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 6 of 9.
“They want a government that understands that we cannot insult our neighbour and neglect our obligations, and then expect a warm welcome when we show up asking for trade concessions or continental defence guarantees. Canadians are watching closely because these choices have real consequences. When a government buries projects under red tape, nothing gets built. When it sends mixed signals to our allies, our security weakens. When it makes decisions based on politics instead of clear thinking, Canadians pay the price in higher costs, lower growth and a country that feels like it is slipping out of their control. Bill C-15 asks Canadians to accept more bureaucracy, more uncertainty and more risk. It asks them to trust a process that has not delivered in over 10 years. Canadians have every right to expect better.”
“Right now, they see a government trying to send symbolic messages to Europe at the expense of practical co-operation with a partner who actually protects our skies every single day. With that said, it is important that we touch on the fact that our current Minister of Industry , the one who is now out shopping for jets in Sweden, does not even read the contracts she signs. Now she is floating the idea of abandoning or splitting our fighter fleet, not because it makes Canadians safer, not because it strengthens NORAD and not because our pilots are asking for it, but because it might create jobs, perhaps, if everything works out exactly right. Now that might get her a performance bonus, but it will put our fighter pilots and the safety of our citizens on the back burner. Canadians want maturity in foreign policy. They want steadiness.”
“After much study, Canada finally selected a modern aircraft that meets our operational needs and aligns us with our closest partners. Now, instead of finishing the job, the government is flirting with a detour, an attempt to look less American by cozying up to Europe, even if that means buying aircraft that do not meet all our requirements or splitting the fleet in a way that makes training harder, maintenance more expensive and readiness slower. We do not strengthen sovereignty by weakening our air force, and we do not negotiate effectively with the U.S. while poking it in the eye over the very things it has been urging us to fix for decades. Our allies notice these mixed signals, the Americans especially, because for them this is not about emotion. It is about whether Canada is serious about defending the continent we share.”
“Therefore, when the government shrugs at that relationship, when the Prime Minister tosses up his hands and says “Who cares?” about a sitting president, it travels further than he thinks. It echoes in Washington, raises eyebrows in NATO and feeds a dangerous idea that Canada is willing to play politics with its own security. Nothing illustrates that better than the government's sudden wobbling on our fighter jet replacement. Canadians are not interested in the technical jargon; they want to know one thing. Will we give the men and women who defend this country the tools they need? Will we stand with our closest ally? Will we make decisions based on security, not political mood swings? For years, our pilots have been flying aircraft older than many of the people serving in them. Replacing those jets is not a luxury but a necessity.”
“If the government can tie itself in knots over a pipeline, it should be no surprise that the same drift and confusion found in Bill C-15 has now reached our national defence. That brings me to the next issue, our military readiness and the way the government is handling our most important defence partnership, the one with the U.S. (1640) Let me begin by saying we cannot keep a country safe if we spend more time picking political fights than picking the right equipment for our forces. Our relationship with the U.S. is unlike anything else we have. It is not just a handshake across a border; it is a shared defence of a continent. It is NORAD. It is the Arctic. It is generations of Canadians and Americans serving side by side. It is 45% of our entire economy.”
“Why are we making it harder for Canadians to succeed while other nations are making it easier for themselves? Canadians deserve a country where the rules are clear, timelines are real and if we do the work, consult communities, invest capital and meet the standards, we could actually build something. Right now, this so-called pipeline deal does not give Canadians that confidence. It gives them an MOU that reads like a logic puzzle and a process that seems determined to bury ambition under paperwork. Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a chance to build, create, grow and contribute to a strong and secure future. They deserve a government that makes that possible, not one that ties every major project in a knot before it even begins.”
“Would they hear a country ready to build, or would they hear layers of process, more committees, more offices and no clear sign of when anything would actually move? Then there is the broader question, the one Canadians are beginning to ask. Why are we the only major oil-producing nation on earth tying new pipeline capacity to massively expensive and uncompetitive carbon capture megaprojects? When we line up the top five producers in the world, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Canada, four of them are not doing this. Only Canada is. When Canada is the only producer tying itself in knots while its competitors move freely, maybe it is time to pause and ask why. Why are we building the most complex, costly, unpredictable pathway to development in the world? Why are we creating more steps when we need clearer rules?”
