Shelby Kramp-Neuman

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“We must work together to do what is best for Canadians. We cannot succeed without trading with the United States, because other trading partners cannot replace that trade. The government needs to treat this problem with much more urgency.”

“Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, we must put politics aside and do what is in the best interest of all Canadians. We have to recognize that we cannot do this alone, without the U.S. We have to recognize that we will not replace 75% of trade with only diversification. There is a lot of work to be done, but the urgency from the government on this is lacking and patience is wearing thin.”

“Today is Red Dress Day to remember missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I support the motion condemning American tariffs on Canadian steel, copper, and aluminum. Government spending does not replace lost trade, and Canadian workers need a real trade deal now. The Prime Minister must seriously negotiate an end to this trade dispute.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“The committee worked hard on this bill to fix the military justice system, but progress suddenly stopped. The government is not standing up for victims, and we need to do better.”

“Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and it is absolutely essential that we do better. For those listening at home, we are talking about the military justice system modernization act, or Bill C-11. We are currently at the report stage. Countless numbers of witnesses testified strongly. This committee heard the voices of these victims. Members of the committee collaborated, they were moving forward and then there was a hard stop. What is the change and why is the change happening? We need to do better in this place. Victims need the government to speak up and represent them. This is not the case with the way the government is acting.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government's deal with the NDP is hurting how we handle this military justice bill. We also need to remember that Justice Arbour chose not to speak to our committee, and her report was written years ago. Things have changed since then.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I brought up in my remarks the mention of the machinations of this manufactured majority, I was speaking to the relevance of how this is impacting this legislation in the House. We are speaking about victims here. We are talking about Bill C-11. The member across mentioned Justice Arbour. I would like to note that she was indeed invited to committee. She declined her opportunity to speak at committee. Let us put this into perspective: Things have changed since she wrote this report upward of seven years ago, and so has the system.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to change this bill so military sexual assault victims can choose between military and civilian courts. The government took that choice away and ignored the survivors who asked for it.”

“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.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →