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 7 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments regarding the loss of my nephew, who passed away during the middle of the last election due to a fentanyl overdose. The Liberals continue to push so-called safe consumption sites, even next to schools and day cares. At committee, my Conservative colleague from Riding Mountain asked the health minister to rule out approving more sites near children. She refused. We know that this is not harm reduction. This is a moral abdication that causes deaths like my young nephew's in Edmonton.”
“Mr. Speaker, the members opposite continue to try to distract and make a scenario out of this by using political spin, which they are very good at doing. The comments made were regarding the former RCMP commissioner, who has a lengthy track record of publicly documented scandals, deceptions and public interference, to the benefit of the Liberal government. We know that. The Conservatives at the time called for her resignation. We simply stand by the call we made. Conservatives will always stand up for the people Liberals have left behind. No party in the House has more respect for RCMP officers than the Conservative Party.”
“That is why Conservatives will carefully review the legislation, line by line and clause by clause, to ensure that it strengthens our borders, upholds privacy and defends public safety.”
“We have a border system that cannot enforce removals and an immigration system so backlogged it invites abuse. We have a justice system that treats violent offenders as victims while law-abiding citizens face more restrictions than ever. Conservatives believe in secure borders, a fair and orderly immigration system and a justice system that protects Canadians before it protects criminals. We believe Canada should continue to welcome those fleeing genuine persecution, but compassion must be paired with order, fairness and the rule of law. Bill C-12 may contain measures worth exploring, but Canadians cannot take the government's assurances at face value anymore. The privacy risks are serious, the enforcement gaps are dangerous, and the Liberal record demands skepticism, not blind trust.”
“Research and experience have shown that clear, consistent sentencing, including targeting mandatory minimums, deters repeat offenders and restores public confidence in justice. We can already anticipate that the Liberals will soon stand and claim they are bringing forward new bail reform legislation, but Canadians remember the Liberal bail reform they already brought in through Bill C-75 , instructing judges to release offenders at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. In practice, it became a green light for repeat violent offenders to cycle in and out of the system, with tragic results in communities across Canada. Canadians do not need more Liberal announcements about bail. They need consequences that mean something and a justice system that protects victims and stops protecting repeat violent offenders.”
“Last fall, RCMP officers dismantled the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in Canadian history, capable of producing multiple kilograms of fentanyl each week, along with caches of loaded firearms, explosives and half a million dollars in cash. This is the reality. Fentanyl is not just a drug problem; it is a public safety and national security crisis fuelled by organized crime and enabled by weak borders. It is a humanity problem, yet Bill C-12 is silent on the tools police and prosecutors actually need. There are still no new mandatory prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. There are still no tougher penalties for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes, and the Liberals still allow house arrest for serious offences that endanger lives.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I continue my speech, I want to re-mention my nephew, Cody Kirkland, whom we lost in the middle of the last federal election campaign. He passed away due to an accidental overdose, and fentanyl was the cause, so it is close to home. I know folks in my community and folks across the country recognize how important this fentanyl crisis is and what is going on. I hope the Liberals across the way will pay attention to this. I hope they will not have to have a crisis or a tragedy in their own families before they realize just how bad it is across the country. Police have uncovered superlabs operating right here in Canada, synthesizing fentanyl from precursor chemicals imported from China.”
“Mr. Speaker, before we broke for some time, I was discussing the fentanyl crisis here in Canada. I mentioned my nephew, who lost his life to an accidental overdose six months ago in the middle of our last federal election campaign. I brought him up because I do not think the Liberals—”
“From January to June 2024 alone, 79% of accidental opioid deaths involve fentanyl, nearly double the proportion from 2016. Six months ago, my nephew, Cody Kirkland, died from an accidental overdose. Fentanyl and its precursors are the reason for that.”
“A broken asylum system does not just strain compassion. It undermines public safety. We have seen the consequences at our borders and on our streets. Under the government, criminals slated for deportation have disappeared, illegal guns continue to cross our borders and the fentanyl crisis is devastating communities across the country, including in my own community of Oshawa. If we were to walk through downtown Oshawa, we would see the toll this crisis has taken: lives lost, families shattered, and neighbourhoods struggling under the weight of addiction and fear. (1355) Our first responders, outreach workers and volunteers are doing their best, but they are overwhelmed. According to Health Canada, more than 49,000 Canadians have died from apparent opioid toxicity since 2016, an entire community worth of lives.”
