Tamara Kronis
Nanaimo—Ladysmith, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent.”
“In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumpt…”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee.”
“The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should…”
“I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been…”
“We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Tamara Kronis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“It deserves the same constitutional respect as the home from which it came and the home to which it is bound. I urge all members of this House to reject any proposal that weakens that protection. Let us preserve the trust that has carried Canadians' words, hopes and memories across this country for generations. To borrow a phrase familiar to every household, when it comes to our letters, the only thing that should be opened is the mailbox.”
“Blanket powers, on the other hand, worry the public and invite abuse. That is why the four little words “other than a letter” are so powerful. Do we as a free and democratic society accept that others may open and perhaps read our private letters without a judge's authorization or before a judge's authorization? If yes, we normalize warrantless intrusion into one of our most intimate forms of communication. If no, we reaffirm that privacy is not a privilege but a right that is central to our values and fundamental to the relationship between citizen and state. The government has no business rifling through the private letters of Canadians. Our Constitution, our statutes and our shared values say the same thing: A sealed letter is sacred.”
“Therefore, I rise today to ask the government to please abandon its effort to take those four little words out of the act. During the long summer recess the government gave us, I spoke with and heard from many community members in my riding on this issue. They do not want to see this change. Allowing Canada Post to open letters would erode the public trust on which the postal service depends at a time when the postal service, quite frankly, cannot afford to lose more of the public trust. It is unnecessary. If there are genuine safety concerns with small packages under 500 grams that fit through a letter slot, modern, non-intrusive screening exists: X-ray imaging, chemical detection and targeted investigation under judicial oversight. These tools protect the public while respecting constitutional rights.”
“(1645) If the government had wanted to accomplish its goals with minimal impairment, if it had wanted to put small parcels that qualify as mail on the same footing as larger parcels, it could have made a distinction between letters as we know them and something thicker, or small packages that are under 500 grams that still fit through the letter slot at the post office. However, it did not. Even then, by the way, it would have had to reckon with the fact that at least one court in Canada has already held that the provision it is trying to change violates the charter's privacy rights. This is a change we disagree with vehemently. This change is a litigation magnet, and I submit that the courts are going to spend millions of Canadians' taxpayer dollars litigating it, with little chance of success.”
“Our charter, our Criminal Code and repeated Supreme Court of Canada rulings all recognize that a sealed letter sent through a government postal service attracts a high expectation of privacy, yet Bill C-2 suggests that the government disagrees with that. The current framework is a deliberate balance. Canada Post can inspect parcels, when needed, to enforce customs rules or keep dangerous goods out of circulation, and then it can alert law enforcement to get a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred or will occur and that evidence of the offence will be found at the location to be searched. However, no one, and I mean no one, can pry open a sealed letter unless a judge has first issued a warrant based on reasonable grounds. This bill would change that, and it smacks of government overreach.”
“It is a private conversation on paper, a direct, sometimes intimate exchange. Parcels contain goods. Letters carry thoughts, medical updates, legal documents and family news. Opening a letter is not like inspecting a box of merchandise. It is like eavesdropping on a private conversation in someone's home. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that mail attracts a high expectation of privacy under section 8 of the charter, which guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. It is also why section 187 of the Criminal Code prohibits intercepting private communications without judicial authorization, which is a warrant. Privacy is essential to liberty.”
“A letter, under the act, includes any paper information weighing less than 500 grams, which is half a kilogram, delivered to a specific addressee that includes a message or information in any form, and it does not even have to be enclosed in an envelope. Bill C-2 could have made a distinction between what we think of as a letter and larger items that meet the technical definition of a letter in the act but are not actually a letter. Whether that reflects sloppy drafting or something else, the net effect of the deletion of these four little words would be far more than a technical amendment to postal operations. It would strike at the heart of our constitutional right to privacy and the trust that underpins our entire postal system. A sealed letter is not just another object in the mail stream.”
“They may even tell us that we have nothing to worry about if we are not committing a crime. However, non-mailable matter, under the act, covers far more than just illicit drugs, and there would be no requirement in the legislation to get a warrant before going fishing through people's mail. All Canada Post would need is reasonable grounds to suspect that the item is non-mailable. Non-mailable matter goes far beyond fentanyl and other illicit substances. It includes, for example, perishable goods. It includes things that do not meet Canada Post's physical or marking requirements. It is actually a very broad concept. Canada Post defines a letter as much more than just a piece of paper in an envelope.”
“Mr. Speaker, many MPs have spoken about different aspects of the very lengthy Bill C-2 today. This afternoon, I rise to focus on just four small words whose removal from the Canada Post Corporation Act would transform this bill from being an act that promises security into one that delivers surveillance. Those words are “other than a letter”. Under the current Canada Post Corporation Act, Canada Post may open any mail other than a letter if it has reasonable grounds to suspect certain things about the parcel, including, for example, that it contains “non-mailable matter”. The Liberals will tell us that the removal of those four words is about stopping fentanyl. They will tell us it is about organized crime. They will tell us not to worry because police still need a warrant if they want to use the letter as evidence in a criminal trial.”
“member point to any measure in Bill C-3 that would ensure that the lax 1,095 non-consecutive day test would not take us full circle right back to the abuse of Canadian passports that created the need for the—”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome back my hon. colleague and all those who have returned to the House with the goal of making Canadians' lives better. The hon. member rightly points out that this bill is about fixing an infringement to the rights of a group of people with a substantial connection to Canada who, through an accident of fate, did not fit certain technical rules that were enacted with good intentions by a previous government. The courts have challenged us to work together to repatriate these lost Canadians while preventing those without a real connection to Canada from treating our country as a passport of convenience. The world is a volatile and scary place for so many right now, and Canada remains a beacon of relative calm in that storm. Can the hon.”
“Bill C-3 goes far beyond correcting the unintentional oversights of that policy that were properly identified by the courts. It unacceptably rewrites the framework of Canadian citizenship in a way that undermines its integrity, dilutes its value and ignores the need for a balanced and principled approach. Let me close by saying this: Conservatives believe in a strong, fair and principled citizenship regime, and that is what we would like to see in the bill.”
“The bill would create a slippery slope where citizenship would no longer be tied to a meaningful presence or a substantial connection to Canada. It risks transforming Canadian citizenship from a living commitment into a legacy entitlement, something passed down with little or no connection to our land, our laws or our culture. It is worth remembering why the first-generation limit was introduced in the first place. After the 2006 crisis in Lebanon, Canada evacuated 14,000 citizens at a cost of $94 million. Thousands returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. That experience led to the realization that citizenship must come with responsibilities, not just rights. That is why a Conservative government enacted the first-generation limit in 2009, to restore integrity to our system.”
“What Canadians need, expect and deserve is a balanced approach, one that upholds the charter and fixes past wrongs but preserves the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 does not strike that balance in its current form. Canadian citizenship is an incredible thing. It is more than just a legal status; it is a profound connection to one of the most free, diverse and democratic nations in the world. It reflects a shared commitment to values that define Canada: respect for human rights, the rule of law and pluralism. For millions, becoming a Canadian citizen is the fulfillment of a dream, and for those of us lucky enough to be born into it, it is a privilege that we should never take for granted.”
“This is the bottom line: The so-called “substantial connection test” in the bill is vague and inadequate, 1,095 non-consecutive days can be spread across decades and attested to without proof, there is no requirement for a criminal record check and there is no clear plan on how IRCC would verify or process the influx of new applicants. Conservatives are proposing simple, reasonable amendments to the bill: Make the 1,095 days consecutive, and disqualify those with serious criminal records. These are common-sense safeguards, and the government should accept them and adopt them as its own, as they have with many of our other policies. The Court gave the government a mandate to act but not to overreach.”
“In committee hearings, IRCC officials acknowledge that they simply do not know how many people the bill would affect or what the long-term financial implications would be. That is not good governance or responsible legislation; it is just recklessness, and it is particularly troubling given the state of our public services today: Canadians are waiting weeks for passports, months for citizenship applications and years for permanent residency; housing is unaffordable; and health care is stretched to the brink. Resources are finite, and the bill would do nothing to prioritize those already in Canada who need help.”
“We have always backed those provisions, and we continue to support them now, but what we cannot and will not support is a system that waters down the meaning of citizenship and creates an unmanageable administrative burden on already strained government services. (1825) Let us look at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Bill C-3 could immediately add about 115,000 new citizens, most of whom do not live in Canada, yet the government has provided no estimate for how many could be added in the long term as new generations become eligible. These new citizens would be eligible for services like old age security, GIS and health services, yet many of them would never have paid a single dollar of income tax in Canada. The government has admitted that it has not completed a proper cost analysis.”
“We support correcting past injustices. We support restoring citizenship to real lost Canadians, those caught in the bureaucratic net of outdated provisions, such as the former section 8 of the old Citizenship Act. These are people who were raised in Canada, have lived their lives as Canadians and who were denied the rights and privileges of citizenship due to paperwork or legislative gaps. They are Canadians in every meaningful sense, and they deserve to be treated as such. We also support the provisions regarding adopted children, which would ensure children adopted abroad, like those of my colleague who spoke earlier, are treated equally under the law and are able to pass on citizenship in the same way as biological children. This is a matter of fairness and equality.”
