MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Rhonda Kirkland

Follow by RSS

Kirkland presses the government on living costs in Oshawa, seeking removed federal fuel taxes, spending cuts to lower inflation, parole changes that spare victims’ families repeat hearings, and the U.S. trade deal auto workers were promised. She argues with local figures, from Simcoe Hall food bank counts to gas prices, and repeatedly asks the government to admit what she calls the affordability crisis.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 62 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 81 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 92 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.5 Averaged over the 62 of 67 statements graded so far.

Statements 67

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want the House to pass this Conservative motion. It admits that Canada is in a cost-of-living crisis. The Prime Minister says things are affordable, but in my town of Oshawa, families cannot afford food, seniors cannot afford medicine, and auto workers are worried about losing their jobs. After 11 years of Liberal government, people are worse off.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”

    Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Oshawa in support of our Conservative motion, which asks the House something simple: to recognize these facts. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years and Canada is in an affordability crisis, yet in March of this year the Prime Minister stood in this very House and claimed, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” I would invite the Prime Minister to come to Oshawa and tell that to my neighbours, where Canada’s affordability crisis is their everyday reality. It is the young Canadian working full time who cannot afford to move out of their parents’ home, the mother putting groceries back on the shelf because she cannot afford everything in her cart, the senior choosing between rent and medication and the auto worker wondering whether their job will still be there tomorrow. When hard-working Canadians cannot afford life’s basics, the Liberal government is completely disconnected from reality. A generation of Canadians are doing everything right and still cannot afford the opportunities their parents and grandparents enjoyed. After 11 years, the government must answer for that reality Remember, just last spring, the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Tell that to the food banks in Oshawa. I recently heard from Tiffany Kift at Simcoe Hall Settlement House, an extraordinary organization serving vulnerable families in Oshawa. What she shared with me was heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall is now serving more than 3,600 people every month and they have been forced to cap food bank visits to 70 households per day, not because fewer people need help but because they simply do not have the resources to help everyone who does. Every day they sadly have to turn people away. Who is walking through their doors? Seniors, young adults, parents and even families with two incomes are walking through their doors. Tiffany described a growing group of Canadians as the working poor. These are Canadians who get up every morning, work hard, earn a paycheque and still cannot afford groceries. Imagine both parents working, doing everything they can to provide for their children and still having to visit a food bank. When two incomes are no longer enough to put food on the table, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles of working Canadians. What Tiffany told me about children in Oshawa was even more heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall staff are sending children home with food because, for some, it may be the only food they eat that day. Feeding children dinner is not even a mandatory part of their after-school programming, but staff do it as much as they can anyway because those children need to eat. The Liberal government would promote its national school food program, yet frontline workers at Simcoe Hall report that some of Oshawa’s most vulnerable children are still not consistently receiving completely nutritious meals at school or at home. When school closes for the summer, demand for food assistance grows even greater. Where do they get their lunches then? When children are going hungry while the government announces one program or another intended to feed them, there is a serious disconnect between the Liberal promises and what families are experiencing. Last spring, the Prime Minister said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Our seniors are also struggling. Tell them that. Recently, my office heard from Clifford, a senior in Oshawa who is living on a fixed income, of course. Clifford is struggling to pay his rent, afford his groceries and, most concerning of all, purchase the medication he needs. Tiffany tells me that Simcoe Hall has even introduced a program called Dinner for One to provide prepared meals for seniors who are struggling to feed themselves. A lifetime of hard work should not end with a trip to the food bank. When seniors cannot afford groceries or medication, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles that Canadians face in everyday life. While demand for food assistance continues to grow, donations are declining. Simcoe Hall’s financial donations are down approximately 33% this year, while community food drives are bringing in only a third of what they would normally expect. More people need help while fewer people can afford to give it. Canadians should not have to depend on food banks or government grocery rebates simply to put dinner on the table. They should be able to afford groceries with the money they earn. I want to thank Tiffany and everyone at Simcoe Hall for their extraordinary service to Oshawa. I will remind members that the Prime Minister said affordability is the best it has been in a decade. I encourage Canadians not to believe the gaslighting coming from the Liberal government. Nowhere is the connection between jobs and affordability clearer than in Oshawa’s automotive industry. For generations, our auto workers have helped build Canada’s economy, but Oshawa has faced some of the highest unemployment rates among Canada’s major urban centres. Whenever I meet with local auto workers and their families, I hear the same message: protect our jobs. I think about Todd, an Oshawa auto worker. Todd worked for an automotive supplier supporting GM’s Oshawa assembly plant, and when job cuts were looming, he faced the possibility of leaving the city where he was born and raised and where his children and grandchildren live. When Canadian auto workers fear losing their livelihoods, they need a government focused on protecting their jobs, not simply managing the consequences of losing them. The Liberal government has spent so much attention on working to manage decline with supports and programs that are simply not working. The Prime Minister campaigned on his ability to negotiate with the United States, and auto workers were promised a trade deal by July 2025. That deadline came and went without the promised deal. There is that old saying, “underpromise and over-deliver”, but the government consistently does the opposite, making ambitious promises, creating illusions, missing deadlines and asking Canadians to keep waiting. Recently, I asked the Liberal member for Whitby about Clifford’s affordability struggles. In his response to this senior’s struggle, he spoke about opportunities for workers who may need to transition away from our auto plants. I found that deeply concerning on two levels. One, the question was about seniors, and two, while Oshawa auto workers are asking the government to protect their jobs, a Liberal member from the Durham region is talking about opportunities to leave those jobs behind. Is that the government’s plan for Oshawa? Our auto workers are not asking the government to find them another career. They are asking the government to fight for the careers they already have. The Prime Minister campaigned on his economic credentials and his ability to deliver change, promising to move at unimaginable speeds and telling Canadians it is time to build now. Well, Canadians are entitled to ask what those promises have delivered. Where are the affordable homes for young Canadians that they can actually move into? Where are the completed projects? Where are the results families can see in their own lives? An announcement is not a completed home. A press conference is not a paycheque, and a promise does not automatically mean results. For the government, it means an illusion and more gaslighting. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House, “I just got here.” He did not just get here. He has been the Prime Minister for 19 months. We are coming close to two years now, and before becoming Prime Minister, he was advising Justin Trudeau and the Liberals for five years, yet he refuses to be held accountable. Of course, international trade disputes and global economic pressures are real, but those challenges do not erase the responsibility of successive Liberal governments for decisions made here at home. The Prime Minister cannot ask Canadians to judge him by his experience when he campaigns but disregard that experience when they question his record. I invite him to come to Oshawa and speak with Clifford, Todd, the families visiting Simcoe Hall, our small business owners and the auto workers worried about their jobs and ask them one simple question: Are they better off today than they were 10 years ago? We know the answer is no. That is the question that matters. It is not how many announcements the government has made, but whether Canadians can afford the necessities of life. Conservatives have put forward solutions to address these challenges. We believe responsible spending, lower costs and good-paying jobs are essential for restoring affordability, because Canadians deserve more than announcements and promises; they deserve results. They deserve to keep more of what they earn, afford the necessities of life and have the opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families. That is why I will be voting, of course, in favour of our Conservative opposition day motion to recognize what Canadians across Oshawa and the country are experiencing. After 11 years of Liberal government, Canada is in an affordability crisis, and it is not the most affordable it has been over the last 10 years.

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“The government needs to fix our parole system. People who killed children and got life sentences are still being let out of prison without guards. They should stay behind bars.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an out-of-touch response from the minister. This is not an isolated case. This year alone, Canadians have watched multiple pedophile child killers who have received life sentences get unescorted temporary absences from prison, including two in B.C. within 10 days of each other. Darren Scott Ray received a 72-hour unescorted temporary absence in Oshawa and has been promised two more. Will the government finally act and fix broken Liberal parole—and it is broken Liberal parole because they voted against our bill that would have changed it—and ensure that pedophile child killers serving life sentences stay where they belong behind bars?

“A convicted child murderer was let out of prison on a temporary pass into the community where his victim's classmates live. Our parole system is broken. When will the government fix it and put victims and safety first?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Darren Scott Ray raped, tortured and murdered a 14-year-old boy, Darren Pepin, in Scarborough. He strangled this child to death and dumped his body in the garbage room of his apartment building. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Today, many of Darren’s young former classmates, who now call Oshawa and Durham region home, are in the very community where this killer was granted a 72-hour unescorted temporary absence. When will the government fix broken Liberal parole and finally put victims and public safety first?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford rent, groceries, or medicine because of high costs. I want the government to adopt the Conservative economic plan to bring down inflation.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Clifford is a senior from Oshawa who called my office this week to share his struggles. He is on a fixed income and is having difficulty paying for rent, buying his groceries and even affording the medication he needs to survive. These are life’s necessities, not luxuries. The Conservatives have a plan that would actually work to lower inflation and save Canadians money on all of life’s essentials. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians like Clifford and other Oshawa seniors can finally afford their rent, groceries and medication?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“I agree with my colleague that passing more laws is not the answer. For 11 years, the government has promised that new laws would make things faster and more certain, but they have not. I want my colleague to say more about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing I enjoy more in this House than listening to my Conservative colleague from Richmond Centre—Marpole speak with such common sense. He lays it out very plainly and very clearly that legislation upon legislation is not the answer. We have heard from the Liberals repeatedly that, every time they implement new legislation, it is going to create speed and certainty. We have not seen any of that speed and certainty over the last 11 years. We have heard a lot of talk. We have seen no action and no results. I wonder if my colleague would agree and would like to elaborate on that.

