Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 73 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I now call this meeting to order.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

Before we proceed, I would like to remind everyone to address all comments through the chair.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Before we begin witness testimony, we have one quick committee business item to get out of the way. Two supplementary study budgets were distributed to members earlier this week.

Does the committee agree to adopt a supplementary budget in the amount of $10,000 for the study of the ecosystem impacts and management of pinniped populations?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you. That's done.

Does the committee agree to adopt a supplementary budget in the amount of $26,000 for the study of foreign ownership and corporate concentration?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll adopt those two budgets.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Monday, May 1, 2023, the committee is beginning its study of the allocation of resources to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses.

Appearing as an individual, we have Debbie Dingell, member of Congress, House of Representatives of the United States, by video conference. I understand that Ms. Dingell has a prior commitment. She will give a statement to the committee and then she will be exiting, as far as I know.

Representing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Niall O'Dea, senior assistant deputy minister, strategic policy, and Richard Goodyear, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer.

Representing the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, we have Ethan Baker, commissioner and vice-chair, by video conference; Robert Lambe, executive secretary; and Gregory McClinchey, director of policy and legislative affairs.

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to appear. You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

We will start with Congresswoman Dingell for five minutes or less, please.

[Debbie Dingell, Member of Congress, House of Representatives of the United States, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chairman McDonald, Vice-Chairs Arnold and Desbiens and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I wish I could be there in person, but I will say that we're sharing your Canadian air here in the United States.

The Great Lakes are a true natural treasure and a critical binational resource that Canada and the United States must continue to prioritize and protect for future generations.

As someone from Michigan and one of the co-chairs of the congressional Great Lakes task force, I will say that the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes have been a top priority for me from the moment I came to Congress. I am pleased that a similar task force now also exists in Canada.

For those who may not know me, I grew up in St. Clair, Michigan, which sits directly across the St. Clair River from southern Ontario. I spent many summers in my inner tube going down that river. By the way, in those days, we didn't know what customs or immigration was. I was on Stag Island, which is in Canada, more than in my own country in the summer.

Those of us who grew up in a border town know innately the special bond that exists between our two nations. My district now is north of Canada, and I, too, look at Canada very frequently. We celebrate the only North American international wildlife refuge as well. The Great Lakes unite us as a region. They are both a binational and a bipartisan priority for all of us.

Since its establishment, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in my district, has been tasked with managing and protecting this vital fishery. It has proved to be a remarkable success. Thanks to binational co-operation, our shared fishery is thriving and now accounts for more than $8 billion in economic activity each year.

With all that said, I am deeply concerned about the state of the commission today. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has not met in more than a year and has not had a regular program since 2021.

Part of the problem was the considerable funding gap, which I am pleased to note the Government of Canada addressed in its 2022 budget. However, the budget did not remedy the problem. Rather, it is our understanding that structural issues in Canada—which are the subject of today's hearing—have crippled the commission's ability to do its job.

The commission's U.S. section has informed me that the failure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to deliver the funds to the commission in a timely manner led to the cancellation of the commission's budget meeting last fall, the first time in the organization's history that this binational commission was unable to meet.

Moreover, when the funds were announced, the commissioners were informed that the department would retain millions of dollars. Essentially, the department—not the commissioners—determined the program. The 1954 treaty is clear that the commissioners—who are appointed at the highest level—determine the program.

Since 2018, the commission, members of the public and scores of members of Parliament have supported a proposal to move the commission's file from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Global Affairs Canada. This week, I also led a letter, with many of my bipartisan colleagues on the congressional Great Lakes task force, to Prime Minister Trudeau to express our serious concerns and to add our support to this proposal. This would mirror the governance structure in the United States.

Let me be clear: I respect Canada's sovereignty and would never do anything to harm this close relationship we all have. I'm speaking for myself and not on behalf of the U.S. government. But we need a long-term solution. We need to get the commissioners meeting again.

There is an old saying, “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” Our two nations, I sincerely believe, will always choose to go together. That includes working together to protect our shared Great Lakes fishery.

Again, thank you for inviting me to testify—that's the Canadian air we're experiencing; I'm sorry, but my asthma has been acting up—and for holding this hearing. I'm glad to share it with you, because [Inaudible—Editor] experiences, and it is in our shared collective interest that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is able to successfully carry out its binational mission.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for appearing and sharing that information with the committee.

We'll move on now to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for five minutes or less.

[Niall O'Dea, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'll start by saying that our thoughts go to both Canadians and Americans affected by the extreme wildfires in several regions across the country, including, particularly, those directly affected in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The safety and well-being of Canadians and our employees in these regions are priorities. As the situation continues to develop, we urge everyone to follow the guidance of officials.

