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 8 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister invited Canadians to judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Seven months later, shoppers are still going home with half the cart for twice the price. The latest food price report says it is going to get 1,000 bucks worse next year. Meanwhile, another mill is closing in my community. As more people lose their jobs, anxiety is the only thing up more than the cost of food. With even full-time workers starting to rely on food banks, when will the Liberals cut their inflationary spending, so Canadians can afford groceries again?”
“Mr. Speaker, believe me, I would like to think the best of my colleagues across the aisle. The challenge is that the programs are so confusingly organized that, while they actually help some people, the litany of complaints and the number of people in my riding and my communities who are having trouble navigating them mean that the programs the Liberals have established are creating immense backlogs. The uptick in the number of calls to my office from people who are struggling to navigate the system makes me wonder what they are thinking when they design them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the hon. member asked me about Bill C-15 and particularly the MOU. One of the really big challenges with it is that no one knows what it means. We have first nations chiefs and B.C. saying there is a veto and that they will not approve it. We have the government saying that it is going to go ahead. When it comes down to it, we do not actually know what is going to happen. There is no clear path, no clear symbol. I really wish the government would decide whether it is creating one economy out of 13 or 13 economies out of one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member asked me about the national school lunch program, because we absolutely believe that children should be fed, but we believe that parents should be able to do it. What is incredible is that if the federal government really wanted to make a difference and wanted its dollars to make the maximum difference, it would recognize that a fabulous local school board, the Nanaimo-Ladysmith regional district school board, has these programs. If the Liberals really wanted to make a difference, they would not add another layer of national bureaucracy. They would transfer this money directly to the provinces, which would transfer it directly to the school boards, and the people who would get credit for it would be the teachers and the schools.”
“It does not ease the pressure on producers and farmers. It does not bring inflation under control. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a plan that works. Conservatives will continue to fight for pragmatic, practical measures to make our lives better.”
“With food inflation running rampant, it offers no meaningful plan to make groceries affordable again. Brookfield must own stock in a grocery chain somewhere. Canada needs its government to understand that affordability is the foundation of economic security. The government must see families, workers and vulnerable people not as footnotes to a capital plan but as the heart of a strong country. The government must recognize that it cannot build resilience on borrowed money alone. Budget 2025 may have set out worthy goals, but a budget is only as strong as its execution. This one does not deliver the clarity, the discipline or the conviction that Canadians need. We see that in the fact that there is no clear message from the government around the budget. It does not address the soaring costs of food.”
“Ministers in the government stand up every day and claim to champion the hungry, but when it takes many months and a full-court press to shame the government into keeping written promises to a food bank during a national food affordability crisis, it tells us everything we need to know about where the members' hearts are. Budget 2025 claims to reshape our economy for resilience, but one cannot strengthen a country by ignoring the immediate needs of its people. The government talks about productivity, but hungry people cannot work to their optimum level. It talks about building Canada strong but provides little to nothing for the seniors who built this country. It provides even less for the students who are its future and even less than that for working families.”
“Loaves and Fishes operates in 44 communities across Vancouver Island, each with increasing need, and it was promised $5 million to expand operations in the December 2024 fall economic statement by a Liberal government. Nearly a year later, the money has still not arrived. The government initially denied its obligation to honour its written promise, saddling the organization with $35,000 in additional monthly interest costs and forcing cuts to its Christmas programming this year. If the money does arrive, it will do so only as a result of immense pressure from the organization, me and our community.”
“Meatless burgers are up 17% year over year. Food inflation is now double the Bank of Canada's target rate and rising 48% faster in Canada than it is in the United States. These increases are not a force of nature. They are the consequences of policy choices, including the government's refusal to remove the hidden taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, that raise the cost of everything from farm inputs to food transportation. Conservatives proposed real solutions to reduce costs and rein in the record-high deficit that fuels inflation. The Liberals voted against both. The gap between the government's rhetoric and reality is also evident in its behaviour toward a food bank in my community.”
