Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2026

Terrebonne

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty pursuant to subsection 532(4) of the Canada Elections Act to inform the House that a communication has been received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the contestation of the election in the riding of Terrebonne in the province of Quebec.

I am therefore tabling in the House, in both official languages, the decision of the court in this matter. The Chair has taken note of the court's decision annulling the election of Ms. Auguste.

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

The House resumed from November 5, 2025, consideration of the motion that C-237, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (Atlantic groundfish fisheries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries Act

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-237, a questionable bill that would have devastating impacts on fisheries in all of Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This bill does not aim to amend a policy or regulation at DFO; instead, it seeks to amend the Fisheries Act, which is the law that governs every fishery in Canadian waters.

Let me be clear: Changing the Fisheries Act is consequential. This bill would hurt all fisheries classified as groundfish, not just cod and certainly not just the food fishery in Newfoundland. The bill would eliminate regional fish stocks and treat them all as one species. That means that whether someone is fishing cod in P.E.I. or Newfoundland, it would all be treated the exact same way. All openings and closures would be the same, which means that no matter the weather or migration of fish in a region, that would be the season.

All fisheries should be based on local stock health. Once the local stock is assessed, the commercial total allowable catch, the bycatch limit and the recreational quota are divided based on the health of the stock. By changing to species-based management, this bill would throw that all out. By treating different stocks all as one species, this risks the bycatch and the commercial TAC for commercial fisheries, the lifeblood of many of our communities. Since the bill is directed at all of Atlantic, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, it would threaten every commercial fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

I cannot accept that this poorly written bill would threaten the livelihoods of harvesters and their families in my community. When the bill was first debated, I asked the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas which fishing associations he had consulted. His response was that he had only spoken with people in his riding about the food fishery. Since this bill would impact all of Atlantic Canada and Quebec, it is not good enough that he did not do any proper consultation before putting forward this piece of significant legislation.

Consultation requires that all parties that would be impacted by a change to a law be heard before moving forward, which includes all fleets that fish groundfish or have groundfish as part of their catch. These are fisheries that bring hundreds of millions of dollars to coastal communities across Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, which would be impacted without having their say on these changes.

When government proposes changes to an industry, especially an industry as essential as the fishery, it needs to be done with clarity and transparency. With this bill, the Conservative Party has done neither. We know this for several reasons. First, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas told the House that he did not engage with anyone beyond his community. Second, the member for Central Newfoundland tried to stop me from asking industry representatives at the fishery committee about this bill and the proposed changes. Third, we heard nothing but opposition and concern on this bill from industry representatives when we heard from them.

At the fishery committee, I asked industry representatives whether they had been consulted by the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas on this bill. Representatives from the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters' Federation, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers and the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance all told the committee that they had not been consulted. Some of these industry representatives also shared concerns with what the bill intended to do. The member for Central Newfoundland tried to stop me from asking these key industry representatives about the bill. I would like to also note that the committee has since concluded its meetings on the Fisheries Act review, and the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas did not join to bring up his bill, nor did any other Conservative member, nor did they invite any witnesses to testify in support of the bill.

Industry has been reaching out to the Minister of Fisheries directly to share its opposition to this bill. The Atlantic Groundfish Council, the Atlantic Fixed-Gear Council, the Groundfish ITQ Association and the Atlantic Halibut Council wrote a joint letter expressing their opposition to this bill. It includes representatives from the offshore fleet in all Atlantic provinces, including the member's home province. Victoria Co-operative Fisheries Limited, the Association of Seafood Producers, and fisheries processors from Nova Scotia and, importantly, Newfoundland and Labrador are also against this bill.

At the inshore level, the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association, the Fundy North Fishermen's Association, the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Coopérative des Capitaines Propriétaires de la Gaspésie and the PEIFA from my home province have all written to the Minister of Fisheries, opposing this bill. These organizations represent thousands of independent harvesters from across Quebec and the Maritimes.

Lastly, for the member in particular, most importantly, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers, the FFAW, the union that represents inshore independent harvesters and many plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, has also written to the minister, sharing its concern for this bill. For those listening at home today, in that member's own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, the processors and ENGOs are all against this bill. Harvesters in Quebec are against this bill. Harvesters and processors in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are also against this bill. They are against it because it is reckless. The bill ignores science, it ignores consultation, and it ignores the thousands of people, including in the member's own province, who depend on the fishery. The member has made no effort to engage with the sector that is vital not just to his own province but to the provinces of his colleagues and the entire region we both call home.

It will be no surprise to anybody in the House that, given the fact that I represent a province and a region that depend heavily on the fishery, I must vote no on Bill C-237. I call on all members who care about our fisheries to do the same. With that, I conclude my comments.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today at second reading of Bill C-237.

At first reading last October, the Bloc Québécois indicated that we were open to this bill. At that time, we had already found some problems with the bill, but we were willing to analyze it, hear the arguments and look at the actual impacts it would have.

Since then, we have worked hard to do just that. We have listened to Quebeckers. We have heard from the community. We have spoken to local fishers. We have heard from regional associations and departmental representatives. Whether it be in the Gaspé, Quebec's maritime regions, the Lower St. Lawrence or the north shore, the response on the ground is clear. People are opposed to this bill.

The Coopérative des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie has warned that this approach could lead to a significant reduction in activity and have a domino effect on the region's entire maritime supply chain. When those who make a living from the sea tell us that a bill could weaken their sector, we need to listen to them.

In light of this, our position has changed. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting against Bill C-237, and I will explain why.

Modern management uses a stock-based approach. Migrations differ, spawning periods vary and environmental conditions are not the same everywhere. Standardization for the sake of simplification may seem appealing to Ottawa, but it removes flexibility for those on the water. Given that climate change is already altering species dynamics, that flexibility is essential.

There is also the issue of scientific data. Take cod for example, where recreational catches in 2024 were estimated at approximately 2,700 tonnes, but actual landings were not directly measured. These figures are based on models. Before tightening regulations across the Atlantic, lawmakers must ensure that the data is complete and robust enough to justify such a reform. We believe in science, but science requires a solid foundation.

It is also important to remember the economic importance of this sector. In some regions of maritime Quebec, fishing and processing account for up to 30% of jobs. These are not abstract statistics; entire communities depend on this industry.

I want to talk about the issue of mandatory registration for recreational fishing. Currently, recreational groundfish fishing is regulated by daily limits restricted to open fishing seasons, as managed by fisheries officers. The bill would impose a system to record the number of fish caught, the location and the time of capture. In practical terms, this means that recreational fishers would have to fill out a logbook every time they go out. No one in Quebec is asking for that. Regulations must be proportionate to the problem they seek to solve. We are not opposed to collecting data. We are opposed to imposing poorly targeted regulations that are not backed by clear necessity, especially since data collection tools, such as electronic logbooks, already exist in the commercial sector. Before creating a new regime for recreational fishing, we should first optimize those already in place.

Next comes the issue of seasonal uniformity. The bill calls for the harmonization of open and close times across the entire Atlantic area. Fisheries management, however, cannot be limited to a one-size-fits-all calendar covering every corner of the territory. Beyond the issue of recreational seasons, the real strategic issue facing the fisheries exceeds the scope of this bill. We export the bulk of our catch and we import the bulk of the seafood products we consume. That deserves a broader debate than the one being proposed now.

We understand that this bill addresses genuine frustrations felt in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, without minimizing that reality, a regional demand should not automatically result in a change that applies to the entire Atlantic area. The Quebec fishing community is not calling for this kind of reform and it has concerns about its consequences. Essentially, our decision should be guided by three questions. Is it proportionate? Is it scientifically justified? Is it economically responsible? At this stage, the answers are not persuasive. A one-size-fits-all calendar is not the right way to manage the fisheries. Such management has to be based on the locality, on fish stocks and on the communities that depend on them.

