Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, after 11 years under the Liberal government, Canadian families and businesses are under growing economic strain. Households are seeing wages fail to keep pace with inflation and with the cost of essentials such as housing, groceries and transportation, leaving less room in family budgets and less opportunity to get ahead.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very good. Two weeks ago, we visited several communities in Quebec and we heard the same concern in all of them. Workers and businesses are worried about the tariffs and about the uncertainty surrounding CUSMA. My question is simple.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a recession. It is a distinction no other G7 nation shares. Despite facing the same international pressures as our allies, including American tariffs and global energy constraints, Canada stands alone in this regard. The government needs to take a hard look at why.”
“There would be no member of the House happier than me if he came home with a paper in hand that ends the 232 tariffs sets the groundwork for a successful CUSMA review, but decisions like the recent CRTC announcement make it unnecessarily harder for him, especially considering that the initial levy is still being argued before the courts.”
“Mr. Speaker, every single time I am back in the riding and throughout the weeks when I am serving the people in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I continuously listen to the concerns of Canadians. In concert with working on the file as shadow minister of Canada-U.S.”
“The CRTC presser acknowledges: The CRTC is taking important steps to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act) by updating how Canadian and Indigenous content is supported and made available.”
The complete record
Every one of 197 lines we hold for Shelby Kramp-Neuman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone. The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting.”
“During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members. I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White: First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 . In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation's precursor, Bill C-66 . In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66 . At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table a petition spearheaded by a constituent of mine, aimed at bringing tax fairness to our indigenous partners. The petition calls on the government to simply rectify an overlooked error in the current tax filing regime that results in the comparative overrepresentation of tax reassessment claims of indigenous Canadians by updating and modernizing the T4RIF, the T4RSP and the T4A(P) tax slips; update CRA contribution tracking methods; ensure efficient handling of tax-exempt returns, including those of indigenous Canadians; and implement a team of first nations tax specialists within the CRA.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused. At committee, there were a number of veterans who spoke and shared their heart-wrenching stories. We heard time and time again the importance of survivors wanting choice. At committee, the Minister of National Defence said, of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, that we have to be able to look them in the eye, and tell them that we have a well-run and transparent system, and that they can trust the system to help them when problems arise. How is denying survivors choice and forcing them into an overburdened civilian system that does not understand the realities of military service compatible with the minister 's promise of a transparent, well-run system that they can trust?”
“This week presented an opportunity to provide relief and change course. Instead, they doubled the deficit, and that will only deepen the drain on households already stretched to their limits. A better path remains possible that puts affordability and accountability first.”
“Mr. Speaker, the latest report from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University makes it clear: Financial pressure is not easing, Canadians are not getting relief and they are being forced to adapt to permanently higher prices. The Liberal government's recent credit card budget shows that it is doubling down on a spend-now-pay-never fiscal policy that, for over a decade, has driven up the cost of everything from food to fuel to rent. The deficit has doubled, and for what? What tangible benefits has that spending delivered for Canadians? The Prime Minister often touts this new government as some vector of change, but Canadians know it is the same ministers and advisers who buried this nation in debt. Simply swapping the prime minister with the architect of that very policy fools no one.”
“Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but democracy usually values open discussion. When I was elected in 2021, I was elected because I was sent here to this place to represent the views of all constituents of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. In a time when there is a lot of frustration and cynicism and just confusion about how and what happens in this place, could the government House leader speak to the reduction of the amount of trust that Canadians have in parliamentarians and processes in this place?”
“It would send the message that, God forbid, if someone does this, if someone violates the sanctity of trust, love and commitment of their partner, justice will be delivered, not just to the perpetrator but, more importantly, to the family and memory of the person who was taken out of their lives. This is not vengeance. This is closure.”
“It is often the culmination of months, if not years, of verbal, emotional and mental abuse. It is the final act in a series of escalating manipulation and exploitation, a literal living hell where, for far too many, the only escape seems to be cold-blooded murder. Bill C-225 does not seek to, nor should it, address every single element of intimate partner violence. It needs to be considered as part of the wider tool box of public society in fighting this, a tool box that needs to include education, prevention and support for survivors and their families. The bill is an important piece of the puzzle.”
