SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Rachael Thomas

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Lethbridge
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24
Mrs. Rachael Thomas
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a great deal of latitude in terms of how we address different speeches in this House. The issue at hand right now is housing, Bill C-356, a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The member is currently talking about provincial politics. That does not seem to fit within the scope of this bill. Furthermore, she is talking about some far alt-right conspiracy theory. Again, I am not sure how that fits within the scope of this bill. I would ask you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, that would be most appropriate for this.
110 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24
Mrs. Rachael Thomas
  • May/9/24 3:21:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, multiple articles, including one on the front page of the National Post, as I just showed the House, were published using an official statement provided by the Speaker's official spokesperson, which means it required his sign-off. This is particularly concerning to me and to Canadians when the matter is before the Speaker for a decision to be made. When the Speaker was asked to provide comment to CTV News on May 1 concerning why he kicked out the leader of the official opposition, he rightly governed himself in that moment and he said, “It would be unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House”. However, that same day, the Speaker's official spokesperson released a statement concerning my question of privilege. It is curious to me, then, that the Speaker would deem it appropriate to comment on one matter before the House but not another. In many ways, mine is more severe, because mine is an official question of privilege requiring adjudication, while the matter the Speaker refrained from speaking to actually did not require a ruling at all. On the front page of the National Post of May 2, the day after I moved my question of privilege, the following statement was issued by the Speaker's office, again signed off by the Speaker. It says, “The blues are unofficial and it is not unusual for changes to be made during the editing and revision process. Sometimes comments are left out when there is a lot of noise, and it is not clear what was said”. This is from the Speaker's office spokesperson, Mathieu Gravel. In the Speaker's own words, and I will repeat them, he said it is “unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House,” yet his office released an official statement. The question I leave with the Speaker for consideration today is this: Why was an official statement concerning my question of privilege issued to the media? I look forward to receiving an answer when the Speaker makes his official ruling concerning my question of privilege.
362 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border