Rachael Thomas
Lethbridge, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 summit as the one and only leader who has led his country into a recession. This is what that looks like: Two in five Canadians struggle to be able to afford to feed themselves; full-time workers are living in RVs or a Tim Hortons; and food bank use has hit an all-time high.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think what that member meant to highlight was the fact that under the Liberal government, child poverty rates have increased year after year after year for the last three. This dramatically impacts the people of my riding in Lethbridge, Alberta. It means that seniors in this country are living at Tim Hortons.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to extend congratulations to the town of Picture Butte on its 100th anniversary. For a century, Picture Butte has been shaped by the values that define rural Canada: hard work, family and community spirit.”
“Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member has chosen to spend the majority of his speech on process, I will ask him a process question. The current government, the Liberals, they are the ones who sponsored this bill; the hon. member did, from that side of the House.”
“To everyone who has built, served and strengthened this community over the past century, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude. Their legacy is one of vision, determination and generosity. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, I congratulate them on 100 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect, the small craft harbours do not conquer the food poverty that children across this country are experiencing, especially those in my riding of Lethbridge. With all due respect, I would ask the folks across the way what they will do for Canadians, because they are struggling. They are struggling.”
The complete record
Every one of 210 lines we hold for Rachael Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“In other countries, people have been quick to realize that taxes on fuel actually have a big impact on their ability to be competitive and their ability to maintain their citizens, so they have taken concrete measures to reduce those taxes and bring back that competitive edge. As prices have risen, they have taken steps to ease the burden on consumers by reducing fuel taxes. For example, in Australia, they cut their excise tax in half for three months, reducing their cost of fuel by 26.3¢ per litre. In Spain, they cut their taxes, saving up to 30¢ at the pump. In Ireland, they cut theirs as well, by 20¢ on diesel and 15¢ on gasoline. There are other countries that have done away with the carbon tax altogether, such as Australia, because they know it is just nonsense.”
“However, in actuality, while the Liberals would like Canadians to believe that it is gone, it is not, and we have heard that from Liberal members across the aisle here today. They have admitted as much, that the carbon tax is still very much alive and well. It just has a new name. We have the industrial carbon tax, and now we have the fuel standard tax. That is what we like to call it, is it not? The effect is the same. They call it a different name, but at the end of the day, it is costing Canadians a whole lot of money, and it is putting businesses out. This is a problem. It is a problem for Canadians today, but it is a problem for our future as a nation as well.”
“It decided to move out of its Canadian base and into other countries, including the United States, because there it found it had a competitive edge. “Competitive edge” is a very important term when it comes to our country and its way forward. Right now, Canadians are being put at a significant disadvantage and, of course, the fuel tax plays a big role. There are many who would argue that it is eroding Canada's competitiveness. When we do not have that, jobs are lost and money flows elsewhere. A little over a year ago, taking his cue from President Trump, the Prime Minister held a photo opportunity. With a sharpie in his hand, he signed away the carbon tax, or so he said.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on behalf of the wonderful people of Lethbridge, Alberta, and to have the chance to voice my concerns for them. Recently, in my riding, a vegetable-processing plant called Nortera announced that it would be closing its doors. This is significant, because it impacts families in my riding. That is 70 jobs that will be lost, and in a small city of about 115,000 people, that is a big loss. However, in addition to that, it also impacts the farmers who grow the food that is processed at this plant. Those farmers were growing for Nortera and now will no longer be able to do so. As such, they will now have to go and secure other contracts. We asked this company why it made the decision that it did. It was finding that it was not competitive.”
“They deserve an economy that creates opportunity, rewards hard work and helps families get ahead. That is what Conservatives are going to continue to fight for.”
“Mr. Speaker, most Canadians simply want the opportunity to work hard and bring home a paycheque in order to support their families, but under the government's mismanagement, job opportunities are disappearing out the door. The February numbers are extremely troubling. Data from StatsCan shows that 108,000 full-time jobs disappeared, marking the largest one-month decline outside of COVID since 2009. The damage is being felt where it matters most, with 73,000 of those jobs lost from the private sector, the very sector that drives growth, innovation and opportunity. Young Canadians are down 50,000 jobs. After years of the Liberals, Canada now stands out for all of the wrong reasons. Not only are we the only shrinking economy in the G7, but we also have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Canadians deserve better.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister, who is entirely out of touch with the people in western Canada and, I would dare say, all Canadians, would like them to believe that there is a benefit to this tax, that there is a benefit to driving up the cost of groceries and forcing seniors to have to choose between groceries and their medications or having families choose between giving their daughter formula or having to cut back on the essential amount. These are the types of tough decisions that Canadians are making, yet the minister says that this is an opportunity for them. When will the government listen to Canadians, see Canadians for what they are saying and the challenges they are facing, and do something about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals blame the world for the fact that families are struggling more than ever to make ends meet, but it is actually the government's policies here at home that are driving up the cost of food. Canada has the highest food inflation rate out of the G7. A big factor in this is the hidden carbon tax, also known as the clean fuel standard. It is making life more expensive because it is driving up the cost of fuel for trucks, farmers and fishermen. When will the Liberals take responsibility for their actions here at home and take off these taxes that are punitive for Canadians?”
