Debates of Nov. 5th, 2025

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the leader of the Bloc Québécois the chance to answer the question.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand where my esteemed colleague is coming from.

In Quebec, we are doing our part, but if more members in the House from western Canada shared her point of view, perhaps the government would not get the free pass it hopes to get. I can only commend my colleague's commitment, which will complicate the numbers and ramp up the suspense in the government lobby. I do not see how the member, as the leader of the Green Party, could vote in favour of this budget. This is going to make life a bit more challenging for the government.

That should have been done earlier. If the government truly intended to talk to Canadians, it would have done so one or two months ago, and there would have been pre-budget consultations. Climate issues would have been raised. The members on my right would not have agreed at all, of course, but maybe there would have been some members on the other side who might have said that we could do something about climate change.

Instead, they let loose a Prime Minister whose very existence in politics implies a major shift to the right and a denial of environmental issues, which, by the way, will benefit him financially.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in this place to speak on behalf of the good people of Charlottetown, the cradle of Confederation and the birthplace of our nation. Charlottetown is also the only riding in Canada that has both a small population and a small geography. I will come back to that a little later in my remarks. Another unique aspect of the riding that I am so proud to represent is that it is the only place outside of the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal department, which is Veterans Affairs, located in downtown Charlottetown.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Share your time.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Waterloo, who is always way more on top of her game than I am.

I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

Where I left off, I mentioned that Charlottetown was the location of the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This budget is important in that regard because it speaks specifically to another significant investment in Veterans Affairs to deal with the backlog of veterans' claims and the other modernization required to give veterans the services they rightly deserve. That is good news for the people of Charlottetown, for the people who serve veterans and for our veterans community.

The presence of the national headquarters of Veterans Affairs in my riding is particularly important, and the vote of confidence that the riding has received for the work being done there is demonstrated by the investments that have been made in the Daniel J. MacDonald Building and also by the investments in the budget. Unlike with the previous government, there are no deep and disproportionate cuts and there is no closure of district offices, which we reopened immediately upon coming into power.

I want to talk a bit about how the budget would impact my province and my riding.

Prince Edward Island is a place that relies heavily on tourism. We are 180,000 people, but we receive more than 1.7 million visitors a year. That was last year's number. This year's number was way up, and it was up for a few reasons. One, of course, is that Canadians have decided to stay home, and we were the beneficiaries of that. The other is that the weather this year was absolutely incredible for the beaches and all of the activities that people enjoy so much on Prince Edward Island. It was tough for the farmers but good for the tourists, so the tourism industry flourished.

There are two more reasons we had such a good year in tourism in Prince Edward Island this year. One is the decision of the Government of Canada to reduce the tolls on the Confederation Bridge from $50 to $20. That had a big impact on the traffic going back and forth across the bridge, and there was a significant increase there. The other reason, which might surprise members, is the Canada strong pass. The Canada strong pass basically provided for free entry into national parks, and the national park in Prince Edward Island is a major draw for tourists and locals alike. It was good to see in this budget that this success will be repeated, as the Canada strong pass will be around for another year.

Also included in the budget are investments in airport infrastructure. This is critically important as well, and it builds on another investment that was recently made with respect to air travel and Prince Edward Island to provide regional connectivity. Back when COVID struck, the airlines abandoned short-haul regional routes and cut off service from Charlottetown to Halifax. Being able to get from Charlottetown to Halifax opened up the rest of the country and provided many other options. We had not had that flight since the COVID pandemic, until an announcement recently of a program to bring it back through an investment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The investment in airport infrastructure in this budget is critically important, because my hope and expectation is that increased service will lead to increased numbers. It is already a phenomenon that we have seen irrespective of this investment, but all of this feeds into good news for the tourism sector in Prince Edward Island.

On the subject of infrastructure, since the sunsetting of the investing in Canada infrastructure program, there has been a pretty significant gap in the availability of infrastructure funds from the Government of Canada for anything other than green-inclusive community buildings or housing. This is something I have heard frequently in my office from hard-working, dedicated, community-minded organizations that have a good project in mind for which there is no fund. Now there is.

This budget has introduced the build communities strong fund. It has specifically indicated that health infrastructure is eligible, that colleges and universities are eligible and that local infrastructure is a key element of it. All of these things are new. All of these things would unlock private investment. All of these things would provide for greater continuity and a greater provision of services within the community. There is a particular synergy as well to the extent that health infrastructure would now be included.

