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 3 of 5.
“This also raises a basic question: Why is this one area of advertising so lightly regulated when so many others are tightly controlled? We already regulate gambling differently from any other product, because it is not like other forms of advertising. This is something that can influence behaviour in ways that require extra caution. A great example that comes to mind is the limits placed on alcohol and tobacco advertisements. We have limits on when ads can run, where they appear and how they can be targeted. We need to protect our young people. It would be reasonable to ask why a similar thing would not apply here. It is worth looking at the impact that this is having around us.”
“Bringing it into the legal system helped provinces regulate it, but since then, something else has happened: Sports betting has exploded, and Bill S-211 is trying to deal with it. At its core, this is about trying to get a better handle on this fast-growing industry. Before we get into the contents of the bill, it is important to be clear about how things currently work. Provinces are mainly in charge of gaming, and some have stricter rules than others. They license companies, set rules and, in some cases, even operate the platforms themselves. However, advertising is different. Ads do not stop at provincial borders. We can watch the same advertisement if we are in Vancouver or Kitchener Centre. This is part of why the issue has become more noticeable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill S-211 , an act respecting the national framework on sports betting advertising. I will begin with a simple observation. Canadians are noticing a change. Hockey games, football games, family shows, even online videos are now full of sports betting ads. What used to show up once in a while is now constant. They are tired of seeing their favourite celebrities and athletes encouraging gambling at every commercial break. For many Canadians, especially young people, these athletes and celebrities are role models. When those same public figures are used to promote gambling, it carries a level of influence that goes beyond typical advertisement. In 2021, Parliament made the decision to legalize single-event sports betting. People were already doing it, often through unregulated sites.”
“Mr. Speaker, truthfully, I do not trust the Liberal government right now to handle crime and what is happening in our communities. I will share a very personal reason why that is. Homicide is up almost 51% in Ontario, and that is not just a statistic for me. A very close and dear friend of mine was murdered and was part of these numbers last year. She was murdered by someone who had committed repeat violent offences, including stabbing, and that is how my friend died. She was stabbed to death. The revolving door that is our justice system is a piece that has been ignored. We have put opposition motions forward to try to reverse what is happening in this country. No, I do not have faith in this coming forward with the Liberal government, and I do not trust that it will keep its promise on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree that the Liberals are taking it seriously to act on public safety. In Ontario, violent firearms offences increased by 98% last year, and instead of addressing illegal firearms or border control, the government tried to do a failed gun buy-back program, which is not taking those illegal firearms off the street and is not actually protecting Canadians. There have been other measures showing that whatever the Liberals tried to do, they failed over and over again. While Bill C-22 is moving in the right direction, there is work to do here. We will be scrutinizing the bill, as the Conservative Party, to make sure that we get it right for Canadians.”
“They should not have to choose between being safe and being free. They deserve both. Conservatives will stand for both as we review Bill C-22 .”
“Canadians need to be able to trust that, when government is given access to sensitive personal information, it will use that authority carefully and only within clear limits set out by the law. They need to trust that those limits are not flexible or open to interpretation, but firm enough to protect Canadians in practice, not just in principle. They need to trust that, over time, these powers will not quietly expand beyond what was originally approved. Once that trust is lost, it is very difficult to rebuild. That is why clarity, restraint and accountability matter just as much as the intent behind the text itself. Conservatives are not interested in rushing this process. We are not interested in opposing the bill just to oppose it. We are interested in getting this right for Canadians.”
“We must also recognize that consent in a digital environment is not always meaningful when users do not fully understand what they are agreeing to. Conservatives want to protect kids, which is why clear rules, strict limits on access and strong accountability matters. Canadians outside this chamber are not reading every clause of the bill, but they know that government decisions impact their daily lives. They understand what it means when privacy is weakened. They have seen before what happens when government powers grow without transparency and accountability. Really, it all comes down to trust, and right now, that trust is fragile. A poll from Ipsos, as reported by Global News, shows that Canadians are increasingly worried about how their personal data is being collected and used, especially in private industry and by government.”
“That is precisely why the law must be written with them in mind. Research from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that young people are more likely to make privacy decisions online without fully understanding the long-term implications of how their personal information may be collected, stored or used. Similarly, Pew Research Centre research shows that teenagers often underestimate how visible and permanent their online activity is. This falls not only under privacy legislation in general but also under what the definition of lawful access means. The risks do not fall to everyone equally. They cling to those who are the least equipped to understand how their information is being used.”