“They should be required to appear before a judge and be properly assessed for risk, because when the system underestimates danger, families pay the price. There needs to be real accountability within the system that is meant to protect the vulnerable and prevent foreseeable tragedies. Bill C-225 represents an opportunity to close the gaps, to recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence and to prevent other families from experiencing this unimaginable loss. Bailey should still be here. Her children should still have their mother. Our family should not be learning how to live with her permanent absence. Her words are crystal clear, and they make perfect sense. The murder of a partner is one of the most visceral, raw, intimate things one can do. It is not done in the heat of the moment.”
“Killings in the context of intimate partner violence should be classified as automatic first-degree murders with the opportunity to apply for parole only after 25 years. (1120) We must also begin labelling violence as what it is. Assault against an intimate partner is not the same as a bar fight or an altercation with a stranger; it's part of a pattern that is rooted in control, fear and escalating harm. Assaults should be clearly identified as intimate partner assaults so that the justice system can properly recognize the heightened risk they carry. Language matters because recognition drives prevention. There must also be stronger safeguards at the point of release. Repeat offenders, especially those convicted of violence or threats against a partner, should not simply be released back into the community following police involvement.”
“She made the argument better than I ever could, so I would like to repeat a portion of her harrowing testimony: The system currently continues to extend the trauma and torment by forcing families to wait and see whether charges will be upgraded to first-degree murder. Our family had four and a half months of stress and anxiety waiting for Bailey's murderer to have his charges upgraded to first degree. No family should have to live with the fear of wondering whether after a conviction they'll be forced, at a parole hearing in 10 years, to face the person who cruelly stole their loved one. Given the severity and predictability of this type of violence, these murders should be treated as what they truly are—intentional, targeted and devastating acts.”
“That is what we need, a non-partisan approach to protect not just women suffering in abusive relationships but men and non-binary Canadians as well. As I was preparing this speech, I went back and took a look at the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to see what was said and what arguments were put forward both by members and by witnesses. I was particularly struck by the panel that appeared on the very first day, along with the sponsoring member. I am going to first acknowledge the conversation shared by Debbie Henderson. She spoke about the murder of her niece Bailey.”
“I know that this spirit of co-operation, championed by my predecessor, Karen Vecchio, will continue with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis , who I want to congratulate on her recent election to that position. I would also like to thank my successor, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong , for her work in the chair over the past year. Despite being one of the lesser-known committees, FEWO is by far the committee with the most to teach members in this place about working co-operatively and collaboratively, a lesson I hope is heeded and remembered as the government moves to amend committee composition. I think it is particularly fitting that the sponsor chose the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as the committee to review this legislation.”
“Intimate partner violence and related issues, such as coercive control, have occupied a significant part of my time here in Ottawa, especially during the last Parliament, as I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we studied these issues extremely closely and thoroughly. We completed studies on gender-based violence and femicides against women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as coercive behaviour. The committee prided itself, and I hope it still does, on its ability to put partisan differences aside and focus on the matter at hand: Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians, suffering in silence.”
“Whether it is due to stigma, manipulation and coercion, or a lack of confidence in the system meant to protect them, victims are too often left feeling unseen and unsupported, regardless of whether they come forward. This is happening to our friends and our families in communities across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga and our entire nation. It is this reality that brings us to this debate today. Legislation like Bill C-225 represents a strong step toward acknowledging the distinct and serious nature of intimate partner violence. It signals to the tens of thousands of Canadians that the government recognizes these harms and is prepared to equip law enforcement and the justice system with the tools needed to respond effectively and hold perpetrators accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, usually when members rise in the House to speak to legislation, they do so with energy and exuberance. Today is very different. As a mother of two young women finding their way in the world, I really appreciate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this legislation; however, it is troubling that such legislation is even necessary, though it undeniably is. Far too often, intimate partner violence has persisted as a hidden crisis in our country. It is often left unspoken, pushed to the margins of public discourse and too easily overlooked. In many communities, particularly those already facing systemic barriers, it remains especially difficult to name, confront or escape. Too many Canadians endure this violence in silence.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise of being able to negotiate a deal with the United States. He has not delivered and instead, he is walking away. With 76% of our exports bound for the U.S., that reality will not change quickly, certainly not for Canadians already bearing the costs of tariffs. Diversification takes time, especially when negotiations yield no results. When will the Liberal government commit to prioritizing Canada-U.S. trade, return to Washington and secure a deal with a nation that we trade nearly a trillion dollars a year with? What is the plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are only 10 weeks left until the CUSMA review and there is still no plan from the Prime Minister . Reports suggest there have been no serious negotiations with D.C. since October, while Mexico is actively engaging in informal CUSMA talks with the U.S. We are at a critical juncture for North American trade and I raise a very straightforward concern. We have 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on this negotiation. They need certainty. They need predictability. Why is Canada not actively at the table?”
