Kelly DeRidder
Kitchener Centre, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 248 lines we hold for Kelly DeRidder, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“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, 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, 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 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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (2305) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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, if these measures actually did anything for affordability, we would not have the lineups at the food banks that we are seeing. This exact program is going to reach fewer than half of Canadians out there who are working at jobs. I am going to repeat the question. France is facing tariffs, Germany is facing tariffs, Italy is facing tariffs. Japan is facing tariffs. Why is Canada the only country in the G7 with our economy in a recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. Imagine hiring someone for a job and in the interview they said that they would give the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but they actually delivered the only economy in the G7 in a recession. It is the exact opposite result to the promise. What would be the consequence? I think accountability would be a good start. Instead of taking accountability, though, the Liberals are blaming the tariffs. If this were true, then why is Canada the only country in the G7, with all facing tariffs, in a recession?”
“In this encampment, five people have died from overdose, and it is time now that all levels of government came together and jointly worked together to fix this crisis in Canada. It is time to reverse course. Bill C-240 is the first step, introducing rehabilitation into incarceration. At least when someone has to be accountable for their actions, they would have a path forward when they are serving their time, to change their life, break cycles and turn their life around. We need to do this in Canada before incarceration, as well, so I am standing here today to thank members for their support in the House for Bill C-240 but also to declare that this is a pivotal moment in Canada. It is time now to concentrate on recovery and rehabilitation because on the other side of recovery is a happy, beautiful, healed and healthy life.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today with great big huge thanks to all of my colleagues who wanted to speak to and debate Bill C-240 today. I thank my colleagues who are part of the Conservative caucus and also colleagues across the floor, so much, for speaking to this bill today. I thank the Bloc Québécois members as well, so very much, for speaking to this bill and showing their support for it. I think the most important thing that we need to do at this point in time is reverse course in Canada. We need to start focusing on recovery and rehabilitation because people can and do recover. There is an encampment in Kitchener where we are quite literally killing people with kindness right now.”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sure to take those stats to the woman in my riding. She now lives in a domestic violence shelter with her child, while he remains working here illegally and free without consequence. Is that acceptable to her as a parliamentarian, as a mother, as a woman?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sure to tell her that you cannot speak on her specific case as the Minister of Immigration for Canada. What message is the minister sending to this woman and other women like her when she does not protect them within her own system?”
“Mr. Chair, there was a woman in my riding, who immigrated in 2020. After she separated from her husband, he strangled her in front of their daughter and was found guilty. He remains in Canada, free, without a valid work permit, illegally. How does this minister allow violent criminals who have no legal status to remain in Canada?”
“Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are barely getting by, here we are introducing another tax. I hear from residents all over my community about how they are barely getting by. I also have a very vibrant arts community in Kitchener Centre. I would like my colleague to dive a little deeper into the Conservative solution on how we could better support our arts industry, rather than adding another tax that Canadians cannot afford.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I do not think there was one in there. Let me respond. I agree completely that affordability is an actual crisis right now. We are not saying that this measure is going to fix everything. We are saying that it is a start. It is something that can be done for Canadians to tell them that we are listening to them and that we know they are struggling. It is something we can do. I will also agree with the statement, though, that the current measure the Liberals have taken is only a half measure. It is not really going to do anything to significantly impact Canadians, their chequebooks and their pockets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the misinformation in the member's question. We voted in favour of eliminating the tax for everyday Canadians. There actually was no vote to eliminate the carbon tax. It was just done. We did not have the opportunity to vote on that. I would respectfully ask that if I am going to be asked a question, the question be honest, accurate and true for me to answer.”
“We are here to serve the people who sent us here: the people balancing budgets at the kitchen table, trying to keep their small business alive and skipping meals so their kids can eat first. We have the opportunity to show Canadians that someone is listening to them. Will the government support our motion and show Canadians that it is listening?”
“They want to feel like they make responsible choices and can build a decent life for themselves and their families. That should not be too much to ask. Canadians do not feel that things are affordable. They feel stressed when they are walking down the grocery aisle or paying their bills. It is not enough for them to have to cut back on groceries or cancel excursions for their kids. They are still not making ends meet. This is not a choice they should even have to make. Canadians do not need more talking points. They need relief. This motion offers a very straightforward step toward that relief. The motion would cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel, scrap the clean fuel standard and stop making everyday life more expensive. We should never become so disconnected from reality that we forget who we are here to serve.”
