My goodness, there's a lot of action today, Mr. Chair. We don't usually see that.
Since my colleagues are using their speaking time to make statements, I'm going to take this opportunity to inform the witnesses that Quebec has been giving considerable thought to various decisions made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In recent years, we've had to make some important decisions. One day, we'll have a meetup with independence, but in the meantime, we absolutely must find a way to correct the course, to correct the effects of the decisions made by this government and its predecessor. We have to do it for Quebec's fishers.
Shrimpers didn't fish this summer. There's also a moratorium on mackerel, which the U.S. is still happily fishing. There are also issues related to climate change, to which we are adapting poorly, because we have no power to implement measures commensurate with what we see on the ground. Everything is managed by the federal government, which obviously doesn't listen to the people on the ground. Quebec is experiencing this problem, and so are other provinces.
There is therefore a broad fundamental question to be asked in the context of our study, which concerns Newfoundland and Labrador more than Quebec. That said, we're still concerned about the cod biomass, even though we're told that these are cod with different DNA and that there's no impact on the other type of cod. Some scientists are telling us the opposite. It's all a bit obscure.
In this context, I dare to hope that our study will once again highlight the fact that there are profound gaps in communication and understanding of the field between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the various scientific organizations, independent organizations and experienced fishers, whose reading of the situation is neglected, according to many. We'd all do well to put more emphasis on what we're told by fishers and people who work in the marine sciences, who collect clear data on a daily basis.