“Failed claimants appeal for years, and more and more often remain in Canada indefinitely, collecting benefits that many Canadians themselves do not receive, so this is not compassion. This is the chaos creation I was speaking about. It started when the government decided it was going to play politics with our borders. In 2017, Justin Trudeau's #WelcomeToCanada tweet encouraged tens of thousands of people to cross illegally from the United States to claim asylum, many after already having been rejected in that safe, democratic country. Since then, more than 100,000 people have entered Canada illegally. Most are still waiting in the system, many housed at taxpayers' expense, while the truly vulnerable, those fleeing real persecution, are left behind. This is not fairness. It is, rather, failure.”
“In my job as an educational therapist for 20 years, we talked about breakdown points, and sometimes it seems very negative to talk about breakdown points when we are talking about families, children with learning disabilities and things like that, but in this scenario, I think breakdown points are very important because we cannot come to a conclusion or a solution unless we discover what the breakdown points are, so let us talk about that. Canada's asylum system, once the envy of the world, is now buckling under the weight of Liberal mismanagement. A decade ago, the backlog was under 10,000 cases. Today, it is over a quarter of a million and growing. Legitimate refugees wait years while bogus claims clog the system.”
“The Liberal government constantly disappoints and then claims it is going to be the hero we can trust to come in to save the day from a crisis it created. The bill is being sold as a solution, but Canadians have learned that, with this government, the title rarely matches the contents. Bill C-12 is a sequel to Bill C-2 . Thankfully, Conservatives looked closer, and what we found were some sweeping data collection powers, warrantless search authorities and new threats to Canadian privacy. Therefore, through pressure, thankfully the Liberals have been forced to take Bill C-2 apart. Now we are left with Bill C-12, a slightly repackaged Bill C-2, but with many of the same problems.”
“There are all of these wonderful things, yet after 10 years of Liberal government, both our borders and our public safety have rarely been in a worse place. The legislation before us today is Bill C-12 , the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, which the Liberals claim would fix the very problems they created. I am reminded of something I learned in my education, and that is something called narcissism. I bring this up because narcissists engage in what clinicians call “crisis creation” or “drama seeking”, which is to manufacture a situation. In my opinion, the Liberals have created the situations that allow them to dominate, control and be admired for saving others. They are keeping Canadians in constant trauma and creating, therefore, a trauma bond.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honour to rise on behalf of the resilient residents of Oshawa. Those are the residents who I believe are among some of the hardest-working Canadians in the country, but they are concerned about their safety. They are concerned about their safety when they are in their neighbourhoods and walking downtown, and they are concerned about border safety and the drugs that are freely flowing in our country, not just through the border, but from the free drugs people are getting from the government, which are being resold. We will talk about that later. Canadians have heard a lot of big promises from the Liberal government about keeping our country safe, protecting our borders and restoring confidence in our immigration system.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we need just a few more moments to touch on the fact that, as I watched this over the years, the Liberals are very good at creating chaos and then pretending, by throwing money at it, that they are fixing what they created. We are supposed to trust them after they created the problem in the first place. I wonder if the member could touch on the matter of trust.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister failed to negotiate a win with President Trump, and Canadian auto jobs are on the line. Stellantis was handed $15 billion, and it has now announced it is moving 3,000 jobs to the United States. The current finance minister negotiated the deal and bragged about it. Now these auto jobs have left Canada for the U.S., and he refuses to be transparent. The Liberals are hiding from the Canadian auto workers they sold out. Is there a Canada-wide jobs guarantee, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the only auto workers these Liberals stand with are U.S. auto workers. This is personal. These are good, livable jobs that help families find homes, raise kids and retire with dignity. They have done everything right, and now they are being told that their jobs do not matter. These losses are the direct result of the Prime Minister 's failure to stand up for Canada's auto workers even though he promised to do that. How can families in Oshawa and across Canada ever trust the Prime Minister again?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the G7, Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy and the second-highest unemployment, and it is only getting worse for auto workers, like the ones in my hometown, Oshawa. The Prime Minister promised to protect Canadian auto workers, yet one day after his trip to Washington, the Trump administration confirmed no relief on auto tariffs and a promised $1 trillion for the U.S. Why is the Prime Minister selling out auto workers and families in Oshawa?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that victims deserve justice. I wonder if he can comment on whether he feels that they will receive fair justice currently in the civilian courts when they are instructed by Bill C-75 to let people out on bail as early as possible and under the least onerous conditions. Until we fix that, we are not getting them justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that for the first time, Oshawa residents sent a woman to be their representative in the House of Commons. I am thinking about that a lot as I listen to the folks across the way in the Liberal government say things like “cultural change”, “fairness”, “trust”, “inclusive”, “respectful”, “we hear them”, “support” and “independence”. These words are being used over and over again. In civilian courts, as it stands, sexual abusers are let out on bail with the least onerous conditions. That would still be the case. How are we protecting women?”
