“The member's bill would have hurt Atlantic Canada's fishery. It ignored science and would have forced people to pay fees and report every fish they catch to feed their families. We oppose this bill. Instead, our government is listening to thousands of local fishers to protect the food fishery without adding new costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can clarify something for my colleague across the floor. The private member’s bill referenced by the member was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and their families, and communities right across Atlantic Canada. Do not just take it from me. Both the FFAW and ASP shared their concern with the member’s scheme. For those listening at home in the member’s own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, processors and ENGOs were all against his proposal and have all stated it was a bill to change science and not to fish seven days a week. He ignored science, consultation and the thousands of people, including those in his own province, who depend on the fishery. To hear from the people, the Minister of Fisheries launched the food fisheries survey, to which more than 9,500 people responded. It was the highest level of participation ever for a DFO survey. That is real consultation. Tomorrow, the minister will be meeting with recreational fishers, the province, the FFAW and ASP to hear their thoughts on the future of the food fishery. We want to get this right. Our government recently published the food fishery “What We Heard Report”, and I recommend the member read it to see what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see in the food fishery. The member opposite proposed an entirely new monitoring system just for recreational fishers and would have forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to record their catch. How did the member want to offset those new administrative and red-tape costs? It was fees on the fishers themselves. That is not true representation. He proposed to have the government cover “the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act”. That would have meant licence fees and nobody wants those. The member proposed a new system that would have told Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they cannot catch cod like they have for their entire lives and it would have only made the fishery worse. Our government understands that the food fishery is culturally important. The member opposite talks about affordability, but he would have put a Conservative tax on those who fish to feed themselves and their families, as they have done for generations. This past year, the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador had no licence requirement, no licence fee and no reporting requirement. The idea was was just to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food. Under the member’s Conservative tax on food system, food fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador would have been forced to have a mandatory licence, pay a fee to cover additional new red tape and report every fish they caught through a new system that would also cost them money to use. While our new government is providing tax relief to millions of Canadians and working to build a stronger economy, the member has been playing short-sighted political games that threaten the economy for everyone in Atlantic Canada and would have made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for the food fishery. Our government is working on behalf of all Canadians to truly make life more affordable for everyone.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 80 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The member's bill would add new fees and rules for food fishers, and it would threaten commercial fishing jobs in Atlantic Canada. People in his province do not want this. Our government surveyed over 9,500 people, and they do not support his ideas.”

“Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member is forgetting what his bill actually called for. It is a tax on food for people in his province. It did not say anything about fishing seven days a week, but it did call for new red tape and licence fees on food fishers. That is not what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. He did not consult or listen to fishers. He put forward a proposal that threatened the entire commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. That is tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. The Minister of Fisheries did a full survey to hear from the people in the province on what they want to see in the food fishery. Over 9,500 people completed the survey. Our government knows how much people in his province care about the food fishery. The member should read the “What We Heard Report” we recently published to see what real consultation looks like. He will find that his proposals for more red tape and licence fees are not popular with food fishers.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →