Kelly DeRidder · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

2026-06-12

“I'm voting against this bill because it makes mandatory minimums optional. The government is shutting down debate to silence us and lie about our position.”

“I want to stall this bill so I can posture about law and order at the next election. I need to drag this debate out as long as possible even if there's already agreement on most of it. I'm here to oppose and grandstand, not fix anything.”

Oral Questions

Seniors

2026-06-11

“You're not really helping if more seniors than ever can't afford housing. Stop dodging and answer for that.”

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“This criminal should have spent longer in prison. Then we should have deported him. Immigration status shouldn't reduce your sentence.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status. The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm focusing on one small part of the bill that I don't like. The rest of the bill is fine, but that one part is a dealbreaker for me. I won't support the whole thing because of that one piece.”

“I'm not voting against helping victims. I'm against making mandatory minimums optional. I don't want judges to decide if the offender gets time. I would vote to help victims of violence. I wanted the government to change the bill and take out the part about mandatory minimums. The government didn't work with us. That's the real story.”

“Too often, victims are not the focus of our justice system. They are left feeling overwhelmed, ignored, and unsupported. This bill claims to protect victims, but it also includes a major change that deserves attention. It would make mandatory minimum sentences optional, which would weaken accountability for serious crimes. Canadians expect consistency and consequences when it comes to serious offenses. Creating a way around mandatory minimums undermines public trust in the justice system. I will vote against this aspect of the bill because protecting victims means ensuring that mandatory minimums remain mandatory, not optional. My community should know that I support measures to protect victims of intimate partner violence, child exploitation, and sexual violence. What I don't support is weakening accountability for offenders while victims struggle to rebuild their lives.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The name of this bill sets a high standard. Protecting victims is the single most important part of any justice system. Canadians rightfully expect a system that supports those who have been harmed, protects the vulnerable and holds offenders accountable for their actions. Bill C-16 attempts to address a number of serious issues, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, victims' rights and delays in our justice system. That expectation has not always been met in our justice system. Too often, victims feel like an afterthought. Too often, families are left waiting for justice. Too often, Canadians are left to wonder whether our justice system is putting the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of communities. Many Canadians saw that in a recent case in Kitchener, where a former neurologist was acquitted on 48 sexual assault charges. Dozens of victims gathered the courage to come forward and share their stories, and the justice system left them feeling unheard and brushed aside. We can agree in this place that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to come forward with their experience. When they do, it is important that we treat them with dignity, listen to their concerns and ensure that their voices are heard. That is why, when legislation like this comes forward, we must hold it to a high standard. There are parts of this bill that would be steps in the right direction. One of the biggest changes would be the creation of a new offence relating to coercive and controlling behaviours in intimate partner relationships. Many people think that the abuse begins when someone is physically assaulted, but it often starts long before that. It starts with manipulation, isolation and threats. It starts with controlling where a person goes, who they see, who they spend their time with, what they spend their money on or how they live their daily lives. These behaviours slowly chip away at one's independence and leave people feeling trapped in dangerous situations. By the time physical violence occurs, the warning signs may have been there for months, sometimes even years. Recognizing those warning signs in law is an important step. If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented. Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter. Today, she and her daughter are living in a domestic violence shelter, trying to rebuild their lives and find safety, yet despite a guilty plea, the man responsible remains here in Canada illegally. When victims and their families are left in situations like this, they are left asking simple questions: Where is the accountability? That is why getting legislation like Bill C-16 is incredibly important. Victims need more than words. They need to know that the justice system will protect them, support them and hold offenders accountable for the harm that they have caused. This bill also includes measures aimed at combatting child exploitation. This, especially, is an area where Parliament should be united. Technology has created incredible opportunities but also real dangers. For all the parents in this place, we can agree that we are raising children in a world that looks very different from the one we grew up in. Predators can reach children so easily through social media, phones, computers and gaming platforms. These threats are real and our children need to be protected. This bill would also update the law surrounding intimate images and digitally altered sexual images. Whether an image is captured with a camera or generated with AI, the impact to victims is devastating. Reputations can be destroyed. Careers can be damaged. Mental health can suffer, and relationships can be affected. Victims deserve protection regardless of how that image was created. For many victims, navigating the justice system can be overwhelming while they are already dealing with the trauma that it has caused. They may not understand what is happening with their case or how decisions are being made. They may feel lost in a process that can seem focused on everyone except the victim. That needs to change. Victims deserve information and respect, and they deserve to know that they matter. The Conservatives have worked constructively on this bill. We supported measures that would better protect victims, address cohesive control, combat child exploitation and strengthen victims' rights. However, despite these positive measures, the bill also includes a major change to sentencing that deserves attention. The government says this change is about flexibility and discretion, but Canadians deserve to understand what it would actually do. This bill would allow a judge to bypass every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code, with a few exceptions. In other words, it would make mandatory sentences optional, and “mandatory” is not supposed to be optional. Why does this matter? It matters because mandatory minimum sentences exist for the most serious crimes. They represent the basis that certain crimes are so serious that there must be a minimum consequence when someone is convicted. It cannot be a suggestion. If a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, Canadians expect that to mean consistency and accountability across the board. There is no room for victims to wonder if the punishment will fit the crime. If mandatory sentences become optional, confidence in our justice system would be weakened even further. That is why the issue deserves serious attention. Our justice system already contains flexibility. Police officers use discretion when determining whether or not charges should be laid. Crown prosecutors exercise discretion when determining how cases should proceed. Prosecutors make decisions every day about what charges to pursue and what position to take before the court. When Parliament created a mandatory minimum sentence, it did so because Canadians expect a certain level of accountability for a serious crime, and we did not do that by accident. Canadians may disagree on what that line should be, but they understand that there should be a line. What they do not understand is why Parliament would establish a line and then create a way around it. I hear a lot of frustration from people in Kitchener Centre, and, frankly, from people across the country, about what feels like a growing gap between what the justice system says and what it actually does. People hear that a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, but then they find out that the sentence might not actually be mandatory. They hear that victims are the priority, but then they watch victims spend years navigating a system that feels confusing and overwhelming. They hear that public safety comes first, but then they read stories about repeat offenders just cycling through the justice system again and again. Whether those perceptions are fair or not, they are real, and public confidence matters. Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities. The effects of violence do not end when a court case concludes. Victims carry those experiences for years. Children carry them for a lifetime. Families carry them for a lifetime. Anyone who has sat across from a victim of violence knows that the impact reaches far beyond the courtroom. Accountability matters, not because accountability can undo the harm it caused. It cannot. Accountability matters because it tells victims that society recognizes the seriousness of what happened to them, and it tells them their suffering matters. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that. While victims are left traumatized, Parliament would create another pathway for offenders to avoid consequence. That is not what Canadians think of when they hear the words “protecting victims act”. Canadians want accountability. They want consequences. They want confidence that when Parliament says a sentence is mandatory, it actually means that it is mandatory. We want a justice system that protects victims while holding offenders accountable. I would like my community to know that I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am not voting against protecting victims of child exploitation. I am not voting against victims of sexual violence. I am not voting against protecting victims' rights within delays in the justice system. What I am voting against is making mandatory minimums optional: clause 63. When it is eventually spun that I voted against protecting victims, please remember that I voted to ensure that victims are actually protected by ensuring that mandatory minimums remain, not as an option.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“If that bill was really supposed to protect victims, why did the Liberals put in a special loophole to let judges go below the mandatory minimum penalties?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-08