“Let us hear from some of the experts. We have heard repeatedly from experts with concerns about the bill. This is not actually a partisan issue. It is a policy issue. It is about what it means to be Canadian. It is about what a substantial connection is. It is about how we spend the half trillion dollars the Liberal government is proposing we approve without a budget. It is about whether people with no connection to Canada can suddenly discover their parents' Canadian roots when times get tough or they decide they would like to live somewhere else. We have a refugee program, and we have an immigration program. This is neither. This bill does an end run around those programs and would allow an ill-defined, undetermined number of people to jump the line without having to prove their value or show their work.”
“Vacations, work trips and conferences would all count. Getting stranded in Canada while in transit from one country to another because a snowstorm grounds their connecting flight would count as a night. I could go on. The bottom line is that this bill would make a number of people with minimal or no exposure to Canada eligible for Canadian citizenship ad infinitum, and IRCC could not tell the committee how many people this could be. Unlike many of the programs Canadians have to navigate, there would be no proof required. If one were willing to swear an affidavit that their parent spent 1,095 days here, the government would take their word for it. No boarding passes, holiday pictures, or receipts for poutine or perhaps maple-cured salmon would be required. What could go wrong? Members do not need to take my word for it.”
“In this case, the government's judgment is deeply flawed, stretching far beyond what most Canadians would consider to be reasonable. Let us talk about what is in the bill. Under Bill C-3 , Canadian citizenship could be automatically passed down for multiple generations born outside of Canada, so long as just one parent has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days, or three years of non-consecutive days, at any time in their life, on Canadian soil. As an example, it would allow the 50-year-old child of a 75-year-old who left Canada at age 3 to claim Canadian citizenship even if that 50-year-old had never been to Canada. Let us be clear, that is not a strong connection to Canada. That is not growing up here, working here, paying taxes here, or raising a family here. It is not even vacationing here. There are many other ridiculous examples.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Today, that honour comes with a sense of duty to speak clearly and seriously about the need to uphold the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Let me begin by saying clearly and unequivocally, Conservatives support the court's decision in Bjorkquist v. Canada. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, and Conservatives believe that unjustifiable discrimination has no place in Canadian citizenship policy. The court found the first-generation limit to be unconstitutional, and I respect that judgment, but Bill C-3 is not simply a thoughtful response to a court decision. It is a wholesale rewrite of citizenship policy that goes far beyond the scope of the ruling. This bill is not about justice. It is about judgment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the BC Ferries deal did not sink Canadian shipbuilders; Ottawa did. Our shipbuilding unions say Canadian companies could not bid because federal policies stack the deck against them. It is the federal government's job to set fair conditions so provinces can build at home, but all the government does is rearrange Liberal deck chairs. What I want to know is this: Will the Liberals fix their broken policies or are we going to just keep waving goodbye to good Canadian jobs from the dock?”
“It creates a second set of services, and it makes it very difficult for them to be able to innovate and manage their business. The hardship—”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the incredible things about car dealerships is that they are often family businesses. I grew up down the street from a car dealer, and his son is now running that particular business. There is incredible investment that comes with running a car dealership. It involves renting space. It involves hiring a large number of employees. Car dealers are among the largest employers in my community of Nanaimo. When they only have a limited amount of floor space and are trying to run a business, for the government to come in and tell them that the business they have been running needs to be augmented by a different business that needs to be run in the same space with the same people, it creates a second set of overhead.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I think my hon. colleague is incredibly eloquent, I do not believe there was a question in his remarks, so I would like to return the floor to you because perhaps someone else might have a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, the incredible thing about evolution and the incredible thing about innovation is that, when we embark on that journey, we do not know where it is going to take us. When the combustion engine was originally created, and when it was originally started, there were lots of models and lots of designs. Over time, we got an incredible variety. From the little horses and buggies and the little engines of the past, we now have sports cars, convertibles, family cars, station wagons and all manner of transportation. We got there by letting industry take the lead. We got there by letting people innovate. I believe that, if we allow that in this case—”
“Above all, let us listen to the workers who build our cars, the family-run dealerships that sell our cars and the Canadians who drive them every single day. The Liberal plan is broken. It is unaffordable, it is unrealistic and it is unfair. It is time to shift gears. Let us support this Conservative motion. Let us end the ban, and let us give Canadians back the keys to their own decisions and their own future.”
