Rachael Thomas

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege to stand in the House and to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion that is already taking place in the House today because I believe this is a very timely issue and it is one that impacts Canadians as a whole.

The bill addresses a current injustice when it comes to sentencing for crimes that are motivated by hate in Canada. Currently, if an individual is convicted of mischief, which is a fancy word for vandalism, against a place of worship, the maximum penalty for that is 10 years. However, if the same individual were to vandalize a religious school, or a religious recreational centre or a religious day care, the punishment for that same crime would only be two years in prison.

This is the exact same crime and it is motivated by hatred for an identifiable group, but the penalty is dramatically different.

Canada is a religiously plural and multicultural society. It allows its citizens to live out their lives according to their conscience, their beliefs, their values, yet throughout its history, Canada has experienced a regrettable number of anti-Semitic and racist acts of vandalism.

The recent and tragic events that took place in Quebec City not too long ago with the Muslim community and then in Toronto with the Jewish community remind us of the severe impact the manifestation of hate can have on the lives of Canadians.

Fundamental human rights and freedoms are infringed upon when hateful acts interfere with the ability of those of diverse faiths, origins and political affiliations to live out their convictions according to need. While race, ethnicity, and religion remain the most common motivators for hate-based crimes, Statistics Canada indicates that such acts of mischief are not limited to these groups. Hate crimes have also been directed toward those of different sexual orientation, those of a different political belief, or those perhaps with a mental or physical disability.

In a country that values both tolerance and respect, the fact that only those crimes which are carried out on religious property are indictable under section 430 of our Criminal Code is unacceptable.

Hate crimes affect a broad range of Canadian citizens, not just those within these religious organizations. A church community may meet in an old movie theatre, or it might even choose a recreational centre or a school. Therefore, it is possible then that hate crimes or vandalism, mischief, could then be committed against these properties.

Parents may also choose to send their children to a day care that is religious in nature because of their beliefs and values. At present, these properties do not benefit from the same protections under the Criminal Code. This is why I support the amendment brought forward today.

To fight to protect religious freedoms is a fight that we in our capacity as parliamentarians have the duty to address and to promote. While the damage of vandalism is generally minimal, the impact hate motivated crimes have on the targeted population is often absolutely devastating.

In 2014, over half of the hate crimes committed in Canada fell into what was known as the mischief category. This was 523 of the 1,170 crimes that were committed. That is a huge number. It is clear this legislation applies to the majority of hate crimes that take place within our country. Who are the targets of these attacks?

In Toronto, incidents of hate motivated crimes increased by 8% in 2016 alone. That is a significant change. Within that, Jews are the single most targeted group for the 12th year in a row. The Toronto Police Service 2016 Annual Hate Bias Crime Statistical Report also revealed that Muslims were the target of hate crimes at about half the rate that Jews were, so making up a significant portion of that population being discriminated against.

I find this very concerning. It is again the reason why I am standing in support of this legislation going forward.

Jews make up only 3.8% and Muslims only 8.2% of Toronto's entire population, but these two communities were the victims of more than half of all the hate crimes committed within the city. Across the country, the statistics generally fall into a similar pattern. We see the same thing when we look from one city to the next.

In addition, with members of the Jewish community being the target of most attacks, we also see significant attacks that are brought against Muslims, those who are black, the LGBTQ community, and those with disabilities. These numbers are horrifying. I would argue as well that they are not just horrifying but, together, they are an attack on our identity as Canadians.

Our Canadian identity is based on the idea of many peoples joining together toward a common purpose. Hate crimes against an identifiable group, often minority groups, attack this central principle of unity on which so much of Canada is built.

These crimes are intended to make a community of people feel excluded from being Canadian. Therefore, in order to protect the many diverse communities spread across our vast and beautiful country, we must take action. We must increase the protection that is available to those who find themselves victim to these hate crimes. To do any less would betray Canada's history, the history that we have fought for with respect to having a common and shared identity.

Given the recent history in the House and the political games the government has played with the Islamophobia motion as of late, I would like to speak to the difference between protecting freedom of speech and supporting the bill before us today.

One of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in Canada is freedom of speech. Our constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our Criminal Code give the maximum latitude when it comes to freedom of speech. The only limits that can be placed on free speech, according to the Criminal Code, is if the speech wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group, or where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the public peace. In other words, unless people are focusing their hate on one group, to the point of encouraging violence against it, they have not actually broken the law.

However, even within this provision there is an exemption for criticism of religion. The Criminal Code states that a person is not guilty of hate speech if “in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text...”

Our law is very clear. Debating the merits of one's religion is not in fact hate speech. However, focusing hate on an ethnic group and encouraging people to attack it clearly is. This is the distinction: words versus actions.

I fully support the bill going forward, because whether someone has a difference of opinion on religious grounds, there is no justification whatsoever for physically attacking a person or a property that belongs to a person who holds differing beliefs. Canada was founded on the idea that we are rational human beings and that our differences of opinion actually strengthen democracy rather than hinder it. We believe the testing of our beliefs and our values by the diverse traditions of the people who make up Canada ensures the preservation of our democracy. This is why it is so alarming to see the limits being placed on free speech on university campuses across our country right now.

Furthermore, it is why the Liberals' poorly-defined Islamophobia motion was so incredibly misguided. Their motion could take away the freedom of Canadians to debate the merits of religious ideas, about which I am very concerned.

As an alternative to Motion No. 103, the Conservatives put forward a well-balanced and inclusive motion that focused on condemning acts of systemic racism against all religious communities and not just one. Given the Liberals' love for the charter, one would expect them to understand the difference between religious ideas and religious communities.

The bill before the House right now, Bill C-305, closes a gap that currently exists within our Criminal Code. I believe it is absolutely necessary for the Canadian public going forward. Hate crimes are absolutely disgusting. They go against our shared identity as Canadians. Increasing the possible sentences for those who commit such crimes is entirely worthy of the House. These provisions will continue to protect the freedom of speech that Canadians currently enjoy, and they will enhance religious freedoms by providing a stronger disincentive to commit hate crimes.

[Foreign Affairs, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals spend a lot of time and effort championing what many have argued to be one of the planet's organizations that spends the most time on anti-Israel motions, and that, of course, is the United Nations. Today, while Israel is celebrating its 69th anniversary of becoming a modern state, the UN passed yet another anti-Israel motion.

Will the Prime Minister today stand up in this House and condemn the United Nations for its continuous attacks on Israel?

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered this question. I made reference to the fact that yes, filibustering is taking place at PROC, which is a committee, with regard to the procedures of this House. Of course, the filibustering taking place there is because there are actions being taken by the Liberals, who are trying to impose a squashing of our voices as the opposition in this House. That is why we are filibustering there.

In terms of what is going on here in this place, we are actually enjoying an open discussion or debate, which, contrary to what the Liberals might understand, means that we go back and forth. Preferably, more than one member on your side would speak. That is really what we would prefer.

We go back and forth, and it means that we exchange ideas. It means that sometimes we are going to agree, but most of the time we are going to disagree, because that is our job. That is our responsibility. We were elected to this place to represent Canadians. Not all Canadians think alike, so there is going to be a variety of perspectives within this House. That is the House of Commons. That is the way it is supposed to be, and we are going to do all we can to prevent the Liberals from shutting that down.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

It is two and a half sword lengths, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member's question is with regard to the backbenchers on the government side and the fact that very few of them have actually participated in this debate. It seems to be only the parliamentary secretary to the House leader who is responding to us. That actually concerns me, because I wonder why the Liberals do not have a voice in this. Why do they not stand in this place and participate in this discussion? It was just acknowledged that it is, in fact, an important discussion, that it is, in fact, an important question of privilege before us. We would think that all members would want to participate in that conversation, that they would want to speak on behalf of their constituents, and that they would want to accurately represent them in this place. After all, that is why we were elected to be in the House of Commons. It is to represent the common people of Canada.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it would be like the Liberals to clap for something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion that is before us today.

That is really all I need to say. The question is irrelevant, so I am actually not going to answer it.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, counter to his request, I am totally going to use my speaking notes. In fact, all 30 pages of them.

Here is the deal. We are in the House debating today because we have a voice. As opposition we have a voice. Our voice should be heard in this place on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast, because their voices need to be heard. When we allow the Liberals to shut down debate, they are actually silencing the voices of Canadians. They are not only silencing the voices of Canadians today, but they are actually showing disrespect for our past and what has been brought forward with regard to democracy, as well as for our future and where we are going, and the fact that we need to protect democracy.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today in order to talk about a matter of vital importance to Canadians from coast to coast. I stand to talk with regard to parliamentary privilege.

The fact that I just said a conversation with regard to privilege is absolutely essential to Canadians is probably causing a lot of eye-rolling to those outside of this chamber, because why would we talk about privilege and say that it is vital? Privilege has a negative connotation that often goes with it, after all. The truth is that I do not blame those who might roll their eyes at this, but I would like to explain further why this is so important.

Typically the word “privilege” is bad. It means that some individuals have preferential access or freedoms that others do not have. For example, last week the Prime Minister revealed that his brother was let off the hook with regard to marijuana charges because of the connections of his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. That is a negative privilege.

I believe that most Canadians would agree that this is unacceptable. It is elitist at best, and fraudulent at worst. Another example of negative privilege is the fact that the Prime Minister took a free vacation on a private Caribbean island owned by a billionaire who lobbies the government for money from time to time. It seems rather provocative.

However, despite these negative instances where one's privilege has clearly been misused, there is also a very positive connotation that comes with the word “privilege”, particularly “parliamentary privilege”.

Members of Parliament are granted privileges, not in the sense of favouritism or elitism, but because of the responsibility that we carry. There are certain privileges or responsibilities that we are granted. For me, it is to represent the 115,000 people who live in my Lethbridge riding. When I use the term “privilege”, I am talking about parliamentary rules and traditions that protect democracy and empower us as members of Parliament to do to the job we were elected to do, and to do it faithfully, fairly, and justly. Parliamentary privilege has less to do with me and far more, in fact everything, to do with the Canadian public.

Today's debate was initiated because one of my colleagues who was on her way to vote in this chamber a number of weeks ago—and, of course, to vote in this chamber is her parliamentary privilege—was stopped by the Prime Minister's security detail and blocked from being able to enter the House.

Members know that this is absolute nonsense. It is a member's privilege to move and to speak freely in this place. It is not only her right, but it is actually her obligation. It is the very thing that her constituents sent her here to do. As voting is one of the primary ways that we represent our constituents back home, it is of vital importance that we have access to this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you agree, because you found enough merit within our claims to permit the motion that is before us today to allow debate. Shamefully, the government's initial response to the Speaker's ruling was to move unprecedented closure in order to shut down said debate. The Liberals did not want to hear that a mistake was made and that parliamentary privilege was breached.

The Speaker has never had to rule on such an issue before, because never has such dictatorial action been taken by the party in power. There is admiration for China's dictatorship, and then there is outright implementation. In this, we have witnessed the Liberals do just that.

Right now, as I speak in this House, colleagues of mine are filibustering the Liberals' outrageous plan to so-called “modernize” the House of Commons. What is meant by that is threefold. The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek. The second thing they want to do is have the Prime Minister, who is already absent about 66% of the time, be further absent, by only coming in for one hour a week to discuss the issues that are in front of this nation. The third thing that I will bring up is that the Liberals would like to shut down the opportunity for free-flow debates. Instead, they would like to put time restrictions in place that would forcefully shut down discussion with regard to the issues that face Canadians.

My colleagues and I are committed to standing up and speaking out against this incredibly dictatorial action of the Liberal government, and we are not the only ones. We have as our allies the New Democrats, the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois, and many of the independents within this place as well.

We have been filibustering late into the night for weeks now. One of my colleagues, the member for Calgary Shepard, spoke for 10 hours straight. Why are we so dedicated to the cause? We are taking this action, not because we are excited to forfeit sleep, or to put up with messy hair, or to disgrace ourselves with bad breath and unbrushed teeth, but actually we are committed to filibustering the Liberals' obnoxious plan to shut down the voice of the official opposition in this place and the opposition as a whole because we believe that Canada's democracy must be defended.

We are taking a stand for Canadians, everyday Canadians, for moms, dads, brothers, sisters, labourers, business owners, farmers, scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, and students. We are in this place debating today because we are taking a stand for Canadians from coast to coast.

Without a strong opposition in place to hold the government to account, Canada's system of governance fails its people. The House of Commons, after all, is the people's House. All parties have talked a great deal about how we can best make this House reflective of all Canadians, but what the Liberals appear to be blind to today is the fact that the majority of Canadians did not actually vote for them. In the last election, 60% of Canadians did not check “Liberal” on their ballots. For this House to truly reflect Canada, it must allow the views of the majority of the people in this country, those who did not vote for the Liberals, to have a voice. The way we accomplish that is by allowing the opposition members within this place to have a voice.

Our Westminster form of democracy, which has proven to be the longest standing and most robust in the world's history, was built to resist the tyrannical whims of the head of government. Whether it is our current Prime Minister with his admiration for China, or the merciless kings that once existed, this chamber was designed from its inception to ensure that members of Parliament who represent the people are given the ability to fearlessly debate in the interest of Canadians, regardless of how inconvenient or threatening it might be to the agenda of the government in the present day. This is our democracy. This is what men and women of the past have fought and died for. We are committed to protecting that today.

This House belongs to Canadians, not to the Liberal elite. The fact that the Liberals are trying to make changes that will squash the voice of the opposition and protect the Prime Minister from having to stand in this place and give account for the actions of his government is absolutely ludicrous. The actions of the Liberal government are not against me. They are against the people of this country. They are against Canadians.

The Liberals like to talk about respecting science and evidence-based policy-making; however, their actions tell me a very different story. As any grade 3 student might tell us, the scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and then testing it, and as anyone familiar with the scientific method knows, testing the facts to ensure the hypothesis is correct requires a great deal of debate.

Scientists rigorously dispute one another's findings in order to finally realize or come to the concrete truth. This is why we attach greater weight to peer-reviewed studies than we do to one-offs or independent research. If an idea represents the best approach, it should clearly be defendable in public and should easily stand up to criticism and debate. This is why it is curious, given the Liberals' self-stated love for science, they appear entirely consumed with removing debate and opposition from this place.

The Prime Minister only wants to show up for work in the House of Commons for one hour, one day a week. The Liberals want Fridays off. They believe that a four-day workweek is more than enough. Above all, the Liberals want to remove the opposition's ability to test any of the Liberals' policy ideas through debate and questioning.

By their actions, it is clear that the Liberals who govern this country are worried that their ideas will not hold up to public scrutiny. Given the number of policy reversals, ministerial apologies, as with the many we saw today, and political scandals, as we are also witnessing in the news today, the government certainly does have reason to shut down debate. Liberals do not want us to ask them the tough questions. They do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

Democracy is meant to be an adversarial system. In fact, the Liberals paid lip service to this very fact in their government report calling for the changes we are debating here today. There is reason that the opposition is two-and-a-half sword lengths from the government benches. The testing of ideas and moral character is meant to balance the significant power possessed by the government of the day, which means that it gets a little heated in here sometimes.

The ability of the opposition to test the government's agenda and its motive is what is at stake in the debate we are having today, particularly with the amendments to the motion before us. Because the people of Canada have the final say as to who they choose to lead them, the people are best served by having all of the facts at their disposal, and that is the opposition's responsibility.

A muzzled opposition does not serve Canadians well, or the interests of democracy, or the future of our country. Despite the Trudeau family's obsession with China and Cuba, and any other number of dictatorial socialist states, Canadians have firmly rejected this way of government. Canadians are not interested in a government that sacrifices the ability of the opposition to hold the government members to account and to make them answer for the legislation they are trying to push through at a fast pace without reasonable discussion.

Interestingly, it was the Liberals who ran on an election promise to protect the rights of parliamentarians. They want to protect the rights of parliamentarians by stripping the very privileges that belong to us as the opposition in the House. Unfortunately, we see that this promise is clearly being broken. It is another one to add to the list.

Time and time again, the Liberals have attempted to undermine the House, and thus they undermine the people of Canada. Allow me to illustrate with a few examples how the Liberals attempt to limit my participation in the House would impact my constituents, those who are in Lethbridge. I represent a region within southern Alberta. Our primary industries are agriculture and the retail and public sector services that come with being a regional hub. We have a large university and a community college. Both are located directly in my riding.

If the Liberals are successful in getting their way, this is what is at stake. Their shutdown of my voice would mean that I would lose my ability to fight in this chamber against the changes that the government made with regard to mortgage rules. These are changes that have denied many young people within my riding and others who have aspired to own a home for the first time in their lives, who have saved and saved. They are now stripped of the ability to buy that first home. The Liberals will shut down my voice and prevent me from being able to speak out on behalf of these individuals.

Furthermore, I will lose my ability to fight in this chamber for a generation of young Canadians who are going to be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal debt because of the reckless spending of the current government. Students who I talk to from coast to coast to coast are scared of what their future looks like. When they talk about their future, they are not talking about 30 or 40 years from now. They are talking about after graduation and wanting to find a job to be able to pay off their student debt, to pay their rent, and to put fuel in their cars. They are talking about the necessities of life, and because of the government, they are going to have a very hard time making ends meet.

