Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

[Niall O'Dea]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Negotiation would not be the right way to characterize the discussions that are ongoing. Treaties, as this table will appreciate, particularly those written in the 1950s, have only a certain amount of detail in them. They articulate a desire for two countries to collaborate in the management of an issue of shared interest in this instance. It is for the contracting parties and for the commission itself to give life to those commitments in the actual ongoing work of the commission and of the agencies that support it.

In this instance, there have been ongoing discussions about how to move towards effective implementation. That effective implementation is intended to be in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the convention.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. O'Dea.

Mr. McClinchey, if you could, answer the same question.

[Gregory McClinchey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's true that this can't be viewed as a negotiation. From the commission's standpoint, we see the efforts that we're engaging in as being a clarification of where we need to be, of where the commission needs to be, in terms of delivering its treaty mandate.

We've also expressed a number of solutions, as you've pointed out—the move to GAC, the machinery-of-government change, as well as the MOA—because there's a need to future-proof what we're doing. This has been a serious distraction and a serious take-away from the work of the commission over the last number of years. Opportunities are being missed in terms of partnerships that might be there, and in terms of advancements and protections of the Great Lakes, and so on. We want to make sure that, when we're no longer in these roles, and when the folks at DFO are no longer in these roles and there are new people in those seats, we are future-proof and the will of Parliament and the will of Congress will be adhered to.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I guess my next question has to do with the money.

DFO seems to be suggesting by its actions that it has every right to decide how the commission's dollars are spent because of the perception, for lack of a better word, of it being the portfolio manager. Is it accountable for the commission? Would you agree that you would be the portfolio manager?

With the way the money is flowing, or has flowed in the past, would you agree that's the way it should flow, or, moving forward, as per direction from the appropriations of Parliament, would it simply be, under the MOA, a flow-through, through DFO to the GLFC—five years with $19 million? Then, as I said earlier, it would go back through the invoice, which DFO would actually provide for the services provided to GLFC, and GLFC would simply be expected to pay the invoice with respect to the $19 million they will receive through the appropriations.

[Niall O'Dea]

Perhaps I can commence answering that question, and then I'll turn to my CFO colleague.

I would say the question of flow of funds.... If we look at the convention and its article VI, the commission is to make best use of the contracting parties to the commission and their agencies as those to deliver the sea lamprey control program. Historically, since the 1950s onward, and in fact even before the establishment of the convention, those activities were undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the funding to do those activities was retained by the department in order to do so.

In the current day, there is opportunity for discussion and for clarification around how that funding should flow. My CFO colleague can speak in more detail to the way in which we're approaching that conversation in the immediate term.

[Richard Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry, but we've gone a little bit over time. If the answer doesn't come out in a subsequent question or with an opportunity to present it, we would appreciate it if you would submit any comments in writing to the committee, please.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to also thank our witnesses for being here with us today.

I'm most interested in the relationship between the waters of the Great Lakes and the waters of the St. Lawrence, since I represent Quebec at this table. Indeed, we too have problems with invasive species in the St. Lawrence, and we always wonder who has the power to take concrete action to restore balance to the ecosystem. We know that problems in the Great Lakes inevitably spill into the St. Lawrence.

We also have a problem with striped bass in the river, from Trois-Rivières down toward the estuary. This species eats little fish, and we're losing our smelts, our capelin and all the little fish we love. All we're catching is striped bass, which we don't have the right to fish.

We're all here together thinking about who has the authority to spend how much and why. With regard to Quebec, is Fisheries and Oceans able to keep data on what's in the St. Lawrence up to date? Does the department have the means and tools needed to assess the current lamprey situation? Does it have the tools required to preserve the ecosystem in our shared waters in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence?

[Niall O'Dea]

I can try to respond to various parts of that question.

With regard to the tools, we have agreements, namely through the commission. The Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence provides us with a collaborative framework for scientific activities and environmental protection, as well as a plan for the research and management of essential activities, namely, to address the challenge posed by invasive species.

Can we do more? No doubt, because there are always issues that remain. We're working with the Quebec government on various files, and we will be able to provide you with more details on some of the activities to deal with invasive species in the St. Lawrence. I know, too, that investments were made recently under the Canadian action plan to address the threat of aquatic invasive species in the St. Lawrence, and more broadly, throughout Quebec.

