Kelly DeRidder

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible speech today on the importance of getting projects delivered in Canada. There is $1 billion here, $1 billion there, $1 billion for this person and $1 billion for that person. I would like the member's thoughts, please. If we could stop announcing $500 billion across Canada and just approve 500 projects sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, where would Canada be as we move forward?

Madam Speaker, 11 years ago, we had the richest middle class in all of the G7 under the Harper government. After 11 years of failed policy and blocking our economy, we now seem to be turning course. After many announcements and billions of dollars spent, why does nothing seem to get approved so that we can get back to the amazing Canada we had before the Liberal government took office?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that immediate relief is required in these times. I am curious if she could answer why it took so long. Conservatives put pressure on the government in order to have this relief put in place. The Liberals admitted that it was immediate relief for Canadians. Why will they not go the full way and remove all federal taxes on fuel moving forward? If we need the relief today, let us do it today.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the residents of Kitchener Centre. I would like to start with this: Finally, after advocating, pushing and working to put public pressure on the current government, it is agreeing to partially implement a piece of our plan to reduce the cost of living for Canadians. This all started on April 2 of this year. We started advocating to eliminate all federal tax on gas and diesel until the upcoming year to put relief for Canadians at the pumps and at the grocery stores. We were listened to, partially, but now here we are debating again, because it is coming back, it is being eliminated and the gas prices are going to immediately go up. Again, this summer we started advocating, pushing, putting public pressure and talking. Our leader, Pierre Poilievre, is saying we have got to do this—

Our leader advocated for Canadians saying that we need to keep this off the price of gas. That is exactly what is happening now. Finally, I would like to say it is a good start. We are keeping a portion of the gas taxes off for Canadians, but I really want to make it clear that it is not enough. Conservatives are calling for the elimination of all federal tax on gas and diesel, at least until Canada Day 2027. We have to control the affordability for Canadians inside our borders and inside this House to make life more affordable for Canadians. We need the government to listen to the Conservatives and put the whole measure in place, not just a piece of it: all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. The fact is that the Liberals have introduced this piece of the Conservative plan, and I am sure people can see that it is now actually being used as a talking point, which is very telling to me. The talking point is that they have put in measures to save Canadians money, 11¢ at the pump. This tells me we were right all along to say that immediate relief for Canadians is what needs to get done. Absolutely, it is 11¢, but if they took this measure the whole way, it would be 25¢ per litre of savings at the pump for Canadians moving forward. What I would like the current government to do is actually adopt our entire plan, and it could use that talking point in the future to say that it has saved 25¢ per litre for Canadians. At the end of the day, what we are doing here is saving money and making life more affordable for Canadians who desperately need it. Of course, we will be supporting this. It is the Conservative plan. Absolutely, we will be supporting this. Our Conservative Party is now asking for the current government to eliminate all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 to save Canadians 25¢ per litre, not just 11¢ per litre. Over the summer, we have worked tirelessly for Canadians. In our role as the opposition, we have continued to work and advocate over the summer for what we can do inside our borders to help with the pressures and get the relief that Canadians need moving forward. We have listened to their stories at the dinner table. We have met with Canadians. We have had the hard conversations over the summer, about having to choose between heating their home or putting food in their refrigerator. Some people are on the verge of losing their jobs because they cannot even afford to put gas in their tank to get to work. It is this snowball effect that we are seeing happen. Through this parliamentary session we will continue to work for Canadians, to advocate for Canadians, to reduce the cost of living and to get us through what Canadians are facing now. We will keep putting pressure on the government, because we are listening. I want all Canadians, including residents of Kitchener Centre, to know that this political landscape that we are in today is not their fault. They are working hard, and raising a family or maybe they are on their own and cannot afford the essentials of life. This is what is not okay in Canada today. This is what we can actually control inside Canada today. We want to create a Canada again where Canadians can put food on their table, get to work, have a full gas tank and a full wallet, and still save for their future. There are youth out there who are thinking they are never going to be able get a home. That is not the Canada that we deserve. That is not the Canada we should live in. We will continue advocating and putting pressure on the current government to get us back into the place we used to be. The current Prime Minister stood in the House yesterday and told Canadians that the tariff war, the Iranian war and the Ukrainian war are what is driving up the cost of living for Canadians. I think that what we need to do, concentrating on the government, is focus on what we can control inside our borders. We need to focus on the reliefs and measures that we can put in place. Canadians do not want to hear about exponential crises that are the cause for the fact that they cannot put food on the table. They want to hear there are measures being put in place to help them live a life they are used to living inside our Canadian borders. I do not think John from Kitchener, who is now buying prepared meals for himself and his wife because he has to work two jobs just to stay afloat and does not have time to cook for his family anymore, wants to hear about what is happening in Ukraine or Iran. John wants to hear about tax relief, about removing the fuel standards tax, so that our grocery and gas prices come down. These are the measures that John wants to hear about. Paul in Kitchener says that he is being taxed too much, cannot afford to live anymore and does not know what he is going to do for his future. I am speaking to John and Paul directly right now. Conservatives understand. We are working, applying pressure and making sure that the government puts measures in place to help them with their everyday lives, with what they are saying at their kitchen tables and making sure their voices are heard in Ottawa so we can bring down the cost of living and inflationary spending and move toward a more affordable future for Canadians. We found more solutions than Bill C-38. We found solutions that are calling on the government to adopt all of these measures moving forward. Number one I have already said a couple of times today, which is to eliminate all federal tax on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 so we can reduce the price at the pumps by 25¢, not 11¢. It will affect our groceries and people will feel it immediately at the pump. We want the government to permanently scrap the fuel regulations and industrial carbon tax so those taxes never come back on Canadians. My colleagues fought for 10 years. I did not as I am honoured to be here for my first term, but my colleagues fought for 10 years saying this carbon tax was detrimental. We won that debate, but the Liberals need to take it the full way. They need to remove the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax for Canadians as well, more than a 1% cut for the lowest tax bracket. I want to mention that over the summer, the Conservative team found $150 billion in savings. There is a weird misconception that Conservatives want to save money by cutting services or social programs. That is absolutely not true. This $150 billion in savings is inflationary spending on consultants, projects that are not being built but where money is being spent and fake asylum claims. The list goes on and on. What I am saying to Canadians today is Conservatives are here for them. We have presented our solutions to the current government. We are listening to Canadians. Moving forward, we will push the government and work for it to create a more affordable life for people here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. I did not say the government was slow to react. I said that the Conservatives have applied pressure for 10 years advocating for that. We said the carbon tax was going to be detrimental to our economy. That is the debate that we won and the debate we are moving forward with. We are asking the government now to completely eliminate it, not just a half-measure or little pieces but completely eliminate it. It should not put in question the prices of oil or exponential circumstances that we have no control over. We have control to reduce the cost of living for Canadians, and that is what we should be implementing today.

Mr. Speaker, we never said that we want to completely cut the taxes across the board for all Canadians. We do want to cut the fuel standards tax and the industrial tax. They are just another version of the previous tax the Liberals that we have fought against for 10 years. They have an economic impact on our society, and it is time to completely get rid of these taxes so we can go back to an affordable life.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are coming from the average Canadian. The average Canadian is really struggling right now. Canadians are struggling with everything. Their mental health is even being affected because they are having to choose between heat and food. These stories are not coming from the grassroots. They are not coming from people at their kitchen tables. They are coming from consultants or someone who thinks it is a better idea to do something different than give Canadians a little relief.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to please emphasize the importance of lowering costs on Canadians. Could he actually lay out all of the measures taking place right now, as well as answer why they are not implementing the entire plan and eliminating all the federal tax on gas?

Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there is a time and place where time allocation makes sense, this is not one of those times. This is an important piece of legislation that does not have unanimous consent in the House and therefore needs debate. Can the minister please explain why the Liberals want to shut down debate on the legislation at this point in time?

Mr. Speaker, when I debated on Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, I spoke clearly to my community to say that I am not voting wholeheartedly against this piece of legislation. I am not voting against protecting victims. I am not voting against protecting intimate partner violence victims, but I am voting against completely negating the entire thing by making mandatory minimums optional. I knew this was going to happen, that we would be told that we voted against protecting victims. That is untrue. This is exactly the importance of debate in this House. Why is the government shutting down debate? Do they want to silence our voices so they can gaslight Canadians and say we vote against everything?

Mr. Speaker, that was another non-answer. The Liberal government has said that it is going to make life affordable for everyday Canadians. If this is true, can the minister please stand up and explain why seniors make up the fastest-growing group in the Waterloo region facing homelessness? The wait-list for individuals over 55 needing affordable homes in the region has increased by 700%.

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that we need to keep our communities safe and to protect victims of any sort of violence and criminality in Canada, so I am going to ask a very simple question: If this is the true intent of the bill, why would the Liberals make mandatory minimum penalties optional?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The name of this bill sets a high standard. Protecting victims is the single most important part of any justice system. Canadians rightfully expect a system that supports those who have been harmed, protects the vulnerable and holds offenders accountable for their actions. Bill C-16 attempts to address a number of serious issues, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, victims' rights and delays in our justice system. That expectation has not always been met in our justice system. Too often, victims feel like an afterthought. Too often, families are left waiting for justice. Too often, Canadians are left to wonder whether our justice system is putting the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of communities. Many Canadians saw that in a recent case in Kitchener, where a former neurologist was acquitted on 48 sexual assault charges. Dozens of victims gathered the courage to come forward and share their stories, and the justice system left them feeling unheard and brushed aside. We can agree in this place that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to come forward with their experience. When they do, it is important that we treat them with dignity, listen to their concerns and ensure that their voices are heard. That is why, when legislation like this comes forward, we must hold it to a high standard. There are parts of this bill that would be steps in the right direction. One of the biggest changes would be the creation of a new offence relating to coercive and controlling behaviours in intimate partner relationships. Many people think that the abuse begins when someone is physically assaulted, but it often starts long before that. It starts with manipulation, isolation and threats. It starts with controlling where a person goes, who they see, who they spend their time with, what they spend their money on or how they live their daily lives. These behaviours slowly chip away at one's independence and leave people feeling trapped in dangerous situations. By the time physical violence occurs, the warning signs may have been there for months, sometimes even years. Recognizing those warning signs in law is an important step. If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented. Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter. Today, she and her daughter are living in a domestic violence shelter, trying to rebuild their lives and find safety, yet despite a guilty plea, the man responsible remains here in Canada illegally. When victims and their families are left in situations like this, they are left asking simple questions: Where is the accountability? That is why getting legislation like Bill C-16 is incredibly important. Victims need more than words. They need to know that the justice system will protect them, support them and hold offenders accountable for the harm that they have caused. This bill also includes measures aimed at combatting child exploitation. This, especially, is an area where Parliament should be united. Technology has created incredible opportunities but also real dangers. For all the parents in this place, we can agree that we are raising children in a world that looks very different from the one we grew up in. Predators can reach children so easily through social media, phones, computers and gaming platforms. These threats are real and our children need to be protected. This bill would also update the law surrounding intimate images and digitally altered sexual images. Whether an image is captured with a camera or generated with AI, the impact to victims is devastating. Reputations can be destroyed. Careers can be damaged. Mental health can suffer, and relationships can be affected. Victims deserve protection regardless of how that image was created. For many victims, navigating the justice system can be overwhelming while they are already dealing with the trauma that it has caused. They may not understand what is happening with their case or how decisions are being made. They may feel lost in a process that can seem focused on everyone except the victim. That needs to change. Victims deserve information and respect, and they deserve to know that they matter. The Conservatives have worked constructively on this bill. We supported measures that would better protect victims, address cohesive control, combat child exploitation and strengthen victims' rights. However, despite these positive measures, the bill also includes a major change to sentencing that deserves attention. The government says this change is about flexibility and discretion, but Canadians deserve to understand what it would actually do. This bill would allow a judge to bypass every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code, with a few exceptions. In other words, it would make mandatory sentences optional, and “mandatory” is not supposed to be optional. Why does this matter? It matters because mandatory minimum sentences exist for the most serious crimes. They represent the basis that certain crimes are so serious that there must be a minimum consequence when someone is convicted. It cannot be a suggestion. If a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, Canadians expect that to mean consistency and accountability across the board. There is no room for victims to wonder if the punishment will fit the crime. If mandatory sentences become optional, confidence in our justice system would be weakened even further. That is why the issue deserves serious attention. Our justice system already contains flexibility. Police officers use discretion when determining whether or not charges should be laid. Crown prosecutors exercise discretion when determining how cases should proceed. Prosecutors make decisions every day about what charges to pursue and what position to take before the court. When Parliament created a mandatory minimum sentence, it did so because Canadians expect a certain level of accountability for a serious crime, and we did not do that by accident. Canadians may disagree on what that line should be, but they understand that there should be a line. What they do not understand is why Parliament would establish a line and then create a way around it. I hear a lot of frustration from people in Kitchener Centre, and, frankly, from people across the country, about what feels like a growing gap between what the justice system says and what it actually does. People hear that a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, but then they find out that the sentence might not actually be mandatory. They hear that victims are the priority, but then they watch victims spend years navigating a system that feels confusing and overwhelming. They hear that public safety comes first, but then they read stories about repeat offenders just cycling through the justice system again and again. Whether those perceptions are fair or not, they are real, and public confidence matters. Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities. The effects of violence do not end when a court case concludes. Victims carry those experiences for years. Children carry them for a lifetime. Families carry them for a lifetime. Anyone who has sat across from a victim of violence knows that the impact reaches far beyond the courtroom. Accountability matters, not because accountability can undo the harm it caused. It cannot. Accountability matters because it tells victims that society recognizes the seriousness of what happened to them, and it tells them their suffering matters. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that. While victims are left traumatized, Parliament would create another pathway for offenders to avoid consequence. That is not what Canadians think of when they hear the words “protecting victims act”. Canadians want accountability. They want consequences. They want confidence that when Parliament says a sentence is mandatory, it actually means that it is mandatory. We want a justice system that protects victims while holding offenders accountable. I would like my community to know that I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am not voting against protecting victims of child exploitation. I am not voting against victims of sexual violence. I am not voting against protecting victims' rights within delays in the justice system. What I am voting against is making mandatory minimums optional: clause 63. When it is eventually spun that I voted against protecting victims, please remember that I voted to ensure that victims are actually protected by ensuring that mandatory minimums remain, not as an option.