“I urge the Prime Minister and his front bench to change course and work with Conservatives to deliver results, because we in this place can wait out a majority government, but struggling Canadians cannot.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are emerging from a long, hard winter, made even more difficult by a historic affordability crisis. Their hard-earned money is putting fewer groceries in their fridges and less gas in their tanks. A steady decline in purchasing power, driven by years of inflationary fiscal policy, is draining the economic backbone of our nation, leaving many Canadians unable to meet even the most basic of needs. We have had no new pipelines, no new trade deals, no repeal of anti-development laws and no progress on interprovincial trade barriers. Instead of piecemeal band-aids, Canadians need action that tackles the root causes of these crises. If we want to be affordable at home, safe at home and strong at home, we must make real change at home.”
“Mr. Speaker, in February 2025, the Prime Minister announced a project that will see thousands of property owners across Ontario and Quebec face expropriation, communities divided and Canadians forced to pay over $90 billion. From day one, the government has failed to answer even the most basic questions about the cost, timing, impacts, routes or construction. This is not government vision; it is reckless vanity. Will the minister finally listen to the thousands of concerned property owners in eastern Ontario, cancel the Alto high-speed rail and invest in priorities and infrastructure that Canadians actually need?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, the only thing the Liberal government is focused on is consistently delivering excuses. The government needs to look at home for the root causes that have created a decade of debt and deficits, like the government's own economic and monetary policies. The government continuously raids the bank accounts of Canadians to fund vanity projects like Alto rail, instead of investing in much-needed infrastructure and housing. Again, will the government scrap the fuel standard tax so struggling Canadians can get a modicum of relief?”
“Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, when asked if there would be a barometer for Canadians to hold the Prime Minister accountable, he responded, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store, when they are paying their electricity bill, when they or their children are looking for a place to live”. Now, 10 months later, groceries are higher than ever, affordable housing is non-existent, and the price of fuel is skyrocketing. This is a direct result of increasing the clean fuel standard tax by 242%. Will the Prime Minister get rid of this tax on food so Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, February's jobs report demands serious attention. Instead, Canadians are hearing dismissive responses to legitimate concerns. The government's very own data shows that last month's decline in full-time employment was the largest decline, outside of COVID, since 2009. Canadians were promised strong economic leadership. If the Liberal government cannot deliver jobs, growth or hope for the next generation, why should Canadians have any confidence that its economic plan will work at all?”
“Mr. Speaker, February's job numbers send a troubling signal for Canada's economy. More than 100,000 full-time jobs have disappeared, youth unemployment has climbed above 14%, and our economy is now among the weakest performers in the G7. Young Canadians are trying to start their careers at a time when opportunity is sinking. When will the Liberal government start working with the opposition to advance practical solutions, including our youth jobs plan, and to remove taxes and red tape that is making it harder for businesses to create jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, one in five seniors cannot afford necessities, such as food and housing. Women, renters and seniors with health challenges are being hit the hardest, living in conditions comparable to the poverty line. The Liberal government often blames global pressures when the fact is that Canada has the worst food price inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister 's rebranded carbon tax, now increasing to 17¢ a litre, is a policy entirely within his control. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility, scrap the taxes and cut the regulations that are driving up food prices and start making life more affordable for the Canadians who are struggling?”
“Indeed, I respect and support infrastructure and advancing infrastructure, but there has to be some answers as to how, when and why this is happening right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, share a lot of the concerns that the hon. member has spoken to, and I applaud him for his remarks in the House tonight. We have to remember that we are in the House of the common people. We, as opposition and government, are representing the views of our constituents. I have had hundreds of thousands of contacts in my riding, which neighbours that of the gentleman to my left, and they have similar concerns. Could the member speak to the economic realism? Is this ever going to happen? If it does happen, what will the cost be? There is so much concern, disruption and fear in the world right now, along with how much everything costs. With the troubles that people are having on a day-to-day basis just to survive, how can this project necessarily be a priority for the government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect and applaud the member beside me for coming out with such a strong statement against Alto. I understand that we share similar riding demographics, and both our ridings are affected by this project. Could the member elaborate on some of the concerns and/or feedback he is getting from his constituents and why, in the role of opposition, he is so able to speak against it?”
“With knowledge, healthy living and collective resolve, we can stand beside one another, honour every family's story and, together, work toward healthier hearts for all.”
