Discussion · Government Orders
Tamara Jansen Conservative
“I support our amendment to let the committee keep studying this bill. The government is trying to cut off debate and avoid scrutiny on its spending plan. If the plan is good, ministers should be able to defend it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the fact that what we are opposing is a process that weakens accountability and a fiscal plan that seems to be planned out on the back of a napkin. Parliament exists to examine legislation, improve it and hold the government accountable for taxpayer dollars. That should not be controversial. The amendment moved by my Conservative colleague would allow committee work to continue and would remove the parts of the motion that cut off debate and scrutiny. That is a reasonable position. If the government’s legislation is strong, it should survive committee review. If its spending is justified, ministers should be able to defend it. If the plan is working, Canadians should be seeing results. Instead, Canadians are seeing higher costs, weak growth and more debt.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 44 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the fact that what we are opposing is a process that weakens accountability and a fiscal plan that seems to be planned out on the back of a napkin. Parliament exists to examine legislation, improve it and hold the government accountable for taxpayer dollars. That should not be controversial. The amendment moved by my Conservative colleague would allow committee work to continue and would remove the parts of the motion that cut off debate and scrutiny. That is a reasonable position. If the government’s legislation is strong, it should survive committee review. If its spending is justified, ministers should be able to defend it. If the plan is working, Canadians should be seeing results. Instead, Canadians are seeing higher costs, weak growth and more debt.