MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Tamara Jansen

Follow by RSS

Jansen pushes to exclude mental disorders from medical assistance in dying through Bill C-218, to keep federal fuel tax relief in place, and to rein in deficit spending and the roughly $59 billion a year now going to debt interest. She makes her case through anecdotes, small stories that carry the argument: “after losing his electrical job, my husband turned to farming.” She also speaks for public safety measures, including bail changes and consequences for repeat offenders in Surrey and Cloverdale.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 57 statements
Signal 73 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 57 of 64 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Says again and again

Echo

Statements 64

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

“I worry that banning social media for kids under 16 will not protect them. When teenagers are told they cannot do something, they often just get better at hiding it. A ban might push them to sites that parents cannot watch, which could make them less safe. I want my colleague to tell me if a ban would actually protect kids.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have raised five teenagers, and one thing I have learned is that telling a teenager they cannot do something does not necessarily mean they will not do it. Sometimes it means they will get a whole lot better at hiding it. That is what worries me about banning social media for kids under 16. Of course, we want to protect our kids, but we also have to be realistic about how teenagers behave. If they find ways around a ban or end up on platforms that are even harder for parents to monitor, have we made them any safer? I wonder if we could end up making things worse for the kids we are trying to protect. Perhaps my colleague can speak to that.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government is spending too much money. Canada spends more as a share of its economy than most peer countries, and our debt costs keep rising. I want the Prime Minister to tell us if he has a real plan to get borrowing under control.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 37 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague loves to talk about our amazing credit rating, but Canada is already spending more as a share of our economy than the G20 median, and the OECD tells us government spending has increased significantly since before the pandemic. Even Russia, which is in the middle of a war with Ukraine, is spending less than us. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is projecting continuing federal deficits and rising debt interest costs. Canadians deserve to hear whether the Prime Minister has a credible plan to bring federal borrowing under control.

In response to a question from Sandra Cobena

“The independent budget watchdog says the government's rules are not stopping its heavy spending. The deficit is $63 billion this year and will reach $70 billion next year, with rising interest costs. The Prime Minister needs to explain this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The PBO has just told us that the government’s own fiscal rules have imposed limited fiscal discipline. In plain English, the government’s spending rules are doing diddly-squat to stop the wild spending spree it is on. We are looking at a $63-billion deficit this year, climbing to $70 billion next year, while interest payments continue to grow. These are not numbers coming from the opposition. They are coming from Parliament’s independent budget watchdog. Surely, that deserves an explanation from the Prime Minister.

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“Times are tough, but the government still chose to spend more than it had. The budget office found we had 37 billion dollars in extra revenue, but the government announced over 52 billion dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister should explain this choice.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, nobody disputes that tariffs and global uncertainty are hurting our economy. In fact, Prime Minister Harper balanced the budget during those difficult times. The PBO acknowledges that these are tough times, but it also tells us that since June, stronger revenues created $37 billion in additional fiscal room while the government announced $52.6 billion in new measures. That is a choice about how to use the available money, and it is entirely reasonable to ask the Prime Minister to explain it.

“The government is hiding how much money it borrows by splitting its spending into two groups. It spends $1 billion a week just on debt interest, which takes money away from services like health care. I want the Prime Minister to come to the finance committee to explain his plan to control spending, lower interest costs, and cut taxes.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what if I told Canadians that every single week, the federal government spends $1 billion on something that will totally shock them? That $1 billion does not put a nurse at a bedside, does not build a home for a struggling family and does not make life one bit more affordable for Canadians. That $1 billion is 1,000 times $1 million, every seven days. What are Canadians getting for all that money? It is the bill for interest alone on the national debt. The worst part is that the $1 billion a week does not pay off a single penny of the debt itself. I think most of us know what it is like to sit down at the kitchen table with a pile of bills and wonder how we are going to make everything work. Imagine a family that has been relying a little too much on their credit card just to get through the month. They are doing their best, but the balance keeps growing, and every time they make a payment, so much of it goes toward interest that they barely make a dent in what they owe. One would think the sensible thing would be to sit down together, take a good look at where the money is going and figure out what they can cut back on. Instead, someone comes up with what they think is a brilliant idea: Why not get a second credit card and divide all their spending into two categories? On the first card, they can put everyday necessities, things like groceries, prescriptions, gas for the car and monthly bills. On the second card, they can put everything that they decide is an investment in the family’s future, like replacing a roof, buying new clothes for the kids and even taking the family to the movies, because, after all, spending time together is an investment too. Here is the clever part. From now on, they will only judge how well they are managing their money by looking at the first credit card. As long as they can get that balance under control, they will tell themselves that they are finally living within their means, even while the spending on the second card keeps growing. When the bills arrive, the bank does not care what they have decided to call their purchases. It does not matter whether the money went toward groceries, a new roof or a night at the movies. They still owe every dollar that they borrowed, and they are still paying interest on it. They have not solved their debt problem. They have simply found a new way of keeping score that makes one part of their finances look better without improving the overall picture. That little story might sound ridiculous, but it is a good way to describe how the Prime Minister is presenting the federal government’s finances. He is completely ignoring accounting practices accepted worldwide and has now decided to divide government spending into two categories. On the one side are the everyday operating expenses, and on the other are things his government calls investments in Canada’s future. Just like our family with the two credit cards, the Prime Minister wants Canadians to focus on getting that first account balanced while borrowing buckets of money to pay for what is going on the second. One does not have to take my word for whether this approach is actually keeping government spending under control. Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released her latest report, and the numbers tell quite a story. Since June, the government has announced $52.6 billion in new spending and tax measures over the next five years. Of that amount, $43.8 billion, more than 80%, has been classified as capital investment, which means it does not count against the Prime Minister’s promise to balance his operating budget. Think about that for a moment. For every five dollars in new measures that the government has announced, more than four dollars has been put into the second bucket, where they do not count against the Prime Minister’s promise to balance the day-to-day budget. Let us go back to that family sitting around the kitchen table, looking at their two credit card bills and trying to figure out how they are ever going to get ahead. They have been making their payments every month, but the balances never seem to come down because so much of what they are paying is being eaten up by interest. The longer they carry that debt, the more money they lose to interest, instead of being able to spend it on things the family needs. Most Canadians understand that problem because they have either experienced it themselves or watched somebody they love struggle with it. What many Canadians may not realize is that the federal government has run up such an enormous debt that the interest alone now works out to nearly $6,000 a year for every family of four in Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that the interest on our national debt is now the fastest-growing expense in the federal budget. We are not talking about health care, where Canadians are already waiting months for treatment, or national defence, where our military desperately needs new equipment, or even the benefits that seniors rely on to get by. We are talking about interest payments to corporate bankers and bondholders. This year alone, the federal government is expected to spend approximately $59 billion on interest. According to the PBO projections, that annual bill is going to climb to $83 billion by 2030. We can just imagine what that means for the next generation of Canadians, who will inherit not only the debt but the cost of servicing it. Here is where I find this especially troubling. When the Prime Minister took office, he promised Canadians that he would spend less, that he would bring some discipline back to Ottawa’s finances and that Canadians could expect a different approach to managing their money. Instead, we are looking at a deficit roughly twice the size of the one left behind by Justin Trudeau, with the government continuing to borrow billions more every year. Anyone who has ever tried to get out of credit card debt knows that they cannot keep increasing the balance and expect the interest payments to somehow take care of themselves. Eventually, those payments begin to crowd out everything else in the budget, and they find themselves working harder and harder just to keep up with what they already owe. That is exactly the concern we should have about our federal finances because every dollar Ottawa spends paying interest on the debt is a dollar that is not available to hire another nurse, provide another hospital bed, improve the services Canadians depend on or leave a little more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. The really frustrating part is that those Canadians are already making difficult choices every single day. They are putting things back on the grocery store shelf because they cannot afford them. They are postponing repairs to their homes. They are telling their children there simply is not enough money for some of the things they used to enjoy. They understand that when money is tight, they have to make choices. Canadians are entitled to expect their government to show that same kind of discipline, which it promised. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether someone has one credit card, two credit cards or a hundred different ways of dividing up the spending. If they keep borrowing more than they can afford to repay, the interest will keep growing. Eventually, someone has to pay the bill, and in this case, that someone is the Canadian taxpayer. The Prime Minister came into office promising to spend less, but Canadians are still waiting to hear how he intends to bring down the deficit, reduce the enormous interest bill we are leaving to our children and grandchildren and give hard-working families some relief from the taxes they are paying. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to come before the House of Commons finance committee and explain his plan. We want to know how he intends to get government spending under control, how he plans to reduce the interest we are paying on the national debt and when Canadians can expect to see some of their hard-earned money stay in their own pockets. This week, every Liberal member of Parliament will have an opportunity to support this request. Surely, asking the Prime Minister to explain how he intends to keep his own promises should not be controversial. Canadians have been doing their part. They have been working hard, paying their taxes and making difficult decisions around their own kitchen tables. I believe they have earned the right to expect their government to be just as careful with their money as they have to be. The Prime Minister has told Canadians he knows how to manage the economy. We are simply asking him to come to the finance committee, show us the numbers and explain his plan. Canadians do not need another credit card. They need a government that knows how to pay the bill.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Prime Minister's economic plan is not working. The economy is barely growing, debt and interest rates are up, and he spends too much money. One in three Canadians now needs help from the government just to buy food.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what do a leaky roof, a growing credit card bill and Canada have in common? The longer we ignore the problem, the more expensive it gets. Our economy is barely growing, borrowing is way up, and interest rates are on the rise. The Prime Minister promised to put the brakes on spending, but instead he is racking up crazy credit card debt. If his plan is working, why do 12.5 million Canadians, one in three people, need a grocery assistance benefit just to put food on the table?

