Tamara Kronis · TranslatePolitics.ca

Private Members' Business

Food and Drugs Act

2026-06-10

“I want the bill studied in committee. We should make sure it has strong rules and doesn't let companies skip the normal process. We need to hear from many experts to make the bill stronger.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to finish my remarks about Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. In the interregnum between the first and second half of my remarks, members of my community sought me out to discuss how the bill would apply in complex cases. They reminded me of some things that should be considered at committee. First, we should avoid loopholes that could unintentionally weaken Canada's drug approval framework or allow inappropriate products to bypass proper scrutiny. Parliament should closely examine how products would qualify for inclusion on the proposed pre-approved list. While the bill references foreign approvals and clinical evidence, committee members should ensure that those standards are clearly defined and appropriately rigorous. Committee members should also study how oversight would function once a product is granted special access. If adverse outcomes occur, what reporting mechanisms would exist? How would Health Canada monitor safety data? Would there be transparency requirements so that Canadians can understand how these decisions are being made? Those are all reasonable questions. Another issue that deserves scrutiny is whether pharmaceutical companies could exploit the system in unintended ways. Compassionate access programs should exist for patients, not as alternative market entry strategies for manufacturers seeking to avoid the normal approval process. Parliament should ensure that the bill would not inadvertently create incentives for companies to delay seeking full Canadian approval while still gaining widespread access through an expedited pathway. Likewise, safeguards should ensure that access remains focused on exceptional circumstances involving serious or life-threatening conditions where comparable approved Canadian therapies do not exist. Clinical judgment really matters in medicine, and I appreciate that the bill acknowledges the role that physicians play in emergency decision-making. However, clear guardrails would still be necessary to maintain public confidence and consistent application across the country. We should also acknowledge that access alone does not solve every problem. Many advanced therapies are extremely expensive. Some treatments for rare diseases cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars annually. Families already struggling emotionally should not be left facing impossible financial uncertainty after finally obtaining access to therapy. That broader conversation around affordability, provincial coverage and rare disease strategy must continue alongside the bill. One thing I hope we can all agree on is that Canadians facing devastating diagnoses should not feel abandoned by their health care system. At the same time, Canadians also expect Parliament to proceed carefully when it comes to medical safety and regulatory oversight. Those principles are not in conflict. Committee work exists precisely for bills like this one. It allows Parliament to hear from physicians, rare disease advocates, pharmacologists, regulators, patient groups, ethicists and health care administrators. It allows members to test assumptions, identify weaknesses and strengthen legislation before it advances further. It also allows parliamentarians to hear from patients. Perhaps committee study will reveal areas where the bill should be amended. Perhaps stronger oversight mechanisms will be needed. Perhaps definitions will need tightening to prevent unintended consequences. That is not a flaw in the legislative process. That is the legislative process working as it should. I also believe that Canadians are increasingly frustrated when Parliament simply shuts down debate at the outset rather than engaging constructively with proposals that may have merit. I think we will see some of that shutting down today on other matters. We should be willing to study good-faith ideas seriously, especially when they concern patients facing life-threatening illnesses. In closing, this is an issue that Parliament should be willing to study seriously, because if we can respond and reduce delays in a responsible manner, especially for cases that are exceptional, and empower physicians while maintaining strong safeguards, then Canadians will thank us.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

