MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Ned Kuruc

Follow by RSS

Kuruc pushes to cut fuel taxes, which he says would save a family of four $1,200 a year, and demands a lawsuit against Cleveland-Cliffs and the tariff deal the Prime Minister promised for Hamilton steelworkers facing layoffs at Stelco. He often leaves unnamed who acted, saying “we were supposed to get a deal” and that offenders “have been permitted to move”. He backs his arguments with specific figures.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 34 statements
Signal 74 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 92 / 100
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.3.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.6 Averaged over the 34 of 36 statements graded so far.

Statements 36

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Doly Begum

“Pausing the fuel tax helps, but a short break is not enough. Fuel taxes drive up the cost of food, rent, and travel. The government should remove all federal taxes from gas and diesel permanently. It should also cut foreign aid spending and use that money to help Canadians who cannot afford basic needs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for years Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to provide meaningful relief to Canadians. We have raised concerns about the rising costs of gas, transportation and groceries, and have warned of the pressure facing families, workers, seniors and small businesses. Today, the government is extending a fuel tax relief measure that it originally said would be temporary. Why is that? It is because the economic reality has proven Conservatives right. Gas taxes matter. The price Canadians pay at the pump matters. When the government adds taxes to fuel, those costs spread throughout our entire economy. Gas is not a luxury for most Canadians. It is an unavoidable expense. People need to get to work. Parents need to take their children to school, medical appointments and sports, and seniors rely on transportation to buy groceries and attend appointments. Businesses need fuel to move products and serve their customers. The truck driver delivering goods across the country feels the increase, as does the farmer operating machinery, the construction worker driving to a job site and the small business paying for deliveries, which ultimately results in Canadians paying more at the grocery store. Every added expense along the supply chain is passed down to families buying food, clothing and other everyday essentials. That is why Conservatives fought the Liberal government’s proposed increases to fuel taxes. After months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have now been forced to delay that increase until early next year. I will say, any relief for working Canadians is welcome, but let us be clear, this is not the result of a government that suddenly understands affordability. It is the result of Canadians speaking out and Conservatives refusing to back down. The government’s own announcement recognizes that truckers, farmers, home builders, construction workers and delivery companies benefit from fuel tax relief. Liberals previously argued that the fuel taxes had little impact on affordability. Now, by extending this relief, they are admitting that lower fuel taxes reduce costs throughout our economy. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel taxes low should be a priority. This short extension is another Liberal half measure. It does not provide the long-term relief that Canadians need. Gas prices have risen by 25.7%, energy costs have increased by 16.6% and transportation costs have climbed by 7.8%, while grocery prices have risen by another 3.1%. These are not just numbers. They determine whether a parent can afford to drive to work, whether a senior can pay the rent and still buy groceries, or whether a small business can continue employing local workers. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I hear these stories every day. Neil is a 63-year-old resident who came to my office looking for help because he was struggling to pay his rent. As we looked through the programs that were supposed to be available to him, he learned that he did not qualify for many of them. Neil began tearing up in my office. Now at 63 years old, he is looking for a second job just to keep a roof over his head. That should alarm every single member in the House. A Canadian who has worked hard and contributed through his life should not have to take a second job at 63 simply to survive. Our seniors should not be returning to the workforce because they cannot afford rent, groceries and transportation. Here is the reality for too many Canadians: higher taxes, raising prices, unaffordable rent, growing debt and less hope that the next month will be any easier. The Liberals would have Canadians believe that this is normal. The government needs to stop telling Canadians how well they are doing and start listening when they say they are falling behind. Canadians understand something that Liberals have ignored for far too long, which is that taxing fuel makes life more expensive. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel. That means removing the 7¢ per litre imposed by the clean fuel regulations, taking the GST off fuel and permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures could save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and as much as $1,000 per year for the average family. That would be real relief, not another temporary pause or announcement designed to get the government through the next few months. Canadians need lower prices that they can actually see when they fill their tank, buy groceries and pay their monthly bills. Across the country, people are skipping meals, relying on food banks, putting the cost of groceries on credit cards and working multiple jobs just to stay afloat. At the same time, the Liberal government has recorded almost $26 billion in foreign aid spending over the last two years. That includes about $460 million to Ethiopia, $340 million to Haiti, $312 million to Bangladesh, $306 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo, $275 million to Mozambique, $265 million to Tanzania and $238 million to South Africa. In times like this, every dollar must be tied to measurable results and spent in Canadians’ national interest. That standard has not always been met. The Auditor General previously found that Global Affairs Canada could not properly show whether $3.5 billion in foreign aid spending under its feminist international assistance policy was actually improving conditions for women and girls. That is not accountability. We need to stop sending our taxpayer dollars overseas. We should cut the gas tax instead. We are the Canadian government. We should be looking out for Canadians. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going, how it is being used and what results it is producing. Instead of increasing costs for families buying groceries, it should eliminate wasteful spending and bring those savings home. It should also take a serious look at its priorities before telling struggling Canadians that there is no money available to help them. Canadians should not have to choose between filling their vehicle and putting food on the table. Seniors should not have to choose between paying rent and buying medication. Parents should not have to tell their children that they cannot attend hockey practice because the cost of driving has become too high. Small business owners should not have to lay off workers because taxes and transportation expenses have destroyed their bottom line. Canada is a strong and generous country, but a government cannot continue trying to help everyone everywhere while ignoring the people struggling here at home. The Liberals’ decision to delay their fuel tax increase proves that Conservative pressure works. It confirms that fuel taxes contribute to higher prices and that relief is possible when the government is finally forced to listen. However, Canadians need more than a temporary extension. They need a government that respects how hard they work for every dollar, controls its spending, lowers taxes and puts their needs first. Conservatives are proud that our pressure helped secure this relief, but our work is not finished. We will keep fighting to remove federal taxes from gas and diesel; lower the cost of food, transportation and housing; and defend seniors such as Neil who deserve dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work. Canadians have carried the burden of the current government’s costly policies long enough. It is time for lower taxes and bringing down the cost of living for Canadians first. The first responsibility of the Government of Canada must be to the people of Canada.

Statements by Members ·

The Economy

“Canadians are struggling to afford food, rent, and bills after 11 years of Liberal policies. Conservatives have found 150 billion dollars to cut from wasteful spending. I want the government to work with us on these cuts to make life affordable again.”
  • A repeated line

    “The Conservatives have identified $150 billion in potential savings.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since September 21.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in Ottawa, where we get to bring the concerns of our communities back to Parliament. One thing is clear after hearing from all the good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek this summer: The Liberal government is not hearing them. I heard from Annie, a senior who relies on CPP, OAS and food banks to get by. It is because of the cost of living crisis that she does not know if she will be able to pay her rent or bills. After 11 years of Liberal policies, this is a new reality that many Canadians face. However, there is hope. The Conservatives have identified over $150 billion in savings, nearly $10,000 per family, by cutting wasteful consultants, corporate welfare, foreign aid, handouts to fake asylum claimants, and massive money-losing projects like Alto rail. It is time that the wasteful Liberal government started listening to Canadians and started working with Conservatives to make real, lasting changes that will bring affordability back to Canada.

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“We need mandatory minimum prison sentences for criminals. Without them, judges have loopholes to let criminals off too easily.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we can all come into the House, talk about it and feel good about ourselves, but unless we get strict on mandatory minimums, it is all for nothing. That is the real truth. If we leave a loophole in there where a judge can let criminals go, like the Supreme Court did in a child-sensitive material or child pornography case, all is lost. Mandatory minimums are needed, full stop. That is what the Conservatives believe in.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“I want this bill to include mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who attack women or abuse children. Judges should not be allowed to give lesser sentences for these crimes.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I want to be clear. Conservatives want mandatory minimums for heinous crimes. For criminals who attack women and children, we do not want a “get out of jail free” card. We are tough on crime. That is what I believe in. It is why I was elected and why I wanted to become a politician. I wanted to make change. I also want to make sure that when criminals get to court, they get a mandatory minimum for sexually abusing children and for violence against women. We should not have a clause that would allow the judge to see otherwise. That is what Conservatives want, and if the Liberals could just work with us on this, this would be a good bill.

In response to a question from Mark Gerretsen

“This bill has good parts, but it lets judges avoid mandatory prison sentences. I want the Liberals to work with us and accept our changes to make Canada safer.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, and the member does not even want to talk about it. He just wants to deflect. Let us get serious here for a second. Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.

“I support parts of this bill, but I oppose the part that lets judges give sentences below mandatory minimums. This is a loophole that goes easy on violent criminals. The government should remove this loophole so criminals stay in prison.”
  • A repeated line

    “Extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since June 3.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time. Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour. More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada. I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again. After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code. Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge’s judgment. The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals. The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities. In 2022, the Liberals’ Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation. Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified. It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense. We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for. We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong. The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

“You should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Official Hansard

Why do you— An hon. member: You don’t have the floor anymore. Ned Kuruc: You should be ashamed— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

“Liberal policies on bail let dangerous criminals back on the street. Liberals also voted against mandatory minimum sentences for extortion and against stopping judges from using immigration status to give lighter sentences.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a theatrical performance and what a great piece of gaslighting by the Liberals, but I do have some facts here. It is because of that actual member’s voting on Bill C-75 that Daniel Senecal was out on bail in Welland for a horrific crime. Most of those members voted for that. That is the actual result of bad Liberal policy that they voted on with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Now he is going to stand here and gaslight us. Here is another thing that is an actual fact: All those members over there voted against Bill C-381, which would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion; Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences; and Bill C-246. They voted against all that just a couple of months ago. It is a great piece of gaslighting—

Private Members' Business ·

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

“I want the House to pass this bill. It keeps dangerous offenders and multiple murderers in maximum-security prisons permanently, instead of moving them to medium security.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to speak to legislation that would help restore Canadians’ confidence in our criminal justice system and the institutions responsible for keeping our communities safe. My colleague from Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake introduced Bill C-232 after hearing directly from the loved ones of victims who were stunned and outraged by a phone call they received from the Correctional Service of Canada, which informed them that Paul Bernardo, a convicted serial killer and rapist, was being transferred from a maximum-security institution in Ontario to a medium-security institution in Quebec. Like many Canadians, they could not understand how such a decision could be made. They felt betrayed by a system that seemed to place the interests of dangerous offenders ahead of the rights, concerns and dignity of the victims and their families. The legislation is about accountability, transparency and ensuring that victims are never treated as an afterthought. Canadians deserve to have the confidence that our justice system puts public safety first and respects those who have suffered the most at the hands of violent criminals. The decision to move Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security institution to a medium-security institution not only left the country shocked, but revictimized the victims’ families, friends and communities. As a member of Parliament from the Niagara area, or my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, specifically, which is close to the member’s riding and the GTA, this bill hits home. I am sure it does for many around the GTA. The lasting memories of the atrocities Paul Bernardo committed are still felt around our region. That is why we have introduced Bill C-232. It is to fix a problem that should never have existed in the first place. Canadians expect that the country’s most dangerous criminals, who have committed horrific acts and been designated by the courts as dangerous offenders, are to remain in maximum-security institutions, yet under the current system, offenders such as Paul Bernardo have been permitted to move from a maximum-security institution to a less restrictive one. That is not what victims’ families expect. It is not what Canadians expect. This bill would ensure that dangerous offenders and mass murderers remain where they belong: in maximum-security prisons. It would require that all of these offenders be permanently classified as maximum security and housed accordingly. The bill would also reverse the Liberals’ so-called “least restrictive environment” standard that was introduced in Bill C-83 in 2018. The Liberals’ soft-on-crime policies have shifted the focus away from public safety and victims and toward the interests of offenders. It is time to put public safety and victims at the top of the priority list again. Canadians want a justice system that puts public safety first and respects victims and their families, and they want common-sense rules that ensure that the worst offenders face consequences reflecting the severity of their crimes. That is exactly what Bill C-232 seeks to accomplish. In addition to reversing the Liberals’ weak policies, Bill C-232 would restore a more balanced and common-sense approach to corrections by bringing back the principle of “only the necessary restrictions” that was established by the previous Conservative government through the Safe Streets and Communities Act of 2012. That legislation recognized the simple but important reality that the primary responsibility of our correctional system is to protect the public, maintain safety and security and ensure that offenders are held appropriately accountable for their actions. One would think that is a common-sense statement, but the Liberal government has been moving further and further away from that since it introduced Bill C-83 in 2018, which placed greater emphasis on providing offenders with the least restrictive conditions possible. Bill C-232 would help restore the balance that Canadians expect, put public safety back at the centre of correctional decision-making and ensure that the rights of victims and the concerns of Canadians are not overshadowed by the interests of violent offenders. This bill has found support across the board from both the police and victim advocates. Marcia Penner, the victim’s rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, one of Paul Bernardo’s victims, said: As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know first-hand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims. Chief of Police Bill Fordy, of the Niagara Regional Police Service, said: Community safety is strengthened when we continue to have thoughtful conversations about how our justice system responds to serious and repeat offenders. Police officers see every day the impact violent crime can have on victims and our entire community, which is why these discussions matter. Our focus remains on protecting the public while supporting victims and maintaining confidence in the justice system. Enough is enough. For too long, victims’ families have felt ignored by a system that seems more concerned with the rights of offenders than with the pain left behind by their crimes. Every time a dangerous offender is rewarded with a transfer to a less restrictive institution, victims’ families are forced to relive the worst moments of their lives. They are reminded that their loved ones will never come home, while the person responsible continues to receive privileges and consideration from the very system that failed them. This is not justice. Canadians understand that individuals like Paul Bernardo committed crimes so horrific that they forever changed the lives of countless families. Those families deserve to know that the people responsible will remain in maximum-security custody, where they belong. I stand here today because I promised the families in my community that I would do everything in my power to make it safer. I promised them that their voices would be heard in this chamber. Bill C‑232 is about restoring faith in our institutions. putting public safety first and ensuring that victims and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this legislation. Together, we can send the clear message that victims matter and public safety matters, and some crimes are so horrific that the offenders responsible should never be rewarded with less restrictive conditions. Most importantly, we can honour the memories of those whose lives were taken far too soon and stand with the families who continue to carry that loss every single day.

