Rhonda Kirkland
Oshawa, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 436 lines we hold for Rhonda Kirkland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“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?”
“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.”
“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, 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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(2010) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“Could the member comment on what she thought the Liberals were doing when they blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming?”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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, 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?”
“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, 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.”
“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, 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, the only thing growing faster than Canadians' grocery bills is the gap between Liberal talking points and reality. The president and CEO of United Way warns, “This is not a crisis on the horizon. It is happening now”. In Oshawa, that is a single parent or a senior choosing between groceries and rent, or an auto worker who has lost their job and is still waiting on the U.S. trade deal the Prime Minister promised but has failed to deliver. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the facts? His policies are driving the G20's only recession, and Canadians are the ones paying the price.”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated this speech and all the things the member said about violence against women. Woman to woman, I have to understand here a couple of things about the word “mandatory”. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for aggravated sexual assault with a gun, where victims are primarily women; human trafficking, where victims are primarily women; and multiple firearms offences. As an educator, I have to look up the word “mandatory”, which says very clearly that it is required or commanded by a law, rule or authority. If judges are allowed to ignore so-called mandatory sentences, and this bill claims it is strengthening mandatory minimum sentences, can the member maybe describe for me what she thinks the word “mandatory” means?”
“I wonder if the member would recognize that having all of these programs is really just a recognition of the government's failure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it rather appalling the way the member stands up here and talks about how everything is so wonderful. I will ask him what I asked earlier this morning. Is he talking to folks in his riding? People are struggling. We Conservatives are fighting for those people, and we are talking to them every day. I spoke with one of my constituents, who talked about the groceries and essentials benefit. I should correct the record because the Liberals keep saying that we voted against it, which is patently untrue. Since that is not the case, I did ask how the groceries and essentials benefit was helping her. My constituent said that it is giving her $1.31 per week, which might help her buy another package of ramen noodles.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a wonder the way the member is talking, making it sound as though everything is just fine and there is nothing to see here. He suggests that our government is doing all the things and that everyone is getting everything they need. It is more gaslighting from a narcissistic partner than I have ever heard in my life. The member clearly is not living in the real world. Perhaps he needs to come down from the clouds and talk to constituents in his riding. I know it has been a while, maybe, since he was there. I am pretty sure he does not live there anymore. Perhaps he should talk to them and to folks in Whitby, Clarington and Oshawa about what they are really struggling with, because the day-to-day reality is harder than what he is gaslighting them to make them think it is.”
“Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is one. Liberals think the word “recession” is like the word “Beetlejuice”. If they do not say it, then it does not exist, but ignoring reality does not change reality. The Liberal government has spent months telling Canadians it has the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The reality is that we are the only country in the G20 in a recession. Will the government finally answer if Canada is in a recession, or is it just a technical one?”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, yet for a week now, the Prime Minister has outright refused to address the seriousness of the situation, ignoring the fact that Canadians are worried about their jobs, their savings and whether they can afford to make ends meet. The Prime Minister has spent more time avoiding the word “recession” than he has explaining the plan to end one. Will the Prime Minister stop dodging the question and tell Canadians if we are in a recession or just a technical recession?”
“Known for his dry humour and quick wit, he was a passionate man who stood unapologetically for his principles. That is the man our team and I will miss and remember. I thank Dave for his unwavering service, humour and generosity. May God bless Christine and the entire Burns family.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today to pay tribute to one of Oshawa's most devoted and generous community leaders, David Burns, who passed away this past Wednesday. Dave was the cherished husband of Christine for 62 years, a loving father and proud grandfather. Born in Halifax, he moved to Ontario to start a life grounded in faith, family and later politics. While his family will miss him terribly, he also leaves a deep void in Oshawa's tightly woven Conservative family. He was a long-time federal PC supporter who would become one of Oshawa's original Reformers, and in 2004, he became a founding member and director of the Oshawa Conservative Association, which he served continuously until just last year. From the nineties through to my own campaign last year, Dave was on the front lines of nearly every single Oshawa election.”
“Madam Speaker, I am starting to understand why the Premier of Quebec called the minister a disgrace to all Quebeckers. A day after he was made the Minister of Culture, he said he was fed up with language debate. It is clear the minister is fed up with all debate, based on his answers in this session this afternoon. The member for Red Deer asked a question about guardrails. He asked if there are “guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants”. The minister said yes. Therefore, I would ask him to please list those guardrails.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Oshawa's most cherished annual traditions, Fiesta Week. For 52 years, Fiesta Week has brought our community together through cultural performances, traditional foods, costumes and displays from around the world. This year, residents and visitors will once again experience long-standing Greek, Caribbean, French Canadian, Polish, German, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian pavilions. We are also proud to welcome the new Indian pavilion and welcome back the Hungarian pavilion. Volunteers work all year long preparing for this week-long celebration. I encourage everyone to join us in Oshawa from June 21 to 27 to experience 14 incredible cultural pavilions in our city. The doors are open, and people do not want to miss it. Follow along with Oshawa Fiesta Week on Facebook.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are all up here and have lots of questions for this member, so I am grateful that you called on me. Last Friday, I spent some time with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Oshawa, and we talked about money for the trades. I can appreciate that they are giving the Liberals some props for putting money towards that, but they have a real concern, and I have one too: What about jobs? We are going to spend all this money on trades. It is great to invest in trades, but these folks need jobs when they are trained, and right now the electrical workers and folks in my riding are very concerned about that. I wonder if the member could comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's speech, and I want to just bring things back a bit. One part of her speech basically was about the shallow so-called half-measures, which is what we are calling them, of the Liberal government to provide relief for issues that it has caused. I am wondering if her constituents are seeing what mine are, that the reality does not match the illusion, the smoke and mirrors, of the government as it keeps pretending to be focused on Canadians and affordability.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, Canadians are not asking for excuses or these so-called half measures that the Liberals mention. They deserve relief. Every time my neighbours in Oshawa fill up their tank, buy groceries or pay rent, they feel the impact of Liberal inflation. The Conservatives have a real plan to put money back into Canadians' pockets by removing all federal fuel taxes for all the year to bring the costs down immediately at the pump and across the entire economy. Will the Prime Minister finally adopt this common-sense plan and give Canadians a break?”
