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 2 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of things in the House today in this debate, and we did not actually hear too much of what the Liberals' plan is. I have a quote, since we are speaking of quotes. The parliamentary secretary said he will continue to “wait it out”. That is a part of their plan and strategy. That does not go very well for the Hamilton auto parts sector. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to highlight some points of an actual plan that will get workers back to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague, the parliamentary secretary , just said part of the plan and strategy was to wait it out. I would like to know if the member supports that ideology and thinks that workers who are out of work in the auto sector should go along with the strategy to just simply wait it out.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the other side is that there is a need for more research and more time to consult, but they have had one year to get a deal done, and they have produced zero. In that year, there have been closures and job losses. We are now stalled in talks with America. We, the Conservatives, have put forth a clear plan that calls for a tariff-free auto pact. That member just spent 10 minutes tearing it apart. I want to ask the member, are you really going against a tariff-free auto pact? Is that is what you want to tell the constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been caught misleading Canadians. After his trip to Beijing, he claimed human rights violations and foreign interference were discussed in meetings with CCP leaders. However, the government documents I requested revealed that neither of these topics were discussed in any of the bilateral meetings. Today, the Prime Minister is trying to change his story yet again. Canadians want to know: Why can the Prime Minister not stick to his story?”
“I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and thanking the PPS, police, emergency services and the heroes we have here today.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are heroes among us today, and if it were not for them, a life would have been lost. Two days ago, a member of my office suffered a sudden medical emergency, and in those critical moments, parliamentary assistant Ellena Yazdani, Constable Maxime Patry-Lavigne, Constable Matthew Sargeson and many other members of the Parliamentary Protective Service acted immediately. Because of their courage, quick thinking and medical training, a life was saved. I am happy to report he is doing very well. In the hospital, the doctor told me that if there had not been a defibrillator on site, a tragedy would have occurred. I would like to also thank my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac for his endless work in advocating for access to defibrillators. We need more defibrillators in public spaces. Simply put, they save lives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague this: Do you agree with or denounce what the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said when he stated that prosecutors should have the discretion to press charges on some passages from Leviticus and Romans?”
“Mr. Speaker, just last week almost 300 people came out to a Bill C-9 religious freedoms town hall, and in the last half an hour, I have had a flood of emails. Shutting down debate in committee goes against everything that these people want from their members of Parliament. I would like to ask a question of my fellow member. We hear a lot of talk from the other side that we are obstructionists and that we are doing this and doing that. They have done today exactly what they said we are doing. In my mind, the opposition is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and I would like the member to comment on the actions taken today. Are they demonstrating a healthy democracy?”
“The rest of Canada and Canadians watching this want to know what Build Canada Homes would do because the stakeholders have no clue what it would do or how it would better Canadians. I do know that they have hired some bureaucrats north of $700,000 to start filling it out with employees. That is what we do know. However, there are no shovels in the ground. There are no homes built, and it will fail just like all the other ones did. As someone on the public accounts committee, I cannot wait to dig my teeth into this one when it comes across our plate.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been more examples of admissions of failure. We have heard them in the House. I have heard many 10-minute speeches that do not actually speak to Bill C-20 . It is much like when I hold stakeholder meetings back in Hamilton, which I do regularly with the housing sector. I ask them whether they understand Build Canada Homes, and not one of our experts in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara region can actually say what Build Canada Homes does. We heard it about 20 minutes ago when the member across the way did not talk about Bill C-20 . He blamed everything on the Conservatives and the right wing. I do not even know what it was. Like I said, I am more dumbfounded now, after listening to him, than I was before. There were no solutions coming from that. They do not even understand their own bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to possibly explore it and we could talk about it. I have not seen anything cross my desk, but we on this side are open to many different decisions and collaborations. Maybe we could talk about that further.”
“Mr. Speaker, simply put, Canadians want action. I knocked on 120,000 doors and I met a lot of young adults who lived in basements. While the government wants to do more research on what is happening, on this side of the aisle, we actually talk to young Canadians. We actually hear their wants and needs. We actually listen to Canadians. We formulate our thoughts and we try to execute. Some members on that side will call us obstructionists. I beg to differ. I believe the cornerstone to our democracy is a very good and reliable opposition, and we cannot discount that. When they trample all over us and call us obstructionists, I call that freedom and I call that democracy.”
