Tamara Jansen
Cloverdale—Langley City, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“We call on the government to accept the committee's recommendation and support Bill C-218 , which is already before the House and which would accomplish the policy objective the committee recommends. Conservatives are prepared to work collaboratively with the government to that end.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our supplementary opinion.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 417 lines we hold for Tamara Jansen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“We call on the government to accept the committee's recommendation and support Bill C-218 , which is already before the House and which would accomplish the policy objective the committee recommends. Conservatives are prepared to work collaboratively with the government to that end. Our supplementary opinion also notes that over the course of the committee study, as we were examining system readiness for expansion, many witnesses questioned the effectiveness and enforceability of the current MAID safeguards. Conservatives encourage the government to undertake a review of the current safeguards to ensure that no vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks of a system that is supposed to protect them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our supplementary opinion. Conservatives welcome the committee's recommendation that individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness be indefinitely excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. This will save thousands of lives. This is the position that Conservatives have held from the beginning. Conservatives opposed the Senate amendment to Bill C-7 , which set this proposed expansion in motion. We have consistently echoed the warnings of experts that the expansion cannot be implemented safely.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1830) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that when a family is struggling financially, the answer is not to keep increasing the limit on the credit card. Could my colleague explain why he thinks the government believes doubling the deficit and announcing another $48 billion in spending commitments will somehow make life more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians keep hearing announcements about new funds, new agencies, new strategies and new spending programs. Could my colleague explain why, after 10 years of these announcements, Canadians are facing higher housing costs, higher grocery bills and lower affordability, rather than the prosperity they were promised?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years telling Canadians that the solution to every problem is more government spending. Canadians now face some of the least affordable housing in the G7, record food bank usage and the highest household debt in the G7, and ours is the only country in the G20 in a recession. At what point does the government admit that its spending is not solving the affordability crisis, but contributing to it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the press reports that Liberal MPs say the President of the Treasury Board is not very present, not very diligent and struggling to master his files. Last week, Canadians watched him stand in this House, unable to answer a very basic question about his own department. If the Prime Minister demands confidence from his ministers, does he still have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to make it easier to hide information from Canadians by no longer allowing government emails or text messages to be part of an information request. Even the independent Information Commissioner is opposed. Will the President of the Treasury Board reverse this proposal and defend Canadians' right to know? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?”
“Mr. Speaker, the grandparents listened to the Liberal members dismiss concerns about the recession, rising debt and the cost of living. They told me they wished they could call and tell the government what they were seeing in their own lives, as seniors struggling to make ends meet. They talked about grocery bills that keep climbing, adult children who are struggling to get ahead, and their grandchildren facing a future that looks less affordable than the one they inherited. Can my colleague explain to me why so many ordinary Canadians can see we are in a recession, while the Liberal government continues to downplay the very real economic struggles that families are facing every day?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was speaking with some grandparents from my riding who were actually sitting in the gallery listening to my colleague, our finance critic, speak on the state of our economy. I did not realize they were coming. I am very grateful to have met them downstairs. As they listened to the Liberal members—”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, if mandatory minimums can be ignored, then they are not mandatory anymore. The government says there would be jail time, but that misses the point. Parliament sets mandatory minimums because some crimes are so serious that there must be a clear floor.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to tackle some of that in my speech, but the arguments we have heard from the Liberal side do not explain why they rejected every reasonable safeguard Conservatives proposed in order to define things. If their release valve or get-out-of-jail-free card is truly only for rare and exceptional cases, why do they not say that in the bill? Why not limit it to first-time offenders? Why not prevent sentences from dropping below half the mandatory minimum? Why not exclude a child sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault or extortion? The answer is simple. The Liberals wanted this power to be broad, and Canadians should be very concerned about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear from the beginning. We support stronger protections for women, children and victims. We support action on coercive control. We support action on deepfake exploitation. We support stronger tools to protect children online. What we do not support is using those victims as a political cover for a clause that attacks mandatory minimum sentences. The government did not have to attach clause 63 to those protections. It chose to do that, and it chose to reject every Conservative attempt to fix it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support the parts of the bill that protect women and children, address coercive control and deal with deepfake exploitation. In fact, many of those ideas came from the Conservatives in the first place. The problem is clause 63. The government wrapped good measures around a poison pill that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Victims deserve protection, but they also deserve consequences for the people who hurt them. That is why Conservatives tried to fix the bill.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence. (1540) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“When will the Liberals stop driving Canadians' decline and remove the taxes, red tape and barriers forcing jobs and opportunities out of Canada?”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Madam Speaker, one of a federal government's values is how it treats those who served our country. Veterans do not need more announcements. They need timely services, reliable benefits and access to the supports they have earned. With this budget adding more debt and pushing interest costs above $50 billion a year, could my colleague explain how Canadians can have confidence that veterans will remain a priority when so much of the government's revenue is being consumed simply by paying interest on past spending?”