Rhonda Kirkland

Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing I enjoy more in this House than listening to my Conservative colleague from Richmond Centre—Marpole speak with such common sense. He lays it out very plainly and very clearly that legislation upon legislation is not the answer. We have heard from the Liberals repeatedly that, every time they implement new legislation, it is going to create speed and certainty. We have not seen any of that speed and certainty over the last 11 years. We have heard a lot of talk. We have seen no action and no results. I wonder if my colleague would agree and would like to elaborate on that.

Mr. Speaker, Clifford is a senior from Oshawa who called my office this week to share his struggles. He is on a fixed income and is having difficulty paying for rent, buying his groceries and even affording the medication he needs to survive. These are life's necessities, not luxuries. The Conservatives have a plan that would actually work to lower inflation and save Canadians money on all of life's essentials. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians like Clifford and other Oshawa seniors can finally afford their rent, groceries and medication?

Mr. Speaker, Toronto police constable Todd Baylis was just 25 years old when he was murdered in the line of duty. His family has relived that tragic loss at parole hearings in 2019, 2021 and 2024, and will again in just a few months. For 14 years, victims' advocate Lisa Freeman from Oshawa has repeatedly been forced to face the axe murderer who bludgeoned her father to death. Liberal parole has caused this problem, and victims' families are demanding change. Why do the Liberals keep making victims constantly relive their worst day? People get a chance at parole every time.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Liberals are missing the point. It is the Conservative mission to keep Canadians safe. Conservatives have already given the Liberal government opportunity to fix its failed Liberal parole. Yes, it is Liberal parole, because Bill C-243 would have increased time between parole hearings for convicted murderers so families would not have to repeatedly go through the traumatizing ordeal. The Liberals voted it down. Now police associations and victims are calling for action. Will the Liberals admit they got this wrong and scrap Liberal parole for the rights of victims? These need to come before the rights of killers.

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting yesterday during question period that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources accused me, and Conservatives generally, of scaring Canadians. I would argue, and did yesterday, that the truth is what we are actually doing is hearing Canadians. I would like to ask my colleague to give us a couple of examples of where he has heard from Canadians about the struggles they are going through and what extending a full relief of gas tax until next Canada Day could mean for them.

Mr. Speaker, Oshawa has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and I hear the same message every time I meet with local auto workers and their families: “Protect our jobs.” Conservatives have proposed taking the GST off Canadian-made vehicles. We have even found $150 billion in savings by cutting items like high-priced consultants, corporate welfare and bureaucracy. Will the Liberal government eliminate the industrial carbon tax, cut wasteful spending and lower the cost of building homes and vehicles here at home?

Mr. Speaker, I think the member meant to say, “rather than hear Canadians”. Families are struggling every day with groceries, gas and making ends meet, and small businesses are being squeezed as well. Conservatives have proposed solutions: Cut wasteful spending to lower debt and inflation, and remove all federal taxes on gas until at least Canada Day next year. Canadians need relief today. Will the Liberal government cut consultants and corporate welfare, eliminate the industrial carbon tax and adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians money now?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the effective lawful access tools they need for investigating serious crimes and pursuing criminals. However, expert after expert has been sounding the alarm. Bill C-22 risks creating a surveillance state, more government control without accountability. If this bill is as good as the government claims, why are the Liberals using their manufactured majority to silence opposition and ram this overreaching law through Parliament instead of working with opposition parties to get it right?

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member for Winnipeg North's speech. He talked about collaboration and said that the Liberals want to collaborate. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Any time we tried to collaborate, the answer was always no. Unfortunately that left us little availability to do other things. The Liberals also said that they want to use the tools. I would suggest they abuse the tools. The member also called the legislation “sound public policy”, so I will say this: If Bill C-22 is good, sound public policy, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny, it should be able to withstand amendments, and it should be able to withstand debate. Frankly, the motion, in my view, is an admission by the Liberal government that it has failed. The bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate, and the member should agree with that, because it is definitely not able to withstand scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the work ethic of my friend and colleague who sits with me on the public safety committee and the amount that she has studied this bill. We studied it in depth, and I appreciate her being thankful for all the staff who have done this work with us as well. As we went through this very rushed process of pre-clause-by-clause, I think there were somewhere upward of 48 witnesses over just nine hours whom we sped through to try to study the bill. We had a hard time getting the briefs, as well, because it was rushed, and that created some problems. I asked for consent of the committee to bring the Privacy Commissioner in during clause-by-clause to help us. As we looked through the amendments, a lot of them he had suggested, we could not ask him questions very much during pre-clause-by-clause. Could the member comment on what she thought the Liberals were doing when they blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming?