“Now we are creating a committee to figure out how to send an application to that office. Only this government could design a process that complicated just to figure out where to drop off the paperwork. Under the memorandum, that application is supposed to be ready to submit by July 1, 2026. That is just the start. It could take another couple of years before the federal government decides whether to approve the pipeline. However, the Pathways project is supposed to start construction in 2027. We are right back where we started. The pipeline depends on Pathways; Pathways depends on the pipeline. Canadians are left with a promise trapped in a hall of mirrors. If an investor is looking at this, what would they hear? Would they hear certainty? Would they hear clarity?”
“Then, on the very next line, it says the Pathways project is a prerequisite for approving and building the pipeline. Two things cannot be prerequisites for each other. It is like trying to tell Canadians they cannot start the car until the engine is running, and the engine will not run until the car starts. Then there is the timeline. Under this agreement, Alberta and Ottawa, believe it or not, will create something called an implementation committee. The job of that committee is not to start construction, streamline approvals or get shovels moving. Its job is to determine the means by which Alberta can submit a pipeline application to the new Major Projects Office. Let us think about that. We created the Major Projects Office to approve major projects.”
“Take, for example, the much-celebrated pipeline deal between Alberta and Ottawa. It is clear that this deal is going to be handcuffed by the new bureaucracy created in Bill C-15 . If Canadians only read the headlines, they would think Canada was already breaking ground, that the steel was ordered, workers were hired and the future was finally on its way. However, hope is not a plan. When we actually sit down and read the six-page memorandum of understanding, we do not come away feeling inspired. We come away wondering how something this confusing could ever lead to a single inch of pipe in the ground. The memorandum says that approving and starting construction on the pipeline is a prerequisite for moving ahead with the Pathways carbon capture project.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is more than a budget bill. It is the government's attempt to convince Canadians it has a road map for the future. However, when we study what is inside this legislation, we see the same pattern that has been holding Canada back for years now: big promises, vague plans, new bureaucracies and no real path to get anything built or to keep our country secure. That is why the issues I am about to raise are not side notes; they are symptoms. What we see in this bill mirrors what we are seeing in our major projects, our national defence and our relationship with the United States. There is confusion where we need clarity, more bureaucracy where we need action and politics where we need common sense. If Canadians want to understand the gap between the government's promises and its performance, they do not have to look far.”
“Madam Speaker, a pipeline to the west coast is not just another project; it is a nation-building decision that falls squarely under the federal government's authority. Canadians expect the Prime Minister to act, but instead, he has given the NDP Premier of B.C. a veto in an effort to manage the uproar in his caucus, a caucus that is now losing senior ministers over the issue. When will the Prime Minister stop passing the buck and use the federal authority that rests with him alone to ensure that this pipeline gets built?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is not just divided, it is cracking. B.C. Liberal MPs are publicly venting. Unnamed ministers are warning of serious problems, and now the Quebec lieutenant has walked out of cabinet entirely. While the Prime Minister struggles to hold his team together, Canadians are left paying the price. We sell almost all our oil to one customer, the U.S., because we have no pipeline to the Pacific. When will the Prime Minister stop putting political damage control ahead of the national interest and give us a date for when the pipeline will be built?”
“Madam Speaker, we Conservatives oppose the approach the government is taking. A new bureaucracy does not hold anyone to account; it shields ministers from responsibility. Instead of fixing delays, the government creates another office to talk about the delays. That is not progress, and it adds a whole lot more cost.”
“Madam Speaker, let us be honest. The question distracts us from the core problem. The government's answer to every failure is to stack another layer of paperwork on top of the last one. Bill C-10 would create just another monitoring office that would not be able to enforce a thing. There is more paper with the same problems. The budget is full of new departments that will not solve a thing. It is time to get serious and ensure that departments that already exist actually follow through on their responsibilities.”
