Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

[Robert Lambe]

I can only restate what I said.

The commission is about more than just sea lamprey control. The convention is very clear on what the role of the fishery commission is. Coordination of the binational sea lamprey control program is definitely one of the three pillars of the mandate. Part of the problem with the funding, the way it flows in DFO, is that DFO holds the funding for sea lamprey control, because it delivers sea lamprey control on the commission's behalf, but—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Can you do it better than DFO?

[Robert Lambe]

No, the convention says that we are to use agencies of government or individuals on the street corner to deliver our programs, if we can. One of the articles is pretty clear. We're actually—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We're going to have to move on. We've gone over time.

I'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McClinchey, I'm very pleased to hear you talk about independence, if you'll pardon the joke. Indeed, it states quite clearly what Quebec wants. I'd say it's almost the same thing: people get up in the morning, go to work, and then, at the end of the week, part of their salary goes to the federal government, never to return. It's almost the same principle: we'd like to have more latitude to make decisions.

Mr. Lambe, you talked about funding you should be getting and the freedom to act, which the funding would allow you to do. A gap has existed for 20 years for you, but over 50 or 60 years for Quebec. Indeed, you're saying that it's not always about money, but rather the freedom to act. However, both are, in fact, essential. Are they not? It's essential to have some means to take action if we want it to be effective.

[Gregory McClinchey]

That's true. Certainly, it's one of the reasons the folks who drafted the convention very specifically provided for some immunities and for some independence in the way the commission could operate.

It's important to note—and Madame Desbiens spoke earlier about this—the need to be nimble, to move quickly and to have the tools. Certainly before the commission was in place, a lot of these sources—the Province of Ontario and the eight states—were doing things independently within silos, trying to control sea lamprey, trying to foster cross-border collaboration and trying to advance freshwater science. To be very blunt, it failed miserably.

It wasn't until we were able to look across borders and to work collectively.... The commission was in place to serve as a facilitator to help bring those parties together to come up with constructive and useful solutions that look after the Great Lakes and that help to look after the Great Lakes fishery on an ecosystem-wide basis.

That's why we're asserting it. It's expressed in some of the documentation provided. It's expressed in the legal opinion that the loss of that ability—the ability to be nimble and to be seen as an independent broker of solutions—is striking to the heart of the commission's ability to do the job that we've been asked to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll go on to Ms. Barron now for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. Lambe or Mr. McClinchey.

We were talking earlier about the sea lamprey control. If this change were to happen, moving from DFO to Global Affairs, what would that look like, the continued work around that?

[Robert Lambe]

Mr. Chair, that's a great question. It gives us an opportunity to clarify that.

When we talk about a change in machinery of government, we never talked about using anybody other than DFO as the sea lamprey control agent.

To finish off the question that I was trying to answer earlier, we're quite pleased with the work that our partners in DFO have done on sea lamprey control. That's not the issue. The issue with the department is not with sea lamprey control.

We'd be happy if we were able to continue with the department delivering sea lamprey control. We just have to address this conflict of interest that we have where they're delivering the funding on behalf of Canada and also delivering sea lamprey control at the same time.

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

Thank you.

I saw first-hand how invasive those sea lampreys are when they were brought to my office and they suctioned onto my hand. I want to make sure that doesn't get lost in this.

The final question I'm going to ask is around whether there is an alternative to changing the governing structure from DFO to Global Affairs. Is there another option that could be looked at?

[Robert Lambe]

We're basically dealing with two issues. We're dealing with, obviously, the lack of codification as to how this should function. Whoever is the portfolio manager, there needs to be a codification of that, because that's part of the problem. It's failed miserably, and there have been too many assumptions by the portfolio manager about its role. That's number one.

Number two is that we have a legal opinion on the conflict of interest. That legal opinion stands on its own. I won't try to explain that, but we also have manifestation that the conflict exists. What we've heard about in terms of the funding in November 2021, I think, is manifestation of that.

We have many more examples going back over the years about how the conflict exists. We actually had a DFO commissioner come to a commission meeting back in the late 1990s and announce to the commission that Canada was defunding the commission without any consultation with the rest of the Canadian commissioners or with the U.S. This problem goes back decades.

We're really trying to deal with two problems here: a lack of codification and a conflict of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Global Affairs is our voice internationally. It has been mentioned earlier that they are the administrative caretakers, the machinery-of-government “functioners”—if that's a word—for the International Joint Commission and the Roosevelt Campobello commission, both of which are similar in structure to the GLFC. I am still dumbfounded as to why the DFO continues to take the position that the GLFC should remain with the DFO.

I'm going to direct this to Mr. Goodyear: Why is GAC the right place for the other commissions and DFO the right place for the GLFC?

[Niall O'Dea]

Perhaps I can address the question, sir.

DFO is pragmatic about where the commission's contracting party relationship is situated. We are making our best efforts while in the role of the contracting party to ensure we have an effective and clear relationship with the commission and are able to work through any issues that arise in that context.

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

You are ambivalent as to the machinery-of-government change to Global Affairs.

[Niall O'Dea]

That decision rests outside our purview. We provide analysis on the benefits of having that role rest with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but recognize that the decision rests elsewhere.

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

Right. Would you table it in writing to this committee, for this report, that you're ambivalent?

[Niall O'Dea]

“Ambivalent” is not the correct term. I would say that we are open to retaining that role and we are working effectively—

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

Is “agnostic” a better term, perhaps?

[Niall O'Dea]

We're pragmatic about where that role rests.

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

My concerns arise around transparency in the present function. The IJC nests within Global Affairs. When I look at the main estimates from this past year, there is one line item where the funds are transferred from the Treasury Board for $9,271,693. Basically, they are appropriated dollars. That is the entire.... That's transparent. I can follow that.

I had an Order Paper question on the transfer of funds for the GLFC function that would run through DFO, and I have 11 pages of spreadsheets. I can't follow it. Would you consider this transparent for the people of Canada?

[Richard Goodyear]

Mr. Chair, the member brings up one of the issues that have been part of the conversation we've been having with GLFC: ensuring we have the presence of the GLFC in our public accounts of Canada. We're happy to note that going forward they will have a line item in the public accounts of Canada, and you will see the full appropriation in the public accounts of Canada.

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

Just to be clear, are you saying that the entire appropriation from the Treasury Board to the GLFC will appear in one line item as per the two-year commitment you articulated earlier?

[Richard Goodyear]

The entire appropriation will be present in the public accounts of Canada.

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

Is it for two years?