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 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion on the reintroduction of a Canadian sovereignty act. Before I get to the act, I would like to talk about the change in the political landscape between its first introduction and today. Canada is at a precipice. We are facing a very real economic threat. The proposed Canadian sovereignty act is a strong step in the right direction. It would remove barriers and red tape that have held Canada back. It calls on the Prime Minister to promote investments by removing capital gains tax on reinvestments in Canada, entice provincial governments to open their markets up, build pipelines, improve access to the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario and start at least one new Greenfield LNG project.”
“Mr. Chair, companies are not turning their backs out of choice; companies are turning their backs out of consequence. I would like to ask the member to talk about the CUSMA review and the preparations for that. The U.S. has already begun hearings in preparation for the CUSMA review, and Canada, from my perspective, cannot be caught flat-footed. Right now, there is so much inconsistency, frustration and concern because we do not know whether the government is going or coming. Could the government speak to what specific steps it is taking to prepare for Canada's role in the CUSMA review? Which stakeholders in the auto sector has the government contacted to ask questions about that so far?”
“Mr. Chair, the member has acknowledged that businesses are trying to access funding and that the Liberals are providing funding for businesses. However, Canadians want to be self-sustainable and self-reliant. Nine months have passed, self-imposed deadlines have been missed and there is still no deal. Communities are continuously feeling the impact every single day, and there is no road map. How does the member justify the delay? Furthermore, I have two pretty specific questions. First, why has the Prime Minister taken such an inconsistent approach towards the American administration? Second, what explains the Prime Minister's contradictory approach and his unwillingness to follow through with things? He does a flip-flop.”
“Mr. Chair, the member raised some interesting points. He mentioned that he is there to support workers and to support the industry for years to come. There are 1.3 million vehicles built by the hands of Canadians every year. We have been battling this trade deal for close to a year now. I hope that we can both agree that this very reciprocal relationship with the United States is very integral, especially when it comes to autos. Week after week, year after year, we are seeing more layoffs, and the lack of action is giving me very little confidence. Industry and labour have warned about the risks that this industry is facing. Why did the government fail to act sooner? What could the government have done differently to prevent these job losses?”
“Mr. Chair, the member spoke about a long-term diversification strategy. The government speaks frequently about this need for trade diversification, yet after more than a decade in office, as the government has been there for 10 years, there has been no long-term structured plan to gradually build new markets for Canada's auto sector. Now that tensions with the U.S. have escalated, calls for diversification appear reactive rather than strategic. Why did the government not begin developing a serious diversification strategy years ago when risks to the auto sector were already well known?”
“Mr. Chair, nine months have passed, and there is still no deal. Self-imposed deadlines have been missed. Regardless of the political narratives, there is no question that the current tension between Ottawa and Washington is not on stable footing. For years, experts have warned that the Canadian auto sector was vulnerable to shifts in American policy and global competition. Despite this, we have seen no meaningful contingency planning or phased market expansion. My question for the member is this: Why did the government fail to prepare the auto industry for disruptions or to open additional markets before actually getting to this crisis point?”
“Every single auto association, every company and every labour group that I have spoken with as shadow minister for Canada-U.S. trade says that the federal EV mandate is unrealistic and has put an additional strain on manufacturers already facing pressure. Given these realities, will the member support ending the EV mandate and advocate that a pause is not good enough and that what is needed is a permanent removal?”
“Mr. Chair, I have a couple of things. The member across acknowledged that negotiations are sensitive and that they should not be debated here. Let me be clear. There is no better place for this to be debated. Healthy dialogue is so important. She was talking about the electric vehicle mandate. Do not get me wrong: I am not talking down electric vehicles, but I do not want to be forced with regard to whether or not I should buy them. We have to remember that by 2030, the Liberal government wants 100% of vehicle sales to be electric. Currently, Canada has about 37,000 public charging points. To meet this target, we would need 373,000 new chargers. That is 98 per day for the next 10 years, at a cost of roughly $300,000 each, more in rural areas like my own and in northern regions, totalling $112 billion.”
