Tamara Jansen

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, December 2nd, 2025]

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.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, December 2nd, 2025]

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.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, December 2nd, 2025]

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. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

[Natural Resources, November 28th, 2025]

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?

[Natural Resources, November 28th, 2025]

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?

[Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act, November 28th, 2025]

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.

[Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act, November 28th, 2025]

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.

[Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act, November 28th, 2025]

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

[Natural Resources, November 27th, 2025]

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?

[Natural Resources, November 27th, 2025]

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?