Tamara Kronis

“I am worried about this bill because the Department of Justice admits it threatens basic rights. It threatens free speech, equality based on age, and privacy rights when collecting personal information to check people's ages. We also do not even have the actual rules yet to know how this will work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting speech. In its charter statement, the Department of Justice recognizes that the bill engages freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) and the right to equality guaranteed under section 15 because it makes a distinction based on age, as well as the right to privacy under section 8 because the age verification or age estimation measures may require the collection of personal information. What strikes me is that the charter statement is based on guidelines that will be developed later by the commission, on future regulations, and on an exemption for services that provide—”

“Grocery prices are still too high, and more people are using food banks. Sending cheques does not fix the real costs of growing and moving food. The government is spending one billion dollars on a food fund, but it has no clear goals. I want the government to report publicly on whether this fund lowers food shipping costs, and I want to know which federal costs it will cut to make food cheaper.”

“Mr. Speaker, on May 1, I asked how many food bank expansions the Liberal government needed to see before it would bring grocery bills down. The minister responded by citing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and temporary fuel tax relief. Well, those measures do not seem to have helped. Nearly six months later, families in my community still need an answer about the price of food. Last week, Food Banks Canada released its latest “Hungercount Report”. It recorded more than 2.35 million food bank visits in March of this year, which is more than double the number in 2019 and up 9% since last year across the country. In B.C., visits rose by 14% compared to the previous March. Behind those numbers are people who are struggling to make their paycheques, pensions and disability benefits cover the essentials. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that grocery prices are 33% higher than they were in September 2020. Of course, the wages and benefits have not kept up with that increase. I recognize that the grocery benefit does help eligible households, that fuel tax relief has been extended as Conservatives requested and that people do need that breathing room, but the government has to explain how it will reduce the underlying costs of getting food onto the shelves. The answer cannot be a never-ending stream of cheques and an ever-lengthening lineup at food banks. For Vancouver Island, that means working with us on improving the infrastructure that supports our supply chains and paying attention to freight, cold storage and distribution. It also means making it easy for local farmers and independent grocers to reach customers. It means removing unnecessary federal costs and barriers, while protecting food safety and strengthening competition. The government has now opened applications for its $1 billion food-link fund. It says that this will improve distribution and lower food costs. Given the ineffectiveness of earlier measures, I would feel better if we had clear deadlines and measurable results. Will the parliamentary secretary commit tonight to public reporting on whether the fund meets its approval deadlines when projects begin operating and whether they lower distribution costs for island communities? Beyond that fund, which federal costs will the government remove to make producing and transporting food more affordable? A $1-billion commitment deserves a clear accounting of what it will deliver. Families should be able to judge the results at the grocery store. The government owes all Canadians a plan that reduces the need for that help. Once again, we find that these plans are short on details in many ways. They are short on key performance indicators, and we lack confidence that they will produce measurable results. When will families in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across this country finally see lasting relief in their grocery bills?”

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I support the goals of this bill, and everyone here wants to protect children online. But the bill is not clear enough. The committee needs to study it and hear from witnesses. The government should have consulted people and listened to their feedback before writing this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I said when I started my remarks this evening was that I support the goals of the bill. There is no one in this chamber from any party who does not support protecting kids or is not concerned about what is happening with kids online. The question here is whether or not the bill is clear enough. That is something that I expect would get debated at committee and something that witnesses would be able to provide information on. What is somewhat distressing to me is that the government did not do these consultations upfront or did not incorporate the feedback it got into the bill so that these questions did not have to be asked.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“This bill is not clear enough about how it will work. Too many decisions are being left for later, where members of Parliament cannot see them. People in my community have real questions and concerns about this. The government needs to listen, answer our questions, and fix these problems in this room so the bill is better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of questions about the interpretation of how this bill would work. It has been really interesting because I have held town halls on this, and sat with groups in my community to discuss it, and we have had the chance in my community to think some of these things through. It is just unclear. A lot is being left to a process that would happen after the legislation. It is a process that parliamentarians do not typically have access to. If my community members’ concerns are to find their way into the bill, if the division and questions are to be resolved, then that is something that really has to happen in this chamber. I would invite the government to take these opportunities to listen to the questions being raised, to listen to what members of my community are saying, and to answer those questions and resolve those conflicts. It would result in better legislation.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I want to protect children, but this bill is not clear. I am pointing out the parts that are confusing so the government can fix them and make the bill better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure I understand my colleague’s question, or it is possible that he did not understand my speech. What I just did is what I try to do with all of the legislation that comes before us in the House. I tried to read it. I tried to understand it. Where there was a lack of clarity, I have pointed that out and invited the government to correct the record and improve the bill so we can realize the very worthy objective of it, which is to protect our kids.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I agree that we must protect kids from harm online. But this bill is too vague. It leaves too many big decisions and definitions up to the government and a new commission instead of spelling them out. We do not know how age checks will work, what counts as safe, or which apps will be covered. Banning kids under 16 from having accounts could also cut off youth from good support groups, while still letting them browse harmful content without an account. The committee needs to hear from young people and make this bill much clearer before it passes.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a society, we absolutely have to do something about the harm being done to our kids online. Parents are struggling. Teachers are struggling. Schools are struggling. Our youth are left navigating a world where the adults have not figured out how to adult on this one yet. I think we can all agree that the kids are not all right. Parliament’s constitutional authority over communications that cross provincial and international borders gives this chamber its mandate. A school board cannot regulate a multinational platform, and parents cannot demand design changes to apps, but having the authority to act, which we have here, does not make the problems any easier to solve. We do not know yet whether this bill can deliver the protection that parents and others expect, or whether it will inevitably result in the overreach its critics fear. Too many concepts in this bill remain ambiguous, and too many of the ultimate rules depend on decisions Parliament is being asked to authorize and delegate before Canadians can know what those decisions will be. I have held multiple well-attended town halls on child and teen use of social media in my communities. I have spoken with lawyers practising across multiple disciplines. I have consulted with experts, teachers, parents and school board officials. There are a lot of opinions out there. People are just as emphatic that this bill must pass as others are that it will be a disaster if it does. The disagreements are passionate, and there are plenty of misconceptions and misperceptions as to what will happen and what things will mean. The way this bill is currently drafted makes it impossible to validate, course correct or reassure any side. Supporters see children being sexually exploited and online feeds pushing harmful material at vulnerable kids. They want companies held responsible for products designed to keep children engaged, and they are tired of being told to supervise their kids more closely when they cannot control what a platform does. They put forward a compelling case for online safety measures and regulations. Critics fear that enforcing the age restriction would mean collecting more information about everyone, including adults. They fear the regulator would have excessive control over lawful expression or that the information they provide online in proving their age would be used for other things. Here in this place, where we are ultimately responsible for the unintended consequences of sloppy drafting, we do not get to just dismiss concerns like these, even for legislation with a worthy purpose. The Canadian Mental Health Association has recognized one of the paradoxes of the blanket age provisions in this bill. While supporting the bill, the association recognizes the inherent value of an online community, particularly for rural young people or those from marginalized communities. The reality is that the same service that can expose a youth to harm can also connect them to people who can help. A blanket account restriction leaves them without both, and it does not tell us where a youth may go next. If they move to a less regulated service, parents might find it harder to supervise. The government needs evidence that its approach will reduce harm overall, including for children and youth who work around the rules. There is nothing in the under-16 restriction that would prevent a youth from browsing without an account, where harmful recommendations can still reach them. It also excludes private messaging features from the duties on social media platforms. The bill does not expressly require government identification to be used as proof of age. Parents need to understand these limits, just as critics need to distinguish what the bill says from what they fear it might become. The legislation would fix the age for access at 16 while leaving many of the actual safety requirements undefined. Cabinet may decide which services are covered and which face account restrictions. A new digital safety commission would have the power to prescribe mandatory design features and additional requirements for age checks. These decisions are the ones that would determine the extent to which youth are actually protected and how much information adults must disclose. The government points to exemptions as reassurance, but not everyone is reassured by them. Others do not think there should be any exemptions. A service could admit youth under 16 if the commission accepts that it has put “adequate safeguards” in place. I do not know what that means because the detailed test remains unwritten. What adequate safeguards are at this point is anyone’s guess, and I can assure everyone that if we got a group of people together to discuss what adequate safeguards are, there would be a wide range of opinions. I cannot reassure anyone at this point as to what the criteria might be or whether the criteria would be objective. A permissive test could undermine the protection that supporters of this bill expect. An onerous or delayed process could exclude children and youth from services that could safely accommodate them. There is no automatic expiry for restrictions described as temporary and no timelines for decision-making, and the bill would not guarantee that the exemption process will even be operating when restrictions begin. Age checks are similarly unclear. If provisions can be easily evaded, this bill gives parents false reassurance. On the other hand, a system that misclassifies an adult as a youth can shut that person out of an app that they may be perfectly entitled to use. Limits on appeals and hard-to-navigate customer service processes on social media do not help. The bill would require personal identification to be protected and deleted after age verification or estimation, but we still need to know which methods would meet the standard and how mistakes would be corrected. The bottom line is that Canadians should not have to choose between the most reassuring interpretation of this bill and the most frightening one. The government has made an already divisive debate worse in this case by leaving central definitions and central decisions unresolved. Those who trust government may assume the regulations would deliver the protection they want. Someone who distrusts it may fear the same powers would be used against them. Unclear drafting and unresolved processes turn a debate about a law into a test of confidence in whoever administers it. Young people should be invited to testify at committee from all perspectives so we can hear from them what they need and what they are afraid of. This bill also needs measurable safety requirements and a workable exemption process before restrictions begin. Age checks need independent testing and accessible correction when they get someone’s age wrong. Victims need a clear route to urgent help when a platform fails them, while people whose lawful material is wrongfully restricted need prompt review. Parliament should require evidence showing where harm actually falls, with a firm reporting deadline so the promised review cannot drift. What I meant by that is that we should have evidence of where there is actual harm. That should be reviewable and measured, and we should be taking appropriate action to correct it. Conservatives are willing to help. I want to be able to explain this law to the people in my communities with confidence that the outcome will match the explanation. Social media companies and others governed by this bill need to know what success looks like and what the cost of failure would be. Contrary to the remarks of my colleague, not every social media platform or app would necessarily be governed by this bill. Every social media platform may have to review the bill to determine whether it is governed by it, but it is unclear at this point whether every app would be governed. As the bill is written right now, too much information is either fuzzy or still to come. The government ought to bring those answers to committee and either reassure Canadians or accept recommended amendments. This is about our kids, which means that it is about nothing less than the future of our country. Let us get this right.”

“I want to know which platforms this bill will cover. How many will it apply to, and how will they know they are covered?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member just described the “what” and the “how”, but I am interested in the “who”. How many platforms will this bill apply to? Which platforms will it apply to? How will those platforms know that the bill is meant for them?”

“I want the member to explain what an adequate safeguard means in this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. I know they come from a place of really wanting to do right by our youth, and I know that is a goal we all share. I am wondering if the member can define what an adequate safeguard is.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 26 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“I want to encourage young people to work in the skilled trades. My community, and Vancouver Island University, are great places to learn these skills.”

“Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the time you spent in my community learning not just about trades, but about all the things that our young people are interested in. As the member knows, I am in the trades since I am a goldsmith. I look for every opportunity I can to encourage people to learn to do things with their hands because I find that very satisfying. We have an incredible university in my community, Vancouver Island University, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in the trades to look into my community as a place to learn.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I will work with the member to push the government to use youth skills to fix 24 Sussex Drive, but a committee decides that. Young people spend too much time on screens and need more chances to learn trades and shop class in school.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the things I love about our communities on Vancouver Island is that we have an incredible array of creative suggestions. I want to thank the member for that one. Unfortunately, that will not be up to me. That will be up to the committee that is planning the renovation of 24 Sussex. I would be delighted to join with the member in pursuing this proposal and encouraging the government to make use of the skills and creativity of our youth in every way possible. I would add one more thing. Part of the concern we have about our young people right now is that they spend so much time on screens, and they are not developing gross motor skills, except in their thumbs. I would love to see more youth getting the opportunity to learn shop and trades in school.”

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“Young people need help getting jobs right away. I urge the member to bring these ideas to his government colleagues. I am ready to work with him to turn our jobs plan into real policy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can see from the length of my hon. colleague’s question that this is a topic he is genuinely interested in. I am pleased to see someone from the government taking this topic seriously. I would urge him to take to his colleagues the ideas that he has expressed, because our youth need the kind of support that the Conservatives are offering through the jobs plan that they are proposing. They need it as soon as possible. I would be happy to work with the member anytime to see our proposals and plans implemented into policies that will help youth in my communities and across Canada.”

