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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois strive to be thorough, to work based on science, traditional knowledge and local expertise.

We think it would be interesting to study this bill, because it raises a number of rather important questions. For example, we believe that harmonizing fishing seasons across a large ecosystem with regional differences poses risks to some species and could be problematic. A one-size-fits-all management approach could lead to problems.

Our fishers know the resources, the territory and the vulnerable points, but they also need to support and coordination across regions. We are concerned about the application of one-size-fits-all measures, particularly in areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where we are seeing the ecosystem warming quickly. Species are under stress because of water warming, leading them to relocate. We saw that with cod. There are also interactions with other species to consider.

We firmly believe that science must be at the centre of this process. We want the precautionary principle to be applied. The right to nature is also important, so we respect and encourage the presence of fishers and other stakeholders on the ground.

However, when there are too many constraints and they are applied across the board, we really have to wonder. Without question, this type of bill deserves to be studied. For now, however, we have doubts about applying one-size-fits-all measures. As we know, even within Quebec, and I am strictly speaking about Quebec, there are regional differences, specific ways of operating and rapid changes people are noticing that science sometimes struggles to capture. Imagine the implications if the scope is expanded to include the Atlantic region.

The principle behind the bill is certainly interesting. However, in terms of how it would be applied, we question whether it is really necessary. We want to see science at the core of the process, and we want people on the ground to be involved, so we do want to collaborate with our colleagues.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to speak to this fascinating bill. I have to say that every time I hear a group of MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, my vocabulary always expands a bit. They throw around some terms, whether with respect to fishing or to hunting, that are unknown in the rest of the country, so it is always interesting.

This is what I have noticed since the member for Central Newfoundland came on the scene here in Parliament just four years ago. The Liberal caucus from Newfoundland and Labrador was virtually unknown. Its members hardly ever spoke a word in the chamber, it seemed. However, with the one member, suddenly the debate changed in the chamber, and we began hearing all about important Newfoundland and Labrador issues. I remember that he would stand up in the last Parliament and shame his counterparts on the other side about issues they were not addressing in Parliament.

Then, I see today the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas again getting up, and I hear him saying that already he has had some success with his bill. Just by his tabling it, the government has announced a review on this very issue, so we are seeing great success on an issue that matters to members from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, there is a third member, from Long Range Mountains, who is no shrinking violet either. They are a trio. We can see why the Conservative representation in Newfoundland and Labrador is growing. I know we are going to see strength and growth there in the years ahead because of this representation.

I learned long ago, when I was first elected, that if we want to know what is happening in the fisheries, we do not go to DFO, like the member for Labrador has clearly done; we go down to the end of the dock and talk to the men and women who fish our waters, and we find out what is going on: what is working, what is not and, more importantly, how to fix it. That is exactly what my two colleagues from Newfoundland have done today by bringing forth this important issue, speaking on behalf of their constituents on a matter that is so important to them. I understand that.

What I think a lot people in this town and in the bureaucracy do not understand is that the weather does not always co-operate, the environment does not always co-operate, and we need flexibility when it comes to not just a resource but something that members in our communities in Atlantic Canada have done long before Canada was Canada, long before the founding of this country, and certainly for hundreds of years before Newfoundland and Labrador came into Confederation.

It is so exhilarating to have members come to this place and make principled and passionate arguments about bills like this and how they impact communities and people back home. We are going through an affordability crisis. What better way to help families back home than to give them the option to go fishing to provide for their family and their community, which is what began to build Newfoundland and Labrador hundreds of years ago.

In that spirit, I have to applaud the members for bringing the bill forward, speaking to and on behalf of their communities, and advancing it. I think we are going to see a win here. We can tell, when the government begins to pre-position a consultation on a bill brought before the House by a new member has who has been here just a few months, that he can already score a win. He has forced the government to act.

We are going to keep pushing the bill through Parliament. I think we are going to chip away. I know that my three colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will not just debate it here; they are going to take it home, and they are going to fight for it in the towns, the communities and the ridings, and on the air and on social media. They are going to shame their colleagues to convince more of them to vote for the bill. I applaud their hard work.

At some point, if we have more of these debates, we might need a third interpretation channel so we can get all the local terms from Newfoundland and Labrador understood here in the chamber. I look forward to that and to this debate's continuing very soon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is on the motion.

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

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

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