“They have written and called members of Parliament asking for Bill C-9 to be scrapped. As members of Parliament who are duly elected, we have a duty of care to listen to the voices of those constituents. All sincerely held beliefs must be protected, and Bill C-9 must be withdrawn.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 expands the definition of hate in the Criminal Code while also removing the long-standing religious defence. This change is significant and raises serious concerns for Canadians of faith who could be vulnerable to criminal prosecution simply for quoting passages from their own sacred texts. If the government can decide that parts of religious books are hateful and make it a crime to talk about them, without clear protections in law, it takes us down an extremely dangerous path. This matters because religious freedom is not a privilege granted by a government, but rather it is a right guaranteed by Canada's Constitution. It is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society. Tens of thousands of Canadians have exercised their voices.”
“I will end with this: Every sexual assault that is committed is a distinct harm, and it is against a distinct individual, and every crime must carry weight. We cannot afford to be a society that sends the message that somehow one victim matters more than another, and we cannot be a society that sends a message that somehow says that criminals get off the hook easily. This type of messaging must stop, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. I urge the House to stand with victims and vote yes.”
“They claim that it fails to comply with the charter, but I would offer that the hypocrisy in that statement is quite palpable. The Liberals have imposed consecutive sentences, under Bill C-14 , for certain crimes. The inconsistency is stark, because consecutive sentencing is perfectly acceptable when it serves the Liberals' policy agenda, but suddenly it is problematic when it confronts an issue that they would rather ignore or turn a blind eye to, like sexual assault. The charter is being invoked selectively rather than consistently in order to defend political choice rather than the principle of justice and standing with victims. It is disheartening to watch as the Liberals turn this into an opportunity for gamesmanship rather than working collectively with other parties to benefit Canadians.”
“It would mandate that consecutive sentences would be given for sexual offences, ensuring that each crime carries its own penalty, that each victim is recognized and that voices matter. As Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, has said, “Concurrent sentencing tells survivors that what happened to them counts less.” She goes on, “Every victim is a whole human being, and every crime deserves its own consequence.” Kelly Favro from Beyond the Verdict contends that “Consecutive sentencing admits that each offence caused real harm. That gives survivors confidence to come forward because it tells them the system will not automatically minimize what they went through”. This is so important. Victims must have confidence in the system if they are to come forward. The Liberals have signalled that they will oppose this legislation.”
“We have many examples throughout years of history and throughout different provinces, different cities and different communities, of teachers who are committing abuses, of doctors who are committing abuses, and of uncles, aunts, friends, neighbours, boyfriends and spouses. All of these individuals are given a place of trust, a place of prominence and a place of respect in the lives of those they then go on to violate, and this violation is not something small. It is something big, and it goes to the heart of a person and is carried with them for their entire life. These crimes are shattering, yet the so-called justice system gives predators a discount, while victims will carry the trauma for the remainder of their lives. My private member's bill would change that.”
“Rudy contends that predators, especially those who repeatedly prey on the innocent, should never, ever get easy passage. Marilyn wrote to the justice minister and copied me on the correspondence. She asked where the minister's morality was. Where was his humanity? Where was his justice? She said the most vulnerable members of our society were counting on him, and he should stand with the victims, not with the criminals. Leah urged that we act now to resolve reduced sentencing for perpetrators. Bill summed it up very plainly, saying that sex offenders should not receive reduced sentences, full stop.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have said it here before, but I will just say it again: There is a type of discount that is reasonably exciting for us, like a sale, a two-for-one or 15% off. These are reasonable discounts, but these types of discounts in our court system do not belong, and it should alarm us when they do. That is exactly what concurrent sentencing allows, and in particular with regard to sexual assault, it should be disheartening and even alarming for all of us in this place. Since introducing Bill C-246 , I have heard from dozens and dozens of Canadians who have taken the time to write to me, give me a call or meet with me in person. I believe that their voices are urgent, I believe that their pain is real, and I believe that their calls for justice are unmistakable.”