“Mr. Speaker, February is Heart Month, a time to focus on the health of our own hearts and to stand in solidarity with families affected by heart conditions, including congenital heart defects. It is a reminder that heart health begins with everyday choices. Small, consistent steps can play a powerful role in prevention and long-term wellness. At the same time, we recognize those affected by congenital heart defects. Medical advances have transformed survival and quality of life, yet many families still navigate complex surgeries, specialized care and lifelong monitoring. We also honour those families who have experienced the heartbreak of losing a child due to these conditions. Let us embrace both prevention and advocacy, caring for our own hearts while championing those whose paths began with unique challenges.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 would not lower food prices, but we will not block a small rebate for the people who actually qualify for it. Over the past three years, the prices of beef, lettuce and baby formula have all surged. Even basic student staples like Kraft dinner and canned beans are more expensive. Canadians need leadership that delivers. That means eliminating the industrial carbon tax, removing the fuel standard tax and strengthening competition in the grocery store. When will the government start governing responsibly and lift these burdens so Canadians can afford groceries on their paycheques?”
“Mr. Speaker, since 2023, the finance minister has promised to stabilize food prices. Instead, Canadians continue to face out-of-control grocery costs, something anyone who shops in our communities sees every single day. A temporary rebate will not fix the root cause: poor economic policy. The last time rebates were used, Canada ended up with the highest food inflation in the G7. Why now should Canadians trust the finance minister to actually lower grocery prices?”
“Mr. Speaker, our goal is to help stop the struggle. Taxes such as the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax are directly contributing to the rising cost of food. They are directly and negatively impacting our farmers' ability to affordably grow, produce and transport the food we need to survive. Removing these taxes will help Canadian families afford groceries and farmers produce them. Will the government introduce legislation to eliminate the industrial carbon tax, eliminate the fuel standards tax and cut red tape for farmers?”
“Mr. Speaker, Stats Canada confirmed what Canadians feel every single day: Life is more expensive. Fact: Canada is now leading the G7 in food inflation. Fact: Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as they are in the U.S. Fact: Nearly 2.2 million people visit food banks in Canada in a single month. Rising food prices are hitting Canadians hard. Conservatives will support legislation that cuts red tape on farmers so they and Canada can grow. The question is, will the government table it?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that Canada and the U.S. still have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. We have been diversifying with other nations for many years, long before the current government came into play. Diversification does not need to be an either-or. We do not need to stop international trade with the U.S. We need to restore and reinvigorate that relationship while, at the same time, fostering the new and current trade relationships we have with other countries.”
“Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect, but we are talking about the opposition day motion for a Canadian sovereignty act. This would touch energy, the economy and the environment. The bottom line is that we need to cut taxes, unlock investment and let builders build. Canadians have no appetite for partisanship and throwing stones both ways. We need to get rid of the politics and partisanship. We need pragmatic plans that restore and support economic sovereignty here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has had 10 years. This is too little too late. It is pitting province against province and sector against sector. With all due respect, it has been a year. If we want to talk numbers, the current deficit has doubled and food inflation is the worst in the G7. If we want to talk crime, Liberal bail continues to release violent repeat offenders. No pipelines have been approved. New and increasing tariffs are shutting down mills, factories and businesses across the country. If the member thinks I am talking negatively, it is because we have a really dire situation here in Canada, and something needs to be done about it.”
“I will leave Parliament with this quote from that same Greek polymath: ...and their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound prediction; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire.”
“The current occupants of 24 Sussex and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are minor actors in a much larger, deeper and historic relationship. We need to remember that. Trade is not finite. We can and should aim not only to increase trade with our European and Asian allies but also to seek new emerging markets in Africa and on the subcontinent, and most importantly to repair, renew and reinvigorate our trade relationship with the United States. During his lauded Davos speech, the Prime Minister glibly dismissed “this aphorism of Thucydides” on the international order by simply countering the Greek historian's observations with a powerful and deeply insightful quote. It will not. The Prime Minister assured us that his dealings with petro-dictators and autocrats in Qatar and China instead of like-minded democracies is not naive multilateralism.”
“It calls for serious investment in our natural resource sectors by fast-tracking projects that create Canadian goods with Canadian resources by Canadian companies creating Canadian jobs. The Prime Minister would do well to follow in the footsteps of his former boss and continue the generational trade diversification carried out by former prime minister Stephen Harper. His prowess serves as an excellent blueprint to follow as he and his cabinet navigate the treacherous waters of international trade and relations in 2026. The best time to continue diversification was a decade ago. The second best time to diversify is now. Canada, Canadians and especially policy-makers need to remember that the relationship between Canada and the United States will go past the President and the Prime Minister .”
