Debates of Nov. 5th, 2025

Fisheries Act

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and he referenced non-partisanship, so my question is non-partisan. The bill speaks for itself.

Could the member advise the House who he consulted with? Did he consult with fisher organizations prior to drafting the bill, and if so, could he identify them?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when someone is in Newfoundland and Labrador, they do not have to go very far to cross paths with a fisherman or fisherwoman, and they do not have to go far to find people who participate in the recreational food fishery. Almost everyone in my riding, in my province and in the riding of the member across the way participates, and if they do not, their close family and relatives do.

I have had hundreds of conversations throughout my riding and province with the people who elected me and the other Conservatives about how to go forward. I really appreciate all the people at home who gave us their feedback so we could get here today.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member’s bill, Bill C-237, an act that would amend the Fisheries Act. As a Labradorian, I know how important the fishery is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Atlantic Canada and Quebec, not just for the livelihoods of harvesters and workers in our province, but also for our economy.

As Labradorians and Newfoundlanders, the recreational food fishery is essential to who we are as a province and as a people. It is more than a tradition; it is a connection we share to the water and those who came before us.

My biggest concern with Bill C-237 is that it ignores fishers and was created without meaningful consultation with those who have invested the most. Our recreational fishers have already spoken up. They have serious concerns with this bill and were not consulted. Why did the member opposite ignore those who would be directly impacted by this particular bill?

In the coming days, the Minister of Fisheries will launch the Newfoundland and Labrador food fishery consultations. This was a commitment she made when announcing the food fishery this year. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve to have their say. These planned consultations will offer all recreational fishers the opportunity to share their thoughts on how we can improve the recreational food fishery.

On this side of the house, we listen to fishers and believe in the scientific stock-based management of our fisheries. Scientific stock-based management works and has led to a reopening of the northern cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for the first time since the cod moratorium in 1993. The moratorium is a hurt that everyone in my province still feels deeply, and we cannot risk making that mistake again.

Bill C-237 would create one fishing season across all of Atlantic Canada and change the management of fisheries to species-based rather than stock-based. This would create a potential situation where total allowable catches and bycatch levels for commercial fisheries could be seriously affected.

Bill C-237 threatens the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and, yes, in Quebec, risking thousands of Canadian jobs and billions of dollars to our economy. Let us look at some examples where this is the case. On the west coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, fishers have sacrificed to help rebuild the NAFO area 4R northern Gulf cod stock, which remains under a commercial moratorium today. That moratorium also applies to NAFO area 4S adjacent to the vast Côte-Nord of Quebec.

Bill C-237 would increase fishing pressure on that stock, removing more fish from the water than we currently do. That is a slap in the face to commercial harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, who have not been able to fish these past number of years. This bill would take away the ability to balance the opportunities for recreational fishers and commercial harvesters. It uses a one-size-fits-all approach that would have serious consequences for our commercial fishers who earn their living from the ocean. For a commercial fishery like Atlantic halibut in the province of Quebec, Gulf cod is caught as bycatch in that fishery. This bill would increase the fishing pressure on that bycatch, and the only place to take it from would be from those commercial fishers.

What would that mean for the $100-million halibut fishery in Quebec and Labrador? This member’s bill does not care about that, because it is one-size-fits-all, according to the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. The bill is an existential threat to the fishery and the harvesters in the coastal communities it supports.

Let us also talk about the emerging redfish unit 1 fishery. Northern Gulf cod are also caught as bycatch in that fishery, so like the Atlantic halibut fishery, which is worth $100 million, we would increase pressure on northern Gulf cod, and our redfish unit 1 fishery would also be impacted. This would also certainly impact my colleagues from Quebec in the Bloc Québécois.

The issues that Bill C-237 would create around bycatch for our commercial fisheries cannot be overstated. At a time when Canadians are looking to their government to grow our economy to help Canadians, Bill C-237 risks one of the largest economic drivers in Atlantic Canada, our commercial fisheries.

By changing to species-based fisheries management and singular seasons across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, Bill C-237 would affect the ability to simultaneously support advancing indigenous fisheries alongside the recreational and the commercial fisheries. That would mean worse outcomes for both indigenous fishers and non-indigenous fishers.

Bill C-237 would create more and new red tape, and its administrative costs would be downloaded to the recreational fishers. It would put those burdens solely on the recreational fishers themselves. The bill would demand an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers, and it would force Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Atlantic Canadians to record their catch from the recreational fishery.

How would the bill look to offset these administrative and red tape costs? Fees on the fishers would be passed from the bill and downloaded to the recreational fishers. The bill clearly says that to offset these costs, the government would cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That means licence fees, plain and simple. The bill would be a Conservative tax on food. There are no two ways about it: It would be a Conservative tax on those who are simply looking for a fish to feed themselves and their family, as they have done for generations.

