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 4 of 4.
“Who knows how long a treaty may require at committee. This leads to my second concern with the proposal to send this to committee, which is the simple question, why? Parliamentarians do not have the capacity to amend or change the wording of a proposed treaty. We are simply there to say yea or nay. We are not involved in the negotiation process. The government is, with ministers, skilled public servants, subject matter experts and diplomats hammering out minutia after minutia. I am curious as to what members would envision the committee process would look like. Would we treat the treaty like legislation? Almost everyone in this place has done line-by-line consideration of legislation before. We know how tedious, but necessary, it is. Let us engage in a bit of a thought experiment.”
“We already face severe limitations on our ability to analyze legislation and conduct studies at our committees. With the addition of proposed treaties being sent into the room, the very few hours we have would be reduced even further. This means less legislation passed, fewer treaties approved, fewer private members' bills agreed to and fewer studies in committee. For a microcosm, in the 41st Parliament, former prime minister Stephen Harper and his strong, stable, national majority government tabled 142 treaties in the House. If this bill were law then, that would mean that that Parliament would have had 142 additional study topics and 142 other very important committee meetings that would not have occurred. This is assuming the absolute best-case scenario, where each treaty is approved by all parties with little or no debate.”
“First, what is the purpose of sending proposed treaties to committee? Second, can the committees, as they are currently constituted, actually carry out the massive increase in workload Bill C-228 would necessitate? Third, and perhaps most important, I am concerned about a potential chilling effect it may have in a negotiating process. To be clear, this is not a question of effort. The reality is that there are just not enough hours in a day, a week or a month for parliamentarians to thoroughly scrutinize the dozens, if not hundreds, of additional documents that could be sent to the relevant House committees. To provide some context, since 2008, 467 treaties have been tabled in the House. By my napkin math, during that same time period, 341 pieces of government legislation have passed committee and received royal assent.”
“At the risk of echoing some of the thoughtful concerns by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills North , I would like to briefly outline the key provisions of this legislation. As written, the legislation would do three things. First, it would formalize the practice of ministers tabling major treaties in this place prior to ratification, along with an explanatory note. Second, it would require a committee of the House to review any proposed treaty and report back to the House. Third, it would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to obtain the advice of the House before ratification. While I am all for giving this place a bigger voice in the machinations of government, I am concerned about the second aspect of the bill, namely the requirement of a committee of the House to review and report back. My concerns are threefold.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-228 , legislation that would fundamentally reshape how Canada affirms its treaties. I will admit that this is not quite the agreement I hoped to be speaking to after more than five months of trade negotiations with the U.S. Still, Bill C-228 raises issues that go to the very heart of how Parliament exercises its constitutional role. The intent behind this private member's bill is commendable. It seeks to give Parliament a stronger voice in the treaty process to make the approval and adoption of agreements more transparent and accountable. Those are principles I support, but while the goal is worthy, I believe the way this bill goes about achieving it is flawed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a man of sharp contrasts. He vowed to deliver the strongest G7 economy, and we have the weakest. He promised thousands of new jobs, and 86,000 Canadians have lost theirs. He said he would negotiate a win with the United States; instead, weak negotiations were dressed up as a victory. Liberals talk a big game about having the best deal. It is quite the contrary. Is this failure the result of economic mismanagement, diplomatic incompetence or both?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's message on the economy has been all over the place. On the one hand, it blames U.S. tariffs for Canadians' shrinking economy, while on the other, it boasts about the best trade deal with the U.S. The facts tell a different story. The deficit has doubled. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate and the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, with $54 billion in investment having fled. There are also 86,000 people out of work. Is this bleak reality the result of the Prime Minister 's failed economic policies here at home, his failure to secure results abroad, or both?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is the day. As the Prime Minister heads to Washington, Canadians are watching closely. After a string of failures, including the doubling of tariffs on Canadian goods and repeated missed deadlines on his promises to negotiate a win for Canada, expectations could not be higher. For months, the Prime Minister has talked a big game but has delivered nothing when it matters most. Will he finally keep his word, deliver a real win for Canada, and secure the removal of U.S. tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the member is really concerned and cares about affordability, as he alluded to in his speech, I would perhaps give him the opportunity to speak about how the government has doubled the national debt, has run up a $40-billion deficit and is spending more on interest than it does on health care. How much longer will the government continue to provide failures to the Canadian people?”