Oral Questions ·

Employment

“Farmers and construction workers are struggling under this government. In British Columbia, condo starts fell 40 percent and thousands of construction jobs were lost in August. I want the government to stop its high spending and borrowing, and bring back affordable homes and good jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after losing his electrical job, my husband turned to farming. Everyone said farming was recession-proof. Today, under the Liberals, even farmers are struggling, and the construction industry as well. Metro Vancouver condo starts have fallen 40%, and B.C. lost 4,800 construction jobs in August alone. The Liberals keep spending, borrowing and making grand promises while hard-working Canadians pay the price. How many more livelihoods will be lost before the government changes its costly policies and delivers affordable homes, good jobs and hope for Canadian families?

“The Liberal government is hurting workers and homeowners. In British Columbia, 845 homes have been foreclosed in eight months, which is a 20-year high. I want the government to admit its policies are failing to protect jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in 1982, the recession under Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals forced my father-in-law, a Vancouver electrical contractor, to lay off his son, my husband, to help keep the rest of his crew working. Forty-four years later, it is déjà vu. Under the current Liberal government, B.C. has seen 845 foreclosures in just eight months, surpassing all of last year. That is a 20-year high. How many more sons have to lose their jobs before the Liberals admit they are all talk and no results?

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“I want the Liberals to support this bill today instead of waiting for their own bill. It stops people from getting medical assistance in dying only for a mental illness. Waiting wastes time and puts lives at risk.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals are taking a cynical gamble with vulnerable Canadians’ lives, asking Parliament to reject Bill C-218 for a phantom bill that has not even been written. They are playing political games at a time when lives are in the balance. The study was done. The broad consensus is there. The bill is tabled. Every minute we waste on an unwritten bill brings us closer to the deadline. Rejecting protection already before Parliament is reckless, and Canadians could pay with their lives. Will the Liberals do the right thing, work with us and support Bill C-218 today?

Private Members' Business ·

Criminal Code

“I want the House to pass this bill to stop medically assisted dying for people whose only illness is a mental disorder. Doctors cannot know for sure that a mental illness will never get better. A parliamentary committee already recommended that we do not allow this. We need to help vulnerable people recover instead of helping them die.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 97 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the now infamous Dr. Ellen Wiebe”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will begin by grounding the end of this debate in remembering young Kiano Vafaeian who lost his life to MAID. He was 26 years old, and he had lived with type 1 diabetes since he was four. After a serious car accident as a teenager, he also struggled with his mental health, and later he lost vision in one eye. In 2022, when he was just 23 years old, Kiano sought MAID in Ontario. His mother, Margaret, fought desperately to keep her son alive, and she succeeded for a time, but Kiano had become obsessed with getting MAID. He continued to request it from Ontario Health until they told him straight out that he would never qualify in Ontario, but shockingly, they suggested other jurisdictions he could contact in his quest to end his life. Sadly, he found a willing doctor in B.C., where he received MAID on December 30, 2025, from the now infamous Dr. Ellen Wiebe. He was 26 years old. When I heard Kiano’s story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother Johan. In 2023, he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying, but he wanted to live. However, the medical staff at the Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life. While lying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward, he was asked not once, not twice, not three, four or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAID. They were relentless. They pressed him, saying that they did not think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had a will to live. I am very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life, for having the courage and the commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was for only another eight or ten months. He had time to mend fences, make friends with the people at the hospice and say goodbye to his family. This is why Bill C-218 is necessary, because not everyone will have the will and the ability to fight the way my brother fought. Not everyone will have the strength to say no six times. When someone is sick, frightened, depressed or unable to see any hope for tomorrow, surely the responsibility of our medical system is not to reinforce the despair but to protect them while they are vulnerable and help them find their way back to hope. This is particularly true when we are talking about mental illness. For years, Conservatives have warned that expanding MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness crosses a line we should not cross. We were told that the safeguards would be enough. We were told that the system could be made ready. However, the implementation has been delayed again and again, while the fundamental question remains unanswered: How can we declare that a person’s mental illness is irremediable when we cannot reliably know that they will never recover? However, we do know one thing with absolute certainty: Once that life is ended, there is no tomorrow. When we first debated the bill, members told us to wait for the special joint committee to do its work. Well, it has. The committee heard the evidence and recommended that people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness be indefinitely excluded from MAID eligibility. Parliament asked for that review. We now have its answer. If the concern with Bill C-218 is the wording and the use of the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness”, then let us fix the wording at committee. We are prepared to work with the government at committee to make the technical changes. A bill should not be defeated at second reading over one word when there is agreement on the principle. Time is of the essence. The scheduled expansion is coming in March. Let us work together and send the bill to committee. The measure of a compassionate society is not how efficiently it helps people die. It is whether in the moment when someone can no longer see the value of their own life, the rest of us are prepared to see it for them. Our answer to suffering should be care. Our answer to despair should be hope. When someone believes there is no possibility of recovery, Canada should never be the one to agree with them. That is why I am asking my colleagues to vote for Bill C-218. Give Canadians the time, the care and the hope that they need. Give them the right to recover.

Statements by Members ·

The Economy

“People are working hard but still falling behind under the Liberals. Our Conservative plan will cut government waste to save families $10,000.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I got a letter from Harjeet. He wrote, “I’ve been doing two jobs for the last six years. My wife works too. Even after working that much, it is a stretch.” Think about what six years of two jobs looks like: leaving before the neighbourhood even wakes up, working all day and then heading to job number two while everyone else goes home for dinner. He gets home late. The kitchen is dark. Dinner is in the fridge because his wife has already left for her shift. Then they do it again tomorrow. People like Harjeet are not afraid of hard work. They are exhausted from working harder and falling further behind. That is why our Conservative economic action plan will save Canadian families $10,000. We have identified $150 billion in savings by cutting Ottawa’s waste, bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare. Harjeet has done his part while the Liberals are costing him more. Our plan will save Harjeet money; theirs will not.

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“Dangerous offenders with violent histories were just released into Surrey. Families are scared for their children. I want the government to stop releasing repeat offenders into our communities.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, last week, Surrey families received two disturbing police warnings. High-risk offender Skylar Pelletier, with a history of violent and sexual offences, was released into our community. The very next day Jonathon Muzychka, another high-risk offender with a history of violence, was released into Surrey. We grandmothers are terrified watching our grandchildren walk to the park or to school. We should not have to worry about dangerous offenders being let out into our city. I am begging on their behalf. When will the Liberals end their dangerous catch-and-release policies and put families first, before repeat offenders?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I want the House to pass this fuel tax cut. Local businesses are struggling to stay open. This bill is part of our plan to lower costs for families and employers, which will bring more jobs and growth.”
  • 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, I am hearing that everywhere I go. We had a large picnic on the weekend before we came back, and everybody was talking about the fact that this is making it very difficult for businesses to continue. Fuel tax relief is only one part of a broader economic approach. The Conservatives’ economic action plan has called for gas tax relief to continue through Canada Day, faster approval of projects awaiting federal permits, removing the GST from Canadian-made automobiles, eliminating the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canada and reducing other barriers facing Canadian investment. The principle connecting these measures is straightforward: lower the costs facing families and employers and create better conditions for investment, employment and growth.

In response to a question from Carol Anstey

“I want the House to pass this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax. Farmers, truckers, and businesses need fuel to make and move goods. When fuel costs go up, everything costs more for regular people. Extending this tax relief will keep costs down during a hard economic time.”
  • 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 cannot begin to tell members how many times in the last couple of weeks I have heard about the cost of diesel. Fuel costs affect much more than what a family pays when they fill up their vehicle. Fuel is an input into producing and transporting goods across the country, which we hear everywhere. Farmers need it to operate equipment. Truckers need it to move products. Businesses need it throughout their supply chains. When those costs increase, they do not simply disappear. They place additional pressures on producers, businesses and ultimately consumers. Extending relief means continuing to lower one of those costs during a period when Canadians and Canadian businesses are already dealing with significant economic uncertainty. The objective should be to keep costs down rather than to begin putting them back up again.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support cutting fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. It starts bringing the tax back in February. People and businesses will still struggle with high costs then. We want the tax break to last until Canada Day.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we support giving Canadians relief from federal fuel taxes. The question is whether the government is even going far enough. Bill C-38 would keep the excise tax at zero only until January 31. It would then bring back half the tax in February and March, before the regular rates return in April. Canadians’ affordability challenges do not suddenly disappear in February. Families will still need to drive to work. Businesses will still need to move goods. Farmers and producers will still face fuel costs. That is why Conservatives have called for fuel tax relief to continue through Canada Day as part of a broader action to lower costs.