“This means 375 more families without paycheques and more than 1,000 others who are indirectly hurt. (1745) Thirty-one mill closures across British Columbia, and counting, means shrinking tax bases, weakened communities and more pressure on food banks. Budget 2025 offers slogans, not solutions. Meanwhile, the food price report makes clear how widespread the affordability crisis has become. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians say they are eating less meat because it has become too expensive. The report notes how rare it is for beef, chicken and pork prices all to rise sharply in the same year, yet that is what Canadians face in the grocery store. The pressures extend to every aisle. Since the Prime Minister took office, strawberries are up 51%, beef is up 30%, chicken is up 23%, coffee is up 22% and even salad dressing is up 13%.”
“In theory, this could provide discipline and transparency, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that a full $94 billion in expenses has been mis-characterized as capital spending. While the budget pledges to balance operational costs someday, it never commits to balancing the budget overall. Canadians know that when we spend more than we earn, somebody pays the price down the road. That would be our children and our grandchildren. Deficits still count even when they are hidden in new categories of line items in the budget. The contradictions in the budget extend to the economy. The government keeps saying that Canada has strong economic fundamentals, yet families are telling me that they want groceries for Christmas. On Vancouver Island this week, another mill, one in Crofton, announced that it is closing its doors.”
“Instead, it leaves them with higher costs and greater uncertainty. Canadians understand the world is changing. They see global geopolitical instability, inflation and rising global competition, but what they want is a clear plan that responds to those challenges. They want their government to understand the day-to-day struggles that shape their lives right now. A resilient economy cannot be built when families cannot afford groceries. Instead of delivering clarity, the budget presents pages upon hundreds of pages of contradictions. One of the clearest signs of that is the government's use of the new separation between what it calls “operating spending” and “capital investment”.”
“They are the lived reality of a country in which working families increasingly rely on charity to eat, yet budget 2025 does not present a coherent plan to address that crisis. Budget 2025 does not reduce taxes in any meaningful way that families can feel today. It does not reduce the fees or the regulatory burdens that drive up the costs through the supply chain. It does not relieve the pressure on farmers, whose operating costs rose 2.5% in a single year. If members think that is not passed on to the consumer through food prices, then I do not know how to explain the math on that. Fertilizer, fuel and transportation costs have all increased, and producers were forced to take on 14.1% more debt in 2024, which is the largest increase since 1981. A budget that claims to strengthen resilience should support the people who grow our food.”
“It tries to be all things to all people, but it fails to deliver on the basics. Canadians want a plan that strengthens our foundation and rebuilds hope, but they also need to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and provide for their families. The budget does not meet that moment. “Canada's Food Price Report” for 2026 confirms what Canadians already know, which is that if 2025 was difficult, 2026 will be worse. The report warns that families can expect almost $1,000 more in food costs next year. Compared to 2015, Canadians will pay 112% more for groceries for their family. Food costs have more than doubled in a decade, and nearly 85% of Canadians say that food affordability is their top financial concern. Food banks saw a record 2.2 million visits in a single month this year. These are not abstract numbers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept that the government meant well in bringing the budget forward. The Prime Minister claims that he wants to reshape Canada's economy so that it is more self-reliant, more resilient and less vulnerable to outside shocks. That starts with food security. The Prime Minister has said that Canadians should judge his leadership by their experience at the grocery store. If that is the test, then the government is failing it. After seven months, food prices continue to rise, families are making impossible choices about what they can afford and the weekly grocery bill has become the clearest sign of a government that is out of touch with the struggles faced by Canadians today. While the Liberal government may believe the goals of budget 2025 are noble, the budget itself simply does not achieve them.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to second this motion and the remarks the hon. member made this morning. Like my colleague, I have received a number of emails from faith leaders in my riding and would like the member to comment on this. One of the things that unite faith leaders across this country is the fact that their congregations are composed of people of all political stripes. One of the comments I received from more than one faith leader in my riding is this: The reason they are contacting me, in many cases for the first time, is that, while they would prefer to remain apolitical, the Liberal government, through its support for the amendments to this bill, has politicized their role here and in their congregations. I would like my colleague to respond to that.”
