MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jason Groleau

Follow by RSS

Groleau works to protect Beauce businesses from U.S. tariffs and calls for government spending discipline across various sectors. He insists Parliament must hold the Liberals accountable, demonstrating this pattern by pointing out that “the tariffs are costing them each an extra $1.5 million a month.” Groleau also points to the rising cost of living, citing housing prices that have tripled.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 54 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 98 / 100
Averaged over the 54 of 57 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Says again and again

Statements 57

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

“The government is ignoring the steel industry, and thousands of Canadian workers are losing their jobs. Dozens of Quebec businesses sent ideas to save their companies to the finance and industry ministers. Why have these ministers not listened to them?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals’ abandonment of the steel sector is causing tremendous harm to Canadian workers. Following the loss of 500 jobs at Stelco, another 2,000 jobs are now being lost across Canada. In recent months, dozens of Quebec businesses have contacted us to denounce the Liberal government, which is completely out of touch with reality. These businesses have submitted concrete recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry in hopes of securing their survival. My question is simple: Why has neither of these Liberal ministers listened to Quebec businesses?

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

“American tariffs are costing steel businesses in my riding $54 million a year. The Prime Minister broke his promise to make a deal with the United States. I want him to make a good agreement with them now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have completely abandoned the Canadian steel industry. The American tariffs are costing businesses a fortune. Just ask Groupe Camnor, Beauce Atlas or Garaga. The tariffs are costing them each an extra $1.5 million a month. That amounts to an additional $54 million a year for these three incredible businesses in Beauce. The Prime Minister promised us a deal with the Americans, but he has completely failed. Can he set his pride aside and sign a good agreement with the United States?

Oral Questions ·

Small Business

“The government is helping big corporations and ignoring small businesses. Tariffs are hurting these businesses, causing them to freeze hiring and cancel investments. The government collected over $9.7 billion in counter-tariffs. Instead of spending that money on illegal immigration, it should give it back to small businesses.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, these measures are going to help big corporations. What I am saying is that the Liberals are turning their backs on our SMEs. Tariffs are having an impact: thirty-two per cent of Canadian businesses plan to scale back their operations, 24% are planning a hiring freeze and 23% intend to cancel their investments in Canada. The Liberal government has collected over $9.7 billion in countertariffs. Instead of spending our money on illegal immigration, for example, why not give that money back to the people who keep us going, to our SMEs?

“U.S. tariffs are hurting our small businesses and risking millions of jobs. I want to know why the government is sending billions of dollars to other countries instead of helping our businesses here.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, U.S. tariffs are hurting our small and medium-sized businesses. SMEs account for 99.7% of businesses in Canada and support nearly eight million jobs. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, tariffs are leading to additional costs of $187,000 a month per exporting business. Why are the Liberals sending our money abroad, to the tune of billions of dollars, instead of supporting our SMEs and protecting the eight million Canadian jobs?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“We need launch capabilities for our national security. But Canadians are struggling to afford food while the government spends recklessly. We must manage public money responsibly.”
  • 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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is a great hockey player by the way. I have had to face off with him a few times. That is a good question. Yes, the purpose is national security, and yes, we need launch capabilities. However, as I have been saying all day, people are struggling to eat and yet money is being spent with reckless abandon. It is important to manage Canadians’ money responsibly.

In response to a question from Joël Godin

“Canadians are struggling to buy food, but the government is spending 200 million dollars on a small concrete slab. We need to be more responsible with taxpayers' money. That spending is unacceptable.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 36 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
  • A repeated line

    “Canadians are struggling to put food on the table.”

    Said 14 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague. The words “responsibility” and “accountability” should be heard a lot more here in Parliament. As parliamentarians, we are taking action, representing taxpayers and managing public funds. While people are struggling to put food on the table, the government is spending $200 million on a 25- by 35-foot concrete slab. That is unacceptable.

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The government needs to be more open and careful about how it gives out these contracts. People should not get them just because they know someone in power. We are wasting too much taxpayer money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question. I mentioned this in my speech. I asked what the criteria are. Does a bidder have to know someone in the ministers’ offices to get a contract? It should not be that way. There needs to be a lot more transparency on this file. Far too much taxpayer money is being spent haphazardly. There needs to be more discipline.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We support national sovereignty, but the government needs to spend money carefully. Spending $200 million on a small concrete pad makes no sense. The government must be held accountable for its choices.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, you will have to excuse him. He is new here and is struggling this morning. We are all in favour of national sovereignty. That is clear. We are just asking the government to exercise discipline, but it never does. I want to come back to the decision to spend $200 million on a 24- by 35-foot concrete pad. It makes no sense. That should not happen. The government should be accountable for its decisions.

