Tamara Jansen

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians calling on the government to address IRCC processing backlogs. Petitioners note that prolonged delays leave applicants, employers and communities in uncertainty. They call for action to end the dysfunction that wastes government resources and to restore confidence in the immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act. Petitioners are concerned with the planned expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. They note that mental illness can be treatable, that recovery is possible and that many Canadians still face barriers to accessing timely mental health care. Petitioners are concerned that vulnerable Canadians could seek MAID before receiving the treatment they so badly need. They therefore call on the government to pass Bill C-218 and permanently exclude mental illness alone for MAID eligibility.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I got a letter from Harjeet. He wrote, “I've been doing two jobs for the last six years. My wife works too. Even after working that much, it is a stretch.” Think about what six years of two jobs looks like: leaving before the neighbourhood even wakes up, working all day and then heading to job number two while everyone else goes home for dinner. He gets home late. The kitchen is dark. Dinner is in the fridge because his wife has already left for her shift. Then they do it again tomorrow. People like Harjeet are not afraid of hard work. They are exhausted from working harder and falling further behind. That is why our Conservative economic action plan will save Canadian families $10,000. We have identified $150 billion in savings by cutting Ottawa's waste, bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare. Harjeet has done his part while the Liberals are costing him more. Our plan will save Harjeet money; theirs will not.

Madam Speaker, I will begin by grounding the end of this debate in remembering young Kiano Vafaeian who lost his life to MAID. He was 26 years old, and he had lived with type 1 diabetes since he was four. After a serious car accident as a teenager, he also struggled with his mental health, and later he lost vision in one eye. In 2022, when he was just 23 years old, Kiano sought MAID in Ontario. His mother, Margaret, fought desperately to keep her son alive, and she succeeded for a time, but Kiano had become obsessed with getting MAID. He continued to request it from Ontario Health until they told him straight out that he would never qualify in Ontario, but shockingly, they suggested other jurisdictions he could contact in his quest to end his life. Sadly, he found a willing doctor in B.C., where he received MAID on December 30, 2025, from the now infamous Dr. Ellen Wiebe. He was 26 years old. When I heard Kiano's story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother Johan. In 2023, he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying, but he wanted to live. However, the medical staff at the Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life. While lying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward, he was asked not once, not twice, not three, four or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAID. They were relentless. They pressed him, saying that they did not think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had a will to live. I am very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life, for having the courage and the commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was for only another eight or ten months. He had time to mend fences, make friends with the people at the hospice and say goodbye to his family. This is why Bill C-218 is necessary, because not everyone will have the will and the ability to fight the way my brother fought. Not everyone will have the strength to say no six times. When someone is sick, frightened, depressed or unable to see any hope for tomorrow, surely the responsibility of our medical system is not to reinforce the despair but to protect them while they are vulnerable and help them find their way back to hope. This is particularly true when we are talking about mental illness. For years, Conservatives have warned that expanding MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness crosses a line we should not cross. We were told that the safeguards would be enough. We were told that the system could be made ready. However, the implementation has been delayed again and again, while the fundamental question remains unanswered: How can we declare that a person's mental illness is irremediable when we cannot reliably know that they will never recover? However, we do know one thing with absolute certainty: Once that life is ended, there is no tomorrow. When we first debated the bill, members told us to wait for the special joint committee to do its work. Well, it has. The committee heard the evidence and recommended that people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness be indefinitely excluded from MAID eligibility. Parliament asked for that review. We now have its answer. If the concern with Bill C-218 is the wording and the use of the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness”, then let us fix the wording at committee. We are prepared to work with the government at committee to make the technical changes. A bill should not be defeated at second reading over one word when there is agreement on the principle. Time is of the essence. The scheduled expansion is coming in March. Let us work together and send the bill to committee. The measure of a compassionate society is not how efficiently it helps people die. It is whether in the moment when someone can no longer see the value of their own life, the rest of us are prepared to see it for them. Our answer to suffering should be care. Our answer to despair should be hope. When someone believes there is no possibility of recovery, Canada should never be the one to agree with them. That is why I am asking my colleagues to vote for Bill C-218. Give Canadians the time, the care and the hope that they need. Give them the right to recover.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell members about a man I will call David. David owns a little coffee shop on a main street that could be in almost any town in Canada. It is not fancy. There are a dozen small tables, a chalkboard menu behind the counter and a bell above the door that has probably rung a million times. He turns on the lights, ties on his apron and starts getting ready for the morning rush. He has been doing this for 20 years now, and he knows his customers well. He knows who wants an extra shot of espresso and which construction crew will go through that door just after six. David loves his business, but lately he has begun to dread opening the envelopes that arrive in the mail. The price of everything he buys has gone up under the Liberal government. The coffee beans cost more. The milk costs more. The cardboard cups cost more, and so does his insurance, his electricity and his rent. David cannot simply pass every increase along to his customer because he knows they are struggling too. He sees it in his customer who used to order breakfast and now just gets coffee, or the young mom who used to stop in three mornings a week and now comes once, so David absorbs what he can. Then there is the espresso machine. It has been sitting behind the counter for nearly 15 years. Every morning, David listens to it wheeze and rattle and hopes it makes it through another day. A new one would make the shop more efficient, use less power and let him serve customers faster. Maybe he could even expand his business a little. However, by the time David has paid his employees, his landlord, his suppliers and the government, the money he thought he might put toward a new machine is gone, so he calls the repairman again, replaces another part and tells himself, “Maybe next year.” Do members remember that young mom David used to see three mornings a week? Let us follow her home. She and her husband live only a few streets away. They are not poor. They both work. They have a modest house, two kids and two incomes, and 10 years ago they thought they were doing pretty well. They were the kind of family we used to call comfortably middle class, but lately, comfortable is not the word they would use. Their family car is 15 years old now. There is a warning light on the dashboard. The mechanic has told them that there is another big repair bill coming, and they know they really should replace it. Ten years ago, they probably would have. Today, they look at the price of a new car, look at the payment and decide the old car will have to last another winter. Let us now leave the family's kitchen, and come with me to a very different room. Imagine a glass boardroom high above a city. Around the table are not mom and dad wondering whether the roof can survive another winter. There are executives, accountants, lawyers and investment advisers deciding where a multinational corporation should put its next billion dollars. Now Ottawa has put something new on that boardroom table: the mega deduction, a major new tax break designed to convince companies with capital, like, let us say, Brookfield, to invest here. Put those three rooms side by side. At the kitchen table, mom and dad have already gone through the bills twice. They need a new car and the roof needs work, but none of these qualify for this new Liberal mega deduction. What Ottawa offers them is Bill C-38, a few pennies per litre when they fill their gas tank. A few streets away, David may be able to use the mega deduction if he buys that new espresso machine, but first he has to find the money to buy it. After paying his employees, his suppliers, his rent and his taxes, there is not enough left. Let us face it. A deduction on something someone cannot afford is not too much help. His tax break is much the same as the family's: a few pennies of relief when he gases up. Then there is the third room, where the numbers have a lot more zeros. Here is a corporation headquartered in New York with the capital to make enormous investments and a team of accountants who can calculate exactly how much a new tax deduction changes the return. Lucky for them, their former board member is now the Prime Minister of Canada. For that room, Ottawa is proposing a massive tax advantage, and this is where I think something has gone badly wrong. Do not get me wrong. Lower taxes have always been a Conservative principle. I want businesses investing in Canada, expanding here and creating good jobs, but lower taxes should not be a privilege reserved for the people with enough money and the right high-powered friends to be able to take advantage of them. If lower taxes help a multinational invest and grow, why would we not want that same breathing room for David? Why would we not want it for the families sitting around the kitchen table? They have spent years watching more of their paycheques disappear into taxes, while the cost of housing, food and fuel has climbed. Small businesses have faced the same rising costs, along with layer after layer of taxes, paperwork and government rules. Now, after making it harder and harder for them to get ahead, governments arrive with a few pennies of temporary relief on their gas and expect them to be grateful. Canadians deserve better than that. David does not need Ottawa to run his coffee shop or a government program to tell him that a new espresso machine would make his business more productive. He already knows that. He needs enough money left at the end of the month to buy it. That family does not need Ottawa deciding where its money would be most productive either. Mom and dad already know exactly where their next $100 needs to go. That is their decision because it is their money. Yes, let us give them the fuel tax relief in Bill C-38, but let us not call a few months of relief a solution. Conservatives have been pushing for relief at the pumps for a long time, years in fact, so we are glad the Liberals have finally discovered that lower taxes can actually help people. However, this is what happens when a Liberal government tries to borrow a Conservative idea without understanding the principle behind it. Canadians do not need a temporary break from high prices. They need policies that actually bring prices down. Gas prices have skyrocketed, and while Canada sits on some of the largest energy resources in the world, years of taxes, regulations and barriers to developing those resources have left us more vulnerable when global energy prices rise. This is a trap the Liberals created themselves. Relief means lower taxes, affordable energy and developing the resources Canadians already own. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who produce, work, hire and raise families in this country. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who are working to raise their families in this country. Let us stop treating small business like an endless source of tax revenue and paperwork. Let us stop taking from Canadians only to decide in Ottawa which multinational will get it back. Instead, let us remove the barriers that have been squeezing the middle class and small business, and then give Canadians room to do what they have always done. Here is what Ottawa seems to be missing: We would not have to wait 10 years for some foreign company's investment to trickle down to the rest of us. Small and medium-sized businesses employ nearly two-thirds of Canada's private sector workers. If thousands of businesses like David's had a little more room to breathe, the effect would begin on main street across this country almost immediately. David does not need 10 years to decide what to do with another few thousand dollars left in his business. He already knows. He fixes the machine, buys equipment, gives an employee another shift or finally hires a person he has needed for months. Maybe mom starts stopping at David's coffee shop three mornings a week again. Her five dollars goes into David's till. David pays his employee. His employee buys lunch down the street. A roofer gets the family's business. The mechanic gets paid. People begin making plans again instead of putting them off for another year. Nobody in Ottawa had to decide where those dollars should go. Ordinary Canadians did that themselves. That is what prosperity looks like: Canadians keeping more of what they earn, making their own choices, building their businesses, looking after their families and creating a better life for the people they love. That is what a real Conservative government would fight for.

Madam Speaker, we support giving Canadians relief from federal fuel taxes. The question is whether the government is even going far enough. Bill C-38 would keep the excise tax at zero only until January 31. It would then bring back half the tax in February and March, before the regular rates return in April. Canadians' affordability challenges do not suddenly disappear in February. Families will still need to drive to work. Businesses will still need to move goods. Farmers and producers will still face fuel costs. That is why Conservatives have called for fuel tax relief to continue through Canada Day as part of a broader action to lower costs.

Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell members how many times in the last couple of weeks I have heard about the cost of diesel. Fuel costs affect much more than what a family pays when they fill up their vehicle. Fuel is an input into producing and transporting goods across the country, which we hear everywhere. Farmers need it to operate equipment. Truckers need it to move products. Businesses need it throughout their supply chains. When those costs increase, they do not simply disappear. They place additional pressures on producers, businesses and ultimately consumers. Extending relief means continuing to lower one of those costs during a period when Canadians and Canadian businesses are already dealing with significant economic uncertainty. The objective should be to keep costs down rather than to begin putting them back up again.

Madam Speaker, I am hearing that everywhere I go. We had a large picnic on the weekend before we came back, and everybody was talking about the fact that this is making it very difficult for businesses to continue. Fuel tax relief is only one part of a broader economic approach. The Conservatives' economic action plan has called for gas tax relief to continue through Canada Day, faster approval of projects awaiting federal permits, removing the GST from Canadian-made automobiles, eliminating the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canada and reducing other barriers facing Canadian investment. The principle connecting these measures is straightforward: lower the costs facing families and employers and create better conditions for investment, employment and growth.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Surrey families received two disturbing police warnings. High-risk offender Skylar Pelletier, with a history of violent and sexual offences, was released into our community. The very next day Jonathon Muzychka, another high-risk offender with a history of violence, was released into Surrey. We grandmothers are terrified watching our grandchildren walk to the park or to school. We should not have to worry about dangerous offenders being let out into our city. I am begging on their behalf. When will the Liberals end their dangerous catch-and-release policies and put families first, before repeat offenders?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our supplementary opinion. Conservatives welcome the committee's recommendation that individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness be indefinitely excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. This will save thousands of lives. This is the position that Conservatives have held from the beginning. Conservatives opposed the Senate amendment to Bill C-7, which set this proposed expansion in motion. We have consistently echoed the warnings of experts that the expansion cannot be implemented safely. We call on the government to accept the committee's recommendation and support Bill C-218, which is already before the House and which would accomplish the policy objective the committee recommends. Conservatives are prepared to work collaboratively with the government to that end. Our supplementary opinion also notes that over the course of the committee study, as we were examining system readiness for expansion, many witnesses questioned the effectiveness and enforceability of the current MAID safeguards. Conservatives encourage the government to undertake a review of the current safeguards to ensure that no vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks of a system that is supposed to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, the press reports that Liberal MPs say the President of the Treasury Board is not very present, not very diligent and struggling to master his files. Last week, Canadians watched him stand in this House, unable to answer a very basic question about his own department. If the Prime Minister demands confidence from his ministers, does he still have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years telling Canadians that the solution to every problem is more government spending. Canadians now face some of the least affordable housing in the G7, record food bank usage and the highest household debt in the G7, and ours is the only country in the G20 in a recession. At what point does the government admit that its spending is not solving the affordability crisis, but contributing to it?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians keep hearing announcements about new funds, new agencies, new strategies and new spending programs. Could my colleague explain why, after 10 years of these announcements, Canadians are facing higher housing costs, higher grocery bills and lower affordability, rather than the prosperity they were promised?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that when a family is struggling financially, the answer is not to keep increasing the limit on the credit card. Could my colleague explain why he thinks the government believes doubling the deficit and announcing another $48 billion in spending commitments will somehow make life more affordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. The government has asked us today to accelerate consideration of the spring economic update because we are told time is short. What the government neglects to mention is that much of the time pressure is entirely of its own making. Let us be clear about what this motion would do. It would force all remaining amendments at committee to be moved and voted on without further debate. That is not a normal legislative process. It is Parliament being asked to do less of its most important job. A budget is supposed to be a statement of priorities. It is supposed to tell Canadians what the government intends to do, how much it intends to spend and how it intends to pay for it, yet within weeks of presenting budget 2025, the Prime Minister began announcing billions of dollars in new spending commitments that had not been presented when the budget was tabled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that these additional measures are roughly $48 billion over five years. Basically, a second budget is being unveiled piecemeal through press conferences and announcements, while Parliament is expected to simply keep up. The most striking example is the newly announced Canada Strong fund, a $25-billion sovereign debt fund that did not appear as a central feature of the government's original plan. When a government finds $25 billion for a brand-new sovereign debt fund, only weeks after presenting a budget, Parliament should begin to wonder if perhaps these programs are not emerging from a coherent economic plan, but are being invented on the fly whenever the government finds itself in need of a new announcement. The same pattern can be seen in the government's new commitments on defence and international affairs. Billions of dollars have now been announced for new defence procurement structures, a Defence Investment Agency and a defence industrial strategy. Why do so many huge financial commitments continue to emerge after the government's fiscal plan was supposedly complete? The Prime Minister has also unveiled team Canada strong, a multi-billion-dollar labour strategy. Then came the government's new electricity initiative. Canadians were told that billions more would be going towards transmission infrastructure, electricity corridors and long-term transformation of Canada's power grid. Once again, the government presented the announcement as though it had just came up with the idea at the last minute. How come these were not in the budget in the first place? Then, last week, the government announced a $3-billion national food strategy. The government appears to believe that food security can be achieved through creating funds, hubs, agencies, financing mechanisms, planning structures and administrative frameworks. Food security has never been created by government planners. It has always been created by farmers, truckers, processors, retailers and entrepreneurs who bring the food from the field to the table. The announcement contains billions of dollars in new programs, but remarkably little discussion of the policies that have made food more expensive in the first place. Food security depends on farmers who can afford to farm, processors who can afford to process, truckers who can afford to transport goods and businesses that can operate in a competitive environment, yet after years of inflationary Liberal policies that have increased costs throughout the supply chain, the government now proposes another layer of inflationary programs and administration as the solution. Each one of these announcements arrives with a new price tag attached to the national credit card. Every few weeks, Canadians are presented with another announcement, another commitment, another expenditure and another promise that government spending will somehow unlock future prosperity, yet after 10 years of this approach, Canadians have become entitled to ask a reasonable question: If government spending were the key to economic growth, why have the billions of dollars of new spending not made anything better? The government would like Canadians to believe that these new programs are finally going to make life more affordable, but it is just an illusion. Every new fund, every new agency, every new strategy and every new spending commitment ultimately lands on the country's credit card. The bill always arrives. It arrives in the form of larger deficits, higher debt, rising interest costs and, ultimately, a higher cost of living for the very people the government claims it is trying to help. Bill C‑30 is simply the latest example of what has become a familiar Liberal pattern: more spending, more borrowing, more debt and higher costs for Canadians. The Prime Minister promised fiscal responsibility. Instead, this budget more than doubles the deficit left behind by Justin Trudeau, from $31 billion to $72 billion. Outside the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history. Canadians were promised a new approach, but it turns out that the new approach means spending way more than Trudeau could ever have imagined. What makes this particularly troubling is that all of this is happening while Canada stands alone among the G20 countries as the only one in recession. The government continues to insist that more spending is the solution, yet with all that spending, Canada is the only G20 nation that has managed to achieve this disastrous distinction. One would think that after 10 years of disappointing results, the government might pause long enough to consider the fact that the remedy it keeps prescribing is actually making the illness worse. Canadians are already carrying the highest household debt burden in the G7. They are coping with some of the least affordable housing in the developed world. Food bank usage has reached record lows and young families can only dream of home ownership. Seniors are stretching fixed incomes further every month. Working parents are making impossible choices between groceries, rent, transportation and basic necessities. The Prime Minister did not campaign on doubling deficits. He did not campaign on larger government and ever-expanding spending commitments. He presented himself as the supposed adult in the room, the person who would restore fiscal discipline, bring competence back to the government and provide a new economic direction for the country. However, only months later, Canadians are looking at a $72-billion deficit, the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic, and billions of dollars in additional spending commitments that were not even included in the budget. The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget shows it is rising. He promised spending discipline. Spending is increasing faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. He promised economic renewal. Canada remains the only G20 country in recession. He promised to build faster, yet despite his creating new offices, new agencies and new approval processes, Canadians are still waiting to see any results. The concern is not simply that these promises have been broken. The concern is that the government appears not to have learned anything from the experience of the last decade. For 10 years, Canadians have been told that another spending program, another fund, another agency or another strategy will solve the problem, yet the problem continues to grow as the government continues to grow. The result is a country carrying more debt, paying more interest, experiencing weaker growth and facing higher costs than Canadians were promised. At some point, governments must be judged not by the announcements they make but by the results they achieve. Now the government has asked Parliament to spend less time examining legislation at the very moment it is asking Canadians to accept more spending, more borrowing and more debt. That is backwards. When a government announces another $48 billion in commitments after tabling a budget, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. When deficits are growing, debate becomes more important, not less. When Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and everyday necessities, accountability becomes more important, not less. Parliament was not created to rubber-stamp government announcements. It exists to test them, challenge them and ensure taxpayers understand the consequences before the bill arrives. After 10 years of rising debt, rising costs and declining affordability, Canadians have every right to ask whether more spending will solve the problem or simply make it worse. The government might not like that, but it is not a reason to curtail debate. It is the very reason debate exists. That is why Conservatives support the amendment moved by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. His amendment would allow the finance committee to continue its work instead of forcing members to vote on remaining clauses and amendments without debate. It would restore the basic principle that Parliament should examine legislation before passing it. Canadians can no longer afford more of the same, and they certainly cannot afford less scrutiny of the policies that brought us here.

Mr. Speaker, I would not agree that the Liberals were elected to make a whole bunch of announcements and get nothing done. Conservatives believe in the basic principle that government does not create prosperity by endlessly spending borrowed money. We would focus on getting costs down, removing barriers to investments, speeding up approvals, supporting the workers and businesses that actually build homes and grow food, and restoring discipline to federal spending. Canadians do not need more slogans, funds, agencies and strategies. They need a government that measures success by results: lower costs, more homes, stronger paycheques and a more competitive economy.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that there are many examples of where the Liberals have gone wrong in this budget. The PBO found that the government used most of the additional fiscal room for new policy priorities, leaving the deficit track substantially unchanged. In other words, when the government had some breathing room, it did not use that room to meaningfully lower the deficit or give taxpayers real relief. It used it to fund more spending. That is the pattern Canadians have seen for the last decade: more spending, announcements and promises. However, families are still struggling with groceries, housing, taxes and debt. Conservatives are saying that improved fiscal room should not be treated as permission to keep spending.

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the fact that what we are opposing is a process that weakens accountability and a fiscal plan that seems to be planned out on the back of a napkin. Parliament exists to examine legislation, improve it and hold the government accountable for taxpayer dollars. That should not be controversial. The amendment moved by my Conservative colleague would allow committee work to continue and would remove the parts of the motion that cut off debate and scrutiny. That is a reasonable position. If the government's legislation is strong, it should survive committee review. If its spending is justified, ministers should be able to defend it. If the plan is working, Canadians should be seeing results. Instead, Canadians are seeing higher costs, weak growth and more debt.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to make it easier to hide information from Canadians by no longer allowing government emails or text messages to be part of an information request. Even the independent Information Commissioner is opposed. Will the President of the Treasury Board reverse this proposal and defend Canadians' right to know?