Tamara Kronis · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01

“You don't actually want to debate this bill. You're avoiding debate on identity too. Quebec's premier called you a disgrace to Quebec. Why do you now want to alienate all Canadians by ending debate on a 330-page bill after only a few hours?”

“This bill is too long. It changes too many laws at once. We don't have enough time to debate it properly. The government is rushing this bill through. Sloppy drafting puts people's rights at risk. I want the member to slow down and give us more time to think about the changes.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this is a 330-page bill that is divided into 16 divisions, plus the defence investment agency act, as the minister pointed out. It would amend things as diverse as the Bank Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, a wide variety of acts that also includes the Territorial Lands Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act. It is a bill that has had very few hours of debate. In fact, if every one of these things had been brought forward, as I think they should have been, as their own bills, we would have had more time to debate each of those bills in its presentation than we will have to debate the entire act. It really feels as if the government's failure to plan is something it is turning into an emergency for all of us. I do not think it is reasonable. I think that with bills such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-22, the rush and the sloppy drafting have put Canadians' rights at risk. I would like to know why the member is not going to allow either legislators or the public sufficient time to really think through what would be happening in this very consequential bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

2026-05-29

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law. The bill is called Evan's law because it was inspired by the experience of a grieving family whose son Evan died while they were receiving parental benefits. After his death, the family had to deal not only with their loss, but also with the bureaucratic consequences of our EI system, including benefit disruptions, paperwork and administrative requirements during a period of profound grief. I want to thank the member for Burnaby North—Seymour for putting this bill forward on behalf of every parent who has grieved a baby in my riding and across our great nation. I also want to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and shared their pain. The death of a child is every parent's worst nightmare. It is a loss that changes a family forever. In those moments of grief, families should be surrounded by compassion, support and understanding. The last thing they need is paperwork, bureaucratic hurdles, confusion about government benefits or being forced back to work, yet that is exactly what can happen under our current employment insurance system. This bill would address that problem in a practical and compassionate way by allowing parents who have already qualified for parental benefits to continue to receive those benefits for the remainder of the approved period and through other means. It would also provide corresponding protections under the Canada Labour Code for employees in federally regulated workplaces. I believe this bill reflects values that all members of the House can support, and I am grateful to all parties in the House for coming together to do the right thing. It is heartening, as a member in my first term in this place, to see members who understand that government systems should serve people, not the other way around, and who understand that compassion and common sense are not partisan principles, but are principles that should guide us whenever we legislate. Sometimes the most meaningful changes are ones that affect a relatively small number of people, but make an enormous difference in their lives. For the parents impacted by this legislation, the effect will be that government stays out of their lives at a time when the last thing they need is government. Instead of worrying about paperwork, they can worry about each other and focus on grieving. Instead of being wrapped in government bureaucracy, they can stay wrapped in the arms of those who are helping them grieve. There is also a broader principle at stake here. One measure of a society is how it treats people during their most vulnerable moments. Government cannot erase grief. No law passed in this chamber can undo the loss of a child. We cannot restore what has been taken away from a family, but we can ensure that our public institutions respond with humanity rather than rigidity. Too often, government programs are designed around standard circumstances. They assume life will unfold according to expectations, yet life does not always follow a predictable path. Families experience tragedies, illnesses, accidents and unexpected hardships. When these moments occur, government systems should have the flexibility and compassion to respond appropriately. Bill C-222 helps move us in that direction. The stories behind legislation and the words of those who have spoken in the House today remind us why these changes matter. Behind every policy discussion, there is a real person, a real family and real experiences. I want to thank all of my hon. colleagues for the stories they have shared with us today. I also want to extend comfort to all those who carry burdens that are too heavy to share. Statistics can help us understand the scale of a problem, but they cannot help us understand pain. Words matter. A government that removes unnecessary obstacles and does not kick people when they are suffering from shattering pain matters as well. This bill would recognize that reality. It would acknowledge that stability and certainty have value during a period of crisis. For those reasons, I am pleased that we are all supporting Bill C-222, and I want to thank all those involved in this bill for bringing us—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to talk less and give some of my time to someone else. Is that okay with everyone?”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-29

“I'm arguing these tribunals are supposed to make things easier, but they don't. You still need a lawyer. The government should clear the backlog to really make things simpler.”