Although the bill may streamline federal administration, it complicates regional realities. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against Bill C-237 at second reading.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act as it relates to Atlantic groundfish fisheries.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, the member for Central Newfoundland and the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, for showing leadership on the issue, and by acknowledging the work in bringing the bill forward.

The bill speaks to an issue rooted in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it reflects the voices of coastal and rural communities across the province that rely on fair and reasonable access to the sea, which is why I really hope the other members from Newfoundland and Labrador will vote in favour of the bill. In coastal communities across Newfoundland and Labrador, including throughout my riding of Long Range Mountains, the fishery is a part of our history and our local economy, and decisions made in the House on the issue are especially important to the people I represent. I hear about the issue consistently.

Let me begin by saying that the bill speaks first and foremost to fairness in how recreational fisheries are managed, specifically as it relates to when people can fish and how rules are applied right across Atlantic Canada. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve the same access as the rest of Atlantic Canada. For many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a clear sense of inequity in how access to the recreational groundfish fishery is managed. They see different rules applied to different Atlantic provinces, despite shared waters and shared stocks, and they question why fairness is not applied consistently.

This concern has been raised repeatedly by residents across my riding and across the province, and it is reflected in the strong public response that we have seen. A petition our office circulated locally received 1,053 responses, highlighting how deeply this matters to families and communities across Long Range Mountains.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery is personal. It is cultural. It has deep historical roots. It is economic, but it is also deeply emotional. For decades, families have fought to keep that heritage alive. The cod moratorium of 1992 remains one of the most painful chapters in our province's history, a time that I will certainly never forget. It was a national tragedy that displaced more than 30,000 people and left a lasting mark on communities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Entire communities were hollowed out, and that loss is still felt today, not just in economic terms but also in identity and trust.

I reflect on a conversation with a community member who remembers their parents' carpet business shutting down overnight because of the moratorium. The impact of that decision was felt far beyond the industry directly and into every corner of community life. When the recreational food fishery reopened, it was about a return to tradition, about passing skills and values from one generation to the next.

In recent years, access has remained limited. In 2025, the recreational groundfish food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador operated for roughly 45 days, with most openings limited to weekends and only a short, continuous window later in the season. In the rest of Atlantic Canada, however, the public can fish seven days a week throughout the open season. Ottawa's weekend-only rule for Newfoundland and Labrador makes no biological sense, as cod stocks swim across these borders.

Weather and safety must also be considered, because 45 open days on paper does not mean 45 days safe on the water. Fog, wind and sea conditions regularly cancel out opportunities, particularly for seniors and families, who rely on calm windows to fish safely. I hear this consistently in places like Hampden, Cox's Cove, Isle aux Morts and Englee.

Someone really has to experience this tradition to truly understand what it means to a community. While visiting Englee this past summer, my family and I went cod jigging with a local family. It is a day I will not forget. Our children took part, and we enjoyed the experience as a family, wondering who would have the biggest catch. At the end of our time on the water, we all gathered at the fishing stage with other community members, helping to gut and fillet the fish. We talked about the best parts to eat, from cod tongues and cheeks to pan fried fillets and fish cakes. We stood there breathing in the sharp scent of the salt water as the sun sank down towards the horizon.

The kids skipped rocks across the water and asked questions about the fishery, the boats tied up along the wharf and the lobster traps stacked nearby. In that moment, more than anything, I realized how this was about the children truly connecting with what it means to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That connection to place, water, tradition, history and community is something common among people from our province. It is a part of who we are. That is why proposals that aim to strengthen the recreational fishery must be grounded in care.

The legislation would emphasize the importance of stability and predictability for individuals engaged in recreational groundfish fishing. It would mandate the harmonization of close times for groundfish across the Atlantic provinces, ensuring that seasonal closures would be determined based on species-specific spawning periods. This measure aims to create a more uniform and science-based regulatory environment for coastal communities that are dependent on recreational and small-scale fisheries.

Bill C-237 would also enhance reporting requirements, compelling the Minister of Fisheries to table an annual report to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the Fisheries Act. Additionally, it would require the public disclosure of any new close times or fishing quotas on the website of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at least two months prior to their implementation, improving public access to regulatory changes.

It is also important to note that recreational removals represent only a small fraction of overall harvest levels. In recent seasons, recreational food fisheries have accounted for only a few thousand tonnes annually compared to commercial quotas, which have reached tens of thousands of tonnes as stocks have rebuilt. This is not to mention the seals, which are estimated to be eating 9.7 billion tonnes of fish a year, but that is for another day.

At the same time, the recreational groundfish fishery contributes millions of dollars to the local economy each year through bait, fuel, gear, tourism and community events. In many rural outports, the fishery is the only meaningful link left between young families and the ocean.

The members opposite have criticized us for lack of consultation with stakeholders. I would like to paraphrase the sentiment of a group from my riding that has been active on this issue for many years, as well its feedback on the government's attempt to gain insight on the issue. The people remind us that for many in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is not a recreational fishery; it is a cod food fishery, rooted in history, culture and the long-standing right to harvest from the land and water to feed one's family.

The people in the group are now concerned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' survey appears designed to advance a tags and licensing program. In particular, they point to the question that asks whether respondents support the current season with no tags, or a season with tags extended. There is no option to extend the season without tags, including for safety reasons. They argue that limiting the food fishery to weekends does not reflect the realities of Newfoundland and Labrador weather and may push people to take unnecessary risks.

A healthy fishery depends on getting the balance right between access and conservation, and between science and lived experience. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand conservation because we have lived through the consequences of the devastating impacts of a collapsed cod fishery. We also believe in fairness and expect it from our federal institutions.

We must also be careful not to frame this debate as one group versus another. Recreational fishers and commercial harvesters are not opponents; they are neighbours, family members and often the same people at different times of the year. This cannot be an us or them conversation.

As the bill moves forward, our work should be guided by the principles of fairness, stability, predictability and clear communication, but most importantly, respect for the people whose lives, history, pride of place and heritage are tied to the sea.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise here in the people's House, this time in support of the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas's bill, Bill C-237, which brings to the floor of the House a concern that originated in a local community. The rural parts of this country are the often overlooked regions that far too often get neglected when it comes to policy considerations, including the formation of policies around fisheries.

Too many times decisions have been made that have had devastating consequences for local communities and those communities where livelihoods depend upon access to stable resources and fisheries. They have been willing to make sacrifices to conserve the species that were at risk, and they have proven that. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have proven that time and time again. They have paid a huge personal price to protect the species that are risk, including, and namely, cod.

We are in a circumstance where this is coming from those very communities that are very much connected to the waters. Many that are connected to the commercial fishery are on those waters, and they recognize when stocks are rebounding. They know when stock quotas are improving, when the health of a certain stock of fish is coming into a better zone and when there are more plentiful resources available to people.

They want to be able to enjoy that resource again. It is a part of their way of life. It is a part of what they have done as families for years. Not only have they made their livings off the water, but it has also become a means of food security for many families. They want to be able to gain meaningful access again.

What they are asking for is not something that is unreasonable. They want to be put on par with other Atlantic Canadian provinces. There is a huge disparity. When Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have different sets of rules than Newfoundland and Labrador, that is an inequity that needs to be addressed, and it should be addressed expeditiously. This bill goes toward that. It is to restore fairness when it comes to the recreational fishery and obtaining access to the cod that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so love and are most acquainted with.

If there is a group of Canadians that is fully invested in the health of the stocks of cod, it would be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If those who are most affected by this are feeling that this is something important to them and would be good because it would put more people on the water and allow them to regularly monitor the health of those stocks and how they are doing, that would be a good thing. It could unify the region. It would cause a ceasing of the disparity between one Atlantic province and another.

This bill would go a long way to levelling that playing field, and we should pursue it. I commend my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas for his hard work on this. He worked with his colleagues, the members for Long Range Mountains and Central Nova, to make sure that this is a reflection of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. It would behoove those who represent Canadians from all parts of the country, from coast to coast to coast, to do our due diligence and listen to those voices that would be most affected by this bill.

