Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Tamara Jansen

Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City 64 statements translated

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
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.3.3 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×3.3 Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.1.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.5 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 Averaged over the 57 of 64 statements graded so far.

Statements 64

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

“I do not support this space bill. It makes taxpayers pay if space launches fail, but lets rich private investors keep all the profits.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal space bill reads like yet another one-sided deal. Taxpayers would cover the risk, while Liberal friends and wealthy private investors would collect the reward. If launches fail, Canada pays. If they succeed, the profits are privatized. Why is the government proposing building a space program where the public carries the liability but the benefits are reserved for a select few?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis
“This bill about space launches is too weak on national security. It leaves decisions to ministers behind closed doors instead of putting clear rules into law. I want strong rules to stop our foreign enemies from using Canada's space program.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear “space launches”, they think of rockets and satellites, but what they should really be thinking about is security, who is launching, what they are launching and who is behind it. This where the bill falls short. There is no clear national security test written into law. Instead, we are told to trust the ministers. They will figure it out later, behind closed doors. This is an object being launched into orbit over Canadian territory, over our Arctic and over our infrastructure in our communities. Why is the government asking Canadians to trust discretion, instead of putting clear and enforceable security laws into rules that would guarantee that foreign adversaries cannot exploit Canada’s space sector?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The Liberals are not taking this space bill seriously. It gives the government too much secret and heavy-handed control instead of following clear rules.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 23 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice earlier when one of my Liberal colleagues shouted the famous Buzz Lightyear line, “To infinity and beyond” in response to today’s space bill. That seems to be the level of seriousness this Liberal government has when it comes to such an important issue. This sort of trivialization raises a serious question. When Canadians see this kind of attitude, they wonder whether our legislation is being approached with the rigour it deserves. Why are we seeing, in this bill, a shift away from disciplined, rules-based decision-making toward something far more secretive and heavy-handed under this Liberal government?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D+ View analysis
“I want to know why the government spent 200 million dollars to lease a space launch pad that does not even work. The government is giving money away to its friends instead of following clear rules and being accountable.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 30 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, Canadians are being told that this is about building a space industry for the future, and of course, we all want to see Canada succeed in that space. However, they are also looking at this and asking a very basic question: How does a government end up committing $200 million of taxpayer money to lease a launch pad that is not even operational? Is this what happens when we move away from a rules-based, accountable framework, like the one that was built under Stephen Harper, and toward a discretionary, cheque-writing approach that looks a lot more like a Liberal‑style “enriching close friends” type of government?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis