MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Fraser Tolmie

Follow by RSS

Tolmie advocates for agricultural relief from high fuel and fertilizer costs, alongside maintaining the Snowbirds and supporting military sexual trauma survivors. He frequently makes his case through personal narratives and rhetorical questions, for example, asking, “Do members know how we got the second female Snowbird pilot?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
81 / 100 over 33 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 78 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Averaged over the 33 of 38 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.6

Statements 38

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“More people are dropping out of the military. New recruits are joining without understanding what they are getting into. The government is not telling the full truth about what is happening with military recruitment.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 37 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be straightforward: There are more people washing out in the military. They are being thrown into recruitment centres and being told that they are going to become soldiers, sailors and infantry, and they do not even know. They just show up. I have talked to friends who are in the military, and they are asking, “What are these people doing here?” They do not even know what they are doing here. Do not tell me that recruitment is up when the full spectrum of what is going on in the military is not being given.

In response to a question from Tako Van Popta

“The government makes announcements but does not deliver real results for housing, pipelines, or the military. We waited 10 years for new fighter jets and only got two. Troops do not have the equipment they need, and this is why military recruitment is down.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that it would not. When we look at the past record of how the Liberals have been operating in government, it is just boondoggle after boondoggle. Whether it is housing, the military or building pipelines, we have not seen anything. All we hear is the Prime Minister or ministers at the podium making announcements upon announcements. We have not seen anything. It is not tangible. It takes forever for the Liberals to come up with something. Canadians are so tired of waiting. We have been waiting 10 years for the F-35 fighter aircraft that we desperately need. We had two delivered just recently and the Liberals think they have a win. This is just another example of why recruitment is down in the military and why we cannot get people in. We are not setting goals or standards and giving people something to strive for. We are not making them feel good that they are being looked after, that when they are being deployed to Latvia, they have the equipment they need or that they are not using used equipment or washed equipment from a weekend so that reservists can do weekend deployment.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government is far too slow at buying military equipment. After 11 years, we have only received two F-35 fighter jets, and the helicopters are delayed too. Nobody believes the government can fix this.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 42 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am at Yuk Yucks. Honestly, on efficiency for the F-35, we have two that have been delivered after 11 years of the Liberal government, and it is not the first time it has done this. There are the Cormorant helicopters. It is unbelievable. Time after time after time, we are always waiting for equipment from the Liberal government. Is this an admission of it having bad policy previously and that it cannot get its act together? Is it trying to create some new way to expedite? Nobody believes the Liberals.