Those who would be most impacted are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they are saying that they would love to see this bill enacted. They want it brought in. They want fairness restored. They want access to a fishery that was a tremendously overwhelming part of their lives and heritage for a long time.

It is only right that we, as the people's representatives here in the House, listen to those in Newfoundland and Labrador who are saying, “Pass this bill. Allow us to gain access to this fishery. Let us do what we enjoy doing.” They are, trust me, more invested in the health of the cod stocks than any of us in this room. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are passionate about making sure that the cod fishery is sustainable and endures for as long as Canada does. We want this to be not only a part of Canadian heritage but also a part of Canada's future. That happens by taking this step, bringing this bill to committee, letting us study it and getting to the bottom of it.

It does get a bit rich when I hear the opponents of this bill stand up to talk about how we have to protect the resource and how these families going out to fish five cod a day would be detrimental to the health of the cod stocks. It gets really rich when, for the last 11 years, the government has done absolutely nothing about the biggest predator, the overwhelming risk to the health of the cod stocks for years, which is the explosion of the pinniped population in that part of our country.

There has been study after study. I have been on the fisheries committee, and I have heard the fish harvesters who have come in. They have given testimony about what is quite literally the elephant in the waters, and that needs to be addressed if we want to protect all kinds of fish stocks and their futures. The government has not done anything about that for 11 years, but it would single out recreational fishers who want to recapture part of their way of life. I think it is a misplaced priority. In fact, I know it is a misplaced priority.

Let us get back to common sense. Let us allow this bill to get to committee to have that discussion. Let us talk about the future of the cod fishery. Let us talk about the health of the cod stocks, and let us hear from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, those who live in our coastal and rural communities who are most affected by these types of decisions.

Let us give this bill a chance and get it to committee. That way, we would bring cohesion to Atlantic provinces, so we would not be pitting one province against another, having one set of rules for Prince Edward Islanders, another set for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, another set for Nova Scotians and another one for New Brunswickers. No, let us make sure that they come into the equation and that there is consistency. This bill would go a long way to establishing that.

I want to commend my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador for listening to their people, those who are most impacted by this decision. It takes a member of Parliament who is connected to his or her region to make sure that those concerns get brought to this floor and are debated.

I know these colleagues well. This young man would not have brought this bill forward if he did not feel this was important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us listen to what they are saying, hear their concerns, support this bill and get it to committee. I appreciate the members' time and attention.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick who just spoke, as well as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, who introduced this bill on recreational fishing. The bill is very limited in scope. It specifically concerns Newfoundland. I thank my colleague, however, because this is a topic that almost never gets talked about in the House of Commons.

My riding is right next door to Labrador. Our ridings are connected by a ferry. The issue of recreational fishing in general comes up every time I go out and talk to the public. My riding has 1,300 or 1,400 kilometres of coastline. All of my constituents, or almost all, have access to the sea. We often have the impression that the sea does not belong to us. The sea is a border, a boundary that cannot be crossed, except perhaps by commercial fishing, which is extremely important in my riding as well. However, I believe it is also vital to discuss recreational fishing. There is the whole issue of commercial fishing, but as my colleague mentioned earlier, people live on the coast.

There used to be no borders at sea. Over 60 years ago, back in the 19th century, in fact, when certain communities of fishers from the island of Jersey settled in the area where I now live, there were no borders. People lived off the sea. They could also fish recreationally. Now, I am not talking about sport fishing, because those two concepts are sometimes confused. I am really talking about recreational fishing for personal purposes, simply catching enough to eat. In some respects, it could be called subsistence fishing.

This is a topic that is extremely important to me, especially since, as someone mentioned earlier, the rules are different out west, in British Columbia, than in Atlantic Canada. I know Quebec was not mentioned earlier, but we do share the same territory, namely the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No one is talking about that. The rules are different, and the species fished in western and eastern Canada are not the same. We cannot have the exact same rules, but we would like there to be fairness for the public, who say that the cost of groceries is high, as is often mentioned in the House.

There are people in my riding who cannot afford to eat the very crab and lobster that they catch. Take a club sandwich for example. It would cost $60 to take the family out for a lobster or crab dinner, so what do we do? We export them, even though they are right there at our feet. Climate change is causing lobster stocks to rise in my region, the north shore. There is an abundance of lobster in our waters, enough for the north shore fishery, of course. However, the locals do not have access to it. I am talking about a commercial species here, but earlier I mentioned opening up fishing to other non-commercial species. Halibut and cod were mentioned.

Traditionally, people living on the north shore did not think about whether they were fishing a certain commercial fish stock versus one that was not commercial. It did not work like that. People had access to the land and access to the river. The river provided whatever people wanted. I will give a very specific example, one that gives an idea of how things were. People eat what is known as a periwinkle, a type of mollusk commonly used to make soup. It is not a commercial species. It is not an endangered species. That is not at all the case. People do not have access to it. I believe that certain things need to be done that obviously go beyond the scope of my colleague's bill. As I said earlier, I find it very interesting that he is raising this issue.

I will give another example. I talked about the 1,400 kilometres of coastline in my region. Some places are very sparsely populated. There are no sewers and there is no pollution, but people are not allowed to harvest clams. People think, come on, we have 1,400 kilometres of coastline right at our feet, and we have virtually free access to this organic, healthy food, and yet we are not allowed to harvest it, simply because it is not on people's radar and not part of the plan. The government is saying there are not enough fisheries officers and that pollution is a problem.

I know that all of the mayors and reeves in my riding would be willing to contribute from their own budgets so that this option was available to people. We are not even talking about the federal level here. There are people at the municipal level who really want to discuss this issue and provide resources and funding so that we can use what we have in the river, the estuary and the gulf. This is something that is very important in my riding and it is set up differently depending on the area. For me, and perhaps for my colleague as well, the real question is, who does this resource belong to?

We do not want to do anything to harm the commercial fisheries or the local fishers who support communities and villages. The fishery is a pillar of my riding. Over 25% of Quebec's landings occur in my region, so the fishery is very important. However, we know that there are other options, such as opening recreational fishing up a bit more than it is now, for example by issuing more licences and licences for other species. That could be good for scientists because we would be able to gather more data and more accurate data than what we have now. We would have people on the ground who would make this possible. It is the same thing for water, for example. This could also be good from an economic standpoint because we are trying to expand the tourism industry.

Many small coastal fishing communities are trying to diversify by creating recreational fishing opportunities, including for tourists, similar to what is being done in northern Europe. I am talking about the north because I live in a northern region. This is being done elsewhere, in smaller jurisdictions, such as in coastal communities in countries like Norway or Iceland. In my riding, we have 1,400 km of coastline, yet we cannot do this. Other places are making this happen and bringing in tourists. Something really needs to be done, but we need to think outside the box. Unfortunately, that is not the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO is focused on stock management. That is their mandate, among other things, and recreational fishing is something else entirely.

Before my colleague arrived in the House, I had been hoping to raise this issue at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans so that we could study it, or at least so that the matter would be on the record and a plan could be developed that would be broader than a local plan. In his bill, the member talks about inequity. I agree with him entirely. As far as the wishes of his constituents go, I also agree with him. However, the issue demands broader consideration. These waters belong to Quebeckers, to Newfoundlanders and to Canadians. Are they entitled to access their own waters and their own resources?

I would like us to discuss the question of recreational fishing even more broadly. I have noticed that this conversation can be a little disconcerting for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not because of my colleagues, but because of a taboo that does not necessarily exist in our communities. Both indigenous communities and other north shore communities know full well that my purpose in talking about recreational fishing is not to destroy commercial fishing. That is not it at all. The point is not that everyone should get to catch a lobster and leave nothing behind for the fishing companies and then everyone will be happy. The point is that we want access to the water too, for different reasons. I also mentioned economic development.