“I don't think the government answers questions. I think Canada is in a recession. The government is borrowing a lot of money. The budget watchdog says it's more than planned. I want to know how much the Prime Minister will say it costs to fix it.”

“The economy is bad. I don't like that the Prime Minister won't say why. First he said one reason. Then another. Then another. He keeps changing his story. People can't afford food and he won't give a straight answer.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-01

“The government's grocery benefit is not enough. Many Canadians still need food banks. The benefit will not even help most workers. Why is Canada in a recession when no other G7 country is?”

“I want to blame the government for a bad economy. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. I don't buy the excuses about tariffs. The government should take responsibility.”

Private Members' Business

Offender Rehabilitation Act

2026-06-01

“I want to say thank you to everyone who supports my rehabilitation bill. I want my bill to pass so we put people in rehab during and before jail. People in Canada are sad. Ottawa should spend lots more money to stop it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today with great big huge thanks to all of my colleagues who wanted to speak to and debate Bill C-240 today. I thank my colleagues who are part of the Conservative caucus and also colleagues across the floor, so much, for speaking to this bill today. I thank the Bloc Québécois members as well, so very much, for speaking to this bill and showing their support for it. I think the most important thing that we need to do at this point in time is reverse course in Canada. We need to start focusing on recovery and rehabilitation because people can and do recover. There is an encampment in Kitchener where we are quite literally killing people with kindness right now. In this encampment, five people have died from overdose, and it is time now that all levels of government came together and jointly worked together to fix this crisis in Canada. It is time to reverse course. Bill C-240 is the first step, introducing rehabilitation into incarceration. At least when someone has to be accountable for their actions, they would have a path forward when they are serving their time, to change their life, break cycles and turn their life around. We need to do this in Canada before incarceration, as well, so I am standing here today to thank members for their support in the House for Bill C-240 but also to declare that this is a pivotal moment in Canada. It is time now to concentrate on recovery and rehabilitation because on the other side of recovery is a happy, beautiful, healed and healthy life. Every single person who is struggling with addiction deserves that life, and it is time we helped them get there.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“You talk about deportation but avoid saying what you'll really do. I'm asking you again: will you remove violent criminals from Canada?”

“You keep saying kind words, but will you actually remove criminals who are here illegally?”

“You should feel bad about that number you said. I want to make you look uncaring.”

“If you take it seriously, why is he still here? Why is he free to scare her?”

“The government isn't protecting people. I'm going to tell this lady the government failed her.”

“If public safety really matters, why hasn't the government already deported him?”

“I want the minister to deport this criminal. Why won't the minister act?”