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 3 of 12.
“I am pleading with the government to pay attention and to allocate a share of federal housing funds for sober housing in Nanaimo because recovery needs more than hope. It needs a home.”
“Madam Speaker, in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the addictions crisis is not an abstract policy debate. It is on our streets, in our parks, in our shelters and in the lives of families who are praying their loved one gets one more chance. Too many people are trying to get clean while living next door to the very thing they are fighting to escape. That is not compassion. That is setting people up to fail. Nanaimo needs every kind of housing, including sober housing. We need safe, stable places for people who have chosen recovery, people who want to rebuild their lives without being surrounded by drugs. This Monday, June 8, Nanaimo city council is convening a special governance and priorities committee meeting to discuss the urgent need for sober housing in our community.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in any kind of recession. Maria from my community worked her whole life but lost her home because she and her husband could not make ends meet. She needs help because CRA made a mistake on her file, but she needed to know we could help her before making the drive to my office, because the cost of fuel is so high that she cannot afford to waste the trip. I hear from more and more Marias every week. Will the Prime Minister please tell Maria whether her hardship is because Canada is in a recession, or is it just a technicality he will continue to ignore?”
“Mr. Speaker, were those pages not wonderful in singing O Canada ? They have created such a sense of harmony in the House. Motion There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion scheduled for today be taken first.”
“Madam Speaker, the member spoke to one aspect of the 330‑page bill, which has 16 divisions plus the Defence Investment Agency. He was just asked a question about a different part, presumably, of the bill. Could my colleague speak to the difficulty for members of the House to be able to address the bill in a meaningful way when we have only had three and a half hours of debate, and the government is trying to shut down debate on it, given the complexity and the length of the bill?”
“Madam Speaker, the big challenge is that we have had three and a half hours to debate 330 pages. Especially at this time when Canadians are struggling, it is obligatory upon us to give them the time that they deserve.”
“Madam Speaker, of course, we support the Red Seal program. The issue is that it is one thing buried in a 330‑page bill that we have only had three and a half hours to debate, and which this government has just tried to shut down further debate on. The challenge is that we have already seen bills come through with sloppy drafting that infringe on the rights of Canadians. Unfortunately, we have to take the bill as a whole. I would also note that while the bill has provisions for a Red Seal program, it is not expanded to a blue seal program that would allow professionals to get into positions where they could practise their professions in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked about the Red Seal program, which, I would note, was brought in by a Conservative prime minister, John Diefenbaker, who brought the provinces together to recognize credentials across Canada, which is, of course, something that the Liberal government is currently having some trouble with around being able to ship wine across provincial borders. Frankly, we had proposed expanding the Red Seal program to include a blue seal program so we could get medical personnel and health care workers out of taxis and into positions where they could serve Canadians. I would say that, of course, we support the expansion of the Red Seal program to also include a blue seal program.”
“Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I could not speak one full sentence in French. I spent time learning French so that I could treat my francophone colleagues with respect. We have pointed out that the government does not want to debate the bill. Not only does this minister not want to debate this bill, but he also does not want to get into what he calls an identity-based debate about Quebec. For that reason, Quebec's premier called him a disgrace to all Quebeckers. Can the minister explain why, having alienated Quebec, he now wishes to alienate all Canadians by terminating debate on a 330-page bill after only a few hours?”
“It really feels as if the government's failure to plan is something it is turning into an emergency for all of us. I do not think it is reasonable. I think that with bills such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-22 , the rush and the sloppy drafting have put Canadians' rights at risk. I would like to know why the member is not going to allow either legislators or the public sufficient time to really think through what would be happening in this very consequential bill.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a 330-page bill that is divided into 16 divisions, plus the defence investment agency act, as the minister pointed out. It would amend things as diverse as the Bank Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, a wide variety of acts that also includes the Territorial Lands Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act. It is a bill that has had very few hours of debate. In fact, if every one of these things had been brought forward, as I think they should have been, as their own bills, we would have had more time to debate each of those bills in its presentation than we will have to debate the entire act.”
“A government that removes unnecessary obstacles and does not kick people when they are suffering from shattering pain matters as well. This bill would recognize that reality. It would acknowledge that stability and certainty have value during a period of crisis. For those reasons, I am pleased that we are all supporting Bill C-222 , and I want to thank all those involved in this bill for bringing us—”
“Families experience tragedies, illnesses, accidents and unexpected hardships. When these moments occur, government systems should have the flexibility and compassion to respond appropriately. Bill C-222 helps move us in that direction. The stories behind legislation and the words of those who have spoken in the House today remind us why these changes matter. Behind every policy discussion, there is a real person, a real family and real experiences. I want to thank all of my hon. colleagues for the stories they have shared with us today. I also want to extend comfort to all those who carry burdens that are too heavy to share. Statistics can help us understand the scale of a problem, but they cannot help us understand pain. Words matter.”
“Instead of worrying about paperwork, they can worry about each other and focus on grieving. Instead of being wrapped in government bureaucracy, they can stay wrapped in the arms of those who are helping them grieve. There is also a broader principle at stake here. One measure of a society is how it treats people during their most vulnerable moments. Government cannot erase grief. No law passed in this chamber can undo the loss of a child. We cannot restore what has been taken away from a family, but we can ensure that our public institutions respond with humanity rather than rigidity. Too often, government programs are designed around standard circumstances. They assume life will unfold according to expectations, yet life does not always follow a predictable path.”
“I believe this bill reflects values that all members of the House can support, and I am grateful to all parties in the House for coming together to do the right thing. It is heartening, as a member in my first term in this place, to see members who understand that government systems should serve people, not the other way around, and who understand that compassion and common sense are not partisan principles, but are principles that should guide us whenever we legislate. Sometimes the most meaningful changes are ones that affect a relatively small number of people, but make an enormous difference in their lives. For the parents impacted by this legislation, the effect will be that government stays out of their lives at a time when the last thing they need is government.”
“The death of a child is every parent's worst nightmare. It is a loss that changes a family forever. In those moments of grief, families should be surrounded by compassion, support and understanding. The last thing they need is paperwork, bureaucratic hurdles, confusion about government benefits or being forced back to work, yet that is exactly what can happen under our current employment insurance system. This bill would address that problem in a practical and compassionate way by allowing parents who have already qualified for parental benefits to continue to receive those benefits for the remainder of the approved period and through other means. It would also provide corresponding protections under the Canada Labour Code for employees in federally regulated workplaces.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-222 , the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law. The bill is called Evan's law because it was inspired by the experience of a grieving family whose son Evan died while they were receiving parental benefits. After his death, the family had to deal not only with their loss, but also with the bureaucratic consequences of our EI system, including benefit disruptions, paperwork and administrative requirements during a period of profound grief. I want to thank the member for Burnaby North—Seymour for putting this bill forward on behalf of every parent who has grieved a baby in my riding and across our great nation. I also want to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and shared their pain.”
“Mr. Speaker, a central problem with tribunal systems, and I have had experience with them, is they are intended to make life simpler for Canadians. They are intended to be a process that is outside the court. However, as anyone who has dealt with any of these tribunals knows, people inevitably need a lawyer and inevitably need to navigate all kinds of complicated case law. If the government is serious about making life simpler for Canadians, it will clear these backlogs and provide redress in a faster, more efficient way, because the longer these cases sit in tribunal systems, the more paper they accumulate and the more complicated they get.”
“It is achieved when ordinary people can enforce those rights without needing a lawyer, a media campaign, an MP or two years of patience. That observation applies far beyond air travel. Capability is not centralization for its own sake. It is not ministerial discretion without accountability. It is not omnibus legislation without scrutiny, and it is not the appearance of motion while standing still. The Prime Minister often speaks about resilience, sovereignty and national purpose. At a time when Canadians are carrying the burdens of housing scarcity, weak productivity, affordability pressures and global uncertainty, we should insist on something better. We should insist on competence, accountability and results. (1325)”
“The question is whether this structure will make us faster or merely more complicated. A ship that cannot sail does not defend sovereignty. An aircraft that cannot fly does not secure the Arctic. A procurement system that produces announcements faster than equipment does not serve the Canadian Armed Forces. State capacity is not measured by the number of institutions government creates. It is measured by the ability of its institutions to deliver. The air passenger rights provisions raise a similar concern. The current system is clearly failing Canadians. Complaint backlogs are unacceptable. Delays are excessive. Compensation is often very difficult to obtain. However, consumer protection is not achieved by announcing rights.”
“In a more dangerous world, faster procurement is not just a bureaucratic preference but a strategic necessity, yet speed is not competence. National security is not an area for weak accountability. The Defence Investment Agency may prove useful. It may not. Parliament has not yet been given sufficient evidence to determine which outcome is more likely. What is clear is that such significant reform deserves its own legislation and its own committee study. It should be examined by the defence committee with witnesses who understand defence procurement, military readiness, industry and national security. It should not be one division in a big budget bill competing for attention with tax rules, air passenger complaints and labour measures. The central question here is not whether Canada should move faster.”