Not only that, in the near future their taxes will go up, government services they rely on, such as health care, will be pulled back, and job creators will lose confidence in our market, as many of them already have. They will pull out investments and they will cut back the number of jobs available.

What is more, if the Liberals are successful in ramming through their changes to the Standing Orders, I will lose my ability to effectively stand on behalf of the agricultural producers in my riding. These are the very individuals who help stabilize the economy within the Lethbridge region.

The United States is our greatest competition when it comes to agricultural exports. Feedlots are closing up shop all across Alberta right now. That hugely impacts my area. The carbon tax is making it extremely difficult for them to run an effective business. Combine that with the Liberal imposed ban on the most commonly used pesticide and the Liberal imposed increase to payroll taxes, the farmers are feeling as if they have just been kicked in the gut.

Furthermore, I will lose the ability to fight the Liberals' ending of tax deferral for grain farmers, who will then lose the ability to plan for the next season in order to recover from the bad crop because of the changes that have been imposed.

I will also lose the ability to fight for real solutions to the opioid crisis, which is significant in my region, and includes many people in Lethbridge, their lives, their families, their future.

I will lose the ability to speak to legislation. I will lose the ability to question the Prime Minister, aside from one hour per week, and I will lose the ability to question anyone in government on Fridays.

All in all, the Liberals are threatening to make me nothing more than an ineffective spectator. By doing so, the Liberals are robbing my constituents of their rights to be represented in this place.

The Liberals would like to turn the House into an aristocracy, a place where the Liberal elite represent the Liberal elite. However, my colleagues and I are very committed to representing constituents from coast to coast to coast, ensuring that the voices of Canadians are accurately heard in this place. This debate is about defending those people. They elected us to gather in this place and to make decisions that would benefit their welfare.

To ensure the rights of Canadians are upheld, we must ensure that members of Parliament are protected from the bullying tactics of the government of this present day. A member of the House was denied the ability to represent her constituents at a vote because the Prime Minister felt he was more important than her. That member and her constituents are unlikely to see any justice for this breach. The Liberals are likely to use their majority of seats in the House to defeat the motion.

However, suppose it does pass. It will then be referred to a committee that the Liberals have paralyzed, through their attempts to fundamentally alter the ability of the opposition to do its job. The Liberals are making every attempt they possibly can to silence us, those who are on the side of opposition. They claim they are modernizing Parliament, but since when does modernizing look like a return to an aristocracy.

In the report put forward by the government House leader, the member for Waterloo states:

As society changes, the demands of our institutions change as well. Parliament must adapt to a changing and evolving political landscape and should respond to demands of greater accountability, transparency and relevance.

Since when is greater accountability, transparency, and relevance created or achieved by shutting down debate?

This is nothing more than a Liberal power grab. It is a disdainful motion to shut down the voice of every Canadian who did not vote Liberal in the last election. The debate before us today is not about members of Parliament; it is about the Canadian people. A muzzled opposition does not serve Canadians, or the interest of democracy or the future of our country in any way whatsoever.

It is my hope the Liberals will take seriously the things that have been said here today, and throughout the weeks preceding, and they will change their minds with respect to being dictatorial in nature and shutting debate in this place.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 1st, 2017]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to Calgary on or around March 1, 2017: (a) what are the amounts and details of all expenses related to the trip; (b) what are the details of all official government business conducted on the trip; (c) what amount has been received by the Receiver General from the (i) Liberal Party of Canada, (ii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Calgary Midnapore, (iii) Official Agent for the Liberal Party of Canada by-election campaign in Calgary Heritage for re-imbursement related to the Prime Minister’s trip; and (d) what are the details of any payment received in (c), including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of expenses for which taxpayers were reimbursed, (iv) sender?

[Privilege, April 13th, 2017]

That is called a dictatorship.

[Employment, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to travel coast to coast across Canada listening to young people. They have told me that they want real action when it comes to the unemployment crisis they are facing.

In the past year, 42,000 full-time youth jobs have been lost in our country. Instead of providing incentives to employers to create new jobs, however, budget 2017 only provided money or incentives for existing jobs.

Will the minister of youth finally listen to Canada's young people and quit attacking innovative employers that want to create new jobs? Will the government equip them as the best-equipped individuals in the country to give Canada's youth a second chance?