This year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec had no licence requirement. There was no licence fee, and there were no reporting requirements. Fishers could just follow the rules, be safe on the ocean and fish for food. After all, it is a huge part of our culture. Under the Conservative “tax on food” bill, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and the rest of Atlantic Canada would now need a mandatory licence, would pay a fee to cover the costs of the bill and would be required to report every fish they catch through an unspecific system, which would also cost them money to use, almost like the ELOG system.

While our government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a strong economy, Conservative members are putting forward legislation that would threaten the economy for every Atlantic Canadian and would make Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay to participate in the food fishery. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill C-237, and I urge my fellow members in the House to vote no to the bill and say no to a Conservative tax on food.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a foggy July morning in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé, back home in the Gaspé region. The boat glided slowly over the calm waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We left the harbour, passing by a Coast Guard vessel. Seagulls watched us from a distance. The cliffs were peaking through the fog as we headed out to sea. The atmosphere on the boat was relaxed. The salty air permeated though us, filling us with happiness. We cast out lines, began fishing and the morning flew by. We were enjoying our recreational cod fishery.

Roughly three months later, I find myself here talking about the same subject. Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act with regard to Atlantic groundfish fisheries, was introduced in the House for first reading on September 22. This bill proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to, among other things, provide for the management of the Atlantic groundfish fisheries by harmonizing fishing periods in the Atlantic Ocean, where the recreational groundfish fishery takes place.

This same bill also seeks to amend the minister's reporting obligations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act. Moreover, it would require certain individuals to provide information or keep records or other documents under the act. Finally, the bill requires the minister to develop a monitoring system to record the number of fish caught by species, as well as the time and place where they were caught.

More specifically, this bill proposes to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish” to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act. This would be another factor that the minister may, but is not required to, take into consideration in making decisions.

In addition, the bill proposes to amend subsection 42.1(1) of the act to read, “The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each house of Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act.” This amendment affects the part of the act that states, “relating to fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year”. Under the proposed amendment, all provisions of the Fisheries Act, and not just those relating to the protection of fish in their habitat, would be covered by the report that the minister would be required to table on the administration and enforcement of this act.

The bill also proposes to add, under the regulations that may be made by the Governor in Council, that under section 43 of that act, the regulations must “provide for the harmonization, across Atlantic provinces, of close times in Canadian fisheries waters of the Atlantic Ocean that are used for recreational fishing of groundfish”. The bill also proposes to add section 43.01 to the act, requiring that “a close time or fishing quota fixed or varied” be published “on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at least two months before the day on which it comes into force.”

The bill also proposes adding, with respect to persons and entities that must provide information or documents to the department under section 61 of the act, “the number of fish caught by any person each day...and the total number of fish caught by that person”. Finally, the bill proposes that, within one year of the bill being passed, the Minister of Fisheries must, “in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught.”

As previously mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be debated in committee. However, we will be watchful and will debate the merits of the bill. We still want to allow for debate.

I will now address a few points. I will start with the amendment to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act, then I will talk about establishing a monitoring system and then, most importantly, the harmonization of recreational groundfish fishing seasons.

Section 2.5 entitled “Considerations”, which the bill seeks to amend, clearly lists the things that the minister may consider, without requiring the minister to do so. It already includes a number of key principles. The bill is proposing to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish”. That will have to be debated. Does this principle deserve all the importance it is being given, over and above all others? The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is already debating the idea of restricting the minister's discretionary power and ensuring that section 2.5 require that the minister take these factors into consideration.

Why are we leaning toward this proposal to limit the minister's discretionary power? It is because the principles enshrined in the Fisheries Act are principles that I think everyone supports. Now we have to ensure that the minister is legally obligated to take them into consideration. If she does not and we amend the Fisheries Act to say that she must, Canadians will have the recourse they need to challenge decisions in court. As long as section 2.5 remains in its current form, the addition proposed by Bill C-237 would have a fairly limited impact. We could still debate it, though.

The monitoring system is something that will have to be studied. Obviously, when it comes to fish stocks, we want to make sure that we have objective data so that we can understand the status of the stocks and have recreational fishing catches recorded at the same time. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the governing party about the current state of the cod fishery, in Quebec at least, where things are quite simple and where cod can be fished recreationally without too much red tape. We can also debate that in committee.

