Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Now my friend Mr. Cormier is angry with me.
I would like to set the record straight. We voted in favour of the appropriations. We didn't vote for the budget, because the budget tabled by the government was riddled with items that encroached on provincial and Quebec jurisdictions. That's why we aren't voting for the budget. As my leader said, it's easy to throw a few goodies into the proposals to try to get us to take the bait. However, it will take more than this given how clever we are in the Bloc Québécois.
By the way, I see that we had a ripple effect that prompted you to respond. You said that you wanted to take a closer look at bycatch to ensure that fish aren't put back in the water. You want us to work with fishers on the ground and take their measurements. This is great news. We've been lobbying the government on this issue for months, if not years. We've long known that it was the right thing to do. We're glad that you heard us.
That said, I'll be continuing along the same lines, or fishing lines, if you'll pardon the pun.
New scientific studies, which I must emphasize were carried out independently, propose a number of excellent solutions for involving people on the ground in decision‑making at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We're even hearing about the need to eliminate partisanship and set up an organization. This organization would include department officials along with independent players, such as scientists, and it would remain above politics. This idea was brought up to us at the forum, and it was quite serious.
If you want to make greater use of the expertise of people on the ground and pursue your strong desire to save the fisheries for our children and grandchildren, as you put it, wouldn't you want to focus on an environmental mediation approach? Would you welcome the creation of a slightly more independent agency that—without necessarily playing a leading role—could certainly affect political decisions and make them less partisan?
