Tamara Kronis · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-18

“I want the government to clear up legal uncertainty around indigenous land claims and private property. The Supreme Court didn't fully settle this. A real decision with clear rules would help everyone.”

Private Members' Business

National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act

2026-06-16

“I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is doing something good, but I don't want to be blamed for the money it will cost or the way it will step on provincial toes. If the bill becomes law and doesn't work, I want to say that I asked for more study and changes. I hope this bill makes our party look good even though this is not our idea and we are just piling on.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑201, the national framework on sickle cell disease act. The bill deals with a serious, painful and lifelong illness. Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that affects hemoglobin. It can cause chronic pain, severe infections, organ damage, stroke and shortened life expectancy. It affects roughly 6,000 Canadians. Bill S‑201 would require the Minister of Health to develop and table a national framework on sickle cell disease within one year. 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 be included in public drug insurance plans. A follow-up implementation report would be required within three years. These are serious proposals, some of which are partially implemented or implemented in various provinces. They deserve careful study. Conservatives supported the recognition of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. We support better awareness, earlier diagnosis, improved screening, and stronger care for Canadians living with sickle cell disease. 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 provinces run hospitals, manage newborn screening and make many of the direct decisions that determine whether any patient, including those with sickle cell disease, receives care quickly, safely and close to home. A federal framework can be useful if it brings people together, improves data, shares best practices and supports better outcomes. However, it is useless and can even be very damaging if it produces yet another Ottawa document written far from the people who must deliver care on the ground, without taking their needs into account. That is the difference between a framework that helps patients and families and one that sits on the shelf and gathers dust or, worse, is used as an excuse not to act. When the bill goes to committee, Conservatives will seek to ensure that the structural framework discussed in it results in a strategy that would be developed in genuine and respectful partnership with the provinces and territories. Patients deserve the benefit of better coordination. If the federal government uses its convening power well and with intent, better coordination can yield better outcomes. Families need real answers, not announcements. The same is true for cost. Bill S‑201 would not include a fiscal appropriation, but the framework points to initiatives that could carry major downstream costs. A national research network, a patient registry, public awareness campaigns, professional training, expanded screening, drug coverage analysis, disability benefit inclusion and a possible tax credit all raise financial questions. Compassion requires honesty. Before this framework is finalized, Parliament should require a Parliamentary Budget Officer cost estimate. If the government is asking Canadians to support a national framework, it should be clear about the costs, timelines, responsibilities and expected results. That is not opposition to the bill. It is respect for the patients who are counting on it. The bill would also connect with areas where Conservatives have already put forward practical policy. We have supported making the caregiver tax credit refundable. We have called for the disability tax credit to be streamlined and simplified, including automatic eligibility for related programs where appropriate. We have supported safer, faster access to drugs already approved by trusted peer jurisdictions, better pediatric drug data, and a rare disease strategy that supports treatment development. Those ideas matter here. Patients and caregivers need systems that are simple, fair and practical. They do not need more paperwork, more overlapping programs or federal announcements that create confusion among departments, provinces and providers. They need care that works. Bill S-201 raises this broader question, because it would not be the only bill of its kind. 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 consumption sites, and mental health. Each of these bills speaks to a real concern and has its own patients, families, advocates, experts and evidence. Some deal with disease-specific frameworks. Some deal with treatment access. Some deal with criminal law protections. Some deal with long-neglected gaps in the system. Taken together, what these bills reveal is something the Liberal government should not be proud of: Canada's health care file is being patched, one private member's bill at a time. Private members' bills do have an important role. They can raise issues government has missed, bring neglected voices to Parliament or force attention where attention is overdue, but in this quantity, they show that they are becoming a substitute for a competent government that actually cares about the health of Canadians. A well-run health file would not need Parliament to keep discovering one gap after another through separate private members' bills. It would not need one bill for one disease, another for another treatment pathway, another for one group of patients and another for one failure that should have been addressed years ago. The federal government has a Minister of Health, departments, agencies, regulators, health transfers, data systems and provincial-federal tables. It has the tools to lead while respecting provincial jurisdiction, yet again and again, patients and families are left to organize, to advocate and to wait until someone brings forward a bill. Canadians deserve better than fragmented attention on the health file. They deserve a health care approach that identifies gaps before families have to plead for help. They deserve better data, faster diagnosis, clearer accountability, responsible spending and practical support for provinces and territories. In short, they deserve federal leadership that knows the difference between coordination and interference. For Bill S-201, we will work with the government to move the bill forward in a constructive way. We will support better awareness of sickle cell disease, earlier diagnosis, better data, stronger research, improved training for health care professionals and a more diverse blood supply. We would listen to patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, community organizations and provinces and territories when they come to committee, but we would also insist on amendments that would make the bill clearer and more useful. The framework should be developed in partnership with provinces and territories. It should respect jurisdiction, avoid duplicating the existing national strategy for drugs and rare diseases, use accurate language around guidelines and best practices, include cost transparency and, most of all, be judged by whether it improves care. People living with sickle cell disease do not need Parliament to pass bills that feel good but change little. This debate must result in more than just another report for the Ottawa shelves. Canadians deserve better, which is what Conservatives will continue to relentlessly fight for in the House.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

