Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon speaking in support of Bill S-209. I want to begin by looking at the journey of how we arrived here. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Senator Miville-Dechêne was appointed in 2018. Then, the bill came to the House on two occasions, but because of the calendar, the bill died on the Order Paper. I am going to focus my comments on the process of how we arrived here and one of two routes this chamber can take for where the bill would go from here. Most would agree we are at a time when Canadians are looking to parliamentarians to come together on certain issues, and this should be one of those issues. All parliamentarians would agree that the House should take steps to prevent very young children from accessing pornography online. I have been listening to a number of previous speakers. The parliamentary secretary, in his comments, said the government supports the objective of the bill, which is extremely important, and I would expect all members sitting in this chamber do. One of the benefits of Parliament is the diverse basis of opinion that comes to debate in the House and the recognition that each member brings a particular area that they focus on. When the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake approached me this past spring to say that she was going to sponsor this particular Senate bill in the House and ask if I would consider supporting it, I reflected for a moment. I will acknowledge that there are probably numerous topics that the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake and I do not agree on, but on this matter, I will be clear. One thing the member is very passionate about and uncompromising about is the protection of children, family and her children. I see that from time to time because the member brings her children to the committee room from time to time, so I was not surprised that the member would choose in particular a bill like Bill S-209 as her private member's bill. The bill gives us all sides. We have heard from one other opposition party in the House that is supportive of the bill's getting to committee. The committee is the process for all legislation to get a thorough analysis and a good review. Changes that are required from time to time can be made there, as members are aware. Therefore, I had no hesitation in indicating that I would be supportive of Bill S-209. Again, I doubt that there would be any member in the chamber who would not be supportive of the objectives of Bill S-209. At the same time, I am well aware that the government has introduced two pieces of legislation, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36. Some will say they are more comprehensive in the area being addressed by this particular private member's bill, but all are aiming in the same direction of putting real consequences on those who choose to make decisions that allow young people access to pornography. My sense is that there is a very general understanding of and support for the context of this particular private member's bill. I, for one, as I indicated, will be supporting the bill when it comes back to the House for a vote. I look forward to it getting to committee so that witnesses can appear and the committee can do a very thorough analysis of the bill. As I indicated in my earlier comments, Bill S-209, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 are leading in a direction that all members of this chamber, I assume, will be supportive of. However, the ability to be supportive of and have a candid debate on all aspects of the legislation is extremely important. Bill S-209, in my opinion, deserves to get to a stage where it gets a more thorough analysis, which would be in the committee format. That is why I will be supporting it. There will be some discussion about the impact on government legislation versus private members' legislation, but to my earlier comments, this is one subject that all members of this House should come together on and support to ensure that this particular bill gets before a committee so that it might have the opportunity to complement government legislation and make it better in some places. I believe my time is coming to an end, but the bill speaks for itself. I am in agreement with the commentary made by the speakers who spoke to the bill earlier. I am looking forward to hearing more debate.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable young Prince Edward Island athlete, Abby Hustler. Over the last number of years, Abby has excelled as a hockey player. She played with the PWHL Minnesota Frost, now drafted by the expansion Hamilton team. Abby is the first Islander drafted to the Professional Women's Hockey League. In my Egmont riding, the enthusiasm is enormous. In fact, there is a debate among several communities that all claim Abby as their own: St. Louis, Ebbsfleet and Miminegash. Everybody wants to say “we knew her when”, and I know Abby's parents, Paul and April, are absolutely thrilled with Abby's accomplishments and career. Beyond those great local rivalries, one fact remains: Abby is a wonderful example of everything a young person from a small community can accomplish. She is a great role model for thousands of Islanders. I am looking forward to attending Abby Day on July 4 in Miminegash, her hometown.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The first is the 10th report, entitled “Youth Employment in Canada”. The second is the 11th report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the 10th report, “Youth Employment in Canada”.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to second debate on this important bill, Bill C-268, an act regarding the spectrum policy framework for Canada. While the title may seem dry, the intent of this legislation is very clear. We must take steps now to ensure accountability in the provision of cellular services. In part, this must be done because the day-to-day safety of millions of Canadians must be protected. Further, equal access to high-quality and dependable cellular services is absolutely fundamental to the success of thousands of businesses across our country. For those reasons, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, for bringing this matter forward. Like myself and dozens of other members in the House, the member for Compton—Stanstead has heard from many constituents that cellular phone service in many rural areas is poor and unreliable. This is unacceptable, and I share the frustration of constituents in my constituency of Egmont. Time after time, I have had phone calls that are dropped mid-sentence or connections that simply cannot be made. I have heard from residents who have had calls interrupted during medical emergencies, and far too