“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates a new corporation that lets a minister spend billions of dollars on military gear without enough oversight from Parliament. We need to buy military equipment faster, but we should fix our current system instead of making a new bureaucracy. This bill also fails to include targets to hire veterans or use veteran-owned businesses.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. When this debate opened, the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement read the House a long list of what the Defence Investment Agency has achieved. Then he said something that I agree with completely: Some were contracts, some were preferred suppliers and some were arrangements, and we should not confuse them. He is right, so let us not. A preferred supplier is not a contract. A contract is not a delivery. Let me be clear about where Conservatives stand. Procurement in this country is too slow. Our men and women in uniform have waited too long for the equipment they needed yesterday. Going faster is the right goal. We do not object to going faster. We object to going faster with nobody watching. We know it can be done. During the war in Afghanistan, a Conservative government bought C-17s, Chinooks and new Hercules quickly using the urgent operational and national security exceptions that already existed. That speed came from political leadership. It did not require handing unchecked power to one person. This is the third version of this agency in a year. It started inside Public Services and Procurement Canada. Six months later, the government buried a plan to make it a stand-alone entity in an omnibus budget bill. Before that plan has even passed, it wants a Crown corporation instead. That is three structures in one year. How is that for Liberals making themselves look busy while accomplishing nothing? There is no shortage of decisions, and how they were made tells us exactly what this bill would make routine. Let us take the fighter trainer as an example. Since March 2024, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not had a lead-in fighter trainer. The Hawks are gone. The 419 squadron is on hiatus, and our future fighter pilots are being trained in Italy, Texas and other locations around the globe. How did the government pick a replacement? It was not through an open competition. The Prime Minister launched negotiations for the Italian M-346 with Prime Minister Meloni on the sidelines of the G7, even though Canada had received proposals from American and South Korean manufacturers. It may well be a fine aircraft, but a leader-to-leader handshake is not a procurement process. Under Bill C-40, a government-to-government deal would be one of 17 ways a minister could skip competition entirely. Then there is GlobalEye. The government named Saab’s GlobalEye as its preferred airborne early warning aircraft at CANSEC in May. It is a capability that our air force badly needs, but according to reports, the decision came as a shock to the RCAF itself and to other manufacturers ready to bid on the contract. Saab did not meet with National Defence or the air force about operational requirements until weeks after the announcement. The technical assessment that followed found real shortfalls: limited radar coverage, no air-to-air refuelling capability and incompatibility with NORAD’s secure data network. That is why Conservatives have asked the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to investigate. If this is how decisions get made while Parliament still has some oversight, imagine how they will be under the bill that would remove it. This bill would create a Crown corporation that we are told would operate at arm’s length, but the minister can direct it to do or not do any procurement activity, and the bill says it must comply. Ministers keep the control. The House loses the line of sight. We have seen what happens when public money flows through a body the House cannot see into. The green slush fund handed out public money with too little oversight. Bill C-40 would build that same kind of body and hand it $1 billion at a time. Plainly, this bill would hand a new associate minister oligarchic powers to direct a corporation with a billion-dollar fund, to have it lend money and buy shares in companies, and to do it all while the House is kept at arm’s length. This is not reform. This is concentration. The secretary of state defended clause 9 by calling it an “unambiguous tie to the government”. That is exactly the point. This is not at arm’s length. It is a minister’s hand on a billion-dollar fund. The government is promising a once-in-a-generation build-out-of-Canada defence economy, so let me ask a simple question: Who is better prepared to build, maintain and sustain military equipment than the people who use it? They are mechanics, technicians, logisticians, pilots and project managers who have run operations under conditions that most private sector managers will never see. On the veterans affairs committee, we hear in study after study that veterans’ skills are not recognized and that the government has no measurable targets, and there is nothing in the bill and nothing in this strategy to change that. There is no target for veteran-owned businesses and no credit in contract evaluation for hiring veterans. There is nothing. Let us look south. In the United States, Congress set a statutory goal that 3% of federal contracting dollars would go to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. In fiscal year 2023, American agencies did not just meet that goal; they beat it, awarding more than 5%, or nearly $32 billion U.S. We do not have to look south to know targets work. The secretary of state told the House that defence procurement met the government’s 5% indigenous procurement target last year. That is good. It proves that a target can be set, measured and met in Canadian defence procurement, so why is there no target for veterans? Conservatives want our armed forces equipped faster. We just want it done in the open and done for the people who served. That means having a minister who answers to Parliament. The bill says, “The Corporation must do as the Minister directs”, which is wording we would not find in any other law in Canada. Direction should come from cabinet on the record, not from one minister’s say-so. It means using the tools the system already has. We did it in Afghanistan. That is why Conservatives have called for a dedicated secretariat in the Privy Council so defence contracts get cabinet’s priority. Speed comes from political will, not from new Crown corporations. Conservatives would cut the process, not cut Parliament out. After a decade of Liberal neglect, our sailors, soldiers and aviators do not need a new bureaucracy or a minister with a new title. They need a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face. I am concerned that Bill C-40 would remove the parliamentary oversight that this agency badly needs and would open the door to waste and mismanagement. We have seen where this leads. The greens slush fund was an arm’s-length body handing out public money. Bill C-40 would be the same kind of body. That is why Conservatives have concerns and will be seeking clarity at committee. I would be remiss not to spend my last minute of this speech recognizing those who served with the Snowbirds. I was at their last air show in Moose Jaw, something that obviously I was proud to witness and that inspired not only me but Canadians across this nation, but something that was very disappointing. It is another example of a procurement boondoggle on the Liberal side, as we do not have an aircraft to replace the Snowbirds, to transition from one to the other and to continue having a team that shows the professionalism of our Canadian military. I look forward to the questions and comments that will come from my colleagues from both my side and the other side.

“Past Liberal policy made Canada rely on foreign countries for military equipment. The Conservatives invested in F-35 fighter jets, which helped Canadian small businesses. Now the Liberals are delaying that project. I want the member to tell us which side of this issue he supports.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I consider my colleague from Labrador a friend. I would just like to ask him a few things about his intervention. Under the Chrétien government, the Liberals came out with a defence white paper. It was about buying off-the-shelf technology, and that was, basically, relying on foreign countries for equipment. I heard my colleague say that put us in a bad situation, and we are reliant on foreign nations. Under a Conservative government, we invested on the ground floor of the F-35s, which included small businesses in Canada being able to gain from the contracts. Now the Liberals are dragging the puck on that. What side of the fence is my colleague on? If I get two Liberals in the same room, they are arguing between each other, and at some point one of them is going to win. Which one is going to win?