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole. I have been a member for just over a year, 12 or 14 months, and I think I am more disappointed this week than I have been in my entire time in the House. I am not only disappointed on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa, but disappointed on behalf of all Canadians, who believe they sent us here for democracy and for freedom and to be able to represent them in the House. What we are witnessing today from the Liberal government is quite alarming, as members from the Bloc, members from the NDP and the Green Party member have also said. It is shocking, quite frankly, that all four opposition parties are in line on this. The other shocking piece is that we even had some identical amendments that came forward, which was quite amazing. I find the Liberal government's response, both in committee and in the House, to be very arrogant and dismissive of the process that we have in the House for a reason. The Liberal programming motion is not only about Bill C‑22, which is of course the Liberal government's lawful access bill, but it is also about whether Parliament is still allowed to do its job. Over the last several weeks, I have spent countless hours studying this bill, both on my own and in the public safety committee. I had to add time on my own because of the rushed nature of the witness testimony and because the stage of study for this bill was like nothing I have ever seen before. I think we saw a minimum of 48 witnesses in just eight hours. We could not possibly get all our questions in. Several times, witnesses from multiple organizations were there in one hour. We had to pick and choose whom to ask questions when we needed to ask questions of all of them. Often, we would get only two rounds of questions in that hour because of all sorts of different reasons. I did not get to ask any questions of the Privacy Commissioner because of that in the short time he was there. In fact, it was the hour the Privacy Commissioner was there when we had only two rounds of questions. Every question we asked at clause-by-clause was relevant to the importance of this bill and the understanding of it. There has been a lot of hard work put into dozens and dozens of amendments. I think the public safety minister mentioned in a press conference that there were about 100 amendments. That says something. Work has been done. I appreciated the Bloc member from the committee mentioning the staff who worked on studying this bill. The staff in our offices put countless hours into helping us. They have been studying this bill and doing lots and lots of research. We are doing it from a place of really wanting to understand this and do it right, not just do it fast. It has been so rushed. It has been mentioned that briefs did not get to us until well after the witnesses were there. They spoke about the briefs, and we said, “What briefs?” We had not seen these briefs. Earlier in some heckling, I heard the Liberals blaming the clerk because we did not get the briefs in time, but, quite frankly, the real reason we did not get them in time was the rushed nature of this and the way the Liberal government has been pushing it through. Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We support giving police the tools they need to pursue terrorists, child predators, organized crime networks and cybercriminals. With proper judicial authorization, law enforcement should be able to obtain lawful access to necessary and relevant evidence when investigating serious crimes. What we cannot support is the idea that Parliament should simply rubber-stamp legislation without proper scrutiny. That is exactly what this motion seeks to do. Right now, there are over 100 proposed amendments to Bill C‑22, which I just mentioned. We have been able to debate only a small number so far. However, because of this motion proposed by the government, the Liberals are effectively saying they do not want Parliament to finish the work and take the time it needs to get this legislation right. If committee members cannot complete clause-by-clause consideration within the government's imposed timeline, the remaining amendments would simply be deemed moved and we would be voting on them, so the truth is that not only would we not get to move and debate each amendment and possibly make subamendments, but Canadians would not be able to see what those amendments are until they have already been voted on. The secrecy of that alone should alarm Canadians. That should concern every member of the House. What troubles me most is that the Liberal government continues to talk about trust. At the committee, the public safety minister agreed with me when I told him that public trust is important and essential, especially on matters such as these, but trust is not built by cutting off debate. Trust is not built by limiting scrutiny, and it is not built by using a manufactured majority to silence opposition voices. Trust is earned through transparency. It is earned through accountability, and it is earned by allowing Parliament to do its job. I think the member for Winnipeg North said Bill C-22 is “sound” legislation. If it is so sound, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. It should be able to withstand amendments, and perhaps subamendments. We should be able to debate those in good faith, and the bill should be able to withstand said debate. In my view, the motion that the Liberals have brought today with Government Business No. 13, to cut off debate and ram the bill through committee and through Parliament, moved by the Liberal public safety minister and the Liberal government, is an admission that the bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate and scrutiny. I think the Liberals are afraid to answer the questions. As members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, our job is not to rubber-stamp government legislation. Our job is to ask the tough questions, even if we might agree with aspects of the legislation before us. Our job is to identify problems, as well as anticipate future consequences, and our job is to ensure that Canadians understand what is being done in their name. That responsibility does not disappear simply because the government wants a bill passed before summer. That would be irresponsible. That is why we are trying. Our amendment to the motion even is reasonable: to split the bill, pass what we can agree on and do this right. Canadians expect us to do our homework, to read the fine print and to identify problems before legislation becomes law, not after. Most of all, Canadians expect Parliament to function as more than a government approval machine. Governments come and go, and majorities come and go, but the precedents and intentions we set in the House matter. When governments normalize cutting off scrutiny whenever it becomes inconvenient, Parliament becomes weak. When committees are prevented from completing their work, accountability becomes weaker. When opposition voices are treated as obstacles and obstruction, rather than participants in democracy, Canadians lose confidence in their institutions. That should concern us all. The motion asks Parliament to move faster, but when legislation affects Canadians' privacy, freedoms and rights, speed should never come at the expense of scrutiny. Getting legislation passed quickly is easy; getting legislation passed right is the hard part. That is the job Canadians sent us here to do, and Conservatives will stand in the House every day, fight for the job that we are here to do and protect Canadians' rights.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much, because that is exactly the kind of collaboration that is the correct collaboration in the House. The Liberals' version of collaboration, with all due respect, is that we should say, “Yes, yes” to everything they say, without any debate and without any scrutiny, and say, “Please, just do whatever you want.” That is unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, it is true: I do share a border with the member. I would argue that common sense ends at that border. Quite frankly, Durham Regional Police Service and Durham Regional Police Association know that I stand with them. I have spoken to them about the bill, and I have been very clear about my stand on it. I want them to have the tools they need, but I do not want them to have this at the expense of the privacy rights or the charter rights of Canadians. Every officer I spoke to agreed with me. They want it, but not at the expense of privacy.

