Fisheries Committee on June 8th, 2023

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

Why not?

[Robert Lambe]

Well, if you look at the treaty, article VIII says the commissioners are to determine the “form and proportion” of the budget from the two parties. In 1956, at the first meeting, the commissioners took that to heart and developed a formula to determine how the budget should be set. That's never been contested.

Up until 2022, that formula was not being met. Until we had political pressure that solved that problem, we were out of compliance. It's certainly linked back to the treaty.

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

Thank you.

Mr. O'Dea, you stated that you're working at the highest level to resolve this issue. What level would that be? Would that be at the minister's level, at the Prime Minister's level or within the department? At what level are you working to resolve this issue?

[Niall O'Dea]

There is engagement up to the very highest levels in government to consider this issue, in terms of direct dealings with our counterparts at the secretariat, around this table, at the deputy minister—

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

Is the very highest level the PMO?

[Niall O'Dea]

In terms of the department, for which I can speak, our officials are engaged at the deputy level with the secretariat to resolve this issue, and our minister has addressed the issue directly at this committee, as you know.

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

You don't know if it's been taken to the PM's level yet.

[Niall O'Dea]

My understanding is that there have been discussions with the Prime Minister's Office by members represented around this table, but that's to the best of my understanding.

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

Thank you.

I believe my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You're right on time.

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

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with one question and then cede the rest of the time to Mr. Badawey on this round.

We're pushing 70 years, and I'm just curious as to why, after 70 years, we have to sit down and codify something. When did it go off the rails?

Mr. Lambe, maybe you could comment.

[Robert Lambe]

Well, the problems have been around for decades, and there's a long history of how the role has not really been understood by the department, I would argue, but in 2018 it reached the point where it really needed to be addressed.

The U.S. was already indicating that it was no longer willing to top up, so to speak, and there were other issues that we really needed to deal with because of how hamstrung the commission had become by the lack of recognition of what its role was. It has been a long-standing problem. It's just been amplified since 2018.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I appreciate that. It's worth noting that between 2000 and 2015 the Government of Canada did not increase any allocation, whereas I imagine the American government did so, and therein lies the gap that we relied on Washington to fill.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey now.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say that this is a frustrating conversation. As I said earlier, this is something that we inherited post-2015 from many governments of the past, going back to 2000. Mr. Lambe's comment with respect to the retroactivity of this around the $70-million mark is also quite alarming.

That said, I guess my intent today, as frustrating as it is and has been for the last few years, is to turn that page and to come to some resolve, and I'm hearing that has happened. I'm hearing that from the department. I'm hearing that from the GLFC and others that are involved, including, as Mr. Masse said, in our discussions with members of Congress when we go to Washington, which can also be sometimes embarrassing, quite frankly, when they bring this up with respect to the current condition of the relationship.

With that, the MOA has been mentioned a few times, so let's turn the page and let's come to that solution, which I'm assuming this study is intended to do. It's to come to that resolve. Moving towards that solution, we're talking about a memorandum of agreement.

We're looking at the administration of the program. I understand that the GLFC administers the program, and the contractor is the DFO with respect to components of that program and, of course, as I said earlier, the invoicing to the GLFC. The GLFC then takes the appropriation from the treasury and pays the bill. With that, and that expectation—because that expectation has been articulated through the budget, $19 million times five, over the next five years—that relationship can continue in that realm. I'm assuming that would be part of the MOA.

The governance, I understand, is an issue as well: the transfer from DFO to GAC or other options that may present themselves, such as the board makeup with a member from GAC versus DFO, and a civilian member, which would actually make up any other shortfall in governance.

I guess I'm going to ask both the DFO and the GLFC what ideas they're going to have moving forward with establishing that MOA. I'll start with the GLFC.

[Gregory McClinchey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Badawey raised a really important question.

One of the most important tools and keys to the success of the commission over the years has been the independence of the commission, the ability of the commission, as Madame Desbiens mentioned earlier, to be nimble and respond on the ground. That's really what this is. The title of this study is “Allocation of Resources to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission”, but at the heart, it's not really about money. It's about independence and the ability to reach across the borders.

There are eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario at play here, and countless partners. What's happened is that the GLFC's ability to make decisions independently of the portfolio manager has come under stress. That's the critical bit.

We put forward an MOA that would help. Mr. Hardie asked why we need to codify this. It's because, over time, those independent abilities to set our programming have been eroded. That needs to be re-established in accordance with the treaty.

