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 4 of 12.
“That means it is not viable on appeal. Conservatives have repeatedly asked how the Prime Minister is going to win an appeal with an argument he is not entitled to make. In response, we have been accused of “misinformation”, “fear and misinformation”, “fearmongering...spreading misinformation and...causing disruption in the economy of British Columbia”, and worse. We are not fearmongering, nor are we spreading misinformation. I have just laid out the problem in plain English. It is not unreasonable to want to understand how the government is going to deal with this very serious issue that is causing unsettling divisions among Canadians. Those divisions are not being caused by Conservatives.”
“(1335) Paragraph 2096 of the decision states, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” In plain English, what that means is that the Liberal government told its lawyers not to argue that fee simple title is superior to all other forms of title, and those lawyers amended the court documents in 2018 to take the argument out. A lot of Canadians are wondering how that could have been allowed to happen. We investigated and found the government's legal directive, still online, that strongly encourages admissions of liability and discourages defences like extinguishment that would support fee simple title. It turns out that the one argument the government needed in a 513-day trial is the one it did not make.”
“The Prime Minister admits that property rights are “fundamental.” The parliamentary secretary admits that there are “potentially significant implications, including for private property rights” that “could extend across the country.” The Prime Minister and the Liberals say repeatedly that they will make all “viable” legal arguments, but here is the problem: Appeals are not do-overs, and the “raise it or lose it” principle is core to how our legal system works. People are not allowed to save some of their arguments for appeal, just in case they do not get what they want at trial. If they could, litigation would cost even more and it would never end. My dad used to refer to this as the “you snooze, you lose” principle.”
“Now ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Families trying to buy homes, indigenous communities seeking certainty, municipalities planning infrastructure, and businesses deciding whether to invest in British Columbia face years of legal limbo. Despite their insistence that they are going to appeal the decision and make everything fine again, the Liberals have painted themselves into a legal corner.”
“The Musqueam agreement followed quickly on the Cowichan Tribes decision, adding additional uncertainty. Investors are skittish and wondering what is coming next. Uncertainty is undermining confidence in land-based collateral in B.C. The decision is adding costs we cannot afford and disrupting parts of B.C.'s economy at a time when stability is badly needed. The problem is not that Canadians are unwilling to support reconciliation. In British Columbia, we desperately want to live in harmony, but anxiety creates strain, and government failure to negotiate treaties that would have provided legal clarity before these issues reached a crisis point is dividing our communities. For years, these Liberals talked reconciliation but dragged their feet on negotiation. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost.”
“If the mortgagor's title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. When a person sells a property, they promise valid title. If the seller's title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. Anyone who claims to understand the full implication of the Cowichan Tribes decision at this point is fooling themselves. We are now seeing transactions delayed, financing reconsidered and investment decisions paused in British Columbia. The case has already reportedly tanked a $100‑million deal and created complications with mortgage and property transactions. The B.C. Financial Services Authority is recommending independent legal advice before buying affected properties. Real estate agents are adding new clauses to purchase agreements across the province. Title insurers are reassessing risk.”
“The court did say that private fee simple interests remain valid, but only “until such a time as a court may determine otherwise or until the conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiation.” With that “until”, a seed was planted. Homeowners are now aware that a court could “determine otherwise”, and many of them are nervous. At paragraph 3543 of a very long decision, the judge added, “I accept that a declaration of Aboriginal title may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders and it may have consequences for their interests in land.” Within days, it became clear that uncertainty had taken root. Within weeks, the first signs of a growing set of complications became visible. When a person gets a mortgage, their home is the collateral for the loan.”
“Mr. Speaker, the most important changes in life are often invisible at first. Seeds sprout underground before the first shoots appear. A ship that changes course by one degree makes no waves, but ends up somewhere entirely different. A coastline can look unchanged for years, while the tide quietly reshapes it, grain by grain. On August 7, 2025, when the B.C. Supreme Court released the Cowichan Tribes decision, nothing happened. No Canadian lost their home. Richmond continued to function. The Cowichan Tribes repeatedly said they never intended to interfere with private fee simple title. Yet, the judge decided, first, that the Cowichan have aboriginal title to land in Richmond, and second, that Crown grants of fee simple in those lands unjustifiably infringe that title.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was in the House for the first part of my hon. colleague's excellent speech and was delighted to be here today for the rest of it. Our ridings have a lot in common, even though they are on opposite sides of the country. They are resource-based. They are filled with families, and they are struggling right now, yet the members across the way continue to stand up and tell us that Canadians have never had it so good and that the economy is all sunshine and rainbows. I am wondering if the member can talk a bit about what it feels like on the ground under current circumstances in her communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's focus on supporting businesses in her community. She displayed a very admirable depth of knowledge of those businesses. Burlington, of course, is a region that is deeply connected to cross-border trade, where jobs and local growth depend heavily on the government being able to address these issues. She praised the government's swift action. I am wondering if the member could name a single U.S. tariff on Canadian goods that has been lifted as a direct result of Liberal government action.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, before I was elected to this place, of being able to work with Madam Justice Arbour for a year when I worked at the ICTY in The Hague. I know the kind of work that she does. There is no doubt in my mind that the work she did and the report she provided allowed our military to make progress with respect to the issues that are addressed in this bill. I only wish that the defence minister had taken the time to listen to people the way that Madam Justice Arbour does, and possibly to consult with her so that we could have avoided the mistakes that were made with this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question. [ English ] This is something that I really struggle with, because we face allegations from our colleagues across the way every day in the House, that we are obstructionist or that we are standing in the way. Yet, this bill offers a phenomenal opportunity for members of all parties to work together to listen to Canadians to make a bill better. It hurts my heart that Liberals would use their majority in this way, quite frankly, to strip this House of the good work that was done at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his desire to support the military. As he was in committee, he would have heard that people in the military need this choice in order to be supported. While Madam Justice Arbour's recommendations were right for the time at which they were made, the government took so long to act that there are better ways to address this.”
“They have seen announcements and commitments, but too often they have not seen results. My hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been persistent in pressing this point. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real people and their real pain. The government has a choice to make, and my vote hinges on the balance with that choice.”
“In one case, a witness at committee testified that, as a francophone, she would like to be able to choose the military pathway to ensure that she would be able to have access to services and proceedings in French rather than having to follow proceedings in English, as she would have to do through the serendipities of locations should she find herself serving in an anglophone province. If cases are going to move to civilian courts, there is work to be done up front with the provinces to make sure they can absorb these cases. If the federal government simply moves these cases by fiat, without ensuring that the system is ready, we risk serious failure, the kind of delay that increases the risk that cases collapse before they are heard and further frustrates those seeking justice. Canadians have heard promises from the government before.”
“It also reflects the approach that the government took to Bill C-3 at report stage, when it again used its relationships in this House to undo the work of committee. In the context of the way that our military has progressed these issues, the request by witnesses for choice in deciding whether to engage the civilian justice system or the military tribunal system makes sense, because in some cases the military system will have conflicts of interest or other issues created by proximity or relationships. In other circumstances, the civilian justice system just would not have enough people with the lived experiences to be able to deal with the facts of a particular case when situated within military culture.”
“It means another survivor is weighing the risk of speaking out against the likelihood of being ignored. It means another erosion of confidence in an institution that Canadians should be able to believe in without hesitation. The Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he did not consult victims himself. He admitted that he did not consult with Justices Arbour, Fish or Deschamps on this file. He admitted that he did not consult provincial justice ministers or provincial or municipal police officers in the more than a year since this chamber considered Bill C-66 , the predecessor to this bill. This reflects a disturbing trend that we see through the Liberal approach to our justice system, where government legislation seems to consistently prefer the accused over victims.”
