Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Tamara Kronis

Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith 132 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Kronis presses for permanent relief from federal fuel taxes, arguing temporary holidays leave farmers, truckers and food producers unable to plan; she also pushes for full debate and committee study of bills, demands measurable results from billion-dollar government food programs, and returns often to jobs and affordability for young people. She leans on anecdotes to make her points: “like lasagna or moussaka, food prices are built in layers.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
86 / 100 over 111 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 82 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Thanks and tributes.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 111 of 132 statements graded so far.

Statements 132

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“More Canadians are using food banks because food costs too much, and Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7. The government's taxes and debt caused this. I want the Prime Minister to lower food costs.”

  • A repeated line

    “More debt and more on the national credit card.”

    Said 12 times by 11 members since May 4.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on World Hunger Day, food security organizations came to the finance committee and told us that more people from more demographics are using food banks more often in Canada. Forty-three per cent of Canadians now say that the cost of groceries severely affects their ability to access food, and food inflation in Canada remains the highest in the G7. The Prime Minister promised to lead, and he did: straight to the only recession in the G7. There are more costs, more taxes and more debt on the national credit card. When is the Prime Minister going to show us that he is not just another Liberal and get serious about reducing the cost of food?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

Youth Employment

“New graduates are facing a tough job market, and youth unemployment is rising. Our young people have worked hard, but they need opportunities to build careers and earn a living.”
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 Grade A View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Food and Drugs Act

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“I support sending this bill to committee for study. It helps very sick patients get faster access to unapproved treatments that could save their lives.”
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 Grade A– View analysis
“Too much paperwork at Health Canada stops people from getting the care they need. How will this bill fix that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I am wondering if, in his discussions with families and organizations that have been advocating for this, the member has seen first-hand the way that Health Canada’s bureaucracy has created so much paperwork and administrative burden that it prevents people from getting access to health care. How would this bill help?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

In response to a question from Rebecca Alty

“The government lost a court case to the Cowichan Tribes because it told its lawyers not to defend private property rights. Homeowners in British Columbia followed the law and need protection. I want to know if the government has a plan to protect their property rights.”

  • A repeated line

    “Paid their mortgages and followed the law.”

    Said 4 times by 3 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals failed to negotiate with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost. They told their lawyers not to argue fee simple property rights, so the one argument they need is not viable on appeal. British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law. They want answers, so we spent the week asking. Instead of answers, we got insults, intimidation and illusions. The legal directive stopping federal lawyers from defending property rights is still on Canada.ca, so Liberal claims about defending those rights are just smoke and mirrors. Do the Liberals have a plan, or are they going to let judges make property rights vanish before Canadians’ eyes?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want my colleague to speak about how the government failed to negotiate a treaty. A treaty would have prevented all this uncertainty.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reflect that if the circumstances were different, this would have been a very interesting discussion. I thank all of my colleagues for their commentary on case law and for all of the legal arguments that have been made. I am just wondering if, in the short time that we have left, my colleague might reflect a little on the fact that it is such a tragedy that the government did not actually negotiate a treaty that would have allowed us to avoid all this uncertainty.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“This legal case is complicated, and the government's court decisions have made it worse. We need to work together with Canadians to negotiate real solutions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I tried to stick to some pretty boring, cold, hard legal facts in my speech. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated case. It has been made more complicated by the litigation decisions that the government made in this particular case. It has been made more complicated by litigation directives that, quite frankly, do not make sense to many Canadians. If we are going to move forward on this, we really need to be thoughtful. We need to be collaborative. We need to walk alongside Canadians of all kinds in negotiating real solutions to these problems.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“I respect the Constitution. I want us to create a special committee so we can work together on this issue. I support this plan because it helps with reconciliation and gives Canadians certainty. I hope the member will work with us.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am confused by the hon. member’s question. Of course we respect the Constitution. As for everything that I have stated in this speech, there is nothing in it that suggests that I want to do anything other than uphold it. Our proposal is to create a special committee. It is to work together. It is to find a way through this. The reason that I support that proposal is that I believe in reconciliation. I believe in creating certainty. It is important for all Canadians. I hope that the member will work with us to move this forward in a way that is good for everyone.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

In response to a question from Wade Grant

“The previous Conservative government did a lot of important work on reconciliation, including apologizing for residential schools. The Liberals act like nothing happened before they took power. I want all parties to form a special committee so we can work on this together.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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 Grade B– View analysis
“A recent court decision in British Columbia created serious uncertainty for private property owners and hurt the local economy. The Liberal government caused this problem by failing to negotiate treaties and dropping key legal arguments during the trial. I want all MPs to vote for our motion to create a committee that will find ways to protect private property rights.”