2026-06-16

“I think debate should continue because skipping it cuts out both MPs' speeches and Canadians' own input at the committee. The government should want to hear from Canadians to get those diverse views.”

Official Hansard

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. What that means is that the experts, the constituents, the members of civil society in this country who might have something to say with respect to this bill, which might actually be useful to the government, will not get the chance to be heard. I certainly understand why the member does not want to go to committee. I have seen him there, and it is not good, but I want to know why the minister is also cutting off Canadians from having their say about the bill through our committee process.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like that the government keeps passing bills without proper study and debate. This bill affects a very important area of policy, and rushing it through could have serious unintended consequences like we've seen with other bills. The government should slow down and let Canadians have a real debate on this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have stood in the House in the last few days to talk about the government's again ramming a bill through the House. In this case, the bill has not had the benefit of second reading, committee study, third reading or report stage. It has not been to the Senate. It has not had the benefit of being studied in either House. It concerns an extremely important area of policy and law in this country, and we have seen the unintended consequences of badly drafted Liberal bills being rammed through the House. We saw it with Bill C-3, wherein there are unintended consequences, including lots of Americans who are discovering their connections to Canada. We have seen it with the minister's actions when he was the mayor of Vancouver. This is an area that we have to get right, and I would urge the government not to do this. I would challenge the minister to explain why Canadians should not get the benefit of debate on the bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“I want to look like I'm against hate. This bill won't stop hate. It has too many words. Police need to act faster. Prosecutors need more money. The bill is too vague. It might stop legal protests. Many groups don't like the bill. The government should listen. The government ended debate. That was wrong. The bill won't make anyone safer. We should have fixed it. The government chose bad options.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, hate is real, and it is doing damage in communities across this country. No Canadian should be intimidated because of who they are, how they worship, what they look like, where they come from or what they believe. The question before us is not whether hate should be taken seriously. The question is whether Bill C-9 would actually make Canadians safer. The problem we hear about again and again is not the absence of words in the Criminal Code; it is the failure to act when people break the law. Communities are not safer when Parliament adds more words. They are safer when police respond quickly, when charges are laid where evidence supports them, when prosecutors have the resources to move cases forward, when repeat offenders face real consequences and when victims have confidence that the justice system is willing to protect them. The number and range of organizations that have raised alarms about Bill C-9 are stunning. It is not just one political party, it is not just one faith community and it is not just one type of advocacy group. Civil liberties organizations across the political spectrum have warned that this bill risks sweeping too broadly and chilling lawful expression and peaceful protest. A broad array of community organizations from across the political spectrum have warned that vague criminal law can be used unevenly and can fall hardest on the very communities it claims to protect. Progressive and traditional faith groups alike have warned about the removal of long-standing protections for good-faith religious expression. Legal and constitutional voices have raised serious concerns about the balance between public safety and fundamental freedoms. That breadth of opposition should give every member of the House pause, because when civil liberties groups, religious organizations, community advocates, legal experts and grassroots coalitions from so many walks of life all tell Parliament it is on the wrong track, the responsible thing to do is to listen. It is not to push ahead and dismiss those concerns as being fringe, unserious or misleading. The people raising these concerns are not defending hate. Many of them work every day, tirelessly, against hate, racism and violence. Their point, when they came to this place and to the other place to share their views on this bill, was to tell us that bad law can make hard problems worse. Their point has been that criminal law must be precise, fair and enforceable. When Parliament writes vague laws in the name of safety, it can create uncertainty and the opposite of safety for ordinary Canadians, while doing little to stop those who are already willing to break the law. That is the core weakness of Bill C-9. It tries to show strength through wording rather than through action or results, and yet it is remarkably confusing and imprecise in its wording. In that, Bill C-9 risks blurring the line between hateful conduct, which must be punished, and lawful expression, which must remain protected even when it is controversial, offensive and deeply unpopular. A mature democracy can punish violence and intimidation without giving the state a vague mandate to police belief, scripture, protest or political speech. For the communities that are counting on this bill, the Minister of Artificial Intelligence failed just last night to answer the key question they are asking: Who would the police be able to arrest when this law is passed who they cannot arrest today? How would this bill help bring order to the chaos that has taken over the streets in some communities right now? How would this bill actually stop the bullets, the fires and the death threats? Instead of providing answers and safety, the government brought forward a bill that has divided communities, alarmed civil society and created uncertainty about how far the long arm of the criminal law would reach. That is not careful work. That is not the careful work that Canadians expect from the House. It is not the careful work that is required when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Opposing the bill does not mean accepting hate. What it means is demanding a better answer. 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 heard. I will be the last speaker on the bill because the government has chosen to end the debate. I have said, many times in the House, that just because the Liberal majority can do something, it does not mean it should. Power gives a government the ability to move quickly but it does not give it wisdom. It does not turn a flawed bill into a good one. It does not turn words into results. In the coming weeks and months, Canadians will see what the bill would not do. It would not make a synagogue safer when threats are not met with enforcement. It would not make a mosque safer when police do not have the tools or resources to act quickly. It would not make a church, temple, school or community centre safer if the justice system still cannot follow through. It would not reassure vulnerable Canadians if the government confuses passing a bill with solving a problem. When those failures become clear, no one on that side of the House should pretend they were not warned. They were warned by civil liberties groups. They were warned by faith communities of all kinds. They were warned by legal experts. They were warned by organizations from many different walks of life, many of whom rarely agree on much else but agreed on this. They agreed that Bill C-9 is not the careful, enforceable, unifying response that Canadians deserve. The government had a choice. It could have listened. It could have fixed the bill. It could have spent the time necessary to work with the provinces to truly hear what they need, not in terms of words but in terms of enforcement, in terms of resources, in terms of real support. It could have brought forward a measure focused on real enforcement, real protection and real accountability. Instead, the government chose closure. They chose more words on paper. None of us are safer or more united for those choices. If this government is not interested in meaningful debate, we might as well save our breath. I move: That this House do now adjourn.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Persons with Disabilities