Just within the last couple of days, the Progressive Conservative provincial government in Prince Edward Island introduced its capital budget, which had millions of dollars in health infrastructure in it. This will be a chance for further co-operation and partnership between the two levels of government.

There is another point I would like to mention for a number of reasons. Prince Edward Island has a very vibrant Acadian, francophone, francophile and franco-curious community. That vitality was on full show on August 15, when Charlottetown hosted National Acadian Day celebrations.

As part of the budget, we decided to double the funding for this celebration and make it permanent. This is the result of the efforts made by community representatives like Charles Duguay of the Société acadienne et francophone de l'Île‑du‑Prince‑Édouard. They pushed very hard to make their voices heard. We heard their message and we responded. I am particularly proud of that.

The other thing I want to touch upon is the national school food program, which is national because of a pilot project done in Prince Edward Island. It was done particularly well; it was particularly well executed, and it was scaled across the country. It is a source of pride that it has now been made permanent. It will provide a savings of $800 for a typical family with two children and will allow 400,000 more kids to have healthy food.

For me, it is more than that. It is yet another indication that a small place like Prince Edward Island is an ideal location for a pilot project. There are advocates in Prince Edward Island right now pushing for a pilot project for a basic income guarantee. We, as Liberals and elected officials, have an obligation to those who are more vulnerable than us, and I believe we will all be measured by that.

This is a budget that works for my riding, for my province and for my country. I am proud to stand and vote in support of it. I hope members on all sides will not use this budget to force a Christmas election. We will see how much good will and can come of it. Let us support it.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and the thoughts he has shared with us. He comes from a province where the arts and culture are such an important part of the fabric of the island. It is a part of the country I have really come to love.

I wonder if he could share with the House the importance of the support in this budget for culture and the arts, something very dear to his heart, and the impact it is going to have not just in his province but across the country.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that Prince Edward Island is a hotbed for arts and culture. The anchor tenant, if you will, is one that is very familiar to the hon. member, and that is the Confederation Centre of the Arts. Right now it is undergoing an extensive expansion, thanks to investment from the Government of Canada through the green and inclusive community buildings fund. It will provide a national institute for the study of what Canada is and what it can be. It was initially built in 1967 as a lasting legacy to the Fathers of Confederation.

That is the centrepiece, but we enjoy a vibrant and active arts and culture community. They will be very happy with this budget as well. There is a sizable increase in the Canada music fund, to mention one other example that will make a difference.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Madam Speaker, the budget is a major disappointment for my home province of Saskatchewan. There is nothing for canola, nothing for pulse, nothing for beef and nothing for the cities. I am very disappointed in yesterday's announcement. There is $260 million for the entire province. There is a bit for the RCMP museum. We do not know how much, but it was mentioned. There is a line in the budget. Then for La Ronge, and nothing else. There is nothing to help our farmers and nothing to help our producers. Yes, the Liberals are putting a lot of money into foreign mining, but that is it.

I want the member to talk about why there is no support for the food producers of this country.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, we have supported and will continue to support food producers in this country. I think specifically of the supply-managed sectors, of which we have always been ardent defenders. I have tremendous respect for the Minister of Agriculture, who has been going around the world to open up new markets to be able to respond to the pressures that have been applied from the United States. All of these things have been a factor in many sectors, including food production. The whole system of world trade has been turned on its head. We are particularly focused on it, especially the Prime Minister and our Minister of Agriculture. I have great faith in their ability to do the right thing by food producers and Canadians.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is something I would like to understand. How can the government say it is concerned about climate change, or even aware of it, set targets and yet cut back on environmental protections and green energy, while massively subsidizing oil and gas companies? In what world would that lead to a result that makes any sense?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, the budget includes a strategy aimed at strengthening Canada's competitiveness when it comes to fighting climate change and protecting the environment. It includes numerous investments to promote private sector participation in this area. These measures are in the budget. I see this as an important aspect, which, incidentally, was not mentioned in my colleague's question. I have every confidence in the strategy we have adopted in this regard.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it is such a privilege to rise in this House to speak in favour of the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance in the House yesterday.