“It is about generational equity and whether young Canadians can start families, seniors can downsize with dignity, workers can live near their jobs, and communities can grow sustainably. When the private sector is ready and willing to build, the government's rule should be to remove obstacles, not to create them. Canadians deserve results, not rebranding. They deserve homes, not headlines. Bill C-20 would expand bureaucracy, duplicate existing programs and fall dramatically short of the government's own promises. Instead, I ask for support of our Conservative plan for homebuilding: to focus on letting builders build, on cutting costs and on restoring the dream of home ownership for the next generation of Canadians.”
“The government argues that converting Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation would provide flexibility and independence, but independence without a plan is meaningless. Governance reform without cost reform does not lower prices. The central question is simple: Would the bill dramatically increase the number of homes built at a lower cost? The PBO says it would not; it would duplicate existing CMHC programs, produce a fraction of the promised homes and spend millions of dollars to underachieve. That is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians when he took office. Conservatives recognize that housing affordability is not merely a line item in a budget.”
“This would unlock billions of dollars in private capital, directing investments into Canada homebuilding instead of watching it flee to foreign markets like America. These are measures that would address the underlying economics of supply. Bill C-20 would not; instead, it would grow the footprint of government in a sector that is already burdened by regulation, taxation and delay. It would further centralize authority in Ottawa, when what we need is to cut red tape and accelerate approvals. Every year of delay means higher rents, higher mortgages and fewer opportunities for young Canadians to own a home. Every new layer of bureaucracy adds time. Time adds cost, cost adds price, and price erodes affordability. Throwing billions more dollars at redundant bureaucracies would not fix our supply crisis.”
“That would save families up to $65,000 and immediately stimulate construction activity across the country. Second, we would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding performance. Municipalities must permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year in order to receive full federal funding. If cities want transit dollars, they would have to approve homes near transit. If they want infrastructure dollars, they would have to permit growth. Third, we would cut development charges by 50%. These charges can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home before a shovel has even hit the ground. The Liberals promised to address development charges during the last election campaign, but they have failed to deliver. Last, we would end the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada.”
“(1750) Now let us address the supposed affordability claims. The Prime Minister has suggested that Canadians could expect affordable rents in a range of $600 to $800 per month under this initiative, yet the PBO found that so-called affordable rents under Build Canada Homes could actually exceed current market rents. Applying the government's own affordability criteria, a two-bedroom unit would cost about $2,168 per month for the median household. That is nearly double the $1,100 national median for market rent. An hon. member: Liberal math. Ned Kuruc: Mr. Speaker, yes it is. Conservatives believe that the only way to restore the dream of home ownership in stable rental markets is to unleash supply at scale. Our approach is clear. First, we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million.”
“Take the word of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, who had this to say: The Ontario Home Builders' Association...is deeply disappointed with the lack of support for Ontario’s home builders and buyers in the 2025 Federal Budget.... The budget presented no new measures to unlock supply and restore affordability.... The government’s continued inaction has put [100,000] jobs...at risk—from architects and engineers, to trades and sub trades across the residential construction sector. They also said that the budget remains “vague regarding the Liberal platform’s commitment to work with municipalities to reduce development charges...by 50 percent.” If our own home builders do not support the Liberal platform's housing plan, how can we expect the rest of Canada, who are paying this enormous price tag, to support it?”
“They are asking for streamlined approvals, predictable permitting, reduced developmental charges, lower taxes and faster timelines. The Liberal government believes that if something is not working, the solution is to create another agency. However, housing is not built by bureaucrats; it is built by builders. In order to build, we need prices to be cut. For prices to be cut, we need to build. Bill C-20 does not meaningfully cut the costs that builders face. It does not eliminate the GST on new homes. It does not mandate municipalities to increase supply. It does not cut developmental charges. It does not address capital flows leaving Canada due to punitive tax policies. Bill C-20 is not what future homeowners need. Do not take my word for it.”
“Bill C-20 represents $13 billion over five years, $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for the Canada Lands Company transfer, yet after spending $219 million just on bureaucrats to run the new office, the PBO stated that Build Canada Homes will fund the same types of projects that were already funded under CMHC's affordable housing fund, with the same unit costs and the same distribution and affordability. In other words, we are spending billions of dollars to duplicate what already exists. This would be the government's third housing agency and fourth housing bureaucracy. Builders across this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, from rural communities to our largest cities, are pleading for less government in the building process, not more.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reviewed this initiative. What did the PBO conclude? The Liberals promised 500,000 homes per year, half a million homes annually, yet the PBO reported that there is no plan to achieve that goal and that Build Canada Homes would build approximately 5,200 homes per year. These 5,000 homes will not restore affordability in this country, which needs hundreds of thousands more units annually just to keep pace with demand. What will this cost Canadians?”
