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 2 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, my neighbours in Oshawa are already struggling with the high cost of living, yet the Prime Minister is doubling down on the same old reckless Liberal spending. The deficit has ballooned, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer whom the government silenced has said that two-thirds of new spending is going to day-to-day operations and not real investment. Deficits mean inflation today and higher taxes tomorrow. Will the Prime Minister stop the costly credit card budgeting and commit to capping this year's deficit at $31 billion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Liberal members of this House are refusing to really ask questions about the motion that we put forward based on policy in their budget 2025, a policy that is exclusionary and discriminatory and creates classes of Canadians. I wonder if the member would comment on that, how harmful that would be to Canada if we were to create classes of Canadians to say one is “less than” and their career path is somehow less than someone else's career path.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fear that the government does not just imply it. It says outright that education at a career college is not as important as education at a publicly funded university. Shame on the Liberals. My heart goes out to the constituents of London—Fanshawe. Unemployment is very high in Oshawa as well. We have a very similar unemployment rate. It is a real problem. Our students just want access to the same grants that the student next to them may get because they chose a so-called more elite place to go to school. Again, it is a shameful thing that the Liberals are doing. They should be ashamed of themselves that they are not speaking about it today and that they are completely ignoring our concurrence motion, which we have made because we care deeply about students' choices and the people in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the current Liberal government does seem to create class tiers in our country. I mentioned somewhat jokingly once before in a speech that sometimes this feels, when I look across at the other side, like “the house of elites”, but it is proving itself to be true. Day after day as I sit in the House, and it has been almost a year now, it seems to me that the Liberals are not focused on middle- to lower-income families and students, or on folks who live in rural communities who have access only to certain types of career paths. Maybe that is what folks want as well and what they are capable of doing. For our government, the Liberals, to constantly be pushing its thumb down and lowering Canadians' goals and ambitions is actually shameful, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we are bringing this forth, because for the first time ever, the Liberals placed this terrible policy in budget 2025. It is our job to look at that, ask questions about why it is there and suggest that it needs to be removed immediately. It is Parliament's job. Concurrence motions are part of procedure. How dare the member get up and act as though we are somehow messing around with procedure? It is in the book for a reason. It is an important topic. It deserves his attention. I really wish the Liberals would start asking questions about students and the rights of students in their ridings.”
“They are asking for a system that recognizes their goals and supports their efforts, and they are right to ask that, because fairness should not depend on where someone studies. Opportunity should not depend on a bureaucratic distinction. Support should not be denied based on a category that has nothing to do with a student's potential or their contribution to society. The House has a responsibility to ensure that policies are fair, that opportunities are accessible and that no Canadian is treated as less than. At the end of the day, this is about more than grants. It is about dignity and opportunity, and I anticipate Liberal members' questions about this opportunity and dignity. No matter their path, every Canadian deserves a fair chance to succeed.”
“Provinces and territories already regulate career colleges. They determine which institutions meet standards, they approve programs and they ensure accountability, so why is the federal government stepping in to override these decisions? Why is it imposing a blanket policy that ignores the realities on the ground? The committee's recommendation is straightforward: Align federal student grant eligibility with provincial and territorial decisions, respect the systems that are already in place and, most important, treat students equally. It is not a radical proposal. Quite frankly, it is a very reasonable one: Treat students equally. I want to bring the discussion back to the people I represent. In Oshawa, I have spoken with students who are trying to make responsible choices about their future.”
“When I told my daughter that she does not have to follow a university path and that she might find more suitable, hands-on training through a career college, her immediate response was to ask, “Is that good enough?” That question speaks volumes. My daughter asked if career college is good enough. Policies like this Liberal one risk reinforcing the idea that trades and career-focused education are somehow less than, when in reality they are essential, respected and rewarding paths. I have yet to see a member from the Liberal benches stand up to acknowledge that. I have yet to hear them say that they are not creating two tiers in our education system, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Instead they are trying to play games about the day instead of focusing on what the motion would bring forward.”
