Bill C-237

An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (Atlantic groundfish fisheries)

This enactment amends the Fisheries Act in order to provide measures for the management of Atlantic groundfish fisheries, including the harmonization, across Atlantic provinces, of close times in Canadian fisheries waters of the Atlantic Ocean that are used for recreational fishing of groundfish.
It also amends the reporting obligations of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in respect of the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Act, and adds a matter in relation to which certain persons may be required to provide information or keep records or other documents under the Act.
Finally, it requires that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught.

Fisheries Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and he referenced non-partisanship, so my question is non-partisan. The bill speaks for itself.

Could the member advise the House who he consulted with? Did he consult with fisher organizations prior to drafting the bill, and if so, could he identify them?

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

Mr. Speaker, when someone is in Newfoundland and Labrador, they do not have to go very far to cross paths with a fisherman or fisherwoman, and they do not have to go far to find people who participate in the recreational food fishery. Almost everyone in my riding, in my province and in the riding of the member across the way participates, and if they do not, their close family and relatives do.

I have had hundreds of conversations throughout my riding and province with the people who elected me and the other Conservatives about how to go forward. I really appreciate all the people at home who gave us their feedback so we could get here today.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member’s bill, Bill C-237, an act that would amend the Fisheries Act. As a Labradorian, I know how important the fishery is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Atlantic Canada and Quebec, not just for the livelihoods of harvesters and workers in our province, but also for our economy.

As Labradorians and Newfoundlanders, the recreational food fishery is essential to who we are as a province and as a people. It is more than a tradition; it is a connection we share to the water and those who came before us.

My biggest concern with Bill C-237 is that it ignores fishers and was created without meaningful consultation with those who have invested the most. Our recreational fishers have already spoken up. They have serious concerns with this bill and were not consulted. Why did the member opposite ignore those who would be directly impacted by this particular bill?

In the coming days, the Minister of Fisheries will launch the Newfoundland and Labrador food fishery consultations. This was a commitment she made when announcing the food fishery this year. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve to have their say. These planned consultations will offer all recreational fishers the opportunity to share their thoughts on how we can improve the recreational food fishery.

On this side of the house, we listen to fishers and believe in the scientific stock-based management of our fisheries. Scientific stock-based management works and has led to a reopening of the northern cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador for the first time since the cod moratorium in 1993. The moratorium is a hurt that everyone in my province still feels deeply, and we cannot risk making that mistake again.

Bill C-237 would create one fishing season across all of Atlantic Canada and change the management of fisheries to species-based rather than stock-based. This would create a potential situation where total allowable catches and bycatch levels for commercial fisheries could be seriously affected.

Bill C-237 threatens the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and, yes, in Quebec, risking thousands of Canadian jobs and billions of dollars to our economy. Let us look at some examples where this is the case. On the west coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, fishers have sacrificed to help rebuild the NAFO area 4R northern Gulf cod stock, which remains under a commercial moratorium today. That moratorium also applies to NAFO area 4S adjacent to the vast Côte-Nord of Quebec.

Bill C-237 would increase fishing pressure on that stock, removing more fish from the water than we currently do. That is a slap in the face to commercial harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, who have not been able to fish these past number of years. This bill would take away the ability to balance the opportunities for recreational fishers and commercial harvesters. It uses a one-size-fits-all approach that would have serious consequences for our commercial fishers who earn their living from the ocean. For a commercial fishery like Atlantic halibut in the province of Quebec, Gulf cod is caught as bycatch in that fishery. This bill would increase the fishing pressure on that bycatch, and the only place to take it from would be from those commercial fishers.

What would that mean for the $100-million halibut fishery in Quebec and Labrador? This member’s bill does not care about that, because it is one-size-fits-all, according to the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. The bill is an existential threat to the fishery and the harvesters in the coastal communities it supports.

Let us also talk about the emerging redfish unit 1 fishery. Northern Gulf cod are also caught as bycatch in that fishery, so like the Atlantic halibut fishery, which is worth $100 million, we would increase pressure on northern Gulf cod, and our redfish unit 1 fishery would also be impacted. This would also certainly impact my colleagues from Quebec in the Bloc Québécois.

The issues that Bill C-237 would create around bycatch for our commercial fisheries cannot be overstated. At a time when Canadians are looking to their government to grow our economy to help Canadians, Bill C-237 risks one of the largest economic drivers in Atlantic Canada, our commercial fisheries.

By changing to species-based fisheries management and singular seasons across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, Bill C-237 would affect the ability to simultaneously support advancing indigenous fisheries alongside the recreational and the commercial fisheries. That would mean worse outcomes for both indigenous fishers and non-indigenous fishers.

Bill C-237 would create more and new red tape, and its administrative costs would be downloaded to the recreational fishers. It would put those burdens solely on the recreational fishers themselves. The bill would demand an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers, and it would force Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Atlantic Canadians to record their catch from the recreational fishery.

How would the bill look to offset these administrative and red tape costs? Fees on the fishers would be passed from the bill and downloaded to the recreational fishers. The bill clearly says that to offset these costs, the government would cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That means licence fees, plain and simple. The bill would be a Conservative tax on food. There are no two ways about it: It would be a Conservative tax on those who are simply looking for a fish to feed themselves and their family, as they have done for generations.

This year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec had no licence requirement. There was no licence fee, and there were no reporting requirements. Fishers could just follow the rules, be safe on the ocean and fish for food. After all, it is a huge part of our culture. Under the Conservative “tax on food” bill, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and the rest of Atlantic Canada would now need a mandatory licence, would pay a fee to cover the costs of the bill and would be required to report every fish they catch through an unspecific system, which would also cost them money to use, almost like the ELOG system.

While our government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a strong economy, Conservative members are putting forward legislation that would threaten the economy for every Atlantic Canadian and would make Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay to participate in the food fishery. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill C-237, and I urge my fellow members in the House to vote no to the bill and say no to a Conservative tax on food.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a foggy July morning in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé, back home in the Gaspé region. The boat glided slowly over the calm waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We left the harbour, passing by a Coast Guard vessel. Seagulls watched us from a distance. The cliffs were peaking through the fog as we headed out to sea. The atmosphere on the boat was relaxed. The salty air permeated though us, filling us with happiness. We cast out lines, began fishing and the morning flew by. We were enjoying our recreational cod fishery.

Roughly three months later, I find myself here talking about the same subject. Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act with regard to Atlantic groundfish fisheries, was introduced in the House for first reading on September 22. This bill proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to, among other things, provide for the management of the Atlantic groundfish fisheries by harmonizing fishing periods in the Atlantic Ocean, where the recreational groundfish fishery takes place.

This same bill also seeks to amend the minister's reporting obligations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act. Moreover, it would require certain individuals to provide information or keep records or other documents under the act. Finally, the bill requires the minister to develop a monitoring system to record the number of fish caught by species, as well as the time and place where they were caught.

More specifically, this bill proposes to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish” to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act. This would be another factor that the minister may, but is not required to, take into consideration in making decisions.

In addition, the bill proposes to amend subsection 42.1(1) of the act to read, “The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each house of Parliament a report on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act.” This amendment affects the part of the act that states, “relating to fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention for that year”. Under the proposed amendment, all provisions of the Fisheries Act, and not just those relating to the protection of fish in their habitat, would be covered by the report that the minister would be required to table on the administration and enforcement of this act.

The bill also proposes to add, under the regulations that may be made by the Governor in Council, that under section 43 of that act, the regulations must “provide for the harmonization, across Atlantic provinces, of close times in Canadian fisheries waters of the Atlantic Ocean that are used for recreational fishing of groundfish”. The bill also proposes to add section 43.01 to the act, requiring that “a close time or fishing quota fixed or varied” be published “on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at least two months before the day on which it comes into force.”