“Let us be clear that what Bill C-20 does is that it converts Build Canada Homes, which exists as a special operating agency, into a full Crown corporation. It establishes a corporate structure, a board and expanded powers, and folds the Canada Lands Company into its portfolio. It grants this new entity the power to provide advice to ministers, departments, agencies and other Crown corporations. However, Canadians are not short on advice; they are short on homes. During the 2025 election campaign, the Liberal government promised that Build Canada Homes would fulfill three core functions: first, building affordable housing at scale; second, catalyzing a new housing industry; and third, providing financing to affordable home builders. Those are lofty promises, and we must measure legislation not by theory but by its results and evidence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20 , legislation that would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation and expand yet another layer of federal bureaucracy in the housing file. At a time when Canadians are facing the worst housing affordability crisis in a generation, what they need is action that lowers costs and unleashes supply. What this bill offers instead is more bureaucracy expanding its administrative authority, and $13 billion in new spending without a credible plan to actually build the homes that Canada was promised. That could not have been more evident than in the speech from the member across, in which he spent 10 minutes calling us “far right” and slandering us. I am a little more dumbfounded now than I was before I walked in, but hopefully we will get some answers.”
“Mr. Speaker, in December, the Stoney Creek food bank saw a record 1,694 total visits, the largest number since 2022. Also in December, the Fare Share Food Bank in Oakville saw the largest number of people they have ever served, over 913 families. Canadians rely on food banks because food prices have skyrocketed by 7.3%. How many Canadians need to visit a food bank before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing American EVs when the U.S. trade conflict has already cost 5,000 Canadian auto manufacturing jobs, 37,000 since the Prime Minister took office. He needs to stop this insult to Hamilton auto workers and work with us to put Canadian auto jobs first. This is a time when the Canadian auto sector is looking for unity and action in standing up to Donald Trump. Will the Liberals join us and support our motion to remove the GST on new Canadian-made vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, I stand today to commemorate Serbian Statehood Day, also known as Sretenje. February 15 is a day that speaks of faith, humility and the encounter between the human and the divine. It is also the day in 1835 when Serbia adopted its first modern constitution, a symbol of liberty, dignity and the rule of law, values deeply shared with Canada. Our two nations stood together in the darkest hours of the 20th century. One great example is Leslie Joy Whitehead, a young Canadian woman who volunteered to serve with the Serbian army during World War I. She marched through war-torn lands, endured capture as a prisoner of war and fought on the front lines, a testament to the courage, compassion and deep human bonds between our peoples. Canada offered many Serbs a new home. Serbia offered Canada devoted citizens.”
“I ask colleagues to please join me in sending our condolences to the family and loved ones of Sebastian Halmagean and thanking them for his service. He will be remembered for his bravery and his loyalty to his country. Sebi is a Canadian hero. May God rest his soul.”
“Mr. Speaker, I solemnly rise in the House today to offer my most sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family of Canadian Armed Forces gunner Sebastian Halmagean, or as we knew him, Sebi. A resident of Stoney Creek and someone I have been privileged to know and watch grow up since he was five years old, Sebastian was a gunner posted to the 4th Artillery Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. He was on his first overseas deployment in Latvia, where he unfortunately passed away. Sebastian had long felt the pride and the calling for service to his country and was an outspoken advocate for more young Canadians to join the armed forces. Sebi loved his country and our military. He was a wonderful son and friend and a loyal soldier.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on religious freedom on behalf of Canadians and, more specifically, the good folks of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Religious freedom is a serious issue, which Bill C-9 has overreached. Simply put, this petition is telling the government to stay out of places of worship and respect the religious freedoms of every Canadian citizen.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member from Hamilton over there that, instead of chirping us and heckling us, he should visit a food bank in Hamilton. The Stoney Creek Community Food Bank is serving 60 people per day. That is up 400% in the last two years. Last week, youth visits were up double compared to this time last year. It is no wonder food is so expensive. The industrial carbon tax, the packaging tax and the new fuel tax all raise food prices. Will the Liberals cut their hidden taxes on food so that—”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table, the Liberal Prime Minister spent nearly 800,000 taxpayer dollars to charter a flight to Egypt. While he was jet-setting, the reality here at home is that grocery prices have skyrocketed, and “Canada's Food Price Report 2020” shows that it is expected to get even worse. The report confirms that, in 2026, Canadians will pay an extra $1,000 per year on groceries. When will the Liberals stop their reckless spending so that Canadians can afford to feed themselves?”