“It is wrong for Oshawa, it is wrong for Canada and it is deeply unfair to students simply trying to build a better life. I would like to share a personal story that brings the issue into focus. My son is about to graduate from Western University, and I could not be more proud. He is coming out with an economics degree and is excited about his plans for his future. My daughter is in grade 10 and beginning to think seriously about her future. Lately we have been having many conversations about her next steps and what she may want to pursue after high school. What concerns me is the message the policy may be sending to young young people like her. Does it suggest that an education at a career college is somehow less valuable than one at a public university?”
“They provide fast, targeted, job-ready training and help people move quickly from education to employment, yet the government has decided to make it harder for students to choose these paths. Why is that? Why would we discourage enrolment in exactly the kinds of programs that our economy desperately needs and depends on? Why would we reduce the number of graduates entering high-demand fields? Why would we worsen workforce shortages at a time when Canadians are already feeling the strain? The answer is not rooted in logic. It is rooted in a flawed approach that undervalues hands-on education. It sends a message that some forms of learning are somehow more legitimate than others, that working with one's hands is somehow less worthy than sitting in a lecture hall and that practical careers are somehow second-class. That is a wrong message.”
“They are workers transitioning from industries that are changing or declining, including many auto workers, as I mentioned, at the GM Oshawa assembly plant who have lost their jobs due to the unjustified tariffs caused by the U.S. and by the Prime Minister 's failure to get a trade deal. These are the people we should be lifting up. Instead, once again, the government is pushing them down. There is another consequence that cannot be ignored. At a time when Canada is facing serious labour shortages, this policy makes absolutely no sense. In Oshawa and across Durham region, employers are looking for skilled workers. We need people in the trades, personal support workers, technicians and people who can step into jobs and contribute right away. (1205) Career colleges play a critical role in meeting those needs.”
“It has real consequences, and we know that, or at least any member listening to their constituents knows that. In Oshawa, families are already under pressure. The cost of living is high, rent is high, groceries are high and every dollar matters. Student grants are not a luxury. They are often the deciding factor in whether someone can afford to pursue an education at all. When the government removes those supports, it is not just cutting a line in a budget, but closing doors and telling people their path is less worthy. Who does that affect the most? It affects lower- and middle-income Canadians. We see time and time again that the government wants to leave them behind. These are people who are trying to upgrade their skills. They are new Canadians working to establish themselves. They are single parents looking for a stable career.”
“Maybe they are just out of high school or about to graduate. Maybe they are looking to retrain after losing a job, which we have seen frequently in our auto sector in Oshawa because of Liberal failures. Maybe they are trying to build a better future for their family. They do their research and find a program that fits their goals. It is practical and focused and it leads to employment, but it is offered at a career college, and because of that one factor, the federal government says, “No grant for them.” The student sitting next to them, who is studying a different program at a different type of institution, is going to get support, but they will not. How is that fair? How is that equal treatment? How can anyone in this House defend that kind of discrimination? This policy does not exist in a vacuum.”
“We are proud of our educational institutions, including Durham College and Ontario Tech University. These institutions play a vital role in shaping the future of our community and preparing students for success. Not every program is offered at a public college or university. Many students choose career colleges because they offer practical, hands-on training that leads directly to employment. In some cases, they are the only option for certain specialized programs. They are not second-rate institutions. They are regulated and recognized, and they serve an important role in our education system, yet under the government's changes in budget 2025, students who attend these particular institutions were told something very simple: They do not deserve the same support as everyone else. Imagine being a young person in Oshawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but, more importantly, to speak for the students in my community of Oshawa who are being left behind by the Liberal government's decision. Let us be clear about what this policy does. It draws a line between students. It is not a line based on effort, talent or ambition, but one based solely on where they choose to study. Drawing this line creates two classes of Canadians. This is not fairness. In fact, it is discrimination. Oshawa is a community built on hard work. It is a community of tradespeople, health care workers, technicians and skilled professionals who keep our economy moving and our country strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, this debate is very interesting. My daughter is in grade 10, and she is talking about what she wants to do. The policies that have been put forth by the Liberals are quite discriminatory. What is it telling our young people about what they choose to do with their lives? She is very confused. She thinks universities—”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the succinct answers my colleague gives in the House. There are few colleagues in the House who I respect more than this member, and his insight into this bill has been very important to help me understand it, as I sit on the public safety committee. I wonder if he would take another few moments to comment on how important it is to take a look at and dissect this bill, as well as what it going to look like when we are done with it and if it is a good bill when it is finished.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned several times that law enforcement agencies are asking for this, that the RCMP and other law enforcement bodies are asking for this, and I would agree that they are. I went to an information session on the Hill that was hosted by the Minister of Public Safety , and those folks said very clearly that the government got it wrong in Bill C-2 , that it did not do its proper due diligence, that there were some things that had to be changed, and that the government needed to improve it in Bill C-22 . Would the member not agree that vigorous attention to and dissecting of the bill is important and that debate in the House is important as well as in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in response to the question and comment from the member for Winnipeg North , and I wonder if she could take a minute to talk about the role of the official opposition. It is an important role in our parliamentary system, and it is debate that we are having here today, not filibustering. I take exception when the member for Winnipeg North constantly talks about debate as filibustering. I know the member might disagree, and I would love her comments on that.”