“Mr. Speaker, instead of disingenuous replies to very serious questions, Canadians deserve answers. Let me share the state of food banks in Ontario. Two in three food banks are concerned about sustaining their operations over the next six months. One in two worries it will not have enough food to meet the needs in their community. This is directly from the “Hunger Report”: “Over the past five years, the proportion of first-time food bank visitors has increased.” The trend is unsurprising, as overall food bank use has nearly doubled. Can the Prime Minister explain why he is driving up grocery costs?”
“Mr. Speaker, at a time when families are under unprecedented financial pressures, Canadians expect their government to put them first. While the Prime Minister travels abroad, meeting with dictators and autocrats, Canadians here at home are struggling to make ends meet. In parts of Ontario, food bank visits have increased by over 250%. This budget was an opportunity for the government to lower the cost of living by eliminating the industrial carbon tax. Instead, it callously increased it. Why?”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 clearly, with no doubt, would only add another voice that governments have been ignoring for years. The issue is not people's raising awareness; the issue is the government's ignoring them, and that would not change with Bill C-10.”
“Madam Speaker, I could not agree more that hypocrisy is not welcome in the House, but we hear it time and time again. This is not a true step toward reconciliation. We spoke earlier about $10.6 million over four years: bureaucracy posing as progress. What indigenous peoples are looking for is safer housing and reliable water, but Bill C-10 would not do any of that. It would be just another study and another study, when there are already recommendations in place that we need to fulfill. Let us just do and implement these things. We do not need another bureaucratic prism to do that.”
“Madam Speaker, the question of Jordan's principle is a conversation that has come up time and time again with trustees from my local area. The question is falling, seemingly, on deaf ears with the government. I have asked time and time again for some consultation, for communication and where we are moving forward.”
“Madam Speaker, we are not here today to talk about Conservatives. We are not here to talk about politics. We are not here to talk about partisan issues, as one of my colleagues spoke of earlier in a question. We are here to talk about Bill C-10 . It was very clear in my speech that a large problem we have is a failure to keep indigenous conversations in this place, and that member's question alludes to exactly that. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is.”
“I sincerely hope that the ministers will work and, importantly, communicate with both communities as this long-standing process moves towards a conclusion. Above all, most importantly, I hope they will listen. If people in the House never listen, we will never learn and our ignorance will never drift away.”
“I do not believe I will support the legislation, because I believe it signals a silent abandonment of what we should be doing more of in the House: bringing that too-ignored relationship between Canada and first nations into this place, properly funding departments and agencies, and removing the barriers to settlement so that not just indigenous Canadians but also non-indigenous Canadians can move on with their lives, together. Right now, in the area that I represent, there is a settlement ongoing after years of negotiations. The government has not been forthcoming with either the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte or the Town of Deseronto about what the final steps will mean for each of them. This is unacceptable for what is supposed to be one of the most straightforward treaties in the country.”
“To put on my partisan hat for just a moment, I want to highlight some of the actions the Harper government took when, and I stress when, political will was shown. In 2013, the Conservative government implemented a change that accelerated and improved the process for resolving specific claims, itself an extension of the 2007 specific claims action plan. Following that, in 2008, through legislation developed in tandem with the Assembly of First Nations, was the Specific Claims Tribunal. It also achieved a number of modern treaties, including with the Tłı̨chǫ, Déline, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. This was done without the addition of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Was it enough? No, but it was done.”
“The government is firing the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer because he spoke out against the government. In fact, the advertisement for his replacement is already published in the Canada Gazette. I support treaty rights because I respect the rule of law and I respect the courts. To me, this is a fundamental underpinning of being a Tory. In many ways, these are the same reasons that convinced Joseph Brant and the Mohawk to ally with the British those many years ago. I want to be a part not of a government but of a House, a legislature and a nation that removes bureaucratic barriers to reconciliation, not doing what I fear would be putting them up. Ultimately, when the state is involved, action is only limited by will.”