“Let us choose the path of integrity and a future where treaties are not words on paper but living commitments, upheld with discipline and delivered with honour, measured in real progress on the ground. We do not need more bureaucracy; we need a government that does its job.”
“Above all, Conservatives are focused on results, because homes, infrastructure and opportunity are delivered by governments that do their job, not by more commissioners and more reports. Indigenous governments have been clear: Yes, they want accountability, but more than that, they want progress. They want the federal government to deliver what it already agreed to. They want implementation that is timely, consistent and respectful. Bill C-10 would give us new reports but not new results. Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, expect more than that. Reconciliation is not a new title, a new commissioner or a new office on Wellington Street; reconciliation is when a treaty is honoured, when communities see a real change and when the federal government does what it already promised to do.”
“We would strengthen responsibility inside the ministries that already exist, setting clear expectations, forcing performance milestones and requiring regular reporting to Parliament, with real consequences when obligations are missed. We would use the tools already written into modern treaties, the dispute resolution clauses, the courts and the work of the Auditor General. Instead of creating more layers of bureaucracy, we would put responsibility back on ministers and departments, where it belongs. If the commitment is delayed, Canadians deserve answers from the people who signed the agreement, not from another office with no power to enforce it. We would honour the sovereignty and self-determination of indigenous partners by making accountability something we build together, not something imposed by Ottawa.”
“They will come from a government that respects the negotiating table, honours deadlines and holds itself accountable for results. They will come from ministers who show up, officials who execute their mandate and indigenous partners who share the future of their communities. Conservatives believe in accountability. We believe in honouring the Crown. We believe in a strong nation-to-nation relationship grounded in trust. Yes, oversight matters, but real oversight comes from Parliament, from the Auditor General, from the treaty governance bodies and from the courts, not from yet another monitoring office. Conservatives believe there is a better path forward, one rooted in accountability, partnership and respect.”
“The Tsawwassen treaty succeeded not because Ottawa created a new office; it succeeded because the agreement was honoured and because the Tsawwassen people turned opportunity into outcomes. We love to take our grandkids out to the Tsawwassen Mills mall to wander around Cabela's checking out the displays. When it first opened, we threw a few gutter balls in the bowling alley at Uncle Buck's Fishbowl and Grill, and the kids loved it. It is a living example that when we keep our word, show up, follow through and respect the commitments we have already made, good things happen: stronger communities, stronger partnership and a stronger Canada. More agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement will not come from a new office, a new commissioner or a new layer of bureaucracy.”
“(1050) However, what stands out about Tsawwassen is not just the treaty itself but what the community built with it. It used its rights, the way any government should: with discipline, vision and a plan for the next generation. We can see it in the development around Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Commons. We can see it in the jobs created, the businesses launched and the sense of momentum that did not depend on speeches and symbolism but on hard work and steady leadership. Here is the real lesson: When the treaty is clear, when the federal government does its part, when the rules are respected by everyone at the table, indigenous communities do not just participate in the economy, they help drive it.”
“Modern treaties and self-government agreements are possible. They are not easy files; they require discipline, focus, trust and constant conversation with indigenous partners, but they can be delivered. Let me remind the House what success looks like. Tsawwassen is located just an hour from my riding. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, which happened under Prime Minister Harper, is one of the most significant modern treaties in our country's recent history, not because it made headlines but because it made progress. It came into effect in 2009, giving the Tsawwassen First Nation clear authority over its land, its resources and its economic future. It replaced uncertainty with clarity, and decades of stalled negotiations with a real and enforceable partnership.”
“Indigenous leaders have shown us what real partnership looks like. Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band captured it well when he said, “We're business people. Our goals are to build a strong future [and] to pursue the good life”. That is the spirit we should be supporting: indigenous communities building their own future through hard work, collaboration and opportunity. A government that keeps its word and delivers on modern treaties does not create dependency; it creates the space for that success to flourish. Good things happen when everyone does their part: when indigenous governments lead, when local businesses invest and when Ottawa actually follows through on the commitment it has already signed. We know that the agreements can be negotiated and implemented when the government is focused, disciplined and accountable.”
“There have been multiple audits over the years by the Auditor General of treaty-related obligations, and there are still delays, missed commitments, and indigenous governments being forced back to the table to fight for what was already agreed to. Now the government has proposed a new commissioner, someone who would monitor, assess and report, but reports are not roofs, and they do not build homes, bring clean water, deliver policing or create economic opportunity. The new office would have no power to compel compliance or enforce obligations. It would have no direct accountability to Parliament. It could not direct departments, impose consequences or resolve disputes. It would be just more smoke and mirrors, because oversight without enforcement is a system built to observe failure, not to fix it.”
“They are not suggestions; they are federal law, so when Canada signs a treaty, the honour of the Crown is on the line, and that honour cannot be delegated to another office and cannot be outsourced or buried inside a new bureaucracy. It has to be lived out in real action. Here is the heart of the issue. The problem is not that there is too little oversight; the problem is that there is too little action. There is no shortage of reports; there is a shortage of results. The Auditor General, time and time again, has already told Parliament exactly where the system is breaking down: late funding, inconsistent interpretation of agreements, poor coordination across departments, unclear accountability, and almost no consequences when obligations are ignored.”
“Accountability does not come from a new office; it comes from leadership, responsibility and courage to deliver on commitments that already exist in law. Before we talk about implementation, we need to be clear about what modern treaties actually are. A modern treaty is not symbolic; it is a legally binding agreement, a negotiated settlement that clarifies land ownership, resource rights, governance and jurisdiction. In many cases, it includes self-government provisions that give indigenous communities authority over education, health, culture and local services. These agreements were meant to end decades, sometimes centuries, of litigation and uncertainty.”
“Madam Speaker, when we talk about treaties, we are not talking about paperwork; we are talking about promises, solemn commitments made between the Crown and indigenous people. They are commitments that define land, governance, rights and the very shape of our shared country, and the truth is that a promise is only as strong as the people responsible for keeping it. For decades, indigenous partners have asked for something that every Canadian understands: respect, fairness, and a government that keeps its word, not just speeches and photo-ops but real action. Bill C-10 , which would create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is supposed to be that answer, but we cannot solve a problem of execution by creating more bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, approving a nation-building project like a pipeline to the coast is the Prime Minister 's responsibility. It sits squarely in the federal government's hands. Instead of owning that responsibility, the Prime Minister is letting the NDP premier in B.C. have a veto, and he is doing it to calm the anger in his own caucus, not to move the country forward. When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind the NDP premier and make the call that only his government has the jurisdiction to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's own cabinet and caucus are fighting over this pipeline announcement. Ministers are worried. B.C. Liberal caucus members are “seething” and “angry” and leaks are coming out by the hour. Meanwhile, Canadians know the real issue: Without a pipeline to the Pacific, the United States is basically our only market for Canadian oil. We cannot reach global buyers until we have coastal access. When will the Prime Minister stop managing caucus drama and start using the authority he already has to guarantee a pipeline build to the coast?”
“Mr. Speaker, the budget relies on record spending, record debt and record optimism but absolutely no record of competence. Given that the government cannot keep a single promise on deficits or timelines, does my colleague think that Canadians should believe a single number in the budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, interest on the debt has now swallowed more money than most federal departments, even more than what we send to the provinces for health care. How does the member look Canadians in the eye and justify shovelling tens of billions of dollars into bankers and bondholders instead of seniors waiting for a doctor, families crushed by housing costs, or communities desperate for safer streets?”
“Mr. Speaker, seniors opened the budget hoping for help, but they got nothing but higher costs, no meaningful tax relief, no help with housing, no fix for the crushing grocery bills, and empty promises about more doctors. After a lifetime of paying into this country, why are seniors once again paying the price for the government's overspending?”
“Mr. Speaker, the credit rating organization Fitch Ratings has warned again that the government consistently underestimates its deficits. If the government cannot even hit its own numbers, why should anyone believe the promises we have heard? Would you say this budget is based on math or marketing?”
“Just last year, they broke all three targets they set for budget 2024. An investor has the entire globe to choose from. They are not going to choose the one country that spins a great story but never keeps its promises.”
“Mr. Speaker, this budget is all about the magical $1 trillion investment boom, as if private investors are lining up to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Canada, but so far, the Prime Minister has circled the globe four times, literally, with basically almost nothing to show for it because businesses do not invest where the numbers do not add up and, right now, the numbers do not add up. Fitch Ratings, one of the world's major financial watchdogs, just warned that in this budget, Canada's finances are heading in the wrong direction. It stated straight up in its report that the government has a pattern of promising one number and then spending way more every time. Even more shocking is that the report says that, when it comes to the rules, they mean absolutely nothing because the Liberals do not follow them anyway.”
“They deserve a government that understands the difference between spending and investing. They deserve policies rooted in reality, not wishful thinking. Above all, they deserve leadership that protects the next generation instead of sending them the bill for this one. How do we quit maxing out the national credit card and pull Canada back from the edge before the next generation pays the price?”
“Other countries do not do that, and nor do accountants and economists. It is the kind of creative bookkeeping that hides problems rather than solving them. Now we see the consequence. Fitch Ratings, the agency responsible for evaluating our financial health, has warned of a downgrade of Canada's credit rating. That is not a symbolic gesture; it is the financial world's saying out loud what many Canadians have already begun to feel, which is that we do not trust the government to manage debt. A downgrade will mean we pay more to borrow. When we owe as much as Canada does, that is not a small problem. It means that the interest on the debt grows faster and that more tax dollars go toward servicing yesterday's overspending instead of building tomorrow's opportunities. Canadians deserve honesty.”
“Confusing the two does not make someone sophisticated; it makes them irresponsible. A family understands this intuitively. Buying a new tool for work is an investment, while buying a new flat-screen TV for a man cave is a cost. Both may be great, but only one produces a return. The government has been calling almost everything it does an investment, even things that are clearly not. Museums and cultural centres may sound great, but they do not generate revenue for the country, pay down the debt or expand Canada's productivity. They are costs. There is nothing wrong with costs when we can afford them, but it is dangerous to pretend that costs will magically behave like investments. The PBO found that the government inflated its so-called capital investments by $94 billion simply by renaming ordinary spending as assets.”
“Overspending may happen in Ottawa, but the fallout lands on Canadians' dinner tables, in their gas tanks and in their monthly budgets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed, to the Liberals' great irritation, the very thing they hoped no one would say out loud: The deficit is not shrinking like they said it would. It is doubling, not because of a recession or an emergency but because the government has chosen to grow spending by tens of billions of dollars. When government expands operating spending faster than the economy grows, deficits explode. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is arithmetic. The government insists that all this spending is investment. That would be convenient if it were true, but a label does not change reality. An investment is something that pays back, and a cost is something paid for.”
“Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not spend their evenings reading budget tables or credit reports, and frankly they should not have to. In a well-run country, those numbers are supposed to be boring. However, nothing about Canada's finances is boring right now, because the government has pushed us into territory where ordinary families are paying the price for extraordinary mismanagement. Let us start with the simplest truth, one that is understood by any family, business or responsible adult: One cannot spend more than one earns forever. When a government does it, the consequences do not hit the politician who overspent; they hit Canadians. They show up in higher taxes, prices and interest rates, and they show up when one's grocery bill climbs but one's paycheque does not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the Surrey Police Board recently sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety , begging for meetings with the federal government. Does my colleague think that if the Liberals had supported our jail, not bail motion, we could have been much further ahead on protecting citizens today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that, at this point in time, we have already done a few things that needed to be done, for instance, calling the Bishnoi gang what it was. It is really important that we understand that, right now, people are facing gunfire and extortion in our neighbourhoods. Canadians need a bill that restores mandatory jail time for gun and sexual offences.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of that spin. The government's bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 , turned our justice system into a revolving door of catch, release and repeat. Since then, violent crime is up 41%. In my own riding, I have sat across from small business owners who are terrified of extortion and families afraid to walk home at night. They are perfect examples of why the system does not work when we loosen it up.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we do have is proof that mandatory minimums do work. Prior to their changing the laws, we did not have an extortion crisis or a crime crisis like we have now. The soft-on-crime framework is intact in this bill still. It keeps the culture of release. It offers no mandatory penalties for dangerous offenders, and it refuses to place public safety at the top of the law. What is missing is exactly what Canadians have been pleading for: firm consequences, clear standards and laws that favour the innocent over the violent. Until that happens, until they fix it, nothing will truly change.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety just received a letter from the Surrey police today. I would like to quote it: Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada.... What we are now facing—a significant extortion crisis that has emerged in just a few short years—demands swift, decisive, and collective action. No Canadian should live in fear.... It says, “We therefore respectfully request an urgent meeting [between] City of Surrey, local federal and provincial leadership, and senior leadership from all over the Lower Mainland”. This is a crisis that has not been dealt with, and this is from the Surrey police. Ryan Turnbull: A request for a meeting is not—”
“They are acts that tear the fabric of our communities. When a person has shown time and time again that they are violent, the law must begin from a simple position: that they remain behind bars to keep the public safe. These are not radical ideas. They are the minimum standards of a country determined to protect its citizens. Canadians are resilient and decent, but they are also tired of watching their neighbourhoods grow less safe while Ottawa proposes weak laws.”
“We can build that Canada again, but we will not build it with timid, half measures or softened legal language. We will build it with clarity, with conviction and with the courage to declare that safety is not optional; it is foundational. Bill C-14 is not enough. Canadians deserve a justice system that stands up straight, speaks plainly and puts their safety first, not as an afterthought but as the beginning of every decision. We must place public safety at the very top of the law. Nothing should outrank it. We need to restore mandatory jail time for those who use firearms and for those who commit sexual offences. A nation that will not punish these crimes cannot call itself serious about justice. We have to end the absurd practice of allowing house arrest for robbery, drug trafficking and firearms offences. These are not minor offences.”
“It means strengthening our border and supporting our police, not with announcements but with action. For too long, criminals have smuggled guns into this country faster than the government has responded. For too long, police have been asked to do more with fewer resources. A safe nation requires a government that gives law enforcement every tool it needs, not one that merely stands at a podium promising to do something someday. Let me close with this. I often think about my grandchildren and the Canada they deserve: a Canada where children pedal their bikes in their neighbourhoods without fear, a Canada where women walk to their cars without hesitation and a Canada where business owners open their doors in the morning without checking the shadows in the parking lot.”
“This is why the Conservative position is so different and so necessary. We believe the first duty of any government is to protect its citizens, not to soften the truth and not to sugarcoat a danger that is staring families in the face. Its duty is to protect. This means restoring mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crimes, because a society that will not offer consequences has no hope of restoring order. It means ending the era of get-out-of-jail-free cards for violent offenders. The law must defend the innocent before it comforts the guilty. It also means ending house arrest for crimes that were never meant to be served at home. There is nothing compassionate about allowing a violent offender to live steps away from the people he has terrorized. Firm justice is not cruelty; firm justice is protection.”
“Some cannot sleep. Some avoid certain streets or times of day, and some feel unsafe in their own homes. When they turn to the justice system for protection, they are too often met with leniency for the offender. Bill C-14 could have changed that. It could have drawn a line so that repeat violent offenders, sexual predators and men who harm women would face serious consequences, but it does not. It would keep in place the same mindset that lets far too many dangerous people slip through the cracks. It would keep the possibility of simple house arrest for violent predators. It would keep the system tilted toward giving offenders second chances while leaving women to manage the fear on their own. A government that claims to defend women cannot continue to defend the men who harm them.”