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 2 of 9.
“Madam Speaker, every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on the future. Canadians will pay more than $50 billion this year simply to pay the interest charges on federal debt. That money produces nothing. It creates no jobs, builds no infrastructure and improves no public services. Could my colleague share her thoughts on the long-term consequences of forcing Canadian families and future generations to carry the cost of today's reckless deficits?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing serious economic challenges. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are struggling to make ends meet, yet the government has chosen to shut down debate on a massive omnibus budget bill that would affect every region in the country. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague this. Regardless of our differences on policy, does he believe Canadians are well served when the government limits debate on legislation of this size and importance? What message does it send when a government facing so many economic challenges seems unwilling to allow Parliament the time needed to properly examine its budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. People vote with their feet when they have no other way to vote, and investors vote with their dollars every single day. Right now they are voting against Canada. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in just three months. Behind every one of those jobs is a Canadian wondering how to pay the rent, buy groceries and keep the lights on. If the Liberals insist this is all because of global conditions, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession? When will the Prime Minister admit that his policies have driven investment and jobs elsewhere?”
“Madam Speaker, governments that are confident in their ideas welcome debate. Governments that are uncertain of their ideas shut it down. Canada is now the only G7 country in recession. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are falling behind, yet instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine a budget that would affect every Canadian, the Liberals are once again shutting down debate. The government tells Canadians to trust its plan. Trust is earned through openness, accountability and debate, not by cutting debate short. Why are the Liberals so determined to prevent Parliament from giving it the scrutiny Canadians deserve?”
“Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. More than 112,000 Canadians have lost their job in just a few months. Food banks are reaching record levels of usage. Families are struggling to pay their mortgage, their rent and even their grocery bill. At a time like this, Canadians would expect members of Parliament to be debating solutions. They would expect their elected representatives to be examining every line of this massive omnibus bill and asking hard questions about it. Instead, the Liberals have decided to shut down debate after only three hours of debate on billions of dollars. If the government's plan is working, why are Canadians falling behind, and if the government is so confident in its plan, why is it so afraid of letting Parliament debate it?”
“Mr. Speaker, economists and business voices across the country are warning that, when people no longer trust the rules around property ownership, investment disappears, housing slows down and affordability gets worse. We are now seeing stalled projects, bankrupt developers and fewer homes being built while young Canadians lose hope of ownership, but the Liberal government calls that fearmongering. Instead of admitting there is a huge problem, they keep acting like everything is just okey-dokey. Did the Liberals vote down our Conservative motion to protect property rights yesterday because they are completely blind to this very real problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, the point is that the government acted too little, too late and only temporarily. The Liberal plan provides a fraction of the relief that Canadians need, and it is for only part of the year, while the other federal costs remain layered on energy. Even according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average household will only save $124. That may help a little, but it is not serious relief for families facing high gas, grocery, rent and mortgage costs. Canadians need meaningful savings at the pump, not a temporary announcement designed to make the government look like it solved the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard the very same things in my riding. I also heard that, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for common sense, not political theatre. The Liberals have created a system where rising gas prices benefit government revenues because every increase at the pump means more tax revenue flowing to Ottawa. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians absorb the consequences as higher fuel costs ripple through the entire economy, making food, transportation and everyday life more expensive. There is nothing stopping the government from delivering meaningful relief except its own unwillingness to give up the revenue. Canadians deserve more than symbolic gestures and temporary announcements.”
“Mr. Speaker, this ultimately comes down to priorities. The government has become far too comfortable with collecting more money every time gas prices rise while pretending that higher costs are somehow beyond their control. However, Canadians do not have the luxury of pretending. They feel these costs every day when they buy groceries, commute to work, heat their homes or run a small business. Despite all the speeches and headlines, the Liberals are still refusing to take the simple steps that would provide immediate relief, which would be to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel and to scrap the costly clean fuel standard.”
“Whenever Canadians raise these concerns, they are told by the Liberals that they have already acted, that the economy is doing great and that it is one of the best economies in the G7. Somehow the answer to rising costs is always more bureaucracy, more intervention and more taxes collected from the people who are already struggling to stay afloat. The House has a choice to make. We can continue down the Liberal path, where expensive energy is treated as a political virtue, where taxes quietly rise every time families fill their tanks and where government grows larger while ordinary Canadians grow poorer, or we can return to the simple principle that built strong economies in the first place, which is that working people are better stewards of their own money than government will ever be.”
“At the heart of this debate lies a very simple question: Who should keep that money? Should it remain in the pockets of the men and women who rise early, work long hours, drive trucks, build the homes, harvest the crops and keep this country moving, or should more of it flow to Ottawa, where the government has developed an endless appetite for spending but remarkably little interest in restraint? Conservatives believe Canadians have already paid enough. After a decade of Liberal deficits and taxes, families are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for breathing room. They want to drive to work without feeling punished every time they fill their tanks. They want to walk through the grocery store without calculating what necessities must be left at the checkout counter.”
“When Conservatives are calling for these tax breaks, we were not proposing another complicated subsidy program with more paperwork, more bureaucracy and more consultants billing taxpayers by the hour. We are simply saying that the government should stop taking so much money from Canadians in the first place and let them keep more of what they earn. That is the simplest form of relief possible. The government's job is not to stand at the gas pump with its hand out every time Canadians try to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberals' temporary plan would only save the average household about $124 total. Canadians cannot run a family budget on symbolic gestures. Conservatives are proposing relief that would actually have impact. The Liberals simply do not want to give up the revenue.”
“The cost of one unexpected repair bill, one extra grocery trip or one tank of gas is how close to the edge millions of Canadians are living after a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, inflationary deficits and economic mismanagement. While ordinary Canadians cut back, governments keep spending like there is no tomorrow. The truckers delivering groceries pay more for fuel. The farmers harvesting crops pay more for fuel. The manufacturers shipping goods pay more for fuel. Every added cost lands on the kitchen tables of ordinary Canadian families. That is the real-world consequence of expensive energy. This is not a theoretical economics discussion over a catered lunch in Ottawa. These are real families making painful decisions every single day. The government acts as though lowering fuel taxes would somehow break the economy.”
“Margaret Thatcher understood something modern Liberals never seem to grasp: When governments make energy expensive, they make everything expensive. Energy is not a luxury item. Energy moves food across the country. Energy powers tractors, delivery trucks, ambulances, factories, school buses and construction equipment. When energy costs rise, the cost of absolutely everything rises with it. Canadians are already at the breaking point. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians say that rising food and gas prices are straining their finances. More than four in 10 Canadians are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Members can think about that.”
“They are looking at their bank accounts, they are looking at their grocery bills, they are looking at the cost of filling up the family vehicle and wondering how much further they can stretch a paycheque that already feels exhausted before it even arrives. Meanwhile, countries around the world cut fuel taxes to help their citizens weather rising costs. (1030) Conservatives proposed removing all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year to save families roughly 25¢ a litre, or about $1,200 for a family of four. The Liberals' response was to offer barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, and then they presented it as though they had moved mountains on behalf of struggling Canadians.”
“We have tax upon tax upon tax, all justified by politicians who never seem to notice that working people still have to drive to work, farmers still have to harvest their crops and families still have to get their kids to school. Here is the part Canadians are beginning to understand very clearly: Every time gas prices rise, government revenues rise as well. Ottawa profits from expensive energy, while ordinary Canadians are punished by it. That is why the finance minister 's comments were astonishingly tone-deaf when he claimed that the Liberals had acted faster and more comprehensively than peer countries. Canadians are not looking for a trophy in international political theatre.”
“The people who can least afford it will eventually pay the price. That is exactly what has happened in Canada. Let us think about it. Back in 2014, oil prices were sitting at roughly the same level they are today, around $100 a barrel, yet Canadians were paying about $1.37 a litre. Today, that same litre costs closer to $1.87. That is roughly 50¢ more per litre, even though the global oil price is essentially the same. What has changed? Liberal taxes have changed, of course. Over the last decade, Canadians have been buried under a growing pile of federal costs layered onto energy. This includes the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and the GST charge on top of the entire inflated amount.”
“Meanwhile, the single mother driving to work, the tradesman filling up his truck, and the senior choosing between groceries and fuel are expected to celebrate crumbs while government continues feasting on the loaf. That is why Conservatives brought forward this motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year and permanently scrap the costly clean fuel standard so Canadians can finally get some relief. Milton Friedman once joked that if government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand within five years. We laugh because we understand the deeper truth behind it, which is that governments interfere too heavily in markets, pile on taxes, add layers of bureaucracy and try to centrally plan the economy from Ottawa boardrooms.”
“The Liberals want Canadians to believe that the cupboard is bare, that this is the absolute limit of what government can do, when in fact they can remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel tomorrow morning and give some real and actual relief to Canadians. However, that would require government to give up revenue and modern Liberals have become far too comfortable spending other people's money. Instead of real relief, Canadians are handed a carefully staged announcement designed to generate headlines, applause in Ottawa and just enough temporary relief to dull public anger while families continue struggling under the weight of higher energy costs.”
“Every time families pull up to the pump and watch those numbers climb higher, Ottawa is standing right there with its hand out. There is the GST, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, all stacked one on top of the other on every litre we buy. As Canadians watch those numbers click frighteningly higher, government revenues rise automatically. After months of soaring prices and dogged pressure by the Conservatives, the Liberals finally arrived with a tiny, temporary tax break. They presented it as though they performed some great act of economic heroism. In reality, their plan delivers barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, compared to what Conservatives had proposed.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, during Britain's energy crisis, there was a saying that the government treats taxpayers like lemons; that every time it needs more money, it just squeezes harder. That is exactly how Canadians feel today every time they pull up to the gas pump. Whether someone is a mom driving their kids to hockey in Cloverdale, a tradesman in Langley filling up his truck before work or a senior cutting back on groceries because of gas prices, they all watch the numbers spin higher and higher while government quietly takes a bigger cut every second that dial moves. If government revenue rises every time gas prices rise, what incentives do the Liberals actually have to bring that cost down? That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.”
“The government cannot pull one policy lever to flood the market and then yank another to choke off demand and expect builders, renters or buyers to have any stability. This is a failure of central planning. The Liberals created this distortion and now Canadians are paying the price.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing now is the consequence of years of Liberal market distortion through subsidies, red tape and unpredictable government policy. The Liberals overheated the housing market with record immigration levels and developers responded by investing billions, hiring workers and putting shovels in the ground based on the conditions the government created. Then Ottawa suddenly slammed on the brakes. After years of overheating demand, the Liberals abruptly reversed course without a plan, leaving developers watching the market shift beneath projects already under way as rental vacancy rates jumped more than 40% year over year. Housing projects take years to plan and build.”
“Canadians do not need more politicians grabbing the steering wheel. They need a government with enough wisdom to finally let the country get back on track. Will the Liberal government admit that its housing policies are the reason Canadians cannot afford a home?”
“Thind Properties, Maskeen Group, Brivia Group, Coromandel Properties, Square Nine Developments, 14 Property Group, Wade Development, and Everest Group are struggling with receiverships, insolvencies, foreclosures, creditor protection, stalled projects, laid-off workers and families left wondering whether the homes they paid for will ever even be built. This is what happens when government distorts markets long enough that confidence itself begins to collapse. (1925) Conservatives believe in a common-sense approach. We believe that the people who know how to build homes are builders, not politicians. We believe government should stop choking developments with taxes, delays, gatekeepers and ideological central planning. We believe in getting government out of the way so the private sector can do what it does best: build.”
“They encouraged prefab factories and construction suppliers to tool up for enormous future projects that have not materialized. Billions were announced, bureaucracies expanded, but uncertainty exploded. Development costs climbed even higher. Builders were crushed between rising interest rates, government interference, expensive regulations and constantly changing rules. Instead of stabilizing housing, Liberal central planning created even greater instability. Now, we are seeing the devastating consequences. Across the Fraser Valley, we have warning lights flashing everywhere.”
“The Liberals treated the housing market like a driver flooring a powerful car on black ice and then acted surprised when the whole thing started fishtailing. Then, after overheating the market, the Liberals pulled the emergency brake, cutting immigration and locking us in a dangerous skid. At the peak, they brought one million international students into the country and then abruptly, this year, came to a screeching halt of less than half. However, when a car is already sliding, hitting the brakes too hard does not restore control; it sends the whole vehicle spinning. Adding to that chaos, the Liberals' so-called build Canada approach threw billions of dollars at the catastrophic crash site. Once again, the Liberals believed they could centrally plan the economy from the top down.”
“First, the Liberals went full throttle on immigration and population growth without building the homes, infrastructure, roads, utilities or skilled labour force needed to support it. Canada added well over one million new residents in a single year, one of the fastest population growth rates in the developed world. The Liberal government drove demand through the roof while supply was trapped behind taxes, red tape, permitting delays and development charges, forcing prices to explode. Young families were suddenly bidding against impossible demand. Rents soared and house prices spiralled. Ordinary Canadians who worked hard and played by the rules found themselves locked out of home ownership altogether.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing market today looks a lot like a young man driving a road racer down an icy highway in the middle of winter. The engine roars, the tires grip and the driver thinks he is in control and so he presses harder on the gas. Imagine a souped-up, five-litre Mustang with more horsepower than common sense. The speed builds, but suddenly the tires lose traction. The steering becomes unstable, and the vehicle starts sliding. A smart driver would ease off carefully and regain control but, just like a reckless teenager, the Liberal government does not believe in restraint. It believes Ottawa can control markets better than Canadians themselves, and that arrogance is exactly what has driven Canada's housing market into the ditch.”
“Mr. Speaker, families across Canada know that, when their interest payments start eating up their household budget, something is seriously wrong. That is exactly what is happening with the Liberal government. Debt interest costs have now exploded to $59 billion a year, up 10% in just one year alone. Canadians are now paying more in interest than the federal government sends to provinces for health care. In fact, debt interest now costs more than the GST brings in. Members can think about it. Canadians pay taxes and struggle to afford groceries and rent. More and more of that money is simply going toward interest payments instead of the services people need. Is it fair that the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay thousands of dollars per family just to keep up with the interest on their own reckless spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada now has some of the highest household debt and least affordable housing in the G7. Food bank use is at a record high. Seniors are skipping meals. Young families are delaying having children. Working parents are choosing between groceries, rent and medication. However, I have heard the Liberals say over and over today that they are improving affordability and that Canada's economy is doing great. My question is simple. If life is supposedly getting better, why are so many Canadians feeling like they are falling further behind every single month?”
“Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, people invested in our community because they believed in the future. Families moved there. Builders built there. Small businesses took risks there, but now developers are facing insolvency. Businesses are being extorted. Families are worried about crime and people are starting to wonder if the rules even make sense anymore. After years of mixed signals from the Liberals, sudden policy shifts and weak-on-crime laws, the confidence that built our community is being shaken. When people stop feeling safe, physically, financially and legally, communities start to break apart. Our leader was in Cloverdale last week talking about crime and property rights because this is no longer some abstract political debate. This is about whether ordinary people can still build a future in Canada.”
“Under the Liberal government, Canadians feel like they are in a nightmare game, expected to play blindfolded. Eventually, players stop taking risks, investors stop investing and builders stop building. My question is simple. Why do the Liberals keep shutting off the cameras and using technicalities like time allocation when the trust of Canadians is at its lowest? Honesty and integrity—”
“Mr. Speaker, when the government forces Parliament to shut down debate, Canadians should ask themselves one very simple question: What exactly are the Liberals hoping that Canadians will not notice? The choice to use time allocation is the latest in the government's attempt to shortcut transparency. Debate is cut short, scrutiny is treated like obstruction and billions of taxpayer dollars are pushed through Parliament without good oversight. It is becoming a pattern. They change the rules halfway through the game, dim the lights and hope Canadians cannot see the scoreboard clearly enough to question the result. However, a strong economy depends on trust, trust that the rules are fair, the books are honest and hard work still gets people ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute estimates that the government's buy Canada policy could drive up costs by more than $12 billion a year. During an affordability crisis, does my colleague think paying much higher prices for Liberal vanity projects like Alto rail is the best way to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets?”
“Mr. Speaker, 2.6 million Canadian jobs depend on getting those tariffs resolved, and a year in, there is still no deal, no timeline and no negotiation. The Prime Minister cannot even decide if our relationship with the U.S. is broken or stronger than ever. When will the government stop the mixed messages and start real negotiations to remove these tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, we all agree that U.S. tariffs are hurting Canadian workers. Businesses are being squeezed and uncertainty is growing, but loans are not a solution. Even industry leaders are clearly saying that the tariff is the problem. I would ask my colleague from the Bloc, if tariffs are the problem, does he agree that Canada needs real leverage, like building our energy resource capacity, to get those tariffs removed?”
“We desperately need, at the same time, to work with police, provinces and communities, providing sustainable support to dismantle those networks properly and to restore confidence where it has been lost. What is the reason the Liberal government does not take this issue seriously?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the government is serious about restoring safety for Canadians, it has to act with clarity and resolve. This begins with consequences. Serious repeat offenders, particularly those engaged in extortion and organized crime, must face meaningful jail time, not symbolic penalties but sentences that deter and protect. The new Liberal legislation, which would make it criminal to shoot a gun from a moving car, is completely unserious. These criminals already know they are committing a crime. We also need bail rules that put public safety first, not last, and we need to close the loopholes that allow non-citizens involved in serious criminal activity to manipulate the refugee system and remain in this country when they should not. We need to end the leniency that allows people convicted of serious crimes to avoid removal.”
“Even people under deportation orders who are facing serious allegations have been able to exploit the gaps and disappear from oversight or avoid consequences. That is not right. It sends a dangerous message to criminals that the rules are negotiable and the consequences are minimal. If we want to turn this around, we need sustained support for law enforcement. That means specialized units that remain focused, officers on the ground who are not pulled away at the first shift in priorities, and tools, such as air support, that help police monitor suspects, coordinate responses and stop offenders from operating freely. Will the government finally stop with the rhetoric, restore mandatory minimums, repeal its catch-and-release laws and ensure that criminals face real consequences?”
“That is what it looks like when the full weight of the system is applied, but that pressure has to be constant. Organized crime does not disappear because of one announcement or one operation. It has to be confronted every day with sustained enforcement, specialized policing and real consequences. At the same time, we cannot ignore the pattern of leniency in the system itself. Individuals with serious criminal histories remain in this country when they should have been removed. Offenders breach conditions, reoffend and continue to benefit from delays, reduced sentences or rulings that allow them to stay. Judges have warned of a two-tier justice system, where penalties are softened to avoid deportation while Canadians face the full weight of the law.”
“What happened last week was not some isolated gangland shooting in a back alley. It happened in a quiet neighbourhood filled with families, people who had nothing to do with this violence and are now left wondering what could happen next. We need to be clear about what we are dealing with. This is a web of rival gangs and sophisticated organized crime networks increasingly tied to extortion. The violence is not contained between criminals. It is spilling into our neighbourhoods, our businesses and our streets. When a multi-agency task force was empowered to go after these criminals, there were signs of progress, with more than 30 active investigations, close to 100 judicial authorizations and coordinated action across agencies. Over 100 individuals were being examined for immigration violations linked to those networks.”
“Investigators have confirmed that it was a targeted act tied to the ongoing B.C. gang conflict. This is a neighbourhood where I door knock regularly. It is the second gang execution there in a month. What is most troubling is not the violence itself, but the facts around it. In late April, Surrey police confirmed that officers from the gang unit had been reassigned to deal with a surge in extortion. When organized crime required focused and sustained pressure, specialized resources were being pulled in another direction. That should concern everyone. When enforcement is stretched too thin, criminals look for openings. When pressure is not sustained, organized crime adapts. When police are forced to shift limited resources from one serious threat to another, innocent Canadians are the ones left in the crosshairs.”
“Mr. Speaker, a country that cannot keep its streets safe is a country that is totally losing control of its future. What is happening in my community of Surrey and Cloverdale should be a warning to every member of the House. Quiet neighbourhoods are being hit by gunfire. Families are wondering whether they are safe in their own homes, and businesses are being threatened. The rule of law is being challenged in broad daylight. This is not inevitable, but if we do not act with seriousness and resolve, organized crime will continue to test the limits of our justice system and intimidate law-abiding Canadians in their own communities. Let us begin with what happened just last week. In the residential neighbourhood of Sullivan, shots were fired into a vehicle. One 25-year-old man was killed and another was seriously injured.”
“Who is buying our debt? An IMF report in April flagged that volatile foreign hedge funds now make up a large share of investors, which puts Canada at serious risk. This morning's briefing was alarming, to say the least. When will the Prime Minister get serious, stop the credit-card budgeting and let Canadians—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released four reports on the Liberals' costly credit card budget this morning, and the picture they painted, in our briefing with Annette Ryan, was deeply concerning. Here is what she confirmed. We still do not have clear definitions of what counts as capital versus operating spending, so she cannot verify whether the government is meeting its own fiscal anchors. The trillion‑dollar investment plan still has no timeline, no performance metrics and no real reporting. The housing plan will not meet targets. The defence plan is a massive unfunded risk. The tens of billions in new spending has no clear governance, no updated costing and no transparency on delivery. The money for the $25‑billion sovereign debt fund will be coming from the Bank of Canada issuing bonds to finance it.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”