This is a budget that is about building. It is about building the type of Canada that each and every one of us deserves, that our kids deserve. It is about building the economy of the future today, about investing in the future of this country as an economic powerhouse. This is a budget about building and for builders. Whether building a community organization, a community centre or Canada's next great multi-billion dollar business, this is a budget that is focused on creating opportunity, support and value for Canada and for Canadians.

In my home province of British Columbia, this budget is going to be transformative. It is going to help to create thousands and thousands of jobs through support for the Red Chris mine in northern British Columbia and for support of LNG phase two. They are two major anchor projects in British Columbia that come with first nations' support and participation. They come with support from local communities and from the province. They are the types of initiatives that are nation-building exercises. They are the types of initiatives that Canadians are looking for their government to champion in a time of economic uncertainty. Regardless of party affiliation, we should all be able to stand by and support projects and initiatives in this budget that build for the type of future we need, that create the jobs Canadians are looking for in industries that the world needs Canada to lead in.

When I look at the impact of this budget in British Columbia on a macro level, it is transformative. Those two projects are going to represent billions of dollars of value to my home province, not just in the communities where those projects reside but throughout the province, including the Lower Mainland and my riding of Vancouver Granville. We all know that when we support large projects, the spillover benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises is there. It is strong, and it is a critical component of the economic ecosystem of the province. That is what makes this budget so remarkable. It is not just about large projects. It is also about the small projects and small supports in our communities that keep our communities alive and thriving.

In my riding alone, there has been a lot of support for the Filipino cultural and community centre, and I was pleased to see that listed as a single item in this budget. It is going to be a community centre for the Filipino community where they will be able to come together, to share who they are and what they are all about, and bring others along for that journey. This is a community that has become part of the fabric of Vancouver over generations. It represents, in many parts of our community and our province, the silent, quiet workers who care for our loved ones, who are there in the health care system, who do the hard work that is often unseen. For them to have a place that they can call their own is critically important, to show them not only that are they seen but that their request has been heard. That is what this budget seeks to do on this particular matter, and I am so proud to have been able to help champion that.

As colleagues know, I come to this House as a former entrepreneur in the tech sector, somebody who had the privilege of building companies. One of the major complaints from the tech sector has always been that Canada has not supported innovation in the way it could, or should. This budget does that. Boy, does it ever. It takes that challenge head-on. There is now $1 billion available through a venture and growth capital fund to support venture in this country, to support early-stage businesses, to make sure the entrepreneurs we are trying to develop and cultivate into the large businesses of the future today have the support and the financial support they need to be able to build higher and remain in this country.

We are going to protect their IP through support to ensure that the IP measures this country needs to see are in place. We are going to make sure that the thing entrepreneurs depend on at the early stage, SR&ED credits, and the process of accessing SR&ED credits, is now seamless, is easier and allows entrepreneurs to focus on what they need to be doing, which is building businesses, rather than dealing with red tape in government. By ensuring that we are protecting Canadian IP, we are creating the environment where Canadian innovators can continue to do research where they feel their IP will be secure and where they can continue to innovate without risk of losing that incredibly important asset, which is intellectual property.

On top of that, we have committed $1.3 billion in this budget to AI and quantum, industries of the future where Canada is already an intellectual leader and now needs to be a commercialization leader. By ensuring that that money is available to support quantum and AI in this country, today's entrepreneurs and innovators, who are building the businesses of tomorrow, will have what they need to be able to stay in this country. All too often, we hear of Canada being an incredible hotbed for great start-ups that flee.

Measures in this budget will make sure these companies not only get to stay here but will be able to grow here, to thrive here and to attract the capital that is required to stay here. By ensuring government is facilitating, by making it easier for that to occur, we are going to see these companies thrive. We are going to see more and more world-class companies like we see across the country and like I see in my own riding, such as Sanctuary AI and Aspect Biosystems. These are Canadian success stories that will benefit from the initiatives in this budget.

This is what this budget is about. It is about building. It is about building tech companies. It is about building entrepreneurial businesses. It is about building in natural resources in this country in a way that is responsible, that respects the environment, respects first nations and respects the wishes of provinces but keeps top of mind the fact that in order to support the things we want to do to protect Canadians in this country, we have to be creating wealth. We have to be creating opportunity. We have to be able to create prosperity for generations to come. This is what this budget seeks to do.

This budget is also about building security for Canadians by protecting the programs we care about, ensuring there is money on the table to build health care infrastructure, which this country desperately needs; to make sure we are safeguarding a school food program; to make sure we are safeguarding dental care and child care. These are generationally transformative programs that have made a positive impact across this country from coast to coast to coast. This is why provinces, all provinces of all political stripes, have signed on to these initiatives. Those provincial governments all understand the importance of making sure our most vulnerable are taken care of. That is what we are going to keep doing through this budget.

We talk about building security, but we also talk about building the security framework for this country through investments in national defence. As we have already heard, those investments are going to ensure Canada can protect its borders and play the role it needs to play internationally. This is an important message to be able to say to Canadians in a time of economic uncertainty, but also in a time of political uncertainty around the world: that Canada will be resolute and strong in its support for its allies and in its support for the work we need to do to defend our own borders.

This budget preserves our security by ensuring that industries at risk because of the unjustified tariffs from the United States have the support they need. In my home province of British Columbia, the softwood lumber industry has been in crisis as a result of the crippling tariffs from the United States. This budget allows for businesses and workers in British Columbia to access the supports they need so we can get through this difficult time. It also gives them the supports they need to ensure the industry adapts in a way that is meaningful and thoughtful, so when the demand does come, and boy, will it ever for British Columbia softwood, our mills are ready, our workers are primed, our unions are on board and everybody is there to ensure we are building that prosperity together.

As I said earlier, this is a budget about building. It is about building this country up. It is about building together. It is about ensuring that communities have the support they need, that businesses see the opportunity this country presents and that our workers from coast to coast to coast know that when we are faced with existential threats, the government is able to put forward a program where we are giving not handouts but a hand-up, a hand-up to business, to the private sector, to unions, to Canadians to say that we, in this together, can build the type of country each and every one of us wants to see for our kids.

When we talk about spending less on the things we need to be careful about spending on, and investing more in the things we need to be planning for the future, that is what we mean. We mean making generational investments in the types of things that are going to set this country up for success in the future, while ensuring we are safeguarding who we are today.

I am proud to stand in support of this budget. I look forward to working with all members of the House to ensure we can get this budget passed, so we can go home for Christmas and ensure our constituents can start to see the benefits of this budget immediately instead of going into an election over Christmas.

I want to thank all those who have put the hard work into making this budget come to pass in the way it is. I want to assure my constituents in Vancouver Granville that I will do whatever it takes to ensure this budget gets passed, because this is a budget that is transformative for the residents in my riding, in my community and in my province.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy my fellow British Columbia MP talked about softwood lumber, because that is crucial to British Columbia's economy. Everybody knows that. The solution is not more handouts; it is an open and free market with the United States.

However, after 10 years, the Liberal government has failed to bring home a softwood lumber treaty. Why should Canadians have confidence that it is finally going to do it this time around?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows well that this problem with softwood predates any Liberal government. This is a problem that governments of all stripes have had to deal with for generations in terms of the United States. That is the reality of having to deal with the United States on the issue of softwood.

That is why, this past Monday, I was there with many of our ministers to ensure that we work with the Province of British Columbia, with the private sector and with unions to put in place a framework for success for the industry in British Columbia, ensuring that support is there to retool the industry and to make sure that economic fibre is available. In that way, we can do the work that is required so that we can sell, not just in British Columbia, not just in Canada, but around the world. That is exactly the work that we are going to do to ensure that the industry has the support it needs.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 actually highlighted two projects that made the budget a lot less gloomy: the Trans Mountain expansion and LNG Canada in Kitimat, my hometown. The Haisla Nation backed that.

The member talked about building and building, to build, baby, build, but today the Premier of B.C. said no to a pipeline being built.

If Alberta proposes a project, is the project dead based on Premier Eby saying no?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member opposite will be voting in favour of the budget to support those projects that are happening in his community.

I sat across from the Premier of British Columbia on Monday. We talked about the importance of projects that are going to make British Columbia's economy move forward, including communities like that of the member opposite.

That is why there is the support for LNG phase two. That is why there is support for Red Chris. These are the projects that are transformative today for British Columbia. Our government has said that we will work with all proponents to make sure that if there is a project that is brought to bear, the project will have the fair chance that it needs.

In order for that to occur, a lot of partners need to be at the table. If those partners are at the table, and there is a proposal put forward, with the support of all involved, that is how the process is supposed to go. That is how we build projects as a nation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was a member of the previous government. Like me, he saw the measures that I found insufficient, but that at least partially acknowledged the problem of climate change. He probably noted, as I did, that carbon pricing was in the previous budgets. He probably noted, as I did, that there was an emissions cap.

Now I am wondering how he interprets this budget, which completely ignores climate change and cannot do enough to support the oil and gas industry. Does he think climate change disappeared between the two Parliaments?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is very real for all of us, especially for the people of British Columbia.

There are provisions in this budget for methane regulations and climate regulations that will be in place. I am confident that we will be able to work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to ensure that these regulations are in place to protect the environment and fight climate change.

Fisheries Act

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

moved that Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (Atlantic groundfish fisheries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the collapse of our cod fishery was over 30 years ago. Stocks are up and even commercial fishing has begun, yet my family and I cannot go out and fish on a Thursday afternoon. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are fed up and unfed. Other parts of Atlantic Canada can fish seven days a week, yet we are restricted to only weekends. That is why I am here today with Bill C-237, the recreational food fishery equality bill.

This bill does not have a 40-fish limit, but it would do five crucial things. It would apply the same rules to all of Atlantic Canada so that we can catch five fish every day of the week during the season, like the rest of Atlantic Canada. It would encourage the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, commonly known as DFO, to have better enforcement and stricter penalties to eliminate the few bad apples that ruin the bunch. It would tie a season to spawning dates, avoiding arbitrary regulations. It would require DFO to post any new rule changes online at least two months in advance. It would also encourage DFO to organize a monitoring system to better understand how, when and where fish are being caught.

Newfoundland and Labrador was built on the cod fishery, and the Liberals need to recognize that and vote for this bill. They are always talking about the importance of working together to build Canada strong, so this is their chance and opportunity to show Newfoundland and Labrador that we are moving forward. It is our fish, it is our waters and it is our way of life.

I would like to take a minute to clarify something. Over the summer, I had many constituents tell me they wanted to fish seven days a week. After conversations with industry leaders and locals throughout the riding and province, many of them suggested a system with quotas. Discussions started about what a possible quota would look like. Many conversations led to the number of 40 fish, or about 80 fillets, which sounded like a reasonable number to start the conversation. For a family of three, that is 120 fish, 240 fillets and more than two meals a week.

In August, we created a petition. A petition does not change the law and it does not change policy. It is simply a survey for our district to start conversations. It was evident very early on that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were dead set against a 40-fish limit. What they really wanted was to be able to fish seven days a week and catch five fish per day during the whole season, like the rest of Atlantic Canada, so I began to work on a bill that would do just that.

On September 22, I tabled this bill. Unfortunately, my petition got caught up in the Canada Post strike and did not land on people's doorsteps until weeks later, causing mass confusion throughout my riding and the province. For the people at home, let me be clear: forget my petition and read my bill. I think they will like it.

Here is a bit of history. For hundreds of years, cod was our lifeline. It fed our families, paid our bills and built our communities. The world came to our shores, and the same fish became the cornerstone of North American colonization. From when Humphrey Gilbert landed in 1583 to 1949, Newfoundland had control of its own fishery. That is nearly 400 years with a sustainable fishery.

After 1949, Ottawa took control of our fishery. A city with no ocean decided what was best for Newfoundland and Labrador. It used our fishery as a trading chip, allowing foreign trawlers to wreak havoc on our fishery. By the time John Crosbie became the fisheries minister in 1991, there was nothing left. While he did not take the fish out of the water, Ottawa certainly did. Somehow, Ottawa managed to ruin a 400-year-old sustainable fishery in just four decades.

Although overfishing in international waters did tremendous damage to northern cod, Canada also failed to maintain the sustainable fishery within its 200-mile limit. The government ignored warnings from inshore fishers and university scientists that cod stocks were in danger and chose to maintain quotas instead of scaling back on the fishery.

Whole towns shut down overnight when the cod moratorium was announced. Overnight, 30,000 people, like plant workers, fishers and even truck drivers, lost their jobs. It was the largest industrial layoff in Canadian history. Next to 5% of our province's GDP was lost with the stroke of a pen, overnight.

