less affordable and disproportionately affect those with low or fixed incomes.

Let us take a closer look. Budget 2017 would eliminate the public transit tax credit, which many of my constituents have told me would have a negative impact on them. Getting rid of this tax credit disproportionately affects those with disabilities and those on a fixed income, particularly seniors.

Furthermore, the Liberals decided to increase taxes on those who offer insurance to farmers and fishing properties, thus driving up the cost of insurance for those who are farming families in my community.

Budget 2017 would also increase taxes on tourists who visit Canada on a tour package, thereby driving up the cost of visiting our great country. It is a mystery to me why we would want to do that. This would result in job losses in the tourism sector, especially in regions such as Yukon and the Maritimes, who can afford it the least.

As already mentioned, courtesy of the Liberal government, every Canadian who enjoys a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, a cigarette, or taking Uber would now pay even more.

The Liberals have justified an astronomically high deficit by saying that much of the money will go toward infrastructure projects, which are meant to boost the economy, they would argue. However, since the Liberal government took office, 94% of approved projects have not yet broken ground. This is a huge problem. This means jobs are not being created, and it means that the economy is not being stimulated in the way the Liberals promised.

Budget 2017 contains no new infrastructure spending beyond what was announced in the 2016 fall economic update. As for Lethbridge, as the member of Parliament, I was really hoping to see greater funds become available for infrastructure projects within a medium-sized centre such as ours. However, that was not the case. Instead, we were left out in the cold. Why might that be? It is because the Liberals made all the money available to Liberal-friendly big cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. There is zero new funding for small and medium cities like ours.

When it comes to helping seniors, budget 2017 is far more harmful than it is helpful. The Liberals scrapped the public transit credit, eliminated the family caregiver tax credit, and increased the cost of living by putting in place a carbon tax. To top it all off, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to put a minister for seniors in place. Right now in Canada, one in six people are seniors. They deserve more.

However, they are not the only ones. Canada's youth are put in a significant place of disadvantage with the budget. Instead of raising taxes, the Prime Minister really should have focused on job creation and policies that would lead to that. In the last year, Canadians aged 15 to 24 lost 42,000 full-time jobs. To make matters worse, the best solution the finance minister has to offer the younger generation is that they simply need to get used to what he calls “job churn”. This is absolutely unacceptable. We need to take this generation much more seriously.

Since being elected in 2015, I have had a chance to travel from coast to coast across the country, and I have talked to young people in each province as I have gone along. The biggest concern I hear over and over again is that they want to find meaningful employment after they graduate from university or college. Many youth have called upon the federal government to provide a tax incentive to employers who hire young people. Such an approach would allow the free market to reward job creation and, unlike government job programs, would result in long-term, well-paying jobs for these young people. I believe that budget 2017 was a missed opportunity to advocate for the rising generation.

Sadly, with this budget the Liberals are mortgaging the future of our great country, and it is our children who will ultimately have to foot the bill. It is extremely concerning to me that budget 2017 puts Liberals on track to spend $100 billion more than they will collect through tax revenue in the life of this government. This is like taking a $100 billion mortgage out, which our children and our grandchildren would be responsible for paying back. This is hard to justify, when our children and our grandchildren would see little to no benefit for this money.

In short, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this budget is in fact in their best interest. Neither can the party opposite. The truth is that the Liberals have a spending problem. When it comes to spending my constituents' money, they cannot help themselves. They find that fun, and I am not okay with that. I am not okay with their raising taxes so they can pay their corporate cronies who come begging for government bailouts. The Liberals call it advancing innovation, but we know it is actually corporate welfare. The Liberals are taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. I believe that is absolutely, fundamentally wrong.

It is no surprise that the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers keep getting caught holding swanky cash for access fundraisers with the business elite of Canada, or that the rich Bay Street business types and the Liberal-friendly think tanks are the ones that are benefiting from the Liberal government's policies.

Canada's economic future is looking a little uncertain. There are factors beyond our control, such as the unpredictable American government, that further advanced this uncertainty. This is why it is even more important than ever that we get our own house, our own country, in order first and foremost.

The budget points Canada into very dangerous economic waters. My job as a member of Parliament in this place is to defend the taxpayers, and this budget fails to respect their investment in this great country, the country we call Canada. Therefore, I will be voting against Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill.