House of Commons photo

Track Tamara

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word is even.

Conservative MP for Cloverdale—Langley City (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2025, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Economy February 26th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, all five of my children are married and raising a family of their own. Like so many young Canadians, they are working hard just trying not fall into debt. Home repairs, music lessons, cadet uniforms, gas to drive kids to activities, and the everyday cost of raising a family all add up. Saving is nearly impossible right now, and 64% of millennials are worried about their future. Parents are doing everything right yet still falling behind.

When will the government lower costs so Canadian families can stop worrying about just staying afloat and start planning for their future again?

Business of Supply February 12th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals finally removed the EV sales mandate, which was a common-sense thing we had been begging them to do, but then they imposed a tailpipe emissions standard so strict that only electric vehicles would realistically qualify. As such, the mandate disappeared in the press release, but it reappeared in the regulations. Does my colleague think that Canadians appreciate these kinds of games?

Business of Supply February 12th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, we spent $52 billion trying to force an EV transition. Production targets are failing, 5,000 workers have been laid off, and now the government wants another $2.3 billion in subsidies, even though most of its past rebates went to foreign-built vehicles.

Is this about helping Canadian workers or saving face after a failed policy experiment?

Business of Supply February 12th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, after years of failed EV mandates, to the tune of $52 billion in subsidies from Canadian taxpayers, the government now wants to spend another $2.3 billion to boost the sales of cars that Canada does not build. The fact is that nearly all previous rebates went to vehicles manufactured outside Canada.

If the goal is to strengthen our auto sector, why is subsidy money going to support American factories instead of Canadian workers? How will this help the 5,000 families who have lost their jobs in the auto sector?

Public Safety February 10th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, picture a city with gangs demanding protection money from small businesses, where shots are fired at home, where families fear going out at night and people are forced to change their cars and their routines. It sounds like I am describing a slum in a third world country, but it is my hometown of Surrey. What is worse is that when these thugs are caught, they are right back on the street after claiming refugee status.

Will the Liberals support our motion that those charged with or convicted of serious crimes cannot exploit the refugee system in order to stay in Canada?

Natural Resources February 9th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need another process or another framework. They need a pipeline. We are a resource-rich country watching other nations move ahead while we debate conditions and caveats. A pipeline to the Pacific is not an experiment. It is not a theory. It is basic infrastructure, the kind Canada has built before and the kind for which they should already be moving dirt.

Under a Conservative plan, this would be straightforward and less costly. We would approve the project, set a clear route, respect federal jurisdiction and get shovels in the ground, with no ideological add-ons, no extra net-zero preconditions and no endless detours. The reason the pipeline is not built is not because Canada cannot do it. It is because the Prime Minister will not. He keeps adding conditions. He keeps outsourcing responsibility. He keeps pretending a province holds a veto over a project that is squarely federal. Leadership means making a call.

My question is simple: When will the Prime Minister approve a pipeline to the Pacific so that Canadians can finally get to work?

Natural Resources February 9th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline. We are a sovereign, resource-rich nation. We produce energy the world wants, yet instead of building the infrastructure that would allow us to sell that energy at full value, the Prime Minister has tied our economic future to a net-zero framework so complex, so conditional, that we are assured it will take forever and cost the max. It goes without saying that approving a nation-building pipeline is not the responsibility of the NDP Premier of B.C; it is a federal responsibility, and it rests squarely on the Prime Minister's desk.

Let us be clear about what is happening in the background. I want to demonstrate that by following a Canadian dollar, one loonie, through the system as it now stands under the Prime Minister. Let us follow it through the Pathways carbon capture project, which the Prime Minister has attached as a condition to the pipeline Canadians so badly need.

First, the carbon capture project itself is risky. It is massive. It is expensive. It is not about affordability; it is about net-zero ideology once again.

In a normal market, investors look at that and say there is too much risk and no return. Since the free market is not interested in these mega-expensive net-zero projects the Prime Minister wants so badly, what happens next? The government steps in and sweetens the deal. This is called de-risking. Ottawa offers investment tax credits. It builds guarantees and backstops. It creates funds designed to absorb losses if things go sideways to ensure there is little risk for the project investor.

In plain language, the government tells the investor not to worry because, if this does not work out the way they hoped, the taxpayer will carry part of the risk. Right there, our humble little loonie transmogrifies, as Calvin and Hobbes would say. It changes from a free-market loonie into an insurance loonie. It moves onto the taxpayers tab.

Here is where Canadians should really stop and pay attention. There is talk that our retirement savings could now be part of this. The Prime Minister talks as though pension savings could be a tool for the government's nation-building agenda. However, is that what Canadians voted for? Did they elect him to find a clever way into the CPP cookie jar? Every paycheque, whether for teachers, public servants, even the translators working right now to ensure my words are heard in French, includes a mandatory deduction for their retirement.

This is their money, and it was deliberately placed out of politicians' reach years ago, which was supported by the Conservatives, precisely so they could not redirect Canadians' retirement savings towards political priorities. Pension funds were designed to be protected from political interference. Their job is to invest responsibly, not to chase ideological projects dressed up as policy.

Here is my key point: We know that, if a project is too risky, it should not qualify for pension investment, but with fancy footwork, the government could de-risk it on the back of the taxpayer and suddenly the project would look safe enough on paper. The spreadsheet improves and projected returns stabilize, not because the risk disappeared, but because middle-class Canadians are now holding the bag. When things go sideways, who carries the risk? Public dollars will absorb losses. The middle-class family will absorb the loss in the form of taxes and inflation. That loonie quietly shrinks in purchasing power.

This is ultimately a question of integrity and fairness. In a free market, risk and reward go hand in hand. Those who take the risk bear the consequences, good or bad. That connection creates discipline and it forces careful decisions, but when the government alters that relationship and stacks the deck, someone loses. When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind expensive, inflationary, ideological preconditions and approve a pipeline to get to the Pacific to let Canadians get full value for the resources we have in abundance?

Employment February 9th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I just attended an event hosted by SPEATBC in a room full of highly trained engineers and technologists. They were asking whether the next round of manufacturing investment will stay here in Canada or go to the U.S. They want solutions so that their jobs are secure. StatsCan says that we lost 28,000 jobs last month in manufacturing alone. That means fewer shifts, tighter budgets and more families struggling to get by.

The government has to recognize that what it is doing is not working. When will the Liberals listen to our constructive solution to this urgent problem?

Business of Supply February 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have noticed that the Liberal government is always very quick to apologize. It makes me wonder why the government suddenly seems so incredibly reluctant to apologize for something that we know full well should never have happened.

Business of Supply February 5th, 2026

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed over the last 10 years that the Liberal government has always been very quick to apologize. I am just wondering why the government suddenly seems to be so incredibly hesitant to apologize for something that we know really should not have happened.