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.

[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.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (Atlantic groundfish fisheries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-237, under Private Members' Business.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #74

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 41 minutes.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé is rising on a point of order.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you recognizing me. I simply want to inform you that, during the first vote, online voting began before you had finished reading the question to the House. This is not about calling anything into question, but perhaps some vigilance is needed here. This is the first time we have seen this.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request unanimous consent with respect to the second vote. I used the app, but it did not work. It registered on the app that I had voted, but when I followed up afterward, it indicated I had not. Therefore, I am requesting unanimous consent to vote yea in support of Bill C-244 for the second vote.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.