“When the government approaches us to work together, we do have something to contribute, and it would be wonderful if the Liberals actually listened.”
“Madam Speaker, I wish I could answer the hon. member fluently in French. I am working on it. I am a new member of the House, and one of the things that actually astound me about this Parliament is how little the Prime Minister's office and the government actually involve the House in making laws and making decisions. I would have thought that the Liberals' calls for collaboration and requests that we pass legislation before Christmas and work with them on their legislative agenda would have been accompanied by genuine efforts to sit down with us and engage us on their policies. Unfortunately, I find that that rarely happens. An exception, which I was actually quite pleased with, was when the member for Terrebonne approached me a few weeks ago to lend my support to her bill, which we just voted to send to committee this afternoon.”
“We believe earnestly that, had Canadians given us the opportunity to do so, like former prime minister Harper, who negotiated a softwood lumber deal within 80 days of becoming prime minister, we would have produced more results than the Liberal government has in the time since it was elected.”
“Madam Speaker, on the question of whether or not the Prime Minister is aware of this particular issue, I will say that if he reads his email, he would know that the British pensioners were actually here a couple of weeks ago. They had a Hill day. They had a suite. All MPs, including the Prime Minister, were invited to come by, and they had extensive briefings on the issue. If the Prime Minister chose not to include that in his schedule because he had things to do that he considered more important, then I suppose that answers the member's question on its own. In terms of the value that Conservatives place on trade, we have fought many elections on the issue. We have negotiated many free trade agreements, and we obviously care about free and fair trade.”
“It is measured in the lives of real people, in this case the thousands of Canadians who are also British pensioners, who chose Canada to be their home, against their own self-interest, and who deserve our support in remedying this injustice.”
“The 2,845 people with frozen pensions in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, and the thousands more across Vancouver Island and the rest of Canada, have not been forgotten. Their government may not always fight for them, but today I lend them my voice and this platform for their cause. They worked hard, they played by the rules and they deserve justice. The Prime Minister has the relationships, the platform and an immense amount of privilege. He should use it and bring the issue to the fore in his discussions with the U.K. He should raise it at every level, because justice is not measured in economic models or global summits.”
“(1635) If the Prime Minister had a functioning constituency office in his riding, he would know that this is an issue that affects his community too. If the Prime Minister truly believes in fairness, he should pick up the phone. He should call his old colleagues in London. He should call the King and explain the issue as I have, and put it back on the agenda. He should pursue justice and get a deal. The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the issue. The pensioners are not asking Canada for new spending; they are asking for their government to negotiate justice for them from the United Kingdom. The CPTPP is about rules-based trade and mutual benefit. Let it now show that it is also about fairness, reciprocity and moral responsibility. I want to close with this.”
“If the Prime Minister cares, if he wants to show that his talk about values and fairness is more than just a slogan, he should use his connections to fix this, because it is a burning issue for British seniors who have chosen Canada as their home. The Prime Minister needs to understand that transformational leadership does not just happen in jets or hotel lobbies, or swanning around English parties. It happens when we stand up for real people who are being left behind. I ask the Prime Minister to come down from on high to see these people, the British pensioners of Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Vancouver Island and from across Canada, whose income has not risen in 30 years. Some of them split pills. Some skip meals. All of them deserve our help. They are the people who built the very democracy that allows us to debate the bill today.”
“Wait a minute; I seem to recall that our current Prime Minister is not only a former governor of the Bank of England but also the man who arranged for the King to deliver the throne speech of this very Parliament. The Prime Minister may be friends with kings, but he has failed the commoners on this issue. The Prime Minister waxes poetic about transformational change and extols generational investments and structural reforms, but if he truly wanted to be transformational, he would start with this generation: the seniors who built the country he once served and who now suffer under an unfair, outdated policy.”
“has signed new reciprocal social service agreements with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, but not with Canada, a country that stood shoulder to shoulder with it through wars, through peacekeeping and through generations of shared sacrifices. This is not how friends treat each other. This is where partnership really matters. If the U.K. wants to benefit from the CPTPP, then it should also act like a partner, by honouring fairness, reciprocity and human dignity. It is a conundrum, yet I cannot help but think, “if only”. If only we had a prime minister with deep connections to the United Kingdom, someone who understands economics, banking and pensions.”