In response to a question from Michael Barrett

“I oppose this space bill. The government is wasting money, like spending $200 million to lease a launch site that was rented for just $13,500. This bill also lets the minister protect space companies from damage costs, which means taxpayers could pay if things go wrong. I want the government to make the terms of that $200-million deal public, set clear limits on financial risks for taxpayers, and make fair, clear rules for all businesses.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when families in Beauce sit down to make their budget, they naturally begin with the essentials: groceries, housing, electricity, car payments, school supplies, clothing and all the other basic necessities. Then they look at what is left in their wallet and, unfortunately, they are forced to make choices. There are always choices to be made. They may have to postpone a repair, delay a purchase or cut back in one area simply to make ends meet in another. Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve a costly space launch bill that will grant the minister broader powers that could ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers. The Liberals talk about ambition. I want to talk about accountability. Before asking Canadians to finance its ambitions in space, the government should first confront the realities here on Earth. The people of Beauce work hard for every dollar they earn. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. More importantly, they have a right to ask questions before they are handed the bill. Bill C-28 seeks to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. I believe that Canada has amazing engineers, researchers and businesses that are capable of doing great things. We can be proud of their work, and we do want to develop our capabilities, but an ambitious project must be based on sound rules. It has to pass a very simple test: Will taxpayers get good value for their money? Is the Liberal government managing the money properly? Take the case of Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia, which I have mentioned here before. The government announced a $200-million agreement over 10 years to lease a specialized launch site and related services before even introducing Bill C-28. I repeat: It committed $200 million. To understand why this announcement raises questions, let us come back to the issue that my colleagues from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources and Montmorency—Charlevoix and I raised here in the House before. The situation we described is based on observations made on March 21 by Marie Lumsden, a resident of Canso who went to the area with her camera. There is a gravel road, two shipping containers and a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad. For reference, that is just about big enough to put a 21-foot trailer on. That is a striking image. Then there are the numbers. Maritime Launch Services, a company in which a former Liberal holds shares, is leasing the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. Those are the facts. The federal government approaches this company with the great idea of leasing the property from it for $20 million a year. That is a fact, not a joke. Let me repeat, a company that leased the property for $13,500 is leasing it back to the government for $20 million. I see one of my colleagues laughing, but the worst part is that someone had the bright idea to sign a 10-year, $200-million lease for a bit of land with a 25- by 35-foot concrete pad on it. That tells us everything we need to know about the Liberals’ financial management. Not a single business person in Beauce manages their money like that. If they did, they would soon go out of business. Why are the Liberals more careless with taxpayers’ money than a business person would be with theirs? Why are they not being transparent? We want to know the contract terms. Who set the price and evaluated the alternatives? Who signed the contract? Who is responsible? Was the minister aware? We all asked these questions. Who is responsible for this horrific expenditure of funds? A minister can call it a historic investment if they want, but every dollar still has to be justified, and $200 million is a lot of money. Ottawa has announced millions of dollars, while families in Beauce are counting every penny. That is why we are so keen to make sure public funds are managed properly. When families are having to defer necessary spending, they expect their government to exercise sound judgment before making new commitments. Families are not asking for handouts. They just want their efforts to be respected. People work hard. They are asking the government to respect their efforts and invest their tax dollars wisely. Bill C-28 raises another question. What other financial risks could taxpayers be expected to bear in the future? The bill gives the minister the power to indemnify certain owners and operators for their liability to third parties for damage, when the minister deems it in the public interest to do so. It also makes it possible to grant certain exemptions and reduce the minimum amount of liability insurance an operator is required to carry. It is a bit technical, but behind these provisions lie two very practical questions: If things do not go according to plan, who will foot the bill and how much could they have to pay? Will taxpayers end up footing the bill yet again? Are we going to put yet another expense on our grandchildren’s credit card? Canadians need to know the bounds of the commitments made on their behalf. They are the ones footing the bill, after all. They need to know how much of the risk falls on the company and how much may fall on them. If government protection is necessary, the minister must be able to justify it. He must share the terms and conditions and be accountable for his decision. He also needs to explain how the risk is assessed before offering such protection. If the government intends to make taxpayers foot the bill when things go wrong, then it needs to explain the risks to them before signing the agreement. Exercising this kind of caution is a normal part of everyday life for Canadians, Quebeckers and residents of Beauce. It should be normal for cabinet too. We also need to think about the businesses that would like to get involved in this industry. In Beauce, we are no strangers to taking risks. Sometimes business owners have to buy machinery, expand a plant, develop a product or seek out new markets. Before investing, they need to calculate their operating costs, purchases and expenses. Most importantly, they need to understand the rules. My colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna raised this concern. When financial protections depend on a minister’s discretionary decisions, different companies may find themselves in very different situations. What criteria will be used to determine whether protection is granted to one company and denied to another? How can a new operator verify whether it is being treated fairly compared to another company? The government must make these rules and criteria clear. A company must be able to plan its project knowing what requirements it will need to meet. Its competitors must be subject to comparable criteria. This is essential for attracting investment and enabling new players to establish themselves on an equal footing. An entrepreneur should succeed through hard work and good ideas. He or she should not need a contact at the minister’s office to secure contracts. Predictable rules instill confidence in businesses. Well-explained decisions and transparency instill confidence in citizens. The government has a responsibility to instill confidence in both of these groups. The Liberals also talk about sovereignty. We agree this is a serious issue. Space technologies can be used for communications, research and, above all, defence. The Conservatives are calling for more explicit guarantees when it comes to national security. Our demands are simple. First, the terms of the $200-million agreement must be made public. Second, clear limits on the financial risks borne by taxpayers need to be established. Third, the government needs to lay out the same criteria for all businesses so they can invest with confidence and be treated fairly. These are basic requirements when spending Canadians’ money. Personally, I would approach this issue with the same common sense that the people of Beauce apply to their own finances. Before spending money, we do the math. Before making a commitment, we read the terms. When using someone else’s money, we have to answer for how it is spent.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

“Canada has an affordability crisis. What does my colleague think about the Bloc Québécois wanting to bring back the tax on gas?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources on his excellent speech. We are experiencing an affordability crisis, and we had a vote today. I would like to ask him the following question: How does my colleague view the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants to reintroduce the excise tax on gasoline?

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The member voted against our earlier motion to make life more affordable, so I do not understand his question. The government is only pausing fuel taxes. We should get rid of them completely to help people in my riding and across Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by his question. We moved a motion earlier because we wanted to talk about affordability. He voted against that motion, so I am having a hard time understanding his question. Again, the Liberals have set an end date for the taxes. Why not eliminate them altogether? That would give Canadians and Quebeckers, including the people of Beauce, a bit of breathing room.

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“Higher fuel prices make everything else more expensive. Fuel costs have gone up 80 percent in recent years, and inflation started long before we paused the fuel tax. I invite the member to committee so I can explain how these supply chain costs work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, he is right that I was not here in 2023; I was not around. That is a good point. In fact, it is one of the only good points he made on the subject. Earlier, I talked about inflation. I would like to point out that inflation did not start when the excise tax suspension was extended. It has been around for years, since 2019. As far as I know, the tax was in effect then. What we are trying to figure out is whether fuel prices directly affect inflation. Obviously, fuel prices have gone up by 80% over the past few years. That definitely comes at a cost. It makes sense. It is simple math. I would invite my colleague to the committee so I can explain the supply chain and everything involved in that. I would be happy to explain all of that to him.

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“This bill is not enough. Fuel prices keep rising each month while people struggle to afford living. We sell our oil to the United States and pay 24 cents more per litre than they do. We should invest in our own refineries to permanently lower diesel prices.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “People are struggling to make ends meet.”

    Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, whom I hold in high regard, for his excellent question. Why am I saying that this is not enough? I do not know whether the Liberals have any data suggesting that diesel prices will fall in the coming weeks, but for the time being, prices are increasing month after month. I do not know whether they are aware that there is currently a cost of living crisis. People are struggling to make ends meet. I do not know whether the government realizes that we sell our oil to the United States while paying 24¢ more per litre than they do. We have the resources; we have everything we need. Why are we not investing in refineries to ensure a long-term, permanent reduction in the price of diesel?