“Mr. Speaker, again, Canadians are not asking for more government programs or to be spoken to in the manner that the minister just did. They are simply asking to be respected and empowered to be able to provide for themselves. One of the best ways the government can do that is by taking unnecessary taxes off food. According to the latest report, food prices next year are going to go up by about $1,000 more per family. There is a woman in my riding who recently reached out to me. She has four kids. She relies on the food bank. She feels desperate and without hope. She just wants the dignity of being able to provide for her kids. Will the Liberals—”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not asking for more government programs. They are just asking for the dignity and respect of being able to provide for themselves and their families. Right now, Canadians are struggling more than ever to be able to afford things. I just received a phone call from an elderly gentleman in my riding who shared with me that he is now down to one meal per day. He is desperate. He is without hope. He is looking at the government and he is saying that it has abandoned him. He is looking for an answer. Will the Liberals simply repeat their tired talking points about big government programs and the school food program, or will they actually provide a real solution to Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a sad statistic that 95% of victims do not actually take their case to court. Most of them report that their reasons for not going to court are that they feel unsupported by the system, do not want to have to repeat their story and do not want to have to face their perpetrator again. We have to find ways to protect victims and make sure they can come forward with their stories.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what is permissible and what is normalized. If we truly want to deter crime, and in this case the heinous crime of sexual assault, then we have to normalize a sentence that is most suitable. A discount sentence for people who commit sexual assault is not appropriate. It sends a message that the justice system is soft on crime and that those heinous acts matter or count only against the first individual but not against the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth individual. That is wrong. If we are going to find ourselves on the side of survivors, on the side of victims, we must strengthen our justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would beg the hon. member to explain what is unconstitutional about standing with victims. What is unconstitutional about ensuring that sexual predators receive the full force of the law? When a member speaks in that way, it feels as though platitudes are being given on the one hand, in terms of a justice system that needs to be strengthened, but then excuses for that weakness in the justice system are being made on the other hand. That is problematic, because ultimately it is victims who are put at risk.”
“My appeal to those in this place, to my colleagues from all parties, is that they support this bill, that they stand on the side of victims and that together we stand for a strong, robust justice system that refuses to minimize the most violating crimes a person can endure. We should be a group of people who instead stand for what is right. I am asking members to support this bill. Let us send a united message from the House of Commons that we stand with the innocent, that we stand with the victims, that we stand with the survivors and that sexual predators will in fact face the full force of the law. There cannot be the continued practice of discounts for sexual predators. Let us please stand with victims.”
“Each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry with it its own consequences. Justice is not something to be discounted or bundled. Justice demands full recognition and full accountability for every crime and every victim. My bill, Bill C-246 , is about restoring that balance. It is about ensuring that the law stands firmly on the side of victims, not with predators. It is about making sure that when a sexual offender is sentenced, the punishment truly reflects the crime. It is about restoring faith in our justice system for the survivors who have so often been let down. It is about sending a clear message to society that sexual violence is serious, that it will not be tolerated, that every victim matters and that predators will face real, meaningful consequences.”
“It tells victims implicitly, if not explicitly, that their pain is worth less and that the law sees them not as unique human beings deserving of justice but as tally marks on a spreadsheet. Whether a predator commits repeated offences against one person or single offences against multiple people, justice demands that each of those crimes be paid for. Sentences must be served consecutively, not concurrently. This reflects the extent of the harm done. Anything less is a betrayal of victims. It is long past time to put victims first. Sexual offences should never be treated like a two-for-one deal at the shoe store checkout. There is no “buy one assault, get one free”, but that is what our current justice system does. There is no bulk discount on human suffering, but that is what our courts reward. Each offence is in fact a distinct harm.”
“It tells them that their dreams can be weaponized against them, that they can be exploited and that it is not as big of a deal if there is more than one of them. It tells the public, especially these young women, that predators may face only a fraction of the punishment their crimes deserve. Meanwhile, they are expected to sort through the pieces of their own brokenness. This is the opposite of justice, it is the opposite of deterrence and it is the opposite of what a healthy society should signal about the seriousness of sexual violence. When the system merges multiple victims into a single punishment, it erases the individuality of their suffering and the weight of each of their experiences.”
“Two young women were lured in, and they faced horror instead of opportunity. They were both sexually assaulted numerous times over. At the end of the day, Ramzan pleaded guilty and did not refute any of the accusations brought against him. The sentence he faced was 18 months for the one, and two years for the other. In this country, 18 months plus 24 months equals 24 months, because multiple sentences are combined into one being served. Again we must ask, what message does this send to society? What message is sent to young women who are already navigating a world where exploitation all too often hides behind charm, flattery and supposed opportunity? (1825) It tells them that if they are victimized, the system does not have their back.”
“It tells them that their suffering will be compressed, that their voice does not matter. What message is sent to other potential offenders? Well, it tells them that even if they hurt multiple people, commit multiple crimes, the system will protect them. It will have their back. What message does it send regarding the societal value we place on making sure people are kept safe in the most vulnerable spaces, such as the medical office they enter? It suggests that even profound violations committed under the guise of care are somehow eligible for a discount, and it reaffirms to victims that the justice system does not stand with them but rather on the side of the perpetrator. Kashif Ramzan pretended to be a talent agent attracting young people into the modelling industry.”
“In Toronto, a family doctor was charged with nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, involving three patients over a period of time. These patients walked into his clinic expecting care, compassion and professionalism from this individual; instead they were preyed upon by someone in whom they had placed trust. They left not with healing but with deep wounds, not having been cared for but having been exploited. The sentence for this physician who committed more than a dozen intrusive and grave crimes was three and a half years. He committed thirteen heinous crimes but was given one sentence because all the crimes were enmeshed into one. Let us think about the societal message that is delivered. What message is sent to other victims who are terrified to come forward?”
“For far too long the scales have been tipped in favour of the criminal, the offender, while victims are left struggling, having to pull the pieces together and find healing for the egregious crimes committed against them. Years of soft-on-crime policies have left communities less safe and victims increasingly vulnerable. Since 2015, sexual assaults in Canada are up nearly 75%. Offences against children are up an alarming 120%. These are not just abstract percentages or mere data points for academic purposes; these are numbers representing real people with real stories, lives forever changed. Each statistic represents betrayal, fear and lifelong consequences that generally impact not only the victim but also their family, friends and community.”
“The maximum penalty for sexual violence against an adult is only 10 years. It is 14 years when that victim is under the age of 16. We have to sit with this comparison for a moment. A property crime, a robbery, carries a higher maximum sentence than the violent theft of a person's bodily autonomy. (1820) A home can be repaired, and a stolen phone can be replaced, but what about restoring a person's dignity and restoring a person's sense of security, their trust in the world? Those wounds are far deeper and take far more to heal. Therefore the penalty should also be far more. The fact that our justice system punishes property crimes more severely than it punishes sexual offences is not just inconsistent; I would say it is altogether an injustice to the people who face these types of crimes.”
“Instead, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the full recognition that she or he deserves. Under this law, every victim would count, and not just in a moral or symbolic sense. They would really count. Their voice counts. What happened to them counts. The crime committed against them matters and should be paid for. Currently, Canada does not allow for consecutive sentences in these types of cases. It does, however, allow for them when it is to do with children. While that protection for children is absolutely right and necessary, the logic behind that allowance equally applies to adult victims. I ask members to consider this just for a moment: In Canada, the maximum sentence for a break-in or a violent robbery is life in prison. Life is the maximum sentence.”
“The perpetrators of such deeply violating crimes often walk away with sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the harm they have caused. Concurrent sentencing should never be allowed for such crimes, which is why I am proud to address this issue and stand with victims by presenting my private member's bill, Bill C-246 , the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act. The bill is simple, direct and necessary. It would mandate consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for those convicted of sexual offences. In plain terms, that would mean no more bundling crimes into one low-price package and no more sentencing discounts. Sexual predators would no longer be able to compress their crimes and walk away with a reduced amount of time in jail.”
“Instead of facing real consequences for each act of harm, they serve all sentences at the same time. One sentence for multiple crimes equals drastically reduced jail time. If this logic were applied anywhere else in life, I think we would be outraged. We would call it absurd, but in Canada's courts, it is somehow common practice. Even more troubling is that this discount is applied to some of the most egregious crimes, including mass murder or serial sexual assault. Today, I will focus on the latter with regard to my private member's bill. Sexual assault crimes are not minor offences. They are not mistakes. These are acts that rob individuals of their dignity, their agency and their sense of safety and well-being. They can alter the course of a person's life, not just for a few weeks or a few months, but forever.”
“Discounts are a part of everyday life, and they are especially a part of this season. They bring a thrill when we are able to spot them and take advantage of them. As great as these discounts are, I would offer that they belong in stores alone. They do not belong in our justice system. The practice of treating serious crimes like they are items on sale is not just misguided but altogether dangerous, unjust and completely detached from the experience of victims who will never receive a discount on the trauma they experienced and live with. Unfortunately, in our current justice system, discounts are handed out far too often in criminal sentencing. One of the biggest and most troubling discounts granted under Canadian law is concurrent sentencing. In other words, it offers an offender the opportunity to serve multiple sentences under one.”
“moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-246. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, there is a special delight that every consumer knows when they go into a store and walk away with a deal, that moment when we realize that we are paying a little bit less than what we were expecting to. Maybe it is 15% off of one's favourite boots or favourite shoes. Maybe it is buying one and getting the other one half off. Maybe it is hitting the jackpot and buying one to get the other one free. Especially at Christmas time, these sorts of deals tend to attract people. They tend to get us into a storefront. We love a bargain. We love getting more value than what we pay for.”
“As the 12 days of Christmas approach, would the Prime Minister maybe do us a favour and commit to those 12 companies' paying their fair share? On the first day of Christmas, he can start with Brookfield.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a good day to be Brookfield when the Liberals are in power. The Prime Minister just committed $500 million to the European Space Agency, creating good-paying jobs in none other than Europe. What is so significant about this? Brookfield actually owns 50% of the Harwell campus, where the agency is located. This is the same Brookfield that has avoided $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes through offshore havens. Meanwhile, 2.2 million Canadians line up at food banks each month, the unemployment rate is at 6.9%, and the Prime Minister has tabled the most expensive budget in history since COVID. I am talking about a $78-billion deficit. Conservatives have a solution to offer. It is this: Twelve companies' avoiding taxes just like Brookfield does would equal that $78 billion in deficit.”
“Last, the bill would modernize the detention of seized evidence, which is also needed. The bill is not just legislation; it is a moral imperative on this place. Given what we know, given the stories that have come to light, it is incumbent upon us to take action. By passing the bill, we could honour the memories of individuals whose lives have been taken. It would not simply be legal reform; it would be a commitment to protect lives, to prevent violence and to restore justice. It is to make things work for victims rather than putting the perpetrator first, which is so important. We know that the issue is not a partisan one but rather an issue that should concern all Canadians and therefore all members of the House. It is therefore my hope that my colleagues from all parties will come together, support the bill and stand with victims.”
“Bailey's law would take real, concrete steps to save lives. If passed, the bill would do a few things. First, it would treat the murder of a current or former intimate partner as first-degree murder, regardless of whether it was planned or deliberate. Second, it would create specific offences, including assault of an intimate partner and criminal harassment of an intimate partner. Third, it would require that anyone convicted of an intimate partner violence offence within the preceding five years can be released only by a judge, thereby creating greater accountability. The bill would also empower courts to detain persons accused of intimate partner violence at any time for a risk assessment reviewed by a judge, which is so crucial in terms of protecting a victim from potential harm leading to death.”
“Though the women I have spoken about originate from different places in the country and from different backgrounds and ways of life, sadly one thing brings them together, and that is the fact that they were all victims of intimate partner violence. They are proof that intimate partner violence is not a series of isolated tragedies but rather a deadly epidemic spreading across the country. Their stories echo those of countless other women in every corner of this nation, women who are counting on us to make a difference in this place for them. I believe it is incumbent upon us as legislators to honour their memory, their lived reality, their story and of course their living family members by moving forward with the piece of legislation that is before us. We must confront and cure the epidemic that is intimate partner violence.”
“Three hours after having been let out on $500 bail, he hunted down Bailey McCourt, took a hammer to her head and ultimately killed her, leaving her dead and leaving her two daughters without a loving mother. This brutal attack shook a community and robbed a family of a dearly loved woman. By naming the legislation “Bailey's Law”, we honour the memory of a mother, a daughter, a sister, a niece and a friend. We make a clear statement that the lives of women matter and that our justice system desperately needs correction. It is incumbent on us, as legislators in this place, to be the bridge between the change that is needed and actually creating that change. Through my colleague's private member's bill, we have that opportunity here today.”