“I support lowering the fuel tax in this bill, but it is not enough. Small businesses and families are struggling with high costs, and a small, temporary gas tax break will not fix that. Big multinational companies get huge tax breaks, while regular people only get a few pennies of relief. We need permanent tax cuts and fewer rules on energy so people can keep more of their own money.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 44 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 want to tell members about a man I will call David. David owns a little coffee shop on a main street that could be in almost any town in Canada. It is not fancy. There are a dozen small tables, a chalkboard menu behind the counter and a bell above the door that has probably rung a million times. He turns on the lights, ties on his apron and starts getting ready for the morning rush. He has been doing this for 20 years now, and he knows his customers well. He knows who wants an extra shot of espresso and which construction crew will go through that door just after six. David loves his business, but lately he has begun to dread opening the envelopes that arrive in the mail. The price of everything he buys has gone up under the Liberal government. The coffee beans cost more. The milk costs more. The cardboard cups cost more, and so does his insurance, his electricity and his rent. David cannot simply pass every increase along to his customer because he knows they are struggling too. He sees it in his customer who used to order breakfast and now just gets coffee, or the young mom who used to stop in three mornings a week and now comes once, so David absorbs what he can. Then there is the espresso machine. It has been sitting behind the counter for nearly 15 years. Every morning, David listens to it wheeze and rattle and hopes it makes it through another day. A new one would make the shop more efficient, use less power and let him serve customers faster. Maybe he could even expand his business a little. However, by the time David has paid his employees, his landlord, his suppliers and the government, the money he thought he might put toward a new machine is gone, so he calls the repairman again, replaces another part and tells himself, “Maybe next year.” Do members remember that young mom David used to see three mornings a week? Let us follow her home. She and her husband live only a few streets away. They are not poor. They both work. They have a modest house, two kids and two incomes, and 10 years ago they thought they were doing pretty well. They were the kind of family we used to call comfortably middle class, but lately, comfortable is not the word they would use. Their family car is 15 years old now. There is a warning light on the dashboard. The mechanic has told them that there is another big repair bill coming, and they know they really should replace it. Ten years ago, they probably would have. Today, they look at the price of a new car, look at the payment and decide the old car will have to last another winter. Let us now leave the family’s kitchen, and come with me to a very different room. Imagine a glass boardroom high above a city. Around the table are not mom and dad wondering whether the roof can survive another winter. There are executives, accountants, lawyers and investment advisers deciding where a multinational corporation should put its next billion dollars. Now Ottawa has put something new on that boardroom table: the mega deduction, a major new tax break designed to convince companies with capital, like, let us say, Brookfield, to invest here. Put those three rooms side by side. At the kitchen table, mom and dad have already gone through the bills twice. They need a new car and the roof needs work, but none of these qualify for this new Liberal mega deduction. What Ottawa offers them is Bill C-38, a few pennies per litre when they fill their gas tank. A few streets away, David may be able to use the mega deduction if he buys that new espresso machine, but first he has to find the money to buy it. After paying his employees, his suppliers, his rent and his taxes, there is not enough left. Let us face it. A deduction on something someone cannot afford is not too much help. His tax break is much the same as the family’s: a few pennies of relief when he gases up. Then there is the third room, where the numbers have a lot more zeros. Here is a corporation headquartered in New York with the capital to make enormous investments and a team of accountants who can calculate exactly how much a new tax deduction changes the return. Lucky for them, their former board member is now the Prime Minister of Canada. For that room, Ottawa is proposing a massive tax advantage, and this is where I think something has gone badly wrong. Do not get me wrong. Lower taxes have always been a Conservative principle. I want businesses investing in Canada, expanding here and creating good jobs, but lower taxes should not be a privilege reserved for the people with enough money and the right high-powered friends to be able to take advantage of them. If lower taxes help a multinational invest and grow, why would we not want that same breathing room for David? Why would we not want it for the families sitting around the kitchen table? They have spent years watching more of their paycheques disappear into taxes, while the cost of housing, food and fuel has climbed. Small businesses have faced the same rising costs, along with layer after layer of taxes, paperwork and government rules. Now, after making it harder and harder for them to get ahead, governments arrive with a few pennies of temporary relief on their gas and expect them to be grateful. Canadians deserve better than that. David does not need Ottawa to run his coffee shop or a government program to tell him that a new espresso machine would make his business more productive. He already knows that. He needs enough money left at the end of the month to buy it. That family does not need Ottawa deciding where its money would be most productive either. Mom and dad already know exactly where their next $100 needs to go. That is their decision because it is their money. Yes, let us give them the fuel tax relief in Bill C-38, but let us not call a few months of relief a solution. Conservatives have been pushing for relief at the pumps for a long time, years in fact, so we are glad the Liberals have finally discovered that lower taxes can actually help people. However, this is what happens when a Liberal government tries to borrow a Conservative idea without understanding the principle behind it. Canadians do not need a temporary break from high prices. They need policies that actually bring prices down. Gas prices have skyrocketed, and while Canada sits on some of the largest energy resources in the world, years of taxes, regulations and barriers to developing those resources have left us more vulnerable when global energy prices rise. This is a trap the Liberals created themselves. Relief means lower taxes, affordable energy and developing the resources Canadians already own. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who produce, work, hire and raise families in this country. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who are working to raise their families in this country. Let us stop treating small business like an endless source of tax revenue and paperwork. Let us stop taking from Canadians only to decide in Ottawa which multinational will get it back. Instead, let us remove the barriers that have been squeezing the middle class and small business, and then give Canadians room to do what they have always done. Here is what Ottawa seems to be missing: We would not have to wait 10 years for some foreign company’s investment to trickle down to the rest of us. Small and medium-sized businesses employ nearly two-thirds of Canada’s private sector workers. If thousands of businesses like David’s had a little more room to breathe, the effect would begin on main street across this country almost immediately. David does not need 10 years to decide what to do with another few thousand dollars left in his business. He already knows. He fixes the machine, buys equipment, gives an employee another shift or finally hires a person he has needed for months. Maybe mom starts stopping at David’s coffee shop three mornings a week again. Her five dollars goes into David’s till. David pays his employee. His employee buys lunch down the street. A roofer gets the family’s business. The mechanic gets paid. People begin making plans again instead of putting them off for another year. Nobody in Ottawa had to decide where those dollars should go. Ordinary Canadians did that themselves. That is what prosperity looks like: Canadians keeping more of what they earn, making their own choices, building their businesses, looking after their families and creating a better life for the people they love. That is what a real Conservative government would fight for.

“I am asking everyone here to let me share my speaking time with another member.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil.

Government Orders ·

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

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“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.”
  • 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
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.

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The government should not spend all of its extra money. It should use that money to lower the deficit or give tax relief, because families are still struggling with high costs.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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.

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“The government is spending borrowed money without getting results. Conservatives would lower costs, cut rules to speed up building homes and growing food, and stop wasteful federal spending.”
  • 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 would not agree that the Liberals were elected to make a whole bunch of announcements and get nothing done. Conservatives believe in the basic principle that government does not create prosperity by endlessly spending borrowed money. We would focus on getting costs down, removing barriers to investments, speeding up approvals, supporting the workers and businesses that actually build homes and grow food, and restoring discipline to federal spending. Canadians do not need more slogans, funds, agencies and strategies. They need a government that measures success by results: lower costs, more homes, stronger paycheques and a more competitive economy.