“The government has delayed buying needed military equipment for years, including fighter jets and submarines. I want to know if this bill is an admission that its defence policies have failed.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the answer I received earlier, but I will move on. The big question is, is this an admission of failure by the Liberal government to procure equipment? We have been waiting for years for F-35s. We have been waiting for submarine replacements. We are waiting on Snowbird replacements. We are waiting on continual equipment replacement by the Liberal government. It keeps dragging the puck, and all we hear are excuses. This seems to be another excuse. Is this another excuse, or is this an admission of failure on bad policy that the Liberals have had in place for over 10 years?

“Canada does not support veterans when it hands out military contracts. The United States gives a share of defence contracts to businesses owned by veterans. I want to know why the government is not recognizing veterans here.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague to the veterans affairs committee. One of the things we hear in the veterans affairs committee is that there is a continual lack of recognition for veterans when military contracts go out. If we look south of the border, the U.S. has a procurement strategy of including 3% of small businesses owned by veterans, and in fact, that has actually been exceeded to 5%. We hear all these numbers being thrown around by the Liberals, but we are not hearing anything about veterans. We have seen sole-sourcing. Could the member expand a little on her thoughts about why veterans are not being recognized?

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“The Liberals have a bad record on buying military equipment. They cancelled projects for helicopters and fighter jets. Why should Canadians trust them now?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have some very big concerns on this side from what we have seen and the track record of the Liberal government. The Cormorant helicopters were cancelled, and then the F-35 program was cancelled. We are hearing platitudes. What confidence can the Canadian public have in a Liberal government that has such a bad track record in procurement?

“Conservatives worry about the government being too close to private companies. We saw problems with that in past projects like ArriveCAN. I want to know what the member thinks about these concerns.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member made a couple of comments with regard to insiders and friends. We have seen this with the ArriveCAN app and the green slush fund. This is a huge concern for Conservatives. I heard a previous colleague from across the aisle talking about a closer relationship between government and corporations. I think that is what scares us the most about that. Would the member like to share his point of view and thoughts on that and on why there are some reservations on our side?

Oral Questions ·

Public Services and Procurement

“The Prime Minister tells Canadians to buy Canadian, but his government gave a security contract to an American company instead of a Canadian one that employs veterans. The American company won by bidding less than one percent lower. I want to know why the Prime Minister chose an American firm over Canadian veterans.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tells Canadians to buy Canadian, but his own government is happy to buy American. He fired the veterans guarding the Canada Revenue Agency. The Commissionaires, Canada’s largest employer of veterans, lost the contract to Allied Universal, an American firm cashing in on the ICE contract. Allied underbid the Commissionaires by $80,000, which is less than 1%. Why is the Prime Minister choosing an American firm over veterans who served this country?

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“I want my colleague to talk about how past military purchases were necessary, while this bill gives too much power to one person and hides what the government is doing.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to maybe expand a bit on the difference between when the Conservatives purchased the Chinook helicopters, the C-17s and the Hercules when we were in Afghanistan on deployment, and Bill C-40, which has powers we are very concerned about just being handed over to one person. I wonder if he could expand on the differences between, as I said, the necessity to buy the equipment and expedite it, and then the lack of transparency we are seeing in this bill.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want to hear how rising fuel costs and food shortages are affecting people in the member's riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have had an exchange of questions throughout my intervention and throughout her intervention about some commonalities we are facing and some of the challenges that farmers in my riding are experiencing. I would like to hear what kinds of impacts she is facing in her riding with food security and the increased costs of fuel, and how that is affecting her constituents.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I try to find compromise, but the Liberals block our ideas. I support processing our farm crops here at home before shipping them out. We already do similar work at refineries in Moose Jaw and Regina.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I always like to try to find the centre and a solution that appeals to everybody. We have tried to do that from our side, but we have been shut down by the Liberal government every time we have tried to propose something. I am always about value added, especially in the agriculture sector with regard to the crops we are shipping off, and that is open to all areas. We do have a refinery in Moose Jaw, and we have a refinery in Regina as well.

