Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister may have the authority, but he certainly does not have the right to trade away the future of fishermen and plant workers just to gain momentary access to Europeans. Giving France 1,500 tonnes of snow crab to catch on the Canadian shelf is history repeating itself. Pierre Elliott Trudeau traded away our fish to Europeans in the sixties, seventies and eighties. The question is, will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the European carnage of Canadian fisheries and cancel his modern-day giveaway of Canadian coastal livelihoods?

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is not familiar with this issue. The Liberal government has turned its back on Canada's fishing industry. The Prime Minister is abandoning our sovereignty in favour of Europeans, who have a long history of destroying Canadian fish stocks. Yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries bragged about how she hung out with fishermen in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Conservatives stand with Canadian coastal communities instead of those on the French islands. Will the Liberal Prime Minister change course and cancel this deal with France to protect Canadian livelihoods?

Mr. Speaker, President Macron of France has announced a 1,500-metric-ton quota of snow crab, to be caught on Canada's continental shelf. He released this shortly after his meeting with the Liberal Prime Minister a few days ago. According to French media, this Canadian crab will be caught by a French vessel and landed in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister selling out our fishery to France, which has not even ratified CETA?

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand on behalf of the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and speak for the first time as the member for the riding that has its former name back. I just heard Prime Minister Trudeau's and his successor's special spokesman brag about the success of the dental program and how it brings down the cost of living. Our constituency assistants have a group chat with other assistants right across Canada. The number one common issue that they are dealing with is seniors who have fallen through the cracks of this super-duper dental program. They are finding that after they have had their treatment or received their dentures or whatever procedure they had, they get a $100 bill, a $500 bill or a $900 bill. Last evening my constituency assistant from Gander told me that a senior citizen had gotten a $10,000 bill, and they do not know how to pay it. They are shocked. My question is for the spokesman for the Prime Minister. Will he stop bragging about this failed program, or will the government simply fix it?

Mr. Speaker, Brett Cox, a fisherman from English Harbour West, reached out to me yesterday and said, “We need the tariff gone on sea cucumber or that fishery is done.” He is referring to the 25% Chinese tariff, which still applies to all Canadian seafood except lobster and crab products. China is the second largest market for our seafood. If the Liberal Prime Minister's new relationship with China is beneficial to Canada, why are these crippling tariffs still in place?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on the spring economic statement. I know that he comes from a riding in New Brunswick where salmon are paramount in Restigouche. The Minister of Fisheries announced $82 million towards making Atlantic salmon as they once were, in a great healthy state. At the same time that she made that announcement, she cut two biodiversity centres, which were long established, one in New Brunswick, the member's home province, and one in Nova Scotia. In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, she has not even laid out contracts for river guardians this year. If we do not protect spawners, then there will be no spawn, and salmon will be finished. Will the member question the minister to make sure she puts her money where her mouth is?

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister bragged about his deal with China to remove tariffs from Canadian seafood. There were 49 seafood products subjected to 25% Canadian tariffs, but this government secured exemption for only two species and only until the end of this year. Harvesters and plant workers who rely on Chinese markets for turbot, sea cucumber, whelk, capelin, geoduck, shrimp and surf clams are reeling from these tariffs. When will these Liberals secure real, lasting relief from Chinese tariffs and stop failing the Canadian seafood industry?

Mr. Speaker, more than 9,500 people responded to DFO's food fishery survey, and the overwhelming majority called for a longer season and greater flexibility. These findings reflect exactly what Conservatives have been calling for: Respect our traditions, let us fish when it is safe to do so and provide fair access to the food fishery. The recent northern cod assessment shows the stock is growing. Therefore, there is enough to go around. The clock is ticking, and many folks back home and those visiting who are planning on taking part in the food fishery want to be ready and have their plans in order. There is no need to keep fishers in the dark until the last minute as many Liberal fisheries ministers have done over the last 11 years. I call on the minister to stop delaying her decision and announce the details for this summer's food fishery immediately.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have tabled a dissenting report. The then minister of fisheries, the member for Beauséjour, came to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2018 and talked about how massive the unit one redfish fishery would be. Some harvesters invested up to a million dollars, money they would have had to retire on, to prosecute this fishery. When the decision came down, coastal communities and folks who were adjacent, who would have relied on this unit one redfish fishery, found that it was an absolute bust. Our report talks about the fact that one of the number one factors in fisheries management, adjacency, was not adhered to properly. We are not quite happy with the report the member referenced, so we have tabled a short summary of how we feel the report could have been better.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I heard yesterday. The housing minister blames skyrocketing housing costs on the war in Iran. Everyone knows this affordability crisis is due to 10 years of his government. Canadians are facing the worst food inflation and the only shrinking economy in the G7, yet the Prime Minister is pushing ahead with his industrial carbon tax and his fuel standard tax, which will rise to 17¢ a litre. When will the Liberals stop blaming events abroad and take responsibility for policies at home to make life more affordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, service medals represent the formal recognition of dedication, service and sacrifice by members of our Canadian Armed Forces, workers in emergency services, firefighters and other eligible public servants. These service medals have been taking longer and longer for people to receive. There are cases of folks passing away before they get their long-service medals. I thank the folks who spearheaded this petition, the firefighters of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are calling on the government to fix this and to make the process much more expedient, so those who have sacrificed and served are honoured on time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the remarkable career of one of Newfoundland and Labrador's greatest athletes, Brad Gushue. Not only is he a gold medallist and a bronze medallist, but he has also captured six Brier titles, a world championship, two Pan Continental Curling Championships and two world junior titles. He has also won the grand slam of curling 15 times. After more than two decades representing Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada with pride, Brad recently curled the final game of his extraordinary curling career. His leadership, dedication and sportsmanship have inspired athletes right across our great nation. I ask all members to join me in congratulating Brad Gushue on an incredible career, in thanking him for the pride he has brought to our country and in extending to him our best wishes for the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to again present a petition on behalf of the recreational scallopers in Newfoundland and Labrador to provide for a more inclusive licensing policy. I send a special thanks to Gerald Parrott from Harbour Breton for collecting the names on this petition. The elderly, physically challenged and disabled want the ability to use a mechanical hauler to retrieve their scallop rakes. These rakes can weigh hundreds of pounds once they have been towed over the bottom for a little while. This petition also calls for commercial scallopers to be allowed to hold a recreational scallop licence. I look forward to a response from the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador that is much better than the nonsense we received from her parliamentary secretary.

Madam Speaker, on January 23, 22-year-old Jamal Adem Omer assaulted a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer and a civilian employee outside police headquarters in St. John's. He faces charges of aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, uttering threats, resisting arrest and attempting to disarm an officer. Both victims were injured and required medical attention. The civilian who was injured was a very good friend of mine. Members would be devastated if they saw the pictures. Officers and staff at RNC headquarters are devastated that this happened on their own property. They want a safe and secure workplace where police and civilian staff can perform their duties without fear and where they can drop off and pick up their kids at the on-site day care knowing they are safe. Criminals know the law is on their side. The assault is the result of 10 years of the government's mismanagement of the judicial system. The government must listen to those on the front lines and support our police officers, strengthen protections—

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, Charlottetown police responded to a violent home invasion involving assault, an imitation firearm and a chemical irritant. Two individuals known to the victims were arrested. One of the accused is facing multiple charges, including, with no surprise, failure to comply with conditions of release and probation. The Liberal soft-on-crime principle of restraint continues to put dangerous offenders back on the street. Will the government repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 so that Canadians can once again feel safe in their homes?

Mr. Speaker, our small craft harbours are the Trans-Canada Highways of our fishing industry. For the last 20 years, the budget for small craft harbours' capital funding has remained at $90 million, and it needs to be doubled, at least. Petitioners call on the government to live up to its election promise to increase small craft harbour funding. I am presenting this petition on behalf of the coastal communities that rely on our small craft harbours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of mine in the Coast of Bays area who signed it. They want to be able to use mechanical scallop haulers. There is discrimination against elderly people and against people who have disabilities and other physical constraints. Rakes, with scallops and rocks, are very heavy to haul up, and this presents a safety danger. In addition, the petition calls for commercial harvesters to be allowed to fish scallops recreationally.

Madam Speaker, we know that the Liberals are against oil and gas. It is very easy: If the Prime Minister and Liberal government supports the oil and gas industry, Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas is already at tidewater. There are no excuses. They would not have to blame it on another province or first nations. It could not possibly fail if we had the right regulations to support our offshore oil and gas, but Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and the emissions cap are all to block Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas. This pipeline through B.C. is going to be a real struggle, and the Liberals know that it will fail. They are setting it up to fail and they will not vote for it today. I wonder if the hon. member for Kings—Hants will vote for this motion and support his own MOU, or is his party too fractured?

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here in this place as a member of Parliament representing Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the riding that sent me here, now known as Central Newfoundland. I stand today to talk about Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and the impacts it would have on ordinary Canadians, Newfoundlanders and the folks from Central Newfoundland, as well as the impacts it would have on industry in Canada. This is my take on this budget, as the shadow minister for fisheries and oceans. Budget 2025 lays out a $78-billion deficit. There is a Liberal spending problem in this country. The Liberals have increased our national debt by as much as all of the governments in Canada that preceded this one, and they have done it in just 10 years. How do we pay for that debt? Where does the money come from? One simple way is by selling bonds and paying interest to the bondholders, but who is really paying the lease on those new printed dollars? It is ordinary Canadians, and the cost is $55 billion. That $55 billion could be giving relief to Canadians and lowering their cost of living. It is more than the amount spent on health care by the federal government or collected in HST. This big debt is breaking Canadians, and half of that $55 billion in interest is due to the Liberal government. Printing money devalues a nation's currency. We recall pictures of Germany in World War II, when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation here is not quite that bad yet, but it is getting up there with the doubling of food bank usage since the Liberals came to power. We are really reaping what we have sown in Canada. Let me rephrase that. We are reaping what the Liberals have sown since 2015. Not only do they have a spending problem; they now have a revenue problem. We have lost billions of dollars in revenue in mining and oil and gas, and we are feeling that now. Canada is a country with a vast social net for citizens, but it has to be paid for. If we cannot harvest our resources properly, we are leaving revenue on the table. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the last three years, we have not had one bid on an offshore lease for oil and gas. No one wants to take a chance on investing in an exploration program in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore with the unconstitutional Bill C-69. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, we have Bill C-49, which industry experts tell me is an even bigger drag on investment in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore than Bill C-69. The last little piece here is the emissions cap, but I am told it is not as crippling as Bill C-49. How many billions of dollars are we losing in royalty revenue? In the case of Bay du Nord, which took almost 1,300 days for permitting, for every day that project is not producing, $333 million in royalties is stranded. I hope that paints a little picture. There is continued crippling of the oil and gas and mining industries by the Liberal government, and false narratives are being spun. Liberals talked in the budget about how the emissions caps may go one of these days if A, B, C, D, E, F and G are all done, but there is no guarantee that emissions caps will be gone. They will not be gone based on what is in the budget, because it is all hypothetical, yet Liberals and certain media in Newfoundland and Labrador have touted the budget as being the end of emissions caps or production caps. It is a false narrative that has been spun. The Prime Minister talks a big talk about national projects, but in the meantime, billions and billions of dollars continue to flee Canada, and it is not going to stop until the crippling red tape I outlined earlier gets cut. The resource industry-killing pieces of legislation desperately need to be changed. It is more important for resource provinces to have proper legislation in place than it is to continue to keep them on the dole, to keep them waiting for handouts, always beholden to Ottawa. I will speak a little about how the budget relates to the fishery. I just alluded to the misleading nature of the Prime Minister. In the election, the Liberals promised a $250-million expansion of the small craft harbours budget. There is nothing in the budget except mentioning money that was promised. In fact in one instance, and I do not know who proofread the budget, it refers to 2022 and 2023 small craft harbours money. It is unbelievable. Continuing on down to the shoreline on the fishery, a big report just came out of the Marine Institute at Memorial University, which talked about the amount of predation by seals on the fish stocks. This new study says that 24 times more fish are consumed by harp seals alone than in the fisheries catch rates. The harp seal accounts for only about half of the biomass of seals in the Atlantic Ocean, considering it is only one of five species. Since 2010, Canada's fishing industry has had its GDP shrink. In the meantime, Norway's GDP in the fishery has increased 4.5-fold in the same length of time. I see the pittances put in the budget, about $20 million a year for agricultural food and seafood product marketing, and it is a joke. It is a slap in the face for the fishing industry. For folks in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec, which have seen tariffs due to China, the China fiasco that is on the go, it has cost the industry about $100 million this year. I will not be supporting the budget. It is an amateur scrapbook job.

Mr. Speaker, we have some issue with the Prime Minister's conflict of interest with Brookfield. A lot of Canadians think that Brookfield properties are going to stand to gain a tremendous amount of money because of the housing crisis we have right now. A number of folks have come to me asking if it is it possible that the Liberals manufactured the crisis so their insider friends could actually benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and second Bill C-237 for my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. This piece of legislation has been long-awaited. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been crying out for better access to the recreational food fishery for codfish. It is a massive part of our culture and has been for hundreds of years, as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas mentioned earlier. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians go away to the mainland and then return. They are almost like expats, but they come home for summer migration. They come home to fish for codfish as their families have done for generations. It is in their blood, and it is a massive part of their culture. Over the last 10 years, we have been up until the end of June before the Minister of Fisheries would even let us know what the dates and regulations for the fishing days of the season would be. A couple of years ago, I sponsored a petition that went on for 30 days. We collected 3,900 names on an electronic petition to remove the regulation that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were only allowed to fish three days a week, on the weekends. I heard my colleague from Labrador so vehemently express his opposition to the bill. I would like to remind him that there are a couple of communities on that coast, L'Anse-au-Clair and Blanc-Sablon, that are not too far apart. One community is in Newfoundland and Labrador, and one is in Quebec. There is an imaginary line between them. His constituents are allowed to fish only three days per week. He is quite proud of it, the way that he represents his constituents, that they cannot have the same access as their neighbours down the road. It is very odd to me to hear a gentleman of his stature stand up and make these statements and claims. The bill would enshrine the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in legislation to give them fair access in terms of their counterparts throughout Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. What else would it do? Getting rid of the three-day weekends would also add a safety bonus to our fishery. For some reason, fishers tend to feel pressured that they have to go out to fish Saturday, Sunday and Monday if they can, if the weather is good enough and safe enough. Sometimes it is questionable, but they do not know what the next weekend is going to be like. I have seen periods in the summer where they have completely lost three weekends in a row. How is that fair for someone to spend $5,000 on a vacation to come to Newfoundland to take part in the recreational food fishery and not even get a day? It has happened a lot. Another aspect the bill includes is that, for the folks who want to catch some fish for food for the table, the south coast is different from the northeast coast and the west coast. The fish migrate to various parts of the coast at different times of the year. On the south coast, there is Hermitage Bay, in the riding that I am so privileged to represent, as well as Placentia Bay, which my colleague represents; these are bays to which the cod migrate in the winter, long past the closure of the recreational food fishery. For these people to have an ample opportunity to catch some cod for the winter, they need to be able to fish at a different time. On the west coast, the fish migrate to the land in the fall or spring; summer is the worst time of all. On the northeast coast, we have a very proud hunting tradition called turr hunting that starts around November 1. The fellows want to go out and hunt some turrs, drop a jigger overboard and bring home a fresh fish for the table, but they cannot do it. It is unbelievable; it needs to end. We were promised a review by the minister, now announced by the member for Labrador on her behalf, back in June. People were asking, “Where's the review? When are we going to hear about it?” Even The Fisheries Broadcast asked me not long ago when this review was taking place. I said I did not know. It was starting to get into broken promise territory. Anything we can do to push the minister in the right direction, we always try, but we have seen decisions before. I heard our colleague from Labrador talk about how the Liberals listen to the fishers, but the fishers have been begging for a mackerel fishery all summer. I see the minister over there smiling. Maybe she is going to announce it after I sit down.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I did not mean to say that someone was here. Maybe it is a figment of my imagination; who knows? I also heard the member for Labrador criticize his government's policy on bringing in ELOGs. It was refreshing to see the Liberals do not all agree with the ridiculous policies they have. My colleague was questioned about the consultations he had. We are consulting with our people all the time. Recreational cod fishers are stakeholders in the recreational cod fishery, but one big beef the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union have had over the years is that they cannot quantify how much codfish is taken during the recreational food fishery. I do not know why Liberal members would be proud of not knowing how much fish we are taking out of the ocean. How can they manage that if they cannot count? They have to know. Knowledge is power. The expansion and revision of the fishing period for cod would help fill a gap in science, because people could go out in October or November if it is a nice day, or even in December if that is what they feel like doing. If they wanted to go out on Christmas Eve and catch a fresh fish for their Christmas Eve dinner, if it is a calm day and that is what they feel like doing, they would be able to do it. We would find out how the fish are migrating, when they are there and how long they are there for. All of this data would be wonderful knowledge, if there is any science department left after yesterday's budget. The threat to biomass would be extremely low. A study just came out of Memorial University's Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research that stated 24 times more codfish is eaten by harp seals, never mind the hoods, the greys, the bearded or the harbour, all of these species. If we are just talking about harps, there are 24 times more removals by harp seals alone than the entire fishery. This expansion of fishing opportunity would pose no threat to the cod biomass and its recovery as we move forward. I call on the member for Labrador, the member for St. John's East, the member for Cape Spear and the member for Avalon to do what their constituents have been begging them to do. The member for Labrador was very adamant that the Liberals listen. Well, if they listen, it is time to do what they have been asked to do. Instead of having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, now is the time to do the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, give fair access, and match access throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Captain Woodrow James Philpott of Cottlesville, Newfoundland and Labrador, who passed away peacefully on October 12, just 10 days shy of his 92nd birthday. Captain Philpott was a pillar of his community and a man of deep faith, integrity and compassion. He also took an active interest in local and provincial politics, always striving to make his community a better place. Over his remarkable life, he worked in logging and the fishery and became a ship's captain. He owned and operated several vessels, such as the Lady Philpott and the Free Trade. He told me the story of sailing the latter from England to Newfoundland at the time of our free trade agreement with the United States in 1988 and how that was the inspiration in renaming that vessel. On behalf of the House, I extend sincere condolences to his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all who were blessed to know him.

Mr. Speaker, “Some N.L. residents finding it 'hard to survive' as grocery prices continue to rise” is a headline from the CBC today. They go on to say that the price of food in Newfoundland and Labrador is up 4% since last September. Beef leads the way, up 20%. The Liberal Prime Minister said he would be judged by the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store, so will he get his inflationary deficits under control so that Canadians can afford to put food on the table?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate premier-elect Tony Wakeham and the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador on their victory in last week's provincial election. I give a special thanks to all who put their names forward, regardless of political stripe. The willingness to be involved strengthens our democracy. After 10 costly years of a Liberal government that too often collaborated with its federal Liberal friends to ignore our fisheries, stifle opportunity in our offshore oil and gas sector, and ignore rising crime, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have chosen a new direction. Tony Wakeham ran a positive, solutions-based campaign that put working people, rural communities, resource development and health care back at the centre of the province's future. This victory is a clear message that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are ready for leadership that listens, acts and delivers results. I look forward to working with the incoming PC government for all of us.

Madam Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, crime and chaos are exploding in rural Newfoundland. Not long ago, a couple of highway gas stations and convenience stores located about 30 kilometres apart, in Stoneville and in Birchy Bay, were hit with a pickup truck as the repeat offenders sought to take out the ATMs there. No charges were laid. The police have their hands tied by the Liberal bail-not-jail justice system. On behalf of Ruth Burns and Tina Hodder, will the member opposite commit right now to voting against criminals, against the Liberal crime wave, and not only support our Conservative motion to bring jail, not bail, to criminals but also support his people in Madawaska—Restigouche who are tortured by the crime rate in his own riding?

Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary for natural resources talk about how the Liberals want to make Canada a natural resources superpower. I wonder if he knows that Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas is already at tidewater? The Bay du Nord project is going to be the very last project in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, by the looks of it, because it will put us up against the emissions cap. Just a few weeks ago, Energy Fermeuse announced a $14-billion or $15-billion project to liquefy natural gas. I wonder how that could happen if we are going to be up against our emissions cap. Was that announcement by Energy Fermeuse just election fodder for the provincial Liberals, or will the government lift the cap?

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague mention that it is time to act and that it is time to move forward. The really fast way to move forward is to start developing Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas, which is already at tidewater and requires no pipelines. Of course, the emissions cap has us at a point of being about to develop our last project, which is Bay du Nord. For companies such as Fermeuse Energy, which just announced a $15-billion LNG project, how can projects like that go ahead? Will Newfoundland and Labrador's natural gas be stranded under the ground and under the sea because of this emissions cap, or does the government intend to lift the cap so that projects such as Fermeuse Energy can go ahead and liquefy natural gas?

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from across the way speaking proudly about his fresh, shiny new Prime Minister and the required regulatory process that he is so very proud of: the emissions caps. Here is what the emissions caps have done: The emissions caps have pretty much identified Bay du Nord as our last offshore oil project in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we are getting up against our cap. Furthermore, by 2033, our existing oil fields, such as Hebron, Hibernia and White Rose, will have to reduce their production as these emissions caps tighten. I would like to ask my colleague if he is proud about persecuting Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry?

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way as he gave his speech. I wonder if he realizes that his own province exports a tremendous amount of metallurgical coal. In fact, it is the largest export for British Columbia. All experts agree that converting coal burning to using natural gas reduces emissions by 50%. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are up against our emissions cap, which means that we are going to leave all that clean natural gas sitting under the Grand Banks. Does the member agree with stranding resources that are able to cut emissions in half, or does he agree with pumping out more coal?

With regard to Canadian fish stock assessments and stock advisory committees on commercial species, broken down by specific species: (a) what organizations, stakeholders, First Nations and environmental non-governmental organizations have observer status; (b) what organizations, stakeholders, First Nations and environmental non-governmental organizations have stakeholder status; (c) what is total length of time between when scientific and harvester data is received and when a quota decision is made; (d) what changes in science methodology have been made since 2015; (e) what changes in methodology to incorporate fish harvester logbook data into assessments, outlined by species, have been made since 2015; and (f) what are the net changes in the number of stakeholder seats and environmental non-governmental organizations seats at stock advisory, broken down by species and year since 2015?

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, excluding the Canadian Coast Guard, since January 1, 2021: (a) what was the total value of all consulting contracts signed in (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, (iii) 2023, (iv) 2024, (v) 2025 to date; and (b) what are the details of all consulting contracts, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) initial value of the contract, (iv) current value of the contract, (v) type of consulting conducted, (vi) start and end dates of work, (vii) purpose of the contract and description of the work completed, (viii) reason for the increase in the contract's value, if applicable?

With regard to Marine Protected Areas, National Marine Conservation Areas and any other form of ocean protected areas that are now fully protected or at some stage of planning and to be considered part of the 30% by 2030 that Canada agreed to protect in compliance with the 15th Conference of the Parties Biodiversity Convention: (a) what are the details of all existing maps which show ocean protected areas and the reason it became a protected area, including which activities are permitted and which are prohibited currently within each area; (b) what are the details of the maps of all ocean protected areas at all stages of the establishing process, identifying for each stage which stakeholders were consulted; (c) what are the details of all memorandums of understandings or similar types of agreements signed at any stage of the establishment process; (d) for each protected area shown on the maps, what feature, aspect or species will be protected and how will the success of the objective be measured for each area identified; (e) what is the budget to fully implement all areas that are currently under consideration for protection and to fully implement the 30X30 initiative; (f) which groups, organizations, stakeholders, municipalities, environmental non­governmental organizations or First Nations has the government received information about their advocacy for any ocean protected areas that are currently an Area of Interest, an area at any stage of the establishment process, or a fully established protected area, and what changes was each advocating for; (g) what will be the economic cost of stopping or curtailing renewable or non­renewable resource industries from operating in areas that are identified but not yet fully implemented protected areas; (h) what will be the economic benefits in new gross domestic product for areas adjacent to proposed new protected areas, broken down by individual area and amount benefited by region; (i) which of the protected areas will have full or partial Indigenous governance; (j) what is date by which each new area is to become a fully established protected area; and (k) which of the proposed and established protected areas will be approved for installation of offshore wind turbines?

With regard to small craft harbours, since 2022: (a) which small craft harbours have applied for funding across Canada; (b) what are the details of each application, including the name of the harbour, the location, the scope and the budget; (c) what is the landed value of catch for each harbour in (b); (d) which harbours had projects approved and what is the scope and amount of federal funding for each; (e) what is the landed value of catch for each harbour in (d); (f) what percentage of each project is complete; (g) which projects are (i) within budget, (ii) over budget; (h) for each project which is over budget, what is the projected cost overrun and the reason for it being over budget; (i) which harbours have "shelf ready" tender documents for projects and what is the estimated cost of each project; (j) what is the landed value of catch for each of the harbours in (i); and (k) how much funding has been diverted from the regular small craft harbours budget, broken down by year and by province, to rebuild or repair as a result of damage from Hurricane Fiona?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken Liberal promises: a broken promise on spending, a broken promise on tax cuts, a broken promise on consultants, a broken promise on defence and a broken promise on being elbows up with the U.S. Canada's fiscal watchdog confirmed a massive broken Liberal promise, the so-called tax cut. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the average Canadian will save just $90 this year, or less than $7.50 a month. That is barely enough to buy a cup of coffee. Low-income seniors will see even less, only $50 a year, or under $5 a month. That is not relief; that is an insult. It is one thing for Liberals to promise relief but another to deliver pennies while families struggle. Canadians are concerned, and rightly so. They deserve a government that keeps its word and respects Canadians' wallets. Conservatives will deliver real tax relief for everyone, for good.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the member representing the newly named riding of Central Newfoundland, formerly known as Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I am truly grateful for those who supported me, put their trust in me and sent me to this place again to bring their thoughts, concerns and worries to this place. I owe a world of gratitude to all those who helped on my campaign. We had a tremendous campaign, and it meant so much to everybody and even more to me. God bless everybody who was involved. I thank them very much. I will continue to speak out on behalf of the people of the riding of Central Newfoundland while I am in Ottawa, in this chamber or on the fisheries committee. I rise today to speak to our Conservative opposition day motion calling on the Liberal government to immediately end its mandate to ban gas-powered vehicle sales in Canada. This is supposed to happen by 2035, when all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting, and there are various targets along the way. By 2026, 20% of all vehicles sold in Canada are to be zero-emitting. By 2030, that figure is supposed to go to 60%. Of course, by 2035, it goes all the way up to 100%. Consumers are rejecting EVs for various reasons. There is the fact that they lose 40% of their battery life in cold weather. We have lots of cold weather in Canada, and we certainly have it in Newfoundland and Labrador. That stat is based on the Canadian Automobile Association. They did the test. This is not something we are coming up with off the top of our heads. It is scientifically proven that these batteries cannot take the cold. There is a lack of charging stations. In Newfoundland and Labrador, right now there are only 120 charging stations. Another reason people are choosing to be against electric vehicles is the cost of these vehicles. They cost, on average, $15,000 more than an equivalent gas-powered model. Where do we stand heading into 2026? The latest data from February and March is that only 6.6% of vehicles that were purchased were EVs. In order to get on target for the 20% mark by the end of 2026, EV sales would have to triple what they were in the last recorded months. This is not going to happen. What will be the result of this consumer rejection and of this Liberal plan? The Liberals would charge auto manufacturers that fail to meet this target a $20,000 tax per vehicle. I see my colleague from Winnipeg. He is listening intently because he knows this is the case. Consumers are going to pay the price, and this is exactly what the Prime Minister wants. This is not straying from his mantra. We can go back to 2021, when he wrote a book called Values. I will give a little quote from that book. He said, “A host of other fiscal and regulatory policies can be highly effective in setting out the contours of a net-zero economy, including...regulations to phase out the sale of new internal-combustion vehicles in the next decade”. That is 10 years. That is not a long time. “Fiscal and regulatory policies” is what the Prime Minister stated in his book. Let us unpack that a bit. EVs are a failure in Canada. People do not want them, and as a result, Canadians are going to pay the price. They are going to pay the price for Liberal failures. The government has known for quite some time that this mandate will fail. It has been warned by utility companies that the grid will not stand up to it. Electricity demand will go up by close to 23% by 2035, and the electricity market is governed by supply and demand like every other commodity. With the continued electrification of everything, the price of electricity is going to go up. That will be another inadvertent consequence, with collateral damage to the people of Canada. To have our grid ready with additional power generation, with an upgraded transmission grid and with more charging stations, the cost is forecast to be $300 billion. This is according to the Liberal government's own research, published last July by Natural Resources Canada. The government knows its zero-emissions EV target will not work. Building electricity generation and transmission infrastructure takes time. If we are going to expand our grid by 23% just to have enough electricity to power these vehicles, it is going to take decades to build that kind of infrastructure. What is the Liberal Prime Minister's real goal? It is to tax Canadians. Canadians will pay the price. They will pay for this doomed plan. Who will also pay for it, besides the consumer? According to the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Economics, in the best-case scenario, our auto sector will lose $140 billion by 2035 under these mandates, and the worst-case scenario is that it continues to lose until 2050, at a cost of $1.3 trillion. Can members believe that? It is possible that these EV mandates could cost the automotive industry $1.3 trillion. Job losses in the sector are projected to be 137,000 jobs. That is not my number. The hit to our GDP would be 4.8% nationally per year, and the demand for autos would drop by 10.5%. All of this is to drop our emissions in Canada by a mere 6%. It will cost $3,400 per tonne. That is 20 times the original Trudeau carbon tax nominal rate per tonne. There is no need for this. If consumers think electric vehicles are better, they will choose them. According to the Fraser Institute, “Electric vehicle mandates mean misery all around”. That was the headline out of the Fraser Institute, a very respected organization. It goes on to say, “The latest news of slowing demand for electric vehicles highlight the profound hazards of the federal government’s Soviet-style mandate”. That ums it up. It is a Soviet-style mandate. EV mandates will mean lots of suffering and no freedom.

Madam Speaker, if folks in certain regions have more of an acceptance of EVs, if there is more demand, and if they like them more, then they can buy them. The member spoke about choice. It is their choice, but if they do not work in other regions, and folks do not want to buy them, they should not be forced to buy them and forced into poverty. It is all about choice. This is democracy and capitalism, and I do not know why the Liberals are trying to take those away from Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact stats on how many homes have greater than a 200-amp service, but I suspect there are a lot that do not. I really could not make a stab at that, but the cost to upgrade for those who need to go to 200 amps is atrocious. It is another cost. Once consumers are forced down that pathway, it is not just the cost of the vehicle. It is also the cost they will incur at their home residence. It is terrible.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister talk quite a bit about trade. One group of products being hit hard right now by tariffs is Canadian seafood. Lobster, of course, is a very important seafood export of the member's province and of mine as well. Since March, there has been a 25% tariff placed on Canadian seafood by China. It seems as though seafood and the seafood industry are just collateral damage in a trade war the member's government started with China. Given his high-profile position and how connected he is to the PMO, could the member explain to the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada if he is doing anything about it?

Mr. Speaker, fishermen and farmers feed families. This season, Chinese tariffs on harvests from the land and the sea are impacting the livelihood of those who depend on markets in China. These tariffs are a direct result of the Liberal government's bungling of trade relations with China. The tariffs range from 25% on lobsters to 100% on canola. My question for the Minister of International Trade is this: When can farmers and fishermen expect the Liberal government to fix the mess it has made so they can get relief from Chinese tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to go to sea in a gale wind on a fishing boat or to get some dirt under his nails on a farm with our hard-working farmers. Clearly he has no respect for the people who toil to feed their family and everybody else's family, and who play such a crucial role in food security for Canada. Will the minister get relief from Chinese tariffs, or are fishermen and farmers just collateral damage in a trade war that the Liberals do not know how to fight?