“However, rather than adjusting government policy and adjusting course to help Canadians during these difficult times, the Liberals are demanding that we adjust course, that we change our behaviour to suit their needs and desires. They are not responding to market trends. They are trying to manufacture those trends and coerce Canadians with quotas. That is not innovation. That is desperation and control. We have an opportunity to steer Canada back in the right direction. Let us invest in infrastructure. Let us support a range of clean technologies. Let us let demand grow organically. Let us recognize that there is more than one route to an emissions reduction. Hybrid vehicles, hydrogen power, sustainable fuels and, yes, even better internal combustion engines all have a place on the road to a more sustainable future.”
“We believe in clean technology and we believe in reducing emissions. We also believe in choice and competition, and yes, we believe in common sense. The demand for electric vehicles is plateauing. It may be that the current economy is creating challenges for affordability. It may be that the demand for electric vehicles has reached its saturation. After years of growth driven by early adopters and government rebates, the market is now cooling because many Canadians simply cannot afford the high upfront costs, do not have access to charging infrastructure or might not be convinced that EVs meet their needs in our climate and geography.”
“That is a massive financial burden, and then Ottawa penalizes them if they do not sell enough of the EVs that no one is asking for. That is not a policy. That is a lemon. It is going to hurt the very Canadians the government wants to help. In the rural parts of my community, people rely on pickups. In northern climates, they need vehicles that can handle snow, cold and long distances without worrying about where they are going to find a charging station. In all of the communities across this great country, people want choice. They want the freedom to choose what works for their family, what works for their job and what works for their wallet. What they do not want is a Prime Minister in the driver's seat deciding what kind of car they are allowed to buy. Conservatives believe in innovation.”
“(2130) Under this policy, car companies that sell even one gas vehicle above the Liberal quota could face penalties of up to $20,000 per car. That cost gets passed down straight to the consumer. At a time when groceries are out of reach, mortgages are ballooning and food bank lines are growing, the Liberals want to make vehicles more expensive by design. How out of touch can they get? This is not just bad for drivers; it is a head-on collision with small businesses. Dealerships, especially in small cities like Nanaimo, are being forced to carry excess or even double inventories. They have to stock expensive EVs that may sit unsold alongside the gas-powered vehicles that are more affordable and more in demand in their showrooms.”
“The mandate forces car dealers to carry large, expensive EV inventories that often do not match local demand, especially in small cities like mine and in rural areas. The burden of compliance, along with penalties for non-compliance, is being downloaded onto dealers. That means it will ultimately find its way to consumers. The Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association has also raised concerns about supply chain readiness and the speed of transition. A decade may feel like a long time, but in the world of design and in the current context, 2035 is actually quite near. Canada still lacks the domestic capacity to fully support the shift at this speed. The automotive industry in Canada is already coping with tariffs and volatility. It does not need this on top of it.”
“EV adoption has been growing, and that is a good thing, but it has happened because of consumer choice, smart incentives and infrastructure investment, not because of government strong-arming. Instead of encouraging choice, the government is taking it away. Federal and provincial rebates are being scaled back. Charging infrastructure is still patchy, especially in rural and northern communities. People in apartments and townhomes cannot plug in. Canadians want clean transportation, but they also want vehicles that fit their budgets, their geography and their daily lives. That is why the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association has warned that this Liberal policy is unrealistic and will lead to significant cost increases for consumers.”
“Backed by fines and compliance quotas, this is not about helping the environment; it is about pushing all Canadians to the outcome the Liberal government wants, whether they like it or not. That is why our Conservative motion today puts the brakes on this policy and puts Canadians back in the driver's seat. We are calling on the government to immediately give Canadians the freedom to choose vehicles that meet their needs at a price they can actually afford. I have been listening to the auto sector. The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association has been sounding the alarm. It knows what the Liberals refuse to admit: that this plan is out of step with the reality on the ground.”
“On our vast roads and rugged terrain, Canadians want and need a full range of options, all the gears in the gear shift, so to say, from EVs to hybrids, sustainable fuels and even increasingly efficient internal combustion engines. I am so glad to see our entrepreneurs and our market delivering just that. What Canadians do not want and absolutely cannot afford are heavy-handed mandates from Ottawa that jack up costs, punish small businesses and stall out consumer choice in the fast lane of central planning. That is not welcome in my community. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberal government's so-called zero-emission vehicle sales target does. It is being branded as a target, but it is a 10-year road to a ban, the “no more gas vehicles” ban, a regulatory sledgehammer disguised as a goal.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians want clean air. Canadians want innovation. Many Canadians, especially in my home province of British Columbia, are eager to embrace electric vehicles. I come from one of the most beautiful and most creative parts of the country. We are deeply committed to preserving that beauty, and we strive to find the technologies that will protect it. I am genuinely excited about the future of electric vehicles and the role they can play in reducing emissions and driving technological progress. I am also excited about hydrogen fuel cells, renewable fuels and many other breakthroughs revving up across the transportation sector, as well as the technologies that have not even been conceived yet. When innovation is allowed to flourish, Canada wins. Variety, they say, is the spice of life.”
“Madam Speaker, Canadians want clean air and innovation, but they do not want and cannot afford another heavy-handed Ottawa mandate that drives up cost and takes away choice. I have listened to the hon. member, and that is exactly what the Liberal “no more gas” policy does. It is not a target; it is a mandate backed by fines that will be passed down to the consumer. It is true that EV adoption has grown, as the hon. member said, but it has grown through choice, not coercion, and through incentives, infrastructure and demand working together. Today that balance is tenuous. Rebates have been cut, and as the hon. member said, charging stations are still missing in many rural areas, condo buildings and areas where there is only street parking. This is not smart climate policy; it is central planning at its worst.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government might like to put its head in the sand, but Canadian workers are struggling, and China is deliberately targeting them. Canadian canola, seafood and pork have all been hit with punishing tariffs, and the government is standing by while a critical infrastructure contract goes to a Chinese state enterprise. China uses trade as a weapon and detains our citizens. Is it the Liberals' economic strategy to let China take our jobs, jail Canadians and punish our exporters while Canadian industries get left out in the cold?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to “build, baby, build”, but he cannot even get the B.C. NDP to build Canadian ships for Canadian taxpayers in Canada. Instead, the Liberal government is letting BC Ferries send good-paying union jobs to a Chinese shipyard, even as China punishes our exporters with tariffs. What happened to “elbows up”? How is the Liberal government going to build one economy out of 13 if it cannot even convince B.C. to support Canadian steel, Canadian infrastructure and Canadian workers?”
“Mr. Chair, how does the minister not believe that the contract should go to Canadian shipbuilders? There is a Seaspan shipbuilding yard in Vancouver. How can the minister ship the jobs of the people he represents to Beijing?”
“Mr. Chair, on election night, the Prime Minister committed to creating an industrial strategy that makes Canada more competitive. How does handing over Canadian shipbuilding jobs to Beijing make Canada more competitive?”
“Mr. Chair, the more the ministers dodge, the clearer it is that the government is soft on Beijing. The minister is a former MLA, and when he was an MLA, he never claimed that BC Ferries was provincial when he was asking the federal government for money. When will the government stop passing the buck?”
“Mr. Chair, if the minister is going to keep passing the buck, maybe I should ask the housing minister, who is a senior minister from British Columbia and the former mayor of Vancouver. It is astonishing that no minister of the government is capable of denouncing the deal.”
“Mr. Chair, it is the minister's record as a mayor that is an insult to this country. There we have it. This is the guy whom the Liberals have chosen to solve the housing crisis. He did not know the facts; he did not answer my questions, and he certainly does not understand the hardship of either a 23-year-old with six roommates or a senior living in their car. What does the minister have to say?”
“Mr. Chair, Vancouver's price-to-income ratio doubled, going from 6:1 to 13:1, when the minister was the mayor of Vancouver. Does he think that record is going to earn him the respect of Canada's mayors?”
“Mr. Chair, let me help the minister again. It would take that couple 35 years to save for a 20% down payment or 17 years for a 10% down payment, which would add an extra $700 a month to their mortgage. Does the minister think that is a good outcome, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, let me help the minister with that again. The median income now is $87,987. That is up from $62,349 in 2015. While incomes are up just 41% in the last decade, home prices in Nanaimo have more than doubled. Can the minister explain how that is affordable?”
“Mr. Chair, after 10 years of Liberal governments, their housing record boils down to double trouble: doubled rents, doubled down payments and doubled mortgage costs. Who does the Prime Minister then appoint as housing minister? It is the former mayor of Vancouver, who doubled housing prices and broke promises to end homelessness. I have a few questions for the minister. Does the minister know the average price of a single detached home in Nanaimo?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Vancouver Island, high prices are pushing thousands of families and seniors out of the housing market. Meanwhile, the Auditor General says that the government is sitting on empty office buildings and surplus land. The Liberals promised 4,000 homes through their signature housing initiative. After seven years, they have delivered a measly 309. For this failure, the former housing minister has been promoted to the justice portfolio. There is no justice in that. How can the Prime Minister reward such failure while people in my riding are struggling to find a place to live?”