  • A repeated line

    “Ordinary Canadians are paying the price.”

    Said 8 times by 8 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
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 Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“Families in my riding and the member's riding are struggling right now. The government claims the economy is fine, but it is not. I want the member to explain how hard life really is for people in her community.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House for the first part of my hon. colleague’s excellent speech and was delighted to be here today for the rest of it. Our ridings have a lot in common, even though they are on opposite sides of the country. They are resource-based. They are filled with families, and they are struggling right now, yet the members across the way continue to stand up and tell us that Canadians have never had it so good and that the economy is all sunshine and rainbows. I am wondering if the member can talk a bit about what it feels like on the ground under current circumstances in her communities.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The member praised the government for acting quickly on trade. Can she name one American tariff on Canadian goods that the government actually got removed?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s focus on supporting businesses in her community. She displayed a very admirable depth of knowledge of those businesses. Burlington, of course, is a region that is deeply connected to cross-border trade, where jobs and local growth depend heavily on the government being able to address these issues. She praised the government’s swift action. I am wondering if the member could name a single U.S. tariff on Canadian goods that has been lifted as a direct result of Liberal government action.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

In response to a question from James Bezan

“Justice Arbour wrote a good report that helped our military make progress. I wish the defence minister had listened to people and consulted her so we could have avoided mistakes in this bill.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, before I was elected to this place, of being able to work with Madam Justice Arbour for a year when I worked at the ICTY in The Hague. I know the kind of work that she does. There is no doubt in my mind that the work she did and the report she provided allowed our military to make progress with respect to the issues that are addressed in this bill. I only wish that the defence minister had taken the time to listen to people the way that Madam Justice Arbour does, and possibly to consult with her so that we could have avoided the mistakes that were made with this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

In response to a question from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

“The Liberals accuse us of slowing things down, but they are the ones undoing the good work we did on this bill in committee. All parties should work together to make it better.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 24 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question. This is something that I really struggle with, because we face allegations from our colleagues across the way every day in the House, that we are obstructionist or that we are standing in the way. Yet, this bill offers a phenomenal opportunity for members of all parties to work together to listen to Canadians to make a bill better. It hurts my heart that Liberals would use their majority in this way, quite frankly, to strip this House of the good work that was done at committee.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D+ View analysis

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“Military members need this choice so they get the support they need. The report's ideas were good at the time, but the government waited too long to act and there are better ways to fix this now.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his desire to support the military. As he was in committee, he would have heard that people in the military need this choice in order to be supported. While Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendations were right for the time at which they were made, the government took so long to act that there are better ways to address this.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“I cannot support this bill unless the government keeps our committee's changes. Military victims of sexual assault asked for the right to choose between civilian and military courts. The government took that choice out of the bill and forced all cases into civilian courts, which are already too busy.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 94 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives”.