“Coupled with his personal connections to Brookfield securing a $250-million loan to the Chinese state-owned bank, Canadians are increasingly realizing that the Prime Minister is not only a walking conflict of interest but also an anti-energy leader in Canada, and his behaviour proves it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to be pro resource development, but mere months ago he was praising the authoritarian government in Beijing for understanding “engineering solutions to issues around emissions” and its willingness to “engage in the global commons in and around climate”. He was happily giving the ambitious leadership of the Chinese Communist Party this high praise while it was doing the exact opposite of responsible environmental stewardship by constructing several new coal power plants, but as we are increasingly seeing with the Prime Minister , he prefers platitudes over planning and progress.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we have the best deal, then why do we have the worst economy in the G7? Deadline after deadline has come and gone, and the government's promised trade deal is nowhere to be found. After failing at the negotiating table in Washington, the Prime Minister is now off to Mexico City, desperate to claim any kind of win. Let us compare that to our Mexican counterparts, who successfully negotiated a deal. Their exports to the U.S. were up 1.4% last quarter, while ours fell 18%. Again, what has Mexico done so right that the Prime Minister has done so wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he was the only one who could deliver a trade deal with the United States. Instead, here is the dismal record. He promised a deal by July 21, and there is no deal. He promised elbows up and, instead, antagonized an unpredictable administration. He promised strength at the table and, instead, delivered concession after concession with nothing in return. Meanwhile, Mexico got a deal. Its exports to the U.S. went up 1.4% last quarter, while ours dropped 18%. What has Mexico done so right that the Prime Minister has done so wrong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the best time for action was 10 years ago. Given the fact that a government agency said Canada needs to double down on construction to restore affordability, will the government get out of the way and recognize that building bureaucracy does not build homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, under the government's watch, the housing crisis has reached an unprecedented precipice, and no number of recycled ministers will hide the fact that the Liberal government is responsible. The CMHC's own numbers have declared the death of housing affordability across this nation, and the government's solution was to appoint a minister who as mayor of Vancouver was responsible for one of the worst housing and affordability epidemics we have ever seen. Will they simply stop talking about the housing crisis that exploded under their watch and actually do something about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, tell that to the young Canadians who cannot afford a home. For a decade, the Liberal government has continuously failed to address the housing crisis with solutions. To add insult to injury, it appointed a minister who has a significant interest in seeing housing prices soar sky-high. The housing minister is actually part of the problem. How can Canadians actually trust a government that cannot lower housing costs, and a minister who has personal interest in keeping prices high and young Canadians in the basement?”
“Mr. Speaker, CMHC released May's housing starts, and predictably for the government, the outlook is not good. In Belleville, starts are down over 50 points, and in Toronto, nearly 60%. The minister's staggering ignorance of the plight of everyday Canadians is not surprising when we remember that he is not only stuck up in his ivory tower here in Ottawa but also sitting on a massive, $10-million, real estate portfolio. Why is the housing minister telling young Canadians that home prices do not need to go down? Is he unable, or unwilling?”
“The only question is whether this Liberal government's hubris allows it to admit its mistake, take responsibility and give the money back.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week the Auditor General confirmed that without proper oversight, due process or consideration, the government flagrantly ignored public procurement procedures and gave $64 million in taxpayer dollars to unqualified insider consultants. In the Auditor General's own words, the government frequently failed to show “which contracted resources performed the work, what work was completed, and whether the people doing the work had the required experience and qualifications.” The Liberal governments of yesteryear at the very least put up a facade of public utility when giving lucrative government contracts to insiders. With GC Strategies, that veil came off completely. Unlike this government, the opposition respects the public purse and has a motion ready to go and get that money back.”
“Madam Speaker, as it stands right now, there are very few consequences for criminals. The bail system is a revolving door. Canadians are living with the consequences of soft-on-crime-type policies. In my comments, I spoke about Kate, who is one of hundreds of women who have endured terrible crimes. The numbers are raw and real and disturbing. Violent crime is up 50%; sexual assaults are up 74%; gang-related homicides are up 78%, and extortion is up 357% in 10 years of the Liberal government. Policies need to change. Criminals cannot have a free run. It is not okay.”
“Absolutely, Madam Speaker, scrutinizing and rigorously going through legislation is why we are here. As legislators, it is our responsibility to vigorously debate. If we can push the needle forward and find some goodness, that is up for consideration. We, as legislators, always want to do our best to be prudent and go through each piece of legislation with a fine-tooth comb as much as possible where it is permitted.”
“Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadians deserve to be safe. Safety is priority number one. Our water access is number one. Many of us are in border communities and have border ridings, me being one of them. Safety is paramount, always.”
“Madam Speaker, I could talk for an hour or so on this particular question, but I will not. Very briefly, let us look back at the last 10 years of the Liberal record. It is 10 years of devastation, 10 years of inaction and 10 years of non-answers. Shall go on? The bottom line is that since the Liberals took office, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada, a direct result of the government's failure to enforce effective border security. Canadians are at risk.”
“Madam Speaker, the bottom line, hard stop, is that regardless of what community, what province or what territory we live in in Canada, parliamentarians on all sides of the House need to be strong voices, advocates and defenders of our democracy. We cannot tiptoe around the rights of criminals, and we really need to protect our victims. We need serious sentences for serious crimes. Victims need to see consequences.”
“Madam Speaker, knocking on doors and talking to a tremendous number of constituents throughout the campaign was intense, but there are a tremendous number of concerns and fears on the streets and in our neighbourhoods. It does not matter whether people are in rural Ontario or downtown Toronto. The numbers are a direct result of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 , Liberal laws that made it easier for violent offenders to get bail and avoid serious jail time. Bill C-2 fails to completely fix the damage of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It moves the needle, but it does not completely fix things.”
“so we can have a real collaborative conversation, the government and opposition together, as we tackle these unfair and unjust tariffs with our American counterparts. It is not always about Liberals and Conservatives. There are times when it needs to be about Canada and the United States, Canadians and Americans. Neither party nor nation can afford to lose sight of that. Going back to the big picture and bottom line of Bill C-2 , in closing, the Conservatives are committed to implementing the tougher and smarter measures that are needed to keep Canada safe. They include securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and cracking down on terrorist financing. The safety and security of Canadians are non-negotiable.”
“We had a really good conversation about the importance of building and maintaining the relationships between our two nations. Not two hours ago, I sat down with American officials, and we had a very productive meeting. In addition, I am in talks with Canadian embassy officials in Washington to facilitate meetings on the ground in D.C., as well as Canadian trade delegates located throughout the U.S. I recognize the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade has just ended a visit there, and I would like to thank and applaud him for his efforts, but as the government likes to say, this requires a team approach. I will take this opportunity to invite the minister to join me in D.C.”
“(1805) Doing that will take much more than speaking out in the House to an audience that is united in their desire to restore and reinforce our trading relationship with our closest trading neighbour; it will take action. It will mean having those very difficult conversations together. This is why I am personally reaching out to industry associations, stakeholders and policy-makers on both sides of the border at the state, provincial and federal levels to open that dialogue. I intend to work collaboratively with the Canadian and American governments in an attempt to come to a mutual understanding and get these unjust tariffs on Canada's businesses and goods removed. This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with His Excellency Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Mexico's ambassador to Canada.”
“This brings me to another point: Why introduce this legislation so early? The answer lies behind the motive. The legislation was not introduced out of a desire for increased security or a concern with the ongoing fentanyl crisis. No, it was introduced because of one word: tariffs. Bill C-2 is the government's attempt to assuage the concerns, legitimate or not, of the Trump administration. I would like to be clear: The Trump administration's tariffs are unprompted, unfair and unjust, and I know the House is united in our feelings about this, but the reality remains that they are here. The only way we get rid of them is by sitting down with our American counterparts, listening, and coming to an understanding that these tariffs hurt not just our economy and our people, but those in the United States as well.”
“I am not entirely sure how legally requiring an electronic service provider to hand over information to the government when asked means they will have the capability to access, recover and transmit that information to the government, but apparently this legislation would make that happen. It would be quite impressive if it works. This last point segues into another area of concern: the consultative process. This is an extremely sweeping piece of legislation. We are already hearing concerns about the IRCC reforms from digital security experts and personal rights organizations. I am concerned that the government did not do the due diligence that we normally see in drafting this legislation. I am not sure how much conversation was held with stakeholders, the public or, I suspect, even with its own caucus.”
“These are all existing systems that the government has been actively working on to fix, and we are expecting the government to reform IRCC's information-sharing system and incorporate all 13 independent provinces and territories. The Liberals might as well legislate away the national debt, toothaches and bad dreams while they are at it. The questions keep coming. Bill C-2 proposes to do the following: Ensure that electronic services providers (ESPs) have the capabilities in place to support law enforcement agencies and CSIS in criminal and intelligence investigations by requiring them to fulfil lawfully authorized requests to access or intercept information and communications. This is an interesting one.”
“These four proposals are very interesting because, again, they sound great, but exactly how are they to be facilitated? Is a new database being created? Will security clearances need to be harmonized across all departments? How do we know the provinces and territories will agree to these suggestions? Will this necessitate individual processes for each signatory? What if someone moves between provinces? These are all questions that need to be answered and actioned on by an already very slow-moving public service. I need only point to the Phoenix pay fiasco. Regardless of where blame lies, the government had a very real issue with doing something as basic as paying its employees. The procurement system in the Canadian Armed Forces is piecemeal. Passports were taking months to be issued. ATIPs take months if not years.”
“The document reads: Enhance the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to share information collected under the Act on registered sex offenders with domestic and international partners, including those located in the United States. (1800) The document continues: Authorize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to share client information, such as identity, status and immigration documentation with federal, provincial and territorial partners through signed information-sharing agreements; Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications); Allow for regulations to be developed to share client information across federal departments for the purpose of cooperation.”
“She was granted a restraining order and told to be on her way. She had to literally flee the country just to feel safe. Why did this happen? It happened because the courts could not handle the volume of cases. Hers was among many that were decided to be tossed out, not because of individual innocence but because of bureaucratic burdens. This is a perfect example of that capability gap that I spoke of earlier. The government needs to be able to ensure that our systems, and the people working to keep them going, can function at all times, and the same goes for our borders. Moving on, I would like to talk about the practical nature of some of these changes that are proposed, changes that I think are more easily committed to than actually achieved.”
“The reason I wanted to speak about Bill C-40 today is the additional burden it put on the judiciary, a burden that has very real consequences. During the last Parliament, I had the opportunity to speak with Kate, who made it one of her life goals to ensure that women do not have to go through what she did. I am not going to stand before you and repeat all of the terrible details, but, in short, she was the victim of severe intimate partner violence. Her partner tried to kill her. There was a video and photo evidence of her bloodied body as she tried to leave him. He gloated about this abuse to his neighbours. One would think it was an open and shut case. After all, this is Canada, a developed western nation, where justice is king, but after being rescheduled twice, the charges were stayed.”
“How exactly does the government plan to enable the Coast Guard to carry out these increased activities? Where are the additional ships, helicopters and personnel coming from? The legislation is silent on this. We cannot legislate sailors into existence. A bill does not create helicopters. Bill C-2 , or any piece of legislation, does not create capability; it creates only verbal commitment, and that is a very serious problem. This is not the first time that this government's legislation has widened a capability gap. In the last Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-40 . The legislation was essentially created to address miscarriages of justice. While we do enjoy a relatively stable justice system, perhaps its single greatest flaw is the staggering slow pace at which it moves.”
“To those who struggle at home, keep going. (1755) Getting back to the legislation, for those listening who may not be familiar with this particular legislation, out of deference to the government, lest I be accused of misleading Canadians as to the content of the bill, I will reference the government's backgrounder, which it produced to ensure that we are getting this particular piece of legislation as clearly as possible so that people can understand it. It reads: Expand the Canadian Coast Guard’s services to include security activities that will strengthen sovereignty and maritime domain awareness, particularly in remote Arctic waters; This will enable the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes.”
“There are a few parts in the proposed legislation where this is a concern, but there is one in particular that I would like to touch on today, as I have some familiarly, I mean familiarity, with it through my previous work. I would like to acknowledge that when I was younger, I had a speech impediment, and I have come a long way. I was actually learning sign language when I was younger, in anticipation of not knowing how far my speech would develop, and now I am speaking as capably as I can in English. I am also vigorously learning French, and I am pretty comfortable in Spanish as well, so I have come a long way, but I say to those who have speech impediments or struggle to get up in front of a group, sometimes words from the past or different syllables might catch them, but they just need to keep going.”
“We do not have the resources to do the things we need to do. In the Canadian Armed Forces, that manifests itself in a lack of manpower, kit, weapons systems, supports, housing and pay. We may very well need our police organizations to have the authority to do more, but that is completely irrelevant if they are not given the tools to do their current job and what we are asking them to do in addition. The bill, as it stands, would only increase that gap, which, in turn, would result in more inefficient capabilities across the board as organizations take resources from already struggling sectors to plug into the newly created areas of operation. It may seem as though I am getting technical here, but we really need to dig into this.”
“To the topic at hand, as I know everyone is anxiously waiting for me to turn the page, Bill C-2 proposes a whole list of changes to various acts of Parliament, and there is a lot to unpack. According to the government-issued backgrounder, it is a catch-all crime bill claiming to stem the flow of fentanyl, cracking down on immigration fraud and fighting organized crime, among other things. The first immediate red flag that comes up is that this is already asking our underfunded and understaffed security organizations to do more with meagre resources than they already have. In my previous role, I learned a lot about defence and military concepts, and a parallel can be drawn between what we are seeing proposed and an unfortunate constant in our armed forces, an ever-increasing commitment capability gap.”
“I would also like to acknowledge the importance of serving with humility, grace, grit and sometimes an attitude. Respectfully, we have a tremendous responsibility to do what is right for all Canadians, and I give my word to the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga that I will do exactly that. It is wonderful to rise on behalf of all Canadians. I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, along with a lot of the new faces and the older faces here in this place. I would also like to thank those who are not returning to the House of Commons after a hard-fought election for their dedication to their constituents in the last Parliament. The last Parliament was a historic, unprecedented Parliament, and I am extremely glad that I was able to share a lot of that with them.”
“Madam Speaker, I am standing here tonight in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, with great pleasure. It is the first time I will be delivering a substantive speech since re-election. I would first like to acknowledge my family. My family has been profound in getting me exactly where I am. There is so much work to be done, and without the family support that so many of us in this place have to get us where we are, we would not be here. I thank our families. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the impeccable campaign team and my electoral district association of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, which went above and beyond every single day. We ran a seamless campaign. It was impressive, and I am so grateful for all of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to get on board with. Unlike the government, Canadians actually have to budget their money in order to survive. They cannot tax and spend their way out of hunger. After their rent, mortgage and utilities, they are left with fewer dollars than ever to buy the food their families need, and those few dollars are not going as far as they used to. Canadians are at their wits' end, and they expect and deserve a plan that delivers relief. Will the government exercise a modicum of competency and table a spring budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberals have promised families that they will lower the cost of groceries, telling Canadians that relief is coming soon, and for years they have failed families. The Prime Minister himself said that he will be judged by the price of groceries. The cost of everything, from beef to oranges, is up by over 25% since the beginning of this year alone. With an additional half a trillion dollars in spending adding more fuel to the food and inflationary crisis, why can the Prime Minister not even table a budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As shadow minister of trade, Canada-U.S., I would like to acknowledge that earlier today the Speaker had ruled against an emergency debate on Canada-U.S. trade. I would just like to acknowledge that I am seeking an emergency debate and I am hoping that all parties will approve. Canada and the United States share one of the most successful and mutually beneficial trade—”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's dismissive rhetoric does not stand up to scrutiny. It promised to cap spending at 2%, but hours later increased it by 8%, with no fiscal anchor and no fiscal guardrails. We are in a fiscal free fall and working-class Canadians are paying the bill, including nearly $1,400 per household spent on the Prime Minister 's corporate consultant cronies. It is insulting to Canadians. How is the Liberal government asking to spend half a trillion dollars without a budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's first bill has shattered his spending promises. He was elected on a promise of financial transparency, accountability and responsibility, and only one month later, he has already torn down that facade, treating taxpayer dollars like some seedy, secretive corporate bank account instead of the purse strings of this nation. In what world can the Prime Minister justify spending half a trillion in taxpayer dollars without a budget?”