There are several questions around the central point of this bill, namely the harmonization of recreational groundfish fisheries. First, what are the benefits? When my colleague introduced his bill, he explained that the measure was intended to put Newfoundland and Labrador on an equal footing with the other Atlantic provinces for this type of family fishing without affecting commercial fishers. He also expressed his dismay at the Liberal restrictions imposed on Newfoundland and Labrador families, who, he said, could only fish on weekends, while commercial fishing was in full swing during the week right before their eyes.

Again, we will have to look at this in committee. We will see how our colleague defends the advantages, but harmonizing the fishing seasons is an important aspect that will have to be studied seriously. Will harmonizing fishing periods standardize the closing and opening dates in all Atlantic provinces, including Quebec? That is an important question. If so, what are the benefits?

If there is a problem with the regulations that apply to Newfoundland and Labrador, are there not other ways for the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas to facilitate recreational fishing in his province without negatively impacting recreational fishing on the Quebec side? The benefits remain to be seen. There are also risks. Could managing recreational fishing by species rather than by stock and region complicate matters?

Currently, in my own riding, recreational fishing seasons vary. If I am in the Gaspé Peninsula for recreational groundfish fishing, I can go from April 15 to June 23, July 9 to 16, and August 8 to October 1. If I am in the Magdalen Islands, still within my riding, the dates are different. Why? From what I understand, fishing seasons are based on stock estimates, on what is happening, on interactions with other species.

What impact would my colleague's proposal have? Will we end up with a single season across the board? What happens if stock conditions are different? Would it be good public policy to take away the flexibility to adapt to the reality of fish stocks? Not all species are present in all areas at the same time, because fish migrate. Generally speaking, I strongly prefer decentralized public policy-making, because it ensures that decisions that apply to individuals are made by officials who are as close as possible to the places affected by those decisions, since they are in touch with local realities.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-237 so that it can be studied in committee. However, we will need to be convinced of the proposal's merits. This recreational fishery is important to us and to the people back home. It is a tradition, and traditions need to be handled with care. Those beautiful July mornings spent fishing for cod off the coast of Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé are moments when we feel at peace and in touch with nature. We have to protect those moments, because they are precious.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and second Bill C-237 for my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

This piece of legislation has been long-awaited. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been crying out for better access to the recreational food fishery for codfish. It is a massive part of our culture and has been for hundreds of years, as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas mentioned earlier.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians go away to the mainland and then return. They are almost like expats, but they come home for summer migration. They come home to fish for codfish as their families have done for generations. It is in their blood, and it is a massive part of their culture.

Over the last 10 years, we have been up until the end of June before the Minister of Fisheries would even let us know what the dates and regulations for the fishing days of the season would be. A couple of years ago, I sponsored a petition that went on for 30 days. We collected 3,900 names on an electronic petition to remove the regulation that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were only allowed to fish three days a week, on the weekends.

I heard my colleague from Labrador so vehemently express his opposition to the bill. I would like to remind him that there are a couple of communities on that coast, L'Anse-au-Clair and Blanc-Sablon, that are not too far apart. One community is in Newfoundland and Labrador, and one is in Quebec. There is an imaginary line between them. His constituents are allowed to fish only three days per week. He is quite proud of it, the way that he represents his constituents, that they cannot have the same access as their neighbours down the road. It is very odd to me to hear a gentleman of his stature stand up and make these statements and claims.

The bill would enshrine the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in legislation to give them fair access in terms of their counterparts throughout Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. What else would it do? Getting rid of the three-day weekends would also add a safety bonus to our fishery. For some reason, fishers tend to feel pressured that they have to go out to fish Saturday, Sunday and Monday if they can, if the weather is good enough and safe enough. Sometimes it is questionable, but they do not know what the next weekend is going to be like. I have seen periods in the summer where they have completely lost three weekends in a row. How is that fair for someone to spend $5,000 on a vacation to come to Newfoundland to take part in the recreational food fishery and not even get a day? It has happened a lot.

Another aspect the bill includes is that, for the folks who want to catch some fish for food for the table, the south coast is different from the northeast coast and the west coast. The fish migrate to various parts of the coast at different times of the year. On the south coast, there is Hermitage Bay, in the riding that I am so privileged to represent, as well as Placentia Bay, which my colleague represents; these are bays to which the cod migrate in the winter, long past the closure of the recreational food fishery. For these people to have an ample opportunity to catch some cod for the winter, they need to be able to fish at a different time. On the west coast, the fish migrate to the land in the fall or spring; summer is the worst time of all. On the northeast coast, we have a very proud hunting tradition called turr hunting that starts around November 1. The fellows want to go out and hunt some turrs, drop a jigger overboard and bring home a fresh fish for the table, but they cannot do it. It is unbelievable; it needs to end.

We were promised a review by the minister, now announced by the member for Labrador on her behalf, back in June. People were asking, “Where's the review? When are we going to hear about it?” Even The Fisheries Broadcast asked me not long ago when this review was taking place. I said I did not know. It was starting to get into broken promise territory.

Anything we can do to push the minister in the right direction, we always try, but we have seen decisions before. I heard our colleague from Labrador talk about how the Liberals listen to the fishers, but the fishers have been begging for a mackerel fishery all summer. I see the minister over there smiling. Maybe she is going to announce it after I sit down.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I did not mean to say that someone was here. Maybe it is a figment of my imagination; who knows?

I also heard the member for Labrador criticize his government's policy on bringing in ELOGs. It was refreshing to see the Liberals do not all agree with the ridiculous policies they have.

My colleague was questioned about the consultations he had. We are consulting with our people all the time. Recreational cod fishers are stakeholders in the recreational cod fishery, but one big beef the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union have had over the years is that they cannot quantify how much codfish is taken during the recreational food fishery. I do not know why Liberal members would be proud of not knowing how much fish we are taking out of the ocean. How can they manage that if they cannot count? They have to know. Knowledge is power.

The expansion and revision of the fishing period for cod would help fill a gap in science, because people could go out in October or November if it is a nice day, or even in December if that is what they feel like doing. If they wanted to go out on Christmas Eve and catch a fresh fish for their Christmas Eve dinner, if it is a calm day and that is what they feel like doing, they would be able to do it. We would find out how the fish are migrating, when they are there and how long they are there for. All of this data would be wonderful knowledge, if there is any science department left after yesterday's budget.

The threat to biomass would be extremely low. A study just came out of Memorial University's Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research that stated 24 times more codfish is eaten by harp seals, never mind the hoods, the greys, the bearded or the harbour, all of these species. If we are just talking about harps, there are 24 times more removals by harp seals alone than the entire fishery. This expansion of fishing opportunity would pose no threat to the cod biomass and its recovery as we move forward.

I call on the member for Labrador, the member for St. John's East, the member for Cape Spear and the member for Avalon to do what their constituents have been begging them to do. The member for Labrador was very adamant that the Liberals listen. Well, if they listen, it is time to do what they have been asked to do. Instead of having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, now is the time to do the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, give fair access, and match access throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss something that many people in my riding have an immense interest in, and that is the Fisheries Act. It is an essential piece of Canadian law that regulates our fisheries. It supports fisheries science, and it is the foundation of coastal communities. Having had the privilege, and it was a privilege, to serve as the parliamentary secretary for fisheries, oceans and the Coast Guard, I can say that it is my contention that this bill is flawed and perhaps dangerous.

This bill could disrupt commercial fisheries across eastern Canada as well as cost harvesters their opportunity to earn a living, and many recreational fishers would have to pay to catch their food. This bill looks to completely change how the fisheries are managed, getting rid of stock-based management and switching to a species-based management. That would threaten all Atlantic commercial fisheries by risking bycatch management, catch levels that our commercial fisheries rely on. Bycatch is based on health of the stock and can act as a backstop for a fishery. If the bycatch is cut, the season ends, regardless of how much quota remains.

If this bill were passed and fisheries decisions become based on species, we could see a reduction in bycatch in many of our fisheries. This bill would impact quite a few fisheries. Let us review them. It would impact redfish, halibut, herring in southwest Nova Scotia, haddock and even the cod fishery, which was recently reopened.

I think we heard it here. Fisheries management is not a one-size-fits-all system. By creating a singular season for recreational fisheries, that would mean that, in my riding of Sydney—Glace Bay, we would have to fish at the same time as those in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a fundamental question here: Why is the Conservative member telling fishers in my community in Cape Breton when and how they should fish? Fishers in my community were not consulted as part of this bill, and they should not be told what is best for them.

People in my province of Nova Scotia mainly catch haddock. It is a healthier species, so the daily limits are higher. While cod is allowed to be caught, the stocks around Nova Scotia are not as healthy as the northern cod stock. They are not as abundant, and there is a daily limit on how many can be caught. Different parts of the country have different fishery approaches because the places are different, the stock levels are different and their waters are different. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach in the fisheries management.

I want to speak a bit to the House with respect to consultation. Consultation is absolutely the foundation for fishery management decisions. That is why advisory committees exist, and that is why we talk to them during commercial season and before it opens up. We want to make sure that the people who are most affected have a voice. They are a partner; they are a stakeholder. When I was parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans, there were many instances when I would meet directly with fishers and stakeholders to make sure their voices were being heard. I have seen serious concerns from recreational fishers who were not consulted on this bill. That is not how to make fishery management decisions, or any important decision.

I understand that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want changes to the recreational fishery. As a Cape Bretoner, I know there is not a lot of difference between Cape Bretoners and Newfoundland and Labradorians, and I respect that, but I would be shocked if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wanted to risk commercial fisheries, and all the jobs and economic opportunity they create, to make those changes. Quite frankly, the bill would threaten the livelihood of commercial harvesters across Atlantic Canada and risk jobs in my riding. It would tell my community in particular that we can make decisions without consulting them.

If there is an underpinning here in House, and we heard it here, it is consultations. We can unpack that word. That is meaningful, organized discussions. That is focus groups. That is sitting down with people from all over the region to make a fundamental decision that could very well impact the fishery. We need to do better than that, and that is why I will be opposing this bill.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois strive to be thorough, to work based on science, traditional knowledge and local expertise.

We think it would be interesting to study this bill, because it raises a number of rather important questions. For example, we believe that harmonizing fishing seasons across a large ecosystem with regional differences poses risks to some species and could be problematic. A one-size-fits-all management approach could lead to problems.

Our fishers know the resources, the territory and the vulnerable points, but they also need to support and coordination across regions. We are concerned about the application of one-size-fits-all measures, particularly in areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where we are seeing the ecosystem warming quickly. Species are under stress because of water warming, leading them to relocate. We saw that with cod. There are also interactions with other species to consider.

We firmly believe that science must be at the centre of this process. We want the precautionary principle to be applied. The right to nature is also important, so we respect and encourage the presence of fishers and other stakeholders on the ground.

However, when there are too many constraints and they are applied across the board, we really have to wonder. Without question, this type of bill deserves to be studied. For now, however, we have doubts about applying one-size-fits-all measures. As we know, even within Quebec, and I am strictly speaking about Quebec, there are regional differences, specific ways of operating and rapid changes people are noticing that science sometimes struggles to capture. Imagine the implications if the scope is expanded to include the Atlantic region.

The principle behind the bill is certainly interesting. However, in terms of how it would be applied, we question whether it is really necessary. We want to see science at the core of the process, and we want people on the ground to be involved, so we do want to collaborate with our colleagues.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak to this fascinating bill. I have to say that every time I hear a group of MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, my vocabulary always expands a bit. They throw around some terms, whether with respect to fishing or to hunting, that are unknown in the rest of the country, so it is always interesting.

This is what I have noticed since the member for Central Newfoundland came on the scene here in Parliament just four years ago. The Liberal caucus from Newfoundland and Labrador was virtually unknown. Its members hardly ever spoke a word in the chamber, it seemed. However, with the one member, suddenly the debate changed in the chamber, and we began hearing all about important Newfoundland and Labrador issues. I remember that he would stand up in the last Parliament and shame his counterparts on the other side about issues they were not addressing in Parliament.

Then, I see today the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas again getting up, and I hear him saying that already he has had some success with his bill. Just by his tabling it, the government has announced a review on this very issue, so we are seeing great success on an issue that matters to members from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, there is a third member, from Long Range Mountains, who is no shrinking violet either. They are a trio. We can see why the Conservative representation in Newfoundland and Labrador is growing. I know we are going to see strength and growth there in the years ahead because of this representation.

I learned long ago, when I was first elected, that if we want to know what is happening in the fisheries, we do not go to DFO, like the member for Labrador has clearly done; we go down to the end of the dock and talk to the men and women who fish our waters, and we find out what is going on: what is working, what is not and, more importantly, how to fix it. That is exactly what my two colleagues from Newfoundland have done today by bringing forth this important issue, speaking on behalf of their constituents on a matter that is so important to them. I understand that.

What I think a lot people in this town and in the bureaucracy do not understand is that the weather does not always co-operate, the environment does not always co-operate, and we need flexibility when it comes to not just a resource but something that members in our communities in Atlantic Canada have done long before Canada was Canada, long before the founding of this country, and certainly for hundreds of years before Newfoundland and Labrador came into Confederation.

It is so exhilarating to have members come to this place and make principled and passionate arguments about bills like this and how they impact communities and people back home. We are going through an affordability crisis. What better way to help families back home than to give them the option to go fishing to provide for their family and their community, which is what began to build Newfoundland and Labrador hundreds of years ago.

In that spirit, I have to applaud the members for bringing the bill forward, speaking to and on behalf of their communities, and advancing it. I think we are going to see a win here. We can tell, when the government begins to pre-position a consultation on a bill brought before the House by a new member has who has been here just a few months, that he can already score a win. He has forced the government to act.

We are going to keep pushing the bill through Parliament. I think we are going to chip away. I know that my three colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will not just debate it here; they are going to take it home, and they are going to fight for it in the towns, the communities and the ridings, and on the air and on social media. They are going to shame their colleagues to convince more of them to vote for the bill. I applaud their hard work.

At some point, if we have more of these debates, we might need a third interpretation channel so we can get all the local terms from Newfoundland and Labrador understood here in the chamber. I look forward to that and to this debate's continuing very soon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the very real taxpayers of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. I want to state very clearly that Canadian taxpayers are real, despite the gaslighting by the Liberal secretary of state in her reply to my question on food prices and fuel taxes. The Liberal Party introduced a new fuel regulation that requires all gasoline to be diluted with even more ethanol. Those regulations clearly increase the cost of fuel. The Liberals claim that this price hike is imaginary.

For the benefit of Liberals listening, here is a direct quote from the Liberal regulations: “It is expected that increases in transportation fuel expenses will disproportionately impact lower and middle-[class] households, as well as households currently experiencing energy poverty or those likely to experience energy poverty in the future.”

The government wrote those words. It knows for a fact that its regulations make fuel more expensive for Canadians. Those extra costs are not imaginary. They are real. They will disproportionately harm Canadians with lower and middle incomes.

The Liberals do not care about lower and middle-income Canadians anymore. The Liberal Party's base looks like its cabinet: affluent and privileged. That party has completely lost touch with average Canadians. It keeps saying that its solution to food insecurity is a government-run program for food. Canadians do not want handouts. They do not want to need food programs. The only thing worse than forcing people to rely on food programs is making children pay for it.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is probably something we should teach kids in schools. The Liberals borrowed money to fund their new social programs. This means that children eating those Liberal unfunded lunches will be on the hook for the bill in the future. When those kids graduate from school, instead of a diploma, they will receive a tax bill. Borrowing money for today's handouts is the exact opposite of an investment. Instead of generating a return on the money, we pay interest on the debt.

Canada has been here before. Pierre Trudeau needed NDP support for a minority government. They ramped up spending while suffocating the economy in protectionist measures.

Justin Trudeau needed NDP support for his minority government. They ramped up spending while suffocating the economy in woke measures. They always seem to claim that they see a light at the end of the debt tunnel. That is just the headlights of reality hurtling toward them like a freight train.

The government can pretend its expensive fuel regulations, costly food packaging ban and economically damaging industrial carbon tax are make-believe, but for Canadians paying the bill, these taxes are very real.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is suggesting that responsible climate policy is a burden. This is simply not true. Canadians want a secure future, Canadians like my son and my daughter, one where they can earn a good living, put food on the table and breathe clean air. They also want a government that protects them from climate disruption and builds an economy that can win in a world moving toward cleaner energy and technology.

Acting on climate is both a moral obligation and an economic necessity. We are living through a historic global shift. Last year, global clean energy investment reached $2 trillion, nearly double what went to fossil fuels. Countries are competing fiercely to attract investment in low-carbon industries, because those industries will drive jobs and growth for decades to come.

The newly tabled budget 2025 recognizes that reality. It charts a path to secure Canada's position in the global race, not with prohibitions but by driving investment and prioritizing results. Budget 2025 invests in the infrastructure and technology that will define tomorrow's economy: nuclear expansion, clean electricity grid interties, low-carbon fuels like hydrogen, renewable energy, critical minerals and world-leading industrial innovation. This is how we build prosperity in a changing world.

The member opposite wants to cancel climate tools like industrial carbon pricing, but that would cost Canadian jobs and competitiveness. Industrial carbon pricing, backed by a predictable, long-term price trajectory, is the most efficient and lowest-cost tool to reduce emissions and attract private capital. Independent experts confirm it has almost no impact on household costs, while providing businesses the certainty they need to invest.

Budget 2025 strengthens this system by improving the benchmark, ensuring fairness across provinces and expanding tools like carbon contracts for difference so that companies can invest with confidence. This is a policy focused on results and competitiveness. This matters for some of Canada's most important sectors. Lower emissions mean greater competitiveness for steel, oil and gas because global buyers increasingly demand low-carbon products. If we do not modernize, our exports will face barriers, tariffs and lost market share. Cancelling climate policy would not protect Canadians; it would leave workers and industries behind.

Our approach is clear: drive investment, deliver the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost, secure access to global markets and build an economy that wins in a low-carbon world. I believe budget 2025 delivers that plan.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can see from the parliamentary secretary's recycled talking points that the Liberals do not listen. I accept that the arrogant Liberals will never listen to Conservative voices, but I quoted the words they wrote back to them. They still pretend like somehow this is all imaginary. We get it. They will not listen to Canadians who care about affordability or even reality.