“It is not just who can access their information, but how it is tracked and how it will be protected once accessed. If Canadians cannot see that process clearly, it becomes harder for them to trust how the system is going to work. Once they start to believe that their personal information is not fully protected, it changes things as they know it. It changes how they interact with technology, how they communicate and how confident they feel in their institutions. We can also not ignore a particularly vulnerable group in this conversation: children and young Canadians. They are now growing up in a world where sharing information is automatic, not deliberate. Many of them do not fully understand what happens to their data once it is shared, who can access it or how long it is stored.”
“For example, simple data, such as if someone sends a message, where they are or what device they are on, can reveal a lot about their daily life, even if the actual content of the message is never read aloud. Even something as simple as linking a name to an IP address can reveal where a person goes online, what they look at, their habits or who they talk to. (1705) Good legislation is not just about intent. It is about whether the rules are clear enough that they cannot be misinterpreted. It is about whether the safeguards in place are strong enough that Canadians' rights are protected. Once information is shared in a digital system, it can move quickly between organizations. That is what Canadians want and, frankly, deserve to know.”
“What it really boils down to is who can see their information, and why and how that data would be used. If those answers are not clear in the law itself, then it leaves too much room for interpretation and confusion later on what the law is being applied to in real situations. So much of our lives take place online. We communicate online and bank online, some of us work online, and we store information online. We shop online, and we watch our favourite shows online. More and more of what we do in our daily lives leaves a digital trace. That does not automatically create a problem, but it does mean that the laws around access to digital information now reach further into ordinary activities than they once did.”
“For those in public safety and the general public, clarity reduces uncertainty, because once the government gains access to more of Canadians' personal information, it is not just a question of what it will do with it today, but what it will do with it tomorrow and then the day after that as well. That is why Canadians are paying attention, and the questions they are asking are about trust. They should not be difficult ones for the government to answer. Who has access to this information? Under what conditions can it be accessed? How is that access controlled? What safeguards exist to ensure it is not misused? Where is the line drawn? I think Canadians deserve to know. When Canadians hear about lawful access, most of them are not thinking about legal definitions and technical terms.”
“Nobody understands more than Canadians that our police services need the necessary tools to do their jobs and be able to keep up with the modern world. They deal with real threats and emergencies. They deserve a system that supports their work. That is not the issue. What Canadians expect and what they deserve is a respect for their privacy and freedom at the same time. However, these tools must be carefully balanced with the rights of Canadians. Public safety and civil liberties do not actually oppose one another; they work hand in hand. That is why Conservatives are approaching this with such caution. These tools must be able to withstand scrutiny over time. Everyone benefits from clarity.”
“Members can think about what that means. The same person can be arrested and released on bail, sometimes even on the same day, only for the police to rearrest them all over again. Instead of strengthening enforcement and ensuring our frontline police officers and first responders have the resources they need, the government has gone to bat for policies that do not always reflect the realities on the ground, and Canadians can see the results in their communities. They see them in rising crime rates and in their local police forces that are stretched thin. As His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is our role to see if legislation has gone too far. It is not only our role to say so, but also our responsibility. That is the context in which we find Bill C-22 .”
“For the past decade, we have been warning the government that its approach to public safety and justice has been failing Canadians by putting dangerous criminals on bail and allowing them to walk on our streets, often to just reoffend again. We have been repeatedly asking the Liberals to reverse the policies that weaken the consequences for crime and leave communities feeling less safe. Instead, the current government has doubled down and allowed the situation to worsen. This is not just theatrics. In my community of Kitchener Centre, officers are dealing with repeat calls. The Waterloo Regional Police Service has reported that a small number of repeat offenders are responsible for a large share of the calls that they get. The same names come up again and again while officers are pulled from other emergencies.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of Kitchener Centre residents. Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access. Let me start with the principle that has guided Conservatives for generations, which is that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes, their communities and their daily lives. They deserve a justice system that reflects the same values they hold, one that protects their freedoms and keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on keeping criminals accountable and victims protected. Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for practical measures that keep our streets safe, protect our victims and respect the rights of Canadians. That is not new.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling with the rising gas prices while the government keeps piling on taxes, taxes and more taxes. Kitchener Centre families are paying more at the pump. Our seniors are worried about driving to see their grandchildren. Our workers have to pay more just to get to work, on top of the rising cost of everything else. Why will the Prime Minister not adopt our Conservative plan and reduce the gas tax? It will save 25¢ per litre for Canadians to give them the relief they deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition submitted by Canadians and by residents of Kitchener Centre who are deeply concerned about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in Canada and China. They are calling on the Government of Canada to take these concerns seriously and to stand firm in the defence of human rights and the safety of Canadians. I want to thank the members of the Falun Gong community for bringing this forward. I will continue to advocate for the protection of fundamental freedoms, accountability and the safety of all Canadians. I am honoured to table this petition today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am asking for grace to table a petition. I did not do it in my first standing, but I do have another one today. The Deputy Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent from the chamber in order that the member may table the petition? Some hon. members: Agreed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding Bill C-9 . Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing the temperature down in the House a little bit and for bringing some pragmatic solutions to the table. In Kitchener Centre, there are constituents who are worried about their jobs. They are worried not just about assembly but also about the broader ecosystem of parts manufacturing for the auto industry. Can my colleague please explain briefly what we would do, in our Conservative plan, to protect not only assembly but also the broader ecosystem?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that we literally just heard from the opposite side that the Liberal plan and strategy for Canadian auto workers is to “wait it out”. Yes, we have come to the table with a plan, a common-sense plan, that would keep workers working in Canada. All I have heard is scrutiny of that plan and cherry-picked quotes from Unifor to say that the plan is not okay. I would like to ask the member opposite what she has to say about this quote from Unifor Local 222: “A common sense plan to protect the livelihood of thousands of Ontario auto workers.” We are glad to see it. What is your comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the member opposite on the statement he made that this has only happened in the past year in our auto industry, when in the past decade, we have gone from the production of two million cars down to 1.2 million. My question is, why are you continuing with a plan that is trying to mitigate production losses, instead of supporting our Conservative plan, which would double production with a tariff-free pact with the United States?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to 10 minutes of literal rage baiting across the aisle, and then they are saying that we are the ones doing the rage baiting for what we are trying to do here. It is absolutely incredible. I want to be very clear. I am from Kitchener Centre, and I am incredibly proud of the asylum seekers who have come to my riding, like the Rohingya community, like all the other communities that come to Kitchener Centre. This is not a complete compilation of immigration as a whole. Why are rejected asylum seekers getting better health care than Canadian citizens? This is the only thing we are asking. We are not doing a huge immigration consensus here today. The member can stop the antics and answer the question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to say that today has been a pretty difficult day in the House, all day long as we have been debating. We have had our character attacked. We have been compared to the U.S. administration. We have been told that we on this side of the House do not care about Ukrainian asylum seekers. We have had standing ovations from members on the other side when they attack our intelligence. I think these are all really false narratives to hide the real question that we are asking today, which is why rejected asylum seekers are getting better health care than Canadian citizens, such as vision, physiotherapy, and the list goes on. Can my colleague explain in a very simple way the answer to the question we are asking today, which is why rejected asylum seekers are getting better health care than Canadian citizens are?”
“Mr. Speaker, two-tiered health care policies that reward non-citizens who have no legal right to be here, rejected asylum seekers, are unfair to everyone. That is why the Conservatives have proposed an opposition motion to restrict health benefits for failed asylum claimants to emergency life-saving care. It is not fair to anyone to have taxpayers paying for premium benefits like vision care and physiotherapy for failed asylum claimants, while seniors in Kitchener have a hard time getting home care or nursing care, while people across Canada struggle with their mental health and need support, and while disabled persons are living in poverty. It is time to restore fairness to Canada's health care system. I encourage all people in the House to support our motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, they are not investing in Canadian auto workers; they are subsidizing Tesla. Canadians are watching our auto sector get hammered by Trump slapping illegal, unjustified tariffs on Canadian-built cars, putting paycheques at risk in Ontario and in Kitchener. While Trump punishes Canadian workers, the government is rewarding the U.S. auto sector. I am wondering whose side they are on. Can the government please explain why, at a time when Canadians need action, it is choosing to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize American-made vehicles? Why?”
“Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify. I did not say the reports would not be read. What has been happening is that the reports are read; they are tabled; the failures are acknowledged, and then nothing is done. Creating another level of bureaucracy is not going to change what is happening right now. We need to get things done. We need accountability, full stop.”
“Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that we need more accountability and we need more action. We do not need more research. We do not need more reports. We need to work with indigenous partners and complete the modern treaties of today. We need accountability to make sure it is actually done.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-10 , and we understand the frustrations of indigenous communities and partners that there have not been any modern treaties completed within the past decade. That understanding is true; it is valuable, and what we want to have from the government is action towards the modern treaty, not creating extra bureaucracy and extra levels where accountability can be mistaken for results based on reports that mean nothing, that are tabled and not actioned. We need action.”
