Tamara Jansen · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I'm against this process. It gets rid of accountability. The government should have to defend its spending. If the bills are good they should survive review. If the plan is working we should see results. Instead we see higher costs, weak growth, and more debt.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think the Liberals spent too much. The PBO said they spent new money on their priorities instead of lowering the deficit or giving taxpayers relief. They always spend more. But families are struggling. When the government has more money, Conservatives think it shouldn't just spend it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that there are many examples of where the Liberals have gone wrong in this budget. The PBO found that the government used most of the additional fiscal room for new policy priorities, leaving the deficit track substantially unchanged. In other words, when the government had some breathing room, it did not use that room to meaningfully lower the deficit or give taxpayers real relief. It used it to fund more spending. That is the pattern Canadians have seen for the last decade: more spending, announcements and promises. However, families are still struggling with groceries, housing, taxes and debt. Conservatives are saying that improved fiscal room should not be treated as permission to keep spending.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't think the government helps people by spending borrowed money. We want the government to spend less and get out of the way so businesses can build more and grow more food. Canadians need results, not slogans. We want to lower costs and make Canada more competitive.”

“I'm supposed to talk about the budget. But I'm going to complain about other things instead. The government spends too much. It's not working. I don't like that. They should do less. Debt is bad. The government is spending more after the budget. I don't like that either. These programs sound like they were just made up. They weren't in the budget. That's suspicious. Government shouldn't keep throwing money at problems. But I'm not going to give any specifics on what to cut. Just that there's too much spending. Spending is bad. It's the largest deficit ever! Inflation is bad. Everything is more expensive. The government promised fiscal responsibility but didn't deliver. We should look at this bill more before passing it. Let the committee keep working.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. The government has asked us today to accelerate consideration of the spring economic update because we are told time is short. What the government neglects to mention is that much of the time pressure is entirely of its own making. Let us be clear about what this motion would do. It would force all remaining amendments at committee to be moved and voted on without further debate. That is not a normal legislative process. It is Parliament being asked to do less of its most important job. A budget is supposed to be a statement of priorities. It is supposed to tell Canadians what the government intends to do, how much it intends to spend and how it intends to pay for it, yet within weeks of presenting budget 2025, the Prime Minister began announcing billions of dollars in new spending commitments that had not been presented when the budget was tabled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that these additional measures are roughly $48 billion over five years. Basically, a second budget is being unveiled piecemeal through press conferences and announcements, while Parliament is expected to simply keep up. The most striking example is the newly announced Canada Strong fund, a $25-billion sovereign debt fund that did not appear as a central feature of the government's original plan. When a government finds $25 billion for a brand-new sovereign debt fund, only weeks after presenting a budget, Parliament should begin to wonder if perhaps these programs are not emerging from a coherent economic plan, but are being invented on the fly whenever the government finds itself in need of a new announcement. The same pattern can be seen in the government's new commitments on defence and international affairs. Billions of dollars have now been announced for new defence procurement structures, a Defence Investment Agency and a defence industrial strategy. Why do so many huge financial commitments continue to emerge after the government's fiscal plan was supposedly complete? The Prime Minister has also unveiled team Canada strong, a multi-billion-dollar labour strategy. Then came the government's new electricity initiative. Canadians were told that billions more would be going towards transmission infrastructure, electricity corridors and long-term transformation of Canada's power grid. Once again, the government presented the announcement as though it had just came up with the idea at the last minute. How come these were not in the budget in the first place? Then, last week, the government announced a $3-billion national food strategy. The government appears to believe that food security can be achieved through creating funds, hubs, agencies, financing mechanisms, planning structures and administrative frameworks. Food security has never been created by government planners. It has always been created by farmers, truckers, processors, retailers and entrepreneurs who bring the food from the field to the table. The announcement contains billions of dollars in new programs, but remarkably little discussion of the policies that have made food more expensive in the first place. Food security depends on farmers who can afford to farm, processors who can afford to process, truckers who can afford to transport goods and businesses that can operate in a competitive environment, yet after years of inflationary Liberal policies that have increased costs throughout the