“That bill is too long. Too many things. Hard to examine all at once. Government should welcome scrutiny, not dodge it. Bill won't really fix the big problems they talk about. canada Strong fund not in the bill - where is it? Government says big things but the bill is small. We need real productivity and results, not just moving things around.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister has spent much of the last year arguing that Canada faces a more dangerous, more competitive and less forgiving world. He is absolutely right. Trade relationships are more fragile, supply chains have become matters of national security, and energy, minerals, data, defence production and industrial capacity are no longer simply economic assets but have become instruments of sovereignty. Few serious observers would deny that Canada faces a more demanding world than the one we recognized a decade ago. The question before Parliament, however, is whether Bill C-31 reflects the seriousness of that diagnosis. A serious country must be able to build. It must be able to defend itself, educate and train its people, approve projects, mobilize capital, protect consumers and make decisions that endure beyond a single news cycle. The Prime Minister has framed this moment as one that requires ambition, discipline and state capacity. I agree with that premise. What I question is whether Bill C-31 would advance it. If the challenge is state capacity, the answer cannot simply be layers of state complexity. If the goal is economic sovereignty, the answer cannot be legislation that gestures in many directions while avoiding difficult choices. Bill C-31 is more than 330 pages long. It would amend tax law, financial law, labour law, transportation law and defence procurement law. It would touch housing finance, automatic benefit delivery, crypto asset reporting, the clean hydrogen tax credit, non-compete clauses, air passenger complaints and a defence investment agency, to name just some of the topics. Some of the measures may be worthwhile. Some deserve support. Others deserve amendment. The problem is that Parliament is being asked to evaluate them all at once. The government will argue that time is short, and it is going to pressure us to pass the bill before the summer recess. A lack of planning on its part should not be and should not necessitate an emergency for all of us. Major reforms to defence procurement deserve their own legislation and committee study, as so many of my colleagues have explained today. Lord knows, air passenger rights deserve their own scrutiny. Significant tax reforms need to be thought through. Instead, they are being bundled together in an omnibus bill that makes serious examination more difficult. We have already seen how sloppy Liberal drafting has unintended consequences through a number of other bills that have come before the House and that, we have learned, have significantly impinged upon Canadian freedom. Parliamentary scrutiny is one of the institutions that makes good government possible. A government confident in its reforms should welcome rigorous examination rather than continuously dilute it. The most revealing aspect of Bill C-31 may be what it does not contain. On April 27, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund, describing it as Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It was presented as a cornerstone of economic sovereignty and nation building. Canadians were told it would help mobilize capital for strategic projects that are so desperately needed and give future generations a stake in national prosperity. A sovereign wealth fund can be a powerful instrument of public policy. It can also become an expensive political investment vehicle if its governance is weak. The difference lies in the design, and the devil, as they say, is in the details. There is no statutory framework in Bill C-31 for the Canada Strong fund, no explanation of how it will operate or how Parliament will oversee it. More than a month after its announcement, all we have is a short government backgrounder promising yet another office with yet another CEO and consultations to determine, over the next several months, what the fund will eventually become. That omission matters because it reveals a broader disconnect between the government's rhetoric and announcements and its implementation. The same pattern applies to its skills training. The government has repeatedly argued that Canada's future prosperity depends on building the most skilled workforce in the world, and it does. It has spoken about the training that workers need to build homes, develop critical minerals, expand advanced manufacturing and strengthen defence production. The diagnosis is correct, yet the legislative response is remarkably thin. Bill C-31 contains measures related to labour mobility and employment. Those may be useful, but they do not amount to a national skills strategy. They do not explain how Canada will train workers at the scale required, accelerate credential recognition, strengthen apprenticeship and completion rates or address the labour shortages already delaying major projects across the country. The government's language is national. It is big, and it is ambitious. The legislative response is partial. This pattern extends to the economy more broadly. Bill C-31 contains investment incentives, tax changes and reporting requirements. Some may improve the functioning of the tax system, but none constitutes a serious productivity agenda, and productivity is the quiet crisis beneath the politics of affordability. We learned this morning that Canada has quietly slipped into a recession, with two consecutive quarters of shrinkage. If Canada produces less per worker than its competitors, wages stagnate. When wages stagnate, affordability deteriorates. Governments can soften the consequences through transfers, credits and subsidies. They can send all the cheques they want, but they cannot permanently compensate for weak productivity, and the spending has consequences at the grocery store and everywhere else in our economy as things continue to get more expensive. That is because prosperity must be created before it can be distributed. The same concern arises with the Defence Investment Agency. Canada unquestionably needs procurement reform. Our armed forces require equipment, readiness and capability. In a more dangerous world, faster procurement is not just a bureaucratic preference but a strategic necessity, yet speed is not competence. National security is not an area for weak accountability. The Defence Investment Agency may prove useful. It may not. Parliament has not yet been given sufficient evidence to determine which outcome is more likely. What is clear is that such significant reform deserves its own legislation and its own committee study. It should be examined by the defence committee with witnesses who understand defence procurement, military readiness, industry and national security. It should not be one division in a big budget bill competing for attention with tax rules, air passenger complaints and labour measures. The central question here is not whether Canada should move faster. The question is whether this structure will make us faster or merely more complicated. A ship that cannot sail does not defend sovereignty. An aircraft that cannot fly does not secure the Arctic. A procurement system that produces announcements faster than equipment does not serve the Canadian Armed Forces. State capacity is not measured by the number of institutions government creates. It is measured by the ability of its institutions to deliver. The air passenger rights provisions raise a similar concern. The current system is clearly failing Canadians. Complaint backlogs are unacceptable. Delays are excessive. Compensation is often very difficult to obtain. However, consumer protection is not achieved by announcing rights. It is achieved when ordinary people can enforce those rights without needing a lawyer, a media campaign, an MP or two years of patience. That observation applies far beyond air travel. Capability is not centralization for its own sake. It is not ministerial discretion without accountability. It is not omnibus legislation without scrutiny, and it is not the appearance of motion while standing still. The Prime Minister often speaks about resilience, sovereignty and national purpose. At a time when Canadians are carrying the burdens of housing scarcity, weak productivity, affordability pressures and global uncertainty, we should insist on something better. We should insist on competence, accountability and results.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-05-29

“The government put everything on the national credit card. Now people can't afford groceries. The more they spend, the more everything costs. Food banks are busier than ever. That's on them.”

“I want the Prime Minister to do more about food prices. Food bank use and food costs in Canada are getting worse. The Prime Minister made a promise but I don't think he kept it. I blame the Prime Minister for the recession and higher costs and I want him to fix it.”

Statements by Members

Youth Employment

2026-05-29

“New grads in my riding face high youth unemployment. Canada is the only G7 country in recession. These young people have worked hard and deserve opportunities to build careers.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as graduation ceremonies take take place in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, new grads are facing one of the toughest job markets in years. Unemployment in the Nanaimo census metropolitan area hit 8.7% in April, which is a whopping increase of 2.3% over this time last year. Youth unemployment is up half a percentage point to 14.3% nationwide. Statistics Canada revealed this morning that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Our young people have the talent, determination and ambition it takes to succeed. They have done everything we have asked: studied hard, developed their skills and overcame obstacles. What they need are opportunities to gain experience, build careers and make enough money to put down roots in the communities we call home. To the graduating class of 2026, I congratulate them on their achievements. Their future matters and their contributions matter. Canada needs their talent more than ever. We keep fighting for the opportunities they deserve.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Food and Drugs Act

2026-05-08

“I support this bill to make unlicensed drugs easier to get for very sick people. It could give people hope and more time. I don't care about ideology, I want to help sick people. We should study this bill at committee to make it better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to speak today to Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. The bill attempts to address a very real and human problem. I laud the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for bringing it forward so we can have the collective opportunity to think about and act on this important issue. As we have heard this afternoon, across Canada there are patients facing serious illnesses, rare diseases, aggressive cancers and rapidly deteriorating conditions whose approved treatment options either have failed or simply do not exist. In those moments, no one cares about ideology or partisanship. What they need is hope. They want time. They are looking for options, for anything that might help when all other doors appear to be closed. That is the purported purpose of the existing Health Canada special access program. Under the program, health care professionals can request access to therapies that are not yet approved in Canada for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions. In many cases, the program has in fact provided compassionate access to potentially life-saving treatments. Bill C-265 seeks to streamline parts of that process by creating a publicly maintained list of therapeutic products that could qualify for faster access under certain circumstances. There is merit in studying this proposal carefully at committee, and I am pleased to rise today to support doing exactly that, because government systems should work efficiently to respond to real human needs. When bureaucracy creates unnecessary delays for critically ill patients, we have a responsibility in this place to ask whether those processes can be improved while maintaining proper safeguards. I believe we should also recognize the difficult realities faced by patients living with rare diseases. Members of my immediate family live with a rare disease called hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies, or HNPP. We are lucky that it was diagnosed within a reasonable time and has so far had minimal impact on our lives. However, many rare disease patients spend years searching for diagnoses, specialists and treatment options. Families become experts themselves because they have no other choice. They monitor clinical trials around the world. They follow developments in the United States and elsewhere. They advocate tirelessly for access to therapies that may still be working their way through Canada's approval process even though they are available elsewhere. For patients in these situations, time matters. It is frustrating, terrifying and a host of other emotions to watch someone we love suffer and in some cases die while bureaucratic rules put up roadblock after obstacle, barrier, impediment and hurdle. This issue is particularly relevant for many of our communities on Vancouver Island and across rural Canada. Patients without family doctors already face long travel times for specialized care. Families in rural areas often experience delays in accessing diagnostics, specialists and advanced treatments. Whether we or someone we love is fighting a fast-moving illness, every additional layer of delay can feel overwhelming. Bill C-265 seeks to address that concern by allowing certain therapies to be placed on a pre-approved list for faster consideration under the program. The idea deserves thoughtful examination, and many people in the House, including the proposer of the bill, have talked about the issues that need to be studied at committee, so I am not going to go through them here. What I am going to do is thank my colleague across the way for taking the time to really think about what we can do in this place to help real families and real people across the country to live full, better lives not spent chasing therapies they may or may not be able to access in the long run.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government makes too much paperwork and it hurts people. This bill should help by getting rid of that.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-08

“The government messed up and got sued. They're not even trying to win their appeal. People followed the law and now they're scared. The government won't answer our questions, just insults us and hides the truth. Property rights are going to disappear if judges decide. Does the government have a plan or are they giving up?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The government should have negotiated a treaty to avoid uncertainty.”

“I tried to focus on facts in my speech. This is a complicated case. The government made it worse. We need to work together to find a solution.”

“I don't get your point. Of course I respect the Constitution. I'm just trying to make a special committee. It's to work together and move forward. I hope you'll work with us. It's good for everyone.”

“I want to defend the past Conservative government's record on indigenous issues. The current government should not dismiss our efforts before 2015. I propose that all parties work together in a special committee to make progress.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the negativity that comes across the aisle when we ask questions and raise issues. Stephen Harper delivered the residential school apology in the House. A Conservative government, led by former prime minister Stephen Harper, created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which resolved hundreds of specific claims, extended human rights protections on reserve and introduced reforms aimed at improving accountability and transparency for indigenous communities. Were there disagreements? Absolutely, there were. Were there tensions? Of course there were. Reconciliation is not advanced by pretending that nothing meaningful happened before 2015. Some of the most significant steps toward acknowledging historical wrongs and building new relationships with indigenous people happened under Conservative governments. The Liberals have asked what we want to do about it, and we have proposed that parties get together, form a special committee and work on this together. We owe it to Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, to make progress on this file.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to protect private property rights. The current government is causing uncertainty and division by failing to do this. I hope everyone will support our motion to create a committee to study how we can protect property rights. The government needs to change course because their current approach is creating problems for Canadians.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the most important changes in life are often invisible at first. Seeds sprout underground before the first shoots appear. A ship that changes course by one degree makes no waves, but ends up somewhere entirely different. A coastline can look unchanged for years, while the tide quietly reshapes it, grain by grain. On August 7, 2025, when the B.C. Supreme Court released the Cowichan Tribes decision, nothing happened. No Canadian lost their home. Richmond continued to function. The Cowichan Tribes repeatedly said they never intended to interfere with private fee simple title. Yet, the judge decided, first, that the Cowichan have aboriginal title to land in Richmond, and second, that Crown grants of fee simple in those lands unjustifiably infringe that title. The court did say that private fee simple interests remain valid, but only “until such a time as a court may determine otherwise or until the conflicting interests are otherwise resolved through negotiation.” With that “until”, a seed was planted. Homeowners are now aware that a court could “determine otherwise”, and many of them are nervous. At paragraph 3543 of a very long decision, the judge added, “I accept that a declaration of Aboriginal title may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple title holders and it may have consequences for their interests in land.” Within days, it became clear that uncertainty had taken root. Within weeks, the first signs of a growing set of complications became visible. When a person gets a mortgage, their home is the collateral for the loan. If the mortgagor's title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. When a person sells a property, they promise valid title. If the seller's title is uncertain, they are going to have a problem. Anyone who claims to understand the full implication of the Cowichan Tribes decision at this point is fooling themselves. We are now seeing transactions delayed, financing reconsidered and investment decisions paused in British Columbia. The case has already reportedly tanked a $100‑million deal and created complications with mortgage and property transactions. The B.C. Financial Services Authority is recommending independent legal advice before buying affected properties. Real estate agents are adding new clauses to purchase agreements across the province. Title insurers are reassessing risk. The Musqueam agreement followed quickly on the Cowichan Tribes decision, adding additional uncertainty. Investors are skittish and wondering what is coming next. Uncertainty is undermining confidence in land-based collateral in B.C. The decision is adding costs we cannot afford and disrupting parts of B.C.'s economy at a time when stability is badly needed. The problem is not that Canadians are unwilling to support reconciliation. In British Columbia, we desperately want to live in harmony, but anxiety creates strain, and government failure to negotiate treaties that would have provided legal clarity before these issues reached a crisis point is dividing our communities. For years, these Liberals talked reconciliation but dragged their feet on negotiation. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. Now ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Families trying to buy homes, indigenous communities seeking certainty, municipalities planning infrastructure, and businesses deciding whether to invest in British Columbia face years of legal limbo. Despite their insistence that they are going to appeal the decision and make everything fine again, the Liberals have painted themselves into a legal corner. The Prime Minister admits that property rights are “fundamental.” The parliamentary secretary admits that there are “potentially significant implications, including for private property rights” that “could extend across the country.” The Prime Minister and the Liberals say repeatedly that they will make all “viable” legal arguments, but here is the problem: Appeals are not do-overs, and the “raise it or lose it” principle is core to how our legal system works. People are not allowed to save some of their arguments for appeal, just in case they do not get what they want at trial. If they could, litigation would cost even more and it would never end. My dad used to refer to this as the “you snooze, you lose” principle. Paragraph 2096 of the decision states, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.” In plain English, what that means is that the Liberal government told its lawyers not to argue that fee simple title is superior to all other forms of title, and those lawyers amended the court documents in 2018 to take the argument out. A lot of Canadians are wondering how that could have been allowed to happen. We investigated and found the government's legal directive, still online, that strongly encourages admissions of liability and discourages defences like extinguishment that would support fee simple title. It turns out that the one argument the government needed in a 513-day trial is the one it did not make. That means it is not viable on appeal. Conservatives have repeatedly asked how the Prime Minister is going to win an appeal with an argument he is not entitled to make. In response, we have been accused of “misinformation”, “fear and misinformation”, “fearmongering...spreading misinformation and...causing disruption in the economy of British Columbia”, and worse. We are not fearmongering, nor are we spreading misinformation. I have just laid out the problem in plain English. It is not unreasonable to want to understand how the government is going to deal with this very serious issue that is causing unsettling divisions among Canadians. Those divisions are not being caused by Conservatives. They are being caused by a Liberal government that does not make all available arguments, hides its mistakes and attacks anyone who asks how it is going to fix it. British Columbians bought their homes in good faith. They are trying not to lose them in the face of the rising cost of everything and an economic crisis already made worse by government. What is perhaps most frustrating for the homeowners I talk to is that there will be no clarity on these issues any time soon. We are staring down months, if not years, of litigation while the courts sort this out. The order itself has not been fully finalized. A 513-day judicial record still has to be assembled. Preliminary motions have to be heard before the appeal can start, including numerous intervenor applications and a motion to reopen the case by landowners who claim they should have been involved from the beginning. The justice minister has indicated that Canada is supporting that application, which will make the case drag on even longer if granted. I cannot help but wonder if the government is doing so in part because reopening the trial might get it that actual do-over. This is one of those cases where the process has process, but we got here through a complete failure of political leadership. The government knew this decision was coming. It knew there were more court cases coming. It yielded the field eight years ago, but avoided doing the hard work in that time of creating a clear legislative and policy framework around reconciliation, aboriginal title, private property rights and legal certainty. Instead, it left it all to the courts to be sorted out piecemeal through massive and voluminous constitutional litigation while the government stacks the court with activist judges. Long trials may work for lawyers billing by the hour, but they do not work for families trying to buy a home, businesses trying to invest or first nations trying to build a stable future. Reconciliation requires clarity, fairness and predictability for everyone. We need a government that is willing to find real solutions instead of continually asking the courts to do its job for it. I hope all members of this House will support our opposition day motion, in particular our call for a special multi-party committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada. Indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians alike need us to work together to come up with solutions to government incompetence on this file. The ship needs to change course, because it is currently headed for the rocks.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-06

“I want you to agree that the government is out of touch. Families are struggling in my riding. I want you to say that the government doesn't understand and isn't helping.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“I get that you care about businesses. But you praise the government for acting. Name one U.S. tariff on Canada that Trudeau's government actually got lifted.”

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“The defence minister should listen to people more. Maybe then we could have avoided the mistakes in this bill.”