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“The Liberals voted down a bill to make murderers wait longer between parole hearings. This hurts the victims' families. Police and victims want this fixed. I want the government to admit its mistake and put the rights of victims ahead of killers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Liberals are missing the point. It is the Conservative mission to keep Canadians safe. Conservatives have already given the Liberal government opportunity to fix its failed Liberal parole. Yes, it is Liberal parole, because Bill C-243 would have increased time between parole hearings for convicted murderers so families would not have to repeatedly go through the traumatizing ordeal. The Liberals voted it down. Now police associations and victims are calling for action. Will the Liberals admit they got this wrong and scrap Liberal parole for the rights of victims? These need to come before the rights of killers.

“I want this bill to pass. Murderers get parole hearings too often, and it forces victims' families to relive their pain again and again. The government needs to change this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Toronto police constable Todd Baylis was just 25 years old when he was murdered in the line of duty. His family has relived that tragic loss at parole hearings in 2019, 2021 and 2024, and will again in just a few months. For 14 years, victims’ advocate Lisa Freeman from Oshawa has repeatedly been forced to face the axe murderer who bludgeoned her father to death. Liberal parole has caused this problem, and victims’ families are demanding change. Why do the Liberals keep making victims constantly relive their worst day? People get a chance at parole every time.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“The government says Conservatives are just scaring people, but we are listening to them. I want my colleague to share examples of the hardships Canadians face, and how cutting the gas tax until Canada Day would help them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting yesterday during question period that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources accused me, and Conservatives generally, of scaring Canadians. I would argue, and did yesterday, that the truth is what we are actually doing is hearing Canadians. I would like to ask my colleague to give us a couple of examples of where he has heard from Canadians about the struggles they are going through and what extending a full relief of gas tax until next Canada Day could mean for them.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canadians and small businesses cannot afford high prices for gas and groceries. The government must cut spending, remove taxes on gas, and end the industrial carbon tax to help people save money now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the member meant to say, “rather than hear Canadians”. Families are struggling every day with groceries, gas and making ends meet, and small businesses are being squeezed as well. Conservatives have proposed solutions: Cut wasteful spending to lower debt and inflation, and remove all federal taxes on gas until at least Canada Day next year. Canadians need relief today. Will the Liberal government cut consultants and corporate welfare, eliminate the industrial carbon tax and adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians money now?

“Oshawa has very high unemployment, and auto workers need their jobs protected. We want to cut taxes on Canadian-made cars and reduce government waste. Will the government end the industrial carbon tax, stop wasteful spending, and lower the cost of building homes and vehicles?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Oshawa has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and I hear the same message every time I meet with local auto workers and their families: “Protect our jobs.” Conservatives have proposed taking the GST off Canadian-made vehicles. We have even found $150 billion in savings by cutting items like high-priced consultants, corporate welfare and bureaucracy. Will the Liberal government eliminate the industrial carbon tax, cut wasteful spending and lower the cost of building homes and vehicles here at home?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

“I wanted to invite the Privacy Commissioner back to our committee to answer questions about proposed changes to this bill. Every Liberal member voted to block him from coming. I want to know why the member thinks they did that.”
Official Hansard

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. 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?

In response to a question from John Brassard

“The government is cutting short the study of this bill because it is a failure. The public is against it.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“I support local police, and they need proper tools to do their jobs. But this bill must not take away people's privacy rights.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Kevin Waugh

“True teamwork means debating and checking the government's plans. The Liberals just want us to agree to everything they say without question, and that is wrong.”
Official Hansard

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.

“I oppose this motion to cut off debate on the police access bill. The government is rushing the bill through committee and not letting us review it properly. We support giving police the tools to catch criminals with a judge's permission, but we have over 100 changes to debate. We should split the bill and take the time to get it right.”
Official Hansard

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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 committee rushed through our study of this bill, hearing from about 48 witnesses in just nine hours. The Liberals even blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming back to answer questions about the changes he suggested. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on why they did that.”
Official Hansard

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. Could the member comment on what she thought the Liberals were doing when they blocked the Privacy Commissioner from coming?

“The Liberals say they want to work together, but they always tell us no. If this bill were truly good policy, it could handle proper debate and changes. The government is trying to cut off debate because this bill cannot stand up to scrutiny.”
Official Hansard

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. 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.

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“I support giving police the tools they need to fight crime. But this bill gives the government too much power to watch people without oversight. The government should stop rushing it through and work with other parties to fix it.”
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“I am worried this bill will let the government label religious texts as hate speech. Why should Canadians trust the government not to put people in prison for sharing their religious beliefs?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 43 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“The government talks a lot but does not take action. The member who just spoke has been here since 2010. He wastes time giving long speeches instead of letting his newer colleagues speak.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 24 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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. 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.