Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

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

My question is about your opinion on the legal opinion provided to you by the commission, the Fasken opinion. Do you agree with the opinion?

[Niall O'Dea]

The interests of the GLFC are aligned with the interests of the Government of Canada. It is a binational commission designed to deliver on the reduction of sea lampreys within the Great Lakes.

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

That's correct.

The opinion states that the DFO commissioners are in a structural conflict of interest. Do you agree?

[Niall O'Dea]

We do not agree.

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

You do not agree.

Given the importance of this issue, may I ask why the deputy minister isn't here?

[Niall O'Dea]

The deputies have been engaged at the senior-most levels on this question, working actively with the commission and its secretariat to resolve the challenges associated with the management of this commission.

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

The breakdown over this past year, which was many years in the making, comes about because of the frustration of our American partners. The question they're asking, one of the preconditions for coming back to the table, deals with who speaks for Canada. That's what that legal opinion refers to.

You said that you do not agree with it. Can you table a legal opinion to this committee that counters that?

[Niall O'Dea]

Canada is the contracting party to the commission, and DFO represents the contracting party.

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

So you are disputing the legal opinion that comes to the structural conflict of interest that the commissioners are in when the DFO appoints them.

[Niall O'Dea]

That's correct, because, as the contracting party, Canada identifies its commissioners, and those commissioners are appointed by Canada, so there is inherently no conflict within the structure—

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

Can you table a legal opinion that counters the Fasken report to this committee?

[Niall O'Dea]

We can look into that.

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

Thank you.

Who speaks for Canada at the commission?

[Niall O'Dea]

Canada is represented by DFO as the contracting party. Canada appoints commissioners who are Canadian to the commission to work in co-operation with U.S. partners. Those, as you know, are two identified by the Government of Ontario and two identified by the Government of Canada.

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

Are you stating that the commissioners, the Canadian commissioners, speak for Canada or that DFO speaks for Canada?

[Niall O'Dea]

The commissioners are appointed by Canada to serve the interests of the binational commission.

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

Who speaks for Canada?

That's what the Americans are asking as a precondition to come back to the table: Who speaks for Canada?

[Niall O'Dea]

Canada as contracting party is represented by DFO.

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

So the DFO speaks for the commission.

[Niall O'Dea]

In State Department-to-Government of Canada dealings, that is a long-standing relationship between DFO and State Department counterparts.

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

This is at the heart of the dispute. Minister Murray has characterized the relationship of the department with the commissioners as being a parent-child relationship. That's at the heart of the crux.

Do you agree with the statement that the DFO is in a parent-child relationship with the commissioners?

[Niall O'Dea]

I do not recall the minister making that statement. No, it would not be a parent-child relationship. It's a commission like any other commission of the Government of Canada, a number of which DFO supports and many of which are supported by other departments, including Global Affairs Canada.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Epp. You're dead on time. Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Mr. Badawey for six minutes or less, please.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.

For the members, as you are well aware, I'm not a member of this committee, but I am obviously a Great Lakes advocate, not only within our caucus but within all of Parliament, including for all the parties that we work with on this issue and many other issues relative to the Great Lakes.

My riding is a Great Lakes hub. It straddles two lakes and relies on those lakes for economic development, for transportation and for tourism. From the Welland Canal to the restaurants and our main streets, the families in my riding rely on this $6-trillion Great Lakes economy for part of their livelihood. I know that the GLFC is central to maintaining these advantages, which is why I'm so bothered by what I'm hearing.

I have been bothered by it for the past two years, if not three, as we've been trying to rectify this situation. We've heard not just from the witnesses but from members of Congress, members of the commission, members of the public and members of Parliament, as well as documents that I've received that the commission has submitted, including the ones we have here, over 60 pages that chronicle, quite frankly, a bothersome chain of events that tracks back to a broken interface.

I want to thank the members of the committee for taking up this study. This is not a partisan issue. It is in fact a Canadian issue. These problems have developed and existed under several governments. Let's be clear on that: not just under this government, but several governments going back decades. I hope this is the last government to deal with this issue once and for all, and that together, this being a non-partisan issue, we can all come to the table, whether it be from the public, the governing side or the administering side.

We need to fix this, and we need to fix it now. It's too important. It can't be ignored any longer. It's too important because of the economic, ecological and social implications of the Great Lakes for thousands of communities like mine in Niagara. It's too important because ignoring this problem for so long has been a matter of negligence, quite frankly, in the Canada-U.S. relationship.

I'm going to start off with a very simple question. Mr. O'Dea or Mr. Goodyear, you can jump in and answer it as you choose.

I gather from the testimony I've heard today, and from a lot of the discussions we've been having throughout the past few years, that the commissioners and DFO had good negotiations over the budget and the creation of the MOA. Given that the treaty was approved by Congress and Parliament, I'm concerned about the fact that you—or anyone, for that matter—believe you have the right to negotiate how the treaty is implemented.

What gives the GLFC—or the DFO, for that matter—the right to negotiate what in fact Parliament and Congress have established under a treaty organization? Speaking of budgets, Parliament has directed through the appropriations of the budget, accordingly through Treasury, a flow-through to the DFO and to the GLFC. Of course, it being the contractor, the invoice is received by the GLFC and paid for by the GLFC for the contracts submitted by the DFO.