“When the government increases tax on fuel, Canadians see it at the checkout counter when they buy milk, bread, produce or even diapers. The most frustrating part is that Canadians say they are feeling completely ignored when they try to point out the unaffordability. Disabled people already live below the poverty line, which is a discussion for another day. How can the government keep punishing people financially? There is something so fundamentally unfair about asking Canadians to make it work when so many are already stretched to the breaking point. The government often talks about supposed rebates, but the majority of Canadians do not see them. All Canadians want is breathing room. They do not want handouts. They just want breathing room and to get ahead.”
“(1620) In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, people with jobs are struggling to feed themselves. To be a bit nostalgic for a second, only 11 years ago we had the wealthiest middle class in the G7. Look at what has happened with the Liberal government. Those same people are now in food bank lineups. When fuel prices rise, grocery prices rise. Farmers need fuel to operate their equipment. Truckers need fuel to transport goods. Stores need fuel to supply their chains. These costs do not disappear. They get passed on to the consumer. People drive their kids from Kitchener to Cambridge for sports and activities, and that is putting a strain on families. People drive because they have to. Farmers drive because they have to. Parents drive their kids to school, sports and appointments because they have to. They are not the problem.”
“They are beyond negative, and they cannot afford this price increase in gas, and they are terrified of losing their housing altogether. Adis, a father of five who lives in a two-bedroom apartment with his family, wants to move into a three-bedroom apartment, but the rental prices have become incredibly unaffordable, and year after year, the increases keep pushing them further and further behind. These are not one-off stories. We are hearing more and more of the same stories across our country from everyday Canadians. Even food insecurity is a national crisis. It is at record highs. There are families with children using food banks, and seniors using food banks. People who never imagined they would need help are now standing in line because they simply cannot keep up. Let us think about that.”
“We have people working overtime, second jobs and side jobs and yet still relying on credit cards just to get by. More and more, we are hearing about households with dual incomes that are barely staying afloat because the cost of living has risen faster than the ability to keep up. I recently heard from Sayed in my riding who told me that rent, groceries and utilities have become nearly impossible to manage. They said they are under enormous stress to find safe and affordable housing while everyday expenses keep climbing faster and faster, and their income is not keeping pace. Also, Nathalie shared that they are already behind on rent and struggling to afford basics like food and phone bills at the same time, let alone this gas increase. They told me their bank account balance is at zero.”
“That is money that no longer goes toward groceries, savings, bills or their kids' activities. For families already stretched thin, there is zero room in the budget to absorb these increases. There are people planning errands around fuel usage, driving less to visit family and thinking twice before accepting extra shifts because of the commute. The impact ripples through our entire economy. Everyone pays more. One of the things I hear most often in my riding is that people no longer feel like hard work gets them ahead. This is devastating to hear in a country like Canada. We have young couples delaying having kids because they cannot afford a home. We have parents worried that their kids will never be able to get a start on their own or build a life for themselves.”
“While the government will often talk about how it is saving Canadians money, and even the Prime Minister stood up and said that affordability has not been better in a decade, the reality is that Canadians are looking at their bank accounts and wondering how much more they can stretch. When we increase the cost of fuel, it increases the cost of everything. It is passed to the consumer. Every single thing Canadians buy becomes more expensive, and yet the government continues to insist that adding more costs somehow makes life more affordable. It does not even make sense. For many Canadians, gas prices are not just a number on a sign that they drive by. They shape almost every financial decision people make during the month. People feel it when it costs them more to fill the tank.”
“A couple who both work full-time are wondering how they are going to afford a home. A senior is cutting back on visiting grandkids because the cost of filling the tank is getting to be a bit too much. A single parent is deciding which bill can wait another few days. It is the farmers, truckers, tradespeople and small business owners who are watching their budgets erode month after month while being overtaxed and stretched thinner every day. People are tired. They are doing everything they can, and it still feels like they are falling behind. They are why this motion matters so much. Over the past few years, Canadians have watched as the price of absolutely everything has gone up: groceries, utilities, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, transportation and everyday necessities.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about something in our country that should not even have to be debated: whether Canadians deserve a break. People in this country who wake up early, work hard, pay their taxes, raise their kids, care for loved ones, live on fixed incomes or navigate life with a disability do everything the way they are told, and they deserve a break. This is what our motion is about today. It is about cancelling the federal taxes on gas and diesel and scrapping the clean fuel standard that continues to drive up costs across this economy. Frankly, we all leave this place and talk to our friends, neighbours and constituents, and we hear it in conversations in our offices, in the grocery store lineups and at community events: the reality that life is unaffordable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say just how proud I am of the Kitchener Rangers. What we have seen this season is pure talent and character. Winning the OHL championship does not happen by accident. It takes discipline, resilience and a relentless commitment to one another day in and day out. It is about showing up when it matters, pushing through, having a commitment and believing in each other as a team. To see the Rangers competing for the Memorial Cup, the most prestigious prize in junior hockey, is something truly special. The Rangers are representing the entire Kitchener-Waterloo community with heart, determination and skill. The players, coaches and staff have made our city proud. No matter what happens next, they have shown what it takes to compete at the highest level. Let us be real, the boys have this. Go, Rangers.”
