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.