“These decisions are all ill-advised and would do nothing to improve conditions in our military at a time when our military needs our support. If there is even a perception that decisions can be influenced by the chain of command or by political considerations, confidence in the military justice system will remain fragile. My hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford , who served our country faithfully as a navy commander, spoke to that human cost in a way that should stay with all of us. He reminded us that behind every policy gap and every delay there is a person, someone who stepped forward to serve, who put on a uniform and who deserves better from their country. Every time the government fails to protect victims, it means another member of the Canadian Armed Forces is left wondering whether it is worth coming forward.”
“Will she now vote against her own amendments and those she supported? (1805) The Liberals have chosen to use their new majority in this House to undo the work of this committee. They have chosen to double down on what we now understand to be a poor choice to push sexual assault cases onto an already overburdened civilian police and court system without providing the resources that local police forces and provincial courts need to deal with military cases. Instead of listening to the experts and increasing the independence of the military justice system, the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives to ensure that the director of military defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command.”
“It was beautiful and inspiring, and our community is so very proud of them. Today, as we debate this bill at report stage, the question of whether those cadets and the many others who serve our country can trust the system still hangs over this chamber. Have we earned that trust? If the answer depends on this version of Bill C-11 , it is unfortunately a resounding no. Members of the House worked in good faith across party lines to improve the bill, and we stand by the wisdom of the committee with respect to choice for survivors of sexual assault in the military. My support for the bill is contingent on the Liberal government upholding not only the amendments made by Conservatives at the defence committee but also those made by the other parties, including the member of that committee who has since crossed the floor to join the Liberals.”
“It is about whether those who don a Canadian military uniform and serve this country can trust that the system will protect them, can trust it to be fair and can trust it to deliver just outcomes. Yesterday I spoke at a ceremony in my community commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We had more than 50 air and sea cadets participate, more than 50 young souls who are the future of our military, souls whom Canada may yet send off to war. The cadets were excellent. They participated in the colour guard, they stood sentry at the cenotaph, and they helped dignitaries lay wreaths. One played the Last Post and Lament on her bugle, another read the prayer for the air force, and another read the roll call of ships lost, while yet another rang the bell.”
“In response, Conservative members of the defence committee worked with members from all opposition parties to improve the bill to respond to the reasonable proposals by survivors and experts that military sexual assault victims be allowed to play a role in determining whether their cases would be investigated and heard in civilian or military courts. They asked for choice, and the committee worked to embed that choice into the bill. Then, a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence tabled amendments to the bill at the report stage that ignored that advice, dismissed the testimony heard over weeks at committee and effectively restored much of the original drafting. When I last rose to speak to this bill, I tried to drive home the point that this debate is about more than just legislation. It is about trust.”
“Committees act as the engine room of this place, and every so often we find out in our committees that we were wrong. That is what happened with this bill, because it turns out that our military did not wait for government to act. In the years between the release of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, our military implemented mandatory duties to report. It trained the chain of command, military police and health care providers. It implemented a victims rights charter and provided access to independent legal supports and access to victims liaison services. The military has not solved all of the problems, but it took some pretty big steps forward that make military tribunals the forum of choice for some victims. An incredible, and very credible, group of witnesses came to the defence committee hearings on this bill and told us so.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 was supposed to improve how justice works inside the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been serious and persistent concerns that misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, has not been handled fairly or independently in our military. The government dragged its feet for years. There were three reports done on this matter over a period of seven years. Finally, with the tabling of this bill, the government appeared to be addressing these issues. The initial draft of the bill proposed to move serious cases, including sexual assault, into the civilian courts. Many expected this move to be welcomed and to be seen as a serious step toward better accountability and stronger protection for victims. The committee system in the House of Commons is designed to allow members of Parliament to examine legislation in depth.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have painted themselves into a corner. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost in Richmond. Now the Prime Minister says he will advance “viable legal arguments to protect private property”, but the Liberals told their lawyers not to argue the primacy of property rights at trial. By now, it must have dawned on them that an argument not advanced at trial is not viable on appeal, because the minister just told us he is asking private property owners to do their work for them. The Liberals talk about negotiation, but the failure to negotiate is how we got here in the first place, so what are they going to do?”