Mr. Speaker, the spin has already begun. I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am absolutely not. What we cannot stand behind is making mandatory minimums optional so the judge can decide whether the perpetrator of the offence gets any time at all. That is just not what we can stand behind. I am saying here today that I would vote in favour of the victims of intimate partner violence. We worked hard with the government to ensure that we could get these corrections made so the mandatory minimums would be taken out, but the government refused to work with us on this. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not moving in the right direction, because it has a piece, clause 63, which would remove mandatory minimums and make it optional to put them in place. This is not a step in the right direction. Every other piece of the bill, 99% of the legislation, is a step in the right direction, but that 1% is a step backward, and that is what we cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status. The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. There has been no answer as to why the government has failed us and brought us into a recession. First, it was a technical recession, but when Canadians pushed back, it became tariffs. When that did not stick, it became not enough spending and not enough immigration: What? When Canadians have to steal 10 billion dollars' worth of groceries because of affordability, is it because they are only technically hungry?

Mr. Speaker, I have hope that one day the government will actually answer questions and take accountability, but it seems as though today is not that day. When the news broke that Canada is in a recession, my very first thought was, “When is the government going to ask for another blank cheque?” It is already borrowing over its budget. The spring economic update said it would borrow $65 billion this year. However, the budget watchdog says it is going to be $72 billion. I would like to know just how much the Prime Minister will tell Canadians it is going to take to fix it.