Ned Kuruc
Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“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.”
“(1820) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 188 lines we hold for Ned Kuruc, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(2320) 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 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“(1820) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“The Auditor General has also identified several key barriers preventing progress. The first was a lack of continued attention from management, and that raises a simple question. If there is no constant leadership and focus, how can these programs succeed? The second barrier was a lack of clarity around service levels. Systems become overly complicated when they are layered with bureaucracy. It becomes harder, not easier, for communities to access the services they need. The third barrier was a lack of support to build capacity in the first nations communities, and this point is critical. If we are serious about reconciliation, we need to empower communities, not trap them in systems they cannot effectively navigate.”
“If we want to understand the real issue here, we need to look at the government's actual track record. Let us take a look at the facts. In October 2025, the Auditor General tabled a report titled “Follow-up on Programs for First Nations”. The findings were clear and, frankly, they were deeply concerning. The auditor found that Indigenous Services Canada “had made unsatisfactory progress in implementing the actions [on] 53%...of the recommendations” made since 2015. That is 18 out of 34 recommendations, which is more than half. At the same time, the department's spending on programs increased 84% since the 2019-20 fiscal year. Let us think about that. Spending has gone up dramatically, but outcomes have not improved in a meaningful way. That should concern every single member of the House.”
“It is to resolve long-standing issues around land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. These agreements can cover a wide range of areas, including land access to resources, financial compensation and governance rights. Once in place, these treaties carry the force of federal law. They can clarify or, in some cases, replace rights set out under historical treaties. Let me be clear that Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities who want to move beyond the outdated and restrictive Indian Act, but what we do not support is the Liberal approach of throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem while failing to deliver real results. Creating another office in Ottawa would not fix what the government has failed at.”
“The Liberal government's Bill C-10 , which would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, looks less like a meaningful solution and more like an attempt to paper over a decade of broken promises to indigenous peoples. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy to tell us what we already know. The Office of the Auditor General has said it. Indigenous leaders across the country have said it. All Canadians can see it for themselves. The government is failing to meet its obligation, and Canadians expect better. Now, let us take a step back and talk about what modern treaties actually are. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claim agreement that is negotiated between first nations, Inuit or Métis groups and the federal government. The purpose is straightforward.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to recognize all the volunteers across Canada for National Volunteer Week. In my home riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, there are many members of my community who give hours and hours every week to make our city flow. They are the oil between the gears. Without them, kids would not play soccer. Honestly, without volunteers, I would not be here representing Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. For decades, governments have talked about reconciliation, but without accountability, those are just words. Frankly, words are not good enough. Canadians expect action. Indigenous communities deserve results, yet time and time again, what we see from the Liberal government is delay, deflection and more bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague her thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years when, as we have heard many colleagues on our side outline, this is probably what the parliamentary secretary and the minister of this portfolio should be doing anyway.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sit on the public accounts committee with my colleague, and that committee is ultimately there to make an account of the taxpayer dollars. What are his thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years of taxpayer money to do the job that a parliamentary secretary, minister and six other agencies currently do, or should be doing?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is a list of what we currently have: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance measurement framework, the modern treaties management environment office, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. We also have the Auditor General reports. How would the new commissioner solve any problems, other than by creating more reports than seven offices already generate? Here is a radical idea: Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the minister could enforce these offices doing their jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about our country's weakness. The only weakness I see is his broken promise to Canadians in not getting a tariff deal. A new 25% tariff was put on the entire value of goods made with steel, aluminum and copper. This is devastating news for the thousands of workers in Stoney Creek's industrial corridor and the 2.6 million Canadians who rely on U.S. trade for their jobs. It has been one year. When will the Prime Minister stop the illusions and get the tariff deal he promised Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill would require core providers to retain categories of metadata, including transmission data, for up to one year, covering all users, regardless of whether anyone is a suspect of anything or not. This is a surveillance database built on every Canadian. Why is the Liberal government treating everyday citizens as suspects in this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians, but he is delivering only a third of our plan. Liberals are keeping the GST and the clean fuel standard. It is time to cut all the tax for a full year. Our plan will cut an extra 25¢ per litre, which will save families $1,200 per year. This is what Hamilton wants. Let us make it a great day for Canadians. Will the Prime Minister vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?”
“Mr. Speaker, after years of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have announced a watered-down version of our Conservative plan. The Liberals are only removing a third of the fuel tax for a third of the year, all while still collecting up to $10 billion more from taxpayers. I have heard from the community I represent in Hamilton, and that is not enough. Conservatives would remove the whole tax for the full year. Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians, vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister caved to Conservative pressure today and announced that he will make some cuts at the pumps. That could not have happened without the hard work on this side of the aisle, but it has fallen short. Can my very good friend and colleague explain why voting tomorrow for this motion to save Canadians even more money is essential for the folks in his riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister succumbed to Conservative pressure. I would like to congratulate my colleague for all of his hard work. Today, because of him, Canadians are saving money at the pumps. The Prime Minister has cut half of the taxes until Labour Day. How important is it that the Prime Minister cut all fuel taxes for the rest of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals came out today, but I do not think they were prepared for the Prime Minister to announce that he was going to adopt Conservative policy, and so most of their debate has been on everything but cutting the gas tax. The Liberals and the Prime Minister have come halfway: half the taxes until Labour Day. My question to the member is: Why not cut all the taxes for the rest of the year and save Canadians even more money, because they have been listening, they have been emailing and they want real relief at the pumps? Why not go all the way, all the taxes for the rest of the year, and not just halfway to Labour Day?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague on the other side can advise his colleagues to stop calling us obstructionists, because today we have witnessed what a healthy opposition can do. We have held their feet to the fire. We have been calling for zero tax on gas and now the Prime Minister has actually made an announcement that he is going halfway until Labour Day. We want zero taxes for the whole year. Make no mistake, this would not have happened if Conservatives had not brought this issue forward. I would like my colleague to acknowledge that if it were not for the Conservatives, we would not be seeing relief at the pumps today.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives on this side have been listening to Canadians, and that is why we have brought forth the cutting of gas taxes. Today we have seen that the Prime Minister has caved to Conservatives, because we are actually listening to Canadians, but again it is not all the way. It is halfway. I would like my colleague to enlighten us on why this is so important to his riding, because I know his riding is a transportation hub as well. Can he let us know what it would mean to scrap all the gas taxes for a full year and not just halfway until Labour Day?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning that the member called our motion “unserious” when clearly it is serious enough that the Prime Minister just had a press conference on it. What I find unserious is that he took his time and, instead of talking about gas taxes and how to save Canadians money at the pumps, he just talked about housing most of the time. Does he believe that Canadians should get relief at the pumps, yes or no?”