“There is sometimes a tendency to frame these issues as a choice between being tough on crime and supporting rehabilitation. That is the wrong way to look at it, because justice requires both. I think back to what I saw at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. I did not see criminals; I saw people. I saw people who, with the right support and the weight of expectations, are taking steps to change their lives. I saw corrections officers committed to that goal, and I saw a program that makes a real difference. (1415) This bill would align with those outcomes. Every time someone leaves custody, they return to a neighbourhood, family, workplace and community. One question we should be asking is: Are they are more or less likely to offend? This legislation would help ensure the answer is the one Canadians want.”
“This bill would take an important step in that direction and would provide powerful incentives for the federal government to work with the provinces to expand programs like the Guthrie program across the country. The bill would do its work carefully and responsibly. It would build confidence while improving outcomes. It would be fair and effective, and it would improve public safety. Victims and their families want a system that takes accountability seriously, but they also want a system that has a measure of mercy and opportunity for change, and they would really like to see a system that actually stops what has happened to them and their loved ones from happening to others. By strengthening the link between rehabilitation and release, offenders have an opportunity to break the pattern to improve their lives.”
“Other jurisdictions have already shown that, when accountability is combined with structured rehabilitation, there are better results. In countries like Norway, the system places a strong emphasis on education, work skills and personal responsibility during incarceration. Release decisions are closely tied to readiness for reintegration. When someone leaves custody, they are better prepared to lead a law-abiding life. The results speak for themselves. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. We should not copy any one system exactly. Canada has its own context, its own challenges and its own legal framework, but the principle is consistent. If we want safer communities, we have to reduce reoffending, and if we want to reduce reoffending, we need a system that promotes real change, not just the passage of time.”
“While corrections-based programs are more expensive, the investment in programs like the Guthrie program pay off in lower recidivism and better outcomes for everyone. Bill C-240 is not soft on crime. It is smart on recovery. It would require parole boards to consider an offender's progress in completing court-ordered rehabilitation programs when making parole decisions. It would also enable stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers by making trafficking fentanyl in large quantities an aggravating factor in sentencing. This is the work I came to this place to do. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for letting me and, by extension, the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, play a role in moving this important legislation forward.”
“Also missing are clear incentives and spaces for women, visible minorities and other populations who face systemic and persistent discrimination. This bill would provide the federal government with reasons to work with the provinces to create and expand programs such as the Guthrie program, both in and out of correctional facilities, by empowering judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for offenders who would benefit from skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing program. It costs roughly $125,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a men's institution and over $215,000 a year in a women's institution. By contrast, community-based programs that support reintegration cost a fraction of that, often as low as $15,000 per person per year, while delivering better outcomes.”
“Participants are given the kind of responsibility that builds capacity, that teaches them to lead, and that will help them find work and build stability when they return to their communities. (1410) Being there reminded me that the people who end up in prison for convictions tied to addiction are not just our fathers, sisters and children. They are also our teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. Addiction does not discriminate, and when it takes hold, it can unravel even the most stable lives. Here is the rub: Programs like Guthrie exist and the expertise exists. What has been missing is a system that consistently and effectively evaluates the people in it for potential rehabilitation, encourages and incentivizes participation, and ties it to outcomes.”
“Many do not have a high school diploma. Others struggle with literacy and executive function. We just cannot tell a person struggling with both addiction and ADHD, who lives on the street, to show up Tuesday at 10 a.m. and expect them to be there. Education, skills training and treatment programs in corrections are linked to better employment outcomes and lower rates of reoffending by as much as 30%. I had the chance to see this in action on a recent visit to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. The Guthrie program is a separate, provincially funded therapeutic community unit within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre that builds life skills, responsibility and practical tools that offenders need to reintegrate into society.”