My name is Niall O’Dea, and I am the senior assistant deputy minister for strategic policy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. My colleague Richard Goodyear, chief financial officer, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada in regard to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

I'll begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

The Great Lakes are a valuable resource shared by Canada and the United States. More than 11 million Canadians depend on the Great Lakes for food, drinking water, employment and recreation. However, the Great Lakes fisheries are under constant threat from habitat loss, pollution, and invasive species including sea lampreys.

For over 60 years, Canada, in close partnership with the United States, has supported the work of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. This includes work to combat the invasive sea lamprey, which presents an ongoing risk to the fisheries; investment in science; and binational efforts for sound fishery management, in order to maintain an abundant fishery for generations to come. In accordance with Canada’s obligations under the 1954 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States, we fully support the work of the GLFC and transboundary efforts to manage the health of the Great Lakes fisheries.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada plays a critical role across the Great Lakes in managing impacts to fish and their habitat under the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act; implementing the aquatic invasive species regulations; delivering the Canadian portion of the sea lamprey control program for the commission; administering the Species at Risk Act; and managing the Asian carp program. Nearly 50 dedicated staff are involved in the sea lamprey control program alone.

While there have been some challenges to our relationship in the past, primarily related to Canada’s financial contributions and engagement in the commission, DFO and the GLFC secretariat have worked together to make significant progress to remedy these in a short amount of time.

To address the identified gaps in Canada's contributions to the commission, funding was announced as part of budget 2022, providing $44.9 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, and $9 million ongoing to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to support the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. This increased funding takes Canada’s annual contribution to the work of the commission to over $19 million.

Departmental officials have addressed the second challenge by working closely with the commission’s secretariat to ensure there is a mutual understanding of the necessary scope of Canadian engagement and the required implementation plans, procedures and priorities. For example, following constructive discussions between the department and the secretariat, a change in the process was agreed upon to see all budget 2022 funding received by the department for 2022-23 and 2023-24 flow directly to the secretariat.

I want to conclude by noting that collaborative efforts between Canada and the United States, led by the commission, have reduced the sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes by 90%. This work has directly facilitated the ongoing restoration of traditional, ceremonial, commercial and recreational fisheries in the region.

The dedicated staff that conduct work under the umbrella of the convention—whether they are at the department, in the province of Ontario, at the commission's secretariat in Ann Arbour or across partner agencies in the United States—care deeply and work very hard to make the commission a success.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to working closely with the commission and our U.S. partners to advance the objectives of the GLFC, and we look forward to continuing that collaboration in the months and years ahead.

Thank you for your attention. We welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. O'Dea.

We will now go to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for five minutes or less.

I'm not sure who's giving the opening statement, but you're on.

[Ethan Baker, Commissioner and Vice-Chair, Great Lakes Fishery Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That will be me.

On behalf of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the members of this committee for your time today. I, too, wish I could be there in person, but will settle for the virtual.

I agreed to serve as a commissioner because I believe in a strong relationship between Canada and the United States. It's the only way to ensure Great Lakes productivity.

As Ms. Dingell has noted, the GLFC has not met in more than a year. As I will explain, the commission's dysfunction is rooted in Canada's flawed governance structure.

From our first day in 1956—long before me—until 1979, the commission communicated with Canada through the Department of External Affairs. In 1979, DFO assumed a more prominent role in the administration of the commission's Canadian portfolio, at the expense of our relationship with what is now Global Affairs Canada, or GAC.

Our problem, thus, has been decades in the making, with the commissioners deciding in 2018 to embark on a course to address these problems. That journey toward solutions came to a head in November 2021, when, for the first time in the commission's history, we were unable to establish our suite of programs because of the significant impact of an $8.8-million Canadian deficit on our binational programs.

The shortfall was exacerbated by the fact that the U.S. was no longer willing to subsidize Canada's deficit as it had for decades. The consequence was the deferral of the commission's budget for seven months, in the hopes that Parliament would provide the funds, which it finally did in April 2022. For that, we, of course, thank you.

On that basis, the Canadian and U.S. sections felt confident in setting our belated 2022 programs in June 2022. However, we were dismayed to learn the following November that not only had Parliament's 2022 funding not been provided, but the full Canadian appropriation for 2023 was not available either, some eight months following Parliament's commitment to fully fund the commission.

Worse, DFO then communicated its intent to withhold from Parliament's allocation $15 million, and more than $3 million each year thereafter, contrary to the program negotiated by the commissioners. Is this what Parliament intended?

U.S. commissioners enter into discussions with their Canadian counterparts trusting that decisions made between the sections representing the parties to the convention will be implemented as promised. Nowhere does the convention give anyone other than the commissioners the authority to set the commission's programs, yet the portfolio manager, by withholding funds, did just that.

DFO's actions, frankly, shattered the collaborative approach between the two commission sections and further demonstrated what we had been reporting for years, which is that the current governance arrangement is irreparably broken. While this was not the first time this had happened, it was, indeed, the final straw.

These problems are rooted in the very structure of how Canada supports the commission.

For the information of members, I have provided documents to the clerk, including our legal opinion detailing the history and the mechanisms of the commission, the role of DFO and the resulting conflict of interest and duties innate with the current interface between the commission and Canada as a party to the convention.

DFO will rightly tell you that they have now paid most of the current year's allocation, but so long as the governance issues remain, the fiscal issues cannot be resolved. If there is one message I want to leave you with today, it is this: Money alone is not the problem. Money is, however, a symptom of the greater governance issue. The commission has the obligation under the treaty to determine its programming and allocate its budget. This may not be how the portfolio manager would prefer it to be, but that does not change the will of Parliament as expressed in the convention.

It is germane to note that years ago, the commission suggested several solutions, prior to advocating for a machinery of government change to GAC. However, we could never get traction with DFO to explore these alternatives. This intransigence brought us to where we are today.

We are asking for your help to ensure an adherence to the convention and to the high ethical expectations set out by statute and by Canada's own rules.

First, we ask that the commission's portfolio management duties be moved from DFO to GAC to mirror the successful and proven U.S. structure. Our commission belongs at GAC, and no one has given compelling reasons to the contrary.

Second, we ask that Canada accept the proposed memorandum of agreement, the MOA, as the commission has drafted it and shared it with DFO as the current portfolio manager. This MOA will clarify several fundamental convention expectations and provide better fiscal transparency and adherence to the provisions of the convention.

The commission is simply asking that it be allowed to implement the treaty as our governments intended.

Our concerns are not personality-based. In fact, my staff tell me that DFO CFO Mr. Goodyear is working to help remedy many of these problems. However, change is difficult because of a deep-seated culture, which includes a deep misunderstanding within DFO of the commission's full mandate, a misunderstanding of the department's role as the commission's portfolio manager, and a misunderstanding of the context within which the department delivers sea lamprey control on behalf of the commission, rather than as a domestic program under the authority of the Fisheries Act.

We were also cautiously reassured when Minister Murray attended the 2023 Great Lakes day on Parliament Hill, where she expressed her personal regret for the animosity that has taken root in our relationship.

Mr. Chair, our commissioners, U.S. and Canadian, are eager to get back to work. We are volunteers who are committed to the Great Lakes, but we can no longer allow these problems to fester.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My staff and I are pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We will move right into questions.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get too far under way here, I want to conduct a quick poll of the witnesses. Given that this has clear binational implications, and given that the congresswoman had to leave, I'd like to do a quick poll, with just a yes or no for now, please.

Is there anything in Representative Debbie Dingell's statement that you wish to challenge?

I'd like to begin with Mr. Baker—just a yes or no, please.

[Ethan Baker]

Sorry, but to clarify, the question is whether or not I'd like to challenge anything that Ms. Dingle stated.

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

That's correct.

[Ethan Baker]

No.

[Robert Lambe, Executive Secretary, Great Lakes Fishery Commission]

No, sir.

[Gregory McClinchey, Director, Policy and Legislative Affairs, Great Lakes Fishery Commission]

No, sir.

[Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

No, sir.

[Niall O'Dea]

No, sir.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I don't have a lot of time because of the time limits on our questions.

There's a lot of evidence that has been presented to us, over 60 pages, by the commission. I'm not going to rehash all of that.

However, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, along with many others—43 members of the Liberal Party, 30 congressional members, industry experts on both sides of the border, including the Ontario fishers and hunters, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, state representatives, the commission's Canadian and U.S. committees of advisers.... Everyone is on the record, as we've heard from the testimony, that the machinery-of-government function needs to be moved, that the structure is presently broken.

Again, I won't go through all of the evidence that is outlined here.

To the DFO, Mr. Goodyear, why has the commission not solved this issue?

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, I can't speak on behalf of the commission. I can merely speak on behalf of my role as the CFO of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I offer that you may wish to speak to the commission.

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

I misspoke. I'm sorry. Why has the department not solved it?

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the funding required in support of GLFC, we provided the full slate of funding in the last fiscal year and in fiscal year 2023-24, and we have established a stable and predictable funding amount for the commission going forward.

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

The commission has put forward the clear request, as have many others, for a change in the machinery-of-government function because of the structural conflict of interest. They've provided a legal opinion here.

Can you provide a legal opinion to table with the committee? Do you disagree with the legal opinion provided in the package?

[Niall O'Dea]

I can take that question.

Sir, with respect to the machinery-of-government decision, there is active analysis and support for that decision ongoing within government. I would just articulate that it is not solely a decision, and not actually a decision, of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.