2026-06-09

“I want to make sure the law says monsters like Paul Bernardo stay in maximum security prison forever. I don't care if they act nice later. It's not about revenge. Some crimes are so bad the person should never get to be in a less strict prison, no matter what. The law should respect victims' families and keep people like Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich in max security no matter what. That's what this bill does.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up, my childhood home backed onto a ravine. It sat near the end of a long street, with no houses for the first few hundred metres. In the winter, I would get off the bus in the dark and walk that stretch home alone. As a teenager, every sound felt sharp and every shadow felt close, because I knew, thanks to the nightly news, that there was a man out there attacking girls like me. They called him the “Scarborough Rapist.” I lived in North York, but the ravines are all connected. I was terrified, even as I tried not to show it. I learned to be careful, to hurry home, to put my key between my fingers, to watch behind me and to never assume that I was safe. Paul Bernardo never touched me. I never met him. However, he was truly one of the monsters of my childhood. His heinous crimes destroyed families and changed the way a generation of girls moved through the world. He taught us fear before we even had the words to explain it. If my heart rate goes up and if my stomach tightens when I think of Paul Bernardo in a medium-security prison, I cannot imagine how the families of the young women and girls he raped, tortured and murdered feel about it. For them, this is not an abstract fear. It is a gaping wound that never closes. Today, I rise in strong support of Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, brought forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake. This bill is clear, modest and necessary. It says that when an offender has been found by a court to be a dangerous offender or when an offender has been convicted of more than one first-degree murder, that person will be classified as maximum security and will remain in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of the penitentiary. This should not be controversial. In fact, most Canadians I speak to are shocked to learn that it is not already the law. It would have been, except that in 2019, these Liberals passed Bill C-83, which legally requires Correctional Service Canada to place an inmate in the penitentiary that provides the least restrictive environment for that person. While CSC can consider the offender's current institutional behaviour, escape risk, public safety risk if they escape and program participation, it cannot ask whether an offender's crimes are so monstrous that maximum security should be permanent. If the offender behaves in prison, they are assessed as manageable. If officials conclude they do not currently need maximum control, they can be reclassified. That is how a person can commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and still be moved down to medium security. CSC did not violate the law when it moved Paul Bernardo to medium security. Following public outrage over Mr. Bernardo's transfer, a review concluded the transfer was sound, and followed both law and policy. That means that law and policy are the problem here. We have to be honest about what prison behaviour can and cannot tell us. Often, the most dangerous offenders are not dangerous because they cannot control themselves; they are dangerous because they can. They can be patient, they can be charming and they can follow rules when it benefits them. We have heard all of this at committee. A clean institutional record does not erase sadism, predation or the court's finding that a person is a dangerous offender, but it can get the move to medium security. For victims' families, this is unbearable. These families sit through trials, they hear the evidence, they mourn daughters, sisters and friends, and they learn how they were tortured, raped and killed. They live with a life sentence of grief. They cannot unhear what they hear in those courtrooms. Then they learn that the offender has been moved to a lower-security institution, because the focus has shifted from the horror of the offence to the offender's current institutional score. That is not justice, as most Canadians understand it. Let us be clear about what maximum security means here. It is not about revenge, and it is not cruelty or a rejection of basic human rights. It is a recognition that some offenders have crossed a line so grave that public safety, public confidence and respect for victims demand it. A dangerous offender designation is one of the most serious findings a Canadian court can make. It is reserved for offenders who have shown a pattern of serious violence, sexual violence or conduct so brutal that they pose an ongoing threat to the public. Likewise, first-degree murder is planned and deliberate, and it falls into the most serious categories of homicide known in our laws. A person convicted of more than one first-degree murder has not made a tragic mistake. That person has taken multiple lives with intent. Bill C-232 would draw an important line that says dangerous offenders and offenders convicted of more than one first-degree murder must be assigned a maximum-security classification and they must be confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of a penitentiary. It would ensure that these offenders are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences. This bill would clearly tell Correctional Service Canada that for a very narrow class of the worst offenders, including household names such as Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, maximum security is not optional; it is mandatory. Since being elected, I have spent more time than I ever thought I would with grieving families. I am stunned by the scope and scale of violence against women and girls in this country. I had no idea of the extent to which the Liberal government had tipped the scales in favour of offenders, leaving victims and their families to be traumatized and retraumatized. I am against telling women and girls, or their families, that the people who terrorized them, hunted them, raped them or murdered them can one day be managed in a less restrictive environment because enough time has passed or they are playing well with others behind bars. I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake for bringing this bill forward. He has done something important. He has taken the outrage that Canadians feel over cases like those of Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, who, to the best of my knowledge, all remain in medium-security correctional environments today, and turned it into a practical, legal response. That is what we were sent here to do. Just this weekend, while at home, I met with a woman who spoke to me about violence, fear and the need for leaders to take domestic violence and violence against children and women seriously. I made her a promise that I would stand up in this place, use my voice and not allow these issues to be softened, buried or explained away by bureaucratic language and fancy legal concepts. Today, by supporting Bill C-232, I am keeping that promise, because violence against women is not an abstraction and violence against children is not a talking point. These are wounds carried by families, communities and survivors who need to know that people in this place are prepared to act. Bill C-232 would not undo the evil committed by Bernardo, Smich, Magnotta and others, whose names Canadians invoke with horror, nor would it bring back Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, Laura Babcock, Tim Bosma, Jun Lin or any other victim, but it would say that some crimes are so grave and some offenders are so dangerous that maximum security means maximum security. It would also say to every woman, parent, survivor and grieving family watching this debate that their fear is not irrational, their grief is not forgotten and their Parliament has a duty to stand with them. I urge every member of the House to support Bill C-232.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-09

“I'm filling time by complaining you don't understand me.”

“You're wrong. We have it bad. Bad things are happening. I'm offended you don't think we need your program.”

“You should spend more on housing in my riding. My city council wants money for sober housing. You're not doing enough.”

“I want you to know I hear complaints about bureaucracy. I don't want another Ottawa-driven program. I want the government to support local solutions instead.”

“I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping families. My riding already has businesses that build modular homes.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, among other things that I am continuing in my speech from the other day, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing sector. That goal matters deeply in communities such as Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home, seniors are looking for options that allow them to downsize while staying close to family and workers are struggling to live near the jobs that keep our communities running. We agree that we cannot meet that challenge with old thinking alone. We need to build differently, build faster and make use of better and new methods and Canadian standards, as well as local business that are already doing the work. The mid-island did not wait for legislation. We know we cannot rely on the government to solve our problems for us. Local innovators have already risen to the occasion to make the mid-island an emerging hub for modular and innovative construction. I recently toured Cueva Homes, which is headquartered in Nanaimo. There, I saw exactly the kind of practical innovation this country needs. Cueva Homes is focused on modular homes, backyard suites, ADUs and smaller housing options that can help communities add supply without changing the character of every neighbourhood. The folks at Cueva Homes are ready to go. These are real homes designed for real lots, and they are built with the kind of efficiency that could help address the housing shortage. They are especially well suited for communities like ours, where many families need options for aging parents, adult children, renters and first-time buyers. Cueva Homes' work also shows why standards matter. When homes are CSA-compliant, even if they are fabricated abroad with a significant proportion of local materials exported from the island for that purpose, communities can have confidence that innovation is not coming at the expense of safety, quality or code compliance. That should be central to the purpose of Bill C-20. I also want to recognize Wescon Doors, another Vancouver Island business contributing to this same housing ecosystem. Wescon manufactures doors built for our climate and to meet applicable Canadian standards. Businesses like Wescon Doors remind us that housing innovation is not only about the finished home, but also about the local supply chain, components, skilled workers and manufacturers that make faster, better building possible. If Bill C-20 is truly about supporting innovative and efficient building techniques, then the government must recognize communities such as ours. We already have businesses working in modular housing, prefabricated systems with high-quality components and climate-appropriate construction. The opportunity now is to connect federal policy with local capacity. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is ready to be part of that solution

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I support building more homes quickly and trying new building ideas. Housing is a big issue in my riding.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-08

“I'm from a place that really needs trade to do well. People in my riding don't have jobs. The government should stop messing things up for us.”

Private Members' Business

The Criminal Code

2026-06-08

“Forced sterilization is a grave wrong. Bill S-228 will make it clear that it is a serious crime. Every Canadian should be able to make their own medical decisions. This bill is a step in the right direction. It will help ensure that no one is pressured into a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives. I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and those who were never able to be born.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to forced sterilization procedures. This is a short bill, but it deals with a grave wrong. It speaks to bodily autonomy, consent, human dignity, the equal worth of every person and the duty of the state to protect those who have been harmed by the systems that should have protected them. Bill S-228 would amend the Criminal Code to make it crystal clear that a sterilization procedure performed without consent is an act that “wounds or maims a person” for the purpose of an aggravated assault. It would also define what is meant by a “sterilization procedure”, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction. At first glance, some may ask why this change is needed. We already have laws against assault. We already have rules around consent in health care. We already have medical standards and professional oversight. However, the painful truth is that those protections have not always protected people equally. They have not always been clear enough. They have not always been enforced. For too many women, especially indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and others in vulnerable situations, the promise of protection and the promise of consent have been broken in this country. A forced or coerced sterilization is not a minor medical error. It is not a paperwork problem. It is a profound violation of the person. It takes away from someone the ability to make one of the most personal decisions they will ever make in their life. It will affect their body, their mind, their family, their culture and their future. It is a harm that can last for generations. There is a saying in my own culture that when a person saves a life, it is as if they have saved the entire world. The corollary to that is that a person who prevents someone from making a life is preventing them from creating an entire world. No one should be pressured into giving up the ability to have children. No one should be asked for consent while they are in pain, in fear, under the effects medication, in labour or under the control of a person in authority. No one should be treated as though their poverty, identity, disability, race, age, family situation or social standing makes them less worthy of respect. Consent that is forced is not consent, no matter the situation. Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent given without proper information is not consent. If someone has to ask why we need a bill like this in 2026, they are lucky. They are lucky to not know someone who has been in this situation. They are lucky not to have experienced this in their community. This bill is about drawing a clear line in federal criminal law. It would tell survivors that Parliament sees them. It would tell the health care system that vague language is not enough. It would tell prosecutors, the police, professional bodies and institutions that this is not a grey area and this is not a decision to be made on the fly. This is not something that someone can do because they think it is best in the circumstances. It is violence and it is a violation, and we will have a law in this country that makes it clear that it is to be treated as such. I want to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer and everyone who has made it possible for all of us who have spoken this morning to stand in this House today to make it clear that this is not just something that Canada recognizes, but something that we will take concrete steps to prevent in the future. Everyone in this House believes in the dignity of the person. We believe in personal freedom, but freedom is not real when a person's body can be controlled by someone else. We believe in accountability, but accountability is not real when the people who commit or enable serious harm to another human being in this country face no clear consequences. We believe in equal justice under the law, but justice is not equal when vulnerable people are less likely to be heard, believed or protected. We have an opportunity in the House today to do the right thing, not just for past generations, but for future generations and for those who are still suffering today with the burden of having had those experiences. The history behind this bill is hard to face. Canada has had a long record of forced and coerced sterilization, often tied to racism, eugenics, colonization and the idea that some lives are less vulnerable than others. Those ideas were not harmless theories. They shaped policies, institutions and medical practices. They harmed first nations, Métis, Inuit and other indigenous peoples in this country. They harmed Black and racialized women. They harmed people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people who were placed in institutions and stripped of control in their own lives. By acknowledging these wrongs in the House, by putting them into the record of this place to be read and seen by future generations, we do not make Canada weaker; we make Canada stronger. We must also be honest about the fact that this is not only history. Survivors have come forward in recent years. They have spoken about being pressured in their most vulnerable moments. They have spoken of procedures that they did not understand, did not freely choose and did not consent to. They have also spoken of the shame, grief, fear, distrust and deep injury that has come with that. That is a second, additional injury that we have done to those people in this country, on top of the forced sterilization they had to endure without their consent. Many have had to carry that pain in silence, so all who speak to this bill in the House this morning lend our voices to them. We want to make sure they know that they do not have to suffer in silence, but even when they have to suffer in silence, we in this place will suffer with them. When survivors share these stories, our first duty is to listen, but our second duty is to act. Bill S-228 would not fix every harm in this country, but it is a start. Criminal law is a tool. Health care is, of course, largely within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Professional regulation belongs to colleges and licensing bodies. Hospitals, health authorities, medical schools and governments all have work to do. There must be better training on informed consent. There must be cultural safety. There must be clear reporting pathways. What we have done this morning in the House, and what my colleagues have done with Bill S-228, is a start. We have made a powerful pronouncement about what is to be tolerated in this country. Hopefully, in doing that, we will not only make sure that these atrocities do not happen to future generations but bring comfort to the people who have come to this place to advocate for the bill, letting them know that their advocacy, their actions, the things they have done and the messages they have brought to this place have been heard, that their sacrifices and the things they have done matter and that they have been a part of the solution for future generations. I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and with those who were never able to be born, today and always, through this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-05

“We need more homes. The government's plan won't build enough. They're just making another bureaucracy.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, bureaucrats count starts. They count units. They count dollars. They count funds, programs, agencies and promises, but in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we count something different. We count the months our adult children have been living in the spare room because rent has eaten the down payment they were trying to save for. We count the number of graduates who cannot find a job that pays enough to cover rent. We count the number of people with no home at all as we pass them on the way to work. Before I forget, I will be splitting my time. On a more serious note, we count the graves of friends lost to addiction, the treatment beds that are not there, and the people who make it through detox only to be sent back to the same chaos they were trying to escape. We continue to measure the distance between the government's language and our reality. That distance is the distance between a young person with a diploma and a job and having no real path to owning a home in the community they grew up in. It is the distance between a person who is coming out of detox trying to stay clean and housing where drug use is not happening down the hall. Those are not separate crises. They are part of the same failure of government. We have lost the link between housing and hope. Canada does not lack for housing announcements. In the last decade, we have had strategies, accelerators, funds, agencies, accords and photo ops, including some that have their own complete purpose-built backdrop. What we do not have is enough homes that people can afford. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we do not have enough of the right homes for people who are trying to rebuild their lives. Now we have Bill C-20, which would create Build Canada Homes to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing. From the speeches, it sounds ambitious. The question is whether it will be useful once the media has packed up and gone home and the sets have been dismantled. All this bill does is create the skeleton. It creates the framework and the corporation itself. The government is presenting Build Canada Homes as a generational housing investment, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it will only have a modest impact. The headline number is $13 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the actual planned spend is $7.3 billion over five years on an accrual basis. The projected result is about 26,000 homes over five years, or roughly 5,200 homes a year across the entire country. This would increase housing completions by only 2.1% above the baseline and address just 3.7% of the estimated housing gap. Even with Build Canada Homes included, planned federal housing spending is set to fall by 56%, from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to $4.3 billion in 2028-29. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has put the scale of the new housing gap plainly: Canada needs 3.2 million net new housing units by 2035, which means an average of 290,000 units a year for a decade. The PBO also warned that this would still not fully solve affordability in every region, because income, interest rates, regional gaps and the kind of housing built all matter, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. That last point matters the most to growing communities like mine, because we do not just need more housing; we need the right housing in the right places for the people who need it. Housing experts have made this same point over and over again. Mike Moffatt's report says, “Canada needs to build millions more homes, but not just any homes.” They have to be homes built for today's needs, and getting there is going to require bolder reforms, in our opinion, than those that have been put forward so far. Bill C-20 would not speed up local approvals. It would not give our provinces and municipalities the infrastructure they need. It would not service land, and it would not set binding targets for how many homes will be completed by when, for whom, at what price. What Bill C-20 would do is create another federal bureaucracy on top of at least four others in this space. There is CMHC, which already has the power to finance housing, lend, guarantee loans, invest and run federal housing programs. The Canada Lands Company already has the power to develop federal land. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada already manages federal housing funding and agreements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. In other words, the functions are already there, and Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. What it lacks is results. Building another bureaucracy means time spent setting it up. Offices need to be set up, executives hired, mandates written, files moved around and programs reorganized, and that is time and money that could be spent getting homes built. That is the problem. The government is using language that Canadians want to hear, but the structure does not match the urgency of the moment. Young Canadians understand this instinctively. We tell them to study, work, save and be patient. Then they graduate into a labour market where entry-level jobs are harder and harder to find, where rent consumes too much of their income and where ownership feels less like a goal than a memory from someone else's Canada. This week, a recent software engineering graduate came to a committee of the House to say that he could still not find entry-level work in his field. When asked whether he was working, he said yes, but not as a software engineer. The Liberal MP's reply was, “At least you're employed.” That answer reveals something deeper than one exchange. It shows a government that has lowered the bar. I will continue my speech when the House resumes next week.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“This government already has a lot of agencies and ministers for housing. Do we really need another Crown corporation? This seems like a useless waste. Maybe the minister is the problem.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out in her speech, there is already the CMHC. Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. On top of that, there is also the Canada Lands Company, which already has the power to develop federal land. There is Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which already manages federal housing funding and agreements. There is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. The last time I checked, it was a minister's job to knit all of that together and to find co-operation, so I am as baffled as she is that there is yet another Crown corporation being created. I wonder whether or not the issue here might be the minister.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government needs a plan for sober housing. Different kinds of housing are important.”

“You want the federal government to hand over money and get out of the way. Do you think it should stop being involved in housing completely?”

Statements by Members

Addiction Services

2026-06-05

“I want the government to spend money on sober housing in my riding. We need a special program for people who have chosen recovery. Spending federal tax money on this program would help my community.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the addictions crisis is not an abstract policy debate. It is on our streets, in our parks, in our shelters and in the lives of families who are praying their loved one gets one more chance. Too many people are trying to get clean while living next door to the very thing they are fighting to escape. That is not compassion. That is setting people up to fail. Nanaimo needs every kind of housing, including sober housing. We need safe, stable places for people who have chosen recovery, people who want to rebuild their lives without being surrounded by drugs. This Monday, June 8, Nanaimo city council is convening a special governance and priorities committee meeting to discuss the urgent need for sober housing in our community. I am pleading with the government to pay attention and to allocate a share of federal housing funds for sober housing in Nanaimo because recovery needs more than hope. It needs a home.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-04

“Maria lost her home because life is too expensive. The government should spend money to help her. High gas prices make it hard for her to drive places. The Prime Minister should admit that Canada is in a recession.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01

“This bill is huge. But we've barely had time to discuss it. And you're trying to end debate already. That's not how we're supposed to pass laws here.”

“It's wrong that we only get three and a half hours to debate a 330 page bill. Canadians are struggling and they deserve more time for us to look at this.”

“I want to look supportive. But your fat budget buries it in 330 pages. We've hardly debated it. And I can't vote on one little program. I have to swallow the whole thing. Why no blue seal? This budget could let professionals work across Canada.”

“I want our party to get credit for starting the Red Seal program. We want to create a new blue seal program too.”