The bill also proposes adding, with respect to persons and entities that must provide information or documents to the department under section 61 of the act, “the number of fish caught by any person each day...and the total number of fish caught by that person”. Finally, the bill proposes that, within one year of the bill being passed, the Minister of Fisheries must, “in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught.”

As previously mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill so that it can be debated in committee. However, we will be watchful and will debate the merits of the bill. We still want to allow for debate.

I will now address a few points. I will start with the amendment to section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act, then I will talk about establishing a monitoring system and then, most importantly, the harmonization of recreational groundfish fishing seasons.

Section 2.5 entitled “Considerations”, which the bill seeks to amend, clearly lists the things that the minister may consider, without requiring the minister to do so. It already includes a number of key principles. The bill is proposing to add “the importance of stability and predictability for those who engage in recreational fishing for groundfish”. That will have to be debated. Does this principle deserve all the importance it is being given, over and above all others? The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is already debating the idea of restricting the minister's discretionary power and ensuring that section 2.5 require that the minister take these factors into consideration.

Why are we leaning toward this proposal to limit the minister's discretionary power? It is because the principles enshrined in the Fisheries Act are principles that I think everyone supports. Now we have to ensure that the minister is legally obligated to take them into consideration. If she does not and we amend the Fisheries Act to say that she must, Canadians will have the recourse they need to challenge decisions in court. As long as section 2.5 remains in its current form, the addition proposed by Bill C-237 would have a fairly limited impact. We could still debate it, though.

The monitoring system is something that will have to be studied. Obviously, when it comes to fish stocks, we want to make sure that we have objective data so that we can understand the status of the stocks and have recreational fishing catches recorded at the same time. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the governing party about the current state of the cod fishery, in Quebec at least, where things are quite simple and where cod can be fished recreationally without too much red tape. We can also debate that in committee.

There are several questions around the central point of this bill, namely the harmonization of recreational groundfish fisheries. First, what are the benefits? When my colleague introduced his bill, he explained that the measure was intended to put Newfoundland and Labrador on an equal footing with the other Atlantic provinces for this type of family fishing without affecting commercial fishers. He also expressed his dismay at the Liberal restrictions imposed on Newfoundland and Labrador families, who, he said, could only fish on weekends, while commercial fishing was in full swing during the week right before their eyes.

Again, we will have to look at this in committee. We will see how our colleague defends the advantages, but harmonizing the fishing seasons is an important aspect that will have to be studied seriously. Will harmonizing fishing periods standardize the closing and opening dates in all Atlantic provinces, including Quebec? That is an important question. If so, what are the benefits?

If there is a problem with the regulations that apply to Newfoundland and Labrador, are there not other ways for the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas to facilitate recreational fishing in his province without negatively impacting recreational fishing on the Quebec side? The benefits remain to be seen. There are also risks. Could managing recreational fishing by species rather than by stock and region complicate matters?

Currently, in my own riding, recreational fishing seasons vary. If I am in the Gaspé Peninsula for recreational groundfish fishing, I can go from April 15 to June 23, July 9 to 16, and August 8 to October 1. If I am in the Magdalen Islands, still within my riding, the dates are different. Why? From what I understand, fishing seasons are based on stock estimates, on what is happening, on interactions with other species.

What impact would my colleague's proposal have? Will we end up with a single season across the board? What happens if stock conditions are different? Would it be good public policy to take away the flexibility to adapt to the reality of fish stocks? Not all species are present in all areas at the same time, because fish migrate. Generally speaking, I strongly prefer decentralized public policy-making, because it ensures that decisions that apply to individuals are made by officials who are as close as possible to the places affected by those decisions, since they are in touch with local realities.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-237 so that it can be studied in committee. However, we will need to be convinced of the proposal's merits. This recreational fishery is important to us and to the people back home. It is a tradition, and traditions need to be handled with care. Those beautiful July mornings spent fishing for cod off the coast of Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé are moments when we feel at peace and in touch with nature. We have to protect those moments, because they are precious.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and second Bill C-237 for my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

This piece of legislation has been long-awaited. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been crying out for better access to the recreational food fishery for codfish. It is a massive part of our culture and has been for hundreds of years, as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas mentioned earlier.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians go away to the mainland and then return. They are almost like expats, but they come home for summer migration. They come home to fish for codfish as their families have done for generations. It is in their blood, and it is a massive part of their culture.

