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 5 of 12.
“It does not answer some really important questions around how decisions are made, preferring instead to leave them to the discretion of the executive branch of the government. The thing about the executive branch of the government is that it does not operate in this place. It operates across the street and in various other buildings around the parliamentary precinct. It is so important to have that parliamentary oversight, as we think about questions around the safety and security of something as important as a space program, and as we think about the intelligence implications and the other matters that need to be taken into account when we are launching an ambitious program such as this.”
“Of course, everyone knows the government wants to live up to its expectations, but the reason that conflict of interest screens exist and committees like the ethics committee exist is that we are all human. This oversight, and the knowledge that this oversight is there, enables us to be crisp in our adherence to the law and to really have it on our minds all the time, which is so important when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars. That takes me back to the bill and to the fact that already, within hours, frankly, of the initiative being announced, we have some questions as to the financial circumstances around the selection and lease of the site. On top of that, what we layer onto that is a bill that is really and truly quite thin in terms of its regulation.”
“I was in the ethics committee last night for several hours, listening to some of my colleagues from across the aisle speak at great length and with incredible lung capacity to the reasons the committee should not, in fact, get access to documents that the members of the committee were seeking in order to examine matters related to the Prime Minister 's schedule, to conflicts of interest and to other matters that Canadians really deserve to be able to see into. Under the conditions we are in, in this country, if we really are, as the Prime Minister says, in a time of rupture, it is so important for the best ideas to rise to the top. There is only one way for us to get the best ideas, and that is to subject them to detailed questioning and analysis. It is in that spirit that we approach our duties with respect to the ethics committee.”
“In this particular case, there was no need, it looks like, from the reports, to actually expropriate this great location. It looks like there was in fact an entity that got there. This was originally, I believe, Crown land and was in fact being leased out to someone who has made what might be a deal of galactic proportions, to be able to lease that space back to the government for a very large amount of money. What I struggle with under these circumstances is that the need to examine this transaction comes at a time when the Liberal government has actually taken steps in the House, in the last 24 hours, to make it harder to do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix . I was starting to talk about the fact that the bill is incredibly ambitious. It has ambitions of galactic proportions, in fact, looking to be able to launch Canadian rockets into space and to enhance our ability to participate in a space program. However, one of the challenges is that right now, the program looks like a gravel pit or a gravel-covered lot in Nova Scotia. I am sure the site was selected for a good reason. I am sure it provides an optimal location to be able to launch from, but I think it is going to be important from an oversight perspective to be able to look at and examine the economics of this deal. We have a very unusual set of circumstances.”
“One of the characteristics that is emerging from this government, which we really see in this bill, is a trend towards creating a new organization, putting together very thin details around it and then leaving it to the executive branch of government to sort out, with an incredible amount of discretion. What that does under these circumstances is create a real conundrum. It creates a situation where, as constructive members of a loyal opposition, we want to work with this government to realize the ambitions of Canada and to build Canada into the kind of country that we can all be proud of. However, we find ourselves facing these situations without a lot of guidance from the government about where it wants to go. The ambitions associated with this bill are galactic, but the realities are closer to an abandoned—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important bill. It is a real opportunity to talk about issues that are important to our communities. The government has been incredibly ambitious with this bill, talking about the possibility of launching rockets into space from Canada and developing a national space program by 2028. Yet, in front of us we have a bill that is very easy reading because, at only 10 pages, it sketches out the briefest of details around what that program might look like. It is going to be a challenge for the transport committee to think about how to operationalize this and how to think about asking the government where it is heading on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, in communities like mine there is a lot of ambition around space launches. Communities like mine are still waiting to know when we are going to get a chance to clean up derelict vessels around the coastline. I have proponents in my communities who want to remove the boats, but the Liberals defunded and closed the program. When are you going to reopen it and deliver relief to my communities?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his informative and enlightening speech. I have two questions for him. Given the uncertainties in the commercial launch market, what level of risk does he think the government should accept when looking to develop a new industry? Also, how can we ensure that taxpayers are well protected?”
“I would like to ask the government House leader if he can explain why the government would oppose a straightforward amendment to keep committees representative of the House and preserve committees' ability to properly scrutinize government activity.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I approach the first anniversary of my coming to this place, it is a good chance to reflect on the lessons I have learned. One of the important lessons someone learns in this place is that just because we can do something, it does not always mean it is a good idea. The government motion we have in front of us would increase the size of committees, as well as the government's control over them. There is a Conservative amendment to this motion that would simply ensure that while committees are expanded, a small number of them would continue to be able to hold the government to account. It is not about blocking change. It is about protecting the independence and effectiveness of this place.”
“We must take risk seriously, and we must put the safety of victims at the centre of our approach. That is what Bill C-225 would do, and that is why it deserves the support of every member of the House. May the memory of each of the victims be a blessing, and may they inspire the House to take all steps possible to end intimate partner violence.”
“The bill reflects the voices of victims, the work of advocates and the painful lessons learned from cases that should never have ended the way they did: in trauma, in injury or in death. I applaud my colleague for working with communities and in committee to come up with meaningful legislation to push back the evil, to make the system see and to transform suffering into change. Passing the bill would not solve everything. There is more work to be done on prevention, on support services and on ensuring that people have safe options when they need to leave, but Bill C-225 is a meaningful step. It acknowledges the reality of what victims face, and it would move us closer to a system that reflects that reality. We cannot keep responding after the fact. We must intervene earlier.”
“It is about recognizing patterns of abuse before they escalate to the point of no return. It is about giving our justice system tools that reflect what we now understand about coercive control, intimate partner violence and the tools that law enforcement needs to respond, and it is about sending a clear message that this kind of violence will be treated with the seriousness it deserves. All members of the House have spoken to survivors of intimate partner violence. All of us have tried to comfort grieving families. The question is no longer whether we understand the problem. The question is whether we are prepared to act. I admire my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for bringing the bill forward after extensive consultation.”
“The bill would allow for a seven-day period of custody for risk assessment, giving authorities the time needed to properly evaluate the threat and to take steps to further protect victims. The bill would address how evidence is handled, recognizing that these cases often involve patterns of behaviour over time, not just a single incident. These are measured, practical changes designed to intervene earlier and to prosecute more effectively, because there have been too many cases where the signs were there, the risk was known and the outcome could have been different: Bailey McCourt, Laura Gover and Amy Watts. We say their names. These are cases that weigh on our communities and raise difficult questions about whether more could have been done. Bill C-225 , Bailey's law, is about doing better.”
“It would create specific offences for violence against an intimate partner, recognizing that this is not the same as other forms of assault; it carries a higher risk of escalation and a higher risk of death. Bill C-225 would establish that when murder occurs in the context of intimate partner violence, particularly where coercive control is present, it should be treated as first-degree murder. This would reflect the reality that these acts are rarely sudden but rather are the result of a pattern. These provisions would remove the strain on families while they wait to see whether charges will be upgraded. The bill would strengthen peace bonds by introducing reverse onus provisions, ensuring that people who pose a risk are not released without serious consideration of the danger they present.”
“In many of these cases, there are clear warnings signs, prior incidents and opportunities to intervene. Too often, these opportunities are fleeting or missed. (1135) An abuser does not rely on violence alone. They isolate. They manipulate. They reshape their victim's world until it becomes smaller and smaller. They create a world where their victim begins to doubt their own instincts and lose their identity, then their confidence in the world around them, and ultimately their ability to leave. By the time the physical violence escalates, many victims are already trapped in ways that are not always visible from the outside, and it does escalate. That is what makes this issue so difficult and so dangerous. Our laws have simply not kept pace with reality. Bill C-225 would take important steps to close the gaps.”