“Madam Speaker, that is why I do not agree with enabling addiction by providing the drugs to keep people trapped in addiction. I relapsed 13 years after being sober, because it was literally just in front of me. We have to make a conscious choice our entire life to just not be around it. When I was, I relapsed. Luckily, I had enough time and enough healing and enough space that I did not fall back into the cycle of addiction. I think it is really important when people start their journey to not—”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to speak a little further on focusing on taking that first step. One thing that addiction does is it breaks one's relationships. The continued cycle of bad decisions that someone makes is carried with them and it actually stops them from wanting to heal. It is not only that they have their own personal trauma but they have the guilt and they have everything else surrounded in the choices they made while they were in active addiction. I want people to know that they are loved. Everyone still cares about the person. Everyone still loves the person. All they want the person to do is to get well. All the person has to do is get well. All the person has to do is take that first step.”
“Madam Speaker, I agree completely. We have to make sure that the resources are there to provide the supports. That is partly what Bill C-240 is doing. When rehabilitation becomes judge-prescribed, it puts the responsibility on the institution to ensure that they are providing the prescribed rehabilitation for that particular inmate.”
“Madam Speaker, the most beautiful part about continually sharing my story is that it allows people the opportunity to share their own. The more we do that, the more we end the stigma around addiction. I thank the member opposite for sharing his personal ties to addiction. I also want to thank him very much for recognizing what it means to stand in the House and share our own stories. I hope, moving forward, we can work together and ensure that we can help create paths to recovery in this country, starting with supporting my private member's bill and introducing rehabilitation into incarceration.”
“I slept in the streets and at the women's shelter on Frederick Street, Mary's Place, and now I am a member of Parliament representing that very same area. The very same area and community I was homeless in, I now represent as a member of Parliament. If someone hears this who is struggling or feels trapped at the base of that mountain, I want them to know this: They should take that step, start the healing journey and give themself the life they deserve.”
“That support has given me the strength and the courage to stand here in the House of Commons and share my own personal story. However, there is one thing I would like to add to that message. Yes, recovered people climb a mountain, but at the very beginning of recovery, all a person can see is that mountain in front of them. It feels impossible. It feels endless. It feels lonely, but if they take one day at a time, one step at a time, they will reach the top, and that is where their life truly begins. There is a big, beautiful, happy, healed life on the other side of addiction. If members have ever seen the view from the top of a mountain, they know that the world opens up, possibilities expand and our future becomes something we can finally imagine. I was an addict sleeping in Victoria Park in Kitchener, Ontario.”
“It is the stigma many recovered people carry with them, even after they have built their lives. I decided I would no longer carry that stigma in silence. I am ending it by telling my story. (1340) Under our party's leader, I knew I would be supported, not only because of who our leader is as a person but because of the message that he continually shares. During the last election, he spoke about recovered addicts as having a kind of strength others may never fully understand, because recovery means climbing a mountain that most people will never see. He spoke about the need for rehabilitation beds across this country and for real pathways to recovery. That message mattered to me. It told me I would not only be accepted as a member of Parliament, but also be supported. We need more leaders like this.”
“I have been told, often by people who do not know me, that I need to be trauma-informed or that I need to listen more closely to the research, the data or the intellectuals who study this issue. While research matters, I want to say this very clearly: We will never solve this crisis if we do not listen to the people with lived experience, especially those who have healed. Recovery is not theoretical. It is lived, one day at a time. I wear the scars, but I also wear the success of defeating the demon of addiction. I always wanted to go into politics, but I delayed running because of my past. The weight held me back. I asked myself, “What if I win? What if my past comes out? What if I am judged or shamed or dismissed because of who I once was rather than who I am today?” That fear is not unique to me.”