many small businesses have told me about lost opportunities due to inadequate service. As a public representative, I have spent my career focusing on the value of infrastructure. In my mind, the availability of high-quality and dependable infrastructure is the absolute cornerstone of economic and social progress. At its most basic level, of course, infrastructure is about roads, bridges, wharves, environmental protection and buildings. Of course, all these capital projects are absolutely necessary, but there are further levels to the idea of infrastructure. For instance, an appropriately funded education system is an element of social infrastructure, and the same goes for health care. In other words, the laws, regulations and policies that underpin our extraordinarily important social programs are a form of infrastructure. What makes all of this so attractive and important to me as a public representative is that the benefits that accrue from a great deal of our infrastructure, whether physical or written, are generally available to all citizens equally and without cost or favour. In the case of cellular phones, our job is to ensure that these services are provided to Canadians in an equal manner, so that running a small phone-based business in my home community of Tignish is on par with running a similar operation in Toronto or Vancouver. In other words, a phone call is a phone call. It should not degenerate in quality just because a Canadian chooses to live outside of a major urban centre. As every member should understand, there are undeniable challenges to living in a rural area. There are fewer amenities. There is travel for shopping. Entertainment and work are often a bit of a long haul, and waiting for a snowplow in the winter often requires a degree of patience and planning, but these challenges are all understood, and the benefits of rural life usually outweigh those minor inconveniences. Inadequate cell phone service is not a minor inconvenience, not anymore. Reliable cellular service has now evolved into a basic, fundamental necessity. In other words, reliable cellular connectivity is now an essential that supports so much of what many Canadians take for granted, such as safety, economic development, health care services, education and social connection. Let me start with safety. My constituency is a little different from many of the more remote Canadian communities. Generally speaking, we will never be too far from a house, village, town or community, but many parts of Canada experience extremely harsh weather conditions and long stretches of empty highways. I, for one, would not want to be travelling up north in February without a reliable form of communication. In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life. Of course, there is the economic aspect as well. As the proposed bill points out in its preamble, equal access to cellular service is currently being undermined, and that is deeply unfair to the millions of Canadians who live in rural areas. In my community of Egmont, all of the sectors that drive our thriving economy rely on cellular service, including agriculture, fishing and tourism. All of these incredibly important sectors need to communicate to the wider world because their customers all have high expectations. Imagine trying to negotiate a deal with one of our valued trading partners in Europe, and the call keeps buzzing and dropping. An awful lot can get lost in translation, and even more can get lost if the customer simply decides the hassle is just not worth it. We have emergencies and economic links, then, but there is also health care. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, there is an extremely severe health care crisis under way. On the federal side, we have provided the provincial government with hundreds of millions of dollars to address significant shortfalls in access to health care. The province assured the federal government that this additional funding would solve the crisis and that barriers to access would fall immediately after the money was committed. This did not happen. Despite the sincere efforts of the federal government, the situation has become worse. One solution is virtual care, but what happens when the connectivity is poor? Well, the answer to that question is fairly simple. Once again, the residents of rural areas face a barrier to health care, and the misery of inadequate access to services is worsened again. Finally, I will turn briefly to education. I am a great believer in making sure that high-quality education programs are easily accessible to all Canadians. As the new technologies began to emerge some years ago, I listened to young residents in Egmont talk happily about being able to access important new skills from the comfort of their home communities. As we all learned during COVID, distance learning was absolutely essential. Today, however, we see the difference in access to many programs widening. There is a gap, and students in major metropolitan areas have another major advantage over their rural counterparts. Is this fair? Is this equal? Of course not, and it is infuriating to many rural Canadians. Ultimately, appropriate cellphone service is essential to the future of rural Canada. It enhances safety, supports economic activity, improves access to health care and education, and strengthens social ties. As technology continues to evolve, the importance of reliable mobile connectivity will only grow. Ensuring that rural communities have access to high-quality cell service is not just a matter of convenience but essential for equality, opportunity and quality of life across Canada. This is why I support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code on the death of a child. I would like to acknowledge the work of all members of the committee in getting the bill back to the House. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Workers in the Seasonal Industry and the Employment Insurance Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague if he could expand on the latter question he answered. I have listened to a lot of debates in the House about governments and who has the best record in providing the infrastructure needed to support Alberta and Saskatchewan's energy industry. I believe that our government has been the only one that has actually delivered substantive infrastructure that has addressed the issue, which simply was never addressed by the former Conservative government. Could the member expand on the record of the two?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities: the third report, entitled “Advancements in Home Building Technologies”, and the fourth report, entitled “Canada Without Barriers by 2040”. They have been submitted electronically to the table.