I have spoken on this issue at length, but I believe that if my constituents were here in the House of Commons, they would continue to speak about it, because this is something they have been calling for repeatedly for several years now. These folks believe they are being treated unjustly and unfairly when they have food right in front of them that is accessible and has been available to them for decades. However, their rights have been slowly and gradually eroded. I wish members were more open to having a broader discussion than what is provided for in my colleague's bill, although I understand why it is as it is.

I know that I am running out of time, but this is all to say that we in the Bloc Québécois have some serious concerns about the bill at this time, for reasons based on science. However, we do want to start a conversation on the issue of recreational fishing, in a respectful way and getting everyone involved. I represent individuals and a riding that are simply asking for access to their own resources.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and speak to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act.

It is probably a little surprising to some of my colleagues that a member of Parliament from southern Alberta would get up to speak to a bill on Canada's Fisheries Act. Many people in the House may be surprised to learn that my riding, in southwest Alberta, is one of the top destinations in North America for fly fishing. I want to compare the issues we are facing in southern Alberta to what my colleague is trying to raise here in the House with his private member's bill.

In fact, southern Alberta is one of the top destinations in North America for fly fishing. Whether it is the Bow River, the Highwood, the Sheep or the Oldman River in the very southern part of my riding, tens of thousands of people come from all over the world to experience fly fishing in southern Alberta. I know how important this industry has become to my constituency and the businesses in my riding. More than 4,000 people are employed in the fishing industry in southern Alberta.

A number of very successful businesses rely on the tourists who come to southern Alberta as part of the fishing industry. I think of Flys Etc. in High River and Oldman guiding down in Crowsnest Pass. Many of these businesses have become successful by attracting fishermen from across North America to come and experience western Canadian hospitality. That is why it is important to talk about the impact that the recreational fishing industry has on small rural communities like mine and certainly like those in Newfoundland and Labrador that my great colleague represents as well.

I was doing a bit of research on some updated numbers about the impact that the fishing industry has had in Alberta. We are talking about more than $250 million in revenue just from the fly fishing industry in Alberta. I know that is very similar to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are almost 6,000 businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador that are reliant on recreational and commercial fishing. That is a huge part of their economics and certainly of their rural community economy as well. All my colleague is asking for is to expand the opportunities for the growth of recreational fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I found it interesting that my colleague from Prince Edward Island talked about the importance of enforcement. The Liberal government has had more than a decade to follow through on enforcement on fisheries right across this country. In fact, a previous Liberal fisheries minister lost her job because she failed so miserably in enforcing the laws around the Fisheries Act.

I will just briefly touch on the elver fishery issue in Nova Scotia, which has ripped communities apart. All that has been asked for is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Liberal government, stand up and enforce the rules that are in place, something it has failed to do for more than a decade.

In contrast, my colleague has gone from one community to another in his riding, consulting with commercial and recreational fishers, asking them what they need to grow this industry. All he is asking for in this bill is some flexibility. I have travelled across Alberta and into Saskatchewan and B.C. to do some fishing, which I enjoy. I know I would be extremely disappointed if I had travelled all the way to Newfoundland and Labrador to go fishing on one of the designated days as a recreational fisher when I can go out onto the water, to find out that the water was too rough, or there was a storm blowing in, and it was just unsafe. However, I would not have been able to postpone my trip until the next day because of some arbitrary rules around opening the recreational fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The amount that we are talking about here is, in the larger scheme of things, really quite insignificant. We are not asking for those recreational fishers to be able to take more fish out of the water. We are just asking for more flexibility around the days they could go out on the water. We would still have accountability and transparency, while enforcing the rules. There is some enforcement as part of this bill. That is something the Liberals have failed to do in the more than a decade they have been in government, despite the engagement and cries for action from fishers from coast to coast to coast.

Overall, Bill C-237 would just expand and strengthen the overall management framework for Atlantic fisheries in Canada. Some great points were made by my colleague from New Brunswick, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, and my other colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador has talked about this extensively as well. We talk about the amount of fish that the seal herds in Atlantic Canada are consuming compared with what we are asking for as part of this bill.

The seal population has grown so out of control that it is consuming more fish than the entire Atlantic commercial and recreational fishing industries combined. When we compare some of these things, we really have to look at what the source of the fish population concerns may be. It is certainly not a handful of recreational fishers who are looking to fish only on a Tuesday or a Wednesday rather than adhering to these very arbitrary numbers. I find the Liberals' inability to enforce the rules that are already in place frustrating.

I am going to compare that to something we are dealing with. I talked about the seal population being out of control. We are dealing with something very similar in western Canada, in the Prairies, with the Richardson's ground squirrel. The population has grown so out of control that many farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan are seeing upward of a 20% yield loss in their crops and, even more so, damage being done to native grazing land and grassland where cattle are being raised and finished. We have asked the Liberal government to support an emergency application for the use of strychnine that was brought forward by Alberta and Saskatchewan. The agriculture minister promised he would support those applications that came in early October, but now we are told that the agriculture minister has changed his mind. He has broken yet another promise to Canadian prairie farmers with the government not supporting the emergency use of strychnine to deal with the overpopulation of Richardson's ground squirrels. There are no other options, and the consequences of that are putting our food security and the economic viability of many prairie farmers at risk.

I compare that to a similar situation with this private member's bill. Instead of dealing with the root cause of the problems, which would be an overpopulation of seals, or enforcing the rules that are in place, whether that is in commercial fishing in Newfoundland Labrador or the elvers fishery in Nova Scotia, the Liberal government seems to put its head in the sand and hope that it will all take care of itself. We have seen that is certainly not the case, and these things do not take care of themselves. They require a stiff spine and tough decisions by the government, and certainly a minister, whether that is the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to show some intestinal fortitude and ensure that the rules are being followed. That is what we are asking the government to do on many of these types of issues, and certainly this one is no different. What my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for is some stability and predictability for individuals who would come to Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in the recreational fishing industry.

I want to conclude with this. We cannot underestimate the value of this industry to provinces and territories right across this country. As I highlighted, many people would be surprised by the impact the fly fishing industry has in southern Alberta. It is probably one of my riding's most critical industries. The same can be said, if not more, for Newfoundland and Labrador. All we are asking for is some flexibility to grow what could be an impactful industry, which would have a very low impact on the environment and climate but a very high impact on the local economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I would encourage my colleagues in the House to at least send Bill C-237 to committee so it can be studied further.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. I know the importance of the cod fishery to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in particular the food fishery and the commercial fishery. Balancing those two is challenging, and my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, is doing a good job in this very challenging portfolio. The food fishery and the economy is an important balance.

We have seen, because of the scientific-based management of our cod fishery, our commercial fishery reopen this past year. This was significant. There are communities in my riding with fishers who rely on this income. They rely on the commercial fishery to make a living and to sustain their families and communities.

One of the biggest challenges with this bill, as I see it, is the fees that it would put on the people in our province taking part in the food fishery. I want to remind individuals that last year there was no licence requirement, no licensing fee and no reporting requirement for the food fishery. The individuals were to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food.

Under this Conservative tax-on-food bill, we would see a forced mandatory licence. It is written right into the bill. Individuals would have to pay a fee to cover the cost of this bill and to report every fish they catch. We hear Conservatives talking about the boogeyman, the unseen tax on food. This would put a tax on food by the requirements outlined in the bill itself.

Meanwhile, our government is providing tax relief for individuals across the country while looking to grow our economy. The commercial fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is vital to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hear my constituents talk about changes in the food fishery and how they would like to see greater access. They would like to see real consultation, because this bill had no consultation. I have not heard anybody in my riding talk about wanting this bill. In fact, it is quite the opposite. People in my riding, commercial fishers, have said they are very concerned about this bill.

Real consultation is what the Minister of Fisheries has done in opening up a consultation process on what the future of the food fishery looks like. She has heard from almost 10,000 people and received submissions from people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who put forward their thoughts and recommendations for what the food fishery should look like. That is consultation. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were not consulted about this bill. Commercial fishers are very concerned about this.

Instead of looking at cod as a species, this bill would treat the fishery differently and as a one-size-fits-all, which is dangerous. We finally have our commercial fishery reopened, and it is because of sound management of the fishery and of our fish stocks. We cannot go backward. We cannot risk the commercial fishery for the generations of the future.

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

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas has the floor for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, it is so uplifting to have the support of my Conservative colleagues on the bill, especially my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador.

We understand that this is something that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want, and we are hoping that our Liberal colleagues will recognize that and vote for the bill, so it can go to committee. That is what Newfoundlanders want. They want us, Liberals and Conservatives, to work together, not to pit commercial fishermen against recreational fishermen but to work together to make our province better, to feed our families and to be able to fish seven days a week.

Fish stocks are rising, but unfortunately food insecurity is rising even faster. I have a good solution for food insecurity in our province. We can fill our boats to fill our bellies. For hundreds of years, we have turned to the ocean to feed our families. As my colleague from Long Range Mountains said today, being limited to fishing on weekends results in a massive safety barrier due to high winds and stormy conditions.

If we could fish seven days a week, there would be days with better weather, allowing more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, seniors and families with smaller boats to be able to access this fishery, feeding the families who need it the most. I am sure this is something that all MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador will support and understand.

Let us talk about the cod stocks. During the last debate on the bill, I sat in the House and heard a Liberal MP talk about how different parts of Atlantic Canada have different schools of fish and that populations may vary. He then went on to talk about how cod stocks in some parts of Atlantic Canada are not as strong as the cod stocks in Newfoundland. That only proves my point. If cod stocks in the Maritimes are low and they can fish seven days a week, why on earth, or perhaps why on the ocean, can Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not fish seven days a week like the rest of Atlantic Canada, when our stocks are much healthier?

Additionally, every fisherman and fisherwoman knows that the biggest factor in the country affecting fish stocks is the massive overpopulation of seals. It is estimated that seals eat more fish than all of Atlantic Canada catches in the commercial fishery.

My colleagues spoke about tourism. They understand how essential it is to our economy. With the new opportunities to go deep-sea fishing throughout the week, come from aways and people coming back home will spend thousands of dollars on hotels, meals, gas and other tourism activities. The economic benefit to the province will be in the millions.

I have no doubt that the fisheries minister from Newfoundland and Labrador knows that opening the recreational food fishery seven days a week would significantly boost tourism in rural Newfoundland, an industry that so many people are dependent on. I hope that the minister and all my Newfoundland and Labrador colleagues do the right thing and vote for the bill.

The member for Long Range Mountains spoke about her beautiful family. She talked about how some of her family's greatest memories are the times they spent together participating in the recreational food fishery. That is what it is all about. It is not about the money. It is not about the jobs. It is not about the rat race. Life is about spending time with family, doing the things we love and making memories. This is what the recreational food fishery does for our province. It brings families and friends together. This is why all parties, especially the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, should vote for the bill: to allow people, families and friends to fish together seven days a week.

I would like to talk about consultation. Some of our critics and members from the other side of the aisle wrongfully state that we never did any consultation. To that I will say this. In addition to the hard work of our shadow minister and the member for Central Newfoundland, I spent months travelling from wharf to wharf in my district. I spoke with hundreds of recreational food fishers. The verdict was clear: They want to be able to fish seven days a week.

I even went to commercial fishermen and fisherwomen with small enterprises in my riding. I asked them what their concerns were. Their concern was with enforcement, enforcement that the Liberal government has never done over the past decade. Their only issue, which I heard repeatedly, is that they do not want the few bad apples, the very few, to go out, fill their boats and sell it on the black market. That is enforcement that should have already been done and that needed to continue to be done over the past 10 years.

There is another thing. There was a crazy statement that happened in the House today, one I could not understand, saying that the bill would create fees and a tax on food. It is not in the bill anywhere. There are no fees. That is only an imaginary tax. It is not in there. There are no fees. That is all there is.

The bill is not partisan. It is practical. It respects science. It respects enforcement. I would like to request a vote in the House so we can have a formal vote.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote on the bill.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Build Canada Homes Act

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the Build Canada Homes act would establish Canada as an affordable housing builder. The Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation that would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a mandate to deliver affordable housing at scale. The work Build Canada Homes would do is essential to the federal government's ability to build the affordable homes Canadians need and would initiate a new phase of transformative growth in Canada's economy.

The legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with operational independence and flexibility. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the powers, functions and new tools it needs to deliver on its mandate. Equipped with these new tools, it would be able to act nimbly as a developer, financier, convenor and innovation driver in the housing sector. As I said, with this legislation Build Canada Homes would become a Crown corporation focused on building affordable housing in communities right across the country. This is important, essential and meaningful work, and it would tackle something even bigger than just the crisis that is facing our housing sector, because investing in building the affordable housing that Canada needs would in turn help grow our country's economy and strengthen our industries.

We know that housing is not simply about having a roof over one's head. The stability that a home provides builds the foundation for mental and physical health, for community involvement and for personal success. Everyone in Canada deserves a safe home, a place where stability takes root so opportunity can blossom.

I will put the housing crisis in context.

Even though some progress has been made, many Canadians still struggle to find affordable housing. The pandemic complicated things by disrupting the supply chain, and tensions with the United States have added further challenges.

This pressure is being felt across the country, in big cities and small communities alike. Canadians are experiencing rising prices, a lack of supply, and greater inequality. That is why our new government is working to make housing more affordable, to offer more options and to help every Canadian have a place to call home.

Budget 2025 includes generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing. This strategic investment will build homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead.

Solving Canada's housing crisis requires immediate action to build homes that meet Canadians' needs: homes they can afford, built as soon as possible. That is why, in September 2025, our government launched Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency within the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, with an initial investment of $13 billion. Build Canada Homes is part of a broader set of measures by our government to accelerate housing construction, restore housing affordability and reduce homelessness.

As a lean, purpose-built entity, Build Canada Homes would leverage public lands, deploy flexible financial tools and promote modern methods of construction, like factory-built housing components. These new approaches would allow us to accelerate construction timelines, improve productivity and support a more productive homebuilding sector.

Build Canada Homes would fund multi-year agreements, providing increased certainty for housing providers, builders and manufacturers. In the immediate term, Build Canada Homes is prioritizing shovel-ready projects. Over time, Build Canada Homes would shift to funding large-scale, portfolio-based projects, delivering measurable impacts to Canada's supply of affordable housing, which brings us here today.

This legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to deploy capital at scale, partner in greater capacity and make investments in new and more productive approaches to housing construction. This is how we would expedite the delivery of more affordable homes on public lands and in communities across Canada.

As a special operating agency, Build Canada Homes has already launched the initial phase of work to build thousands of homes on federal lands in six communities across Canada, and we are getting shovels in the ground this year on those projects. In Ottawa, we would build approximately 1,100 homes just 20 minutes from the downtown core. We would deploy the same rapid approach across the country, in Dartmouth, Edmonton, Longueuil, Toronto and Winnipeg, to get homes built for Canadians as quickly as possible on these lands.

The bill authorizes the transfer of just over $1.5 billion from the Canada Lands Company to Build Canada Homes, once the agency is established, to ensure that this capital is ready to unlock construction on these sites. This is just the beginning. The Build Canada Homes act represents a major step forward in strengthening the federal government's ability to respond to Canada's housing crisis.

This legislation makes it clear that Build Canada Homes would be Canada's affordable housing builder going forward. As such, as a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes' mandate would be to build affordable housing across Canada while modernizing the homebuilding sector.