I would note that this committee did a study. I believe it was the eighth report, the science report. In that, it made some specific suggestions. On page 39 of the report, there was some commentary that talked about “good policy...being incorrectly implemented.” There was testimony given that relates to recommendation 4 and recommendation 19 in that study, which talk about the structural problems within DFO that are hindering science.

Of course, the GLFC is more than just about sea lamprey. We administer sea lamprey control. We're responsible for Great Lakes science. We're primarily responsible for reaching across the borders and working independently on a strategic plan with U.S. partners. All of those things combined require independence, not least because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over fish in the Great Lakes.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier the other fishery commissions that DFO is responsible for. The reason this is unique is that we're unique. We work with the states and we work with the Province of Ontario because they are the governments of primary jurisdiction for fisheries management.

Frankly, before the commission came along, there was a lot of work being done in all of the jurisdictions separately, and it failed. It was only once we began doing things seamlessly and reaching across borders in this border-blind way that we got successful. It's incredibly important for us and for our programming that we continue to have that independence. It's enshrined in the convention, and that's why.

Sea lampreys don't have pockets. They don't carry passports. We need to be able to reach across those borders, which is of critical importance for us in executing a nimble program that's responsive. I always say that we don't manage the fish; we manage the people who manage the fish. That's why it's of critical importance that we have this clarity on independence and governance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, McClinchey, Mr. Hardie and Mr. Badawey.

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

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Chair, I'm going to let Mr. Lawrence take my first two and a half minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

It's my first opportunity to be at this committee, so thank you for having me here.

I'm still shocked at the hubris that the DFO officials have. Mr. O'Dea and Mr. Goodyear, do you guys not realize how badly you've mismanaged this? An hour ago, I was up yelling at the Liberals. Now I'm hearing them and they're saying everything absolutely right. You brought us together, so I appreciate that, but this has been completely bungled.

The budget was clear. It said that you had to take the money and give it to GLFC. You couldn't do that. I hope that you're approaching the negotiations and the MOA a lot better than that. I hope you're realizing that you're an equal partner and you are not their parent.

Could you please give me 30 seconds on explaining your absolutely disastrous management of this?

[Niall O'Dea]

I would simply say that we are working very actively, as we noted, towards an improvement of our relationship with GLFC, including working in a number of areas to address concerns that have been outstanding. That includes ensuring that there are clear processes for receipt and responsible spending of the commission's funding and ensuring that there's good governance of the organization, including the appointment of strong commissioners.

We have a close collaboration with our partners.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm still troubled. You are not in charge here. There are legal agreements, which are the formation of this, that are governing the commission. Your job is to take money from Parliament, which we've given you, and to get it to these gentlemen. Stop bungling this. You've hurt the relationship. They won't even sit down with us.

Mr. Baker, I want to ask you a couple of questions. If in fact the memoranda of agreement are put in place in accordance with what you've heard today, will that be enough to reconvene the commission and get the commission working again?

[Ethan Baker]

Listen, my number one goal is obviously getting the commission working together and making sure that we're doing what we need to do to make sure our fisheries are kept intact. I share your concerns with a lot of the issues you've just stated.

In terms of my primary objective personally, as one member of this commission, I'm not 100% sure the MOA will be the end-all and be-all that makes the difference in this relationship, but if members of the commission themselves, Mr. Lambe and Mr. McClinchey, feel reasonably confident that we can move forward in a productive way to do that, I of course will support that as a U.S. commissioner. I want nothing more than to get back to the table with our Canadian counterparts and work for the good of the Great Lakes and the fisheries as a whole.

I'm doing everything I can, but I really need to be assured that this relationship isn't irreparably broken and that it will move forward in a way that—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I share your sentiments 100%. I'm just short on time.

I'm giving the rest of my time to my colleague Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, my question is for Mr. Lambe.

You referenced $70 million in accumulated debt, basically, on the Canadian side, if they were to catch up in payments. At about 3% interest, we'd be looking at $140 million owed by Canada right now over 22 years. What's the economic impact of that to Great Lakes fisheries in terms of lampreys that weren't destroyed?

[Robert Lambe]

As Commissioner Baker said, we're looking to the future. There's been a conscious decision not to pursue that deficit. In actual fact, we were able to use the U.S. contributions to keep the lights on, so to speak. We're looking to the future.

We're actually encouraged by the discussions that are going on, but there's been a lot of damage done here. As I said before, it's a deep-seated culture that we're dealing with. We need to see results before we can be satisfied that what we're doing now is the solution to the future.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. McClinchey, how are you finding it working with DFO now? How are the relations? Do you think we can attain some of our goals in bringing this relationship back to where it needs to be? Do you feel it's possible, or is the relationship too damaged?