“Madam Speaker, the Auditor General also can produce independent reports that the minister would be accountable to answer to. Creating another level of bureaucracy is not going to implement actions that are required to meet modern treaty. We do not need another level of bureaucracy. We can already get the reports and the actions from the Auditor General, so let us just work on actioning instead of creating bureaucracy.”
“Bill C-10 offers the appearance of action without addressing the cause of failure. For those reasons, Conservatives oppose the bill and will continue to demand not more bureaucracy but real accountability and real results.”
“Ministers must report directly to Parliament on their progress, not to a commissioner. Deadlines must matter. When commitments are missed, explanations must be given and consequences must follow. Accountability must reach the ministerial level, where it belongs. This is how accountability works in every other area of government. Treaty implementation should not be treated differently. Reconciliation is not advanced by creating offices. It is advanced by meeting commitments. A commissioner will not build homes, accelerate negotiations or enforce treaty rights. Only leadership can do that. Indigenous people deserve more than symbolic structures and carefully worded reports. They deserve a government that keeps its promises. They deserve implementation, not excuses.”
“In fact, many indigenous leaders have previously argued that even if oversight needed to be strengthened, it should be done with existing institutions, particularly the Office of the Auditor General, rather than through a parallel bureaucracy. True reconciliation respects indigenous governments and partners, not as stakeholders managed through an additional federal process. Indigenous nations are fully capable of participating directly in accountability and oversight without another Ottawa-based office inserted between them and the Crown. The Conservatives do not come to the debate empty-handed. We come with a clear and credible alternative, one that focuses on execution, not expansion. We believe that treaty obligations must be embedded directly into departmental mandates so that responsibility is clear and unavoidable.”
“The problem is that the responsibility is fragmented across multiple departments, with no single minister clearly accountable when things go wrong. When obligations fall between mandates, nothing moves. When timelines slip, no one answers for it. Bill C-10 does not resolve that fragmentation; it formalizes it. That is why Conservatives believe that the focus must remain where the Constitution places it, on the Crown itself. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated. It cannot be outsourced to an independent office. It rests with the ministers, who have the authority, the resources and the obligation to deliver. When that responsibility is diluted, reconciliation does not advance; it stalls.”
“Supporters of Bill C-10 point to indigenous organizations that have called for independent oversight. Their frustration is understandable. Communities have waited far too long for commitments to be honoured. However, it is also important to recognize what treaty partners are actually asking for. They are not asking for more studies. They are not asking for an Ottawa-based institution to observe their frustration from a distance. They are asking for certainty. They are asking for timelines that mean something. They are asking for a federal government that follows through on what it has already agreed to. They are asking for results. For many indigenous governments, the problem is not that Canada lacks insight into treaty implementation.”
“That means that elected representatives are further removed from oversight, not empowered by it. The bill also cannot be viewed in isolation from the government's broader record. Between 2015 and 2017, the government created multiple offices, committees and frameworks designed to improve treaty implementation. Despite all of that additional bureaucracy, the government has not concluded one single modern treaty in over 10 years. That record matters. By contrast, under the previous Conservative government, five modern treaties were successfully negotiated and implemented in just six years. Those agreements advanced self-governance, clarified land rights and created certainty for indigenous communities. They were achieved not through endless monitoring but through leadership, accountability and a willingness to deliver results.”
“We also believe in not reinventing the wheel; we believe in fixing it. The Auditor General already provides Parliament with credible, authoritative oversight. The problem is not that the Auditor General lacks capacity. The problem is that the government has repeatedly ignored the findings. Instead of strengthening accountability within that existing framework, the government's answer is to create another body that would duplicate work and provide yet more reports that can be safely ignored. (1220) Even more concerning is the way Bill C-10 would actually weaken parliamentary accountability. Under the legislation, Parliament itself cannot initiate audits. Only the commissioner, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or a treaty partner may do so.”
“Therefore, we must ask ourselves what would actually change. The answer is, very little. We have seen this approach before, and it has failed. Canada does not suffer from a lack of reports; there are dozens of them. The Office of the Auditor General alone has produced audit after audit for nearly two decades. These audits are independent, thorough and clear in their conclusions, yet the pattern is always the same. The reports are tabled, the failures are acknowledged and then nothing happens. A new office would not fix a culture of inaction. A new commissioner would not manufacture the political will the government has lacked for more than a decade. Oversight without enforcement is not accountability; it is theatre. Conservatives believe in the responsible use of public funds.”