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

For various reasons, there seems to be tension between the United States and Canada, particularly when Canada closed the mackerel and herring fisheries, but the United States didn't follow suit, or when Canada adopted major and exemplary provisions to protect right whales, but the United States continues to criticize us. Does the tension extend to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission? Do you think we're paying the price of that tension?

[Niall O'Dea]

I don't see tension bleeding into other forums where we collaborate with the United States.

There are certainly other challenges that we're facing together. I know that our minister updated her American counterparts about mackerel management, specifically, as well as about our efforts to protect right whales. As you know, we're doing a lot to protect them. I believe that those efforts respond reasonably well to the requirements set out in U.S. legislation on marine mammal protection. I think that we have a very strong and positive relationship with our U.S. counterparts, and we deal with those issues as they arise, I'd say.

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

Okay. Earlier, I was talking about tools, namely to advance our scientific expertise and initiatives. Many of the challenges we've faced, particularly in Quebec, gave the impression that we didn't always have the tools needed to properly quantify the resource.

Are the Great Lakes in the same boat? Do you lack scientific resources, tools or funding to ensure that the data is fully and efficiently updated?

[Niall O'Dea]

I would say that's not the case right now. There were some very good and rather recent investments in the Great Lakes, including an investment of $44.9 million over five years for the commission. Additionally, during the president's visit, a major investment of $420 million, I believe, was announced for the Great Lakes for activities jointly carried out by the two governments. Those are substantial investments. Now, it's up to us to invest this money collaboratively and to identify what are truly the top priorities.

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

Thank you.

[Niall O'Dea]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I'm happy to have an opportunity to get everybody together to talk about the next best steps.

I have with me today, Mr. Chair, my colleague from Windsor West, MP Masse. I would like to share my time with MP Masse and have him start off with the questions today.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague.

I represent Windsor West, on the border. In 1997, I was the founding chair of the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup committee and the conservation authority vice-chair. For 21 years, I've been vice-chair of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association, which actively lobbies Congress and the Senate.

I want to thank DFO. You've done an exceptional job here. You're the only ones who've united Congress and the Senate against Canada.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I can tell you this issue is serious. When we were in the halls of the Cannon building, the Rayburn building and the Longworth building, we heard from American colleagues. In fact, another letter to the Prime Minister went out on June 6.

You don't contest what Member Dingell said. I've known her for a long period of time. What do you have to say to me when I have this issue raised to me repeatedly in those meetings, as we're dealing with foreign affairs, the environment and transborder issues related to policy? Forty per cent of my riding has trade. We have to deal with softwood lumber and everything else, and this issue continually comes up. Do you think it does not poison our other relationships?

[Niall O'Dea]

I would say we have, as you note, countless relationships with the U.S. across a broad variety of files. DFO manages a significant number of those across a wide variety of issues outside of this particular issue.

We recognize that there is an irritant here and that there have been challenges associated with this particular commission. That's why we are working actively, at the most senior levels in the department, with the commission to seek to address those issues and put aside—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

My question, though, is what you think happens in those meetings when this comes up as an irritant. You don't contest what Member Dingell said, so why did it take so long for you to get to this?

In fact, Mr. Chair, I would say this would never happen at the industry committee. Deputy ministers would not show up for such an issue. That says something in and of itself. That's not your fault. I understand that. This ongoing relationship we have here is from a treaty that is not being respected. This is a treaty. That's a big difference.

Would you not agree that a treaty is different from other types of working relationships we have with the United States?

[Niall O'Dea]

Mr. Chair, I would say the treaty is being respected. We are meeting our obligations under the treaty. We recognize there are challenges in the implementation of that treaty and in getting to a common understanding with our colleagues in the secretariat to help put that on a better path.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

This will be my last question in terms of the process here.

How is it possible, in the organization or culture...? Do you think there is a cultural issue? Again, I have 21 years in Parliament here. The Liberal members just got another letter to the Prime Minister with 25 signatures—again, bipartisan—about this issue. We're in front of the world here, now. What's the disconnect? In our area, we actually think the DFO is one of the most elusive species in the Great Lakes.

What, in your opinion, has to change culturally for your organization to bring this around? Our species are at risk because of this ineptitude.

[Niall O'Dea]

I would say that our department is focused very squarely on work in the Great Lakes. Our collaboration in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has lasted for 60 years. The active and effective work of that commission has reduced the sea lamprey in the Great Lakes by 90% in that period, which has allowed the restoration of many populations of fish that did not previously exist in the Great Lakes area.