Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to see the witnesses here.

I also want to say that it's great to have Vance Badawey here. One of the first conversations I had as parliamentary secretary was on the Great Lakes, and he provided me a great deal of information and background and knowledge. Of course, I've had conversations with members opposite, as well, on this very topic.

My questions will be for DFO.

What other fishery commissions and binational organizations does DFO manage?

[Niall O'Dea]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

The department is mandated to lead Canada's participation and engagement in a number of international and bilateral fishery bodies, including seven regional fisheries management organizations such as NAFO, NASCO, ICCAT, and IATTC, two of which we're hosting the international meetings for this year, and several bilateral fisheries commissions directly with the United States, including the Pacific albacore tuna treaty, the Pacific hake treaty, the Pacific Salmon Commission, and the Georges Bank transboundary fish stocks.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay. Thanks for that.

In discussions so far today and in discussions I've had in a variety of places here in Ottawa, there's a reference that DFO unilaterally withholds funds from the GLFC. My understanding is that the funding being referred to is going directly to the DFO's sea lamprey control program to deliver sea lamprey programs on behalf of the GLFC.

It's also clear that this process has led to friction, to say the least. I think that would be safe to say. With that in mind, my understanding is that DFO and GLFC are discussing ways to codify predictable and stable mechanisms for the flow of funds.

We've had a history of challenges. I want you to speak to the last couple of months in terms of the developments that have taken place, because there is the “what was” and “what may be”, and then there are those in this room who have the right to say what should be. I want you to talk a little about what is right now, in terms of the efforts that are being made to strengthen the relationship and to create predictability, fluidity and adaptability in terms of the relationship we have with the commission, which is so important, not just to the Great Lakes and to Ontario but also to both countries.

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

Certainly, at the senior official level, we have spent considerable time with the GLFC team to codify, as you pointed out, and future-proof—to steal one of my colleague's comments—the relationship, so that the tenets of the convention are respected and the irritants that have arisen over the last number of years are addressed, in terms of our relationship with the GLFC on how we provide funding and when we provide funding, so that the great work of the commission can carry on and they have the stable and predictable funding to allow for planning and so on, so they can continue to do that work with their American counterparts.

We have codified the sea lamprey control component in terms of an MOA. We're in the process of codifying the remainder of the relationship to provide that future-proofing. We have a means to address areas of conflict in the future without having to bring together a group like this to discuss it. We can deal with it at our level.

By and large, the conversations have been very successful. We expect that the second part of the codification of the relationship will be finalized within the next couple of weeks.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's fantastic.

I'm wondering if the folks from the Great Lakes commission would like to make a comment on my question, to elaborate or differ on it in any way.

[Robert Lambe]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, I would agree with Mr. Goodyear that a lot of effort has gone into the codification over the past couple of months. We have made good progress.

“Future-proofing” is an interesting word to use. We got to this point because of a deep-seated culture that exists within the department, which we think is largely due to.... I think the common word is “misunderstanding”. There's a misunderstanding of the department's role in terms of it being portfolio manager. There's a really deep misunderstanding of the commission's full mandate. The commission is not just about managing a binational sea lamprey program. There are many other aspects to the commission's mandate, as identified within the convention.

There's a really deep misunderstanding of the context within which DFO delivers the sea lamprey control program. It's done on behalf of the commission rather than as an extension of the department's domestic program under the authority of the Fisheries Act. We heard a little bit about that in one of the responses.

We're encouraged by the recent discussions, but the culture is very deep-seated. While we're encouraged by the current leadership's engagement, it takes a long time to change a culture, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I have to cut you off there, Mr. Lambe. We've gone a little bit over on Mr. Kelloway's time.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some of you will certainly say that I'm straying from today's topic. I think that the reason we're all here today is that Fisheries and Oceans Canada finds it difficult to anchor—to use a nautical term— its work to the various tools, organizations and commissions, whatever they may be. From the various studies undertaken by the committee, it seems that sometimes the stakeholders don't understand one another. The committee has often heard that the department doesn't consider what's happening on the ground, where the stakeholders feel ignored, and that the department isn't sufficiently decentralized.

The minister's mandate letter is, however, abundantly clear, since it asks the minister to take into account local perspectives, buy local initiatives, resource preservation, and better access by Canadians and Quebeckers to their own resources.