“It is what the Liberals want, but we, through the motion, would do it faster and actually make a commitment to Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I have said over and over again that the Liberals are focused only on headlines. The MOU is going to kick the can down the line and hopefully get them into another election by saying they were pro-pipeline. Nothing in the MOU actually says that they are going to build one, but today's motion would accomplish that, so I hope the Liberals will join us and vote for a pipeline that they have proposed. The leader of the Conservative Party has actually put forward amendments that they wanted. To the member's question, yes, it would secure jobs. His riding and my city of Hamilton need steel, and we have to be self-reliant. Again I encourage every member of the House to vote for the motion, and I hope they do.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has touched on the point that the Liberals are facing a very big identity crisis. They do not know whether they are for climate change policy or for pulling oil out of the ground, or whether their caucus is completely divided on this issue. To the member's question on unleashing Canada's economic future, the motion today would produce that. Like I said, it is a good day for Canadians. It is a day when the Liberals and every member of the House can vote to unleash Canada's energy sector and have good economic, prosperous, times ahead. I hope every member of the House votes with us today, because Canadians at home are counting on the House to unleash pipelines, oil and energy so we can become an energy superpower and rely on no one but Canada. I ask members to please vote with us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Prime Minister again when he said that he agreed that 65% of all oil and gas reserves and 90% of all coal reserves must be left in the ground, and that there was no need for any exploration of new oil and gas fields. That is what is actually concerning. Canadians are seeing right through this pipeline MOU. They want a clear answer, and we have delivered one. I hope the Liberals join us today in voting for Canada and what Canada wants and needs.”
“The Leader of the Opposition has amended the motion to include the Liberals' concerns, green-lighting carbon capture projects, engaging and consulting with indigenous partners and participating in a trilateral discussion with B.C. on the pipeline. To quote the finance minister, today is “a good day for Canadians.” Let us build the pipeline, and I hope the Liberals will join us in building a stronger, more self-reliant Canada.”
“Supporting the motion is not about just energy; it is about reinforcing Canadian manufacturing, protecting Canadian jobs and giving Canadian steel a home market advantage against imported materials. This is not just about a pipeline. It is about Canada's economic future. It is about creating jobs in Alberta, B.C., Ontario and, of course, Hamilton. It is about factory floors, steel mills, transport depots and shipping ports. It is about energy, sovereignty, national pride and ensuring Canadian resources benefit Canadians first. The Liberal MOU is a promise of maybe someday, diluted by countless caveats and subject to vetoes. The Conservative motion before us is a clear statement of support for action, growth and prosperity. We even have some breaking news.”
“The new Nanos Research poll shows that 56% of Canadians support building a new pipeline and 55% are in favour of lifting the ban on tanker traffic to make it happen. A much overlooked benefit of building major infrastructure like a pipeline is that it gives a boost to the domestic steel markets and fabrication industries. We can consider the steel industry in Hamilton, a cornerstone of Canadian manufacturing. A large pipeline project with its demand for steel structural components, welding and fabrication would generate increased demand for Canadian-produced steel. That means more orders, more stable demand and more work for steelworkers and fabricators in Hamilton and beyond.”
“It is time to make a decision and get the divided Liberals on record for all Canadians to see. Shipping a million barrels a day of Alberta oil to Asia can have a transformative effect on our economy, which is exactly the promise of this motion. By unlocking access to global energy markets, we attract billions in private sector energy investment, which creates jobs, not just for oil and pipeline workers but across sectors, such as manufacturing, fabrication, steel, transport and infrastructure. It strengthens Canada's economy and sovereignty, reduces our dependence on foreign energy and gives Canadian workers more secure, well-paying jobs. It also helps stabilize incomes while lowering the cost of energy, food and housing. This is a huge factor as many Canadians are struggling under the current cost of living.”
“They tell Albertans they are in favour of a pipeline, while telling B.C. and Quebeckers they are against it. The Liberal caucus is not aligned. They have lost a minister over it and now multiple MPs on that side have spoken out against it. This is an identity crisis for them. (1350) Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On June 6, he said he “will not impose a project on a province”. On October 1, he told his caucus that if B.C. does not want it, it is not going ahead. Let us not forget that when Mark Carney was an environmental ambassador for the United Nations, he agreed that 65% of all oil and gas reserves and 90% of all coal reserves must be left in the ground, and that there is no need for any exploration of new oil and gas fields.”
“By voting for this motion, members agree that we need to cut the red tape and bureaucracy, repeal the outdated tanker ban, grant the permits and let private sector investment flow to build the infrastructure we need. This motion would force clarity. It forces the question: Do they want a pipeline or just more press conferences, studies and headlines? The Prime Minister has been asked in this very House when the pipeline would be built, and his response was that the MOU “creates necessary conditions, but not sufficient conditions”. I ask Canadians listening at home if this sounds like someone who really wants to build a pipeline. The MOU is not a shovel in the ground. The Liberals campaigned on “keeping it in the ground” policies. This is not a change of heart. It is a political game, and Canadians can see right through it.”
“It would be like building a pipeline to nowhere. We would have no way of getting the oil off the west coast and into foreign markets. To further the problem, with restrictions like this baked into the MOU, the private sector would not support this deal, meaning there would be no one to actually build the pipeline. The Liberals cannot claim to support pipelines while keeping laws and veto powers that make building them virtually impossible. That is exactly why our motion before the House matters. It is not a vague promise that maybe someday we would build a pipeline. Our motion is clear. It says, yes, we support building the pipeline and exporting a million barrels a day.”
“That is exactly what this motion is: committing the Prime Minister to his very own words. The MOU signed by the Prime Minister in Alberta in November provides the “necessary conditions” for a pipeline, but it is not a commitment to build one. In reality, the MOU only says that a proposal may eventually be referred to a federal office for years of further study. We have seen this roundabout language time and time again with the Liberal government in attempts to drag its feet on issues and never follow through. The MOU must have B.C. support, and Premier Eby has been extremely vocal that he would not support it. Not only that, but the Liberals are also keeping the tanker ban in place. The tanker ban, passed by Justin Trudeau in 2019, would make the pipeline bringing LNG to B.C. completely pointless.”
“One thing that is for certain is that the Conservatives are all in agreement. No one in Canada has been more clear about the need to get an oil pipeline built to the west coast than we have. We are a resource superpower, and through this decade of Liberal government, we have only put hurdles in front of ourselves by keeping our wealth in the ground. With an unpredictable neighbour down south and economic conditions worldwide being tested, now is the time, more than ever, for the Liberals to step out of the way and let Conservatives deliver on a promise of a prosperous Canada. Using the Prime Minister 's own words, we need to build “things previously thought impossible” at unimaginable speeds and “build Canada into an energy superpower”. The only way we can do that is with the Liberals stepping aside and letting builders build.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake . Today I rise on the motion to commit the government to a new pipeline from Alberta to the west coast. First, I think we need to be really clear what this Liberal memorandum of understanding really is. It is not a real commitment to Canadian energy; it is a political charade designed to make headlines rather than put shovels in the ground. Canadians have seen this movie before: big announcements, photo ops and then years of backtracking and filibustering, all leading to cancelled projects. This MOU is no different. It is not a binding contract. It is not a guarantee to build a pipeline, and the Prime Minister 's own caucus is now divided on whether they support their own party's policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we found out that the Liberals knew Algoma was planning to lay off 1,000 steel workers before giving the company $400 million. I guess the Prime Minister was speaking the truth: He really does not care about protecting Canadian jobs. Do members know who does care? Conservatives care and so do the thousands of Hamilton steel and manufacturing workers who go to bed every night wondering if they are going to have a job in the morning. Why is it that, with these Liberals, there is always a guarantee for corporate welfare but zero guarantees for the Canadian worker?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a 30-second admission of guilt and failure by the current government. A response of “Who cares?” is a terrible attempt to downplay how important a trade deal is for Canadian steel and manufacturing. The steelworkers of Hamilton want an answer. They want a deal, a deal that would give them job security, pay their bills and feed their families; this deal was promised to them on July 21. On behalf of the Canadian steel and manufacturing workers, when will the Prime Minister deliver on his promise and get a deal done?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was asked this weekend whether he had spoken to Trump about trade, his response was, “Who cares?” He said it was not a “burning issue”. Well, I can tell members who cares. Conservatives care, and so do the thousands of Hamilton steelworkers and manufacturing workers who go to bed every night wondering if they will have a job in the morning. How can the Prime Minister look Hamilton steelworkers in the eye and tell them their job security is not a burning issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can use the word “drought” as an explanation to the Stoney Creek Community Food Bank. Yesterday, it told me that in the last two months, 40% of the people who needed help were children. Food prices have risen nearly 40% faster in Canada than in the U.S. The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the fuel tax, but they chose to keep it. It will cost Canadian families up to 17¢ more per litre when they fill their gas tanks. I will ask this again: Why is the Prime Minister keeping the fuel tax and making food more expensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians, driving up the cost of everything. The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax. They chose not to listen to Canadians. They chose to make food more expensive by increasing it. The Liberals mislead and insult Canadians by calling this tax imaginary. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?”