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 5 of 9.
“Imagine another potato grown just south of the border in Idaho: same crop, same season, same sun, same rain, same droughts, same heat waves. Climate change does not stop at the 49th parallel. Both farmers deal with the same climate risks. Both wake up early and hope the crop makes it through, but as those two potatoes move toward markets, something different starts to happen. The Canadian potato picks up costs that have nothing to do with soil or sky. It carries higher costs because of federal carbon taxes. It carries higher fertilizer costs because of industrial carbon taxes. It carries added compliance costs from packaging and labelling. It carries transportation costs inflated by a fuel standard tax on top of everything else.”
“The store did not cause the inflation, the farmer did not cause it, and the trucker did not cause it, but all of them have been handed higher costs, and there is only one place those costs can go. They go to the price tag. That is how inflation works. It is not through greed or climate change but through a steady accumulation of policy choices that make every step of production more expensive. When government taxes the production of food at every stage, it should not surprise us when food becomes unaffordable. By the time that pound of potatoes reaches a Canadian kitchen, families feel it. Prices are up. When people ask why, the Liberal answer is always the same: climate change. Let us keep following the potato and see if that excuse holds up. Our potato was grown on the Heppell family farm in B.C.”
“This is where red tape turns into inflation. New federal packaging and labelling requirements mean redesigning packaging, reprinting materials, changing suppliers, updating compliance systems and, in some cases, slowing production lines. Maurizio Zinetti, owner of Zinetti Foods in my riding, told me plainly that none of these packaging changes makes food safer or cheaper. It just makes it more expensive. Every box, label and adjustment adds a few more cents. When packaging millions of units, those cents add up fast. Then the potato is loaded onto a truck. The trucker pays higher fuel costs because of the fuel standard tax. Those costs are not absorbed; they are charged forward. Finally, the grocery store receives the pound of potatoes.”
“To plant it, the farmer needs diesel to run his equipment. That diesel now carries a fuel standard tax. Before the potato is even grown, policy has already added cost. Then comes the fertilizer. Fertilizer production is energy intensive, which means it carries the industrial carbon tax. That cost does not stay at the factory. It is built into the price that farmers pay. Again, farmers have no choice. They cannot grow potatoes without fertilizer. Harvest time comes, and the equipment runs again. There is more fuel and more tax. The potatoes are dug up, washed, sorted and stored. Storage requires electricity. Processing facilities face higher energy costs, compliance costs and reporting requirements, all of which are government-imposed and all of which are passed along. Then the potato needs to be packaged.”
“There is a threat that their land leased from the government, some of the best farmland in the Fraser Valley, will be paved over in the next few years. None of this is optional, and these threats to the farm all come from the Liberal government. Tyler Heppell told me something simple: “We don’t control prices. We just watch our costs climb and hope we can keep going.” When people who grow our food are worried about whether they can keep farming, that should worry us. We often hear from the government that there are no taxes on groceries. I would like to demonstrate the reality of those taxes and inflationary policies that are forcing food prices to skyrocket in Canada. Let us take the example of something as ordinary as a single pound of potatoes from the Heppell family farm. That potato starts in the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac . Early in the morning at Heppell's potato farm in Surrey, before most of us are awake, the work is already under way. The ground is damp, the equipment is running, trucks are being loaded, and rows of potatoes that will end up on dinner tables across this country are being pulled from the soil by people who have done this their whole lives. This is a fifth-generation family farm, the same land and the same work ethic passed down year after year. Farming is never easy. There are weather, pests and timing, and they live with that. What is new is the pile-on from the government. Every piece of equipment runs on fuel that is more expensive because of federal taxes. Fertilizers cost more, packaging costs more, and transport costs more.”
“Mr. Speaker, this did not happen by accident. Homes did not just suddenly become unaffordable on the Canadian side of the border. Government policy made them that way, and that is why sales are collapsing. Builders are laying off workers, and young Canadians are forced to leave. Will the Prime Minister admit that his housing policies are the reason young Canadians can afford a home 30 minutes across the border but not here? Will he finally remove the roadblocks that are driving our talented kids out of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, 20 minutes from my place, people can look across the Canadian border at affordable homes that look exactly like the ones selling for double the price in our country. Nearly half of young Canadians now say they have considered leaving their province just to afford housing. Two of my daughters moved out of B.C. to afford a home. Now they want to come back, but prices are worse than ever, and new home sales in Vancouver are down 56%. Does the Prime Minister even care that young people are priced out of home ownership?”
“Therefore the petitioners ask the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the freedom of religion for all Canadians so they can discuss their faith and share their religious texts in the public square without fear of government investigation.”
“Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who are expressing great concern about the assault on religious freedom and freedom of expression contained in Bill C-9 , which would remove the long-standing good-faith safeguards for religious expression, raising the risk that Canadians could face investigation for expressing sincerely held beliefs on a religious subject or for citing certain religious texts. The petitioners remind the government, and particularly the Liberal members and Bloc members, that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are listed as fundamental freedoms in our charter.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from Canadians who are profoundly concerned about the government's plan to expand medical assistance in dying to people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness. The petitioners make their position clear. They state that mental illness is by nature treatable and recovery is possible. They warn that expanding MAID in these circumstances risks normalizing the idea that people struggling with mental illness should be offered assisted dying instead of suicide prevention treatment. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-218 , ensuring that mental illness is not classified as a grievous and irremediable condition for the purposes of MAID.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about the gap between rhetoric and reality. Well, last week reality came in the form of two police cars in my driveway investigating a report of shots fired on my street. My neighbours are wondering if we are now in the line of fire of some extortionists. Surrey's mayor, Brenda Locke, is asking the government to declare a state of emergency. Conservatives are asking, will the government stop with the rhetoric, restore mandatory minimums and repeal the catch-and-release laws so criminals will feel the consequences?”
“Freedom is like the Ugly Potato Day at the Heppell's farm in Surrey, where thousands of kilos of wonky potatoes that grocery stores do not want are given away for free to families who absolutely do want them. Those ideas do not come from Davos. They come from free Canadians solving real problems in the real world. Now, that is a real Canadian value we can take straight to the bank.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up, I learned a core Canadian value: Canada succeeds when people are free to make choices for themselves. In Davos, the Prime Minister signalled different values. He believes markets should not follow people's choices but be set by regulators, banks and global institutions. He believes that individual choice should be replaced by imposed outcomes decided by a small group of elites. However, that philosophy rejects a core Canadian value: freedom. Freedom is like the family in my riding who took a failing plastics factory, bought by their grandfather in the 1960s, and turned it into a world-class producer of anti-doping kits for the Olympics.”
“Will the Prime Minister stop posturing and start thinking about the people who will pay the price here at home, or will Canadians be left carrying the cost of his miscalculations?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sold himself as a master negotiator. People elected him to get a deal with the U.S., and now he is telling everyone that our old relationship with it is finished. I have spoken to local business owners, manufacturers, exporters and family-run companies. They are scared to death about what happens if CUSMA negotiations fail. These are not abstract fears. These are payrolls, contracts and livelihoods hanging in the balance, with no backup plan and no margin for error. If this deal fails, the damage will not be theoretical. It will tear straight through communities, with jobs lost, investments frozen, businesses destroyed and families left picking up the pieces.”
“The result is that Canadians stay stuck, rich in resources and short on results. Canada has everything it needs: the resources, the workers and the global demand. What is missing is not vision but the willingness to act. Until the government is prepared to approve projects and turn speeches into action, Canadians will keep living with a gap between what is said abroad and what is done at home. If the Prime Minister truly believes what he said at Davos, when will he remove the laws that make pipelines to tidewater impossible?”
“This is where Canadians bring the conversation back to the basics. If we do not have a pipeline to the Pacific, then we do not really have access to the world. We have one main customer, the U.S., and that means we do not have leverage when things get tense; we have dependence. We can talk all we like about diversification and resilience, but until Canadian oil can reach global buyers through a reliable Pacific corridor, those words do not change our reality. This is not about who has the power to act. The federal government has the authority to move projects like this forward. It does not require another announcement or another overseas speech. It requires decisions, permits and a clear timeline. Instead, what we keep seeing are press conferences, consultations and promises that remain stubbornly in the future.”
“The system is under strain, but it is still functioning. A strong negotiator would have brought stability, not uncertainty, for Canadian businesses. At Davos, the Prime Minister also warned against nostalgia. He said we should not hanker after things that no longer are. He told the world that the old order is finished and is not coming back, yet the moment he returned home and reality set in, his tune changed. Faced with pressure from the U.S., our largest trading partner, he suddenly began talking about a reset, about rebuilding the relationship and returning to something closer to what we had before. Members can take note of the irony here. Abroad, the Prime Minister tells global leaders that nostalgia is foolish. At home, he asks Canadians to believe he can restore the very relationship he said no longer exists.”
“That is the gap Canadians are feeling right now, between what is said abroad and what is actually happening at home. At Davos, the Prime Minister told the world that the rules-based order is ruptured. He warned countries to stop living within a lie and to be honest about the gap between rhetoric and reality. However, here is the reality that Canadians are living with. The rules-based order has not been thrown out the window, especially when it comes to our most important trading relationship. Despite tough rhetoric coming out of Washington, the vast majority of Canadian goods are still flowing into the U.S. under CUSMA, with minimal tariffs and established rules still in place. There are thousands of businesses that rely on CUSMA. They cannot afford anything that puts that relationship at risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said something at Davos that sounded like pure common sense. He said, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options.” Most Canadians heard that and thought, “Well, of course,” and yet the Prime Minister does the exact opposite here at home. He talks about fuelling ourselves, and then his government blocks energy projects. He talks about prosperity, and then investment gets buried under years of red tape. He talks about independence, and then Canada becomes more dependent, not less. Canadians are left scratching their heads because the words make sense but the actions do not. When a government keeps saying the right things while doing the opposite, people stop listening to speeches and start paying attention to their bills, their jobs and their future.”
“The Prime Minister once told Canadians to judge his government by the prices at the grocery store, but by that measure his policies have failed miserably, and no tax gimmick can hide—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has basically just admitted he is failing with regard to affordability. It is so bad that he just had to announce another temporary boost to the GST credit. If prices were actually under control, Canadians would not need another recycled Trudeau-era rebate to put food on the table. Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. Food bank use is at record levels, with millions of Canadians relying on emergency food just to feed their families. A tax rebate helps momentarily but does nothing to address what is actually driving food costs: carbon taxes on fuel and fertilizer, the clean fuel standard and industrial carbon taxes built into every step of the supply chain.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. I heard from Amy in Cloverdale. She lives in a household of two, does not have children of her own and still cannot keep up with groceries. When she heard more increases are coming, she wondered if the ultimate goal is to force people to crawl on their hands and knees begging and pleading for relief. For Amy, meat is a luxury, and she is terrified for the future of her five nephews. Amy asked me when it will stop. When will the Prime Minister finally stop driving up food costs so Canadians can afford to feed themselves?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I clearly stated in my speech, the government is not doing what it needs to do for the people who are most in need. I do want to also add that one of the most encouraging parts of this journey has been seeing how broad and diverse the support for the bill has really been. Tens of thousands of Canadians have written to us, called, and signed petitions at our office to say very clearly that they do not want mental illness alone to be a basis for MAID but that they want a real right to recover instead. That spans cultures, faiths, professions and backgrounds. The bill unites people from many backgrounds, right across the country. That is the coalition standing behind Bill C-218 .”
“That is not medicine; that is a system misreading desperation as destiny. We know individuals who once begged for death, only to recover and to contribute greatly, including my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South , who openly speaks of a suicide attempt, a long journey back and a life now filled with purpose. When a person is standing on the edge, the role of a responsible nation is to pull them back.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Bill C-218 is only about MAID for people with mental health issues solely. I would like to say that no member of the House denies that some Canadians suffer profoundly from mental illness. Their pain is real, and it deserves our deepest compassion, but compassion must be joined with clarity, and the evidence is unmistakable: Even after years of struggle, long-term recovery is possible. That is precisely why the experts tell us that irremediability in mental illness cannot be predicted. We simply do not have the medical grounds to declare that a life is beyond hope. We have already seen cases where people were approved for MAID not because their condition was truly irremediable but because they lacked housing, treatment or basic support.”
“Let us remember the kind of country we claim to be, one that protects the vulnerable and gives people the time, care and dignity they need to heal.”
“It would stop the 2027 expansion to mental illness because the evidence cannot support it and the safeguards cannot sustain it. Vulnerable Canadians are already at risk. Expanding eligibility now is reckless. A strong country does not turn its back on those who suffer, but believes in their future and gives them time and care to heal. I urge every member in the House to support Bill C-218 so Canada would remain a nation that protects the vulnerable, offers treatment before despair and gives every person the chance to recover. Let us take this responsibility seriously. Let us listen to the warnings of those who are assessing the failures in the system. Let us listen to the families who have lived through the consequences of MAID and to those who survived mental illness and rebuilt their lives.”
“Every one of us knows someone, whether it was a neighbour, a colleague or a family member, who walked through a very dark season and is now grateful to be alive. These stories matter because they show us what is at stake. Sadly, that is not true in every case, but there is no reliable way to know in advance who will recover and who will not. There is no test, no scan, no certainty. I respectfully suggest that, when someone's judgment is clouded by psychological distress, our duty is to offer treatment, protection and time, not an irreversible decision based on guesswork. If MAID is expanded, we will be forced into an impossible paradox. A suicidal person calling a crisis line is urged to hold on, yet if they request MAID, that same despair may be treated as justification for death. This is why Bill C-218 is necessary.”
“Canadians are uneasy. Polls show a clear majority do not support MAID for mental illness alone. Provinces are asking Ottawa to reconsider. They are calling for a stop. Quebec, one of the most permissive MAID jurisdictions in the world, has banned it by law. International human rights experts have raised the alarm, including the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has urged Canada to step back. It warns that our trajectory risks discriminating against people with disabilities and mental illness and recommends repealing this expansion entirely. This is what Bill C-218 would do. We must remember a crucial truth, which is that recovery from mental illness is not rare, but common. Time and again, people who once felt utterly hopeless have rebuilt their lives once they received proper care and stable support.”
“Today, a person deemed unable to manage their finances must undergo rigorous capacity assessments, interviews, documentation, expert review, collateral information and verification because we recognize the risk of exploitation, yet for MAID, a situation of life or death, a brief conversation can suffice, with no thorough evaluation, and when the safeguards fail, there seem to be few consequences. We now live in a country where we protect bank accounts better than we protect a human life. We also know of families across Canada that were deeply shaken by how MAID was carried out for a loved one. They describe decisions that felt rushed and were influenced by poverty, loneliness or a lack of access to proper treatment, not by a calm and informed choice. These experiences are warnings from the very people who lived through the consequences.”
“These are stories about real people, who are family members, friends, neighbours and fellow citizens, the people to whom we owe a duty of care. They demonstrate that vulnerable Canadians are already at risk under the current MAID regime. People who are confused, pressured, exhausted or unable to communicate are slipping through the safeguards that were supposed to protect them. If safeguards fail for patients with physical illness, where assessing capacity is clear and verifiable, what will happen when the only condition is a mental illness which, by definition, clouds judgment and hope? To offer death at that moment will place some of the most vulnerable people in this country directly in harm's way.”
“She said so the day before her death, but she did not qualify for hospice. Her husband, worn down by caregiver exhaustion, arranged for an urgent MAID assessment instead. The day before she had told him she wanted to die with proper palliative support, but the next day two assessments were rushed through. Her final wishes were overshadowed by the strain of a caregiver who could no longer cope. Another woman, whom we will call Alice, was living with advanced dementia and unable to communicate her wishes in any meaningful way. Her family brought MAID forward twice with minimal documentation, little clarity and no clear expression of consent, yet she was approved. (1340) All of these examples were drawn from the auditor's report.”
“A recent article about Ontario's MAID death review committee's findings lays out, in plain and troubling terms, cases that would worry every Canadian. They describe a man who had cancer. I will call him Bill. Earlier in his illness, he had briefly mentioned MAID, as frightened patients tend to do. By the time he was assessed, he was delirious, confused and heavily sedated. His own medical team made it clear that he no longer had the capacity to make major decisions, yet a MAID assessor shook him awake, took the faint motion of lips as consent, withheld sedation, obtained a rushed virtual second opinion and ended his life that same day. Bill was not stable. Bill was not capable. He did not understand what was happening. In another case, a woman, whom we will call Margaret, wanted palliative care.”
“We cannot pretend that they are both. Besides all this is the fact that we already know the current safeguards are failing. Let us be absolutely clear about what an expansion of MAID to mental illness would mean. If Canada cannot protect vulnerable people under the current rules, then expanding eligibility to those whose very illness clouds judgment, hope and decision-making will lead directly to preventable deaths. We are already witnessing cases where safeguards fail, where capacity is misjudged and where people are assessed in moments of confusion, exhaustion or pressure. If the system cannot uphold basic protections now, it will not and cannot protect those suffering from severe psychological distress. An expansion would be reckless. The evidence is already in front of us.”
“What medical test? What ethical standard? There is none. That is because the very feelings that drive someone to seek MAID, hopelessness, despair or the belief that they are a burden, are the same signals that every suicide prevention worker is trained to treat as a cry for help. We would never tell a struggling teenager that their wish to die is rational. We would not tell a grieving spouse that their darkest moment is a reasonable exit point. We would reach out. We would support them. We would insist that their lives still matter. Why should that change simply because despair is given a different label? When someone feels worthless, our duty is not to agree with them. It is to stand with them until the light returns. Canada must decide: Are suicidal citizens people in need of protection or candidates for state-sanctioned death?”
“Suicide prevention experts, including the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, warn that how we talk about these issues shapes the choices people make. Suggesting that death is a solution to suffering undermines hope. It puts people at real risk. The expansion of MAID to mental illness forces Canada into a huge contradiction. On one hand, we invest in suicide prevention. We train professionals to intervene, listen and pull back people from the edge. On the other hand, with the expansion of MAID, we would invite those same vulnerable people to consider state-facilitated death. We must ask, who receives suicide prevention and who is guided toward MAID? If a person suffering from depression calls a crisis line tonight, do we encourage them to hold on or do we quietly redirect them to an assessor? What principle decides the answer?”
“As legislators, we need to listen to what so many medical professionals are telling us, which is how hard it is to distinguish between suicidal ideation and MAID. The feelings behind them, such as hopelessness, loneliness, fear and the belief that one is a burden, are the same. For decades, clinicians have understood that, when someone feels hopeless or sees themselves in a very negative way, it can look like they are thinking clearly, that they are rational, even when their judgment is clouded by despair. (1335) In 2021, most of us did not have the evidence we now have about how MAID assessment functions in the real world or the specific dangers of expanding MAID to mental illness. We now know there is no reliable way to determine when a mental illness is truly irremediable.”
“When the House last debated MAID, mental illness was not a part of the core discussion. It was added in a last-minute Senate amendment to Bill C-7 . The implications were not fully considered or understood by the House. Since then, we have learned a lot more. Psychiatrists across Canada, including the chairs of psychiatry at all 17 medical schools, have told us plainly that there is no reliable way to predict when a mental illness is irremediable, which is a requirement in the MAID law. People get worse, but they also get better, and most do. There is no test, scan or clinical tool that can reliably tell us that someone will never recover. All people deserve the opportunity to get better. No one should be encouraged to give up on themselves.”
“They built a Canada where the vulnerable were cared for and the less privileged in society were valued and treated with equal care. Those fundamental values attracted millions of immigrants over the years. Today, many Canadians fear we are losing those values. Canadians themselves remain some of the most compassionate people anyone will ever meet, but our system is overwhelmed, stretched thin and unable to meet the needs of people who are suffering. When people fall through the cracks, the easy temptation is to accept that failure is inevitable. When that happens, people facing mental illness can end up alone, waiting months, or sometimes years, for specialized treatment, and when help does not come, they lose hope. That moment of hopelessness should never be treated as an opportunity for the state to end their lives through MAID.”
“That means men and women struggling with depression, trauma or overwhelming psychological pain could be steered toward death by a system that too often cannot offer timely treatment, consistent follow-up or even basic support. This is why I brought forward Bill C-218 , the right to recover act. It is simple. It asks Parliament to stop, consider what we have learned and act responsibly before people are irretrievably harmed. I often think of my grandparents, who immigrated here after World War II with very little. They chose Canada because it was a place where people had endless opportunities to better themselves, where neighbours watched out for each other and communities worked in unison to make a better life for all.”
“His addictions still have not been treated, and his mental health care has not truly begun. He is vulnerable, scared and hanging on by a thread. At that appointment, instead of being offered a plan to get him stable, MAID is raised as an option. The assessment moves ahead, and before he ever receives proper support for his mental health or addictions, he is approved. His MAID provider is the one who drives him to the place where his life is ended. This is someone's son who needed help, not a final exit. Believe it or not, this actually happened here in Canada, and this is where we are headed if we do not act. Unless this Parliament chooses a different path, Canada will allow MAID for people whose only condition is mental illness.”
“moved that Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-218. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, I want members to imagine someone's son. He is in his forties and life has worn him down. He lives with a painful illness that leaves him sick, exhausted and often unable to leave the house. On top of that, he struggles with addictions, depression and anxiety, which have taken more from him than anyone can see from the outside. Some days, he can barely hold it together. He relies on his family for a place to live, food and help getting through the week. They are doing their best, and he is doing his best, but the weight of it is crushing. One day, he finally meets a psychiatrist. He goes, hoping that this might finally be the start of real help.”
“What else should we expect, I guess, when the Prime Minister comes from a world where affordability means removing the tax from yachts and private jets? However, the single mom working two jobs hears that number and feels her stomach drop because, at that price, she is only one paycheque away from homelessness.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted for a home they can afford, a place to raise their kids and a place to sleep at night without lying awake doing the math. However, after all the Liberal glossy promises, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made one thing painfully clear: The government's housing plan is built on wishful thinking, not on real results. The Liberals' boast has been “We are here for the low-income families”, but the PBO report says that by 2028 the government will be spending less than half of what it does today on programs that help them keep a roof over their head. What we also learned is that the Liberals' big program delivers only 26,000 homes over five years, nowhere close to the 1.25 million homes they promised Canadians. Get this: The so-called affordable rents under the plan are over $2,100.”
“Mr. Speaker, the core of the matter is that this same old Liberal government that buries pipelines under more bureaucracy is now sending our military into the future with uncertainty, drift and political posturing. Whether it is major projects or major defence decisions, Canadians are getting the same result: confusion at the top, bureaucracy in the middle, and weaker outcomes for the people who rely on this system every day. That is why I am raising these concerns; it is because the stakes are simply too high to accept muddled leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is filled with long-term commitments and big promises, just as we see in building homes bigger or better, yet it delivers no credible path for readiness, whether economic or military. The way this government handles pipelines and procurement shows exactly why Canadians should be wary of a bill that adds more bureaucracy while cutting services. This is all part of the same problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill C-15 , chooses political theatrics over performance, and it buries major structural changes in hundreds of pages, creates new powers with no guardrails and pushes Canada further away from the partners and systems that keep us strong. That is why this debate matters. Canadians cannot afford another bill that puts politics first and leaves results for another day.”
“They want a country that can build a pipeline without tying itself in knots. They want a military equipped to defend our Arctic and honour our commitments. They want a government that is steady, serious and focused on results, not theatrics. Leadership means putting the country first, not political ideology. It means choosing certainty for businesses, safety for citizens and fidelity for our partners. Bill C-15 does not reflect those needs. Canada works best when we allow our citizens freedom, protect what matters and build strong partnerships with our neighbours. That is how we work toward a better future for Canada, and that is the direction we as Conservatives will always choose.”