In response to a question from Doug Shipley

“Farmers need relief from high costs and taxes on fuel and fertilizer. These taxes make food more expensive for everyone. The government needs to listen to farmers and help them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a real question, and I am so sorry I was not there when he came to my riding. That is just a bit of contention. I did go to Barrie, and he was not there. To answer the question, farmers need relief. They need a government to understand what they actually do. They feed Canadians and they feed the world. Any time we put taxes on them or we make things difficult for them, whether it is with fertilizer or fuel, it affects our food and our food chain. We need a better solution for farmers. They need relief, and they are getting tired of not being heard.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberals have run the country for 11 years and ignored our warnings. They said everything was fine, but they created the problems Canadians are facing today. Canadians deserve better.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 6 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 26 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that I have been here for five years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 11 years. Its members have failed to listen to the Conservatives, who have been calling out warning signs for years to be able to actually protect Canadians from the challenges we are facing globally. There has been no response. They have always said that they have had it under control, that everything is good, and then all of a sudden they are here to fix the problem. They have created the problem. Canadians deserve better.

“I want the government to remove all taxes on diesel fuel until at least Canada Day. Diesel prices are way up, and farmers need cheap fuel to plant crops and haul food this spring. The government's plan to bring the fuel tax back on April 1 hurts farmers right when they use the most fuel. We also need to build more pipelines and refineries so Canada can make its own fuel instead of buying it from the United States.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is an old saying in military circles: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. It is as true on a farm as it is in an army. Getting a crop in the ground and off the field is a logistics exercise from start to finish to have the right equipment in the right place at the right time with fuel in the tank, and that fuel is diesel. Diesel is not a luxury fuel. It runs the tractor and the combine. It runs the grain truck and the locomotive that takes the crop to port. It runs the potash mine and the gravel hauler, and the pickup trucks that Canadian workers drive every day. Nothing in Canada’s food system moves without it. Right now, Canadians are paying more for it than they should, for reasons this government can control. Last month, diesel fuel averaged $2.74 a litre in Canada and a year ago, it was about $1.53. That is an increase of nearly 80%. On September 28, Canadians were paying about 24¢ a litre more than the American average and 31¢ more than the world average. This is a country with the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. Global turmoil explains why prices went up everywhere. It does not explain why they are higher here. Let me talk about home. Harvest in Saskatchewan has not been kind this year. With waterlogged fields, heat, hail and delays, producers in my riding were already behind, and then diesel costs spiked at precisely the moment they needed it most. Grain Growers of Canada estimates that fuelling a single large combine would cost more than $15,000 more this harvest than it did last year. Reporting out of Saskatchewan this fall put the added cost of diesel fuel at roughly $20 an acre. The president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan summed it up plainly, saying that “[i]n the spring, [farmers faced] record...fertilizer prices. Now [it is] record...diesel prices, and on top of that, [trade uncertainties threaten what they will get for the crop].... [They are] looking at higher expenses and possibly lower returns.” Here is what members opposite need to understand about agriculture. Farmers are price takers. A manufacturer can raise the price of what they sell. A canola grower near Lanigan or a wheat farmer outside of Moose Jaw cannot. They sell whatever the world price is that day, less the cost of freight. Every cent added to the cost of diesel fuel comes straight out of their margin. There is nobody to pass it on to and the diesel bill does not stop at the farm gate. The grain is trucked to the elevator. It goes by rail to the coast. The fertilizer comes back the other way. Processors, packers and grocers all run on fuel. The cost compounds at every link in the chain and it lands at the checkout in Moose Jaw and in downtown Toronto alike. Tax the farmers’ fuel and that is taxing the food. Tax the truckers’ fuel and that is taxing everything they carry. I expect the government members will stand up today and say they have already acted. They suspended the federal excise tax on fuel and they have extended that suspension. I will give them that. It was the right call. Conservatives called for it and Canadians welcomed it. However, let us look at the calendar. Under the government’s own plan, the excise tax on diesel fuel comes back at half-rate on February 1 and at the full rate on April 1. Anyone who has spent time in rural Saskatchewan knows what this means. Farm fuel use is not spread evenly across the year. It comes in two surges: seeding in the spring and harvest in the fall. In between, through the winter, the machines sit in the shed and the fuel bill is at its lowest. The government’s relief arrives in the months when farmers are using the least diesel. The tax comes back on April 1, just around ground thaws and when the trucks that serve agriculture go back to work, when the farm trucks and the semis haul seed and fertilizing fuel out in the field and the grain is still moving to the elevator. There is relief through the quiet months, but the tax is back for the busy ones. It does not stop with the farmer. Spring is when the seed moves, when the fertilizer moves, when the trucks and railcars that serve agriculture are running flat out. Everyone knows those leaders will carry the tax again. Some members will say it is only 4¢ a litre. In Ottawa, 4¢ sounds small, but if we multiply it across every truckload of seed and fertilizer, every load of grain to the elevator, every delivery that keeps a farm running in the spring, it is not small at all. On a farm already absorbing record fertilizer prices and record diesel prices, there is no such thing as a cost that does not matter. Here is the question for the government: If the tax was worth suspending this fall, why is it worth bringing it back in the spring? Nobody in the House can promise diesel prices will have come down by April. If, as the government’s own news release says, this relief is meant to help the food and the agriculture sectors, we should not set the end date right in the middle of the agriculture year. This is not a plan built around how farmers work. It is a plan built around a fiscal calendar in Ottawa. Our plan is different. We would eliminate all taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day to carry farmers through seeding, not just through winter, to carry truckers through spring hauling, and give Canadians real breathing room, not a countdown. I want to be honest with the House about something. Tax relief alone does not close a 24¢ gap. Tax relief is the bridge. Supply is the destination. Canadian diesel is more expensive than American diesel because we do not make enough of our own. In southern Saskatchewan, much of our diesel comes from the co-op refinery in Regina. It is a tremendous asset, but western Canada still relies on fuel brought in from the United States. Last year, nearly 80% of the refined petroleum products Canada imported came from the United States. For decades, Canada has shipped its crude oil south and bought it back as gasoline and diesel as a profit to American companies. With a weak Canadian dollar, every one of those imported litres costs us more. This is not just an affordability problem, but a vulnerability. We have the resource. What we have lacked is the will to build. For 11 years, the Liberal government has blocked and delayed the projects that would have made us self-reliant, like pipelines to carry Canadian crude oil and diesel across our own country, expanded production and a strategic reserve to protect us during shortages. Energy east was abandoned. Approval timelines stretched into decades. Investors noticed and capital went elsewhere. The result is exactly what the motion described: fewer ways to produce, refine and transport our own fuel. Members opposite may have a new leader, but it is the same caucus and the same cabinet that built the record, and Canadians are paying for it at the pump. We have a better plan. We have shared it within my speech. We are asking the Liberal government to listen to us, to listen to the farmers within my riding and across Canada, because we are a food-producing nation. We are a breadbasket and we are starving our own people because of bad Liberal policy. There needs to be a change. We are asking for support.

Statements by Members ·

The Economy

“People in my riding are struggling to afford life and farmers cannot break even. The government wastes money on pet projects instead of real priorities. I will keep fighting for my communities and our farmers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer travelling the communities of Moose Jaw, Lanigan, Watrous and Outlook and everywhere in between, listening to the people I am honoured to represent. In those conversations, I heard the same thing over and over again: Canadians are tired of watching Liberals spend on insiders and pet projects while families struggle to make ends meet. Farmers are struggling just to break even. I am back in the House, ready to fight for the communities of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. That means standing up for the agriculture sector, which feeds this country. It means demanding that the Liberals focus on what matters to Canada, and it means defending the institutions that are important to Canadians, like the iconic Snowbirds, grounded by the Liberals, who are spending on everything but our nation’s priorities. I will keep fighting for the best interests of my people and their communities and demanding better for our country.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“The Liberals are using Conservative ideas now, but it is too little, too late. A Conservative government would have solved these problems before they even started.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have noticed is that some of the policies the Liberals are bringing out now are obviously Conservative policies, but the difference is that when Conservatives were conceiving these policies, they were for a vision to insulate us from the issues and challenges that we are facing today. Would my colleague agree that it is too little too late from the Liberals, whereas if a Conservative government had been voted in, we would have solved these problems before they were even on our plate?

“I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for what she said. She is a good and caring person.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not only questions, it is also comments. I would like to make a comment regarding my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank her for her intervention. I know she is not a millionaire. I know she is not a billionaire, but she does have a heart of gold. I thank her for the words that she brought forward.

“Liberals do not understand that fuel taxes add up and make groceries and everyday items more expensive. I want my colleague to explain this again so they get it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost on the Liberal side is the compounding taxes that happen and how they translate to the consumer when they either go to the grocery store or buy everyday products. I would like my colleague to expand on that, because explaining it another time might help the Liberals understand.