Some people will say that I'm straying, but I'm not that off topic. I think we have a department that works only with boards. However, I'm meeting people on the ground who are concerned because the situation is changing faster than the department can react, and the result is that we'll be left high and dry—to make another pun—and miss the target: the lamprey will spread and we'll still be arguing.

A solution needs to be found in rather short order, because this situation is urgent: when there's an invasive species involved, the invasion always happens faster than you think. What to do in the short term? It was said that some things have been re-established and mechanisms have been implemented to prevent a repeat of those tensions. In the short term, what can be done rapidly to prevent the lamprey from spreading everywhere?

[Gregory McClinchey]

Mr. Chair, if I might weigh in on that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Could I ask you to supply an answer in writing? The two and a half minutes have expired, unfortunately.

We will move on to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes or less.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to clarify. Mr. Baker, you said in your opening statement that the change in governance from DFO to Global Affairs would “mirror the successful and proven U.S. structure.” Can you expand a little bit on that, please?

[Ethan Baker]

Sure. I'm happy to do so. Of course, I'll defer to Mr. Lambe or Mr. McClinchey if I need some help.

Our funds are filtered through the United States Department of State, which has no interest in actually doing any of the programming itself. It's really that simple for us. Because DFO, in Canada, actually does the work with the lamprey itself, there is an interest in the money that flows to its office. The Department of State is completely neutral, much like GAC. That's where we see the comparisons and why it's such a successful and proven model.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you. Perhaps I can loop back if needed.

I want to ask the same question of Mr. O'Dea—his thoughts on the success of the program we're seeing in the U.S., how what we currently have set up differs, and why we aren't moving in that direction.

[Niall O'Dea]

As I mentioned previously, the machinery-of-government decisions rest beyond the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I would say that since 1954, the existing structure of relationships, despite recent tensions, has allowed for very strong collaboration on a binational basis. DFO has the program mandate, as does its counterpart agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the U.S. In this context, though, as contracting parties, in our role representing Canada in its work with the commission, we do that same activity, as I mentioned, in a number of other binational commissions to great effect. We have direct relationships with the U.S. State Department in managing that, and it has worked effectively elsewhere.

We recognize that there is a tension in the relationship here, which is why we're working through that process of clarification. It is quite particular to this particular commission, despite being quite similar in structure to many other commissions in which we work.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I forgot to put my timer on. How much time do I have? It's probably all gone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have eight seconds right now.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry about that.

We'll now go on to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's not very often that this committee deals with an international issue. It's concerning to me that Canada is being viewed, on the international stage, as not upholding our end of the deal.

As members of this committee and successive fisheries ministers in Canada know, I've been a strong advocate for the federal government taking serious action on aquatic invasive species. It's also important to note that invasive species have an impact on every system in the Great Lakes and cost more than $200 million annually in lost revenue and prevention strategies.

Mr. Baker, if our American partners are managing invasive carp and we are not, what impacts does Canada's non-management of invasive carp render on the Great Lakes fisheries?

[Ethan Baker]

I'm going to defer to either Mr. Lambe or Mr. McClinchey for a response, if that's okay.

[Robert Lambe]

I think that's a question for DFO—what's happening in terms of invasive carp management in Canada. It's not our function.

I would say there are missed opportunities, in terms of what's happening now, because of the distractions from this problem we're talking about. In the U.S., for example, even though it's outside of the convention, we have worked collaboratively, at the request of Congress, on invasive carp in areas such as Lake Champlain and Lake Memphrémagog. I think there are opportunities for us to collaborate more in Canada, not just on invasive species but also in the area around habitat, which, as our colleagues at DFO said earlier, is a mandate area.

I think we're missing opportunities to collaborate because we're distracted by this.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Baker.

Mr. Baker, what will happen to the Great Lakes fisheries if the commission folds because of the current breakdown in the situation?

[Ethan Baker]

I think that would be catastrophic, obviously.

I can't speak to the day-to-day, but certainly the commission's mandate for the past 70 years has been properly handled and it has done very well in bringing down the sea lamprey threat. Therefore, the risk of not having a program in place to do that.... We know how quickly those invasive species can repopulate, take over and decimate our fisheries once again. We can't let that happen.

Our goal, obviously, is to come together to make sure that doesn't happen. We just need to find the proper way to do it.

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

Thank you.

I believe it was Mr. O'Dea who stated they are meeting the obligations of the treaty.

Mr. McClinchey, Mr. Lambe or Mr. Baker, would you agree with that statement?

[Robert Lambe]

The quick answer is no.