Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I think what I was planning to say is still relevant.

When I was first elected in 2021 and appointed fisheries critic, in my first meeting with the minister I raised this issue. In her first appearance before this committee I raised it. In letters to her after that meeting I raised this issue with her, in addition to everything Mr. Epp has been doing.

In response to that, the minister said in committee that she believed the government should pay its bills. The evidence is pretty striking that it has not been, given what the treaty obligation is.

In last year's budget, in 2022, there was bragging about the allocation of solid funding that would finally be committed to the commission. It was to the extent that the minister, in June, went to Lake Erie and made a big to-do out of the fact that they were finally going to get all the money the treaty obliges the government to give. Then they didn't get it.

How do we know that? Before this committee, not too long ago, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission said they didn't get it. In a meeting around that at the same time, the officials said they did get it. If we do that again, we're going to get the same result since we'll have them separately. It's “he said, she said”, as Mr. Arnold said. All we keep getting is the runaround from the officials.

Put the two in the room together, and let's sort this out. I support it being reduced to two meetings, because we have an important study coming up on the corporatization of the fishery. We need to get on with that and finish this study.

I suggest that if we have two meetings, we have a witness—in addition to Global Affairs—from the American side of the commission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Prior to Mr. Arnold proposing his subamendment, I was going to do the same, as a very obvious compromise between the two offerings. I'm happy to support that proposal on behalf of Lisa Marie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I want to pick up on a comment Mr. Hardie expressed on the disagreement in how the money is calculated and Canada meeting its share. This is no longer a money issue; this is strictly a governance issue. I OPQ'd how the money flowed. I have 11 pages of spreadsheets. This should operate—it's been an international treaty since 1954—to address something that could not be addressed by eight states, a province and all the territories.

The International Joint Commission works. Why does it work? In the main estimates, for Global Affairs there's one line—the transfer. By all accounts, DFO does a remarkable job on the work as the contractee of the commission. The problem is on the governance side. That's what we need to get to the bottom of. That's where all the calls, almost unanimously, including from a good chair of your own caucus, if I may be so bold...is to fix the problem with governance. We don't have to get into the numbers. It's not a numbers issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

While I agree with everything being said here today, as a member of the committee, I want some assurance. I'm not interested in going through an hour or two of “he said, she said” finger pointing. Unlike Mr. Epp and some of the others, and Mr. Badawey from our side, I don't know the issue well.

How do we blend the two very competing interests into one meeting? An hour or two of finger pointing will be a waste of time as well—not to mention having another meeting. I'm willing to listen to how you see the meeting taking place, if they're both going to be sitting at the end of this table glaring at one another.

I'm lost. I'm not sure we could spend a lot of time on this.

Chair, you're a great chair, but....

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Why would they be glaring at each other and not telling the truth?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

That is actually the exact—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Order. Wait until you're recognized, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's fine. I'm looking for answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Anecdotally, my suspicions align with yours, Mr. Epp, but we need to know for sure. An opportunity to hear both sides, without a big bun toss in the middle of the room, would be a useful way for us to determine for ourselves what is and isn't. Then what comes out of it should be a durable resolution, rather than just assigning blame or responsibility.

Again, having two meetings is perfect—maybe an hour with our officials and an hour with the Great Lakes group. Then, in the second session, we'd bring our people back in and say, “What are you going to do to fix this?”. Perhaps we can determine for ourselves whether something needs to be fixed.

I share your suspicions that something needs to be fixed, but I'd like to give everybody a good and adequate hearing. This, to me, means we hear from them separately, then bring our people back in and bring up the gaps where there's either a difference in understanding or simply a management issue, as you propose. Then we'd ask them what they are going to do to fix this.

That's where we're at and that's the substance of the amendment we are offering. We accept Mr. Arnold's proposal for two meetings. That's friendly, so it comes down, then, to a matter of whether it is concurrent or we hear them separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I may be able to save us some time so that we can get back to our witnesses.

If I were to withdraw my subamendment and Mr. Hardie withdrew his amendment, we'd simply change the original motion to having two meetings. We can't guarantee they're going to agree to appear at the same time, but it's something we should ask for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

It is critical that they both be in the same room, because right now it flows from the Treasury Board through DFO to the commission and back to DFO. If that relationship is evidenced in front of us as not working.... If it works, that is a big step. If it is not working, isn't that what we need to know as well? There are legal opinions that point out the structural conflict of interest DFO commissioners are in when they serve on the commission, so there is all of that.

If that relationship is evident to our eyes—that they can't work in front of a parliamentary committee—how are they supposed to work well in the backrooms?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The commission's position, their suspicions and your suspicions are already pretty well established. I don't know whether any further hearings about that will mean that much, other than for us to ask the commission a question about the position DFO is taking in all of this.

Having two meetings is okay. Concurrently...no, we don't think that's a good idea.

Maybe we can just call the question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm going to Mr. Arnold first.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have a question for Mr. Hardie.

When you referred to calling our people back in to clarify what was said, who are you referring to as “our people”?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

“Our people” would be the DFO—the people who should be responsible for delivering the funding.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I disagree with that. I believe it needs to be DFO officials appearing first—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Oh, yes. We'll make them first, then the commission and then DFO comes back.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You're proposing having the back-and-forth tennis match again, which we've already experienced meeting after meeting and year after year. That's why we're saying we should bring them into the same room at the same time. It's to save this committee's time by avoiding having the independent, back-and-forth tennis match taking place.