SoVote

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

Dec/2/21 1:16:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new role in the House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets. As this is the very first opportunity I have had to rise in the House, I would like to start off with some quick words of thanks. It is an incredibly humbling and exciting honour to stand here, to sit here and to be a representative for my constituents here. From the bottom of my heart, I wish to express just how grateful I am that my constituents have renewed their support in me. My favourite thing about running a campaign is the amazing volunteers who come alongside to support me. I am talking about those who give their time, talent and money to invest in my success. To them I also wish to extend a very sincere thanks. “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Those are the words permanently etched into the stone over the west window of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill. The words are strong and they are true. Humans have this incredible ability to dream, cast vision and inspire. They should have the ability to pursue those things. The throne speech is usually the vehicle used by the prime minister to communicate and provide hope and optimism for the Canadian people. Sadly, this was not the case this time. I was anticipating a detailed plan in four specific key areas that I believe every single federal prime minister, regardless of political stripe, should be prioritizing if they wish to lead well. Here they are: one, keep the country united; two, ensure Canadians are kept safe and secure; three, facilitate an environment of economic prosperity; and four, advance Canada's place on the world stage. To the detriment of Canadians, however, all four of these points were largely ignored in the document that was read in what I would call a monotone manner by the Governor General. Perhaps she simply read it in that tone in order to match the lackluster content that was within. Before the budget was tabled, my constituents shared with me that they were hoping to see a real plan to reopen the economy and restore hope and confidence in our future as a great country. Those who are unemployed were hoping to see a plan that created new jobs and opportunities for wealth creation. Those in the oil and gas sector were hoping to see support for this world-class industry. Those in the agriculture sector were hoping to see a little something for them. A nod of appreciation would have gone a long way, but there was nothing. Local businesses that are on the verge of permanently closing their doors were hoping for a carefully thought-out plan, not for more handouts, to get back to normal. Sadly, they had no luck. The government cannot replace a healthy economy. No matter how hard it tries, government spending will never outperform or do greater good—

505 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:20:02 p.m.
Watch

We have a point or order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

15 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Dec/2/21 1:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend from Lethbridge, but I think she may be— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Ms. Elizabeth May: Excuse me. I am being heckled while I try to read a standing order that she is violating. Standing Order 18 says, “No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General”. I think that is particularly the case when we have our first indigenous Governor General. I found the words offensive, but that does not really matter. It is a violation of Standing Order 18.

103 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:20:40 p.m.
Watch

I will ask the member for Lethbridge to retract the comment and find a different line on it.

18 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:20:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that the Prime Minister provided her with such a horrendous speech to read.

17 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/2/21 1:21:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have ruled that the comment the member made was out of order. The member should unreservedly apologize without trying to provide some kind of caveat. Her remarks were offensive to the Crown and the Crown's representative in this place. She needs to apologize for that.

54 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Dec/2/21 1:21:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point of order that was brought up by the member from the Green Party indicated there was an attack on the sovereign. There was no apology requested and she did not have to make an apology. She changed her statement, indicating that it had no reflection on the person making the speech. It was a reflection on the speech that was provided. The words the member said were about the speech, not the person who presented it.

80 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/2/21 1:22:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is important that we recognize that you made a ruling. Your interpretation, after consulting with the Clerk, was that the member did in fact violate one of our Standing Orders, and it is fairly clear that what the member was reflecting on was the manner in which the Governor General delivered her speech. Thousands of Canadians would disagree with, and be offended by, the member's remarks. We ask her to withdraw those remarks without any qualifications whatsoever, to apologize and then continue on. That would be my recommendation: that she listen to what the Speaker ruled. She was out of order.

113 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:22:54 p.m.
Watch

I know we were going to make another attempt here to maybe retract those words and find a more appropriate version that was not taking an attack on, of course, our Sovereign's representative here in Canada, and to try to get on with the speech.

46 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:23:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my words were not an attack on the Sovereign. They were an attack on the tone that the speech was delivered in and its content, which was lacklustre in nature. However, for the sake of the House and those across the floor who wish to control and manipulate in this place, I retract my words.

57 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/2/21 1:23:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on this as the Chair who is presiding over this chamber right now. If the member is not going to accept your ruling, it is your duty to remove her from the chamber.

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:23:55 p.m.
Watch

Order. I accept that the member has retracted it. Let us just continue on so we can get to question period. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

26 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:24:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, sadly the throne speech was about further bloating the size of government, which means Canadians would now be required to spend more of their hard-earned money on tax hikes and inflation. Let us just explore that for one moment. In the speech, it was said the Prime Minister wants to make life more affordable for all Canadians. In fact, he is doing the exact opposite, but members do not actually need me to tell them that. No one does, because if they have shopped at a local grocery store, eaten at a restaurant, paid a home heating bill or filled their gas tank with fuel, they already know that life is getting more expensive. Why is that? The name of the bad news is inflation, and it is driven by terrible government policy. Those who are hurt the most by the government's decision to spend money that it does not have are seniors on a fixed income, those who live with a disability and are on a small stipend, and those who live paycheque to paycheque and struggle to make ends meet. Mr. Speaker, I am very distracted by the conversation that is taking place across the way. Perhaps that could be taken care of.

