Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're pleased to be here today on behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Part of the commission's treaty mandate is to make recommendations to government and, surely, there's no more important starting point for us than participating here today. Previous committees have supported our work in their pre-budget consultations, and we ask this committee to recognize the Great Lakes as the economic engines that they are.
My name is Greg McClinchey and before joining the commission I spent 25 years on Parliament Hill. I'm thrilled to again be on this side of the virtual table offering comments on the next budget.
With me is Robert Lambe, the commission's former chair and current executive secretary. Prior to joining the commission, Bob had a 35-year career in the public service where he held several executive positions, including six years as DFO's central and Arctic RDG. Together, we offer the commission's budget and ask for your support.
The Great Lakes hold 21% of the world's fresh water. The basin supports 3,500 species of plants and animals and more than 40 million people. The Great Lakes move $19.8 billion in goods each year and support 238,000 jobs and $45 billion in economic activity. Put another way, as we consider a post-COVID economic recovery plan, the Great Lakes seem a good place to start.
Despite this, Canada and the U.S. have a spotty history of cross-border co-operation and, unfortunately, Canada has not always been the leader we could be. Historically, several treaties collapsed as Canada and the U.S. disagreed on Great Lakes policy. Despite this, in 1954, the Great Lakes were in real crisis and desperate governments ratified the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. This created the commission and assigned us three main duties: to help governments work together as fractured regulations had caused a race to the bottom with respect to fish quotas; to formulate and drive a science program upon which to base fishery management decisions; and to formulate and deliver a control program for sea lamprey, a destructive and non-native predator.
The Great Lakes of the early 1900s were unlike what we see today. Jurisdictional conflicts, overfishing and sea lamprey incursions had rendered cottages unusable as beaches were littered with rotting fish carcasses. The freshwater fleets faced empty nets, and the local economies in places like Midland and Port Credit wobbled.
The commission built scientific understanding and new partnerships, and reduced sea lamprey populations by 90%, allowing the $8 billion fishery to rebound. However, this would have been impossible without binational co-operation; you see, fish don't carry passports and lamprey thrive in jurisdictional squabbles.
Partnership is why our treaty has succeeded and it is why there is an agreed upon funding formula whereby for sea lamprey control, the U.S. should pay 69% and Canada 31%. For sea lamprey and cross-border coordination, the split is 50/50. The U.S. has respected this, while Canada has not. Canada contributes $10.6 million annually, which falls $8.84 million short of the required $19.44 million. This means that Canada is not contributing to the commission's science and cross-border mandates, and Canada is underfunding sea lamprey control at home.
While this imperils our work, the greatest damage comes as a credibility gap that can only be fixed if Canada fulfills its promise.
In the next budget, we ask Canada to contribute $19.44 million to the commission. This would fulfill a binational promise and help improve the fishery. As indicated in our brief, an annual Canadian allocation of $19.44 million would mean $14.71 million for sea lamprey control, $3.57 million for science and research, and $1.16 million for fishery management and coordination. This would allow the commission to resolve a long-standing Canadian government interface issue and allow the U.S. to stop paying Canada's bill.
Members of Congress would welcome this as they've been lobbying successive Canadian governments to resolve the matter. The U.S. would again see Canada as a Great Lakes partner, and the commission could return its focus to its treaty mandate of keeping the Great Lakes healthy.
Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying that the Great Lakes are well worth this investment. Our two nations have a proven and long-standing mechanism in place to manage this $8 billion binational resource. We ask for the committee's support of the commission's recommendation, and we thank all members for your time.