By focusing on modern construction methods like prefabricated housing and the use of lumber, Build Canada Homes will stimulate a homebuilding industry that is more innovative, resilient and productive. Off-site construction will extend the construction season year-round, creating a steady supply of factory-produced housing components and quality year-round jobs. Over time, this will speed up project delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability.

With manufactured panels and prefabricated components produced off-site, construction teams can work faster while minimizing waste, noise and required labour.

With the trade tensions hitting our industries such as steel and softwood, we have to be our own best customer. Mass timber, as an example, has tremendous potential for supporting greater densification. Mass-timber designs, especially those incorporating prefabrication and modular components, can accelerate the construction of multi-unit residential structures. The wood construction also provides natural insulation that reduces heat loss, increasing energy efficiency.

The carbon capture by mass timber can also be significant, especially in taller wood buildings. When used as a substitute for or complement to concrete and steel, mass timber delivers significant climate benefits, cutting embodied emissions in buildings by as much as 25%.

Canada has the third-most extensive forested area on earth. If we manage our forests sustainably, our country has a significant supply of timber available to meet the growing demand for building with wood and mass timber. Greater demand can strengthen Canada's softwood lumber industry while helping to reduce reliance on our southern neighbour and reducing the climate pollution caused by the embodied carbon and building materials.

I want to talk about core partnerships next. Build Canada Homes has already formed key partnerships with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and local governments. Notably, we are forging commitments to ensure that supportive and transitional housing is matched with the wraparound services residents need.

For example, these partnerships would support the creation of 30 supportive and transitional homes announced in Nova Scotia and 54 at Dunn House phase 2 in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding in Toronto, with further negotiations under way to ensure critical services to the most vulnerable Canadians. Just last week, we announced a partnership with the B.C. government in Victoria to build 700 supportive and transitional homes, setting a new bar for the scale of the supportive and transitional homes that are needed to tackle homelessness.

Build Canada Homes is also committed to building indigenous partnerships that further self-determination and contribute meaningfully to meeting the needs of indigenous communities. Through Build Canada Homes, the governments of Canada, Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reached an agreement in principle to support the development of 750 homes for non-market housing in Nunavut. These homes will be designed and delivered in collaboration with Inuit, for Inuit.

The Build Canada Homes act would establish a Crown corporation with a legislative mandate to engage with partners and deliver on projects that meet the needs of the communities they serve. As with Inuit, we look forward to strong partnerships with first nations and with Métis as well. The act would unlock the tools for Build Canada Homes to forge these new strategic relationships that would drive coordinated action and establish modern development models that could scale affordable housing like never before. This is how we move from the incremental progress we have seen in recent years to transformative progress.

By changing how Canada builds, Build Canada Homes would be delivering speed, scale and innovation. Communities across Canada are ready to work with us. Since releasing our investment policy framework and launching our national submission portal in late November, we have seen very strong interest nationwide. Proposals have come in from every province and territory. Many are under review, and hundreds more are in progress right now, building a robust pipeline of projects ready to break ground this year. These partnerships are central to Build Canada Homes' strategy to grow community housing and ensure long-term affordability. We will do this while growing our economy and making it more resilient and stronger.

Build Canada Homes would implement the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy by prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials, strengthen our domestic supply chains and create good jobs. From softwood lumber in B.C. and New Brunswick to steel in Ontario and aluminum in Quebec, homebuilding connects Canadian materials to Canadian jobs. This is exactly why the government's approach to buy Canadian is exactly what it is about: becoming our own best customer.

It is also about shockproofing our economy. Buying and building domestically strengthens Canadian industries, supports Canadian workers and creates a stronger and more dynamic economy. The buy Canadian policy announced in December 2025 fundamentally changes how the federal government purchases goods and services. It prioritizes Canadian suppliers and requires the use of Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood in large federal projects so the dollars we invest drive demand here at home, strengthen our supply chains and support our workers and communities. That is how we move from reliance to resilience in a world where trade uncertainty is real.

This bill is about more than just building more housing. It focuses on something even more important. It is a key element of how we are retooling Canada's economy. When we invest in Canada, we are not just creating jobs. We are also strengthening domestic supply chains, reducing our dependence on foreign markets and ensuring that Canada remains competitive in a global economy where instability in international trade has become the new normal.

For workers, this would mean increasing economic security and opportunity. For businesses, it would mean demand and predictability. For our country, it would be another step in a nation-building strategy that invests in Canadian industries and communities. We are prioritizing Canadian content in major procurements, building with Canadian materials and partnering across the country to strengthen our supply chains and keep people working.

Build Canada Homes would finance and build housing, which would drive demand for Canadian lumber and steel, encourage innovation in the construction sector and make investments that directly support Canadian workers and businesses. It is a model for how we build homes, infrastructure and prosperity using Canadian materials, creating jobs today and laying down the foundation for long-term economic growth.

As for measurable results, since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. I identified public lands that are being converted into housing right now. We have partnered with local governments to cut red tape, waive fees and fast-track approvals as well. This means up to 3,000 new homes right here in Ottawa and up to 1,430 homes in Nova Scotia, and recently we signed a partnership with Quebec to accelerate approvals and identify even more housing projects in the province. In total, nine Build Canada Homes deals are now in place and are expected to deliver nearly 9,000 new homes. There are many more projects coming in the months ahead. With private, public and government partners all showing up, we are ready to build.

There is lots more work to do, but the progress we have seen in just a few short months gives me confidence that we are moving in the right direction. Build Canada Homes has already demonstrated what is possible when we combine speed, innovation and collaboration to get homes built for Canadians. With the passage of the Build Canada Homes act, we would have the flexibility, autonomy and accountability we need to deliver more affordable homes. We would have the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to scale our progress even further, move faster, partner more effectively and deliver more affordable homes on federal lands and in communities across the country. This is a pivotal step that would transform our early momentum into long-term capacity.

That is exactly what the Build Canada Homes act is designed to deliver. The act is a major milestone in the government's plan to build more homes faster and help ensure that every Canadian has an affordable place to live. It is about building more homes now, but it is also about reshaping the future for Canadians, making sure the next generation can make choices about the communities they want to live in. It is about giving families stability and supporting Canadian manufacturers and supply chains to grow Canada's economy strong. It is about creating new careers and giving communities the tools to grow sustainably.

In conclusion, with this legislation, we are marking a new chapter in Canada's history. We are transforming the housing system with intent. We are building the right partnerships and innovative financing models by design. We are shaping Canada's future to create communities that are stronger, fairer and leave no one behind. Much like the Major Projects Office, Build Canada Homes would enable nation-building housing projects that would help make our country's economy the fastest-growing in the G7. We are investing in Canadian workers, Canadian jobs and Canadian industries.

The Build Canada Homes act is a milestone step that would strengthen Canada's self-reliance and resilience. It would empower Canadians with more opportunities to get ahead and build the life they want, where they want, in a home they can afford.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that housing affordability is a major concern for young people. I have spent a lot of time over the last eight months speaking to young people on university campuses, many of whom fear that their life will be worse than that of their parents, owing largely to concerns about accessing homes and jobs.

One of the big issues, we know, in housing construction over the last 10 years under the Liberals, when housing prices have more than doubled, has been the proliferation of bureaucracy. The high cost of government is getting in the way of the construction that needs to happen in order to keep up with the needs of Canadians. The approach of the government is to create more bureaucracy: to add another arm to the federal government, yet another Crown corporation. It is proposing to continually expand bureaucracy, when actually we need a plan to reduce bureaucracy.

I wonder if the member can explain why, under 10 years of Liberal government, there has been such dramatic growth in the price of housing and why, rather than address the problem of out-of-control bureaucracy preventing housing construction, the Liberals are proposing to add to housing bureaucracy rather than reduce it.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his concerns. First and foremost, to speak to the challenge that young Canadians face with housing, that is clearly a focus of Build Canada Homes: to ensure we are building affordable homes for the next generation. Many of us who sit in the House have children or grandchildren and have great concerns about the escalation of homebuilding costs and the price of housing across Canada.

We have seen the focus of the investments over the last few years into housing and affordable housing starting to bear fruit as the market pressures are easing. We have seen prices come down for several quarters in a row. We have seen rents come down. That does not mean we slow down. In fact, it means we need to step up efforts. The Build Canada Homes act is all about stepping up those efforts to build more affordable housing and to make sure housing is suitable for the next generation, including student housing and housing for young people who are looking for their first homes. It is complementary to the tax break for first-time homebuyers that the House is bringing forward.

We need to have a number of tools. Build Canada Homes is streamlining the process of moving affordable housing forward for Canada with a lean and nimble agency that will deliver that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for laying out exactly what Canadians have been talking about for quite some time. He talked about the wraparound services and cities like London, Ontario, where we have benefited from funding through the national housing strategy. I was recently at a location where we had funded wraparound services. I want to share with the minister the dignity I saw in the people who lived there. An event had been created and I was invited to speak to them. I am thinking about where they were five years ago and where they are today, with the dignity and the humanity to now be able to think past their problems.

I think about cities like Vancouver and London, where we see a lot of homelessness and people experiencing addiction because they do not have wraparound services. Could the minister talk a bit more about the wraparound services in the Build Canada Homes act?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her concern for those most vulnerable. The importance of supportive and transitional housing cannot be understated. It is a best practice, as part of a housing-first initiative, to make sure that people who are at risk of homelessness or are currently homeless have an opportunity to get into housing that has wraparound health and social supports so they can find stability in their lives and then transition to other housing opportunities successfully.

We have seen great examples of this. I mentioned that Dunn House, in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding, is really a social medicine example that is proving to save taxpayer dollars. We had people who were spending a lot of time in hospitals and emergency rooms or in jail within the justice system. The cost of all that has been reduced. Those people are rebuilding their lives with great success. We have seen that success in B.C. with the supportive housing I was involved with when I was the mayor of Vancouver.

It is a best practice. We have a billion dollars dedicated toward that. We are looking for the operating funding from the provinces and territories to go forward and build thousands of supportive transitional homes. We will need that support from the leadership at the provincial level in particular. We have had early examples of that in Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C. We need to scale that up. It is a big part of our work.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for introducing the bill. I really appreciate it.

I have spent a lot of time since I came to Parliament visiting my riding and speaking with constituents about their circumstances. The cost of living is palpable across the country, and not just in my home province. A big part of the cost of living crisis is related to the affordability of homes. I do not hear much in the bill's introduction related to affordability, except for the title. There is little substance, other than maybe the monopolization of entry-level housing construction across the country.

I understand this is transformation with intent, as the member has spoken to directly. I wonder if he could comment on how the government intends to eliminate or bring down the cost of housing with respect to municipal fees, taxes, delays, the time it takes to acquire a permit and all the stuff related to building new construction. I do not see any of those benefits in this legislation. I just see additional bureaucracy.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke briefly to the impact we have already had in terms of reducing approval times, red tape and the costs related to both of those with the City of Ottawa. We have an agreement in place with the City of Ottawa to build about 3,000 homes. The homes will be expedited through the city's system and that is a good example of how Build Canada Homes, by bringing new tools to the table, which this act would enable, has the opportunity to leverage that acceleration with city governments, which are responsible for those approvals and for reducing those costs.

There will be other approaches with infrastructure investments that reduce development cost charges, which we will be bringing forward in the weeks and months ahead. With Build Canada Homes in particular, we have that leverage point. What will be really critical for us going forward is also having the tools to crank up the supply of more affordable housing. We can invest, at Build Canada Homes, in affordable housing projects that leverage a range of deeper affordability right to the middle market, like housing for young people that is lower rent. There are opportunities for attainable home ownership as well.

We look forward, at Build Canada Homes, to being able to focus on scaling those opportunities.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, one that I often hear when I travel around my riding. There is concern that some smaller communities, which do not have the resources of cities like Toronto or Longueuil, may not be able to access the opportunities provided by this program. Not every town needs 400 housing units. Some communities may need only four or six. The mayors and reeves in my riding are concerned about this.

I would like to hear the minister tell us whether all communities, regardless of size, will have access to the program. They do not have the same resources as larger cities. At the press conference announcing the agreement with Quebec City, there was some talk of competition. It feels a bit like David versus Goliath, so I hope they will also have access to it.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

We are focused on communities of all shapes and sizes. That is part of Build Canada Homes. The act would enable this new, lean, efficient agency to deliver both large-scale projects with larger communities and cities, and smaller projects in smaller and rural communities. We anticipate it being a measure of the impact within the community. In a small community, a small project would have a significant impact. We need to be able to fund and advance those projects in all sizes of communities.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, just before my formal remarks, I would like to take one moment to mention that two weeks ago today, I was able to stand in the House and congratulate Megan Oldham from Parry Sound on a bronze medal win at the Olympics in Milan.

I am excited to report that, a week ago today, I had the immense privilege of standing at the bottom of the hill and watching her win gold in the big air event. I had never been to the Olympics before, and I have to say that watching a constituent and family friend win gold is a pretty exciting experience. I just want to report that we are obviously immensely proud of Megan in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across Canada. The town of Parry Sound is actually planning a fairly large community celebration this Saturday, and I will be there. Singing O Canada as a constituent wins gold at the Olympics is something I will never forget.

I will move on to the debate today:

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

The warning President John F. Kennedy delivered at the Yale commencement in 1962 is the warning that we need to hear today. President Kennedy knew that nations could drift because of the comfort of assumptions, systems and myths.

Today, Canada is living a myth. The myth is that we can solve a housing crisis by expanding bureaucracy, that another agency will compensate for a system that is designed to delay, and that process is the same as decision. The truth is much harder. The problem in this country is not a shortage of process. It is a shortage of permission. Until we confront that truth honestly, housing affordability will not return.

Canada's housing crisis did not appear suddenly overnight. It was constructed, layer by layer, over years, over decades, with one additional approval, one new study, one longer consultation, one more appeal mechanism and one more condition layered onto an already complex process. Each individual decision seemed reasonable and each safeguard seemed maybe defensible, yet layered together they produced delay.

Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision and it has a cost. When approvals stretch from months into years, capital sits idle, risk increases and projects that once made economic sense no longer do. As time expands, costs explode, and either those costs are embedded into the final price or the homes are just simply never built. That is not ideological rhetoric. It is simple math. This paralysis by process is measurable in months, in dollars and in lost opportunity.

The CMHC estimates that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for a sustained period to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that pace. In recent years, housing starts have fallen well below that level. Meanwhile, population growth accelerated. Between 2019 and 2024, for every 100-person increase in the adult population, only a small fraction of ownership housing was added. That imbalance compounds annually. Home ownership among Canadians aged 30 to 34 has declined sharply, rents have risen and carrying costs have increased dramatically. Now, nearly nine in 10 Canadians express concern about housing affordability. This is not some cyclical downturn that will just reset itself. It is structural and it is pervasive.

That is not just my diagnosis. I am not just griping as a partisan here. The warnings are everywhere. The OECD has repeatedly identified restrictive zoning, prolonged permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as principal constraints on housing supply in Canada. It has called for as-of-right zoning, predictable and shortened approval timelines, reduced regulatory overlap and alignment between infrastructure funding and housing approvals. Its conclusion is clear: Canada's housing challenge is not primarily a financing issue; it is a supply and regulatory issue.

The International Monetary Fund has gone even further. In its article IV consultation, it has warned that housing supply constraints in Canada now represent a macroeconomic risk. They are not simply a social issue, but a macroeconomic risk.