“On Monday, despite pleas from police associations, victims and countless other law-abiding Canadians, the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion to strengthen Canada's bail laws and put public safety first. We need to scrap Liberal bail and keep violent repeat offenders behind bars because Canadians should not need a bedtime checklist.”
“Mr. Speaker, growing up in Oshawa, the nightly routine was simple: dinner at home, or at Teddy's if we were lucky, and then spend as much time outside as possible knowing it was time to go home when the street lights came on. However, now that crime has gotten so bad, the new nightly routine is for a person to lock their car, hide their valuables and turn on their security system if they have one. Police in Durham Region and across the country are now urging Canadians to take part in what they call the 9 p.m. routine, asking residents to secure their property before bed. This is the reality after 10 years of Liberal soft-on-crime laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's speech, she said, at one point, that the commissioner for modern treaty implementation would provide a critical eye and help hold the government to account. First, I believe, in Parliament, it is the opposition's job to hold the government to account. Second, if the government does not even respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's critical eye, why would Canadians believe it would respond to the commissioner's critical eye?”
“Mr. Speaker, when my kids were younger, they used to sing a song that went, “Your talk talks and your walk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks”. It feels to me that this member has a lot of experience in the House, certainly a lot more than I do. Does she feel truly confident that this is not just more talk from a bureaucracy that will do absolutely nothing to truly help create these treaties in the way they should be?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying a lot of things, but there is no action. He promised he would negotiate a win with the U.S. by July 21. It is now October, and Canada has the second-highest unemployment and the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. This week in Oshawa, auto workers were told more jobs are moving to the United States. It is clear the biggest threat to Canadian jobs is the Prime Minister 's broken promises and failure to get a deal. Are Canadians losing their jobs because of his failed diplomacy abroad, his job-killing policies at home or both?”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on this side will not be taking lessons from this failed Ontario Liberal finance minister. It seems to me that he is suggesting criminals' rights should continue to be greater than victims' rights and that repeat violent offenders have the right to be back on our streets, terrorizing Canadians. Is that right?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the clarity has to come on whether a symbol has been culturally appropriated, and I think the member is referring specifically to the Nazi hakenkreuz . It has been culturally appropriated from the Hindu religion. It is thousands of years old, and I think that my Jewish friends understand that. However, there is a section in the bill that refers to any symbol that looks like that symbol, which I think is too vague, and it has to be clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect that question, because it is very true. Canada already criminalizes the wilful promotion of hatred under section 319, but the bill would create new offences under proposed subsection 319(2.2), so this would be a duplication. It feels like it is more about politics than public safety, but it would go a little further, and the things we are concerned about include removing the Attorney General and changing the definition of “hate”. That is a very serious thing to do. We have to look at that very closely, and we look forward to doing so.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course we agree. We want these hateful acts to be criminalized, and they already are. We think that they should be prosecuted. I would argue they are not yet prosecuted to where they should be, but the laws are already in place, as mentioned by my colleagues previously, in sections 319 and 318 and other sections of the Criminal Code. They are already there. We just need to enforce them.”
“Our duty in this House is not to rubber-stamp legislation; it is our duty to scrutinize it and to challenge it and to demand better, so that every Canadian can live free from hate and free from fear while also being free to speak, free to believe and free to assemble. That is the balance Canadians expect us to strike. That is the balance we must deliver.”
“We risk focusing on political optics instead of the real threats that Canadians face from violent extremists and repeat offenders. Canadians deserve better than symbolic gestures and flawed drafting. They deserve laws that confront hate directly, consistently and effectively while also defending the freedoms that define us as Canadians. We must protect synagogues, mosques, churches, gurdwaras, schools and cultural centres from threats and intimidation. We must also protect free expression, peaceful protest and civil liberties. Bill C-9 , as written, would not get that balance right.”