“These are not isolated incidents; this is a pattern, and beautiful Vancouver Island is not immune. Communities on Vancouver Island face high pressure in the system. We see that not just in police files but also in wait-lists and in service demand. Hundreds of people in our communities are waiting for safe housing and support, with hundreds on wait-lists for transitional and second-stage housing. This means that people ready to leave violence often have nowhere to go. It means delay, and delay in these cases can be deadly. Laura Gover, a 41-year-old mother and a professor at both Vancouver Island University and Camosun College, was murdered this January in her home by her ex-husband, the day before a court date, leaving behind two preteen daughters. Amy Watts was just 27 years old when she was thrown off a cliff to her death by her ex.”
“Even less is reported on in our communities, which means that what we know, what we hear about, is an even narrower subset, yet in Canada in 2024, there were over 128,000 victims of intimate partner violence. That is 356 victims per 100,000 Canadians aged 12 and older. That is more than one victim for every person who lives in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. If victims of intimate partner violence were voters, they would fill an entire riding on their own. Women and girls are disproportionately affected. They experience intimate partner violence at three and a half times the rate that men do. When we consider homicides, we see that the numbers become even more stark. Nearly 80% of people killed by an intimate partner are women or girls. Among minorities and indigenous people, the numbers are even worse.”
“We heard it in the status of women committee testimony around the bill. However, too many people do not make it through. Bailey McCourt, for whom the bill is named, is dead and unable to speak, killed by a person who was supposed to love and protect her, hours after he was released on bail. Therefore we must speak for Bailey, and more than that, we must act. Bill C-225 is not symbolic. It is a response to a growing and serious problem. We know that the numbers do not tell the full story. We know that many cases go unreported. Fewer than one-third of victims report to police, which means that what police see is only a fraction of what is actually happening.”
“They are memories of complete control over their comings and goings, repeated blows and beatings, a knife used in a moment of rage, threats, isolation, abuse of children and pets, the shouting, the quiet calm before the rage, the knowing what that look means, and figuring out how to get the kids out of the room as if that means they will not hear. This is about rape, violence and death at home, in the very place that should have been the safest. It levels me every time I think about it, and we have to think about it in the House. Some people make it through. Some find the strength to speak. We heard this just days ago at the justice committee, where a survivor described with clarity and composure how control is built piece by piece until there is almost nothing left of the vibrant woman who once was.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is rare that a member of the House has to begin a speech with a trigger warning, but while some of what I am about to describe is difficult to hear, it is necessary if we are to fully comprehend why we must act on the issue of intimate partner violence. For far too many people in this country, intimate partner violence is not a topic; it is a lived reality. My speech and the bill are dedicated to the victims of intimate partner violence who are watching today. They are dedicated to the family of Bailey McCourt and to all people who did not get the luxury of turning away from what I am about to describe, because these memories that I share today are theirs. They are memories of being held down as the air is squeezed from their lungs.”
“Mr. Speaker, this weekend, a young disabled man was assaulted for the fourth time by a gang in downtown Nanaimo. He was badly hurt but so traumatized that it took his mom a day to get him to hospital while his attackers remain perpetually out on bail. Nothing the Liberals have proposed repeals the principle of restraint, which releases the accused at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. The only person whose liberty is restricted here is the victim, who is afraid to go out, lest he be assaulted a fifth time. When will the Liberals recognize that their soft-on-crime policies hurt vulnerable people and repeal Liberal bail?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on how important it is that, as members, we keep our word with our constituents and that we do not break our trust with them. The reason it has taken 20 years to get here is that the government has not kept its promise. These treaties need to be implemented, and all people in the House should be honouring their constituents.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that I see the connection between the notwithstanding clause and the bill that we are speaking about today. What I would say is that the Government of Canada needs to do a better job of connecting and communicating with Canadians so that they understand why it is making the decisions it is making and we can avoid disputes in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I talked about the importance of building bridges. There is no question that there are things we could do with this $10.6 million that would benefit first nations and that would benefit Canada. The truth is that the reason to avoid spending this money is to keep the commitments and to implement the treaties. If we do that, what we would get in return is priceless. What we would get is reconciliation.”