209 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/2/21 1:25:23 p.m.
Watch

Order. Just make sure that we keep calm in the chamber and maybe try to keep it quiet. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

23 words

Noise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speaking

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:25:30 p.m.
Watch

In short, the government's policies are an attack on the most vulnerable. Food banks are finding it difficult to keep up with the level of need they are seeing, and one of the biggest changes over the last year has been the rise in the number of people who are employed full-time having to use food banks because they simply cannot pay their bills. The Prime Minister says he does not think that much about monetary policy. That is obvious. He handed himself a blank cheque in the spring of 2020, and he has been printing and spending money ever since. The government has handed out exorbitant amounts of money in the name of emergency income, but the books show that the personal disposable income of Canadians has actually increased during the pandemic. Earned income has dropped significantly, but the enormous government handouts have more than covered the loss. As a result, tons of extra money are flooding the economy, but there is the same number of goods, if not less. The outcome is higher prices, because an endless supply of printed money combined with limited goods actually drives up prices. The sad thing is that it is the wealthy who benefit when those prices rise, because it adds to their profits. Meanwhile, low wage earners must make their dollars stretch further to cover their necessities. All the while, the government is bloating in size not only by spending all this extra money, but by raking it back through taxation. One dollar used to be worth one dollar. Today, one dollar is only worth 95 cents. If the government were to increase taxes by 5%, there would probably be massive outrage, but that is just it. That is exactly what the government did. It is called inflation tax. It simply comes with this name. As the member for Carleton has pointed out, “countries that are not printing money to pay their bills have maintained a low cost of living and an affordable life for their citizens.” Meanwhile, “Those countries that are flooding their economies with cheap cash are driving up the cost of living,” and making it less affordable. There is an inconvenient truth that seems to have been willfully ignored. Reining in fiscal spending would necessitate limited government. This, of course, is a horrible restraint for any political party that only attains or maintains power when people are reliant on the government for its programs and handouts. The Liberals are actually choosing to be fiscally irresponsible for the sake of political advantage, and it is putting our economic future in great jeopardy. What is the solution? It is simply to stop printing money, rein things in and be fiscally responsible. That is what this country deserves. “We, the people” is a powerful phrase. Is it not? When the people feel the freedom to live up to their potential all of society benefits, but in order for this to happen the government has to get out of the way. Serving as a member of Parliament has afforded me the extraordinary opportunity to speak with many Canadians about the type of Canada they desire. I have heard countless stories from visionaries who want to build businesses, invent new technologies, help those who are suffering and improve our society in areas where we have fallen short. All of these conversations and general observations have given me a tremendous amount of hope for this nation's future. Unleashing the potential of the Canadian people is the key to our success. Members can imagine what it would look like if the bridles of red tape and regulation were thrown off and entrepreneurs were given the freedom to take risks, to make investments, to prosper and to help others prosper. This is the type of Canada that we can create, not through government handouts and increased control, but by creating opportunity for each and every Canadian to invest their gifts, talents and abilities to prosper. It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers and the wealth creators, not the government. No matter the handouts it gives, we will not get ahead. A good leader puts people first. Sadly, that is not what the Prime Minister did in the throne speech. It is not what he has endeavoured to do on behalf of this great country, and for this reason, I cannot support the Speech from the Throne.

743 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Dec/2/21 1:30:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague once again demonstrated that she is a moderate parliamentarian, just as she did when she spoke about Quebec artists, but that is another matter. We often hear the same mantra from the Conservatives: “We have a plan. We need a plan.” We do not know what that plan is, but they are constantly telling us about it. I would like to see that plan. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition talks about respecting provincial jurisdiction. The leader of the official opposition said that was important, and he was very hard on the government. The only time he said something positive was when he commended the government for creating a department of mental health. Does that respect provincial jurisdictions? I wonder. I would like my colleague, in her great wisdom, to tell us whether health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

150 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:31:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take any questions having to do with the matter we are speaking about, which is the Speech from the Throne. I was just asked a question that does not pertain that, so I am going to pass.

44 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/2/21 1:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the government needing to get out of the way. When it comes to merchant fees, Canada's merchants pay some of the highest fees in the world. In the U.K. they pay 0.3%, in France 0.28% and in Australia 0.5%. In Canada, we have a rate of 1.4% on the interchange fees. Liberals, in the last budget, said they were going to do something about that and cap merchant fees, yet we have not seen any action from the Liberal-Conservative coalition. They protect the big banks, protect the big credit card companies and the super wealthy. Does my colleague agree there is a time for government intervention when it comes to small businesses being hosed by credit card companies and the big banks?

137 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

Dec/2/21 1:32:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have hurt the feelings of the Liberals right there. He hurt their feelings and perhaps it requires an apology. I am not sure. I will let the Speaker rule on that. At the end of the day, his question is whether the government should be more involved, and if the government should engage specifically with merchant fees, as he is highlighting. Governments should have a very limited role in how we progress as a society and how we function as a nation. Its only role should be to make sure we are unified as a country, our borders are kept safe and secure, that we drive an environment of economic prosperity and that we further ourselves on the world stage. If it fits into one those four, let us do it.

139 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 1:33:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by talking about Canadians' abilities to dream and pursue and chase after future technologies and opportunities, yet the Conservatives are stuck in this era of extracting oil. It is all they care about. It is what they talk about over and over. If this is the case, why is it so hard for this member and the Conservative Party to recognize there is a future beyond oil and that we should be chasing, pursuing and going after that?

84 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 9