“They are constitutionally protected, legally binding commitments. When they are not implemented properly, the damage is not theoretical. It affects housing, infrastructure, economic development and self-governance. It erodes trust and undermines reconciliation in very real ways. Let us be honest about what this bill would actually do. Bill C-10 would create oversight without enforcement, audits without consequences and reports without requiring action. The proposed commissioner would have the authority to review, assess, comment and report, but they would not have the authority to compel departments to release funding, force ministers to meet deadlines, or enforce treaty rights. The power to act would remain exactly where it is today, with the same ministers and departments that have failed to deliver.”
“We already know the work is not being done. Indigenous partners know it, the Auditor General knows it, the courts know it and the government itself knows it. What we lack is not information; what we lack is leadership. Bill C-10 is not accountability; it is political insulation. It would allow ministers to point to an independent office and say that the commissioner will study it or the commissioner will report on it, while the underlying failures continue. At a time when Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and basic necessities, the idea that the federal government's response to failure is to expand bureaucracy rather than demand results is the exact opposite of responsible governance. No one in the House disputes the importance of modern treaties. These agreements are not symbolic gestures.”
“For years now, indigenous treaty partners have raised serious and legitimate concerns about the pace and consistency of treaty implementation. Commitments are made, but deadlines are missed. Responsibilities are spread across multiple departments with no clear line of accountability. Files are passed from one desk to another, while communities wait for obligations that were promised, often many years ago, to finally be fulfilled. Those frustrations are real and well documented, and they deserve a response that actually fixes the problem, but the government wants Canadians to believe that the solution is to create yet another layer of bureaucracy, a new multi-million dollar office whose primary function is to monitor and report on whether ministers and departments are actually doing their work. The truth is far simpler.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 , legislation that would create a new office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This bill is presented by the government as a step toward accountability and reconciliation, but when we look closely at what it would actually do, or just as importantly, what it would not do, it becomes clear that Bill C-10 mistakes process for progress and bureaucracy for leadership. I want to begin by stating clearly and without hesitation the principle that guides our position. The problem in Canada's modern treaty system is not lack of oversight; it is a lack of execution. It is not a shortage of watchdogs; it is a shortage of accountability. The solution is not another expensive federal office in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite did a very good job of giving scenarios of who would get this credit. What was not mentioned, though, is that less than 30% of the population will actually be supported by this. That being said, the government has looked to the opposition for support to pass this, which we will. Why was the same collaboration not extended to us, as the opposition, when we wanted to address the root cause of grocery prices, which would support 100% of Canadians by actually reducing grocery prices?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I heard over and over again the new attempt at a temporary solution on inflation. How can this government justify being responsible for driving up inflation and then give a benefit because people cannot afford to buy groceries and essentials on their own? Think about what this message actually is. It says, here, let the Liberal government help people pay for groceries and basic necessities because of the Liberal policies making it more expensive. When will the Liberals learn to stop trying to buy their way out of problems? Learn the lesson. Get rid of the taxes and the splash-the-cash spending driving inflation. Cut the fuel standards tax, the industrial carbon tax and the food packaging tax, and stop the billions of dollars in misspent money. Fiscal responsibility keeps inflation in check.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passion about Bill C-9 . When we serve on committee, we are doing really important work for Canadians. That is currently where the legislation is: in committee, where we work on and review legislation. Conservatives are working in committee right now to protect the religious freedoms of Canadians. On this side of the House, that is what we are trying to do. Can my colleague please explain how the Liberals are blocking the work we are trying to complete in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I share today the loss of one of my oldest friends, Belinda Cradden. On November 17, her life was taken through an unimaginable act of violence by a person she stepped in to help when our justice system had failed them. Belinda had an open, generous heart, and her compassion was her strength. Her murder is not only a personal heartbreak for me but also a reflection on the failures of our justice system. When people who pose a clear risk to society are not kept behind bars or provided with the mental health and rehabilitation tools they need, this is the consequence. Belinda's death is a painful reminder that we must do better. I will always remember her beautiful soul and her light-up-the-room, bold, dynamic personality. I love Belinda.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to work together. All governments need to work together to find a solution to this crisis. It is the Liberal government that has perpetuated this crisis, though, and it put $1 billion into making it worse. We need to focus on rehabilitation and recovery. I agree completely with what the member is saying, but I also think we all need to collaborate and work together to find solutions, real solutions, rehabilitative solutions, for our citizens—”
“Mr. Speaker, I just heard about that this second, but I would like to focus on the drug crisis in this country because it is always overshadowed by other stories and other things happening. We have to talk about this drug crisis, and we have to take the lead and focus on rehabilitation to bring our loved ones home happy, healthy and drug-free.”