Housing shortages fuel inflation, restrict labour mobility, suppress productivity growth and elevate financial vulnerability. When workers cannot move to opportunity, productivity declines. When productivity declines, growth slows, and when growth slows, fiscal capacity weakens. This paralysis by process in housing becomes paralysis in economic growth, so when international institutions flag housing supply as a growth constraint, it is wise for us to listen. Canada does not lack capital, talent or expertise; what Canada lacks is permission.

Prime Minister Lester Pearson believed that governments reveal their priorities not through their rhetoric but through what they make it easy to do and what they make it hard to do. In Canada today, it is easier to create a new program than to reform a process, it is easier to announce than to approve, and it is easier to expand bureaucracy than to shorten timelines. That imbalance is not limited to housing, although housing is where its consequences are most visible, which brings us to Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 would create the Build Canada Homes corporation, the fourth federal housing bureaucracy and another governance framework and layer of administration. Let us apply the Pearson test. Would it shorten municipal timelines or eliminate duplication or endless review? Would it impose service standards or reduce the tax burden on housing? The answer is quite simply no, it would not. It would reorganize, but it would not reform, and that matters because the crisis we face is not a shortage of institutions; it is an accumulation of delay.

Build Canada Homes would not change zoning law, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development or remove environmental duplication charges. It would add a new entity; it would not remove a barrier. If we do not fix time, we do not fix cost; if we do not fix cost, we do not fix affordability.

The minister said that we do not need to predict how this new agency is going to work; we already have some evidence. Those first six housing projects on federal lands announced by Build Canada Homes were presented as proof of momentum. They were proof that the new Crown corporation was hitting the ground running and already delivering, yet we know that those lands were already well under development through the Canada Lands Company, an existing federal Crown corporation. The sites had already been identified, transferred and prepared; planning work was already under way; municipal engagement had already begun, and in some cases, approvals were already advancing. Build Canada Homes did not unlock those sites; it inherited them.

We all know that rebranding does not increase supply, shorten approvals or break the chains of our process. If greater authority was required, it could have granted that to Canada Lands Company. Instead, the government has layered on another structure, while the underlying approvals system, with all its delays and costs, remains unchanged.

We have seen this pattern before from the Liberal government. The housing accelerator fund was introduced with similar language, such as urgency, speed and transformation. Billions were allocated, planning studies were funded, consultants were hired and zoning frameworks were reviewed, but did it eliminate discretionary rezonings, impose binding approval timelines or remove duplication? In many cases, it simply funded more planning. It did not remove process. Money was layered on top of delay and actually subsidized the paralysis.

Even the CMHC is not immune. Developers across the country report prolonged underwriting reviews, repeated revisions and changing requirements mid-process. The financing designed to accelerate housing is slowed by administration.

With every new agency or program, the signal from the government is very clear: The system is not optimized for speed; it is optimized for review. Review without discipline becomes delay, and delay without reform feeds the paralysis.

I find it interesting that when the government seeks to assist the auto sector, as an example, it works directly with the producers. It tries to strengthen their competitiveness; it secures investment for them and works to improve their supply chains. When the government wants to support farmers, it does not create some federal body that plants crops and raises cows. It backs producers, reduces risk and tries to expand markets. However, in housing, instead of empowering builders by reducing delays and costs, the government has created a new bureaucracy. Homes are built by builders, not by boards.

At the end of the Second World War, Canada faced a severe housing emergency as well. Nearly one million veterans returned home. Ten years of depression and six years of war had nearly halted construction. By 1946, the country was short more than 200,000 homes. Families were living in temporary huts and converted barracks. The crisis was immediate, yet Canada mobilized. Financing expanded, land was serviced, approvals were streamlined and authority was clear. Housing production increased dramatically through the late 1940s and early 1050s, and within a decade, that shortage was largely overcome. That is not nostalgia; it is a very clear example of urgency a time when the government treated time as the enemy.

It is easy for us today to frame this housing crisis as only about young Canadians. It is about young Canadians, but it is important to point out that scarcity affects every generation, because housing supply affects retirement security. When young families cannot afford homes, household formation slows. When household formation slows, economic growth slows. When that growth slows, pension sustainability weakens. When housing markets become distorted by undersupply, volatility increases, and volatility affects home equity. Home equity affects retirement planning. Reduced labour mobility reduces productivity, and that reduced productivity affects tax revenues, those same tax revenues that fund health care and pensions.

Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue; it is an issue of national stability. Boomers should care, mid-career Canadians should care and young Canadians already do care. Housing supply is tied to our nation's fiscal health. It is tied to productivity, and that scarcity harms us all. We know this is true because residential construction represents roughly 7% of Canada's GDP. With related industries included, nearly one-fifth of economic activity is connected to housing. When housing slows, construction employment declines, material production declines, mortgage lending slows, and retail contracts and government revenues shrink. Housing anchors fiscal health at every level, so when supply fails, the economic ripple is national.

We know that real reform is not about announcing new funds or new agencies. It is about removing friction: expanding as-of-right zoning, imposing building review timelines, aligning infrastructure funding with housing results, reducing the onerous tax burden, coordination across jurisdictions and holding departments accountable for time. None of that requires yet another Crown corporation. It requires government reforming itself at all levels. Following the same playbook of the last 10 years simply will not work.

President Kennedy warned about myths: the myth that comfort can replace courage, that process can replace decision and that more administration equals more results. Canada is living that myth right now. As we are trapped in that myth, prices rise, supply continues to fall, opportunity continues to narrow, growth continues to weaken and confidence continues to erode.

Prime Minister Pearson believed governments are judged by what they make easy and what they make hard. By that measure, we are failing. It is easy to announce, reorganize and create new agencies, yet it remains hard to approve housing, shorten timelines and remove duplication. It is hard to say “yes”, and Canadians are paying the price for that imbalance.

They see it in the cost of every home, the rent paid each month, delayed family plans and slower growth that affects retirement security and public finances alike. That is not abstract. It is absolutely measurable and absolutely reversible. We have built at scale before. We have mobilized nationally before. We have delivered transformative projects before, but the question before this House is not whether Canada can build; it is whether we are prepared to do it again, because when government makes it too hard to build homes, it weakens economic security across all generations for all Canadians. Canada does not lack builders, Canada does not lack capital and Canada does not lack the skill. Canada lacks permission.

We must restore urgency. We must restore accountability for time and restore clarity of purpose, and then supply will follow. Canada can build again, but not if we continue pretending that more bureaucracy is actual reform, and not if we continue layering announcements on top of delay.

For 10 years, Canadians have been promised strategies, funds, frameworks and agencies, and for 10 long years, affordability has moved further and further out of reach for every Canadian. Home ownership has fallen, rents have risen and starts have slowed. The crisis has deepened. This is not a failure of messaging or announcements; it is a failure of government. Repeating the same formula, another agency, another announcement, another layer, will not produce a different result; it will produce more of the same.

If we are serious about restoring affordability, then we must confront the truth. The obstacle is not a lack of government; it is too much government standing in the way. The answer is not a fourth housing bureaucracy; it is the courage to reform the system that created the delays in the first place.

Let us choose reform over reorganization. Let us choose timelines over talking points. Let us choose permission over paralysis. Canada can build again, but only if we stop repeating the costly errors of the past and start removing the barriers that caused this crisis and continue to make it worse.

Canadians deserve this level of urgency, this level of honesty. This nation has done it before, and we can do it again, but Canadians are running out of time. We must do it now.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need better timelines. I agree that we need reform, but the way to do that is through partnership, including with municipalities. As a former municipal leader, I think that our colleague across the floor would believe in that as well.

The statement from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes the federal government's Build Canada Homes initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis. This announcement shows a clear commitment to working in partnership with municipalities as well as provinces, territories, indigenous governments, housing providers, non-profits and developers to deliver practical, results-driven solutions that meet the urgent housing needs of Canadians.

I truly believe in partnership. I believe in partnership with municipal and provincial governments. I wonder how the member feels we should move forward in that spirit of partnership, because many of his comments were really talking about overriding the powers and responsibilities of municipal government.