“Young people face the highest unemployment in 25 years, while high rents and food costs make life unaffordable. I want the House to adopt this committee report on youth jobs and follow its recommendations. The government must cut taxes and red tape, fund job placements, fix employment insurance for seasonal workers, and report back to Parliament on whether job training actually leads to real work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening. This evening, we are continuing the discussion on the jobs crisis facing our youth. Young people continue to experience Canada as a place where it is hard to find a good job and even harder to build a good life where they can have the financial security enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Getting a first employer to take a chance on them can be very difficult. We argue monthly in the House about the latest job numbers, but there is no question that youth unemployment is up and is in fact at its highest point in more than 25 years, excluding the pandemic. We also have a 29-year low in youth workforce participation. Young people are facing a tough labour market at a time when they have never needed more income to afford a home, a family and a good life. I attended the Vancouver Island Economic Alliance’s summit last week. The 2026 economic update was so well done but so discouraging. It estimates that labour force participation among island youth aged 15 to 25 fell from 65% in 2021 to 62% in 2026. VIEA also reports that the share of islanders aged 15 to 25 fell by about 4% between 2016 and 2024, while the share over 65 grew by about the same amount. Future growth will depend on generating more value per worker through higher productivity. Those figures cannot tell us what any individual young person is doing. There was an excellent panel on youth employment during the VIEA state of the island economic summit in Nanaimo last week, and at it, the three panellists did their absolute best to make light of the situation. One quipped, “Who said being a stay-at-home 25-year-old isn’t a career?” Another pointed out that it is pretty hard not to take every chance possible to engage in the workforce, given the cost of everything. The third panellist came to Canada from a country that he described as unsafe and impoverished and noticed that these days, “Canada sometimes feels like home.” When I listened to these young people trying to make light of their situation, it really impacted me, because these days, when I ask young people what they want to do for a career, an answer I now get frequently is “whatever makes the most money”. Young workers tell me that they cannot wait for an ideal job or a stable schedule. They need paid work now because they need it to cover rent. They need it to cover transportation costs to get to work, and they need to do all of that before they figure out how to eat. This morning at committee, one of our local food bank people came to talk to committee about the increase in food bank use in our region. It is so distressing to hear of the increase in the number of young people needing to use food banks. It is a direct result of how difficult it is to find the kind of work that will pay for rent and transportation and still leave enough for food. The Vancouver Island Real Estate Board reported a benchmark price of $798,400 for a single-family home in Nanaimo in September 2026, requiring a household income in the $165,000 to $200,000 range for it to be affordable. For most young people, that number is so high that it is virtually meaningless. The average rent for a studio apartment in Nanaimo as of October 26 is between $1,500 and $1,700. Average rent for a basement apartment in Ladysmith is running over $1,350 a month. That rent is considered affordable at a salary range between about $55,000 and $68,000 a year. That is hardly an entry-level job these days. Conservatives are trying to be constructive. To that end, we proposed the Conservative youth jobs plan, which includes a recommendation to build homes where the training and jobs are. Workers need housing near jobs, especially given the high transportation and fuel costs, and we need to make sure that those homes are affordable. I am pleased to see that the report we are discussing here today enshrines several of the concepts in our Conservative job plan in its formal recommendations, recognizing the need for stable funding for student workplace programs and more funded placements for young people facing financial barriers or living in regions with high youth unemployment. Funded placements can help employers assess a new worker and also let that new worker test whether a career is right for them. The report also recommends reducing tax and regulatory barriers to job creation and recognizing work across sectors, including in natural resources and manufacturing. VIEA’s economic update counts about 40,000 people employed in construction and about 18,000 in value-added manufacturing on the island. These are employment counts, not vacancies. What they show, though, is why training should connect to industries already employing people in our region. We call on the government to reduce both taxes and red tape to allow for productivity growth, which we believe will in turn help with youth unemployment. We need a climate where there is opportunity for people to start and grow a business, one that includes paid entry-level trades placements for young people, including those having trouble getting their first opportunity. We should measure whether the government’s announcements in this area lead to actual apprenticeships or whether they lead to ghost jobs, false opportunities and dead ends. The government’s own data validates these fears. Last spring’s economic update reported that more than 100,000 new apprentices registered in 2024, but only about 34,000 completed an apprenticeship. These are different cohorts, but the numbers highlight the need for registration targets to be matched with completion and employment results so that we can know whether these programs are effective. The committee recommends judging training programs by their effectiveness and shifting money away from programs that are not preparing young people for work. This would help Parliament see whether participants finish training and move into jobs, if the report is adopted and turned into real accountability. An apprentice may have to leave paid work for blocks of classroom training, to care for a relative or for other reasons. We need to recognize the dignity and value of all work and a firm respect for all sectors of the economy. The report recommends reviewing income support and adapting employment insurance to fit the way that many young people work today, including when they have to piece together shifts across employers or rely on seasonal work. That would fit Vancouver Island very well, where tourism and construction follow the seasons. Someone trying to finish an apprenticeship should be able to manage the weeks when the paycheques stop. The report also asks the government to consider youth employment opportunities when setting immigration levels, with attention to entry-level openings and affordability. Why we need to legislate that the government needs to do workplace planning is beyond me, but here we are. Young people are as diverse as Canada. The 15-to-24 age group includes full-time students looking for summer work and young people who have left school and need a full-time job. A program that works for one will not necessarily work for another, which is why we need a variety of programs and a thoughtful approach to this work. In addition, young people should get the chance to help shape these employment programs through meaningful consultations, and the results should be reported both by region and by the circumstances that affect access to that work. This is an issue that needs continuous monitoring. Parliament should receive regular reports on the share of young participants who complete training and remain employed in their field a year later. Parliament should pay attention to rates of youth unemployment, and we should be speaking about this topic far more in the House. That would show our youth whether the government’s trade target is becoming a real route into work. That is what we need at this time. We owe it to youth in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada to ensure that training can lead to a job that makes it possible to stay in our communities and that makes it possible to build a life that can include a home, a family and all of the opportunities we had.”

“Many young people struggle to find their first job after graduation. How can the federal government help them?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was very interesting. I always learn something new about Quebec when she speaks. I want to continue to learn more about the communities she represents. I know she has always wanted to learn more about the communities I represent. My question may be simple, but it is sincere. After graduation, many young people in our communities struggle to find their first job. How can the federal government help them?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The member says the Liberals did not set up these programs before because the government was different back then. I want him to admit that the government he served for 10 years was a failure.”

“Mr. Speaker, in response to my last question, the hon. member across the way said that there is a new government and that it has changed from the old government, and that is why the Liberals did not put these programs in place then. I would like to know if the member now admits that the government he was part of for 10 years was a failure.”