Tamara Kronis

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“I want this fuel tax cut passed and made permanent. Temporary cuts leave too much uncertainty for businesses like farms, trucking companies, and grocery distributors. Permanent tax relief will help them plan ahead and invest.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought up the concept of control. One reason we want the gas tax relief extended and made permanent is so we can give businesses the chance to exercise that control themselves. We know that farmers plan around growing seasons. I have, of course, spoken to farmers who tell me over and over again that energy costs are hampering their ability to plan. Trucking companies negotiate contracts, but their margins are so slim that they are struggling to stay afloat, and certainty around the cost of fuel for the long term would make a big difference. Grocery distributors build networks, but changing buying patterns based on volatile pricing is actually messing with inventory levels and even creating extra food waste. Processors make investments that they have to pay for over years, and uncertainty is making them blink, which is stifling innovation and further impeding productivity. The government talks about wanting to control the things that we can control. Relieving the tax burden on a permanent basis would not only allow us to control the things that we need to control but would also allow businesses to plan.”

• 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 →

“People in my riding cannot find jobs, afford their homes, or afford to live. The government needs to adopt Conservative policies to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, that out-of-touch thoughts and prayers answer is not going to help the man who sent me his résumé and asked if I could help him find a job, or the couple who came into my office with their bank account statements and their household budget and asked me how they are going to keep a roof over their heads. It is not going to help the woman who shouted at me from a place of extreme fear that she had eight to 10 months before she has to consider medical assistance in dying because she cannot afford to live. I join them in wanting to know when the Liberal government will truly see the people who are struggling and adopt the policies Conservatives have proposed to restore the promise of Canada.”

“High prices are not going away soon, but this fuel tax relief is only short-term. I want the member to explain why we are not making this tax relief permanent to help keep food costs down.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to have lost his way in the last answer, but I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledged the collaboration that has been taking place among the parties in order to provide relief to Canadians. My colleague from Mirabel noted that the price pressures here are not short-term and yet the relief is short-term. I wonder if the member can explain why this relief is short-term and why we are not taking the longer-term actions that would bring stability to things like food costs by extending this indefinitely.”

“If the federal government just kept its treaty promises, would we even need this new commissioner?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. If the federal government simply upheld and met its treaty obligations, would this position be necessary at all?”

“Recent court decisions have created confusion in British Columbia about how Indigenous land claims affect private property. I want the government to explain how it will fix this confusion and protect private land owners.”

“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent. This leaves Canadians with competing legal approaches on a critical legal question, all while Liberal directive 14, which discourages private property defences, remains in force and a Cowichan appeal is many months away. B.C. deserves to know now how the Liberals will provide the certainty we need. Where—”

“I support this bill to create a plan for sickle cell disease, but it needs changes. The federal government must work with the provinces, who run the hospitals, and tell us how much the plan will cost. Sickle cell disease is a painful and serious illness that affects about 6,000 Canadians. Patients need real care and practical help, not just another report that sits on a shelf.”

“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.”

“I do not want the government to end debate on this housing bill. Doing so stops it from going to committee, which means experts and regular Canadians cannot share their ideas on it.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I do not want this bill to pass. It is too vague and threatens free speech, while doing nothing to actually enforce existing laws and keep communities safe. I move that the House adjourn.”

“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.”

“The government is supposed to decide disability benefit claims within 120 days, but it is missing that target more than half the time. I want the minister to explain why disabled Canadians are being left without income for months.”

“Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is useful to know that instead of reports, we are going to get consultations. Maybe we will get an answer to the next question. CPP disability applications are supposed to be decided within 120 days, 80% of the time. Last year, the Liberals managed only 49.3%, less than half. Why are disabled Canadians being left for months without income while the minister misses her own deadline?”

“We all want to stop hate, including hating Jewish people or Muslims. But this bill seems to be just empty words. I want the minister to explain who can be arrested under this new law who cannot be arrested today, and how it will actually end hate.”

“Mr. Speaker, all members in the House want to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and hate in all of its forms. Our concern is that the bill is performative and that it is more words in a space where there are already too many words. I would like to know if the minister can tell me who can be arrested the day after Bill C-9 passes who cannot be arrested today and that it is going to result in the elimination of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hate, which he says is going to happen when the bill passes.”