“Removing it would risk abuse and misuse, specifically in private prosecutions. Then, of course, there is the definition of hatred, as mentioned by many of my colleagues before me. Bill C-9 would codify the definition from the Supreme Court, but it would deliberately strip out important words. By lowering the threshold, the government would risk capturing speech that, while offensive, would remain protected in a free democracy. In a country like ours, people must be able to express views, even unpopular ones, without fear of criminal prosecution, as long as they do not cross into true hate or incitement. Again, these laws already exist. When the scope of criminal law is expanded carelessly, we risk over-criminalization and uneven enforcement.”
“The Criminal Code already prohibits advocating genocide, promoting hatred and committing hate-motivated crimes. Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would simply make certain hate-motivated conduct a separate offence. What would that achieve? It would achieve more paperwork, more duplication and more symbolism, and perhaps even shorter sentences would be possible. Canadians do not need symbolic legislation. We need laws that are clear, enforceable and effective. The bill would also remove the requirement for the Attorney General's consent before hate propaganda prosecutions. That safeguard has long ensured that prosecutions are pursued responsibly and consistently. It has prevented frivolous or ideological complaints from overwhelming the courts. Police and prosecutors themselves recognize its value.”
“For them, what the government is labelling as hateful is in fact a symbol of peace, faith, and prosperity, something that has been part of their cultural and religious tradition for thousands of years. (1800) These residents told me that they now worry that their heritage could be stigmatized or even criminalized because of vague and sloppy drafting in Bill C-9 . They feel unseen and unheard and unfairly associated with hate that has nothing to do with their faith. It is my duty to bring their voices to this chamber. If we are serious about combatting hate, then we must do it with precision and cultural understanding. Sweeping up sacred traditions in the same net as extremist symbols is not only insulting; it undermines the very fairness Canadians expect from their lawmakers. Another concern is that Canada already has hate laws.”
“If we are serious about combatting hate in all its forms, then we must call it out consistently, no matter who the target is. Hate is hate. Every faith community deserves equal recognition, equal protection and equal respect. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-9 is how it carelessly mis-characterizes cultural and religious symbols. For millions of people around the world, a sacred symbol of peace and prosperity has been part of their faith and tradition for thousands of years, yet in the legislation, that same symbol is lumped together with hate imagery, as though it were born of extremism. I want to be clear that the concerns are not just abstract legal ones. I have heard directly from communities in Oshawa and across the Durham region that are deeply troubled by how the bill mis-characterizes their sacred symbols.”
“They make me so angry. And how stupid do they think the Jewish community is? And may I add, laws are already in place; [we] just have to enforce said laws.” Let us not ignore another reality: anti-Christian hate has been rising in Canada, yet it receives little acknowledgement from the government. Since 2021, more than 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized, many of them through confirmed arson. These were not just buildings; they were places of worship, community centres and anchors for families, seniors and entire congregations that have been left traumatized. When synagogues were attacked, when mosques were threatened, when gurdwaras were defaced, leaders rightly stood and denounced those crimes, but when Christian churches were burned, the silence from the federal Liberal government was deafening.”
“The Liberals' response was that they waited, and then they introduced the bill that is before us so they could say to Jewish Canadians, "Look what we did for you.” At the very same time, they moved to grant recognition to Palestine, despite the fact that Hamas still holds innocent hostages to this day and was even responsible for the deaths of multiple Canadians. That sends a troubling mixed message; it shows that the government is more interested in political symbolism than in confronting hate with urgency and clarity. My friend Paula Kelly, when she heard about the bill, sent me this; “my rant", she called it. She said, “it was done to tell minority communities, especially [mine,] the Jewish one, ‘Look what we did for you. You see, we care.’ Then an about turn, and they recognize Palestine [at the worst possible time].”
“Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, indigenous and Christian communities have all faced threats, vandalism, harassment and violence. It feels like the government is not really serious about combatting hate crime, as we see the bill arrive now, seemingly timed to coincide with politics. The sad reality is that it feels as if Bill C-9 is less about protecting Canadians and more about protecting Liberal political standing. After the October 7 massacre in Israel, when Hamas brutally attacked innocent civilians, Jewish Canadians here at home immediately faced an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism. Synagogues were vandalized. Students were harassed simply for attending school. Jewish communities lived in fear.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Oshawa. They have entrusted me to be their voice here in Ottawa. Today I rise to speak to Bill C-9 , the government's proposed combatting hate act. Let me begin where I think we all agree: I believe that every member of the chamber rejects hate and extremism. Every member should want Canadians to feel safe in their home, in their school, in their place of worship and in their community spaces. Police and prosecutors must have the right tools to protect Canadians from real threats, but the question before us is not whether we oppose hate; the question is whether Bill C-9 would be the serious, effective law Canadians need, or whether it would be a flawed, politically motivated gesture. Canadians have lived with rising hate in recent years.”
