Robert Morrissey
Egmont, Prince Edward Island · Liberal · Canada
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27”. It has been tabled electronically.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often go to great lengths in the House to speak about eliminating all taxes. As a member from rural Canada, could the member explain what impact it would have on many development opportunities in rural areas if the government was not there to support economic opportunity all across this country?”
“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”.”
“In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life. (1820) 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 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.”
The complete record
Every one of 83 lines we hold for Robert Morrissey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“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, 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27”. It has been tabled electronically.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often go to great lengths in the House to speak about eliminating all taxes. As a member from rural Canada, could the member explain what impact it would have on many development opportunities in rural areas if the government was not there to support economic opportunity all across this country?”
“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”.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life. (1820) 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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-20 , an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.”
“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 seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Distribution of Federal Student Grants”. The report has been submitted electronically to the table officers.”
“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 fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Compensation Disparities Between Unionized and Non-Unionized Workers in Canada”. The text of the document has been submitted electronically to the table officers.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Federal Housing Investments”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”