“The only thing Bill C-10 would do is create another office to release reports that would be ignored, reiterating what we already know is happening: The government is not doing its job. What is worse is that it may remove the onus from far too many parliamentarians to engage and listen to indigenous communities regarding treaty rights, because they will just wait for the report and let the government deal with it, especially those parliamentarians who do not share their borders with an indigenous community. There is another glaring issue at hand here. The government has an aversion to properly funding these offices and allowing them to maintain independence if they do not toe the line. Our procurement ombudsman does not have enough money to do their job, which they openly stated.”
“There is little understanding of how the federal government contributed to that reality through residential schools and the policies and laws in place during their existence. That is from “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”. While it speaks specifically to the horror of residential schools, that same issue can be applied to far too many interactions between the state and aboriginal communities at a larger scale. That is what we parliamentarians need to do. It is what we need to do better at. (1035) The reason this office has garnered some support from stakeholders is that they feel it is needed because government is not doing its due diligence in listening, engaging, learning and advocating for the treaty rights of first nations.”
“The simple truth is that since its inception, Ottawa, and indeed Canada, has too frequently been unable or perhaps unwilling to treat every first nation, Métis and Inuit community with the individual respect, understanding and reverence it deserves. My concern is that the creation of yet another centralized office in Ottawa risks adding only another layer of bureaucratic indifference when what we require is a streamlined, responsive process capable of negotiating, settling and addressing historical wrongs with the attention each community merits. I quote: Non-Aboriginal Canadians hear about the problems faced by Aboriginal communities, but they have almost no idea how those problems developed.”
“However, the relationships between Canada and indigenous communities are too often steeped in sadness, violence, betrayal, deception and neglect. They are numerous, and, most importantly, each of them is distinct. Too often, we speak of the indigenous community as though it were a single, uniform entity. It is not. There are indigenous communities, each with their own histories, governance structures, cultures and needs. Even the word “communities” fails to truly capture the full diversity and complexity that exists. This misconception is, if not the core, then certainly a major contributor to the veil that has obscured the understanding of far too many policy-makers and decision-makers here in Ottawa. That misunderstanding, unfortunately, extends to this very place.”
“I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Chief Don Maracle, the council and the people of Tyendinaga for their kindness, guidance and patience. It is an ongoing learning journey, but it is one in which I hope to continue to make meaningful progress. There is one more misconception that I, especially as a federal legislator, must set aside when it comes to understanding indigenous communities, which is their relationship with Canada and the Crown. The most effective way to begin to do that is by listening. This means listening to the concerns of the council, the chief, local business owners, builders, educators and anyone else who wishes to have their voice heard. Of course, listening is a very important skill when engaging with any group, whether it is business leaders, foreign dignitaries or members of this chamber.”
“I did not know the full story of their migration after the war, the lands they lost or how Brant led his people to what would become their home in Canada, and for one group in particular, to the shores of the Bay of Quinte. I like to think that from talking, engaging and, most importantly, listening, some of my earlier misunderstandings have begun to fall away. With many conversations, and incredibly patient and strong local indigenous leaders, advocates and community members, including colleagues in this very House, I have begun to learn more about the rich and diverse history of indigenous peoples in Canada. Every year I look forward to the celebration of the Mohawk landing in Tyendinaga.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to an issue that, perhaps paradoxically, touches on one of Canada's most important yet too often overlooked relationships: our relationship with indigenous peoples. The riding I represent includes the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Like many members in this House, I can candidly say that when I was first elected to represent the area we share with Tyendinaga, I did not truly understand as much as I should have about the community. I lacked an understanding of its history, culture and heritage. I did not fully appreciate the role Joseph Brant played during the American Revolution, the alliance he and his people forged with the British or the promises made to the Mohawk people in recognition of their fierce and loyal support.”
“Madam Speaker, law-abiding gun owners are enjoying the outdoors and providing a livelihood. The government is stuck in a different era. I do not understand how, after 30 years of listening to stakeholders and people in their ridings, members are not getting the facts and are making arbitrary, single-handed decisions that are not focused on rural centres one bit. Have Canadians take a hard look at the legislation. Canadians expect significant change from the government.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind remarks by my colleague. Bringing an approach to Parliament of seasoned compassion and the encouragement of respectful engagement is now more important than ever. We are in an era that is very angry and divided. I recognize the question my hon. colleague asked about organized crime. Organized crime exists and governments need to step up. Right now, we are seeing so little action from the government, only talk, promises and a flashy budget document giving us lots of “We may do this and we may do that” but very little substance. I am curious to see what will happen over the next several months because it is just not working right now.”