“After nearly a decade of rising costs and 11 years of Liberal promises that have not delivered relief, 62% of my constituents in Oshawa who responded believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction. That is not something we can ignore. Therefore, while I respect the intent of Bill C-226 , there are serious concerns. Transparency matters, but it is not enough. Canadians need action that lowers costs and policies that address the real drivers of food prices. They need relief now, not in 18 months, and not years down the road. This is a serious moment. We have a responsibility to respond with solutions that reflect what Canadians are actually going through. Above all, we have a responsibility to listen, to understand and to act in a way that brings real relief to the people we represent.”
“My friend Nathan said earlier that we need more red meat, not more red tape. Others are cutting back on even the most basic resources of protein just to make their budgets work. As a result, this is not just an affordability crisis but also a health crisis. This is not what Canadian people expect. This is not what families should be facing after working hard and doing their part. My neighbours in Oshawa are not asking for more reports. They are not asking for more strategies, more frameworks or more plans. They are tired. They are concerned. They are asking for something very simple. They want to be able to afford to feed their own families. They want dignity. They want to take care of themselves without having to rely on a food bank or other government supports and programs. They want to feed their own families.”
“Retail pricing and consumer protection are areas where the provinces already play a significant role. We need to be mindful not to create yet another overlap that simply adds complexity without delivering meaningful results because, guess what, those added costs do not stay within the system but are passed on to the consumer, exacerbating the problem we currently have. We also know that the Competition Bureau has already studied the grocery sector and highlighted the need for stronger competition. That is where we should be focused: on creating an environment where new competitors can enter the market, on reducing barriers that drive up costs and on ensuring Canadians have real choice. In my conversations across Oshawa, I have heard something very concerning. Families are changing what they eat. Some have stopped buying meat altogether.”
“They are asking for relief from the hidden costs that drive up prices on everything from fuel to packaging and fertilizers. They are asking for practical solutions that would make a difference in their daily lives. They are not asking for yet another framework. “Framework” is a beautiful word that just means more bureaucracy. (1135) Bill C-226 may help consumers compare prices. It may affect how information is displayed. It may help some households understand what they are paying for. However, it would not do what we in Oshawa and all Canadians need. It would not lower the cost of groceries, period. We must also consider the broader impact. The bill would introduce a federal framework in an area that has traditionally been managed by the provinces.”
“What stayed with me most was how much demand has grown and how many of the people relying on these services today are from working families and never expected to be in the position they are in. I also asked, when I was at Simcoe Hall in December, about the national school food program. The Liberals are constantly telling us that it is the answer to help with food insecurity and affordability. The folks at Simcoe Hall said it is not doing anything. In fact, I do not know of any school in my region that has the national school food program. Again, it is not working, it is not helping and we need better answers. I have also heard from more than 5,000 Oshawa residents who have signed petitions calling for immediate action to bring down the cost of food.”