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The government is leasing land for $20 million a year that was previously leased for only $13,500. I want the government to release all the documents about this deal so Canadians can see what happened.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 44 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, what a weird day of events. Today we celebrated an astronaut who represents the pinnacle of the Canadian space program, and all members of the House were applauding that, as we should. However, Liberals are now trying to defend a tax boondoggle whereby a piece of land leased for $13,500 a year is being re-leased to the government for $20 million a year. My question for my colleague is this: How important is it that we get full transparency and that the government releases all the documents around this deal to show Canadians exactly what happened there?

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“Two men accused of murder in Stoney Creek are refugee claimants. Border officers want to remove them from Canada, but face roadblocks. The minister is not doing enough to deport non-citizens who commit serious crimes. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, two of the five men accused of murdering a teenager in a terrifying Stoney Creek shooting linked to the GTA tow truck wars are refugee claimants. A source from the CBSA told the Toronto Sun that although they want to remove these individuals from Canada, they keep facing countless roadblocks. The minister does not do anything to make sure that government departments will deport non-citizens who commit serious crimes like murder. The residents of Stoney Creek and all Canadians want to know and demand to know why.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is in a recession and the Liberals have failed Canadians. People in Hamilton need secure jobs and paycheques that cover their groceries. Food banks are struggling and giving the government failing grades. I want the Liberals to start helping people.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat to that out-of-touch Liberal, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That member has failed Canada. The Liberals have failed Canada. Parents in Hamilton want job security, a tariff deal and paycheques that can afford groceries. The Stoney Creek Community Food Bank is serving over 120 families per week. The Food Banks Canada report card came out yesterday, and the Liberals got a D+. When will the Liberals stop gaslighting Canadians and start working for Canadians?

“The Prime Minister said our economy is growing fast, but it shrank for two quarters in a row. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. The Liberals blame global issues, but other countries face those same issues and are not in a recession.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am in the House of Commons or the twilight zone. Last Thursday, the Liberal Prime Minister went around telling everyone that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, but on Friday, Statistics Canada reported that our economy shrank in two consecutive quarters. We are in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Today, Liberals are blaming tariffs and global conflicts, but if that is the case, why is no other G7 country facing the same headwinds in a recession?

Statements by Members ·

Gas Prices

“I want the House to vote for our Conservative motion. It will remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel to lower fuel prices for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, just the other day, while I was filling up on gas in Stoney Creek, a member of my community commented on how ridiculous these gas prices are, and I could not agree more. Gas prices are 10% higher in Canada than they are in the United States, which is costing Canadians an average of 16¢ more per litre. Canadians want relief. The Liberal finance minister says they have already acted, but they have only acted on one-third of the taxes for one-third of the year. Our Conservative plan to remove all Liberal taxes on gas and diesel would save a family of four in Hamilton $1,200 per year. If the Liberals support our Conservative motion today, we could bring real relief at the pumps. It is what Canadians want, but more importantly, it is what Canadians deserve. Canadians have been getting squeezed for way too long, and this is a great opportunity to put money back in their pockets. Let us do the right thing today and vote yes for our Conservative motion. Let us give Canadians the win they deserve.

Oral Questions ·

Taxation

“Prices for gas, food, and energy are going up, and people in my community cannot afford it. The government should remove all federal fuel taxes this year to help. When will they do that?”
  • A repeated line

    “The Prime Minister is just another Liberal.”

    Said 22 times by 14 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is more cost, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card, more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste. Gas prices surged 28.6% in April, grocery prices were up 3.8% in April and energy prices rose 19.2%. My community is being squeezed, and they cannot pay more. Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the year. On what day will the Liberals adopt it?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

“The government is wasting taxpayer money on space projects. Canada pays 20 million dollars a year for a concrete pad on a dirt road, and another company got over two billion dollars but cannot pay its debts. I want the member to explain this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a little on theory and reality. We heard my colleague across the way talk about launch capability and how it is going to create jobs and all this good stuff, but then we actually have reality. The reality is that Maritime Launch Services leased to Canada for $20 million a year a concrete pad, which is being leased for $13,000 a year. Our Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $20 million a year. It is a dirt road with a concrete pad. The other reality is that Telesat, which got over $2 billion from Canadian taxpayers, is now running from creditors. I would like to hear comments from the member on this huge mismanagement of Canadian taxpayer dollars.