“Despite all this, the documented history, the active restraining order, the repeated charges and her clear warnings to the people in a system that was meant to protect her, Madisson was killed by her ex-boyfriend in a parking garage near her workplace. (1115) Bailey McCourt is the woman for whom the bill is named. Bailey was a 32-year-old woman in British Columbia, Canada, and a proud mother of two girls. Like Savannah and Madisson, Bailey lived in fear of her ex-husband. She felt frustrated, scared and unsupported, according to her uncle, and she had lost faith in the courts and the system that were supposed to protect her. This past July, Bailey's ex-husband was convicted of choking and uttering threats to another victim. After a hearing for those charges, he was let out on $500 bail, despite his history of repeat violence.”
“She acquired a restraining order that was meant to protect her until 2026. Her ex-partner was already bound by conditions requiring him to stay away from her home and her workplace and to have no contact with her, but those things did not matter. He had even been charged twice with stalking and harassment; that did not matter either. Madisson put her fear into writing in the handwritten affidavit to the court, saying, “I live in fear every day from him, I want him out of my life.” She describes shaking and having panic attacks when she went out or when her phone rang, in fear that it might be him.”
“Savannah knew the risks she was facing, and she tried to draw attention to them. She told her mother, “If I stay with him, he’s going to end up killing me.” Savannah pleaded for protection. She did everything she could, arguably did everything right, but the system that was meant to safeguard her, the system that was meant to protect her and that was meant to be on her side as the victim, did not listen and did not act, which ultimately resulted in Savannah's death. This is not isolated. Again, these cases occur far too often in our country. Madisson Cobb, a 23-year-old from Calgary, Alberta, was murdered in July by her ex-boyfriend. He had been stalking and harassing her for months. Madisson repeatedly sought help, going to authorities and even signing an affidavit.”
“What made her death even more devastating was how many warning signs there were and the fact that those were documented leading up to her death. Sadly, they were ignored, which is why we are talking about this in the House today. Anthony had a long history of violence and threats toward Savannah. In fact in 2023, he faced firearms-related charges for an attack on her. A court document even stated that he did in fact discharge a firearm while being reckless with the life of Savannah Kulla-Davies. He evaded police for a month before finally being arrested by Waterloo police, yet despite his history, which was well documented, he was released on bail. Once released, he continued his pattern of extreme violence until it became fatal, ultimately resulting in the death of Savannah.”
“It is overwhelming our justice system; it is one of the things that, rapidly and predictably, overwhelm it to the greatest extent. It also puts strain on communities and leaves devastation in its wake. Lives are being ruined. It is a pattern of harm so pervasive that it cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. By every measure, intimate partner violence meets the definition of epidemic in Canada today. It seems that, for the last number of years, any time I have picked up my phone and looked at the news, there has been one tragedy after another unfolding: another woman harmed or even killed at the hands of her partner. It has become far too common a story in this nation. Recently we were shocked by the story of Savannah Kulla-Davies. Savannah was a young mother from Ontario whose life was taken by her ex-partner, Anthony Deschepper.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of my colleague and his private member's bill, Bill C-225 . He has done an extraordinary amount of work on the bill, demonstrating his sincere and unwavering commitment to standing up for people impacted by intimate partner violence and its devastating effects. As I looked into the issue more, there was a word that kept on coming up again and again: “epidemic”. Universities, experts, provinces, organizations and, most importantly, victims themselves referred to intimate partner violence as an epidemic. When we use this word, we are not speaking in metaphors; rather, we are talking about a real crisis that is widely, rapidly and predictably spreading across our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we have to account for is this: We have a government that does not believe in the Canadian people, past, present or future, as revealed by the member's question today. He is scolding me for holding those beliefs and for celebrating the nation I love. That is shameful.”
“Mr. Speaker, if it is far right to believe in the Canadian people, their potential and their ability to achieve greatness, I guess the label fits. It is shameful that the member opposite does not believe the same. It grieves me that the member opposite does not believe in the Canadian people, does not believe in their potential, does not believe in their ability to achieve great things. It is shameful that the member opposite would somehow try to shame me for believing those things as if it were wrong to view Canadians as the creators, innovators and problem-solvers who can actually get us to good places as a country. It is shameful—”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asks a good question. Can we trust the government? When the government leads people to believe one thing but then does another, trust is broken. When the government puts Canadians further and further into debt, it results in inflation, increased taxation and cutbacks to social programs. When a government functions in that capacity, of course, trust is broken. When a government overreaches and tries to control the Canadian people rather than believing in their potential, trust is broken. All in all, the government has functioned in such a way that Canadians really have no reason to trust it.”