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “This is not an abstract policy debate.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 1.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 was supposed to improve how justice works inside the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been serious and persistent concerns that misconduct, especially sexual misconduct, has not been handled fairly or independently in our military. The government dragged its feet for years. There were three reports done on this matter over a period of seven years. Finally, with the tabling of this bill, the government appeared to be addressing these issues. The initial draft of the bill proposed to move serious cases, including sexual assault, into the civilian courts. Many expected this move to be welcomed and to be seen as a serious step toward better accountability and stronger protection for victims. The committee system in the House of Commons is designed to allow members of Parliament to examine legislation in depth. Committees act as the engine room of this place, and every so often we find out in our committees that we were wrong. That is what happened with this bill, because it turns out that our military did not wait for government to act. In the years between the release of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, our military implemented mandatory duties to report. It trained the chain of command, military police and health care providers. It implemented a victims rights charter and provided access to independent legal supports and access to victims liaison services. The military has not solved all of the problems, but it took some pretty big steps forward that make military tribunals the forum of choice for some victims. An incredible, and very credible, group of witnesses came to the defence committee hearings on this bill and told us so. In response, Conservative members of the defence committee worked with members from all opposition parties to improve the bill to respond to the reasonable proposals by survivors and experts that military sexual assault victims be allowed to play a role in determining whether their cases would be investigated and heard in civilian or military courts. They asked for choice, and the committee worked to embed that choice into the bill. Then, a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence tabled amendments to the bill at the report stage that ignored that advice, dismissed the testimony heard over weeks at committee and effectively restored much of the original drafting. When I last rose to speak to this bill, I tried to drive home the point that this debate is about more than just legislation. It is about trust. It is about whether those who don a Canadian military uniform and serve this country can trust that the system will protect them, can trust it to be fair and can trust it to deliver just outcomes. Yesterday I spoke at a ceremony in my community commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We had more than 50 air and sea cadets participate, more than 50 young souls who are the future of our military, souls whom Canada may yet send off to war. The cadets were excellent. They participated in the colour guard, they stood sentry at the cenotaph, and they helped dignitaries lay wreaths. One played the Last Post and Lament on her bugle, another read the prayer for the air force, and another read the roll call of ships lost, while yet another rang the bell. It was beautiful and inspiring, and our community is so very proud of them. Today, as we debate this bill at report stage, the question of whether those cadets and the many others who serve our country can trust the system still hangs over this chamber. Have we earned that trust? If the answer depends on this version of Bill C-11, it is unfortunately a resounding no. Members of the House worked in good faith across party lines to improve the bill, and we stand by the wisdom of the committee with respect to choice for survivors of sexual assault in the military. My support for the bill is contingent on the Liberal government upholding not only the amendments made by Conservatives at the defence committee but also those made by the other parties, including the member of that committee who has since crossed the floor to join the Liberals. Will she now vote against her own amendments and those she supported? The Liberals have chosen to use their new majority in this House to undo the work of this committee. They have chosen to double down on what we now understand to be a poor choice to push sexual assault cases onto an already overburdened civilian police and court system without providing the resources that local police forces and provincial courts need to deal with military cases. Instead of listening to the experts and increasing the independence of the military justice system, the defence minister wants to preserve his ability to interfere with ministerial directives to ensure that the director of military defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command. These decisions are all ill-advised and would do nothing to improve conditions in our military at a time when our military needs our support. If there is even a perception that decisions can be influenced by the chain of command or by political considerations, confidence in the military justice system will remain fragile. My hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who served our country faithfully as a navy commander, spoke to that human cost in a way that should stay with all of us. He reminded us that behind every policy gap and every delay there is a person, someone who stepped forward to serve, who put on a uniform and who deserves better from their country. Every time the government fails to protect victims, it means another member of the Canadian Armed Forces is left wondering whether it is worth coming forward. It means another survivor is weighing the risk of speaking out against the likelihood of being ignored. It means another erosion of confidence in an institution that Canadians should be able to believe in without hesitation. The Minister of National Defence admitted at committee that he did not consult victims himself. He admitted that he did not consult with Justices Arbour, Fish or Deschamps on this file. He admitted that he did not consult provincial justice ministers or provincial or municipal police officers in the more than a year since this chamber considered Bill C-66, the predecessor to this bill. This reflects a disturbing trend that we see through the Liberal approach to our justice system, where government legislation seems to consistently prefer the accused over victims. It also reflects the approach that the government took to Bill C-3 at report stage, when it again used its relationships in this House to undo the work of committee. In the context of the way that our military has progressed these issues, the request by witnesses for choice in deciding whether to engage the civilian justice system or the military tribunal system makes sense, because in some cases the military system will have conflicts of interest or other issues created by proximity or relationships. In other circumstances, the civilian justice system just would not have enough people with the lived experiences to be able to deal with the facts of a particular case when situated within military culture. In one case, a witness at committee testified that, as a francophone, she would like to be able to choose the military pathway to ensure that she would be able to have access to services and proceedings in French rather than having to follow proceedings in English, as she would have to do through the serendipities of locations should she find herself serving in an anglophone province. If cases are going to move to civilian courts, there is work to be done up front with the provinces to make sure they can absorb these cases. If the federal government simply moves these cases by fiat, without ensuring that the system is ready, we risk serious failure, the kind of delay that increases the risk that cases collapse before they are heard and further frustrates those seeking justice. Canadians have heard promises from the government before. They have seen announcements and commitments, but too often they have not seen results. My hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been persistent in pressing this point. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is about real people and their real pain. The government has a choice to make, and my vote hinges on the balance with that choice.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The Liberals failed to make a deal with the Cowichan Tribes and lost in court. Now they say they will protect private property, but they did not make that argument during the trial. They are asking private property owners to fix their mistake. What is the government going to do?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have painted themselves into a corner. They failed to negotiate a treaty with Cowichan Tribes, so they got sued and lost in Richmond. Now the Prime Minister says he will advance “viable legal arguments to protect private property”, but the Liberals told their lawyers not to argue the primacy of property rights at trial. By now, it must have dawned on them that an argument not advanced at trial is not viable on appeal, because the minister just told us he is asking private property owners to do their work for them. The Liberals talk about negotiation, but the failure to negotiate is how we got here in the first place, so what are they going to do?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Offender Rehabilitation Act

“I support this bill. It lets judges order people in prison to take job training, education, or addiction treatment, and it makes parole boards check their progress before letting them out early. This will help stop people from committing more crimes.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I come from a place where we have stunning coastline, innovative businesses, delicious restaurants, talented artists and a mild climate that makes me want to put down whatever I am doing and take the dog for a hike. We have much to celebrate, but we also have one of the highest death rates from overdose in Canada, fuelled by an addictions crisis that is ruining people’s lives, leaving them with traumatic brain injuries and killing far too many. The numbers have been improving but we are still one of Canada’s hardest-hit communities with insufficient services, social disorder, and a crime rate and crime severity index that are both well above the national average. Many people struggle with addiction without ever committing a crime, but when people live on the street without stable support while dealing with a serious addiction, a significant percentage will inevitably have repeated contact with the criminal justice system. It is a cycle that is hard to break. Addiction leads to instability, instability encourages poor choices and those poor choices lead right back into the criminal justice. We have had porta-potty arson with four set on fire in just one night; a person who roamed a busy downtown mall parking lot with a hypodermic syringe attached to a toy bow and arrow; a city worker stabbed over and over again with syringes in a park washroom; addiction-driven assaults with axes, illegal firearms, knives, bricks, bear spray and human feces; and crime on boats, in coffee shops and in homes. I once had a local fire official tell me that the probability of a fire in certain kinds of buildings was 100%. These are not organized or rational crimes. They reflect instability and create real fear in our community. The people who commit them often cannot be deterred or treated through the traditional tools of our criminal justice system. That is why I am proud to rise today to second and support Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, sponsored by my colleague from Kitchener Centre. This bill combines accountability with real rehabilitation, taking a practical, balanced and long-overdue step toward improving both community safety and offender outcomes in my community and across Canada. Canada is one of the only western countries that automatically releases offenders before the end of their sentence, regardless of behaviour. Canada’s current approach does not encourage change, it does not reward effort and it does not give Canadians confidence. This legislation would allow judges to require offenders to participate in education, training or treatment programs while serving their sentence. It would consider progress in those programs in parole decisions. It would introduce the principle that early release should be earned through demonstrated effort and real change. This comes as recidivism rates in Canada remain too high, with estimates approaching 88% for some populations. However, if prisons are merely storage facilities, if someone walks out of custody with the same skills, the same habits and the same challenges they had when they went in, we should not be surprised when they reoffend. First-time offenders increasingly lack basic education and job skills. Many do not have a high school diploma. Others struggle with literacy and executive function. We just cannot tell a person struggling with both addiction and ADHD, who lives on the street, to show up Tuesday at 10 a.m. and expect them to be there. Education, skills training and treatment programs in corrections are linked to better employment outcomes and lower rates of reoffending by as much as 30%. I had the chance to see this in action on a recent visit to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. The Guthrie program is a separate, provincially funded therapeutic community unit within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre that builds life skills, responsibility and practical tools that offenders need to reintegrate into society. Participants are given the kind of responsibility that builds capacity, that teaches them to lead, and that will help them find work and build stability when they return to their communities. Being there reminded me that the people who end up in prison for convictions tied to addiction are not just our fathers, sisters and children. They are also our teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. Addiction does not discriminate, and when it takes hold, it can unravel even the most stable lives. Here is the rub: Programs like Guthrie exist and the expertise exists. What has been missing is a system that consistently and effectively evaluates the people in it for potential rehabilitation, encourages and incentivizes participation, and ties it to outcomes. Also missing are clear incentives and spaces for women, visible minorities and other populations who face systemic and persistent discrimination. This bill would provide the federal government with reasons to work with the provinces to create and expand programs such as the Guthrie program, both in and out of correctional facilities, by empowering judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for offenders who would benefit from skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing program. It costs roughly $125,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a men’s institution and over $215,000 a year in a women’s institution. By contrast, community-based programs that support reintegration cost a fraction of that, often as low as $15,000 per person per year, while delivering better outcomes. While corrections-based programs are more expensive, the investment in programs like the Guthrie program pay off in lower recidivism and better outcomes for everyone. Bill C-240 is not soft on crime. It is smart on recovery. It would require parole boards to consider an offender’s progress in completing court-ordered rehabilitation programs when making parole decisions. It would also enable stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers by making trafficking fentanyl in large quantities an aggravating factor in sentencing. This is the work I came to this place to do. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for letting me and, by extension, the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, play a role in moving this important legislation forward. Other jurisdictions have already shown that, when accountability is combined with structured rehabilitation, there are better results. In countries like Norway, the system places a strong emphasis on education, work skills and personal responsibility during incarceration. Release decisions are closely tied to readiness for reintegration. When someone leaves custody, they are better prepared to lead a law-abiding life. The results speak for themselves. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. We should not copy any one system exactly. Canada has its own context, its own challenges and its own legal framework, but the principle is consistent. If we want safer communities, we have to reduce reoffending, and if we want to reduce reoffending, we need a system that promotes real change, not just the passage of time. This bill would take an important step in that direction and would provide powerful incentives for the federal government to work with the provinces to expand programs like the Guthrie program across the country. The bill would do its work carefully and responsibly. It would build confidence while improving outcomes. It would be fair and effective, and it would improve public safety. Victims and their families want a system that takes accountability seriously, but they also want a system that has a measure of mercy and opportunity for change, and they would really like to see a system that actually stops what has happened to them and their loved ones from happening to others. By strengthening the link between rehabilitation and release, offenders have an opportunity to break the pattern to improve their lives. There is sometimes a tendency to frame these issues as a choice between being tough on crime and supporting rehabilitation. That is the wrong way to look at it, because justice requires both. I think back to what I saw at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. I did not see criminals; I saw people. I saw people who, with the right support and the weight of expectations, are taking steps to change their lives. I saw corrections officers committed to that goal, and I saw a program that makes a real difference. This bill would align with those outcomes. Every time someone leaves custody, they return to a neighbourhood, family, workplace and community. One question we should be asking is: Are they are more or less likely to offend? This legislation would help ensure the answer is the one Canadians want. For those reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support this bill, and I am proud to second and support it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I support this bill, which helps people who struggle with addiction, trauma, and homelessness. I want the member to share any more advice she has for people watching at home.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has done a tremendous service to our country today. Not only has she helped those who struggle with addiction, trauma and insecure housing to see themselves here in this place, she has also blazed a path for some of them to get here with her bill, which I will be proud to stand up and second in a moment. She inspires me and I just want to provide her with another opportunity to provide any additional advice that she has to share with the people watching at home who might need some of that inspiration as we continue to grapple with our ongoing addictions crisis.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The government removed the minister for mental health and addictions and is ignoring the drug crisis. I want to know how this problem is also affecting Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks. As he can see from my exchanges with him and his colleagues in French, I want to understand the needs of all Canadians, including those in Quebec. We share concerns about forestry and the government’s lack of attention to major challenges facing our communities. What struck me was the absence of the term “substance abuse”. The government eliminated the position of minister of mental health and addictions and does not seem to care about the crisis plaguing my community. To what extent could Quebec be affected by this as well?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis