Shelby Kramp-Neuman · TranslatePolitics.ca

Statements by Members

The Economy

2026-06-17

“I want to complain about the economy. Wages are not keeping up with inflation. Food, housing, and transportation are too expensive for families. Businesses have higher costs and less confidence to invest. I want growth and investment. The current government is not doing enough to address the real problems of productivity and competitiveness.”

Official Hansard

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. Businesses are facing weaker demands, higher costs and declining confidence to invest and expand, for five consecutive quarters. Canada is in a full-scale recession, reflected in sustained weakness and investment, failing real income and reduced economic momentum across key sectors of our economy. Liberal policy responses are not adequately addressing the root causes: productivity, competitiveness and long-term affordability. The task before this House is not to manage decline but to restore growth; to rebuild investment confidence, strength and productivity; and to ensure Canadian families and businesses can move forward with stability, dignity, security and opportunity.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“We went on a trip and talked to people. They were sad and uncertain. What can the government do about it?”

Statements by Members

The Economy

2026-06-01

“Canada is losing tons of jobs and investment. The government is spending too much and it's making everything cost more. The government says we have a great tariff deal with the U.S., but it's not helping. We're the only G7 country in a recession. The government needs to get its act together and fix this.”

Official Hansard

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. In fact, the Liberal government routinely claims that Canada has the best tariff deal in the world with the U.S. Just last week, appearing before a committee, the Minister of Finance stated that Canada has one of the lowest tariff rates overall, so why is Canada in a recession? Poor domestic policy has driven a $20-billion loss in net investment over the past year, the loss of more than 100,000 jobs in the last three months alone and inflationary spending that continues to drive up the cost of living. I urge the Liberal government to recognize the gravity of the situation and take the necessary steps to pull Canada back from the brink of economic calamity.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga

2026-05-28

“I want people to like me because I say nice things about where I'm from.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strong community spirit across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. From Lake Ontario to Algonquin Park, communities across our region are coming alive, with local fairs, farmers markets and volunteer events that reflect what makes rural Ontario special. From plowing matches and demolition derbies to theatre productions, musical rides, car shows, strawberry picking and visits to our many heritage sites, these traditions continue to celebrate the character of our communities. I would like to recognize the volunteers, small business owners, first responders, service clubs and local organizations whose commitment helps make our communities welcoming places to live and raise a family. Whether it is supporting local food banks, encouraging young athletes, recognizing the contributions of our seniors or celebrating indigenous and agricultural heritage, people across the region continue to set an example through their service and dedication to others. The strength of Canada is built up every single day by people who step up, help out and look after one another.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I want the government to know I'm a very hard worker. I talk to people a lot. Tariffs are bad for some people in my riding. The government should do something about that. The minister should talk to people like Mexico is. I think I would be good at helping.”

Official Hansard

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. trade, I am continuously reminded of the hardships that Canadians are facing, especially in the industries affected by the tariffs and the pending CUSMA review. July 1 is a benchmark, but we need to move forward with specific action. We need to lose the rhetoric, lose the noise, get to the table and have a conversation. Mexico is at the table. Mexico is having a conversation. I urge the Minister of Canada-U.S. Trade to do what he does best, to sit down and work this out, in coordination with a willing shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade. We are able to work together. We have a lot of people at the table, a lot of stakeholders with a lot of expertise, who are willing to make this work. Let us get it done.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm trying to change the subject to American films and TV shows. They create lots of Canadian jobs. More than steel and aluminum. I don't want to talk about how francophones feel insulted by our motion.”

“The US warned us this tax would start a trade fight. The government shouldn't have been so careless. I want to argue about big picture risks, not little distractions.”

“I want people to know this decision will hurt our trade with America. The government is saying it's not their fault. They're hiding behind the CRTC. They're using a law they passed to make this happen. Everyone warned them it would cause trouble. Now it's making things worse. The CRTC tax has gone up even more, at the worst time. It makes it harder for our minister to negotiate with the US. I want the government to stop taking more taxes from these companies. It makes our relationship with the US worse. We can find other ways to help our own companies without causing trouble. We should stop wasting money on this rail project and use it to help our media instead. These American companies help our economy. They bring money and jobs to Canada. Hurting them will hurt us too. It will be bad for many people. We need to fix our relationship with the US. We need to plan for the future. It's important for our trade and our economy. We should get rid of this tax increase to help make things better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the recent CRTC decision, what it means for the ongoing trade relationship between Canada and the United States, and both how this decision will directly hit Canadians at home and its broader implications on negotiations on 232 tariffs and CUSMA. I first want to address the first point of defence that the government uses, which is that this is not a government decision but a CRTC decision. This is a gross mis-characterization of the process. The CRTC's own press release clearly indicates that the decision is a direct result of the organization's attempt to meet criteria set out in legislation introduced and passed by the government. 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 Act requires the CRTC to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure that online broadcasters make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content. That instruction came in the last Parliament, under Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. I will remind the House that Conservatives raised objections to this legislation, including to its potential impact to CUSMA negotiations, months prior to the U.S. election. We voted against the legislation specifically because of our concerns of impacts to the trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. even during the Biden administration and before the current administration's battery of unjust and unfair tariffs was levied against Canadian industry. Outside the House, we were not alone in our concerns. In June 2024, in a meeting with the international trade committee, Dr. Meredith Lilly, associate professor and Simon Reisman chair in international economic policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated in her opening remarks: ...implementing CUSMA in good faith also means not adopting legislation and regulatory measures that contravene CUSMA and antagonize the Americans. For example, on digital trade, the Online Streaming Act would be in violation of the chapter of CUSMA on digital trade were it not for Canada's cultural exemption. Similarly, unilateral action by Canada to introduce a digital services tax would discriminate against large U.S. firms. We should be prepared for U.S. retaliation if these measures are enacted, and Canadian lawmakers should be aware of the damaging consequences for the broader CUSMA review process. Similarly, Sean Heather, senior vice-president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated: Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C‑11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada's international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment. While addressing a press conference in 1947, standing alongside Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, President Harry Truman said, “The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.” Everyone was telling not just the government but all members of the House that the Online Streaming Act would have a negative effect on CUSMA talks. Now we have the added issue of tariff negotiations as well, and all of this is just for the initial 5%. Bill C-11 gave the CRTC the power to do what it is doing. As a result, that 5% has now tripled to 15%, and the timing could not have been worse. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is heading down to Washington to negotiate with our American counterparts, which is a difficult prospect on the best of days. Now he has to contend with a regulatory body's recently tripling what the Americans have viewed since 2024 as a trade irritant. I will be quite candid. I would love for the minister to succeed. 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. We need, collectively, to set him up to succeed, not to fail. Supporting the decision by the CRTC, and refusing to accept responsibility for giving it the authority and mandate to do what everyone warned it would do, is not supporting the minister in his duties but actively torpedoing him. I would also like to take the opportunity to head off the argument that by opposing this tax hike, and tax in general, we are attacking Canadian and indigenous media and content producers. This is simply false. The government has innumerable ways to help out these sectors financially. The only thing we are saying is to not create an additional irritant in a trillion-dollar relationship in order to get there. I have the perfect solution. The CRTC estimates that the tax will mean $2 billion in revenue. I know how we can supplement that for the next 45 years, and it will not cost the government a single cent of additional committed funding: cancel the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail vanity project. Using public funds to unite Canadians through media, among a dozen other concerns, is a far better use of taxpayers' dollars than paying for a project that no one asked for and that will involve the permanent expropriation of private lands and tear rural communities asunder. Naturally, yes, I am singling out the Alto high-speed rail project because it is topical and relevant to my riding, but the broader point is that there are a number of programs or revenue-raising mechanisms that can be used instead of a tax on these digital service providers. What gets lost in these conversations is the reality of these investments in Canada. These companies, while American-owned, provide economic benefits alongside Canadian digital service providers. They provided $4.6 billion in 2024-25 and were responsible for 86% of foreign productions that year. They support an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs, and of course, they are not happy. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin issued a statement on this matter, which in part reads, “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada's obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.... The decision also undermines the open, market-based system that has helped fuel investment, job creation, and creative partnerships across North America”. It is important to remember that these concerns about Bill C-11, which led to the recent CRTC decisions affecting the Canada-U.S. relationship, predated the Trump administration. They predated elbows up. They predated the current trade war. It may feel great to some listeners to dismiss the importance of this relationship and say to move on. If they are not willing to listen to the economic argument against that, I would encourage them to think about what that means for their daughter-in-law who works in the local steel mill, their father who is on the line at the auto plant or their sister who is working at the pulp mill. Their economic well-being, as well as the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on the nearly $1 trillion of trade that flows between our two nations annually, is the cost of that good feeling. As a legislator, I am not prepared to pay that cost. Speaking to the importance and defence of Canada-U.S. trade is not a defence of or attack against any one administration, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. It is a plea to cut through the rhetoric and noise and to repair and reinvigorate the relationship between our two great nations. We as legislators need to think beyond the current news cycle. We need to plan for 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the future. Yes, that means diversification, but as the Prime Minister himself recently said, that also means deeper integration while building fortress North America. Leaders on both sides of the border cannot change that one part proximity, but we need certainty to change everything we can to restore those nine parts goodwill and common sense. Getting rid of this tax hike is certainly a step in the right direction.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“I think trade diversification is important, but we can't ignore our trading relationship with the United States. It doesn't have to be one or the other.”

“You want a local project? I'm against that specific one. It costs too much. People are losing money and homes. And expropriation is bad. That's what I'll say instead of just defending my own riding.”

“I don't like the government's approach. They should act faster and work with the U.S. But I won't say what we should do instead.”

“I'm using this issue to score political points. I want the government to know I'm on the side of the workers and industries affected by tariffs. I'm going to Quebec to talk to these workers and show that I care. I'm also reminding everyone of the strong relationship between Canada and the U.S., even though there are tensions right now.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that, today, May 5, is Red Dress Day, when Canadians and our indigenous partners acknowledge, honour and learn about the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. I would like to thank the advocates from coast to coast to coast for their advocacy and teaching on this matter. I would especially like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her efforts in bringing the issue into the public consciousness and into this chamber. I am happy to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion condemning the United States' unfair and unjustifiable tariffs on Canada and, as the motion states, Quebec. I will lead with one comment. I was fairly certain that this motion, which was tabled the Friday prior to the government's announcement yesterday, would be a castoff. I suspect that the only questions and speeches we will hear from the government are about how the $1.5 billion announced yesterday is going to magically fix billions of dollars in lost tariffs. However, I am happy for any opportunity to speak to the broader issue of the source of this malaise: tariffs. Yes, the Liberals announced something. Granted, it took over one year, but the point still remains. The issue here is that people do not want a handout. They do not want a band-aid. They want a deal, and patience is wearing thin. Being in constant conversation with the affected industries, I want to thank all members in this place for the pan-partisan support the affected industries and, more importantly, their workers have received from all parties in this place during this trade war. It is always good to be reminded that although we may have differing views on the best path, generally speaking, this place has the same goals in mind. I have to imagine that the vast majority of members in this place have at one point or another met with local industries in their ridings that are part of the downstream from the three specific industries mentioned in the motion from my colleague from Joliette—Manawan: steel, copper and aluminum. Of course, these punitive tariffs affect far more than just these three industries, but they are by and large the major targets in this current trade war. The very unfortunate reality is that these protectionist attacks on Canadian workers are working. The government has been extremely clear. It is the negotiator, and it does not want any help. Canadians may not know this, but this is in sharp contrast to previous trade negotiations with the U.S., when the previous government was more than happy to march hand in hand with the opposition down to Washington, where we remained a silent but willing partner to help the government do what was best for Canada. That is the government's prerogative, as is the self-described slow approach, but this brings pitfalls. However, given the Liberals' current polling, the pitfalls are not for them. It is no secret that the U.S. administration's actions in this situation have broadly galvanized the average Canadian into a patriotic fever, granting a wide breadth to the current government and propelling the Liberals in the polls. The voting public is, by and large, content with the Prime Minister's approach. This is what the polls tell us. I am not here to argue with the pollsters, but I am here to talk about the element that is never brought up in the various community Facebook groups or at the coffee tables of the nation, which is the unseen, unspoken victims of this approach. According to Statistics Canada, “iron and steel mills and ferro-alloy manufacturing (-19.1%) recorded its steepest decline since April 2020, coinciding with lower exports of steel products, as the US tariffs on Canadian steel imports doubled to 50% at the beginning of June.” To reiterate, the last time steel took this big a hit globally, trade shut down. The economic equivalent of the current U.S. tariffs on the Canadian industry is a once-in-a-century global pandemic, which brought global trade to its knees. This is the economic reality of Canadian trade. Pre-tariffs, 80% of exports went to the United States. Nearly $1 trillion in trade flowed annually across our borders. Now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the industry are affected in one way or another by trade between two of the longest and strongest allies the world has ever seen. The Prime Minister did not start this trade war, and his predecessor did not start this trade war, but he can end it. Every day this trade war drags on, it costs Canadians jobs and hammers our economy. I am not asking the Prime Minister to take any old deal. I am asking him to start negotiating for a serious resolution to this dispute. He has the political capital to wait. Canadian workers and families do not. I want to finish off by thanking the various industry associations, manufacturers, unions and workers for their work. They have tirelessly raised the various issues these unjustified and unfair tariffs have brought to their lives. This is a massively convoluted and complex issue that requires pan‑partisan support on both sides of the border to resolve. I will again offer to the government my support, as well as that of my caucus colleagues, to collaborate and co‑operate with them in any way we can, whether at home or abroad. I mentioned earlier that there was a bit of good luck on the government side that this opposition day motion will give it the opportunity to highlight its recent announcement, but serendipity does not shine exclusively on the government members today. While I do not have the authority to sign off on billions of economic loans or a trade deal yet, we here in the opposition do have other tools at our disposal. To deflect from its failing trade talks, the government often touts the philosophy of controlling what we can at home, so I took that to heart. Far too many representatives of these industry-critical organizations have told me that they feel left out and ignored by the government. They do not know what is going on in D.C. or in Ottawa and resort to rumours and speculation to field some sense of understanding. To be clear, this is coming not only from the mom-and-pop shops in Bancroft but also from national and international industry associations headquartered in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, New York and Washington. This is a sin being committed by administrations on both sides of the border. As a result, next month, in conjunction with my colleagues from la belle nation de Québec, I am joining a series of round tables in numerous Quebec cities and towns that are directly affected by the tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper and softwood lumber. It is my responsibility, and I am humbled to be invited to visit with Québécois workers and industry leaders up and down the St. Lawrence River, from major urban centres to humble regional industrial hubs, to talk to affected workers, en français, of the very real effects the U.S. tariffs have had on Canadian strategic resources. I want to finish with one final comment. Frustrations on both sides of the border are extremely clear, whether it is with our own administration or each other's. I share many of them, but we must remember that the relationship between Canada and the United States is forged in fire and bounded by blood. It is among, if it is not the, single strongest relationship between any two nations in the world today. To close, I want to selectively re-enter into Hansard something that was spoken in this very place 68 years ago by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he addressed Parliament: ...change is the law of life and of relations between nations. When two great peoples such as ours, energetic and optimistic, live side by side in all the diversity that freedom offers, change is rapid and brings in its wake problems, sometimes frictions. ...by mutual respect, understanding and with good will we can find acceptable solutions to any problems which exist or may arise between us.... There must never be a final word between friends.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Report Stage

2026-05-04

“I want to debate this bill longer. I don't like how the government is rushing it. We should listen to survivors and concerns more. The government is ignoring testimony. That's not good.”

“We have to pass this bill. Military victims need the changes in this bill. The committee was working together but then they stopped. Why did they stop? The government needs to do better for victims.”

“I don't like that you're bringing up old reports to question this bill. The person you keep quoting didn't show up when we asked her to our committee. I want to talk about helping victims today, not that old stuff.”

“Bill C-11 should give military sexual assault victims more choices. But after months of work and testimony, the government used its new majority to undo all the bipartisan amendments we agreed on at committee. They completely gutted the bill we worked so hard on together. It's a slap in the face to all the brave survivors who came forward to share their painful stories. The government asked them to come testify, pretended to listen, and then threw all their work in the trash. It's shameful.”

Official Hansard

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. 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. 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. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible. In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today. While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included. In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded: Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims. The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated: the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us: The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims. Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. I support it because the CAF must uphold their own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated: This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change. For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work. Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.” This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-04

“I'm Shelby Kramp-Neuman. In committee, many veterans shared sad stories. They want choice. The Minister of National Defence promised a good system. How can we trust him if he forces survivors into a civilian system? It doesn't make sense.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Finance

2026-04-30

“People have less money. The government spent a lot. I think the government spent too much. What did that get us? The same people run things. That's bad. I want less spending now.”

Official Hansard

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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“I'm trying to sound reasonable but I'm really just scoring political points. The other side wants to change the rules to suit themselves. I want to remind everyone that I speak for my riding, not just my party, so I can keep saying no to the government's power grab.”

Private Members' Business

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

2026-04-27

“This bill should pass. It's bad when people are sad. These criminals must be punished. It's the government's job to fix it.”

Official Hansard

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