Over the last 10 years, we have been up until the end of June before the Minister of Fisheries would even let us know what the dates and regulations for the fishing days of the season would be. A couple of years ago, I sponsored a petition that went on for 30 days. We collected 3,900 names on an electronic petition to remove the regulation that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were only allowed to fish three days a week, on the weekends.

I heard my colleague from Labrador so vehemently express his opposition to the bill. I would like to remind him that there are a couple of communities on that coast, L'Anse-au-Clair and Blanc-Sablon, that are not too far apart. One community is in Newfoundland and Labrador, and one is in Quebec. There is an imaginary line between them. His constituents are allowed to fish only three days per week. He is quite proud of it, the way that he represents his constituents, that they cannot have the same access as their neighbours down the road. It is very odd to me to hear a gentleman of his stature stand up and make these statements and claims.

The bill would enshrine the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in legislation to give them fair access in terms of their counterparts throughout Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. What else would it do? Getting rid of the three-day weekends would also add a safety bonus to our fishery. For some reason, fishers tend to feel pressured that they have to go out to fish Saturday, Sunday and Monday if they can, if the weather is good enough and safe enough. Sometimes it is questionable, but they do not know what the next weekend is going to be like. I have seen periods in the summer where they have completely lost three weekends in a row. How is that fair for someone to spend $5,000 on a vacation to come to Newfoundland to take part in the recreational food fishery and not even get a day? It has happened a lot.

Another aspect the bill includes is that, for the folks who want to catch some fish for food for the table, the south coast is different from the northeast coast and the west coast. The fish migrate to various parts of the coast at different times of the year. On the south coast, there is Hermitage Bay, in the riding that I am so privileged to represent, as well as Placentia Bay, which my colleague represents; these are bays to which the cod migrate in the winter, long past the closure of the recreational food fishery. For these people to have an ample opportunity to catch some cod for the winter, they need to be able to fish at a different time. On the west coast, the fish migrate to the land in the fall or spring; summer is the worst time of all. On the northeast coast, we have a very proud hunting tradition called turr hunting that starts around November 1. The fellows want to go out and hunt some turrs, drop a jigger overboard and bring home a fresh fish for the table, but they cannot do it. It is unbelievable; it needs to end.

We were promised a review by the minister, now announced by the member for Labrador on her behalf, back in June. People were asking, “Where's the review? When are we going to hear about it?” Even The Fisheries Broadcast asked me not long ago when this review was taking place. I said I did not know. It was starting to get into broken promise territory.

Anything we can do to push the minister in the right direction, we always try, but we have seen decisions before. I heard our colleague from Labrador talk about how the Liberals listen to the fishers, but the fishers have been begging for a mackerel fishery all summer. I see the minister over there smiling. Maybe she is going to announce it after I sit down.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I did not mean to say that someone was here. Maybe it is a figment of my imagination; who knows?

I also heard the member for Labrador criticize his government's policy on bringing in ELOGs. It was refreshing to see the Liberals do not all agree with the ridiculous policies they have.

My colleague was questioned about the consultations he had. We are consulting with our people all the time. Recreational cod fishers are stakeholders in the recreational cod fishery, but one big beef the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union have had over the years is that they cannot quantify how much codfish is taken during the recreational food fishery. I do not know why Liberal members would be proud of not knowing how much fish we are taking out of the ocean. How can they manage that if they cannot count? They have to know. Knowledge is power.

The expansion and revision of the fishing period for cod would help fill a gap in science, because people could go out in October or November if it is a nice day, or even in December if that is what they feel like doing. If they wanted to go out on Christmas Eve and catch a fresh fish for their Christmas Eve dinner, if it is a calm day and that is what they feel like doing, they would be able to do it. We would find out how the fish are migrating, when they are there and how long they are there for. All of this data would be wonderful knowledge, if there is any science department left after yesterday's budget.

The threat to biomass would be extremely low. A study just came out of Memorial University's Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research that stated 24 times more codfish is eaten by harp seals, never mind the hoods, the greys, the bearded or the harbour, all of these species. If we are just talking about harps, there are 24 times more removals by harp seals alone than the entire fishery. This expansion of fishing opportunity would pose no threat to the cod biomass and its recovery as we move forward.

I call on the member for Labrador, the member for St. John's East, the member for Cape Spear and the member for Avalon to do what their constituents have been begging them to do. The member for Labrador was very adamant that the Liberals listen. Well, if they listen, it is time to do what they have been asked to do. Instead of having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, now is the time to do the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, give fair access, and match access throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss something that many people in my riding have an immense interest in, and that is the Fisheries Act. It is an essential piece of Canadian law that regulates our fisheries. It supports fisheries science, and it is the foundation of coastal communities. Having had the privilege, and it was a privilege, to serve as the parliamentary secretary for fisheries, oceans and the Coast Guard, I can say that it is my contention that this bill is flawed and perhaps dangerous.

This bill could disrupt commercial fisheries across eastern Canada as well as cost harvesters their opportunity to earn a living, and many recreational fishers would have to pay to catch their food. This bill looks to completely change how the fisheries are managed, getting rid of stock-based management and switching to a species-based management. That would threaten all Atlantic commercial fisheries by risking bycatch management, catch levels that our commercial fisheries rely on. Bycatch is based on health of the stock and can act as a backstop for a fishery. If the bycatch is cut, the season ends, regardless of how much quota remains.

If this bill were passed and fisheries decisions become based on species, we could see a reduction in bycatch in many of our fisheries. This bill would impact quite a few fisheries. Let us review them. It would impact redfish, halibut, herring in southwest Nova Scotia, haddock and even the cod fishery, which was recently reopened.

I think we heard it here. Fisheries management is not a one-size-fits-all system. By creating a singular season for recreational fisheries, that would mean that, in my riding of Sydney—Glace Bay, we would have to fish at the same time as those in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a fundamental question here: Why is the Conservative member telling fishers in my community in Cape Breton when and how they should fish? Fishers in my community were not consulted as part of this bill, and they should not be told what is best for them.

People in my province of Nova Scotia mainly catch haddock. It is a healthier species, so the daily limits are higher. While cod is allowed to be caught, the stocks around Nova Scotia are not as healthy as the northern cod stock. They are not as abundant, and there is a daily limit on how many can be caught. Different parts of the country have different fishery approaches because the places are different, the stock levels are different and their waters are different. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach in the fisheries management.

I want to speak a bit to the House with respect to consultation. Consultation is absolutely the foundation for fishery management decisions. That is why advisory committees exist, and that is why we talk to them during commercial season and before it opens up. We want to make sure that the people who are most affected have a voice. They are a partner; they are a stakeholder. When I was parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans, there were many instances when I would meet directly with fishers and stakeholders to make sure their voices were being heard. I have seen serious concerns from recreational fishers who were not consulted on this bill. That is not how to make fishery management decisions, or any important decision.

I understand that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want changes to the recreational fishery. As a Cape Bretoner, I know there is not a lot of difference between Cape Bretoners and Newfoundland and Labradorians, and I respect that, but I would be shocked if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wanted to risk commercial fisheries, and all the jobs and economic opportunity they create, to make those changes. Quite frankly, the bill would threaten the livelihood of commercial harvesters across Atlantic Canada and risk jobs in my riding. It would tell my community in particular that we can make decisions without consulting them.

If there is an underpinning here in House, and we heard it here, it is consultations. We can unpack that word. That is meaningful, organized discussions. That is focus groups. That is sitting down with people from all over the region to make a fundamental decision that could very well impact the fishery. We need to do better than that, and that is why I will be opposing this bill.