“Mr. Speaker, soft-on-crime Liberal policy has led to gun crime skyrocketing to 130%. Canadians are being terrorized by repeat violent offenders and gangs, yet the Liberals are focused on harassing law-abiding citizens with a gun grab that costs $750 million. The public safety minister admitted the scheme will not work, but he is going ahead with it anyway. This is not keeping Canadians safe. It is political theatre and we all know it. When will the Prime Minister protect Canadians and fire the failed public safety-style minister?”
“I invite all colleagues to join me in congratulating the Oshawa FireWolves' players, staff and fans as we begin this exciting new chapter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride on behalf of Oshawa to celebrate a landmark moment for our community. The relocation of the FireWolves franchise to Oshawa is about more than a National Lacrosse League team; it is about investing in youth, local culture and our city's economic future. While many assume hockey is Canada's national sport, sorry to the hockey fans but lacrosse fans know the truth: lacrosse is actually our national sport. Oshawa's lacrosse roots run deep, from the legendary Green Gaels and their seven straight Minto Cups to today's FireWolves calling the Tribute Communities Centre home. Starting in the 2025-26 season, we will see new jobs, more tourism and inspiration for young players.”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will not be speaking in French. I am working on that. One day soon maybe I will be able to do that. I noticed that in her speech, my Bloc colleague said nothing has changed in the current government. We hear a lot of talk from the opposite side about this being a so-called new government. I wonder if she would like to expand on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, and honestly I do not know whether I have the exactly right answer, because the government has proven, since its beginning, that women will always be shut down. We have seen it over and over again. The Liberals do not care about women. They claim to care about women, but they are not doing the things they need to do to protect women or to listen to them, and Cait Alexander is a good example of that. She was shut down in committee. How horrifying that was for a woman who was left for dead by her ex-partner and wanted to speak about it. What do Liberals do? They say, “No, thank you, we don't want to hear your voice.” It is shameful.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a pretty reasonable person. I believe that folks have an opportunity for redemption. I believe in rehabilitation. I think and believe it can happen, but we are not talking about folks who commit a crime for the first time, who have done something and can get help. We are talking about folks who have repeatedly, which means over and over again, in case the other side is not aware, committed violent crimes. How are they going to learn if they do not understand that there are consequences and that it is cause and effect?”
“Mr. Speaker, it sort of makes me ponder why we are where we are now. We are in the position where we have to have motions like the one before us because repeat violent offenders keep hurting folks in our community. The truth is that we have had six months of the current government, and it could have ended thousands of deaths, rapes and abuses of children if it had repealed Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 . That would instantly have made a difference.”
“I urge every member of the House to stand with victims, to stand with families and to stand with the residents of Oshawa and communities right across this country. Three strikes and they are out; that is what Canadians are asking for, and that is what Conservatives will deliver.”
“Criminals will know that if they commit serious crimes again and again, they would face real consequences. Third, it would restore confidence in our justice system, confidence that has been badly shaken under the current government. I have heard some police officers in my community in my hometown of Oshawa call it the “injustice system”. Canadians across the country deserve better than the system that puts repeat offenders back on the street within hours of their arrest. They deserve a government that prioritizes the safety of women, seniors, children and families over the rights of violent criminals. They deserve a government that takes crime seriously. The motion is a chance to correct course. It is a chance to put victims before criminals, to put public safety before politics and to put common sense back into our justice system.”
“Canadians are asking themselves a very simple question: Whom does the government really stand with, the victims of crime or the criminals who repeatedly terrorize them? That is why Conservatives have put forth the common-sense motion today. It is based on a simple principle: three strikes and they are out. If someone is convicted of three serious offences, they would no longer be eligible for bail, probation, parole or house arrest. They would need to go to jail, and they would stay there for 10 years. There would be no bail, no probation, no parole and no house arrest. It would be three strikes and they are out. The motion has three major benefits. First, it would keep violent repeat offenders off the streets, protecting law-abiding families and communities, women and children. Second, it would deter crime.”