“I support cutting fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. High diesel prices raise costs for farmers and drive up grocery bills. The government should remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until July 2027, end the carbon tax on industry, and help build more refineries.”
  • A repeated line

    “When the cost of diesel goes up?”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since October 6.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about a subject that directly concerns the wallets of Canadians, Quebeckers and, obviously, the people of Beauce. I am going to talk about diesel prices, which have an impact on our families, on inflation, on the cost of groceries and on our constituents’ abilities to make ends meet. To begin, I would like to talk about my magnificent region, Beauce. Beauce is a region of entrepreneurs, builders, manufacturers and, of course, farmers. Beauce is the entrepreneurial capital of Canada. It is home to proud, and even very proud, people who work hard. The people of Beauce are job creators and wealth creators. In my riding, entrepreneurs do not wait for the government to move forward. They wait for neither government money nor, above all, subsidies. In Beauce, we work together, support one another and stand united. The people of Beauce are asking the government to stop putting obstacles in their way through the layers of red tape created by the Liberals over the past 11 years. Today, one of those obstacles is the cost of fuel. Diesel is a tool of the trade in Beauce. It powers tractors, farm equipment and delivery trucks, and it is an important part of the regional economy. When the cost of diesel goes up, it is not just another bill; the effects ripple through the economy and drives inflation. When I meet with farmers from Beauce, whether in Saint‑Isidore, Saint‑Éphrem‑de‑Beauce, Saint‑Victor, Saint‑Gédéon‑de‑Beauce or elsewhere in my riding, they all tell me the same thing: Their production and operating costs are skyrocketing. Over the past year, they have had to cope with periods when the price of diesel nearly doubled. Imagine a farmer who suddenly has to pay almost twice as much to run his machinery. He cannot simply decide not to cultivate his fields. He cannot stop feeding his livestock. He cannot stop producing the food that Canadians need. He has to keep going as well as keep paying his bills. According to estimates by the UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles, the rise in diesel prices could cost Quebeckers as much as an additional $200 million. That is $200 million in Quebec alone. The worst part is that this money is not being invested in farms. It is not being used to buy new equipment or create jobs. This $200 million will directly drive inflation. The cost always ends up being passed along the supply chain. The cost of diesel does not stop at the farm gate. It follows the produce. It follows the truck. It follows the distribution network. Ultimately, it is passed on in the price paid by consumers. The producer is the first to absorb the increase. That is always how it goes. However, it is always Canadian families who foot the bill in the end. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has finally decided to defer the excise tax on gasoline. However, let us be clear that this did not happen by chance. It happened because Conservatives spent months pressuring the government to do it. We asked the government to stop adding to Canadians’ tax burden. We asked the government to recognize that families had had enough. Now the Liberals are finally being forced to acknowledge that reducing fuel taxes, which was not possible a few months ago, can help bring down the cost of living. They found a calculator and realized that it could lower prices. That is good news, but it is not enough. A cost-of-living crisis cannot be resolved with temporary half measures. Our Conservative proposal is clear: eliminate all federal taxes on gas and diesel until July 1, 2027. This includes the excise tax, the GST on fuel and regulatory costs that contribute to higher prices. We are also calling for the permanent elimination of industrial carbon pricing. We need to grant emergency permits and tax relief for refinery construction so we can boost diesel production to one million barrels per day and thereby increase supply to meet demand. We estimate that these measures could save each family nearly $1,000 a year. I want to emphasize something. I am talking about both diesel and gasoline. Cutting the cost of gasoline helps families get around, spend time with their families and travel, but lowering the cost of diesel also helps reduce the cost of producing and distributing almost everything we consume. I would now like to talk about something that is particularly close to my heart: the impact of diesel on food inflation. For several years now, Canadians have been seeing higher grocery bills. They have to make choices they should never have needed to make. Seniors are having to choose between certain food products and other essentials. Meanwhile, we continue to hear all sorts of explanations for this increase. There is talk about producers, processors, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, but who can really explain to Canadians where these increases are in the food supply chain and, most importantly, who is benefiting? Those are the questions we have to ask ourselves. I am particularly proud to make an announcement today in the House. At the request of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have agreed to serve on a special committee focused on the supply chain and food inflation. Why is that important to me? It is simple. It is because I know the industry. I spent 30 years of my life working in the grocery sector and across the entire supply chain. I am familiar with these realities and these challenges and, more importantly, I have worked at every stage of the supply chain. I grew up in a farming family, worked on the supplier side for 15 years, worked in distribution and worked with wholesalers. Now, I also understand the reality of the final link in the chain, that is, the point of sale. At every stage, there are costs involved. At every stage, business decisions have to be made. At every stage, prices might have to go up. Where are the costs really going up? What increases are justified? Which companies are absorbing higher costs and which ones are passing them on to consumers? I truly believe in transparency, and when millions of Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, they deserve answers. That is what we want. I can assure the House that we will leave no stone unturned. I intend to put my 30 years of experience to work for the public in this effort. There is one thing that I think is especially important in the debate on diesel. The government is talking about inflation as though it were an abstract phenomenon, as though prices just magically appear on items on store shelves. However, behind every price is an economic reality. There is a farmer who has to pay for diesel, a business that has to pay for power, a trucker that transports goods, a retailer who has to pay their employees, pay their electricity bill, buy equipment and fund their operations. That is why the cost of fuel is so important. Diesel is like the blood flowing through the veins of our economy. We do not have to like it. People may not like it, but that is a fact of life. That is how it is. When the price of diesel goes up, the strain is felt everywhere: on our farms, in our factories, on our roads, in our businesses and at the grocery store checkout. That is why the government needs to stop treating taxes on fuel as simply a tax issue. This is a matter of competitiveness, food security, purchasing power and respect for those who feed our country. We welcome the Liberal government’s backtracking on rising gas prices, but we are not going to stop there. We will continue to fight to eliminate federal taxes on gas and diesel. We will continue to stand up for our farmers. We will continue to stand up for our manufacturers.

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“The government is sending home skilled workers who obey the law, even though Quebec needs them. At the same time, it refuses to deport people who have no legal right to be here. I want the minister to explain why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is telling us concerns a program affected by fraud. I, on the other hand, am talking about skilled workers in our regions. They refuse to deport non-citizens who have no legal right to remain here, who abuse our system and who are a financial burden on taxpayers. The regions of Quebec are being hit hard by U.S. tariffs. Our unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country, yet the Liberals are sending home our skilled and qualified workers, who are the driving force behind our economy. Why are the Liberals punishing our skilled immigrants who obey the law but rewarding those who do not?

“The Liberals let people with expired visas stay in Canada and use public services. At the same time, they want to deport skilled, law-abiding workers. I want to know why the government punishes skilled immigrants instead of deporting people who are here illegally.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are allowing hundreds of thousands of non-Canadian citizens with expired visas to remain in the country and benefit from our public services. The Prime Minister would rather deport our skilled immigrant workers, such as machinists, who obey the law, are integrated into our regions, contribute to society and work in our factories. Why are the Liberals penalizing skilled immigrants in our regions with low unemployment rates, instead of deporting those without legal status from Canada?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Housing prices have tripled and the cost of food and fuel has doubled under this Liberal government. Life is too expensive for Canadian families. Will the government admit that Canada is in a cost-of-living crisis?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the cost of living has skyrocketed over the past 11 years under this Liberal government. Whether it is the price of housing or homes, which has tripled, or the price of groceries, gas or diesel, which has doubled in recent years, everything is more expensive under this inflationary and completely irresponsible government. Even a Thanksgiving meal is no longer affordable for Canadian families. My question is simple. Does the government acknowledge that, after 11 years of the Liberals, Canada is officially in a cost of living crisis?

Oral Questions ·

Employment

“Life is too expensive, housing costs have tripled under the Liberals, and Quebec just lost 68,000 jobs. The government must stop sending money to other countries and start taking care of Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we are in a cost of living crisis. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Gas is expensive. The cost of diesel has doubled in a year, and home prices have tripled in the last 10 or 11 years of Liberal governance. As if that were not bad enough, we are also learning that people are losing their jobs. In the past two months, August and September, 68,000 jobs were lost in Quebec alone. The Liberals are completely out of touch with the reality facing Canadians. Will they stop sending money to other countries and start taking care of the people here at home?

“The government says job creation is up and housing costs are falling, but Quebec lost 50,000 jobs in September. I want the government to admit that losing these jobs is not good news.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary told the House that everything is going well in Canada, that the cost of housing is dropping and that job creation is up across the country. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister recently asked us to give him a break because he just got here, even though he has been here for 18 months already. Today, we learned that 50,000 jobs were lost in Quebec alone in September. Does anyone on the other side of the House have the courage to stand up, look Quebeckers in the eye and tell them that losing 50,000 jobs in one month is good news?

Oral Questions ·

Steel and Aluminum Industry

“Liberal policies are driving up costs for businesses in my riding. Local companies are facing millions of dollars in extra expenses. Conservatives want to help these businesses save money, and the government should stop making things harder for them.”
  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Signal 43 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, businesses in the Beauce region have nothing to learn from Liberal ministers. The only thing more costly than a tariff is a Liberal minister who thinks they know more about business than entrepreneurs do. That is what is really costly. While they do nothing more than talk, operating costs are skyrocketing. Take Structure SBL, for example, which is facing an additional $4 million in costs. Camnor is facing an additional $1.5 million in costs per month. Conservatives want to help companies save money. Why are the Liberals doing the opposite?