“The path forward must be practical, effective and focused on results, because at the end of the day, reconciliation is not about creating offices in Ottawa, but about building and maintaining the bridges that we build in a way that makes people even more confident about building bridges, so that we can continue to do that in a way that ensures that the promises behind them remain strong for generations to come.”
“Their voices matter, their experience matters and their frustration with the modern treaty implementation process is entirely justified. We should listen carefully to what they are saying, but listening also means asking whether the proposed solution would deliver what is needed. Listening means making sure the cracks in the bridge are addressed, not just talked about, studied or reported on. If we are serious about implementing modern treaties, then the Crown should implement them. The minister should focus on clear timelines, measurable outcomes and consequences when commitments are not met. Reconciliation must bring people together. It must build trust, not erode it. The commissioner should not be a way to avoid ministerial or governmental accountability. That is the spirit in which I approach Bill C-10 .”
“If the government has failed to act on existing findings, what assurance do we have that another report and another office would change that? Reconciliation cannot become an exercise in process. It must be measured by progress. Meaningful reconciliation means honouring commitments in a timely and consistent way. Reasonable reconciliation means using existing institutions wisely, avoiding duplication and ensuring that accountability mechanisms are strong and effective. Affordable reconciliation means recognizing that resources are not unlimited and that every dollar spent on administration is a dollar not spent on housing, infrastructure or economic opportunity. These principles are not in conflict with reconciliation; they are essential to it. Many modern treaty nations support the bill.”
“At a time when Canadians are facing real pressures, it is reasonable to ask whether those resources would be better directed toward actually implementing treaty commitments rather than creating all the trappings of yet another bureaucracy. It is also reasonable to ask, as my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois repeatedly did during their speeches, whether the least expensive option here would be for the Crown and the minister to abide by and implement the treaty provisions so that this additional office would be unnecessary. Where is the ministerial accountability? That brings me to another concern that deserves attention and has been raised by many of my colleagues. The proposed commissioner would have the ability to report and make recommendations, but not to compel action.”
“The Office of the Auditor General is independent and respected, and it has a clear mandate to examine whether government programs are achieving their intended results. Creating a place for the activities contemplated for the commissioner for treaty implementation within the Office of the Auditor General would make good use of the tools we already have, strengthened where necessary, rather than creating an entirely new bureaucracy. This approach would preserve independence, avoid duplication and respect the need for fiscal responsibility, because we also have to be honest about the cost. Every new office comes with a price tag. Staff, administration and reporting structures all add up, in the case of this office, to about $10.6 million over four years.”
“It would not alter existing ones. It would not affect private property. (1725) The bill would deal with a narrow question: Once a treaty is signed, will the federal government fulfill the commitments that it made in the treaty? When it does not, the bridge I spoke about collapses, resulting in conflict, protracted litigation, angst and more uncertainty. The concern with Bill C-10 is therefore not about whether accountability is needed, but whether this particular approach would deliver it. Every one of these treaties has a dispute resolution mechanism. In the recent Musqueam agreement, it is right at the front, almost in anticipation that it will need to be referred to. Moreover, we already have an institution in this country whose sole purpose is to hold government to account.”
“At first glance that may sound like a practical solution, but when we look more closely, we have to ask a simple question: Would this actually cause the federal government to fulfill its treaty obligations, or would it create yet another layer of bureaucracy mired in paperwork and backlogs, without delivering the outcomes people are waiting for? Before I turn to that question, I want to address something that many Canadians are feeling right now. Across the country, and particularly in my home province of British Columbia, there is growing uncertainty and debate around DRIPA, UNDRIP and recent court decisions involving aboriginal rights and titles. Some of those concerns will come to this place, but not today. Bill C-10 is not about expanding rights, redefining land claims or changing property ownership. It would not create new treaties.”
“Bill C-10 attempts to remedy that problem, and I think all members of the House agree that Crown accountability is essential to reconciliation. We agree that Canada must meet its obligations, not just on day one but every day. We agree that transparency matters, and we agree that reconciliation must move beyond words to real results on the ground. There is less agreement on how best to achieve that. Bill C-10 proposes the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, headed by a commissioner, to oversee the implementation of modern treaties.”
“Some said the bridge was still strong and the cracks just needed to be filled in. Others said it needed to be replaced entirely. Committees were formed, and reports were written, but the cracks were left untouched. One day, after a heavy storm, the bridge simply gave way. In the end, the problem was not how the bridge was built. The problem was with the way it was maintained. When everyone is responsible for doing something, no one is responsible. Modern treaties are meant to be that bridge. They are meant to connect people, resolve uncertainty and create a foundation upon which opportunity can be built and realized. If not properly implemented, no agreement can deliver the certainty or opportunity that it was designed to provide.”
“That promise must be honoured, but there have been real problems in the implementation of these agreements. That is a serious concern, and it deserves a serious response. As I contemplated this debate, I was reminded of a simple story about a village that once built a bridge across a wide river. The village people threw themselves into the task. They hired an engineer and achieved broad agreement on the design. The bridge was constructed, and when it was ready to use, the opening was celebrated by everyone because it promised to connect people and create opportunity. Satisfied with a job well done, the engineer moved on to other projects. One day, a little girl noticed some small cracks in the bridge and reported them to the village leaders, who convened a meeting to see what they should do.”
“While there are no modern treaties currently being implemented in my riding, that does not mean that these issues are distant from us. As we move forward together, we will need outcomes that are clear, durable and widely understood. Most important, we will need to build genuine trust, not just through words but through consistent action over time. Modern treaties aim to resolve broad claims and to create long-term certainty. They are meant to provide a stable foundation for partnership, economic development and self-determination. These are not symbolic documents. They are binding agreements negotiated in good faith that set out how land, resources and governance will work together for generations. When Canada signs a treaty, it makes a promise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I come to the House from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Stz'uminus First Nation. We are also home to a thriving Mid Island Métis community. Getting to know people in these communities has deepened my understanding of the interconnectedness of people to the land, the human connection we all share and the link between our generation and both the past and the future. These concepts have been invaluable to me in shaping how I think about the work we do here in the House. Therefore, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10 , the commissioner for modern treaty implementation bill, in a spirit I hope all members of the House can share: a genuine commitment to reconciliation that is meaningful, reasonable and affordable for the people we serve.”
“Mr. Speaker, every one of these treaties is a contract, and every one of them is a contract between a first nation or an indigenous group and the Crown. All of them have dispute resolutions. Normally, when someone is in breach of a contract, they contact the other party and tell them they are in breach of this contract. The party either says, yes they are, or no, they are not. Why do we need a commissioner to do this job when the government should be looking at these contracts, abiding by them and fixing its behaviour if it is not?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Liberals are opposing us on this matter. What I can say to those who are watching at home is that we value what they do and thank them for doing it, and to keep contributing to our economy, because there is a bright future ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer to my colleague is no, I cannot make sense of why the Liberals are attacking us on question after question today as we try to focus on jobs for young people. I want to highlight the work that my colleague has done on this file. This is something that he has been focused on day after day. I have seen him talk about it to people in my riding when he has come to visit to help support me and my community as we strive to find jobs for young people. I can assure members that neither my colleagues nor I think this is a temporary thing. It is something we are focused on day in and day out.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the member says that we are only spending one day on this, he devalues everything I have done in my life and my career. This is not a one-day thing for me. I have a trade and a profession, and I value both. If the member would look at page 217 of the budget and see what the government is doing to restigmatize and continue to stigmatize the trades, perhaps he would speak to the people on his side of the House and get it changed.”
“If we are serious about addressing youth unemployment, we should be supporting all credible pathways to work, whether they run through a university campus or a small vocational college. We should be asking a simple question: Does this program help a young person get a job? If the answer is yes, then we should be finding ways to support it, not pulling support away. The lion in the fable did not think it needed the mouse, but when the moment came, it turned out that what seemed small was in fact essential. We should not make the same mistake in public policy. Unless and until the government is willing to fund these programs through public universities, private programs like these are essential to our economy. They are essential to giving young Canadians a real chance to succeed.”
“It reinforces class differences that I thought we were trying to dismantle. Canadians know that dignity does not come from the type of institution printed on one's diploma. It comes from the work itself. It comes from building a home, from caring for a patient, from fixing a piece of equipment, from running a small business, from mastering a craft. I have seen that in my own life. There is a precision in goldsmithing that rivals any profession. There is discipline, creativity and skill. There is pride in producing something tangible and lasting, and yet too often these paths are treated as second-tier. This policy risks reinforcing that divide. It is not the message we should be sending.”
“What happens then? They take on more debt, they work more part-time hours, they delay their training, or they abandon the path altogether. That is not helping young people. That is closing doors, and it is happening at the same time the government claims to be focused on youth employment. That is the contradiction at the heart of this policy. On one hand, we hear about investments in job programs and skills training. There is press conference after press conference. On the other hand, we see a quiet decision buried deep in a budget that makes it harder for young people to access some of the most direct routes into those very jobs. It does not line up, and it reflects something deeper. It reflects a mindset that assigns more value to one type of work than to another.”
“They are smaller, more focused, more nimble and more mouse-like. They can launch programs quickly. They can tailor training to local employers. They can provide targeted, shorter pathways. They get people into the workforce in months, not years. For many students, especially those who cannot afford to spend four years out of the workforce, that matters. Let us imagine a young person in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Maybe they cannot leave their community to attend a university. Maybe they need to work while they study. Maybe they are looking for a program that gets them into a job as quickly as possible. They find a program at a local private college. It fits their life. It fits their goals. It leads directly to employment, and they might even be able to work part-time while they are in school. However, under this budget, they lose access to grants.”
“There is the same financial need, the same ambition and the same desire to contribute, but there is different treatment. Why? It is because of the type of institution they chose. That is not fairness. That is picking winners and losers, and it ignores the reality of how our education system has evolved. Public universities play an important role. Of course they do. We need strong universities. We need research. We need professional training in fields like medicine, law and engineering. However, universities are not designed to meet everything we need. They are not built for rapid job-specific training. They are not always flexible enough to respond quickly to local labour shortages. They do not offer the full range of hands-on programs that many industries depend on. That is where private career colleges come in.”
“At the same time, employers across this country are struggling to find skilled workers. We hear it from construction companies. We hear it from health care providers. We hear it from small businesses trying to grow. There is a gap, a real one. One would think that the role of the government would be to help close that gap, to support the pathways that connect young people to real jobs as quickly and as effectively as possible. Instead, what does the government do? It narrows those pathways. (1220) Under this change, a student attending a public university remains eligible for means-tested grants, but a student attending a private career college, even if they are in a program that leads directly to a job, loses access to the same support.”
“We took focused, practical programs. We learned specific skills that led directly to jobs, in programs in fields like health care support, early childhood education, welding, construction trades, information technology and personal services. These are not backup plans. They are essential pathways to work, and for many young people they are the most direct routes into the workforce. That matters right now more than ever. We are living through a time of high youth unemployment. Young Canadians are struggling to find their footing. They are looking for a way in. They are looking for a way to build a life. They are motivated by money, and they want to find the fastest pathway to earning an income that will allow them to have at least some of the things their parents have.”
“When we need to build at speeds not seen in a century, we need not just lawyers. We need carpenters, scaffolders, welders and Cat operators, including those who got their certificate at private college. If we are facing a rupture, we need all hands on deck. In ridings like Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is not an abstract debate. It is real life. We are a community built by people who work with their hands as well as their minds: tradespeople, technicians, care workers and small business owners. These are people who fix things, build things and keep our local economy moving. I was lucky to participate last weekend in a repair café, where people came together, with no problem, to help fix things together. Many of us got there not through traditional university degrees. Many of us went to private career colleges.”