“Madam Speaker, this is disturbing. Perhaps I can share some cold, hard truth about the Prime Minister and the lack of action he has had on this file. In fact, he thinks he is going to wait until it makes sense to speak with our neighbours to the south. The Prime Minister has suggested that the age-old adage between Canada and the U.S. is over. Tariffs are hitting all-time highs, key sectors, businesses and families are being affected and this unilateral approach is not working.”
“In closing, Canadians deserve a government that balances ambition with responsibility. The budget offers flashy promises but little substance. As official opposition, we will continue to demand accountability, transparency and real results, putting our country's future ahead of political spin. Canadians deserve that.”
“Canada and the United States had and still have the closest relationship between two nations anywhere in the world. Our joint history has stretched for hundreds of years and has been through trials and tribulations far worse than a trade spat, including literal all-out war. Our bond with the United States is unmatched, transcending politics, culture and geography. I urge the government not to take this easy, politically expedient path of disengagement. The decisions we make now will have consequences far beyond the next three years. With the world at a crossroad, war in Europe, sabre-rattling in the South China Sea, and terror and death across Africa and the Middle East, now more than ever, Canada must turn toward, not away from, the country that has always been and will always be there.”
“We showed patience while the government withheld details, recognizing that not everything can be conducted in full public view. We support efforts to diversify trade relationships. However, what has happened since negotiations have collapsed is very troubling. The Prime Minister campaigned on leadership regarding this file, yet, when it matters most, he is failing to deliver. In the most recent weeks, the government has shown no plan, no urgency and zero accountability. The silence and inaction speak volumes, and none of it inspires confidence. There are two axioms that I need to believe are true. One, trade is good. Two, trade is not finite. Cabinet needs to keep this front of mind. Undermining trade with our closest ally to chase deals with dictatorships in Beijing and the U.A.E. is not just misguided but also reckless.”
“It is imperative that the government work with financial institutions to spot instances of abuse and take mitigating steps to protect potential victims. Our aging population is an issue policy-makers have ignored for years, and we do so at our own peril. I urge the government to heed the needs of our seniors and their families. The hallmark of a civilization is how we treat the most vulnerable, and nowhere is that more true than with our seniors. I would like to finish off by talking about the issue that has been dominating headlines for months now. That issue is trade and, in particular, what this budget and government have been doing on the file of late. Conservatives understood the government wanted to take its shot in negotiating with the United States.”
“There are millions of Canadians who are quite literally nowhere near law enforcement or emergency services. I urge the government to keep this in mind at all times, especially when looking at ways to tackle crime in rural Canada. Another group that is often lost in discussions in Ottawa is seniors. These are the men and women who built the country we call home today. Their labour, toil, struggles and efforts have granted us a nation that, despite some very real issues, is among the world's greatest countries to live in, and they deserve our respect and admiration. The measures in the budget to combat economic abuse are welcomed. As we all know, financial abuse and fraud especially affect our golden Canadians.”
“However, again, it needs to follow up on its promises instead of rehashing the same promises year after year, budget after budget. This means working with our provincial cousins to ensure they have the capacities and infrastructure for federal laws to be effective in the first place. We need to move beyond the tired old blame game between federal and provincial governments to get laws passed, jails built and criminals behind bars. This needs to be a priority, one that ought to be championed by the federal government. What the provinces need is leadership and a firm commitment from Ottawa to keep our cities, towns and communities safe. In tandem with this, and related to my previous point, Ottawa needs to understand that rural Canada exists.”
“The government has shown, time and again, that it does not care about gun owners and that, most telling, it does not care to learn about guns or gun owners. No criminals are doing a drive-by shooting in downtown Toronto with a legally purchased SKS. The Conservatives know this, gun owners know this and criminals themselves know this. I would normally presume the government knows this as well, but, as the age-old saying goes, do not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. I am certainly not going to argue against that, given the 30-plus years of evidence we have. (1305) This dovetails very conveniently into the other concern many rural and small urban centres have, which is crime. The government has made big promises to help combat crime, which is refreshing to hear.”
“I cannot begin to fathom the cartoonish ignorance of this statement, and it boggles the mind that this line went through dozens, if not hundreds, of sets of eyes before seeing publication and not one person stood up and said, “This does not make sense.” It is a clear indication that the government paints our rural farmers, sportsmen, hunters and indigenous communities as gun-crazed fetishists who need to be put under the jackboot of the state, instead of the responsible, mature, respectable and law-abiding gun owners they are. To make matters worse, we have a public safety minister who, as kind as he might be, has waffled on what exactly this buyback program entails and whether or not it is legally binding. He is telling Canadian gun owners one thing, then telling his tenants something completely different.”
“We have time to flesh out the mains instead of diving through a budget and estimates at almost the same time. I will move on to the content of the budget itself. One notable piece of the budget that is of great concern not just for my constituents but also for law-abiding firearm owners across the nation is the arbitrary ad hoc firearms policy. We might think that, after three decades, at least one person would take the time to inform themself about how firearms operate, yet here we are, a full 33 years after the initial launch of the long-gun registry, with this budget in 2025. Still, the Liberals are chasing that elusive dragon. The budget proudly claims that “Weapons made for the battlefield do not belong on Canadian streets”.”
“To be clear, private sector investment can be beneficial to the nation, but banking on it to fund infrastructure spending is not. All of that is to say that the government can be forgiven for taking what I am sure it thinks is a bold new approach to government financing. After all, along with the black shoes and white shirts in the PMO, the Prime Minister also brought a new fiscal calendar with him from his time in London, which is why we are now speaking to the budget in November instead of the more traditional spring. However, the budget is just that: a statement of intentions. It remains to be seen what Parliament actually approves and how the government spends the money. I will give the government credit for one thing. It is refreshing to finally see some relief for the ever-suffering estimates process.”
“Madam Speaker, for months, Canadians have waited to see how the government, elected on promises of fiscal foresight, economic integrity and monetary wizardry, would turn the fortunes of this nation around. If Canadians expected any sort of responsible governance from this budget, they were sorely disappointed. Instead, they got a glossy communications document full of arbitrary promises about vague infrastructure spending, all dressed up behind a clever new accounting trick: “Canadians rejoice, because the government no longer racks up debt but now makes capital investments.” These can be whatever the government wants. Apparently, the invisible hand of the market has struck a secret deal guaranteeing billions of investments from unknown private sector benefactors.”
“This budget was built on hubris, not humility, and Conservatives will continue to fight every step of the way to continue to build confidence and bring forward policies that will deliver a future Canadians can actually afford.”
“Mr. Speaker, eight months ago, on the steps of Rideau Hall, the Prime Minister pledged to focus on what matters to Canadians: affordability. He pledged that ultimately he would be judged not by his promises but by the prices Canadians face every single day. However, under his watch, life has only become more expensive. Inflation is still running at 3.4%, and food prices have risen nearly 40% faster here than in the United States. Ironically, the Prime Minister cannot even fault Justin Trudeau for today's mess, because he was the principal adviser for that government as well. The budget was the Prime Minister's chance to finally deliver relief. Instead of responsible fiscal planning, we have creative accounting that piles on staggering intergenerational debt with no credible path to balance.”
“Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor, has said, “That's been our concern from day one.... The gap between wholesale prices in Canada versus the U.S. food wholesale prices has actually increased, and we believe that one factor driving this is the carbon tax.” It does not take a central banker to figure out that eliminating the industrial carbon tax will help lower food prices. Why is the Prime Minister choosing to raise the industrial carbon tax when so many Canadians can barely afford groceries?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Canadians got a taste of one of the greatest sins a government can commit: over-promise and under-deliver. The Prime Minister promised a generational and transformational budget crafted by the so-called master of monetary policy. Instead of reducing the deficit and showing fiscal discipline, he produced one of the costliest budget deficits in our nation's history. Rather than providing relief to Canadians by reducing the industrial carbon tax, he chose to increase it. Why is the Prime Minister raising the industrial carbon tax and making food even more expensive for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, we keep sounding the alarm, but it feels as though no one on that side is listening. Families are stretched thin and communities are breaking under the weight of rising costs. One food bank executive said it plainly: Housing and food costs are the greatest contributors to the increase in their services. Costs for basic living continue to rise while the money coming in does not. When will the government finally hear the voices of Canadians and stop letting hidden taxes, packaging taxes and the industrial carbon tax drive families to the food bank?”
“Mr. Speaker, food banks were meant for emergencies, not everyday survival, yet more Canadians rely on them each month just to eat. Families are working harder but falling further behind as groceries soar and paycheques shrink. This is not about generosity. It is about failure. As Food Banks Canada CEO Kirstin Beardsley warns, there were 2.2 million food bank visits in a single month. The longer the Liberals ignore the reality on the ground the deeper the crisis becomes. When will the Liberal government realize its inflationary deficits are driving Canadians to the food bank?”
“It also means that the government needs to signal its intent to actually engage with the opposition to get the best deal possible for Canada and end this unjust, unprovoked trade dispute. To bring this back to Bill C-228 , the last thing I would like to do during any negotiation process is to signal to any potential trading partners that the government does not have the agency to negotiate on behalf of the government. In closing, Bill C-228 is guided by good intentions to strengthen Parliament's role in treaty approval. However, as drafted, it risks slowing decision-making and blurring the line between advisory oversight and executive responsibility. I would like to applaud the member for Jonquière for his vision and efforts to empower this place, but, unfortunately, I cannot support the implementation of that vision as is.”
“We may disagree on how we are going to get there, but our goal is the same. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record my continued commitment, that of my team and myself, to extend our co-operation and support to the government negotiating team in any way we can. I reiterate to the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade , the Minister of Finance , the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister directly that my door remains open and that my commitment to constructive co-operation and engagement with our U.S. neighbours is unwavering. However, I want to be clear: Members should understand that the willingness to co-operate does not exempt the government from rightful scrutiny and criticism where it is warranted.”
“This may be the first time that members will ever hear a Tory say this in the House, but the legislation's most worrisome aspect is the potential effect this will have on limiting the authority of the current government to do its job. The legislation would have a massive chilling effect on the government's ability to negotiate in good faith with other governments. Simply put, why would the nations of the world put any faith or effort into the treaty negotiation processes if the entire process can be derailed or held up in Parliament? This is particularly poignant given what is happening right now in Washington. To be clear, the Conservatives wish nothing but total success to the government in its negotiating efforts with the U.S. We all want what is best for Canada and the U.S.”
“Does rejecting the treaty mean that trade talks collapse? This highlights an unfortunate reality that the legislation could not meet. Either the process is fulsome and done with attention to detail and due process that it deserves, in which case it quite possibly cripples the workload of the relevant committee, or it turns into a rubber-stamping process, in which case it is irrelevant and not needed. This, of course, ignores the other elephant in the room: It provides all parties with another legislative process that could be politically weaponized, further delaying the process. All of this leads to a third issue that, in my opinion, is by far the most serious.”
“Let us say that tomorrow this legislation achieves royal assent, and additionally, the government announces we have a renegotiated CUSMA. It is a trilateral trade deal with revisions and additions. CUSMA then gets sent to the international trade committee. The agreement is about as long as the previous one, ringing in at just under 1,900 pages. What happens next? Do they do line-by-line consideration or clause-by-clause consideration? How are the offices expected to do due diligence in understanding each clause in the little time we have? (1825) Does the committee supply simply a nay or yea? Does this end the deal? How much time is given to the committee and its members to consider the document? Does a 10-page treaty get the same amount of time for MPs to familiarize themselves with as a 2,000-page behemoth?”