2026-06-16

“Disabled Canadians face long delays for income. Are the Liberals even meeting their own timelines on disability applications? I want the minister to explain this.”

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-15

“I want you to admit this bill won't let police arrest any new people. It's just words. It won't stop hate like you claim.”

“I think the government keeps rushing bills through the House. It causes unintended problems. We need to consider this bill properly, without rushing. I want the other member to explain why we can't take more time on this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government's inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada. I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I want to complain and assign blame.”

“I want more time to debate. That's my job as the opposition. The government is being very mean.”

“The government ignored the committee's changes and rammed through its own version of the bill. Now we have unintended consequences. The government is incompetent and doesn't respect the parliamentary process.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, actually, all I need to do is look at what happened in this House with Bill C‑3. It is a bill that went to committee. The committee treated it seriously and amended it. The bill came back to the House, and the government showed what it thought of committees. It rejected all of the amendments and used its majority to ram it through. Now we have a situation where there are advertisements in the United States, with companies saying, “You can find a connection to Canada.” We are going to have a big backlog. Americans are suddenly discovering that we have the health care and the country they want. I do not even know what to say. The government does not respect the parliamentary process or committees, and it is going to have unintended consequences.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to look like I care about procedure and scrutiny, so I'm upset this bill won't get the full process. I'll list parts of the process it skips to sound smart. But I don't actually care about the substance, I just want to complain about the process. I want to delay this with more debate because I don't like it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan. If the motion before the House, which we are considering today, is passed unamended, it will force a major fiscal bill through committee, cut off clause-by-clause review after only 30 minutes, deem amendments moved without meaningful debate, skip real report stage consideration, limit third reading to only a handful of speeches and restrict ordinary procedural tools after 6.30 p.m., while preserving special flexibility for cabinet ministers, but not for regular members of Parliament. That would be a lot, and it would not be a minor adjustment to the parliamentary calendar. It would be a serious and unconscionable shift in power away from Parliament and toward the executive. That is why I rise today to support the amendments and ask the government to reconsider its current plans to ram this important legislation through the House. Bill C-30 is broad. It would impact taxation, excise duties, fuel taxes, alcohol duties, housing-related rules, labour mobility, worker ownership, greenhouse building, banking payments, transportation information, employment measures, food inspection, pesticides and other areas of federal law. A bill of that breadth deserves Parliament's full attention. The government is asking the House to accept the appearance of scrutiny while bypassing proper review. If the world is in crisis and if Canada is at a crossroads where we are attempting to do big things fast, to diversify our economy and our trade relationships, then we cannot afford to get this wrong. We need the best ideas to rise to the top, and that is the role of opposition. That is the role of committee. That is the role of clause-by-clause study. There is no boardroom table in a successful company that I know of where no dissent is allowed, where shortcuts get the best results or where the fastest policies are the best policies. Clause-by-clause study matters. It is where members examine the actual words of the bill, not the press release around it. It is where we ask officials what a clause would do, how it would work, who it would affect and what would happen if were misused. It is where amendments are proposed and can be explained, tested and improved. It is where witnesses, members and sometimes the public catch drafting problems, unintended consequences and overly broad powers before they become law. That is not obstruction. That is how the best ideas rise to the top. Under the motion, the committee would meet at 9 a.m., and, if clause-by-clause were not finished by 9:30 a.m., the remaining amendments would be deemed moved and then are voted on without further debate. This motion is a stopwatch, and in a time of global crisis, Canada cannot afford stopwatch law-making. The government's inability to manage a legislative agenda is not the opposition's crisis, no matter how much the government tries to bully us into submission. This week, I spent some time at the public safety committee, examining witnesses about a Liberal subamendment to a Bloc amendment that related to privacy concerns that had been expressed to me by numerous people in my community. Others did the same. By the end of the interventions, we all understood and supported the clause as amended and subamended, and we had explained it in committee in a way that should reassure those watching from home that the clause would not cause undue harm to people's privacy. That is the kind of collaboration the government claims it wants, and when it comes to Canadians' privacy, it is what we all need, so why the government is shutting it down here in the House is beyond me. The motion would short-circuit report stage. Then, at third reading, it would allow only a very limited number of speeches. Members do not come here as ornaments, here to decorate the government's bills with a few words. We come here to bring the lived and living experiences of Canadians into the policy choices that are before this country. When debate is reduced to a few speeches, those voices are marginalized. Canadians lose the benefit of having competing arguments tested before a vote takes place. In an unstable, volatile world, there is all the more reason for Parliament to take its time to make sure that Canada gets its policies right. The proposed amendments would let the committee continue its work and protect the stages of review that help Parliament separate strong policy from weak policy before a law is passed. Some parts of Bill C‑30 deserve much closer public scrutiny than they are going to get, because they raise serious concerns about how the government now thinks about power. One of the most troubling examples is the proposed change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Buried in this spring economic update bill is a power that would allow cabinet, by order, to exempt persons, things or activities from the application of laws or regulations administered or enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In plain English, cabinet could create exemptions from food and agricultural rules for up to three years, and then extend them for another three years. That means there could be a possible six-year exemption from rules that exist to protect Canadians, our food supply, our producers, our markets and our public confidence. Canadians should not have to guess about questions like, “What is an unreasonable risk? Who makes the decisions, and on what evidence? What notice would Canadians receive and what recourse would they have if the power were used badly?” Food safety should not depend on vague language and cabinet decisions. Those are all questions that I will never get to ask because of the way the government is planning to ram through this bill. Canadians expect food safety rules to be clear, public, stable and enforced. They expect science, inspection and accountability. They do not expect broad exemption powers to be tucked into a budget-style bill and rushed through committee. That same concern appears in the proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act. Those provisions would allow cabinet to authorize or reinstate the use of a pest control product, even after the responsible minister has determined that the environmental risks are not acceptable, if cabinet decides that the product is needed for economic or food security. That should make every member pause. The regulatory process could say an environmental risk is unacceptable, and cabinet could still step in and permit the product. There may be rare, emergency cases when flexibility is needed, and reasonable people can accept that, but emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined, transparent, time-limited and subject to strong oversight. They should not be drafted so broadly that Parliament is asked to trust cabinet first and ask questions later. These two brief examples demonstrate why clause-by-clause matters and why committees matter. Canadians need more than abstract, procedural debates. We need safeguards. We ought to make space for members to find provisions such as these, ask what they mean, test the government's explanations, hear from officials and affected groups and improve the law before Canadians have to live with it. A government that is confident in its agenda should be willing to explain it, defend its legislation line by line and accept amendments that add clarity, accountability and limits. Canadians should pay attention, because the kinds of motions we are debating here today are becoming a trend. Too often, the government seems to believe that if it has the power to do something, that is reason enough to do it. That is not how responsible government works. Just because a government can use a procedure to limit scrutiny, it does not mean that it should. The House of Commons is not an inconvenience in the legislative process, and it ought not be treated as such. It is the central democratic forum of this country, where public money is authorized, laws are tested, ministers are held to account and the executive must answer questions before it changes the lives of Canadians. The Prime Minister should be willing to propose and defend his vision for Canada here, in this chamber, reserved for commoners. We are everyday Canadians who deserve answers. The government has the votes and the procedural tools to force this through, but just because it can, it does not mean that it should. A serious government should not ask members to vote first and understand later. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support these amendments. I urge the House to reject this shortcut, protect Parliament's role and allow Bill C‑30 to receive the scrutiny it deserves.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-15

“You caused the only recession and now you're off at a fancy summit while people line up at food banks. It looks bad that you spend so much on your own food when Canadians are struggling to eat and live. I want you to admit your policies caused the problem.”

Government Orders

2026-06-15

“Does my colleague agree that granting cabinet the power to give special exemptions for years is a serious issue? I think we need a longer, more thorough debate. I do not think we should rush this through committee quickly.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I want to justify the opposition's tactics. I say we use analogies because the government won't answer questions. It doesn't matter what we say or how long we talk as long as we're asking about CPP. I got a call from someone in finance. They told me this is important. The government is doing something to Canadians' pensions. I say the government's bill must have no unintended consequences. I want the government to explain what they're doing.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions. What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians' pensions. If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians' pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians' pensions?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I was at finance committee. We asked questions because that is all we could do. My riding does not like parts of the bill. It changes many laws. We need more time to review it. Why does the government rush big bills with no scrutiny?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly. I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Income Tax Act

2026-06-15

“I want the government to say that this program is good for the forestry sector and other industries in western Canada, especially in British Columbia. I'm asking you to talk up the benefits.”

Oral Questions

Government Appointments

2026-06-11

“I want the minister to say when they will hire the ombudsman who investigates bad businesses. The government should not leave this important job empty.”

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“If the House stops working soon, what happens to summer elections? Will this bill really help with things Canadians care about, like stopping outsiders from interfering in our elections?”

“I want to ask the member what specific rules she wants to make it actually clear what's true or false. The Prime Minister likes a playwright who warned about slippery language. I'm worried this bill is slippery.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary explained in her very clear speech, Bill C-25 would create new rules around knowingly false or misleading election information. I have been doing some reading because the Prime Minister is a fan of Václav Havel. I learned that his first full-length play that was ever publicly performed is quite relevant to this debate. It is entitled The Garden Party. It warns us about systems where official language becomes so polished and circular that people stop asking what is actually true, and people become sort of fluent in a kind of nonsense. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on the exact guardrails that she would support to make sure the bill targets deception and—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