Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Adjournment Proceedings

In adjournment proceedings, Jonathan Rowe (Conservative) raised the recreational food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, saying families rely on fishing to lower their grocery bills and should be allowed to fish seven days a week instead of the current three, since bad weather limits their days on the water. He said the Liberals voted against his private member’s bill on false grounds that it would add fees and tags. Ernie Klassen (Liberal parliamentary secretary) replied that the bill was reckless and would have threatened the livelihoods of harvesters, plant workers and communities in Atlantic Canada, and that the government is instead consulting local fishers to protect the food fishery without new costs. Rowe responded that his bill imposed no fees and pointed to what he called the government’s inaction on seals; Klassen repeated that the bill would have added fees and rules for food fishers and noted the government’s survey of over 9,500 people did not support it.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

4 statements

Jonathan Rowe

Conservative

Linked statement

“I want the government to let people in Newfoundland and Labrador fish seven days a week. Many families fish to feed themselves and lower their grocery bills, but bad weather makes it hard to go out on the only three days currently allowed. The Liberals voted against my bill because they claimed it would add new fees and fish tags, which is not true.”
Official Hansard

Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today and to represent the members of Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I asked a question in the House about affordability. It seems that I come into the House and ask a lot of questions about affordability, oil and gas, and a lot of other issues, and the Minister for Fisheries seems to be the one to answer, so I was surprised she is not answering the questions I have tonight. I guess I will pose them to the parliamentary secretary. My question was about affordability. I was very disappointed that the Liberal government, including the four Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, turned down my private member’s bill to allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week. It was very surprising and disappointing, because the proposed policy was not blue or red, Conservative or Liberal, but a policy for Newfoundland and Labrador. The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our recreational food fishery is not just for recreation. We do not all go out just for the sport of it, although many do. It actually feeds a lot of our families. It feeds a lot of our struggling seniors and a lot of our young people. People with big families go out to participate in it. Right now, a lot of the time, because of safety issues due to wind, people with small boats such as 17-foot ones struggle to go out. It is hard to find nice days to go out to get fish when the wind is blowing, because our season is open only three days a week: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It is very challenging to find good weather to get out to get the fish. What is frustrating to Newfoundlanders is that people in other parts of Atlantic Canada are allowed to fish cod seven days a week. We have the same limit of five fish a day, but they are allowed to get fish seven days a week. What Newfoundlanders want is fairness. In achieving that fairness, we would actually to be able to achieve affordability for the Newfoundland and Labrador folks who want to lower their grocery bills. What is interesting is that the Liberals voted against my bill because they said it would introduce new fees. I do not understand why they said the monitoring system would require tags, so I want to read part of my bill into the record. It states: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans 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. The minister had the choice to make a monitoring system, and she could have made it the way she wanted. The bill did not say “tags”. It never implied tags. What I had in mind, if the Liberals had listened to my speeches or brought this to committee, was to have it be very similar to a moose hunting licence. A person would fill out an application, voluntarily showing where and when they caught the fish. The Liberals also said that the new bill would impose new fees. I just want to read this: In developing the monitoring system, the Minister must (a) take into consideration existing models and best practices across Canada; (b) examine the possibility of covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act; It would not introduce new fees but actually use the fees and penalties under the Fisheries Act that are currently there. It was very frustrating to hear these excuses. I am not sure why the Liberals were telling constituents and other people in Newfoundland and Labrador this. I do not know if it was because they were intentionally trying to deceive or if they just used AI in an attempt to find some excuses to convince the public that the bill was a bad one. I wonder why we cannot at least work together. Why did the bill not get sent to committee? Why could we not work together on the bill with respect to affordability? My final question is this: This summer, will the government open up the fisheries seven days a week so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have fish in their freezer?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Ernie Klassen

Liberal
“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.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 80 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Jonathan Rowe

Conservative
“My bill does not create new fees for fishing. Recreational fishers take very few fish compared to commercial fishing and seals. The government is ignoring the seal problem and hurting local fishers instead of talking to them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer, because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents. It almost seems like the member completely ignored what I just said about my bill not introducing new fees. It is right here. It says the minister must “examine the possibility”. It was even in the minister’s hands. I put that in there. It is so frustrating. We talk about consultation. Poor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole fishery. There are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery. More fish are dying due to natural causes. One seal eats three tonnes. Way more fish are being eaten by seals, and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle. It is so frustrating. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary even went to Newfoundland and asked someone involved in the recreational food fishery on a wharf outside of St. John’s what they wanted to do.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

Ernie Klassen

Liberal
“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.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 109

All 48 items ·
  1. Government Orders Government Orders 122 statements
  2. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 7 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Small Business 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions International Trade 10 statements
  14. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Mental Health and Addictions 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Pharmacare 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Business of the House 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders 64 statements
  23. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  24. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  26. Oral Questions Finance 3 statements
  27. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  28. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  29. Private Members' Business National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act 12 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  31. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  32. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements