Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

[Richard Goodyear]

It's for the period in question, two years, yes.

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

The budget commitment from the 2022 budget was for five years. Why are you committing only to two?

[Richard Goodyear]

We are still working through that in terms of.... The amount will be in the public accounts. The total amount will be in the public accounts, but going forward in terms of what that looks like, if there is additional sea lamprey control and so on, then of course that's subject to change. However, for the commitment that was made to GLFC, the amount will be in the public accounts.

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

Mr. Lambe, just a few minutes ago, referenced November 2021. I think he meant November 2022.

Quite frankly, your statement to the commission of withholding $15 million.... You have basically stated that was a mistake. You've rescinded that. Were both of those decisions done in consultation with the commission?

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, all the work I have done since arriving as a CFO inside the department has been done in consultation with my GLFC colleagues.

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

So your November 29 directive to the commission on the funding—withholding $15 million of the allocated $44.9 million the day before the budgets were to be set—was done with the prior knowledge and the full knowledge of the commission. Is that what you're stating, or am I misunderstanding?

[Richard Goodyear]

The member's question was whether I had consulted.

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

Right.

[Richard Goodyear]

On that note, no, I had not. It was simply a clarification of the Treasury Board submission. Going forward from that point on, everything was done in collaboration and coordination with the GLFC.

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

So we are to understand that the codification process will—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

We'll move on now to Mr. Badawey for five minutes or less, please.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of points. I think we have a huge opportunity here, especially with the creation of the Canada water agency.

There is no doubt that all is relevant when it comes to, in this case, the Great Lakes and other efforts, whether those be economic, environmental or social, but I guess the point I want to make is this. The appropriation made in that particular budget was for $45 million for five years. The expectation is that the appropriation times five—not two—would be flowed through to the GLFC, period. I'm not sure where the two to five years come in. You're working through it, and I get that, but ultimately the expectation is that the full appropriation of the $45 million will be flowed through from Treasury right to the GLFC.

The third point goes to Mr. O'Dea's point about the DFO's involvement. This is where I get a bit concerned or confused. I understand why you, DFO, want to satisfy yourself that you are involved on this file with respect to the Great Lakes. The point is that you are; you're the contractor. I guess it begs the question of why there is such an interest in having the money flow through DFO versus just through GAC. That's the confusion. I understand your interest when it comes to fisheries, because although you don't have it as part of your mandate—it's provincial—for the most part it's delegated to the GLFC when it comes to that invasive species or any invasive species, including sea lamprey.

My question is.... I will repeat myself, and I apologize for that. You have an interest in being a part of that—and you are, as the contractor—so why do you have an interest in having the flow-through from Treasury through DFO to GLFC, which then contracts back to you the practical part, as you put it, and then you invoice the GLFC for that contracting service and they pay you. From the $45 million that's appropriated to the GLFC over the course of time, they pay you for that service.

What is the interest there versus having it go from GAC to the GLFC? They would still contract you; they would still pay you, but the money would go through GAC versus through DFO. I don't understand the interest there.

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I can just clarify with respect to the way the funding flows.

The funding for the delivery of sea lamprey control does not go to the GLFC and then get billed back to DFO—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, that's my point. That's the whole crux of the problem here, as you are arbitrarily taking that money before.... What contractor do you know who sets their own rates and takes money before...? Who even gets the money?

That's the point of this. What interest, what right do you have? Again, the crux of the problem is that, instead of having it go to GAC and back to the GLFC and then to you, it's going to DFO, which, again, as Mr. Lambe mentioned, creates a conflict of interest.

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, I still feel there's a requirement for clarification.

The amount of funding that is held by DFO to provide sea lamprey control is subject to negotiation with GLFC. It's not simply arbitrary. There is no arbitrary component to the way that funding is decided—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Hold on. This is the mistake here. I'm sorry, but I have only so much time.

This is the mistake. The appropriation from the budget is very clear. It's to go to the GLFC for the sea lamprey program, period. It doesn't say to go to DFO and then you're going to negotiate. As I said earlier, there is no negotiation. There is no right for negotiation. This is a treaty organization that since 1950 has had its own rights. As Mr. McClinchey rightly noted, those rights include having the autonomy to provide these programs delegated to you.

What if, in fact, they didn't delegate that contracting to you? What if, in fact, they delegated it to somebody else? Would you still have the right to hold that money back? No. That's the crux of this problem.

What I'm trying to do here is put that aside so we can come to a resolution. I will take the final seconds I have to establish a take-away. That take-away is simple. It's to hopefully come to this resolution on an MOA to start the ball rolling and then re-establish that positive relationship. Then, of course, the expectation of all of us is to possibly see the transfer from DFO to GAC. But at least let's get an MOA we can agree with so that, as Mr. Baker said, we can get people back to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

We'll go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with Mr. O'Dea, if I could.

Mr. O'Dea, I believe you acknowledged earlier that this issue has been taken to the highest level. You also said that, to your knowledge, it's been taken up to the Prime Minister's Office level. Is that correct?

[Niall O'Dea]

That's correct.

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

Could you provide at what date that was taken to the PMO, approximately?

[Niall O'Dea]

I'm sorry. That wouldn't have been done by our department. I don't have that information myself.

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

Could you provide that to us eventually, in writing?

[Niall O'Dea]

We can take that back, indeed.

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

Okay. Thank you.

If it's been taken all the way up to the PMO, where is the roadblock on this? Earlier, you mentioned that the decision rests outside your department's purview. I believe that's what you implied, that it's beyond the department's purview. Is that correct?

[Niall O'Dea]

That's correct.