“Mr. Speaker, under this Prime Minister , we have the same old, same old, costly Liberals: more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and nothing to show for the waste. In April, gas prices exploded by 28.6¢ per litre, the largest monthly increase on record, hammering Canadians every time they fill up, and driving up the cost of everything. Now, the Liberal finance minister has even signalled that the Liberals think they have done enough. Does the Prime Minister actually believe Canadians can afford this level of Liberal inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable to listen to the finance minister talk about how Canadians demand action, when auto workers in Oshawa have been asking for action from the government for well over a year. They believed the Prime Minister during the election campaign, when he said he was the guy to get a deal. They believed him when he said he would go to Washington and get a deal by July 21 last year. Why should they believe that the government wants action now? Is the minister listening to the Bloc, Conservative and Green members when they talk about the affront to democracy this is? Is he listening to the questions? He says he is answering them, but, frankly, he is not. The question that was posed to him several times is whether three hours is enough. That is just over three minutes per section.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words coming from the parliamentary secretary, and I can agree with some of them. As a woman, I know that women are more predominantly the victims of sexual misconduct and sexual assault, so this bill means something to me. However, for women and all victims and survivors of sexual assault, the thing that is taken from them is choice at that time. I would suggest that this bill would also remove choice for those folks who want choice in how justice is continued for their case. In addition, she said that this was non-partisan. It is my understanding that the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc put forward amendments that were passed and that the Liberals have rejected. I would like to understand that as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, when will the Liberals realize that they keep having to create these support programs because they created the crisis in the first place? Even with these programs, young people are still worse off than ever before. Clearly, the programs do not work. Under the Prime Minister , Canadians are seeing the same old Liberal agenda we saw under Justin Trudeau, only worse. There are more costs, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and more of the same. Why are Liberals forcing young Canadians to pay the price for their failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are working hard, getting an education and trying to build a future. However, after 11 years of costly Liberal policies, they are still struggling to find good jobs. The Fraser Institute reports youth unemployment has surged to almost 19%, with young Canadians unemployed longer than at any other point since the records began. When will the Prime Minister stop being just another costly Liberal and end his credit card budgeting so young people in Oshawa and across Canada can afford to work, eat and get ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby can call me delusional, but he is clearly not living in the real world. If global oil prices were the same 12 years ago, and Canadians were paying 45¢ less, then they clearly do not explain today's sky-high gas prices. Our gas prices are a made-in-Canada problem, driven by the Liberals' newly named carbon tax and a weak dollar caused by a weak economy. Will the Liberals take our common-sense plan, unblock our oil and gas production and make Canada affordable and strong at home?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of illusions delivers more of the same, including more costs and more carbon taxes, because he is just another Liberal. Last week in Oshawa, gas hit 189.9¢. Before these Liberal illusionists start blaming global factors yet again, let us be clear that, under the Conservatives 12 years ago, when world oil prices were the same, gas in Oshawa was almost 50¢ cheaper. This is a Liberal legacy. When will the Prime Minister stop delivering illusions and instead adopt our plan to reduce all the gas tax for the entire year?”
“That would mean real relief, up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 this year for a family of four. It is time the Liberal government gave them full relief for the full year.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Oshawa, I hear from seniors on fixed incomes, families and workers who are doing everything right, raising their kids and still falling behind. Every trip to the gas pump stretches them far too thin and, for many, filling their gas tank means cutting back somewhere else. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He says affordability is the best it has been in a decade but then also admits that there is a problem. That flip-flopping does nothing for my neighbours in Oshawa and his plan still offers only temporary, partial relief that will not ease the real burden they are facing. Conservatives have a better plan. We propose scrapping all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of 2026, including the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know what the state of the country is when Conservatives are asking the Liberal Prime Minister to do as good a job as Trudeau did and to keep the budget down to his level. Conservatives believe in responsible investment that delivers results for Canadians, not in reckless spending that drives up inflation and taxes. Families in Oshawa are struggling. They are working hard but making tough choices at the grocery store and at the pump. The Liberal government has not made life more affordable for them. If the Prime Minister truly believes this level of spending is justified, can he explain to families in Oshawa exactly when they will see lowered prices and relief?”