supply chain, the government now proposes another layer of inflationary programs and administration as the solution. Each one of these announcements arrives with a new price tag attached to the national credit card. Every few weeks, Canadians are presented with another announcement, another commitment, another expenditure and another promise that government spending will somehow unlock future prosperity, yet after 10 years of this approach, Canadians have become entitled to ask a reasonable question: If government spending were the key to economic growth, why have the billions of dollars of new spending not made anything better? The government would like Canadians to believe that these new programs are finally going to make life more affordable, but it is just an illusion. Every new fund, every new agency, every new strategy and every new spending commitment ultimately lands on the country's credit card. The bill always arrives. It arrives in the form of larger deficits, higher debt, rising interest costs and, ultimately, a higher cost of living for the very people the government claims it is trying to help. Bill C‑30 is simply the latest example of what has become a familiar Liberal pattern: more spending, more borrowing, more debt and higher costs for Canadians. The Prime Minister promised fiscal responsibility. Instead, this budget more than doubles the deficit left behind by Justin Trudeau, from $31 billion to $72 billion. Outside the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history. Canadians were promised a new approach, but it turns out that the new approach means spending way more than Trudeau could ever have imagined. What makes this particularly troubling is that all of this is happening while Canada stands alone among the G20 countries as the only one in recession. The government continues to insist that more spending is the solution, yet with all that spending, Canada is the only G20 nation that has managed to achieve this disastrous distinction. One would think that after 10 years of disappointing results, the government might pause long enough to consider the fact that the remedy it keeps prescribing is actually making the illness worse. Canadians are already carrying the highest household debt burden in the G7. They are coping with some of the least affordable housing in the developed world. Food bank usage has reached record lows and young families can only dream of home ownership. Seniors are stretching fixed incomes further every month. Working parents are making impossible choices between groceries, rent, transportation and basic necessities. The Prime Minister did not campaign on doubling deficits. He did not campaign on larger government and ever-expanding spending commitments. He presented himself as the supposed adult in the room, the person who would restore fiscal discipline, bring competence back to the government and provide a new economic direction for the country. However, only months later, Canadians are looking at a $72-billion deficit, the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic, and billions of dollars in additional spending commitments that were not even included in the budget. The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget shows it is rising. He promised spending discipline. Spending is increasing faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. He promised economic renewal. Canada remains the only G20 country in recession. He promised to build faster, yet despite his creating new offices, new agencies and new approval processes, Canadians are still waiting to see any results. The concern is not simply that these promises have been broken. The concern is that the government appears not to have learned anything from the experience of the last decade. For 10 years, Canadians have been told that another spending program, another fund, another agency or another strategy will solve the problem, yet the problem continues to grow as the government continues to grow. The result is a country carrying more debt, paying more interest, experiencing weaker growth and facing higher costs than Canadians were promised. At some point, governments must be judged not by the announcements they make but by the results they achieve. Now the government has asked Parliament to spend less time examining legislation at the very moment it is asking Canadians to accept more spending, more borrowing and more debt. That is backwards. When a government announces another $48 billion in commitments after tabling a budget, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. When deficits are growing, debate becomes more important, not less. When Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and everyday necessities, accountability becomes more important, not less. Parliament was not created to rubber-stamp government announcements. It exists to test them, challenge them and ensure taxpayers understand the consequences before the bill arrives. After 10 years of rising debt, rising costs and declining affordability, Canadians have every right to ask whether more spending will solve the problem or simply make it worse. The government might not like that, but it is not a reason to curtail debate. It is the very reason debate exists. That is why Conservatives support the amendment moved by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. His amendment would allow the finance committee to continue its work instead of forcing members to vote on remaining clauses and amendments without debate. It would restore the basic principle that Parliament should examine legislation before passing it. Canadians can no longer afford more of the same, and they certainly cannot afford less scrutiny of the policies that brought us here.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Why does the government think more spending and debt will make life cheaper? It's like a family in trouble borrowing more on their credit card.”

“These announcements don't work. The government keeps spending money and announcing programs. Canadians are still facing higher costs. I want an explanation.”

“You've been spending more and more for 10 years. Housing and food are less affordable now. Debt is high. Our economy is the only one in recession. When will you admit that your spending is making things worse?”

Oral Questions

Access to Information

2026-06-15

“Does the PM have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board or not? Yes or no?”

Oral Questions

Access to Information

2026-06-11

“The government shouldn't hide its emails and texts from the people. The minister should stop this idea and protect transparency.”

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“I want to paint the Liberals as soft on crime. If they won't put limits on their bill, I will use that against them.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-08

“I want to embarrass the government by making it seem like they are ignoring ordinary Canadians. I want it to seem like only myself and my party are really listening to Canadians and understand their problems.”

“I met some voters. That's a nice way to show I'm in touch. Now I'm going to criticize the other party.”

“The Liberals kept saying everything was fine even though Canadians knew it wasn't. The PBO confirmed we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages, and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor. Why did it take the Liberals so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home. For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor. Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I want minimum sentences to mean something clear. You saying it's okay to ignore them sounds like no minimum to me.”

“I want more mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences. I'm upset the bill doesn't have the exact limits I want. I think the Liberals did this on purpose and it will let criminals off easy.”

“I want people to think I care about victims. I want them to think the other side doesn't. I'm filling time by listing good things I say I support. The real issue: I don't like that one part. I want to argue about that.”

“I'm fine with some parts of the bill. We even suggested them. But I don't like the part that gives judges more discretion on mandatory minimums. That's the poison pill I keep talking about. I want to look tough on crime.”

“I want you to think this bill helps victims. It has some popular parts everyone likes. But really, it hides a sneaky trick to let judges go easy on serious crimes. That's not right. Conservatives tried to make it better, but were blocked. We need a justice system that puts victims first, not criminals. The other party says one thing and does another. I don't trust them to protect Canadians.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could. Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code. First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary. However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs. Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated. Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes. Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question. That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children. Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence. The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do. The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface. That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected. Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection. Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today. At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment. Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Adjournment Proceedings

2026-06-01

“Government can't create prosperity. When you make it harder to build, invest, and hire, businesses invest less and jobs disappear. Canadians are paying the price for these policies. Jobs are leaving Canada because of all the taxes and red tape. The government needs to get out of the way and let Canadians create prosperity themselves.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what we are witnessing is not simply a recession. It is the predictable result of a government that believes prosperity can be engineered by Ottawa rather than created by Canadians themselves. For a year, the Prime Minister has promised growth. Instead, the economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared. Business investment has fallen. Billions of dollars have left this country. None of this should surprise us. When the government makes it more expensive to build, invest, hire and produce, businesses invest less, entrepreneurs take fewer risks and jobs disappear. Ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Food bank use is at record levels. Household debt is the highest in the G7. Families are working harder and getting less. When will the Liberals stop driving Canadians' decline and remove the taxes, red tape and barriers forcing jobs and opportunities out of Canada?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to stop spending and regulating so much. Let people and businesses make their own decisions. We have too much government and it's making Canadians poorer. When will the government learn that it can't control everything from Ottawa?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, one of the great questions facing any nation is whether it trusts its people more than it trusts the government. That question lies at the heart of the economic challenges facing Canada today. For most of our history, Canada was a country where ordinary people could arrive with little more than a dollar in their pocket, work hard, take risks, build a business, buy a home, raise a family, and leave their children better off than themselves. It was not because government created prosperity. It was because government created the conditions in which prosperity could grow. New Canadians were allowed to freely create their own opportunities without too much government interference. Today, however, we see the consequence of a very different philosophy. We are told that every problem requires another government program, another regulation and another bureaucracy to oversee it all. Yet, after years of this Liberal central planning approach, Canadians are not becoming more prosperous. They are barely managing to get by. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in the first few months of this year. Youth unemployment has climbed above 14%. Business investment continues to flee the country, and household savings have been used up. Families are working harder while falling further behind. This is the disastrous result of a government that cannot keep its hands out of our pockets or their red tape out of our enterprises. The government seems determined to argue about whether Canada is in a technical recession. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would use that same ridiculous argument while standing beside a mother waiting in a food bank line, a young person sending out résumés with no response or a family losing their home. Canadians do not experience recession through Liberal talking points. They experience it through lost jobs, missed mortgage payments, shrinking savings accounts and the growing fear that despite working hard and playing by the rules, they are falling further behind. This recession is the logical consequence of Liberal ideology. The Liberals have a governing philosophy that believes prosperity can be designed by Ottawa in a boardroom, rather than created by millions of Canadians making decisions for themselves. When a government makes it harder to build, invest, hire or expand, it should not be a surprise when investments leave and jobs disappear. What is especially troubling is that Canada is not suffering from a lack of talent, resources, innovation or ambition. We possess all of those things in abundance. What we lack is a government that is willing to remove the barriers that prevent Canadians from putting those strengths to work. Every year it becomes more difficult to build, invest, hire or expand, because government has inserted itself into more and more areas of economic life. The result is a system that satisfies almost no one. Those paying for it feel overburdened, while those depending on it often find that it delivers less than promised. Government grows larger, yet the problems it claims to solve seem only to multiply. Adam Smith understood that prosperity is created when free people are allowed to pursue opportunity and create value for others. We know that liberty is weakened when power becomes concentrated in government institutions. One truth never changes: A nation becomes stronger when its citizens are empowered, not when they are centrally managed. After years of rising bureaucracy, rising spending, rising deficits, rising unemployment and now a recession, when will the government acknowledge that prosperity does not come from Ottawa treating citizens like incapable children, but from smart, hard-working Canadians—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