Madam Speaker, yes, it is an admission of failure. If the government cannot allow its legislation to go through the process of study and clause-by-clause without cancelling it, that is the strongest admission of failure. In fact, it is such an admission of failure that it cannot allow more scrutiny. The court of public opinion is speaking up as well, and quite frankly, they are against what is going on, because they are being attacked.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Green Party member's speech. I have a lot of respect for the time she has spent in this place and for her opinions. I would like to hear her opinion on this. I believe she was probably watching some of the clause-by-clause in our public safety committee. During that time, we received amendment suggestions from the Privacy Commissioner. They were brought forward by all parties. When we had some confusion on why he brought certain amendments forward and had questions, I asked for the consent of members of the committee to have the Privacy Commissioner come back to clause-by-clause as we were going through these suggested amendments, so that we could do this right and understand some things. I do not know if the member noticed, but every Liberal member voted against that and blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming to sit in at clause-by-clause. Would the member like to comment on why she thinks they would do something like that?

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his own country into a recession. While he flies around the world in style with nearly $1 million in luxury inflight catering, Canadians are being driven out of their homes and into food banks. Two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, and many families are skipping meals, living in RVs and losing sleep over how they will pay their bills. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly Liberal policies that have caused this crisis so that Canadians can afford to live and have hope again?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are seeing through the illusions. The Liberals keep rolling out more programs and calling them progress. If we need more government supports just to get by, that is not success. It is an admission of failure. All of the G7 countries face the same global pressures, yet only one has managed to turn these shared challenges into a recession at home. That is our Canada under the Liberal Prime Minister. Since the same global pressures are affecting everyone, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession, while others have managed to avoid it?

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that I could unpack on this member's 20-minute speech in the House, starting with a few things. He kept saying that they talk about this and they talk about that and they talk about this, and he is right. They do an awful lot of talking on that side of the House. It makes a lot of announcements but it is not very much a government of action. The hon. member also called it a so-called new government, and yet he is here giving his 20-minute speech. I looked it up. I believe that there are about 60 to 70 new Liberal members who were elected in 2025, compared to about 45 new Conservative members who were elected in 2025. The comparison is crazy. When I think about the number of times that those new members have gotten up to speak in the House, compared to this member, who has been here since 2010, it is shocking to me. He talks about filibustering. Why is he getting up and giving a 20-minute speech when he has 60 to 70 new members who were elected in 2025 and who could get up and talk about this as well? I would like to know why he is always doing all of the talking and does not let other people do it. He is the king of filibustering.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Oshawa. I would like to start my question by mentioning my father. Today would have been his 85th birthday. He passed away four years ago, just 10 and a half months after my mom passed away. When I was a teenager, there was a lot of talk about hate speech and hate crimes and defining them. I remember him saying to me, at that time, to watch carefully because this will turn into something else as time progresses. What it will turn into is that, one day, our government will say that a certain piece of scripture or religious text will be deemed hate speech or a hate crime. That is a real concern for me. Why should Canadians trust these guys not to do exactly that and imprison people for speaking their religious truth?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberal inflation, a new United Way survey confirms what Canadians have been saying for years. They are struggling to afford life. One in five Canadians has experienced poverty, 38% struggle with food insecurity and 60% have real anxiety about their finances. While Canadians are stretching every dollar, the Prime Minister has stretched Canada's economy into the only recession in the G20. Will he finally abandon the costly Liberal policies that caused this crisis, or is making life unaffordable part of the plan?