“Many of these organizations have had to limit how often people can come. This is not because the need has gone down but because they simply cannot keep up with the demand. I saw this first-hand in Oshawa when the leader of the official opposition joined us at Simcoe Hall Settlement House. Together we helped deliver donations collected through my constituency office's drive, made possible by the generosity of my neighbours in Oshawa, in addition to the generous donations made personally by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . We had the chance to speak with the hard-working Simcoe Hall staff and volunteers who are on the front lines every day, doing everything they can to support families in need.”
“They are dual-income working families, young workers trying to get ahead and seniors who are doing everything they can to make their savings last. They are doing everything right, but it is still not enough. Affordability is now the top issue for over 57% of the people in Oshawa who answered my surveys. Affordability is ahead of health care, ahead of crime, ahead of tariffs and even ahead of jobs. That speaks to how serious the situation has become. It is not just what people are telling me. It is also what we are seeing. Food banks in Oshawa and across the Durham region are facing record demand. Organizations like Simcoe Hall Settlement House, local churches with food bank, and Feed the Need in Durham are having more working families than ever walk through their doors.”
“However, in Oshawa, that conversation goes far beyond transparency. It is about whether people can afford to put food on the table at all. In my recent surveys in Oshawa, of more than 8,000 people, 73% said that the self-proclaimed new Liberal government has not significantly eased their household's cost of living challenges over the past year. What stood out even more was that 40% of those Oshawa respondents also said they were, in general, Liberal supporters. That tells me something important: People are not approaching this as a political debate. They are looking at their grocery bills, their bank accounts and their ability to get through the month, and they are worried. Of my constituents who responded, 53% said they are living paycheque to paycheque. These are not just people on the margins.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of Oshawa residents. My neighbours speak about this issue, which is very important to them. It weighs heavily on workers, families, seniors and youth across our community. Bill C-226 is a bill to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency. The legislation would require the Minister of Industry, in consultation with provinces, to develop a framework focused on grocery pricing practices, unit price display and consumer education. It would also require a report to Parliament within 18 months, followed by a review of its effectiveness within five years. At first glance that sounds reasonable. Transparency matters, and Canadians deserve clear and accurate information when they are making decisions at the grocery store.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment further on this echo chamber, because I find it absolutely fascinating that the government legislation is not receiving any questions or scrutiny from the Liberal members across the way. We have the Speaker looking around the room and only seeing members on this side of the House stand to talk about it. That is important. We take our job seriously as members of the opposition. What does the member from B.C. think about the Liberals taking their job seriously as members of the government?”
“Oshawa families are not asking for more supports or food programs. They want dignity, and they want relief. They need action now.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberals, Canadians are drowning in bills. In addition, they are feeling the strain at the checkout and at the gas pump. Over 8,000 Oshawa residents who responded to surveys tell a concerning story: 73% say the Liberal government has not eased their cost of living challenges since the Prime Minister took office; 57% say affordability is their top concern; and 62% believe Canada is headed in the wrong direction. Even 40% of Liberal supporters say so, all while this week the Prime Minister had the audacity to gaslight, saying Canadians are “getting ahead”. Oshawa food banks, such as Feed the Need and Simcoe Hall, are seeing record demand beyond pandemic levels. After years of promises and photo ops, the affordability crisis has become a health crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, Oshawa and Durham Region families cannot pay their bills or put food on the table with these Liberal half measures and talking points. After years of the Liberal government spending, 61% of Canadians say that they are facing financial whiplash. Conservatives have put forward a real plan to suspend all federal gas taxes through to the end of 2026. However, once again, the Liberals are taking a great Conservative idea and watering it down. Will the Prime Minister stop the half measures, deliver real relief and fully cut taxes on gas and food for Oshawa families and all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us get serious. Folks in Oshawa are reaching their breaking point. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians say the cost of food and gas is crushing them. Forty-three per cent of Canadians are just $200 away from not paying their bills. Families are cutting back and putting off major decisions, while young people are losing hope that they will ever get ahead. Despite all this, the Prime Minister stands here and has the audacity to claim that affordability is the best it has ever been and “Canadians are getting ahead”. Why will the Prime Minister not fully cut taxes on gas and food so that Oshawa families can actually get ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that were made. I want to reflect again on the comments and the question from the Liberal member who sits on the public safety committee with me. She made it sound as though the job of the opposition is to simply rubber-stamp legislation and move things along. If I am not mistaken, I believe we are on the first day of debate on this legislation. I wonder if the member could talk a little about the job of the official opposition and why the Liberals want us to simply say yes and not look properly and closely at legislation, as is our job.”
“Mr. Speaker, well, the simple answer to that is that this is where we need to take a look in committee. We need to look at the thresholds and see if this threshold is too low and ask whether we should be making those thresholds higher. I hope we can work with the Bloc again and with the Liberals, and see if we can actually get a bill we can all agree on. Let us work together on this. We need lawful access. There is no doubt about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House for almost a year, and seeing the process in committee is very important for me as a newer member. The truth is, we did that work on Bill C-8 . We had similar concerns, as the member said, to the NDP members and the Bloc members. He is right. When all the members of the opposition parties, including the Green Party, realize there is an issue with the bill, and we present solutions and recommendations, and they are ruled out of order or out of scope, in the end, are we getting what Canadians need or are we just getting what the Liberals want?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's leadership on the public safety committee. It is a pleasure to work with him. He brings up a very important piece of information regarding the job of the official opposition. I touched on it in my speech. It is not our job to simply rubber-stamp what looks good on the surface. If we did that, this Parliament would not be operating the way it was intended. Our job is to look closely at legislation, not just to move things quickly, but to move things carefully, as I said before. I am proud to be a member not only of the Conservative caucus but also of the official opposition. My position as a member of the official opposition is important. There is work to do. We want to get to work. It is time we did so.”
“However, Canadians not only are asking us to move quickly but want us to move carefully and with great accountability and care in taking a look at what exactly is going on. They are asking us to get this right and ensure that any system we create reflects our values. This bill would include a parliamentary review after three years. That is a positive step, but our responsibility to Canadians is to get this right from the start. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe in supporting law enforcement and protecting victims, but we also believe that freedom matters. That is why we are carefully reviewing the legislation. We are listening. We are asking serious questions. We are doing the work necessary to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance, because Canadians should not have to choose between safety and freedom.”
“In some cases, companies could be required to build and maintain systems that allow authorities to access information under legal authority. It would also allow the Minister of Public Safety to issue confidential orders requiring specific technical capabilities, subject to review by the intelligence commissioner. It raises serious questions, though, about privacy, transparency and about how far government should go in shaping digital systems. It is up to us as the official opposition to ask those questions. In fact, it is a role that we take very seriously, and it is an important role that makes this Parliament work. We have been told that Canada is behind other countries in adopting a lawful access regime.”
“Bill C-22 would also allow, for urgent situations, for certain information to be obtained without a warrant when time is critical and would enable Canadian authorities to work with international partners when data is held outside the country. These are meaningful tools, absolutely, and in the right circumstances they could help prevent harm and bring criminals to justice. However, we have to proceed with care, because when we expand powers, we must also make sure we are strengthening safeguards. When we act in urgency, we still must protect rights, and when we grant authority, we must also ensure accountability in that authority. Part 2 of the bill raises another important set of issues. It would create a framework requiring electronic service providers to ensure they can support lawful access when authorized.”
“Crime has changed; we get that. Criminals operate online, often anonymously. They use encrypted platforms and operate across borders in ways that make investigations so much more complex. Law enforcement has told us this has created some real challenges. In some cases, investigations into serious crimes can stall because authorities cannot quickly identify who is behind an account. This bill attempts to respond to those challenges by allowing police to ask telecommunication providers to confirm whether they provide service to a specific account or identifier, which would create judicial mechanisms to obtain basic subscriber information such as a name, an address or an email; and clarifying how officers could search and examine computer data during an investigation.”
“All of this is happening while our community faces very real and immediate concerns, including just a few weeks ago, when a convicted first-degree murderer and child rapist was granted an unescorted, 72-hour release in Oshawa. (1715) When the Liberal government now brings forward Bill C-22 and asks Canadians to trust it with new powers over their digital lives, I am sure it will excuse us from wondering if this is a good idea. We have the right to question. In fact, it is our job to question. We have the responsibility to take a step back, take a look, ask the hard questions and ensure that we get this right for every Canadian who expects that their private life will remain private. Part 1 of this bill focuses on giving law enforcement faster and more effective access to information, and we all understand that matters.”
“This Bill was supported by Police Associations and Victim Organizations and presented common sense solutions to ongoing problems within our Criminal Justice System. This non partisan Bill focused on the need for tougher bail conditions and allowed for the closing of loopholes that resulted in dangerous offenders being released. Each and every day in the Region of Durham the Members of the DRPA work to keep violent repeat offenders off our streets. We are disheartened that much needed change was voted down and believe that community safety and the protection of victims should supersede partisan politics. Those are not partisan words. They are the voices of those who serve and protect on the front lines.”
“These proposals were supported by police associations, victim organizations, victim services and advocacy groups across Canada, yet every single one of them was voted down by the Liberal government. As the member of Parliament for Oshawa, I cannot fathom how every single Liberal MP representing a constituency in the Durham region, for instance, could vote against these bills. This is specifically difficult to understand given the clear calls from our own community. The Durham Regional Police Service, the Durham Regional Police Association and local victim organizations have all spoken out on the need for more solutions to strengthen our justice system. Andrew Tummonds, the president of the Durham Regional Police Association, said it clearly after Bill C-242 was defeated: Yesterday Bill C-242 was voted down in the House of Commons.”
“We saw that happen again recently, this time in New Brunswick, where a judge reduced a man's sentence so he would not be deported from Canada, just 10 days after that man was charged with assaulting his former partner. Bill C-242 would have ensured tougher bail rules, fewer release loopholes for violent repeat offenders and real protection for victims and communities. Bill C-243 , if passed, would have ended annual parole hearings for murderers, a practice that retraumatizes and revictimizes survivors over and over again. Lastly, Bill C-246 would have ensured an end to sentence stacking for sexual predators, so that every crime would carry its own penalty.”
“This is the context in which we are debating the bill before us today. It is not just about lawful access or technical authorities. It is about trust in our justice system. For many Canadians, that trust has been shaken over the past 11 years of the Liberal government. In recent weeks, the self-proclaimed, so-called “new” Liberal government, which has been in power for over a decade, has asked Canadians to trust it on public safety. At the same time, Liberals voted against four solution-oriented Conservative public safety bills that were all focused on one thing, protecting Canadians. For example, Bill C-220 would have ended the practice of courts considering a non-citizen's immigration status when issuing a sentence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole . It is an honour to rise on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-22 . Over the past couple of weeks, like all of us in the House, I was fortunate to spend time at home, where I had the opportunity to meet with many proud and resilient Oshawa residents, community leaders and local organizations. Those conversations are always meaningful. They are sobering, though, because again and again, I keep hearing one concern raised, and that is safety. Canadians are worried about safety in their communities and about the never-ending crimes taking place in Oshawa. They are worried about violent repeat offenders who are continually being caught and released again. They are worried that the system is not working the way it should.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. We hear words like “appreciate,” “we understand,” and “we stand with our auto workers.” I suggest the Liberals stand with them in the unemployment lines, and that is unacceptable to Conservatives. We are not the government right now. We are the opposition. It is up to the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Prime Minister to negotiate a deal to the betterment of Canadians. He is failing at the job he promised us he could do.”
“Mr. Speaker, the basis of any successful negotiation strategy is figuring out what the person we are negotiating with needs, what they are looking for and what they want. Our country, as it currently is run, seems to be capitulating to everything that the U.S. wants. I suggest we look at negotiating: They are looking for this; we are looking for this. How can we make that work together to the benefit of both Canada and the United States?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record. Conservatives do not want to end the electrification of future manufacturing and of vehicles. We simply would like the market to decide how that will go. On the other hand, I think we can have both. I think we can have oil and gas. I think we can have electrified vehicles, and we will move away. What I do not agree with— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Rhonda Kirkland: Mr. Speaker, as for the heckling from the other side, what I do not agree with is the idea that we are giving EV incentives to the United States and folks like Elon Musk. Why are the Liberals doing that?”