When the recreational food fishery reopened in 1998, it was a moment of relief. People finally got back on the water, not to sell or get rich, but to provide healthy food to their families.

Since then, the recreational food fishery has become one of the most cherished traditions. Hundreds come from across Canada and around the world to spend a few days on the water. In the early 2000s, a tag system was introduced, requiring us to pay to receive tags. Yes, we had to pay. Imagine that: Ottawa ruins our fishery, then makes us pay them to receive 30 tags. This system was despised by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who viewed this as bureaucratic and certainly unfair given our long tradition of fishing to feed our families. After many protests, petitions and outcries, DFO finally allowed us to catch fish on weekends, limiting us to five fish per day. That sounds great until we realize that other parts of Atlantic Canada can fish seven days a week. Here we are, stuck on land during blue skies and calm waters while our families are lined up at food banks.

Here is a glimpse of the current system. In 2025, the food fishery ran for only 45 days, with a daily limit of five fish. With a doctor's note, some seniors and people with mobility issues could get someone to fish their fish for them. This year, a new pilot program was implemented for tour boat operators. Tour boats could provide a licence and two tags, allowing passengers to catch two fish each. Here is where things go wrong.

First, 45 days open does not mean 45 days of fishing. If anyone here ever goes to Newfoundland, they will quickly find out that there is immense fog, high winds and high waves. Many people in my riding are struggling to buy groceries, but they are forced to go out and face that danger because they cannot go out on a Thursday afternoon to catch a codfish to feed their family. We have lost thousands of people in Newfoundland at sea, and we do not need Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continuing to risk their lives just to put food on the table.

Second, the government partially realizes the economic value of tourism fishing, but what is interesting is that these tour boat operators, oddly enough, are allowed to fish seven days a week. To me, this sets a great precedent, a precedent that we should all be allowed to fish seven days a week. In addition, many of our tourists are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have moved away to work and want to come home for a week of deep-sea fishing, but they often decide not to come home because finding a weekend with good weather is almost impossible. We can imagine the number of Newfoundlanders who would want to come home from Alberta and everywhere else in this world if they could catch a fish seven days a week. The economic value of that is almost unimaginable.

Third and most importantly, we can catch fish only three days a week while the rest of Atlantic Canada can catch fish seven days a week.

Here are the statistics. By the early 1990s, after decades of unsustainable fishing, the northern cod stocks collapsed. The spawning biomass of northern cod had dropped by 93% in only 30 years, from 1.6 million tonnes in 1962 to 100,000 tonnes in 1992, but things are on the rise since the moratorium. By 2024, the cod biomass had moved out of the critical zone and into the cautious zone, the highest levels in decades. Ottawa agrees that there is more fish in the waters, and the evidence is that the northern cod quota has doubled.

The total allowable catch for 2025 northern cod has been set to 38,000 tonnes, which is more than double the 2024 quota of 18,000 tonnes. Meanwhile, the recreational food fishery only consumes 2,500 tonnes a year. Compared to the 38,000 commercial tonnes, it is peanuts. Many people say that more fish are dying from natural causes than what is harvested in the recreational food fishery. The biggest thing to keep in mind is this: The seals are estimated to be eating 9.7 billion tonnes of fish a year. It does not take a calculator to see that the easiest way to restore our fishery is to harvest more seals, not starve more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Let us talk about a monitoring system. The bill would direct the minister to create, within one year, a new monitoring system. It should record the number of fish caught by species, as well as the time and place. It should use modern tools and best practices. It should be funded, where possible, by existing fees and penalties. It should reward compliance, not give out punishment, with incentives for timely reporting. This data can be used to improve science and help determine fish patterns and quantities. We see similar reporting systems in Newfoundland and Labrador with our moose hunting return slips. The monitoring system should be developed by conversations with locals. Too often we see that decisions are made way too far from the wharves and coves that they affect.

The bill is not about fish; it is about respect for Newfoundland and Labrador. For far too long, our people have felt like an afterthought in Ottawa's decisions. We have had our shipyards sit idle, our oil projects stall, our mines close down and our seal fishery laughed at. Now even our food fishery, the simplest, most traditional act of all, is tangled up in red tape that no one else in Atlantic Canada has to deal with. The bill does say it all. It says that we would no longer be treated as an exemption. It says that we deserve the same opportunities and the same respect as our neighbours.