“Canada's current approach does not encourage change, it does not reward effort and it does not give Canadians confidence. This legislation would allow judges to require offenders to participate in education, training or treatment programs while serving their sentence. It would consider progress in those programs in parole decisions. It would introduce the principle that early release should be earned through demonstrated effort and real change. This comes as recidivism rates in Canada remain too high, with estimates approaching 88% for some populations. However, if prisons are merely storage facilities, if someone walks out of custody with the same skills, the same habits and the same challenges they had when they went in, we should not be surprised when they reoffend. First-time offenders increasingly lack basic education and job skills.”
“I once had a local fire official tell me that the probability of a fire in certain kinds of buildings was 100%. These are not organized or rational crimes. They reflect instability and create real fear in our community. The people who commit them often cannot be deterred or treated through the traditional tools of our criminal justice system. That is why I am proud to rise today to second and support Bill C-240 , the offender rehabilitation act, sponsored by my colleague from Kitchener Centre . This bill combines accountability with real rehabilitation, taking a practical, balanced and long-overdue step toward improving both community safety and offender outcomes in my community and across Canada. Canada is one of the only western countries that automatically releases offenders before the end of their sentence, regardless of behaviour.”
“Many people struggle with addiction without ever committing a crime, but when people live on the street without stable support while dealing with a serious addiction, a significant percentage will inevitably have repeated contact with the criminal justice system. It is a cycle that is hard to break. Addiction leads to instability, instability encourages poor choices and those poor choices lead right back into the criminal justice. We have had porta-potty arson with four set on fire in just one night; a person who roamed a busy downtown mall parking lot with a hypodermic syringe attached to a toy bow and arrow; a city worker stabbed over and over again with syringes in a park washroom; addiction-driven assaults with axes, illegal firearms, knives, bricks, bear spray and human feces; and crime on boats, in coffee shops and in homes.”
“Madam Speaker, I come from a place where we have stunning coastline, innovative businesses, delicious restaurants, talented artists and a mild climate that makes me want to put down whatever I am doing and take the dog for a hike. We have much to celebrate, but we also have one of the highest death rates from overdose in Canada, fuelled by an addictions crisis that is ruining people's lives, leaving them with traumatic brain injuries and killing far too many. The numbers have been improving but we are still one of Canada's hardest-hit communities with insufficient services, social disorder, and a crime rate and crime severity index that are both well above the national average.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member has done a tremendous service to our country today. Not only has she helped those who struggle with addiction, trauma and insecure housing to see themselves here in this place, she has also blazed a path for some of them to get here with her bill, which I will be proud to stand up and second in a moment. She inspires me and I just want to provide her with another opportunity to provide any additional advice that she has to share with the people watching at home who might need some of that inspiration as we continue to grapple with our ongoing addictions crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks. As he can see from my exchanges with him and his colleagues in French, I want to understand the needs of all Canadians, including those in Quebec. We share concerns about forestry and the government's lack of attention to major challenges facing our communities. What struck me was the absence of the term “substance abuse”. The government eliminated the position of minister of mental health and addictions and does not seem to care about the crisis plaguing my community. To what extent could Quebec be affected by this as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned several cases where the government failed to consult properly and where it lacked transparency. He talked about a worrisome trend that we have seen this week now that the Liberals have a majority in committee. They have been holding committee meetings in camera and preventing Canadians and other parliamentarians from having access to important information and participating in debates. Can my colleague tell us more about his concerns?”
“Madam Speaker, Loaves & Fishes serves more than 15,000 in more than 44 communities on the island. They are vital, and they are growing, with a new 24,000-square-foot warehouse set to open this month. Some 80% of Canadians say food prices have increased more than any other expense. Groceries, without meat or cheese, regularly cost $100 a bag on the island, yet the Liberal government continues to tell Canadians they have never had it so good. Every measure we propose, they oppose. How many food bank expansions do the Liberals need to see before they stop their costly credit card spending and actually bring food costs down for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done an admirable job of breaking the update down into its various components. Like the members of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives believe in a smaller but more effective federal government that respects provincial powers by focusing on its core responsibilities. This update provides for the creation of a new federal fund and expands Ottawa's role in directing economic investment. Does the Bloc Québécois support this increased centralization, or does it believe that these decisions should remain decentralized in order to reflect local priorities?”
“It is about making sure safety is never treated as optional. My door is always open to the workers in my community to discuss federal issues related to the important work they do. Today we honour the fallen and we renew our commitment to protect the living. Every accident, every injury and every loss of life in the workplace is one too many.”
“Mr. Speaker, each April 28th we come together in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, throughout Canada and around the world to solemnly mark a day of mourning in memory of people who have lost their life on the job and to renew our commitment to safe workplaces. Whether someone is a chef on a ferry, a scaffolder on a construction site, a machinist in a mill or an administrator in an office, every worker deserves to know they will return home safe at the end of the day. Today we remember the people who did not make it home. We stand with the families, friends and co-workers who carry that loss, and we recommit ourselves to making workplaces safe for everyone. However, this day is not only about looking back. It is also about moving forward. It is about speaking up when something is not right. It is about supporting one another.”
“We have your back.” In a circumstance where the government is undeniably popular right now, that is one thing, but I hope Canadians do not end up with buyer's remorse down the road when they find out that power has been consolidated in a group of people who do not know how to wield it wisely.”
“Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I really respect the fact that the government and my colleagues across the way are struggling to meet the world where it is and to find a good response for Canada in that context. However, there is a disturbing trend, and it does not just come through Bill C-28 . It has also shown up in other legislation, like in the acts enabling the Major Projects Office or Build Canada Homes, where there is an ambitious, big, splashy announcement made and promises made that are pie in the sky, sky-high and into orbit, but when we look at the details, the message is, “Just trust us.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I was a little girl, I thought these spaceships went to the moon and beyond through magic and that it was a wonderful, amazing illusion. As I look at this bill, I see yet another example of bills that are magic and illusion in the sense that they purport to put us on even ground with the G7 and to do wonderful and amazing things to propel Canada ahead in the world, but there is an awful lot missing when we look under the covers, including the kind of regulation and detail my colleague just outlined.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for both his ambition and his optimism around this. If the bill does speak for itself, it does so very quietly, because it is quite thin on detail. Yes, we agree with the members across the aisle that there is an opportunity here, and we look forward to probing that opportunity in committee and being able to put some substance on the bill.”
“It is going to be up to the transport committee, and I know my colleagues will do a good job in thinking the bill through. With that, I thank all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have contributed to making this important program launch in a good way. I look forward to answering questions about my remarks.”
“There are commercial implications. There are procurement implications. It really is one of those areas where the more I think about it, the more I see the need for a whole-of-government approach. That is not to create additional bureaucracies but to make sure the legislation is precise and clear enough that different parts of the government, different agencies, understand what their roles and responsibilities are and so that regulations around this program can be developed in a sensible and efficient way that would make sure Canada gets the most out of this program at this very important time. If we are going to build our country in a way that creates good jobs for the next generation, then it is so important to handle this initiative in a responsible way.”
“(1300) We are examining the bill at a time when the government has taken some steps, in the last 24 hours, to establish sort of an iron control over committees, which it would be able to use to, quite frankly, stifle debate on these issues. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that in answer to a question about this act, one of the government members involved in transport, I think it might have even been one of the parliamentary secretaries, was discussing how they would be getting information like this. They would be working things out with the Canadian Space Agency. That is of great concern to us because the Canadian Space Agency, while a very important organization, is not an organization that has its focus on security and intelligence matters. There are defence implications to a space program like this.”