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.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on any issue but, in particular, a budget. This budget strikes the balance that Canadians were looking for in the recent election. When I was campaigning, voters were telling me they wanted to see government get smaller. They wanted to see government reduce its cost and size, but at the same time, they wanted to ensure that government was going to protect those social programs that Canadians cherish and look to so much across this country. I certainly will be supporting this budget because this budget strikes that balance. It is a budget that invests in programs that support our seniors, that support families and that support those who are facing hardships. It is important for those watching the proceedings of the House of Commons to clearly see the difference between the Conservative ideology and Liberal ideology. Liberals will always support the programs Canadians depend on, and there is nothing more glaring than in the area of seniors' pensions. I have been listening to speeches in the House from the opposition over the past number of months about the cost of living and its impact on those most vulnerable, primarily seniors. However, if it was not for this government, then a senior aged 65 to 67 today would be living with $22,140 less, because this was the group of people that a former Conservative government decided did not need the support of the old age pension program or the guaranteed income supplement. If we think for a moment about a person in this age category, how would those costs, which continue to go up, impact them without this particular amount of money? At the time, Conservatives felt it was not important that seniors in this age category be given this public benefit, a benefit they worked so hard for over the years. That was just old age pensions. The Canada child benefit is one of the programs that our government, in the early days, brought in that I am most proud of, because it fundamentally changed the lives of many families that were living and struggling financially. I can give case after case of families that tell me how important it is to them and how it allowed them to have their children participate in programs that they could not do before. There is the child care program and the dental program as well. Of course, there is also the employment insurance system, which Canadians, unfortunately, when they lose their jobs, have to depend on from time to time. However, every time Conservatives could have supported these vulnerable Canadians, they voted against the measures our government was putting in place. It is hard to sit here from time to time and quietly listen to the comments that come from across the floor about their, what I will call, manufactured concern for Canadians in need, because every time they have the opportunity to support those programs, they vote against them, time and time again. I see it in my riding on a daily basis. With this budget, Canada is confronting a fiscal challenge. A lot of it is being brought on by a world that has become extremely unstable. We have an unpredictable neighbour to the south and that is having negative consequences for some industries here north of the border. However, our government chose to invest long term rather than take a cut-and-slash approach, which is so common with the Conservative ideology. This is why I support this particular budget, and that is why I will continue to advocate for it in these areas. I look at my province of P.E.I.—

Madam Speaker, again, I look at the implications. We have been listening to numbers get tossed around in this chamber by the opposition. They say that the budget should be $40 billion less of a deficit than it is. Where would we cut? Where would the cutting and slashing occur across government? Maybe it would be in the area of transfer payments to provinces. A small province like Prince Edward Island, this fiscal year, will receive over $1.3 billion from Ottawa. These are funds that allow the province to ensure health care for Islanders and ensure a host of programs across the province. Imagine if that funding was cut. Let us look at a number of maybe 10% or 15%. That would have a significant impact on the ability of the government to deliver services across Prince Edward Island. That is the Conservative approach, and I experienced it before as a provincial politician years ago when the government of the day cut spending to the provinces to get its fiscal house in order. It did not work. This is an approach that I very much support. It allows us to invest as we build the economy and grow the economy. Canada is doing well. If we look at all the turmoil that exists in the world, Canada is performing quite well. When we measure us against all the key leading indicators in the G7 countries, Canada is either at the top or very close to the top. The doom and gloom that is always put forward by the Conservative opposition simply is not valid. We are in a position where Canada can afford to invest in itself, where Canada can invest in Canadians and where Canada can continue to support the social programs that Canadians take for granted and expect on a daily basis. Again, every time those line items come up, the Conservative members stand and vote against them. They will vote against increases in OAS. They will vote against increases in the Canada child benefit. They will vote against increases for child care and dental care, and they will continue to vote against programs and increases in the employment insurance program. However, those key numbers in the delivery of transfers to provinces would have the most impact on all Canadians. As I pointed out, the impact on Prince Edward Island would be significant. As a small province with limited ability to generate revenue, its dependence on the Government of Canada is significant and its ability to deliver programs to Islanders depends on that. That is why I am supporting this budget, and I will be candid. I am quite proud to support the budget because the government could have taken a different approach. As I indicated, some governments may have decided to cut and slash without any regard for the impact on people's lives from day to day. However, we chose not to go that particular route. In fact, the budget carries significant dollars for investing in infrastructure. One of the areas I have been extremely proud to have delivered on for my riding of Egmont is infrastructure. All across my riding, I can point to significant infrastructure that is building stronger communities and making them better places to live, raise a family and have jobs. This budget continues the government's investments in Canadians from coast to coast and its investments in the small communities in our ridings, particularly my riding of Egmont. Most importantly, it continues the government's investments in those social programs that Canadians depend on and Islanders depend on. As was pointed out, it is important that this budget passes through the process so we are able to continue to deliver for Canadians on all the programs that they want from their government. With that, I am looking forward to the vote when it comes on this budget so I can show that I support the people I represent on the priority items that they cherish and want us to deliver on.

Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to respond to the question. It is interesting to look back and see that it has been Conservative governments that have brought Canada to the fiscal cliff. While the Conservatives articulate and pontificate on fiscal prudency, when we look at their track record in government, we see that they have brought this country to the edge of the fiscal cliff time and time again. Yes, the current budget carries significant new investments in infrastructure, which is the very item I was speaking to as I concluded my speech. I am looking forward to delivering in my riding in those areas as well.

Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in my opening comments, philosophically there is a big difference between Conservative ideology and Liberal ideology when it comes to pensions. One of the first steps we took was to restore both the OAS and the GIS for seniors aged 65 and up. That was a significant investment. We also made two 10% increases, in OAS and GIS, for seniors. The seniors pension plan continues to be indexed to inflation and continues to rise on a yearly basis. If I were a senior, I would prefer to have a Liberal government in Ottawa making decisions on our economic future and well-being.

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important for the Government of Canada to be able to give predictable financing to provinces, especially smaller provinces, so they can plan into the future. They need to have the resources to invest in their communities and to invest in people. My colleague referenced raising a family. One item that sticks out is that when the Conservative Party was governing years ago, its support for families was $100 a month, but it also taxed it. The $100 a month received as a child benefit was taxable and had to be declared on one's income. Compare that to ours, which maxes at over $700 a month for a child at a young age and is tax-free. This shows again the difference between a Liberal government approach and a Conservative one.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this private member’s bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. At its core, Bill C-244 aims to provide a tool to ensure that those who benefit from Canada’s waterways must also take responsibility for their use and for the safe end-of-life management of their vessels. Bill C-244 proposes amendments to two important pieces of federal legislation: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The proposed amendment to the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act would prohibit vessel owners from transferring their vessels to individuals who do not intend to maintain, operate or dispose of them responsibly. The intent of the bill, as outlined by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is to ensure that when vessels are passed from one owner to another, they are not neglected to the point that they are abandoned, wrecked or hazardous. For those in coastal communities, we know this can pollute our waters and create hazards for Canadians. Canadians are proud stewards of our coasts, lakes and rivers. Navigation is a right that has helped shape our economy, our communities and our identity. However, with that right comes a responsibility to do the right thing when vessels have reached the end of their life. While the vast majority of vessel owners take this duty seriously, there are instances, which are too frequent and too visible, where individuals choose to abandon vessels rather than dispose of them properly. Across Canada, more than 1,300 vessels have been identified as wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. Many of these vessels no longer have known owners. When ownership cannot be traced, the burden falls on taxpayers and communities to address the environmental and safety risks. These risks can include leaking fuel, sinking hulls, navigational hazards, and impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. This issue affects communities in all regions, along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, across the north, in inland lakes, along the St. Lawrence Seaway and in the Great Lakes. It is a national challenge with local consequences. Marine areas carry deep cultural, spiritual and historical significance, especially for indigenous communities that have navigated, harvested and lived along these waters since time immemorial. Abandoned vessels harm ecosystems and can also disturb culturally significant sites, archaeological resources and areas of traditional use. For these reasons, the government has made addressing problem vessels a priority for several years. The approach has been centred on prevention, preparedness and accountability, while recognizing community realities and cultural context. A key step in this effort came with the launch, in November 2016, of the national strategy to address Canada’s wrecked and abandoned vessels. That strategy was designed to reduce the prevalence of problem vessels, prevent new ones, and support responsible owners and safe disposal. One of the pillars of the national strategy was the creation of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, which came into force in July 2019 with the support of all parties in the House. WAHVA made it illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters, strengthened enforcement powers and introduced new penalties. It reinforced the principle that the polluter, not the public, should pay. In parallel, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, the government administers the disposal at sea program, which regulates the disposal of substances at sea through a strict permit system and allows Canada to meet its international obligations under the London Convention and the London Protocol. This program authorizes a limited set of materials for disposal at sea only after an assessment of risk and under strict environmental conditions. The program issues approximately 80 to 100 permits per year, and it conducts monitoring to ensure compliance and protect sensitive marine ecosystems. These efforts form part of Canada’s broader commitment to environmental protection, including through CEPA and its core principles, notably precaution, polluter pays and pollution prevention. While the government has created a solid foundation of legislation, programs and partnerships, experience has also revealed gaps, especially related to vessel transfers and end-of-life management. Many vessels still change hands repeatedly, often among parties unable or unwilling to manage them. Ultimately, the costs and risks land on coastal communities, harbour authorities, indigenous governments and taxpayers. The bill proposes to prevent the transfer of vessels to individuals who lack the capacity or intent to manage them responsibly, and to place the responsibility with owners. Work is already under way to modernize Canada's approach to vessel ownership. Measures include updating vessel registration and licensing rules so ownership information stays current; requiring faster registration of transferred vessels, which will help trace responsibility; developing an owner-financed cleanup fund, creating a sustainable source of funding for removals when owners cannot be identified or cannot pay; maintaining a national inventory of vessels of concern to support enforcement and planning; and supporting removal and disposal efforts through programs such as the abandoned boats program and Fisheries and Oceans Canada's small craft harbours abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program. These tools are important; they mean that Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard can work together more effectively to hold owners accountable and prevent abandoned vessels from accumulating in communities and waterways. However, as parliamentarians have heard from coastal residents, harbour operators and indigenous partners, more can be done to address the causes of vessel abandonment. Bill C-244 proposes to discourage irresponsible transfers, support the polluter-pays principle, and build a more responsible marine ownership culture. Some may ask why this issue matters when many Canadians never encounter abandoned boats. For those who live in coastal regions, particularly in British Columbia, as my colleague pointed out, the problem is highly visible. Vessels left to decay near marinas, anchorages or beaches are more than an eyesore; they represent environmental degradation, lost economic opportunity and an unfair burden on communities. Beyond local impacts, there is a national interest. Abandoned vessels create navigational hazards, interfere with safe commercial and recreational boating, and cost significant public funds to remove. The challenge will only grow as fleets age, as the resale market grows online and as climate change increases the risks associated with damaged vessels from extreme weather. Parliament has already demonstrated a shared commitment to addressing the issue. The unanimous passage of WAHVA in 2019 reflects a consensus that abandoned vessels do not belong in Canadian waters and that owners must be accountable. Addressing wrecked and abandoned vessels is long-term work. The national strategy has already laid the important groundwork: a modern legislative framework, a national inventory, improved owner identification processes and federal programs to assist communities. Regulations to support a dedicated removal fund are under way. I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his long-standing advocacy for coastal protection and for bringing forward the proposed legislation, Bill C-244, and the ways it will help strengthen prevention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-6489 on the democratic process, signed by 11,706 petitioners. The petition calls on the House to adopt and direct appropriate national security and intelligence agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of potential security risks associated with political leadership in Canada, ensuring that all candidates for party leadership and high office undergo security vetting; develop and implement mechanisms to enhance transparency in the vetting process of political candidates, increasing public confidence while maintaining legal and privacy protections; strengthen national safeguards against foreign interference in Canadian democratic institutions; and commit to ensuring that all elected officials meet the highest standards of integrity, accountability and national loyalty. I am proud to present this petition on behalf of the undersigned.

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this year, Atlantic Canada has experienced a troubling increase in gender-based violence. Women and girls across our region continue to endure violence, often from current or former intimate partners, with tragic consequences. This ongoing crisis highlights a harsh reality: When circumstances become difficult, women often suffer. Breaking down the barriers that prevent women from living safely and freely is more urgent than ever. Ensuring security and justice is essential not only in protecting lives but in creating conditions where women can fully participate and contribute to society. Building on what my colleagues have shared earlier this week, we must recognize and support the strength of survivors and the dedication of those working tirelessly to address this issue on the ground. As we continue Gender Equality Week, I want a world where my nieces, and all women and girls, can live free of fear and can thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute, on behalf of the government caucus, to a former member of Parliament who sadly left us a few weeks ago, the Hon. Gail Shea. Politics can be challenging and it can be tough at times, but Gail was prepared to step up and put herself forward as a candidate in numerous elections. Gail, as pointed out, was a member of Parliament for the riding of Egmont, the riding I now represent. She served as a cabinet minister in the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, and she also served in the government of the former premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Pat Binns. On a personal note, I knew Gail for most of my life. We grew up in neighbouring communities, coastal fishing communities, a few kilometres from one another at a time when the fishery was not as valuable as it is today. We both attended the same high school, and our lives often revolved around the same community we called home, the town of Tignish, where, as the Leader of the Opposition referenced, her funeral service was held a few weeks ago. It is the furthermost community in the western part of our home province of Prince Edward Island. Gail was very proud of her family, and there is no question that her family was very proud of Gail. She was also deeply attached to her home community of Skinners Pond. On a lighter note, when Gail became a minister of the Government of Canada, she said in conversation that there were now two famous people from Skinners Pond, a very little community. The other person was Canadian icon musician Stompin' Tom Connors, who a lot of people would remember. Gail made it a priority of hers to get Tom Connors to choose that community to be the location of a centre that would commemorate his legacy, a very deep legacy in traditional Canadian music, and house all the artifacts attached to his distinguished career as a Canadian. Make no mistake: Stompin' Tom Connors put Canada first. Although she was not elected at the time that this particular centre came to realization, it was her vision. Since it was heavily federally funded and I had the option, I personally asked her to attend the official opening in 2017 and join me on stage to cut the ribbon to officially open the centre. She was extremely touched and appreciated the opportunity to be there. Gail's legacy will live on, both through her various accomplishments as a public representative and through her commitment to volunteerism, because after leaving politics, she immersed herself in the community on a volunteer basis. She was very involved in the local Royal Canadian Legion. These organizations will certainly miss her presence over the years. Her family, especially her five children, who I know well, Sally, Sandy, Kelly, Holly and Shawn, can be very proud of their mother and the contribution she made to our part of this wonderful country, the small part that I referenced in western Prince Edward Island. Family took precedence over every other aspect of her accomplished life, and I know her family members, children and grandchildren will miss her. The most important tribute we can give to a former parliamentarian or legislator, which I say unequivocally, is this: Her community is a better place today because of her years of service. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to say a few words here today on behalf of the government caucus about the life of Gail Shea, and pay tribute to a life well lived and filled with value and contributions that will have a long-lasting legacy. I will leave with this. Let us not take our health for granted. Life passes by quickly. I want to thank Gail for her contribution to Prince Edward Island and to Canada, this country we all so love.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest strengths of my district of Egmont is the willingness of Islanders to work together. That collective approach has built vibrant communities, and people know they can rely on one another to succeed. In my home community, the Tignish Fisheries Cooperative is marking a 100-year anniversary. Keep in mind that this incredibly successful venture began during a time of wooden boats, sails and oars. Today, it is electronics, fibreglass boats, efficient engines and the best seafood products in the world. The threads that bind these two realities together are the hard work and determination of a community filled with talented and dedicated people. Now, the Tignish Fisheries Cooperative employs 380 people, and it works wonderfully because thousands of individuals over the years believed in something greater than themselves. They had faith in their home. From its early days as a fisherman's union to the best seafood processing in the world, this operation has been an incredible success, and I want to congratulate all those there now, and thank those who came before—

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this chamber for the fourth Parliament that I have been participating in as the member of Parliament for Egmont. I want to congratulate all members who are sitting in this particular Parliament who ran successful elections. I also want to reflect momentarily on all of those who contested seats in the recent election and were not successful in arriving here. We all have colleagues who were not successful in their election and who are not returning. I was reminded of that a number of years ago. I was first elected in 1982, and when I commented to an individual that I enjoyed elections very much, they remarked to me, “It is easy for you; you have never been defeated.” I think of that in each election, in each legislature I have sat in and each parliament in this House of Commons that I was successful on being re-elected to. Our democratic system depends on men and women putting their names forward in a very public process. Elections are very public. I often advise people of different political stripes on whether they should run for office or not. I tell them that there is only one of two outcomes in an election: one either wins or one loses, but both are very public. If a person can accept either of those conclusions, then they should put their name forward and run for office. I would ask everybody to reflect on the many candidates who put their names forward in this last election who were not successful. Only 343 people can be successful and earn the right to sit in this chamber. However, I enjoyed listening to the many speeches here over the past week, especially from new members of Parliament, new politicians, and the enthusiasm they bring forward, the dreams they have for the areas they represent and what they would like to accomplish. None of us arrive here without an extensive team. Over the last week, I was sending notes of thanks to my many volunteers, and it dawned on me just how many participated in my election. Hundreds of people came forward to do the jobs that are important for candidates to win in elections and for those who participate. I want to reflect, which I often do, on the candidates who do not get to speak in this chamber following an election. Some of them were here before, some of them were new with ambitions to be here, but did not make it. It is important for us as parliamentarians, because we get the ultimate reward of representing the part of the country that chose us to be their representative. It is really a great honour, because we take forward the concerns and the ambitions of the people we represent. My riding of Egmont in Prince Edward Island is similar to most rural areas across this wonderful country. There is always more to be done than we have the ability to do, but that is really what governing is all about. However, I have been so proud of our government's track record over the past number of years in the area of rural development. My colleague, who is sitting close to me today, is passionate about rural development and ensuring that rural parts of this country are treated equally with the many challenges that rural, small-town Canada faces. As parliamentarians, it is important for us to make sure we do not overlook that, and that we are constantly using every opportunity we have to advance the concerns and the issues brought forward by rural communities. My riding is actually half urban and half rural. Over the past number of years, infrastructure has been one of the significant investments by the government that I was part of. All across the riding, each community is significantly better off today than it was 10 years ago. I am extremely proud of the record of our government in developing infrastructure, but still more has to be done. There are always a lot of needs in this country, and it is always interesting to listen to debate. On one hand, members of the electorate were very clear in the last election. They stated that they did not want to pay more taxes, but, by the same token, they still want government to support the many safety and social programs that we have come to depend on in this country. That becomes a contradiction and the roadway that governments have to travel: living within their means, spending appropriately, while at the same time still investing across this country. That is why I was so pleased that in the throne speech, our government and the Prime Minister, even today in question period, referenced so much about investing and growing the economy through major projects that built this nation. It has been done before. Going back in its history, this country was built on great visions from coast to coast to coast, investing in significant infrastructure that grew the country over the years. One of the issues that was loud and clear to me in my riding over the past election was an area that the federal government shares with provinces. That is the area of health care transfers. Today, the Prime Minister, in an answer in question period, referenced the fiscal statement that we will present to the House as presenting increases in health care transfers. I am going to speak to the area of health care, recognizing that it is a shared constitutional responsibility. In fact, this morning, my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, tabled a petition in the House on this particular subject. The subject that I want to talk about was the number one issue raised at the doorsteps in my riding, and that is health care. Everywhere I go, I hear real frustrations about the state of health care, and I share the concerns of all those Islanders. Over the past number of years, I have spoken with thousands of people in my Egmont riding and, over the course of the last election, I spoke with many again. Again and again, I am told that access to health care is getting more and more difficult. Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that what I am hearing is correct. The province's response to a genuine health care crisis is not keeping pace with need. Let us be clear. In 2023, the federal government joined with the province in a new funding arrangement for health care. Ottawa came to the table, with P.E.I., with $1 billion over 10 years. There was $300 million in new funding. This year, the federal government will provide $236 million to the province through the Canada health transfer. Everyone in here knows how this works. Under the Constitution, the provinces operate the health care system. In other words, the province is in charge of health care recruitment, hospitals and professional services. Our role in Ottawa is to support that work through financial transfers, and that side of the arrangement has been respected. However, here is what I have heard at the doors: People in Ottawa may be spending money, but we residents are not getting the health care we need. In fact, I heard from many residents that they are now very weary of the province's excuses. Sadly, those provincial excuses are meant to deflect responsibility for poor service, long wait times and inadequate access. For Islanders, this is increasingly distressing and, again, I share their frustration. As a member of Parliament, my duty is to understand the day-to-day needs of the residents. The part that really hurts is that so many Islanders are enduring uncertainty every day because of poor access to health care. This has to be fixed. When I speak with young parents about their worries, it is very hard not to share that anxiety. When I speak to older Islanders concerned about loved ones and spouses, it is hard. The federal government has done its part. The money is there. The federal end of the partnership has been met and exceeded. I will say that until Islanders are confident and content with their health care system, I will continue to demand better. We live in the greatest country in the world. We are extremely fortunate to have great financial resources and an outstanding education system. For that reason, I do believe elected representatives of the federal government should start insisting on measurable improvements. We should make our voices heard. The federal government has kept up its side, and now is the time for all of us to insist that our provincial colleagues keep up their end and focus their considerable resources on the front lines of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, the promise that was pulled out of thin air was the Conservative platform promise on the same issue. Our promise was real. It was fiscally responsible. We indicated that we would reduce the tolls on the Confederation Bridge to $20, with a corresponding reduction for all Atlantic Canada ferries by a similar percentage amount. That is a promise that was made. It is a promise I have every confidence that the Prime Minister will deliver on.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague overlooks the major fact that, over the years, the federal government moved out of the fiscal capacity area in taxation to allow the provinces to move into that field to fund health care more and more. When we look at the actual numbers, the total revenue available to the provinces has increased significantly. It was our government in 2023 that signed an agreement with each of the provinces, where they came forward and said that this is the money they need from the Government of Canada, in addition, to fix the health care problems they are facing in their provinces. What I am saying is that it is time they stepped up. We delivered the money. We kept our end of the bargain.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has fought me a lot, as a seasoned politician, I will admit, about rural Canada and rural parts of this country. The challenges of health care in rural parts are significantly different than in urban parts. First of all, the jurisdiction responsible for the delivery of health care must recognize that. This is where the provinces come in. Voters were telling me, in the last election and over the last number of years, that it is time that Ottawa put more strings attached to the fiscal transfers given to the provinces in the delivery of health care and put in specific criteria about the outcomes and the benchmarks that must be achieved to improve rural health care delivery. Unless the Government of Canada does that, we are going to continue to slide in the services available to rural communities, and we will have a continuation of what my colleague has just articulated.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult tasks faced by our government was to repair Veterans Affairs Canada after all the damage done by the former Conservative government. I know that it was tough to fix, but I also know that many hard-working public servants at Veterans Affairs headquarters on Prince Edward Island are proud to make a positive impact once again. As that most solemn of days approaches, November 11, will the Minister of Agriculture share with the House how our government has been helping to make a difference in the lives of veterans and their families?

Mr. Speaker, for Islanders who live in my riding, this government's commitment to lowering costs has resulted in real benefits. Whether it was keeping the retirement age at 65 or making the Canada child benefit tax-free, the decisions we have taken have been a real help to thousands in my riding. The Pharmacare Act is another important chapter in the journey toward a fairer society. On Prince Edward Island, we are already seeing the results. Millions have been saved, and more importantly, Islanders know they have the affordable access they need to keep themselves healthy. What I am hearing from constituents in my riding is to keep going and, more importantly, make sure we protect the gains we have made. They say their lives are better than they were under the former government and that they need us to protect the gains we have all made together.

Mr. Speaker, owner-operator rules for Canada's Atlantic fisheries are a bedrock institution as they once were for the west coast before the Conservative Party eliminated them in favour of big corporate fishing fleets. These rules protect independent fishers and the livelihoods of fishing families. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard inform this House and fishers on the government's commitment to protecting the owner-operator policy from those in this chamber who would gut this policy?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to present. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Votes 1 and 5 under Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization, Vote 1 under Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and Votes 1 and 5 under Department of Employment and Social Development”. Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move: That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery is the backbone of Canada's coastal communities, and Liberal members of Parliament will always be there to stand up for fishers, their families and our fishing communities. On February 8, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans adopted a motion proposed by Liberal members of Parliament to launch an official five-year review of the Fisheries Act. Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to the House the significance of the Fisheries Act review for coastal communities?

Madam Speaker, Atlantic Canada has had its fair share of challenges over the past three years. A deadly hurricane, natural disasters and a global pandemic have left Atlantic Canadians wondering what the future holds. Can the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency outline for the people in my Egmont riding what the government is doing to help Atlantic Canada recover, rebuild and thrive?

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honour the Minister of Agriculture. November 21 marked the 35th anniversary of his election to the House of Commons, making him the longest-serving MP ever for Prince Edward Island. It is a great achievement. As a witness to history, the minister has seen a great deal of change and progress here in the House and in his Cardigan riding. He has had 11 straight election victories. It is a remarkable record and a real testament to the trust invested in the member by the people of Cardigan. His love for Prince Edward Island is very well known, and his legacy in Cardigan and across the province will continue to pay dividends for many decades to come. Personally, I have learned from the minister that it is essential for public representatives to always act on the guidance of constituents, while keeping a steady eye on the future and potential opportunities. We owe a debt of gratitude to the minister's sage and adroit understanding of changing times, and his remarkable ability to positively navigate both today's and tomorrow's challenges. I congratulate him, and his trusted partner and adviser, Frances.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, we announced that for rural Canadians we doubled the quarterly carbon pricing rebate, and we are in discussions with provinces to make heat pumps essentially free for low and middle-income households. On average, homeowners who switch from oil to heat pumps to heat and cool their homes can save up to $2,500 per year on their energy bills. This is good for families facing affordability challenges. It is important to have a clear plan toward clean energy that will protect Canadians from the devastating impacts of climate change and ensures that farmers and fishers can continue to produce the food to feed Canadians and the world. We are committed to transitioning to a clean economy in a way that ensures no one is left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “National Housing Strategy”. I would like at this time to acknowledge and thank the clerk and the analysts of the committee for preparing the report and attached copies. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. I would like to thank the staff of the committee and all the committee members from all parties who sat on the committee to review this important and historic piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, Canadians all across eastern Canada are still living with the devastating impacts from hurricane Fiona. Rural communities in particular were hit hard. The school and fishing ports in the Evangeline region of my riding of Egmont were destroyed during the storm. Now more than ever, they need to know how our government is going to stand by them and support the recovery of their communities. Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development tell the House and all Canadians how commitments from the fall economic statement from the government will ensure that we help our communities rebuild?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have been watching the impact of a changing destructive climate, but many Atlantic Canadians are not because they do not have access to basic infrastructure. P.E.I. was hit with the most destructive hurricane I have ever seen. In my riding of Egmont, the impact has been devastating, including the Évangéline school, farm buildings and crops, small craft harbours, fishers' gear and much more. Many Islanders are struggling right now, and it is our job to lighten that burden as quickly as possible. Our community has been resilient in the face of this tragedy, and I am proud to say that the community has come together to face these challenges together. I would like to recognize the efforts of municipalities and not-for-profit organizations, which have worked tirelessly to support their neighbours with basic necessities, and the tireless work of our first responders and utility workers, as well as hydro crews from across Canada. Together we are stronger, and together we will get through this.