I want to talk about another part: stability, predictability and respect. One of the new clauses would add a line to the Fisheries Act, recognizing “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish”. This might sound like a lot of bureaucratic language, but in plain English, it means this: People deserve to know the rules and to know when the season opens.

When a man or woman hauls a boat down to a slipway, they should not have to wonder if this is the weekend the season is going to open. We should all know well in advance. Fisheries management should be rooted in science and fairness, not in politics and not in frustration.

When I travel my district and the province, I see what the fishery means to people. I see grandpas teaching grandsons how to tie lures. I see grandmas teaching grandkids how to filet cod. I see families hanging out together and heading out on the water, just as the sun pulls up over the ocean. We cannot put a price on that. That is culture. That is identity. That is Newfoundland and Labrador, so when Ottawa tries to limit that, it does not just take away our opportunity; it also takes away who we are.

My bill is not a partisan bill. It is not Liberal, it is not Conservative and it is not NDP. It is Newfoundland and Labrador, so I hope, at the very least, I will have my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador join me and join us in voting for the bill, because it is about all of Atlantic Canada standing together for fairness.

We talk a lot in the House about the mental health of Canadians. The whole country contributes to important initiatives like Bell Let's Talk and other mental health initiatives that emphasize the importance of people's connecting with one another, and especially of men's connecting with other men. Some of the toughest and warmest conversations men have happen on the water. Many of the toughest conversations, the ones we do not want anyone else to hear, are the ones that happen in between the “I got one” moments. These are the conversations that have guided my life, whether they have been with my father, my grandfather or my uncle.

A good day on the water can change a man, improve a man and improve our outlook on life. In the same way, it is a way for daughters to connect with fathers, and, quite frankly, for the whole family and community to connect. The fish do not care what our problems are, what gender we are or what race we are. Fishing is a safe space where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get together, sometimes returning from all around the world, to talk, to laugh and to heal.

To restore equality, we need the Liberals and all members of the House to vote for the bill. Let us pass the bill. Let us give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the same opportunities as our Atlantic neighbours, because back home the fishery runs deeper than the ocean; it runs through our veins.

It is our fish. It is our waters. It is our way of life.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my dad was a fisherman all his life. I am pretty sure he is watching right now, so I say hi to him.

When I look closely at the bill, I see that there are some things in it that Newfoundlanders should maybe ask questions about. Right now there is no fee of any kind on recreational fisheries. The member talked about a monitoring system, and the bill actually proposes a monitoring system for recreational fisheries, which would probably add cost to it. When I think about it, we could actually say that it would be a tax on food, or in this case a tax on fish.

Did the member actually talk to his leader about this new tax on food, a tax on fish?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an imaginary tax. There are no fees on catching codfish right now, nor do I want there to be.

In my speech, which I am sure the member across the way just heard, I said that we should pay for the monitoring system, if it would cost anything, through stricter penalties, more fines and catching the bad apples who are making it bad for the bunch. Perhaps it would not cost anything at all; we can work through that in committee. There is no reason to be forcing people to pay for a monitoring system, and the imaginary tax is nothing more than imaginary.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that we in the Bloc Québécois agree with this bill and we will be voting in favour of it. We too have long been opposed to Ottawa's interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. It often ignores the particularities of our ecosystems.

I would like to ask my colleague if he has any knowledge of the fishing industry in Quebec and how this bill would specifically address it.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my understanding, Quebec has the same rules as most of Atlantic Canada right now and people are able to fish seven days a week with a five-fish limit. That is what Newfoundland is asking for, to have the same rules as Quebec and the rest of Atlantic Canada.

I am very happy to hear the Bloc is going to be supporting this bill. I really appreciate the member's support.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, fishing has been put at risk across the country through the management areas they have been putting in place across the country.

I know my hon. colleague's bill does not say anything about marine protected areas, but I am wondering if he has any comments about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a situation right now where the Liberal government is proposing to take 30% of our ocean by 2030 to turn it into a marine protected area. By 2050, they are planning to turn 50% of our ocean into a marine protected area. That is a lot of ocean.

I want to take a stand and ask that we have a recreational food fishery in all marine protected areas. I am not sure the Liberals have the same commitment, but I would like to see them commit to having food fisheries in those areas, going forward.