“The Prime Minister 's speech at Davos was well written, trading in Ted and Samantha on main street with Thucydides and President Havel. However, writing a speech and delivering a speech are the easy parts. What is difficult is actually delivering on those promises. To that end, to achieve that goal of diversifying trade and kick-starting our domestic supply chains and building independence and economic sovereignty here at home, the Conservatives have introduced a Canadian sovereignty act. It calls for a battery of changes to the Liberal government's decade of stifling economic growth by repealing unnecessary regulatory and statutory caps like the oil and gas cap, the industrial carbon tax, the EV mandate, the plastic bans, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 .”
“In my mind, this sizable shift in direction from the government, its cabinet and caucus can be explained by only one thing: U.S. tariffs. (1200) Having campaigned myself on many of these issues, I will not fault the Prime Minister for coming to his senses, even if it took crippling tariffs from a foreign government to prompt a moment of clarity that I highly doubt his predecessor was ever willing to entertain. Once again, I would like to reiterate that these tariffs on Canadian goods and services are unjustified, unfair, unprovoked and unnecessary, but they have forced Canada to make difficult decisions that it should have made a decade ago. I applaud the government for making those select few difficult decisions in principle, which have caused a rupture in his caucus that we are seeing play out in real time.”
“Multilateral dialogue with despots in Iran and China were the approach of the world's most recent postnational state. Despite having largely the same caucus and much of the same cabinet, the Prime Minister , who campaigned on acting as a foil to what he calls “unstable and unpredictable” actors, has committed verbally to adopting some of the positions we have championed, at least in principle. The government worked with the Conservative opposition to pass Bill C-5 , which gives the government the capacity to fast-track natural resource projects in the national interest. The government, after a decade of pressure, finally agreed to the Conservative-led push to increase defence spending and increase border security, coupled with reduced immigration targets.”
“The legacy of the unfair, unjust Trump tariffs will be an extremely painful but valuable lesson for Canadian policy-makers. The importance of diversification and self-reliance is an increasingly unstable global threat environment. While the outlook is bleak, there has been a noticeable shift in at least the rhetoric coming from the other side of the House since the previous election. For a decade we had a government that was staunchly anti-pipeline. Any resource development project posed an immediate and direct existential threat to the planet. Defence spending was seen as unnecessary and abrasive, ironically enough because our geography and proximity to the United States meant we did not have a need for an efficient independent military.”
“The response of Canadian workers and voters is predictable and more than understandable. Canada is responding. The government is making efforts, as is the opposition. We are doing that through our proposed Canadian sovereignty act, which would allow Canada to build more, extract more, import more and, most importantly, to thrive more. Canada's Conservatives, despite the claims of certain members on the other side, have shown a willingness to work with the government when the government proposes sensible, results-oriented policies like Bill C-5 . A Canadian sovereignty act would build on that economic stewardship by giving the government the tools to help spur on private sector development across the nation by removing the regulatory shackles the Prime Minister 's predecessor bound the government with.”
“First, we are stronger together than we are apart. That applies to the negotiating table just as much as it does to the floor of the House of Commons. Second, patience is wearing thin. Offering at least some form of openness and transparency to stakeholders, opposition parties and, more importantly, the families and business owners suffering under these tariffs would go an extremely long way in dispersing the fog and noise surrounding the negotiations. Before going any further, I need to reiterate that the tariffs the President of the United States has implemented are unjustified, unfair, unprovoked and, most importantly, unnecessary. They are causing untold levels of harm in strategic sectors on both sides of the border. They are shuttering plants and foundries. Their immediate effects on the Canadian economy are paralyzing.”
“Numerous ministers have stood up in this place signalling their willingness to work with the opposition. It is time to make good on that promise, and it needs to happen as soon as possible because Canadian industry and jobs are suffering. For nearly a year, Canada has been at the receiving end of unprovoked and unjustifiable tariffs. The rationale behind why Washington decided to implement these taxes can be debated ad nauseam, but functionally, the answer to that question is irrelevant. The decisions of the President are out of our hands, but how we as elected representatives, and more importantly, Canadians as a society, respond is not. There are two pieces of advice that should be obvious to anyone looking in from the outside of the negotiations that even the most casual of observers will conclude.”