“by indexing their pensions. The upshot is that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing a moral failure by one of our oldest allies. The world has changed, our trade has certainly changed and our lives have changed; however, this unfair policy remains. The U.K. remains the only OECD country that pays pensioners differently based on where they live. It is an outdated, discriminatory relic from another era. Successive MPs from my community have raised this issue over the last decade. The House has passed motions. Past Canadian governments have asked the U.K. to reopen discussions on this issue. The U.K.'s pensions minister has said no every time, which seems to be a pattern in Liberal trade negotiations. Meanwhile, the U.K.”
“If they had moved to the United States, to Israel or to the Philippines, they would receive their annual increases. About 60% of British pensioners living overseas get their annual increases, but 40% do not. It is a lottery that is based not on contribution or need but on geography, and Canadians are inexplicably on the losing end of this. The U.K.'s Department for Work and Pensions admits that fixing the problem for British retirees in Canada would cost only about 13 million British pounds, which is about $24 million, of a total U.K. pension budget of 146 billion pounds. Therefore this is not a question of cost; it is a question of will. I have met pensioners in their seventies, eighties and nineties surviving on payments at levels set in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Canada honours its obligations to our pensioners living in the U.K.”
“Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will speak more directly about the Liberal failures and the problems with the bill, but I want to focus today on an issue affecting more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians. For 75 years, the U.K. has refused to provide annual increases to the state pensions of British retirees living in Canada. More than 105,000 pensioners already face this injustice, with hundreds of thousands more Canadians aging into it. They paid into the U.K. national insurance system their entire lives. They earned their pensions. However, because they moved to Canada, a Commonwealth ally, their pensions are frozen at the amount first received, in some cases decades ago.”
“The United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP would strengthen that rules-based framework and deepen our trade with a close ally that shares our democratic values, our legal traditions and our belief in opportunity through enterprise, so yes, there is some good to be found in the bill. However, support does not mean silence, because while the agreement is long overdue, Liberal trade policy is riddled with big announcements, poor follow-through and a willingness to please foreign governments while leaving Canadian citizens and businesses behind. Many of my colleagues have spoken more directly to these Liberal failures, but today I want to focus on an issue that affects more than 2,800 people in my riding and thousands more people across Canada, which is the frozen pensions of British Canadians. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bow River . I rise today to speak to Bill C-13 , an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It may be a technical bill filled with tariff schedules, statutory amendments and trade protocols, but it represents something deeply important: the partnerships we build between nations. Conservatives have always believed in free and fair trade. We know that open markets, clear rules and reliable partners drive prosperity.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for really connecting his speech to his riding. I want to ask the hon. member about the country of origin quotas, which expired 18 months ago. I am going to provide him with the example of Canada Goose, which I believe he is familiar with. It is a Canadian company that generated $75 million of revenue in the U.K., but paid $10 million in duties last year, with that figure projected to climb to $15 million in duties this year, which, of course, is a significant burden for that business. It did not have to be that way, and I am wondering what the hon. member is going to do about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, 375 workers at our local Crofton mill are losing their jobs 10 days before Christmas: 150 jobs gone in Chemainus and 165 jobs gone in 100 Mile House. Thirty-one B.C. towns have been gutted so far because the Liberals broke their promise to get a deal. What is the Prime Minister 's take on stalled talks? "Who cares?”, he said; there is no “burning issue”. Well, the people who lost their jobs yesterday care, and their families know this is a burning issue. After these latest losses, why should anyone trust the Prime Minister to get a softwood lumber deal?”
“I will support Bill C-241 at second reading so that the committee can examine it carefully, strengthen it and ensure that it remains practical, efficient and respectful of jurisdiction.”
“All that tells us that the government is not focused on building the infrastructure we need to withstand floods, earthquakes and tsunamis. If we expect NRGH to serve as a lifeline during the next major flood or emergency and to provide safe, modern care every other day of the year, we need the federal government to recognize that nation building includes building hospitals with Canadian lumber, Canadian steel and Canadian know-how. When I meet with families who love their local swimming holes, farmers who depend on predictable water supply or volunteers restoring local creeks, the message is the same: Our water systems are changing, and we need the tools to understand those changes and better coordinate our response to them.”
“It is not earthquake-proof, and in a real disaster, whether it is a coastal surge, widespread flooding or a seismic event, we might just not have it to rely on. Local advocates have done a fabulous job of sounding the alarm, but the Liberal government's latest budget sets aside only $5 billion over three years for health care infrastructure, including medical schools, across the entire country. It is nowhere near enough to help the provinces rebuild aging hospitals, reduce wait times or ensure that every Canadian has access to a family doctor. The government cannot convince Canadians that $5 billion is a big number while trying to convince us that $78.3 billion, when it comes to a deficit, is a small one.”
“Any national strategy must ensure that provinces, municipalities, indigenous governments and industry can all share and interpret data in ways that are consistent and reliable. I want to remind the government about the need to invest in the aging infrastructure needed to support major weather events like floods. In my community, Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is the backbone of emergency care, not only for Nanaimo but for much of the island, including in the case of flooding and tsunamis that could come with an earthquake. When roads wash out and communities are cut off, it becomes the critical hub for treatment, evacuation and coordination. However, NRGH's patient tower was built in 1963, making it the oldest on the island and one of the oldest of its kind in use anywhere in the country.”
“Water management is primarily a provincial responsibility, and communities on Vancouver Island rightly expect collaboration, not intrusion, from Ottawa. It is incumbent upon the government to ensure that coordination does not turn into federal overreach, as it does in so many cases. It means making sure the provinces can access shared tools and shared data when they need them. It means ensuring that modelling developed with public funds is accessible, standardized and usable across the country. That standardization is crucial. Right now, rainfall, soil, moisture, lake levels, snowpack and stream-flow data are collected differently across different regions. This makes forecasting harder and emergency response slower.”
“Canada's current model of disaster compensation is one under which taxpayers cover much of the cost of major flood events, and it is increasingly unsustainable as more and more insurance companies include carve-outs in their contracts that specifically exclude compensation. Better forecasting and mapping could make private insurance more valuable, reducing the burden on the public purse. This is a point worth studying further in committee. If improved modelling can reduce risk and improve predictability, families and small businesses may have more affordable insurance options while taxpayers may face lower costs after major storms, but it is all a question of implementation and execution. Provincial jurisdiction also needs to be respected.”
“and beyond have destroyed farms and livestock and left families facing massive repair bills, but federal programs have been slow, confusing, inadequate and underfunded. Many communities, including those that my colleagues have spoken of today, are still waiting for the promised assistance or have been told they do not qualify because the programs were not designed for disasters of this kind, scale, scope or whatever. (1810) Instead of working with the province to build a faster and more reliable response system, the government has left people to navigate red tape while they are already under enormous financial and emotional strain.”
“It would require three federal ministers to work together, along with the provinces and territories, to develop a national strategy around flood and drought forecasting in the hopes of generating the information we need to better plan for these events. This is a noble cause, and as a means to greater collaboration, I support sending the bill to committee. I applaud my colleague across the aisle for raising these issues and facilitating this important debate. However, hope, as we all know, is not a strategy, and as an end in itself, the bill before us falls woefully short. The past few years have shown how vulnerable British Columbia is to extreme weather, yet the federal government has not provided the support that farmers, homeowners and small businesses need to prepare and recover. Floods in B.C.”
“The federal government provides much of our weather forecasting through the Meteorological Service of Canada, but the provinces and territories are responsible for flood forecasting and issuing flood warnings. The provinces and territories also have jurisdiction over specific applications and emergency management activities within their boundaries. The federal government predicts the weather, while the provinces and the territories manage the response on the ground to the impacts of that weather. What could go wrong? Bill C-241 , in a way, takes a crack at making one flood and drought forecasting strategy out of 13.”
“On the other side of the ledger, flooding can contaminate soil, erode coastlines, knock out power and wash away roads. Water is at the centre of almost every risk calculation we make. Water is part of our identity, but water can be volatile: too much or too little can threaten our lives. This brings me to Bill C-241 , which we are discussing today. One thing that unites people everywhere is our desire to know the weather forecast, along with the knowledge of the reality that it is usually wrong. However, we keep trying to predict the weather, and in Canada, doing that, like with many other things, means navigating the complex web of federal and provincial powers laid out in our Constitution.”
“Whether it is the Nanaimo River, Haslam Creek, Westwood Lake, or Colliery Dam, our community feels a deep, personal connection to these places. Like most powerful forces, water needs to be respected, revered and conserved. When it rains, it pours for days on Vancouver Island, and when it does not rain, the grass turns brown, the earth cracks and the landscape becomes tinder just waiting for a match. The chaos resulting from extreme weather in B.C. threatens not just our livelihoods, but our very lives. Floods, earthquakes, tsunami warnings, droughts and wildfires uproot our lives and threaten to scatter us to the wind. Local farmers tell us about drought and water insecurity, which threatens livestock, stresses irrigation systems and creates the conditions for deadly wildfires.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent our beautiful riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, a part of our country that is shaped in every way by water. Our sea, our rivers, our swimming holes, our creeks and our wetlands are an intrinsic part of our identity. They are where we fish, farm and play; where our kids swim in the summer; and where many of us first fell in love with the great outdoors. On Vancouver Island, our water is not only beautiful; it is vitally useful. Properly harnessed, it provides us with clean, renewal energy. It nourishes the crops that feed our families. It incubates our salmon and provides inspiration for our cultural traditions. On Vancouver Island, water is fundamental to our lives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked a question, and I got a deflection. People in my community can speak to the impact of the industrial carbon tax, because unlike the Prime Minister , they do go to the grocery store. It is not just my local food bank, the Saanich food bank in that member's riding says they have also been seeing more young families, seniors and newcomers. Family Services of Greater Vancouver is also seeing more full-time workers. Right now, everyone is in need. I ask again: Will the Prime Minister commit to eliminating the industrial carbon tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, food banks across Vancouver Island are overwhelmed. We are seeing a surge in seniors, young families, newcomers and, increasingly, full-time workers who cannot afford the price of food. These are people who played by the rules, who worked hard and who never imagined they would need a food bank just to get through the week. Instead of helping, the Prime Minister is increasing the industrial carbon tax, driving up the cost of transporting and producing food, and making groceries even more expensive. Why is the Prime Minister insisting on hiking the industrial carbon tax when British Columbians cannot afford to feed their families?”
“Mr. Chair, the government keeps trying to tell us that $1.2 billion is a big number while telling us that $78.3 billion is a small number. The Liberals say that relief is on the way, but our communities tell me that it is going to come too late. The assistance programs that this government is rolling out, first of all, took six months to announce, and I am told that companies are being told that it will be three to six months before their applications are even adjudicated. One in six manufacturing jobs and one in 28 jobs in all of B.C. depends on forestry. Why is it taking this government so long to act?”
“Mr. Chair, in response to my last question, the hon. member explained some of the reasons he thinks Canadian lumber is special, which give us some time to make a deal, but I have spoken to the forestry companies and workers in my communities, and I can tell members that they say we do not have time to wait. The government has announced some limited relief, yet it seems to be in no hurry to move on. What people in my community want to know is what the government is going to do when the limited relief runs out and what the families who have lost their livelihoods are going to do when their savings run out.”
“Mr. Chair, the member opposite admits we need the U.S. market and claims the U.S. market needs us, but the European Union negotiated a 10% flat rate with the United States while we sit at 45%, and purchases are rapidly shifting. The Prime Minister , in the meantime, says that he is in no hurry to make a deal because this is not a burning issue. What is the member opposite going to do when demand has shifted and we are still sitting at a 45% tariff with no jobs?”