“We learned this morning that Canada has quietly slipped into a recession, with two consecutive quarters of shrinkage. If Canada produces less per worker than its competitors, wages stagnate. When wages stagnate, affordability deteriorates. Governments can soften the consequences through transfers, credits and subsidies. They can send all the cheques they want, but they cannot permanently compensate for weak productivity, and the spending has consequences at the grocery store and everywhere else in our economy as things continue to get more expensive. That is because prosperity must be created before it can be distributed. The same concern arises with the Defence Investment Agency. Canada unquestionably needs procurement reform. Our armed forces require equipment, readiness and capability.”
“Bill C-31 contains measures related to labour mobility and employment. Those may be useful, but they do not amount to a national skills strategy. They do not explain how Canada will train workers at the scale required, accelerate credential recognition, strengthen apprenticeship and completion rates or address the labour shortages already delaying major projects across the country. The government's language is national. It is big, and it is ambitious. The legislative response is partial. This pattern extends to the economy more broadly. Bill C-31 contains investment incentives, tax changes and reporting requirements. Some may improve the functioning of the tax system, but none constitutes a serious productivity agenda, and productivity is the quiet crisis beneath the politics of affordability.”
“More than a month after its announcement, all we have is a short government backgrounder promising yet another office with yet another CEO and consultations to determine, over the next several months, what the fund will eventually become. That omission matters because it reveals a broader disconnect between the government's rhetoric and announcements and its implementation. The same pattern applies to its skills training. The government has repeatedly argued that Canada's future prosperity depends on building the most skilled workforce in the world, and it does. (1320) It has spoken about the training that workers need to build homes, develop critical minerals, expand advanced manufacturing and strengthen defence production. The diagnosis is correct, yet the legislative response is remarkably thin.”
“It was presented as a cornerstone of economic sovereignty and nation building. Canadians were told it would help mobilize capital for strategic projects that are so desperately needed and give future generations a stake in national prosperity. A sovereign wealth fund can be a powerful instrument of public policy. It can also become an expensive political investment vehicle if its governance is weak. The difference lies in the design, and the devil, as they say, is in the details. There is no statutory framework in Bill C-31 for the Canada Strong fund, no explanation of how it will operate or how Parliament will oversee it.”
“Significant tax reforms need to be thought through. Instead, they are being bundled together in an omnibus bill that makes serious examination more difficult. We have already seen how sloppy Liberal drafting has unintended consequences through a number of other bills that have come before the House and that, we have learned, have significantly impinged upon Canadian freedom. Parliamentary scrutiny is one of the institutions that makes good government possible. A government confident in its reforms should welcome rigorous examination rather than continuously dilute it. The most revealing aspect of Bill C-31 may be what it does not contain. On April 27, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund, describing it as Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund.”
“It would touch housing finance, automatic benefit delivery, crypto asset reporting, the clean hydrogen tax credit, non-compete clauses, air passenger complaints and a defence investment agency, to name just some of the topics. Some of the measures may be worthwhile. Some deserve support. Others deserve amendment. The problem is that Parliament is being asked to evaluate them all at once. The government will argue that time is short, and it is going to pressure us to pass the bill before the summer recess. A lack of planning on its part should not be and should not necessitate an emergency for all of us. Major reforms to defence procurement deserve their own legislation and committee study, as so many of my colleagues have explained today. Lord knows, air passenger rights deserve their own scrutiny.”
“It must be able to defend itself, educate and train its people, approve projects, mobilize capital, protect consumers and make decisions that endure beyond a single news cycle. The Prime Minister has framed this moment as one that requires ambition, discipline and state capacity. I agree with that premise. What I question is whether Bill C-31 would advance it. If the challenge is state capacity, the answer cannot simply be layers of state complexity. If the goal is economic sovereignty, the answer cannot be legislation that gestures in many directions while avoiding difficult choices. Bill C-31 is more than 330 pages long. It would amend tax law, financial law, labour law, transportation law and defence procurement law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan . The Prime Minister has spent much of the last year arguing that Canada faces a more dangerous, more competitive and less forgiving world. He is absolutely right. Trade relationships are more fragile, supply chains have become matters of national security, and energy, minerals, data, defence production and industrial capacity are no longer simply economic assets but have become instruments of sovereignty. Few serious observers would deny that Canada faces a more demanding world than the one we recognized a decade ago. The question before Parliament, however, is whether Bill C-31 reflects the seriousness of that diagnosis. A serious country must be able to build.”
“Mr. Speaker, two quarters of negative growth mean we are the only G7 economy in a recession. Excuses and deflection will not cut it. StatsCan has the receipts. Liberals chose to add more debt, more spending and more people. By doing that, they created more pressure on housing, health care and food costs than the system can bear. Every dollar the government adds to the national credit card eventually shows up in the grocery aisle. When the only thing growing faster than grocery prices is the lineups at the food banks, it is no wonder these Liberals have stopped talking about the middle class and those seeking to join it.”
“Mr. Speaker, on World Hunger Day, food security organizations came to the finance committee and told us that more people from more demographics are using food banks more often in Canada. Forty-three per cent of Canadians now say that the cost of groceries severely affects their ability to access food, and food inflation in Canada remains the highest in the G7. The Prime Minister promised to lead, and he did: straight to the only recession in the G7. There are more costs, more taxes and more debt on the national credit card. When is the Prime Minister going to show us that he is not just another Liberal and get serious about reducing the cost of food?”
“To the graduating class of 2026, I congratulate them on their achievements. Their future matters and their contributions matter. Canada needs their talent more than ever. We keep fighting for the opportunities they deserve.”
“Mr. Speaker, as graduation ceremonies take take place in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, new grads are facing one of the toughest job markets in years. Unemployment in the Nanaimo census metropolitan area hit 8.7% in April, which is a whopping increase of 2.3% over this time last year. Youth unemployment is up half a percentage point to 14.3% nationwide. Statistics Canada revealed this morning that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Our young people have the talent, determination and ambition it takes to succeed. They have done everything we have asked: studied hard, developed their skills and overcame obstacles. What they need are opportunities to gain experience, build careers and make enough money to put down roots in the communities we call home.”
“What I am going to do is thank my colleague across the way for taking the time to really think about what we can do in this place to help real families and real people across the country to live full, better lives not spent chasing therapies they may or may not be able to access in the long run.”
“Patients without family doctors already face long travel times for specialized care. Families in rural areas often experience delays in accessing diagnostics, specialists and advanced treatments. Whether we or someone we love is fighting a fast-moving illness, every additional layer of delay can feel overwhelming. Bill C-265 seeks to address that concern by allowing certain therapies to be placed on a pre-approved list for faster consideration under the program. The idea deserves thoughtful examination, and many people in the House, including the proposer of the bill, have talked about the issues that need to be studied at committee, so I am not going to go through them here.”
“However, many rare disease patients spend years searching for diagnoses, specialists and treatment options. Families become experts themselves because they have no other choice. They monitor clinical trials around the world. They follow developments in the United States and elsewhere. They advocate tirelessly for access to therapies that may still be working their way through Canada's approval process even though they are available elsewhere. For patients in these situations, time matters. It is frustrating, terrifying and a host of other emotions to watch someone we love suffer and in some cases die while bureaucratic rules put up roadblock after obstacle, barrier, impediment and hurdle. This issue is particularly relevant for many of our communities on Vancouver Island and across rural Canada.”
“There is merit in studying this proposal carefully at committee, and I am pleased to rise today to support doing exactly that, because government systems should work efficiently to respond to real human needs. When bureaucracy creates unnecessary delays for critically ill patients, we have a responsibility in this place to ask whether those processes can be improved while maintaining proper safeguards. I believe we should also recognize the difficult realities faced by patients living with rare diseases. Members of my immediate family live with a rare disease called hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies, or HNPP. We are lucky that it was diagnosed within a reasonable time and has so far had minimal impact on our lives.”
“They are looking for options, for anything that might help when all other doors appear to be closed. That is the purported purpose of the existing Health Canada special access program. Under the program, health care professionals can request access to therapies that are not yet approved in Canada for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions. In many cases, the program has in fact provided compassionate access to potentially life-saving treatments. Bill C-265 seeks to streamline parts of that process by creating a publicly maintained list of therapeutic products that could qualify for faster access under certain circumstances.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to speak today to Bill C-265 , an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. The bill attempts to address a very real and human problem. I laud the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for bringing it forward so we can have the collective opportunity to think about and act on this important issue. As we have heard this afternoon, across Canada there are patients facing serious illnesses, rare diseases, aggressive cancers and rapidly deteriorating conditions whose approved treatment options either have failed or simply do not exist. In those moments, no one cares about ideology or partisanship. What they need is hope. They want time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I am wondering if, in his discussions with families and organizations that have been advocating for this, the member has seen first-hand the way that Health Canada's bureaucracy has created so much paperwork and administrative burden that it prevents people from getting access to health care. How would this bill help?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals failed to negotiate with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. They told their lawyers not to argue fee simple property rights, so the one argument they need is not viable on appeal. British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law. They want answers, so we spent the week asking. Instead of answers, we got insults, intimidation and illusions. The legal directive stopping federal lawyers from defending property rights is still on Canada.ca, so Liberal claims about defending those rights are just smoke and mirrors. Do the Liberals have a plan, or are they going to let judges make property rights vanish before Canadians' eyes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect that if the circumstances were different, this would have been a very interesting discussion. I thank all of my colleagues for their commentary on case law and for all of the legal arguments that have been made. I am just wondering if, in the short time that we have left, my colleague might reflect a little on the fact that it is such a tragedy that the government did not actually negotiate a treaty that would have allowed us to avoid all this uncertainty.”
“Mr. Speaker, I tried to stick to some pretty boring, cold, hard legal facts in my speech. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated case. It has been made more complicated by the litigation decisions that the government made in this particular case. It has been made more complicated by litigation directives that, quite frankly, do not make sense to many Canadians. If we are going to move forward on this, we really need to be thoughtful. We need to be collaborative. We need to walk alongside Canadians of all kinds in negotiating real solutions to these problems.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am confused by the hon. member's question. Of course we respect the Constitution. As for everything that I have stated in this speech, there is nothing in it that suggests that I want to do anything other than uphold it. Our proposal is to create a special committee. It is to work together. It is to find a way through this. The reason that I support that proposal is that I believe in reconciliation. I believe in creating certainty. It is important for all Canadians. I hope that the member will work with us to move this forward in a way that is good for everyone.”
“The Liberals have asked what we want to do about it, and we have proposed that parties get together, form a special committee and work on this together. We owe it to Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, to make progress on this file.”
“Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the negativity that comes across the aisle when we ask questions and raise issues. Stephen Harper delivered the residential school apology in the House. A Conservative government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which resolved hundreds of specific claims, extended human rights protections on reserve and introduced reforms aimed at improving accountability and transparency for indigenous communities. Were there disagreements? Absolutely, there were. Were there tensions? Of course there were. Reconciliation is not advanced by pretending that nothing meaningful happened before 2015. Some of the most significant steps toward acknowledging historical wrongs and building new relationships with indigenous people happened under Conservative governments.”
“I hope all members of this House will support our opposition day motion, in particular our call for a special multi-party committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada. Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike need us to work together to come up with solutions to government incompetence on this file. The ship needs to change course, because it is currently headed for the rocks.”
“It yielded the field eight years ago, but avoided doing the hard work in that time of creating a clear legislative and policy framework around reconciliation, aboriginal title, private property rights and legal certainty. Instead, it left it all to the courts to be sorted out piecemeal through massive and voluminous constitutional litigation while the government stacks the court with activist judges. Long trials may work for lawyers billing by the hour, but they do not work for families trying to buy a home, businesses trying to invest or first nations trying to build a stable future. Reconciliation requires clarity, fairness and predictability for everyone. We need a government that is willing to find real solutions instead of continually asking the courts to do its job for it.”
“Preliminary motions have to be heard before the appeal can start, including numerous intervenor applications and a motion to reopen the case by landowners who claim they should have been involved from the beginning. The justice minister has indicated that Canada is supporting that application, which will make the case drag on even longer if granted. I cannot help but wonder if the government is doing so in part because reopening the trial might get it that actual do-over. This is one of those cases where the process has process, but we got here through a complete failure of political leadership. The government knew this decision was coming. It knew there were more court cases coming.”
“They are being caused by a Liberal government that does not make all available arguments, hides its mistakes and attacks anyone who asks how it is going to fix it. British Columbians bought their homes in good faith. They are trying not to lose them in the face of the rising cost of everything and an economic crisis already made worse by government. What is perhaps most frustrating for the homeowners I talk to is that there will be no clarity on these issues any time soon. We are staring down months, if not years, of litigation while the courts sort this out. The order itself has not been fully finalized. A 513-day judicial record still has to be assembled.”