Maybe our self-professed economic genius of a Prime Minister could explain to the parliamentary secretary what happens when someone has to borrow just to make their interest payments. The government has put us into a debt spiral. Claiming we are the best off in the G7 is like claiming to be the least intoxicated person at an Epstein party.

Canadians deserve an affordable budget for an affordable life. What yesterday's budget makes clear is that Liberals only care about themselves.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget makes our direction unmistakable. It backs industrial carbon pricing with long-term certainty and focuses on measures that deliver the greatest emissions reductions and competitiveness benefits at the lowest cost to Canadians.

These policies are not a tax on Canadians; they are strategic economic tools that reward innovation and protect jobs. They ensure Canadian steel, energy and manufacturing remain competitive in markets demanding low-carbon products. Abandoning this approach would leave workers exposed and investment flowing elsewhere.

Budget 2025 keeps Canada competitive, secure and positioned to lead in the clean economy.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple: Does the parliamentary secretary for health believe that fentanyl should be smoked in crack pipes beside day cares and schools, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for raising this issue. I know it comes from a place of genuine concern for community safety and public health. These are concerns I share deeply as well.

When it comes to safe consumption sites, I think it is important that Canadians understand how these sites are established and how decisions are made. The reality is that the decision to allow a safe consumption site or other urgent public health need site to operate ultimately rests with the provinces and territories. Each provincial and territorial minister of health has the authority to issue exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Health Canada's role is limited to reviewing applications, but the final say on whether these services can operate and how they operate belongs to those jurisdictions. While Health Canada may approve an application, every organization must first demonstrate it has complied with all local laws and regulations, in its municipality, its province or territory and its own community. If it cannot meet these standards, its applications are not approved.

Just as importantly, each applicant must show they have done meaningful community engagement. This includes demonstrating that they have spoken with local residents, law enforcement and service providers; developed strong public safety measures to protect staff, clients and the surrounding community; and built relationships of trust before opening their doors.

We know this is a difficult and emotional issue. The toxic drug and overdose crisis has touched every corner of this country, from large cities like Toronto to smaller communities across Manitoba and beyond. Every lost life is someone’s child, someone’s friend, someone’s neighbour. This is why our government believes we must use every tool available to respond in a way that balances public health with public safety. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. For some communities, that means expanding access to treatment and recovery. For others, it means supporting community-led prevention and harm reduction programs.

Across the board, it means investing in the people and organizations that are saving lives every day through programs like the substance use and addictions program and the emergency treatment fund. Our goal is simple: to keep people alive and to keep communities safe.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. Shame on that member for refusing to protect children. She refuses to say smoking fentanyl beside daycares is dangerous. She refuses to say smoking fentanyl beside schools is dangerous. It is unbelievable. She refuses to say smoking fentanyl beside playgrounds is dangerous. Every parent knows this is insane.

Why are the Liberals allowing fentanyl to be used next to children? Why? Why on earth are you doing this?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying this. Addressing the toxic drug and overdose crisis requires compassion, collaboration and commitment. This means continuing to listen to community voices, to families and to health and safety experts. Anyone proposing to open a safe consumption site must demonstrate that they have spoken to their community and that they have a thoughtful plan in place to address local concerns. It also means working closely with provinces and territories to ensure they have the resources and flexibility they need to respond effectively.

If a province or territory wants to work with us to prevent overdoses, reduce the spread of infectious diseases and save lives, our government is always ready to partner with them. At the end of the day, this is not about ideology or politics. It is about people, families and communities, and we will continue to stand with them in the fight to save lives and build safer, healthier communities for all Canadians.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, on September 19, I asked a question about funding the hunters and trappers organizations in Nunavut, and the government could not provide any answers. Are the Liberals not aware of their legal obligation to ensure that the Nunavut Agreement is implemented and that there is adequate funding for hunters and trappers organizations?

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board funds the hunters and trappers organizations, whose mandate includes to ensure conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife, to protect the rights and priorities of Inuit, and to regulate access to wildlife. Unfortunately, the hunters and trappers organizations have a lack of resources.

There is one hunters and trappers organization in every community. I have visited them, and what I have seen so far is that most of their offices are in places that should be condemned. They have only one support staff member, and despite the lack of resources, they are expected to help protect Inuit rights to hunting and manage wildlife. They are the voice of the Inuit in the environmental assessment processes.

The federal government's level of funding for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board was recently reported in its annual report for this year, 2025. It included about $21 million total for all 25 hunters and trappers organizations, plus the three regional wildlife offices. If we did our math right, that means about $700,000 per hunters and trappers organization per year.

I can compare that to the federal funding for resource extraction projects in Nunavut. Yesterday, the Liberals tabled their budget, which included new funding for Natural Resources Canada to create a new fund called the critical minerals sovereign fund, which we understand would make strategic investments in critical minerals projects and companies and would include equity investments, loan guarantees and offtake agreements.

When I read the budget, this means $2 billion over five years, starting next year, and an additional $50 million over five years for Natural Resources Canada to support the delivery of the fund, which would calculate to roughly $410 million per year for critical mineral funding. That is an astonishing 585 times more than the Liberals give to local Inuit organizations that are protecting wildlife, the environment and cultural practices.

The Liberals give more to extract natural resources from Inuit land than to support wildlife conservation and cultural practices. This is not a balanced approach. Both Liberal and Conservative governments are good at apologizing, but not at acting on reconciliation.

I challenge the government to stop enforcing colonial policies. Does the government believe keeping hunters and trappers less resourced than extraction companies is keeping Canada strong?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for raising serious concerns about funding for Inuit programs and the capacity of hunters and trappers organizations to participate in environmental assessments. She provides continued and very important advocacy for Nunavut. These are valid concerns, and they deserve a clear response.

Article 5.7 of the Nunavut agreement sets out the special features of Inuit harvesting rights. It establishes hunters and trappers organizations in every community and regional wildlife organizations to manage quotas, regulate harvesting and represent Inuit interests in wildlife management. These bodies are not optional. They are treaty obligations and core institutions under the agreement. Again, I thank the member for Nunavut for raising these concerns. For years, organizations in Nunavut have not received sufficient funding, and recent years have seen increased costs.

Canada funds the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, which, in turn, supports these organizations. This is a legal obligation. These organizations are expected to participate in environmental assessments, manage wildlife sustainably and uphold Inuit harvesting rights. Until recently, funding for these organizations was limited.

In March 2025, the Government of Canada signed a renewed Nunavut agreement implementation contract with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Government of Nunavut for 2024 to 2034. This contract provides $1.5 billion from 2024 to 2034, plus $77.6 million annually thereafter, to support NTI, the Government of Nunavut and five institutions of public government, including 27 hunters and trappers organizations and three regional wildlife organizations. This funding will strengthen their capacity to participate in environmental reviews and manage wildlife effectively.

In 2024-25, the Government of Canada provided a renewed base annual budget of more than $7.5 million for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, $7.1 million for the regional wildlife organizations and $14 million for the hunters and trappers organizations. Funding is also adjusted annually for inflation. Special attention was paid in the renewal to make sure that these bodies would be sufficiently resourced to carry out their mandate under the Nunavut agreement. This renewed funding base approximately represents a 39% increase for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and a 169% increase for the regional wildlife organizations and hunters and trappers organizations. This, I believe, is significant.

Before closing, I would like to take a moment to highlight a few other budget 2025 items that are good news for northerners. Many major projects today include indigenous and territorial governments, northern communities, financial institutions and development corporations in designing, financing and leading. That is reconciliation in action. Our goal is to make certain that federal tools, financing and regulatory systems support indigenous communities in their involvement.

I will briefly mention the $1-billion Arctic infrastructure fund, to be funded over four years to support economic development and job creation in northern communities while protecting Canada's sovereignty. In addition to protecting and advancing the interests of Canada and Inuit in Nunavut, we are proposing to amend the Territorial Lands Act to support responsible and respectable stewardship of Crown land in Nunavut. I will briefly mention the commitment to Inuit Nunangat University as well. These are just a few measures.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad to see the Liberal government understands that it has legal obligations under the Nunavut agreement. Unfortunately, some of the increases in investments are still not enough, as I mentioned earlier. I have met with all 25 hunters and trappers organizations, as I said earlier. Some of them are in offices that should be condemned, and we need to make sure that they have proper resources to participate in the environmental assessment process.

The industry and the HTOs both contribute to that process. Is it any surprise that industry's voice is so much louder, bigger and more influential in that process than that of the hunters and trappers organizations?

I will ask again: Will the Liberal government better fund hunters and trappers organizations so that they can fully engage in the environmental assessment process?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member again for her concerns about Inuit programs and hunters and trappers organizations, and for meeting directly with these organizations. These bodies are treaty obligations under the Nunavut land claims agreement and are essential for wildlife management and environmental reviews.

Inadequate funding issues did change in March 2025 when Canada signed a renewed 10-year Nunavut agreement implementation contract, providing $1.5 billion through 2034, plus $77.6 million annually thereafter. That includes 39% more for the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and 169% for hunters and trappers organizations and regional wildlife organizations, with annual budgets now indexed for inflation.

There is lots more to say on this topic, and I will certainly be continuing to engage with the member on this important issue.